And that Italian video is a complete fucking joke.
Sure, it’s gonna take 19 seconds to make three shots…if you don’t even TRY to fucking hurry!
That was the least convincing demonstration since OJ “proved” the glove didn’t fit.
Heck, I could probably drag out those three shots to even longer…30 seconds, 1 minute, heck four or five hours if need be.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Heck, I could probably drag out those three shots to even longer…30 seconds, 1 minute, heck four or five hours if need be.
[/QUOTE]
Could not.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Could not.
[/QUOTE]
Not without a good book at least.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
Not without a good book at least.
[/QUOTE]
The fatal shot was actually fired by a CIA-trained three-toed sloth. He racked the bolt of the Mannlicher-Carcano when the President was still in Ft. Worth and started pulling the trigger while Kennedy was on the flight to Dallas. The path of the Presidential limosime was precisely planned so that JFK would be in exactly the right spot when the sloth finished pulling the trigger a few hours later.
Implausible, I know, but in your heart of hearts you know it is True!
Yes.
Doesn’t the original Altgens photo show a big oak tree between the gunman’s nest on the sixth floor window and the President’s motorcade? If so, that would have required the sniper to aim thru the telescopic sight and fire off accurately thru branches and leaves as the motorcade was moving in front of those obstructions?
A newer film shows that Lee would have only had a clear shot for maybe the very last of the 3 due to the obstruction:
[QUOTE=ngant17]
Doesn’t the original Altgens photo show a big oak tree between the gunman’s nest on the sixth floor window and the President’s motorcade? If so, that would have required the sniper to aim thru the telescopic sight and fire off accurately thru branches and leaves as the motorcade was moving in front of those obstructions?
A newer film shows that Lee would have only had a clear shot for maybe the very last of the 3 due to the obstruction:
http://tinyurl.com/yqkzbq
[/QUOTE]
I’ve actually learned a few things about the JFK Assassination from this thread (of course, for a host of reasons I’ve never really delved too far into it, from what I’ve seen I’ve always believed it was Oswald and haven’t found the myriad conspiracy theories and counterarguments to be that fascinating.) However, this is because other posters have hashed stuff out, presented evidence, responded to others and et cetera. All you’ve done so far is make three posts in this thread without responding to any of the points raised by anyone else.
Since you have failed to respond to any of the counterpoints people have made about your previous points, can we take that as tacit acceptance on your part that the prior points you raised were, in fact, bollocks, which is why you didn’t even try to defend them?
[QUOTE=ngant17]
A newer film shows that Lee would have only had a clear shot for maybe the very last of the 3 due to the obstruction
[/QUOTE]
Since the third one was the money shot, what’s your point? It’s not like the limo was taking evasive action - it was travelling in a slow, somewhat straight line and if it was out of sight for a second or two, it’s fairly easy to predict where and when it would emerge. Oswald may have lost interest in being a marine, but I’m sure the concept of leading a moving target wasn’t alien to him.
I’m sorry, at this point it’s clear you just want to believe in a conspiracy. I’ll just ask if you can imagine any evidence that might convince you Oswald was a lone shooter and perhaps we can find it for you. If you can’t conceive of any such evidence, this is all pointless.
For example, I believe based on evidence that Oswald acted alone. I can imagine, though, that my opinion might change if I saw some solid counter-evidence, like film footage taken from the 6th-floor sniper’s nest during the shooting, or from another angle in Dealey Plaza that challenged the Warren findings. I think it highly unlikely such evidence exists (if it did, I expect we’d have seen it by now) but at least I can imagine the possibility. Until any such evidence is presented, though, my opinion remains unchanged.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Since the third one was the money shot, what’s your point? It’s not like the limo was taking evasive action - it was travelling in a slow, somewhat straight line and if it was out of sight for a second or two, it’s fairly easy to predict where and when it would emerge. Oswald may have lost interest in being a marine, but I’m sure the concept of leading a moving target wasn’t alien to him.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the thing that bugs me about it…is why would he. he had a good clear shot as the motorcade approached, and after it passed the tree. The reasonable thing to me would be to shoot on the approach, or wait till he could see what he was shooting. Still doesn’t mean he didn’t do it…but for arguments sake…
If you haven’t run the JFK Reloaded sim…I’m hesitant to call it a game…it’s interesting to play what if…what that, and to see if you can get the limo to jump up onto main…maybe it is kinda of a game.
I would have definitely taken him out on the approach.
Oh I’ve played the hell out of JFK Reloaded. I was even posting my best scores when we discussed it last year.
Anyway, the movie JFK tried to make some point about how the approach shot would have been easier. Meh. There are lots of reasons why Oswald could have waited for the limo to pass:
[ul][li]He might have concluded the shot from the rear was easier - a head-on shot has the limo’s windshield, the agent in the front passenger seat and Connally in the way.[/li][li]He might have tried to set himself up for a head-on shot anyway, but thought the limo driver could have spotted him and taken evasive action[/li][li]Maybe he couldn’t open that window (seriously, do you know if the window facing the approaching motorcade could be opened? I don’t)[/li][li]Maybe he tried but was rushed getting into position and had to move to his second choice as the limo went into its turn[/li][li]Maybe the position by the window was potentially too visible to other Depository employees in the corridor[/ul][/li]
I can easily think other plausible reasons, but I’ve yet to see one that says “Oswald waited, therefore it’s a conspiracy”. Personally, I like the approach shot, too, but it’s not any easier. Far better is to take out the driver first.
Well, I just ran JFK Reloaded again (new theory - Oswald couldn’t have made the shot if he was using a trackball) and I was apparently wrong about there being another window on the sixth floor that had a better view up Houston Street. I may be misremembering a detail from the movie JFK, which I thought had a scene of the characters looking doubtfully at Oswald’s chosen window and noting that this other window to the left had a much better view.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I can easily think other plausible reasons, but I’ve yet to see one that says “Oswald waited, therefore it’s a conspiracy”. Personally, I like the approach shot, too, but it’s not any easier. Far better is to take out the driver first.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, lots unanswered questions that don’t necessarily mean he didn’t do it.
Personally, I prefer to miss first, get the limo really accelerating, then take out the driver so it’s going full tilt boogie with no one at the wheel.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, I just ran JFK Reloaded again (new theory - Oswald couldn’t have made the shot if he was using a trackball)
[/QUOTE]
I can tell you this from experience as well…playing the game in your coffee shop is not good customer relations. Some of the coffee buying public have no sense of humor…
[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I am not the least bit fixated on this aspect of the crime, it is simply the subject of the OP and most of the subsequent posts. If you notice in reading my posts, my biggest question mark surrounds the motivation of Jack Ruby. There is according to some a video that was shot the day before Oswald was murdered in which reporters are asking about an organization that Oswald belonged to. The spokesperson said it was some anti-communist group. An unidentified man in the back says, “No he was a memberof the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” That man is supposed to be Jack Ruby. I for one would like to know if that video exists or ever existed or if that exchange took place.
I don’t for a minute put anything beyond the limits of our government or our secret government. At one time I was not so cynical. Given the current administration, the Nixon Watergate example, the Johnson Gulf of Tonkin incident, the various assassination attempts against Castro and various other dictators or unfriendly heads of state, I am willing to consider the possibility that people lie and cover up. There were approximately 30 witnesses who stated either that the shots came from the grassy knoll area or that they came from both the grassy knoll area and the SBDB. The pristine bullet that was not found until it happened to be seen on the stretcher at the hospital may be the most bizarre fact of the entire case. Howard Hunt supposedly gave a death bed statement to his son confessing a part in the “plot.” An enactment of Oswald’s trial as it might have gone had he lived, ended with a hung jury voting 7-5 to acquit. The House Committee on assinations stated that Oswald did not act alone.
I am not hung up on Oswald’s shooting, I just have no reason to believe that the people who are saying how easy the shot was using a rifle I am sure they have zero experience with know more than I do, no matter how loud they shout.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
I could do it and I am a lousy shot. I don’t know what Carlos’ problem is, but he’s either way overestimating the difficulty of the shot, or is vastly underestimating his skills.
[/QUOTE]
Well he is dead no so we will never know, but he is quoted as having said it and he never denied saying it. So your refusal to believe it is not necessarily what we would call … yeah that’s it, evidence.
[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
Please provide information that accompanies that assertion. As you have heard here, there is a lot to suggest LHO did commit the crime: he purchased the murder weapon, he brought it to work, he had sniper experience, the shot was plausible, his prints were on the murder weapon, he fled the scene, he shot a cop who approached him…
What facts do you have that raise uncertainty (and, again, I say this as someone who has long wanted to believe in a conspiracy, but had to dismiss that claim after actually looking at the wild speculation that accompanies this murder)?
[/QUOTE]
Specifically, what sniper experience did he have? Why does the poster need to say which specific facts lead him to be dubious about Oswald having acted alone. Has anyone presented any facts corroborating the repeated statement that it was an easy shot and anyone with a little training could do it. It has never been replicated by anyone other than an expert marksman which Oswald assuredly was not and it has never even been replicated by an expert on the first attempt and yet Oswald is supposed to have done it on his first try, when his first shot did not even hit the car. If that were you shooting, would that first complete miss make you more or less anxious regarding your ability to complete your mission?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And that Italian video is a complete fucking joke.
Sure, it’s gonna take 19 seconds to make three shots…if you don’t even TRY to fucking hurry!
That was the least convincing demonstration since OJ “proved” the glove didn’t fit.
Heck, I could probably drag out those three shots to even longer…30 seconds, 1 minute, heck four or five hours if need be.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t know about you but if I’m an ideologue who feels like the president absolutely must be removed and it has fallen on my shoulders to do it, first of all I thank Mao that I have this job at the SBDB which has this great view of the motorcade, but then when I am setting up and I start firing, I for one take my time to make sure I have the best shot possible. I sure as hell am not rushing anything, whether I have to reload or not. Why is it even an issue, whether or not it could be done in 8 or 5.6 or 19 seconds? It’s an issue because that is how the killing shots were spaced. It makes no sense to me for a lone gunman to be in such a hurry.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Since the third one was the money shot, what’s your point? It’s not like the limo was taking evasive action - it was travelling in a slow, somewhat straight line and if it was out of sight for a second or two, it’s fairly easy to predict where and when it would emerge. Oswald may have lost interest in being a marine, but I’m sure the concept of leading a moving target wasn’t alien to him.
I’m sorry, at this point it’s clear you just want to believe in a conspiracy. I’ll just ask if you can imagine any evidence that might convince you Oswald was a lone shooter and perhaps we can find it for you. If you can’t conceive of any such evidence, this is all pointless.
For example, I believe based on evidence that Oswald acted alone. I can imagine, though, that my opinion might change if I saw some solid counter-evidence, like film footage taken from the 6th-floor sniper’s nest during the shooting, or from another angle in Dealey Plaza that challenged the Warren findings. I think it highly unlikely such evidence exists (if it did, I expect we’d have seen it by now) but at least I can imagine the possibility. Until any such evidence is presented, though, my opinion remains unchanged.
[/QUOTE]
How about the conclusion of the House Committee on Assassinations that concluded Oswald did not act alone and that there were at least four shots fired?
[QUOTE=denquixote]
I am not the least bit fixated on this aspect of the crime, it is simply the subject of the OP and most of the subsequent posts. If you notice in reading my posts, my biggest question mark surrounds the motivation of Jack Ruby. There is according to some a video that was shot the day before Oswald was murdered in which reporters are asking about an organization that Oswald belonged to. The spokesperson said it was some anti-communist group. An unidentified man in the back says, “No he was a memberof the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” That man is supposed to be Jack Ruby. I for one would like to know if that video exists or ever existed or if that exchange took place.
I don’t for a minute put anything beyond the limits of our government or our secret government. At one time I was not so cynical. Given the current administration, the Nixon Watergate example, the Johnson Gulf of Tonkin incident, the various assassination attempts against Castro and various other dictators or unfriendly heads of state, I am willing to consider the possibility that people lie and cover up. There were approximately 30 witnesses who stated either that the shots came from the grassy knoll area or that they came from both the grassy knoll area and the SBDB. The pristine bullet that was not found until it happened to be seen on the stretcher at the hospital may be the most bizarre fact of the entire case. Howard Hunt supposedly gave a death bed statement to his son confessing a part in the “plot.” An enactment of Oswald’s trial as it might have gone had he lived, ended with a hung jury voting 7-5 to acquit. The House Committee on assinations stated that Oswald did not act alone.
I am not hung up on Oswald’s shooting, I just have no reason to believe that the people who are saying how easy the shot was using a rifle I am sure they have zero experience with know more than I do, no matter how loud they shout.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to direct your attention to this site , which provides a lot of good information to assuage a lot of your doubts. It does a good job of going throught all of the evidence, and assumptions, that you are raising. Put simply, there are not credible witnesses claiming shots came from the grassy knoll (there’s also the issue of accoustics, which tend to distort people’s perceptions of where sounds emanate). The bullet was not pristine (when viewed head on). Although the House Committee did state that Oswald did not act alone, it was based on a misinterpretation of acoustic evidence.
The site even includes an actual audio clip of people indicating “fair play for Cuba” (along with the JFK movie version) - look under the part about Jack Ruby.
[I will concede that I can’t easily repudiate Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession, if indeed his son’s account is authentic, but I continue to believe that it is not supported by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary]
I, too, am cynical when it comes to my government, as history has shown us (all too often) that they are not above sinister dealings. Indeed, JFK’s own administration was often up to no good. But none of the other incidents you mentioned were discovered to be an elaborate conspiracy - we know about them because incriminating evidence appears, people leak information, and cover-ups almost never go according to plan. For JFK’s assassination to have been a conspiracy, we have to believe that our bumbling, corrupt, beauracratic government managed a complex, intricate operation without a hitch. How often does our government manage to operate with such efficiency?
[QUOTE=Atomicktom]
I’d like to direct your attention to this site , which provides a lot of good information to assuage a lot of your doubts. It does a good job of going throught all of the evidence, and assumptions, that you are raising. Put simply, there are not credible witnesses claiming shots came from the grassy knoll (there’s also the issue of accoustics, which tend to distort people’s perceptions of where sounds emanate). The bullet was not pristine (when viewed head on). Although the House Committee did state that Oswald did not act alone, it was based on a misinterpretation of acoustic evidence.
The site even includes an actual audio clip of people indicating “fair play for Cuba” (along with the JFK movie version) - look under the part about Jack Ruby.
[I will concede that I can’t easily repudiate Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession, if indeed his son’s account is authentic, but I continue to believe that it is not supported by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary]
I, too, am cynical when it comes to my government, as history has shown us (all too often) that they are not above sinister dealings. Indeed, JFK’s own administration was often up to no good. But none of the other incidents you mentioned were discovered to be an elaborate conspiracy - we know about them because incriminating evidence appears, people leak information, and cover-ups almost never go according to plan. For JFK’s assassination to have been a conspiracy, we have to believe that our bumbling, corrupt, beauracratic government managed a complex, intricate operation without a hitch. How often does our government manage to operate with such efficiency?
[/QUOTE]
Well, they did not do it without a hitch (whoever did it) or we would not be talking about it 40 odd years later. And one reason that we have found out about many of the machinations the government has undertaken, considered or attempted over the years is because of the Freedom of Information Act and the dogged determinism of a lot of cynical folks. It is my guess that if the Kennedy investigation, Warren report files and Cia files were open to all there would be some shocking discoveries to be made. Whether or not it would change any opinions I don’t know. One little tidbit I just saw the other day was that George Bush was, according to J. Edgar Hoover, a CIA employee at that time and is supposed to have made a phone call about the assassination right after it occurred. Bush denies it. When he became head of the CIA there is supposedly a record of him requisitioning all of the assassination files. He denies that also. What does it mean? Who knows?