Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

Highly unlikely for anyone? Or just for Oswald?

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Pretty unlikely for anyone? Or just Oswald?

 

[Hans]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Center of mass? Of a fellow sitting in a car and you are behind and above? I believe all that would not have been hidden by the car were his upper back and head.

 

[Ranb]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight.

So what?

If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

I fail to see how this is unusual at all.

Here are some figures for you. The top of the front sight blade of the typical 6.5mm Carcano of the type found in the TSBD (I have one) is about .070"; it is about 30 inches in front of the shooters eye when aiming. This means it covers a line about 7.4" wide at 88 yards. The average human head is about 6 inches wide.

An NRA target for 100 yard high power slow fire is 21" wide with a black dot encompassing the 9 and 10 rings which is 6-3/8" wide. The front sight blade of an AR-15 A2 is available in several sizes from .05 to .072 for example. Hitting the 21 inch wide target with a front sight blade like this is very easy even for a beginner. Hitting the 6 inch wide black center is not hard at all, especially for a trained shooter; even if it is moving slowing away at a slight angle from 88 yards while shooting several stories above the target. Get where I'm going with this?

Oswald was a very motivated person who was trained by the Marine Corps to shoot at targets much father away than the short distances that existed in Dealey Plaza. "Dotting the eye" or holding at the "6 o'clock" position while shooting is the usual thing.

You keep coming up with these outlandish claims and expecting us to be stupid enough to believe them. Why be so insulting on the forum?

 

[Axxman300]

No, such a trajectory could have only been caused by a lot of deflections. A bullet entering any curved area of the skull will have guaranteed deflection, and the dark squiggly line on the X-ray goes sharply from the neck area then off the first rib.

I used to think that very low-velocity missiles can only create large exit wounds, but it is now my understanding that exit wounds from missiles barely exiting the tissue can be very small, and can resemble an entry wound.



I think it was Francis X. O'Neil or James Sibert that said during the autopsy, the possibility of high-tech ammunition was being investigated before they just settled on the undercharged round hypothesis. Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

I'm just going to leave this here without comment.

 

[Axxman300]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

At 300 feet the head would be comfortably large enough with iron sights.

With a 4x scope it would have been like shooting a pumpkin.

 

[HSienzant]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

What if there were multiple assassins? Why is a single assassin singled out in this way by you?

Which of the "other assassins" was known to have a rifle with a appropriately sighted scope? Or even a rifle with just iron sights? Wouldn't all these "other assassins" that you conjecture but have no evidence for all suffer from the same difficulty of putting a shot in JFK's head if your argument had any merit? So JFK suffered no head wound because of the difficulty, survived the shooting, and is now 100 years old a month and a half ago?

Your argument about the difficulty makes no sense. If not Oswald, who, and where's the evidence for another shooter? You have none.

Contrast this to my own experience. Prior to July 5th, 2015 (and I've mentioned this before), I had never fired a firearm of any sort in my life. On that date I went with my nephew (with a military background) and one brother to a shooting gallery and fired my nephew's recently acquired Carcano rifle (manufacture date of 1917) and hit four of six at 100 yards. Granted, this was at a stationary target, but in contrast to Oswald, who had Marine Corps training and was deemed an 'excellent shot' by civilian standards, I had about two minutes of training that focused on how to brace the rifle against my shoulder so I wouldn't injure myself. I still managed to put four of six shots into the target, including the last three in two tests of three shots each. To date, those are the only six shots I ever fired with any firearm in my life.

Compare those six shots (my total experience) to Oswald's training and how many shots he got to train with at a minimum:

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?
Major ANDERSON - It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - By "fam" firing, what does that mean?
Major ANDERSON - This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.
Mr. SPECTER - And on what date was the A course registered?
Major ANDERSON - 21 December 1956.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was his final qualification there?
Major ANDERSON - 212.
Mr. SPECTER - And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?
Major ANDERSON - That should have been a sharpshooter.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 400 rounds for recruit firing.
Mr. SPECTER - And during what period was that?
Major ANDERSON - That was to be fired within a 2-week period.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have exposure on another course for M-1 firing at a later date?
Major ANDERSON - The record shows that 6 May 1959 he fired the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used at that time?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what score was obtained on that occasion?
Major ANDERSON - 191 for marksman.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 200 rounds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Oswald has to be considered a much better shot than me. And if I could do four of six with about two minutes of training at 100 yards, surely he could do two of three with his furthest shot at 88.4 yards. And bear in mind his shots were with a 23-year-old weapon (1963 minus 1940, the year of manufacture for his rifle), while mine was nearly FOUR times older (2015 minus 1917), or 98 years old.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zahm.htm

And let's dispose of that "Moving Target" nonsense right now. Since the car at the time of the head shot was moving down at about four degrees and directly away from Oswald in the sixth floor window of the Depository, it was essentially a stationary target at the time. It was getting smaller as it moved away, but not moving across his field of vision as he sighted for the final shot and pulled the trigger.

And instead of your own non-expert and solely layman's opinion on what Oswald could or couldn't do with a weapon, let's look at an actual expert's opinion:

Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, I am now going to show you the same photographs which I showed to Major Anderson in setting the basis for asking you a hypothetical question on capabilities here. As the record will show, we have heretofore before the President's Commission entered into evidence Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza. Commission Exhibit No. 348, which I am now displaying to you, is a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence in the record indicates that the marksman stood at the point designated "A" with the lower half of the window being raised halfway, and the gun protruding out of that window pointing down the street called Elm Street in approximately the angle of my pencil which is virtually although not exactly straight down the street. Elm Street declines 3° as it slopes under the triple underpass.
As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and 895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle scope" there is shown the view of the marksman froth the sixth floor of the depository building as he looked down t ZAHM. Very definitely.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Now taking a look at Commission Exhibit No. 902, which as the record will show, has been introduced into evidence to depict the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from the rifle in the window to the part of the President's body being 265.3 feet. Assuming the same factors about using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and pointing it down Elm Street as shown on Commission Exhibit No. 347, would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head? Would Mr. Oswald possess the capability to complete such a shot which did, in this situation, strike the President in the back of the head?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I think that aiming at the mass of what portion of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment, he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he could have hit, got a hit.
Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at him under those circumstances?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

And, since Oswald trained at 200 yards and 500 yards (the latter nearly SIX [6!] times the distance of the LONGEST shot he would have to make in Dealey Plaza), your argument that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 88-yard shot to JFK's head means your argument is also that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 200-yard or 500-yard shot in the Marines and put it in the bullseye. But of course we know he did do that (see his scorebook, published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence). The fact that he made shots at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines establishes he could make 88-yard shots in Dealey Plaza, and that your arguments here are a joke.

Your arguments are a big failure and simply make no sense.

Whether you understand the point or not.

Hank

 

[bknight]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

There have been many here that continue to tell you that your lack of experience, first hand, precludes you from making this ascertain. Those of us who have fired rifles know better. Try an assault range first then come back with your results.

Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Cite that fragmented rounds were available in 1963, not just an idea or in testing phases.

EDIT:
Learn how to fire a rifle before taking on an assault course.

 

[HSienzant]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

That's just a thinly disguised logical fallacy of PERSONAL INCREDULITY:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
"At what point did you reject the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand how good the idea is?" —Dilbert[1]
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Your logical fallacies have no bearing on what the truth is.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

HS, recently I've been spending a little more time re-reading all of the important testimonies and meticulously saving what I find interesting on text files sorted by subject. Not totally done yet, but I've already posted what you're responding to here already. There are at least two statements from the autopsy that imply that a special, separate scalp incision was made to expose the small wound low in the head, in addition to the large scalp incision already made to facilitate removal of the brain.

From Humes and Boswell's 9/16/1977 interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite- oh, it must be, I can't read it- but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire- I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Finck's 3/11/1978 HSCA testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous.

Hilarious. The Finck quote above -- "the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone" -- establishes exactly what I said: that to see the entry wound on the external portion of the skull, they had to cut away the scalp from the skull bone fragment, as the scalp was adhering to the bone (and, of course, the bone adhering to the scalp).

And the Boswell quote establishes that the skull was badly fragmented, some was missing, and not much if any cutting was necessary to see the wound on the interior entry point of the skull or to excise the brain.

And you might take your own advice that "Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous..."

That is exactly what you're been doing all along. We're not fooled by you constantly offering up your own laymen's interpretation of what transpired at the autopsy while ignoring the clear testimony of the men who were there. For the best example of you doing exactly what you preach against, consider you are suggesting there were TWO SHOTS TO THE HEAD. Which of the various autopsy doctors present at the autopsy ever suggested such a thing?

NONE. You are simply "trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous" that they never said.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Twenty forensic pathologists? Last I checked, there were only about twelve that signed off on the cowlick entry theory or something similar to it (some of them reported the entry as a one or two+ centimeters difference from eachother).

I count 16 Forensic Pathologists and two others (denoted) with areas of expertise:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck, at the original autopsy
2. William Carnes, Clark Panel member, 1968
3. Russel Fisher, Clark Panel member, 1968
4. Russel Morgan, Clark Panel member, 1968
5. Alan Moritz, Clark Panel member, 1968
6. Robert McMeekin, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
7. Richard Lindenberg, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
8. Werner Spitz, Rockefeller Commission, 1975, HSCA Panel, 1978
9. John Coe, HSCA Panel, 1978
10. Joseph Davis, HSCA Panel, 1978
11. George Loquvam, HSCA Panel, 1978
12. Charles Petty, HSCA Panel, 1978
13. Earl Rose, HSCA Panel, 1978
14. Cyril Wecht, HSCA Panel, 1978
15. James Weston, HSCA Panel, 1978
16. Michael Baden, HSCA Panel, 1978
17. Fred Hodges, Radiologist, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
18. Alfred Olivier, Wound Ballistics, Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, 1975

I may have missed some.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark Panel.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930#relPageId=273&tab=page
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0008a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm

What? Not all of those are forensic pathologists, and those aren't all of the forensic pathologists who studied the X-rays. And they don't all agree with the cowlick entry theory. And at least some of them aren't qualified to analyze the JFK X-rays and all of their complications.

Yes, 16 of the 18 are forensic pathologists. I mentioned that.

And now you're admitting there are more forensic pathologists than I actually named, exactly as I suggested ("I may have missed some")?

So your original claim that there were only twelve is false?

And some of them are not qualified to analyze X-Rays according to whom -- MicahJava?

You're not an expert and you don't get to tell us what you think. We really don't care.

You need to cite expert authority to give your claims any sense of validity. We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Removed duplicate post.

 

[HSienzant]

Um, okay? Still not a moving target.

So that's your complaint now?

That was already disposed of above.

JFK was essentially not a moving target either, as the limo was proceeding down Elm at the time of the head shot almost directly away from Oswald, and at a downward angle (the road was set at approximately a 3.5 degree descent angle as it had to travel under the railroad overpass).

So how come this guy could hit something that looked much smaller than the head of an ant at a much greater distance by a factor of 25 times more distant than Oswald, but Oswald couldn't hit the President at just 88 yards, despite Oswald hitting targets at 200 yards and 500 yards in the Marines?

You previously claimed Oswald couldn't make this shot with the iron sights:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11853010#post11853010

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

But other people can make shots far more distant, and Oswald himself could make shots far more distant.

Can you explain how that works, and what authorities you're citing for the claim? Your own claim from personal incredulity is just another in a long line of LOGICAL FALLACIES by you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

On the question of where this earlier hypothetical head bullet ended up, the only logical answer would be that it exited the throat, without invoking alteration or high-tech ammunition.

And where'd it end up? And what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back?

What's that you're whispering?

Oh, TWO Magic Bullets!

Hilarious.

At least you're now admitting it's only a "hypothetical head bullet" that hit near the EOP and exited the throat.

Previously you were arguing in stronger language: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11752178#post11752178

Tolls, the nature of the brain damage doesn't make sense with the EOP entry wound exiting the top-right side of the head. It only makes sense if the missile that struck the EOP brushed past the cerebellum and hit the floor of the skull. The large head wound would then be created by a separate missile.

Unless shown otherwise, I will continue to think that the brain removal problem in relation to the small head wound is a kind of Rosetta Stone showing that something is very wrong with the official version of the JFK shooting.

WHAT "Brain Removal Problem"?

Remember your own words: "Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous..."

So please quote the experts who find a "Brain Removal Problem". Got any, or is all this in your own head only?

Previously, you appeared to be claiming this was wholly your own invention (you never cited any expert opinion):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757315#post11757315

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?

You understand what the logical fallacy of personal incredulity is by now I trust? And how you cannot use yourself as your own expert, and how your layman's opinion is meaningless?

Explain how you were able to eliminate your own lack of knowledge as the basic issue here.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

MicahJava, you fall strangely silent on the questions that keep dogging you. Any chance of you ever actually having answers? The questions aren't going to go away. They just further reinforce how far removed from reality you are.

 

[HSienzant]

MicahJava, you fall strangely silent on the questions that keep dogging you.

Because he has no evidence supporting his position. It's all his *personal interpretation* of the evidence. Which he constantly confuses with the *evidence*.

Any chance of you ever actually having answers?

No. Because there's an infinite number of ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right. He's not right, so he can't have answers. It only fits together one way, and we already know what way that is.

The questions aren't going to go away.

Which doesn't mean he'll ever acknowledge them. Acknowledging them means he would have to admit he has no answers, and means he would have to admit he cannot explain how his *unique* interpretation of one small part of the evidence fits with all the other evidence. Which pretty much explains why he won't acknowledge the questions - they blow his argument out of the water, and he knows it.

They just further reinforce how far removed from reality you are.

He's a conspiracy theorist, so that probably goes without saying. As a general rule, however, it's a given.

Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

From the prior thread, saw this exchange and wanted to point out the problem:

MicahJava said:

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757315#post11757315

BStrong said:

It's a human thing called being wrong. Even physicians fall victim to it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757325#post11757325

MicahJava said:

So all those times Dr. Finck described the entry wound, he was just hallucinating?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757329#post11757329

The other possible alternative to Finck suffering from hallucinations, which MicahJava apparently doesn't even consider, and hence, makes his above reference to hallucinating a loaded question, is that he (MicahJava), likewise being human, and being a non-expert layman, is wrong in his interpretations and his assertions.

As we've seen, the autopsists explained the brain removal problem MicahJava professes to see as a simple matter of the skull being extensively fractured, so much so that two cuts down to the level of the ears was sufficient to expose the entry wound on the interior of the skull fragment which still adhered to the scalp and how the entry wound in the scalp was seen to correspond to the entry wound in the interior of the posterior skull. And how the scalp and skull bone had to be separated to expose the exterior of the posterior skull, and expose that portion of the skull wound.

But he will go on pretending he's not assuming what he needs to prove, and go on assuming we need to disprove his interpretations of the evidence, instead of him proving his interpretations of the evidence.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

This is the first time I'm learning about this, so thanks for pointing out this example to me. While there is controversy on this event, either way it is apparently known as the luckiest shot in recorded history. Again, I never said it would literally be impossible to hit Kennedy's head with iron sights, just that it would be highly unlikely.

1. Which in no way would preclude any other shooter from connecting with with a "lucky shot."

2. The fact that you find it "unlikely"is immaterial. You have -0- experience in the subject matter.

To sum up the pin-the-headwound on the POTUS game that MJ finds so so compelling and in light of his often posted disbelief that LHO could hit JFK using irons (or anything else for that matter) along with the assertion that the autopsy doctors deliberately (MJ don't know nothin' about them human frailties) botched the procedure, these are the basic possibilities:

1. LHO was part of a conspiracy. LHO fired on POTUS. LHO scored hits Person or Persons unknown did likewise. JFK was hit an unknown number of times because attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed evidence of multiple GSW's from different directions and/or different caliber projectiles.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

2. LHO was not part of a conspiracy. LHO fired on POTUS. LHO scored hits. Person or Persons unknown that were part of a conspiracy did likewise. JFK was hit an unknown number of times because attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed evidence of multiple GSW's from different directions and/or different caliber projectiles.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

3. LHO was part of a conspiracy. He fired on POTUS. He did not hit POTUS. Person or Persons unknown fired on POTUS and scored hits. Attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed GSW evidence indicating multiple shooters/locations.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

For those of us that don't engage in flights of fancy regarding the assassination of JFK:

LHO brings his rifle to work. Sets up a shooting bench using cardboard boxes at hand.

LHO fires on JFK as the motorcade passes his work site.Scores hits.

Absolute chaos breaks out.

FBI, Secret Service, Dallas PD, Dallas County Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, - every LEA in the area immediately starts running around with their hair on fire w/o any sop in place or any idea about who was in charge.

Doctors at Parkland have a different set of challenges but a very similar environment to operate in.

JFK dies from his wounds.

The Presidential party wanted nothing more to vacate the area. They were through with Texas and no state statute was going to stop them. They took their dead and left.

LHO goes home, retrieves his revolver. Is confronted by a Dallas PD officer who he shoots and kills.

LHO takes refuge in a theater.

Dallas cops are called, they apprehend LHO with the murder weapon used on their officer in hand.

LHO is murdered by Jack Ruby.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MJ Chinese Opera scenarios.

 

[CORed]

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

You are still beating this dead horse? For crying out loud, it wasn't even close to a difficult shot, with a scope or with iron sights. The notion that there was something miraculous about Oswald hitting JFK with a rifle from less than 100 yards is possibly the silliest notion to come out of the JFK conspiracy theory world.

 

[HSienzant]

You are still beating this dead horse?

That and a few other dead horses...

Like the brain couldn't be removed unless the wound in the upper back of the head was removed first by being cut off as in a standard craniotomy...

And the evidence indicates two shots to the head...

And Oswald having a partially torn dollar bill in his wallet after his arrest suggests he was a spy...

And the majority of the witnesses thought the shots came from either the Depository or the knoll (NOT both!), and we can explain why no more than four witnesses thought the shots came from two directions because they were all influenced by the last sound they heard...

And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all...

The first shot was in the range of Z190 - Z224.

And Connally is trustworthy in his recollections except when he isn't...

And the bullet recovered at Parkland is a decredited piece of evidence...

He hasn't beaten some of those dead horses lately, but he's left a whole lot of deceased equines in his wake.

Hank