[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John Kennedy.
Would you like the thread closed now?
[/QUOTE]
I have to ask:
What was the point of this post? We have someone here trying to learn something, and this post offers nothing in the way of real information, only needless venom. Why behave this way toward a guest?
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
You first. Explain to me how “somebody” convinced Oswald to buy the rifle that was used to shoot Kennedy. And then convinced him to have photos taken of him holding the rifle and to write and mail letters threatening to kill the President (all without their presense being noticed by Oswald’s wife or family or friends or co-workers or neighbours). And then apparently persuaded him to bring the rifle to his workplace and stand there while somebody else shot Kennedy. At which point he realized that the shooter had had his face surgically altered to look like Oswald and his fingerprints altered to match Oswald’s. Suddenly, Oswald realized he was being set up to take the fall. So he ran away as his “double” teleported unseen away from the crime scene. Hours later, after being captured, Oswald was no doubt ready to spill the beans on the masterminds who made him a patsy. Of course for maximum dramatic effect, he wasn’t going to say anything during the two days he was in police custody. He was waiting until he was outside surrounded by police officers and reporters to tell the truth about what happened. Fortunately, despite the unexpected delay in his transfer caused by Oswald’s own actions, Jack Ruby - a secret CIA hitman who had been planted as an undercover agent years before in the Dallas nightclub scene - happened to be walking by and, realizing Oswald was about to reveal everything, pulled out his gun and shot him.
The only alternative explanation is that Ruby, like Oswald, was a nut. But we know better than that.
[/QUOTE]
Well I haven’t read up on any of this stuff in a long time, but my recollection is that Ruby knew from friends on the police force when and where Oswald would be exiting and showed up. The security on Oswald was virtually non-existent. So, Ruby did not just happen to be passing by on a Sunday morning with a gun in his pocket. He went there intentionally, whether or not he went there with a motive it is impossible to say, but if he did it for the reasons given, he is the most idiosyncratic assassin in history. I have no trouble accepting the fact that Oswald may have been the sole assassin, nor would I have any difficulty believing in any number of conspiracy theories. The fact is we don’t know, but what I will never believe without some actual evidence is that Ruby acted selflessly. I for one would like to know why he murdered Oswald.
The magic bullet debunking cemented it for me.
ngant17 as a guest you can’t search the boards for previous threads. Here’s some for you to have a look at.
Jack ruby is a much more interesting character than oswald. Despite years of speculation, nobody (except Ruby, of course) knows why he decided to kill oswald. Was Ruby a Mafia hitman? No solid evidence of this. was ruby connected with the Mob/Mafia? Possibly-he had Mob connections through Chicago (Sam Giancana).
Had Oswald survived, no doubt we would have been spared the endless ruminations of the assassination industry.
[QUOTE=LouisB]
I don’t know that I could have made the shots but I know plenty of people who could and with no trouble at all.
[/QUOTE]
I hate to emphasize my own points, but you absolutely could have made that shot, assuming you have even the briefest of rifle training. A few hours on a range - even if it was your first time ever - and you’d be good enough.
It was a real eye opener for me when I joined the Armed Forces and used a rifle for the first time. They’re amazingly easy to use; the accuracy of a high powered rifle that you can achieve without even trying very hard is almost impossible to believe until you use one. The first time I ever used any sort of firearm, I could hit a human sized target at a hundred metres every shot. By the third time I was firing it (we generally had a range day about twice a year) I could put every single bullet into an area a foot across. By the fifth time I was putting my bullets into a six inch group every time, and occasionally getting four inch groups - both target areas smaller than the back of a man’s head and neck. And I’m no sniper, no experienced marksman. I had no previous experience with firearms. I was a little bit better than most of my buddies - to some extent shooting skill is just a natural talent - but Oswald’s accomplishment was ridiculously simple.
I’ll pile on with the rest. I’m a Navy guy and we don’t shoot all that often. I handle a rifle about one a year now. When I went to Daley Plaza, I was amazed how close the car was, and how totally easy that shot would have been. Oswald was sitting down, with his rifle steadied against the window jam. I seem to remember that Kennedy’s car was only going 12 MPH. Try driving your car at 12 MPH some time. It is agonizingly slow. The shot was a piece of cake.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
It was a real eye opener for me when I joined the Armed Forces and used a rifle for the first time. They’re amazingly easy to use; the accuracy of a high powered rifle that you can achieve without even trying very hard is almost impossible to believe until you use one. The first time I ever used any sort of firearm, I could hit a human sized target at a hundred metres every shot.
[/QUOTE]
I have to say I found this to be true. Ireland has very strong gun control laws but while I was in VT for a few months a local brought me to a range as he wanted to give his hunting rifle a run out just before hunting season started with the rifle and sight set up I was able to hit targets very accurately very quickly.
Hell, Dealey Plaza’s small enough to where Oswald could have plausibly made his shots with IRON SIGHTS at that range, provided he had decent eyes and was a good shot.
With a scope and a large-caliber rifle (6.5 mm) and being steadied against something solid, it was a pot-shot, no two ways about it.
I’d wager that most duck hunters have to make much tougher shots on a regular basis (yes, it’s a shotgun, but the target is moving faster and more unpredictably)
Little Nemo:
Many eyewitnesses who actually watched the shooting? I suspect you may be gilding the lily a bit here.
[QUOTE=Gadarene]
Little Nemo:
Many eyewitnesses who actually watched the shooting? I suspect you may be gilding the lily a bit here.
[/QUOTE]
Well,
One witness actually saw Oswald and got a good enough look at him for a police description to go out over the radio.
One witness said they saw it but claimed he was black at first. Most likely he confused the book depository employees in the window below Oswald.
A few others saw him in the window, but were too far to identify him other than ‘White Male, thin’.
Lots of folks saw the rifle pointing out the window, but their angle didn’t let them see the shooter.
Where Oswald get wintessed is when he shoots Officer Tippet. LOTS of people saw him do that, and that led directly to his arrest in the theater.
Then why did Oswald say, “I’m just a patsy!”? Ha! Got you there!
[QUOTE=Gadarene]
Little Nemo:
Many eyewitnesses who actually watched the shooting? I suspect you may be gilding the lily a bit here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, Oswald was an armed gunman. 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Then why did Oswald say, “I’m just a patsy!”? Ha! Got you there!
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps because people who get caught after committing serious crimes often tell preposterous lies in the desperate hope of escaping the consequences of their actions.
Naw, couldn’t have been that. Must’ve been a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Then why did Oswald say, “I’m just a patsy!”? Ha! Got you there!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I love that one. Its like the buffs expect us to believe no one in the history of crime ever denied being guilty even if they were.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I hate to emphasize my own points, but you absolutely could have made that shot, assuming you have even the briefest of rifle training. A few hours on a range - even if it was your first time ever - and you’d be good enough.
It was a real eye opener for me when I joined the Armed Forces and used a rifle for the first time. They’re amazingly easy to use; the accuracy of a high powered rifle that you can achieve without even trying very hard is almost impossible to believe until you use one. The first time I ever used any sort of firearm, I could hit a human sized target at a hundred metres every shot. By the third time I was firing it (we generally had a range day about twice a year) I could put every single bullet into an area a foot across. By the fifth time I was putting my bullets into a six inch group every time, and occasionally getting four inch groups - both target areas smaller than the back of a man’s head and neck. And I’m no sniper, no experienced marksman. I had no previous experience with firearms. I was a little bit better than most of my buddies - to some extent shooting skill is just a natural talent - but Oswald’s accomplishment was ridiculously simple.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I hope you are basing your opinion on something other than your own experience. The marines, if they are like the army have 3 categories of marksmanship, marksman, sharpshooter and expert. Oswald on his best day barely eked out the sharpshooter award with an M-1 rifle, apparently a much better rifle than the Mannlicher-Carcno he supposedly used to kill the President. I am guessing, that you used the superior M-16 as I did when you took your instruction. Even though I was your basic fuck-up in the service I did manage to win an expert badge in marksmanship, so I guess you could say it came easily to me also, but there were many in my outfit, to whom it did not come so easily who needed repeated instruction just to meet the minimum qualifications. Most of these guys were infantrymen. So, while your experience may have some relevance, it is nothing like evidence of Oswald’s ability. Just for the record I have seen experts on television re-enact Oswald’s feat and they had either great difficulty doing it or failed to do it at all. I’d love to cite it - I think it was 60 Minutes, but I just can’t remember.
[QUOTE=ngant17]
…Could [Oswald] have proven his innocence in court based on a number of other circumstantial evidence?
[/QUOTE]
Of course, had he survived, he would not have had to prove his innocence at all. He would be presumed innocent, and it would be up to the State of Texas (at the time, incredibly, there was no Federal law against assassinating the President, so he probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted in U.S. district court) to prove his guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dealey Plaza is, as noted above, surprisingly small. For a former Marine rifleman, all things being equal, it wouldn’t have been the toughest shot, and Oswald probably missed once.
I’ve heard good things about the Posner book, and Vincent Bugliosi has a new book out on the assassination, Reclaiming History, which covers much the same ground.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Kennedy was shot. By a rifle that was found in a building. The rifle was owned by Lee Oswald. He had brought a rifle-sized package to work that morning. The rifle had Oswald’s fingerprints on it. Oswald worked in the building. He was witnessed shooting the President. He was witnessed fleeing the room where the shots were fired from and then fleeing the building.
[/QUOTE]
He was also the only employee of the building who fled the scene. And then shot a cop. The case wouldn’t have been too hard to prove (and I am one of those people who loved the movie JFK when it first came out, and would love to believe that there was some elaborate plot. It just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.)
[QUOTE=denquixote]
Well, I hope you are basing your opinion on something other than your own experience. The marines, if they are like the army have 3 categories of marksmanship, marksman, sharpshooter and expert. Oswald on his best day barely eked out the sharpshooter award with an M-1 rifle, apparently a much better rifle than the Mannlicher-Carcno he supposedly used to kill the President. I am guessing, that you used the superior M-16 as I did when you took your instruction.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that you are reading what’s being written, or else that you have already made up your mind and will not allow facts to sway your opinion.
It really does not matter what specific rifle you are using. (I used FN-C1s and C7s, since you asked.) Any high powered rifle that is not made of cheese will make Oswald’s shot with absurd ease.
The minimum qualifications for an infantryman in any real army are FAR more difficult and stringent than the shot Oswald took.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
Well, I hope you are basing your opinion on something other than your own experience. The marines, if they are like the army have 3 categories of marksmanship, marksman, sharpshooter and expert. Oswald on his best day barely eked out the sharpshooter award with an M-1 rifle, apparently a much better rifle than the Mannlicher-Carcno he supposedly used to kill the President.
[/QUOTE]
We have an expression in the military. " If the minimum was good enough, if wouldn’t be the minimum." Barely eked (by your description) or not, he twice qualified as a sharpshooter and once as a marksman. He was an above average shot, even within the military. I have no idea if the Mannlicher-Carcno is a good rifle, nor do I know if the M-1 that Oswald was using was any good or not. I can tell you that trying to qualify using a military rifle isn’t easy. One has no idea how well it’s sited (although you usually have some rounds to try and figure it out). They have usually been banged to shit, by God knows how many other guys. Overall, using your own rifle, that you know and take care of, will allow you to be more accurate. Also keep in mind, when he qualified in the Marines, he didn’t have a scope. When he shot Kennedy he did have a scope. So if anything, I’d expect him to be a better shot using his own rife with a scope, than he was using a government weapon in the Marines, where he was a sharpshooter to begin with.
[QUOTE=denquixote]
I am guessing, that you used the superior M-16 as I did when you took your instruction. Even though I was your basic fuck-up in the service I did manage to win an expert badge in marksmanship, so I guess you could say it came easily to me also, but there were many in my outfit, to whom it did not come so easily who needed repeated instruction just to meet the minimum qualifications. Most of these guys were infantrymen. So, while your experience may have some relevance, it is nothing like evidence of Oswald’s ability. Just for the record I have seen experts on television re-enact Oswald’s feat and they had either great difficulty doing it or failed to do it at all. I’d love to cite it - I think it was 60 Minutes, but I just can’t remember.
[/QUOTE]
60 Minutes. Those guys are non-muckraking, honest brokers if ever there were some!
This is the issue most have with the conspiracy guys. There are 100 facts lined up, and they try and poke a minor hole in one area and call that proof of a conspiracy. At least 10 people here wrote in how easy the shot was. Not good enough. Oswald’s rifle, with his prints, with the same ammo, that brought in that day are found in the book depository. Not good enough. He’s a sharpshooter in the Marine Corps. But it’s a conspiracy, because he was “barely a sharpshooter.” Brother.
[QUOTE=spifflog]
We have an expression in the military. " If the minimum was good enough, if wouldn’t be the minimum." Barely eked (by your description) or not, he twice qualified as a sharpshooter and once as a marksman. He was an above average shot, even within the military. I have no idea if the Mannlicher-Carcno is a good rifle, nor do I know if the M-1 that Oswald was using was any good or not. .
[/QUOTE]
The definition of ‘better’ as far as battle rifles is rather subjective. The M1, for example, was better than almost all axis rifles because of its semi-auto rate of fire. The Lee Enfield had a higher rate than the Mauser due to the straightpull bolt. But was it more accurate? No. In fact, for sniping the US Army used 1903 Springfields because they were more accurate than M1s.
The MC had an action based on the Mauser, a very reliable and versatile rifle. The barrel system was similar too, and the MC was reliably made. Even a country with as many backwater industrial problems as Italy could produce effective small arms in that era. I’ve handled both weapons, and if I were sniping I would probably prefer the M-C. But this is a subjective opnion.