Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bolo Boffin

(23,872 posts)
17. (17) The use of a military rifle that could not use soft-point bullets argues against conspiracy.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:21 PM
Apr 2013

Soft-point bullets are more likely to break apart in the body and cause more damage, and hence a greater likelihood of death. The murder weapon could only use 6.5mm FMJ bullets. The Hague Conventions specify an army only use these types of bullets because there's a greater chance that the bullet will pass through the body without breaking up. That means it will only incapacitate rather than maim and kill.

A conspiracy from the usual suspects would have known this and have been able to produce a rifle with soft-point bullets to further guarantee the kill. Indeed, as Bugliosi points out, a good reason to suspect James Earl Ray was involved in a conspiracy to kill Martin Luther King, Jr is that he used a brand-new $700 rifle ($2000 in today's money) that did use soft-point bullets, one of which killed MLK. By contrast, Oswald had a $19 rifle, which would have been $57 today, that only used full metal jacket bullets.

(1) There is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any suspected group actually did. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #1
(2) Any entertainment of a conspiracy by them would have been "reckless, irrational, and dangerous." Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #2
(3) Since there's no credible evidence against the "usual suspects," who else? Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #3
(4) The implausibility of keeping such a conspiracy secret. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #4
(5) The complexity of any proposed JFK assassination conspiracy argues against it working. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #5
(6) If Oswald was part of a conspiracy, they waited a long time to bring him aboard. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #6
(7) Oswald's conduct in the month before the assassination (until Nov 19) precludes a conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #7
(8) Oswald's actions on the evening of November 22 preclude a conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #8
(9) Oswald wasn't the kind of person anyone would hire to be the point person. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #9
(10) Oswald wasn't the kind of person who would work with or for a conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #10
(11) Those who then knew Oswald and Ruby rejected the idea either acted in concert with others. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #11
(12) The Warren Commission's conclusions were supported by JFK's brothers and son. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #12
(13) Oswald never showed any evidence of having a mysterious source of money. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #13
this ^^^^^ treestar Dec 2013 #71
(14) Oswald's rifle is evidence of no conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #14
(15) No group would have let Oswald use a rifle so easily traceable to him. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #15
(16) Any group who hired Oswald would want him to escape, but no silencer? Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #16
(17) The use of a military rifle that could not use soft-point bullets argues against conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #17
(18) Conspirators would not have chosen someone with Oswald's shooting expertise. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #18
(19) Oswald had no track record as a hit man with any suspected organization. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #19
Keep 'em coming! n/t zappaman Apr 2013 #20
Will do! n/t Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #22
I enjoy your Kennedy posts cpwm17 Apr 2013 #21
Thanks! n/t Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #23
(20) Oswald's attempt to kill Edwin Walker argues against conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #24
(21) Oswald's desire to blow up the Dallas FBI office argues against conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #25
(22) Oswald would not have done anything to draw attention to himself before the hit. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #26
(23) Oswald's many applications for employment in October preclude a conspiracy. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #27
(24) Oswald could easily have been assigned to a different TSBD building. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #28
(25) Oswald applied for another job at the beginning of November. Bolo Boffin Apr 2013 #29
(26) The oft-noted tree in Oswald's sight line argues against conspiracy. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #30
(27) Oswald's extreme isolation in the weeks before the assassination argue against conspiracy. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #31
(28) A conspiracy would have made sure Oswald was unavailable for any interrogation. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #32
(29) Oswald not bringing his revolver to work on Thursday is evidence of his acting alone. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #33
(30) Oswald never offering to turn state's evidence supports no conspiracy. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #34
(31) Almost all of the "usual suspects" would have to have enlisted the others. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #35
(32) Oswald had no extensive contact with any of the "usual suspects." Bolo Boffin May 2013 #36
such thorough and total bullshit NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #37
Which part? n/t zappaman May 2013 #38
#32 in particular NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #39
I think Bugliosi, as smart a man as he may be, has absolutely no clue NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #40
....and little of human and group psychology Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #41
Nice assertion. Care to back it up with evidence? Bolo Boffin May 2013 #43
What???????????????? Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #45
Oswald joined the Marines. Yes. And how did he perform in the Marines? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #47
Nice assertion. Care to back it up with evidence? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #42
the evidence is that he can't see one of the most obvious conspiracies and NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #44
That's not evidence. That's another assertion. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #46
It's easy to not see the conspiracy NoMoreWarNow May 2013 #48
Glass houses. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #49
Yep. It's even funny. ocpagu May 2013 #51
"we all expect criminals to willingly confess their crimes..." Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #58
We expect somebody to talk, though treestar Dec 2013 #72
Those are a bunch of illogical, fallacious reasoning. n/t ocpagu May 2013 #50
Thank you for your opinion. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2013 #53
Who wrote this material? ... Is it copyrighted? Trajan May 2013 #52
It's why I rewrote the vast majority of it. Bolo Boffin May 2013 #54
Kicked for the anniversary cpwm17 Nov 2013 #55
The anniversary of what? MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #56
(hey, you may not be aware of this, but this Friday Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #57
Oh, really? MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #59
The reason I did that was to give each reason its own subthread Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #60
Rather than put it into one post… yes, I see... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #61
It is all in one thread. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #62
It's unfortunate that you can't distinguish a post from a thread... MrMickeysMom Nov 2013 #63
"Well, thanks for the kick" is what I'm supposed to say at this point Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #64
"Witnesses saw him in the commission of both crimes." Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #65
Howard Brennan saw Lee Oswald shooting at President Kennedy. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #66
Thanks, but that testimony has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer, and it's full of Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #67
He was farsighted, Ghost. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #68
Ok, I've read some of the "53 Reasons" post, but I still have to say it's full of holes.... Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #69
Nice looking? Only his mother could think LHO was nice looking. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #70
And why it had to be Oswald?(y porqué tuvo que ser Oswald?) conectad0 Jan 2015 #73
House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979 shawnehamilton Jan 2015 #74
Welcome to DU! zappaman Jan 2015 #75
pssssst…. MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #78
I used to think there was a Conspiracy, until.. MicaelS Jan 2015 #76
Me too. zappaman Jan 2015 #77
Don't tell me… since you became a disciple of... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #79
I think Lee Harvey was not guilty frankfacts Feb 2015 #80
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»32 Reasons and Arguments ...»Reply #17