Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News ABC News reconstructs Kennedy assassination, confirms Warren Commission conclusion

  1. Oct 29, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/27/entertainment1555EST0649.DTL [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 29, 2003 #2
    Tell that to the conspiracy theorists!
     
  4. Oct 29, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FUTURE NEWS ALERT FROM THE FRINGE:

    The secret society that assassinated Kennedy has taken over management of ABC.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2003
  5. Oct 30, 2003 #4
    In order to accept the Warren commission report, one must accept the single bullet theory. Once you can make yourself believe that a bullet can pass through a human body, zig to the right, zag to the left, enter a second human body, and then fall from the wound onto a gurney where it can be found later in nearly perfect condition, swallowing the rest of the nonsense should be pretty easy.
     
  6. Oct 30, 2003 #5

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm not a conspiracy monger, but the Kennedy assassination is one instance that I believe is fishy. I don't buy into any specific conspiracy, but I just don't accept the official explanation.

    I'll read the article though.

    Njorl
     
  7. Oct 31, 2003 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On either PBS, or the discovery channel or the like, I saw a show that considered the work of two scientists [maybe engineers] who tested the single assassin theory using "acoustical fingerprinting". This "new" technique seeks to identify the exact location of a source sound by analyzing and comparing the unique characteristics of reflected sounds. That is to say, if I shoot a gun from two different locations in an area that includes some complex topological features - like buildings and freeway overpasses - the reflected sounds produced by any source location are unique. These can be identified [it was claimed] on a recording of the sound.

    It turns out that a motorcycle cop in the presidential escort had a sticky microphone button that was stuck on when the shots were fired. As a result, the Dallas police obtained a good recording of the gun shots. After being studied on site and compared to the tape, it was claimed that the first shot recorded by the police matches the fingerprint of the shot fired from library during the test. The second and third shots did not. It was also claimed that this information was later presented to Congress but it was not allowed as evidence.
     
  8. Oct 31, 2003 #7
    How can they figure that out without taking into account the fact that the motorcycle may not have been moving at a uniform speed in a direction that probably changed a little as it moved? I'm too young to understand what might have happened and am looking forward to debating this similar topic in years to come regarding 9/11. They already have a miilion bizarre theories on that!
    PS: I think I caught the end of that show, and I think it was Discovery Channel.
     
  9. Oct 31, 2003 #8
    How many shots in how many seconds? Accurately, at a moving target, and shooting at a downward angle? With a bolt-action rifle? Yeah, sounds fishy to me...
     
  10. Oct 31, 2003 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since these guys were supposed to be experts on the subject of sound, I doubt they would overlook such an obvious detail. :smile:
     
  11. Oct 31, 2003 #10
    That's my point, they would have had to, and known to, take that into account, but how could they?
     
  12. Oct 31, 2003 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Presumably by analyzing films and photos.

    I am more suspicious as to how the data from the original recording is analyzed. How repeatable is this process; and how closely do the fingerprints really match? Generally, how much interpretation is required in this process? I suspect this would be the weak link.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2003
  13. Nov 1, 2003 #12
    ok then why did a rear part of JFK's skull
    fly backwards on to the trunk of the car
    [jacky can be seen going to get it in the "Z" film] ???
    that is a exit wound reaction, not an entrance wound on the back of his head as are JFK's head movements as seen at the shots impact [his head moves backward at the bullits impact

    btw magic bullits is intact and at full as made weight BUT other bits of bullit lead were found in the govenor leading to an excess mass problem

    so there are two physics problems for this board in this case
    how does the mans head and skull bits vilolate the laws of motion
    and how does a bullit loose bits but retain weight and condision or gain more mass than it started with???
     
  14. Nov 1, 2003 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As far as momentum, it was shown by Dr. Louis Alvarez at Berkeley that it is possible for one's head to recoil back when shot from the rear. This is a little morbid...the momentum of the mass ejected out the front of his head exceeds that tranferred from the bullet to his skull. So, in order to conserve momentum, his head must fly back. I guess this depends on how cleanly the bullet passes through. The effect was clearly demonstrated using a watermelon or something similar.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2003
  15. Nov 4, 2003 #14
    OK if the bullet was nearly intact, then it's an obvious plant. A bullet impacting bone(as it obviously did) would have been flattened.
    So there goes that theory.
     
  16. Nov 5, 2003 #15
    Watermelon theory?

    Ok, let's imagine for a moment that you shoot a moving watermelon from behind, above, and to the right and you manage to get said watermelon to recoil back toward the shooter. Wouldn't one expect the watermelon to fall back and to the right?

    Remember, the Kennedymelon was flung back and to the left.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2003
  17. Nov 5, 2003 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This depends on how the [ugh] mass exited his head. If the exit was forward and to the right, which I think it was, his head should go back and to the left.

    Beyond this, I find the explanations hard to accept also. There seem to be quite a few loose ends.

    Interesting note: Bush Sr. was the assistant director of the CIA at the time.
     
  18. Nov 5, 2003 #17
    From the standpoint of someone who has done quite a bit of shooting, it seems unlikely that anyone could score two hits in such a short time frame, at a moving target, with a bolt-action rifle. The first shot is expected to have been a miss...I propose that it is the only shot that had a reasonable chance of being a hit.Oswald had all the time in the world to judge the first shot, and he is supposed to have fired the next two in 7-9 seconds. Being generous, we'll give him 5 seconds per each subsequent shot. We are to suppose that he threw the bolt, got the target back in his sights, and then led the moving target exactly, and then got off a third shot that also hit the moving target, all in ten seconds? This is world-class shooting, from someone who apparently barely qualified in marksmanship in the Marines?
     
  19. Nov 5, 2003 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I saw a demo where one of the best marksman around from either the FBI or some police unit could not duplicate what Oswald allegedly did.
     
  20. Nov 5, 2003 #19
    Has anyone here ever viewed the Abraham Zapruder film one frame at a time in detail?
    Kennedy's head appears to have been hit in the right temple area and a mist of bloody spray blows out towards the rear of the vehicle, yet the bullet/s were comming from behind?
    Go figure.
     
  21. Nov 7, 2003 #20
    Uh huh, no surprise there. Let's put it another way; some Marines have a hard time putting 10 shots through a stationary target, at 200 yards, in 60 seconds. The M-16A2 is semi-automatic, and has very minimal recoil. Granted, it doesn't have a scope either, but on the other hand, a moving target is harder to get back in the scope than it is with open sights. Plus, unless you are a master marksman, throwing the bolt on a rifle like Oswald's is likely to throw your sight picture off for an extra moment.

    Think about everything Oswald had to do. He fires the first shot, blinks involuntarily, throws the bolt without changing the distance or angle between his eye and the scope, chambers another round, gets the president back in his sights, instantly recalculates how far he has to fire ahead of a moving target the size of a dinner plate, fires the second shot, and repeats the process, all in 7-9 seconds. The physical process of firing three rounds from a bolt-action rifle takes approximately 4-5 seconds, which leaves 3-4 seconds to aim the second two shots. 3-4 seconds to hit a moving target, and at a shifting downhill angle(which complicates things ALOT)...I just can't see it, I really can't.
     
  22. Nov 7, 2003 #21

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Marine snipers, through the end of the Vietnam War at least, were trained specifically to rapidly and accurately fire bolt-action rifles while switching targets. A routine tactic was to take out a N. Vietnamese commander and radio operator in only the amount of time necessary to physically perform the act.

    While Oswald was not a master marksman, he was a marksman. There were many erroneous reports that he was not a good shot. Also, he missed completely with one shot.

    While elevation is one of the harder things to compensate for in an unplanned shoot, it becomes much easier when you know ahead of time what the shot will be. Compensating for one known elevation at one known range is actually easy, for those trained to do it.

    I still think there was some monkey business, but I no longer believe Oswald's feat was impossible.

    Njorl
     
  23. Nov 7, 2003 #22
    Ummm...Njorl, EVERY Marine is a "marksman", that is teh designation for the worst shooters in the Marines. "Marksman" means about the same thing as a 'D' on a test...you didn't fail, but you had better get ALOT better if you ever want to advance. (I know, I was a Marine marksmanship coach for awhile)

    The issue of elevation isn't ever really easy to compensate for, and the problem is compounded by the target moving laterally, which means that each shot is a completely different shot. If you get a chance, grab a rifle, and try it for yourself. Just try keeping the scope and your eye lined up properly while ejecting a casing and chambering a new round. Then try doing it while tracking ahead of a target moving 10-12 miles an hour, that is moving both horizontally and vertically from your position, which means that you have to keep both eyes open, one looking through a scope, a cheap scope to boot.
    I could probably make the shot with a semi-automatic sniper rifle, but never with a cheap mail-order bolt-action rifle. And I'm a better shot than Oswald.
     
  24. Nov 7, 2003 #23

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I just saw that on another site. I got to wondering what a 'marksman' was. I saw it was the worst you could be and still be a marine. At first, I thought that meant he was awful, but was he? Zero, you would probably know, is a marksman a bad shot, or just an unimpressive shot? Is highly accurate shooting a talent that would show up even in someone who was not dedicated, or is it a skill that only is attained with a lot of practice? In short, could Oswald have dramatically improved his skill, or did he obviously not have what it takes to shoot well?

    Either way, it is starting to look to me increasingly unlikely that Oswald could pull it off. Oh well.

    Njorl
     
  25. Nov 7, 2003 #24
    IF Owsald got that much better, it speaks to secret, professional markmanship training...which feeds into a different sort of conspiracy theory, doesn't it? I mean, someone who isn't naturally gifted at shooting would have to dedicate their life to becoming good enough to make those shots, which means thousands of rounds fired over many years, which someone would have dug up about him by now, don't you think?
     
  26. Nov 7, 2003 #25

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oswald does have some missing time in his biography, but I don't think it is enough to master a skill for which he has no aptitude.

    Njorl
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...
Similar Threads for News reconstructs Kennedy
Silly news in your daily paper
News Moaning about Google science news section