Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 8/29/2020 at 3:41 AM, James DiEugenio said:

In other words, after Crossman failed to do what CBS wanted him to do, they dumped him and kept his failure secret.

With an enlarged  target the marksman were allowed to make at least three runs apiece. And they practice to their heart's content before.  Roger was not sure how much the target was broadened, but he said it was probably at least twice as much as the real target would have been, and probably even more.

Another lie--which I did not know about at the time-- is what I wrote about the show dumping 17 runs because of mechanical failure.  Tink Thompson communicated with one of the producers.  He told Tink that was not accurate.  Most of those were simply failures of marksmanship, not mechanical. And it was not just 17.

In other words, no one has ever done what the Commission says Oswald did in a real and accurate reconstruction of the crime.  And just remember: there is no credible evidence of any practice by Oswald. And every person, including the FBI, said that his alleged rifle was just about inoperable.  This is why Craig had to use a completely  different model in every way. 

CBS was lying and they knew they were lying.  And they fired Roger for exposing their lies.

 

On 8/29/2020 at 3:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

"Why did Rather and Wyckoff have to stoop this low? Because of the results of their rifle firing tests. As the critics of the Warren Report had pointed out, the Commission had used two tests to see if Oswald could have gotten off three shots in the allotted 5.6 seconds revealed in the Warren Commission, through the indications on the Zapruder film. These tests ended up failing to prove Oswald could have performed this feat of marksmanship. What made it worse is that the Commission had used very proficient rifleman to try to duplicate what the Commission said Oswald had done. (See Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 108)

So CBS tried again. This time they set up a track with a sled on it to simulate the back of Kennedy’s head. They then elevated a firing point to simulate the sixth floor “sniper’s nest”, released the target on its sled and had a marksman fire his three shots.

In watching the program, a question most naturally arises. CBS had permission to enter the depository building for a significant length of time, because Rather was running around on the sixth floor and down the stairs. In the exterior shots of Rather, it appears that the traffic in Dealey Plaza was roped off. So why didn’t CBS just do the tests right then and there under the exact same circumstances? It would appear to be for two reasons. First, the oak tree would have created an initial obstruction for the first shot. Second, there was a rise on Elm Street that curved the pavement. This was not simulated by CBS.

CBS first tried their experiment in January of 1967. They used a man named Ed Crossman. Crossman had written several books on the subject and many articles. He had a considerable reputation in the field. But his results were not up to snuff—even though CBS had enlarged the target size! And even though they gave him a week to practice with their version of the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. (Again, CBS could not get the actual rifle the Warren Report said was used by Oswald.) In a report filed by Midgley, he related that Crossman never broke 6.25 seconds, and even with the enlarged target, he only got 2 of 3 hits in about 50% of his attempts. Crossman stated that the rifle had a sticky bolt action, and a faulty viewing scope. What the professional sniper did not know is that the actual rifle in evidence was even harder to work. Crossman said that to perform such a feat on the first time out would require a lot of luck.

Since this did not fit the show’s agenda, it was discarded: both the test and the comments. To solve the problem, CBS now decided to call upon an actual football team full of expert riflemen—that is, 11 professional marksmen—who were first allowed to go to an indoor firing range and practice to their heart’s content. Again, this was a major discrepancy with the Warren Report, since there is no such practice time that the Commission could find for Oswald.

The eleven men then took 37 runs at duplicating what Oswald was supposed to have done. There were three instances where 2 out of 3 hits were recorded in 5.6 seconds. The best time was achieved by Howard Donahue—on his third attempt. His first two attempts were complete failures. It is hard to believe, but CBS claimed that their average recorded time was 5.6 seconds. But this did not include the 17 attempts CBS had to throw out because of mechanical failure. And they did not tell the public the surviving average was 1.2 hits out of 3, and with an enlarged target. The truly striking characteristic of these trials was the number of instances where the shooter could not get any result at all. More often than not, once the clip was loaded, the bolt action jammed. The sniper had to realign the target and fire again. According to the Warren Report, that could not have happened with Oswald."

Maybe this should be looked at in terms of probability models.

If we take a simple Bayesian coin-tossing model we could start from the unbiased position that the odds are 50:50 on making the shot in the allotted time.

This is modeled as 1 Success and 1 Failure.  The probability of success = 1 / (1+1) = 0.5.

If I am understanding correctly:

Taking the results of the experiment described above and starting with S=1 & F=1 we would get 

probability of success = (3+1) / (3 + 34 + 1 + 1) = 0.1025 or about a 10% chance of success.

However, that only looks at one of the experiments that have been run.  For the lone nut hypothesis to be true all would have to occur so the probabilities of success have to be multiplied together to get the probability of lone nut success.

Another experimental result that is known is shown in the WC exhibit of MC bullets fired into goat carcasses and human cadaver wrists.  I believe there were 3 shown all of which were deformed.

So following the same logic as above 

prob(success) = 1 + 0 bullets tested that were not deformed

prob failure = 1 + 3 bullets that were deformed 

prob of success = 1 / 5 = 0.2

So after just those 2 experiments the probability of a lone assassin is now

prob(make shot = success) * prob(bullet will not be deformed) = 0.0205 or 1 in 50 successes

The list of other evidence that could be estimated by experiments might include but not be limited to:

* how many times in a number of trials an object (for example a watermelon) suspended from above by strings or below by a spring goes back in the direction of the shooter when shot by a MC rifle & ammo.

* how many times in a shot from the angles between the TSBD window & JFK exits the side of the skull instead of the right front face

* other experiments

Another experimental result that could be included is the Neutron Activation Analysis on the paraffin test from LHO's cheek.  The paraffin test was negative for gunpowder residues.   So the FBI went to the next step and ran a chemical spectroscopy test. It was also negative.  The FBI then sent it off to Oak Ridge Labs for NAA.  It turned out negative again. (Note this is a test for any presence and not to be confused with the test for distribution of chemicals that failed to show statistical significance that the bullet fragments all came from the same bullet batch)

 The FBI then had 7 agents fire the MC rifle, took their paraffin tests and had NAA tests done.  All 7 were positive for gunpowder chemicals.

So that would be a prob(lone nut) = 1 / (1+1+7) = 0.1111 again factoring in the 1:1 50:50 starting probability.

Multiplying that by the previous result gives approximately a 0.002 probability of a lone assassin passing all 3 tests successfully.

Of course any evidence that would make the hypothesis of a loan assassin impossible would reduce the final probability to 0.  Back and to the left and the larger bullet fragments being in the back of the skull and smaller in the front in the autopsy x-rays accomplish this for some based on the law of conservation of momentum.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bill Fite. 

As much as Jim Di clearly exposes the false and falsely manipulated CBS conclusions, your above post greatly enhances his truth deception research and findings including the contrary bullet deformation and grain loss variation after firing into a goat carcass and cadaver wrist bones, gunpowder residue present on "all" 7 Carcano MC test firing subjects but none on Oswald, etc.

My little add on that I have posted before regards the physical and mental stress conditions on a JFK shooter ( allegedly Oswald ) versus anyone trying to duplicate the shooting scenario is this:

One must consider how much stress was on the shooter of JFK.

He has one opportunity and about 6 seconds ( less after he misses his first shot completely!) to hit his target ... the President of the United States!

In broad daylight and in front of hundreds of bystanders and security just 100 to 300 feet away, who he knows will probably be looking up in his direction, especially by the time of his third super loud cannon boom shot.

Making bulls-eye hits with his crap rifle on an 8 to 10 inch wide moving target almost a football field away is an extremely difficult challenge on it's own, but doing this under fear of your own immediate death might tend to make one's hands a little more sweaty and shaky than shooters replicating the shots under extremely relaxed and less extreme life and death worry and rushed conditions.

He knows he is in the most extreme life and death risk situation, perhaps just seconds away. He has an escape plan but it is so simple ( RUN AND THROW THE GUN DOWN) between some boxes, that he fears it is as risky as the actual shooting.

If the shooter isn't hyper-anxious and scared during this whole episode, he must be either drugged with Valium or Manchurian Candidate hypnotized.

These psychological dynamics put upon such a shooter are real.

They must be considered in any replicated setting of trial shooters versus the real experience of the actual shooter imo.

The hyped up gun aiming Marion Baker reported scene of Oswald casually sipping a soda pop in the 2nd floor TXSBD lunch room also begs the suspicious question of improbable calmness considering what Oswald allegedly pulled off just a very few minutes before. 

If Oswald was the shooter, his calmness and coolness under the most heightened life and death risk that could befall him any second all around him in his ridiculously simple running and walking away escape plan is so incongruous it's almost unbelievable. 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Thank you Bill Fite. 

As much as Jim Di clearly exposes the false and falsely manipulated CBS conclusions, your above post greatly enhances his truth deception research and findings including the contrary bullet deformation and grain loss variation after firing into a goat carcass and cadaver wrist bones, gunpowder residue present on "all" 7 Carcano MC test firing subjects but none on Oswald, etc.

My little add on that I have posted before regards the physical and mental stress conditions on a JFK shooter ( allegedly Oswald ) versus anyone trying to duplicate the shooting scenario is this:

One must consider how much stress was on the shooter of JFK.

He has one opportunity and about 6 seconds ( less after he misses his first shot completely!) to hit his target ... the President of the United States!

In broad daylight and in front of hundreds of bystanders and security just 100 to 300 feet away, who he knows will probably be looking up in his direction, especially by the time of his third super loud cannon boom shot.

Making bulls-eye hits with his crap rifle on an 8 to 10 inch wide moving target almost a football field away is an extremely difficult challenge on it's own, but doing this under fear of your own immediate death might tend to makes one hands a little more sweaty and shaky than shooters replicating the shots under extremely relaxed and less extreme life and death worry and rushed conditions.

He knows he is in the most extreme life and death risk situation, perhaps just seconds away. He has an escape plan but it is so simple ( RUN AND THROW THE GUN DOWN) between some boxes, that he fears it is as risky as the actual shooting.

If the shooter isn't hyper-anxious and scared during this whole episode, he must be either drugged with Valium or Manchurian Candidate hypnotized.

These psychological dynamics put upon such a shooter are real.

They must be considered in any replicated setting of trial shooters versus the real experience of the actual shooter imo.

The hyped up gun aiming Marion Baker reported scene of Oswald casually sipping a soda pop in the 2nd floor TXSBD lunch room also begs the suspicious question of improbable calmness considering what Oswald allegedly pulled off just a very few minutes before. 

If Oswald was the shooter, his calmness and coolness under the most heightened life and death risk that could befall him any second all around him in his ridiculously simple running and walking away escape plan is so incongruous it's almost unbelievable. 

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Yeah..... we're not talking about an anti-Castro Cuban trained to assassinate Fidel, or a mafia hit man, or an assassin for hire from Marseille, or a military trained assassin, etc. but a hypothesized guy with a junk weapon and no experience or training other than Marine basic training (assumption).  So, I agree his probability was probably lower, but the above is a conservative estimate w/o that assumption.

btw - the prob(success) on the deformed bullets should have been 

total successes, likewise on the prob(failure) .... sorry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Yeah..... we're not talking about an anti-Castro Cuban trained to assassinate Fidel, or a mafia hit man, or an assassin for hire from Marseille, or a military trained assassin, etc. but a hypothesized guy with a junk weapon and no experience or training other than Marine basic training (assumption).  So, I agree his probability was probably lower, but the above is a conservative estimate w/o that assumption.

btw - the prob(success) on the deformed bullets should have been 

total successes, likewise on the prob(failure) .... sorry about that.

BF, I'm sorry. Could you explain your last post response a bit more?

What are you saying regards my points of comparative stress analysis between the recreation shooters and the actual Dealey Plaza shooter?

I feel that because of this immediate death risk stress scenario, the JFK shooter would have an even tougher time in his JFK shooting attempt effort than the non-stress recreation shooters experienced.

Making it tougher to conclude Oswald himself did the shooting.

My take from a possible psychological angle is that Oswald would have been under so much stress it would have made this shooting feat even more improbable than it already was.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

BF, I'm sorry. Could you explain your last post response a bit more?

What are you saying regards my points of comparative analysis between the recreation shooters and the actual Dealey Plaza shooter?

I feel that the JFK shooter would have an even tougher time in his successful JFK shooting attempt than the recreation shooters already experienced.

Making it tougher to conclude Oswald himself did the shooting.

My take from a possible psychological angle is that Oswald would have been under so much stress it would have made this shooting feat even more improbable than it already was.

Yes, I agree w you... sorry. I was just trying to say that LHO was not a professional assassin so would have had lower probability of success as you said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Making bulls-eye hits with his crap rifle on an 8 to 10 inch wide moving target almost a football field away is an extremely difficult challenge on it's own, but doing this under fear of your own immediate death might tend to makes one hands a little more sweaty and shaky than shooters replicating the shots under extremely relaxed and less extreme life and death worry and rushed conditions.

Thanks to Jim DiEugenio for bringing this up again.  It should be brought up from time to time to remind people what a difficult bit of shooting that was.  Hasn't been replicated as far as I am concerned.  No one has done that cold as allegedly Oswald did.   Any one saying otherwise needs to look at those replication attempts again as Mr. DiEungenio has pointed out. 

Joe Bauer makes a good point.  The head shot in my opinion was a luck shot.  Kennedy's head wound was done by luck rather than skill.  I do have to make one remark contrary to Joe's thinking.  A football field away is as close as up close at say 50 or 90 feet.  To a high powered rifle 90 yards is not a great distance.  From any building or place in Dealey Plaza to just under the Triple Underpass is not a great distance for an expert marksman scoped or unscoped.

2 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

but a hypothesized guy with a junk weapon and no experience or training other than Marine basic training (assumption)

I think we need to understand Marine Corps training.  Marines are first and foremost combat infantrymen.  They may be assigned another job after training such as radar operator, but they are still required to keep up their combat training skills.  At the beginning a Marine undergoes about 2 months of basic infantry training and then an other 2months or so of advanced training.  When he is assigned to a line company there is further training to do.  It's the same with the army infantry.  As I recall we were either operational or training in the army infantry.

With that being said ordinary combat infantryman training is not sufficient to pull off that kind of shooting as it is described in the Warren Commission Conspiracy.   What about advanced, specialized training like sniper school and actual on the job training as in doing the job of a sniper.  Carlos Hathcock and other snipers have pointed out. They couldn't do it.

From my military experience shooting at a moving target with a scoped weapon was never considered.  Automatic weapons were the right tools for disposing a moving target.  A 3 man team with automatic weapons is devastating in an ambush. 

As a last resort using a semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine would do as a last resort.  Automatic or semi-automatic? weapons in Dealey Plaza were not used so multiple shooters, or shooting teams from different angles has nearly the same effect. 

We were taught in basic training that one should always shoot at the torso.  A head hot was usaully and most often a miss.  A shot in the torso, due to hydrostatic shock, was always lethal or incapacitating with a high powered weapon.  R. Lee Emery showed on one of his shows shooting a dressed turkey with a high powered weapon.  The meat was ripped into long strips and shredded into a lethal wound.    

Ambushing the enemy is a practical and practiced skill taught in the infantry.  It was always stressed to use more than one shooter.  A military sniper is generally not a lone individual.  There are locators, communication and security people.  It is generally a two or 3 man team. 

 

  

     

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point that can be made from the attempts to replicate the single shooter hypothesis (main stream "truth") is that it cannot be accomplished by even expert marksmen or snipers.  The problem with agreeing that the head shot was lucky is apt only in this sense.  The assassination was carried out by multiple shooters and involved a triangulation of fire.  I think an overwhelming number of people who have studied/wrote about the assassination would agree.  Therefore, the actual "headshot" was NOT "lucky".  It was planned and executed by professionals.  Even the shooting of Connally (or Yarborough -had he been lucky enough to have drawn that seat) could have been planned in order to remove any blockage to the various snipers target.  It would very likely have been necessary for a shot from the right front which seems evident to most researchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to debate anyone, just passing by, but just one comment before I go.

Contrary to popular belief, the Warren Commission didn't claim that Oswald fired three shots in six seconds.

Since it couldn't determine when the shot that missed was fired--whether it was before, after, or between the other two shots --the WC concluded that the time span ranged from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.  Please see the last two paragraphs here (WR, p. 117):

https://www.maryferrell.orghowDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=141&tab=page

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jean Davison said:

Contrary to popular belief, the Warren Commission didn't claim that Oswald fired three shots in six seconds.

Jean,

The WC did claim that Oswald fired 3 shots.  Nobody in Dealey Plaza had a stop watch on it.  The time you give is I think based on how long it takes to operate a Carcano rifle and fire 3 shots.  It really doesn't matter how many seconds.   That was not the point that Jim DiEungenio was making.   He was saying that Oswald was incapable of making the shots that he allegedly fired and murdered the President.   DiEugenio's point was that even experts such as the famous Carlos Hatchcock, the most famous of the Viet Nam War snipers, said he could not do it.  And, it has not been replicated contrary to what others may say.

As far as debate, I don't much care for that either.  I state what I think and folks can either reject it or accept.  I'm not going to try and punish someone if they disagree or try to talk them into something at all.  If there is any validity in what I speak about others will note it and if not they will ignore, or let you know about what they think. 

Mr. James Gordon has made the Forum at better place to be to express your thoughts.  New folks should feel free to express their thoughts as they wish.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Therefore, the actual "headshot" was NOT "lucky". 

Richard,

I said the headshot was lucky and not that they didn't attempt a head shot.  What more dramatic expression could the assassins have said then a headshot.  Here is what all the plans and thinking of President Kennedy are ultimately worth exploding out of his head.  

Think about the first point you made.  The expert snipers mentioned (professional assassins) could not repeat the shooting of Oswald which includes the headshot.  Those that claimed they repeated Oswald's shooting had a great deal of training and practice before hand, improved weapons, and larger targets at shorter range and elevation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point had nothing to do with the supposed Oswald shot to the head.  The head shot arguably came from the right front and could have been as close as 150 ft. or as far away as 225 ft.  This is a based on a quick calculation using Google Earth for measurements near the mid point of the fence to the approximate location of Z313 or from the end near the rail yard to the same Z313.  Also, the target (JFK) would have been approaching the sniper at a slow speed on a known path from left to right.  With Connally now laid out, there would have been nothing to interfere with the tracking of the subject.  With any kind of practice at all and using a scope, it would have been relatively simple (if you have the nerve) to shoot another human being.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2020 at 1:13 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that Pete.

Davison was Von Pein's favorite author on the JFK case, before Bugliosi.  As anyone can with my review of her book, there were simply too many errors and misrepresentations in her book.  I mean to talk about the Clinton/Jackson incident and a.) To not go there, and b.) Not to read the reports that were available at the AARC or c.) Not to call anyone up or talk to the investigators, that is just inexcusable.  And to rely on Ruby's polygraph to discredit Mark Lane?  When the HSCA. four years previous, had discredited it

 

I recently caught up with Wills & Demaris'  'Jack Ruby' (p182-205) which covers the full day of Ruby's polygraph palaver.  About 9 sessions & added to that the Ruby rants with his legal rep about allowing Bill Alexander in the room along with Ruby's skirmishes with Joe Tonahill....all ably assisted by Arlen Specter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Davisonism.  Von Pein used to bring this point up also.

The WR said, from the section she quotes, that the time was at the most 5.6 seconds if the second shot missed.

James Tague said he heard the first shot.  

Further there was no copper found at the bullet strike on the curb below Tague.

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...