JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
BStrong, earlier I think you were saying that the last two shots sounded close together because the last noise was just an echo or some kind or reverberation. How does this not mean that only two shots were fired in the assassination?

Edited by Agatha: 
Do not alter usernames without express permission, particularly if done to insult.
Click to expand...

By the way, I did not intend to misspell BStrong's name. I read the name and It showed up to me as "BSstrong".
 
Axxman300 said:
Let me save you some time:

Oswald did it alone.

Look, I get it, you WANT THIS TO BE A CONSPIRACY. Maybe it reinforces your world view, maybe you actually believe it, but you're lying to yourself.

I was a JFK CTer (aka: Moron) for 25 years. I read every book written between 1964 and 1996 on the assassination and I bit hard on the conspiracy. I sat through Oliver Stone's movie 6 times in the theater, and hundreds more on VHS. I even bought the cleaned up Zapruder Film.

I have forgotten more Assassination CT lore than I can recall.

Looking back there was a huge problem that I ignored (because ignoring the obvious is a primary trait of morons), over the years my prime suspects behind the assassination changed with each new book. First it was Johnson, then the Mafia, then the CIA, then the CIA with the Mafia, then anti-Castro Cubans, then anti-Castro Cubans with the Mob, then anti-Castro Cubans with the mob, CIA, and the FBI.
The motivations also changed; the military industrial complex wanted to go big into Vietnam, the Mafia wanted revenge, the CIA wanted revenge, the anti-Castro Cubans wanted revenge, Hunt oil had some kind of problem, etc...

A real crime has a narrow list of suspects.

All of the suspects I just listed were angry with JFK and his brother, but killing a President of the United States was not part of their playbook.

More importantly, there was no guarantee JFK would be re-elected in 1964. Historically speaking, Kennedy accomplished nothing while he was in the White House. Not a single bill he co-sponsored made it through the house. With the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis he is mostly a forgettable President if one looks at his record alone, and not the hype.

There was no need by any of the suspects to kill him.

I never thought of any of these things...until I went to Dallas.

In less than 10 minutes I went from a CT-moron to normal person. Oswald had an easy shot from the 6th floor. I mean EASY. You can argue ear-witness testimony, and matrix in your interpretation of the Zapruder film frames all you want, none of these things outweigh the physical evidence, or the ballistic evidence which all points to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Like I said before, guns don't lie.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you've been reading, but from what I understand, most people tend to think that the CIA was involved from the beginning. It wound seem like some elements of the conspiracy were pretty sloppy, though. Especially since a few years ago, photographic evidence confirmed that Lee Harvey Oswald had three wallets (one left on Marina's dresser, one found on the scene of the Tippit shooting, and one found in his pocket when he was arrested).

Also, from what I understand, the physical and ballistics evidence has endless literature explaining why it supports conspiracy. For example, why each shell casing shows some sign of being cycled through the rifle more than once and/or dry fired.
 
Ranb said:
It's been my experience with people who have an opinion on JFK, if they actually know how to shoot a rifle and have seen the layout of Dealey Plaza, they generally don't have a problem with the fact that Oswald could have shot JFK. The exceptions would be those who are selling something; people like Craig Roberts.
Click to expand...

I think most people theorize about multiple shooters because they don't think the trajectories or medical evidence match the sniper's nest.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't know what you've been reading, but from what I understand, most people tend to think that the CIA was involved from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Maybe now, but look at the history of the JFk conspiracies and has run a complete gauntlet of suspects. Early on the main suspects were communists, either the KGB or Castro. Later the mafia was considered a prime suspect. Some even tried to say it was a conspiracy but a small one: Jim Garrison thought it was a thrill kill among homosexuals. Oliver Stone had to weld on politics to his story.

When the late 60's rolled around the CIA was added into the mix, but rarely acting on its own - either hiring the Mob or goading Cuba into doing the deed. Even later corporate interests were tossed in, them getting CIA to do their dirty work. It has been a long, long list of suspects over the years and just because a few buffs these days have settled on the CIA doesn't mean they can pretend their past insinuations didn't happen.

Also, from what I understand, the physical and ballistics evidence has endless literature explaining why it supports conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Most of the ballistic evidence points to a single shooter using the Carcano found on scene. Neutron analysis, for example. Meanwhile, there is absolutely zero evidence of any other weapon being fired on scene.

For example, why each shell casing shows some sign of being cycled through the rifle more than once and/or dry fired.
Click to expand...

1) Cycling cartridges is a way to unload a rifle. There are plenty of reasons that Oswald may have put rounds through the action previously.

2) Are you saying Oswald somehow 'dry fired' a live round? Do you now know how firearms work?
 
cmikes said:
I believe what people are trying to suggest is that earwitness testimony is even more unreliable than eyewitness testimony. There were a few witnesses who believed that the second and third shots were closer together the the first and second. There were some witnesses who believed the opposite. There were some who believed that the three shots were evenly spaced. Is there any particular reason that you believe the first set of witnesses over the second two sets, other than that's what you've read from conspiracy theorists and don't know any better?
Click to expand...

cmikes, the vast majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were close together, and I have reason to believe that many of the "only two shot" witnesses may have interpreted the last two shots as one shot.

As far as the number of shots fired by Oswald at JFK, the majority of witnesses heard three shots, with more witnesses hearing two shots than four or more. But more importantly to the claims of conspiracy, even of the people who heard four or more shots, most witnesses in Dealy Plaza only heard shots from one direction. Now, again, ear and eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence you can get, but in this case, it matches up with the forensic evidence discovered.
Click to expand...

There were three loud reports. The last two were most likely close together.

I don't think it's a good idea to rule out the possibility of volly fire and/or silenced weapons. There is evidence that Connolly was hit by a second bullet that came shortly after the first loud one. Also, the incredibly likely fact that LHO could not have done all of the damage to President Kennedy, especially considering that the small circular wound near the EOP couldn't possibly exit from the top-right of the head.


It's important to remember that both the damaged bullet recovered as well as the large fragment of a bullet recovered from the limousine were fired from Lee Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every other rifle in the world.
Click to expand...

It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).

So no matter how many shots were fired, they all came from LHO's rifle unless you're claiming other bullets that hit no one and nothing and then vanished into thin air leaving no trace of their existence.
Click to expand...

First of all, you are the one postulating that a bullet missed and was never found. I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover. There is also evidence for a broad bullet that came out of JFK's back.

Like many other posters, when I first became interested in this subject at least entertained the idea that there may have been a conspiracy and read several conspiracy books with an open mind. Most of the books were full of cherry picked quotes, obfuscations, and outright lies. My advice is to check everything, preferably against sources like the Warren Commission Report, the HSCA report and the ARRB reports, which are all available online. It's obvious that you've been reading various conspiracy theorists websites and books, so I would like to recommend a counter balance, along with the official reports. John McAdams' site at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm is a great resource with a lot of links to primary sources.
Click to expand...

John McAdams is not only a horrible human being, he is probably the worst source of information on JFK on the internet.

As a matter of fact, if you're interested in the earwitness testimony, here's a link that clarifies some of your confusion.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in it. I know there's a House Select Committee earshot witness experiment which had results that overall said that while there were a lot of echoes in Dealey Plaza, you are most likely to correctly determine the origin of a loud gunshot.
 
kookbreaker said:
Most of the ballistic evidence points to a single shooter using the Carcano found on scene. Neutron analysis, for example. Meanwhile, there is absolutely zero evidence of any other weapon being fired on scene.
Click to expand...

You had me at "neutron analysis".

You are absolutely wrong. There is evidence for a shorter, broader bulllet from his back and evidence for a bullet found near a manhole cover.

1) Cycling cartridges is a way to unload a rifle. There are plenty of reasons that Oswald may have put rounds through the action previously.

2) Are you saying Oswald somehow 'dry fired' a live round? Do you now know how firearms work?
Click to expand...

It's called framing someone. At least one of the shells show signs of being cycled through the rifle without a bullet. There's also the problem of the dented lip. And how the chain of custody is butchered. And how the original story was that two spent hulls and one live round were found on the floor.
 
MicahJava said:
It's called framing someone. At least one of the shells show signs of being cycled through the rifle without a bullet. There's also the problem of the dented lip. And how the chain of custody is butchered. And how the original story was that two spent hulls and one live round were found on the floor.
Click to expand...

And how all these claims have been covered so many times already in this thread and its predecessors that I've lost count.
 
MicahJava said:
It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. Every attempt to discredit evidence in the case only winds up confirming it.

Take the evidence that Oswald owned the Carcano used in the shooting. Conspiracy advocates will take their examination of each individual piece to absolutely absurd lengths until they find something to focus on.

The rifle was ordered from Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago. Each individual piece of correspondence had handwriting matching Lee Harvey Oswald. The rifle was ordered using an alias that Oswald had an ID for when he was arrested. The rifle was sent to a post office box being rented by Lee Harvey Oswald. There are several photographs of Oswald posing with the same rifle as the one found in the depository. The negative for one of those photographs has been matched to the Oswalds Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. Every first generation print of those photographs has been examined in depth by an entire panel of photography experts and found to be 100% original and unaltered. There is a copy of one of the photographs with Oswald's handwriting on the back. Multiple sets of Oswald's prints were lifted off of the rifle after its recovery. One set, the palm print on the underside of the barrel, was matched to Oswald on the day of the assassination. The set of prints on the trigger guard was matched to Oswald in 1992 by fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice using newly found high contrast photographs of the print from the DPD. Oswald's wife testified to him owning a rifle, that she photographed him with it, testified to him taking it to shooting ranges, and that he would sit on the porch and dry cycle it for hours. Other acquaintances of the Oswalds also testified to Oswald owning a rifle.

In any other criminal case, that mountain of evidence would be enough for any thinking person to conclude that yes, Oswald owned the Carcano that fired the shots. In this case however, conspiracy advocates resort to picking gnat **** out of pepper in order to try and get around it.

They'll argue that the money order filled out by Oswald and cashed by Kleins doesn't have a bank stamp, so the entire paper trail must be fraudulent.

They'll argue that there is no proof Alex Hiddell was listed as an alternate recipient on Oswald's PO box due to a missing form, so there is no way he could have received mail there (conveniently ignoring that Oswald had a PO box in New Orleans and had listed Alex Hiddell as an alternate recipient there).

They'll argue that the rifle was picked up during the day when Oswald was at work, so he couldn't possibly have been the one to pick it up (conveniently ignoring that Oswald the model employee was fired from every job he ever had).

They'll argue that because the FBI didn't find the print the night of the shooting after it had already been lifted, that the DPD must have planted it.
 
MicahJava said:
I think most people theorize about multiple shooters because they don't think the trajectories or medical evidence match the sniper's nest.
Click to expand...

Based on what?

I know and understand firearms the way westerners understand the knife, fork and spoon, and marksmanship is as familiar to me as eating is to anyone else.

I can't say this enough: The various conspiracy theories with regard to the rifle, the mechanics of LHO's marksmanship and the terminal effects of the projectile are all flat-out ********.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't know what you've been reading, but from what I understand, most people tend to think that the CIA was involved from the beginning.
Click to expand...
What, "the CIA" (who, specifically, please) couldn't have spiked his drug cocktail or pushed him down a flight of stairs so instead went the easy route of concocting a scheme of multiple shooters in broad daylight surrounded by hundreds of people with the high possibility of leaving behind incriminating physical evidence?

Think, man!
 
MicahJava said:
cmikes, the vast majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were close together, and I have reason to believe that many of the "only two shot" witnesses may have interpreted the last two shots as one shot.

There were three loud reports. The last two were most likely close together.

I don't think it's a good idea to rule out the possibility of volly fire and/or silenced weapons. There is evidence that Connolly was hit by a second bullet that came shortly after the first loud one. Also, the incredibly likely fact that LHO could not have done all of the damage to President Kennedy, especially considering that the small circular wound near the EOP couldn't possibly exit from the top-right of the head.

It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).

First of all, you are the one postulating that a bullet missed and was never found. I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover. There is also evidence for a broad bullet that came out of JFK's back.

John McAdams is not only a horrible human being, he is probably the worst source of information on JFK on the internet.

I'm not interested in it. I know there's a House Select Committee earshot witness experiment which had results that overall said that while there were a lot of echoes in Dealey Plaza, you are most likely to correctly determine the origin of a loud gunshot.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

And that's why I, for one, will not wade into the above-quoted rat's nest surrounding a pile of strands of tangled Christmas tree lights. I recognize someone who wants to believe a fantasy more than wants the truth.
 
That always reminded me of the Apollo 1 stories. Apparently one or more of the crew was going to spill the beans on Apollo being a hoax (or whatever) so the CIA and NASA decided to do away with them all -- by murdering them on government property, in a multi-million-dollar rocket, in a spectacular way that engendered congressional hearings questioning the future of the project.

So many of these conspiracy books -- on whatever historical event you want to name -- read like very bad spy novels.
 
MicahJava said:
I think most people theorize about multiple shooters because they don't think the trajectories or medical evidence match the sniper's nest.
Click to expand...
I think you're being evasive. Can a person hit a target in a slowly moving vehicle in Dealey Plaza from the 6th floor of the TSBD or not?

MicahJava said:
Also, from what I understand, the physical and ballistics evidence has endless literature explaining why it supports conspiracy. For example, why each shell casing shows some sign of being cycled through the rifle more than once and/or dry fired.
Click to expand...
Nearly anyone else familiar with firearms understands that a cartridge can be cycled through a bolt action rifle for reasons other than furthering a conspiracy. Why don't you?

What evidence is there that those cartridge casings found after the shooting were used for dry fire? Why would evidence for dry firing be an issue?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
That always reminded me of the Apollo 1 stories. Apparently one or more of the crew was going to spill the beans on Apollo being a hoax (or whatever) so the CIA and NASA decided to do away with them all -- by murdering them on government property, in a multi-million-dollar rocket, in a spectacular way that engendered congressional hearings questioning the future of the project.

So many of these conspiracy books -- on whatever historical event you want to name -- read like very bad spy novels.
Click to expand...

No. My novels read much worse. And... Hey! Us bad writers do not appreciate the association.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
What, "the CIA" (who, specifically, please) couldn't have spiked his drug cocktail or pushed him down a flight of stairs so instead went the easy route of concocting a scheme of multiple shooters in broad daylight surrounded by hundreds of people with the high possibility of leaving behind incriminating physical evidence?

Think, man!
Click to expand...

A scheme entirely predicated on the weather in Dallas being unseasonably warm enough that JFK would make the choice to take the bubble top off of the limo.

If the weather had remained rainy that afternoon, there goes years of planning setting up poor Oswald as the patsy.
 
traxy said:
A scheme entirely predicated on the weather in Dallas being unseasonably warm enough that JFK would make the choice to take the bubble top off of the limo.

If the weather had remained rainy that afternoon, there goes years of planning setting up poor Oswald as the patsy.
Click to expand...

You don't know the technology they had man...
 
MicahJava said:
snipped....

I don't think it's a good idea to rule out the possibility of volly fire and/or silenced weapons.

...snipped...


.
Click to expand...

Trying to crowbar fantasy into reality can sometimes be entertaining, so please enlighten us as to why a conspiracy to commit murder is made better by having more rather than less conspirators, and using mismatched weapons in differing calibers or designs is an advantage in hiding said conspiracy.

Kind of reminds me of the old Bill Cosby (pre-rapist) stand up bit about street football play calling:

 
MicahJava said:
You had me at "neutron analysis".

You are absolutely wrong. There is evidence for a shorter, broader bulllet from his back and evidence for a bullet found near a manhole cover.



It's called framing someone. At least one of the shells show signs of being cycled through the rifle without a bullet. There's also the problem of the dented lip. And how the chain of custody is butchered. And how the original story was that two spent hulls and one live round were found on the floor.
Click to expand...

Free advice:

Steer clear of anything to do with the rifle and the marksmanship involved.

You're lack of knowledge of the subject matter is not a virtue, and only serves to weaken your argument.
 
BStrong said:
Trying to crowbar fantasy into reality can sometimes be entertaining, so please enlighten us as to why a conspiracy to commit murder is made better by having more rather than less conspirators, and using mismatched weapons in differing calibers or designs is an advantage in hiding said conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Not only different weapons, but firing from different locations altogether.

What if Kennedy was shot in the face? What if Connally or any other occupant inside the limousine was definitively struck from the front? What if the limo sustained damage that would be impossible to explain with a shot from the rear?

The conspirators would have no way of knowing how many photographers would be in the crowd at that point in the motorcade route, or how many video cameras would capture the incident (3 of them as it turns out, but it could have been as high as 5), or from what angle the incident would be captured.

That's a completely uncontrollable scenario. Zapruder's film of the assassination was developed and had multiple copies made within 6 hours. The Muchmore film was sold undeveloped to UPI who flew it out to New York and had it on the air within 12 hours. The Moorman polaroid taken a tenth of a second after the headshot was copied within 2 hours and was published in every major paper in the country the next day.

The number of loose ends a crazy scenario like the multiple shooter suggestion would create would be astonishing.
 
traxy said:
Not only different weapons, but firing from different locations altogether.

What if Kennedy was shot in the face? What if Connally or any other occupant inside the limousine was definitively struck from the front? What if the limo sustained damage that would be impossible to explain with a shot from the rear?

The conspirators would have no way of knowing how many photographers would be in the crowd at that point in the motorcade route, or how many video cameras would capture the incident (3 of them as it turns out, but it could have been as high as 5), or from what angle the incident would be captured.

That's a completely uncontrollable scenario. Zapruder's film of the assassination was developed and had multiple copies made within 6 hours. The Muchmore film was sold undeveloped to UPI who flew it out to New York and had it on the air within 12 hours. The Moorman polaroid taken a tenth of a second after the headshot was copied within 2 hours and was published in every major paper in the country the next day.

The number of loose ends a crazy scenario like the multiple shooter suggestion would create would be astonishing.
Click to expand...

Exactly; it's a scenario that only makes sense as a reverse-engineered perfection that had to be forward-engineered as such, a contrivance of assumptions only a deity would consider or could pull off. I suspect that this is why the new meme among CTists (as opposed to folks like Lifton and our own Robert Harris, who at least tried to come up with something) is to say "I don't need to present a coherent alternative." They already, by implication, present an alternative- conspiracy, in opposition to the prevailing "LHO alone" historical narrative; their problem is that they can't make it coherent, and certainly not enough so to stand up to the specious standards they impose on the "official story." They can't compete with consilience, so they choose to stand on mulish silence.
 
It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).
Click to expand...

No. This is why you fail.

Those who claim to have discredited the evidence lack any credibility themselves. Most have a political agenda and are willing to lie to advance it, and they are all morons.

The key to Oswald's guilt is the Carano. The bullet has a unique signature - devastating penetration. The weapon is accurate up to 1,000 meters and was well up to the task of the 100 to 300 feet required in Dallas. The Carcano is an easy weapon to shoot as it was designed for draftees with little training, and you still see it in use today in Africa.

All the counter "evidence" you site is fabricated from speculation by CTers, not by people who have worked the actual evidence.

The next problem is you specifically:

You've never been to Dallas.
You've never fired a bolt action rifle.
You discount expert testimony that supports the truth, and instead embrace slanted CT oriented source material.

Everything you've written here I used to believe too.

I was wrong, and so are you.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
cmikes, the vast majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were close together, and I have reason to believe that many of the "only two shot" witnesses may have interpreted the last two shots as one shot.



There were three loud reports. The last two were most likely close together.
Click to expand...


Do you have a source for your claim that "the vast majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were close together"? I've seen that claim before but I've never seen a proper citation for it. How many witnesses actually expressed an opinion on the spacing of the shots? Why do you believe that we should value earwitness testimony over the reactions we can see in the Zapruder film without having to rely on people's after the fact recollections?


I don't think it's a good idea to rule out the possibility of volly fire and/or silenced weapons. There is evidence that Connolly was hit by a second bullet that came shortly after the first loud one. Also, the incredibly likely fact that LHO could not have done all of the damage to President Kennedy, especially considering that the small circular wound near the EOP couldn't possibly exit from the top-right of the head.
Click to expand...


As far as silenced weapons, if you review the earlier parts of this thread you'll find that subject has already been covered at great length. It was determined that there simply wasn't a capable rifle available at that time that could be silenced in such a way that no one would hear it. If you have different information I would like to see it.

Could you expand on your problems with the head wound? All three pathologist that conducted JFK's autopsy testified that a single bullet went through Kennedy's head back to front and caused all the damage evident. As a matter of fact, I don't know of any pathologists who have disagreed with that fact. Every pathologist that has since reviewed the photos and x-rays, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, a prominent conspiracy theorist, agree the damage to JFK's head was caused by a single bullet moving back to front. (Wecht, as far as I remember, has a theory that a bullet from the grassy knoll did hit Kennedy in head from the front, but all the damage caused by that bullet was then obliterated and hidden by the bullet striking from the rear.) What are your qualifications to state that Oswald's bullet couldn't do the damage shown on the photos and x-rays or is this simply an argument from personal incredulity?


It's important to remember that the evidence against LHO is some of the most discredited evidence in the world. You can't trust anything in this case, not even necessarily photographs (even though official photos do implicate conspiracy).
Click to expand...


Citation for the evidence against Oswald being discredited? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists allege plenty of things about the evidence but I have to see any proof of it. If you're alleging that evidence was faked, who faked it? How many people were involved? How come not one conspirator out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people that would have to have been in on a plot to fake all the evidence has ever come forward?


First of all, you are the one postulating that a bullet missed and was never found. I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover. There is also evidence for a broad bullet that came out of JFK's back.
Click to expand...


Yes, the evidence shows that Oswald shot at Kennedy somewhere around Z155 and that shot missed the limousine entirely. There are a couple of theories about what happened to that shot. It may have deflected off of a tree branch, since depending on exactly when Oswald took his first shot he would have been shooting though the gaps in a tree at Kennedy. It may have been simple "buck fever" affecting his aim on the first shot or he may have been trying to use his scope, then noticing that his scope was off and switched to the iron sights for his last two shots. That's always been one of the ironic things about the "no one could make that shot like that" nonsense. It wasn't particularly good shooting in the first place since Oswald, out of three shots, had a complete miss, a partial hit, and only hit his main target of JFK's head with his third shot.

Early reports are almost always unreliable. Early reports stated that the Secret Service returned fire and killed the assassin at the scene. Early reports also stated that a Secret Service agent had been killed along with Kennedy. There were plenty of "early reports" that later turned out to incorrect. Do you have any evidence that this particular one was true?

As far as the bullet from Kennedy's back, that's a common conspiracy factoid that came about at the autopsy. At first the three pathologists conducting the autopsy theorized that a bullet might have worked its way out of Kennedy's back because they couldn't find an exit wound and x-rays didn't reveal a bullet still in the body. But when they found out that the tracheotomy on Kennedy's neck had been made over a wound they realized that was where the bullet had exited.


John McAdams is not only a horrible human being, he is probably the worst source of information on JFK on the internet.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand that someone with the facts on his side would be a very unpopular person among conspiracy theorists. Do you have anything else to add besides ad homs and well poisoning?


I'm not interested in it. I know there's a House Select Committee earshot witness experiment which had results that overall said that while there were a lot of echoes in Dealey Plaza, you are most likely to correctly determine the origin of a loud gunshot.
Click to expand...


And the bold part is why nobody is taking you seriously. When you announce that you have your ideological blinders on so tightly that you won't even look at the evidence, why would anyone expect to have a constructive debate with you?
 
MicahJava said:
Oswald met in person.
Click to expand...

Oswald met who in person, where, and how do you know?


[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/ugFgaNq.gif[/IMGw]

The first two half dollars you reference has no link to Oswald noted, and neither of the serial numbers there (F38355215A & F35031413A) shown are among the money he had on him at the time of his arrest.


[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/jutSYwy.jpg[/IMGw]

This image shows the serial numbers and denominations of the bills Oswald had in his possession at the time of his arrest. Neither of the two above serial numbers in the first image link to Oswald, so what's the point of showing the first image? You don't shown these first two bills were marked by Oswald or had anything to do with Oswald. You simply assume it.

In addition, the notation only says one bill is torn, it doesn't say it's torn in half. Maybe a corner was missing, or a tear was one quarter of the way down (or across) the bill. The pencil notation is meaningless, people sometimes noted stuff on a dollar bill for reference later because that was the only paper they had handy at the time. Later, after putting the bill back into circulation (by spending it), it winds up in others hands. You don't shown this bill was marked by Oswald or had anything to do with Oswald. You simply assume it.

This also notes a "half-dollar" in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest but that's a half-dollar COIN -- a 50 cent piece. Like this: http://www.bonanza.com/listings/196...Mgkf2uVIuVGzScy52cQbkSGDBiPSrEde7IaAlZq8P8HAQ
It has nothing to do with a torn dollar bill.


[IMGw=640]http://image.newsinc.com/30578590.sfxl.jpg[/IMGw] [/QUOTE]

As shown by another poster, this has nothing to do with Oswald (as is clear from the dates on the bill halves). It is probably included by you as a illustration of the point you're trying - and failing - to make.

Hank
 
Last edited:
No Other said:
This is informative, I like this as it highlights Ruth Paine's "memory". LHO is using OH Lee as his alias at the North Beckley address, there is no challenge to this. What is suspect is Ruth Paine's lack of inquiring. The formation of Lee Harvey Oswald's name is interesting as each of his full names can be used as a first name and/or last name. For Ruth Paine not to explore additional questions or the other person on the line not put Lee (the first name that Ruth used) and Lee (the last name of LHO alias) together (at least as a secondary question) is a stretch. I have been asked harder and more prolonged questions from The Taco Bell driver-thru. The whole scenario with the Paine's is froth with inconsistencies and coincidental relationships that are treated more as a side-show and not points of interest.
Click to expand...

The *ONLY* reason Ruth Paine had Lee Oswald's rooming house number was because Marina was expecting with the Oswald's second child, and Ruth volunteered to let Lee know when Marina was going to give birth. Lee Oswald provided the number and Ruth noted it in her address book. Clearly, Oswald, who had registered under the false name of O.H.Lee, failed to grasp that he couldn't be reached at that number by his real name, so providing the new number, but failing to mention the alias, was foolish on his part.

Mrs. Paine is simply an innocent party here.

Mr. JENNER - Now, you have mentioned a second number that Mr. Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald, gave you. Did you receive that second number subsequent to the birth of Rachel or prior to that time?
Mrs. PAINE - Also prior to the birth of Rachel.
Mr. JENNER - Now, relate for the Commission the circumstances under which you received a second number?
Mrs. PAINE - He gave me a second number, I suppose by phone, but I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - It was certainly before the birth of the baby because again it was so that I could reach him if she went to the hospital.
. . .
Mr. JENNER - What did he say?
Mrs. PAINE - He said he moved to different rooms, was paying a dollar a week more, $8 instead of $7; incidentally, I needed to know how much he was paying in order to put this on the form of Parkland Hospital, but that it was a little more comfortable and he had television privileges and privileges to use the refrigerator. And he gave me this number.
Mr. JENNER - This was after he obtained employment with the Texas School Book Depository, was it?
Mrs. PAINE - I would rationalize that I have judged so.
Mr. JENNER - Is it your best recollection?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - On the second occasion did he give you the location or even the area in Dallas where his second room was located?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Did you inquire of him?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - No address?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Was the telephone number given you with any reservation as to when you might call him?
Mrs. PAINE - No such reservation.
Mr. JENNER - Any indication that you should ask him, asking for him by other than his surname by which you knew him?
Mrs. PAINE - No such indication.
Click to expand...

And the *ONLY* reason Ruth called Lee on that occasion in question is because Marina suggested they do so.

Lee is also no doubt using O.H.Lee as an alias because of what transpired during his Mexico City visit:

As the Warren Report noted on page 314:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-6.html#investigations

Oswald also used incorrect names other than Hidell, but these too appear unconnected with any form of conspiracy. Oswald's last name appears as "Lee" in three places in connection with his trip to Mexico City, discussed above. His tourist card was typed by the Mexican consulate in New Orleans, "Lee, Harvey Oswald." However, the comma seems to have been a clerical error, since Oswald signed both the application and the card itself, "Lee H. Oswald." Moreover, Oswald seems originally to have also printed his name, evenly spaced, as "Lee H Oswald," but, noting that the form instructed him to "Print full name. No initials," printed the remainder of his middle name after the "H." The clerk who typed the card thus saw a space after "Lee," followed by "Harvey Oswald" crowded together, and probably assumed that "Lee" was the applicant's last name. (See Commission Exhibit 2481, p. 300. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0354a.htm ) The clerk who prepared Oswald's bus reservation for his return trip wrote "H. O. Lee." He stated that he did not remember the occasion, though he was sure from the handwriting and from other facts that he had dealt with Oswald. He surmised that he probably made out the reservation directly from the tourist card, since Oswald spoke no Spanish, and, seeing the comma, wrote the name "H. O. Lee." Oswald himself signed the register at the hotel in Mexico City as "Lee, Harvey Oswald," but since the error is identical to that on the tourist card and since he revealed the remainder of his name, "Harvey Oswald," it is possible that Oswald inserted the comma to conform to the tourist card, or that the earlier mistake suggested a new pseudonym to Oswald which he decided to continue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No Other said:
Marina Oswald did not speak conversational english; Ruth Paine called on her behalf. If Ruth goes no further, as in the manner of her testimony, then Marina is left with the thought that her husband did not live there...
Click to expand...

At the time of the phone call, Marina knew about Oswald's use of aliases, Ruth did not. Marina asked Lee about it in the next phone call from Lee, on Monday night, 11/18/63, at which time Lee demanded Marina remove his phone number from Ruth's address book... think about why Lee wanted that.

Mrs. OSWALD. No. After Lee returned from Mexico, I lived in Dallas, and Lee gave me his phone number and then when he changed his apartment--Lee lived in Dallas, and he gave me his phone number. And then when he moved, he left me another phone number.
And once when he did not come to visit during the weekend, I telephoned him and asked for him by name rather, Ruth telephoned him and it turned out there was no one there by that name. When he telephoned me again on Monday, I told him that we had telephoned him but he was unknown at that number.
Then he said that he had lived there under an assumed name. He asked me to remove the notation of the telephone number in Ruth's phone book, but I didn't want to do that. I asked him then, "Why did you give us a phone number, when we do call we cannot get you by name?"
He was very angry, and he repeated that I should remove the notation of the phone number from the phone book. And, of course, we had a quarrel. I told him that this was another of his foolishness, some more of his foolishness. I told Ruth Paine about this. It was incomprehensible to me why he was so secretive all the time.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he give you any explanation of why he was using an assumed name at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that he did not want his landlady to know his real name because she might read in the paper of the fact that he had been in Russia and that he had been questioned.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing. And also he did not want the FBI to know where he lived.
Click to expand...

Ruth touched on it in her testimony.

Mrs. PAINE - ... I regret, and I would like to put this on the record, particularly two things in my own actions prior to the time of the assassination.
One, that I didn't make the connection between this phone number that I had of where he lived and that of course this would produce for the FBI agent who was asking the address of where he lived.
Mr. JENNER - I will get to that, Mrs. Paine.
Mrs. PAINE - Well, that is regret 1.
Mr. JENNER - I don't want to cover too many subjects at the moment.
Mrs. PAINE - But then of course you see in light of the events that followed it is a pity that I didn't go directly instead of waiting for the next visit [of the FBI], because the next visit was the 23d of November.
Click to expand...

Note that Oswald gave one explanation to his wife about why he was living there under the name of O.H.Lee, and another to the police after his arrest (claiming the landlady misunderstood him).



No Other said:
Ruth offered, it is not as if Marina asked her to do so.
Click to expand...

That is untrue. Marina asked Ruth to call. That was previously established here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11416375&postcount=1053
and it's amazing to me that you could get that wrong. I previously quoted this to you:

Mrs. PAINE - Marina had said, "Let's call papa," in Russian and asked me to dial the number for her, knowing that I had a number that he had given us. I then dialed the number--



No Other said:
Actually, we have no idea what happened as this is testimony and there is no record of any conversation ever taking place.
Click to expand...

Presumably, you mean no recording. Of course there isn't. It is also amazing to me that you would suggest something Ruth Paine testified to was suspicious to you when the only source of this information is Ruth Paine's testimony itself. If there was anything remotely suspicious about this call, she would not have testified to it, would she?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
The revolver was stored at the rooming house, not the Paine's. So if he wanted the revolver on Friday, he had to take it to work on Thursday morning, when he left his rooming house, and then keep it with him all day (or stow it somewhere in the building) and then take it to the Paine's on Thursday evening and back on Friday morning.

The problem with this is he DOESN'T want to be in possession of the revolver when he attempts to leave the building after the assassination. If he does have it, he cannot be certain he won't be searched as he leaves the building, and if he is searched, he's going to be detained as a suspect. So he has to look innocent by NOT having the weapon. Bear in mind he almost was searched by officer Baker on the second floor within about 90 seconds of the assassination - but Roy Truly vouched for him ("He works here") and Baker abandoned any thought of Oswald being the guilty party.

So his thinking was sound on that point... leave the revolver at the rooming house and go back for it after the assassination.

To the rooming house? Because he had unfinished business. General Walker was still alive. Ask yourself why he didn't shoot JFK from Elm Street with the revolver. Shooting at JFK with the rifle gave him an opportunity to go get the revolver and shoot Walker. Shoot JFK with the revolver and he doesn't have an opportunity to kill the guy he once compared to Hitler.
Click to expand...

On the subject of killing Walker, I think it's also important to tie together his visit to Mexico City with that attempt on Walker's life. He had failed in April to kill Walker, which doesn't mean he simply abandoned that goal forever.

And after the assassination, while he was still free, was his last chance to kill Walker.

I think (and Albert Newman explores this in great detail in THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY: THE REASONS WHY Oswald's motivation in going to Mexico City was to open an avenue of escape for himself after his assassination of General Walker. Although dated (published in the late 1960's), it is quite detailed in going into Oswald's actions, and explains Oswald's actions in a manner consistent with his writings, statements, and other evidence. It is NOT a conspiracy book. It covers the one aspect of the assassination the Warren Commission shied away from, Oswald's motivation to kill Kennedy.

Marina tried to explain Oswald's desire to get into Cuba to the Warren Commission in her testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. But in Exhibit 15, Mrs. Oswald, he refers to the fact that he hadn't been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, and then he says, "The Embassy there would have had time to complete our business." Now, did he discuss that at all with you before he went to Mexico?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. If he said in Mexico City that he wanted to visit the Soviet Embassy in Havana, the reason for it was only that he thereby would be able to get to Cuba.
Is this understandable? Does this clarify the matter or not?
Mr. RANKIN. The difficulty, Mrs. Oswald, with my understanding of Exhibit 15 is that he purports to say, as I read the letter, that if he had been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana, he would have been able to complete his business about the visa, and he wouldn't have had to get in touch with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City at all.
Mrs. OSWALD. The thing is that one cannot go to Cuba--that the only legal way is via Mexico City. And, therefore, he went to the Soviet Embassy there in Mexico City and told them that he wanted to visit the Soviet Embassy in Havana, but only for the purpose of getting into Cuba.
I don't think he would have concluded his business there. I don't think that you understand that Lee has written that letter in a quite involved manner. It is not very logical. I don't know whether it is clear to you or not.
Mr. RANKIN. I appreciate, Mrs. Oswald, your interpretation of it.
I was trying to find out also whether your husband had told you anything about what he meant or what he did or whether he had tried to contact the Embassy in Havana, as he says in this letter.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I don't know of this letter. I only know that Lee wanted to get to Cuba by any means.

The entire purpose of his summer escapades in New Orleans (getting into a fight with some anti-Castro Cubans, appearing on the radio and television, opening a fake chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, writing the FPCC in NY, offering his photography skills gratis to THE MILITANT), was to improve his bona-fides as a supporter of Castro's Cuban regime, so that he could get into Cuba and be hailed a hero. And, I suggest, his last planned act on American soil originally was to kill General Walker, whom he had compared to Adolph Hitler.

And then President Kennedy happened to go by his place of work in an open car.

Newman also makes the point that on most policies, JFK and Walker were diametrically opposed to each other. Only one place did their policies intersect, and that was on Castro. Both supported the removal of Castro from office, by any means necessary. Walker came out and said that all it would take was one army division to accomplish that task, and Kennedy's antipathy to Castro's regime is well-known.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The deformation of the bullet is one thing, but it doesn't bother you at all that the trajectory in that video enters very close to where the T1 back wound was, only to exit out of the chest and continue on a much lower trajectory?
Click to expand...

Exactly as I noted above: "Conspiracy theorists like to pick apart the differences between this shooting and the actual, but ignore all the similarities."



MicahJava said:
You also showed Dale Myer's cartoon. He never released his raw data so for all we know it is a cartoon. Anybody looking at that clearly see that he slightly raised the back wound and slightly lowered the throat wound (to the chest). He also apparently distorted Kennedy's anatomy in his back and neck area. There is actually no guarantee that his animation is consistent from each perspective. A fuller examination of the Myers animation is found here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania
Click to expand...

I mentioned Dale Myers not at all. Here's my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11456904&postcount=1113

This is merely a ham-fisted attempt by you to change the subject.



MicahJava said:
Experiments like the discovery channel and computer models like from Dale Myers would be a great place to start any new investigation, however the ones shown in your link does not live up to the standards of people who rightfully pay attention to details.
Click to expand...

Complain all you want and talk about how the details are important, but to date, I am aware of NO attempts by any conspiracy theorist on the face of the planet to ever, in the past 53 years, test any aspect of the assassination that they criticize. Are you?

They would much rather complain about the darkness than light a single candle. Lighting that candle might expose that things are not as they want them to appear.

It's not a coincidence that the DISCOVERY CHANNEL performed this test. It's not a coincidence that CBS went to the trouble of attempting to replicate the assassination by putting a moving target on rails. It's not a coincidence that Dale Myers build a computer simulation of Dealey Plaza complete with the Presidential limo and animated JFK and Connally's actions.

What tests did Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meager, Robert Groden, Jim Marrs, Jack White, et.al., ever perform?

None.

Don't tell me about who's more concerned with the details. It's not conspiracy theorists. Details destroy the conspiracy theories they (and you) are trying to push.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It would probably be wise for the popular official story to move their one missed shot to after the 313 head shot. It has a decent chance of explaining why the last two shots were close together.
Click to expand...

The Warren Commission Report offered three possibilities for the missed shot.

An first shot miss, a middle shot miss, and a last shot miss.

They did not pick one as the "official story".

They said there was evidence for and against each, and provided that evidence.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I also noticed that HSienzant hasn't responded to the evidence that Oswald owned half-portions of one dollar bills with strange three-digit numbers written on them.
Click to expand...

I have now responded. I pointed out that your claims in the original post (and now above) aren't documented by evidence. These half-dollar bills you cite don't track to the bills Oswald was arrested with. And the torn dollar bill is only noted as torn, not torn in half. Your claims above are unsupported and appear to be based on assumptions, not evidence.


MicahJava said:
Not only is that evidence that Oswald was secretly meeting somebody in person, but that is now known as a classic spy technique. You do that when you're in an intelligence asset and want to check the authenticity of somebody you're meeting. Double-whammy to your query to when Oswald could have met with, or could have been manipulated by other conspirators.
Click to expand...

Details, details. You haven't shown the torn half-dollar bills are linked to Oswald whatsoever. And it's important to note that "...the ones shown in your link does not live up to the standards of people who rightfully pay attention to details."

It appears you are assuming what you need to prove.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Well, Oswald brought it with him. From what I understand, Oswald at least knew that something was going to happen the day of the parade.
Click to expand...

The dollar bill? You haven't shown it's torn in half. You haven't shown it was torn by Oswald. You haven't shown Oswald didn't receive it earlier that day in a cash transaction (like when he bought some food at a lunch trunk). You haven't shown it's got anything to do with the assassination.

You appear to have assumed all that.

Details, details.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
The one in his wallet was intact. The other two acknowledged in the DPD note had their other halves missing (I infer that from the writing "half bill"). This also can not explain the strange three-digit numbers on the bills.
Click to expand...

The two with their halves missing haven't been linked to Oswald.

The one linked to Oswald you just noted was intact. The notation on Oswald's note hasn't been linked to Oswald. One dollar bills change hands frequently, and could have been written by someone who possessed it previously.

So all you really have in Oswald's possession is an *intact* dollar bill with a notation of "300" on it.

Wow. Somebody call the NY Times.

Stop assuming what you need to prove.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Any practical use of ripped $1 bills is most likely to be very secretive about meeting somebody, so secretive that you can't just recognize them by their face.
Click to expand...

And you haven't shown Oswald had any half-dollar bills in his possession.



MicahJava said:
Practical use of halved dollar bills is completely different than just keeping them as a friendly memento, as some have suggested.
Click to expand...

I went out to dinner in Chinatown in NYC with a fraternity brother in the 1970's. We drove there in his old Volkswagen.

On the menu was an item named something like 'Wah Shu Op'... and I joked "Wes, we can 'Wah Shu Op' but we can't take you anyplace."

He asked me for a dollar, wrote the joke on both halves, and tore it in half. He returned one half to me. I asked for the other half, and he said "Don't worry, you'll get it back".

Five or more years later, I'm getting married, and preparing to move. I toss my half in the trash, figuring I'll never see the other half.

At my wedding, Wes returned the other half to me, as he promised. I still have his half someplace.

And of course, you cited this exact type of momento with your third of three images, which tracks back to two friends meeting up forty years later.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It sounds a little pointless for something like that. From what I understand, the dollar bill trick is most useful when you're meeting with a totally anonymous person who was passed the bill from someone else.
Click to expand...

Since the torn half dollar bills haven't been linked to Oswald in anything you've posted, this is meaningless.


MicahJava said:
Oswald also felt the need to take the intact ripped dollar in his wallet on the day he supposedly killed the president.
Click to expand...

No, you've only shown he had nine bills in his wallet, one slightly torn single, seven other intact singles, and one five. You haven't shown he felt any 'need' to carry that particular bill with him, as opposed to any of the others he left behind with his wife the morning of the assassination, along with his wedding ring.


MicahJava said:
The situation is reminiscent of David Atlee Phillips exchanging secret objects and code phrases in a movie theater. I think at least one witness recalled that Oswald got out of his seat a few times to sit next to other random audience members, as if he was expecting to contact somebody.
Click to expand...

It might be reminiscent of a lot of things. But being reminded of something else doesn't mean there's any connection. I will forever be reminded of what happened in Chinatown to me in the 1970s when some conspiracy theorist brings up this argument in the future, but it doesn't mean there's any connection there. Does it?


MicahJava said:
To add on to that, Oswald was also arrested with a ripped box top with the notation "Cox's, Fort Worth".
Click to expand...

And a bunch of other miscellany.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0104b.htm

Show how it's important to a resolution of the assassination.

Otherwise, it's not.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
No fantasy here. I'll keep that video in mind, but I don't buy that it's close to the real thing for obvious reasons. 2.3 seconds is the generally agreed-upon minimum for cycling the bolt while theoretically being accurate enough. The real question is: Do you acknowledge that the last two loud shots in the assassination were close together?
Click to expand...

Please review the end of the prior thread and the beginning of this thread.



MicahJava said:
I have already explained why the dollar bills are significant enough to rule out any notion of this being some kind of coincidence. For one thing, all three artifacts have unexplained three-digit notations, circled. Secondly, it would seem that the two half $1 bill portions were found in Oswald's other belongings, and not in his wallet where the intact torn $1 bill was found (if the halved bills were indeed found in his wallet, then there had to be an immediate effort to remove it from becoming a record.
Click to expand...

Where does it say the bolded?

Or is this just another assumption of yours?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
No fantasy here. I'll keep that video in mind, but I don't buy that it's close to the real thing for obvious reasons. 2.3 seconds is the generally agreed-upon minimum for cycling the bolt while theoretically being accurate enough.
Click to expand...

FBI Agent Robert Frazier said that here:

Mr. EISENBERG - How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give an amount?
Mr. FRAZIER - Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at right angles.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with the weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Click to expand...

But he wasn't aware of -- but conspiracy authors certainly should be -- the time compiled by Specialist Miller of the Army. Conspiracy authors don't generally mention his 4.45 second time for three shot, which might explain your lack of familiarity with this faster time.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope,
but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Mr. EISENBERG. What position did the rifleman fire from, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. The firers braced an elbow on the window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting position, using a stool.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Click to expand...

In my tests with a Mannlicher Carcano, I found the iron sights were zeroed for 200 yards, and my early shots went high (and I made only one of three shots). When I adjusted my aiming point, I made three of three on the target, in the body.

I had never fired a weapon before in my life, and with about two minutes of instruction from an ex-military man (and nephew), I made four of six shots with a weapon more than four times older than Oswald's (the MC we had was manufactured in 1917... WWI. Oswald's was manufactured in WWII, and his attempt came only 23 years after the manufacture of his weapon. My attempt was in July of 2015, and came 98 years after the manufacture of the weapon we used).

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom