Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    Nobody is saying that Oswald was not pretty lucky to have gotten off the shots he did, given his skill level and the equipment. But the numerous recreations show it to be physically plausible.

    He didn't have to do it three-times-out-of-four or nine-times-out-of-ten. Just once. Like making a half court buzzer beater, just once.

    He was an angry loser who wanted to be famous for something, who hated the president over Cuban policy, and who lucked into the perfect opportunity. When he got the job at the TBSD a few weeks before the assassination, the motorcade route had not been published and it wasn't even clear that the rumors of a JFK visit to Dallas were going to come to fruition.

    He won the loser lottery. Kinda sucks from a drama perspective, but that's by far the simplest explanation.
    LHO was most likely on the CIA payroll and the motorcade may have been moved to take advantate of his being in the TSBD or at least his rifle was there. The recreations show no such thing. Please read carefully, those Carcanos were the same as LHO's weapon but nothing like it because they had been refurbished and the bolt was made to work easier and jam ess often. No one has ever used LHO's actual weapon and duplicated the shooting. In fact, when it was tried, the scope had to be realigned and shims had to be put under it to make it hit any target at all. The iron sights were no zeroed in for the distance that LHO was presumed to be shooting from and the weapon shot high and right of a target at that range. In fact, in FBI tests of that riflle, no one could even work the bolt as fast as LHO would have had to do it even if they just worked it without trying to hit anything. All of what you are saying is just more of the cover-up. Dan Rather has been the biggst liar of all. He told everyone he had seen the Z film and LHO pitched forward violently when hit. He actually lurched back and to his left...... That didn't happen from a shot behind him and to his right...... It was from the shot on the Grassy Knoll that the acoustic evidence proved was the fatal shot.....

    Comment


    • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      LHO was most likely on the CIA payroll and the motorcade may have been moved to take advantate of his being in the TSBD or at least his rifle was there. The recreations show no such thing. Please read carefully, those Carcanos were the same as LHO's weapon but nothing like it because they had been refurbished and the bolt was made to work easier and jam ess often. No one has ever used LHO's actual weapon and duplicated the shooting. In fact, when it was tried, the scope had to be realigned and shims had to be put under it to make it hit any target at all. The iron sights were no zeroed in for the distance that LHO was presumed to be shooting from and the weapon shot high and right of a target at that range. In fact, in FBI tests of that riflle, no one could even work the bolt as fast as LHO would have had to do it even if they just worked it without trying to hit anything. All of what you are saying is just more of the cover-up. Dan Rather has been the biggst liar of all. He told everyone he had seen the Z film and LHO pitched forward violently when hit. He actually lurched back and to his left...... That didn't happen from a shot behind him and to his right...... It was from the shot on the Grassy Knoll that the acoustic evidence proved was the fatal shot.....
      I was reading the other day that acoustic evidence also indicated a shot fired under an overpass from a man hole area for utilities. I have no idea where it is in ref. to where the shooting occured.

      Let me ask though about the gun LHO used. Is it possible that the scope and sight might have been off if he either dropped or threw it after it was shot? I have no idea btw, I'm just curious.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        Nobody is saying that Oswald was not pretty lucky to have gotten off the shots he did, given his skill level and the equipment. But the numerous recreations show it to be physically plausible.

        He didn't have to do it three-times-out-of-four or nine-times-out-of-ten. Just once. Like making a half court buzzer beater, just once.

        He was an angry loser who wanted to be famous for something, who hated the president over Cuban policy, and who lucked into the perfect opportunity. When he got the job at the TBSD a few weeks before the assassination, the motorcade route had not been published and it wasn't even clear that the rumors of a JFK visit to Dallas were going to come to fruition.

        He won the loser lottery. Kinda sucks from a drama perspective, but that's by far the simplest explanation.
        I'm inclined to agree with you but I do stay open-minded due to so many unanswered questions, coincidences, and the rush to declare LHO guilty and close the books while obviously leaving a lot of 'hanging chads'.

        So that said, playing devil's advocate, if LHO was an angry loser that wanted to be famous for something and hated the president, and got lucky in the loser lottery.... then why didn't he proudly own up to it? Why the famous claim (from his own mouth) that he was "a patsy"? Why not tell the world what he did and why he did it and explain the 'favor' he must've felt he did for either God, country, or the world?
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          I was reading the other day that acoustic evidence also indicated a shot fired under an overpass from a man hole area for utilities. I have no idea where it is in ref. to where the shooting occured.

          Let me ask though about the gun LHO used. Is it possible that the scope and sight might have been off if he either dropped or threw it after it was shot? I have no idea btw, I'm just curious.
          The accoustic evidence showed three shots from the TSBD and one, the last one, from the Grassy Knoll.

          The iron sights were correctely zeroed in for a target at 250 yards. That is the way it was set up when it was built. That is also why using them made a shot go high and to the right. That is probably why LHO missed a shot at a general who was sitting at about 50 feet. Most experts think the scope was never attached correctly and was always that far off. But, who knows what was possible. There was no chain of evidence so everything was handled and mishandled. The picture showing the spent shells standing up right was a joke, the first member of the DPD who came in there picked them up and moved them around. ...

          The House Select Committee on Assassination has already determined that there was more than one shooter and there was conspiracy to kill JFK.....

          Comment


          • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

            The House Select Committee on Assassination has already determined that there was more than one shooter and there was conspiracy to kill JFK.....
            They concluded there was a conspiracy... But I don't recall them declaring there was more than one shooter. Is there a link to a summary of their findings?
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Why the famous claim (from his own mouth) that he was "a patsy"?
              The "patsy" remark needs to be taken in context. LHO said it as he was complaining about being put into a police lineup for identification by one of the witnesses to the murder of Officer Tippit. He was claiming it was unfair that he was not being allowed to change his clothes and was in a lineup with neatly dressed men, while he was disshelved, with a bruise on his head from the arrest. So he was complaining about the police making him a patsy, making him stand out from the other guys in the lineup, so that the witness would identify him as Tippit's murderer. He made similar complaints when he was used in other lineups for other witnesses to Tippit's murder. The "patsy" remark was thus not even part of the interrogation related to the JFK assassination, but specifically to Officer Tippit's murder. see 7:50 PM:

              http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Bru...%20Oswald.html

              There are many clear lies in LHO's statements, such as having never owned a rifle, never mail-ordered a gun (those records were found), claiming that he was arrested for having lived in Russia (Dallas police didn't even know his name until AFTER he was arrested for Tippit's murder), and other things. He was trying to save his hide from the electric chair.

              The murder of Officer Tippit is one of the major parts of the story that is hard to work into a logical conspiracy theory, since it happened on a busy street and was witnessed by at least a dozen people. It is crystal clear that Oswald did it, and Tippit was not "in on it" as he had no shady past like Ruby and many others in the story.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-09-2013, 09:54 AM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                They concluded there was a conspiracy... But I don't recall them declaring there was more than one shooter. Is there a link to a summary of their findings?
                The second shooter is why they concluded it was a conspriacy. The acoustic evidence showed a fourth shot (the kill shot) came from the Grassy Knoll. ...

                Comment


                • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                  I thought some of you might find this exchange from the JFK news group interesting: ...
                  > Walt, now you're talking. I don't know which is more incredible: getting 2
                  > out of 3 rigth on a Russian test without undergoing instrution, or getting
                  > 2 out of 3 shots under the conditions under which they were SUPPOSEDLY
                  > made.
                  >


                  > By the way OIC senior member Craig Roberts was a military sniper and
                  > Police SWAT officer, and he said that he couldn't have accomplished the
                  > shooting attributed to Oswald. Really, this whole thing is getting
                  > ridiculous.
                  >
                  >


                  It goes further. Roberts mentioned that he spoke with Carlos Hathcock
                  of sniper fame, and they both had tried to duplicate the feat and failed.
                  Roberts also said after looking around he would have chosen the Grassy
                  Knoll as his 'hide'.

                  On top of those facts, the condition of the MC rifle was terrible. The
                  FBI testers got the rifle soon after the murder and they found they
                  couldn't use the scope and had to put the rifle into their gunsmith for
                  shimming so that the scope could be used properly. As well, the bolt
                  action of the rifle was extremely stiff and had to be worked for minutes
                  before shooting, and it was so stiff that it would throw off the aim. It
                  became better after they had worked with it for a while, but the condition
                  that Oswald of another shooter in the TSBD would not have made the shots
                  in the same length of time as suggested by the authorities that say.

                  I would suggest that Oswald was the buyer of the MC rifle, but never
                  bothered to use it. He was notorious for having a dirty rifle in the
                  marines and being a bad shot, based on statements by Nelson Delgado,
                  Oswald's buddy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...


                    Dr. Luis Alvarez's explanation of why Kennedy's head moved towards origin of the shot instead of away from it.

                    Alvarez proved it was counterintuitive physics. Roughly: the movement imparted by the goop pouring out the exit wound created a sort of jet stream that was stronger than that of the tiny hole made by the entrance wound. So the head moved back towards the shooter. Alvarez tested his theory by taking a melon, to represent brain, and wrapping it in fiberglass tape, to represent skull. He shot his melon and, as he predicted, it rocketed right back towards the source of the gunfire.

                    We wanted to reproduce this experiment ourselves, full action, highspeed camera. So I went with the crew to a gun shop with a firing range. The place was packed with people. More employees than Wal-Mart at xmas and several customers for every salesperson. And this was a Monday afternoon. On weekends there's a line out the door.

                    I met my instructor, Tony, a silver-haired, tan, 20 year veteran of the police force (where he taught firearms skills). Since retiring from the police, Tony has been teaching marksmanship and gun safety to hobbyists for fifteen years.

                    He's disgusted and incredulous at the sheer ignorance of anybody who doubts Oswald could have killed Kennedy.

                    "It was easy shot. Stevie Wonder could have made it," he said and reeled off the exact distances of Oswald's three shots. "I took my gun club out on the desert. We used the exact same make and model of rifle. We set up all the same distances and elevations. Nineteen of the guys hit all three shots, and the other four guys couldn't hit a bull in the *** with a coal shovel. And don't forget, Oswald only hit two out of three."

                    While the crew set up, Tony took me into another range for some practice. The Mannlicher Carcano rifle was a duplicate of Oswald's, except that it didn't have a telescopic sight; I was holding in my hands, not on a stand, which makes aiming harder. I shot the target smack through the heart three times. "Okay, that's enough practice," said Tony.

                    I went into the gun safety classroom to don wardrobe and makeup. The classroom walls were covered with diagrams showing how bullets fire and how to ensure safe handling, and with credentials, certificates of appreciation, and awards from police organizations.

                    Dressed, I was ready to shoot, in both senses. The crew and I set up two melons on stands. The one representing JFK was wrapped in fiberglass tape; the one representing Jackie was wearing a pink pillbox hat. We photographed me loading the gun, then took an "art" shot of me shooting from the point of view of the melon (using blanks, of course). Finally it was time really to shoot the melon.

                    "This gun shoots a little high, so aim the sights about an inch below where you want it," said Tony. I aimed and squeezed the trigger. A perfect hit. As Alvarez said it would, the melon goop "brain" blew out the front and shot the melon backwards. As an added bonus, the goop knocked off Jackie Melon Kennedy's pillbox hat. I shot again, hit a little off center, but even then, the melon came towards me and the pillbox blew off. I shot one final time. Dead center, melon back at me, the most perfect shot of all. Our director/producer Star Price asked if I wanted to shoot some more. I asked him if he had the shot he needed. He did. So I thanked everybody and left.

                    It's hard to digest the idea that a pallid loser, Lee Harvey Oswald could annihilate radiant John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the most powerful and glamorous man on the earth. But after talking to Tony and blasting the brains out of a tape-wrapped melon, I'm triply convinced that the Kennedy assassination can be best described like this:

                    Oswald and Kennedy were men of flesh and blood. One of them pointed a gun at the other and shot.



                    Teller
                    http://www.pennandteller.com/03/cool...acytheory.html
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                      Alvarz has been completely discredited... ...

                      I have talked to several experience snipers. One of them had over 100 kills in Afganistan. Not one of them had ever shot a man in the head and then had them move violently in the direction of the shop. Some went straight down and others went violently away from the shooter. Many years ago there is a film of a man being executed point blank with a pistol to the side of his head. He did not leap back at the shooter, he went the other way. Perhaps in movies where you see firing squads reinacted those posts the victims are tied to are there to keep them from leaping onto the firing squad when hit??
                      Last edited by OlBlu; 02-17-2013, 02:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                        All information below is from Warren Commission testimony of Robert Frazier and
                        Ronald Simmons, both from the FBI. ...
                        First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
                        part:
                        "Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
                        smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
                        say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is--was not, when we
                        first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
                        condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
                        corrosion."
                        Frazier goes on:
                        "Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
                        shape?
                        Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
                        were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
                        corrosion or wear.
                        Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
                        Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
                        Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
                        fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
                        you found it?
                        Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
                        an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
                        allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
                        to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
                        barrel."

                        So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
                        grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
                        saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
                        move on to Simmons testifying:

                        Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
                        machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
                        weapon?
                        Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
                        telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
                        sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
                        shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
                        an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
                        addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
                        all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."

                        Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
                        fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
                        couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
                        a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
                        JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron
                        sights, but I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
                        shooting at the president, we have to face it...the rifle couldn't be
                        aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from Simmons:

                        "Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
                        mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
                        Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
                        machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."

                        Oops! Simmons lets the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
                        gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
                        it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
                        hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
                        this later.
                        ---
                        "Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
                        skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
                        range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
                        Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
                        one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
                        considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
                        effort required to work the bolt.
                        Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
                        Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
                        was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
                        with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
                        Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
                        this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
                        intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
                        work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
                        aiming difficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
                        there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
                        smoothly, but he must have been talking about after the testers worked
                        the bolt so much. What condition was this thing in when the testers
                        got it? Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
                        ---
                        Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
                        139, before they began firing?
                        Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
                        ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
                        had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
                        were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."

                        While not firing it while unloaded, they were still having trouble
                        just working the bolt. Simmons let it out that working the bolt was
                        hard enough to mess up their aim, meaning the target would have to be
                        reacquired. A shooter that had the rifle before the testers would
                        surely have trouble working the bolt, and losing sight of the target
                        (if the scope had been working). Let's go on:
                        Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
                        used in this dry-run practice, each?
                        Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
                        Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
                        Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
                        respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
                        of fact, Mr. Staley had difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
                        firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
                        he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
                        first round.
                        There was also a comment made about the trigger pull which is
                        different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-
                        stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
                        relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
                        fire the weapon."
                        This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
                        for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
                        firing pin, so they didn't work the trigger. It must have gone to the
                        gunsmith first, as noted above. Either way, the testers each had 2-3
                        minutes to work the bolt, so that would help to free it up after the
                        gunsmith.
                        All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that Frazier mentioned seems
                        to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
                        letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in good
                        condition so they tried to work the bolt to free it up. If it wasn't
                        free when they got it, presumably right after the shooter in the TSBD,
                        then that shooter didn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it.
                        The gunsmith had to fix the scope so they could aim it, and after that
                        they worked it 2-3 minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with
                        it. Something that Oswald never did as far as we know. His
                        experience was with semi-automatic rifles, not bolt action.
                        Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
                        fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI testers. The list
                        of problems were: a) the scope was found on the rifle yet the scope
                        needed work by a gunsmith before the testers could fire it
                        successfully b) the bolt was so stiff (probably from lack of use for
                        years) that they had to work it for minutes each for the testers to
                        test fire it c) the trigger was 2-stage, which they found an extra
                        difficulty in working with the weapon.


                        This militates against the MC rifle ever being used before the FBI
                        got it. It's as if the second hand WW2 rifle was still in the
                        cosmoline from the war, having been put to rest by the Italian army
                        and left for years until a buyer came along, probably Oswald.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X