• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

pgwenthold said:
On what basis did they make this conclusion? Is that still a valid conclusion?

(HINT: a) they based it on the "dictabelt" evidence; in fact, all the way up until that point, they were ready to confirm the WC conclusion. However, the dictabelt evidence was new, and they didn't have an explanation. So they said, we can't explain it, and so it sounds like there was a second shooter. b) not at all. The dictabelt crap is nonsense)

You are mistaken if you think the people in this thread merely accept the government claims unwittingly. No one believes JHO acted alone merely because the Warren Report said he did.
Click to expand...

I believe you meant LHO.
 
MicahJava said:
If you consider the HSCA an example of a good murder investigation, then I really hope that every defense attorney's opening statement in every court case includes talking about the HSCA as an example of the government being extremely stupid on things such as this. And this is a PRESIDENT'S murder. I mean, what do you call not even bothering to try gathering every single possible relevant witness and mapping a chain of custody for all of the physical evidence? Or not showing the photographs to the witnesses? Or not asking witnesses basic questions or more outside experts about things like the photos of the skull cavity, the EOP wound or other anatomical arguments? Or not calling for an exhumation at Arlington? Is this the same attention to detail the modern FBI gives to the average "non-urban" or "non-organized-crime-related" missing person's case?
Click to expand...

IIRC the skull X-ray that is available on the net shows no small caliper hole in the skull nor is it the autopsy notes/report, why do you continue to bring this up in you discussion?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Indeed, and in fact the only "new" evidence that has emerged is in the form of declassified documents, and they have served only to cast more doubt on the idea of a conspiracy than there already was.

The JFK assassination is no mystery to those who pay attention to facts and evidence. President Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, a pathetic nobody, a man who was no more than average shooter, acting alone, who got off a couple of lucky shots at a sitting-duck target.
Click to expand...
He qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines, which would be an above average shot, but not an expert.
But otherwise you are right. JFK was NOT a difficult target no matter waht Oliver Stone said in that piece of crap movie JFK.
And don't get me started on the idiocy of being unable to get off those shots with a bolt action rifle.
 
Ah, yes. Especially the one guy, while demonstrating with a carcano and said "it takes a minimum of 2.2 seconds to cycle the bolt on this Carcano ( he then cycled the bolt in 1.4 seconds).
 
dudalb said:
He qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines, which would be an above average shot, but not an expert.
But otherwise you are right. JFK was NOT a difficult target no matter waht Oliver Stone said in that piece of crap movie JFK.
And don't get me started on the idiocy of being unable to get off those shots with a bolt action rifle.
Click to expand...
Oswald missed a third of the shots he fired at JFK, so his aiming skills were probably what you'd expect of someone 4½ years out of the Marines. And the less said about his aiming skills during his attempted assination of General Walker, the better...
 
KDLarsen said:
Oswald missed a third of the shots he fired at JFK, so his aiming skills were probably what you'd expect of someone 4½ years out of the Marines.
Click to expand...

"Why did LHO take 3 shots at JFK?"
"Because he didn't need 4."

I like to bring this up every time someone does the "he wasn't a good enough marksman to do what he did" crap. What, exactly, do they think he did, and what was he trying to do?

They act as if his goal was to
1) miss,
2) hit his torso, and then
3) hit his head

There is no reason to think that. Obviously he wasn't trying to miss, but why would he not be aiming for the head on all three shots? And in that scenerio, he only hit the target in 1 out of 3 shots (much less a bullseye).

If I remember right, there was one bullet left in the rifle. So he had 4 shots to kill the president. He got it done in 3. Does that take unreasonable skill?
 
pgwenthold said:
"Why did LHO take 3 shots at JFK?"
"Because he didn't need 4."

I like to bring this up every time someone does the "he wasn't a good enough marksman to do what he did" crap. What, exactly, do they think he did, and what was he trying to do?

They act as if his goal was to
1) miss,
2) hit his torso, and then
3) hit his head

There is no reason to think that. Obviously he wasn't trying to miss, but why would he not be aiming for the head on all three shots? And in that scenerio, he only hit the target in 1 out of 3 shots (much less a bullseye).

If I remember right, there was one bullet left in the rifle. So he had 4 shots to kill the president. He got it done in 3. Does that take unreasonable skill?
Click to expand...

You won't believe how many times I've had to explain the sharpshooter's fallacy to people. Not just about this, but in general. "The odds of them doing exactly this are a million to one!" He wasn't trying to do "exactly that."

It comes up a lot in regards to criminal activity. "What are the odds they would be there in exactly that place at that time?" Huge odds. But the odds that someone would be there are quite high. People tend to use the wrong variables when they try to work their head around stats.
 
KDLarsen said:
Oswald missed a third of the shots he fired at JFK, so his aiming skills were probably what you'd expect of someone 4½ years out of the Marines. And the less said about his aiming skills during his attempted assination of General Walker, the better...
Click to expand...


Hey, he came close!
 
KDLarsen said:
Oswald missed a third of the shots he fired at JFK, so his aiming skills were probably what you'd expect of someone 4½ years out of the Marines. And the less said about his aiming skills during his attempted assination of General Walker, the better...
Click to expand...

Well, now, let's work backward...

Oswald fired only one shot at Walker. Walker is on record as stating the only reason his brains weren't plastered all over his home office was because he dropped his pen, and bent down to pick it up the moment Oswald's bullet smacked into the wall where his head had just been.

Oswald was smart enough to not fire again, and to stash the rifle, and escape.

On Elm Street, his first shot missed due to clutter. His second shot was low, right. His third shot was in the center ring. Kennedy's head would have looked like a pumpkin in the scope. He stashed the rifle, and exited the building. His failure was he had no Plan-B. Traffic snarled traffic, slowing his taxi to the bus station, and he lost his mud, and exited on foot, taking the bus to his boarding house.

Oswald wasn't an expert shot, but he didn't suck. More importantly, it's an easy shot from the 6th floor.

Oswald's USMC rifle score book shows that in two rapid-fire tests he was 48 and 49 (out of fifty) at a range of 200 yards. This is with the heavier M-1 Grarand, and without a scope. Most of Oswald's USMC shooting was done at ranges between 200 & 500 yards. The head-shot on JFK was less than one hundred yards.

Oswald had a lot of problems. Shooting wasn't one of them.
 
Axxman300 said:
Well, now, let's work backward...

Oswald fired only one shot at Walker. Walker is on record as stating the only reason his brains weren't plastered all over his home office was because he dropped his pen, and bent down to pick it up the moment Oswald's bullet smacked into the wall where his head had just been.

Oswald was smart enough to not fire again, and to stash the rifle, and escape.

On Elm Street, his first shot missed due to clutter. His second shot was low, right. His third shot was in the center ring. Kennedy's head would have looked like a pumpkin in the scope. He stashed the rifle, and exited the building. His failure was he had no Plan-B. Traffic snarled traffic, slowing his taxi to the bus station, and he lost his mud, and exited on foot, taking the bus to his boarding house.

Oswald wasn't an expert shot, but he didn't suck. More importantly, it's an easy shot from the 6th floor.

Oswald's USMC rifle score book shows that in two rapid-fire tests he was 48 and 49 (out of fifty) at a range of 200 yards. This is with the heavier M-1 Grarand, and without a scope. Most of Oswald's USMC shooting was done at ranges between 200 & 500 yards. The head-shot on JFK was less than one hundred yards.

Oswald had a lot of problems. Shooting wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Excellent points except "mud". Did you mean mind?
 
bknight said:
IIRC the skull X-ray that is available on the net shows no small caliper hole in the skull nor is it the autopsy notes/report, why do you continue to bring this up in you discussion?
Click to expand...

1. The x-rays are simply too blurry to show detail. The x-rays were taken with portable equipment from World War 2, which was only fit to locate bullets and large bullet fragments.

2. A small hole in the center-back of the skull might not be obvious on x-rays taken from a side-view, because the surrounding layers of skull bone around such a hole could obstruct the view.

3. In one conspiracy theory, there was no small wound in the back of the head, and some of the witnesses just lied about it. Either way, the EOP information suggests a conspiracy.

4. In the non-professional opinion of some people on the internet like Pat Speer, the EOP area of the skull does indeed show some kind of small dark shape, and this has not been explained.
 
Axxman300 said:
I love the idea that people looked at the real evidence and decided the government was lying. Few people have read the abridged Warren Commission Report, and fewer still have read the whole thing. They assume that JFK-CT mongers have read the whole thing, and know what they're talking about. But most have not, and tend to quote other CTists who've not read it either. It's a sad game of telephone.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would recommend reading the Warren Commission's volumes cover-to-cover - it would probably only lead to confusion, information overload, and important information being forgotten. I suggest studying the case one subject at a time.
 
Axxman300 said:
Most of the physical evidence is in either the National Archives or the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas. The chain of evidence is only in question by delusional people.
Click to expand...

Who developed the camera film from the autopsy?
 
pgwenthold said:
"Why did LHO take 3 shots at JFK?"
"Because he didn't need 4."

I like to bring this up every time someone does the "he wasn't a good enough marksman to do what he did" crap. What, exactly, do they think he did, and what was he trying to do?

They act as if his goal was to
1) miss, 2) hit his torso, and then
3) hit his head

There is no reason to think that. Obviously he wasn't trying to miss, but why would he not be aiming for the head on all three shots? And in that scenerio, he only hit the target in 1 out of 3 shots (much less a bullseye).

If I remember right, there was one bullet left in the rifle. So he had 4 shots to kill the president. He got it done in 3. Does that take unreasonable skill?
Click to expand...

There is a cogent argument to be made that the first shot may not have actually been a "miss" (as in an inaccurate shot) but rather, it struck the mast arm of the traffic light below the sixth floor window, between LHO and JFK, and ricocheted away to a concrete curb where the FBI found evidence of a bullet impact. Its even possible that ricochet was what injured James Tague who was standing near the triple-underpass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom