Anybody believe that Kennedy was shot by anyone other than Oswald?

[TK0001]

This entire forum seems packed with 9/11 stuff, and I haven't seen any Kennedy assassination threads. If I missed it, I apologize.

So, Kennedy? Who dun it? :confused:



for the record, i'm a single-shooter theorist

[Bandersnatch]

Abe Lincon's Ghost.

[Dazed]

I heard it was the Dalai Lama.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fact: Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed JFK.

We used to have a nut running around here called Rouser2 who believed in just about every conspiracy theory known to man. Moon Landing, Illuminati, etc. But the JFK one really got his rocks off!

[Anders W. Bonde]

Second shooter? No way. Oswald fired the fatal shots - and only Oswald.

However, was any convincing evidence in support of anyone else having paid or otherwise convinced Oswald to shoot JFK ever presented? The only reason I ask is that the motives for Ruby's slaying of Oswald to me seem somewhat mysterious.

[TK0001]

Second shooter? No way. Oswald fired the fatal shots - and only Oswald.


Well, this certainly is fun.

I read somewhere that if we were to believe all the CTs surrounding the assassination, there would've been something like 15 shooters taking aim at Kennedy from all over the plaza (the boos depository, the grassy knoll, the overpass, the driver's seat, the manhole, etc.).

However, was any convincing evidence in support of anyone else having paid or otherwise convinced Oswald to shoot JFK ever presented? The only reason I ask is that the motives for Ruby's slaying of Oswald to me seem somewhat mysterious.

If evidence for Oswald working for someone was ever convincingly presented, I'm not aware of it. The CTers obviously had a field day with the fact that Oswald both lived in Russia and supported the Fair Play for Cuba cause, and the fact that Ruby was a shady nightclub owner with extremely loose ties to the mob was certainly sexy, but nothing of substance ever made the light of day. Oswald was just a psycho schmuck.

[Axenos]

Oswald was just a psycho schmuck.

Oswald was a man who wanted to be noticed, important,famous.

I don't think he was a psycho, and I don't think he was a schmuck.

If he had been either, I doubt very seriously that he would have been able to accomplish what he did.

He just chose a bad way... as people often do. He also had perfect opportunity.

Ruby was a cop wannabe (I hate that word but it's fitting here) who wanted the same thing... to be noticed and important. He was also well known as a bully who liked to push people around, so his response was not entirely surprising.

Conspiracy? Silliness...

Just my opinion...

[Psiload]

Professor Plum, in the Texas School Book Depository, with the lead pipe...

or maybe the gun.

[TK0001]

Oswald was a man who wanted to be noticed, important,famous.

The fact he got his fame by shooting the president makes him psycho, and the fact he thought that was a good way to obtain said fame makes him a schmuck.

[Axenos]

The fact he got his fame by shooting the president makes him psycho, and the fact he thought that was a good way to obtain said fame makes him a schmuck.

I disagree... but that's what we are here for.

Shooting someone, even a figurehead, does not mean you are a psychotic (crazy). Getting fame of any kind does mean you are a psychotic (crazy).

Actually, I might agree if you reversed what you said... if you had said "The fact he got his fame by shooting the president makes him a schmuck, and the fact he thought that was a good way to obtain said fame makes him a psycho." then I might have said "That is possible." :)

[TK0001]

I disagree... but that's what we are here for.

Shooting someone, even a figurehead, does not mean you are a psychotic (crazy). Getting fame of any kind does mean you are a psychotic (crazy).

Actually, I might agree if you reversed what you said... if you had said "The fact he got his fame by shooting the president makes him a schmuck, and the fact he thought that was a good way to obtain said fame makes him a psycho." then I might have said "That is possible." :)

Is everyone here so damn literal?

[Darth Rotor]

Is everyone here so damn literal?
I would say "Yes."

This is an internet forum frequented by educated persons. It sort of comes with the turf. :D

DR

[Axenos]

Is everyone here so damn literal?

Ha! I'm a lightweight compared to some... you'll run across'em soon... :D :p

[defaultdotxbe]

i always figured ruby just wanted to be a "bigger" man than he was, and to be remembered, and he killed oswald and made it look all mysterious so people would always talk about him

i guess its a little implausible, but is it any less plausible than most conspiracy theories around?

[sackett]

For what must be the 500th. time:

Suppose some cabal of politicians, criminals, and businessmen turned on one of their own and had him murdered. Would that be so surprising?

[Regnad Kcin]

This forum has played host to the topic numerous times. One memorable thread was an epic, but was lost, sadly, some years ago.

Here's a couple threads I've found:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=13725
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31622
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=13846

In answer to the original post: Yes, some believe that others shot JFK, however I'm not one of them (the believers, that is, not a shooter).

[TK0001]

For what must be the 500th. time:

Sorry, I scrolled through the 3 pages in this forum and didn't see Kennedy mentioned, so I took a shot (npi).

For what it's worth, it's already digressed into word semantics, so I suppose this thread can really be what you want it to be about.

So, what's on your mind?

[NotJesus]

For what must be the 500th. time:

Suppose some cabal of politicians, criminals, and businessmen turned on one of their own and had him murdered. Would that be so surprising?

Not really. Got any evidence it did happen?

[sackett]

Not really. Got any evidence it did happen?

Nary a speck. I wish life was even that interesting.

That “500th. time” I yelled about was regarding the number of times I personally have said, in effect or literally, “Oh who gives a flying eff you see kay anymore?”

To digress a little: Try asking somebody what exactly JFK did during his brief time as prexy. Five bucks says you’ll get a blank look.

[NotJesus]

To digress a little: Try asking somebody what exactly JFK did during his brief time as prexy. Five bucks says you’ll get a blank look.

Isn't he the guy who stopped the Russians from nuking Cuba?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I confess.

I was the grassy knoll.

Not the shooter, mind you. Just the knoll.

[ponderingturtle]

Second shooter? No way. Oswald fired the fatal shots - and only Oswald.

However, was any convincing evidence in support of anyone else having paid or otherwise convinced Oswald to shoot JFK ever presented? The only reason I ask is that the motives for Ruby's slaying of Oswald to me seem somewhat mysterious.

I have heard that it was not that suprising to people who new Ruby. He idolized Kenedy and happened to be near Oswald with a gun, and simply acted. I am fairly sure that he did not even go there because of Oswald

[Regnad Kcin]

That “500th. time” I yelled about was regarding the number of times I personally have said, in effect or literally, “Oh who gives a flying eff you see kay anymore?”I recently read an extensive profile of conpiracy theorist Jim Fetzer (http://www.citypages.com/databank/27/1334/article14475.asp), who claims he is quite the authority on the JFK assassination. These days he's up to his white eyebrows in 9/11 "inside job" matters.

Well, it's remarkable to see him use logic along the lines of: once you see how the government can pull off murdering the president, something like 9/11 would be easy by comparison.

In other words, there's this thing -- the governement -- that can carry out these kinds of operations. Regardless of decades passed and personnel changed. My, my.

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, some believe that others shot JFK, however I'm not one of them (the believers, that is, not a shooter).

Ah-HA!

You've given yourself away.


You're double-negative has led to proof positive.

[azazal]

I confess.

I was the grassy knoll.

Not the shooter, mind you. Just the knoll.


You're a grass covered bipedal hyena? I did not know that :D

[Darth Rotor]

This entire forum seems packed with 9/11 stuff, and I haven't seen any Kennedy assassination threads. If I missed it, I apologize.

So, Kennedy? Who dun it? :confused:
for the record, i'm a single-shooter theorist
OK, it can now be told. The TROOOTH! (You can't handle the truth, but I'll tell you anyway. ;) )

It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that Jackie did it. No wonder the Warren Comission went in circles, they were looking for the man who shot JFK!

JFK had been cheating on Jackie with Marylin Monroe, among others.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, right? She laid her plan with cold precision.

On that November day in 1963, she sat in the back of convertible limo, a pistol (with silencer) in her purse, going through the motions and waiting for the moment to strike. At the right moment, she put her arm and hand (now with pistol) behind him and shot him in the skull at point blank range. She dropped the pistol on the floor and surreptitiously kicked it under the front seat as she bent over JFK, wailing and crying in mock grief, "I love you Jack!"

The handsome limo driver, with whom she had been in revenge dalliance, discretely (during the hubub) pocketed the revolver and disposed of it in the Trinity river a few hours later.

Jackie, her vengeance complete on that two-timing-Irish-SOB-her-parents-made-her-marry, pulled off a brilliant reverse psychology coup by then acting to lionize her late husband (in part for the benefit of her kids). She dumped the driver when she discovered, to her chagrin, that he had given her the clap. He was paid off and headed to the flesh pots of Bankok, never to be seen again.

After a suitable 'mourning period' she did what most rich jet setter wenches would do (Jackie Bouvier was definitely born rich) and got herself a rich old sugar daddy, Aristotle Onassis.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Well, it coulda happened that way, right? :D Mickey Spillane would have wanted it that way.

DR

[Almo]

IF it's true that the story is Oswald got off 3 shots with that bolt-action rifle in almost no time at all, and that he said "I'm a patsy," then that's enough weirdness for me. Something else was going on.

ETA: And why were the details sealed so we can't read them?

[NotJesus]

IF it's true that the story is Oswald got off 3 shots with that bolt-action rifle in almost no time at all, and that he said "I'm a patsy," then that's enough weirdness for me. Something else was going on.


It wasn't "almost no time at all." It was several seconds and there's nothing very remarkable about it for a trained marksman. As for what he said -- Who cares?

[I'll_buy_that]

There are two types of people in this world. those that shot Kennedy and the rest of us.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I read somewhere that if we were to believe all the CTs surrounding the assassination, there would've been something like 15 shooters taking aim at Kennedy from all over the plaza (the boos depository, the grassy knoll, the overpass, the driver's seat, the manhole, etc.).

Is that where the ghosts were hiding?

[TobiasTheViking]

this was probably the CT i believed the longest... Mostly due to the fact that Oswald was behind him, and his head moves back when he is shot.

[NotJesus]

Is that where the ghosts were hiding?

No, that's a typo. It was a booze depository used by JFK's dad during his bootlegging days.

[Hellbound]

this was probably the CT i believed the longest... Mostly due to the fact that Oswald was behind him, and his head moves back when he is shot.

Yeah, this is one of those "counter-intuitive" things that confuses people from too many movies.

You see the bad guy get knocked on his back from a full run when the cop shoots him with, say, a 9 millimeter (after being thrown a few feet in the air) enough times and it looks "normal". Most people don't realize that the momentum transferred from a bullet to you is less than a mild shove (with the possible exception of a few large-caliber rounds designed specifically for push power).

I think this ties into what Earl was saying quite a bit, as well. I think a lot of the CT belief comes into play because people see one aspect they don't understand (the head movement for you, dunno what it was for Earl, the towers falling completely from a relatively small-looking hole for 9/11 deniers, etc) and then grab the first explanation they find (multiple bullets, CD, etc). Research tends to focus on those that agree with the obvious answer...that jive with what our common sense told us already. Until something makes us go outside that area, we don't look at other sides.

Happens to us skeptics at times, too. I've caught myself on some occassions repeating the skeptic viewpoint and arguing against things when I haven't really looked at it in-depth. Part of human nature :)

[simakperrce]

this was probably the CT i believed the longest... Mostly due to the fact that Oswald was behind him, and his head moves back when he is shot.

I thought that was the famous 'jet effect'...

JFK conspiracies were FUN... i didn't believe in a CT, but great fun: Umbrella Man, who left the coke bottle, the tramps, second Oswald watching the parade, and could that not be a shooter there on the Moorman polaroid?... ah yes those usenet days... alt.jfk.assassination... that's were the big guys hung out.. Marrs, Groden, Summers...and some nutcases too like a certain Richard Harris... still kind of feel nostalgic about it... now it's all this new-fashioned 9/11 stuff...

[TobiasTheViking]

it IS the jet effect.. i just hadn't really thought about it in reference to a skull with a brain(and how the bullet would interact).. as soon as that was solved, bah, oswald did it. :)

[simakperrce]

LOL.. I remember how they went on for days throwing mathematical calculations at each other of how fast brain tissue can eject from the head and whether that creates (or does not, depending which camp you are with) the recoil effect seen on the Zapruder movie...

[JollyRoger]

it has something to do with how they got rich enough to get into politics.
who he used to get into the white house, and how he treated them after getting their.
and what he did during his term.

you could'nt pay me enough to say more

[NotJesus]

you could'nt pay me enough to say more

Well, that's a relief.

[JollyRoger]

Well, that's a relief.

things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

[Meffy]

Zapruder did, with a camera.

[American]

JFK killed himself. He couldn't stand being married to Jackie, so he did himself in with a gun.

It's lucky that nobody else got hurt.

[NotJesus]

It's lucky that nobody else got hurt.

Er... Governor Connally did get hurt.

[gtc]

Er... Governor Connally did get hurt.

It's lucky that nobody, anyone has ever heard of, else got hurt.

[gumboot]

You will note,

Precisely 8 weeks and 1 day after JFK was shot (22 November 1963), the intention to build the WTC was announced (18 January 1964).

8 weeks + 1 day
8 + 1 = 9
8 weeks = 56 days
5 + 6 = 11

9/11

JFK knew about 9/11, that's why they shot him.

-Andrew

[JollyRoger]

OK I cant resist this one so please bare with me

It was Mr plum with the lead pipe in the dinning room

thank you

[defaultdotxbe]

OK I cant resist this one so please bare with me

It was Mr plum with the lead pipe in the dinning room

thank you

too late

Professor Plum, in the Texas School Book Depository, with the lead pipe...

or maybe the gun.



.....although i find it odd you both chose the same killer and weapon....ill be keeping an eye on you....

[SRW]

In truth it was all about me. I was in the dentist chair when the news came across the radio. I sat and waited while everyone listened. The Novocaine was gone when the dentist came back. And as I do not know Oswald, it had to be someone else who really hated me.

i must have had lots of enemies for an eight year old.

On 9/11 I went to see a Urologist. Who happened to be an Arab.

and on the Day I had my gal Bladder removed Leroy Figglestat disappeared.

I have a dentist appointment next week so hold on to your hats.

[Kaarjuus]

I can't believe you people. Everybody knows it's a fact that Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.

[Didaktylos]

If there had been a high level conspiracy to remove Kennedy from the Presidency, they would have had no need to actually kill him - surely all they would have had to do was see to it that the truth about his dependency on prescription drugs was made public.

[asmodean]

Bah. The *real* trooth(tm) is of course that originally Oswald did shoot JFK, but time travellers (from the future no less, no ancient time travellers here) miscaluclated a journey and ended up pushing Oswald out a window. Once they returned to the future, they relaised the horrible consequences this had on their timeline.

They tried to return and bring Oswald to another level of the book depository, but from this angle, he missed his shots. Observing the thing from yet another floor of the depository the time travellers needed a new plan!

Travelling to shortly after the failed assassination attempt they took JFK back in time, gave him a rifle and positioned him on the grasy gno... knoll after persuading him that he needed to assassinate himself to bring the future back on track and avoid the horrible consequences of him surviving.

The morale of the story, do not dislodge the morality curcuits of your droid to make him agree to go back in time, no matter how low your supplies of curry are unless you are prepared to wreck the future and spend hours dislodging burnt crisps of dead guy from your teeth.

[TK0001]

You will note,

Precisely 8 weeks and 1 day after JFK was shot (22 November 1963), the intention to build the WTC was announced (18 January 1964).

8 weeks + 1 day
8 + 1 = 9
8 weeks = 56 days
5 + 6 = 11

9/11

JFK knew about 9/11, that's why they shot him.

-Andrew

I would bet that no less than a third of the CTers would actually buy into that. I suggest the widespread release of this valuable information to them immejitly!!!

[TobiasTheViking]

Bah. The *real* trooth(tm) is of course that originally Oswald did shoot JFK, but time travellers (from the future no less, no ancient time travellers here) miscaluclated a journey and ended up pushing Oswald out a window. Once they returned to the future, they relaised the horrible consequences this had on their timeline.

They tried to return and bring Oswald to another level of the book depository, but from this angle, he missed his shots. Observing the thing from yet another floor of the depository the time travellers needed a new plan!

Travelling to shortly after the failed assassination attempt they took JFK back in time, gave him a rifle and positioned him on the grasy gno... knoll after persuading him that he needed to assassinate himself to bring the future back on track and avoid the horrible consequences of him surviving.

The morale of the story, do not dislodge the morality curcuits of your droid to make him agree to go back in time, no matter how low your supplies of curry are unless you are prepared to wreck the future and spend hours dislodging burnt crisps of dead guy from your teeth.
Ahh. i was waiting for this :)

* TobiasTheViking loves RD

[asmodean]

Ahh. i was waiting for this :)

* TobiasTheCommie;1833826 loves RD

Happy to oblige. :D

[shuize]

I'm not a CT believer by any means. But I am lazy. When I saw the movie JFK I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, if there was any one thing that would lead me to believe the CT behind the Kennedy assasination, it'd be the feasability of the shots."

Were the shots as difficult as CTers say?

I've heard die hard CTers say that no other professional marksman could duplicate it in the amount of time available. I'm skeptical of such claims, of course. What's the quick answer?

[TobiasTheViking]

I'm not a CT believer by any means. But I am lazy. When I saw the movie JFK I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, if there was any one thing that would lead me to believe the CT behind the Kennedy assasination, it'd be the feasability of the shots."

Were the shots as difficult as CTers say?

I've heard die hard CTers say that no other professional marksman could duplicate it in the amount of time available. I'm skeptical of such claims, of course. What's the quick answer?
It is perfectly doable.. 3 shots within 5 seconds(even if you have to pull the crank to reload) is something even I can do(and i've never been a marksman). Aiming while doing that might have been hard, but considering his position it wasn't(he just had to keep it stable on the window frame).

Moving it to still aim at JFK while shooting was also pretty easy as JFK was moving away(upwards from oswalds point of view) and not sideways.. Which means, just hold the riffle steady on the window frame, and bend slightly in the knees(or somewhere else) so the shot would be a bit further up. That was all that was required to keep the shot in focus.

3 shots in 5 seconds would NOT be a problem for an untrained after just 10minutes of trying in the forest.
Keeping the aim would NOT be a problem for someone as trained as oswald.

And the magic bullet theory is wrong from the get go. It would only work if everyone was sitting straight up, exactly in the middle of their seats, instead of sitting a bit to the side of the middle of the seat, sitting at an angle, bending over and talking to each other(as they clearly were doing on the video).

So, the shot was perfectly feasible, in any and all ways.

[ponderingturtle]

It wasn't "almost no time at all." It was several seconds and there's nothing very remarkable about it for a trained marksman. As for what he said -- Who cares?

Well I have seen video of a 80 year old man working the action of a related rifle fast enough to meet with the time table for oswald makeing the shots. But everyone knows how fast old men are comparied to former marines, so it is still up in the air right?

[senorpogo]

I shoot presidents all the time.
In less time.
With worse rifles.

[azazal]

I'm not a CT believer by any means. But I am lazy. When I saw the movie JFK I remember thinking to myself, "Yeah, if there was any one thing that would lead me to believe the CT behind the Kennedy assasination, it'd be the feasability of the shots."

Were the shots as difficult as CTers say?

I've heard die hard CTers say that no other professional marksman could duplicate it in the amount of time available. I'm skeptical of such claims, of course. What's the quick answer?

Very easy to redo, Discovey Channel's "Unsolved History" was able to reproduce the shooting prety easily, check out Unsolved History: JFK - Conspiracy DVD (http://shopping.discovery.com/product-54765.html) for the shooting and then
Unsolved History: JFK - Beyond the Magic Bullet DVD (http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56798.html) to see how the "magic bullet" was not very magicical at all.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Were the shots as difficult as CTers say?


No

[CurtC]

BTW, Oswald had close to 9 seconds to shoot three shots, not 5. That's like 4.5 seconds to work the bolt, aim, and fire. And the farthest shot was less than 90 yards, which is considered a gimme by my gun friends.

[aggle-rithm]

BTW, Oswald had close to 9 seconds to shoot three shots, not 5. That's like 4.5 seconds to work the bolt, aim, and fire. And the farthest shot was less than 90 yards, which is considered a gimme by my gun friends.

Ever since I wrote a report on the assassination in junior high school, I have been fascinated with it. When I drove through Dealey Plaza for the first time a few years ago, however, I was surprised at how small it was. The distance from the book despository to the site of the shooting was much less than I had always thought. I had always pictured Oswald as being thousands of feet away, and the shots being comparable to Charles Whitman's a few years later when he shot people from the UT tower. Looking at the area, though, it seemed as if Oswald would have been almost on top of the motorcade as it went by.

[chacal]

I don't much about the JFK assassination.

So was there really a bullet that wasn't damaged found at the hospital on a stretcher? Was that bullet from Oswalds rifle or whats the deal with that?

[Psi Baba]

C'mon, Kennedy wasn't shot at all.

He was scanned until his head exploded.



So what was the deal with the umbrella man anyway? Anyone ever offer anything logical for that?

[azazal]

I don't much about the JFK assassination.

So was there really a bullet that wasn't damaged found at the hospital on a stretcher? Was that bullet from Oswalds rifle or whats the deal with that?

There was a bullet found, but it was not undamaged, as the JFK CTers like to claim. If you check the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory) about 1/2 way down is a picture of the bullet, looks pretty normal, and this is what most CTers love to show. However, if you scroll down a little bit, there is another picture of the bullet that shows just how deformed it is. For some reason the CTers like to forget about that picture.

Also I recommend reading the section where the Discovery Channel reproduced the shot, and if you can get a copy of the DVD, definitely do.

[chacal]

There was a bullet found, but it was not undamaged, as the JFK CTers like to claim. If you check the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory) about 1/2 way down is a picture of the bullet, looks pretty normal, and this is what most CTers love to show. However, if you scroll down a little bit, there is another picture of the bullet that shows just how deformed it is. For some reason the CTers like to forget about that picture.

Also I recommend reading the section where the Discovery Channel reproduced the shot, and if you can get a copy of the DVD, definitely do.


Thank you

But how does then Kevin Costner show it in court and get Tommy Lee Jones convicted. Debunk that HA!

kidding:-)

[Regnad Kcin]

...When I drove through Dealey Plaza for the first time a few years ago, however, I was surprised at how small it was. The distance from the book despository to the site of the shooting was much less than I had always thought...I had the exact same reaction when I first visited the location a few years ago. The entire assassination area (facing street, book depository facade, and grassy knoll) is very small. It reminded me of a little village square.

That I, like you, was surprised I put down to the effect of repetition over the years as well as the importance of the event. Something immense happened, so we expect the setting to be correspondingly large.

On a related note, Ford's Theater is also small. But, unlike Dealy Plaza, it hasn't been the subject of the scrutiny of our mass-media age, including major motion pictures. Also, unlike Dallas, no one is still around who was alive at the time; it is not longer contemporary.

[nathanmcginty]

Read up on most of the aspects of the case - both sides. Even read some of the Warren Commission (I used to work in a library, we had all the volumes). I was pretty CT in the beginning, but now it's pretty obvious that Oswald had something to do with it and fired one (if not more) shots.

I just finished Norman Mailer's "Oswald's Tale" a few months ago. He's anti CT, but thinks there was something going on with the additional Oswald sightings in Dallas and Louisiana. He spends some time debunking some points that Posner brought up in "Case Closed".

I don't think Mailer is saying there was a massive coverup/conspiracy, just that these additional sightings seem to be credible and haven't been adequately explained.

[TheChadd]

I don't believe that another person shot JFK necessarily, but I do think there's sufficient reason to imagine the mob could have ultimately been behind it.

[Polaris]

IF it's true that the story is Oswald got off 3 shots with that bolt-action rifle in almost no time at all, and that he said "I'm a patsy," then that's enough weirdness for me. Something else was going on.

ETA: And why were the details sealed so we can't read them?

Come to Dallas, go to the Sixth Floor Museum in the Book Depository, and look down on Dealey Plaza.

Kennedy was passing in the street below the window (which is marked) Oswald was firing from - not beyond the Grassy Knoll. Not up the street before the turn. Not past the underpass below I-35E. He was less than 75 yards away, and Oswald was firing with a scoped rifle. Oswald was also an ex-Marine. It wasn't a phenomenal shot - and out of 3 shots he only hit him in the head once, a glancing hit at that.

I'd heard the same crap about Oswald being a crack marksman and the impossibility of the shot. But when I was at Dealey, I was surprised at the short range at which JFK would have been. Oswald would have had a fair chance of hitting him had he just pointed a Glock and the motorcade and opened fire. Anybody with a little experience playing Medal of Honor could probably make a similar shot.

[Polaris]

. and on the Day I had my gal Bladder removed Leroy Figglestat disappeared.

Her parents must have been some wild hippies to name their daughter Bladder.

[Marquis de Carabas]

JFK was shot by lots of people. Stanley Tretick (http://www.artvisionexhibitions.com/JohnFKennedyPhotographyExhibit.html) alone probably shot him hundreds of times.

[Azure]

You will note,

Precisely 8 weeks and 1 day after JFK was shot (22 November 1963), the intention to build the WTC was announced (18 January 1964).

8 weeks + 1 day
8 + 1 = 9
8 weeks = 56 days
5 + 6 = 11

9/11

JFK knew about 9/11, that's why they shot him.

-Andrew

That kinda sounds like something only Andrew would come up with. :D

[CurtC]

So what was the deal with the umbrella man anyway? Anyone ever offer anything logical for that?

Was this fellow, standing in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella and no rain in sight part of some conspiracy? The House Select Committee on Assassinations located the Umbrella Man -- a fellow named Louis Witt who was engaged in a somewhat obscure form of political protest. Here are two graphics, one showing Louis Witt's umbrella being opened before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, to the general merriment of all assembled. The second shows the Umbrella Man's umbrella in the Zapruder film in Dealey Plaza. Both of these images are video captures from the NOVA documentary. Here is the first one, and here is the second. Some conspiratorialists claim that the umbrellas are different, having a different number of spokes. Decide for yourself.

What was the point of the umbrella in Dealey Plaza? Apparently it was an attempt to heckle Kennedy with a reminder of the appeasement policies of British Prime Minister Nevill Chamberlain, whose weak posture toward Hitler was supported by Kennedy's father. Sounds pretty obscure to us today. But this 1930s British cartoon links the umbrella (Chamberlain's trademark) with weakness toward Nazism.

From the mother lode of JFK information, John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Page (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).

[SRW]

Her parents must have been some wild hippies to name their daughter Bladder.

Well she and Leroy did name their son Stone.

[SRW]

BTW, Oswald had close to 9 seconds to shoot three shots, not 5. That's like 4.5 seconds to work the bolt, aim, and fire. And the farthest shot was less than 90 yards, which is considered a gimme by my gun friends.


When I was in the service we had the pop up silhouettes on the shooting range, They were made out of metal and the ones, under 100 yards were always so shot up, that the bullets would pass right through the holes made by the previous shooters.

[Hellbound]

When I was in the service we had the pop up silhouettes on the shooting range, They were made out of metal and the ones, under 100 yards were always so shot up, that the bullets would pass right through the holes made by the previous shooters.

They still use em, but plastic ones now. The 100 and 50 yard targets have to be replaced fairly often. And that's open-sight shooting. It's rare for anyone to miss those.

Also consider that you only have 3 seconds to aim and shoot the 50 yard target, and 4 seconds for the 100 yard. That's from the time it pops up, which means you have that time to adjust the rifle, sight in, and fire. It's also rare for this to take more time than 2 seconds, even readjusting from a 300 yard target to the 100 or 50. Now, consider that the time for Oswald is starting at the first shot, not the first sighting-in, and that his target is not moving that much (meaning he doesn't have to do much re-adjustment to his sight picture), and it's not quite so remarkable anymore.

Since the "timer" starts with his first trigger pull, you really only have two bolt-cycles and two trigger squeezes to pull off in the alloted time.

[Killtown]

I'd like to know how JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left.

[chacal]

I'd like to know how JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left.

mayby it was a reflex.

[WildCat]

I'd like to know how JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left.
Reflex action, and note how blood/brains gets sprayed forward. No way the shot came from the front.

eta: glad you made it here Killtown. But it's going to be a rough ride if you don't have your facts straight.

[Killtown]

Reflect??? So it wasn't the force of the shot going through his skull and the exit hole force that caused it to violently jerk back?

This story changes all the time too.

[Killtown]

But it's going to be a rough ride if you don't have your facts straight.
So you are saying people don't follow the etiquette rules here?

[WildCat]

So you are saying people don't follow the etiquette rules here?
No, but you will be called out if you claim things that are demonstrably false - such as claiming the WTC fell at free-fall speed.

Pretty lame over at the LC forum now that they have banned all opposing POV, huh? That won't happen here, I can assure you.

[Killtown]

Good, I like a healthy debate. Got tired of debating with people at a 3rd grade maturity level at SLC.

[chacal]

Reflect??? So it wasn't the force of the shot going through his skull and the exit hole force that caused it to violently jerk back?

This story changes all the time too.

Reflex as in muscless. When a doctor hits your knee to test reflexes.

[Killtown]

Reflex as in muscless. When a doctor hits your knee to test reflexes.
Is that with a high powered bullet, or without a high powered bullet?

[chacal]

Is that with a high powered bullet, or without a high powered bullet?

Usually with a small hammer.

[WildCat]

Good, I like a healthy debate.
You will get that here!
Got tired of debating with people at a 3rd grade maturity level at SLC.
And those are the admins! :D

[Killtown]

Usually with a small hammer.
Ah, a small hammer. That's "apples and apples". :rolleyes:

[Killtown]

And those are the admins! :D
Yeah, it was a real cessepoll of immature trash over there.

Just to let you know, I'm trying to get LC to open up their forum to everybody again and rule violators will not be banned, but sent to "jail" where they will still be able to plead their case (if they have one).

[chacal]

Ah, a small hammer. That's "apples and apples". :rolleyes:

Do you think it's possible that the "back and to the left" was caused by a reflex reaction, and if not can you explain why you don't think so.

[Killtown]

Do you think it's possible that the "back and to the left" was caused by a reflex reaction, and if not can you explain why you don't think so.
Yes, if he hit an invisible force field shield an inch in front of his face. otherwise he should have been knocked forward to the left on top of Mrs. Connolly.

[chacal]

Yes, if he hit an invisible force field shield an inch in front of his face. otherwise he should have been knocked forward to the left on top of Mrs. Connolly.

Why forward. if you have ever seen videos where people are executed with a neck shot they don't get knocked forward. So you think that such a reflex reaction that would have made him jerk backwards is not possible. How do you know it's not possible?

[CurtC]

Reflect??? So it wasn't the force of the shot going through his skull and the exit hole force that caused it to violently jerk back?
The reaction could plausibly be a couple of things, but one thing that's not plausible is the momentum of a bullet.

1. The spray of head matter is top, right, forward w/ respect to the alignment of the limo. JFK's head was angled down and to the left, so I'm using the limo for alignment because it's easy to see. The bullet came from above, behind, and to the right, striking way off-center, so that the part of the head that was blown out was lateral to the path of the bullet. The bullet caused a shock wave outward as it travelled through the skull, the shock blew the top right side out because it was fractured from the skull entrance wound. The part of the shock wave that travelled down and to the left pushed on the inside of his skull to push it back and left. This is also equivalent to the jet effect explanation, and you can also think of it in terms of conservation of momentum: part of his skull was blown to the front/right, therefore there was a reaction force to the rear/left.

The bullet's own momentum is small in comparison, so can be neglected, but in the frame when his head exploaded, you can measure a slight forward movement of his head from the previous frame. This is thought to be due to the bullet's momentum, and happends just before the back/left movement.

2. Another explanation, which I think is more likely, is that the shock to his central nervous system caused a muscular spasm in his back muscles. I think this is more plausible because the back/left reaction is slightly slower than I would expect from reaction forces.

Now to what it's not. As I mentioned before, a bullet doesn't impart that much momentum, even if it's completely stopped by the object. Kennedy's back/left motion was too pronounced to be due to bullet momentum. Also, there is no exit wound on the left side of his skull, there was no bullet present inside his skull, and when a bullet strikes, the exit wound is the messy one. The wound is just not consistent with a front/right shooter.

[pgwenthold]

It is perfectly doable.. 3 shots within 5 seconds(even if you have to pull the crank to reload) is something even I can do(and i've never been a marksman). Aiming while doing that might have been hard, but considering his position it wasn't(he just had to keep it stable on the window frame).

Moving it to still aim at JFK while shooting was also pretty easy as JFK was moving away(upwards from oswalds point of view) and not sideways.. Which means, just hold the riffle steady on the window frame, and bend slightly in the knees(or somewhere else) so the shot would be a bit further up. That was all that was required to keep the shot in focus.

3 shots in 5 seconds would NOT be a problem for an untrained after just 10minutes of trying in the forest.
Keeping the aim would NOT be a problem for someone as trained as oswald.

So, the shot was perfectly feasible, in any and all ways.

Moreover, too often the analysis of the shots over-interprets the actual events. For example, the question of whether someone could reproduce his three shots requires the assumption that he was actually trying to do that. Why did he take three shots? Because that was what he needed to accomplish his goal! When talking about how amazing his shooting was, don't forget that he _missed_ his actual target twice before hitting. So he only hit the target 1/3 of the time, and even then he likely wasn't dead center. If he missed, he would reload and shoot again.

No, no one could reproduce Oswald's actual performance (one bullet through the trees, one magic bullet, one hit), but that's not what they should be trying to do. They should be trying to hit the target.


And the magic bullet theory is wrong from the get go. It would only work if everyone was sitting straight up, exactly in the middle of their seats, instead of sitting a bit to the side of the middle of the seat, sitting at an angle, bending over and talking to each other(as they clearly were doing on the video).

This is the Cyril Wecht approach. Put people 1) in a car that does not match the limo the president was in (the back seat was raised 6 inches for the pres), 2) have them all sitting directly in their supposed seats, and 3) have them all sitting rigidly erect facing directly forward. Then using a broomstick, show that a bullet coming from the SBD cannot account for the wounds.

And this guy is supposedly a top-notch medical examiner.

OTOH, if you put simulated bodies in the exact positions the riders were in when the shot was fired, you can accurately reproduce the positions of all the wounds. The only difference that was found was that the bullet was not going fast enough to penetrate the skin when it hit "connely's" leg at the end, but that was because in the simulation it had hit a bone that had been missed in the actual event (either because the shot timing was just off, or the body models weren't exactly the same).

The short answer, when you put the passengers in the right place at the right time, the magic bullet isn't so magic.

[Killtown]

Why forward. if you have ever seen videos where people are executed with a neck shot they don't get knocked forward. So you think that such a reflex reaction that would have made him jerk backwards is not possible. How do you know it's not possible?
If it was a head shot, then I'd be interested.

[Killtown]

So in other words, it was just a coincidence that JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left which seemed to be consistent with all the front shot rumors?

[Azure]

Reflect??? So it wasn't the force of the shot going through his skull and the exit hole force that caused it to violently jerk back?

This story changes all the time too.

Only for you....

[Killtown]

No, it keeps changing. Have you head about the "chin theory" as to why JFK's head snapped back?

[kookbreaker]

No, it keeps changing. Have you head about the "chin theory" as to why JFK's head snapped back?

You are mistaking multiple explanations for a very mundane event as a changing explanation. We do not know wether it was a reflex action, the jet effect, or something else. What we do know is that bullets do not cause ejecta in the direction from which they are fired, nor do they really have or impart enough momentum to cause the body to move away from the firer.

If a magician has multiple methods of doing a trick, does that mean he keeps changing his story when explaining how he/she does the trick?

[CurtC]

So in other words, it was just a coincidence that JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left which seemed to be consistent with all the front shot rumors?
But it's not a coincidence, if the head movement and ejecta is not consistent with a front/right shot. The head movement is too much to be due to a bullet's momentum, and the ejecta going right, up, and forward is inconsistent with a shot from the front right.

I guess I could see how a shot from the front and left could cause that reaction. Care to go there?

[Killtown]

But it's not a coincidence, if the head movement and ejecta is not consistent with a front/right shot. The head movement is too much to be due to a bullet's momentum, and the ejecta going right, up, and forward is inconsistent with a shot from the front right.

I guess I could see how a shot from the front and left could cause that reaction. Care to go there?
Are you 100% sure the Zapruder film wasn't doctored?

[CurtC]

So you're conceding that, if the Zapruder film is genuine, what it shows is inconsistent with a front shooter?

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, if he hit an invisible force field shield an inch in front of his face. otherwise he should have been knocked forward to the left on top of Mrs. Connolly.May I inquire as to your expertise in this matter, such that you can make that assertion?

[merentha]

He was shot by two brain-washed male models hired by the fashion industry, in retaliation for the Cuban embargo.

[chacal]

If it was a head shot, then I'd be interested.
Yeah, In here "neckshot" means shooting at back of the head. Thats what I meant but nevermind.

[chacal]

So in other words, it was just a coincidence that JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left which seemed to be consistent with all the front shot rumors?

Yes coincidentally the impact could have caused a reflex reaction. This is one explanation for what we see on Zapruder film.

[Hellbound]

Yeah, In here "neckshot" means shooting at back of the head. Thats what I meant but nevermind.

And this makes sense.

The medulla, that sits one top of the spinal column, controls automatic functions and similar. Shooting low in the back of the head (what might be called a neck shot) hits this area, which is pretty much an instant drop. No reflex, no spasms, nothing. Off switch.

A shot in the top of the head leaves this connection to the body, and leaves the reflex and automatic functions intact, which means that action is still possible. A higher head shot is not an instant kill.

And just to add:

It's not coincidence that the head jerk "coincided" with the front shot rumors.

The front shot rumors were largely a result of misinterpretation of the head reaction. If his head had jerked, say, to the left, then the rumors would have been about a right-side shooter.

[NoZed Avenger]

And just to add:

It's not coincidence that the head jerk "coincided" with the front shot rumors.

The front shot rumors were largely a result of misinterpretation of the head reaction. If his head had jerked, say, to the left, then the rumors would have been about a right-side shooter.


Agreed, the "coincidence" question is especially bad, as it reverses cause and effect.

It's like waiting for someone to hit a wall with a dart, then drawing the target around it, then saying, "Wow. How can you explain the 'coincidence' that the dart hit exactly where the target was?"

[Psi Baba]

From the mother lode of JFK information, John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Page (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).
Thanks, Curt. I now remember that someone pointed me to that site some time ago, but mysteriously the link to the Dealy Plaza page was not working that day. :boxedin:

[Hishighness]

This is really the only conspiracy theory I can get behind, but I haven't seen any 100% solid grade A quality evidence on either side of the divide. So honestly I don't know who did it. I tend to lean more towards the not Oswald theory but that's more my gut than anything else.

I have watched JFK, and felt that Oliver Stone did just as much a disservice to the truth as that moron Dylan Avery. It led to my all encompassing Conspiracy Theory motto: You Don't Get to the Truth by Telling Lies.

[CurtC]

Hishighness, I invite you to become more familiar with the evidence that's out there. Take a stroll through John McAdams' site (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).

You'll find that there is a mountain of hard, physical evidence pointing towards Oswald alone. Further, the only evidence against this theory is from poor recollections of dubious sources, and very flawed analyses similar to what the Truth movement puts out.

There is just no comparison, it's a landslide for the lone gunman side of the argument. There is no credible evidence that doesn't point to Oswald.

[Hishighness]

Yeah, I've seen sites like that before. And as I said I'm willing to accept it was Oswald, I'm not a conspiracy nut like the 9/11 "Truth" Movement or anything, it's just a personal belief. As such it's not bound to any rationality, but I understand you don't want people to question what you believe so I'll shut up about it.

[CurtC]

Sorry if you got the impression that I wanted you to shut up about it, that was not my intent at all. And please - question what I believe!

[grunion]

To me the only stickler in the Warren Commission version of events was their assertion of a single bullet entering and exiting JFK's neck, entering Connally's shoulder, travelling down his arm to break his wrist, exiting at the wrist to enter and lodge in his leg. I accept the WC adherents' assertion that it was indeed a pretty straight path that the bullet was travelling though all this considering the positioning of the people within the car. Yet the suggestion that it was indeed a different bullet that cause some of this damage (and thus a second shooter) does not seem to me to be such an extraordinary claim.

I don't have more than casual exprience with rifles so am certainly no expert at ballistics. I know that demonstrations with cadavers have been able to duplicate the shot, and thus it is possible. All the other evidence for a conspiracy can be pretty resonably dismissed in my mind. But it still seems, well, challenging to me that a single bullet did this. Coupled with my natural skepticism of Official Government Versions it is enough to leave a slight smidgen of doubt in my mind as to whether Oswald acted alone. Just enough to keep me interested, not enough to keep me looking for spooks under the bed like alot of these CTers.

[pgwenthold]

To me the only stickler in the Warren Commission version of events was their assertion of a single bullet entering and exiting JFK's neck, entering Connally's shoulder, travelling down his arm to break his wrist, exiting at the wrist to enter and lodge in his leg. I accept the WC adherents' assertion that it was indeed a pretty straight path that the bullet was travelling though all this considering the positioning of the people within the car. Yet the suggestion that it was indeed a different bullet that cause some of this damage (and thus a second shooter) does not seem to me to be such an extraordinary claim.

Not necessarily an extraordinary claim in that regard, BUT certainly extraordinary considering the rest of the evidence. As you admit, it has been demonstrated that it is possible for one bullet to do what happened there. Thus, there is no need to invoke a second shooter, which is fortunate because there is absolutely no other evidence for a second shooter that holds up to scrutiny.

Recall that the House Select Committee on Assassinations DID conclude that there was a second shooter, based on now-discredited "acoustic" information, but their conclusion was basically, "Well, we can't deny the acoustic evidence that indicates a second shooter, but we don't have a clue where or who he was." IOW, they couldn't explain the acoustic evidence with a single shooter, but nothing else they had suggested a second person. As I noted, though, the acoustic evidence was ultimate discredited after it was shown that the timing was wrong, and the supposed "shots" heard occured 2 minutes after the assassination.

But to the point: you have one piece of evidence that is consistent with one or more than one shooter. All the other evidence points to a single shooter. Why the concern? It's not inconsistent.

FWIW, keep in mind that the single bullet theory ONLY works if the shot was fired from the 6th floor in the School Book Depository. Not a coincidence, I don't think.

[CurtC]

To me the only stickler in the Warren Commission version of events was their assertion of a single bullet entering and exiting JFK's neck, entering Connally's shoulder, travelling down his arm to break his wrist, exiting at the wrist to enter and lodge in his leg.
The bullet didn't travel down Connally's arm, it came out his chest (right side, just below the nipple), then hit his wrist, then the leg. One bullet, seven wounds. But the first four of those wounds line up in a straight line, which also intersects the window where Oswald was. Connally's rib bone deflected the now-slowed bullet, so that his wrist and leg wounds weren't quite in line with the others.

[grunion]

But to the point: you have one piece of evidence that is consistent with one or more than one shooter. All the other evidence points to a single shooter. Why the concern? It's not inconsistent. Well, I would agree that the preponderance of evidence is consistent with Oswald acting alone, but wouldn't say that it "points to one shooter." Most of the evidence can be explained solely by Oswald's presence in the School Book Depository, thus Occam's Razor suggests we dismiss the idea of a second shooter as unneccesarily complex. I ask myself, what is the simplest explanation for the events that happened that day? For the most part, there is no reason to bring a second shooter into the picture.

But when I look at the supposed path of that bullet, I am forced to ask if it is simpler to account for it through Oswald acting alone, or there being another shooter? It doesn't seem that "wacky" to me to think that someone else may have been in on it. I just am unresolved on whether that explanation would be more or less complex than the single bullet/seven wound scenario.

I believe you are probably correct, but I don't have the same amount of conviction in that determination as you seem to.

[Hishighness]

Yeah, when I say I "believe" that it was a conspiracy I'm not basing that on any evidence, it's just a personal belief. Like I believe that there has got to be life elsewhere in the Universe, but I have no proof either way.

[CurtC]

But when I look at the supposed path of that bullet, I am forced to ask if it is simpler to account for it through Oswald acting alone, or there being another shooter?
Can you explain what your idea of the single bullet theory is? It sounds to me like your idea of what it needed to do may be unnecessarily complex.

[LTC8K6]

Mythbusters hung a pig up so that the slightest shove backwards would cause it to fall off it's mount. This was to see if bullets would push the pig backwards, as you see happen to people in the movies.

No gun would cause the pig to fall. No matter what they tried, no round was powerful enough to move the pig.

A 12 gauge slug finally caused the pig to fall, but analysis of the video showed it didn't move the pig backwards, but struck bone and caused the leg to jerk.

[Gravy]

So in other words, it was just a coincidence that JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left which seemed to be consistent with all the front shot rumors?
Are you claiming that with the head shot Kennedy's head didn't first go forward 2-3 inches, then snap back?

[Gravy]

Well, I would agree that the preponderance of evidence is consistent with Oswald acting alone, but wouldn't say that it "points to one shooter." Most of the evidence can be explained solely by Oswald's presence in the School Book Depository, thus Occam's Razor suggests we dismiss the idea of a second shooter as unneccesarily complex. I ask myself, what is the simplest explanation for the events that happened that day? For the most part, there is no reason to bring a second shooter into the picture.

But when I look at the supposed path of that bullet, I am forced to ask if it is simpler to account for it through Oswald acting alone, or there being another shooter? It doesn't seem that "wacky" to me to think that someone else may have been in on it. I just am unresolved on whether that explanation would be more or less complex than the single bullet/seven wound scenario.

I believe you are probably correct, but I don't have the same amount of conviction in that determination as you seem to.
Which bullet path analysis are you using?

[SRW]

Mythbusters hung a pig up so that the slightest shove backwards would cause it to fall off it's mount. This was to see if bullets would push the pig backwards, as you see happen to people in the movies.

No gun would cause the pig to fall. No matter what they tried, no round was powerful enough to move the pig.

A 12 gauge slug finally caused the pig to fall, but analysis of the video showed it didn't move the pig backwards, but struck bone and caused the leg to jerk.

The one shooting that seems to dispute this is the Regan Shooting, I recall seeing the SS agent getting shot with a 22 and it looked like he was picked up and tossed backward like a rag doll. Could have something to do with the 22 not leaving the body and all the energy going into and staying within the body.

[asmodean]

The one shooting that seems to dispute this is the Regan Shooting, I recall seeing the SS agent getting shot with a 22 and it looked like he was picked up and tossed backward like a rag doll. Could have something to do with the 22 not leaving the body and all the energy going into and staying within the body.

If the bullet applies a force large enough to toss a man backward, how come the shooter remains standing? He should be subject to a similar force kicking him backwards.

Remember seeing the news from the riots jn Gothenburg a while ago, trying to locate the clip. On of the rioters is shot by the police and he drops like a sack of wet laundry. Not thrown backwards, just drops. (Yah, I know memory is unreliable, so I wont claim this fro true until I can find the news clip).

[kookbreaker]

The one shooting that seems to dispute this is the Regan Shooting, I recall seeing the SS agent getting shot with a 22 and it looked like he was picked up and tossed backward like a rag doll. Could have something to do with the 22 not leaving the body and all the energy going into and staying within the body.

If it was Brady it was very probably his nervous system going to hell. The bullet hit his spine and he never walked again.

[kookbreaker]

Remember seeing the news from the riots jn Gothenburg a while ago, trying to locate the clip. On of the rioters is shot by the police and he drops like a sack of wet laundry. Not thrown backwards, just drops. (Yah, I know memory is unreliable, so I wont claim this fro true until I can find the news clip).

There videos of rebels in Iraq taking heavy, high velocity rounds from Machine Guns and Barret Sniper Rifles. They don't get knocked back, they twitch or jerk from the pain, but then they slump down.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I have to say that I don't know if Kennedy was shot by Oswald, and I don't know that he was not shot by Oswald. I don't have enough information to form an opinion on this, let alone a belief. There are plenty of people who would argue it is obvious one way or the other, but I am not convinced by the "evidence" either way.

[TobiasTheViking]

I have to say that I don't know if Kennedy was shot by Oswald, and I don't know that he was not shot by Oswald. I don't have enough information to form an opinion on this, let alone a belief. There are plenty of people who would argue it is obvious one way or the other, but I am not convinced by the "evidence" either way.
Hm, what about this.

1) There is evidence that JFK died.
2) There is evidence that oswald fired shots against JFK.
3) There is no evidence that anyone else fired shots against JFK.

Seems pretty straight forward for me (and yes, i do know that i just corner myself into the "There are plenty of people wh would argue it is obvious one way or the other" group :) but there you have it.

[asmodean]

There videos of rebels in Iraq taking heavy, high velocity rounds from Machine Guns and Barret Sniper Rifles. They don't get knocked back, they twitch or jerk from the pain, but then they slump down.

Stands to reason, no? Calculate how much kinetic energy a standard bullet have and see how likely that is to move 80kg of adult human any noticable distance, even if assuming 100% energy transfer and next to 0 transfer time.

But then again, as others have noticed, CTers seems to go by nhow things behave in movies. An explosion have to last for 5-10s, with lots and lots of smoke and flame. Anyone being shot is flung 5+ meters backwards. So I am not surprised.

[WildCat]

There videos of rebels in Iraq taking heavy, high velocity rounds from Machine Guns and Barret Sniper Rifles. They don't get knocked back, they twitch or jerk from the pain, but then they slump down.
Just look at the D-Day footage, or WWI footage. No knocking backwards, just fall down like a brick.

[Oleron]

I think Oswald did it alone. I used to think otherwise, mainly because I found it hard to believe that anyone could hit a moving target with a head shot at that range and elevation.

Helluva shot. Mind you, I have never fired a gun in my life so I don't have any frame of reference for this.

[WildCat]

I think Oswald did it alone. I used to think otherwise, mainly because I found it hard to believe that anyone could hit a moving target with a head shot at that range and elevation.

Helluva shot. Mind you, I have never fired a gun in my life so I don't have any frame of reference for this.
Oswald had set up boxes as a gun rest and had a scope, and a clear view. That's not a difficult shot at all.

[pgwenthold]

Oswald had set up boxes as a gun rest and had a scope, and a clear view. That's not a difficult shot at all.

I won't say "not a difficult shot at all", but also note that the target was mostly moving away from him, meaning it is far easier to hit than if it were moving laterally. Second, he had at least three chances to hit the target (maybe more, we don't know how long he could have kept trying), and he did miss on the first two. As far as we know, maybe his chance of hitting the target was only 20%, and he just happened to get there on the third shot.

[CurtC]

My gun-loving friends tell me that before hunting season, they take their rifles out to adjust the scopes for accuracy. They want to pick a middling-range distance to sight them in at, so that they're usefully accurate across a wider range.

What is the distance they choose for this? 300 yards. A sub-90 yard shot, like Oswald's final shot, to them is considered really close.

[Azure]

No, it keeps changing. Have you head about the "chin theory" as to why JFK's head snapped back?

Thats only an explanation as to what happened. The story still remains the same.

[Hellbound]

My gun-loving friends tell me that before hunting season, they take their rifles out to adjust the scopes for accuracy. They want to pick a middling-range distance to sight them in at, so that they're usefully accurate across a wider range.

What is the distance they choose for this? 300 yards. A sub-90 yard shot, like Oswald's final shot, to them is considered really close.

Yep.

Battle-sight-zero for an M-16 is 300 yards. You actually fire at a 25m target that's the same apparant size as a 300m target, and adjust the sights a certain way, etc. But, basically, it's battle-sighted at 300m (250 for the A1 anbd A2 versions). And this is open sights, no scope, when your front sight post is about twice as wide as the target you're aiming at. And while it's not an easy shot, it's by no means extremely difficult. I'm an average shooter, and can drop this target at least 50% of the time, consistently.

With a well-sighted, scoped rifle, at 90 yards, I could shoot a quarter. Likely even a dime. Give me a man-sized target, even moving, and I think I'd get in three shots.

[Polaris]

I'd like to know how JFK's head snapped violently back and to the left.

He was most likely already dead, and he was riding in a moving car with an open convertible top. Simple momentum would cause dead weight to move back and to the left.

[calebprime]

Hm, what about this.

1) There is evidence that JFK died.
2) There is evidence that oswald fired shots against JFK.
3) There is no evidence that anyone else fired shots against JFK.

Seems pretty straight forward for me (and yes, i do know that i just corner myself into the "There are plenty of people wh would argue it is obvious one way or the other" group :) but there you have it.

This pretty much sums it up. I'd just add an "overwhelming" to #2, and an "absolutely" to #3.

I'm looking at a copy of the Warren Comission Report right now as I type.
It's true.

It's surprisingly readable, and as far as I'm concerned, they covered every possible base. I'd recommend it. It's more interesting than I would have expected.

Oswald--certainly no psycho--was a loner who doesn't seem like the type to be involved in a conspiracy. He had failed to get along in the Marines, in the Soviet Union, and had been refused admission to Cuba. He couldn't even "command the respect of his family" (pg 398.) He was impulsive but capable of enough planning to pull off an assassination. He was an opportunist. A dyslexic autodidact with delusions of grandeur.

Oswald simply couldn't stand being a nobody.

There's even evidence that Oswald "warmed up" for Kennedy with the attempt on Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker. If he was involved in some conspiracy to kill Kennedy, why would the conspiracy also involve an attempt on some minor military figure?

As for what he said after his arrest, he lied and stonewalled. Not too surprising.

This case proves that CTers will always try to make something out of nothing.

Anyone have any doubts about anything other than ballistics? I'm here to quote chapter and verse from the Warren Commission.

Crash Davis has it partly right:

"Well, I believe in the soul...the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve..." (ellipsis mine)

[CurtC]

Yeah, I think there was more where those ellipses are.

[aggle-rithm]

Slightly off-topic, but a long time ago I saw an interview with the secret service agent that jumped onto the back of the car right after the shooting, pushing Mrs. Kennedy back into her seat. His bland, businesslike description of what happened was kind of creepy:

"...the bullet hit the president and blew his head off. Mrs. Kennedy climbed out of her seat and onto the back of the car to pick up his head..."

[shuize]

Yep.

Battle-sight-zero for an M-16 is 300 yards. You actually fire at a 25m target that's the same apparant size as a 300m target, and adjust the sights a certain way, etc. But, basically, it's battle-sighted at 300m (250 for the A1 anbd A2 versions). And this is open sights, no scope, when your front sight post is about twice as wide as the target you're aiming at. And while it's not an easy shot, it's by no means extremely difficult. I'm an average shooter, and can drop this target at least 50% of the time, consistently.

With a well-sighted, scoped rifle, at 90 yards, I could shoot a quarter. Likely even a dime. Give me a man-sized target, even moving, and I think I'd get in three shots.

Did Oswald use a scope? As I said, I'm lazy. But I think part of my ignorance stems from the JFK movie when I seem to recall (perhaps mistakenly) the rifle was displayed without one (not that the film is proof of anything more than it's ability to confuse me).

If he was shooting with a scope at 90 yards, I agree that it would not have been a hard shot for anyone with even minimal training.

In addition, as noted above, 9 seconds is a lot more time than CTers I've spoken with will credit. If true, that's another huge hole in their argument. My earlier confusion came from statements that Oswald only had 3 seconds to pull off his shots.

[Gravy]

Did Oswald use a scope?
He did.
A correction to pgwenthold's post above: Oswald fired three shots, with two hitting his target. The first missed, the second hit Kennedy and Connally, and the third was the head shot.

[CurtC]

Did Oswald use a scope?
Yes, he used a scope. Here's a picture of them recovering the rifle from his sniper's nest: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

In addition, as noted above, 9 seconds is a lot more time than CTers I've spoken with will credit. If true, that's another huge hole in their argument.
It's been pretty well established from the Zapruder film that it was 8.5 seconds from the first to the third shot. FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier got off three accurate shots with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in 4.5 seconds - recycling the mechanism and reaiming the rifle twice.

[CurtC]

A correction to pgwenthold's post above: Oswald fired three shots, with two hitting his target. The first missed, the second hit Kennedy and Connally, and the third was the head shot.
I think that pgwenthold was saying that the "target" was Kennedy's head, so the first two shots missed it.

[defaultdotxbe]

My earlier confusion came from statements that Oswald only had 3 seconds to pull off his shots.
i think it just comes from overquoting, one person says 3 shots in 9 seconds, nect person says 3 seconds per shot, next person says 3 shots in 3 seconds

although even 3 seconds per shot is incorrect, because the initial cycling of the chamber and first aiming was done before first shot, so your only really pulling the trigger 3 times, cycling the bolt twice, and aiming twice

[pgwenthold]

He did.
A correction to pgwenthold's post above: Oswald fired three shots, with two hitting his target. The first missed, the second hit Kennedy and Connally, and the third was the head shot.


Assuming that JFK's head was the target, the second shot missed. It hit below the target.

The fact that JFK's upper back just happened to be there doesn't mean that was what he was aiming for. Moreover, he most certainly was NOT trying to hit Connally, so the fact he did does not make it a hit. It is more reasonable to think that he was aiming for the head and missed low. We know that when he hit JFK in the head, he stopped shooting.

[Gravy]

Assuming that JFK's head was the target, the second shot missed. It hit below the target.

The fact that JFK's upper back just happened to be there doesn't mean that was what he was aiming for. Moreover, he most certainly was NOT trying to hit Connally, so the fact he did does not make it a hit. It is more reasonable to think that he was aiming for the head and missed low. We know that when he hit JFK in the head, he stopped shooting.
Yes, for some reason I had it in my head that you were saying the second shot missed entirely. Thank you for correcting my correction.

[SRW]

If it was Brady it was very probably his nervous system going to hell. The bullet hit his spine and he never walked again.

Actually it was Mc Carthy the SS guy, I must have seen that video hundreds of times but I cannot find it anywhere.

Can anyone find a Video of the Regan assassination attempt. It could be that it was his own inertia from tossing himself in-front of the shooter, but my faulty memory still sees him getting picked up and tossed back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kHK2wVFogI

It still looks like he gets picked up and tossd back to me.

[LTC8K6]

So when I shoot a brick with a .22, it will fly what, 100 yards? If it can push a 150 pound man 1 yard, then a brick ought to be flung mighty far.

Strangely, the brick does not fly anywhere.....despite absorbing 100% of the energy.

[CurtC]

Strangely, the brick does not fly anywhere.....despite absorbing 100% of the energy.
Just to be pedantic about the physics, your example would be based on conservation of momentum, not energy. In fact, if the bullet bounced off the face of the brick, or if any debris scattered back towards the shooter, that should impart even more momentum to the brick.

[SRW]

So when I shoot a brick with a .22, it will fly what, 100 yards? If it can push a 150 pound man 1 yard, then a brick ought to be flung mighty far.

Strangely, the brick does not fly anywhere.....despite absorbing 100% of the energy.

That picture was the first time I had ever seen anyone shot, up close and personal, so seeing what happens to McCarthy was the way I always though shootings would happen. I never went back to think about it, it just seemed logical. The guy is spun around and you can see his feet leave the ground.

It goes to show that one should leave video analysis to the experts.

[JollyRoger]

While your kings and queens (whoo whoo)
Fought for ten decades (whoo whoo)
For the gods they made (whoo whoo)

I shouted out, (whoo whoo)
"Who killed the Kennedys?" (whoo whoo)
When after all (whoo whoo)
It was you and me (whoo whoo)

Let me please introduce myself (whoo whoo)
I'm a man of wealth and taste (whoo whoo)
And I laid traps for troubadours (whoo whoo)
Who get killed before they reached Bombay

that song is so full of woo woo's

[KingMerv00]

That picture was the first time I had ever seen anyone shot, up close and personal, so seeing what happens to McCarthy was the way I always though shootings would happen. I never went back to think about it, it just seemed logical. The guy is spun around and you can see his feet leave the ground.

It goes to show that one should leave video analysis to the experts.

Strange, I don't see Brady's feel leave the ground. He hunches over, goes off camera, and maybe a second later, he is face down on the sidewalk.

[KingMerv00]

Are you claiming that with the head shot Kennedy's head didn't first go forward 2-3 inches, then snap back?

I never noticed that before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx7YEAdBWhQ

Between frames 312 and 313 you can see the snap forward. It almost seems like his head lolls back after that.

[CurtC]

Have you seen the stabilized version of the Zapruder film? Makes all the difference:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

[Regnad Kcin]

Makes all what difference?

[CurtC]

I was just meaning that once you've seen the stabilized version, you won't want to ever view the original again.

[Regnad Kcin]

Why would I want to see a version of a film that has been altered or manipulated in some way as opposed to viewing it in its original state? Seems any tampering would create suspicion in regard to the tamperer's possible intent.

What does the "stabilized version" show that the original does not?

[KingMerv00]

I never noticed that before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx7YEAdBWhQ

Between frames 312 and 313 you can see the snap forward. It almost seems like his head lolls back after that.

On second thought...just watch the film at regular speed. It is obvious that JFK's head goes forward before it goes "back and to the left". To me it looks like his head went forward and "bounced" back. Oliver Stone is an idiot.

[CurtC]

Why would I want to see a version of a film that has been altered or manipulated in some way as opposed to viewing it in its original state? Seems any tampering would create suspicion in regard to the tamperer's possible intent.

What does the "stabilized version" show that the original does not?
The images on each frame have not been manipulated in any way. On the contrary, they were digitized from the original source, in very high resolution, much nicer than any other copy I've ever seen. Plus, the exposed part of the film where the sprocket holes are, has been included, so you get a bigger view than with any other version I've seen (although that part of the view is not full-hieght).

And with the other versions, the frame stays fixed while the image inside it bounces around with Zapruder's hand shakes. In this stabilized version, they put it together so that the image you see appears without the hand shakes, and instead the frame around it shakes, so you get a much cleaner and easier to watch video.

Apparently you didn't try watching it - go ahead, take a look. It's like HDTV compared to normal TV, you don't want to go back after having seen it.

[HeyLeroy]

Just to wade on in...

I used to buy in to the Kennedy CT's. Then I read a fantastic book, Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312080743/104-0078977-6471174?v=glance&n=283155).

I have a lot of experience with firearms, and this just rang true. He doesn't go into conspiracy theories, just pure science. there's lots to read:
http://http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bonar+menninger+mortal+error&btnG=Search&meta=

A brief synopsis of the book, if you're too lazy:

http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/MortalError.htm

I admit, this does absolutely doodley-squat to clear up any questions as to what motivated Oswald, but as to wheter there was a second gunman, IMHO it closes the book. So to speak.

(ETA) missing link. But that's another CT! :)

[CurtC]

So the head shot was from a secret service agent riding in the car behind Kennedy's, with an AR-15?!?

I was too lazy to order the book and read the whole thing, but I read the synopsis. My impression is that this theory is pretty out-there. What about it impressed you?

[kookbreaker]

Menninger did some incredible research and science in his book that stands up very well. His work on Ballistics wrt the single bullet was very, very impressive.

Unfortunately, he then drops the ball with the 'accidental shooting' nonsense that is based on a glitch in the zapruder film.

[HeyLeroy]

What impressed me was that he had zero interest in any 'conspiracy'. He approached the case from a ballistics POV. HE studied the seating position of Connally in the limo, and realized that he was actually sitting lower and closer to the center than photos made appear. This made the path of the 'magic bullet' a lot less 'magic'.

And he didn't base his 'accidental shooting' theory upon a glitch in the Zapruder film, he based it on the projected path of the bullet that made Kennedy's head asplode. He charted this based on a study of X-rays of Kennedy's skull. He realized that the trajectory of the bullet passed through the location of the chase-car. He even found a photo of a Secret Service agent holding an AR-15 as the cars sped from the scene.

The bullets from Oswald's Carcano rifle were relatively large, heavy and slow compared to AR-15 ammo. They have a thick copper jacket. 5.56mm ammo (AR-15/M-16) travels at a much much higher velocity and has a very thin copper jacket, making it prone to almost expolde under certain conditions when it impacts.

Donahue was able to recreate situations where a bullet from an AR-15 striking a target actually caused the target to 'jump' toward the shooter (Kennedy's head flying backward).

In all, the book was quite convincing. I'm not really sure why you call this theory nonsense, Kookbreaker. You sound llike you've read the book. What made you think he'd dropped the ball?

[KingMerv00]

What impressed me was that he had zero interest in any 'conspiracy'. He approached the case from a ballistics POV. HE studied the seating position of Connally in the limo, and realized that he was actually sitting lower and closer to the center than photos made appear. This made the path of the 'magic bullet' a lot less 'magic'.

And he didn't base his 'accidental shooting' theory upon a glitch in the Zapruder film, he based it on the projected path of the bullet that made Kennedy's head asplode. He charted this based on a study of X-rays of Kennedy's skull. He realized that the trajectory of the bullet passed through the location of the chase-car. He even found a photo of a Secret Service agent holding an AR-15 as the cars sped from the scene.

The bullets from Oswald's Carcano rifle were relatively large, heavy and slow compared to AR-15 ammo. They have a thick copper jacket. 5.56mm ammo (AR-15/M-16) travels at a much much higher velocity and has a very thin copper jacket, making it prone to almost expolde under certain conditions when it impacts.

Donahue was able to recreate situations where a bullet from an AR-15 striking a target actually caused the target to 'jump' toward the shooter (Kennedy's head flying backward).

In all, the book was quite convincing. I'm not really sure why you call this theory nonsense, Kookbreaker. You sound llike you've read the book. What made you think he'd dropped the ball?

So Oswald just happened to be aiming a rifle at JFK at the time?

[CurtC]

No, Merv, his hypothesis is that Oswald fired the second shot that passed through Kennedy's neck and Connally's chest/wrist, but just the final head shot was fired accidentally by a secret service agent in the car behind Kennedy's.

Seems to go against Occam's Razor - you have one unstable guy in a sniper's nest, who we know is already aiming for Kennedy's head. Then, when Kennedy's head gets shot, he says it's an accidental shot from someone else. It's the kind of extraordinary claim that you'd need really really good evidence for. What is this evidence? There was a guy with a gun in that car, and Donahue interprets x-rays in a way that indicates the shots came from lower and lefter than the TSBD. To my mind, it would require really good evidence that this path is true. I haven't read the book, but it sounds doubtful to me.

ETA: Merv, I took your "at the time" statement to mean "on that day." If you meant at the moment of the head shot, I see that's different.

[pgwenthold]

No, Merv, his hypothesis is that Oswald fired the second shot that passed through Kennedy's neck and Connally's chest/wrist, but just the final head shot was fired accidentally by a secret service agent in the car behind Kennedy's.

Seems to go against Occam's Razor - you have one unstable guy in a sniper's nest, who we know is already aiming for Kennedy's head. Then, when Kennedy's head gets shot, he says it's an accidental shot from someone else. It's the kind of extraordinary claim that you'd need really really good evidence for. What is this evidence? There was a guy with a gun in that car, and Donahue interprets x-rays in a way that indicates the shots came from lower and lefter than the TSBD. To my mind, it would require really good evidence that this path is true. I haven't read the book, but it sounds doubtful to me.



Moreover, doesn't the summary state that the secret servicemen did not have the type of weapon that Donahue claims was required for the fatal shot? The AR15, or whatever, whereas they all had .38s

[Hellbound]

Just to add, the velocity difference between the two rifles is minimal. Oswalds fires at 2440 fps, while an AR-15 fires a slug of half the weight at 2800fps. NOt really a significant difference in velocities, especially at the ranges discussed here.

Also, the AR15 round typically is ball ammunition (when used by government), with no jacket...and they rarely fragment unless they impact a hard surface. They tumble, which makes a path unpredictable, but fragmentation is no more likely than other rounds.

Now, if we knew the exact ammunition types being used in each weapon we could make some better determinations.

[KingMerv00]

Just to add, the velocity difference between the two rifles is minimal. Oswalds fires at 2440 fps, while an AR-15 fires a slug of half the weight at 2800fps. NOt really a significant difference in velocities, especially at the ranges discussed here.

Also, the AR15 round typically is ball ammunition (when used by government), with no jacket...and they rarely fragment unless they impact a hard surface. They tumble, which makes a path unpredictable, but fragmentation is no more likely than other rounds.

Now, if we knew the exact ammunition types being used in each weapon we could make some better determinations.

A look at those X-Rays wouldn't hurt none either.

[HeyLeroy]

No, Merv, his hypothesis is that Oswald fired the second shot that passed through Kennedy's neck and Connally's chest/wrist, but just the final head shot was fired accidentally by a secret service agent in the car behind Kennedy's.

Seems to go against Occam's Razor - you have one unstable guy in a sniper's nest, who we know is already aiming for Kennedy's head. Then, when Kennedy's head gets shot, he says it's an accidental shot from someone else. It's the kind of extraordinary claim that you'd need really really good evidence for. What is this evidence? There was a guy with a gun in that car, and Donahue interprets x-rays in a way that indicates the shots came from lower and lefter than the TSBD. To my mind, it would require really good evidence that this path is true. I haven't read the book, but it sounds doubtful to me.

ETA: Merv, I took your "at the time" statement to mean "on that day." If you meant at the moment of the head shot, I see that's different.

It doesn't necessarily go against Occam's razor. It negates the need for a second "planned" gunman. Occam's razor isn't a natural law, just a general rule for explaining things. It's not true all the time. And Donahue's theory is supported by Murphy's law. Agent Hickey hears shots, stands in the back of the chase car (he was in the middle, sitting on the trunk cowl) and picks up the rifle as the driver abruptly accellerates. His hands reflexively clench. Blammo.

Moreover, doesn't the summary state that the secret servicemen did not have the type of weapon that Donahue claims was required for the fatal shot? The AR15, or whatever, whereas they all had .38s

In the book Menninger supplies sworn affidavits (from the Warren Report) from several of the agents in the car, who remember telling Hickey to "be careful" with the rifle. He even includes a photo in the book of an agent in the chase car holding the rifle.

Just to add, the velocity difference between the two rifles is minimal. Oswalds fires at 2440 fps, while an AR-15 fires a slug of half the weight at 2800fps. NOt really a significant difference in velocities, especially at the ranges discussed here.

Also, the AR15 round typically is ball ammunition (when used by government), with no jacket...and they rarely fragment unless they impact a hard surface. They tumble, which makes a path unpredictable, but fragmentation is no more likely than other rounds.

Now, if we knew the exact ammunition types being used in each weapon we could make some better determinations.

Most info I can find states the muzzle velocity of a Carcano rifle as 2000 fpm; by 200 yards it drops to under 1650 fpm. Most info I can find pegs the muzzle velocity of an AR-15/M-16 at approx. 2800-3200 fps. The carcano slug has a much thicker copper jacket than the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm is known for its frangibility.

A look at those X-Rays wouldn't hurt none either.

They're in the book.

[Regnad Kcin]

...And Donahue's theory is supported by Murphy's law. Agent Hickey hears shots, stands in the back of the chase car (he was in the middle, sitting on the trunk cowl) and picks up the rifle as the driver abruptly accellerates. His hands reflexively clench. Blammo.I'll state the obvious: If true, that was some kind of remarkable, high odds, chance shot.

I'll also ask the obvious: Did no one else in the chase car hear/witness Hickey's rifle discharge?

[kookbreaker]

In all, the book was quite convincing. I'm not really sure why you call this theory nonsense, Kookbreaker. You sound llike you've read the book. What made you think he'd dropped the ball?

I am not an expert in the field, so I cannot comment fully. But there's no indication of the gun position in the film, nor did anyone near the car hear something as loud as a nearby AR-15 going off. I find it hard to beleive that Jackie O. is that deaf, nor the nearrby crowd, drivers, other SS agents, etc. That is the problem, it requires mcuh that is not there, and is an uneeded explanation.

There was a lawsuit over this, the first was dismissed as it was one day over the stature of limitations, but further appeals result ended in a settlement out of court.

[HeyLeroy]

I'll state the obvious: If true, that was some kind of remarkable, high odds, chance shot.

I'll also ask the obvious: Did no one else in the chase car hear/witness Hickey's rifle discharge?

Absolutely a remarkable, high-odds chance shot. But, stranger things have happened.

There were several witnesses at ground level that reported hearing a shot that sounded like it came from much closer than the first two. Many people also reported smelling gunpowder smoke. This is the basis for many CT's.

I am not an expert in the field, so I cannot comment fully. But there's no indication of the gun position in the film, nor did anyone near the car hear something as loud as a nearby AR-15 going off. I find it hard to beleive that Jackie O. is that deaf, nor the nearrby crowd, drivers, other SS agents, etc. That is the problem, it requires mcuh that is not there, and is an uneeded explanation.

There was a lawsuit over this, the first was dismissed as it was one day over the stature of limitations, but further appeals result ended in a settlement out of court.


There were some, as noted above.

Look, I'm not an expert either, and I'll be the first to admit. But the book was quite detailed, and presented the evidence to back up the author's theories. Don't judge a book by it's wild-sounding hypotheses without reading it. I approached it with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I found it's arguments highly convincing.

[HeyLeroy]

From:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhickey.htm

(2) Winston G. Lawson, United States Secret Service, statement (1st December, 1963)

At the corner of Houston and Elm Streets I verified with Chief Curry that we were about five minutes from the Trade Mart and gave this signal over my portable White House Communications radio. We were just approaching a railroad overpass and I checked to see if a police officer was in position there and that no one was directly over our path. I noticed a police officer but also noticed a few persons on the bridge and made motions to have these persons removed from over our path. As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud, sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone. Both the President's car and our lead car rapidly accelerated almost simultaneously. I heard a report over the two-way radio that we should proceed to the nearest hospital. I noticed Agent Hill hanging on to the rear of the President's vehicle. A motorcycle escort officer pulled alongside our lead car and said the President had been shot. Chief Curry gave a signal over his radio for police to converge on the area of the incident. I requested Chief Curry to have the hospital contacted that we were on the way. Our lead car assisted the motorcycles in escorting the President's vehicle to Parkland Hospital.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm skeptical for these reasons:

- The timing of the third shot is consistent with the sequence in play.
- I would think a highly trained SS agent is not likely to squeeze a trigger by accident, even in a momentary panic.
- Where was Hickey in the aftermath? That is, did he not disassemble his rifle and note a missing bullet?
- The astounding odds of a random shot hitting such a (relatively) small spot, not to mention ending up being the fatal one.

[Hellbound]

Most info I can find states the muzzle velocity of a Carcano rifle as 2000 fpm; by 200 yards it drops to under 1650 fpm. Most info I can find pegs the muzzle velocity of an AR-15/M-16 at approx. 2800-3200 fps. The carcano slug has a much thicker copper jacket than the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm is known for its frangibility.

Your info is incorrect. I pulled stats for both weapons directly from the manufacturer's specifications. On the M-16, specifically, I have first-hand experience. You may be looking at stats for the M16 A3 or M16 A4, both of which have higher velocities than the earlier versions that existed at the time in question.

The M16 is not, to my knowledge, knwon for "frangibility". It is known for tumbling, with unpredicitable ricochets and seemingly random trajectories through a body. However, it does not fragment significantly more than any other round. Whetehr or not a round fragments has more to do with the type of round than the type of weapon. Which is why I stated that I'd want to know:

1. What type of ammunition was Oswald using...was it jacketed or ball? Semi-jacketed? Boat-tail?

2. What type of ammunition was the secret service agent using? Typical application is ball ammunition (lead slug, unjacketed), but that's military. Other agencies may have differing standards.

3. On the frangibility factor, I have personally recovered hundreds of rounds, unjacketed lead slugs, from earth on shooting ranges. Also from shooting victims, after travelling through body armor. Also from inside vehicles, having penetrated outer shells or skins. Yes, a 5.56 round can fragment, just as any other round. It's not any more likely to fragment than other rounds of the same type. It would depend, specifically, on the type of round in question.

[HeyLeroy]

Actually I was looking at stats for the AR-15. It wasn't designated as the M-16 until 1962. The early barrels, with their 'tighter' spiralled rifling, did produce bullet yaw at longer ranges.

I never said the M-16 was known for frangibility, but the 5.56mm round it fired.

The 'ball' designation for ammo usually refers to 'standard issue', although I understand that it also may designate a bullet with a full metal jacket. The deformed Carcano round found at the hospital had a relatively thick copper jacket. I don't think it was reported anywhere what type of ammunition the Secret Service was using. Heck, they didn't even want to admit to having an AR at the scene.

[HeyLeroy]

Some clarifications on statements I've made previously in this thread.

It had been a while (six years) since I'd read that book, and I'd been making statements from memory. My copy of the book is long gone, but as my local library has a copy I'm currently re-reading it.

I stated that .223 (5.56mm) ammunition is known for its frangibility (likeliness to fragment upon impact), as stated by the author of this book. I was incorrect, and I take that back. He asserts that, due to its thinner jacket and higher velocity (his tests showed the MV of the Carcano rifle at 2220 fps) the smaller 5.56mm round is slightly more likely to fragment.

But that's besides the point of what got him questioning.

He wondered, why would the bullet that passed through Kennedy's throat, and Connally's chest and wrist, lodging itself in his thigh, remain mostly intact (many CTists point to the bullet found at the hospital as being in "pristine" condition when in fact it was not; it was flattened, deformed and bent) while the round that went into Kennedy's head virtually exploded, leaving approximately 40 small fragments inside Kennedy's brain? He wondered if maybe Oswald had used two different types of ammunition, but the empty casings found in the book depository were frome the same types of ammo.

He wondered about the properties exhibited by the head round, and all he could think of was a soft lead unjacketed bullet. These are prohibited by the Geneva convention for military use, but would be the type preferred by bodyguards. A jacketed round has the ability to retain its shape and is able to pass through several people ( a 6.5mm carcano-type bullet passed through 46" of pine board in one test) which would be undesirable in a crowd situation. A frangible unjacketed round would be preferred in a croud situation, where it would disperse most if not all of its energy in the targeted person and be much less likely to overpenetrate.

Like I said, the book is pretty convincing. The follow-car was estimated to be approximately five feet behind the president's limo:

http://www.jfk-fr.com/images/jfk/34.jpg

Huntsman, you sound like you've had a fair amount of firearms experience: ever had an accidental discharge? Know anyone who has?

I'm currently re-reading the book, as I said, and I'll start another thread with a summary of each chapter. Check your local library, they might just still have a copy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
I stated that .223 (5.56mm) ammunition is known for its frangibility (likeliness to fragment upon impact), as stated by the author of this book. I was incorrect, and I take that back. He asserts that, due to its thinner jacket and higher velocity (his tests showed the MV of the Carcano rifle at 2220 fps) the smaller 5.56mm round is slightly more likely to fragment.
...

I find this highly suspect. The .223 Remington round, factory ammo, from a bolt-action rifle will get 1800-1950 fps (I'm assuming standard 50-55 grain bullet weight, not the more modern bullets that can get as low as 40 grain). The .220 Swift round, which is iirc a .308 Winchester catridge necked down to .22 cal, will get around 2100 fps. These are with the newest smokeless powders available and better machined rifles. I find it highly unlikely that a rifle produced decades ago, using ammunition from the time period would get 2220 fps muzzle velocity.

ETA: There are three major bullet types that were avilable at the time of the Kennedy assn.:
1) FMJ - lead core sheathed in a complete copper jacket
2) soft point - lead core, copper sheath, exposed lead tip
3) hollow point - lead core, copper sheath, hollow copper nose

More recently there are ballistic tip bullets which are like #3, but instead of the copper nose being hollow it is filled with plastic so the flight characteristics are better. As far as I know these were developed in the '90's.

[CurtC]

...while the round that went into Kennedy's head virtually exploded, leaving approximately 40 small fragments inside Kennedy's brain?
I thought that was pretty well explained by the fact that the bullet that went through his neck first was slowed, not hitting any bones until Connally's rib, at which point is was going considerably slower. And the final shot hit skull at high speed. I'm not a firearms expert, but that sounds pretty plausible to me.

And there's that other little thing - we already know there was someone else with a gun pointed at Kennedy's head, who took three shots, he admits that one hit Kennedy, but then he wants us to believe that the final head shot was a one in a million accidental discharge? That's a very extraordinary claim, so you need really good evidence for it, and frankly, I haven't seen it.

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, you sound like you've had a fair amount of firearms experience: ever had an accidental discharge? Know anyone who has?

Out of 15 years of military experience, including 12 months of riding in M-113 APCs, carrying locked and loaded weapons, over rought terrain, in combat conditions, I know one person who had an accidental discharge.

I would also assume that secret service guards would be at least as well trained as your basic military soldier (non-infantry).

I really don't see a trained rifleman having an accidental discharge just from someone hitting the brakes. It's possible, but I find it less likely than that the round simply shattered (I'd support the idea of a poorly made round or a defect on the casing as more likely, absent any other evidence of an accidental discharge form the car behind).

[Hellbound]

I find this highly suspect. The .223 Remington round, factory ammo, from a bolt-action rifle will get 1800-1950 fps (I'm assuming standard 50-55 grain bullet weight, not the more modern bullets that can get as low as 40 grain).

The M-16 uses a 55 grain round, and achieves muzzle velocities over 2500 fps.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The M-16 uses a 55 grain round, and achieves muzzle velocities over 2500 fps.

See, this is what happens when I post while doped up on cold meds, I was subtracting 2000 fps off of everything. (220 swift can do 4100 fps) Sorry. No more posted while medicated.

[Dave1001]

I'll state the obvious: If true, that was some kind of remarkable, high odds, chance shot.

I'll also ask the obvious: Did no one else in the chase car hear/witness Hickey's rifle discharge?

Also, why cover this up? When a f*ck up this bad happens, don't authorities usually love a fall guy to scapegoat everything on? It's not like it was LBJ holding that rifle in the chase car.

[Hellbound]

See, this is what happens when I post while doped up on cold meds, I was subtracting 2000 fps off of everything. (220 swift can do 4100 fps) Sorry. No more posted while medicated.

Heh.

Well, I believe you're looking at the wrong round, in any case: a .308 is a 7.62mm round. While some models of the Carcano used 7.35 x 51 mm rounds (which would somewhat fit your description), the one Oswald used was chambered for the smaller 6.5mm x 52mm round, and used a 160 grain bullet. I've had trouble finding much info on this type of round...it appears extremely uncommon.

This site (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ammo/factory.html) seems to give links to places that still manufacture the round. THe closest seems to be Norma's 156gr. Soft point boat tail. Not sure what was available at Oswald's time. Still can't find ballistic specs for the round, though.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Heh.

Well, I believe you're looking at the wrong round, in any case: a .308 is a 7.62mm round. While some models of the Carcano used 7.35 x 51 mm rounds (which would somewhat fit your description), the one Oswald used was chambered for the smaller 6.5mm x 52mm round, and used a 160 grain bullet. I've had trouble finding much info on this type of round...it appears extremely uncommon.

This site (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ammo/factory.html) seems to give links to places that still manufacture the round. THe closest seems to be Norma's 156gr. Soft point boat tail. Not sure what was available at Oswald's time. Still can't find ballistic specs for the round, though.

HeyLeroy mentioned both the 5.56 and the 6.5 Carcano in his post, I thought the velocity mentioned was off the 5.56 portion of the post.

The 6.5 x 55 Swedish is still common. Reloading supplies for the 6.5 Carc are still available. Cursory googling isn't turning up much in the way of history of the cartridge however.

[Hellbound]

Wasn't a 6.5 Swedish, though (that's a 6.5 x 55), but close. I came across that one too :)

Although, I don't believe the Carcano came in a 5.56 (it did come in a 7.35). The 5.56 was referring to the hypothesized M-16 in the car behind Kennedy that was hypothesized to misfire and cause the head shot (it's a .223 Remington round).

The only info I've found for the 6.5 x 52 is on the Carcano rifle itself (which doesn't specify version), which is where my 2440 fps figure came from.

On reviewing, the M-16 originally had a mv of 2800 fps. Modern versions fire at 3100 to 3200 fps.

[Hamradioguy]

Barnes' "Cartridges of the World" shows the 6.5 x 52 factory load with 162grain (military) bullet has a mv of 2296fps. The fastest mv of various haddloads listed using lighter bullets is 2340fps. The cartridge cases found in the Book Depository were made by Western Cartridge Co. The Warren Commission listed this loading as being a "full metal jacketed military type bullet" with a velocity of 2,165fps.

Dr. Alfred Oliver who conducted wound ballistics experiments for the Warren Commission had some interesting observations on this round and specifically Kennedy's head wound. And for those who still consider anything done by the Warren Commission "suspect", I'd recommend "Conspiracy of One" by Jim Moore, in which he does an excellent analysis of how many shots were fired and where they went. He picked up on some errors in the Warren Commission report and I believe made a spot-on explanation of what really happened. (I wish he'd write a 9/11 book "Conspiracy of 19".)

[Hellbound]

Barnes' "Cartridges of the World" shows the 6.5 x 52 factory load with 162grain (military) bullet has a mv of 2296fps. The fastest mv of various haddloads listed using lighter bullets is 2340fps. The cartridge cases found in the Book Depository were made by Western Cartridge Co. The Warren Commission listed this loading as being a "full metal jacketed military type bullet" with a velocity of 2,165fps.

Dr. Alfred Oliver who conducted wound ballistics experiments for the Warren Commission had some interesting observations on this round and specifically Kennedy's head wound. And for those who still consider anything done by the Warren Commission "suspect", I'd recommend "Conspiracy of One" by Jim Moore, in which he does an excellent analysis of how many shots were fired and where they went. He picked up on some errors in the Warren Commission report and I believe made a spot-on explanation of what really happened. (I wish he'd write a 9/11 book "Conspiracy of 19".)


Thanks for the excellent info. Does Barne's have a website? IF so, I'll have to add it to my favorites :)

Have any more details on the "interesting observations" you mentioned?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for the excellent info. Does Barne's have a website? IF so, I'll have to add it to my favorites :)

Have any more details on the "interesting observations" you mentioned?

Barnes, Hodgsen, and Nosler all have excellent reloading books. I don't know how much they have published on their websites however.

[kc440_]

This entire forum seems packed with 9/11 stuff, and I haven't seen any Kennedy assassination threads. If I missed it, I apologize.

So, Kennedy? Who dun it? :confused:



for the record, i'm a single-shooter theorist

The Assassination was funded by oil barons from old money. Some of the names are: Morgan, Rockafeller, DuPont, Murchison, Bush, Rothschilds, etc., and names we will never know. It was carried out by CIA-trained Cuban Exiles and hit men. There were several shooters. Johnson knew it was coming and that he would benefit. Nixon knew, but couldn't do anything about it. J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, they knew. The Secret Service were complicit.

The reason he was killed was that he had a vision for America. The others wanted Global interests. They wanted a one-world govt. And since that time, we've always been ruled by the elite. I don't think we'll ever have a truly free country. The candidate would turn up dead. And it crosses parties -- Republicans and Democrats.

kc440

[Stellafane]

The Assassination was funded by oil barons from old money. Some of the names are: Morgan, Rockafeller, DuPont, Murchison, Bush, Rothschilds, etc., and names we will never know. It was carried out by CIA-trained Cuban Exiles and hit men. There were several shooters. Johnson knew it was coming and that he would benefit. Nixon knew, but couldn't do anything about it. J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, they knew. The Secret Service were complicit.

The reason he was killed was that he had a vision for America. The others wanted Global interests. They wanted a one-world govt. And since that time, we've always been ruled by the elite. I don't think we'll ever have a truly free country. The candidate would turn up dead. And it crosses parties -- Republicans and Democrats.

kc440

I didn't know that. Got any proof (and don't dare mention anything edited by Jim Fetzer)?

[Dog Town]

Kennedy gets elected by a few hundred votes. Thousands stolen for him by the mob, (see Daley also). JFK gets elected , makes little brother Bobby top cop! He(Bobby) then goes after the mob. Just like his old boss Mac went after the Commie BS. See ya both of'em. You do the math!

[Polaris]

The Assassination was funded by oil barons from old money. Some of the names are: Morgan, Rockafeller, DuPont, Murchison, Bush, Rothschilds, etc., and names we will never know. It was carried out by CIA-trained Cuban Exiles and hit men. There were several shooters. Johnson knew it was coming and that he would benefit. Nixon knew, but couldn't do anything about it. J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, they knew. The Secret Service were complicit.

The reason he was killed was that he had a vision for America. The others wanted Global interests. They wanted a one-world govt. And since that time, we've always been ruled by the elite. I don't think we'll ever have a truly free country. The candidate would turn up dead. And it crosses parties -- Republicans and Democrats.

kc440

Wow.

[CurtC]

kc, surely you can fit Operation Northwoods into your theory?

What about Chemtrails, after all we have pictures of persistent trails in the sky from WWII. They had been around a long time already. Maybe something like "Kennedy found out about the military's Chemtrail spraying program that had been going on for 20 years"?

And what, no Halliburton? No Reptilians?

And of course, everyone knows that George H.W. Bush was knee-deep in it.

Get busy, boy, the effort you put out so far is so feeble!

ETA: ... and I wanna see something about giant owls!

ETA2: ... and homosexual prostitution rings!

[Dog Town]

And what, no Halliburton? No Reptilians?

And of course, everyone knows that George H.W. Bush was knee-deep in it.

Get busy, boy, the effort you put out so far is so feeble!

ETA: ... and I wanna see something about giant owls!

ETA2: ... and homosexual prostitution rings!

Yeah...umm, when do we start training for that?

[HeyLeroy]

I thought that was pretty well explained by the fact that the bullet that went through his neck first was slowed, not hitting any bones until Connally's rib, at which point is was going considerably slower. And the final shot hit skull at high speed. I'm not a firearms expert, but that sounds pretty plausible to me.

Yes, and the author of the book I've mentioned has taken that into account. His (as well as others) testing has not been able to replicate the explosiveness of a FMJ 6.5mm round as seen in the Kennedy head shot. The type of bullet used by Oswald would fragment into three or four pieces; nothing like the more that forty minute fragments as seen in Kennedy's brain. With an unjacketed 5.56mm round, however, duplication of that was fairly easy. Side-by-side test photos were even in the Warren commission report.



And there's that other little thing - we already know there was someone else with a gun pointed at Kennedy's head, who took three shots, he admits that one hit Kennedy, but then he wants us to believe that the final head shot was a one in a million accidental discharge? That's a very extraordinary claim, so you need really good evidence for it, and frankly, I haven't seen it.

Yes, three empty shell casings were recovered from Oswald's perch. However, one casing exhibited fairly heavy damage, making it unlikely that it had been fired that day.

According to the WC report, Oswald's wife had stated that he'd admitted to her that several months previously, Oswald had fired a round from that rifle through the window of a major, his name escapes me (I wish I had the book here!). The Dallas police never recovered a shell casing from that scene, leading Donahue to surmise that Oswald fled before ejecting that empty casing, but used it to dry-fire the rifle while practising cycling the action. He'd ejected it at the book depository.


Out of 15 years of military experience, including 12 months of riding in M-113 APCs, carrying locked and loaded weapons, over rought terrain, in combat conditions, I know one person who had an accidental discharge.

I would also assume that secret service guards would be at least as well trained as your basic military soldier (non-infantry).

I really don't see a trained rifleman having an accidental discharge just from someone hitting the brakes. It's possible, but I find it less likely than that the round simply shattered (I'd support the idea of a poorly made round or a defect on the casing as more likely, absent any other evidence of an accidental discharge form the car behind).

So while you agree that the accidental discharge of firearms happens, you don't see how a man, a bodyguard, whose nerves would be on edge at the sound of gunfire, while standing on the soft back seat of a convertible, might accidentally, inadvertently, reflexively, squeeze the trigger of his firearm as the vehicle suddenly accelerated forward and the man falls backward? I think it's fairly safe to assume that he'd flicked the safety off at the sound of gunfire. From photographic evidence, agent Hickey was approximately eight yards behind the president at the time of the head shot.

And there is other evidence.

Several people, according to the WC report, said that they believed a shot had originated near the president's limo. One person even asserted that a shot had come from the president's limo.

Several people, according to the WC report, claimed to have smelled gunpowder smoke in the vicinity of the limo.

Several people, according to the WC report, reported seeing something hit the pavement behind the limo, kicking up dust. Many thought it was a firecracker. Donahue takes this to be Oswald's first shot, the miss that peppered the back of Kennedy's head and the inside of the limo with ricochet material.

Even one of the Secret Service agents testified thet he originally thought that agent Hickey had fired at someone.

Also, why cover this up? When a f*ck up this bad happens, don't authorities usually love a fall guy to scapegoat everything on? It's not like it was LBJ holding that rifle in the chase car.

Umm, ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald?:D

Apologies for the smart-assery. Autopsy X-rays indicate that the throat wound was more devastating than earlier believed. The shot hat fractured one of Kennedy's vertebrae. That, and his degenerative spinal disease, probably meant that he wouldn't have even survived that wound. And it's unclear, what with all the commotion, that agent Hickey (or others in the car) even realized he'd discharged his weapon.

Approximately one year after the assassination, LBJ was quoted as saying something to the effect that, were he ever killed, it wouldn't be from an assassin's bullet, it would be from a Secret Service agent's mistake. If I had the book here, I'd reference the quote now. I'll add the reference tomorrow.

[Hellbound]

So while you agree that the accidental discharge of firearms happens, you don't see how a man, a bodyguard, whose nerves would be on edge at the sound of gunfire, while standing on the soft back seat of a convertible, might accidentally, inadvertently, reflexively, squeeze the trigger of his firearm as the vehicle suddenly accelerated forward and the man falls backward?

No.

Because I've seen soldiers, with less weapons training (FAR less) than a Presidential bodyguard, whose nerves are on edge at the sound of gunfire, RPGs and/or IEDs, while standing on a very small seat rail or platform inside a bouncing M-113, being thrown back and forth as it travels over rough terrain (even to the point of broken ribs on some occassions, just from the vehicles normal movement), and who were in this situation on a daily basis, and we had one accidental discharge.

And it was not in a vehicle, but after a mission while clearing weapons.

I find the odds that this would happen at the exact time, and in the exact direction to hit the President, far less believable than that Oswald shot him.

Not that it's impossible, but it's also not impossible that I'll be elected President in 2012. But I'm not quitting my day job.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that he'd flicked the safety off at the sound of gunfire. From photographic evidence, agent Hickey was approximately eight yards behind the president at the time of the head shot.

I stand by my point. We often had our safeties off, especially while on patrol, and especially when the proverbial feces hit the rotary device. One accidental discharge.

And there is other evidence.

Several people, according to the WC report, said that they believed a shot had originated near the president's limo. One person even asserted that a shot had come from the president's limo.

Several people, according to the WC report, claimed to have smelled gunpowder smoke in the vicinity of the limo.

Several people, according to the WC report, reported seeing something hit the pavement behind the limo, kicking up dust. Many thought it was a firecracker. Donahue takes this to be Oswald's first shot, the miss that peppered the back of Kennedy's head and the inside of the limo with ricochet material.

Even one of the Secret Service agents testified thet he originally thought that agent Hickey had fired at someone.

I'd like numbers.

Some people claimed to see a person on the grassy knoll.

Is there any consensus among eyewtinesses that would have been close enough to be relevent, or is this simply a case of cherry-picking?

Sorry, but not convinced.

[HeyLeroy]

The quote I said I'd provide is as follows:

From LBJ to Frank Cormier, White House correspondent, in his book LBJ: The Way He Was(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1977, pgs 19-20):

If I ever get killed, it won't be because of an assassin. It'll be some Secret Service agent who trips himself up and his gun goes off. They're worse than trigger-happy Texas sheriffs.

Huntsman, what kind of numbers are you looking for? Shall I provide quotes?

[Hellbound]

The quote I said I'd provide is as follows:

From LBJ to Frank Cormier, White House correspondent, in his book LBJ: The Way He Was(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1977, pgs 19-20):



Huntsman, what kind of numbers are you looking for? Shall I provide quotes?

How many witnesses claimed they heard shots from teh car? compared to how many heard shots from the book depository? As part of this, I'd also like to know how many of those interviewed claimed the shots came from some other location entirely.

Just because some witnesses claimed this, doesn't mean it's true. You have to identify common elements of witness statements. When they conflict, your best bet is to go to the physical evidence...of which none suggests a secret service misfire.

[boloboffin]

You will note,

Precisely 8 weeks and 1 day after JFK was shot (22 November 1963), the intention to build the WTC was announced (18 January 1964).

8 weeks + 1 day
8 + 1 = 9
8 weeks = 56 days
5 + 6 = 11

9/11

JFK knew about 9/11, that's why they shot him.

-Andrew

That is magnificent. :D

[kc440_]

I didn't know that. Got any proof (and don't dare mention anything edited by Jim Fetzer)?

There was a French book entitled "Farewell America." It's thesis is that the rich elite oil barons destroyed America when they killed Kennedy. It was written some time back.

About various VIPs, you can read about them in Madeleiine Brown's "Texas in the Morning." She was at the Murchison's house when J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, LBJ, etc., convened in a room. She sat outside and Johnson came out red-faced and said, "After tomorrow those Kennedy boys will never embarrass me again." This was the early morning of Nov. 22, 1963. Ms. Brown is now deceased. She was Johnson's mistress.

"Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong tells of the CIA training of the anti-Castro Cuban Exiles, who turned against Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs disaster. After the Assassination, many Cubans continued on with the CIA, doing jobs. One such Exile was Jose Perdomos, also known as San Jenis.

Perdomos was the special security guard for John Lennon, keeping people at bay, etc. He was on duty December 8, 1980 when Lennon was shot. Supposedly he said to MD Chapman, "Do you know what you did?" And Chapman replied, "I just shot John Lennon." You can read about this in a John Lennon site from Montreal. I'm sorry I can't give you a link right now. The author of the site is not considered reliable on other matters, but I've been assured by someone who knew him well and hates him, that he is right about Perdomos and Lennon. (I think he's anti-semitic and has a Spanish name.)

One book you may want to read is Jim Marrs "Rule by Secrecy." Also, the film "Executive Action."

kc440

[Bell]

There was a French book entitled "Farewell America."

There is also a French website entitled "Hunt the Boeing" [/derail]

[kc440_]

HEY LEROY, in the photo you published, can you see Clint Hill's jacket? Doesn't it look like he's wearing some kind of bullet proof vest? He's Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service man.

kc440

[kc440_]

There is also a French website entitled "Hunt the Boeing" [/derail]

Yes, it's been awhile, but I've been on that site, and I agree with the author.

kc440

[WildCat]

the one Oswald used was chambered for the smaller 6.5mm x 52mm round, and used a 160 grain bullet. I've had trouble finding much info on this type of round...it appears extremely uncommon.

This site (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ammo/factory.html) seems to give links to places that still manufacture the round. THe closest seems to be Norma's 156gr. Soft point boat tail. Not sure what was available at Oswald's time. Still can't find ballistic specs for the round, though.
The Discovery Channel show I'm watching right now (JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet) they recreate the shooting using a 6.5mm x 52mm bullet from the same Western lot that Oswald's bullet came from! They fire it into a pine log and it travels 42 inches into the solid wood. Afterwards, the bullet is nearly intact and shows only minor deformation similar to Oswald's.

They also recreate, using dummies, the exact shot Oswald took and it is almost an exact match for the path of Oswald's. Causes all 7 of the injuries seen while traveling in a straight line. Nothing magical at all.

[Dog Town]

Watching now. CT'ers don't have a tenth of these guys desire, to sort things out! Can't do this in mommies basement!

[WildCat]

Watching now. CT'ers don't have a tenth of these guys desire, to sort things out! Can't do this in mommies basement!
Quick! Put it on youtube, it has to be true if it's on youtube!!!

[KingMerv00]

The Discovery Channel show I'm watching right now (JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet) they recreate the shooting using a 6.5mm x 52mm bullet from the same Western lot that Oswald's bullet came from! They fire it into a pine log and it travels 42 inches into the solid wood. Afterwards, the bullet is nearly intact and shows only minor deformation similar to Oswald's.

They also recreate, using dummies, the exact shot Oswald took and it is almost an exact match for the path of Oswald's. Causes all 7 of the injuries seen while traveling in a straight line. Nothing magical at all.

6 injuries. The recreation broke two of "Connally's" ribs instead of one. The bullet didn't have the energy to pierce the thigh after that.

[Infinite]

There were many reasons presented why the goverment would want to get rid of Kennedy quickly. Let's face it if nature had run it's course he would have been in power alot longer than Bush. People loved this guy. His whole family had the potential for making America their own. Look at the way things are now.....Maria Shriver and Arnold the first couple of California....hmmmm....This just shows the level of power that family still has in goverment.

[KingMerv00]

There were many reasons presented why the goverment would want to get rid of Kennedy quickly. Let's face it if nature had run it's course he would have been in power alot longer than Bush. People loved this guy. His whole family had the potential for making America their own. Look at the way things are now.....Maria Shriver and Arnold the first couple of California....hmmmm....This just shows the level of power that family still has in goverment.

Well it seems to me that Oswald saved the Kabal the trouble of assassinating him. Lucky break I suppose.

[Hellbound]

The Discovery Channel show I'm watching right now (JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet) they recreate the shooting using a 6.5mm x 52mm bullet from the same Western lot that Oswald's bullet came from! They fire it into a pine log and it travels 42 inches into the solid wood. Afterwards, the bullet is nearly intact and shows only minor deformation similar to Oswald's.

They also recreate, using dummies, the exact shot Oswald took and it is almost an exact match for the path of Oswald's. Causes all 7 of the injuries seen while traveling in a straight line. Nothing magical at all.

Cool, I'll have to look that up...I missed it.

[KingMerv00]

Cool, I'll have to look that up...I missed it.

You really do. It was the best JFK assassination show I have ever seen. Critical thinking aplenty.

[joemailman]

Didja ever see the memo from J Edgar H to George bush of the CIA? there was only one other george bush working at the CIA and he was a mail clerk. The other one was of course our former so-called prez.

[KingMerv00]

Didja ever see the memo from J Edgar H to George bush of the CIA? there was only one other george bush working at the CIA and he was a mail clerk. The other one was of course our former so-called prez.

Welcome to the forum.

No I have not. Can I see it?

[joemailman]

Ya have to search with J Edgar Hoover and george bush on google.

[KingMerv00]

Is this it?

http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/Jfk/PresJfkBush.gif

[HeyLeroy]

Didja ever see the memo from J Edgar H to George bush of the CIA? there was only one other george bush working at the CIA and he was a mail clerk. The other one was of course our former so-called prez.

Umm, so? It's not a secret that G. Bush sr. was with the CIA for a long time. If the memo that KingMerv kindly provided is the one to which you refer, what does it have to do with anything?

[KingMerv00]

To me, it looks like Hoover is telling Bush the day after the assassination that some anti-Castro elements in Miami might strike Cuba.

Interesting but I don't know see how it implicates Bush.

[HeyLeroy]

Sounds to me that the Cuban groups were more worried about being blamed. Seems to me that any group that'd been spouting anti-guvmint rhetoric preceding the assassination would likely go into full-on CYA mode. "Our cause was the most important, so they're gonna blame us!"

[firecoins]

Oliver Stone killed Kennedy to start the Vietnam war. This way he could have a film career.

[Hamradioguy]

Thanks for the excellent info. Does Barne's have a website? IF so, I'll have to add it to my favorites :)

Have any more details on the "interesting observations" you mentioned?

I need to hit the coffee pot before posting- That's "Barnes" as in Frank C. Barnes. No web site as far as I can tell (He'd be 88 years old now if still living). I have the 6th edition of his "Cartridges of the World" dated 1989. It's a super reference work of just about every cartridge produced including wildcats and obsolete military cartridges- each with a brief history, loading data and often case dimensions.

I don't have the Warren Report at close hand so I'll just paraphrase Dr. Oliver's comments on the President's head wound: He said he initially did not think that a jacketed and stable (not tumbling) round from the Carcano would make a large exit wound. He expected a small entrance and exit hole. But in tests he supervised using actual skulls filled with gelatin and coated outside with thin gelatin and hair produced massive exit wounds similar to that of Kennedy's.

Like most comprehensive "Commission" reports (think "9/11 Commission") one can data mine and take a few comments out of context, or point out erroneous illustrations or comments and claim the whole report is wrong. Reading the entire thing (The basic Warren Report, not counting the gigantic appendix, is something over 800 pages) takes work but is the only way to go if you want the big picture. The CT crowd seems particularly good at selecting only those portions that support their theories.

[Regnad Kcin]

The Assassination was funded by oil barons from old money. Some of the names are: Morgan, Rockafeller, DuPont, Murchison, Bush, Rothschilds, etc., and names we will never know. It was carried out by CIA-trained Cuban Exiles and hit men. There were several shooters. Johnson knew it was coming and that he would benefit. Nixon knew, but couldn't do anything about it. J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson, they knew. The Secret Service were complicit.

The reason he was killed was that he had a vision for America. The others wanted Global interests. They wanted a one-world govt. And since that time, we've always been ruled by the elite. I don't think we'll ever have a truly free country. The candidate would turn up dead. And it crosses parties -- Republicans and Democrats.kc, surely you can fit Operation Northwoods into your theory?

What about Chemtrails, after all we have pictures of persistent trails in the sky from WWII. They had been around a long time already. Maybe something like "Kennedy found out about the military's Chemtrail spraying program that had been going on for 20 years"?

And what, no Halliburton? No Reptilians?

And of course, everyone knows that George H.W. Bush was knee-deep in it.

Get busy, boy, the effort you put out so far is so feeble!

ETA: ... and I wanna see something about giant owls!

ETA2: ... and homosexual prostitution rings!Not to mention he forgot the tiger!

[KingMerv00]

Bump. Is that the memo mailman?

[firecoins]

Are you sure Oliver Stone didn't kill Kennedy?

[KingMerv00]

Maybe. He was 16-17 years old at the time. You know how teenagers are.

[KingMerv00]

(Wonders if mailman will chime in.)

Hello wall, how are you?

[Aoidoi]

There were many reasons presented why the goverment would want to get rid of Kennedy quickly. Let's face it if nature had run it's course he would have been in power alot longer than Bush. People loved this guy. His whole family had the potential for making America their own. Look at the way things are now.....Maria Shriver and Arnold the first couple of California....hmmmm....This just shows the level of power that family still has in goverment.It was a bit before my time, but weren't Kennedy's approval ratings the lowest for sitting president they'd since they started keeping track? I thought the whole trip to Texas was to try to salvage the state because he was trailing in the polls for the upcoming election.

Had he managed reelection, he'd have to have gotten an amendment through to get more than 8 years in office anyway. I suppose Bobby could have had another 8, though I don't know that he'd have had a chance at election had his brother not been killed.

I think Arnold's victory in California is more a testament to his popularity (and bankroll) and Davis getting ousted than it is to the Kennedy clan's power. The connections didn't hurt I'm sure, but he's also a Californian Republican rather than an East Coast Democrat, so no idea what kind of support he got from his wife's extended family.

[KingMerv00]

No answer in this thread. No answer in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64275) thread. Am I doing something wrong here?

[Bell]

No answer in this thread. No answer in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64275) thread. Am I doing something wrong here?

I don't know about Joemailman.

BS101 is very busy stalking Mackey the last few days. So he may not have the time to reply to your post. Or he is just a lying so and so...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No answer in this thread. No answer in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64275) thread. Am I doing something wrong here?

Asking pointed questions that can't be dodged via thread gulling? Yeah, that's your problem.

[KingMerv00]

I'm feeling like forum kyrptonite here.

[Oliver]

This entire forum seems packed with 9/11 stuff, and I haven't seen any Kennedy assassination threads. If I missed it, I apologize.

So, Kennedy? Who dun it? :confused:



for the record, i'm a single-shooter theorist


http://imu7.infomaniak.ch/sites/www.ndgourmet.com/images/Sniper_cat.jpg

[KingMerv00]

http://imu7.infomaniak.ch/sites/www.ndgourmet.com/images/Sniper_cat.jpg

Heh, more believable that some of the CT's I've heard.

[nathanmcginty]

Umm, so? It's not a secret that G. Bush sr. was with the CIA for a long time. If the memo that KingMerv kindly provided is the one to which you refer, what does it have to do with anything?

Actually - I think it is. I'm about to leave work and don't have time to do any googling, but I'm pretty sure GWB's official bio says that he didn't have anything to do with the CIA until he became the head.

The GWB people have long said that the GB in that memo refers to a DIFFERENT george bush - maybe the same George Bush that is mentioned by (i think) either Oswald or Demohrenschildt. They had his name in their address books.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm trying to recall this off the top of my head.

[HeyLeroy]

Even if he was, I still don't see the point. The CIA doesn't divulge the names of its people.

[KingMerv00]

Even if he was, I still don't see the point. The CIA doesn't divulge the names of its people.

Even if he WERE in the CIA it wouldn't implicate him in the assassination.

[Raskolnikov123]

It was a bit before my time, but weren't Kennedy's approval ratings the lowest for sitting president they'd since they started keeping track? I thought the whole trip to Texas was to try to salvage the state because he was trailing in the polls for the upcoming election.

Not even close. Kennedy's ratings were close the to the low point of his presidency, but he was an incredibly popular President. His ratings in late 1963 were in the high 50s. This wasn't remotely close to the postwar low points for a President, which were for Truman in 1952 and Nixon in 1974.

Kennedy wasn't trailing anyone in the polls. The upcoming elections were Congressional midterm elections, and he was in Texas doing the usual politicking for such elections.

As for the scenario of Kennedy getting accidentally shot by one of his SS men, there are lots of problems with it, aside from the lack of direct evidence.

1) Rifles ain't quiet. There were three earwitnesses to Oswald's shooting from the TBD, that were watching the motorcade on the floor beneath the sniper's nest. All three heard three shots, and knew with certainty that shots were being fired. You can read their WC interviews online. Other earwitnesses on the ground heard the shots and instantly looked up at the sniper's nest to see someone taking shots at the President. A cop on the street heard the shots, could tell where they were coming from, and made a beeline for the TBD and just missed Oswald coming down the stairs. There is *no* similar set of definitive actions taken with regard to gunshots fired from any other location, including the grassy knoll, the sewer, or the street behind Kennedy. There is, however, a lot of ambivalent testimony about what people heard. But this is easily explainable by the screwy acoustics in Dealey Plaza. My pet theory about the grassy knoll is that the sound from the TBD bounced off a structure behind the grassy knoll, which was a series of arches in the outline of a parabolic reflector, with a focus point on the grassy knoll. The natural consequence was that people heard shots that seemed to be coming from weird directions, but none of them are definitive to the extent that the TBD earwitnesses were definitive. No one on the ground next to the limo testifies "I hear this loud gunshot from right next to me. I instantly look in the direction of the shot, and see this secret service guy in car, standing with a rifle in his hands, with an "oh *****" look on his face staring at Kennedy's head". You do have statements similar to that regarding the TBD (one of the eyewitnesses description of the shooter he saw was an accurate description of Oswald, and it went over the radio minutes before Officer Tippet pulled up to talk to Oswald and got shot by him), even though the shooter was 5 stories up. So, this scenario assumes that the witnesses in Dealey plaza were all blind.

2) Similarly, the vast majority of earwitnesses heard three shots. The earwitnesses beneath Oswald heard three shots. Three shells were found on the floor in the sniper's nest. Very, very few people reported more than three shots, and their location tended to *not* be near the TBD, where the noise would have been most noticeable if someone had shot a rifle from the car behind Kennedy. So, this scenario imagines that the hundreds of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were deaf.

3) This scenario depends on an incredible coincidence.

Oswald did it.

What got me interested in the Kennedy assassination was digging into the magic bullet theory. I discovered that all of the claims made by conspiracists about what had happened that required a "magic bullet" were based on a misquoting or gross misreading of what was said in the Warren Report. It wasn't that they were saying the findings of the Warren Report were wrong, or that they were saying evidence was covered up (there was some of that, but most of their evidence was taken from the same sources the WR used). Rather, they just couldn't get their basic facts straight about what someone actually said in an interview. Once I discovered that, I dug deeper, and have read most of the WC interviews, and watched the Zapruder film many times. The best book on the subject that I can recommend, aside from the Warren Report itself, which is very good, is Gerald Posner's Case Closed, a stellar piece of debunking.

Oswald did it.

[KingMerv00]

Not even close. Kennedy's ratings were close the to the low point of his presidency, but he was an incredibly popular President. His ratings in late 1963 were in the high 50s. This wasn't remotely close to the postwar low points for a President, which were for Truman in 1952 and Nixon in 1974.

Kennedy wasn't trailing anyone in the polls. The upcoming elections were Congressional midterm elections, and he was in Texas doing the usual politicking for such elections.

As for the scenario of Kennedy getting accidentally shot by one of his SS men, there are lots of problems with it, aside from the lack of direct evidence.

1) Rifles ain't quiet. There were three earwitnesses to Oswald's shooting from the TBD, that were watching the motorcade on the floor beneath the sniper's nest. All three heard three shots, and knew with certainty that shots were being fired. You can read their WC interviews online. Other earwitnesses on the ground heard the shots and instantly looked up at the sniper's nest to see someone taking shots at the President. A cop on the street heard the shots, could tell where they were coming from, and made a beeline for the TBD and just missed Oswald coming down the stairs. There is *no* similar set of definitive actions taken with regard to gunshots fired from any other location, including the grassy knoll, the sewer, or the street behind Kennedy. There is, however, a lot of ambivalent testimony about what people heard. But this is easily explainable by the screwy acoustics in Dealey Plaza. My pet theory about the grassy knoll is that the sound from the TBD bounced off a structure behind the grassy knoll, which was a series of arches in the outline of a parabolic reflector, with a focus point on the grassy knoll. The natural consequence was that people heard shots that seemed to be coming from weird directions, but none of them are definitive to the extent that the TBD earwitnesses were definitive. No one on the ground next to the limo testifies "I hear this loud gunshot from right next to me. I instantly look in the direction of the shot, and see this secret service guy in car, standing with a rifle in his hands, with an "oh *****" look on his face staring at Kennedy's head". You do have statements similar to that regarding the TBD (one of the eyewitnesses description of the shooter he saw was an accurate description of Oswald, and it went over the radio minutes before Officer Tippet pulled up to talk to Oswald and got shot by him), even though the shooter was 5 stories up. So, this scenario assumes that the witnesses in Dealey plaza were all blind.

2) Similarly, the vast majority of earwitnesses heard three shots. The earwitnesses beneath Oswald heard three shots. Three shells were found on the floor in the sniper's nest. Very, very few people reported more than three shots, and their location tended to *not* be near the TBD, where the noise would have been most noticeable if someone had shot a rifle from the car behind Kennedy. So, this scenario imagines that the hundreds of witnesses in Dealey Plaza were deaf.

3) This scenario depends on an incredible coincidence.

Oswald did it.

What got me interested in the Kennedy assassination was digging into the magic bullet theory. I discovered that all of the claims made by conspiracists about what had happened that required a "magic bullet" were based on a misquoting or gross misreading of what was said in the Warren Report. It wasn't that they were saying the findings of the Warren Report were wrong, or that they were saying evidence was covered up (there was some of that, but most of their evidence was taken from the same sources the WR used). Rather, they just couldn't get their basic facts straight about what someone actually said in an interview. Once I discovered that, I dug deeper, and have read most of the WC interviews, and watched the Zapruder film many times. The best book on the subject that I can recommend, aside from the Warren Report itself, which is very good, is Gerald Posner's Case Closed, a stellar piece of debunking.

Oswald did it.

Good first post. Welcome to the loony bin.

[Hamradioguy]

The best book on the subject that I can recommend, aside from the Warren Report itself, which is very good, is Gerald Posner's Case Closed, a stellar piece of debunking.
Oswald did it.

Excellent post. And welcome to the Forums. If you've not read it, I can recommend "Conspiracy of One" by Jim Moore. Very well researched, and I like his observation that all the conspiracy theories create a myriad of unanswered questions. (Sorta like another more recent conspiracy theory, eh?)

[HeyLeroy]

Even if he WERE in the CIA it wouldn't implicate him in the assassination.

:D Yeah, so my grammars ain't what they aught.

Just to let everyone know, I'm not a CT nut either. I truly believe that Oswald was the only person in that plaza with malice aforethought.

From biographical info, he seems like the classical nutter type, akin to Hinckley.

I've read "Death Of A President", a lengthy synopsis of the Warren Commission report, and several other works that had me pretty much convinced that Oswald had acted alone.

But the book I referenced above in this thread got me to wondering.

I haven't had a lot of time to put together the chapter-by-chapter 'Cole's Notes' version I'd promised, but it's coming. If you can find it in your local library system, check it out. It's pretty darned convincing.

Once I post my 'book report' I'll drop the subject; it's not like I have a huge emotional investment in it. Whatever happened, happened. I believe myself to have an above-average understanding of ballistics and firearms, and it was enough to convince me that his theory was, at least, possible. If not probable. If you don'r buy into it, c'est la.

Cheers.

[Foolmewunz]

Kennedy wasn't trailing anyone in the polls. The upcoming elections were Congressional midterm elections, and he was in Texas doing the usual politicking for such elections.

Nitpick: Excellent first post, and I wouldn't bother if it wasn't for that, 'cuz you obviously like to get your data correct.

The mid-term elections were held in '62. And the Dems had picked up three or four House seats. Any off-year elections in '63 would have been governors, mayors, state elections, etc... And they were over three weeks earlier.

Kennedy was in Dallas at the request of the state party because there was in-fighting in the local Democratic Party. They were trying to avoid a rift that might have an impact on the '64 presidential elections. Remember that he nearly lost to Nixon, and polling was the state of the art that it is today, so they felt they needed LBJ and the Texas/Southern bloc. The upcoming election (in 12 months) was the Presidential election.

[Raskolnikov123]

"Nitpick: Excellent first post, and I wouldn't bother if it wasn't for that, 'cuz you obviously like to get your data correct.

The mid-term elections were held in '62. And the Dems had picked up three or four House seats. Any off-year elections in '63 would have been governors, mayors, state elections, etc... And they were over three weeks earlier."

Gack. spaced out on that one. Nice catch.

[KingMerv00]

:D Yeah, so my grammars ain't what they aught.

I wasn't correcting your grammar.

You said the CIA could deny that Bush was in the CIA at the time. You wouldn't find that surprising.

I said that Bush could be in the CIA at the time and not be guilty of assassination.

[nathanmcginty]

Even if he WERE in the CIA it wouldn't implicate him in the assassination.

right. i'm not saying that it implicates him in anything.

i'm just saying the official story (again, i can't post links yet - check out the Wikipedia entry on GWB and the White House Official Web Site) is that Bush didn't have anything to do with the CIA until he was appointed agency head.

and, yes, even if he WERE in the CIA at this time, they wouldn't admit it as part of SOP.

just one of those interesting little conspira-fact-oids.

oswald shot a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSB at kennedy and hit him. i ain't got no problem in saying that.

i just think there was a little extra hanky panky going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. but i'm enough of a skeptic to realize i don't have any concrete proof of this.

Poser did a good job of nailing shut a lot of the conspiracy theories in "Case Closed". Norman Mailer backed that up in his "Oswald's Ghost", basically agreeing with Posner that LHO was pretty much a nutball, but also admitted there were a few loose ends that still didn't add up.

(had to take a break from the Loose Change forums).

[KingMerv00]

right. i'm not saying that it implicates him in anything.

OK.

i'm just saying the official story (again, i can't post links yet - check out the Wikipedia entry on GWB and the White House Official Web Site) is that Bush didn't have anything to do with the CIA until he was appointed agency head.

I believe the official story is that it was a different George Bush.

and, yes, even if he WERE in the CIA at this time, they wouldn't admit it as part of SOP.

OK.

just one of those interesting little conspira-fact-oids.

Only if you believe it reveals a conspiracy.

oswald shot a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSB at kennedy and hit him. i ain't got no problem in saying that.

OK.

i just think there was a little extra hanky panky going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. but i'm enough of a skeptic to realize i don't have any concrete proof of this.

Why believe in things for which you have to evidence?

Poser did a good job of nailing shut a lot of the conspiracy theories in "Case Closed". Norman Mailer backed that up in his "Oswald's Ghost", basically agreeing with Posner that LHO was pretty much a nutball, but also admitted there were a few loose ends that still didn't add up.

Loose ends like...?

(had to take a break from the Loose Change forums).

Smart man.

[Raskolnikov123]

"Poser did a good job of nailing shut a lot of the conspiracy theories in "Case Closed". Norman Mailer backed that up in his "Oswald's Ghost", basically agreeing with Posner that LHO was pretty much a nutball, but also admitted there were a few loose ends that still didn't add up. "

As I recall, Mailer gives too much credence to the various "Oswald sightings".

I think a lot of conspiracy theorists place too much faith in people's powers of recognition when it comes to the mundane individuals that we meet from day to day. Take the following hypothetical claims about recognition:

1) Lee Harvey Oswald is my brother. I was standing watching the motorcade, heard gunshots, looked up, and said "damn, that's Lee!"

2) I don't know Lee Harvey Oswald. However, I was walking in suburban Dallas, and heard gunshots and saw a police officer lying shot near his car. I saw a small, skinny balding guy wearing a jacket, holding a pistol and walking away friom him toward Jefferson Ave. I am looking at the picture you are showing me of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I can tell you, yes, that is the man I saw.

3) I don't know Lee Harvey Oswald. But I saw his picture in the paper yesterday, and I thought "wow, that is the man who was standing behind me at the grocery store in Austin at the time of the Kennedy assassination". As such, Oswald could not have been the shooter.

I have strong trust in recognitions like #1. We know our friends and relatives and recognize them instantly. I have mild trust in #2. I personally have tried to describe and identify people who have committed crimes to which I was a victim or witness. Even though one was pointing a gun at me, there is no way I could have picked the guy out in a lineup. I was too stressed out at the time. But mileage varies. Some people are very good at this. Studies have shown wide variation in people's ability to recognize and describe a culprit under such circumstances, and I find that credible. As such, I would take such recognition claims under advisement, looking at consistency between their current testimony and their initial sworn affadavit, and the like. I can't imagine I would vote to convict if this was the only evidence, however (with Oswald, however, there are about 20 identifications of the #2 variety as either the shooter of Kennedy or Tippet (and several #1s that place him in the TSBD shortly before and after the shooting (don't you hate nested parentheses?)) - I do take quantity into consideration). But when it comes to recognition #3, I have no trust at all.

The "duplicate Oswalds" are all of the #3 variety.

The various "Oswald sightings"

[HeyLeroy]

I wasn't correcting your grammar.

You said the CIA could deny that Bush was in the CIA at the time. You wouldn't find that surprising.

I said that Bush could be in the CIA at the time and not be guilty of assassination.

Absolutely. I don't believe anyone but Oswald was in that plaza with malice aforethought. And I believe that Oswald acted alone.

[nathanmcginty]

"Poser did a good job of nailing shut a lot of the conspiracy theories in "Case Closed". Norman Mailer backed that up in his "Oswald's Ghost", basically agreeing with Posner that LHO was pretty much a nutball, but also admitted there were a few loose ends that still didn't add up. "

As I recall, Mailer gives too much credence to the various "Oswald sightings".



The main Oswald sightings that he brought up (correct me if I'm wrong) are the Odio (edited) testimony and the Louisiana sightings. In both of those, Mailer refutes Posners allegations and backs them up. I don't think he really gave them "credence" as much as he thought they were still unexplained.

The crux of Mailer's book is that Oswald was kind of a nut and shot the president. Right? I mean, that's what I got out of it. It certainly wasn't conspiracy oriented.

and just to be clear - i don't think there was a "second oswald" or anything like that. man. i've seen the guy who wrote a book about it give a lecture when i was covering the Dallas JFK conference for a story. whoo-hooo...there's two hours of my life I want back.

I guess the title of the thread is a bit misleading because I certainly don't think that Kennedy was shot by anybody other than Oswald.

[Crungy]

I saw an internet article today, about one of the fruit loops I remember from the days when the JFK hit was the big star in Conspiracywood.

Anyone who's waded in the nut brown waters of the JFK assassination has surely come across Cyril H. Wecht, the loopy Geraldo Riveria of forensic pathologists. Evidently, Anna Nicole Smith hired him to perform an autopsy on her recently deceased son.

I also remember seeing his name in an article from last year about the death of a Pittsburgh Steelers player. This one dealt with a screwup on Wecht's part. I googled and got this....

steelersfever.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4338.html


PITTSBURGH -- Former Pittsburgh Steelers lineman Terry Long committed suicide by drinking antifreeze, a revised death certificate shows, and did not die as a direct result of football-related head injuries.

The Allegheny County coroner ruled in September that Long, 45, who had attempted suicide before, had died of meningitis. The condition, a swelling of the lining of Long's brain, was caused by football-related "chronic traumatic encephalopathy," also known as "punch-drunk syndrome," said the coroner at the time, Dr. Cyril Wecht.

But a revised death certificate, which Wecht's office never publicly announced, was filed Oct. 19, listing the manner of Long's death as suicide from drinking antifreeze. The ruling was changed when outside laboratory tests on Long's tissue and urine showed they contained ethylene glycol, the active ingredient in antifreeze, county officials said.

Joseph Dominick, chief of operations at the medical examiner's office, said Thursday that the antifreeze was what caused the swelling of the brain and the brain lining, and the football-related brain injuries were a contributing factor to the death.

The finding was first reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Thursday.

Long died in a hospital about five hours after he was found unresponsive in his suburban Pittsburgh home on June 7.

The original findings reinvigorated the debate over the dangers football players -- particularly linemen -- face from repetitive head injuries.

The medical examiner felt Long's history of brain injury was still a "significant factor" in the death and that he would be remiss in not mentioning it in the updated report, Dominick said.

"People with chronic encephalopathy suffer from depression," Dr. Bennet Omalu, a neurologist who worked on Long's autopsy and is still with the medical examiner's office, told the newspaper. "The major depressive disorder may manifest as suicide attempts. Terry Long committed suicide due to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy due to his long-term play."

But Steelers team physician Dr. Joseph Maroon, a neurosurgeon and nationally recognized expert on concussions, disagreed with Omalu.

"I think it's fallacious reasoning, and I don't think it's plausible at all," Maroon said. "To go back and say that he was depressed from playing in the NFL and that led to his death 14 years later, I think is purely speculative."

Long started at right guard for the Steelers from 1984 until 1991, when he attempted suicide with rat poison after he was suspended for violating the NFL's steroid policy. Long later rejoined the team although he was not re-signed after one season.

In March, Long was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges he fraudulently obtained loans for a chicken-processing plant which prosecutors allege he burned to the ground for the insurance money. At the time he died, Long's neighbor said he was separated from his second wife and was depressed about that as well as the federal charges he faced.

As an added bonus, I found this article.

post-gazette.com/pg/06021/641975.stm

Wecht indicted by grand jury

Medical examiner accused of public use, private gain

Saturday, January 21, 2006

By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Darrell Sapp, Post-Gazette
U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan discusses the 84 indictments against Dr. Cyril H. Wecht during a news conference yesterday at the Federal Courthouse in Pittsburgh.
Click photo for larger image.
Indictment Read the full text of the Cyril Wecht indictment as an Adobe Acrobat file

After a yearlong investigation, a federal grand jury yesterday indicted nationally renowned Allegheny County Medical Examiner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht on charges that he misused his public office for private gain.

The 84-count indictment, which outlines charges of mail and wire fraud, also accuses Dr. Wecht of trading unclaimed bodies in exchange for use of lab space at Carlow University.

Though defense lawyers put Dr. Wecht under a strict order not to speak publicly, as he exited his offices yesterday, he assured reporters he was innocent. He reiterated that position last night when reached at his home.

"I wasn't going to evade that question," he said. "What am I going to say?"

Dr. Wecht, who gained a national reputation on cases that included the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the still-unsolved slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, said last night he has received calls of support from friends and associates around the country.

"The phone's been ringing off the hook," he said.

With the indictment, Dr. Wecht now also finds himself out of a county job. When he was appointed the first medical examiner in Allegheny County earlier this month, Dr. Wecht agreed to resign immediately if indicted. County Chief Executive Dan Onorato yesterday accepted a letter of resignation that had been written in advance and placed on file.

Dr. Abdulrezak Shakir, a forensic pathologist who has been with the county since 1988, was named acting medical examiner.

Mark Rush, one of three defense lawyers, said Dr. Wecht will vigorously fight the charges. Dr. Wecht also is represented by former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former U.S. Attorney J. Alan Johnson.

The 39-page indictment outlines dozens of counts against Dr. Wecht, 74, who investigators say billed private clients of his business, Cyril H. Wecht and Pathology Associates Inc., for expenses he illegally charged to Allegheny County.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan outlined the indictment at a news conference yesterday, including a charge that Dr. Wecht provided bodies that went unclaimed at the coroner's office for use as cadavers in the forensic sciences program at Carlow University. The government said the bodies were provided at no cost in exchange for lab space for his private practice.

A cadaver typically costs between $1,800 and $4,000.

Ms. Buchanan would not say how many bodies were involved but that there were several each month. The indictment said the practice went on from June 2003 to December 2005.

"Cyril Wecht allowed the bodies to be used by the school for practice," Ms. Buchanan said.

Carlow University officials in a statement yesterday denied there was any kind of trade agreement with Dr. Wecht for use of its labs.

"Carlow provided facilities to Dr. Wecht for the purpose of teaching autopsy procedure as part of the course of instruction in the university's forensic sciences program," the statement read. "At no time, did Carlow trade laboratory space for cadavers."

The college said it believed Dr. Wecht was acting lawfully and that the autopsies were performed as part of his private practice and had no relation to his duties as the county coroner.

Ms. Buchanan said that a body in Pennsylvania should not be autopsied unless the cause of death is unclear. In these instances with the unclaimed bodies, there was no need for an autopsy, she said.

The government also alleged that:

Dr. Wecht used county resources, including office equipment, vehicles and employees, for his private business. Ms. Buchanan could not put a dollar figure on the amount of money involved in that part of the charges.

Dr. Wecht overbilled his private clients. The indictment charges him with having false travel agency bills generated that inflated the cost of his airfare, and at the same time, charging his clients a $90 "airport limousine charge," when he really traveled to Pittsburgh International Airport in a county-owned vehicle.

Dr. Wecht asked his clients to pay his travel expenses in checks made out to him personally, and not to his company, allowing him to not report those in his business proceeds, and instead take them as "pocket money."

Dr. Wecht asked employees of the coroner's office to perform personal errands for him on county time, including dog-walking, picking up personal mail, purchasing sporting goods and hauling away trash.

Dr. Wecht used county resources, including equipment and employees, to organize political events and to solicit campaign donations for both himself and his son, Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge David Wecht.

According to the indictment, Dr. Wecht's private business generated more than $8.75 million in gross income between 1997 and 2004. Dr. Wecht, the sole owner of the business, earned more than $4.65 million in officer compensation during that same time frame.

He told the IRS that from 1998 to 2004, 100 percent of his time was devoted to his private business, the indictment alleges.

In addition to Dr. Wecht, two former coroner's office employees also were indicted yesterday. Dr. Leon Rozin, a pathologist and long-time associate of Dr. Wecht, was named in one-count indictment charging him with mail fraud. The government alleges that while providing private autopsy and consulting services for Butler and Washington counties, Dr. Rozin filed for mileage and travel reimbursements, even though he made the trip in someone else's vehicle.

Martin Dietz, who is representing Dr. Rozin in the case, said he had no comment.

George Hollis, a former chief histologist in the coroner's office was named nine-count indictment, charging him with failing to file tax returns from 2001 through 2004, making false statements and theft from an organization that receives federal funds.

Mr. Hollis' attorney could not be reached.

Chris Briese, the special agent in charge of the Pittsburgh FBI office, said yesterday that battling public corruption is the top priority of the FBI.

The U.S. attorney's office has for several months been investigating allegations of corruption within the Pittsburgh mayor's office, the coroner's office and the Allegheny County sheriff's office, where three high-ranking officials have been indicted.

The reaction to Dr. Wecht's indictment yesterday among his friends was one of regret.

Former county Chief Executive Jim Roddey, who helped create the Wecht Legal Defense Fund in May, said he hoped his friend will be able to recover from this.

Mr. Roddey, a Republican, defeated Dr. Wecht, a Democrat, in 1999 to become the county's first chief executive.

"First of all, I'm very sorry that this has happened," Mr. Roddey said of the indictment. "I hope he is found to be innocent of the charges."

But when told of the allegations against Dr. Wecht, Mr. Roddey said: "If he did that, that's wrong, and he should have to account for that."

Mr. Roddey said he never saw any problems in the coroner's office.

"We saw evidence of [misusing county employees and resources] in other row offices, but we never saw anything that blatant in Cyril's office."

A longtime colleague of Dr. Wecht's, Dr. Michael Baden, the chief forensic pathologist for the New York State Police, was called to testify before the grand jury a few weeks ago. He would not say what he testified about. Dr. Baden did say he's never been involved with Dr. Wecht's private business, only with his work as the coroner and at Duquesne University, where Dr. Wecht heads the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

"It saddens me greatly to hear of this," Dr. Baden said. "He's held in high regard by his colleagues."

Dr. Wecht, a past president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, is recognized as one of the outstanding forensic pathologists in the country, Dr. Baden said.

"I've always felt Allegheny County has been very lucky to have him as the coroner there," he said.

Defense attorney Rush said he was disappointed that the charges were lodged against what he called "one of the most distinguished forensic pathologists of our time, who, now at 74, is in the twilight of his career -- an extraordinary career at that."

Mr. Rush claimed the charges against his client "started with the fanciful allegations initially made against Dr. Wecht," by Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

"The district attorney was apparently able to convince the FBI and United States Attorney to undertake this protracted and, unfortunately, very public investigation."

Mr. Zappala, yesterday afternoon, issued a brief statement saying it would be inappropriate to comment on the case.

Mr. Rush expressed frustration yesterday that the indictment came down without advance notice. During a Jan. 5 meeting with Ms. Buchanan and her staff, defense lawyers asked that they be told in advance of any forthcoming indictment and then be given a chance to request review of it by Justice Department officials in Washington before it was brought.

"We had a guarantee, which was reneged on," Mr. Rush said.

But Ms. Buchanan said there was never any such agreement.

"Dr. Wecht's defense lawyers were aware that charges would likely be presented before the end of January," she said.

She added that during the Jan. 5 meeting, she specifically rejected their request for review by the Department of Justice.

"What's frustrating is, we had a particular conversation about this," she said. "They were hoping to convince someone to persuade us to withhold the charges."

It's not unusual for the U.S. attorney's office to meet with defendants prior to indictment to give them an opportunity to talk about the evidence, Ms. Buchanan said.

Dr. Wecht's defense team plans to challenge the federal government's jurisdiction in the matter, saying that it has a "limited mandate," in criminal investigations that pertain to state and local politics.

"As a result, we believe that this indictment is unwarranted and fatally flawed," Mr. Rush said.

But Ms. Buchanan discounted that, saying that the charges listed in the indictment are clearly federal violations.

Mr. Rush said Dr. Wecht's defense team intends to fight the nature and scope of the investigation.

"He's been around a long time, and he's been through a lot," Mr. Rush said. "He's a fighter.

"Moreover, we will mount a legal assault on the investigative tactics of the substantive charges contained within the indictment."

He would not discuss those tactics.

Dr. Wecht's arraignment is set for 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 10.