• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Questions for Jesse Ventura!

Free episodes:

@ Kieran

I am not an expert either. I posted expert results above. You called them nonsense.
Note here that Kieran's apparent complaint about the test I cite above is that it was not video taped.
One thing for certain is that if I found a test eliminating those complaints, he would find different ones (It wasn't a full moon!).
One thing I do know (from my vast experience watching true crime shows) is that the path of a bullet is a wildly varied and unpredictable thing.
Conspiracy buffs are shocked when things don't work exactly like they do in their perfect fantasies.

This link (see page 405) shows (from yet ANOTHER test!) the small entry/huge exit requested by Kieran.
Will this change his mind? Let's see...
Lance

Lance. There is lot of written text, in that PDF, so don't except miracles, but here is my personal take on what I have read, so far.

Basically what is happening is. Mr Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics field expert with 14 years of experience, is giving his testimony to the Warren Commission, on what he thinks may have happened, that day.

Notice Lance. page 384. I will just put an S beside sentences meaning he said this!

S. We performed tests on request from the Warren Commission ( not an independent witness ) Mr Matthews the counsel, i will put M after his name

M. What tests did you perform?

S. He then goes on to describe all the tests he performed. He includes the testing of dried human skulls, i agree Lance, skulls have been used in testing, but without video's, who can tell how good the testing was, pictures are difficult to see very dark.

But observe Exhibit F-306, small bullet wound shown Picture A, but remember this a dead skull no blood and tissue, but Picture B is showing, a frontal exit wound, not a right exit wound, and I will explain shortly why that is important Lance!

M Would you say that the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter bullet, is a stable bullet

S It's a very stable bullet, and he explains why that is the case, all important Lance.

The bullet that hit Kennedy, at the back of the head, allegedly, moved and changed its direction, and exited out the right side of Kennedy's head, meaning the bullet became very unstable. But according to this expert it was a stable bullet. I think they went looking for what could have caused the bullet to become unstable, rather than looking at the obvious alternative, that is there was a second shooter firing, from the right side hence the Grassy Knoll. My opinion from I have read.

Exhibit F310 clearly outlines my point Lance. Picture A= Stable bullet no effect no damage. Picture B= unStable bullet with visible and much corner damage.

So why would a stable bullet, normally, have become so unstable hitting soft tissue at the back of Kennedy's head?

The Exhibits shown are Gelatin Blocks with tissue stimulant, if you look at Exhibit F-116, you'll see the effects of bullets, fired from different guns, has on the blocks. Remember the dimensions of these blocks, to the human skull, are going to be monumentally different, but this is what has been put up as evidence. Exhibit F-116..Picture C is showing most damage to the Gelatin block, having been caused, by a bullet fired from Cal.257 Winchester Roberts rifle. Skipping Picture B To Picture A. Picture A, is showing us the outcome of a bullet fired at the block, by the same weapon used by Oswald. Notice the lack of visible damage in that Photograph!

Lance, so far the theory, is shaky, the bullet had to become unstable inside soft human tissue for the theory to work. But the expert in question still claimed at​ the start of his testimony, this bullet was one of most stable, ever studied.

S. Mentioned there was the testing of M16 caliber 22 M193 bullet, it was fired at one of the blocks.

S.(paraphrase) it goes straight for a while the bullet, the bullet fragments, and pieces break off, we couldn't see what happened after that, it continues to exit however, from the corner. Problem M16 is a Machine Gun-High velocity, one can't compare this weapon, to the weapon Oswald used!

Plus Sturdivan claims one of the test firings was performed from the left side, a bullet hit the gelatin block, and exited. But Penn and Teller too got mixed up with their demonstration, as Kennedy was shot from a front position, the bullet, then did something inside the skull of Kennedy, when it hit, and the bullet fragments turned right, instead of going forward. Teller just shoot at the melon, and the bullet did what it should do, penetrate, and leave out the opposite side, not go right or leave at a left angle.

Anyway there is lot more I could dispute, but there is ain't enough hours in the day to do that, that is my lot for the day, tomo might post some more about JFK?

 
Kieran,

I am sorry, I still do not understand what you are asking me.

It looks like you are drawing your own conclusions about what a bullet ought to do (based on your own experience?). If this is the case, I really hope that you understand why this doesn't interest me in the least.

As a layperson, I wouldn't bother you with my thoughts about these matters because my thoughts are trumped by expert testimony.

Your insistence that the bullet must travel in a precise straight line (at least I think you are saying that) is countered by evidence to the contrary. And anyway, why are you gnoring the fact that Kennedy's head was turned just before the last shot so that it hit on an oblique.

I am happy to discuss this but please put your questions or contentions in clear concise sentences or I am gonna fall behind.

Lance

I have lost all interest, not going to waste my time, debating you anymore pointless and fruitless, and clueless to the evidence. Lance your just being you.
 
I have lost all interest, not going to waste my time, debating you anymore pointless and fruitless, and clueless to the evidence. Lance your just being you.

So I guess this means Lance wins?
This seems to happen a lot. Lance proves a point, the rebuttal is usually someone saying Lance is mean for proving his point, and then that's it.
 
So I guess this means Lance wins?
This seems to happen a lot. Lance proves a point, the rebuttal is usually someone saying Lance is mean for proving his point, and then that's it.

Is Lance a child, that I must ask him a question every time I post, can he not see that the evidence, I have posted would be contradicting his opinions and he reply to it. Too much work is it?

To me Angel. Lance, doesn't want to answer, because he can't answer, he just refers me to fact, his belief is firm nothing will sway him from the expert opinion, yet the evidence, is overwhelming against his expert opinion.

Lance in many ways can't think for himself or see the obvious, everything he beliefs in, is what other people tell him to belief in. Hence what he posts often is other peoples opinions. Nice and comfortable world to live in i guess.

Lance can have this debate, and Angel you can keep on cheering your idol, anyway to keep it real everything is cool still, but i have better things to do then debate, this issue with Skeptic's cough lol, this is my last post to this thread, cheers anyway.
 
i find it interesting that this topic makes everyone a conspiracy theorist/nut/buff.
 
i find it interesting that this topic makes everyone a conspiracy theorist/nut/buff.

I can't disagree with that. Even if Oswald made all the shots and was the only person with a gun that day shooting at the motorcade, it's very possible he had people helping him plan it out. No one knows for sure I guess.
 
Long question short....

Why don't you do anything about releasing government documents with your political ties and influences?
 
Long question short....

Why don't you do anything about releasing government documents with your political ties and influences?

Welcome to the forums HotSoup. You might want to read threads before you respond to them. just sayin...
 
Hotsoup, we all owe you an apology. The Ventura show already aired and almost all of this thread is off topic!

Sorry,

Lance

"we all owe you an apology..."
please do not assume you can speak/apologize for all of us Lance. an apology to all of us for doing so would be nice. ;)
 
The issue is the accuracy. Could a shooter with modest skills make those shots? That's more important than whether it took a second or two longer.

I agree with Gov. Ventura one the first shot being the most accurate. That is the shot they say missed by 5 feet. Then two hits rapidly thereafter. It just seems odd. I am however, less convinced that it is impossible. I do think it was impossible to hit using the scope as it was configured when the FBI first received it. That was the configuration Hathcock used but not the configuration used by the group of 10 shooters trying to mimic the feasability of the shot. It is easy to see why this has such a long and sordid history.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

"we all owe you an apology..."
please do not assume you can speak/apologize for all of us Lance. an apology to all of us for doing so would be nice. ;)

I dont think that is needed. I was a very polite post.
 
Questions regarding Oswald's ability to make these shots as advertised hinge on his proficiency on the day of the shooting, and the condition of the rifle at the time of the shooting. My historical and ballistics knowledge is lacking. But I believe precision shooting is a skill that must be kept current with practice. Did Oswald practice regularly with this rifle? Someone will correct me, but I think keeping a scoped rifle adjusted for accuracy is also important. How often would this need to be done, and did Oswald do this?
 
Ah, now we have entered into the realm of hoax evidence. The clip Kieran posts takes a blurry image of blobs of light and "enhances" it to show the figure of a man. There is no technology that can do what is shown in the film. It is a hoax.

Lance
Well Lance. I don't post hoax videos, not intentionally anyways, and I don't know, if that image is legit or not, beyond my expertise!

But what I do know is, this documentary is a legitimate documentary, that was aired in 1988 by Channel 4.

Channel 4 is a mainstream channel that still broadcasts today in the UK..

The research of this documentary, was also purchased by Oliver Stone for the making of JFK--- This documentary, was never viewed, as far as I am aware, as being a hoax, Lance. So stop with your moaning, and complaining to me.

Everyone who is interested in JFK assassination, should take the time, to watch the whole of the documentary, it be worth your while.

Here is the documentary for those of you that are interested.

http://youtu.be/63FjqTDeajY
 
Questions regarding Oswald's ability to make these shots as advertised hinge on his proficiency on the day of the shooting, and the condition of the rifle at the time of the shooting. My historical and ballistics knowledge is lacking. But I believe precision shooting is a skill that must be kept current with practice. Did Oswald practice regularly with this rifle? Someone will correct me, but I think keeping a scoped rifle adjusted for accuracy is also important. How often would this need to be done, and did Oswald do this?

The real answer is that nobody knows. There is even controversy on whaich rifle it should have been. Oswald ordered a model 91/24 but the rifle found was a model 91/38. This is significant because the 91/24 had a serious design flaw. So, in an effort to save monay the rifle was recalled and the barrell shortened. Unfortunately, that did not have the desired effect and made the rifle incredibly inaccurate. But, it was cheap! However, the model 91/38 was a very accurate weapon. So the controversy is did the Klien company try and deliver the more accurate and better 91/38 to those who had originally ordered the 91/24? Nobody knows. Was it delivered to him by mistake? Was the weapon switched? Also, it is important to note that visually, these are vey close but still very distinct. There are more damned angels to this than I had ever thought possible.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top