Reply to Topic
JFK s head lashing backward
Conspiracy Theories
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
War is a Racket is a great book.
https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARac...acket_djvu.txt
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
For me, it (JFK Murder) boils down to the bullets and the gun.
The official evaluation necessitates this idea of the the super bullet which, according to the report, was found in pristine condition on a hospital gurney. The anti conspiracy theory crowd hinge their entire argument on the possibility that this could (and did) happen. IMO, this is an unreasonable position to take. Sure, a bullet could smash through two people, cause mass injuries and somehow dislodge itself intact from a body but the probability of that happening? For the people always touting the 'simple explanation' this convoluted chunk of improbability lies in the center of their argument.
Also consider the witnesses who testified about the shots (all witness testimony available HERE. Most say they heard Pop, pause Pop,Pop with the last two happening in quick succession. A manual recycling rifle is not capable of that.
But back to the bullets:
"Commission finding—The windshield was not penetrated by any bullet."
Dallas Police Officer H. R. Freeman will note: “I was right beside it. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”
Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis remarks, “You could put a pencil through it.” A Secret Service agent tries to persuade Ellis that what he is seeing is a “fragment” and not a hole. Mr. Ellis is adamant: “It wasn’t a damn fragment. It was a hole.”
You can see the thing in Z225 before the kill shot.
Anyway, there's also HIGH weirdness RE: Officer Tippet & how exactly a police task force arrived at the Texas Theater in response to some guy who walked an entry ticket shortly after the President had been shot. I'd think the cops would have been too busy to respond. The 'evidence' for Tippet/Texas Theater only becomes more ambiguous with further reading so I rest my opinion on the bullets.
The official evaluation necessitates this idea of the the super bullet which, according to the report, was found in pristine condition on a hospital gurney. The anti conspiracy theory crowd hinge their entire argument on the possibility that this could (and did) happen. IMO, this is an unreasonable position to take. Sure, a bullet could smash through two people, cause mass injuries and somehow dislodge itself intact from a body but the probability of that happening? For the people always touting the 'simple explanation' this convoluted chunk of improbability lies in the center of their argument.
Also consider the witnesses who testified about the shots (all witness testimony available HERE. Most say they heard Pop, pause Pop,Pop with the last two happening in quick succession. A manual recycling rifle is not capable of that.
But back to the bullets:
- Shot 1: Hits curb in front of James Tague, cuts his face.
- Shot 2: "Magic Bullet"
- Shot 3: "Kill Shot"
"Commission finding—The windshield was not penetrated by any bullet."
Dallas Police Officer H. R. Freeman will note: “I was right beside it. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”
Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis remarks, “You could put a pencil through it.” A Secret Service agent tries to persuade Ellis that what he is seeing is a “fragment” and not a hole. Mr. Ellis is adamant: “It wasn’t a damn fragment. It was a hole.”
You can see the thing in Z225 before the kill shot.
Anyway, there's also HIGH weirdness RE: Officer Tippet & how exactly a police task force arrived at the Texas Theater in response to some guy who walked an entry ticket shortly after the President had been shot. I'd think the cops would have been too busy to respond. The 'evidence' for Tippet/Texas Theater only becomes more ambiguous with further reading so I rest my opinion on the bullets.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
...Most say they heard Pop, pause Pop,Pop with the last two happening in quick succession. A manual recycling rifle is not capable of that..
Here's a short video in which the same gun a 6.5mm Mannlicher rifle fires 6 shots in 5.1 seconds. I've also seen this test repeated many times, it was completely possible for a rifle marksman like Oswald to make the shots and in the time frame he had.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yea Oswald the marksman who was mediocre at best during his Marine shooting certification whilst "TAKING HIS TIME, SHOOTING AT STATIONARY TARGETS".
You can link all sorts of quotes from people he served with, shooting experts etc, who say he was ****. One even says;
I suppose that can be waved away as "opinion" though by the doubters. I've googled it (without to much effort) and it's hard to find the counter arguments that Oswald sucked at shooting.
Some of the people in this thread will no doubt say, "he probably practised intensely before the assassination attempt" or "there's an element of variance", maybe he only could've done that shoot 1 in 10 attempts, but the actual assassination was the 10% shot, never mind the fact that he had to have been nervous, shaky about the magnitude of what he was doing. Fact is he never showed any aptitude for shooting, then some years later carries out an incredibly difficult shoot in 1 attempt.
I doubt any shots were fired from the Book depositary that day, Oswald was likely lined up as the Patsy months before the event.
You can link all sorts of quotes from people he served with, shooting experts etc, who say he was ****. One even says;
If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas. (REASONABLE DOUBT, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99)
Some of the people in this thread will no doubt say, "he probably practised intensely before the assassination attempt" or "there's an element of variance", maybe he only could've done that shoot 1 in 10 attempts, but the actual assassination was the 10% shot, never mind the fact that he had to have been nervous, shaky about the magnitude of what he was doing. Fact is he never showed any aptitude for shooting, then some years later carries out an incredibly difficult shoot in 1 attempt.
I doubt any shots were fired from the Book depositary that day, Oswald was likely lined up as the Patsy months before the event.
__________________
You are vile.
Have you ever fired a manual bolt rifle, I have,
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I doubt any shots were fired from the Book depositary that day
Here's a list.
Oswald was likely lined up as the Patsy months before the event.
It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.
Last edited by Yoda; 07-11-17 at 07:31 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
There's a number of real world test where it's been demonstrated that a shooter could have hit JFK from the position Oswald was at. I've seen several test in different docs. Besides, for those who believe that there was another shooter on the grassy knoll, why is it then also important to believe Oswald couldn't do it? If there was a conspiracy, the more skilled shooters the better chance of succeeding.
Here's just one I found quickly
I'm pretty sure I've seen photo of him with a marksman award from the Marines.
This is interesting little known trivia about him
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...harvey-oswald/
Here's just one I found quickly
I'm pretty sure I've seen photo of him with a marksman award from the Marines.
This is interesting little known trivia about him
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...harvey-oswald/
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm pretty sure I've seen photo of him with a marksman award from the Marines.
I also find the whole "MOVING TARGET" thing to be weirdly overblown. It was moving at a slow, steady speed, through a predetermined path.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Oswald took the shooting test twice. The first time, he earned "Sharpshooter," which is actually above Marksman. The second time, Marksman. Obviously when people want to come to a certain conclusion, they tend to repeat this in subtly different ways until, fifth-hand, we've gone from "he wasn't anything special with the rifle" to the idea that he was a horrible shot.
I also find the whole "MOVING TARGET" thing to be weirdly overblown. It was moving at a slow, steady speed, through a predetermined path.
I also find the whole "MOVING TARGET" thing to be weirdly overblown. It was moving at a slow, steady speed, through a predetermined path.
------Oswald's Marine Rifle Scores------
Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.
The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.
Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.
The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.
In addition to Sherman Cooley, Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty other former Marine colleagues of Oswald's. Hurt reported the results of those interviews:
On the subject of Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion that it was laughable. . . .
Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot. They believed it was the same deficiency in coordination responsible for his reported inability to drive a car. (REASONABLE DOUBT, pp. 99-100)
The 12/2/63 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES contained an interview with a Mr. Felde, who had served with Oswald in the Marines. Among other things, the article reported the following:
Mr. Felde . . . said he did not recall that Oswald had been an exceptionally good shot on the rifle range. (Mark North, ACT OF TREASON, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1993, p. 455)
Oswald was in the Soviet Union from October 1959 till June 1962. For most of his time in Russia, he lived in the city of Minsk. While there, he belonged to a gun club. The members of his gun club reportedly viewed him as a poor shot:
Members of the club reported that Oswald had been considered a poor shot. (G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, FATAL HOUR, New York: Berkley Books, 1992, p. 139).
Recent press releases out of the former Soviet Union have likewise reported that Russians who saw Oswald shoot considered him to be a bad shot.]
On the subject of Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion that it was laughable. . . .
Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot. They believed it was the same deficiency in coordination responsible for his reported inability to drive a car. (REASONABLE DOUBT, pp. 99-100)
The 12/2/63 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES contained an interview with a Mr. Felde, who had served with Oswald in the Marines. Among other things, the article reported the following:
Mr. Felde . . . said he did not recall that Oswald had been an exceptionally good shot on the rifle range. (Mark North, ACT OF TREASON, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1993, p. 455)
Oswald was in the Soviet Union from October 1959 till June 1962. For most of his time in Russia, he lived in the city of Minsk. While there, he belonged to a gun club. The members of his gun club reportedly viewed him as a poor shot:
Members of the club reported that Oswald had been considered a poor shot. (G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, FATAL HOUR, New York: Berkley Books, 1992, p. 139).
Recent press releases out of the former Soviet Union have likewise reported that Russians who saw Oswald shoot considered him to be a bad shot.]
I'm sure for every guy who can shoot the targets, 100 couldn't, and thus not on video... Going by what witnesses said, it sounds like triangular fire.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.
Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:
Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:
So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong?
It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.
It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, literally all of that is totally consistent with what I said.
What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade.
So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.
Your post is worded to make it sound as if he was a good shooter.
Virtually all conspiracy theories do this: even when an argument is technically true, it's surrounded by little embellishments to create impressions that could've easily been described in less leading ways.
What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade. So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
While some of the questions about the number or trajectory of bullets (or how they ricocheted) are quite reasonable, this statement is pretty much impossible to defend. Apart from the dozens of people who heard a shot coming from the depository (far more than thought they heard one come from the grassy knoll, and including people inside the depository themselves, on the floor just below), we have multiple witnesses who say they saw a man fire a weapon from the sixth floor.
Here's a list.
So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong?
It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.
Here's a list.
So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong?
It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.
"They" can make lots of mistakes by being a little overconfident that the plan will work and not too much scrutiny will be placed on the details.
The evidence of a conspiracy in the case of JFK is clear and undeniable.
Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.
Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:
Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:
Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.
The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:
I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!
I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)
Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,
Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.]
The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:
I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!
I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)
Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,
Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.]
The above states that the elite of the elite marksmen couldn't replicate the "shoot" in multiple attempts, and Oswald below average in his class of elite Marines could.
It's not like "they" can go digging around interviewing his ex marine buddy's or commanding officers like can happen after the event. It's enough to look at his record and see that he qualified as "Sharpshooter".
It's only later that "they" realise the mistake and that in fact Oswald was fairly useless with a rifle.
"They" can make lots of mistakes by being a little overconfident that the plan will work and not too much scrutiny will be placed on the details.
Amusingly, by your own evidentiary standards, your own answers would be "suspicious."
The evidence of a conspiracy in the case of JFK is clear and undeniable.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So they planned "for months," but only glanced at his military record? Huh?
Literally nothing you've posted supports the assertion that he was "fairly useless with a rifle." That's pure embellishment.
How convenient: they're just powerful enough that you can handwave away expert testimony and committee findings, but somehow still incompetent enough that there's tons of proof lying around!
Amusingly, by your own evidentiary standards, your own answers would be "suspicious."
No, it isn't. And frankly, the fact that you keep appending stuff like this, which is literally no more substantive than saying "I'm right!," just seems like overcompensating.
Literally nothing you've posted supports the assertion that he was "fairly useless with a rifle." That's pure embellishment.
How convenient: they're just powerful enough that you can handwave away expert testimony and committee findings, but somehow still incompetent enough that there's tons of proof lying around!
Amusingly, by your own evidentiary standards, your own answers would be "suspicious."
No, it isn't. And frankly, the fact that you keep appending stuff like this, which is literally no more substantive than saying "I'm right!," just seems like overcompensating.
"Fairly useless" fair enough that's a generalisation, Lets use a Golf tour analogy, lets say Oswald plays on the B tour, clearly better at Golf than 99% of the population, he plays on the tour right? he's a pro right? then he goes on and does something in ONE attempt that Tiger Woods and the elite cant match despite multiple attempts.
They can be confident that any commission will cover up the assassination and that's exactly what happened.