I would advise you to read ‘Case Closed’ its an easy read but does have some minor problems. But its narrative of Oswald’s life is very revealing. It is what many buffs have been dancing around for years: Oswald was a nut!
Beyond that, I would read Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi, more throrough than Posner and much more devoted to demolishing most conspiracy claims (he takes Posner to task a few times, in fact, perhaps unfairly). If you decide to read this book I’ll see you in 2009. 
Again, there are conspiracy theories that are not in conflict with proveable facts, and consipiracy theories that are.
So if your theory is that Oswald was not acting alone, that he had help, that someone told him to shoot Kennedy, and so on, these theories are not in conflict with proveable facts.
Fact is, anyone who was a moderate shot with a rifle could shoot Kennedy from the Book Depository window. The shooter didn’t need to be an expert, he didn’t need to have a really good rifle. It is clearly the case that a second-rate shot with a second-rate rifle could fire three shots within the known time frame, and have a pretty good chance of hitting Kennedy.
So was that shooter Oswald? Lots of evidence says it was. You’d have to come up with something a lot better than the fact that Oswald claimed to be a patsy if you want to pin the shooting on someone else, most noteably you’re going to need an actual shooter.
Did Oswald have help, was he acting under orders? There is no evidence that he had help, there is no evidence that he was acting under orders…but the fact that such evidence does not exist can’t prove that he didn’t have help, or that he wasn’t acting under orders. It’s just that since we have no such evidence, we have no good reason to suspect it is true. If Oswald had help, who helped him, if he was acting under orders who gave those orders? The Soviets? The pro-Castro Cubans? The anti-Castro Cubans? The mafia? The CIA? The military-industrial complex? Johnson? Aristotle Onassis? One of the above as a false flag operation pretending to Oswald to be one of the other above?
I don’t believe Oswald was acting under orders, I think he was a nut, because he acted like a nut all his life, and any serious organization wouldn’t use a nut, they’d use a professional. Unless his nuttiness was an elaborate cover, and it strikes me as waaaay to much work to set up such a cover. It’s much more likely that Oswald seemed to be a loser to everyone–his marine buddies, his Soviet contacts, and so on–because he really was a loser.
You’ve read books that applauded the assassination? That’s cold.
While I’m personally of the opinion that Oswald did it, I haven’t seen in this thread what I expected to find: Mention of the new Italian debunking of the lone gunman theory.
So (having only fired semiauto pistols, not bolt-action rifles), I note that our dopers have commented on how easy the shot was … but how easy is it to make multiple shots in the amount of time required? This seems to be one of the classic points that is always debated one way or the other—people (like the Italians) get together some experts, who are unable to shoot and reload the bolt-action rifle in the time required for the shots, while other people say that doing so in that span of time is no big deal.
Which is it? Easy, hard but possible, or impossible?
I’m quite honestly curious as to whether or not there’s a rifle on the face of this planet that takes almost ten seconds to load where you aren’t actually pouring gunpowder down the barrel from a horn.
Think about how long that is. Nobody would make a rifle like that.
The Discovery Channel or some such had a recreation show where some really old guy with not the best dexterity in the world was able to get off three shots in 8-10 seconds while taking aim each time.
Well, the only problem with that is he needed, acording to the warren commission, to get the shots off in 5.6 seconds. All these statements by people that it was an easy shot, or who would make a gun that was so difficult to use etc. etc. etc. are just so much conjecture.
IIRC the gun Oswald bought by mail-order cost about $15, now admittedly that is 15 1963 dollars so let’s say it cost $75 today, how good would that be? Not to mention the fact that every product on the face of the earth has incrteased in quality in the past 43 plus years. What do you people know about the quality of that rifle? What we know is that Oswald was not a good shot, did not take pride in his marksmanship, had to be nervous at the time, regardless of his motivation, noone has demonstrated that even an expert could repeat the act without several dry runs. In addition, the fact that witnesses saw someone who resembled Oswald firing a rifle out of the SDB window, does not mean there was noone else taking part in the scheme.
I know this is a new issue, but none of these issues can be dispositive in and of itself, but IIRC the bullet that caused all of this damage was not found in one of the bodies it was found on a stretcher. Now maybe this has been debunked, I don’t really keep up on this issue, but that could explain a lot about why the rifle that Oswald fired (if he fired it) did not necessarily kill the president.
Edit: I haven’t seen anyone refuting the allegations, assertions made in the article I cited in post 66. There are many more in the actual article. I condensed it for posting.
The Warren Commission makes no such statement. That’s a buff twisting of words.
I know that battle rifles from World War 2 are still effective and accurate instruments. I have fired quite a few. They don’t go bad like milk you know.
The hell?! We know nothing of the kind! He got a sharpshooter rating. Later on, after facing discipline issues and other problems he didn’t care much and got a lower rating.
Except for all those times that they did.
Except for a complete lack of evidence that anyone else did.
Except that that bullet, as well as the fragments from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head, all trace back to Oswlad’s rifle.
You might try searching this forum for older threads. Or try the McAdams JFK site. These claims are old and debunked.
That’s flatly untrue. The Warren Commission asserted it could have been 8.5 seconds. It’s still doable at 5.6, but the fact is he probably took longer.
“5.6” is the absolute theoretical lower limit, so of course it’s the only one you will ever hear from conspiracy theorists.
Given how many folks have gotten off the requisite number of shots in the time alloted (accurate or not), I’d have to say that that ANSA report is a bunch of hooey. (C’mon - eight seconds to work a rifle bolt? No wonder they lost the war. . . .)
One can fire faster using the iron sights instead of the telescopic sight (takes longer to reacquire the target with the latter). Alas, Oswald never told us which he used that day, so we’ll never know.
Some people score two hits in the required time, some don’t. Which result gets cited usually depends on the position of the quoter. . . .
Denquixote, I’m still confused by your position on this. You admit that it’s possible that Oswald made the shots
Yet, you still seem hung up on the fact that it would have been difficult for Oswald to make the shots . Accepting for a moment that it was possible, how do you reconcile all of the other evidence supporting this conclusion? You seem fixated on one aspect of the crime, to the extent that you are ignoring all other corroborating evidence.
I just happen to have a Carcano 7.35X51, and there is no way in hell that anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge would need much more time than any other military bolt action.
The Carcano isn’t the nicest rifle in the world, and its action isn’t a [DEL]Mauser[/DEL] so you have to get used to it, but it doesn’t take 5 seconds to reload.
I admit I was once leaning towards the conspiracy theory field as most Americans (though not being one) until I read An American Mystery by Norman Mailer (one continously underestimated writer, at least in Europe), which isn’t only a fantastic endeavour, but also left one with the horrible thought: Oh, f+ck, the loser did it.
Denquixote, there’s another point I want to make about LHO’s proficiency as a sniper: his performance on 11/22/63 corroborates your assertion that he wasn’t a good shot. He completely missed a slow moving target, from a short distance, on his first attempt. And he “missed” again on his second attempt, if you assume that he was attempting a kill shot to the head. It took him 3 tries to deliver the fatal blow that he was presumably aiming for each time.
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m harassing you, Denquixote. I’m fascinated by the JFK murder, so I find this interesting. But, at some point, you have to take a reasonable look at all of the evidence, and not get bogged down by the wild speculation that obfuscates the most rational conclusion.
That Italian test has got to beone of the most embarassing pieces of evidence for the ‘buff’ side ever produced. Thankfully, most of them did not use it except for the troll types who will grab any report and say ‘nyah-nyah!’, and show no shame or clearness of thought when the massive problems are pointed out.
Seriously. I could load each cartridge individually and still be able to fire thre rounds faster than 19 seconds. What the hell was wrong with these people?!
I also question what ‘supervised by the Italian Army’ means? Not clear at all.
It’s in Italian, obviously, but you can get the gist. One obvious issue is that the shooter takes about 4 seconds per shot to line it up after he finishes reloading.
Thanks for the link.
What a joke. Hasn’t got it set well for working the bolt, and he’s a total klutz with it. He’s taking his sweet time, and he’s still a lousy shot.
Penn & Teller do a better demo, even without ammo it shows how the bolt can work.
Thats the book it’s in, I believe. I own a copy, and I’ looking for it. I’ll post the relevant passage when I find it. Or it’s on sale used 38 cents or so on amazon.
It’s been a decade or so since I read it, but if I remember his statement was along the lines of under the conditions it was a very difficult shot…one shot was blocked by a tree(its in JFK reloaded, but its been cut down so its no longer at the plaza) that he had to shoot through and the carcano is a pretty crappy rifle.
I’m not saying that Oswald didn’t do it, or couldn’t do it…I’m just saying that the real experts who have commented said it wasn’t that easy.
Try this link instead:
That video is about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, though it has some commentators in common with this video about the JFK assassination, which suggests to me they were segments in the same episode.
Anyway, the Italian demo is comical. Did they hire a Parkinson’s victim or something? Oswald had his rifle for nine months before November 22, 1963, more than enough time to practice with it and get to know its quirks.