Conspiracy Theory Kennedy Assassination - 50 years on

[Glacier]

Actually I'll decide what I can do better. I don't need the advice or conspiracy whackjobs. Don't go for a long walk, you might fall off the Earth's edge.

You haven't provided ANY information. You provide anecdotes. Which are not evidence. You keep clinging to the mysterious deaths "argument" like it's a liferaft. So name them. In order, plus the date they died, and how they died. Plus their age. (I have read all this information, it's amazing how a heart attack 20 years after the assassination to someone in their 70s can become a "mysterious" death when your brain isn't in your head)

You want the titles?

"Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.
"Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (all 1600 pages of it). You want endnotes and references you'll be in heaven. There's a CD rom with an extra 900 pages of notes as well.

I'm tipping you won't look at either, because it doesn't fit into the (obviously very flexible) Cuban / KGB / FBI / CIA / Johnson / conspiracy scenario.

And when your done you go the way of the common person who is starting to struggle by bringing out the tried and true line of " conspiracy whack job "
Does it not occur to you that I may have read the things you have read or watched the things you have watched, yet I am questioning things you refuse to question
This doesn't make me right or better than you, yet you think those who question are below you for doing so
So I could put this stuff in front of your face but I prefer someone to get off their own arse and research for themselves
Deaths in connection with the JFK assassination
Start there and see if that doesn't quickly become a little fascinating for you

 

[Partridge]

It's not about repeating things in the hope they come true
It's about repeating things in the hope you may actually click on and say to yourself " hey, we've got a problem here"
An example
You say on one hand that eyewitness testimony is fallible, and it is, notoriously so, yet you use eyewitness testimony when it suites you to do so
Tippit for example
We have witnesses who say the shooter was Oswald yet we have have witnesses who say it wasn't Oswald and furthermore say the other witness wasn't even there
We have witnesses from the book depository who say Oswald was in the sixth floor yet others who say he wasn't
We have ballistic reports that you say match his weapon yet we have witnesses that say this supposed weapon was actually something very different
Yet you continue to say this case is open and shut
You call bullshit on the deaths of heaps of people connected to that day yet you obviously have not bothered to even check this out yourself
I have stated before about witnesses to breakfast meetings between Ruby, Tippit and Oswald in the weeks proceeding yet you dismiss this, doesn't this seem strange to you at all
Are you oblivious to this, or are you just someone who sees what they only want to see
Quite pointless discussing the topic with you if you just accuse others of not researching the topic and then proceed to show such lack of research yourself

Are you kidding? I just gave you two books - one enormous one - that I've read. How is that not research?

It's a breakfast meeting now is it? Last time it was dinner. YOU still haven't provided a date, a location, a photo, anything that would actually constitute evidence. Instead it's just repeating it.

We actually do know a fair bit about the movements of both Ruby and Oswald. We even have phone records of Ruby. Guess how many went to Oswald's rooming house? None.

You know what, just to please you, throw out ALL eyewitness evidence. Every bit of it. From everyone. That leaves only physical and ballistic evidence.

Were Oswald's fingerprints on the gun? Yes.
Was the gun found on the 6th floor of the Depository? Yes.
Were Oswald's fingerprints found in sniper's nest? Yes.
Were there three shell casings from that gun found near the window? Yes.
Does the ballistic evidence support a shot from behind? Yes.
Does the trajectory match shots fired from the sixth floor window? Yes.
Do bullets actually go into yaw and spin sideways after hitting something first (the only way it could make the entry wound into Connolly's back)? Yes. (This was shown with amazing clarity on "PBS Nova: Cold Case JFK" recently)
Did the bullet fragments match the Carcano rifle? Yes.
Were there bullets found anywhere else in Dealey Plaza? No.
Were there any other guns found? No.
Was anyone hit from shots allegedly fired from the Grassy Knoll? No (not the car, not the people in the car, not the secret service agents, not the crowd, that's some feat of marksmanship hey!)

There you go. No eyewitness testimony of any kind, either for or against his guilt. And it's still overwhelming.

 

[Partridge]

And when your done you go the way of the common person who is starting to struggle by bringing out the tried and true line of " conspiracy whack job "
Does it not occur to you that I may have read the things you have read or watched the things you have watched, yet I am questioning things you refuse to question
This doesn't make me right or better than you, yet you think those who question are below you for doing so
So I could put this stuff in front of your face but I prefer someone to get off their own arse and research for themselves
Deaths in connection with the JFK assassination
Start there and see if that doesn't quickly become a little fascinating for you

Then name then. If you have great. You haven't named any actual reference material yet.

 

[Glacier]

Are you kidding? I just gave you two books - one enormous one - that I've read. How is that not research?

It's a breakfast meeting now is it? Last time it was dinner. YOU still haven't provided a date, a location, a photo, anything that would actually constitute evidence. Instead it's just repeating it.

We actually do know a fair bit about the movements of both Ruby and Oswald. We even have phone records of Ruby. Guess how many went to Oswald's rooming house? None.

You know what, just to please you, throw out ALL eyewitness evidence. Every bit of it. From everyone. That leaves only physical and ballistic evidence.

Were Oswald's fingerprints on the gun? Yes.
Was the gun found on the 6th floor of the Depository? Yes.
Were Oswald's fingerprints found in sniper's nest? Yes.
Were there three shell casings from that gun found near the window? Yes.
Does the ballistic evidence support a shot from behind? Yes.
Does the trajectory match shots fired from the sixth floor window? Yes.
Do bullets actually go into yaw and spin sideways after hitting something first (the only way it could make the entry wound into Connolly's back)? Yes. (This was shown with amazing clarity on "PBS Nova: Cold Case JFK" recently)
Did the bullet fragments match the Carcano rifle? Yes.
Were there bullets found anywhere else in Dealey Plaza? No.
Were there any other guns found? No.
Was anyone hit from shots allegedly fired from the Grassy Knoll? No (not the car, not the people in the car, not the secret service agents, not the crowd, that's some feat of marksmanship hey!)

There you go. No eyewitness testimony of any kind, either for or against his guilt. And it's still overwhelming.

Oh my goodness
No need to get aggressive
As for all the points you raise above, they are far from concrete , very far
I love how you also have one in there" was anyone shot or injured by shots from the grassy knoll"
Umm, maybe the president ???
Once again the points you state as fact above are far from fact, if they were there would be no conjecture would there?
I have already said that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of EVERY point you label above as fact
Up to you whether you bother to check it out though

 

[Glacier]

Are you kidding? I just gave you two books - one enormous one - that I've read. How is that not research?

It's a breakfast meeting now is it? Last time it was dinner. YOU still haven't provided a date, a location, a photo, anything that would actually constitute evidence. Instead it's just repeating it.

We actually do know a fair bit about the movements of both Ruby and Oswald. We even have phone records of Ruby. Guess how many went to Oswald's rooming house? None.

You know what, just to please you, throw out ALL eyewitness evidence. Every bit of it. From everyone. That leaves only physical and ballistic evidence.

Were Oswald's fingerprints on the gun? Yes.
Was the gun found on the 6th floor of the Depository? Yes.
Were Oswald's fingerprints found in sniper's nest? Yes.
Were there three shell casings from that gun found near the window? Yes.
Does the ballistic evidence support a shot from behind? Yes.
Does the trajectory match shots fired from the sixth floor window? Yes.
Do bullets actually go into yaw and spin sideways after hitting something first (the only way it could make the entry wound into Connolly's back)? Yes. (This was shown with amazing clarity on "PBS Nova: Cold Case JFK" recently)
Did the bullet fragments match the Carcano rifle? Yes.
Were there bullets found anywhere else in Dealey Plaza? No.
Were there any other guns found? No.
Was anyone hit from shots allegedly fired from the Grassy Knoll? No (not the car, not the people in the car, not the secret service agents, not the crowd, that's some feat of marksmanship hey!)

There you go. No eyewitness testimony of any kind, either for or against his guilt. And it's still overwhelming.

Also one important point to make, a snippet for you if you will
A bullet of a different make WAS found in Dealey Plaza, yet this fact wasn't made public until many years afterwards
I'm surprised someone so learned as yourself didn't know this, or perhaps you do but just assumed nobody on here had actually researched as much as you..!

 

[Partridge]

Oh my goodness
No need to get aggressive
As for all the points you raise above, they are far from concrete , very far
I love how you also have one in there" was anyone shot or injured by shots from the grassy knoll"
Umm, maybe the president ???
Once again the points you state as fact above are far from fact, if they were there would be no conjecture would there?
I have already said that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary of EVERY point you label above as fact
Up to you whether you bother to check it out though

There isn't. The autopsy photos of Kennedy are confirmed by pathologists to be consistent with shots fired from behind. NOT from the front. Watch the Zapruder film frame by frame - which direction does the spray of blood and brains go, forwards or backwards? (Hint: it isn't backwards)

When 4 separate commissions, plus a wealth of pathologists and other experts all concur on the same findings, that's where I start to become convinced. The problem is people are so obsessed with government coverups now they will believe ANYTHING apart from mundane explanations. And because our brains work the way they do, there's no changing of minds either.

 

[Partridge]

Also one important point to make, a snippet for you if you will
A bullet of a different make WAS found in Dealey Plaza, yet this fact wasn't made public until many years afterwards
I'm surprised someone so learned as yourself didn't know this, or perhaps you do but just assumed nobody on here had actually researched as much as you..!

Cool. Great. What make? Where was it found? What kind of gun was it fired from?

 

[Glacier]

Cool. Great. What make? Where was it found? What kind of gun was it fired from?

An FBI envelope dated 2/12/1963 was released in 1995 containing a 7.65 caliber bullet fired from a Mauser found in Dealey Plaza
The whereabouts of this envelope are now unknown, in other words its disappeared again
At 1 pm that day a certain Ernest Mentesana filmed Dallas police officers removing a rifle from the roof of the schoolbook depository, unlike the sixth floor weapon this has no scope , no sling and " protruded at least 8 inches past the stock" where as the sixth floor rifle protruded only four inches
In 1967 a .30 calliber bullet was found on top of the Massey Roofing company building, in 1974 a 6.5 calliber fragment was found wedged in the triple underpass and in 1975 a maintenance worker on the roof of the Dallas records company building found a 30.06 shell under the lip of the roofing tar at the base of the roofs parapet on the side facing Dealey Plaza, the casing dated 1953
Want me to go on ?

 

[Predator35]

Actually I'll decide what I can do better. I don't need the advice or conspiracy whackjobs. Don't go for a long walk, you might fall off the Earth's edge.

You haven't provided ANY information. You provide anecdotes. Which are not evidence. You keep clinging to the mysterious deaths "argument" like it's a liferaft. So name them. In order, plus the date they died, and how they died. Plus their age. (I have read all this information, it's amazing how a heart attack 20 years after the assassination to someone in their 70s can become a "mysterious" death when your brain isn't in your head)

Heres a spreadsheet with a list of all the mysterious deaths.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc

 

[AdelaideFan14]

I'm not sure what to think of the JFK Assassination and the theories surrounding the event. These links/videos provide some interesting questions, though.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Complected_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_Man_(JFK_assassination)

1. Was "The Umbrella Man" one of the witnesses who gave a testimony to the Warren Report and if not, why did it take ~15 years for his story to be told from the day?
2. If he didn't, why were he and "The Dark Complected Man" (DCM), two of the closest witnesses to the Assassination, absent from the Warren Report.
3. Would that suggest the investigators were negligent and if so, could they have missed other definitive evidence to either further support the current theory or an alternate theory?
4. Why was the only man on the street with an umbrella holding the umbrella high in the air at the location on the street where JFK was shot? I know they have a supposed answer in that above video, however that seems so unlikely. Is it really a protest if the person you are protesting against doesn't realise it's a protest? I could understand if he had something else with it like a note on the umbrella, but this seems weird. Not saying he is lying, but if he's telling the truth it would be one of the world's greatest coincidences.

According to the wikipedia pages:
As JFK approaches the Umbrella Man and DCM, The Umbrella Man holds his opens up his umbrella and puts it high above his head. JFK is shot and killed and as most people are diving for cover, Umbrella Man and DCM sit together and say a couple words to one another before they walk their separate ways. DCM puts a "radio or walkie talkie" away he was using as JFK approached and heads one way, whilst Umbrella Man heads towards the Texas School Book Depository.

Strange indeed.

 

[Partridge]

I'm not sure what to think of the JFK Assassination and the theories surrounding the event. These links/videos provide some interesting questions, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Complected_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_Man_(JFK_assassination)

1. Was "The Umbrella Man" one of the witnesses who gave a testimony to the Warren Report and if not, why did it take ~15 years for his story to be told from the day?
2. If he didn't, why were he and "The Dark Complected Man" (DCM), two of the closest witnesses to the Assassination, absent from the Warren Report.
3. Would that suggest the investigators were negligent and if so, could they have missed other definitive evidence to either further support the current theory or an alternate theory?
4. Why was the only man on the street with an umbrella holding the umbrella high in the air at the location on the street where JFK was shot? I know they have a supposed answer in that above video, however that seems so unlikely. Is it really a protest if the person you are protesting against doesn't realise it's a protest? I could understand if he had something else with it like a note on the umbrella, but this seems weird. Not saying he is lying, but if he's telling the truth it would be one of the world's greatest coincidences.

According to the wikipedia pages:
As JFK approaches the Umbrella Man and DCM, The Umbrella Man holds his opens up his umbrella and puts it high above his head. JFK is shot and killed and as most people are diving for cover, Umbrella Man and DCM sit together and say a couple words to one another before they walk their separate ways. DCM puts a "radio or walkie talkie" away he was using as JFK approached and heads one way, whilst Umbrella Man heads towards the Texas School Book Depository.

Strange indeed.

Lots of interesting questions. That's a good thing. But if you're making the assertion that there IS a conspiracy, you need to prove your case. For that you need evidence. Hard, physical evidence. Not anecdotes and not rumours.

Conspiracies do happen too. Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy in 1865. Franz Ferdinand was killed by a conspiracy in 1914. 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. But there's evidence for all these things. Not crazy ideas without any proof - and I mean real, substantial proof - to back them up. Stating there are other bullets that have "disappeared" is not evidence. Stating one witness disagreed with 9 others is not evidence. But having a rifle in the National Archives with a suspect's fingerprints all over it, that is ballisticly tied to the assassination, is evidence. You find a gun owned by John Smith from Dallas, with his fingerprints on it, and a bullet matched to it found lodged in even the front of the limousine, then ok, there's something to go on. The only thing about all the Kennedy conspiracy theories is that none of them have any actual evidence. A ton of hearsay (mostly years after the fact too), a ton of speculation, a ton of suspicion, but nothing you can see, feel, touch or measure.

You find that and people will be convinced. Easily.

 

[Glacier]

Lots of interesting questions. That's a good thing. But if you're making the assertion that there IS a conspiracy, you need to prove your case. For that you need evidence. Hard, physical evidence. Not anecdotes and not rumours.

Conspiracies do happen too. Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy in 1865. Franz Ferdinand was killed by a conspiracy in 1914. 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. But there's evidence for all these things. Not crazy ideas without any proof - and I mean real, substantial proof - to back them up. Stating there are other bullets that have "disappeared" is not evidence. Stating one witness disagreed with 9 others is not evidence. But having a rifle in the National Archives with a suspect's fingerprints all over it, that is ballisticly tied to the assassination, is evidence. You find a gun owned by John Smith from Dallas, with his fingerprints on it, and a bullet matched to it found lodged in even the front of the limousine, then ok, there's something to go on. The only thing about all the Kennedy conspiracy theories is that none of them have any actual evidence. A ton of hearsay (mostly years after the fact too), a ton of speculation, a ton of suspicion, but nothing you can see, feel, touch or measure.

You find that and people will be convinced. Easily.

So yesterday when you said that no other bullets or bullet fragments or weapons were found at Dealey Plaza and then I showed you examples that contradicted you, you still say that these bullets, shells, fragments, weapons etc provide not the slightest hint of evidence that maybe more than one shooter was involved ??
What's more you then state something along the lines of " if 9 witnesses say one thing and one says the other, who do we believe" yet you know full well there were a lot more than single witnesses to all events connected to that day from the shooting of JFK to that of officer Tippit that contradict the findings of the Warren Commission or were totally ignored by the Warren Commission yet instead of acknowledging this to be the case, you instead follow suite and ignore them yourself !!
So in effect, any type of proof or contradiction to the official version that one shows you is in itself still not sufficient for you to question the official version yourself?

After showing you examples of other weapons, bullets, fragments and shells yesterday after you more or less challenging me to do so, were you today going to ignore this because it didn't sweetly fit with what you trust to be the truth and also what you ridiculed me because you obviously didn't think I had " researched" enough ??
Hardly the way to be involved in an important discussion my friend

 

[Partridge]

So yesterday when you said that no other bullets or bullet fragments or weapons were found at Dealey Plaza and then I showed you examples that contradicted you, you still say that these bullets, shells, fragments, weapons etc provide not the slightest hint of evidence that maybe more than one shooter was involved ??
What's more you then state something along the lines of " if 9 witnesses say one thing and one says the other, who do we believe" yet you know full well there were a lot more than single witnesses to all events connected to that day from the shooting of JFK to that of officer Tippit that contradict the findings of the Warren Commission or were totally ignored by the Warren Commission yet instead of acknowledging this to be the case, you instead follow suite and ignore them yourself !!
So in effect, any type of proof or contradiction to the official version that one shows you is in itself still not sufficient for you to question the official version yourself?

After showing you examples of other weapons, bullets, fragments and shells yesterday after you more or less challenging me to do so, were you today going to ignore this because it didn't sweetly fit with what you trust to be the truth and also what you ridiculed me because you obviously didn't think I had " researched" enough ??
Hardly the way to be involved in an important discussion my friend

Damn right I challenged you. That's how science works. If you've got a theory, the onus is on you to prove it. Provide evidence. Not "but they disappeared", or "they were seen at dinner (even though it became breakfast yesterday)". You're not convinced Oswald did it, but strangely enough you haven't named an alternative.

Who was it? Who shot Kennedy? From where? The front or the back?
Who shot Tippit?

Got any names handy? We can start with them.

Also, you're not my friend. I don't have woo-woos as friends.

Are these bullets you speak of in the National Archives? The ones from the Kennedy and Tippit shootings are. So is the rifle and the revolver used in the shootings funnily enough. Imagine, actual evidence! Wow.

 

[Glacier]

Damn right I challenged you. That's how science works. If you've got a theory, the onus is on you to prove it. Provide evidence. Not "but they disappeared", or "they were seen at dinner (even though it became breakfast yesterday)".

You're not my friend. I don't have woo-woos as friends.

Are these bullets you speak of in the National Archives? The ones from the Kennedy and Tippit shootings are. So is the rifle and the revolver used in the shootings funnily enough. Imagine, actual evidence! Wow.

Oh dear
So all this is out there in the public domain, easily attainable to someone as intelligent as yourself , yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge its existence let alone actually read it
But instead now I'm a " woo hoo" whatever that is
There is a developing pattern here, people provide you with a myriad of contradictions to the official story yet you put your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet and respond with attacks on the poster...in my experience that happens when someone is challenged yet refuses to acknowledge that being challenged is a good thing not a bad
This evidence you speak of is another example of you refusing to acknowledge others on this forum who have time and time given you examples, once again out there in the public domain, of contradictory evidence that counters what you describe as proof that Oswald acted alone, yet yesterday you counted nut by saying that reason Oswald killed Kennedy was because he was insane, a nut job, a fruit loop
Are you serious?
Is this the best you can do ?
So I challenge you and you resort to Internet retorts in a childish manner because you can't answer the question ?
Are you telling me that the envelope marked 2/12/1963 containing a bullet found in Dealey plaza and released in 1995 and since gone missing again didn't actually exist ?
Seriously, it's common knowledge
Are you telling me the other weapons( I haven't even mentioned the 45 yet) and shells and bullets and fragments found in subsequent years aren't there, on the public record ?
You were so sure they didn't exist yesterday yet when a poster gives you examples that contradict this you call them a " woo hoo"
I'm beginning to think you are not as learned as I thought you were

 

[Glacier]

As for me not naming an alternative to Oswald acting alone does that mean that to question an official version one is then required to provide an alternative, how ridiculous
An utterly ridiculous notion

 

[nut]

Can you anyone explain how someone could shoot so accurately at a moving target with a bolt action rifle in under 6 seconds? I consider my self a pretty good shot with my .22 rifle but would struggle to load and shoot that quick that accurately at a moving target.... I'd give my self a 5% chance.

 

[Showbags]

Damn right I challenged you. That's how science works. If you've got a theory, the onus is on you to prove it. Provide evidence. Not "but they disappeared", or "they were seen at dinner (even though it became breakfast yesterday)". You're not convinced Oswald did it, but strangely enough you haven't named an alternative.

Who was it? Who shot Kennedy? From where? The front or the back?
Who shot Tippit?

Got any names handy? We can start with them.

Also, you're not my friend. I don't have woo-woos as friends.

Are these bullets you speak of in the National Archives? The ones from the Kennedy and Tippit shootings are. So is the rifle and the revolver used in the shootings funnily enough. Imagine, actual evidence! Wow.

The problem with that is that if the government/CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination then they are quite capable of covering up evidence and suppressing information that contradicts the official story. That puts people that don't believe in the official theory at a disadvantage right away.

People that are on both sides of this are often coming at it from flawed reasoning. Those on the conspiracy side often put every event in history down as a "government coverup" which isn't really the case. But those believing the official story are often those that believe governments are always working in the best interests of their people and the official story is always correct. Which is completely naïve and flies in the face of most of human history which shows governments are rarely doing what is in the best interests of their people.

My personal opinion is that it is entirely possible that the JFK assassination was an inside job. Kennedy was not a very popular President to those in power in America. I have no evidence to prove a conspiracy and can't be sure either way tbh but the possibility can't be ruled out imo. The Warren Commission Report isn't watertight and from what I have seen was far from thorough.

And I can't quite agree with what you said on how the blood and brain matter is shot forward in the Zapruder film. It more goes up in the air for me and sprays everywhere rather than being projected forward.

 

[Partridge]

People that are on both sides of this are often coming at it from flawed reasoning. Those on the conspiracy side often put every event in history down as a "government coverup" which isn't really the case. But those believing the official story are often those that believe governments are always working in the best interests of their people and the official story is always correct. Which is completely naïve and flies in the face of most of human history which shows governments are rarely doing what is in the best interests of their people.

Totally agree. There is no inherent reason to believe what governments say prima facie. You'd be naive to do so. But for me the more complex a conspiracy is proposed to be, the more unlikely it is. Especially involving bureaucrats, because they're sloppy. Then you add how bad people are at keeping secrets, and the idea that dozens if not hundreds of people can stay silent about something this big is pretty unlikely.

My personal opinion is that it is entirely possible that the JFK assassination was an inside job. Kennedy was not a very popular President to those in power in America. I have no evidence to prove a conspiracy and can't be sure either way tbh but the possibility can't be ruled out imo. The Warren Commission Report isn't watertight and from what I have seen was far from thorough.

Completely agree with you on this point. Too many conspiracy theorists, the moment you say "I think Oswald did it" jump straight to "YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE WARREN COMMISSION SAID!!! YOU'RE IN ON IT!!!". It's not at all the case.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Can you anyone explain how someone could shoot so accurately at a moving target with a bolt action rifle in under 6 seconds? I consider my self a pretty good shot with my .22 rifle but would struggle to load and shoot that quick that accurately at a moving target.... I'd give my self a 5% chance.

5% chance probably isnt far off.

It's been recreated a few times by the FBI and media outlets.

Some sharpshooters have done it, not many though.

 

[Partridge]

Can you anyone explain how someone could shoot so accurately at a moving target with a bolt action rifle in under 6 seconds? I consider my self a pretty good shot with my .22 rifle but would struggle to load and shoot that quick that accurately at a moving target.... I'd give my self a 5% chance.

Well it would help if you had spent a while acquainting yourself with the gun. There's a method called "coldshotting" where you basically practice cocking and recocking the bolt. It would also help if you had any kind of training in using rifles. Like in say, the Marines.

Oswald had practiced "coldshotting" the bolt for hours and hours on end when he lived in New Orleans. And he was first a Sharpshooter, and then a Markman in the Marines. Was he an amazing, ridiculously brilliant shot? No. But was he better, much better than a normal guy off the street? Yes.

I'd be careful about the term "so accurately". Don't forget his first shot missed entirely. The car slowed down after the second shot too. Wasn't the driver's fault - people panic in real life - but at that point they couldn't have made it much easier for him. Unfortunately about the only thing he was good at was firing a rifle.

 

[nut]

Well it would help if you had spent a while acquainting yourself with the gun. There's a method called "coldshotting" where you basically practice cocking and recocking the bolt. It would also help if you had any kind of training in using rifles. Like in say, the Marines.

Oswald had practiced "coldshotting" the bolt for hours and hours on end when he lived in New Orleans. And he was first a Sharpshooter, and then a Markman in the Marines. Was he an amazing, ridiculously brilliant shot? No. But was he better, much better than a normal guy off the street? Yes.

I'd be careful about the term "so accurately". Don't forget his first shot missed entirely. The car slowed down after the second shot too. Wasn't the driver's fault - people panic in real life - but at that point they couldn't have made it much easier for him. Unfortunately about the only thing he was good at was firing a rifle.

Well I have a bolt action rifle.... which regardless of calibre takes just as long to reload as any other bolt action rifle. ..... I would say my skills would be as good as a marines.... FFS his rifle was a single shot bolt action rifle with a very crappy telescopic site, just like mine... its not rocket surgery. .... First shoot was about 53 meters and the last shot was about 81 meters. The car was travelling at about 30k/h .... 6 meters a second.... ... regardless whether Oswald was directly behind the car the precision in his shooing would have to be extraordinary..... just reloading in under 6 seconds is impressive... but aiming and firing in-between is almost impossible. Infact It's impossible to fire more than 3 shots and reload in under 6 seconds....... then end.

 

[nut]

Also shooting at a moving target from a high up angle would make it even more difficult.....

 

[nut]

here I am reloading and firing as quick as I can..... not aiming... not steadying....not re-adjusting my rifle position for a moving target.... just re-cocking the gun and pressing the trigger.... as you can see 3 shots bang on 6 seconds.... no room for anything else.

 

[nut]

lmao at the size of that scope...... and the fiddly bolt

 

[Kellythatsit]

Oh my goodness
No need to get aggressive
As for all the points you raise above, they are far from concrete , very far
I love how you also have one in there" was anyone shot or injured by shots from the grassy knoll"
Umm, maybe the president ???

Yeshua H. Chrestus!

GOLD!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk