Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy

[Sandy Larsen]

The lack of damage to the thigh proved that the bullet striking Kennedy was nearly spent after fracturing the wrist. Well, Dr. Olivier tested the wrist damage by firing into cadavers and found that it could only have been made by CE 399 if the bullet was traveling at a low velocity, and then lost very little velocity in the wrist. Their tests replicating the chest damage similarly suggested the bullet would have lost minimal velocity while traveling through the chest. In sum, then, Connally's wounds proved for a scientific fact that the bullet striking Connally was traveling at a greatly reduced velocity, and that it was not a fully-charged M/C bullet, which had failed to strike bone while traveling through Kennedy

Pat,

When people suggest that a bullet had to have hit at a low velocity, laws of physics tell us that the bullet must have been shot at a close range. Because a low velocity bullet shot from a distance will drop so far as to miss the target. This fact became abundantly clear to me when I was participating in a thread with Robert Prudhomme regarding JFK's back wound.

Robert P. (or anybody else), correct me if I am wrong.

With this in mind, do you (or anybody else) have any suggestions on where a low-velocity bullet hitting Connally might have been shot from? (Clue: The distance from the TSBD is too far.)

BTW, here's the formula for a falling object:

d = (g t^2) / 2

where

d = the distance dropped, in feet

g = 32 is the gravitational acceleration, in ft/s^2

t = the time it takes for the bullet to hit, in seconds

This formula illustrates why a high-speed bullet is so crucial to a long-distance shot hitting a moving target. (I say "moving, because for a stationary target the sight can be adjusted to compensate for a large drop.) Since time t in the formula is squared, an increase in time results in a disproportionately greater distance d of drop.In other words, the drop distance increases rapidly as the bullet speed drops.

[Sandy Larsen]

But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically.

But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all.

Curtis,

I'm astonished by the lack of critical acumen you've shown here. But I sure do admire your writing skills.

[Curtis Berkley]

Here's my take on believing a conspiracy killed my President. Childhood: the Back Yard photos. It's so obvious how unnatural the man is. Nobody is built like that. It's a joke. I don't understand how people believed those pictures. And the other thing is Ruby shooting Oswald, which my father and I watched live as it happened. Surrounded by police with no escape, Ruby shoots Oswald. Something's going on.

Kathy C

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it.

It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included.

I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today.

I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People.

Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all?

I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically.

But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all.

I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here.

But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess.

However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone.

You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape.

I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt.

Simply - JFK was "my President", too.

I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit.

methinks the latter-day lone nuts are getting really desperate. Even Craigster is trolling this thread.

I don't know what lead you to believe this, but I respect that you do.

[Curtis Berkley]

But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically.

But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all.

Curtis,

I'm astonished by the lack of critical acumen you've shown here. But I sure do admire your writing skills.

Don't mistake articulated verbosity for intelligence.

[Curtis Berkley]

CB: LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him.

So Curtis, you know better than the following lawyers who have studied the case closely and in an official status;

Jeremy Gunn (ARRB)

Bob Tanenbaum (HSCA)

Dick Sprague (HSCA)

Dave Marston (Church Committee)

​Now I am sure you are aware that even in Dallas during the 50th, a jury would not convict Oswald. And that was with the old evidence.

​So now today, with every link in the chain of the ballistics evidence broken--that is the rifle, CE 399, the shells, and NAA proven a hoax--you are saying that the case against Oswald would be a slam dunk?

​But let us not stop there: what about the medical evidence? Would you want to put someone like McClelland on the stand? How about Jenkins?

Would you want to test the photographs and x rays with witness testimony?

​What about what we know about Oswald today?

​Give us a ll a break will you? YOU have not come up with one good reply to any of this stuff that we have submitted, just like I knew you would. And you jettison Shaw just like all the Krazy Kid Oswald sycophants do, by relying on later testimony rather than on first day testimony. And you have no problem doing that.

Yeah sure. Keep on reading that WR, you are making converts by the hour.

I am somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, and yes, I can tell you that LHO would have been found guilty, and easily. You can look at it anecdotally when compared to other successful murder convictions, or specifically as to this particular instance, and the result is the same. Marcia Clark could convict LHO in San Francisco, and if juror instructions were given in the AM, they'd likely be home by supper.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of murderers who are sitting in prison right now, and who had a fraction of the evidence stacked against them, as Oswald would have. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, and I'm not even saying that it's "right" - but it's the truth.

A second year law student could achieve a conviction.

As to your other comments:

1. I'm not sure how name-calling and ad hominem attacks advance the issue, or specifically, your argument.

2. Who jettisoned Dr. Shaw? I merely asked the question which the posted comments begged - should he too be added to the list of conspirators? That you seemingly dislike the fact that those who do not believe in a conspiracy often ask it is immaterial, save this: Why do you think it is that we feel compelled to continually ask it - and who's fault is that? Just something to think about, and to ask yourself.

3. I believe the accounts which I find to be most credible, and which can be supported and/or corroborated by other evidence and fact, wherever possible. Do I think that Dr. Shaw's initial comments, in the excruciating glare of that first day, must be true - simply because it was his first utterance? No. Do I think that later, after some reflection, that Dr. Shaw could have remembered it more clearly, or had been made aware of better information that he did not possess at the time of his initial comments, and this is the simple and understandable reason for his later recanting his story? Yes. Do I believe that his opinion was changed later, as the certain result of a conspiracy and "once the story was straight" - as you claimed in an earlier post? Absolutely not, and in fact, that is not only a preposterous claim which lacks any fact, or even a basis in reality, and which you have simply contrived from your own personal opinion, alone. If I am wrong - please cite the source which supports your claim that Dr. Shaw was later compelled, urged, required, ordered or otherwise made to later change his story. Once provided, and if credible, I will gladly look at it, and admit if I am in error. But if you cannot, and it merely is simply your own opinion, and nothing else, then admit that, and withdraw it.

4. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. We all have different opinions, and I respect them all. Some are just more correct than others, but then, I cannot save anyone from that.

[Sandy Larsen]

CB: LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him.

So Curtis, you know better than the following lawyers who have studied the case closely and in an official status;

Jeremy Gunn (ARRB)

Bob Tanenbaum (HSCA)

Dick Sprague (HSCA)

Dave Marston (Church Committee)

​Now I am sure you are aware that even in Dallas during the 50th, a jury would not convict Oswald. And that was with the old evidence.

​So now today, with every link in the chain of the ballistics evidence broken--that is the rifle, CE 399, the shells, and NAA proven a hoax--you are saying that the case against Oswald would be a slam dunk?

​But let us not stop there: what about the medical evidence? Would you want to put someone like McClelland on the stand? How about Jenkins?

Would you want to test the photographs and x rays with witness testimony?

​What about what we know about Oswald today?

​Give us a ll a break will you? YOU have not come up with one good reply to any of this stuff that we have submitted, just like I knew you would. And you jettison Shaw just like all the Krazy Kid Oswald sycophants do, by relying on later testimony rather than on first day testimony. And you have no problem doing that.

Yeah sure. Keep on reading that WR, you are making converts by the hour.

I am somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, and yes, I can tell you that LHO would have been found guilty, and easily. You can look at it anecdotally when compared to other successful murder convictions, or specifically as to this particular instance, and the result is the same. Marcia Clark could convict LHO in San Francisco, and if juror instructions were given in the AM, they'd likely be home by supper.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of murderers who are sitting in prison right now, and who had a fraction of the evidence stacked against them, as Oswald would have. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, and I'm not even saying that it's "right" - but it's the truth.

A second year law student could achieve a conviction.

As to your other comments:

1. I'm not sure how name-calling and ad hominem attacks advance the issue, or specifically, your argument.

2. Who jettisoned Dr. Shaw? I merely asked the question which the posted comments begged - should he too be added to the list of conspirators? That you seemingly dislike the fact that those who do not believe in a conspiracy often ask it is immaterial, save this: Why do you think it is that we feel compelled to continually ask it - and who's fault is that? Just something to think about, and to ask yourself.

3. I believe the accounts which I find to be most credible, and which can be supported and/or corroborated by other evidence and fact, wherever possible. Do I think that Dr. Shaw's initial comments, in the excruciating glare of that first day, must be true - simply because it was his first utterance? No. Do I think that later, after some reflection, that Dr. Shaw could have remembered it more clearly, or had been made aware of better information that he did not possess at the time of his initial comments, and this is the simple and understandable reason for his later recanting his story? Yes. Do I believe that his opinion was changed later, as the certain result of a conspiracy and "once the story was straight" - as you claimed in an earlier post? Absolutely not, and in fact, that is not only a preposterous claim which lacks any fact, or even a basis in reality, and which you have simply contrived from your own personal opinion, alone. If I am wrong - please cite the source which supports your claim that Dr. Shaw was later compelled, urged, required, ordered or otherwise made to later change his story. Once provided, and if credible, I will gladly look at it, and admit if I am in error. But if you cannot, and it merely is simply your own opinion, and nothing else, then admit that, and withdraw it.

4. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. We all have different opinions, and I respect them all. Some are just more correct than others, but then, I cannot save anyone from that.

Curtis,

If Oswald were tried today, I think his attorney could have the case thrown out simply by showing the judge how the Dallas Police Department had confiscated his wallet at the theater, after already finding it at the scene of the Tippet shooting.

There are dozens of such irregularities in the JFK assassination. Does that not bother your sensibilities?

[Ken Davies]

Mr. Berkley purports to be somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, but seems remiss in criminal defence.

A second year law student could not secure a conviction (aside from the fact that he or she could not practise law)

because any law student who has completed a course in evidence could have successfully defended Oswald

( in the imaginary world where law students try murder cases.). I base that comment on 38 years at the bar, and 40 years of studying this case.

Happy new year to all.

[Pat Speer]

The lack of damage to the thigh proved that the bullet striking Kennedy was nearly spent after fracturing the wrist. Well, Dr. Olivier tested the wrist damage by firing into cadavers and found that it could only have been made by CE 399 if the bullet was traveling at a low velocity, and then lost very little velocity in the wrist. Their tests replicating the chest damage similarly suggested the bullet would have lost minimal velocity while traveling through the chest. In sum, then, Connally's wounds proved for a scientific fact that the bullet striking Connally was traveling at a greatly reduced velocity, and that it was not a fully-charged M/C bullet, which had failed to strike bone while traveling through Kennedy

Pat,

When people suggest that a bullet had to have hit at a low velocity, laws of physics tell us that the bullet must have been shot at a close range. Because a low velocity bullet shot from a distance will drop so far as to miss the target. This fact became abundantly clear to me when I was participating in a thread with Robert Prudhomme regarding JFK's back wound.

Robert P. (or anybody else), correct me if I am wrong.

With this in mind, do you (or anybody else) have any suggestions on where a low-velocity bullet hitting Connally might have been shot from? (Clue: The distance from the TSBD is too far.)

BTW, here's the formula for a falling object:

d = (g t^2) / 2

where

d = the distance dropped, in feet

g = 32 is the gravitational acceleration, in ft/s^2

t = the time it takes for the bullet to hit, in seconds

This formula illustrates why a high-speed bullet is so crucial to a long-distance shot hitting a moving target. (I say "moving, because for a stationary target the sight can be adjusted to compensate for a large drop.) Since time t in the formula is squared, an increase in time results in a disproportionately greater distance d of drop.In other words, the drop distance increases rapidly as the bullet speed drops.

Robert's point was that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back--and then falling out--would have to have been traveling at an extremely low velocity, and that a bullet traveling at such a velocity (presumably 300 fps or less) would have dropped considerably in flight. My comments addressed a different point entirely. The Army conducted tests in which they attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. These tests demonstrated both that the bullet striking Connally's thigh, wrist, and chest, was traveling at a low velocity, and that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back and exiting his neck without hitting bone would have lost very little velocity. Well, these two conclusions, when combined, suggest that a bullet striking JFK and JBC in the manner suggested by the SBT would most likely have been traveling at a sub-sonic velocity, (1,050 fps or less). Someone, probably Specter, caught this, moreover, and then deliberately mis-quoted and mis-represented Dr. Olivier's testimony to make it seem like his tests supported that the bullet was traveling at a normal velocity.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

The lack of damage to the thigh proved that the bullet striking Kennedy was nearly spent after fracturing the wrist. Well, Dr. Olivier tested the wrist damage by firing into cadavers and found that it could only have been made by CE 399 if the bullet was traveling at a low velocity, and then lost very little velocity in the wrist. Their tests replicating the chest damage similarly suggested the bullet would have lost minimal velocity while traveling through the chest. In sum, then, Connally's wounds proved for a scientific fact that the bullet striking Connally was traveling at a greatly reduced velocity, and that it was not a fully-charged M/C bullet, which had failed to strike bone while traveling through Kennedy

Pat,

When people suggest that a bullet had to have hit at a low velocity, laws of physics tell us that the bullet must have been shot at a close range. Because a low velocity bullet shot from a distance will drop so far as to miss the target. This fact became abundantly clear to me when I was participating in a thread with Robert Prudhomme regarding JFK's back wound.

Robert P. (or anybody else), correct me if I am wrong.

With this in mind, do you (or anybody else) have any suggestions on where a low-velocity bullet hitting Connally might have been shot from? (Clue: The distance from the TSBD is too far.)

BTW, here's the formula for a falling object:

d = (g t^2) / 2

where

d = the distance dropped, in feet

g = 32 is the gravitational acceleration, in ft/s^2

t = the time it takes for the bullet to hit, in seconds

This formula illustrates why a high-speed bullet is so crucial to a long-distance shot hitting a moving target. (I say "moving, because for a stationary target the sight can be adjusted to compensate for a large drop.) Since time t in the formula is squared, an increase in time results in a disproportionately greater distance d of drop.In other words, the drop distance increases rapidly as the bullet speed drops.

Robert's point was that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back--and then falling out--would have to have been traveling at an extremely low velocity, and that a bullet traveling at such a velocity (presumably 300 fps or less) would have dropped considerably in flight. My comments addressed a different point entirely. The Army conducted tests in which they attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. These tests demonstrated both that the bullet striking Connally's thigh, wrist, and chest, was traveling at a low velocity, and that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back and exiting his neck without hitting bone would have lost very little velocity. Well, these two conclusions, when combined, suggest that a bullet striking JFK and JBC in the manner suggested by the SBT would most likely have been traveling at a sub-sonic velocity, (1,050 fps or less). Someone, probably Specter, caught this, moreover, and then deliberately mis-quoted and mis-represented Dr. Olivier's testimony to make it seem like his tests supported that the bullet was traveling at a normal velocity.

Ah, okay. Got it.

FWIW I calculate that the bullet would have dropped less than two inches at a velocity of 1000 ft/s. At 300 ft/s the drop would be more like 18 inches. (Assuming a specific distance.)

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ken Davies is quite correct as to the Rules of Evidence.

[James DiEugenio]

I agree, Ken kind of nailed good ole CB on that one didn't he?

BTW, the whole thing about Shaw being a conspirator, this is just so silly its sick.

In reality what it does reflect is a record about each aspect of the evidence that is simply indecipherable. Because of all the twists and turns in it.

That is what CB an dithers try and avoid.

This does not happen in the real world, or is so, only in a few instances.

But in this case, its literally everywhere. And CB and his allies try and disguise this by playing the "conspirator" card. Because they don't want to deal with the shifting status of the evidence in the total evidentiary record.

Just ask yourself: in ho many murder cases, are there two versions on the autopsy, and in one the back wound moves down and the head wound moves up.

Edited January 7, 2016 by James DiEugenio