Whole lot of special pleading here.
Stop. Before you hurt yourself.
I appreciate your concern.
There have been very few effective supressed rifles.
That's interesting, perhaps you should write to the US military, and every other military organization on the planet, which uses them frequently in sniper operations.
So do numerous police forces in this country.
And BTW, would you mind linking a source which confirms
Sure, I thought I already did though.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Silencers.aspx
And in this article by Mark White, who writes almost exclusively for the law enforcement community, he discusses the advantages and pitfalls of various types of suppressors in police work.
http://www.silencerresearch.com/sound_suppressors_on_high_powered_rifles.htm
The older models block the sights due to the size needed to supress the shot to quiet levels and require that you use subsonic rounds to get the noise levels down to levels where people won't notice.
True enough, which is probably why one of the early shots seems to have missed the entire limousine and the next, struck JFK's back, roughly 8-9 inches below the center of the head, which was undoubtedly, the intended target.
And if you read Mr. White's article, you will also see that even the slightest misalignment will cause wild misses, which is exactly what happened with at least one of the early shots, and probably two.
The OSS and SOE used a number of silenced weapons in WWII but those had a major flaw for shooting - they were pistol calibre weapons and at ranges of more than a few tens of metres were not very accurate.
Yes, I see no evidence of suppressed shots being fired after frame 223, when the limo was about 100 feet from the Daltex. After that, the unsuppressed, high powered rifles were fired.
The only shots that we have evidence for came from Oswald's rifle - there is no evidence of more than three shots. You have guesses based on what you think the reaction of people should be.
You only have legitimate evidence for one shot having come from Oswald's rifle and that was the frags from inside the limousine, and even that is only legitimate if you have faith that the FBI turned over the correct fragments - something akin to faith that Mohammad flew around on a magic horse.
Would you like to talk about CE399?
We shouldn't trust law enforcement,
I absolutely trust law enforcement, unless I find conclusive evidence not to.
Would you like talk about CE399 and the FBI's involvement with it?
but an internet guy over 50 years later without any actual physical evidence should be allowed to disregard the physical evidence we have?
Please be specific about what "physical evidence" you have.
And if you had read my article on CE399, you would know that I presented very solid physical evidence that CE399 was not the same bullet that Daryl Tomlinson recovered. Both Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI Elmer Todd, stated that they marked the bullet that Tomlinson found, but when John Hunt went to the N.A. and examined four quarter-turn images of CE399, he found only the initials of FBI lab personnel. Neither Johnsen's or Todd's were anywhere to be found.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
Of course, the actual bullet that wounded Connally and probably JFK, fell from Connally's stretcher and was recovered by a nurse, just before he went into surgery. That fact was confirmed by Connally himself, DA Henry Wade and Bobby Nolan, the officer who was guarding Connally's room at the time.
Please read this article. It really is worth the trouble.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Why go with multiple shooters when one would do?
Because the evidence proves that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots. And that trumps all.
The more people aware of an event, the more that can tell.
If you think you need more than one guy to do a job, then they had better be able to communicate or have a plan, othewise you run the risk of one backing out, etc.
They didn't need communications and their plan was undoubtedly, start shooting when he comes into range.
Oswald was a disgruntled american, he couldn't lead his way out of a wet paperbag.
I doubt that he was a leader, but he had something much more valuable - a communist legend, which gave him the ability to make everyone believe that Castro was behind the assassination.
The issue isn't LHO, it is your other alleged shooter. No Physical evidence of the shooting location, no ballistic evidence of the shot, etc.
That is untrue. Read the article I linked and you will see solid evidence that other bullets were involved in the shooting.
Given that the person you are alleging was firing a suppressed weapon so effective that no one could hear it, why would "they" give one such weapon to a shooter, and an un-suppressed weapon to someone else?
Excellent question. Of course, not having been privy to their meetings and plans, I can only suggest what the evidence and logic suggests is what happened.
I think the hope was that the sniper(s?) with the suppressed weapon would kill Kennedy, firing from close range. But the shooter seems to have had problems with his weapon, perhaps caused by a slight misalignment. He gave up after the limo went beyond 100 feet from him.
After that, it was obvious that JFK was damaged but still alive. So, the high powered rifles were fired. The 285 shot missed entirely, but as well know, the one at 313 was perfect.
Do you understand why the fact that the inaudible or almost inaudible, early shots were only fired when the limo was no more than 100 feet from the Daltex, is important?
Particularly if the weapons use different ammo. Two different weapons lead to two different shooters being id'd. And of course if the intent is to make sure only one person takes the fall, then why have someone else in on it?
Why would they care about that? Their motive was obviously, to make it appear that the assassination was a communist conspiracy.
The LN theory was not the invention of the perps. It was the product of LBJ, who did not want to face a crisis which might have led to WWIII, since Russia had sworn to defend Cuba. Consider this proclamation from Katzenbach, and the justice department, uttered within about 2 days after the assassination,
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
And consider the embarrassment of the US government, trying to keep the moral high ground in light of the fact that they had been trying to assassinate Castro for nearly a year.
There was a massive coverup, but it may have been benign, at least as far as LBJ knew.
If you have to invent new weapons,
I would love to take credit for that but Hiram Maxim beat me to it by a scant, 107 years. Sir, do you really think that exaggerating or misrepresenting my statements is a good way to evaluate this case?
I did not "invent" anyone or anything. The ridiculously obvious difference of the reactions to the early shots, from the reactions to the later ones, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they came from different weapons. Check it out yourself. Show me reactions to any of the early shots (pre 285) that are even remotely similar to these:
http://jfkhistory.com/ducking3.gif
Now, consider that the earliest shots would have been the loudest and most startling to the limo passengers. Their early reactions should have been more dramatic than that later ones.
and imply that the physical evidence shouldn't be trusted because the FBI may have tampered with it (even though the DPD collected it), then you will likely not be believed.
It is irrelevant that the DPD handled some of the evidence before the FBI did. Almost all of it remained in envelopes, uninspected before it was confiscated.
The FBI has been caught before, falsifying evidence, even when the director had not given orders that they come to a predefined conclusion.
But what matters most is the evidence. Look at the article, then ask me questions or debate with me about it. I think you will find that based on that evidence, the conclusion is inescapable.
