Guitarsoup said:Overpass has the same problem. No cover, it is a harder shot because now you have everyone looking at you while you do it and it is MUCH farther away.cbr said:i see your point on the knoll. i also recall hearing theories about someone under the overpass,Guitarsoup said:cbr said: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.Guitarsoup said:There is actually no evidence whatsoever of a second gunman from the front.TCTTS said:Sapper Redux said:schmidthead said:
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.
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.
https://www.history.com/news/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-theory-debunked
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.
Fatal shot location was about the #5 on the yellow car. Only now all the cops/agents are looking directly at you as they drive. They are probably going to see the muzzle blast. Doesn't make sense.Quote:
in a car, in the bushes, even one of the SS members.... dont really remember being convinced by any of that, but there are other possibilities.
There is no evidence of someone in the bushes and it has the same implausibilities of the Grassy Knoll theory. Plus, how do you get out of there with a rifle? Police rounded up all kinds of people and swarmed the area right away.
The SS agent in the following car is by far the dumbest theory ever.
That car had 6 people in it and four agents holding on to the side. That car included JFK buddies Emory Roberts and Ken ODonnell. You can see in this pic, Clint Hill on the JFK car in the foreground as they drive away and SA George Hickey with the AR in the rear seat of the follow limo. That car had 10 people in it and was directly behind JFK's car. All 10 people were either special agents or war veterans. Do you think that Hickey would be able to fire his rifle right next to all those guy's ears and then they see Kennedy's head blow up, and not one reacts or takes the gun? They wouldn't know it was an accident. Again, the dumbest theory and completely without merit. Especially since the rifle would be fired right next to Kennedy's best friends, but they never did or said anything about it?Quote:
i also seem to recall that the autopsy was botched and photos and report covered up, and theories that the exit wounds were not consistent with Oswald, but i dont remember the details.
The autopsy was a mess and certainly not up to current standards. As a medical photographer, I actually have to participate in some autopsies. Not my favorite job. We do have pictures in addition to the writings. One of the most difficult things is that they had to perform a tracheotomy on Kennedy and they used the exit wound to do so, damaging any evidence in the process.
So yeah, the autopsies were pretty much a mess, but had more to do with incompetence than anything else.I think that people may have "wound up " Oswald. "Man, I wish that SOB was dead!" but I don't think anyone would plan anything with him.Quote:
i do remember thinking that oswald's history, connections, and the various motives made it unlikely, extremely unlikely to me, that he was acting on his own, even if he was acting alone in doing the actual shooting.
No one in the world liked him - not even his family. He was unhinged, the US didn't want him, the Russians didn't want him and no one trusted him because he was a wacko. If it was the CIA, why not use their own highly trained people? Why bring in a loose canon you can't account for. Oswald was dumb and crazy. Same with the Russians. Or the Mafia. They had their own people that they trusted that handled things like this.
Oswald was barely able to keep a job moving boxes of books. He was brash and volatile. He's not the type of person that anyone would use to plan an assassination. Especially not organizations that specialize in planned assassinations.
I won't disagree that I think a lot of people wanted JFK dead, but wishing he was dead and acting on it are two very different things. And of all the people in the world one would want to work with, LHO seems like about the last person anyone would want, because no one had any reason to trust him.
*** JFK REVISITED: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS *** (Documentary)
26,022 Views |
349 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by TCTTS
NPH- said:Sorry I missed your debunking -- I need to scroll back and look at it. I'm very interested to see how it is debunked, as at the time when I heard that theory it sounded very compelling and plausible to me. This topic has me hooked as of late and I'm trying to read more and more into it.Guitarsoup said:NPH- said:
While I believe Oswald was the original gunman -- I fully subscribe to the theory that the fatal shot was in fact from the secret service agent trailing the presidential limousine. I forget the agent's name (may be Kellerman?), but whoever it was that was holding the rifle in the car behind the limousine was in fact the "2nd gunman". I do not believe it was intentional, but in fact an accident. If I remember the testimony correctly, the agent's finger was on or near the trigger of the rifle in an a low ready position. Furthermore, testimony was received that acknowledged the trail car lunged forward during acceleration, and witnesses testified that a muzzle blast was seen immediately afterward. It is assumed that the agent may have accidentally fired his rifle at the time the car lunged forward, which was the final shot that did the most damage ("back & to the left") of the President.
If I can find the documentary that discussed this possibility I will share with the group.
I'm sorry, but of ALL the crazy theories out there, if you take the time and map it out, this is the only one that makes sense. The agent (and/or agents) involved immediately afterward when the President was taken to Parkland worked immediately to cover this up.
edit: sppellling bee hard
I've debunked that several times including on this thread if you scroll back.
Mortal Error is the book and it's complete nonsense
I don't think this theory is out of the question at all.
Guitarsoup, you obviously have spent a lot of time on this topic and know significantly more than the average joe with regards to available theories out there (and more so than me), so I very much commend you on that. However, your argument that the SS agent accidental firing being the dumbest theory out there doesn't hold a lot of weight, outside of the fact that yes, you are right, it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
Trust me when I say this, I'm not arguing with you at all, I'm simply trying to better understand possible theories, other than saying it's the dumbest theory out there. Donahue offers some compelling evidence.
Trust me when I say this, I'm not arguing with you at all, I'm simply trying to better understand possible theories, other than saying it's the dumbest theory out there. Donahue offers some compelling evidence.
No chance in hell that 10 guys that are veterans of WWII and Korea have an AR 15 go off within inches of thier ears and they mistake it for being 250 feet away. They don't react.Quote:
it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
And if that guy accidentally had the AR go off while he is riding high, he doesn't sit down in the seat or do something else? He's riding away with the gun at ready high.
Just ridiculously implausible.
My evidentiary problem with this theory is that there would be way more eyewitnesses saying the shots came from multiple locations (do the two rifles even sound similar?), it also creates an additional shot by Oswald that is unaccounted for because the evidence we have is that he fired three times. Oswald therefore would have missed the entire limo with two separate shots.
I guess they could planted evidence of an extra shot by Oswald, but then you're running into just a weird massive conspiracy of people who would have known or suspected that this happened and then hushed it up for really no reason.
Circumstantially nobody reacted as if this is where the bullet came from either when watching the tapes and pictures.
I guess they could planted evidence of an extra shot by Oswald, but then you're running into just a weird massive conspiracy of people who would have known or suspected that this happened and then hushed it up for really no reason.
Circumstantially nobody reacted as if this is where the bullet came from either when watching the tapes and pictures.
There would be a natural human reaction not just to the noise, but also to the pressure differential. If you've ever stood even 90 degrees left or right of the muzzle of an AR-15, you can feel the pressure. There's no way someone doesn't flinch immediately.Guitarsoup said:No chance in hell that 10 guys that are veterans of WWII and Korea have an AR 15 go off within inches of thier ears and they mistake it for being 250 feet away. They don't react.Quote:
it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
And if that guy accidentally had the AR go off while he is riding high, he doesn't sit down in the seat or do something else? He's riding away with the gun at ready high.
Just ridiculously implausible.
And we have hundreds of people interviewed.Buck Compton said:There would be a natural human reaction not just to the noise, but also to the pressure differential. If you've ever stood even 90 degrees left or right of the muzzle of an AR-15, you can feel the pressure. There's no way someone doesn't flinch immediately.Guitarsoup said:No chance in hell that 10 guys that are veterans of WWII and Korea have an AR 15 go off within inches of thier ears and they mistake it for being 250 feet away. They don't react.Quote:
it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
And if that guy accidentally had the AR go off while he is riding high, he doesn't sit down in the seat or do something else? He's riding away with the gun at ready high.
Just ridiculously implausible.
None. Not one said a shot came from a car.
The show about this had 2 things that justified his claim. One was the smell of gunpowder at the overpass. He claims that only a shot from someone in the motorcade could have produced that. And he said that there were witnesses along the route that claimed that the car behind Kennedy was exchanging gunfire. He said that they were never called to testify.Guitarsoup said:And we have hundreds of people interviewed.Buck Compton said:There would be a natural human reaction not just to the noise, but also to the pressure differential. If you've ever stood even 90 degrees left or right of the muzzle of an AR-15, you can feel the pressure. There's no way someone doesn't flinch immediately.Guitarsoup said:No chance in hell that 10 guys that are veterans of WWII and Korea have an AR 15 go off within inches of thier ears and they mistake it for being 250 feet away. They don't react.Quote:
it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
And if that guy accidentally had the AR go off while he is riding high, he doesn't sit down in the seat or do something else? He's riding away with the gun at ready high.
Just ridiculously implausible.
None. Not one said a shot came from a car.
People can believe what they want, but to think that an accidental shot from a secret service agent hit the president at the same exact time that an assassin is shooting at the president is way beyond coincidental. Not the stupidest theory, but right up there.
Smells are also a memory thing. Something can trigger you to smell something that you aren't actually smelling. Dallas in the 60s, so lots of people had experience with shooting, hunting or wars (Korea/WWII were ten and twenty years before.) The sound of it could definitely trigger a smell memory. If the rifle was accidentally fired from 3-400 feet away from the overpass, not sure the smell of gunpowder would actually carry there.safety guy said:The show about this had 2 things that justified his claim. One was the smell of gunpowder at the overpass. He claims that only a shot from someone in the motorcade could have produced that. And he said that there were witnesses along the route that claimed that the car behind Kennedy was exchanging gunfire. He said that they were never called to testify.Guitarsoup said:And we have hundreds of people interviewed.Buck Compton said:There would be a natural human reaction not just to the noise, but also to the pressure differential. If you've ever stood even 90 degrees left or right of the muzzle of an AR-15, you can feel the pressure. There's no way someone doesn't flinch immediately.Guitarsoup said:No chance in hell that 10 guys that are veterans of WWII and Korea have an AR 15 go off within inches of thier ears and they mistake it for being 250 feet away. They don't react.Quote:
it would be seemingly implausible to assume that not one of the other 9 people in that car would have seen, heard or felt something if in fact that gun had been fired. Although I would contend, an assassination attempt on the President seems implausible as well, until it is not. To your point, would it be a fair assessment to assume that in that chaotic scene, there is a slight chance that they all very easily could have been distracted or fraught with concern and possibly mistaken an accidental firing of the SS agent's weapon for blind shooting from a snipers nest? In other words, if you were out in the open in a follow car, shots ring out nearby and overhead, is it safe to assume that you would not be 100% aware of all things around you?
And if that guy accidentally had the AR go off while he is riding high, he doesn't sit down in the seat or do something else? He's riding away with the gun at ready high.
Just ridiculously implausible.
None. Not one said a shot came from a car.
People can believe what they want, but to think that an accidental shot from a secret service agent hit the president at the same exact time that an assassin is shooting at the president is way beyond coincidental. Not the stupidest theory, but right up there.
In any event, a lot of these conspiracy theories rely on "well, there was this mystery witness that wasn't interviewed or their interview was suppressed.
Posner was on Hannity's show on Fox News for a few minutes tonight., as an FYI. Minor but interesting comments on a new CIA doc. I guess the episode can be reproduced later.
Edit: It was actually on Carlson. Sigh.
Edit: It was actually on Carlson. Sigh.
Why tf are 10,000 pages of related docs still classified?
One of the more compelling arguments for the "mortal error" is that you don't get two different bullet effects from the same rifle. One bullet passed right through and one blew up.
Howard Donahue was the only marksman who could get three accurate shots off in 5.3 seconds, and it took him three attempts!
5.3 was wrong, it's 8.6-11.2.mrmill3218 said:
Howard Donahue was the only marksman who could get three accurate shots off in 5.3 seconds, and it took him three attempts!
Lots of people have duplicated the shots multiple times. I posted an entire documentary about it earlier in the thread.
That MIGHT be compelling, except tests have duplicated the results.mrmill3218 said:
One of the more compelling arguments for the "mortal error" is that you don't get two different bullet effects from the same rifle. One bullet passed right through and one blew up.
Guitarsoup said:5.3 was wrong, it's 8.6-11.2.mrmill3218 said:
Howard Donahue was the only marksman who could get three accurate shots off in 5.3 seconds, and it took him three attempts!
Lots of people have duplicated the shots multiple times. I posted an entire documentary about it earlier in the thread.
Yep. North of 8 seconds. And given he has however much time he wants for the 1st which starts the clock, it's more like getting 2 off in 8+ seconds. There was an eyewitness to the head shot that saw LHO take a decent moment to really line up his shot
It was a 6mm bullet hole in the head. A 6.5mm bullet wouldn't fit.
DannyDuberstein said:Guitarsoup said:5.3 was wrong, it's 8.6-11.2.mrmill3218 said:
Howard Donahue was the only marksman who could get three accurate shots off in 5.3 seconds, and it took him three attempts!
Lots of people have duplicated the shots multiple times. I posted an entire documentary about it earlier in the thread.
Yep. North of 8 seconds. And given he has however much time he wants for the 1st which starts the clock, it's more like getting 2 off in 8+ seconds. There was an eyewitness to the head shot that saw LHO take a decent moment to really line up his shot
May I ask where the 8+ seconds and maybe up to 11 seconds theory come from?
Found the clip of Posner on Carlson's show a few days ago.
Guitar, I apologize if you've posted it already, but what is your definitive theory of the JFK assassination?
Okay, finally watched the whole show. Guitar, let's put aside whether LHO was the lone assassin. In all of your readings on the subject, do any of the other aspects of the affair trouble you? The myriad questions abut the autopsy and the magic bullet, the supposed assassination plans in two other cities, LHO's bizarre backstory, the Warren Commission's handling of their investigation and report. Any of that stuff strike you as wrong/conspiratorial?
Thanks for your massive contribution to this thread.
Thanks for your massive contribution to this thread.
I think that LHO committed it alone, and there isn't any evidence to support any other theory. Most other theories rely on conjecture and pulling things out of context, while fabricating or ignoring known evidence or testimony.NPH- said:
Guitar, I apologize if you've posted it already, but what is your definitive theory of the JFK assassination?
I don't think anything is definitive and there will always be tons of questions surrounding it. But from what we know, this is what we have.
Lee Harvey Oswald almost certainly committed the assassination on his own. Three shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository, one of which hit both Kennedy and Connolly and one of which was the fatal headshot to Kennedy. No other set of circumstances fits the evidence.
The idea that there was a conspiracy behind the actions of Oswald are unsupported but there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence or claims. However, much of that circumstantial evidence also conflicts with itself and does not paint anything close to a clear picture. I believe the most likely reason for the assassination is that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lunatic, rather than that he did it at the behest of some shadowy group or another, but its impossible to rule out that possibility. At the end of the day, yeah there are lots of red flags about Oswald and Ruby in particular, but the reality is that these were crazy people, doing crazy people things. It would be weirder to me if they didn't have a bunch of other weird bull**** in their past. I think it is much weirder for a guy like Stephen Paddock where basically he was "kinda normal" and where we still know almost nothing at all about the motivations behind the Las Vegas shooting. Whereas, Oswald was clearly on a very unhinged escalation in terms of both his politics and his violent behavior leading up to and after the assassination.
The idea that there was a conspiracy behind the actions of Oswald are unsupported but there is a large amount of circumstantial evidence or claims. However, much of that circumstantial evidence also conflicts with itself and does not paint anything close to a clear picture. I believe the most likely reason for the assassination is that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lunatic, rather than that he did it at the behest of some shadowy group or another, but its impossible to rule out that possibility. At the end of the day, yeah there are lots of red flags about Oswald and Ruby in particular, but the reality is that these were crazy people, doing crazy people things. It would be weirder to me if they didn't have a bunch of other weird bull**** in their past. I think it is much weirder for a guy like Stephen Paddock where basically he was "kinda normal" and where we still know almost nothing at all about the motivations behind the Las Vegas shooting. Whereas, Oswald was clearly on a very unhinged escalation in terms of both his politics and his violent behavior leading up to and after the assassination.
Gonna have to watch this soon.
I have always enjoyed reading about the assassination, I thought Stone's movie was entertaining at least (if not fictional in many ways), and have been to Dealey Plaza and the TBD building. I'm curious why would Oswald not have taken a shot as the motorcade approached the TBD building rather than waiting until they were speeding away. Not doubting an ability to make the shots as history says they were made, but to me (not a Marine, not a sniper) it seems the headshot as the target is approaching would be easier.
As for the assertion that the assassination is no joking matter, I leave you with this:
I have always enjoyed reading about the assassination, I thought Stone's movie was entertaining at least (if not fictional in many ways), and have been to Dealey Plaza and the TBD building. I'm curious why would Oswald not have taken a shot as the motorcade approached the TBD building rather than waiting until they were speeding away. Not doubting an ability to make the shots as history says they were made, but to me (not a Marine, not a sniper) it seems the headshot as the target is approaching would be easier.
As for the assertion that the assassination is no joking matter, I leave you with this:
Absolutely. We know the CIA and FBI were up to no good in lots of things. CIA tried to assassinate (unsuccessfully) lots of foreign leaders. The FBI was illegally surveilling and blackmailing people like MLK. I think there were tons of abuses of government power all over the place.Agristotle said:
Okay, finally watched the whole show. Guitar, let's put aside whether LHO was the lone assassin. In all of your readings on the subject, do any of the other aspects of the affair trouble you?
*** Autopsy ***Quote:
The myriad questions abut the autopsy and the magic bullet, the supposed assassination plans in two other cities, LHO's bizarre backstory, the Warren Commission's handling of their investigation and report. Any of that stuff strike you as wrong/conspiratorial?
There are certainly a lot of troubling aspects to it. I think we see something similar today with the federal vs state muscle flexing. But ultimately, it was Jackie that chose Bethesda, and the preeminent expert from Walter Reed's pathology department on GSWs attended, witnessed and testified about it.
There are some concerns about it, but the fact that Jackie Kennedy pushed for it to be at Bethesda against the advice she was given quells some of the issues with it. I don't think anyone believes Jackie was in on a conspiracy there. Ultimately, we had multiple experts there that had long and respected careers in the pathology field.
It certainly wouldn't be how we would expect it to go today, but we can't really use a 2021 lens for the actions nearly 60 years ago. I've had the unfortunate opportunity to be part of many autopsies as a medical photographer and from what I have read about the JFK one, I know it wouldn't be done like that today. But we can't apply conspiracy to it because things were handled differently 60 years ago and we have significantly more knowledge today than we did then.
*** Single Bullet ***
I think enough recreations have been done with the ammo and the rifle to that show a single bullet could have easily entered JFK, had no major impact with anything but soft tissue, then hit Connally, who was a few feet in front of him.
The implications of it NOT being a single bullet that hit JFK's back/neck and then Connally's back/chest are much more concerning.
* If Connally was shot in the back, what did the bullet hit first to cause it to tumble and enter vertically?
* If JFK was shot in the neck, where was the shot fired from?
* If JFK was shot in the neck, where did the bullet end up? We know there was a wound in his back, but it the bullet not causing a hole in the Limo seat or trunk is ridiculous.
* What would the odds of two shots (JFK neck and Connally Back) being fired at precisely the exact same moment?
* With multiple coordinated shooters, where is the evidence? We have none.
* We have three fired rounds from the TBD by Oswald's gun, where did they all end up?
* ~90% of eyewitnesses in DP heard 3 or fewer shots. Adding a shot makes it four or more. How did hundreds of people, including dozens of war veterans and trained federal agents and police officers get it so wrong?
* There was no place in front of the fatal shots with good cover. You had an uncovered bridge with tons of people and a fence of a public parking area that was a working train switch yard with people nearby. Neither is an acceptable sniper's nest. There are no other places in front of the motorcade where any shots would be possible and those places would be much more difficult shots than the Oswald shots from the TBD.
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is likely correct. For a coordinated attack with multiple shooting locations, it instantly becomes a MUCH more complicated operation than one guy hiding behind a bunch of boxes. With more complications, more likelihood of failure or witnesses.
*** Warren Commission ***
We have a lot more knowledge and ability to test and do things now than we did then. We've also had things come to light that they didn't have access to. Ultimately, I think they got it right and the House Select Committee on Assassinations a decade and a half later came essentially to the same conclusion.
There will always be things that don't make sense or rabbit holes with no end. I think that is just a factor of the chaotic and poor investigation by the FBI and DPD. You can see DPD walking around with the gun with ungloved hands. I don't think that was malicious, just ignorant.
But you also have to consider that the people doing that probably wanted to do their best. No one WANTED to **** up the biggest investigation of their career. And it is preposterous to think that every DPD, Secret Service and FBI agent working on the investigation was in on a conspiracy, as many would need to be in on it before the actions even occurred, since it started immediately as the gunshots fired out.
Unquestionably, lots of mistakes were made, especially through a lens of today's standards. But nearly 60 years later, we do not have evidence pointing to any other conclusion other than Oswald did it. We have lots of questions like you posted here.
"Doesn't this seem fishy?" Yeah, it kind of does. Does that mean it is evidence? Nope. And that is exactly what most conspiracy theories rely on. There are always going to be weird coincidences or occurrences with any major case.
*** Oswald's Weird life ***
This helps me support the theory that Oswald was a lone nut more than anything. The Soviets didn't want him. The Cubans' didn't want him. His schools didn't want him. His jobs didn't want him. The Marines' didn't want him. His wife didn't want him. He was an unhinged loser that had a lot bigger opinion of himself than literally everyone he had met at any point in his life. We have data dating back to his grade school that he was unhinged, a poor student, prove to violent outbursts, etc. Does that seem like the type of person the CIA or KGB or Castro would trust with a hit on the most powerful man in the world? This is a guy that assaulted his superior officer in the Marines, accidently (or purposely) shot himself, had been committed to a mental health institution, had attempted suicide, etc. I wouldn't trust him to do my laundry.
Just some random coincidences from this case that happened:
* If the motorcade never turned on Houston, but just went down Main St to the triple overpass, LHO wouldn't have had an easy shot on Elm.
* LHO was scheduled to be transported at 10am, when Ruby was at home. Oswald demanded a shirt or sweater, holding up the transport so he wouldn't be in his undershirt and would look respectable for his Perp Walk. If Oswald was transported at the scheduled time, Ruby would have been at home. But it was Oswald that demanded things holding up the transport.
* Oswald wanted a different job in a different part of town. He didn't get that because they called his previous boss. The family that was boarding Oswald's estranged wife called and got Oswald the job at the TBD, which gave him that location. Was that little homemaker in on the conspiracy to get Oswald a job that had a perfect sniper's nest?
Just tons of weird things had to fall in place for it to have happened. Sometimes the stars align for awful things to happen. Sometimes they don't (like Richard Reid the show bomber's feet being too sweaty to light the fuse.)
It's been fun.Quote:
Thanks for your massive contribution to this thread.
Ultimately, there just isnt' evidence that anything happened other than Oswald taking the shots.
Because as they approach, you have dozens if not hundreds of cops and federal agents looking directly at you rather than being behind them. Fire once and they will instinctively look up and see the rifle. Aiming at a target moving towards you is more difficult than a target moving away at a slow speed going down hill.Quote:
. I'm curious why would Oswald not have taken a shot as the motorcade approached the TBD building rather than waiting until they were speeding away. Not doubting an ability to make the shots as history says they were made, but to me (not a Marine, not a sniper) it seems the headshot as the target is approaching would be easier.
Good point - no way to hide once that first shot is let loose.
The Warren Commission itself didn't even really pontificate on exactly when the first shot occurred, but said it would have been at least 2.3s before the second shot and that the entire sequence would have taken at least 5.6 seconds and as much as 8.3 seconds. The 5.6s was just the WC saying the minimum time that would be needed, not what actually happened.Bighunter43 said:DannyDuberstein said:Guitarsoup said:5.3 was wrong, it's 8.6-11.2.mrmill3218 said:
Howard Donahue was the only marksman who could get three accurate shots off in 5.3 seconds, and it took him three attempts!
Lots of people have duplicated the shots multiple times. I posted an entire documentary about it earlier in the thread.
Yep. North of 8 seconds. And given he has however much time he wants for the 1st which starts the clock, it's more like getting 2 off in 8+ seconds. There was an eyewitness to the head shot that saw LHO take a decent moment to really line up his shot
May I ask where the 8+ seconds and maybe up to 11 seconds theory come from?
So you can get the 8 second time from the Warren Commission.
House Select thought the first shot was at Z158, which would be 8.5 seconds.
Posner thinks the first shot was Z160, which is 8.4-5s. Lubin had it at 8.4-8.8s in Shooting Kennedy.
Zapruder had another clip, he stopped the video and started again. The theory that the first shot happened earlier is that the first shot may not have been captured as the 2nd and 3rd shots were. The clip we are familiar with started at Z133. Had the first shot happened before that and was not captured, Oswald had 11.2 seconds to fired off shots two and three after this first shot was taken. Z133 was after the JFK Limo had already completed its turn on Elm.
Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell's testimony:
Mr. HUBERT - When did you observe anything at all relative to the shooting of the President?
Mr. CABELL - Well, we were just rounding the corner of Market and Elm, making the left turn, when the first shot rang out.
Mr. HUBERT - Would you describe what you saw or heard, please, sir?
Mr. CABELL - I heard the shot. Mrs. Cabell said, "Oh a gun" or "a shot", and I was about to deny and say "Oh it must have been a firecracker" when the second and the third shots rang out. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots. They were in rather rapid succession. There was no mistaking in my mind after that, that they were shots from a high-powered rifle.
Mr. HUBERT - Are you familiar with rifles so that your statement that it was your opinion it came from a high-powered rifle was that of a person who knows something about it?
Mr. CABELL - I have done a great deal of hunting and also used military shoulder guns, as well as hunting rifles.
Mr. HUBERT - Were you in the armed services during the war?
Mr. CABELL - No; I was not, but there was no question in my mind as to their being from a high-powered rifle and coming from the direction of the building known as the School Book Depository.
Mr. HUBERT - That you judged, I suppose, by the direction from which you thought the sound came?
Mr. CABELL - Right.
Mr. HUBERT - Could you estimate the number of seconds, say, between the first and second shots, as related to the number of seconds between the second and third shots? Perhaps doing it on the basis of a ratio?
Mr. CABELL - Well, I would put it this way. That approximately 10 seconds elapsed between the first and second shots, with not more than 5 seconds having elapsed until the third one.
Mayor Cabell (who attended A&M briefly) thought there was 15 seconds total between the first and third shots.
Senator Ralph Yarborough testified that there was twice as much time between the second and third shots as between the first and second shots.
We have multiple witnesses beyond just the Senator and Mayor that said there is significantly more time between shots 1 and 2 than 2 and 3.
We know shot three was at Z313. We can tell that Kennedy has already been hit by shot 2 a Z223-225. That's about 90 frames at 18.3 frames per second or 4.9 seconds. WC Vol5 P 159 has the Zapruder Camera tests that pinpoint it at recording at 18.3fps.
Z158-160 as Posner and others say would be about 65 frames in between the first and second shots. That is significantly shorter than between the second and third shots. But it would still be 3.55 seconds between shots 1 and 2, plus 4.9 seconds between 2-3 and that gives us 8.5 seconds.
But if the multiple witnesses that put it as longer between the first and second shots than the second and third shots, we are looking at closer to 11 seconds. 11-4.9 = 6.1 seconds between first and second shots. Not double the amount of time like Cabell said, but it is a noticeably longer interval.
Some people try to shrink it to below 5 seconds and the evidence we have just doesn't support that. From Zapruder and the witness testimony, it is likely that it was between 8-11 or possibly more seconds from the time of the first shot until the time the third shot was fired.
Having 5 seconds to line up a second shot and a third shot when they are ~60 and ~80 yards away and you have a 4x scope from a comfortable, elevated position is pretty easy for most experienced shooters, but for a Marine Sharpshooter, it should have presented no problem at all.
If we want to believe that Oswald nicked the traffic pole with the first shot, that pole would have been in his crosshairs 1.3s before Zapruder turned on his camera. Posner doesnt believe that because he thinks there would have been more of a metal sound from the bullet hitting it, which is why he puts it around Z160.
The Warren Commission recognized that the first shot may have occurred BEFORE the Zapruder film started:
A shot at that point (with the street light causing a deflection) would be 1.4s before Zapruder started and 11.2s for the entire sequence.
So an 11-11.5 second shot sequence was clearly considered by the Warren Commission, but the definitive total time of shots wasn't a point of emphasis for the Commission, only if it was possible for Oswald to fire all shots in the amount of time. They concluded it was possible and all evidence points to it being 8-11.5 seconds of time for three shots to be fired.
Edit: Z = Zapruder Film and the number is the specific frame from the Zapruder film. So Z313 is the 313 frame of Zapruder Film where the headshot occurs.
The autopsy wasn't the best one ever conducted as I think we can all agree on. They measured the whole in the scalp without shaving his head and said it was 6mm with a corresponding hole in the skull. We don't even know if the skull entrance was properly measured or if they just put up a tape and got an approximation.mrmill3218 said:
It was a 6mm bullet hole in the head. A 6.5mm bullet wouldn't fit.
Do we know that they were making sure all measurements were accurate down to a tenth of a millimeter? Doubtful.
Could the skin have shrunk in the 9-12 hours between death and autopsy? Absolutely. Is skin elastic? Also yes.
From this pathology article, you can read how some gunshots have smaller diameters than their caliber round due to elasticity in the body. It spends more time on handguns, because rifle deaths are exceedingly rare.
NSFW: Has multiple autopsy photos: https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsgunshotwounds.html
If you want me to go into more details about the elasticity of the human body, I can explain where babies come from.
Too bad this requires an add-on subscription to Amazon…it looks really good!
Save your money.West Point Aggie said:
Too bad this requires an add-on subscription to Amazon…it looks really good!
Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:As an ER physician that has cared for hundreds of GSWs, I can say with great certainty that any ER physician claiming to know definitively what was an entrance wound and what was an exit wound is typically FoS. It is why we don't document "entrance" or "exit" wound in our documentation because we do not have anywhere near the expertise to make that determination. Now there are plenty of times where I suspect a wound is an "entrance" or "exit" wound, but I am not an expert on that and I highly doubt Perry was either. So regardless of his opinion on the matter, it is pretty much irrelevant.mrmill3218 said:
It seems like Perry only flipped his entrance/exit wound theory after getting some heavy pressure from the secret service. He admitted later to a surgeon friend that it was absolutely an entrance wound.
I fully endorse this with similar credentials as the poster.
60 year anniversary bump
Totally forgot about this, and especially about the know-it-alls in this thread. Reminds me of the many people who were utterly convinced, in the most condescending fashion, that we would NEVER fire Jimbo this season, that the buyout $$$ wasn't there, etc. Why people choose to speak in absolutes on certain matters will never not baffle me.
I haven't watched it yet, but I saw Bill Simmons mention this earlier tonight…
Also: the recent revelation that s secret service agent found a bullet in the limo’s back seat (and kept quiet about it until 2023) was a big deal. https://t.co/fKG4EULdzk
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) November 23, 2023
Featured Stories
See All
51:38
17h ago
7.6k
Week 12's Overnight Sensation: Marcel Reed, Quarterback
by Kay Naegeli
4:32
1h ago
433
Highlights: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by TexAgs Studios
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
StrickAggie06
Should DJ Be Able To Play Loud Music Between Plays?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
43
WestAustinAg
Should DJ Be Able To Play Loud Music Between Plays?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Just My Own Thoughts On Last Night, Where We Are As a Program, and Sip Coming Up Sat
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27