Further more, if Soup can't even say "where" Oswald shot from, then nothing he says can be trusted...
Quote:
Guitarsoup said: So no cover or concealment for them, like Oswald had build in his Sniper's nest in the TBD. They would have been completely open to the parking lot, and because everyone was turning to look at JFK as they passed, ALL the people that were around the #8 on the map would have been facing them and would have likely been able to see a muzzle blast.
It is just not feasible that a sniper would stand behind a fence with on concealment to fire shots on the POTUS.
For all the analysis and books and explanations, JFK was hit in the throat from the front, and he was hit from the right front on the head shot.
No, actually. JFK was hit from behind on both shots. All known evidence points to JFK being hit from behind and above.
The neck shot is the easiest.
Kennedy had two wounds from that shot. The lower neck centered between his collarbones and his upper back just right of the spine.
For that shot to have come from the front and travel from slightly left to right across his body, it would need to be elevated to get over the heads of the four people in front of Kennedy and also the windshield.
That would mean the shot would need to have been taken from maybe the triple overpass? There needed to be an elevated place in front and to the left of Kennedy for that to have happened and that is the only possible place. The problem being that James Tague (mentioned earlier here by BigCountry) was standing UNDER the overpass and was hit with a tiny bit of shrapnel.
That's Tague circled. How would he be hit from a bullet that was shot directly above him?
I won't post it, but there are pictures you can see of the wound from JFK's back. It's a very small, smooth wound, not a typical blown out exit wound.
Parkland Emergency Doctor Malcolm Perry, who initially treated Kennedy and put the tracheotomy into Kennedy's neck from the entrance wound testified as to this, "full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through the skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound; I believe that [the neck] was an exit wound."
So the autopsy concluded that Kennedy was shot in the back, the doctor that treated him at Parkland concluded Kennedy was shot in the back, the only gun known to have been fired was from behind and to the right of Kennedy, but YOUR completely unsubstantiated conclusion is that he was shot from the front?
Quote:
Yada yada yada. Argue all you want, but that is what happened. The magic bullet is ludicrous. When someone takes a head shot and the matter goes backwards, it's because it was a shot from the front.
No, actually. It is not what happened and every test done since then shows it. A bullet doesn't really have the mass to move anything. If goes right through you. But the exit wound blowing out will generate force going the direction of the bullet causing an equal and opposite reaction of the head moving the direction opposite of the bullet. Easily shown here:
And watch this, and it is easy to trace back their injuries and how both were shot. The single bullet theory isn't ludicrous at all. This should be simple enough for everyone to see and understand.
There is literally no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy or Connally was shot from front. And if Connally was shot from the front, how did the round end up in his thigh?
Quote:
Oswald had been groomed for years. His time in places were groomed for years. His time in Mexico was groomed.
His time in places were groomed for years. That doesn't even make sense.
Quote:
Finding a shooter in Dallas just after the assassination of the President in a residential area is ludicrous. The theatre? All ludicrous.
There is literally nothing ludicrous about arresting a shooter a few hours after an assassination near that shooter's home.
Quote:
All the millions of explanations of why the kill shot came from the bookstore are just not logical. Explain away.
It actually is logical and coherent. There is not a logical argument for anything else. If Kennedy was shot in the neck and the bullet traveled out his lack, why is there no bullet lodged in the trunk of the limo? Nothing there at all? Again, logic and reason isn't on your side.
Quote:
Sadly, Oliver Stone is smarter than all you believers. And Oliver Stone is a whack job.
Sadly, he is smart enough to dupe some Aggies. I am very confident the evidence is on my side.
Quote:
Just look at all the photos of Oswald over the years that have turned up. Look at his speech patterns. He was well dressed and well spoken. he was not just a Marine rifleman.
Oswald was neither well-dressed nor well-spoken. Here is he at his press conference. He isn't eloquent or well spoken. He struggles to find words.
He also talks here. He again struggles for words and tries to say he is a Marxist but not a Communist. Just not a bright guy. After Lee talks, you can hear the anchor give his impressions of him. He didn't impress them at all.
Oswald never finished high school after dropping out multiple times and enlisted in the Marines. You are right, eh was not just a Marine Rifleman, he worked on radars and wasn't infantry. That is, until he was court martialed three times, stripped of rank, and made to work in the kitchens.
Quote:
A guy that "defected" to the USSR. And then returned. Yeah, that happened all the time back in those years.
You are right, it was so unusual, it was covered in the media.
In the November 3, 1959 issue of the New York Times, Oswald's actions in defecting made UPI (major wire service) and was published in the paper edition of the times.
This was over 4 years before he killed Kennedy.
Quote:
And then he figured out how to be an employee in the bookstore, all on his own.
In the 12 months before the assassination, LHO was fired from three other jobs, and all of them were menial labor jobs. His bosses hated him, his co-workers hated him and he was never good at anything.
Oswald didn't want that job. Oswald wanted aother job, which would be an assistant type-setter. Only that job called his his previous boss, Bob Stovall, and Stovall said Oswald had a bad attitude, was a poor worker and lazy. So Oswald didn't get the job he wanted.
But it wasn't Oswald that applied for the job. Ruth Paine was putting up Marina Oswald to get her away from the abusive Lee Oswald, and her neighbor, Linnie Mae Randall, had a brother that just started working at the Texas Book Depository. Ruth Paine hated Oswald and wanted him to earn money for Marina, who was frequently abused by Lee and pregnant with their second child.
So Ruth Paine, who disliked Oswald, got Oswald the interview for the job of moving boxes of books in the warehouse. Oswald showed up to the interview, and lied to Roy Truly. He told Roy he had just left the Marines and was looking for work. Truly never called to check up on him and took him for his word because he said sir and was polite, as a Marine would.
So he didn't become an employee all on his own. Someone who didn't even like LHO set him up for the job, because they wanted him to be able to provide for his soon to be born 2nd child and wife (or soon to be ex-wife.)
Quote:
And... he was still an incredibly good sharpshooter years later, with no practice, with a crappy gun, that he bought by mail, all totally traceable.
His shots were easy to make. I think most Marines could make them. While the gun wasn't fancy, it wasn't inaccurate, either. The FBI tests on it showed that it fired within a 3-5" circle at 100y. The longest of Oswald's shots was 83y.
You should read Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical & Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations by Dr. John Lattimer. Dr. Lattimer was also a Colonel in the Army and was someone that landed on D-Day. He was later attached to General Patton and was the general medical officer at the Neremburg trials.
So would the first wound alone have been fatal to Kennedy? No way to know for sure, of course. Just curious.
I think there is a very good chance it would have been fatal. He was checked into Parkland at 12:38pm, which was 8 minutes after the shot. That shot destroyed his windpipe, but getting quick medical care may have helped him survive it. I don't know what the damage of the vertebrae would have been like, though.
You make some great points, and I absolutely appreciate your knowledge/the effort you put into your post. I've learned a lot. But talking this stuff out on a message board/questioning certain things in the case doesn't mean we're "duped." It's an interesting exercise, it's fun to speculate, I don't know what I believe, and that's perfectly fine.
Again, who's being "deceived"? I literally just said I don't know what to believe, therefor I haven't fallen for anything. It's just fun to discuss. Someone else will inevitably come along and refute certain Guitarsoup points, in relatively convincing fashion, and round and round we'll go. That doesn't mean anyone has been tricked or is an idiot or whatever. It's just raising various points on a message board.
Also, for the record, 78 posts in and only ONE other person on this entire thread has made an effort to watch the documentary. At some point it would still be nice to actually discuss the specific contents of the point of this thread, even if the doc itself is torn to shreds.
"Duped" implies that Oliver Stone himself doesn't actually also believe it. It's more than that, it more like Dunning Kruger mixed with standard human behavior of trying to fit every event into a giant cohesive pattern even when most are coincidences or completely unrelated, and some good old confirmation bias.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
"Duped" implies that Oliver Stone himself doesn't actually also believe it. It's more than that, it more like Dunning Kruger mixed with standard human behavior of trying to fit every event into a giant cohesive pattern even when most are coincidences or completely unrelated, and some good old confirmation bias.
I don't know that Stone himself truly believes in all of it. I think he looks at things on a bigger scale. The Kennedy Assassination is just part of his bigger conspiracy theories that involve the government, capitalism, and big business in general. He will isolate certain things, and give very few details on it so that it fits a narrative he wants to tell.
But I think he comes up with the narrative first, then squeezes in the details (or fabricates them) to work within that narrative. As far as a story teller goes, he is excellent. I think this is super evident in how he created the JFK movie and his History Untold series and what parts he left in, what parts were fabricated or details conveniently left out when they don't fit his preconceived narrative.
You make some great points, and I absolutely appreciate your knowledge/the effort you put into your post. I've learned a lot. But talking this stuff out on a message board/questioning certain things in the case doesn't mean we're "duped." It's an interesting exercise, it's fun to speculate, I don't know what I believe, and that's perfectly fine.
It is interesting you leave out this comment I replied to:
Quote:
Sadly, Oliver Stone is smarter than all you believers.
Dupe can mean trick, and I believe that Stone and others have tricked many people by being disingenuous, leaving important details out, or outright lying about the facts.
I am at least making an effort to cite sources, post pictures, and make things clear. I am sure I don't have everything down, but I do think I have a pretty solid grip on the case and the facts.
Smart people can be tricked. It happens. I hope to have the time to sit and watch it and take notes, but this is a rough week for me with end of year campaign and annual report things happening, plus my wife's job means I have the kids by myself several nights. So like I said on page 1, I absolutely intend to watch this and debate his points.
My guess is he leaves out a lot of important things, such as Jackie Kennedy insisting on the location of the autopsy and for it to be performed by the Navy over the objections of LBJ, everyone in Parkland, and many others. It makes it a lot harder to weave a conspiracy around that autopsy when Jackie insisted on it being there and she and RFK waited in a nearby room while it was performed.
The shots from the sixth floor down onto Elm street would not have been that difficult either, not for a halfway decent marksman.
Iam a halfway decent marksman. I've been on shooting teams throughout my life. That angle, 6 stories up, moving vehicle? Yeah, that's a very tough shot. Bolt action twice? Very very tough shots.
My personal theory is that two different unrelated things were going on at that particular time and place.
The shots from the sixth floor down onto Elm street would not have been that difficult either, not for a halfway decent marksman.
Iam a halfway decent marksman. I've been on shooting teams throughout my life. That angle, 6 stories up, moving vehicle? Yeah, that's a very tough shot. Bolt action twice? Very very tough shots.
My personal theory is that two different unrelated things were going on at that particular time and place.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
The shots from the sixth floor down onto Elm street would not have been that difficult either, not for a halfway decent marksman.
Iam a halfway decent marksman. I've been on shooting teams throughout my life. That angle, 6 stories up, moving vehicle? Yeah, that's a very tough shot. Bolt action twice? Very very tough shots.
My personal theory is that two different unrelated things were going on at that particular time and place.
Read Gerald Poster's book Case Closed. He refutes every single myth that is out there… Oswald definitely acted alone. Did you know Oswald shot at an Army General before JFK (used the same rifle as JFK)?
Case Closed is a good read. People are more comforted by the idea that taking out a figure as crucial as the President requires a massive conspiracy. The evidence is pretty convincing that Oswald acted alone.
It makes zero difference to me personally/psychologically whether it was a conspiracy or not. I don't "need" it to be one way or the other, and I would argue that it's actually more comforting to most people for it to be a lone gunman as opposed to our government being capable of such horror against our own President.
For me, it's nothing more than the overwhelming evidence, logistically speaking, of a second gunman, from the front. Especially after you watch this doc, which isn't some crackpot endeavor. They very throughly take us through step-by-step, shot-by-shot, document-by-document, interview-by-interview, and at the very least show how many glaring inconsistencies there are between the various reports and "facts" over the years. I'm not saying that I fully believe the "why" conclusion Stone comes to, or that the conspiracy runs as deep as he suspects, but at this point I just see no way there wasn't a second gunman. I'd even go so far as to say it's almost impossible there wasn't a second gunman, all things considered.
There is actually no evidence whatsoever of a second gunman from the front.
There is actually a lot of evidence of it; you may not find it credible, and clearly a lot of people (and warren commission) agree with you, and that's fine, but this is a false statement.
i havent followed it much, or at all lately, and dont really have an opinion, but i always thought the zapruder film showing his head getting popped was pretty convincing for me. I've never seen anything i've shot react like that from a high and behind shot.
There is actually no evidence. None. Just conjecture.
And for someone to be set up at the grassy knoll, they would be basically at a fence in a public parking lot where anyone could see them. No sniper is going to set up in a place like that.
Have you made a lot of headshots on a moving target in a vehicle that is strapped to their seat due to a bad back?
Kennedy's head initially moved forward when hit. Zapruder film shows this.
For someone to be at the Grassy Knoll, they would be about where my red circle is, kind of behind a fence.
So no cover or concealment for them, like Oswald had build in his Sniper's nest in the TBD. They would have been completely open to the parking lot, and because everyone was turning to look at JFK as they passed, ALL the people that were around the #8 on the map would have been facing them and would have likely been able to see a muzzle blast.
It is just not feasible that a sniper would stand behind a fence with on concealment to fire shots on the POTUS.
good post, I'll review. my first comment is though, there was certainly live eye witness testimony about it, which is evidence. it may not be credible, but it certainly is evidence. There are death bed statements too, etc. , and i recall all the old fuzzy 'guy in the bushes' photos; again, maybe not credible, i dont have an opinion, but certainly evidence.
that's the only reason why i made such a definitive 'that is false' statement. no offense intended. i also recall lots of other evidence people have thrown out over the years.
Sure, just based on acoustics, there were people that got the location of the shots wrong. That's fine. Earwitness testimony isn't really reliable testimony as every Karen on Nextdoor example shows us.
No one saw a muzzle blast there. There was no cover, no concealment there. It was an active stockyards, so there were likely people working there or people that moved to the fence to see the cars pass by. I don't doubt that it could be a place someone tried to watch, but I will say it was absolutely a terrible sniper's nest for a large number of reasons.
Here's a shot as the motorcade took off after Kennedy was hit before Clint Hill even reached the rear bumper. This is the picture that is supposed to find the hidden guy over the fence. Find him.
Also in this picture, the people on the grassy knoll are just standing there watching. If there was someone that shot from just over the fence, do you think they would just be standing there watching? People close to the shots ducked for cover, but these people would theoretically be a couple dozen feet from the gun blast, and they are just standing there? I don't think that is plausible. Maybe someone stopped and frozen in fear, but every single person not reacting at all from a gun shot that just flew over their head? Seems not very likely.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
The shots from the sixth floor down onto Elm street would not have been that difficult either, not for a halfway decent marksman.
Iam a halfway decent marksman. I've been on shooting teams throughout my life. That angle, 6 stories up, moving vehicle? Yeah, that's a very tough shot. Bolt action twice? Very very tough shots.
My personal theory is that two different unrelated things were going on at that particular time and place.
Not a good day to be President
-------
-------
-----
Master Sergeant James Zuhn, head of firearm training for the entire Marine Corps and Major James Anderson, , head of marksmanship training for the USMC disagree with you on the difficulty of the shot.
Geez, those people are standing with their hands in their pockets like absolutely nothing happened…
That's one piece of evidence I believe shows that there was not a shooter at the grassy knoll. I don't think that many people stand around with their hands in their pockets and watch if a 6.5mm rifle was fired a few times from 10-30 feet behind them.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
I'm watching the show now. Typical Oliver Stone take - just throw out "maybe gee that could be suspicious" statements, one after another, to build up a giant mountain of circumstantial evidence.
I don't find LHO killing JFK by himself as terribly outrageous. I DO find the idea that the FBI, CIA and Pentagon put together a giant conspiracy to kill POTUS and kept it secret extremely outrageous.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
Edit, found the sling:
Yeah, I think the implication was that this might have been 2 different rifles.
The larger implication being that the rifle LHO posed with was not the same one found in the TBD, and thereby raising the bigger conspiracy theory.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
Edit, found the sling:
Yeah, I think the implication was that this might have been 2 different rifles.
The larger implication being that the rifle LHO posed with was not the same one found in the TBD, and thereby raising the bigger conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I guess. He has to find little inconsequential things to put together, and probably ignores that it was the same model LHO ordered. For someone that was as poor as LHO was, using rope and maybe finding a little strap later isn't that big a deal.
You have to misdirect with junk like that when the facts and evidence aren't on your side.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
Edit, found the sling:
Yeah, I think the implication was that this might have been 2 different rifles.
The larger implication being that the rifle LHO posed with was not the same one found in the TBD, and thereby raising the bigger conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I guess. He has to find little inconsequential things to put together, and probably ignores that it was the same model LHO ordered. For someone that was as poor as LHO was, using rope and maybe finding a little strap later isn't that big a deal.
You have to misdirect with junk like that when the facts and evidence aren't on your side.
I'll need to go back and watch this part again. It wasn't so much about what the sling was, but where it was attached to the rifle. Attachment points being on the bottom of the barrel and bottom of the stock on the posed photos, but attached to the side of the stock on the one found in the TBD.
If true, it does seem odd that this detail would change. Could be some explanation that we'll never know I guess.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
Edit, found the sling:
Yeah, I think the implication was that this might have been 2 different rifles.
The larger implication being that the rifle LHO posed with was not the same one found in the TBD, and thereby raising the bigger conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I guess. He has to find little inconsequential things to put together, and probably ignores that it was the same model LHO ordered. For someone that was as poor as LHO was, using rope and maybe finding a little strap later isn't that big a deal.
You have to misdirect with junk like that when the facts and evidence aren't on your side.
I'll need to go back and watch this part again. It wasn't so much about what the sling was, but where it was attached to the rifle. Attachment points being on the bottom of the barrel and bottom of the stock on the posed photos, but attached to the side of the stock on the one found in the TBD.
If true, it does seem odd that this detail would change. Could be some explanation that we'll never know I guess.
Here's a less used photo and it looks like the rope is attached to the side of the butt, just like the sling.
I've always been fascinated by this event. Was in second grade when it happened, and still have a scrapbook my mom made at the time.
Soup, one thing that was new to me in this documentary was where the straps attached on the rifle. Under the barrel and stock in the LHO posing photos, and attached further up on the stock when the gun was being flashed after it was discovered in the TBD.
Did I just miss something on that, or is that a true anomaly?
Pic of Oswald in April 63
Pick of found rifle:
In the April picture, it looks like he has a piece of rope tied on it. When it was found, it had a leather strap, which was actually a belt thing for a pistol, I believe.
I'm guessing he just found a buck to buy a strap at an Army Surplus sometime between April and November. Is there some weird conspiracy tied around this?
No, no conspiracy that I know of. But just one of the "anomalies" that are mentioned in the show. I just hadn't heard/read of this one before.
Yeah, I guess just an anomaly. Unless someone was trying to say it was a different rifle all together than the one LHO bought, but just having a different sling doesnt mean much. Surprised he included it in a short docu on this.
Edit, found the sling:
Yeah, I think the implication was that this might have been 2 different rifles.
The larger implication being that the rifle LHO posed with was not the same one found in the TBD, and thereby raising the bigger conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I guess. He has to find little inconsequential things to put together, and probably ignores that it was the same model LHO ordered. For someone that was as poor as LHO was, using rope and maybe finding a little strap later isn't that big a deal.
You have to misdirect with junk like that when the facts and evidence aren't on your side.
I'll need to go back and watch this part again. It wasn't so much about what the sling was, but where it was attached to the rifle. Attachment points being on the bottom of the barrel and bottom of the stock on the posed photos, but attached to the side of the stock on the one found in the TBD.
If true, it does seem odd that this detail would change. Could be some explanation that we'll never know I guess.
Here's a less used photo and it looks like the rope is attached to the side of the butt, just like the sling.
Yeah, it does look like that. Thanks. I need to watch that part again to see how it is presented.
