JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Straw Man said:
My suggestion for it being a lucky shot is based solely on ly own experience, and trying to translate that to Oswald.

If, when using a weapon, I strike out on my first hit (and don't see where my shot ended up), I aim lower and to the left (I find guns pull up and to the right). I usually get a result from that, and adjust my aim accordingly.

I believe that LHO missed with his first shot, saw a reaction with his second, and then adjusted for the third that dealt the fatal blow. It wasn't a precisely calibrated weapon, otherwise it would have been game over with one shot. LHO fired his first, and then tried to sight in, and managed to do it fatally, hence luck.
Click to expand...


But that is exactly why it was a well made shot. An amateur shooter would not know how or even why to make those adjustments. I see your point, in that if he had bothered to properly sight in the rifle, and research his location, it would have only been one shot.
 
Straw Man said:
I've actually shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (although, not the actual rifle LHO used), and it is entirely possible that it could be done. Your first shot is in the barrel, and, as long as the bolt removes the spent cartridge and ejects it cleanly, your next round is in there in just over than two seconds (again, my experience).

LHO's final shot was a(n un)lucky shot.
Click to expand...
.
I've done the same thing with a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Everyone who tries honestly, does the same thing.
It's not that much of a feat.
The rifle shoots to point of aim due to the low trajectory of that bullet, at the Dealey Plaza distances. It's really a good rifle.
One of the Ctwinkies talked about the "mule-like kick"... It has very little recoil. Any 5.56 rifle will recoil more.
The 6.5 cartridge is commonly used in Europe for moose and bear.
 
TheRedWorm said:
But that is exactly why it was a well made shot. An amateur shooter would not know how or even why to make those adjustments. I see your point, in that if he had bothered to properly sight in the rifle, and research his location, it would have only been one shot.
Click to expand...
.
On my Carcano, I found the same scope LHOLN had used at a gun store in Culver City, and had it mounted on my rifle.
It was made for the .22 LR type rifle, and was delicate.
As with the LHOLN scope, it self-destructed internally after a few shots, as the FBI had found when they tested the rifle, and Howard Donahue told me when we were corresponding.
The iron sights though, not being adjustable at all, "fall readily to eye", and for the short distance in Dealey Plaza would have been quite adequate.
 
Straw Man said:
My suggestion for it being a lucky shot is based solely on ly own experience, and trying to translate that to Oswald.

If, when using a weapon, I strike out on my first hit (and don't see where my shot ended up), I aim lower and to the left (I find guns pull up and to the right). I usually get a result from that, and adjust my aim accordingly.

I believe that LHO missed with his first shot, saw a reaction with his second, and then adjusted for the third that dealt the fatal blow. It wasn't a precisely calibrated weapon, otherwise it would have been game over with one shot. LHO fired his first, and then tried to sight in, and managed to do it fatally, hence luck.
Click to expand...


In my view, Oswald got extremely lucky with his second shot, his first hit. That shot struck JFK in the back, close to the spine, and caused temporary paralysis (Thorburn's Position). The location of that wound prevented JFK from ducking down in the car and kept him sitting upright while Oswald worked the bolt and took careful aim for the third and final shot. It also likely prevented him from speaking out. If the shot struck JFK in the shoulder (the proverbial "it's just a flesh wound, ma'm" in TV parlance), for example, JFK would have been able to duck down in the time between the second and third shots, and should have been able to survive the shooting.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Probably not.
The jump seat the governor was in constricted JFK's ability to move at all.
The back wound bound up his nervous system into the Thorburn, and the head shot destroyed the nervous system with a spasm that straightened his legs and pushed his body "back and to the left".
Riflemen are taught to shoot at the center of the mass of the target.
I doubt LHOLN did anything else.♦
 
CORed said:
All the Vietnam related JFK CT's work on the assumption that JFK would not have escalated US involvement in Vietnam the way LBJ did. Of course, there's no way of knowing for sure what JFK would have done regarding Vietnam had he lived, but my own opinion is that it wouldn't have been all that different.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement, and Kennedy wasn't gearing up and expanding coin warfare capability not to fight in VN.
 
I Ratant said:
.
I've done the same thing with a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Everyone who tries honestly, does the same thing.
It's not that much of a feat.
The rifle shoots to point of aim due to the low trajectory of that bullet, at the Dealey Plaza distances. It's really a good rifle.
One of the Ctwinkies talked about the "mule-like kick"... It has very little recoil. Any 5.56 rifle will recoil more.
The 6.5 cartridge is commonly used in Europe for moose and bear.
Click to expand...

Say again?

An HK 33 with the wrong buffer, maybe, but a 6.5 x 53 w/ a 160 grain slug in a bolt gun will generate more recoil energy than a 5.56 x 45 with any common weight (77, 75, 69, 62 or 55 grain) projectile. - throw in a gas operation system and the difference is huge - and I've got a bunch of trigger time on the 6.5 x 55 Swedish cartridge in the AG42 and I couldn't even guess how many 5.56 rounds through the 16 platform.

Heavier projo, larger case capacity, like weights, the larger round always generates greater recoil energy.
 
Before this conversation gets too sensible I will suggest (with out evidence) the pro castro cubans, anticastro cubans, mafia, fbi, cia, kgb and royal family were all working with woody harrelsons dad and LbJ , to prevent Kennedy blowing the lid on Majestic 12.

Or it was Elvis....
 
BStrong said:
Say again?

An HK 33 with the wrong buffer, maybe, but a 6.5 x 53 w/ a 160 grain slug in a bolt gun will generate more recoil energy than a 5.56 x 45 with any common weight (77, 75, 69, 62 or 55 grain) projectile. - throw in a gas operation system and the difference is huge - and I've got a bunch of trigger time on the 6.5 x 55 Swedish cartridge in the AG42 and I couldn't even guess how many 5.56 rounds through the 16 platform.

Heavier projo, larger case capacity, like weights, the larger round always generates greater recoil energy.
Click to expand...
.
I had a 5.56 rifle.. can't recall the type, which recoiled more than the Carcano.
Falling block, single shot.♦
 
I Ratant said:
.
I had a 5.56 rifle.. can't recall the type, which recoiled more than the Carcano.
Falling block, single shot.♦
Click to expand...

The poor ergo's on a single shot action (I've got both an 1875 Sharps and an 1885 Hiwall, both in 45/70) may increase the felt recoil, but the actual recoil energy produced by the cartridge is a direct result of projectile weight and powder charge.

I've got a Remington 788 based bench rifle in 5.56 that weighs in around 19 lbs w/ scope, and the thing "feels" recoiless - the 5.56 w/ a 77 grain SMK bullet doesn't produce enough recoil energy to move the 19 lbs, but the same round through a Noveske N4 recoils "harder" at the shoulder - the round produces the exact same amount of recoil energy in each rifle, but the perceived recoil is less in the heavier piece.
 
Walter Ego said:
Nothing has changed much on alt.conspiracy.jfk since Myers wrote this back in 2007. Check out this thread to see how the conspiracy loons handle even mild criticism.
Click to expand...

There are many very educated, credible, serious people who posit a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. And Dale Myers' research contains a great deal of error, distortion, and faulty logic.

You might want to check out Dr. G. Paul Chambers' recent book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination.

You might also check out the following articles:

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/malice.htm
 
bobtaftfan said:
There are many very educated, credible, serious people who posit a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. And Dale Myers' research contains a great deal of error, distortion, and faulty logic.

You might want to check out Dr. G. Paul Chambers' recent book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination.

You might also check out the following articles:

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/forensic.htm

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/malice.htm
Click to expand...

Are there any conspiracy theories you do not believe?
 
It is a shame that none of the credible alternate theories contradict the evidence, that point to Oswald , and are rarely the ones discussed on threads like this. Alternate forensics, for example, are wothless unless they comply with the rest of the evidience. CTs can say this description or that description proves x, but we have film and photos of the impact and the body. The shot came from the TSBD.

Credibility is a sliding scale. At one end you have the unsupported tosh and seemingly wilful misunderstanding of evidence, then the honest mistakes and misinformed speculation, then up through the theories with little evidence to those supported by some evidence, through increasing credibility. At the far end, the most credible theory with the totality of evidence supporting it, is the conclusion of the WC.

This was the status quo at the start of the thread. The arguments have yet to promote any theory up the scale.
 
abaddon said:
Are there any conspiracy theories you do not believe?
Click to expand...

Actually, I reject most of the common conspiracy theories that are out there. I don't buy the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, Clinton and Mena, the moon landings, the 2000 and 2004 elections, Bin Laden, and several others.

I notice a lot of people here trust John McAdams' research on the JFK assassination. Frankly, McAdams borders on being a joke. His research is downright terrible in most cases. See, for example:

Some Comments on John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

Others cite Ken Rahn. But, see:

Critical Thinking and the Kennedy Assassination: A Reply to Ken Rahn's Article "Twenty Simple Truths About the JFK Assassination"
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/critical.htm
 
bobtaftfan said:
I notice a lot of people here trust John McAdams' research on the JFK assassination.

Others cite Ken Rahn.
Click to expand...

You notice this from many, do you?

And others do?

Then you should have no problem whatsoever in actually *citing* anyone doing so, to the exclusion of the other evidence.

We'll wait right here for the links...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom