Hey man, watch out. The CIA might hear hear you. Did you know they have bugs all over Saturn Cafe?
Whoa, I drive a Saturn.
Are there better weapons? Sure. Was it possible to pull it off with the Carcano? You bettter believe it, bucko. And if you don’t believe it, present the evidence that demonstrates otherwise.
Oswald probably had more like 8 seconds. And what you really meant to say, I’m sure, was that they did prove it could be done in under 6 seconds. And you’re also ignoring Marina’s testimony that Oswald would sit and practice with that bolt action for hours at a time, not to mention his more or less frequent target practice. The dude clearly knew his weapon. And that’s even before you consider that one of the rounds recovered (I think it was the “magic bullet”) was matched to Oswald’s rifle.
This is a complete and utter falsehool. Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines.
Great. Lovely. Present the evidence that demonstrates this to be true. Please. I beg of you.
[quote]
His conclusion was that the SS agent in the left rear seat of the follow car accidentally discharged an AR-15 when he stood up with it (while the car shot forward). He actually names the SS Agent in the book (who was alive at the time it was published). [/quute]Holy shit! The Nazis were involved!
Or maybe it’s because she spent the last 30 years of her life as an intensely private person who avoided prying into her personal life at all costs?
Hmmm, yes. I wonder, how could these two statements possibly be reconciled? :dubious:
As a Lawyer, how would you council a publishing company that was about to print a book naming a Secret Service Agent as having shot the President?
Could they do it in 8.4 seconds or better? 'Cause that’s how long Oswald took. And Oswald practiced working the bolt frequently.
What I actually said was that
which isn’t the same as your
Oswald as a marksman:
In testimony before the Warren Commission, Nelson Delgado testified:
Later, when talking to Mark Lane on camera for “Rush to Judgement”:
[quote]
LANE. Was Oswald interested in guns?
DELGADO. They [the Warren Commission] say he was a gun enthusiast, but I recall many instances where we stood inspections, and he was constantly being gigged for having a dirty weapon and for taking improper care of his weapon. He was always reminded when he had to clean the weapon. He never took it upon himself to do so.
LANE. Do you have personal knowledge of Oswald’s ability with a rifle?
DELGADO. At the range he couldn’t prove by me that he was a good shot.
As any person who has ever served in the armed forces could tell you, there’s a part in the qualification that calls for rapid firing. This is done with ten shots, eight in the clip and two that you load by hand. They give you forty-five seconds to fire these ten rounds. Well, when you fire these, then you stand you stand away from your firing position, till everyone has finished firing. Then the targets are brought down and scored. The targets are run back up, and there are disks for the number that you have hit–fives, fours, threes, or misses.
Well, in Oswald’s particular case, it was quite funny to look at, because he would get a couple of disks. Maybe out of a possible ten he’ll get two or three Maggie’s drawers. Now, these [the Maggie’s drawers] are a red flag that’s on a long pole, and this is running from left to right on the target itself. And, you don’t see this on a firing line too often–not a Marine firing line. You can’t help but noticing when you’re seeing disks, round cylinder things, coming up and down, and farther on down the line you see a flag waving [i.e., a Maggie’s drawer]. Well, that was gonna catch your eye anyway. And we thought it was funny that Oswald was getting these Maggie’s drawers so rapidly, one after the other. And this is why I can’t think that he could be a good shot, because a good shot doesn’t pull this. He’ll pull a three, but he won’t pull a Maggie’s drawer-- that’s a complete miss.
LANE. How did the FBI react to your statement that Oswald was a poor shot?
DELGADO. They tried to disprove it. They did not like the idea when I came up with the statement that Oswald, as far as I knew, was a very poor shot.
LANE. Do you feel that the agents of the FBI actually tried to get you to change your statement that Oswald was a poor shot.
DELGADO. Yes, sir, I definitely do.
[quote]
Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, one of the most successful American snipers, said:
The Quality of his Weapon:
On the one hand, http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/ClubDJs/Italy_rifles.html
On the other hand, http://www.cruffler.com/historic-december01.html
Like I said, differing opinions. As for his specific rifle, I refer you to the shims the FBI needed to properly sight in Oswald’s rifle when they ran their own tests: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0143a.htm
From the Warren Report, page 89:
It was this sort of inconsistency that has caused some people to question the entire autopsy or even :rolleyes: suggest that the body had been switched.
You are being abusive and bullying and making assumptions about me that fit your view of people who question some of the conclusions of the Warren Report, not my actual words. My list was not intended as an exhaustive investigation. It was given as a response to the OP where he asks “Why so many conspiracy theories?” Some of the opinions listed I don’t even hold. I was just supplying them for the OP.
Please do not do that in Great Debates or I will be forced to report you to the administration.
**Did I dismiss the entire Warren Report? No, I have questioned a few points here and there. I have attempted to be helpful to the OP by answering his questions, which were limited to:
Every single point raised here thus far is dealt with thoroughly and conclusively in Posner’s Case Closed, as I already mentioned. He dealt with the issues much more thoroughly and insightfully then I can.
But I can clarify the timing issue a little. The original estimate of how much time Oswald had to fire the shots was based on the idea that the first shot was the one that caused JFK’s neck wound and Connelly’s wounds. However, it was later determined that the first bullet missed completely, and thus had been fired decidedly earlier than was thought. (IIRC, the shot is supposed to have hit the pavement on the sidewalk opposite the Depository, and sent some cement chips flying up at some dude.) It’s pretty definite that this first shot missed, and we can guess-timate it’s Zapruder frame from crowd reaction, and it does indeed give him 8 seconds or so between the first shot and the final (3rd) shot that caused Kennedy’s fatal head wound.
I’ve always suspected that it just a few individuals involved. I’ve been trying to save money on stationery for my Thanksgiving do. This should help. Does anyone have the appropriate addresses?
Knock yourself out, Jack. The Straight Dope is built on ridiculing nonsense because simple dry rebuttal is boring. I offer no opinion about you personally; I only ridicule what you post here. You’re giving me oodles of material to work with and when you get defensive and start accusing others of being bullying, you get even funnier.
Oh, bullpucky. Questioning a few points would be, for example, examing bullet paths and whatnot while keeping the overall premise that Oswald acted alone. Instead, you’re making up information left and right in the apparant belief that it will support your conspiracy notions. Your “questioning” consists of trying to nitpick the report and using those nitpicks to rationalize trashing the whole thing.
I personally love the idea that somebody thought Lee Oswald would make a good black ops agent. That’s just classic. Keep 'em coming.
I do believe that the SDMB :GD are the best message boards I have yet visited!There are a comforting number of intelligent, critical thinkers here but still enough irrational kooks to keep things interesting!
BTW, is anyone familiar with this CT angle about some company being behind the assassination because they stood to make a ton of money building military helicopters for the U.S. to use in Viet Nam?
I am full aware that JFK was the strongest supporter of the war in Viet Nam and all that, but I had never heard this particular take on the whole conspiracy thing before until a friend laid it on me a month or two ago. Wish I could remember the exact details(was pretty complicated…even more so than your typical CTs) but alas…
That’s quite an amazing post, dropzone. You reaffirm the rationality of the conspiratory position, but provide practically no evidence whatsoever in support of it. No wonder you think your position is getting ridiculed–it is worthy of ridicule.
Now, regarding Nelson Delgado, that’s an interesting observation he had there. According to him, Oswald was a poor shot who missed his target a lot. How, then, do you explain that he indisputably did qualify as a Marine sharpshooter? Differences of opinion, amigo, do not negate the actual facts.
Regarding the rifle, don’t you think that the only thing that really matters is whether Oswald’s Carcano was a reliable and accurate weapon? Test after test proved that it was. And those misaligned sights you’re relying on were (a) only slightly misaligned, (b) may have been knocked out of alignment when Oswald dropped the rifle behind the boxes on the 6th floor, and © were misaligned in a way that would have tended to help the shot anyway. http://www.conspire.com/jfkfaq.html#8.2.2
You know Minty, one thing I’ve always liked about you is your non-confrontational style. Can’t you ever discuss something without getting in someone’s face?
My comment was: first, to indicate that the bullet did not pass through “only soft tissue” and second, to suggest that a bullet, after shattering a couple of bones is usually in worse shape than the one found. What leads me to that conclusion? Well, how about shooting things? That’s usually a good indication.
Secondly, other ballistic tests have reached different conclusions. Like this one: http://grandsubversion.com/jfk_assassination/single_magic_bullet_theory/magicpg1.htm
Additionally, I should have originally stated that this is predicated on the single bullet theory. It’s not “speculation on my part”. From here: http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/state2.htm
I also said in my earlier post:
Your enlightening response:
This rifle has been described as difficult to operate. Oswald wasn’t trained in its use. The evidence that he had it in his possession since March-April of that year is pretty compelling, and he could have practiced with it, but it isn’t really a preferable choice of weapon for the job. Yeah, there is “something complicated” about it. Maintaining your target with a bolt-action and getting off 3 rounds isn’t easy.
As I stated, these are just a couple of things that have never sat right with me and I still don’t see conclusive explanations for them. That doesn’t mean I think the aliens did it or believe the Oliver Stone model, I just think there’s a little more than meets the eye.
dropzone, I have to admit your evidence simply is not compelling. I note some of the testimony you provided:
Look, this is the sort of meandering bullshit that just doesn’t impress when it’s put next to real evidence. None of this tells me a thing. So Oswald got in shit for having a dirty weapon, so?
I was in the Army. I can tell you, absolutely and without any question whatsoever, that it’s people like Lee Harvey Oswald who WOULD be obsessed with guns and who would also leave them filthy. It sounds good in passing to say “Oswald couldn’t have liked guns, he never kept his clean” but that implied correlation does not hold up to scrutiny. Weirdo loners who are obsessed with guns are exactly the sort of person you would expect to do that, because they treat guns as a power thing, not as a tool to be cared for by a professional. I knew guys like that and they always had grime and crud in their weapons. On the other hand, I kept my rifle scrupulously clean, and I’m not the slightest bit interested in guns. EVERYONE I know who was in continuous trouble for crappy weapons upkeep was a weirdo who liked guns a little more than is healthy.
As to Oswald’s proficiency with the weapon, this has been beaten to death, but we have to clearly, clearly emphasize this, because it is the single most important fact:
The shot Oswald had to take to kill Kennedy was an extraordinarily close range and easy shot. It was easier than any shot in a normal armed services rifle qualification shoot. Even a poor shot by armed services standards should have made that shot.
Your own quote above notes that Oswald was missing targets that were moving side to side. The shot at Kennedy, on the other hand, had basically no deflection at all; Kennedy was moving AWAY from Oswald, very slowly. You wouldn’t have to lead him. Oswald was also equipped with a scope, which he would not have had on the range in the Marines. Two hits out of three is what I would expect from even a very poor shot - actually, as I said before, I am surprised he missed once. The Carcano may or may not be a good rifle - I have never fired one and, as I said, I’m not fond of guns - but at such short range, it doesn’t make a lot of difference.
There is NO real evidence you have presented that proves Oswald could not have made that shot, or even suggests he couldn’t have. Even if we conclude Oswald was a poor shit - I mean, let’s just assume he was - he wasn’t AWFUL. He Marine scores may be consistent with mediocrity, but they don’t suggest he was blind or anything. I would expect even a poor shot to have succeeded at such close range, and Oswald was clearly not a terrible shot by Marine standards, even if he was a little below average.
I appreciate that you have found quotes constructed to suggest the opposite. As a reasonably skilled rifleman with experience on a number of different weapons, I am telling you right now they are complete and utter bullshit, very much akin to stating that the sky is green and that the sun rises in the West. There is nothing remotely hard about that shot. An eighty-yard shot with virtually no deflection is child’s play. It is ridiculously easy, and giving someone only 6-8 seconds to get those shots off only makes it a little more difficult. I would happily take you out to a rifle range and teach you how to make that shot; if it takes more than twenty minutes to get you shooting more accurately than Oswald, I’ll eat my hat.
I would also point out that “Kill Zone,” from which you get that alleged quote by sniper Carlos Hathcock, was written by a guy who also claims to have evidence that Marine honor guards were practising for the funeral days before the assassination and that… well, Mr. Roberts’s unusual claims abound. A lot of New World Order conspiracy material. “Kill Zone” goes into a lot of stuff about centuries-old conspiracies involving evil Jews, the Rothschilds, and that sort of baloney.
JESUS-EFFING-CHRIST! That is EXACTLY what I was trying to do!
As sarcasm and insults are apparently allowed here, let me see if I can say this in words of one syllable (oops, that was three) so you might get it:
Tross asked two things: Did the CIA kill JFK? Why are there so many conspiracy theories? For the CIA I said “probably not,” which agrees with you plus a qualifier I must add as a guy who will not say that anything (here, try sounding it out: ann-ee-thing. Not so hard if you take your time) is true for sure. To answer “why so many theories” I gave a list of some of the things the buffs have picked up on. Did I say that each of those points blew the report wide open? No, though some buffs have based whole careers on one or two of those points. All it was was a laundry list and I have kept saying that for a day now! THAT is why my lists “reaffirm the rationality of the conspiratory position, but provide practically no evidence whatsoever in support of it.” They were MEANT to do that, as a smart person who READ my posts would know.
You and Bryan have bugs up your butts that I am some kind of wild eyed nut while I said that I treat the whole thing as a fun hobby. Some folks save stamps. I read books and web sites and think “what ifs” for fun. As I have said on this board, I don’t have lots of deep-held beliefs.
You seem to want a book full of corroborating evidence. (Whoa, LOTS of syllables. You did not have any problems with that, did you, amigo?) I’m not going to do that here because, AS I SAID, I have not gone through all of the data and found what was smoke, what was fire, and what was dust kicked up by others, and there is a LOT of dust. And as it’s just one of my MANY hobbies you and I will have to wait until somebody else does it. All I MEANT to do was tell Tross the basis of the theories, not explain why each was or was not true.
The way I read this, the doctors who did the early stages of the autopsy didn’t know there was an exit wound in his throat, so were trying to figure out where the bullet could have stopped in his body. It would require a large muscle to be hidden. But they couldn’t find a bullet path into any large muscle, so were confused at first. I agree that it’s pretty shocking that the docs were not even briefed about all the wounds, but that’s all that I can see there.
About the marksmanship thing, Saturday night I was talking to a couple of friends of mine who were preparing to go deer hunting this fall. One had just gone to the gun range to sight-in his rifle. I asked how this was done, not even thinking about any connection to my JFK interest. They sight in their rifles at 100 yards, and one guy adjusts it to hit 2 inches above the sight point, and another 1.5 inches. They explained that this way, at 200 yards, it would be about right-on, and at 300 yards, it would shoot an inch or two low, so that at any distance between 100 and 300 yards, they could just aim basically at the point they want to hit. Now these guys aren’t military-trained, they’re just a couple of guys who like to go hunting. And they shoot with fraction-of-an-inch precision at 100 yards. We can talk about whether Oswald was an excellent shot, but that doesn’t really matter - hitting a human head 1 time out of three at less than 100 yards, even if you have to work the bolt, is not a great feat.
Where did he say that? The quote has the disks moving up and down, I assume representing enemy heads moving in and out of cover, but they seem to have been horizontally stationary. The only things moving back and forth were the red flags indicating a miss.
Something I have long wondered is whether using a scope would make shooting at that range, in such rapid succession, and while using a bolt-action rifle easier or harder. I haven’t shot with a scope but I have used binoculars enough to know that there is a moment or several moments after bringing them to your eyes where my eyes and brain have to become acclimated. Minty’s last link suggests that Oswald gave up on using the scope and went with the iron sights with which he was more accustomed. That makes more sense because he could better keep his eye on the target while working the bolt.
dropzone (cont’d):
What’s the inconsistency? That the surgeons at Parkland didn’t see an exit wound in the throat because it had been obliterated by the tracheotomy? That’s not an “inconsistency”–that’s just the way things were.
Fine. If you want to reprint fantasies, half-truths, and wholly unsupported claims as reasons why there are so many conspiracy theories, then label those fantasies, half-truths, and wholly unsupported claims as such. Or be prepared to back 'em up. That’s what we do around the SDMB, you know.
NutMagnet:
We’re fighting ignorance around here, not coddling it. If you spread falsehoods on the SDMB, you’re gonna get called on it.
That site’s claim that “Bullets fired into the wrists of human cadavers” show significant distortion is correct. But guess what? The “magic bullet” was not fired into Governor Connally’s wrist… It was fired through President Kennedy’s throat, tumbled through Connally’s chest, and only then struck Connally’s wrist. The bullet’s velocity was decreased by about 50% by the time it hit the wrist bone. So what happens when a bullet traveling at that speed hits a wrist bone? Not very much.
By whom? What is their evidence? Does their criticism apply to the reputation of Carcanos in general, or to Oswald’s personal weapon? In other words, prove your claim.
Nonsense. The testimony of his own wife is that he practiced with it repeatedly. Nobody who knows how to fire a rifle–as Oswald most certainly did–needs to be “trained” how to use a perfectly ordinary bolt-action rifle. At most, he just needs to practice with it a bit.
Now you’re just being obtuse. Marina Oswald testified that her husband practiced operating the bolt action for hours at a time, and that he took the rifle out for actual target practice on numerous occasions. To claim only that Oswald “could have practiced” with the rifle shows a remarkable disregard for the actual facts.
Once again, you’re ignoring the bloody point, which is that Oswald’s rifle was the rifle that he had, and was perfectly capable of carrying out the job. Yes, there were better weapons, but to complain about that is so monumentally beside the point that it defies rational scrutiny altogether.
Nonsense. Any competent shooter can do it. And more important, any number of competent shooters have done it in the various recreations of the assassination.
Respecting dropzone’s insistence that he’s not making the arguments himself, just listing arguments that conspiracy theorists make, I’ll do the same. I’ve found that in the newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk, these claims having to do with hard facts are hardly ever discussed. My own opinion is that the CT people (Conspiracy Theorists, as opposed to Lone Nutters, or LNs), have already run into the wall that all the hard facts point towards LHO only. The tact that they use is that those hard facts must have been fabricated by the conspiracy. What evidence do they have of a conspiracy? Well, there’s the guy who was in the jail at the same time as LHO, who claims that Oswald talked, telling him all about the conspiracy. There are literally dozens of witnesses who say that they had some contact with LHO or other conspirators. The trouble is, there’s no hard evidence that these people actually did or saw what they say. Many people believe them because they have the view that if that many people say something happened, there must be something there. My view is that out of a city the size of Dallas, plus New Orleans, it’s not difficult to find a few dozen nuts and liars, plus just people with imperfect memory.
Well, your fun hobby seems to include ignoring evidence and then talking about how proud you are for ignoring evidence. The first part is harmless enough, but it’s that second part that opens you up to endless ridicule. Heck, you can take any event and microanalyze the bejeezus out of it, and if you pick and choose what aspects you want to believe, than any conclusion can result. That’s Logic 101.
I don’t think you’re a wild eyed nut; I think you love the idea that you’ve figured out the deep dark secret while it continues to elude the rest of us, and being forced into martyrdom for your efforts. That leaves you with the belief that you are wise and a victim. Congratulations.
I don’t believe you, and my disbelief is pretty darn deep. You’re treating the conspiracy theory like a comforting teddy bear.
And your sarcasm skills need a lot of work.