Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It's people like Jim DiEugenio and Tink Thomson who've kept this case so muddled for decades that the genuine conspiracy facts can't get more traction.

Trouble in conspiracy land! I think the above illustrates why the CT folks can't get anywhere-because there is no consensus on a theory to present to anyone like Morley.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, I just find your claim that all physical evidence has to be found with a body to be silly as well as inaccurate. Or perhaps you are holding the evidence in the JFK case to a different standard than is considered normal or usual. But maybe I am all wet, perhaps Lance or one of the other attorneys will chime in.

Point taken.

Let's put it this way -- in the hierarchy of evidence, physical evidence found with the body is supreme.

The supreme physical evidence in the murder of JFK is his clothing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parnell is so funny on this and he doesn't even know it.

The presentation was not to Morley, it was to Paramount and they accepted it.  Even without Morley.

And guess what, you are not going to like it Tracy.

 It might even give Davey a stroke, so I should warn him in advance: get on some meds.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Parnell is so funny on this and he doesn't even know it.

The presentation was not to Morley, it was to Paramount and they accepted it.  Even without Morley.

And guess what, you are not going to like it Tracy.

 It might even give Davey a stroke, so I should warn him in advance: get on some meds.

Not sure what you're talking about here? Is another Hollywood blockbuster in the mold of JFK the movie on the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 11:47 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Emphasis added...

http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/LegalCS.htm

PRACTICAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION:
Legal Considerations

By
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Author of Practical Homicide Investigation, Copyright 2003
REPRINT: LAW and ORDER Vol. 51, No. 5, May, 2003

The search of the crime scene is the most important phase of the investigation conducted at the scene. Decisions of the courts restricting admissibility of testimonial evidence have significantly increased the value of physical evidence in homicide investigations. Therefore, law enforcement personnel involved in the crime scene search must arrange for the proper and effective collection of evidence at the scene.

Physical evidence, which is often referred to as the "unimpeachable witness," cannot be clouded by a faulty memory, prejudice, poor eyesight, or a desire "not to get involved." However, before a forensic laboratory can effectively examine physical evidence, it must be recognized as evidence. 
<quote off> 

Lone Nutters are psychologically incapable of recognizing physical evidence found at the scene of the crime.

bump for Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With apologies for the "bracketed interjections":

In an article referenced in an earlier posting within this discussion thread, Mike Yardley writes in Positive Shooting ("Kennedy Assassination Latest"):

"... On [a trip to Dallas], I proved that the [JFK] shots could be made with the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly used by Oswald and fitted with a cheap 'tin-whistle' 4 power telescopic sight.

"I made them repeatedly (half a dozen times) in the required 7-8 second time frame [emphasis added] firing from the correct height, at the correct ranges at a vehicle moving at the correct speed using an exact replica of the Oswald rifle and scope and identical ammunition. On the first run, I hit the head target as a crossing shot at about 45 yards (which apparently Oswald missed), I also connected on the next two shots at 60-plus [and] 90-plus yards respectively...."

"... the shots with [the Carcano] are possible within the [7- to 8-second] time frame. I have made them again and again. Other reports not withstanding, I believe any competent rifleman would have had a good chance of connecting at least once [emphasis added]...."

(Yardley also states: "... It is ... quite possible that there was a second (or third) gunman but it is hard to prove. There is, however, some compelling evidence for some sort of conspiracy beyond the mere fact that Kennedy's head appears to move rearwards as the bullet impacts....")

Above from: http://www.positiveshooting.com/kennedyassassinationlatest.html

“... If Oswald's rifle fired all the shots, there must have been a minimum of 2.3 seconds between each shot. The rifle discovered on the sixth floor was examined and tested by the US Army and the FBI, who found that it was in a much poorer condition than most rifles of its type.  It could not be aimed accurately, and so it was tested mainly for the speed with which it could fire a sequence of shots.  In a series of tests by skilled marksmen, the fastest time taken to operate the bolt and trigger pull, without aiming the rifle [emphasis added], was 2.3 seconds ... [which was] the minimum amount of time that could have been taken by a gunman firing at a moving target from 60 feet above, and scoring two hits out of three.  The Army’s experts, having adjusted the rifle to improve its accuracy, fired seven groups of three shots at stationary targets from 30 feet above.  Their times were: 4.45, 4.6, 5.15, 6.45, 6.75, 7, and 8.25 seconds.  Of the 21 shots, 20 missed the heads and shoulders of the silhouettes on the targets [emphasis added]. 2.3 seconds: Warren Report, p. 97; the Army’s test times: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.446; the FBI’s test times: ibid., pp.403–10

 Above from: 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination, by Jeremy Bojczuk, p. 28; and http://22november1963.org.uk/how-did-oswald-kill-kennedy

 As an aside, am I correct in recalling that sniper teams sponsored both by the French and by Fidel Castro attempted to replicate the JFK murder scenario endorsed by the Warren Commission - but failed to do so?

Meanwhile, the late Lucian Cary (1886-1971), onetime gun editor for True magazine and a lifelong authority on rifles and their shooting, compared expert shotgunners to gamblers, expert riflemen to chess players.

 He also wrote: "... [Rifle shooting] requires its own special kind of nerve, the nerve to wait under pressure, to resist the natural human impulse to snatch at the trigger as the sights swing fast across the [target], to hold until the gun steadies, slows down, edges toward the center, and then, promptly but without haste, to put the last necessary quarter-ounce pressure on that trigger...."

 From: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/09/american-long-rifle/

 See also: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/09/09/archives/lucian-gary-86-noyelisteditor-riter-of-short-stories-and-authority.html

 Call the following "original research" - or not: My paternal grandfather was an expert rifleman (and a chess player), and a competent shotgunner; my father was a champion shotgunner (and a gambler, at least in business), and an accomplished rifleman.  A photo of the latter:

blob.png.0f0d213511adec4d04ea9cba635d663b.png

By the time I was six these two began teaching me to shoot a cheap, scoped, semi-automatic Mossberg rifle; and by age eight I moved up to a decent-quality scoped, bolt-action rifle.  After that I started shooting (and later inherited) my grandfather's high-end Winchester version of the latter configuration, lately with sound suppression, and that is what I've been using ever since.  During Army ROTC service I was awarded the Distinguished Rifleman trophy, medal and ribbon, three years straight; and my kill record with deer, squirrel, rabbits and varmints compares favorably with the two-legged bag record of Vietnam-era sniper Carlos Hathcock, as cited in this Forum thread by James DiEugenio:

The [Tague debris hit was] the missed shot. After the back shot.  Which sticks you with three shots in 5.6 seconds. No rifleman has ever duplicated that feat without cheating.  The WC cheated and CBS cheated, for the simple reasons that they knew it could not be done under normal conditions.  The WC knew this which is why they tried to time their 2 sets of tests for six seconds.

 ...Craig Roberts ... would relate what the greatest sniper of the Vietnam War said to him: Carlos Hathcock did it under real conditions and he could not do it.... How many certified kills did Hathcock have?  Over 90. How many uncertified?  Over 200. How long did he hold the record for the longest kill shot ever by a sniper?  Over 20 years. How far away was he? A mile and half.

While I generally agree with Yardley, as quoted above, that "... any competent rifleman would have had a good chance of connecting at least once"; it is those rapid-fire second and third shots, at "60-plus" and "90-plus" yards respectively - at a moving target - that seem to me nearly impossible for a lone rifleman to achieve.  OTOH, add in two or even three expert riflemen, in a crossfire, and then it all begins to make sense.  Strictly FWIIW - fireproof suit now ON.  ML

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

I'm curious how two identical FMJ rounds can behave so differently; I would think that only a frangible / explosive round could cause the damage in JFK's head and leave the dust trail of lead.

Thanks

Rick

Hello Rick,

I agree with you. This is from Pat Speer's website:

Quote

So why was the exit wound on Kennedy's head so...big?

The thought occurs that the wound on Kennedy's head only appears to be larger than expected, and that the reality is that the wounds attributed to the Japanese 6.5 mm ammunition in the Bougainville Campaign were smaller than expected. No, scratch that. Dr. James Beyer dispensed with this notion in the first chapter of Wound Ballistics, the book put out by the Army in which the Bougainville Campaign study was first discussed. He wrote:

"The 6.5 mm. (0.256 in.) (fig. 9) bullet, especially one made with a gilding metal (an alloy of copper and zinc) jacket, when it hit a target had an explosive effect and tended to separate, leaving the entire jacket in the wound while the bullet went on through. Small globules of lead scattered through the wound and embedded themselves elsewhere in the flesh. This condition was the result of the fact that the rear-section walls of the bullet jacket, which was filled with a lead core, were thinner than the forward walls. The sudden stoppage of the high-velocity bullet when it hit an object produced a tendency to burst the rear walls causing an "explosion." The lead core, which had a greater specific gravity, penetrated, leaving behind the relatively lighter jacket from which it had been discharged. The bullets made with cupronickel jackets had more of a tendency to retain their lead cores because of the greater tensile strength of the alloy when compared with the strength of the gilding-metal-jacketed bullet.

The unusually large exit wound openings often found with this caliber bullet were due to the natural instability of the bullet and possibly to its being fired from inferior weapons. Similarly, there were elliptic entry wounds, a result of the "keyholing" effect of bullets hitting with their sides."

So, the wounds created by 6.5 mm ammunition in the Bougainville Campaign were "unusually large." And yet still not nearly as large as the wound received in the Dallas Campaign... Hmm...

Source: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

bump for Parnell

Actually, we agree to this extent-that physical evidence is the "best evidence" and preferable to witness statements as your source indicates. My only quibble is that no where in your source (or anywhere else in the universe that I know of) does it say all physical evidence must be found with the body or even at the scene. It must be accepted as evidence and that is what a judge does-decides what evidence is allowed in court. The "court" we are talking about, the WC, was a fact-finding body and not a legal proceeding. They evaluated the evidence and gave different weight to different pieces of evidence, which is analogous to what a judge does. 

As I said, you and other CTs are probably holding the JFK case to a higher standard and many do this out of a genuine admiration for JFK the man. That is understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Actually, we agree to this extent-that physical evidence is the "best evidence" and preferable to witness statements as your source indicates. My only quibble is that no where in your source (or anywhere else in the universe that I know of) does it say all physical evidence must be found with the body or even at the scene.

Fine.  But just because a murder weapon is found in your home it doesn't mean you did it.

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

It must be accepted as evidence and that is what a judge does-decides what evidence is allowed in court. The "court" we are talking about, the WC, was a fact-finding body and not a legal proceeding. They evaluated the evidence and gave different weight to different pieces of evidence, which is analogous to what a judge does. 

The WC wrote up the location of the bullet holes in the clothes and then turned around and produced a drawing of a shot to the back of JFK's neck.

That's not fact-finding, that's propaganda.

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I said, you and other CTs are probably holding the JFK case to a higher standard and many do this out of a genuine admiration for JFK the man. That is understandable.

No, I'm holding the JFK case to the usual standard of a homicide -- the investigation begins with a vigorous analysis of the physical evidence found with the body.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit of [Off Topic] baseball chatter (if the forum would be so kind as to indulge me, and Lance)....

Lance Payette said:

Cool! Even though I was born in Tucson, I was a Milwaukee Braves LUNATIC in my youth. I can still quote you chapter and verse on the players of that era - did you know Joe Adcock once hit four home runs and a double off the centerfield wall in the same game?

That would have been this game, played on July 31, 1954, at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. And Eddie Mathews added two homers of his own in that same game.
 

Lance Payette said:

My next-door neighbor for the first 18 years of my life was Pat Darcy, who gave up THE home run to Carlton Fisk in the '76 World Series that you see replayed on TV every year.

Well, I'll be darned! That's an interesting "brush with history".

Small correction, though, Lance --- Carlton Fisk's famous game-winning foul-pole homer was in the 1975 World Series (not '76). My Reds won the Series in both of those years, though. I remember those two seasons well.

1975-World-Series-Logo.png

Pat-Darcy-Baseball-Card.jpg
 

Lance Payette said:

The last time I saw him [Pat Darcy], he said "God, you could throw it hard." I have a wonderful right arm but terrible vision (Ryne Duran, anyone?) and no other talent. I never pursued baseball but still throw fastballs into my golf net just for the hell of it. I'm waiting for some Super Senior League talent scout to discover me.

Same here. But my one minute of baseball video from 1973 hasn't yet attracted a single scout. I'm beginning to wonder if it's part of a widespread conspiracy plot to keep me out of the big leagues forever. (Maybe I should ask John Armstrong about that.) :)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Trouble in conspiracy land! I think the above illustrates why the CT folks can't get anywhere-because there is no consensus on a theory to present to anyone like Morley.  

Exactly.

But I'm not presenting a theory.

When Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence in 1966 Specter had a melt down.

The T3 back wound/throat entrance is a fact.

But ambitious researchers want to play "The Question of Conspiracy" Parlor Game and pretend the back and throat wounds are mysteries or some ridiculous pet theory about a high back wound or magic fragments.

"The prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rick McTague said:

I'm curious how two identical FMJ rounds can behave so differently...

That's another red herring that CTers like to use. But it's been proven that Carcano bullets can (and WILL) behave just like the two bullets behaved on 11/22/63. If the bullet is slowed down enough (like the SBT bullet through JFK & Connally), it can come out looking very good. But if that same FMJ bullet strikes something very hard FIRST (like JFK's skull), it can (and will) break apart. The tests done by Dr. Alfred Olivier and (later) by Dr. John Lattimer prove this.

  • "This bullet [a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano missile like CE399] can penetrate four feet of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side by side and come out looking completely undeformed. On the other hand, if it is fired into the thick bone of the back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 277 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (1980) [Illustration from the book below.]

Skull-Bullets-Lattimer.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awhile back W. Tracy Parnell challenged me to go public.  The best I can do is write a script for a segment on the Rachel Maddow Show.  Zero percent chance it'd fly, but here goes, fwiw:

Rachel Maddow

Our special guest tonight -- on the 55th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy—is one of our favorite friends of the show, Alec Baldwin.  Welcome, Alec.

 

 Alec Baldwin

Thanks for having me on tonight, Rachel.  I’d like to take the opportunity to take a fresh approach to the murder of John F. Kennedy – no theories, just facts.  Approach the case like any cop would approach any murder.

 

Maddow

Loved you as Captain Ellerby in The Departed!

 

Baldwin

Hold that thought – I may get brutally honest soon enough.

 

Maddow (laughing)

I can’t wait!

 

Baldwin

Fact #1:  There is a bullet hole in JFK’s shirt 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Fact #2:  Kennedy’s personal physician filled out the official, verified Death Certificate and listed a wound in his back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, consistent with the location of the hole in the shirt.

Fact #3: The x-ray of Kennedy’s neck reveals a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, that wing thing on your vertebra.

Fact #4:  Two doctors who attended to Kennedy at Parkland Hospital wrote in their contemporaneous notes that JFK had a wound of entrance in his throat.

Fact #5:  A Secret Service agent who rode in the car right behind Kennedy’s wrote in his contemporaneous notes that he saw JFK hit in the back four inches down the shoulder.

Fact #6: Two FBI agents who were assigned to make a report on the autopsy cabled FBI HQ and said there was a shallow wound in Kennedy’s back, and no bullet was found in the autopsy.

Those 6 facts encompass the strongest evidence in the case – physical evidence, documentary evidence, and the contemporaneous written accounts of 5 men in position of authority.

We know from this fact pattern that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn’t exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

There was a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, and no round found during the autopsy.

Draw what conclusions you may, those are the facts.

 

Maddow

Wound in the back, no exit, no bullet found.  Wound in the throat, no exit, no bullet found.  What could have happened to those bullets, Alec?

 

 Baldwin

 I dunno. I don’t do theories.  Maybe folks in your profession could look into it – after all 55 years isn’t too late to do your jobs.

 

Maddow

And so… the Captain Ellerby treatment after all!  Thanks for comin’ on, Alec.

 

Baldwin

Thanks for having me, Rachel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Small correction, though, Lance --- Carlton Fisk's famous game-winning foul-pole homer was in the 1975 World Series (not '76). My Reds won the Series in both of those years, though. I remember those two seasons well

Right you are.  I think he was 11-4 that year and earned something like $40,000.  Can you imagine the contract an 11-4 pitcher would be looking at today, when going 8-12 has six teams drooling over you and offering multi-year contracts?  Baseball was a lot more fun back then.  My Milwaukee Braves held the basic core of the team together for all the years I rooted for them.  Pat Darcy hurt his arm after the '75 season, floundered around in the minors for something like six years, and never made it back up.  But the last time I checked, he was very successful in commercial real estate in Tucson and even ran for mayor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I think he [Pat Darcy] was 11-4 that year and earned something like $40,000. 

He was 11-5 in '75. And he didn't earn anywhere near $40K. He only made $16,000 that year. And $19,000 in '76 (his last ML season).*

Times (and sports salaries) certainly have changed, huh?

* Stats and wages courtesy of Baseball Almanac.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...