Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 6, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The physics of the JFK assassination imply more than one shooter. The Dallas doctors were of the opinion that the shot was frontal, tracing from the right temple to the occipital lobe. The timing of the shots was too tightly spaced.
The case is not open and shut. Indeed, two federal investigations came to opposite conclusions.
Dude got whacked. Bullets tend to do that to people.
March 8, 2015 at 4:34 am (This post was last modified: March 8, 2015 at 4:38 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(March 7, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:
(March 6, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The timing of the shots was too tightly spaced.
Amateur mistake.
, for round numbers, it takes 2 seconds to get off a round.
That would be:
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
For three rounds that would be:
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
HOWEVER, you don't hear anything before the first bang.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
So, for round numbers, the claim of "six" seconds needed is obviously wrong.
BUT DUMBASSES KEEP BRINGING IT UP.
Except that Oswald was not a very skilled shooter. Now, you can call me a dumbass, but I've handled longarms to the extent of shooting expert marksman for the USAF hitting 40 out of 40 stationary targets at 100 yards, on the M-16A1. I've been as close to that window in the TSBD as is permitted nowadays -- about two foot away. I'd be skeptical of my own ability to achieve two hits out of three shots on a moving target under the circumstances pertaining that day.
Three shots in 5.6 seconds. That's 2.8 seconds to execute the entire tasking you've so kindly listed, and this from a guy who, on a Marine Corps range shooting at a stationary target, managed to hit someone else's target entirely.
You didn't mention the oak tree which partially obscured the limousine from Oswald's view, forcing him to reacquire his target -- and bear in mind, his target was not the car, but a head shot.
And, the expert testimony indicated that the mating of the scope and the rifle was flawed:
Quote:Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself. Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963. Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three. Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548. Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired. Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds. Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November. Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle. Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Oswald, an average shooter (at best!) achieved two hits out of three shots on a moving target with 2.8 seconds between shots on a rifle where the scope cannot be dialed in without shims, according to this testimony. Was Oswald good enough to provide for more than five inches of windage at 80 yards?
I'm skeptical.
I am indeed an amateur shooter, but I'm no dumbass, and if you don't want the same treatment, shitcan it with me, buddy.
(March 7, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Amateur mistake.
, for round numbers, it takes 2 seconds to get off a round.
That would be:
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
For three rounds that would be:
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
HOWEVER, you don't hear anything before the first bang.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
Work bolt.
Acquire target.
Take aim.
Fire.
BANG.
So, for round numbers, the claim of "six" seconds needed is obviously wrong.
BUT DUMBASSES KEEP BRINGING IT UP.
Except that Oswald was not a very skilled shooter. Now, you can call me a dumbass, but I've handled longarms to the extent of shooting expert marksman for the USAF hitting 40 out of 40 stationary targets at 100 yards, on the M-16A1. I've been as close to that window in the TSBD as is permitted nowadays -- about two foot away. I'd be skeptical of my own ability to achieve two hits out of three shots on a moving target under the circumstances pertaining that day.
Three shots in 5.6 seconds. That's 2.8 seconds to execute the entire tasking you've so kindly listed, and this from a guy who, on a Marine Corps range shooting at a stationary target, managed to hit someone else's target entirely.
You didn't mention the oak tree which partially obscured the limousine from Oswald's view, forcing him to reacquire his target -- and bear in mind, his target was not the car, but a head shot.
And, the expert testimony indicated that the mating of the scope and the rifle was flawed:
Quote:Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions. Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself. Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963. Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three. Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548. Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired. Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds. Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - That also was on the 27th of November. Mr. EISENBERG - Same date as the first tests?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551 through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle. Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Oswald, an average shooter (at best!) achieved two hits out of three shots on a moving target with 2.8 seconds between shots on a rifle where the scope cannot be dialed in without shims, according to this testimony. Was Oswald good enough to provide for more than five inches of windage at 80 yards?
I'm skeptical.
I am indeed an amateur shooter, but I'm no dumbass, and if you don't want the same treatment, shitcan it with me, buddy.
Drop it Parker, this conspiracy has been debunked over and over.
The stupidest lie sold right after is that the front seat and back seats were the same height. THEY WERE NOT, the back seats were higher which would put Kennedy in line with one bullet which would have as the commission said, killed Kennedy and injured the front seat passenger.
This is the same mass delusion is what causes bad claims to spread like weeds. The JFK conspiracies spread like all others.
Humans are notoriously flawed in there perceptions and bad claims can go on to become popular no matter how false they are. It is why humans also invent religions.
Assuming, mass hysteria, gap filling, gullibility, fear, and unscientific reporting, or fitting bad data to fish for a conclusion you desire., also caused this bullshit in this link below.
It is also why, back when I was a kid like today, media still loves preying off the gullibility of society selling crap like Bigfoot. You simply have fallen for a different conspiracy.
Just like 9/11 you do not do something like that and get away with it. In both cases you have a diverse government of both parties, diverse law enforcement with members of both parties, vetted secret service whom vote for both parties, multiple law enforcement agencies. Getting away with a group crime of any kind is impossible the more people involved.
Even outside this issue, the mob like Capone certainly got away with crime once and a while, but eventually they nailed him, and while he did pay off people and get away with some things, he still went down. 50 years of this JFK bullshit, if there had been anyone but Oswald involved, there would be no good reason this far after the fact to hide anything.
Buying JFK crap is as bad as claiming Bush or Jews planted explosives in the towers. Oswald was a disturbed individual and the only thing the government did wrong was not have good security in place and allowed Oswald to fall through the cracks, the same way we knew Bin Ladin was a threat under both Clinton and Bush. There was no conspiracy, there were simply bad conditions. If you want to believe something badly enough you will. No different a conspiracy than what leads humans to believe gods exist.
(March 6, 2015 at 8:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: RationalPoet......OP/ED..........NO MH370 DID NOT "Disappear". I really fucking hate humans when there is a lack of an answer as to what happened, jumping to conspiracies and magic. Not finding it only means we have not found it. The parts of the plane and the people on it did not magically evaporate. Just like for a long time we could not find the Titanic. We may never find that plane, but that does not mean it there was a magical supernatural power that made it go away.
You example of the titanic is contradictory to your point. Everyone rejected the possibility that the ship had split in two, because some witnesses said that it went down in one piece, and then scientists of the time said it couldn't have happened therefore those who believe it did are misremembering the past. And errors in human memory we know is a very real thing. It wasn't until we found the ship that we realised that it did in fact break into two.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50.-LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea.-LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
