Posted on 04/12/2002 5:21:54 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist
A HREF="http://whatreallyhappened.tripod.com/ ">Anti Rivero web site
Here’s a web site that is going after Michael Rivero’s conspiracy web site whatreallyhappened.com
Of whom are you speaking? I see a very disturbing personality that seems maliciously obsessed with denigrating the fantastic tabloid material produced by others.
No, the original claim was yours saying the rifle was a piece of junk incapable of performing as claimed. I disputed that and said it was a myth. You need to cite the evidence for your claim.
You have also failed to provide a citation for your claim that the single bullet theory has been refuted. Please do so.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence analyzed in this chapter, the Commission has concluded that the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.
The WC was forced to the above 'magic bullet' conclusion because one shot missed. --- Thus, if three shots had hit, [and according to Connally, they did], a fourth missed shot in the time frame would have raised questions of a second shooter. - A flat 'impossibility' to the WC or its blind supporters.
All of these points, pro & con have been 'cited' ad nauseum, here at FR & elsewhere. You provide no new insight, & I certainly don't. --
My point here, originally & now, -- is that the Warren report was severely flawed in many well documented areas, ie - the junk gun/magic bullet, -- and such criticism of the report has never been refuted.
You really shouldn't whine so much. Its unseemly.
For some personal reason you want to believe that JFK's assassination is a settled issue. - Fine with me, - dream on.
But your dreams, and shooters, that you have triumphed over the 'kooks' of this world and proved the lone gunman/magic bullet theory, are just as weird as some of those you call conspiricy 'nuts' .
You're funny. :-)
No, it says one shot missed. It doesn't say there was a single bullet theory BECAUSE one shot missed. None of which is relevent to the claims you were making anyway. Are you having trouble proving your statements?
All of these points, pro & con have been 'cited' ad nauseum, here at FR & elsewhere.
Not by you, obviously. You're making unfounded claims here.
You provide no new insight, & I certainly don't. -- My point here, originally & now, -- is that the Warren report was severely flawed in many well documented areas, ie - the junk gun/magic bullet, -- and such criticism of the report has never been refuted.
So you say. You are wrong. You don't know what the WC says, you don't know what the evidence is. You shouldn't make assertions about things you don't understand. If you do so, expect to be called on it.
What you quoted in #224 does not support your statements. It isn't a game. If you are going to make assertions about what the WC (or any other source) says you better be prepared to back them up. When you won't or can't it just shows everyone that you shouldn't be listened to. Now you want to pass it off as some "game" because you can't do it. You've been telling lies.
For some personal reason you want to believe that JFK's assassination is a settled issue.
Not some personal reason. The evidence says it is settled.
I often ask people who mindlessly poo-poo "conspiracy theories" this question: If the notion of a conspiracy is so absurd, why are there laws against it?
Chapter 4, page 195, "Accuracy of Weapon"
The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4 seconds. At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime. The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively. Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it. Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired. Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current. military rifles. Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.
No, it says one shot missed. It doesn't say there was a single bullet theory BECAUSE one shot missed.
YES, it says one shot missed, leaving two, one of which was the head shot, leaving ONE for the 'single bullet theory'. -- That is logic. And you can't 'see it'? - That's blind.
None of which is relevent to the claims you were making anyway. Are you having trouble proving your statements?
Not at all, as you see above.
All of these points, pro & con have been 'cited' ad nauseum, here at FR & elsewhere. You provide no new insight, & I certainly don't.
-- My point here, originally & now, -- is that the Warren report was severely flawed in many well documented areas, ie - the junk gun/magic bullet, -- and such criticism of the report has never been refuted.
So you say. You are wrong. You don't know what the WC says, you don't know what the evidence is. You shouldn't make assertions about things you don't understand. If you do so, expect to be called on it.
Flat 'you are wrong' statements like these add nothing. Why bother making them?
No, it says one shot missed. It doesn't say there was a single bullet theory BECAUSE one shot missed.
YES, it says one shot missed, leaving two, one of which was the head shot, leaving ONE for the 'single bullet theory'. -- That is logic. And you can't 'see it'? - That's blind.
You're "logic" is failing you again. It says, "Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed..."
Note that it starts with the statement that two bullets caused all the wounds then moves to one having missed because three were fired. You had it precisely backwards. You better work on that "logic".
None of which is relevent to the claims you were making anyway. Are you having trouble proving your statements?
Not at all, as you see above.
Yeah I saw. Try again.
So you say. You are wrong. You don't know what the WC says, you don't know what the evidence is. You shouldn't make assertions about things you don't understand. If you do so, expect to be called on it.
Flat 'you are wrong' statements like these add nothing. Why bother making them?
It was a response to your flat assertion. Why bother making them?
Not some personal reason. The evidence says it is settled.
You choose to believe in the questionable evidence presented by the WC, and consider the matter settled. As I said, feel free to dream on.
But the validity of such 'evidence' is far from being settled. - That is a fact.
I said "evidence". I didn't say "Warren Commission evidence". The House Select Committee on Assassinations did a remarkably thorough job of gathering and interpreting evidence as well. Do you know what they found? Oswald fired 3 shots from the TSBD, one of which missed and one of which was the head shot. The other caused all the other wounds.
You want to just wave away the evidence that says Oswald did it so you say the WC evidence is "questionable". Is it? Why? Because you say so? Because you don't like it? Sorry, you don't get to do that up front. You have to produce other evidence to support your theories. You don't even know what the WC says, yet you are sure it's "questionable". I think we can all see what kind "logic" that is.
And your defense of it is just going round in circles. Specious wordgames are the proof. Give it up.
It isn't "wordplay". It is logic. Remember that?
The point was in dispute. By you. You brought it up and claimed the WC said something it didn't say. It proves you don't know what you are talking about. Now your just trying to wiggle out of it by calling it "wordplay". That's desperate.
-- They used the 'theory' to try to fit the known facts. - And it doesn't work.
Uh, that's what you're supposed to do. It does work.
And your defense of it is just going round in circles. Specious wordgames are the proof. Give it up.
I haven't even offered a defense of the single bullet theory. I could, but I haven't. I've simply proven that you lied about what you said was in the report. You are starting to get really incoherent now.
The Findings:
The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:
1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.
2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.
3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.
4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.