5 ms·

So much of the conspiracy theorists' case rests on the "magic bullet" that you'd think its definitive refutation would have chastened them. Perhaps my favorite

by mhartl 13y ago

So much of the conspiracy theorists' case rests on the "magic bullet" that you'd think its definitive refutation would have chastened them. Perhaps my favorite source is this video, which uses the Zapruder film and computer animation techniques to recreate the scene: http://youtu.be/DSBXW1-VGmM http://youtu.be/DSBXW1-VGmM It's clear from the timing and the geometry that a single bullet, originating from the Texas School Book Depository, did indeed hit both Kennedy and Connally. Another cornerstone of the conspiracy case is that Kennedy's head moved "back and to the left" after being hit, when in fact the Zapruder film shows a sharp movement forward immediately after impact. This fact was uncovered by, of all people, Richard Feynman: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/wound.html http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/wound... (Warning: graphic imagery). The real world is messy, and conspiracy theorists will always be able to find things to stoke their suspicions, even though many of the key "facts" underpinning the conspiracy theories have been debunked in the years since the assassination. It's clear at this point that no amount of evidence will convince some people that Kennedy was killed not by an elaborate plot but rather by a lone nutjob. But Oswald had the means (rifle & training), motive (desire, as a 24-year-old loser, to prove his importance to the world), and opportunity (a job in a building that happened to lie on the motorcade route published in the paper on 11/20 and 11/21). As Robert Oswald, Lee Harvey's brother, put it, the Kennedy assassination was one of those "happenstances of history"—undeniably, a bitter pill to swallow.

jstalin 13y ago
The stabilized version of the Zapruder film is instructive: [WARNING GORE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTBInhsKW3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTBInhsKW3E Of course, that then leads to the conspiracy theorists claiming that the Zapruder film has been altered too. In fact, they believe that, incredibly, all available evidence was tampered with.
- singularity2001 13y ago
  I am willing to accept those videos but why is the bullet not deformed?
  - jstalin 13y ago
    It is. Here's the bullet head on. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
  - mhartl 13y ago
    The bullet was deformed: http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/Notpristine.jpg http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/Notp... Oswald used full metal jacket ammunition designed for piercing targets, and post-impact deformations for such bullets are often slight. (Incidentally, such ammo is not the best choice for an assassination, as hollow-point bullets that explode on impact are much deadlier. This is yet more evidence that Oswald wasn't a pro.)
    - singularity2001 13y ago
      ok, thanks. so the only conspiracy remaining is the secret pluto landing. which is so secret that even you haven't heard of it.
      - singularity2001 13y ago
        here is the video which finally convinced me: JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A Now back to George ... de Mohrenschildt ;)
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Let's say that a "non-deformed" bullet was actually suspicious and present. Why would the conspiracy plant a non-deformed bullet? Do they lack bullet deforming capabilities? Are they blithering idiots who, despite being idiots, have somehow managed to not get caught? Is the conspiracy of people who presumably just killed the president guilty of lazy or having poor planning? A "non-deformed" bullet is better explained by weirdness inherent in the real world than some sort of conspiracy. Here is how a competently run conspiracy would go down: 1) *Actually* shoot him from the book depository. 2) Enjoy success. There is no reason to throw in an intermediate "plant a weirdly non-deformed bullet" step.
jlgreco 13y ago
> The real world is messy, and conspiracy theorists will always be able to find things to stoke their suspicions One of the things I have noticed over the years is that conspiracy theorists will often latch onto one detail that they think is odd, that doesn't quite jive with what you would expect from the official account, and use it as the basis of saying that the official account is a lie. (Expect for a hyper-sentitivity to weirdness, that ignores the messy reality of reality..) So far, so good. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with finding a reason why the official story doesn't fit the observed facts. The problem occurs when they fail to ask themselves why that weirdness makes any more sense in their version of events. Since what I just said there might not ring true, I'll give an example: (The best example of this I have is "Why wouldn't they just actually shoot him from the book depository? It would be far simpler, shooters from different locations buys them little and seemingly serves to do nothing other than raise the suspicion of people like yourself.") For various silly reasons, some "9/11 Truthers" think that empty remote controlled planes, probably controlled by the CIA or some other shadowy organization, were used in the 9/11 attacks. What they can never explain to me is why the CIA, or other shadowy organization, would use empty remote controlled planes instead of actually just hijacking planes. Why all the stagecraft to imitate something that you could just actually do?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I don't really disbelieve the official account of 9/11 in any strong sense, but your reasoning here seems silly. Why not hijack a plane and crash it into a building? Maybe because you'd really rather not be in a plane that crashes into a building!
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    If we are assuming a shadowy organization of conspirators, the lead conspirators don't have to be in the plane themselves. The idea that the CIA, able to find people that are willing to remotely fly a plane into a building full of people, cannot find somebody willing to actually get onto that plane with some box cutters (or barring that, cannot coerce somebody into doing that) is silly. Hell, they could keep it simply and just find some radical muslims to do it... Remotely controlled planes are needlessly complex with too many opportunities for failure or discovery. Any weirdness surrounding the planes and their alleged passengers is far better explained by "reality is weird". Furthermore, that weirdness isn't resolved by "empty planes" since you are now supposing that the conspirators introduced those weirdnesses while inventing fake passengers. Why would they do that? Is that them tipping their hand to the conspiracy theorists?

by mhartl 13y ago

jstalin 13y ago

The stabilized version of the Zapruder film is instructive: [WARNING GORE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTBInhsKW3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTBInhsKW3E Of course, that then leads to the conspiracy theorists claiming that the Zapruder film has been altered too. In fact, they believe that, incredibly, all available evidence was tampered with.

singularity2001 13y ago
I am willing to accept those videos but why is the bullet not deformed?
- jstalin 13y ago
  It is. Here's the bullet head on. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
- mhartl 13y ago
  The bullet was deformed: http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/Notpristine.jpg http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/Notp... Oswald used full metal jacket ammunition designed for piercing targets, and post-impact deformations for such bullets are often slight. (Incidentally, such ammo is not the best choice for an assassination, as hollow-point bullets that explode on impact are much deadlier. This is yet more evidence that Oswald wasn't a pro.)
  - singularity2001 13y ago
    ok, thanks. so the only conspiracy remaining is the secret pluto landing. which is so secret that even you haven't heard of it.
    - singularity2001 13y ago
      here is the video which finally convinced me: JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A Now back to George ... de Mohrenschildt ;)
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Let's say that a "non-deformed" bullet was actually suspicious and present. Why would the conspiracy plant a non-deformed bullet? Do they lack bullet deforming capabilities? Are they blithering idiots who, despite being idiots, have somehow managed to not get caught? Is the conspiracy of people who presumably just killed the president guilty of lazy or having poor planning? A "non-deformed" bullet is better explained by weirdness inherent in the real world than some sort of conspiracy. Here is how a competently run conspiracy would go down: 1) *Actually* shoot him from the book depository. 2) Enjoy success. There is no reason to throw in an intermediate "plant a weirdly non-deformed bullet" step.

jlgreco 13y ago

> The real world is messy, and conspiracy theorists will always be able to find things to stoke their suspicions One of the things I have noticed over the years is that conspiracy theorists will often latch onto one detail that they think is odd, that doesn't quite jive with what you would expect from the official account, and use it as the basis of saying that the official account is a lie. (Expect for a hyper-sentitivity to weirdness, that ignores the messy reality of reality..) So far, so good. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with finding a reason why the official story doesn't fit the observed facts. The problem occurs when they fail to ask themselves why that weirdness makes any more sense in their version of events. Since what I just said there might not ring true, I'll give an example: (The best example of this I have is "Why wouldn't they just actually shoot him from the book depository? It would be far simpler, shooters from different locations buys them little and seemingly serves to do nothing other than raise the suspicion of people like yourself.") For various silly reasons, some "9/11 Truthers" think that empty remote controlled planes, probably controlled by the CIA or some other shadowy organization, were used in the 9/11 attacks. What they can never explain to me is why the CIA, or other shadowy organization, would use empty remote controlled planes instead of actually just hijacking planes. Why all the stagecraft to imitate something that you could just actually do?

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't really disbelieve the official account of 9/11 in any strong sense, but your reasoning here seems silly. Why not hijack a plane and crash it into a building? Maybe because you'd really rather not be in a plane that crashes into a building!
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If we are assuming a shadowy organization of conspirators, the lead conspirators don't have to be in the plane themselves. The idea that the CIA, able to find people that are willing to remotely fly a plane into a building full of people, cannot find somebody willing to actually get onto that plane with some box cutters (or barring that, cannot coerce somebody into doing that) is silly. Hell, they could keep it simply and just find some radical muslims to do it... Remotely controlled planes are needlessly complex with too many opportunities for failure or discovery. Any weirdness surrounding the planes and their alleged passengers is far better explained by "reality is weird". Furthermore, that weirdness isn't resolved by "empty planes" since you are now supposing that the conspirators introduced those weirdnesses while inventing fake passengers. Why would they do that? Is that them tipping their hand to the conspiracy theorists?