Welcome to the Penn and Teller bulletin board, a great place to keep in touch with
fellow Penn & Teller fans or ask questions about the guys. We welcome your thoughts!
I picked up How to Play With Your Food from the library the other night and I am in love with it. Even without the little gimmick packet that came with new copies, it is a great read. I got to the bit where they talk about recreating the JFK melon shot. In one paragraph, they say, "You sure aren't going to get us on record saying Oswald acted alone. We just don't have enough facts. We weren't even near Dallas on that day and we can prove that much." I understand being skeptical about being skeptical. That is, admitting that you can't be sure. All I'm really wondering about is the first line, where they kind of say that they don't think Oswald acted alone. Someone who knows them better can clear this up.
Did they used to somewhat think that Oswald didn't act alone, and then changed their minds? Or am I misreading it? Anyone know?
In my point of view conspiracy theories is something that has happen and people take it the wrong way
People often say these sort of things aren't possible
When the attack on Pear Harbor happened people thought it was a conspiracy maid by the U.S so they could go into war
something unreal and unrealistic is so possible and so easy to do unless its paranormal or magic then you can dig up information
Some conspiracy theories are nuts, to be sure. But real conspiracies do happen. There was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln. The Gunpowder Plot. There are many others that no one disputes. The mistake the many non-conspiracy theorists make is to say that because one theory is crazy, or just plain wrong, that no theory is true, or that there isn't anything worth questioning in a given situation.
There were insiders that helped Pearl Harbor happen and the possibility that FDR sat back and allowed the attack to happen to get us into the war (which he is on record as having wanted very badly) is by no means implausable to me. But to say that he caused Pearl Harbor is something different altogether.
As far and P&T and their thoughts on the JFK conspiracy...well...I can only go by what they say on Bullshit and that is they think Oswald acted alone. Maybe he did. Even if that's true, there is WAY too much weird about Oswald's life to think there's not something going on there.
I think conspiracy theorists of all stripes get a really raw deal, and most unfairly from the science minded. Science always begins with questioning, so what's wrong with looking at a situation logically and not buying the party line? More questioning and more knowledge are ALWAYS a good thing.
I was always under the impression that the Gunpowder plot was in England - dealing with Guy Fawkes and the attempted assassination of King James I in 1605.
Was there another one in the US?
****************
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose free will
Duh . . ignore my last post - I swear pregnancy is making my reading comprehension worse by the day.
****************
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose free will
While there is no shortage of crackpot books about Pearl Harbor and imaginary plots, no serious scholar of history pays any attention to them, particularly if they have any knowledge of the cryptology and intelligence systems of that period.
The most "popular" book of recent years on the subject -- whose name escapes me for the moment -- has been so thoroughly debunked by real scholars, pointing out the vast differences between intercepting a coded message and actually having a translated version sitting in front of you. The mass of intercepted Japanese cryptologic traffic (and the great number of different & changing crypto systems) gave the U.S. tons of material, but the lack of code clerks and Japanese linguists dictated that only a small percentage be quickly processed for current intelligence -- a tragic guessing game. Much of the crypto material was not decrypted & actually translated until the end of the war, or afterward.
The book I refer to was actually written by a WW2 Navy veteran who worked in codes, albeit at a rather low level, but his rapid anti-FDR obsession overrode any pretense of objectivity on his part. He misrepresented a number of specific messages and when they were translated, but unless a real scholar goes back to the archives and actually checks his work, his junk sounds quite persuasive.
Unfortunately, few people ever do that, so this clown actually has a serious following among normal people, as well as the usual tinfoil hat crowd.
The whole point of that chapter is to deflate one of the most common pieces of supposed evidence for a second shooter. All that sentence is saying is that they aren't going to claim evidence of the reverse either.
I don't think I'm giving away any confidences here -- from private correspondence with Penn, I know that he is that he is convinced that Oswald definitely COULD have made those shots alone.
(I'm the retired Master Sergeant that gave him my "atheist" dog tags)
He did not specifically say that he believed Oswald acted alone, though I got that impression, rightly or wrongly. From a logical standpoint, unless there is some plausible proof of other shooters (or conspirators), one MUST assume that Oswald acted alone.
Penn and I did not agree completely on the plausibility of Oswald's shooting, though we did not go into enough length and detail. He and I have both tried to recreate those shots. He succeeded, but I did not. The two Mannlicher-Carcanos that I (and a couple of Army buddies) tried, in the late 60s, were real pieces of shit, right off the surplus dealer's shelf, and, not being gunsmiths, we made no effort to smooth up the slow, sticky action of these rifles. This, to me, is an absolute KEY point to the discussion, and I have no idea whether Oswald (or some friend, or a local gunsmith) might have taken a bit of crocus cloth and smoothed up the bolt action ... or whether or not Oswald's rifle action might have just been in a lot nicer shape than most. It's certainly possible.
Settling the issue would really require taking Oswald's Mannlicher out of storage and having it tested. The likelihood of that, I suspect, is near zero, and my guess is that it was never fired after Nov 22nd except perhaps for ballistics match by the Dallas PD or the FBI. Knowing whether his gun was a piece of crap like mine, or whether it actually worked smoothly and quickly, would certainly skew my opinion one way or the other.
My memory may be off here, but I seem to recall that Penn used iron sights rather than the cheap telescopic sight that Oswald (and I) had used, and that one of my objections to Penn's test was that iron sights are quicker to get a sight picture with, and shoot, compared to telescopic sights. Again, I may be wrong in my recollection of his comments -- my email Inbox disappeared a while back (thank you, Bill Gates), so aging memory is all I have to work with. It was about at this point in the discussion that I let the matter drop, trying to reevaluate our little test of 40 years ago, wondering just how much smoother the action needed to be to achieve the shots in the period of time allowed.
Oswald was a mediocre shooter at best, based on his USMC training record. It took him several times to qualify, and I think he just achieved the lower level of marksmanship badge. Again, I'm operating from memory here, but I believe he only scored the Army equivalent of Marksman (lowest level ... next being Sharpshooter, then Expert). I fired Expert in both the M-14 and the M-1 Carbine, which puts me well above Oswald's skill. However, he could have gotten a lot better later on, at USMC ranges where he was stationed or in civilian gun ranges, for which it would be difficult or impossible to locate any records, if they even existed. Anyone can improve, with practice. It's also possible that he shot targets recreationally while living in the USSR. If he did, they damn sure wouldn't tell us, under the circumstances.
Could Oswald have done the shots? Yes, I agree with Penn. However, much of that depends on the condition of his rifle, something at which we can only guess.
Going back to my 40-year old tests, I believe I could have made those shots, though it would require two things:
(a) significantly smoother bolt action than I had.
(b) a bit of luck, considering his squishy skills.
The first is probably un-knowable, but possible. The second I'm willing to concede. Being long out of practice & with 63-yr-old eyes, I'm at best a mediocre shot now, but I have made more than one shot that amazed even me, including a quick-draw shot with a .357 that drilled a fox thru the eye at 25 feet. I pretended, for my wife's sake, that it was just my normal shooting skills. Pure bullshit.
There has been at least one recent re-creation of Oswald's shots, I think on the History Channel, though I believe they used a fairly skilled shooter, and no mention was made of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano had been fiddled with at all. They seemed to prove that the shots were possible, but to me it's pretty shoddy not to at least take into account the likelihood of Oswald's rifle being in similar condition to the test rifle, considering how much that affects the effective rate of fire.
In fairness to the Mannlichers -- they are usually regarded as pieces of crap, since most of the surplus ones that were flogged off in the 60s were in rough shape; for $19.95, you can't expect much. However, properly "tuned up" and sighted in, they are actually very good rifles, considering their age and all the wars most of them have been through.
Anyone remember the Satanims scares of the 1990s? Satanists were a) snatching your children and sacrificing them in rituals b) women were being used as "satanic breeders", birthing children for use in rituals. Geez. All the talk shows would have these women on claiming to be breeders. The talk shows sometimes -- sometimes -- would have on an FBI expert who would provide the "balance" but he would be shouted down and made to look like a closed minded woman hater.
