Looking for JFK CT

PopeTom · 29th June 2008, 04:06 PM

Let me get this out of the way first, I don't buy what I have been told. Especially since the friend who told me this CT was unable to remember the name of the author or the book he had written.

But it goes like this:

Lee Harvey Oswald did fatally wound JFK, but only with the shot that went through the President's torso. The more gruesome headshot was actually caused by the accidental misfiring of an m-16 by one of the motorcade escorts. The cover up is that the government doesn't want anyone to know that JFK was shot by someone who was supposed to be protecting him.

The clear sign that there was a government cover-up was that the gentleman whom this author accused of accidentally shooting President Kennedy took said author to court. During the suit the judge would not accept any evidence other than the Warren Commission Repot on the assassination. The author was not allowed to present his ‘evidence’, hence he lost the case.

Has anyone heard of this and can point me in a direction that demonstrates that it is, more than likely, incorrect?

Thanks.

I Ratant · 29th June 2008, 04:45 PM

The book i s"Mortal Error" by Monar Benninger with Howard Donahue.
The family of the SSA named as the shooter sued Donahue and won a slander/libel suit.
I've talked to Howard and didn't discuss this, but other events in the assassination.
To my way of thinking, had an agent let off a round into the president, the other agents in the limosine with him would have taken him down, not accepting an "Oops, sorry Jack." as an excuse.
As that didn't occur, the basic idea fails at Square one.
As the factual nature of the information in the WCR, there has never been a successful repudiation of any of it.

Lensman · 30th June 2008, 01:16 PM

Were any of the agents in the motorcade carrying M16s? I don't remember seeing any.

I Ratant · 30th June 2008, 02:00 PM

AR-15.
Donahue didn't like the "lead snowstorm" in JFK's skull x-rays, and decided a Carcano bullet wouldn't have left that debris.
After some prodding, he accepted the idea that the bullet -could- have fragmented inside the head.
Rather than accepting that, he came up with the accidental discharge of a .223 round from the AR-15, and had to modify a portion of the evidence to make his theory fit.
Typical.
As every aspect of all the wounds have been independently duplicated by serious reputable researchers, this idea is as flighty as the "Grassy Knoll" shooter.

PopeTom · 1st July 2008, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lensman

Were any of the agents in the motorcade carrying M16s? I don't remember seeing any.

The story as told by my friend was M-16.

Looking at what little I could find once I knew the name of the work it turns out the claim was for a AR-15.

Also the claim that the court proceeding were somehow shady doesn't seem to hold up either. It seems that the original slander/libel suit was dismissed due to the statute of limitations passing. Then at some point (during or after appeal of the dismissal) the publisher settled out of court.

I Ratant · 1st July 2008, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by PopeTom

The story as told by my friend was M-16.
...

.
And this is why CT twoofery proliferates.
A millionth-told story, with no effort to go to the sources.

PopeTom · 1st July 2008, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
And this is why CT twoofery proliferates.
A millionth-told story, with no effort to go to the sources.

*nod*

I have friends for whom I have to leave the room because of their leanings towards CT or other wooish belief.

Once upon a time I'd argue the points, but I've switched over to picking my battles since other than some crazy ideas on how the world 'really works' they are fun people.

But thank you for the info, I found it helpful.

I Ratant · 1st July 2008, 07:28 PM

I fell into the sewer of JFK CT many years ago.
Picked up a book by Livingstone? which went into the whys and wherefores of the "conspiracy".
Looking at the evidence he was analyzing, it was obvious he hadn't a clue as to what he was screaming about, and was deluded to boot!
Looking at a few more of these novels by the established leaders in the field, it became all too obvious the ones that weren't seriously crazy were bald-faced liars.
Getting the WCR, and reading that through, and comparing what the novelists said about what was in there, the lying part became all too clear.
I gave it up as a pointless task after about a year.
There's never been anything to any of the conspiracy ideas.
Just a buncha kooks scaring each even more witless.

Vic Vega · 2nd July 2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by PopeTom

The story as told by my friend was M-16.

Looking at what little I could find once I knew the name of the work it turns out the claim was for a AR-15.

They are essentially the same thing. M16 is the military designation for the Colt AR-15, which is the civilian model.

Aerich · 2nd July 2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Vic Vega

They are essentially the same thing. M16 is the military designation for the Colt AR-15, which is the civilian model.

There is one significant difference: the AR-15 is a semiautomatic weapon (one pull of the trigger fires one round), while the M16 offers fully automatic or 3-round burst fire modes.

Most parts are identical and interchangeable between the two. In fact, the entire upper barrel assembly is 100% identical. The only differences are in the 'lower', the assembly containing the grip, the trigger, and the mechanism which regulates firing.

moon1969 · 2nd July 2008, 05:01 PM

JFK supported the Diem coup? So was he apart of the NWO.

kookbreaker · 2nd July 2008, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Aerich

There is one significant difference: the AR-15 is a semiautomatic weapon (one pull of the trigger fires one round), while the M16 offers fully automatic or 3-round burst fire modes.

Adding to the confusion is that the present model of the M-16 does not have full auto.

LordoftheLeftHand · 3rd July 2008, 04:29 AM

There are several small difference between m16's such as rifling and different ammo from the A1 and A2 (A2 become inaccurate with A1 ammo). But all in all the M16 and AR-15 are very similar.

LLH

AgeGap · 9th July 2008, 01:31 AM

So guys which one caused the fatal wound? The AR-15 or the M-16.? The public deserves to know! (I was going to insert a smiley but ,as the thread is about someone being shot in the head, none seemed relevant.

29th June 2008, 04:06 PM	#1
PopeTom Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 347	Looking for JFK CT Let me get this out of the way first, I don't buy what I have been told. Especially since the friend who told me this CT was unable to remember the name of the author or the book he had written. But it goes like this: Lee Harvey Oswald did fatally wound JFK, but only with the shot that went through the President's torso. The more gruesome headshot was actually caused by the accidental misfiring of an m-16 by one of the motorcade escorts. The cover up is that the government doesn't want anyone to know that JFK was shot by someone who was supposed to be protecting him. The clear sign that there was a government cover-up was that the gentleman whom this author accused of accidentally shooting President Kennedy took said author to court. During the suit the judge would not accept any evidence other than the Warren Commission Repot on the assassination. The author was not allowed to present his ‘evidence’, hence he lost the case. Has anyone heard of this and can point me in a direction that demonstrates that it is, more than likely, incorrect? Thanks.
	__________________ -PopeTom The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. -The Principia Discordia

29th June 2008, 04:45 PM	#2
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	The book i s"*Mortal Error*" by Monar Benninger with Howard Donahue. The family of the SSA named as the shooter sued Donahue and won a slander/libel suit. I've talked to Howard and didn't discuss this, but other events in the assassination. To my way of thinking, had an agent let off a round into the president, the other agents in the limosine with him would have taken him down, not accepting an "Oops, sorry Jack." as an excuse. As that didn't occur, the basic idea fails at Square one. As the factual nature of the information in the WCR, there has never been a successful repudiation of any of it.
	Last edited by I Ratant; 29th June 2008 at 04:46 PM.

30th June 2008, 01:16 PM	#3
Lensman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Caerphilly Posts: 1,411	Were any of the agents in the motorcade carrying M16s? I don't remember seeing any.
	__________________ When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty. I have learned that if you upset your wife, she nags you. If you upset her even more you get the silent treatment. Don't you think it's worth the extra effort?

30th June 2008, 02:00 PM	#4
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	AR-15. Donahue didn't like the "lead snowstorm" in JFK's skull x-rays, and decided a Carcano bullet wouldn't have left that debris. After some prodding, he accepted the idea that the bullet -could- have fragmented inside the head. Rather than accepting that, he came up with the accidental discharge of a .223 round from the AR-15, and had to modify a portion of the evidence to make his theory fit. Typical. As every aspect of all the wounds have been independently duplicated by serious reputable researchers, this idea is as flighty as the "Grassy Knoll" shooter.
	Last edited by I Ratant; 30th June 2008 at 02:04 PM.

1st July 2008, 05:14 AM	#5
PopeTom Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 347	Originally Posted by Lensman Were any of the agents in the motorcade carrying M16s? I don't remember seeing any. The story as told by my friend was M-16. Looking at what little I could find once I knew the name of the work it turns out the claim was for a AR-15. Also the claim that the court proceeding were somehow shady doesn't seem to hold up either. It seems that the original slander/libel suit was dismissed due to the statute of limitations passing. Then at some point (during or after appeal of the dismissal) the publisher settled out of court.
	__________________ -PopeTom The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. -The Principia Discordia

1st July 2008, 08:20 AM	#6
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by PopeTom The story as told by my friend was M-16. ... . And this is why CT twoofery proliferates. A millionth-told story, with no effort to go to the sources.

1st July 2008, 12:06 PM	#7
PopeTom Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 347	Originally Posted by I Ratant . And this is why CT twoofery proliferates. A millionth-told story, with no effort to go to the sources. nod I have friends for whom I have to leave the room because of their leanings towards CT or other wooish belief. Once upon a time I'd argue the points, but I've switched over to picking my battles since other than some crazy ideas on how the world 'really works' they are fun people. But thank you for the info, I found it helpful.
	__________________ -PopeTom The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. -The Principia Discordia

1st July 2008, 07:28 PM	#8
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I fell into the sewer of JFK CT many years ago. Picked up a book by Livingstone? which went into the whys and wherefores of the "conspiracy". Looking at the evidence he was analyzing, it was obvious he hadn't a clue as to what he was screaming about, and was deluded to boot! Looking at a few more of these novels by the established leaders in the field, it became all too obvious the ones that weren't seriously crazy were bald-faced liars. Getting the WCR, and reading that through, and comparing what the novelists said about what was in there, the lying part became all too clear. I gave it up as a pointless task after about a year. There's never been anything to any of the conspiracy ideas. Just a buncha kooks scaring each even more witless.

2nd July 2008, 10:26 AM	#9
Vic Vega Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Cradle of Liberty Posts: 1,075	Originally Posted by PopeTom The story as told by my friend was M-16. Looking at what little I could find once I knew the name of the work it turns out the claim was for a AR-15. They are essentially the same thing. M16 is the military designation for the Colt AR-15, which is the civilian model.
	__________________ "The sleeping and the dead Are but as pictures. 'Tis the eye of childhood That fears a painted devil." --Shakespeare - Macbeth

2nd July 2008, 04:38 PM	#10
Aerich Student Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 38	Originally Posted by Vic Vega They are essentially the same thing. M16 is the military designation for the Colt AR-15, which is the civilian model. There is one significant difference: the AR-15 is a semiautomatic weapon (one pull of the trigger fires one round), while the M16 offers fully automatic or 3-round burst fire modes. Most parts are identical and interchangeable between the two. In fact, the entire upper barrel assembly is 100% identical. The only differences are in the 'lower', the assembly containing the grip, the trigger, and the mechanism which regulates firing.
Aerich Student Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 38	__________________ In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards. -Mark Twain

2nd July 2008, 05:01 PM	#11
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	JFK supported the Diem coup? So was he apart of the NWO.

2nd July 2008, 05:57 PM	#12
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	Originally Posted by Aerich There is one significant difference: the AR-15 is a semiautomatic weapon (one pull of the trigger fires one round), while the M16 offers fully automatic or 3-round burst fire modes. Adding to the confusion is that the present model of the M-16 does not have full auto.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

3rd July 2008, 04:29 AM	#13
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,186	There are several small difference between m16's such as rifling and different ammo from the A1 and A2 (A2 become inaccurate with A1 ammo). But all in all the M16 and AR-15 are very similar. LLH
	__________________ What though the field be lost? All is not lost—the unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield - Milton, Paradise Lost

9th July 2008, 01:31 AM	#14
AgeGap Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St.Helens, UK Posts: 2,387	So guys which one caused the fatal wound? The AR-15 or the M-16.? The public deserves to know! (I was going to insert a smiley but ,as the thread is about someone being shot in the head, none seemed relevant.