Who killed JFK?

[FallRate 0]

Quade, I honestly don't mean to be argumentative here.

That said, I am talking about someone reproducing the same speed and accuracy with the same (model of) rifle under the same circumstances (moving target and such). As far as I know, and I am fairly confident in this, it has not been done. At least if it has, it isn't widely known. If it has been accomplished, I won't take it as an offense to my position. I would actually like to know. But I won't accept speculation as truth.

Peace!

FallRate

[quade 4]

Quote

Care to post a link to this?

It's in the TV special.

They have Oswald's scoresheets.

A LOT of people claim Oswald was a poor marksman, but looking at his scoresheets pretty much disproves that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Exactly. Not trying to argue either, but every documentary I have ever seen on him and articles I've read stated he was mediocre at best. He did score a "sharpshooter" I believe on one of his marksmanship tests, but anyone whose ever been in the military knows that is not a difficult feat...and certainly a far cry from making those impossible shots from the book depository.

Forty-two

[quade 4]

Quote

and certainly a far cry from making those impossible shots from the book depository.

That sentance alone tells me how much the conspiracy theories have brainwashed the American public.

The shots aren't "impossible", but as long as you keep using that language, you're going to believe they are.

BTW, HERE is the web site of the guy that did the 3D animations used in the special.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Ok, here you go.

Scoresheets

To confirm what I stated previously, here are some excerpts from that link...

"To become qualified as sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. "

"and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot"

I stated these quotes because those never serving in the military may think "sharpshooter" is some Super-Sniper or something. It's not. Far from it.

FBI sharpshooters tried shooting the same target that people claim Oswald shot at the same moving target, distance and weapon and NONE of them could successfully hit the target in the time frame and accuracy.

Forty-two

[Guest]

People just can't bring themselves to believe that one nut with a rifle can turn the world upside down.

mh

[tunaplanet 0]

Yes we can

Forty-two

[quade 4]

Quote

FBI sharpshooters tried shooting the same target that people claim Oswald shot at the same moving target, distance and weapon and NONE of them could successfully hit the target in the time frame and accuracy.

Had they lived, sighted in and practiced with the rifle as obviously Oswald could have? Were they anywhere as familiar with it as he could have been?

Not really all that scientific of a test, but again, I'm almost certain that people have reproduced the results well enough so that it's just not a stumbling block to the lone gunman theory.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

These FBI snipers were probably far better marksman. I say probably because I don't want to state my opinion as fact. However, Oswald BARELY qualified as a "sharpshooter", which as I stated earlier is not hard to obtain.

Another problem with the lone gunman theory is the timetable. It is impossible for someone to shoot the target in the timeframe he was shot. Here's a great link to a site explaining.

Here

Forty-two

[Faber 0]

i dunno,it wasnt me i were born 1976

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[usedtajump 1]

I know it isn't "sexy" to think that LHO, alone, could possibly have carried off the killing of the President of the US for no more reason than "he wanted to" but that's what happened.

Forty years later and there is still no solid proof that it happened any other way. Yes, there are some strange things that had to happen to have it go down the way it did but hell, strange things happen all the time and no conspiricy is involved. Forty years later, what difference does it make. Let everyone involved rest in peace and get on with something that matters.

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

People just can't bring themselves to believe that one nut with a rifle can turn the world upside down.

Oh I believe one nut with a rifle, or a pistol (like Sirhan Sirhan) can change the sourse of history. But I still can't believe that anyone could shoot so quickly and accurately with a WWI vintage Mannlicher Carcano rifle. It was NOT a semi automatic, Oswald had to open and close the bolt action before each and every shot, all the while re-aiming or maintaining his aim. I do think he was ONE of the gunmen, but not the only one. And there can be no disputing that Oswald shot a Dallas cop dead at point blank range with a pistol the same day.

I recently had the misfortune of encountering an autopsy photo of JFK in a book a crime photos. I don't recommend anyone looking at the picture either, it's horrific. Kennedy's head is tipped off the end of the table with his brain hanging loose out the opened backside of his head. His face is visible and recognizable. So how do you get that from a rear entry wound ? Wouldn't a shot from behind have blown out his face (sorry to put it this way, but it's a relevant question) ?

One of the cable networks did a factoidal "expose" that supposedly nailed the conspiracy on LBJ, working with the mob and the FBI. It made a rather interesting case, though I think it's extreme and highly irresponsible to accuse a former President of the United States of offing his predecessor. They wouldn't have dared do it while LBJ or Lady Bird were still living. But I wouldn't put it past LBJ either, this was the guy who promised the voters that our boys shouldn't be dying for a war that Vietnamese boys should be fighting for themselves.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[quade 4]

Story from at least one person that says it's possible.

http://www.snipercountry.com/field.htm

You'll have to scroll down to near the bottom of the page to find this note:

Quote

Many people have duplicated the conditions of the JFK assassination and proven that a good rifleman could make the same shots. Many conspiracy theorists point to some statement by an "expert" who claimed that nobody could fire an old Mannlicher-Carcano that fast. Whoever made that statement was just full of crap.

Two or three years ago at a shooting match in Ohio (?) the organizers recreated this scenario with a tower, moving target, and an old Mannlicher-Carcano with a cheap scope. Practically everyone who entered the match did just as well as Oswald and several did better. The top shooter was left-handed -- just like Oswald! Others point to the fact that Oswald was only an average marksman while in the Marines. So what? The only record on my DD 214 regarding shooting skill was the "Marksman" score I shot in basic training. That was the first time I qualified. I did it with an abused basic training issue M16. There is no record of the many times I shot "expert" or of my "advanced marksmanship training" , as the Army refers to it -- hehehe! A real sniper shoots his best under pressure or when he's shooting with a purpose. The sight picture becomes a part of you, connected to your brain, and there is no way you are going to miss.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

No one has ever duplicated the exact performance Oswald supposedly did. Carlos Hathcock, perhaps the most experienced and absolute best sniper of all time tried himself under the EXACT same conditions and could not come close. Here is an excerpt he quoted from a book.....

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of
Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior
instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at
Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous
American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited
with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper
schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about
the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren
Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald
could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We
reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the
range, the moving target, the time limit, the
obstacles, everything. I don't know how many
times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what
the Warren Commission said Oswald did. (KILL ZONE,
pp. 89-90)



Many people have tried to duplicate it. There have been many false claims of succeess like Quade claims he read, but the claims Quade lists have never been done under the exact same conditions with the same rifle (and trigger).

As mentioned, no rifle test has ever included all of the factors
under which Oswald would have fired. What would, therefore,
constitute a valid "Oswald" rifle test? What would a test need
to include in order to qualify as a genuine simulation of
Oswald's alleged shooting feat? Such a test would include the
following conditions:

* The riflemen cannot have scored above the level of
"Sharpshooter" in the Marines (or in the Army).

* The riflemen must have little target practice during the forty
days prior to the test.

* The riflemen must have been known to be somewhat uncoordinated
while in the Marines (or in the Army).

* The riflemen cannot have any "practice shots" on the day of the
test.

* The riflemen must use the alleged murder weapon itself, or
another Carcano with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull.

* If a different Carcano is used, it must be established, by
expert shooters who fire the rifle just to see how fast it can be
operated (with or without minimal accuracy), that the weapon
cannot be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot.

* The target silhouette must be mounted on a car.

* The car carrying the target must be the same size and shape as
Kennedy's limousine.

* There must be a tree that is the same size as the oak tree in
Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and that is in the same position in
relation to the window and the road on which the target car is
moving.

* The riflemen must fire from a window that is open by no more
than 15 inches.

* The window from which the riflemen shoot must have two pipes to
its left on the inside. These pipes must be positioned so that
they inhibit the riflemen from firing markedly to their right.
(To get an idea of the degree to which the pipes would have
inhibited a sharply rightward shot, see Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE, New
York: Carroll & Graf, 1989, seventh photo page, and Robert
Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, New York: Viking Studio
Books, 1993, p. 125; cf. Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH,
New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993, second page of second photo set.)

* The riflemen must fire from an elevation of 60 feet.

* The riflemen must score at least two hits out of three shots in
less than 6 seconds ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, then they must
so misaim their first shot that they COMPLETELY MISS the target
car.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, not only must
they completely miss the target car with their initial shot, but
they must also score at least two hits out of their next two
shots ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, they CANNOT
deliberately miss the entire target car with their first shot (or
with any shot, for that matter), but must miss the whole car
without trying to do so.

* The target car must travel the same speeds that the limousine
was traveling, and at the appropriate points, from frames 140-313
of the Zapruder film.


The conditions listed above are entirely factual and will not be
disputed by anyone familiar with the assassination. Personally,
I would add the following two factors, which, though supported by
good evidence, are disputed by lone-gunman theorists:

* The riflemen must have a shield of boxes behind them that
allows them no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel and fire.
(Photos of the supposed sniper's nest show that a gunman would
have had no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel.)

* The riflemen must fire two of their shots in no more than 1.5
seconds. (Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that
two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost
simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a
single burst from an automatic rifle.)


In conclusion, as I stated earlier, many have claimed to duplicate the shots, but never with the same rifle (and trigger) nor under the same conditions. Even the most experienced snipers in the world were unsuccessful.

Forty-two

[quade 4]

Again, I gotta go back to my original admission that if your saying the conditions must be -exact-, even down to unintentionally missing on the first shot, somehow being in perfect sync with the Zapruder film, . . . well, shit howdy, I guess you got me.

It's just not a stumbling block to the lone gunman theory.

I mean, get serious, there are a vast number of events that have never been reproduced "exactly" for evidentiary purposes. That doesn't mean they didn't happen and there was a conspiratorial coverup.

Apollo 1
Apollo 13
Challenger
Columbia

None of these were "duplicated exactly", but it's a pretty safe bet we know about as much as is worth while about them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Blahr 0]

I dont see Gilligan on the list...

[lawrocket 3]

Let's dispel some myths:

1) A guy cannot make 3 shots in eight seconds with a bolt action rifle. Sure he can. Shoot. Wait four seconds. Shoot again. Wait four seconds. Shoot again. 3 shots, 8 seconds. That's plenty of time to operate bolt, breathe, relax, aim, squeeze.

2) Impossible on a moving target. Well, the first shot missed. Second shot went through neck and Gov. Connelly. The presidential driver slowed down to a near halt to see what was going on. Stopped target. BANG! First shot? It was deflected by a large oak tree (and a fragment of concrete hit a witness).

3) Shot distance of 150 feet too far. I challenge any military man to say a man can't hit a head sized target with IRON sights at 50 yards with a rifle. I've been to Dealey, and I've seen the area. It's a VERY easy shot.

4) The "magic bullet" was "pristine." Wrong. It wasn't magic. Jacketed bullets are designed to drill through people, especially those sitting 1 foot from each other. It also was deformed. See attachment.

5) Kennedy's head snapped back, therefore the shot came from the front. Wrong. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human physiology would understand the error of that statement. Example? When was the last time a person with a seizure did so by curling up into a fetal position? No! They straighten up?

Why? Because when there is trauma to the central nervous system, the seizure affects the whole body, with the strongest muscles (in the shoulder and the neck) predominating. Thus, when half Kennedy's head was shot off, a seizure goes through and he straightens.

On top of that, the post-mortem shows clearly defined entranc and exit wounds that show a rear entry, and no reconstructive surgeon could fix that and fool an x-ray.

6) Oswald couldn't have done it. I think this seems to be the biggest reason for the conspiracy stuff. Nobody wants to believe that this cracker could have killed the President because he wanted to. He did.

Any questions?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tunaplanet 0]

If it's possible, how come no Marine sniper (including the famous Carlos Hathcock) and many other world-class shooters have never repeated a performance under the exact same conditions? The lone gunman fanatics love to point to certain tests stating it has, but never under the same conditions. Hell, forget all of the circumstances, just do it with the same rifle, condition it was in, distance, moving target and the time frame. Even that hasn't been repeated. The tests that were succsessful were always lacking an important aspect such as same weapon, distance, time frame, etc...

As far as the head jerking back, you are insane. In the Navy I have never seen my shot hit a man and his body lunge/jerk TOWARDS me. I have seen countless videos and real-life incidents of people getting shot and never in all of my experience seen a man get shot from behind and his head jerk backwards...just as I have never seen someone get shot from the front and have their head jerk forward. May want to take that physics class again. You can state and quote laws of physics until the sun goes down, but in real life people don't react that way when shot. When you are shot in the back of the head your head goes forward...from the front it goes back. Simple.

Forty-two

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Oswald -- lone gun man -- get over it.

ditto

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[base515 0]

Oswald wasn't the only gunman.

You guys get over it.

May we live long and die out

[lawrocket 3]

Tuna:

Where was the shot? In the head? Center mass? If in the head, the body will spasm.

And laws of physics? How about Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez and his demonstartion of the "jet effect?" Google it. Furthermoree, look at the Zapruder film. See that motorcycle officer on Kennedy's right? Yeah, at the 3 o'clock? If the shot came from the front, how did his windshield get splattered unless the blood and flesh blew forward out an exit wound.

And, FYI, analysis of the film showed that his head DID move forward for a fraction of a second. Then, all hell broke lose in his nervous system (what was left of it after he was placed in Thorburn's position by the second shot. Look that up, too.

I can quote physics and human physiology. If a doctor tests your reflexes by hitting your knee, why does it kick back the opposite direction? By your logic, should it not go forward?

Finally, why does post-mortem show entry in rear, exit in front?

When shot from front to back in the head, the head goes backward. When back to front - in the head - the head goes backwards.

As for dupliating the shot, where were the Marines aiming? Center mass? Head? Neck? Hathcock was the greatest sniper ever. But, was his aim the same as LHO's? How about the rest of the snipers? And, if you are telling me that all of these snipers could not hit a target from 50 meters, I'd say that Army training is better.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Sheenster303 0]

Why should this matter? It was over and done with over 40 years ago. Just let it go. No one may ever know and everything you guys are saying is pure speculation. No one knows if you are right or wrong so don't get in an argument about it please.

I'm so funny I crack my head open!

P.M.S. #102

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

But, was his aim the same as LHO's?

LMAO. That right there tells me all I need to know. No sense in arguing with you.

Forty-two

[Dougjumper 0]

I saw the Tv deal back a few weeks ago. Yea..Peter Jennings really done a good Job reporting the new Computer findings...but..Do you all really Trust our Government about the Report??? Something to really think and look more into...Search the Heck out of it..once you put more info together...the more I really dont trust our Government...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

But, was his aim the same as LHO's?

LMAO. That right there tells me all I need to know. No sense in arguing with you.

Exactly! IN other words, you are agreeing that the conditions cannot be reproduced.

We don't know whether LHO was aiming center mass of the head, do we? If so, he missed twice. Yet, got a kill.

Think about it that way, and we see how easy it is to kill a president.

And, tell me, why did the post-mortem show entry in back, exit on front?

My wife is hotter than your wife.