JFK Assassination...Your Honest Thoughts

[Anjinsan]

I assume you mean this.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

Three things about this test.

1) They did not use the same weapon but a similar model. That is fine but in the original tests by both FBI and Army experts, the same shots could not be duplicated using the exact same weapon Oswald used. Some of the best shots in the world, at the time could not duplicate the shots with the same weapon.

2) This test does not say they used moving targets but instead, "The shots were fired from a two story tower (approximately 20 feet high), at three targets, stationed from left to right at distances of 143, 165 and 266 feet from the tower." Also note that the perch was 20 ft high and not 6 floors or roughly 60 feet or so.

3) They did not use a scope. They used open sights, which are actually easier to use then a scope. Oswald's rifle did use a scope and when this rifle is tested with a scope, these shots are much more difficult to reproduce. It's much harder to work a bolt action weapon and keep a target in your sights with a scope. Once the target is located, the scope is much more accurate but in an excercise such as this, where you have to reload and acquire your target quickly and accurately, it's not an advantage. No Tripod was used so it makes the target even more difficult to make because the barrel of that weapon is not going to stay trained.

Unless their is more information that I have missed, this was not a reproduction of the conditions Oswald had to work with when taking those shots.

The bolt action mechanism used in the Carcono is very quick to operate. With a little practice, an experienced rifleman, with a scope, could've easily made those shots. The scope makes it much more easier. It just takes a little practice taking the shot, engage the bolt action, find the target via the scope and take the shot. I don't think anyone without training and practice could do it. But Oswald was trained in sight alignment, sight picture, breath and squeeze. That, and some practice, it has shown to be easily possible.

 

[CowboyDan]

The bolt action mechanism used in the Carcono is very quick to operate. With a little practice, an experienced rifleman, with a scope, could've easily made those shots. The scope makes it much more easier. It just takes a little practice taking the shot, engage the bolt action, find the target via the scope and take the shot. I don't think anyone without training and practice could do it. But Oswald was trained in sight alignment, sight picture, breath and squeeze. That, and some practice, it has shown to be easily possible.

Have you ever shot one? Because this statement goes against everything I've ever read about this particular gun.

 

[Anjinsan]

Have you ever shot one? Because this statement goes against everything I've ever read about this particular gun.

I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't believe everything you read.

 

[Dodger12]

There was a bullet found embedded in a piece of curb. When it was going to be examined again, it had disappeared from the FBI evidence vaults. Their excuse? They needed the space.

From everything I've read, it was tested and was found to match the ballistics from Oswald's weapon. Dommsday101 posted a link earlier that I believe made reference to both recovered bullets/fragments matching Oswald's rifle.

 

[Dodger12]

I assume you mean this.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

Three things about this test.

1) They did not use the same weapon but a similar model. That is fine but in the original tests by both FBI and Army experts, the same shots could not be duplicated using the exact same weapon Oswald used. Some of the best shots in the world, at the time could not duplicate the shots with the same weapon.

2) This test does not say they used moving targets but instead, "The shots were fired from a two story tower (approximately 20 feet high), at three targets, stationed from left to right at distances of 143, 165 and 266 feet from the tower." Also note that the perch was 20 ft high and not 6 floors or roughly 60 feet or so.

3) They did not use a scope. They used open sights, which are actually easier to use then a scope. Oswald's rifle did use a scope and when this rifle is tested with a scope, these shots are much more difficult to reproduce. It's much harder to work a bolt action weapon and keep a target in your sights with a scope. Once the target is located, the scope is much more accurate but in an excercise such as this, where you have to reload and acquire your target quickly and accurately, it's not an advantage. No Tripod was used so it makes the target even more difficult to make because the barrel of that weapon is not going to stay trained.

Unless their is more information that I have missed, this was not a reproduction of the conditions Oswald had to work with when taking those shots.

There was a bullet found embedded in a piece of curb. When it was going to be examined again, it had disappeared from the FBI evidence vaults. Their excuse? They needed the space.

For a conspiracy like this to work, you only need a few people in the right positions to handle things. Everyone else is just doing their job/duty as ordered. J Edger Hoover, notoriously corrupt, is perfectly placed. While I tend to doubt that he was in on an assassination plan, he's in the perfect position to obfuscate and cover everything up. Giving him leverage on those who were responsible, something he did all the time anyway.

My bet on the likely participants would be either the pro or anti Castro Cubans. Castro in response to the numerous attempts to kill him, or the Anti-Castro types inspired by the Bay of Pigs disaster. Dulles was perfectly positioned to cover up things in the investigation, and his Operation 40 group had been responsible for this sort of thing repeatedly.

Clair Booth Luce is reported as saying that she was told a day or two before the assassination, by some of her anti-Castro associates, that the Castro forces were going to attempt to kill the president.

Oswald is oddly positioned to be of use to either side in this situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles

Gentlemen, let me see if I get this straight. You fellas believe it was a conspiracy and in arglebargle's case, the conspiracy involved the highest levels of our government (Hoover and Dulles). In essence, these people committed the perfect crime....except for the fact that they picked a pansy who couldn't shoot (according to many theorists here) and a rifle that is less than a perfect weapon for this assassination (shots couldn't be made with this bolt action weapon according to ABQ). ABQ believes that the shot is easier without the scope but, of course, these conspirators who were smart enough to get away with it for all these years put a scope of the inferior rifle anyway.

These conspirators planned the perfect crime of the century and were smart enough to have gotten away with this for all these years yet we are expected to believe they were sloppy in picking their poor marksman pansy and his inferior weapon of choice.

In addition, these conspirators were so smart (even thought they used the wrong pansy and inferior weapon) that they knew the third bullet fired by the second gunman on the grassy knoll (CowboyDan's theory) would never be found which, of course, would have been proof of a second gunman and a conspiracy.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but do you folks hear yourself?

 

[RS12]

Gentlemen, let me see if I get this straight. You fellas believe it was a conspiracy and in arglebargle's case, the conspiracy involved the highest levels of our government (Hoover and Dulles). In essence, these people committed the perfect crime....except for the fact that they picked a pansy who couldn't shoot (according to many theorists here) and a rifle that is less than a perfect weapon for this assassination (shots couldn't be made with this bolt action weapon according to ABQ). ABQ believes that the shot is easier without the scope but, of course, these conspirators who were smart enough to get away with it for all these years put a scope of the inferior rifle anyway.

These conspirators planned the perfect crime of the century and were smart enough to have gotten away with this for all these years yet we are expected to believe they were sloppy in picking their poor marksman pansy and his inferior weapon of choice.

In addition, these conspirators were so smart (even thought they used the wrong pansy and inferior weapon) that they knew the third bullet fired by the second gunman on the grassy knoll (CowboyDan's theory) would never be found which, of course, would have been proof of a second gunman and a conspiracy.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but do you folks hear yourself?

US Government found it to be a likely conspiracy in 1979. Due to a recording and eye witness acounts the Warren Commision conveniently overlooked.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A bolt action is a bolt action is a bolt action. You're telling me it cannot be done. I'm telling you it can. How can you discount those times?

I'm not telling you it can't be done. I'm telling you that two of the best Snipers this country has ever produced are telling you it can't be done.

Actually the lower elevation makes the shot harder. Why do you think Sniper search for a high ground?

No, this is not accurate. Higher from the 6th floor in Dallas makes the shot easier because you are not as apt to be seen and you don't contend with as much distraction from the street, I can see that logic, but during the actual test, it makes it easier. On the first shot, you have the context of the background and the angle of the shot is not as steep. The higher you are, the more angle you have to deal with and the more you have to adjust for as the target moves away from you. The more level, the less you have to adjust for angle.

There is very little difference in a moving target and moving the gun to hit a new target. They are simply trying to be accurate as to distance and time.

I do not agree. If you are using open sights, it's much easier because you still have context on the target. When you sight in with a scope, you lose that context to the target and it takes longer to find the target and adjust for the shot.

I've said a dozen times that it would be easier with open sights. It still is not impossible.

Again, according to many professionals, it is. I have yet to see the test that proves it can be done under the same conditions.

I have a feeling that even if you were standing next to me and watched me do it you'd say something was wrong.

Tell you what, you let me know when you decide to do this. I'll show up to stand right next to you and then we'll see.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The bolt action mechanism used in the Carcono is very quick to operate. With a little practice, an experienced rifleman, with a scope, could've easily made those shots. The scope makes it much more easier. It just takes a little practice taking the shot, engage the bolt action, find the target via the scope and take the shot. I don't think anyone without training and practice could do it. But Oswald was trained in sight alignment, sight picture, breath and squeeze. That, and some practice, it has shown to be easily possible.

I don't know if you hunt or not but you try and aquire a moving target, using a bolt action with a scope in 8 seconds, in three shots accurately. I'll wager that it won't be easy and it won't be accurate but if you say it's easier, OK. I'm telling you that this is not my experience. It's easier with open iron sights.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Gentlemen, let me see if I get this straight. You fellas believe it was a conspiracy and in arglebargle's case, the conspiracy involved the highest levels of our government (Hoover and Dulles). In essence, these people committed the perfect crime....except for the fact that they picked a pansy who couldn't shoot (according to many theorists here) and a rifle that is less than a perfect weapon for this assassination (shots couldn't be made with this bolt action weapon according to ABQ). ABQ believes that the shot is easier without the scope but, of course, these conspirators who were smart enough to get away with it for all these years put a scope of the inferior rifle anyway.

These conspirators planned the perfect crime of the century and were smart enough to have gotten away with this for all these years yet we are expected to believe they were sloppy in picking their poor marksman pansy and his inferior weapon of choice.

In addition, these conspirators were so smart (even thought they used the wrong pansy and inferior weapon) that they knew the third bullet fired by the second gunman on the grassy knoll (CowboyDan's theory) would never be found which, of course, would have been proof of a second gunman and a conspiracy.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but do you folks hear yourself?

I think you need to re-read what I said. I said that once a target is aquired, a scope makes it easier but if you are using a bolt action and trying to aquire a target and snap off shots, an open sight is easier because you keep the context of the target in your vision. When you look into a scope, you lose this. Therefore, it's easier to use an open sight for that reason. There is no question that if you have a scope and you have time, a scope is much easier. Frankly, I see no reason why the first shot, had Oswald been the shot everybody seems to contend he was, was not a kill shot. It should have been.

 

[notherbob]

If you were a serious conspirator who wished to remain undiscovered, would you really rely on someone as screwed up and unpredictable and as unstable as Oswald to be the main cog in your plan? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[Hostile]

If you were a serious conspirator who wished to remain undiscovered, would you really rely on someone as screwed up and unpredictable and as unstable as Oswald to be the main cog in your plan? I certainly wouldn't.

No sir, that is one thing on the side of the WC. But, and I say this with shrugged shoulders, they might have had someone every bit as weird in Jack Ruby to muddy the waters even more.

 

[CowboyDan]

If you were a serious conspirator who wished to remain undiscovered, would you really rely on someone as screwed up and unpredictable and as unstable as Oswald to be the main cog in your plan? I certainly wouldn't.

What did they rely on him for?

 

[Dodger12]

US Government found it to be a likely conspiracy in 1979. Due to a recording and eye witness accounts the Warren Commission conveniently overlooked.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) came to this conclusion based on acoustics evidence that was later deemed to be faulty. A motorcycle officer had his PD radio keyed (on) the day/time of the assassination and supposedly recorded the shots and the "acoustic experts" claimed they uncovered four shots fired. This is in direct contradiction to numerous eye witnesses, including notherbob in this thread, who counted three shots.

In addition, the HSCA also stated:

1. That LHO fired three shots at the president with the second and third hitting him and the third killing him.

2. The shots that killed the president were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

3. LHO owned the gun that was used to kill the president from the 6th floor of the TSBD

4. LHO had access to and was present on the 6th floor of the TSBD shortly before the assassination.

In essence, the HSCA is claiming that Oswald killed the president.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm

“The HSCA also determined that "if" there was a front gunman which the acoustics "experts" hired by the HSCA said there was, this master marksman, this hired assassin, this professional hitman not only missed the President, but he also missed Mrs. Kennedy, he missed the Governor, he missed the Governor's wife, he missed BOTH Secret Service agents in the limousine, he missed the entire limousine itself, and he somehow managed to miss everyone standing on the south side of Elm street watching the motorcade drive by. THIS is your hired assassin? THIS is the expert marksman that the imagined conspirators hired to do their nefarious bidding? This is the grassy knoll gunman? Some blind-as-a-bat rifleman that manages to miss EVERYTHING in Dealey Plaza?”

For the sake of transparency, the above paragraph in quotations is from another web site and was posted by S.V. Anderson to refute the 4th shot, second gunman theory proposed by the HSCA based on the acoustics "experts". I just couldn’t have said it better.

http://www.amazon.com/tag/jfk/forum...Forum=FxTXBP6FXU9HHM&cdThread=Tx2IYDF7E317WFU

 

[Dodger12]

I think you need to re-read what I said. I said that once a target is aquired, a scope makes it easier but if you are using a bolt action and trying to aquire a target and snap off shots, an open sight is easier because you keep the context of the target in your vision. When you look into a scope, you lose this. Therefore, it's easier to use an open sight for that reason. There is no question that if you have a scope and you have time, a scope is much easier. Frankly, I see no reason why the first shot, had Oswald been the shot everybody seems to contend he was, was not a kill shot. It should have been.

Maybe the scope wasn't sighted properly and he had to compensate which he obviously did with the second and third shots. You make the shot sound impossible and I'm surprised that Hathcock said he couldn't do it but I've seen the shot be re-created on several different documentaries, one of which was done in Dealey Plaza. Once the first shot was fired (and assuming the round was chambered), then LHO had 8 plus seconds to reacquire his target and get off two more shots. I just don't think that's too hard and, in fact, ballistics tests have proven that two of the recovered bullets/fragments came from the same gun (Oswald's).

 

[CowboyDan]

I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't believe everything you read.

Have you ever shot a Carcano?

 

[Dodger12]

ABQ, do you realize that the quote attributed to Hathcock is from the book "Kill Zone" written by former Marine Sniper Craig Roberts which claims that a total of TEN shots were fired that day? TEN shots from from multiple gunman. Who is this nut job?

The Winkapedia page you posted also references an article by Douglas Herman as a footnote for the Hathcock quote. Doug Herman also wrote an article entitled "How 911 Really Happened" which claims: "The attacks were masterminded by a select few of interconnected insiders who, not surprisingly, remain in power today. Certain key members of Congress, the CIA, Mossad, Pentagon, and the White House organized the plan to perfection."

A complete nut job. Are you sure you want to use these people, their claims and their attributed quotes as fact when they print something?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/88509

That's the problem with all these conspiracy theories; none can be based in any scientific fact, just a bunch of "lets connect the dots" using some outlandish circumstantial details that have no factual basis or evidence to support their claim, just conjecture.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you were a serious conspirator who wished to remain undiscovered, would you really rely on someone as screwed up and unpredictable and as unstable as Oswald to be the main cog in your plan? I certainly wouldn't.

Bob, this is a very good point. On the other hand, if your plan is to kill that individual before anybody ever got the chance to find that out?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe the scope wasn't sighted properly and he had to compensate which he obviously did with the second and third shots. You make the shot sound impossible and I'm surprised that Hathcock said he couldn't do it but I've seen the shot be re-created on several different documentaries, one of which was done in Dealey Plaza. Once the first shot was fired (and assuming the round was chambered), then LHO had 8 plus seconds to reacquire his target and get off two more shots. I just don't think that's too hard and, in fact, ballistics tests have proven that two of the recovered bullets/fragments came from the same gun (Oswald's).

No, the report from the FBI and the Army both concluded that the rifle was, in fact sighted accurately which is interesting for this reason. On that model, there are two small plates that must be used in order to sight in that rifle with a scope. Keep in mind that this rifle was never produced as a weapon intended to used as a sniper rifle. Scopes were later added but that was never the intended design. When the weapon was tested, these two small plates, required to sight in this rifle with a scope were missing but there were scrapes on the weapon indicating that they had been present at some point. In short, the rifle fired accurately according to the Warren Report.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ, do you realize that the quote attributed to Hathcock is from the book "Kill Zone" written by former Marine Sniper Craig Roberts which claims that a total of TEN shots were fired that day? TEN shots from from multiple gunman. Who is this nut job?

The Winkapedia page you posted also references an article by Douglas Herman as a footnote for the Hathcock quote. Doug Herman also wrote an article entitled "How 911 Really Happened" which claims: "The attacks were masterminded by a select few of interconnected insiders who, not surprisingly, remain in power today. Certain key members of Congress, the CIA, Mossad, Pentagon, and the White House organized the plan to perfection."

A complete nut job. Are you sure you want to use these people, their claims and their attributed quotes as fact when they print something?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/88509

That's the problem with all these conspiracy theories; none can be based in any scientific fact, just a bunch of "lets connect the dots" using some outlandish circumstantial details that have no factual basis or evidence to support their claim, just conjecture.

In the reference you are refering to by Roberts, he's elludes to how a professional team would set up an ambush or assasination. Basically, three shooters at various points, focusing on a target in a designated kill zone. If there were multiple shooters, it's likely that there were multiple shots. I don't know how many but it is resonable to assume multiple shots if that is the case.

However, lets assume that the comments from Roberts and Hathcock never happened for the sake of discussion. You still get back to the point that the FBI and the Army could not reproduce the shot with the same weapon. I have a hard time getting around this.

 

[Concord]

This is where the head shot came from.