JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm an old fart that either owns, has owned or at the very least has trigger time on every firearm or caliber I referenced in the post. There are few things funnier in the shooting world than introducing a shooter to the TSMG that has no trigger time on the piece who believes the myths about TSMG controllability in full auto. First magazine always brings wonderment.

Lots of folks have very strongly held opinions about various firearms/calibers that are based in myth, not reality. It raises it's ugly head often in discussions involving the assassination.

I'm no young sprout myself. I have only three milsurps myself, but have shot more. I did fire a Swedish K and a Ma Deuce some years ago... Lots of fun. Would love to fire a Thompson....

I have a variety of rifles and pistols, but the most interesting weapon I've fired was an RPG. Worked with some SF folks on a buddy lasing project some years ago and they allocated one RPG to allow me to shoot at an APC on a military range. I missed a direct hit, but the missile did hit short and skipped into the vehicle. I'm glad I was on the shooter end and not the shootee.

I wonder what the SS has planned the first time a drone appears out of nowhere, near a Presidential motorcade. That ought to be interesting...
 
The Body Snatcher theory is so preposterous it's actually quite funny anyone would believe it. It has more twist and turns than a corn maze. It's equivalent to some of the same type of crap that was invented by 9/11 conspirators like aircraft swaps and the Pentagon flyover.

I was not familiar with Lipton's Book and Horne is so detailed it easy to be sucked in. He quotes the time of arrival at Bethesda of the "shipping casket" substantiated with interviews so that it's quite convincing. He doesn't cover the period at Love Field during which time the body would have to be snatched, so it's easy to be mislead by that portion in just accepting it as fact. After reading a good account of that period it's obvious that the Body Snatch theory is pure hokum.


The Lifton and Horne theories are mostly the same, they just disagree on when exactly the body was stolen. Lifton has the body stolen off of Air Force One in Dallas and flown either on Air Force Two or another plane while being operated on by the super secret team of surgeons.

Horne's theory is somewhat similar, to the point that he took some flak in the conspiracy community upon sharing it for not giving Lifton credit at first. His theory is even more ridiculous, he has the body being stolen in Washington while unloading the coffin, with the body being flown ahead to Bethesda Hospital. At the hospital, Humes and Boswell (who in this scenario are members of THEY) somehow modified the body in front of dozens of people who were standing around waiting for the President's body to arrive, then pretended to receive the body again and do an autopsy.

The first problem with both scenarios though is that several people have testified that they unloaded JFK's coffin from the back of the Navy ambulance that came from the airport, carried it into into the autopsy room and then watched the coffin be opened and JFK's body removed from it. Both Lifton and Horne both allege that JFK's body was not in that coffin at that time.

The second problem, and in my view, the far bigger problem with the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory is that wounds made on a body after death don't look anything like wounds made while the heart is still beating. Also, in both variations of the theory, the big thing that THEY are trying to hide is that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head. Now, we have authenticated photos and x-rays of the back of JFK's head. How could any surgeons, no matter how awesome, completely re-construct the back of JFK's head in that time frame? Even conspiracy theorist doctors find the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory laughable.

Cyril Wecht said about the theory in Case Closed, "Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could assemble a whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not be able to accomplish in a day what Lifton says what done in a few hours. I have never bought his stuff. It can't be done."
 
If Oswald was the "Patsy" that he said he was a conspiracy theory would fit quite nicely. Who really cared what rifle he had. If the conspiracy was that someone contrived to show Oswald as the lone shooter or if there was no conspiracy then your theory makes perfect sense. That doesn't prove anything at all, it's irrelevant to reaching any kind of conclusion at all.

No, the Carcano is the 500 pound gorilla of this story.


Remember where they were. That town was owned by LBJ and his cronies. If it was moronic that fits too, LBJ was a supreme idiot. There are simply too many loose ends for my satisfaction.

That assumes that LBJ had anything to do with the assassination, and that has been run down every dark alley and come up dry. Plus, LBJ had more enemies in Dallas than friends, and the risk of discovery would be too great for a capital offense. The only reason LBJ was a suspect is because of the Vietnam War where people assume JFK would not have widened US involvement...the same guy who ordered the assassination of Diem, and creating the situation which contributed to the war.

Plus, J. Edgar Hoover was not in anybody's pocket, and didn't like LBJ, and would have had zero problem putting him in the electric chair. This would have been one heck of a feather in his cap.


Don't put me in the hard core CT faction, I'm mostly just very extremely skeptical and to some extent always have been.

Fair enough, and as a reformed JFK CTist I think that if there was a conspiracy of some kind it will not be found in Dealey Plaza. There are enough gray areas with Oswald's life from the time he returned from the Soviet Union to the day he shot the President to find a loose thread to pull on.


BTW: I think you're referring to a .30-06, not a .306

You are correct, I get worked up on this subject.

Let me walk you through my evolution to skeptic.

I went to Dallas, and to the 6th Floor Museum, and instantly realized that Oswald had the best perch, and a ridiculously easy shot. Standing on the sidewalk in front of the Grassy Knoll I realized that a second gunman would have stood out like a lighthouse in even the worst of the photographs of that day. Right off the bat I realized that most of the so-called experts were talking out of their backsides.

This was in 1996, and the National Archives were dumping JFK files into public view every few months, and while the basic fact that Oswald killed JFK didn't change, there was evidence of interference of the Warren Commission's investigation coming from (cue dramatic music) the Attorney General's Office. That's right, RFK shut down lines of inquiry pertaining to Oswald's visit to Mexico City, this is why there is a huge blank spot in the investigation, and fueled rumor of conspiracy by smart people (like you) who smelled a rat.

RFK was covering his own butt, and working to shape his brother's legacy. Their continued covert war on Fidel Castro, and their tacit(or complicit) use of the Mafia to overthrow the Cuban government would have been a big punch in the gut of the American people, and might have landed RFK in prison. It certainly would have finished him politically.

The next thing to consider is that JFK's weakness for women made him much more valuable alive than dead. Example: Judith Exner, one of Kennedy's mistresses.

Exner kept a diary. In August, 1962, guys from General Dynamics broke into her apartment and stole her diary(The guys actually were contracted out from George Wackenhut). General Dynamics used the diary to blackmail the Kennedy Administration into giving them the TFX contract.

You probably know the TFX became the F-111, and that the F-111 was built in Fort Worth, Texas.

*source* http://www.umsl.edu/~thomaskp/jfx.htm

The fact is that JFK's weaknesses made him a prime blackmail target (like our current POTUS), and he was worth more to everyone (the Miliatry Industrial Complex, Hoover, LBJ, and even the mob) alive than dead.

Throw in the fact that his re-election was not a foregone conclusion and you're stuck with no substantive motive to kill JFK.

Finally there is Lee Oswald. The guy was a ticking time bomb looking for a way to get his name in the history books and the front page. He loved being special, the outcast who was smarter than everyone else. In the Marines he reads Marx and learns Russian. He defects to the Soviet Union expecting to become a celebrity, and ends up working in a factory making TV sets. He gets bored and returns home. When he arrives in Texas he wonders where all the reporters are to cover his return. Then he goes after General Walker because he is the biggest name in Texas politics.

Finally JFK comes to Dallas, and the parade rout passes right outside of the building Oswald works in like a gift from the gods. Oswald began stalking buildings around Dealey Plaza looking for roof access before surrendering to the fact that he would have to shoot from his place of employment. Had he found another spot he might have gotten away with it. Think about it, he kills the President from another building, slips into the crowd, and comes back from lunch to work in the Schoolbook Depository, and watch DPD and the Feds go nuts on the street below. Or maybe he gets caught with the rifle in his hands, who knows?
 
Last edited:
Silliest discussion ever. The situation in Dealey Plaza, as reported by dozens of witnesses who were there compared to the findings of the two observers in the HSCA earshot experiment, was nothing like what you would expect from three shots fired from a Carcano. The only thing that could discredit the HSCA earshot experiment would be a similar, but more exhaustive experiment with more observers. But what happens when that just further confirms the same thing as the HSCA? Do you say half the witnesses to the assassination simultaneously had the same auditory hallucination?

The HSCA earshot experiments and the assassination witness statements are enough to almost certainly know that the situation in Dealey Plaza wasn't just three shots from a Carcano.
 
Last edited:
The Lifton and Horne theories are mostly the same, they just disagree on when exactly the body was stolen. Lifton has the body stolen off of Air Force One in Dallas and flown either on Air Force Two or another plane while being operated on by the super secret team of surgeons.

Horne's theory is somewhat similar, to the point that he took some flak in the conspiracy community upon sharing it for not giving Lifton credit at first. His theory is even more ridiculous, he has the body being stolen in Washington while unloading the coffin, with the body being flown ahead to Bethesda Hospital. At the hospital, Humes and Boswell (who in this scenario are members of THEY) somehow modified the body in front of dozens of people who were standing around waiting for the President's body to arrive, then pretended to receive the body again and do an autopsy.

The only thing you left out was the third hearst and the chase scene by the honor guard in a pick-up truck. I can't believe anyone would buy this kind of crap. Otherwise, you've covered it nicely.
 
No, the Carcano is the 500 pound gorilla of this story.

Ok, if you say so...

That assumes that LBJ had anything to do with the assassination, and that has been run down every dark alley and come up dry. Plus, LBJ had more enemies in Dallas than friends, and the risk of discovery would be too great for a capital offense. The only reason LBJ was a suspect is because of the Vietnam War where people assume JFK would not have widened US involvement...the same guy who ordered the assassination of Diem, and creating the situation which contributed to the war.

I don't agree with this paragraph. LBJ cronies were all of the rich guys like H.L. Hunt, Cliff Murchison, and other banking and political people. I don't doubt he had enemies, but he had rich/powerful friends too.

Plus, J. Edgar Hoover was not in anybody's pocket, and didn't like LBJ, and would have had zero problem putting him in the electric chair. This would have been one heck of a feather in his cap.

I've read that Hoover and LBJ lived next door when LBJ was a a very powerful Senator. You need to provide evidence about why they were enemies. I haven't seen that information anywhere.

I went to Dallas, and to the 6th Floor Museum, and instantly realized that Oswald had the best perch, and a ridiculously easy shot. Standing on the sidewalk in front of the Grassy Knoll I realized that a second gunman would have stood out like a lighthouse in even the worst of the photographs of that day. Right off the bat I realized that most of the so-called experts were talking out of their backsides.

Yea, it's ridiculously small. Surprised me too. Why are all of the camera shots taken of the picket fence so blurring if someone could be so easily seen. Was it Big Foot hiding there?

This was in 1996, and the National Archives were dumping JFK files into public view every few months, and while the basic fact that Oswald killed JFK didn't change, there was evidence of interference of the Warren Commission's investigation coming from (cue dramatic music) the Attorney General's Office. That's right, RFK shut down lines of inquiry pertaining to Oswald's visit to Mexico City, this is why there is a huge blank spot in the investigation, and fueled rumor of conspiracy by smart people (like you) who smelled a rat.

RFK was covering his own butt, and working to shape his brother's legacy. Their continued covert war on Fidel Castro, and their tacit(or complicit) use of the Mafia to overthrow the Cuban government would have been a big punch in the gut of the American people, and might have landed RFK in prison. It certainly would have finished him politically.

I don't doubt the Warren Commission's strings were being pulled. Heck, it was appointed by the executive branch, which should never have occurred.

The next thing to consider is that JFK's weakness for women made him much more valuable alive than dead. Example: Judith Exner, one of Kennedy's
mistresses.

I don't believe everyone agrees with this analysis at all. Adultry was even less acceptable during that period than later in the 90's when Clinton was impeached. I don't buy your analysis at all.

Exner kept a diary. In August, 1962, guys from General Dynamics broke into her apartment and stole her diary(The guys actually were contracted out from George Wackenhut). General Dynamics used the diary to blackmail the Kennedy Administration into giving them the TFX contract.

You probably know the TFX became the F-111, and that the F-111 was built in Fort Worth, Texas.

What's this? So, there was a conspiracy after all! As you can see from my avatar, I flew that airplane for several years. McNamara choose the GD Version because of more commonality of parts than the Boeing version, therefore cheaper to build and maintain. This was the reason the project was conceived in the first place. Unfortunately, the Navy's version didn't work out. I don't buy this factoid unless there's more proof.

Throw in the fact that his re-election was not a foregone conclusion and you're stuck with no substantive motive to kill JFK.

Well, other than the fact that JFK was very popular contrary to your opinion. He was a shew-in for re-election, but without Johnson. Johnson was very ambitious and ruthless to get what he wanted. He was power hungry, but JFK stood in his way to the Presidency until 22 Nov 1963. The Kennedy's did not like Johnson and that was mutual. Just look at some of Johnson's facial expressions when he's around JFK. He loathes the man. That, my friend is very substantial motive to get rid of him. Plus the fact, that he might have been indicted in the Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes scandals. That likely would have mean prison time for him. It's better for him if Kennedy is gone and he's President, ya think?

Finally there is Lee Oswald. The guy was a ticking time bomb looking for a way to get his name in the history books and the front page. He loved being special, the outcast who was smarter than everyone else. In the Marines he reads Marx and learns Russian. He defects to the Soviet Union expecting to become a celebrity, and ends up working in a factory making TV sets. He gets bored and returns home. When he arrives in Texas he wonders where all the reporters are to cover his return. Then he goes after General Walker because he is the biggest name in Texas politics.

Finally JFK comes to Dallas, and the parade rout passes right outside of the building Oswald works in like a gift from the gods. Oswald began stalking buildings around Dealey Plaza looking for roof access before surrendering to the fact that he would have to shoot from his place of employment. Had he found another spot he might have gotten away with it. Think about it, he kills the President from another building, slips into the crowd, and comes back from lunch to work in the Schoolbook Depository, and watch DPD and the Feds go nuts on the street below. Or maybe he gets caught with the rifle in his hands, who knows?

I must admit I don't understand LHO at all. I don't know his motives because there is more unknown than known about him. As far as I'm concerned he had turned into a punk after his return from the Soviet Union. Many comment that he had an Intelligence Agency contact written all over him. I know he's been accused of shooting at Gen Walker, but I'm not sure that is valid information. He was never charged or convicted...
 
Last edited:
OK, so he took off the scope an then remounted it again after the shots. As I understand it the scope was mounted on the rifle when it was found. Or he fired the first shot and then disassembled the scope from the mounts. This is a preposterous claim. Utterly impossible.

As far as I know it was not a tip-off mount. It was mounted with cheap aluminum rings. Disassembling the scope from the mounts would have taken, at minimum, several minutes. Reassembly several minutes more.

If he was an expert marksman, he possibly could have done the whole shebang with iron sights, but the evidence is he wasn't even at the height of his proficiency.

When I learned shoot, my father made me shoot at a .22 brass hull mounted on a cardboard backing at about 25-30 yards with iron sights. As I recall I hit maybe 3 of ten. I simply don't recall the exact number. That taught me precision shooting, you don't have a clue what that means.
Nope. The scope in question allows use of the iron sights without need for removal.
 
So using the iron sights magically solves all problems with the scope. To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine? Unless you wanna theorize about the shallow north-Elm-Street-sidewalk mark being a bullet scar, you'd have no option but to say the lone assassin missed by some ridiculous amount. Since thin tree branches can't deflect the bullet, what else is there? Come on people, don't you miss the good old days when you used to ask questions?
 
I want to draw attention to the autopsy back wound photograph, which apparently has a pretty underrated view of the head opening. It appears to have been taken after the brain was removed, there's no brain obviously visible. Dr. Humes told the ARRB "We didn't photograph the wound in the occiput until the brain was removed", so it's not like every picture was taken before the autopsy surgery commenced.

Most publicly available versions of the back wound photo show none or barely any of the head opening, but here are some publicly available versions that do.

Version in David Mantik's article The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits (link 1, link 2):

Figure_26.jpg


And here's a very clear and most detailed version from researcher Martin Shackelford:

15355745.jpg


Assuming this defect is fully visible on the official National Archives version, and not placed there by some hoaxer to cause confusion, this perspective causes some problems.

First, this view shows a very confusing orientation of the bone flap. It appears to be the same bone flap as the other BOH photos, but in those views the bone flap appears to be above and ahead the right ear. In this view, the bone flap appears to be above and behind the ear.

Second, what's with that patch of hair right under the defect? Is that totally unrelated to the patch of hair on the BOH photos? Is that patch of hair "combed" or "parted"?

Third, doesn't that defect appear to be almost extending to the left of the midline? If so, we may have the clearest picture of what Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy to see after the brain had been removed. That would give further confirmation that the head opening was enlarged exactly as Dr. Boswell diagrammed it to the ARRB. Unless you want to rewrite the timeline if the autopsy, this may leave the cowlick entry theory in shambles because the defect in the back wound photo was too big for the hypothetical cowlick entry to be seen by Dr. Finck. Any speculation about the entry being any higher than the level of the ears would be very discredited. Dr. Finck always indicated that he saw the entry in the cranium intact, and never indicated that he only saw it pieced together from bone fragments. So yeah, I'm thinking the real EOP wound is hiding in a bit of hair somewhere in that photo.
 
Last edited:
I can respect all of you who have posted your experiences with bolt action rifles, speed competition, et al... I really do but what you all are familiar with is that one rifle is not the same as the another. There has not been one Rifleman who has taken the rifle that is suspected in the killing of JFK and shot it with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy. Many have tried but none have been successful until that feat is accomplished, all that is being said is very interesting but it will not advance the case of a Lone Gunman.

And no two horse races ever finish the exact same way.

You're confusing the issue. Oswald didn't set out to shoot the President in a certain way -- miss the first shot, hit him in the upper back with the second shot, hit him in the head with the third. He set out to kill the President.

If a shooter hits the head target area on one of his three shots in 8.5 seconds or less, I would say he accomplished the task "with the accuracy that is given to the person who shot Kennedy".

The problem is the Warren Commission determined two shots accomplished all the damage to the vehicle, the victims in the vehicle, and most likely, the one victim struck outside the vehicle (James Tague). That left one miss, since they determined most of the witnesses (about 90%) heard three shots.

The Warren Commission determined the two hits came about 4.8 - 5.6 seconds apart. They could not determine which shot missed, the first shot, the last shot, or the one in between the two hits.

Because it was the easiest scenario to attack, most of the critical literature ignores (or dismisses) the open-ended first and last shot miss scenarios (which can allow nine seconds or more for three shots), and only attacks the middle shot miss scenario, which allowed the least amount of time.

But if the first or last shot missed, then Oswald had plenty of time to fire three shots, with one kill shot in three tries. He trained at 200 yards and 500 yards in the Marines, and the longest shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 was just 88 yards.

So let's examine those times and accomplishments of the shooters who shot for the record with Oswald's rifle, shall we, and let's see how many failed to accomplish what Oswald did:

Warren Commission, pages 193-4:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#accuracy

In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette. Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had not even pulled the trigger because of concern about breaking the firing pin.

The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot. by several inches. The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and required a movement in the basic firing position of the marksmen. This angle was used in the test because the majority of the eyewitnesses to the assassination stated that there was a shorter interval between shots two and three than between shots one and two. As has been shown in chapter III, if the three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.

Five of the six shots hit the third target where the angle of movement of the weapon was small. On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range at which they were hit was very high.

Considering the various probabilities which may have prevailed during the actual assassination, the highest level of firing performance which would have been required of the assassin and the C2766 rifle would have been to fire three times and hit the target twice within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. In fact, one of the firers in the rapid fire test in firing his two series of three shots, hit the target twice within a span of 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. The others would have been able to reduce their times if they had been given the opportunity to become familiar with the movement of the bolt and the trigger pull. Simmons testified that familiarity with the bolt could be achieved in dry practice and, as has been indicated above, Oswald engaged in such practice. If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots. All three of the firers in these tests were able to fire the rounds within the time period which would have been available to the assassin under those conditions.


None of the test shooters took more than 8.25 seconds. That's less than Oswald had in real life with a first shot miss about frame 160.
 
I don't believe everyone agrees with this analysis at all. Adultry was even less acceptable during that period than later in the 90's when Clinton was impeached. I don't buy your analysis at all.
I believe that you misunderstand Axman300's point here. Adultery being less acceptable would make JFK more susceptible to blackmail, ergo "more valuable alive than dead." He could be forced to do someone's bidding. Make sense?

I realize that you think I'm being snarky or something, but is there any detail about this that would assuage your doubts? You have conceded that you were wrong about the shot timing and about the scope. Since then, you have commented on the autopsy, Dallas politics and other broad motivations. How is this different from the gish-gallop of a conspiracy theorist? I genuinely want to know how you see it. Is the anything that can falsify your theory?
 
Last edited:
If Oswald was the "Patsy" that he said he was a conspiracy theory would fit quite nicely. Who really cared what rifle he had. If the conspiracy was that someone contrived to show Oswald as the lone shooter or if there was no conspiracy then your theory makes perfect sense. That doesn't prove anything at all, it's irrelevant to reaching any kind of conclusion at all.

No, that doesn't work. Rule 1 of framing someone is make sure they don't have an alibi. Rule 1a is make sure they can do the deed.

If Oswald has a weapon inadequate to the task (or no weapon), you need to frame him for owning a rifle adequate to the task. No plotters would overlook that detail. It makes no sense to argue on the one hand that the plotters apparently had an unlimited budget - hiring multiple shooters when one good one would do, hiring a team of physicians to alter the body, hiring professionals in film to alter the films and photos, go to the trouble of faking Oswald's purchase of a rifle with fake order forms in his handwriting (also faked), a fake Postal money order that was never really cashed, a fake shipment of the rifle to his PO box, and then they skimped on spending $100 in 1963 dollars to frame the supposed patsy for owning a good weapon - spending only $20 bucks on the weapon that he would be accused of using.

They also go to the trouble of getting him a job alone the parade route, having him make a special trip to the Paine home (where his inadequate rifle is stored) and then somehow arrange to have him bring in curtain rods in a long package the morning of the assassination.

And they don't bother to frame him for owning a weapon adequate to the task?

Nonsense.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Silliest discussion ever. The situation in Dealey Plaza, as reported by dozens of witnesses who were there compared to the findings of the two observers in the HSCA earshot experiment, was nothing like what you would expect from three shots fired from a Carcano. The only thing that could discredit the HSCA earshot experiment would be a similar, but more exhaustive experiment with more observers. But what happens when that just further confirms the same thing as the HSCA? Do you say half the witnesses to the assassination simultaneously had the same auditory hallucination?

The HSCA earshot experiments and the assassination witness statements are enough to almost certainly know that the situation in Dealey Plaza wasn't just three shots from a Carcano.

So the 90% of the witnesses who said three shots were all mistaken and couldn't count to four? And the witnesses who testified to only two shots (which were more than those who testified to four or more), also were mistaken? Only the four or five witnesses who said four or more shots were on the ball that day, and everyone else was mistaken?

If you're going to argue with the vast majority of the witnesses perception of something as simple as the number of shots given within days of the assassination, please don't quote eyewitness recollections from decades after the fact and try to sell us on how they couldn't be mistaken.

Hank
 
So using the iron sights magically solves all problems with the scope. To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine? Unless you wanna theorize about the shallow north-Elm-Street-sidewalk mark being a bullet scar, you'd have no option but to say the lone assassin missed by some ridiculous amount. Since thin tree branches can't deflect the bullet, what else is there? Come on people, don't you miss the good old days when you used to ask questions?

FBI Agent Robert Frazier would disagree with you.

Mr. DULLES - Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis?
Mr. McCLOY - I just say I don't know where it could have gone.
Mr. FRAZIER - From what I know from my examination that is true, because I have seen bullets strike small twigs, small objects, and ricochet for no apparent reason except they hit and all the pressure is on one side and it turns the bullet and it goes off at an angle. If there was no deviation from the time the bullet left the rifle barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body, then the physical setup exists for it to have gone through the President, and through the Governor.


Guess whose statement I'm taking with a grain of salt.

Hank
 
Why bother debating how good the rifle was? In the only experiment of it's kind, the HSCA did an experiment where they roped off Dealey Plaza and fired shots from the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll while two observers reported where they perceived the shots coming from. The data says that a shot from the TSBD sounds like a shot from the TSBD and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the Knoll.

You cite the study but ignore the conclusions of the experts who conducted the study, substituting your own conclusions.

We covered this in the past in detail. I see no need to drive over the same ground with you again.

The experts conclusion is that more than four witnesses would have reported shots from multiple directions if, indeed, there had been shots from multiple locations ("...a second shot from a different location should be distinctive and different enough to cause more than four witnesses to report multiple origins for the shots). They also concluded "It is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm


Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that. It had to be an issue of acoustics.

It wasn't close to half.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_3_Earwitness.pdf

According to the HSCA:
49 said Depository
21 said Knoll
30 said other
78 said don't know

21 of 100 that named a source named the knoll.
21 of 178 (including those who didn't name a source) said the knoll.

That's not close to half.
Most of the witnesses who named the knoll (or the overpass) as the source of the shots named the knoll (or the overpass) as the source of ALL the shots.

You agree even your witnesses were mistaken, and couldn't perceive the source correctly, don't you? You don't think ALL the shots came from the knoll or the overpass, do you? So why should we credit your witnesses as being part-right, when you yourself admit they got the source of at least some of the shots wrong?


It looks like there was either some activity from the Knoll area, or shooters from behind were using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. Noise-suppressors can create the illusion that a gunshot originated from the opposite direction that it truly did.

Yeah, either that or something simple like echoes off the concrete of the overpass confused some of the witnesses.

Hank
 
I think that witnesses would probably lend more credence to where they thought they heard the last shot come from.

I've pointed this out before -- nobody cares what you think. You're not an expert (neither am I) and our opinions are worthless. You're not qualified to testify to your opinion in that regard (only experts are) and no one is soliciting your opinion.

The question is: What does the evidence indicate? Do you have any studies that indicate that result?

You don't. End of discussion.



I think there are only a very small amount of witnesses who indicated the possibility of two different sources for the loud reports.

Four out of 100 who named a source named multiple sources.

Compare that to the 90% who said three shots. You dismiss the overwhelming majority of witnesses who named the same number of shots and credit the underwhelming minority who named multiple sources. Many would think you have that exactly backwards, unless of course, you're simply looking for confirmation for the conclusion you already reached.


A new panel of medical experts would be a good idea to get to the bottom of the issues with the X-rays (the autopsy professionals already gave their clear interpretation of the official photographs, they say the red spot is either blood or a defect related to the large head wound). Any random rich person could pay to consult forensic experts on the X-rays available to the public, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an official investigation unless you want to have the original X-ray films enhanced using modern technology.

Asked and answered back up thread here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755570&postcount=2403

Hank
 
Yea, it's ridiculously small. Surprised me too. Why are all of the camera shots taken of the picket fence so blurring if someone could be so easily seen. Was it Big Foot hiding there?

No one was hiding there, according to the people who had a view of the back of the fence from behind, like Lee Bowers.


I don't doubt the Warren Commission's strings were being pulled. Heck, it was appointed by the executive branch, which should never have occurred.

A Presidential Commission is not an unknown animal. They were used before and since the Kennedy assassination. Johnson tried to make it as impartial as possible, appointing both Republicans and Democrats, Northerners and Southeners, along with two men who served the US in appointed roles, as well as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

How would you have handled it if you were in charge?


I don't believe everyone agrees with this analysis at all. Adultry was even less acceptable during that period than later in the 90's when Clinton was impeached. I don't buy your analysis at all.

All the more reason for these 'plotters' to reveal his adultery (which would NOT be a treasonous activity) and see if that gets him out of office rather than jumping right away to the treasonous activity of trying to kill an sitting President.


I must admit I don't understand LHO at all. I don't know his motives because there is more unknown than known about him.

It can probably be said that no one's life has been researched in more depth in the history of humanity.


As far as I'm concerned he had turned into a punk after his return from the Soviet Union.

What was he before that?


Many comment that he had an Intelligence Agency contact written all over him.

Many think the earth is flat too. My comment and yours have the same value - zilch. I'd ask for the evidence of his intelligence agency contacts but we both known there isn't any -- just suppositions and surmises and speculation. If you differ, produce some evidence.


I know he's been accused of shooting at Gen Walker, but I'm not sure that is valid information. He was never charged or convicted...

He was dead before then. "Charged nor convicted" is meaningless in a historiological context. Perhaps you don't know how Oswald was connected to the crime. As early as Saturday, 11/23/63, while Oswald was still alive, it was conjectured in some places that Oswald might have been the unknown assassin who took a potshot at Walker back in April of 1963 in Dallas.

What then transpired is a note in Russian in Oswald's handwriting was discovered in a Russian language book owned by Ruth Paine.

The undated note explained to Marina what she should do to seek help if Oswald was arrested. Marina put the note into context, saying she discovered it in Oswald's study on the night of the attempt on General Walker's life.

In translation, the note read as follows:
1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.

2. Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.

3. I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it.

4. Recently I also paid for water and gas.

5. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the check.

6. You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away. Do not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).

7. Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise.

8. The address book can be found on my table in the study should need same.

9. We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you [Red Cross in English].

10. I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month. You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week.

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).


It should be noted (re: point 10) the only other time Oswald is known to have left Marina a significant amount of money was on the morning of the assassination. He left her $150 dollars and left his wedding ring behind.


Hank
 
Last edited:
So using the iron sights magically solves all problems with the scope. To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine?

Buck Fever is one guess.

Hank
 
I believe that you misunderstand Axman300's point here. Adultery being less acceptable would make JFK more susceptible to blackmail, ergo "more valuable alive than dead." He could be forced to do someone's bidding. Make sense?

I realize that you think I'm being snarky or something, but is there any detail about this that would assuage your doubts? You have conceded that you were wrong about the shot timing and about the scope. Since then, you have commented on the autopsy, Dallas politics and other broad motivations. How is this different from the gish-gallop of a conspiracy theorist? I genuinely want to know how you see it. Is the anything that can falsify your theory?

This is getting really funny! You castigate me for thinking there might be a conspiracy involved, and then you invent one involving blackmailing JFK!

I don't believe for a second that he was blackmailed over the TFX project. McNamara was hell bent on his theory of consolidating the enormous logistics budget of DOD similar to what he did at Ford. He thought he had accomplished part of that objective with the TFX program and that motivated his decision. There is ZERO evidence that JFK had anything to do with it.

My point was and still is that the potential for blackmail would need to be invented as paramount over his ability to win reelection. Hell, his enemies were pissed off over the Bay of Pigs incident, his plan to pull out of Vietnam, his plan for changes to fossil fuel taxation, and his changes to the Federal Reserve were enough to really upset the big $$ folks in Dallas. I guess they just had to trust that someone MIGHT blackmail him and they'd come out OK. Yea, that sounds like a good plan for an idiot.

One could argue his behavior either way. My point was that he was likely to win a reelection no matter what. The blackmail thing was iffy.

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll slow down a bit and use smaller words, so you won't have to think I'm gish galloping. At this point, I have no theory, so how could I falsify it? When I get it all together, I'll let you know and then we can work on falsifying it. I fully realize that I'm not going to solve it along with no one else at this level. That's not my objective.
 
Good questions. I believe the parade route was provided to the general public only on the morning of 22 Nov.,

That's wrong. On Monday, 11/18, the Dallas Times Herald mentioned the motorcade, and said it "apparently will loop through the downtown area, probably on Main Street, en route from Dallas Love Field". The day prior, the same paper mentioned the Dallas Trade Mart as the destination for the motorcade. By Monday, certainly, astute readers familiar with the traffic patterns in and around Dealey Plaza, could surmise the motorcade would go along Elm in front of the Depository.

Of course, by Tuesday, the Dallas Morning News explicitly made the route clear to its readers, including the turn onto Elm:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntue.gif



There is a tremendous amount of speculation that LHO had intelligence connections. Maybe that's simply speculation, but it all doesn't emanate from the conspiracy crowd.

No, it all does emanate from the conspiracy crowd. And it's all speculation. Not an ounce of evidence.

Hank
 
The HSCA earshot experiments and the assassination witness statements are enough to almost certainly know that the situation in Dealey Plaza wasn't just three shots from a Carcano.

As I pointed out, witnesses that said they heard shots from the Knoll said the shots came exclusively from there...as in zero shots from the depository.

Witnesses that said they heard shots from the depository said the shots came exclusively from the depository...as in zero shots from another location.

By all means, please explain that discrepancy in a way that makes sense and doesn't involve earwitness perceptions changing depending on where witnesses were standing.
 
To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine?

Well, if the scope was misaligned, that would explain it. We know it was misaligned when the rifle was recovered, but no way to prove whether that happened before the shooting or when Oswald dropped it on his way out of the depository. Either way we'd be speculating.

The first shot at Z160 would have been the closest of the three, but also by far the most difficult. It would have been at a target moving laterally from left to right and through a tangle of tree branches. Easy to see how that shot gets missed or deflects off a tree branch.

As the limo moves further away from the snipers nest, it stops tracking from left to right, clears the tree branches, flattens out and becomes something closer to an unobstructed stationary shot.
 
Last edited:
Well, if THEY want to make sure he was killed, why not more than one shooter. If there was more than one shooter, it worked pretty well. Also, if there were more teams at other locations along the route, that worked too.

Circular reasoning. You're presuming there were other shooters and then proclaiming the plot involving multiple shooters 'worked pretty well', but the multiple shooters is just a presumption of yours.

There's ZERO (0) evidence of a second or third or fourth shooter. There's ZERO (0) evidence of a shooter anywhere but the sixth floor, south-east corner window of the Depository building, where multiple people on the street saw a shooter, or a weapon and pointed that out to the police pretty quickly. No one saw a shooter anywhere else.

Presuming multiple shooters, then lauding the plan involving multiple shooters for being successful is beyond reason. You still need to establish the other shooters. With eyewitness testimony, with ballistic evidence, with autopsy evidence, with photographic evidence.

Got anything along those lines?

How did the plotters manage that the ballistic evidence traceable to a weapon -- three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet recovered after the shooting -- all point to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all the other weapons in the world?

Did all the other shooters miss all their shots? How come the vast majority of witnesses -- 90% -- reported only three shots?

If they want JFK dead, why not just shoot him from behind with one good weapon, and then frame the patsy for owning that particular weapon?

What's with the Rube Goldberg plan to assassinate JFK? How could anyone come up with that?

Hank
 
Last edited:
One could argue his behavior either way. My point was that he was likely to win a reelection no matter what. The blackmail thing was iffy.

Granting for the sake of argument your claim is true that JFK would win re-election in 1964 after a similar scandal brought down some of the highest ranking members of the British government, what was the harm in trying the non-treasonous route first?

Instead, for some reason, these plotters jump right to the most dangerous (for them) option, killing a sitting President in broad daylight, where numerous spectators are bound to be filming or photographing the assassination attempt.

Hank

PS: It appears you are now disavowing the Doug Horne body alteration hypothesis that you originally started posting about, citing a six-hour youtube video we all needed to watch.

...I do believe I've changed my mind. I just sat thru the youtube (yea I know) video of Douglas P. Horne's synopsis of his book. Horne was a prominent researcher on the ARRP [sic] review beginning in 1993. His presented evidence is overwhelming. Of all of the questions generated he's answered with one exception. ... The entire video is very long.. It's about 6 hours duration, so it takes a long time to watch the entire thing.

The Body Snatcher theory is so preposterous it's actually quite funny anyone would believe it. ... After reading a good account of that period it's obvious that the Body Snatch theory is pure hokum.

If that's the case, are you likewise disavowing the multiple shooters hypothesis as well? One leads inexorably to the other - multiple shooters means you need to alter the body, if you're framing a lone nut.

As pointed out previously, the need for body alteration goes away if you shoot from the patsy's place of work, leave a good weapon behind, and frame him for owning that good weapon.

Any idea why that wasn't option two for the plotters (behind revealing all the mistresses)?
 
Last edited:
Granting for the sake of argument your claim is true that JFK would win re-election in 1964 after a similar scandal brought down some of the highest ranking members of the British government, what was the harm in trying the non-treasonous route first?

Sure, that was an option.

Instead, for some reason, these plotters jump right to the most dangerous (for them) option, killing a sitting President in broad daylight, where numerous spectators are bound to be filming or photographing the assassination attempt.

It's a shame LHO didn't think of that.

PS: It appears you are now disavowing the Doug Horne body alteration hypothesis that you originally started posting about, citing a six-hour youtube video we all needed to watch.

Just because I recommended the video (I didn't indicate anything about anyone needing to watch it) doesn't mean that I accepted every single thing in it. For that to happen the SS and FBI would have had to be inonit and I do know the end result of that type of conspiracy.

If that's the case, are you likewise disavowing the multiple shooters hypothesis as well? One leads inexorably to the other - multiple shooters means you need to alter the body, if you're framing a lone nut.

I don't quite see it that way. What in the hell expanded that wound in the neck? As has been said that looked like butchery, not at all what the Dr's at Parkland described. In addition, it still appears to me that more than 3 shots were fired. I know what the SS and witnesses mostly described, but there's the possibility (however remote) that some shots were fired simultaneously. Witnesses can be wrong, you know.

As pointed out previously, the need for body alteration goes away if you shoot from the patsy's place of work, leave a good weapon behind, and frame him for owning that good weapon.

I'm not buying it yet, no matter how much I'm badgered to agree. BTW: I'm not an activist trying to spread false rumors. I'm merely trying to come to a better understanding of what happened. It's quite obvious that I don't know the entire story yet, but I'm getting there.

Any idea why that wasn't option two for the plotters (behind revealing all the mistresses)?

You know some people just might have been so angry that they didn't just want to remove him as President, but instead wanted to get rid of him period. For example, look at some of the photos of LBJ staring at JFK. I think we already know that LBJ liked to get rid of his enemies most expediently, or don't you accept that as pretty strong allegations of his character.

BTW: Thanks for that additional info on the Gen Walters shooting. I was not aware of any notes he left to his wife.

He went to lots of trouble for someone who couldn't drive. How in the hell did he get to Walters house without being seen with the rifle?
 
Last edited:
Granting for the sake of argument your claim is true that JFK would win re-election in 1964 after a similar scandal brought down some of the highest ranking members of the British government, what was the harm in trying the non-treasonous route first?

Treasonous? I don't believe assassination was a Federal Crime at the time. Sure, they would have been guilty of murder, but not treason.
 
So using the iron sights magically solves all problems with the scope.

Yes, because it's what the "experts" call a "Straight Line".

Scopes aren't magic, and even today with all the red-dot, aim point holographic, laser targeting stuff the fact is that a shooter is still equally as accurate with iron sites at the ranges we're discussing here.

That's why all armed forces begin instruction using iron sights, and I believe monthly quals are still conducted with iron sights. Plus, we called a lot of people between 1775 and 2001 using iron sights.

So yes, iron sites solve all the problems with Oswald's scope.


To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine?

Bullets are funny things.

We can't speculate because we don't really know where it went. To know that we have to figure out if it hit the tree or the traffic sign, both of which would have been in the line of fire. Then we would have to recreate the shot at least 100 times to get a good idea how the bullet reacts to whatever it struck, and even then it's still just going to be a glorified guess.

So toss out the shot that missed and focus on the two that hit and you've got Oswald and his Carcano.

To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine? Unless you wanna theorize about the shallow north-Elm-Street-sidewalk mark being a bullet scar, you'd have no option but to say the lone assassin missed by some ridiculous amount. Since thin tree branches can't deflect the bullet, what else is there? Come on people, don't you miss the good old days when you used to ask questions?



Unless you wanna theorize about the shallow north-Elm-Street-sidewalk mark being a bullet scar, you'd have no option but to say the lone assassin missed by some ridiculous amount.

Yeah, that happens when the time comes to pull the trigger on a living human being. Ask any combat vet about the first shots they fired at the enemy and how many of those first rounds found their target. There is a whole psychological component you and other CTists ignore here. Oswald had planned and dreamed about this moment, and now here comes JFK - now it's real, it's happening. He's stacking the boxes, maybe adjusting them to be able to shoot as the motorcade comes around the corner.

Maybe he doesn't have a good firing position for the first shot, but takes it anyway. Nobody knows.

To those who still think the first shot missed, why did it miss so far to the point of (allegedly) no discernible damage being found in or near the location of the limousine? Unless you wanna theorize about the shallow north-Elm-Street-sidewalk mark being a bullet scar, you'd have no option but to say the lone assassin missed by some ridiculous amount. Since thin tree branches can't deflect the bullet, what else is there? Come on people, don't you miss the good old days when you used to ask questions?



Since thin tree branches can't deflect the bullet what else is there? Come on people, don't you miss the good old days when you used to ask questions?

Again, bullets are funny things. Navy SEALs in Vietnam tell stories about watching .556 rounds deflected by leaves of trees during firefights.

We ask questions all the time, but we understand that not every question has an answer, and that it is unrealistic to expect an explanation which covers 100% of the event.

Look at the mysterious crimes that have eventually been solved, and the killer confesses. When asked why they did specific things which confounded detectives the killers usually don't know why they did too. There's no master plan, sometimes it's just doing it.

Oswald had been planning to kill someone from the time he bought the Carcano. He took a shot at Walker, and had JFK's limo had the bubble-top on that day, Oswald would have just killed someone else.
 
I know he's been accused of shooting at Gen Walker, but I'm not sure that is valid information. He was never charged or convicted...

The round recovered from Walker's house:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305152

The remaining, unfired round from Oswald's Carcano:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305136

The round from the stretcher at Parkland:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

Fragments from the Presidential limo, and skull:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305167

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305166

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305165


I think we have a winner here.

Again, if he had a standard hunting rifle we'd have a big gray area, but he didn't, he had a Carcano which used a proprietary round.

Come on, you've spent time on the range, how many 6.5x 52mms have you personally shot? How many have you seen at the range? How many do you see in gunshops?

It's a unicorn round, and the Carcano is the unicorn's unicorn. It screams "Look at me!"...at least from a ballistics point of view.

I agree with BStrong about the caliber, I don't know why it isn't more popular with long range shooters and hunters because it's such an effective round. While the Carcano not a great rifle, the round is unparalleled. :thumbsup:
 
Yea, I finally found the photos of that mount yesterday. Heck, I'd use iron sights before using that thing....

And it's entirely possible that's what Oswald did. You have to remember that Oswald was trained to shoot at much longer ranges than JFK was at in the Marines with iron sights. There's no way to be sure since he never said, but I don't find it difficult to believe at all that Oswald would use the iron sights at such a short distance.
 
So the 90% of the witnesses who said three shots were all mistaken and couldn't count to four? And the witnesses who testified to only two shots (which were more than those who testified to four or more), also were mistaken? Only the four or five witnesses who said four or more shots were on the ball that day, and everyone else was mistaken?

If you're going to argue with the vast majority of the witnesses perception of something as simple as the number of shots given within days of the assassination, please don't quote eyewitness recollections from decades after the fact and try to sell us on how they couldn't be mistaken.

First, that's obviously a different issue in eyewitnesses.

Second, wouldn't a witness be more likely to report where they remember the origin of the last shot? You never actually provided a reason to doubt that.

Third, you're ignoring the use of noise-suppressors like I've been pointing to this whole time. Noise-suppressors can make a shot sound like it originated from the opposite direction that it did.

You cite the study but ignore the conclusions of the experts who conducted the study, substituting your own conclusions.

We covered this in the past in detail. I see no need to drive over the same ground with you again.

The experts conclusion is that more than four witnesses would have reported shots from multiple directions if, indeed, there had been shots from multiple locations ("...a second shot from a different location should be distinctive and different enough to cause more than four witnesses to report multiple origins for the shots). They also concluded "It is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll."

You can't just skip to the conclusions, you have to actually see their data. And their data says that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot form the Knoll sounds like a shot from the Knoll. You can just tell they padded their report with statements like that to soften the blow of what they discovered.

It wasn't close to half.

According to the HSCA:
49 said Depository
21 said Knoll
30 said other
78 said don't know

21 of 100 that named a source named the knoll.
21 of 178 (including those who didn't name a source) said the knoll.

That's not close to half.
Most of the witnesses who named the knoll (or the overpass) as the source of the shots named the knoll (or the overpass) as the source of ALL the shots.

You agree even your witnesses were mistaken, and couldn't perceive the source correctly, don't you? You don't think ALL the shots came from the knoll or the overpass, do you? So why should we credit your witnesses as being part-right, when you yourself admit they got the source of at least some of the shots wrong?

Eeeeww, you're citing the HSCA? Have you tried looking through the witnesses yourself? Even Mcadams wasn't a big enough of a liar to put the number of knoll witnesses that low. In real life, it was at least ~40.

Yeah, either that or something simple like echoes off the concrete of the overpass confused some of the witnesses.

Did you do your own experiment where you rope off Dealey Plaza and fire shots from different locations? If not, please refer to the HSCA earshot experiment.
 
FBI Agent Robert Frazier would disagree with you.

Mr. DULLES - Where would the first shot have gone under that thesis?
Mr. McCLOY - I just say I don't know where it could have gone.
Mr. FRAZIER - From what I know from my examination that is true, because I have seen bullets strike small twigs, small objects, and ricochet for no apparent reason except they hit and all the pressure is on one side and it turns the bullet and it goes off at an angle. If there was no deviation from the time the bullet left the rifle barrel until the time it exited from the Governor's body, then the physical setup exists for it to have gone through the President, and through the Governor.


Guess whose statement I'm taking with a grain of salt.

Hank

Did you miss the part where I linked to a video of a guys firing a Carcano shot through several tiny branches?
 
As I pointed out, witnesses that said they heard shots from the Knoll said the shots came exclusively from there...as in zero shots from the depository.

Witnesses that said they heard shots from the depository said the shots came exclusively from the depository...as in zero shots from another location.

By all means, please explain that discrepancy in a way that makes sense and doesn't involve earwitness perceptions changing depending on where witnesses were standing.

Let's assume you're right, although about half of the witnesses heard the Knoll shots no matter where they were standing. I already told you that the use of rear snipers using noise-suppressors would totally explain that.
 
Well, if THEY want to make sure he was killed, why not more than one shooter. If there was more than one shooter, it worked pretty well. Also, if there were more teams at other locations along the route, that worked too.

Col Fletcher Prouty, who worked in Special Ops at the Pentagon in my opinion is a credible person. He thinks that Gen. E. Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov. Lansdale was an expert at clandestine operations and reputedly one of the best. I haven't decided if I accept all of that yet.

As I said previously, the Body Snatcher theory is preposterous. No, I don't believe that at all.


What does Prouty have to do with who decided the parade route and to have JFK's speech at the Trade Mart? I know you've claimed not to be a conspiracy theorist and to be Just Asking Questions but this is getting ridiculous. I'm seriously not trying to be offensive here, but give me a break.

You post some nonsense about Connally and LBJ setting up JFK to be killed by having input on the parade route in Dallas. For one thing why would Connally set up an assassination that involved him and his wife riding in the car that was being shot at by a bunch of assassins? But as soon as the true information is posted on who decided to have JFK's speech at the Trade Mart and who decided on the parade route from the airport to the Trade Mart it's time to ignore that information and go on to some more JAQing off.

But as far as Prouty goes, who gives a **** what Prouty thinks? The proper question to ask is if there's any evidence that Lansdale was in Dealy Plaza? Wait, was he in the secret bunker that was constructed underneath the grassy knoll so that J. Edgar Hoover could watch the assassination through a periscope disguised as a tree as alleged by David Lifton?
 
Let's assume you're right, although about half of the witnesses heard the Knoll shots no matter where they were standing. I already told you that the use of rear snipers using noise-suppressors would totally explain that.

You haven't explained anything.

49 witnesses said the shots came from only the depository.

21 witnesses said the shots came from only the knoll.

First, which of the two groups is right, because they can't BOTH be right.

Second, explain the discrepancy between the two groups as something other than echoes in Dealey making sounds hard to locate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom