Slashdot Mirror
Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong
Spy Handler writes "Researchers analyzing bullet fragments from the 1963 Kennedy assassination using new techniques say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong. 'Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas. The committee's finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.'"
Seriously, was there ever any doubt? Did _anybody_ believe the government over all of the eye witnesses, the drawn out court-case, the ridiculous implausible explanation required, or the pristine perfect bullet found OUTSIDE his body?
It's good somebody finally _proved_ they were lying, but we still don't know why they lied - and really, what moron ever thought the case was closed.
---
this moron
Ace
Based on common analysis at the time, it was reasonable conclusion.
/. there is no reason to exsasorbate the issue with post like yours.
This analysis is full of maybes
example:
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald."
Or he fired another shot.
The guy who claims this has been afer the FBI for years, and what better way to get in the press then dragging this out. Lets see some other groups confirm his analysis.
Even though this post is clearly trollish in nature, and quite frankly doesn't belong on
Was there more then one shooter? I don't know.
What I do know is this:
Any moment in time, looked at be enough people begin to show things that dno't make sense. Any event has thing that seem unexplainable 20+ years down the road.
I also watched a man hit a moving target at 1000 yards, repeatably.
I also no that if there was another shooter, that doesn't mean there is a cover up or conspiracy. Just a wrong conclusion based on faulty analysis.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They only have shown that it is not statistically certain that all bullet fragments were of similar make-up of to those of Oswald's.
That is not at all what the article says. What it says is that the previous investigation concluded that all bullet fragments came from only 2 bullets. This new study shows that it is possible that the fragments came from three or more bullets . So assuming that now people think that 3 or more bullets were fired, the question is - How many of those bullets could Oswald have fired? My understanding is that some people think he could have gotten off 3 shots within the time allowed. Others say that it would be almost impossible to fire more than 2. So until we seem to come to a conclusion that Oswald could only have fired 2 bullets and not 3, we haven't seen anyone rule out that Oswald could have fired 3 bullets himself.
One interesting theory I heard: there were two shooters, but the second shooter might not have intended to shoot.
n otated.asp
There were various Secret Service people around, armed with various weapons. If you are well trained, you carry a weapon with the safety applied, and with your finger off the trigger, and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. But sometimes people do screw up.
So, according to this theory, Oswald starts shooting at JFK, and someone screws up and fires off an accidental shot from an AR-15 or something. Then the person who screwed up never admitted it, because if you fatally shot the man you were trying to protect, would you be in a hurry to admit it?
The accidental shot could have been while taking the safety off in a hurry with a finger on the trigger, for example. (One of Cooper's famous three laws of firearm safety: keep your finger outside the trigger guard until you have the sights lined up on a target you are willing to shoot.)
http://www.sportshooter.com/safety/safetyrules_an
I heard this theory from Massad Ayoob years ago during a lecture on safety. He felt that JFK's head wound was consistent with the small, fast bullet fired by an AR-15, while JFK's other wounds were consistent with a big, heavy, slow bullet fired by the Carcano rifle used by Oswald.
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id89.htm
I have not researched this enough to have an opinion on how likely it is, but I do find it interesting.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
But when I came across this wiki article, I said "HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I wonder"
From Wiki Article on JFK Assassination
"The FBI has received added scrutiny by Kennedy assassination researchers due to the actions of FBI agent James Hosty. Hosty appeared in Oswald's address book. The FBI provided to the Warren Commission a typewritten transcription of Oswald's address book, in which Hosty's name and phone number were omitted. Two days before the assassination, Oswald went to the FBI office in Dallas to meet with Hosty, and when he found that Hosty was not in the office at the time, Oswald left an envelope for Hosty with a letter inside. After Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, Hosty's supervisor ordered Hosty to destroy the letter, and he did so by tearing the letter up and flushing it down the toilet. Months later, when Hosty testified before the Warren Commission, he did not disclose this connection with Oswald. This information became public later and was investigated by the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.[57]"
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The truth about 9/11???? WTF are you talking about??? As I stood and looked up at the buildings just before the plane hit I can tell you the truth: "A plane, moving very fast, hit each building causing major damage resulting in an eventual collapse of both buildings. As for Building 7 a fire broke out, caused by damage from the falling debris, (this was the emergency management building with something like 10K gallons of fuel in it for the backup generators) that was all but ignored by the first responders who were left alive partly because with the cloud of dust and smoke it was all but impossible to even see it let alone get new fire trucks there to put the fire out, that eventually weakened the structure causing its collapse."
I know all you tin foil hat folks have a hard time with fire melting steel but look at what happened in California a few weeks ago when a tanker truck loaded with fuel crashed and caught fire causing the collapse of the overpass. Sorry to break the news to you but heat does soften steel long before it actually liquefies. If you do not like this country so much, or do not trust it then move to IRAN or somewhere that you will be more comfortable...... until you can show me proof that it was an "inside" job just shut the fuck up...
BTW with the way all the "leaks" have been coming out of the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. do you really think our government could keep an "inside" job of this scale quite for so long? And if Bush is as dumb as you leftest keep telling me he is how could he have planed such a huge attack without blundering it in the few months he was in office prior to the attacks? Like I said STFU or leave you dumb bastard or should I say Anonymous Coward.... If you want to rant at least have the balls to give us your name!
Troll this all you want!
The whole JFK assassination thing never sat right with me. For the most part I believe that your typical conspiracy theory, the ones that would be called kooky, rely too much on the omniscience of the shadowy "they." We're talking a level of coordination and control that any overt organization would be hard-pressed to match, PLUS the ability to keep it all secret! Your typical Illuminati conspiracies fall apart under analysis. But then there's your more realistic conspiracies, what I call the Mafia-type. They're possible, plausible, and have happened in the past, the only question is whether event X involved one. The Loose Change theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a passenger jet, that's kook. The idea that the WTC was taken down by controlled demlolition charges, that's kook. The idea that the Bush administration was behind the whole thing with detailed involvment in the planning, made it happen on purpose, that's kook. But what about the stuff that really happened? Coverying up Pat Tillman's death? Fact. Lying about Jessica Lynch? Fact. Outright fabrication of evidence to steer the nation towards war? Fact. Shutting down and firing anyone within the administration, military, and government agencies who questioned the war? Fact. Basing selection criteria for who to recruit for the rebuilding of Iraq based on party loyalty rather than professional qualifications? Fact. The textbook definition of a conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. If I plot to kill my wife and my brother is in on it, this is a conspiracy to commit murder. If I plot to steal money from my employer and my coworker is in on it, that is a conspiracy to steal.
But back to what I was getting at originally, the whole official story for the Kennedy Assassination smells funny. You have passionate people on both sides of the issue arguing about whether this point or that validates or disproves the government's story. If Oswald was not the lone killer, it's a conspiracy. If there were some gigantic lapse in security that let Kennedy be killed and officials moved to coverup that embarassment, it's a conspiracy, but not in the sense that "they" ordered him killed. But who would "they" even be? If there is a "they", why kill him on Dallas? Why the whole fancy shooting from the Schoolbook Depository?
And this all leads around to another explanation, maskirova. That's a russian word for camouflage, deception, or misdirection. Take Area 51 for example. The Air Force wants to play with some crazy toys out in the desert. Seeing as the Western powers were the Soviet's best source for military research, the last thing anyone wanted was to give the game away to their spies. So, the public has a fascination with flying saucers and little green men, right? Well, the new experimental aircraft look pretty odd, especially at night. Why not play up that angle? Everybody assumes the government is hiding something so why not really give them something to talk about? Act mysterious, give ludicrous explanations for what people might have seen in the sky, call it swamp gas or venus low on the horizon, act like you've got something to hide. Pretty soon everybody is talking about flying saucers and nobody is talking about stealth aircraft.
So, is there a real conspiracy there or not? Is the government hamming it up to make us think there's something there to misdirect us from the truth? Or is this just typical government bungling and we're just seeing a pattern of deception that isn't really there?
Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Ahh yes. Someone stokes the consipiracy flames to sell a book, and that makes news. Meanwhile Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutior of Charles Manson, writes a book explaining in excrutiating detail about how the Oswald was the lone gunman and fired the shots from the book depository, and no one says a thing.
All this talk about conspiracy theories is absurd. There's a group of people that that refuse to believe that shit happens. One guy can kill a president. A cult would willingly set themselves on fire rather than be arrested. That 19 guys from the desert can hijack airliners with boxcutters and crash them into buildings. I think it comes from that the need to place some meaning and reason on these acts. They can't fantom the power of a single commited individual, and so they find a vast and all powerful secret conspiracy is behind it all. The Knights Templar. The Illuninati. The Zeta Reticulians. The Water Fluoridation Industrial Complex. The Left Handed People of Borneo. The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa. You name it. It's quite absurd.
I was surprised that no one commented here on E. Howard Hunt's audio tape confession of involvement in the Kennedy assassination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Audio- taped_confession
Within the audio tape Hunt names Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, David Sánchez Morales, and David Atlee Phillips as co-conspirators. He also claims Lyndon Johnson approved of the assassination for political gain.
"I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist, parent--like himself a parent--and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers--quite the contrary."
E. Howard Hunt was also famous for organizing the bugging of the DNC in the Watergate scandal.
- Yes, I am posting at a -1, and no I will not use a proxy to bypass my circumstances.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts