JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Ross Lidell on February 25, 2019, 11:53:15 PM
-
This topic was inspired by another: "Oswald's rifle capability".
Naive Conspiracy Theorists demonstrate their gullibility and deceptiveness: Any attempted reconstruction of an aspect of the assassination that fails to meet time constraints is proof that it could not possibly have been accomplished by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Such as: A world-class shooter could not fire 3 shots with a rifle similar to Oswald?s Carcano in less than 6 seconds; let alone hit the target 2 out of 3 times.
As part of the debate: A video clip from Jesse Ventura?s ?Conspiracy Theories? was posted as proof that the shots attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission could not be accomplished with the Carcano Rifle C2766. Ventura (a US military trained expert) used an almost identical firearm to attempt to equal Oswald?s feat but with an easier goal of hitting ?stationary? targets. Ventura failed to meet the time constraint, taking 11 seconds to fire 3 shots. A frustrated Jesse Ventura derided the bolt-action mechanism [tradesman blames his tools] as the reason for his failure. Ventura made the preposterous suggestion: ?If I can?t do it, no one can do it?.
I?ve seen the sequence previously and was suspicious that Ventura intentionally failed to operate the rifle to his maximum capability--to prove the story?s point. In other words: Ventura was operating below his capacity as a Marine-trained rifleman so as to reach a predetermined outcome. This is always a possibility with experts who "fail" after claiming "it's not possible".
I posted this comment, which has been avoided by Freeman [who started the topic and posted the clip] and other top intellects on this forum.
What about the possibility that Jesse Ventura... sorry, Governor Ventura: Was not trying to fire the shots as quickly as he was capable of? After all, the shooter is a former professional wrestler. Pro Wrestling is acknowledged (even by Ventura) as FAKE! Why should we trust a renowned faker?
I suggest the comment was ignored because it cannot be challenged with the usual distortions and silliness of CT believers demanding an impossible standard of proof. Showing a video clip of Ventura failing proves ?nothing?. Showing Ventura succeeding would have proved ?something?: That the type of rifle could be fired rapidly enough for Oswald to work the bolt-action and fire the shots.... in less than 6 seconds. Other aspects of the shooting sequence (on 22 November 1963) would remain ?a matter of opinions?.
Assessing Oswald?s rifle-shooting skills ?after the event? is futile. It will annoy conspiracy theorists to be told: A lucky shot (or 2 lucky shots) was possible... however unlikely.
-
Marine Sniper , Carlos Hathcock was asked about LHO being able to pull off the shots that killed jfk and Hathcock said they set up a replica at Quantico and that nobody could duplicate the so called shots that Oswald was said to have pulled off .
https://www.plaintruth.com/.../jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
-
Marine Sniper , Carlos Hathcock was asked about LHO being able to pull off the shots that killed jfk and Hathcock said they set up a replica at Quantico and that nobody could duplicate the so called shots that Oswald was said to have pulled off .
https://www.plaintruth.com/.../jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
That link does not open a webpage. As assassin John Wilkes Booth said: "Useless, useless".
-
That link does not open a webpage. As assassin John Wilkes Booth said: "Useless, useless".
Try this, Ross
https://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
-
Of course, we never know whether a person is really trying to do something well. But the fact remains that there is scant record of people being able to duplicate the feat with ease.
-
That link does not open a webpage. As assassin John Wilkes Booth said: "Useless, useless".
You wouldn't believe it anyway .....Lidell.
-
You wouldn't believe it anyway .....Lidell.
I don't believe it for a very good reason: Insufficient information.
-
Try this, Ross
https://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
Thanks Ray.
Interesting site... but no details of the Quantico reconstruction of the shooting sequence attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
Of course, we never know whether a person is really trying to do something well. But the fact remains that there is scant record of people being able to duplicate the feat with ease.
What are the "facts"?
What is the "scant record"?
What are the precise details of "the feat"?
What is "with ease"?
-
I don't believe it for a very good reason: Insufficient information.
Who cares about what someone says? If one is of the belief the shooting can be accomplished, then good for them. Talk about theories, right off the bat, to say something is possible is meaningless. Anything is possible. How about probable?
-
Who cares about what someone says? If one is of the belief the shooting can be accomplished, then good for them. Talk about theories, right off the bat, to say something is possible is meaningless. Anything is possible. How about probable?
Possible and probable can be linked.
Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Possible is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, no matter how difficult the shots attributed to Oswald, he was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
-
Possible and probable can be linked.
Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Possible is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, no matter how difficult the shots attributed to Oswald, he was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
I'm 100% certain that Oswald probably did it.
-
Possible and probable can be linked.
Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.
-
Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.
Ignoring your "assertions" about non-ownership of the rifle (C2766) by Lee Harvey Oswald: It's probable that the owner/possessor of the assassination weapon was the assassin. With no physical evidence of another (or if it pleases you... alternative) assassination weapon: It's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
It "follows" that the shots attributed to the sole assassin were possible... because we have no physical evidence of any other weapon (or bullets fired from it).
Reconstructions by experts who do not believe Oswald is the assassin are suspect because "failure" can be intentionally achieved to suit a predetermined "negative" outcome.
Alternately, reconstructions by a believer in Oswald's guilt entails striving for "success". A deliberately sub-standard performance will prove them wrong.
Of course, it's possible that a believer in Oswald's innocence might pose as an impartial "seeker of truth" and influence the reconstruction accordingly.
As you know John: To a believer in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy... anything is possible.
-
Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.
Well, certainly not to those who want to isolate and separate single pieces from the whole, and then announce that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
-
Well, certainly not to those who want to isolate and separate single pieces from the whole, and then announce that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
That's the raison d'etre of Conspiracy Theorists.
You wouldn't want them sitting on a jury when you were the defendant accused of a serious crime.
Hmmm... then again you would!!!
-
That's the raison d'etre of Conspiracy Theorists.
You wouldn't want them sitting on a jury when you were the defendant accused of a serious crime.
Hmmm... then again you would!!!
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald: [Smirk]
-
This topic was inspired by another: "Oswald's rifle capability".
I?ve seen the sequence previously and was suspicious that Ventura intentionally failed to operate the rifle to his maximum capability--to prove the story?s point.
I posted this comment, which has been avoided by Freeman [who started the topic and posted the clip] and other top intellects on this forum.
What about the possibility that Jesse Ventura... sorry, Governor Ventura: Was not trying to fire the shots as quickly as he was capable of? After all, the shooter is a former professional wrestler. Pro Wrestling is acknowledged (even by Ventura) as FAKE! Why should we trust a renowned faker?
I suggest the comment was ignored because it cannot be challenged with the usual distortions and silliness of CT believers demanding an impossible standard of proof. Showing a video clip of Ventura failing proves ?nothing?.
Conveniently ignored [and probably wasn't even read] is this bit in that thread. ?They co[the US Army marksmen] could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation?: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.443.
According to the FBI?s firearms specialist, ?Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. ? We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.?: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405.
***Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: ?There were several comments made ? particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. ? There was also comment made about the trigger pull ? in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.?: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.449. ?The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.?: ibid., p.451.
Now, let's just start another thread and single out Jesse Ventura as a fake and Ross Lidell has all his back slapping BFFs attaboys...wannabe experts with their thumbs up. I wonder if any of you guys ever fired a rifle. I have my doubts.
***Just like Mr Ventura experienced in that video.
-
Possible and probable can be linked.
Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Possible is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, no matter how difficult the shots attributed to Oswald, he was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Maybe you should read what you typed. Enough with the philosophical bs.
"no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists"?
Sure, you are exactly wrong.
Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.
Actually, let me help you...it does not start after the first 2 letters or after 36 hrs.
It's amazing what a person would have to believe to say something is possible and then pass it off to others as probable.
-
Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.
Amen!!
-
Ignoring your "assertions" about non-ownership of the rifle (C2766) by Lee Harvey Oswald: It's probable that the owner/possessor of the assassination weapon was the assassin. With no physical evidence of another (or if it pleases you... alternative) assassination weapon: It's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
Then you have a bizarre concept of what constitutes "probable".
As you know John: To a believer in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy... anything is possible.
To a believer in the WC myth, anything is possible. Lucky shots, magic bullets, moving back wounds, disappearing bags, disappearing initials, reappearing palmprints, "mistaken" witnesses. Whatever it takes.
-
Well, certainly not to those who want to isolate and separate single pieces from the whole, and then announce that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.
And who exactly announced that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way?
-
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald: [Smirk]
Is this like the hundredth time you've repeated this lame joke?
Cop: Trust me, Oswald did it
Mr. Chapman: Guilty as charged!
Cop: [Smirk]
-
Is this like the hundredth time you've repeated this lame joke?
Cop: Trust me, Oswald did it
Mr. Chapman: Guilty as charged!
Cop: [Smirk]
Have you ever wished that there was a time machine that could take us back to Sunday 11/ 24 63 ....and it was Bill Chapman that was being led out to meet Jack Ruby.... If Ol Chappedass had been in Lee's shoes....you can bet he'd be singing a different tune.
-
Of course, we never know whether a person is really trying to do something well. But the fact remains that there is scant record of people being able to duplicate the feat with ease.
Not enough facts to eliminate the possibility that Oswald made the shots. Too generalized to merit any serious consideration.
-
Conveniently ignored [and probably wasn't even read] is this bit in that thread. Now, let's just start another thread and single out Jesse Ventura as a fake and Ross Lidell has all his back slapping BFFs attaboys...wannabe experts with their thumbs up. I wonder if any of you guys ever fired a rifle. I have my doubts.
***Just like Mr Ventura experienced in that video.
Are you saying Jesse Ventura is not "a fake"?
Why didn't Governor Ventura make another attempt to achieve the shooting sequence faster?
Ventura "probably" knew that other shooters have fired a sequence of shots with a Carcano rifle much faster.
I like Jess: He's funny. However... a lot of what he says (and does) should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Maybe you should read what you typed. Enough with the philosophical bs.
"no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists"?
Sure, you are exactly wrong.
Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.
Actually, let me help you...it does not start after the first 2 letters or after 36 hrs.
It's amazing what a person would have to believe to say something is possible and then pass it off to others as probable.
An incorrect identification of a rifle (the 6th floor TSBD assassination weapon) without examining it is not evidence of a second rifle. Seymour Weitzman is on the record as saying: "I made a mistake but it was an honest mistake".
There is no evidence (physical or circumstantial) of a second weapon in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you think there is: Name the individual who removed a Mauser rifle from the TSBD; date and time as well.
-
Amen!!
Walt,
You're confirming that JFK "conspiracytheoryium" is a religion.
-
Then you have a bizarre concept of what constitutes "probable".
To a believer in the WC myth, anything is possible. Lucky shots, magic bullets, moving back wounds, disappearing bags, disappearing initials, reappearing palmprints, "mistaken" witnesses. Whatever it takes.
There's a lot of misinformation in those statements, John.
Looking at your new avatar, I'm assuming you will say: "The devil made me do it".
-
Why didn't Governor Ventura make another attempt to achieve the shooting sequence faster? Ventura "probably" knew that other shooters have fired a sequence of shots with a Carcano rifle much faster.
Still ignored are the recorded statements of the US Army marksmen who testified that the weapon that was found... was in summary --a seriously unreliable piece of crap. Therefor this thread should not even be------------------ taken with a grain of salt.
That would be too much salt. Upon what do you base Oswald's supposed 'skill' as a competent shooter?
-
Still ignored are the recorded statements of the US Army marksmen who testified that the weapon that was found... was in summary --a seriously unreliable piece of crap. Therefor this thread should not even be------------------ That would be too much salt. Upon what do you base Oswald's supposed 'skill' as a competent shooter?
So the US Army marksman offered an "opinion" that the rifle (C2766) was "a seriously unreliable piece of crap". That opinion would be more credible if it was accompanied by a detailed explanation. That it was not, renders it of no merit.
Basis of Oswald's skill as a competent shooter: Training and assessment of marksmanship ability while in the US Marine Corp. Oswald attained the status of "Sharpshooter".
Prove to me that it is not possible for an unskilled, incompetent shooter to achieve a fluke hit (twice) on a moving target at close range?
-
So the US Army marksman offered an "opinion" that the rifle (C2766) was "a seriously unreliable piece of crap". That opinion would be more credible if it was accompanied by a detailed explanation. That it was not, renders it of no merit.
Basis of Oswald's skill as a competent shooter: Training and assessment of marksmanship ability while in the US Marine Corp. Oswald attained the status of "Sharpshooter".
Prove to me that it is not possible for an unskilled, incompetent shooter to achieve a fluke hit (twice) on a moving target at close range?
So an opinion validating a lone assassin is merited..but one that doesn't is not? OK :-\ A typical ODIA viewpoint.
It was four years before the assassination that the sharpshooter qualification was attained and it was made at a fixed target with a vastly superior weapon. I'm supposed to prove that someone's little sister could have pulled off that event? That is making it sound like a shooting gallery at some carnival.
-
So an opinion validating a lone assassin is merited..but one that doesn't is not? OK :-\ A typical ODIA viewpoint.
It was four years before the assassination that the sharpshooter qualification was attained and it was made at a fixed target with a vastly superior weapon. I'm supposed to prove that someone's little sister could have pulled off that event? That is making it sound like a shooting gallery at some carnival.
Jerry,
Thanks for using the acronym ODIA. I initiated that on the earlier iteration of this forum.
You can deride Oswald's shooting skills as much as you like. It does not prove that he did not fire the shots attributed to him by the Warren Commission (and the HSCA).
This is a serious question Jerry.
Would you ride down Elm Street in Dealey Plaza--in a 1961 Lincoln Continental Convertible limousine sitting in the passenger's side rear seat--with me up on the 6th floor SE Corner TSBD shooting at you with a Carcano rifle?
-
An incorrect identification of a rifle (the 6th floor TSBD assassination weapon) without examining it is not evidence of a second rifle. Seymour Weitzman is on the record as saying: "I made a mistake but it was an honest mistake".
There is no evidence (physical or circumstantial) of a second weapon in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you think there is: Name the individual who removed a Mauser rifle from the TSBD; date and time as well.
Thanks for the answer I would only expect to get from a group of gossiping teenage girls.
If you want to play games at least try to be good at it.
Ross, I didn't say Mauser until they said, Mauser. That is where I am.
What was your first and only Lawbook, Ross? "Simon Says"
-
Thanks for the answer I would only expect to get from a group of gossiping teenage girls.
If you want to play games at least try to be good at it.
Ross, I didn't say Mauser until they said, Mauser. That is where I am.
What was your first and only Lawbook, Ross? "Simon Says"
What you expect, Pete, might be influenced by your personality, mindset and other characteristics unique to you.
That would not stand up in court.
Ross, I didn't say Mauser until they said, Mauser. That is where I am.
What is this meant to convey?
-
What you expect, Pete, might be influenced by your personality, mindset and other characteristics unique to you.
That would not stand up in court.
Ross, I didn't say Mauser until they said, Mauser. That is where I am.
What is this meant to convey?
Making the rules up as you go along.
Example Mauser Explanation= oh I forgot, Seymour said it was an honest mistake. All fixed now.
Guess what? No trial No Guilt
-
Making the rules up as you go along.
Example Mauser Explanation= oh I forgot, Seymour said it was an honest mistake. All fixed now.
Guess what? No trial No Guilt
Illogical musings abound. :o
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being in the TSBD?
Those are legitimate questions that arise when someone claims there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD.
-
Illogical musings abound. :o
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being in the TSBD?
Those are legitimate questions that arise when someone claims there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD.
They certainly are legitimate questions for you to ask of those who started this. First, you will need to find out who Seymour's eye doctor was.
-
They certainly are legitimate questions for you to ask of those who started this. First, you will need to find out who Seymour's eye doctor was.
Dodging.
Why do you believe the Mauser story without any evidence to assess its credibility?
-
Basis of Oswald's skill as a competent shooter: Training and assessment of marksmanship ability while in the US Marine Corp. Oswald attained the status of "Sharpshooter".
In 1956. Right after 3 weeks of intensive training. With an M-1. At a stationary target.
-
In 1956. Right after 3 weeks of intensive training. With an M-1. At a stationary target.
That's correct John.
Do you believe that alone proves it's impossible for Oswald to make the "kill" shots attributed to him by the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
If it's YES, explain why?
-
Dodging.
Why do you believe the Mauser story without any evidence to assess its credibility?
So now you think acting dumb as a fox is a sure win.
"Hey, everybody, Seymour said it was "an honest mistake"!
He sure does not speak to it being anything other than a Mauser at all in his WC testimony.
Flimsy Shame on you
-
So now you think acting dumb as a fox is a sure win.
"Hey, everybody, Seymour said it was "an honest mistake"!
He sure does not speak to it being anything other than a Mauser at all in his WC testimony.
Flimsy Shame on you
He wasn't asked to speak to any other rifle
-
So now you think acting dumb as a fox is a sure win.
"Hey, everybody, Seymour said it was "an honest mistake"!
He sure does not speak to it being anything other than a Mauser at all in his WC testimony.
Flimsy Shame on you
I'm unimpressed by a personal attack rather than a reasoned reply with facts. :'(
"Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range". [Warren Commission Report Page 645]
In 1967 Seymour Weitzman was interviewed for the CBS Investigation shown over three nights on network television. Seymour Weitzman is on the record as saying: "I made a mistake but it was an honest mistake".
Weitzman could have described the rifle as a Bazooka for all I care. The rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963 was a Carcano C2766.
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
-
I'm unimpressed by a personal attack rather than a reasoned reply with facts. :'(
"Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range". [Warren Commission Report Page 645]
In 1967 Seymour Weitzman was interviewed for the CBS Investigation shown over three nights on network television. Seymour Weitzman is on the record as saying: "I made a mistake but it was an honest mistake".
Weitzman could have described the rifle as a Bazooka for all I care. The rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963 was a Carcano C2766.
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
Any student who believes that the rifle that was found well hidden 15' 4" from the N. wall, beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on it, and surrounded by other boxes of books was a Mauser .....Need to think about these questions.....
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-
Why would anyone in the TSBD wait until the limo made the turn, when the easiest shot would have been frontal before it went onto Elm.
The answer to this is that the shooter was in the Dal Tex.
-
Why would anyone in the TSBD wait until the limo made the turn, when the easiest shot would have been frontal before it went onto Elm.
The answer to this is that the shooter was in the Dal Tex.
That's not a bad theory....Do you have an iota of evidence?
-
That's not a bad theory....Do you have an iota of evidence?
I have the same type of evidence, that the W.C produced to say Oswald fired from the 6th of the TSBD, It is none
but common sense upon weighing up everything about this case, show's the man was as innocent as sin, and he shot no one on that day.
It is obvious that whoever did shoot J.F.K, did not do it from the TSBD if he was going to do it, it's so much easier to fire as the car approached the building instead of moving away from it.
Would you not think so too?
-
Why would anyone in the TSBD wait until the limo made the turn, when the easiest shot would have been frontal before it went onto Elm.
Prompt return fire
-
Prompt return fire
Return of fire from who? the SS in the follow up car ( which was practically inline with the 6th floor window when the 1st shot was fired) or the cop across the street?
Not at all if Oswald done this he would not be concerned, about getting shot at, in fact he would have expected it, and would have taken his revolver to work as well, just in case he got into a close range firefight, with someone like officer Baker while on the way out of the building.
The reason for the shots being fired onto Elm was because it was not possible to hit close to the limo from the Dal Tex fixed firing point, until it made the turn.
-
That's not a bad theory....Do you have an iota of evidence?
Not a "bad" theory, Walt?
A silly theory based on "what could have happened" rather than "what happened".
-
Why would anyone in the TSBD wait until the limo made the turn, when the easiest shot would have been frontal before it went onto Elm.
The answer to this is that the shooter was in the Dal Tex.
The answer to this is: The shooter made his choice according to his own thoughts about how to achieve the dastardly task.
-
The answer to this is: The shooter made his choice according to his own thoughts about how to achieve the dastardly task.
Silly, the shooter in the Dal Tex with a rifle scope and tripod, had the help of Greer and a few others too
-
I have the same type of evidence, that the W.C produced to say Oswald fired from the 6th of the TSBD, It is none
but common sense upon weighing up everything about this case, show's the man was as innocent as sin, and he shot no one on that day.
It is obvious that whoever did shoot J.F.K, did not do it from the TSBD if he was going to do it, it's so much easier to fire as the car approached the building instead of moving away from it.
Would you not think so too?
Guilty as sin!!!
Innocent as:
-- a new born child.
-- the victim who was ruthlessly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald--for no good reason.
-
Guilty as sin!!!
Innocent as:
-- a new born child.
-- the victim who was ruthlessly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald--for no good reason.
I can't discuss common sense issues with anyone who can't tick outside of the box, you obviously are the type and are a bit like henny penny who sat under a tree, and an acorn fell on his head and he then believed the sky was falling down, so he went to tell the king
-
Silly, the shooter in the Dal Tex with a rifle scope and tripod, had the help of Greer and a few others too
Provide evidence of:
-- the shooter's specific position in the Dal Tex building.
-- the existence of a rifle, scope and tripod in the Dal Tex building.
-- Greer's motive to assist in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Oh and while you're at it: who are "the others".
-
I can't discuss common sense issues with anyone who can't tick outside of the box, you obviously are the type and are a bit like henny penny who sat under a tree, and an acorn fell on his head and he believed the sky was falling down
Your silly statement does not address my comment. The trademark behaviour of a low-intellect dodger.
-
I'm unimpressed by a personal attack rather than a reasoned reply with facts. :'(
"Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range". [Warren Commission Report Page 645]
In 1967 Seymour Weitzman was interviewed for the CBS Investigation shown over three nights on network television. Seymour Weitzman is on the record as saying: "I made a mistake but it was an honest mistake".
Weitzman could have described the rifle as a Bazooka for all I care. The rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963 was a Carcano C2766.
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
Lighten up Mr. Sensitive
You brought up Seymour, now you're back peddling and playing games.
The fact is you are alleging LHO shot JFK based on who knows what.
Admit it, you are lazy and would believe anything. You are the one with the story, now prove your story.
"What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?"
Don't ask me, that is your problem. How about what was the purpose of a Mannlichter being on the 6th floor? You think you got it all figured out, but are annoyed when asked about a Mauser. Goofey Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, and even Paul Harvey reported the name "Mauser". This went on well into the weekend and you claim it no big deal because of your Uncle Weitzman rationalization of it being an honest mistake
-
He wasn't asked to speak to any other rifle
There was one
-
Provide evidence of:
-- the shooter's specific position in the Dal Tex building.
-- the existence of a rifle, scope and tripod in the Dal Tex building.
-- Greer's motive to assist in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Oh and while you're at it: who are "the others".
Greer just like you was of British ancestory he would have hated J.F.K for his Irish catholic back round, and while slowing the car down for his fellow W.A.S.P conspirators who were in the Dal tex, facing directly down Elm, he helped them to have an easier target.
Liddell Name Meaning. Scottish and northern English: habitational name from any of various places in the Scottish Borders and Cumbria called Liddel, from the Old English river name Hl?de, meaning 'loud', + Old English d?l 'valley
https://www.houseofnames.com/liddell-family-crest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liddell
https://www.johngrenham.com/findasurname.php?surname=Liddell
-
Lighten up Mr. Sensitive
You brought up Seymour, now you're back peddling and playing games.
The fact is you are alleging LHO shot JFK based on who knows what.
Admit it, you are lazy and would believe anything. You are the one with the story, now prove your story.
"What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?"
Don't ask me, that is your problem. How about what was the purpose of a Mannlichter being on the 6th floor? You think you got it all figured out, but are annoyed when asked about a Mauser. Goofey Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, and even Paul Harvey reported the name "Mauser". This went on well into the weekend and you claim it no big deal because of your Uncle Weitzman rationalization of it being an honest mistake
Lighten up Mr. Sensitive
A personal (mild though it is) attack! Your interpretation is not justified based on my bland unemotional comments. If you can: Identify my words that indicate "sensitive"?
You brought up "the Mauser"... which is somewhat "off-topic".
Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.
I was obliged to address the issue of "another gun" which meant referencing Seymour Weitzman who discovered the assassination weapon.
Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
Ya (sic) can't tell us cos (sic) ya (sic) got nuthin (sic).
Alternately, you can admit that you don't believe there was a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963.
-
Greer just like you was of British ancestory he would have hated J.F.K for his Irish catholic back round, and while slowing the car down for his fellow W.A.S.P conspirators who were in the Dal tex, facing directly down Elm, he helped them to have an easier target.
Liddell Name Meaning. Scottish and northern English: habitational name from any of various places in the Scottish Borders and Cumbria called Liddel, from the Old English river name Hl?de, meaning 'loud', + Old English d?l 'valley
https://www.houseofnames.com/liddell-family-crest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liddell
https://www.johngrenham.com/findasurname.php?surname=Liddell
Interesting information Mike... thanks.
But you're still just "dodging".
Greer just like you was of British ancestory he would have hated J.F.K for his Irish catholic back round, and while slowing the car down for his fellow W.A.S.P conspirators who were in the Dal tex, facing directly down Elm, he helped them to have an easier target.
I get it: Protestants kill Catholics. That solves any crime when the victim is a Catholic and anyone remotely involved with him is a Protestant... he must be complicit in the crime. Brilliant reasoning.
Liddell Name Meaning. Scottish and northern English: habitational name from any of various places in the Scottish Borders and Cumbria called Liddel, from the Old English river name Hl?de, meaning 'loud', + Old English d?l 'valley
You got the wrong spelling. What about the unfortunate Lidell's who were born "mute"?
Now we can estimate personalities by Surnames!!! What about a woman who is a Lidell by marriage? Is her personality determined by her maiden name? A combination of husband's and wife's personalities?
Stick to the topic... you're confusing me.
-
Lighten up Mr. Sensitive
A personal (mild though it is) attack! Your interpretation is not justified based on my bland unemotional comments. If you can: Identify my words that indicate "sensitive"?
You brought up "the Mauser"... which is somewhat "off-topic".
Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.
I was obliged to address the issue of "another gun" which meant referencing Seymour Weitzman who discovered the assassination weapon.
Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
Ya (sic) can't tell us cos (sic) ya (sic) got nuthin (sic).
Alternately, you can admit that you don't believe there was a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963.
What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
C'mon .... Somebody who argues that the rifle ( carcano) was actually a Mauser must have some idea why they believe that the Mauser was switched, and all of the photos and films that clearly show the Carcano are all fakes.....
If Lee was set up as the Patsy, as I believe the evidence indicates....then what was the purpose of a mauser ...A rifle that was never associated with lee Oswald.
-
Stick to the topic... you're confusing me.
Why not just jump up and start another thread?
-
What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
C'mon .... Somebody who argues that the rifle ( carcano) was actually a Mauser must have some idea why they believe that the Mauser was switched, and all of the photos and films that clearly show the Carcano are all fakes.....
If Lee was set up as the Patsy, as I believe the evidence indicates....then what was the purpose of a mauser ...A rifle that was never associated with lee Oswald.
You and Oswald have a commonality.
To wit: You both were/are deranged possessors of a Carcano with an unhinged need to be a somebody.
-
Lighten up Mr. Sensitive
A personal (mild though it is) attack! Your interpretation is not justified based on my bland unemotional comments. If you can: Identify my words that indicate "sensitive"?
You brought up "the Mauser"... which is somewhat "off-topic".
Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.
I was obliged to address the issue of "another gun" which meant referencing Seymour Weitzman who discovered the assassination weapon.
Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).
A G A I N
If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:
-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?
-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?
-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?
Additionally the most important question of all:
-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Well?
Ya (sic) can't tell us cos (sic) ya (sic) got nuthin (sic).
Alternately, you can admit that you don't believe there was a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963.
Play games all you want. Change the subject all you want.
Off topic? Change the subject
Troll? Change the subject
What will be Ross's next straw man? It started with Jesse V
-
You and Oswald have a commonality.
To wit: You both were/are deranged possessors of a Carcano with an unhinged need to be a somebody.
I'm merely an American who still clings to the old fashioned, hackneyed .... "With liberty and JUSTICE for all"
I cling to the hope that we can bring justice to JFK and Lee Oswald..... ( probably futile in our corrupt and immoral America....)
-
That's correct John.
Do you believe that alone proves it's impossible for Oswald to make the "kill" shots attributed to him by the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
If it's YES, explain why?
No, I don?t think it?s impossible. I?m saying that the fact that he barely qualified as a sharpshooter 7 years earlier is mostly irrelevant. What?s the evidence that he actually fired the shots attributed to him?
-
Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).
That?s BS. You can acknowledge that evidence exists without having an ?explanation? for it. You think Oswald killed JFK, but can?t explain his motive for doing so.
-
That?s BS. You can acknowledge that evidence exists without having an ?explanation? for it. You think Oswald killed JFK, but can?t explain his motive for doing so.
Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?
Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:
1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.
2. When the victim of an assassination is the President of the United States (most would receive death threats every week): The motive is an aggrieved little "nobody" wanting to "bring down" a "somebody".
Even in the London mock trial of LHO: The defense attorney Gerry Spence did not push the "my client had no motive" ploy in his summation to the jury.
You want to know Oswald's motive for killing JFK? Ask Lee when you get to hell. Not being nasty to you John: You're dressed for it already. :D
-
Play games all you want. Change the subject all you want.
Off topic? Change the subject
Troll? Change the subject
What will be Ross's next straw man? It started with Jesse V
No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":
-- Some nefarious purpose?
-- A red herring?
-- An innocent coincidence?
There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.
It exposes the flaws in this theory.
Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.
There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:
1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.
2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.
See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. ::)
It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.
Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.
In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.
-
The motive is an aggrieved little "nobody" wanting to "bring down" a "somebody".
Doesn't hold water. The so called aggrieved-- denied everything...claiming no 'place in history'.
Besides --what does this really have to do with the topic?
It [This topic] exposes the flaws in this theory.
The theory that Oswald was pronounced guilty- therefor he is.
-
Doesn't hold water. The so called aggrieved-- denied everything...claiming no 'place in history'.
Besides --what does this really have to do with the topic? The theory that Oswald was pronounced guilty- therefor he is.
I made a response to John Iacolleti's comment because I don't want to be a "dodger".
Surely you have noted: On this forum, virtually every "new subject" quickly goes "off topic".
-
No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":
-- Some nefarious purpose?
-- A red herring?
-- An innocent coincidence?
There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.
It exposes the flaws in this theory.
Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.
There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:
1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.
2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.
See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. ::)
It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.
Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.
In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.
The theory that some person shot JFK as you claim is hilarious. You are unable to prove anything except you just maybe as much of a blowhard as your cousin Jesse V. I'm starting to think you spent too much time watching your cousin's show for a guy who is bothered by it. You are failing miserably at persuading me to believe you are serious and you're Mr. Serious. What time do you have to be back in your cell? Fair question, right?
-
The theory that some person shot JFK as you claim is hilarious. You are unable to prove anything except you just maybe as much of a blowhard as your cousin Jesse V. I'm starting to think you spent too much time watching your cousin's show for a guy who is bothered by it. You are failing miserably at persuading me to believe you are serious and you're Mr. Serious. What time do you have to be back in your cell? Fair question, right?
The theory that some person shot JFK as you claim is hilarious.
I never made the claim you "claim" I made about "some person" shooting JFK. Your sentence is close to being incomprehensible.
You are unable to prove anything except you just maybe as much of a blowhard as your cousin Jesse V. I'm starting to think you spent too much time watching your cousin's show for a guy who is bothered by it.
Branding me as being a relative of Jesse Ventura could be considered a "straw-man" argument. Hypocrite!!!
You are failing miserably at persuading me to believe you are serious and you're Mr. Serious.
I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm "serious" or persuade you in any way.
I'm trying to get you to provide some insight into why a Mauser rifle would be on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963. Your lack of curiosity suggests you don't know or care to know why?
The logical mind demands an explanation as to where a declaration then leads. This a standard procedure in an investigation.
The "Mauser is suspicious/relevant" claim goes back to Mark Lane's best-selling book "Rush To Judgement" (August 1966).
Lane and other authors were either unable or unwilling to put forward a coherent, plausible explanation as to why the Mauser would be part of a JFK assassination plot.
I thought you might possess some new insight into the "whys and wherefores" of the Mauser theory backed up by evidence or even just imagination. It looks like I was overestimating your ability. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
What time do you have to be back in your cell? Fair question, right?
Insults rather than responding to a challenge suggests an acknowledgement of defeat.
-
This topic was inspired by another: "Oswald's rifle capability".
Naive Conspiracy Theorists demonstrate their gullibility and deceptiveness: Any attempted reconstruction of an aspect of the assassination that fails to meet time constraints is proof that it could not possibly have been accomplished by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Such as: A word-class shooter could not fire 3 shots with a rifle similar to Oswald?s Carcano in less than 6 seconds; let alone hit the target 2 out of 3 times.
As part of the debate: A video clip from Jesse Ventura?s ?Conspiracy Theories? was posted as proof that the shots attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission could not be accomplished with the Carcano Rifle C2766. Ventura (a US military trained expert) used an almost identical firearm to attempt to equal Oswald?s feat but with an easier goal of hitting ?stationary? targets. Ventura failed to meet the time constraint, taking 11 seconds to fire 3 shots. A frustrated Jesse Ventura derided the bolt-action mechanism [tradesman blames his tools] as the reason for his failure. Ventura made the preposterous suggestion: ?If I can?t do it, no one can do it?.
I?ve seen the sequence previously and was suspicious that Ventura intentionally failed to operate the rifle to his maximum capability--to prove the story?s point. In other words: Ventura was operating below his capacity as a Marine-trained rifleman so as to reach a predetermined outcome. This is always a possibility with experts who "fail" after claiming "it's not possible".
I posted this comment, which has been avoided by Freeman [who started the topic and posted the clip] and other top intellects on this forum.
What about the possibility that Jesse Ventura... sorry, Governor Ventura: Was not trying to fire the shots as quickly as he was capable of? After all, the shooter is a former professional wrestler. Pro Wrestling is acknowledged (even by Ventura) as FAKE! Why should we trust a renowned faker?
I suggest the comment was ignored because it cannot be challenged with the usual distortions and silliness of CT believers demanding an impossible standard of proof. Showing a video clip of Ventura failing proves ?nothing?. Showing Ventura succeeding would have proved ?something?: That the type of rifle could be fired rapidly enough for Oswald to work the bolt-action and fire the shots.... in less than 6 seconds. Other aspects of the shooting sequence (on 22 November 1963) would remain ?a matter of opinions?.
Assessing Oswald?s rifle-shooting skills ?after the event? is futile. It will annoy conspiracy theorists to be told: A lucky shot (or 2 lucky shots) was possible... however unlikely.
Sadly for you Ross, you have never shown that LHO did fire the shots on November 22, 1963. The evidence simply doesn't support this contention.
-
I'm 100% certain that Oswald probably did it.
The fact that you use "probably" confirms that you realize that there is NO supporting evidence for the claim that LHO fired three shots.
-
Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald: [Smirk]
Nonsense. The part you are ignoring is that the OFFICIAL evidence doesn't support the contention that LHO fired three shots.
-
Sadly for you Ross, you have never shown that LHO did fire the shots on November 22, 1963. The evidence simply doesn't support this contention.
I'm not sad, Rob. Somewhere between neutral and slightly happy.
Incidentally, you're off-topic.
What about providing "supporting evidence" (proof) that the shot's attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission and HSCA are definitively impossible. Better still: Something that rebuts my conclusion that expert shooters (who are WC/HSCA conclusion doubters) "may not be trusted to try their best during shooting reconstructions".
-
The theory that some person shot JFK as you claim is hilarious.
I never made the claim you "claim" I made about "some person" shooting JFK. Your sentence is close to being incomprehensible.
You are unable to prove anything except you just maybe as much of a blowhard as your cousin Jesse V. I'm starting to think you spent too much time watching your cousin's show for a guy who is bothered by it.
Branding me as being a relative of Jesse Ventura could be considered a "straw-man" argument. Hypocrite!!!
You are failing miserably at persuading me to believe you are serious and you're Mr. Serious.
I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm "serious" or persuade you in any way.
I'm trying to get you to provide some insight into why a Mauser rifle would be on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963. Your lack of curiosity suggests you don't know or care to know why?
The logical mind demands an explanation as to where a declaration then leads. This a standard procedure in an investigation.
The "Mauser is suspicious/relevant" claim goes back to Mark Lane's best-selling book "Rush To Judgement" (August 1966).
Lane and other authors were either unable or unwilling to put forward a coherent, plausible explanation as to why the Mauser would be part of a JFK assassination plot.
I thought you might possess some new insight into the "whys and wherefores" of the Mauser theory backed up by evidence or even just imagination. It looks like I was overestimating your ability. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
What time do you have to be back in your cell? Fair question, right?
Insults rather than responding to a challenge suggests an acknowledgement of defeat.
That is a wonderful argument.
Because your cousin Jesse V said it's impossible.
Why would you even care if your cousin Jesse believes, I don't?
Below is some footage from Tom Alyea. This is filmed inside the TSBD after the shooting. In the 1st part of the film, you will see an FBI agent looking out a window. As he backs up out of the window he looks surprised then changes his direction and walks toward the camera filming him. What is the agent carrying in his left hand?
-
Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?
Why would you think that?
Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:
1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.
Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.
-
No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":
-- Some nefarious purpose?
-- A red herring?
-- An innocent coincidence?
There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.
It exposes the flaws in this theory.
Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.
There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:
1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.
2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.
See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. ::)
It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.
Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.
In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.
Ventura was going for the 6 second thing, wasn't he? Some say 8.3 seconds was the actual time. Ironically, Ventura scored under nine seconds twice I think... about 8.74 for one, I recall.
With the right 'tude (after the first shot, while struggling with the bolt action, the ex-guv barked that this was a piece of xxxx) he might have relaxed and remembered his not-quite-a-full-fledged-Seal training
-
Why would you think that?
Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.
Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?
Why would you think that?
I'm so charitable in my assessment of debating opponents. So you are not a researcher (of the JFK Assassination case). That begs the question: What are you?
Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:
1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.
Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.
Not every facet... some facets. There's something strange about someone believing the 6th floor rifle was a Mauser not the Carcano C2766: Then having no interest in exploring how it fits with a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
It reeks of an attitude of isolated points-scoring rather than seeking to find the truth.
-
I'm not sad, Rob. Somewhere between neutral and slightly happy.
Incidentally, you're off-topic.
What about providing "supporting evidence" (proof) that the shot's attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission and HSCA are definitively impossible. Better still: Something that rebuts my conclusion that expert shooters (who are WC/HSCA conclusion doubters) "may not be trusted to try their best during shooting reconstructions".
You have failed to support the claim that LHO fired a shot so why would I waste time proving anything regarding LHO and the firing of shots?
-
That is a wonderful argument.
Because your cousin Jesse V said it's impossible.
Why would you even care if your cousin Jesse believes, I don't?
Below is some footage from Tom Alyea. This is filmed inside the TSBD after the shooting. In the 1st part of the film, you will see an FBI agent looking out a window. As he backs up out of the window he looks surprised then changes his direction and walks toward the camera filming him. What is the agent carrying in his left hand?
Pete, there's one thing that we can agree on: The very-low definition of movie cameras (circa 1963) used by news organizations causes great frustration when viewing archival film footage exposed in them . If HD Video Cameras were available in 1963, we could now identify with accuracy details that would eliminate silly theories. Ergo, the exact type of rifle might be discerned.
The rifle carried by the man is not a Mauser. I cannot see a bolt-action, so it might be a M1 Garand? It's probably a rifle carried as an attack/defense weapon.
Incidentally, how do you know the man is an FBI agent?
-
You have failed to support the claim that LHO fired a shot so why would I waste time proving anything regarding LHO and the firing of shots?
Then don't post in this topic.
-
Then don't post in this topic.
So you are admitting that you cannot support the WC's claim that LHO fired any shots on November 22, 1963. Good of you to do that.
-
So you are admitting that you cannot support the WC's claim that LHO fired any shots on November 22, 1963. Good of you to do that.
No I'm not making that admission... any admission.
Look at the Subject: title.
You are invited to accept or reject my theory. If it's the latter... with "supporting evidence".
Something like: "Yes they can be trusted implicitly and here's the reason why: ".
-
I'm so charitable in my assessment of debating opponents. So you are not a researcher (of the JFK Assassination case). That begs the question: What are you?
Cool. Where did you get the ?at the behest of evil conspirators? nonsense?
Not every facet... some facets. There's something strange about someone believing the 6th floor rifle was a Mauser not the Carcano C2766: Then having no interest in exploring how it fits with a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
I think you?re confusing the reluctance to make up a narrative for which there is no evidence with disinterest. Three witnesses said there was a Mauser. Making up a narrative about the evidence doesn?t change the nature of the evidence.
-
No I'm not making that admission... any admission.
Look at the Subject: title.
You are invited to accept or reject my theory. If it's the latter... with "supporting evidence".
Something like: "Yes they can be trusted implicitly and here's the reason why: ".
You could make the same argument about ANY ?expert? opinion on various facets of the case. You trust the ones that confirm your biases.
-
For all of those firearms experts who have tried and failed to duplicate what LHO was supposed to have done that day in Dallas, there comes a time for most people to just say that those shots were not done by just one man ! If there was definitive proof of one man causing all those wounds then there would be those who would buy into that scenario . When I listen to those like Dr. Cyril Wecht and Douglas Horne go by a thorough breakdown of wounds on JFK & JC , it becomes more clear that Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford brought in too many variables that just didn't add up to what really happened on Nov. 22nd 1963 . We are led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald pulled off 2 killings all by himself . The thoughts of people that differ so much in this case mirrors something that we are dealing with now with Trump and his doings . Can we be so far apart on right and wrong that we can't see what's in front of us ?
-
You could make the same argument about ANY ?expert? opinion on various facets of the case. You trust the ones that confirm your biases.
No you could not. This SUBJECT is not about opinions.
We are talking about "experts" participating in an experiment: Trying to prove that a task can OR cannot de done.
The results of these experiments are worthless because the participants can slyly "under-perform" but no one can prove that they did.
-
Cool. Where did you get the ?at the behest of evil conspirators? nonsense?
I think you?re confusing the reluctance to make up a narrative for which there is no evidence with disinterest. Three witnesses said there was a Mauser. Making up a narrative about the evidence doesn?t change the nature of the evidence.
Cool. Where did you get the ?at the behest of evil conspirators? nonsense?
It's what must follow if there really was a Mauser in the TSBD (on 22 November 1963) that subsequently disappeared. The descriptive language merely suggests (sarcastically) what must have happened absent an innocent explanation for the Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD... where the assassination shots were fired from.
I think you?re confusing the reluctance to make up a narrative for which there is no evidence with disinterest. Three witnesses said there was a Mauser. Making up a narrative about the evidence doesn?t change the nature of the evidence.
So you believe the three witnesses who say the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was a Mauser... but are not interested in how it fits with a Conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy? Cool!!!
Unless the Mauser points to conspirators, it's not worth debating as "significant" in the crime investigation.
-
For all of those firearms experts who have tried and failed to duplicate what LHO was supposed to have done that day in Dallas, there comes a time for most people to just say that those shots were not done by just one man ! If there was definitive proof of one man causing all those wounds then there would be those who would buy into that scenario . When I listen to those like Dr. Cyril Wecht and Douglas Horne go by a thorough breakdown of wounds on JFK & JC , it becomes more clear that Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford brought in too many variables that just didn't add up to what really happened on Nov. 22nd 1963 . We are led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald pulled off 2 killings all by himself . The thoughts of people that differ so much in this case mirrors something that we are dealing with now with Trump and his doings . Can we be so far apart on right and wrong that we can't see what's in front of us ?
So you can prove that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit by invoking the choices and actions of President Donald Trump. Right!!!
-
No you could not. This SUBJECT is not about opinions.
We are talking about "experts" participating in an experiment: Trying to prove that a task can OR cannot de done.
The results of these experiments are worthless because the participants can slyly "under-perform" but no one can prove that they did.
Yes, just like an expert can slyly act more certain about a conclusion than the evidence actually warrants.
But I agree with you. All the attempts to recreate the WC shooting narrative don?t prove anything one way or the other.
-
I'm not "dodging" your comments.... but we are now way off-topic.
It would be better to start a new SUBJECT: What is the significance of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSBD.
Why start a new one when there already is an old one 454 posts long? It also got off topic.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg20795.html#msg20795
-
No you could not. This SUBJECT is not about opinions.
We are talking about "experts" participating in an experiment: Trying to prove that a task can OR cannot de done.
The results of these experiments are worthless because the participants can slyly "under-perform" but no one can prove that they did.
Slyly underperform. Possible. These are people who say it is impossible to perform the shooting and you say they could be underperforming.
Results are only worthless if a person is of the belief that it's impossible and then uses an expert in the experiment who knowingly underperforms.
Why are you so fascinated pointing out a sideshow? You are pre-occupied with sideshows
-
John,
I'm not "dodging" your comments.... but we are now way off-topic.
It would be better to start a new SUBJECT: What is the significance of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSBD.
Then hope and pray that "posters" stick to the Subject. Alternately, ignore it if they have nothing substantive to contribute. Speculation is welcome because that all that's possible when there is no evidence of a Mauser "planter" or "shooter".
That's ok, because there's no evidence of a Carcano "planter" or "shooter" either...
-
I don?t typically pretend to know things that I don?t actually know.
In that event.... You know NOTHING!.... Isn't that right? There were many Iacoletti's laughing at jeering Christopher Columbus who was attempting to prove the world was a globe as he set sail to reach the Orient by sailing west. Turns out all of those Iacoletti's were FOS.....
No, there's actually evidence of the Earth's shape and there was long before Columbus.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that "the experts at LIFE and other publications said the photo had been retouched before they ever received them", or any of your other made up stories.
-
That's ok, because there's no evidence of a Carcano "planter" or "shooter" either...
There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.
-
There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Other than speculation? I don't think so.
Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.
Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.
Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.
-
Other than speculation? I don't think so.
At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.
Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.
Quote from: Ross Lidell on Today at 11:13:49 PM
There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Other than speculation? I don't think so.
Silly statement. Physical evidence (which you routinely dispute) exists.
Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.
Which of the five (5) do you consider to be the Carcano "transporter" and/or "shooter"?
Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.
Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.
Easy for you to deny there's no proof when you have no evidence (physical) to the contrary.
-
Mr. Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
Mr. Delgado: Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on the same line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position . . . and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.
Mr. Liebeler: Missed the target completely?
Mr. Delgado: He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. (8H235)
At a fixed...stationary target.
-
Pete, there's one thing that we can agree on: The very-low definition of movie cameras (circa 1963) used by news organizations causes great frustration when viewing archival film footage exposed in them . If HD Video Cameras were available in 1963, we could now identify with accuracy details that would eliminate silly theories. Ergo, the exact type of rifle might be discerned.
The rifle carried by the man is not a Mauser. I cannot see a bolt-action, so it might be a M1 Garand? It's probably a rifle carried as an attack/defense weapon.
Incidentally, how do you know the man is an FBI agent?
So you don't know what is in his left hand? And you don't know the agent? Slyly holding back the answers, otherwise known as, underperform. Sound familiar?
-
So you don't know what is in his left hand? And you don't know the agent? Slyly holding back the answers, otherwise known as, underperform. Sound familiar?
What an adolescent reply! I'm not holding back anything... slyly or otherwise.
I cannot positively discern the Type and Brand of rifle. The film sequence is short and the rifle is partly obscured for some of the time. I don't see a telescopic sight or a bolt-action. That's why I guessed the rifle could be an M1 Garand.
The difference between performing a physical task and writing a reply is obvious except to the mentally challenged. With physical tasks (firearms/arrows)... accuracy and/or speed is paramount. To under-perform: Aiming off-target or going slow is easy to accomplish. Written tasks aren't equivalent. Formulating a reply can be done slowly and still be coherent. Dexterity is not required.
Your posts are silly "game-playing"... the hallmark of an anemic intellect. Just tell me what the rifle is and be done with it. You're not impressing anyone with your drawn-out deception. :-X
Not meaning to be rude: What level of education have you achieved? College, High school, Playschool?
-
What an adolescent reply! I'm not holding back anything... slyly or otherwise.
I cannot positively discern the Type and Brand of rifle. The film sequence is short and the rifle is partly obscured for some of the time. I don't see a telescopic sight or a bolt-action. That's why I guessed the rifle could be an M1 Garand.
The difference between performing a physical task and writing a reply is obvious except to the mentally challenged. With physical tasks (firearms/arrows)... accuracy and/or speed is paramount. To under-perform: Aiming off-target or going slow is easy to accomplish. Written tasks aren't equivalent. Formulating a reply can be done slowly and still be coherent. Dexterity is not required.
Your posts are silly "game-playing"... the hallmark of an anemic intellect. Just tell me what the rifle is and be done with it. You're not impressing anyone with your drawn-out deception. :-X
Not meaning to be rude: What level of education have you achieved? College, High school, Playschool?
Prof. Ross, you don't need to yell, who do you think I am, your x-wife? You could easily tell me the type and brand of rifle but instead, you feel the need to attack when you get a taste of your own medicine. I've noticed you follow the same lazy script, act smart play dumb. It should be noted your response was absent of your favorite word, Mauser. Why is that?
All I've asked is for you to provide the evidence showing LHO committed this crime, but unfortunately, you can not. When you are asked anything related to the crime, you give the same response "it's common sense" which is funny, because if it is so common then why are you here? Just answer the questions, what is the name of the agent and what is he carrying in his left hand? These are not trick questions but it should not matter if you answer them honestly. Quit trying to be difficult and lighten up.
-
So you don't know what is in his left hand? And you don't know the agent? Slyly holding back the answers, otherwise known as, underperform. Sound familiar?
The DPD detective is carrying a pump action 12 gauge shotgun......
-
I am not a rifle shooter so I have no expertise at all on which I can draw on from my own experience.
However, I find it strange someone can dismiss the comments of such people as Craig Roberts, Carlos Hathcock and Hubert Hammerer but then rely on people that have never used THE rifle from the 6th floor window against a similarly moving target with the tree in the middle of the shots.
Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots? Possibly he could but why not make sure and shoot him as he came down Houston in a straight line and getting bigger ever second? Why not shoot when the limo was going barely a few miles per hour right beneath the window, hell he could have thrown the rifle at him.
When someone uses CE139, from the 6th floor window and replicates the shots attributed to Oswald THEN and only then can we say it was possible. It would also need to be done by someone that was the same ability at shooting that Oswald was. Or do you think the 3 Master riflemen that were used to test the rifle that fired from only half the height at stationary targets is a fair recreation of the scenario then you might as well say that Oswald could run 100m in 10 seconds because Usain Bolt can
-
Other than speculation? I don't think so.
Silly statement. Physical evidence (which you routinely dispute) exists.
I'll bite. What physical evidence do you have that Oswald transported a rifle or fired a rifle that day?
Which of the five (5) do you consider to be the Carcano "transporter" and/or "shooter"?
I have no idea how that rifle got there or even if it was shot that day. You're the one who claims to have this knowledge.
-
I'll bite. What physical evidence do you have that Oswald transported a rifle or fired a rifle that day?
I have no idea how that rifle got there or even if it was shot that day. You're the one who claims to have this knowledge.
I have no idea how that rifle got there or even if it was shot that day.
The rifle may not have been "shot"....But it certainly was not in good condition.
The bore was dirty and corroded....( a condition that caused the testers to refuse to test the rifle until after it had been cleaned and oiled ) And the telescopic sight that the media had pointed out as making the rifle a deadly accurate weapon, was mounted out of alignment with the barrel. ( The media could more honestly have said that the telescopic sight ruined the accuracy of the weapon, and nobody could have hit the proverbial broadside of a barn with that sight.)
-
The DPD detective is carrying a pump action 12 gauge shotgun......
Thanks Walt,
I think Kleinschmidt wanted me to speculate that it was a Mauser.
-
Prof. Ross, you don't need to yell, who do you think I am, your x-wife? You could easily tell me the type and brand of rifle but instead, you feel the need to attack when you get a taste of your own medicine. I've noticed you follow the same lazy script, act smart play dumb. It should be noted your response was absent of your favorite word, Mauser. Why is that?
All I've asked is for you to provide the evidence showing LHO committed this crime, but unfortunately, you can not. When you are asked anything related to the crime, you give the same response "it's common sense" which is funny, because if it is so common then why are you here? Just answer the questions, what is the name of the agent and what is he carrying in his left hand? These are not trick questions but it should not matter if you answer them honestly. Quit trying to be difficult and lighten up.
...what is the name of the agent and what is he carrying in his left hand?
Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun.
I have no idea who is the "agent" carrying the firearm. Why should I?
So what was the point of the "gun quiz"?
What was the point of the "agent quiz".
Neither are relevant to the Subject.
-
...what is the name of the agent and what is he carrying in his left hand?
Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun.
I have no idea who is the "agent" carrying the firearm. Why should I?
So what was the point of the "gun quiz"?
What was the point of the "agent quiz".
Neither are relevant to the Subject.
I could be wrong, BUT... The man carrying the shotgun could be Weatherford.....
-
...what is the name of the agent and what is he carrying in his left hand?
Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun.
I have no idea who is the "agent" carrying the firearm. Why should I?
So what was the point of the "gun quiz"?
What was the point of the "agent quiz".
Neither are relevant to the Subject.
"Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun."
Really? You're kidding, right? I hope you were kind enough to thank him.
Neither are relevant? Are you feeling ok?
You do not have the ability to be objective.
-
"Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun."
Really? You're kidding, right? I hope you were kind enough to thank him.
Neither are relevant? Are you feeling ok?
You do not have the ability to be objective.
"Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun."
Really? You're kidding, right? I hope you were kind enough to thank him.
Look at 3 posts previous to yours.
Neither are relevant? Are you feeling ok?
Neither are relevant to the Subject... indisputably.
You do not have the ability to be objective.
An assertion unsupported by any facts or knowledge.
A G A I N
-- So what was the point of the "gun quiz"?
-- What was the point of the "agent quiz".
Neither are relevant to the Subject....
However, I'm still keen to know what you were driving shooting at?
-
"Walt Cakebread says the firearm was a pump-action shotgun."
Really? You're kidding, right? I hope you were kind enough to thank him.
Look at 3 posts previous to yours.
Neither are relevant? Are you feeling ok?
Neither are relevant to the Subject... indisputably.
You do not have the ability to be objective.
An assertion unsupported by any facts or knowledge.
A G A I N
-- So what was the point of the "gun quiz"?
-- What was the point of the "agent quiz".
Neither are relevant to the Subject....
However, I'm still keen to know what you were driving shooting at?
Show the proof. All you have is tainted evidence from a bumbling police department. You can't place LHO at that window. You have no gun. No motive. You are unable to keep your story straight. A few days ago you explained away the Mauser using a quote from Seymour W. "it was an honest mistake" but later you said he wasn't the one who handled the weapon. It is odd that they all said, Mauser, even the dope Fritz who used a magnifying glass as he looked at it. One man, Seymour W. who didn't handle the weapon gets to decide everyone was mistaken. Anything goes is how Ross sees it
All laid out for you. It's easier for you to dismiss than it is for you to explain. Lazy Lazy
Full of deception from a so-called expert
-
Show the proof. All you have is tainted evidence from a bumbling police department. You can't place LHO at that window. You have no gun. No motive. You are unable to keep your story straight. A few days ago you explained away the Mauser using a quote from Seymour W. "it was an honest mistake" but later you said he wasn't the one who handled the weapon. It is odd that they all said, Mauser, even the dope Fritz who used a magnifying glass as he looked at it. One man, Seymour W. who didn't handle the weapon gets to decide everyone was mistaken. Anything goes is how Ross sees it
All laid out for you. It's easier for you to dismiss than it is for you to explain. Lazy Lazy
Full of deception from a so-called expert
Fer cryin out loud, Pete.... Stop makin a fool of yourself..... The rifle that was found WELL HIDDEN beneath boxes of books was a Mannlicher Carcano. There are dozens of photos and film that verify the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. The cretins that were setting Lee up knew that there was a photo that showed Lee holding a Carcano that was similar to the rifle they were going to plant. And they knew there was a paper trail for the purchase of a carcano that lead to Lee Oswald.
They would have been certifiable idiots to have planted a mauser.....
-
I am not a rifle shooter so I have no expertise at all on which I can draw on from my own experience.
However, I find it strange someone can dismiss the comments of such people as Craig Roberts, Carlos Hathcock and Hubert Hammerer but then rely on people that have never used THE rifle from the 6th floor window against a similarly moving target with the tree in the middle of the shots.
Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots? Possibly he could but why not make sure and shoot him as he came down Houston in a straight line and getting bigger ever second? Why not shoot when the limo was going barely a few miles per hour right beneath the window, hell he could have thrown the rifle at him.
When someone uses CE139, from the 6th floor window and replicates the shots attributed to Oswald THEN and only then can we say it was possible. It would also need to be done by someone that was the same ability at shooting that Oswald was. Or do you think the 3 Master riflemen that were used to test the rifle that fired from only half the height at stationary targets is a fair recreation of the scenario then you might as well say that Oswald could run 100m in 10 seconds because Usain Bolt can
The comments (professional opinions) of expert marksman are worth consideration if they have gone to the crime scene. If your boys (Roberts, Hathcock and Hammerer) have not traveled to Dallas and looked out the 6th floor window of the TSBD from where the shots were fired, their estimates are of little value.
Would their opinions be based on descriptions of the shooting by the:
-- Warren Commission?
-- House Select Committee on Assassinations?
-- the writers of various books and articles?
-- assessments or reconstructions in Television documentaries?
Probably some or all.
Your speculation as to what's better in terms of direction and trajectory are "either/or propositions". Do you comprehend: The assassin might choose the poorer of two potential shooting methods and yet still be successful.
All assertions about "the best or better way" shooting sequences are subjective... and they do not consider the "wrong way still worked" possibility.
My "boy", the late Howard Donahue participated in the 1967 CBS tests and made the shots. It was not a perfect reconstruction but similar enough to prove that the shots attributed to Oswald were possible.
We are way off-topic... but hey it's my Subject and I'm obliged to answer all comments or I'll be branded a "dodger".
-
The comments (professional opinions) of expert marksman are worth consideration if they have gone to the crime scene. If your boys (Roberts, Hathcock and Hammerer) have not traveled to Dallas and looked out the 6th floor window of the TSBD from where the shots were fired, their estimates are of little value.
Would their opinions be based on descriptions of the shooting by the:
-- Warren Commission?
-- House Select Committee on Assassinations?
-- the writers of various books and articles?
-- assessments or reconstructions in Television documentaries?
Probably some or all.
Your speculation as to what's better in terms of direction and trajectory are "either/or propositions". Do you comprehend: The assassin might choose the poorer of two potential shooting methods and yet still be successful.
All assertions about "the best or better way" shooting sequences are subjective... and they do not consider the "wrong way still worked" possibility.
My "boy", the late Howard Donahue participated in the 1967 CBS tests and made the shots. It was not a perfect reconstruction but similar enough to prove that the shots attributed to Oswald were possible.
We are way off-topic... but hey it's my Subject and I'm obliged to answer all comments or I'll be branded a "dodger".
"not a perfect reconstruction" "similar enough" who said? Your boy Dan Rather? When you cut corners you create reasonable doubt. Too bad for your failed ideas Ross. LHO would have never faced a trial because of the lack of evidence. I am sure you will agree after you think with common sense. Take your time
-
"not a perfect reconstruction" "similar enough" who said? Your boy Dan Rather? When you cut corners you create reasonable doubt. Too bad for your failed ideas Ross. LHO would have never faced a trial because of the lack of evidence. I am sure you will agree after you think with common sense. Take your time
Assertion, assertion, assertion ad infinitum. No proof... just silly speculation.
No trial for Lee Harvey Oswald (had he not been killed by Jack Ruby) you say?
An impossible occurrence that would only be postulated by a fool.
Lee Harvey Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced for the murders of John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit. After the routine appeal he would have been executed. To put it plainly, the history books would record that Lee Harvey Oswald: Died in the electric-chair in Huntsville Texas.
-
The comments (professional opinions) of expert marksman are worth consideration if they have gone to the crime scene. If your boys (Roberts, Hathcock and Hammerer) have not traveled to Dallas and looked out the 6th floor window of the TSBD from where the shots were fired, their estimates are of little value.
Would their opinions be based on descriptions of the shooting by the:
-- Warren Commission?
-- House Select Committee on Assassinations?
-- the writers of various books and articles?
-- assessments or reconstructions in Television documentaries?
Probably some or all.
Your speculation as to what's better in terms of direction and trajectory are "either/or propositions". Do you comprehend: The assassin might choose the poorer of two potential shooting methods and yet still be successful.
All assertions about "the best or better way" shooting sequences are subjective... and they do not consider the "wrong way still worked" possibility.
My "boy", the late Howard Donahue participated in the 1967 CBS tests and made the shots. It was not a perfect reconstruction but similar enough to prove that the shots attributed to Oswald were possible.
We are way off-topic... but hey it's my Subject and I'm obliged to answer all comments or I'll be branded a "dodger".
The comments (professional opinions) of expert marksman are worth consideration if they have gone to the crime scene. If your boys (Roberts, Hathcock and Hammerer) have not traveled to Dallas and looked out the 6th floor window of the TSBD from where the shots were fired, their estimates are of little value.
You don't know what you're babbling about Mr Lidell.....
-
The comments (professional opinions) of expert marksman are worth consideration if they have gone to the crime scene. If your boys (Roberts, Hathcock and Hammerer) have not traveled to Dallas and looked out the 6th floor window of the TSBD from where the shots were fired, their estimates are of little value.
You don't know what you're babbling about Mr Lidell.....
Nonsense. Those firearms experts are Americans as far as I know. Airline tickets are cheap in the USA and economy accommodation can be found in or near Dallas Texas.
If these big-shot shooters are so keen to proffer their opinions about the Oswald/JFK shooting sequence: why not jet into "the big D" and do the tour at the TSBD? Subsequent "opinions" would be much more credible. Who knows: they might even change their minds and regard the WC's (and HSCA's) conclusions as correct?
Incidentally, your comment is (or close to) an ad hominem attack.
-
Nonsense. Those firearms experts are Americans as far as I know. Airline tickets are cheap in the USA and economy accommodation can be found in or near Dallas Texas.
If these big-shot shooters are so keen to proffer their opinions about the Oswald/JFK shooting sequence: why not jet into "the big D" and do the tour at the TSBD? Subsequent "opinions" would be much more credible. Who knows: they might even change their minds and regard the WC's (and HSCA's) conclusions as correct?
Incidentally, your comment is (or close to) an ad hominem attack.
You simply don't know what your talkin about Mr Lidell.... I'd guess that if you gave a dozen trained and experienced snipers the parameters of the ambush, that you'd get 12 expert opinions that the feat couldn't possibly be performed as THEORIZED by the Cover up committee. I can say that with absolute conviction because no 5' 9" tall man could sit on a 14 " box and rest a rifle on a three foot tall stack of boxes and decline the muzzle down toward Elm street.
And there are other aspects that refute the absurd THEORY.......
-
You simply don't know what your talkin about Mr Lidell.... I'd guess that if you gave a dozen trained and experienced snipers the parameters of the ambush, that you'd get 12 expert opinions that the feat couldn't possibly be performed as THEORIZED by the Cover up committee. I can say that with absolute conviction because no 5' 9" tall man could sit on a 14 " box and rest a rifle on a three foot tall stack of boxes and decline the muzzle down toward Elm street.
And there are other aspects that refute the absurd THEORY.......
I'd guess that if you gave a dozen trained and experienced snipers the parameters of the ambush, that you'd get 12 expert opinions that the feat couldn't possibly be performed as THEORIZED by the Cover up committee.
Provide the parameters of the "ambush". All the parameters!
I can say that with absolute conviction because no 5' 9" tall man could sit on a 14 " box and rest a rifle on a three foot tall stack of boxes and decline the muzzle down toward Elm street.
There was "a" shooter, you know. Even if it was not Lee Harvey Oswald: someone fired shots from the sniper's nest, 6th floor TSBD. Perhaps your "mystery shooter" was taller than 5' 9"?
-
I'd guess that if you gave a dozen trained and experienced snipers the parameters of the ambush, that you'd get 12 expert opinions that the feat couldn't possibly be performed as THEORIZED by the Cover up committee.
Provide the parameters of the "ambush". All the parameters!
I can say that with absolute conviction because no 5' 9" tall man could sit on a 14 " box and rest a rifle on a three foot tall stack of boxes and decline the muzzle down toward Elm street.
There was "a" shooter, you know. Even if it was not Lee Harvey Oswald: someone fired shots from the sniper's nest, 6th floor TSBD. Perhaps your "mystery shooter" was taller than 5' 9"?
No... you're wrong again....There was nobody firing a rifle from that SE corner window.... And even though Howard Brennan swore that he saw a man STANDING anding AIMING a HIGH POWERED RIFLE ( ie; a hunting rifle) from a window....I'm not convinced that the man fired any shots.
-
No... you're wrong again....There was nobody firing a rifle from that SE corner window.... And even though Howard Brennan swore that he saw a man STANDING anding AIMING a HIGH POWERED RIFLE ( ie; a hunting rifle) from a window....I'm not convinced that the man fired any shots.
You cannot be serious Walt. [Apology to John McEnroe].
You're not convinced!!! Well okay.
So where were the shots fired from? Let me guess: You don't know and don't care.
-
Assertion, assertion, assertion ad infinitum. No proof... just silly speculation.
No trial for Lee Harvey Oswald (had he not been killed by Jack Ruby) you say?
An impossible occurrence that would only be postulated by a fool.
Lee Harvey Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced for the murders of John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit. After the routine appeal he would have been executed. To put it plainly, the history books would record that Lee Harvey Oswald: Died in the electric-chair in Huntsville Texas.
No proof is no proof. And as far as I know, there was not a trial.
You, on the other hand, say....."but-but-but if-if if-if there were"
Ross, you are a sick defender of lies.
-
Assertion, assertion, assertion ad infinitum. No proof... just silly speculation.
No trial for Lee Harvey Oswald (had he not been killed by Jack Ruby) you say?
An impossible occurrence that would only be postulated by a fool.
Lee Harvey Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced for the murders of John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit. After the routine appeal he would have been executed. To put it plainly, the history books would record that Lee Harvey Oswald: Died in the electric-chair in Huntsville Texas.
Lee Harvey Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced for the murders of John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit.
Any body with a functioning brain would conclude that Lee Oswald would never have been tried..... There simply wasn't any solid evidence that he had committed the crime. That much should be clear to anybody who is a participant in these debates.
Based on the THEORY that Lee Oswald had fired a rifle from that SE corner window. .....( which is the key starting point) ....No 5"9" man could have sat on a box and and used the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest and declined the muzzle of the rifle down toward Elm street. Based on that same THEORY.....The rifle would have to have been a Kentucky loooooong rifle for the muzzle to have protruded out of that window.....The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
And this is merely the start..... Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
-
No proof is no proof. And as far as I know, there was not a trial.
You, on the other hand, say....."but-but-but if-if if-if there were"
Ross, you are a sick defender of lies.
That contains an ad hominem attack Pete. Impeaches your credibility.
-
Lee Harvey Oswald would have been, tried, convicted and sentenced for the murders of John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit.
Any body with a functioning brain would conclude that Lee Oswald would never have been tried..... There simply wasn't any solid evidence that he had committed the crime. That much should be clear to anybody who is a participant in these debates.
Based on the THEORY that Lee Oswald had fired a rifle from that SE corner window. .....( which is the key starting point) ....No 5"9" man could have sat on a box and and used the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest and declined the muzzle of the rifle down toward Elm street. Based on that same THEORY.....The rifle would have to have been a Kentucky loooooong rifle for the muzzle to have protruded out of that window.....The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
And this is merely the start..... Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
Witnesses report a man with a rifle much closer to the window than 4 feet away.
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
Aha... "nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false". Now we're getting somewhere!!!
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
-
The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
Witnesses report a man with a rifle much closer to the window than 4 feet away.
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
Aha... "nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false". Now we're getting somewhere!!!
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
See the "Crime scene photos"....
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
Detective Studebaker created a map of the sixth floor and he measured exact distances of various places on the sixth floor....He indicated that the rifle was found in the NW corner near the top of the stairs. He measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4" The cover up committee place the rifle at 10 feet from the north wall. They shorten the distance by 5 feet to make their imaginary THEORY that Lee Oswald has dashed by the place and hastily dumped the rifle behind the boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle leading to the stairs.
Studebaker's map is authentic....
-
That contains an ad hominem attack Pete. Impeaches your credibility.
Oh, you poor thing.
Here's another question for Prof. Ross and one he will avoid.
The planted Carcano had a scope adjusted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed???
It was so misaligned they needed to put 2 metal shims under it before a military lab could test fire it.
Explain away Prof Ross
-
Oh, you poor thing.
Here's another question for Prof. Ross and one he will avoid.
The planted Carcano had a scope adjusted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed???
It was so misaligned they needed to put 2 metal shims under it before a military lab could test fire it.
Explain away Prof Ross
The planted Carcano had a scope adjusted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed???
The scope was offset to the left because of the bolt-action which was on top of the rifle. A scope mounted on the right of the rifle would interfere with the movement of the bolt when ejecting a spent cartridge and loading a new one.
There's no proof that the Carcano was planted.
Questions for you who believes a Carcano was planted on the 6th floor of the TSBD:
-- Who planted the Carcano in the TSBD?
-- When was the Carcano planted in the TSBD?
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
-
The planted Carcano had a scope adjusted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed???
The scope was offset to the left because of the bolt-action which was on top of the rifle. A scope mounted on the right of the rifle would interfere with the movement of the bolt when ejecting a spent cartridge and loading a new one.
There's no proof that the Carcano was planted.
Questions for you who believes a Carcano was planted on the 6th floor of the TSBD:
-- Who planted the Carcano in the TSBD?
-- When was the Carcano planted in the TSBD?
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
First off, I seriously doubt that Day disassembled the carcano....But even if he did there would have been no reason to removed the scope.
-
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
See the "Crime scene photos"....
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
Detective Studebaker created a map of the sixth floor and he measured exact distances of various places on the sixth floor....He indicated that the rifle was found in the NW corner near the top of the stairs. He measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4" The cover up committee place the rifle at 10 feet from the north wall. They shorten the distance by 5 feet to make their imaginary THEORY that Lee Oswald has dashed by the place and hastily dumped the rifle behind the boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle leading to the stairs.
Studebaker's map is authentic....
I have Studebaker's map of the sixth floor in a book but I'd like to post it here.... Can anybody direct me to that map that Studebaker created?
Question....Is it possible for a 5' 9" man to reach across a four foot high stack of boxes and lay an 8 pound rifle on the floor in a cave that was five feet away?
Boone's description of the location where the rifle was laying on the floor....
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Let's parse that description.....He's talking about a wall ( partition) that forms the east side of the stairway ( The stairway was in the NW corner, and the West, and North, brick walls of the building formed the North and West walls of the stairway)
The measurement of 8 feet that Boone refers to is from the south end of that partition. IOW...The rifle was laying on the floor ( at the bottom of an enclosed cavern of books) 8 feet south of the south end of the partition that formed the east wall of the stairway.
There was a row of boxes of books stacked about three feet south of the south end that partition... This row of boxes formed the South side of the aisle that was at the top of the stairs .... That aisle was about three feet wide. So according to Boone's observation , the rifle was laying on the floor about 5 feet south of that row of boxes. The fake photos that were created by the DPD show the rifle against the south side of the row of boxes that formed the E/W wall of the aisle that Lee allegedly dashed through as he ran by the area.
Boone said the rifle was about eight feet south of the partition,or five feet south of the aisle.... ( And Detective Studebaker drew a map in which he gives a distance that corroborates Boone's estimate)
-
The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
Witnesses report a man with a rifle much closer to the window than 4 feet away.
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
Aha... "nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false". Now we're getting somewhere!!!
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
Witnesses report a man with a rifle much closer to the window than 4 feet away.
Please name the witnesses....
The imaginary sniper with a rifle would have been sitting on a box that was against the east wall and 16 1/2 inches north of the interior south wall ( four feet from the exterior wall with the protruding ledge ) The creators of the fantasy that Lee sat there and rested the 40 inch carcano on the stack of boxes would have had him sitting at about a 45 degree angle to the window in the SE corner. Nobody on the street below had Xray vision that would have allowed them to see through a solid brick wall. The east side of the stack of Rolling readers was about two feet back from the window....so the muzzle of the 40 inch rifle would have been inside the building...
Spectators on the street below would have heard a muffled boom if a carcano had been fired from that site.... But many of the witnesses said that the sound of the gun shots was very loud ( "ear shattering "
-
I have Studebaker's map of the sixth floor in a book but I'd like to post it here.... Can anybody direct me to that map that Studebaker created?
Question....Is it possible for a 5' 9" man to reach across a four foot high stack of boxes and lay an 8 pound rifle on the floor in a cave that was five feet away?
Boone's description of the location where the rifle was laying on the floor....
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Let's parse that description.....He's talking about a wall ( partition) that forms the east side of the stairway ( The stairway was in the NW corner, and the West, and North, brick walls of the building formed the North and West walls of the stairway)
The measurement of 8 feet that Boone refers to is from the south end of that partition. IOW...The rifle was laying on the floor ( at the bottom of an enclosed cavern of books) 8 feet south of the south end of the partition that formed the east wall of the stairway.
There was a row of boxes of books stacked about three feet south of the south end that partition... This row of boxes formed the South side of the aisle that was at the top of the stairs .... That aisle was about three feet wide. So according to Boone's observation , the rifle was laying on the floor about 5 feet south of that row of boxes. The fake photos that were created by the DPD show the rifle against the south side of the row of boxes that formed the E/W wall of the aisle that Lee allegedly dashed through as he ran by the area.
Boone said the rifle was about eight feet south of the partition,or five feet south of the aisle.... ( And Detective Studebaker drew a map in which he gives a distance that corroborates Boone's estimate)
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=6209&part=2
Notice the floor support beams that are 12.5 feet from the north wall..... there are two of the pillars on the south side of the service elevators and another near the top of the stairs. They are all in a row at 12.5 feet from the north wall. The row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle that led to the stairs were in line with the floor support pillars. ( IOW the row of boxes were about two feet from the top of the stairs) So the south side of that row of boxes would have been about 13 feet from the North wall ...But Detective Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15 feet 4 inches....IOW The rifle was about 3 feet south of the aisle that Lee Oswald was imagined to have dashed through as he raced to the stairs....
There is NO WAY that Lee could have reached across that gap and placed the rifle on the floor behind a stack of boxes that was over 15 feet from the north wall and then stacked boxes of books over the top of the opening as Boone described the location of the rifle.
This is solid proof that LBJ's cover up committee deceived us and created false evidence .....
-
There's no proof that the Carcano was planted.
Odd that it was 'hidden' at all. It was hidden where it could be easily found at any length. Why waste valuable time doing that?
Also, as everyone knows...there's no proof that it wasn't planted.
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
The rifle couldn't be perfectly sighted using the scope (i.e., thereby eliminating the above overshoot completely) without installing two metal shims (small metal plates), which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[65] Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.
Strange how a blanket or a shirt fiber was linked to the weapon and and also it's alleged smuggling bag but some rifle parts were 'lost' somehow.
The suggestion is that the rifle must have been carelessly hidden with extreme care.
-
Odd that it was 'hidden' at all. It was hidden where it could be easily found at any length. Why waste valuable time doing that?
Also, as everyone knows...there's no proof that it wasn't planted. Strange how a blanket or a shirt fiber was linked to the weapon and and also it's alleged smuggling bag but some rifle parts were 'lost' somehow.
The suggestion is that the rifle must have been carelessly hidden with extreme care.
Odd that it was 'hidden' at all. It was hidden where it could be easily found at any length. Why waste valuable time doing that?
It was hidden for the same reason that he hid the rifle after firing a bullet through Walker's window.....He wanted the cops to find it after a period and trace the rifle to him after he was out of the country and in Cuba.
It was hidden BEFORE the shooting....And it was intended to be found after a period of time that allowed Lee to get clear of the TSBD and meet his handler in the Theater ( who he thought would escort him out of the country and on his way to Cuba ( just as he'd planned in the Walker hoax) Lee thought the operation was a stage play, in which it would appear that he'd fired at JFK and was a fugitive. An operation similar to his infiltration of the USSR in October of 59.
Also, as everyone knows...there's no proof that it wasn't planted.
But there is very strong evidence that it WAS planted......
-
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
Evidence?
-
The carcano is a mere 40 inches long... so a man sitting on a box four feet back from the wall and using the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest could not have had the muzzle out of the window.
Witnesses report a man with a rifle much closer to the window than 4 feet away.
Do you have evidence that the 6th floor shooter was 4 feet back from the window?
Nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false.
Aha... "nearly every piece of evidence can be shown to be false". Now we're getting somewhere!!!
That means that you believe some pieces of evidence are not false. List them in your reply.
Here ya go Mr Lidell.....Solid evidence that Lee Oswald was framed....
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=6209&part=2
Notice the floor support beams that are 12.5 feet from the north wall..... there are two of the pillars on the south side of the service elevators and another near the top of the stairs. They are all in a row at 12.5 feet from the north wall. The row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle that led to the stairs were in line with the floor support pillars. ( IOW the row of boxes were about two feet from the top of the stairs) So the south side of that row of boxes would have been about 13 feet from the North wall ...But Detective Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15 feet 4 inches....IOW The rifle was about 3 feet south of the aisle that Lee Oswald was imagined to have dashed through as he raced to the stairs....
There is NO WAY that Lee could have reached across that gap and placed the rifle on the floor behind a stack of boxes that was over 15 feet from the north wall and then stacked boxes of books over the top of the opening as Boone described the location of the rifle.
This is solid proof that LBJ's cover up committee deceived us and created false evidence .....
-
Here ya go Mr Lidell.....Solid evidence that Lee Oswald was framed....
https://zmail04-mta.peak.org/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=6209&part=2
Your link doesn't work, Walt. Is that your personal email inbox or something?
-
Your link doesn't work, Walt. Is that your personal email inbox or something?
Sorry.... Perhaps you can find Studebaker's map of the sixth floor on line..... I know that it's been posted here in the past. I believe by Jerry Organ.
Studebaker's map is also printed on page 146 of 1st Day Evidence
-
The planted Carcano had a scope adjusted for a left-handed shooter, but Oswald was right-handed???
The scope was offset to the left because of the bolt-action which was on top of the rifle. A scope mounted on the right of the rifle would interfere with the movement of the bolt when ejecting a spent cartridge and loading a new one.
There's no proof that the Carcano was planted.
Questions for you who believes a Carcano was planted on the 6th floor of the TSBD:
-- Who planted the Carcano in the TSBD?
-- When was the Carcano planted in the TSBD?
The shims were lost when Lt. Carl Day of the Crime Lab disassembled the Carcano looking for "prints"?
Here, I copied something you said:
"a Carcano was planted on the 6th floor of the TSBD"
I am happy you are finally are coming around to believe a Carcano was planted. At least that is the way it reads, right?
Lt. Day "of the Crime Lab"?
Really, is that an explanation? Prof. Ross, you are full of excuses.
Maybe your buddy, Seymour could say it was an "honest mistake".
Disassembled? Was he looking for prints underneath something? Is that normal? Maybe he was modifying it. But why?
Do you think he wanted the shims to be lost? Very peculiar activity, but Prof. Ross thinks this is normal
-
Your link doesn't work, Walt. Is that your personal email inbox or something?
I've been searching for the map that Studebaker created of the sixth floor of the TSBD... It's been posted in the forum a couple of times.
I stumbled across something that verifies Studebaker's measurement of 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall as the location where the rifle was hidden beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on that pallet. In vol XXI page 512
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0268b.htm
The rifle is recorded as having been found 8 feet from the stairs.....
Eight feet from the stairs would be 16 feet from the north wall.... And Studebaker measured the actual distance as 15 feet 4 inches.... So the guestimate of eight feet from the stairs to the rifle is reasonably accurate for a guess. The fake "In Situ" photos of the rifle show it to be about 3 feet from the stairs. There's no way anybody could misjudge 8 feet for 3 feet....
-
I've been searching for the map that Studebaker created of the sixth floor of the TSBD... It's been posted in the forum a couple of times.
I stumbled across something that verifies Studebaker's measurement of 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall as the location where the rifle was hidden beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on that pallet. In vol XXI page 512
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0268b.htm
The rifle is recorded as having been found 8 feet from the stairs.....
Eight feet from the stairs would be 16 feet from the north wall.... And Studebaker measured the actual distance as 15 feet 4 inches.... So the guestimate of eight feet from the stairs to the rifle is reasonably accurate for a guess. The fake "In Situ" photos of the rifle show it to be about 3 feet from the stairs. There's no way anybody could misjudge 8 feet for 3 feet....
Mr. SIMS. Well, someone then hollered--we started a search of the sixth floor then, going from east to west--all the officers, and someone had found the rifle over by the stairway.
Mr. BALL. That would be in what corner of the building?
Mr. SIMS. That would be in actually the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BALL. And what happened then?
Mr. SIMS. Then, we went over to where the rifle was found.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. Yes; I saw the rifle.
Mr. BALL. Where was the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. It was laying there near a stairway, partially covered by some paper.
Notice that Sims reference for the location of the rifle as 8 feet from the stairs has been deleted .
Sims said that the gun was laying on the floor ( not jammed between boxes ) and it was about 5 feet from the west wall and about 8 feet from the stairway.
The liars swore that the in situ photo ( the fake) was taken before anything was moved....So where's the paper that was partially covering the rifle?
And why does the in situ photo ( the fake) show that the rifle is NOT laying on the floor and it is about three feet from the stairs???
-
Mr. SIMS. Well, someone then hollered--we started a search of the sixth floor then, going from east to west--all the officers, and someone had found the rifle over by the stairway.
Mr. BALL. That would be in what corner of the building?
Mr. SIMS. That would be in actually the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BALL. And what happened then?
Mr. SIMS. Then, we went over to where the rifle was found.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. Yes; I saw the rifle.
Mr. BALL. Where was the rifle?
Mr. SIMS. It was laying there near a stairway, partially covered by some paper.
Notice that Sims reference for the location of the rifle as 8 feet from the stairs has been deleted .
Sims said that the gun was laying on the floor ( not jammed between boxes ) and it was about 5 feet from the west wall and about 8 feet from the stairway.
The liars swore that the in situ photo ( the fake) was taken before anything was moved....So where's the paper that was partially covering the rifle?
And why does the in situ photo ( the fake) show that the rifle is NOT laying on the floor and it is about three feet from the stairs???
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was. (Here, Boone's memory failed him as it was Day who picked up the rifle by the strap)
Mr. BALL - You saw them take the photograph?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you alone at that time?
Mr. BOONE - There was an Officer Weitzman, I believe. He is a deputy constable.
Mr. BALL - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Sims said that he rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs, and Boone said the rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs , and Studebaker measured the distance from the rifle to the stairs and he found the distance to be 15 feet 4 inches....
-
Marine Sniper , Carlos Hathcock was asked about LHO being able to pull off the shots that killed jfk and Hathcock said they set up a replica at Quantico and that nobody could duplicate the so called shots that Oswald was said to have pulled off .
https://www.plaintruth.com/.../jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig?s word, which I do not trust.
I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.
He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.
So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley?s shooting? Or Craig Roger?s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?
-
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig?s word, which I do not trust.
I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.
He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.
So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley?s shooting? Or Craig Roger?s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?
Hathcock
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?50970-Kennedy-assassination-Gunny-Hathcock-s-take
-
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig?s word, which I do not trust.
I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.
He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.
So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley?s shooting? Or Craig Roger?s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?
"Roger Craig" and then "Craig Rogers"? Or should it be Craig Roberts? Put the crack pipe down, Joe. It's affecting your mind.
-
This topic was inspired by another: "Oswald's rifle capability".
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
A word-class shooter could not fire 3 shots blah blah
I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
As part of the debate:
I posted this comment, which has been avoided by Freeman [who started the topic and posted the clip] and other top intellects on this forum.
What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance. I suggest the comment was ignored because it cannot be challenged...blah blah again.
Assessing Oswald?s rifle-shooting skills ?after the event? is futile.
That is one absolutely absurd statement.
It will annoy conspiracy theorists to be told: A lucky shot (or 2 lucky shots) was possible... however unlikely.
Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?
-
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was. (Here, Boone's memory failed him as it was Day who picked up the rifle by the strap)
Mr. BALL - You saw them take the photograph?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you alone at that time?
Mr. BOONE - There was an Officer Weitzman, I believe. He is a deputy constable.
Mr. BALL - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.
Sims said that he rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs, and Boone said the rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs , and Studebaker measured the distance from the rifle to the stairs and he found the distance to be 15 feet 4 inches....
The carcano was lying on the floor beneath a wooden pallet with the leather sling up ( left side up ) "it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell."
-
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance. That is one absolutely absurd statement.
Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
Different subject. The suggestion is to debate the theory "expert rifleman cannot make Oswald's shots because they don't want to equal his performance". It would contradict their own opinion that he was not the killer of JFK. That's different from Oswald's rifle-shooting capability.
I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
Thanks for the "spell-check". I've corrected the error.
The SUBJECT is not about Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle-shooting capability: It's about self-appointed firearms experts intentionally performing below their maximum shooting capability. I'm proposing a theory that predetermined negative outcomes are possible. This was demonstrated by Governor Jesse Ventura's obviously staged failure to meet "time limits" in firing three shots from a Carcano rifle similar to Oswald's.
What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance. That is one absolutely absurd statement.
Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario.
Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?
You are adding together many aspects of the assassination scenario and implying that the odds against such things occurring are very high or perhaps impossible. Are these occurrences actually coincidences? I suppose anything and everything that occurs in this world could be regarded as coincidences: If not the actual event; those events leading up to it.
Divining when to prepare a sniper's nest.
When he could.
-- How do you attribute odds to that?
...assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced]
The Warren Commission demonstrated that the Carcano rifle could be assembled with a coin.
-- How do you calculate odds that it couldn't?
...then just in time for the motorcade to pass
The motorcade was five (5) minutes later than scheduled when it reached Dealey Plaza. I wish that it had been "on time". President Kennedy may have avoided Lee Harvey Oswald's evil act.
-- What are the odds that the President's motorcade would be running 5 minutes late in passing through Dealey Plaza?
wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing..
Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired. Define "half-way gone down the road" in yards or in reference to landmarks.
-- Why would you want to attribute odds to Oswald's estimate of when to fire the first shot? It's his decision made for reasons that only he knew.
... bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys".
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
Jump-start your mind... you may start posting sensible rebuttals to facts.
-
Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired.
... and you know this, how?
-
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"
Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions.
Here is another statement that has no relevance
"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."
Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything
-
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"
Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions.
Here is another statement that has no relevance
"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."
Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything
Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".
FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.
I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.
It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...
I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.
Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?
-
I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.
Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.
-
Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.
Very funny. Slightly funny.
More inaccuracy by JFk (guess what "k" stands for?): The New York Times "reprint" of the Warren Commission Report is the full version with 17 Appendixes .
The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.
-
The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.
A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.
-
A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.
A metaphor.
Still wrong because the New York Times authorized version of The Warren Commission Report is not abbreviated. Words per page is greater but that's the only discernible difference.
-
Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".
FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.
I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.
It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...
I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly.
Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?
Just because I named you Prof. Ross does not mean you are a Professor.
Question: What does this statement remind you of?
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."
Answer #1 Hopefully you, because you typed it
Answer #2 Some guy who went to NYU for a degree in journalism.
Before you react, tell me if I am right. Lie if you want to.
"I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hardcover version). I've read it thoroughly."
Who in the hell cares? I certainly don't, but I do understand why you believe the silly things you believe. You are as ill as the researcher who thinks one theory, the first one he came across, in your case, it's that one theory in the almighty book, the New York Times Edition-hard cover version. Did I get that right Preacher Ross? The New York Times Edition??? Is that the edition you memorized? Does it have their world-class photography to add to the special "hardcover version"? Which version is it? Does it explain how Arlen Spector reshapes theories, literally creates new laws of physics and etc. is it similar to reading the failing NYTimes newspaper
Ross, you need to open your mind just a little bit
-
A metaphor.
Still wrong because the New York Times authorized version of The Warren Commission Report is not abbreviated. Words per page is greater but that's the only discernible difference.
I think you misunderstood his point. The WCR is a bunch of summaries and conclusions that are not actually supported by the evidence and testimonies in the Hearings and Exhibits.
-
creates new laws of physics and etc. is it similar to reading the failing NYTimes newspaper
"the failing NYTimes newspaper"
LOL... now where have I heard that one before... oh yeah.. from the guy who has 'all the words... the best words..'
The Groper/Kidnapper-in-Chief himself:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxs56j7s/Drumph-2.png)
Bray, Donald, BRAY
-
Paperboy Chaps is your name. Year to date, I have found a whopping whole 2 real stories out of thousands that were published by your employer, the NYTimes. Even the Washington Post has more real stories than the NYTimes this year, although, they only lead the Times by one real story for a total of 3. You should see if WaPo will hire you for your delivery skills, they can afford to pay more. Carlos Slim pays less than Goofy Bezos
-
Chapman and Lidell are scattering straw all over the place again [another metaphor] ...drifting further away from the original topic to proselytize unrelated ambiguous ideas. I challenge them to fire the model Carcano rifle and hit the broadside of a barn at 50 feet in 6 seconds.
-
Chapman and Lidell are scattering straw all over the place again [another metaphor] ...drifting further away from the original topic to proselytize unrelated ambiguous ideas. I challenge them to fire the model Carcano rifle and hit the broadside of a barn at 50 feet in 6 seconds.
And make sure not to practice and use a wonky scope. I wager 40 quatloos that they fail.
-
"Roger Craig" and then "Craig Rogers"? Or should it be Craig Roberts? Put the crack pipe down, Joe. It's affecting your mind.
His name is not important to me. Nor should it be important to anyone else. A lair is still a liar.
Questions:
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever claimed he set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
I expect you to dodge these two simple questions.
-
His name is not important to me. Nor should it be important to anyone else. A lair is still a liar.
Questions:
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever claimed he set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
I expect you to dodge these two simple questions.
Nonsense. The burden is on you to prove Oswald committed the crime. No one has to do prove anything to you. Don't kid yourself.
Here's a nice game for you to ponder: http://krusch.com/jfkshell/story.html
Use your head
-
His name is not important to me. Nor should it be important to anyone else. A lair is still a liar.
Questions:
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
None. However are you calling Craig Roberts a liar?
What evidence, beyond the ?word? of Craig Roberts, that Carlos Hathcock ever claimed he set up a test to see if the shooting by Oswald on November 22 was feasible?
Once again. None. And once again you appear to be calling Craig Roberts a liar.
A strange attitude towards a man who retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
Who was a highly decorated combat veteran, and holds four medals from the police department including the Tulsa Police Department's second highest award, the Medal of Valor, and who is the author of The Medusa File: Crimes and Coverups of the US Government, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza, and One Shot--One Kill: America's Combat Snipers among others.
Seems he is a liar because he doesn't agree with your opinion.
-
None. However are you calling Craig Roberts a liar? Once again. None. And once again you appear to be calling Craig Roberts a liar.
A strange attitude towards a man who retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
Who was a highly decorated combat veteran, and holds four medals from the police department including the Tulsa Police Department's second highest award, the Medal of Valor, and who is the author of The Medusa File: Crimes and Coverups of the US Government, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza, and One Shot--One Kill: America's Combat Snipers among others.
Seems he is a liar because he doesn't agree with your opinion.
Craig Roberts is not a liar because he doesn?t agree with my opinion. Craig Roberts is a liar because if what he said was true, we would have heard directly from Carlos Hathcock that these shots could not have been made. We would have heard from known associates of Carlos Hathcock that they witness these firing tests. That they themselves tried the shots and could not make them. Neither could anyone else. But the only one who knows of these firing tests is Craig Roberts. Not any of the known fellow Marines of Hathcock.
And Michael Yardley would not have been able to hit a melon size target 16 times in 16 shots using a Carcano rifle.
A strange attitude towards a man who retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.
. . .
Who was a highly decorated combat veteran . . .
Bill Burkett was a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve. And while I am no big fan of George W. Bush, Burkett was clearly a liar and a forger.
Hitler was a highly decorated combat veteran.
There is nothing about high rank or being a highly decorated combat veteran that precludes one from being a liar.
All that is germane is that Hathcock never spoke to anyone else about these firing tests, that none of the many other highly skilled Marines participants or witnesses these firing tests never spoke of them.
And Michael Yardley, with far less rifle experience than Hathcock or any other skilled Marine, was able to succeed in such tests. Indeed, wasn?t just able to hit 2 of 3 shots, as Oswald did, but never missed any of the shots.
Clearly, the logical conclusion is NOT that Michael Yardley, a relative novice with rifles, is far more skilled with a rifle than Hathcock or any other Marine.
The logical conclusion is that Craig Roberts was lying.
-
Craig Roberts is not a liar because he doesn?t agree with my opinion. Craig Roberts is a liar because if what he said was true, we would have heard directly from Carlos Hathcock that these shots could not have been made. We would have heard from known associates of Carlos Hathcock that they witness these firing tests.
Non sequitur. Because you haven't heard directly from Carlos Hathcock, he didn't do it. Typical silly argument from a Commission supporter.
-
Oswald didn't have to be as good a shooter as any of these guys.
Just luckier.
-
Oswald didn't have to be as good a shooter as any of these guys.
Just luckier.
What a stupid retort... Now you're proposing that President Kennedy was murdered by pure chance.... like a lightning strike killing a golfer on the golf course.
If there had been shots fired from that sixth floor window the shooter would have to have been well trained at firing down grade through foliage....And he could not have been firing that cranky old carcano.
-
What a stupid retort... Now you're proposing that President Kennedy was murdered by pure chance.... like a lightning strike killing a golfer on the golf course.
If there had been shots fired from that sixth floor window the shooter would have to have been well trained at firing down grade through foliage....And he could not have been firing that cranky old carcano.
You lot simply can't handle the fact that a David can destroy a Goliath
-
Non sequitur. Because you haven't heard directly from Carlos Hathcock, he didn't do it. Typical silly argument from a Commission supporter.
We wouldn?t necessarily have heard from Carlos Hathcock but we would have heard from someone.
Here is Craig Roberts quote about what Carlos Hathcock allegedly said to him:
"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".
So Hathcock and other Marines tried to recreate these shots. I am certain that many Marines would have wanted a crack at this test to see if they could do what Hathcock couldn?t. The story of these tests would have spread through Quantico like wildfire. Many more would have witnessed these tests.
But Hathcock never talks of this story, except to Craig Roberts.
The other Maines who tried to recreate the shots never talked about it to anyone.
The many more Marines who witness theses firing tests never spoke about it to anyone.
Unbelievable.
And yet, there are people out there who accept what Craig Roberts has told them. Without questioning it at all. Unbelievable.
Plus, what Craig Roberts said is unbelievable. The best Marine shooters in the world could not have equaled Oswald?s feat with these 3 shots? Miss the target by two inches with one shot. Miss the target by 8 inches with another shot. And miss the target by as much as they like with the third. None could match this with a Carcano rifle? I saw a program on the Discovery Channel were Michael Yardley, who was not even an expert with a rifle, let alone a Carcano rifle, recreated the shots. In 16 shots at the moving target with a Carcano rifle he hit the target, the size of a melon, all 16 times. But the best Marine rifle experts could not hit such a target, all at ranges of under one hundred yards? Not even once. Really?
If I told a tale that Craig Roberts once told me that he and a battalion of Marines once captured a Bigfoot in a trap. Then, after getting ready with their rifles they released the Bigfoot and tried to shoot it as it ran away but they all failed. The Bigfoot was too quick and allusive for them. After 10 seconds he disappeared into the deep woods.
But Craig Roberts never told this story to anyone else but me. None of the Marines who fired at the Bigfoot ever told this story to anyone. None of the Marines who witnessed this ever told this story to anyone. I?m the only one this story has ever been passed down to.
One would hope that one can figure out that there is a high probability that a story like this is a lie. But some people just do not have very good reasoning abilities.
-
You lot simply can't handle the fact that a David can destroy a Goliath
WTF is that supposed to mean? Forgot to take your medications today?
Oswald didn't have to be as good a shooter as any of these guys. Just luckier.
Where to practice luck? I'd like to know. Troll on...The Chapman Express >>>>>>>(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/trainwreck.gif)
-
You lot simply can't handle the fact that a David can destroy a Goliath
No ....What I can't understand is how an adult can believe in fairy tales like a little kid..... And clearly you do believe in fairy tales because you compare the murder of JFK to the tale of David and Goliath..... And the Warren Report is nothing more than a simple fairy tale.
The fact is: ...It is YOU who can't handle the truth.
-
But some people just do not have very good reasoning abilities.
Glad you admit it, Joe.
-
No ....What I can't understand is how an adult can believe in fairy tales like a little kid..... And clearly you do believe in fairy tales because you compare the murder of JFK to the tale of David and Goliath..... And the Warren Report is nothing more than a simple fairy tale.
The fact is: ...It is YOU who can't handle the truth.
::)
Oswald/David vs Kennedy/Goliath: It's about the vast power imbalance, reloaded, dummy.
You can't handle the fact that if a nobody can get to the most powerful man in the world, then anyone can take one between the eyes.
BOO! They're coming to get you Waldo!
Run, Waldo.... RUN
Hahahaha
-
:P
Oswald/David vs Kennedy/Goliath: It's about the vast power imbalance reloaded, dummy.
You can't handle the fact that if a nobody can get to the most powerful man in the world, then anyone can take one between the eyes.
BOO! They're coming to get you Waldo!
Run, Waldo.... RUN
Hahahaha
Now we can see you really don't believe anything and this is all a tale to you, more about how subjective you are. You would be great at writing stories for children.
-
We wouldn?t necessarily have heard from Carlos Hathcock but we would have heard from someone.
We did. We heard from Craig Roberts.
Plus, what Craig Roberts said is unbelievable. The best Marine shooters in the world could not have equaled Oswald?s feat with these 3 shots?
?Oswald?s feat?. LOL
Miss the target by two inches with one shot. Miss the target by 8 inches with another shot. And miss the target by as much as they like with the third.
Like you know exactly where ?the target? was, or how many shots there were.
-
We did. We heard from Craig Roberts.
?Oswald?s feat?. LOL
Like you know exactly where ?the target? was, or how many shots there were.
?Oswald?s feat?. LOL
Maybe Mr Idiot meant "Oswald's feet".....
-
Now we can see you really don't believe anything and this is all a tale to you, more about how subjective you are. You would be great at writing stories for children.
In you, I am writing for a child
The assassination was basically a mouse* getting to an elephant**
You lot need elephant-on-elephant, but the reality is that an Oswald can get to anyone
That's what keeps you lot as emotionally stunted, fearful children
*ProbablyOswald
**Definitely Kennedy
-
The assassination was basically a mouse* getting to an elephant**
Don?t you mean a gorilla getting to a basketball?
*ProbablyOswald
Probably no reason to think so.
-
Don?t you mean a gorilla getting to a basketball?
Probably no reason to think so.
Ruby getting to Oswald (unnoticed) is the gorilla thing. The observers in the basement only had eyes for basketball-headed Oswald
Proportionality bias is the Oswald v JFK thing.
Little Shot v Big Shot.
There, fixed it for you..
-
Ruby getting to Oswald (unnoticed) is the gorilla thing. The observers in the basement only had eyes for basketball-headed Oswald
Proportionality bias is the Oswald v JFK thing.
Little Shot v Big Shot.
There, fixed it for you..
Your animal analogies, while amusing, add no enlightenment.
-
In you, I am writing for a child
The assassination was basically a mouse* getting to an elephant**
You lot need elephant-on-elephant, but the reality is that an Oswald can get to anyone
That's what keeps you lot as emotionally stunted, fearful children
*ProbablyOswald
**Definitely Kennedy
That was beautiful, are you any relation to that crazy lady on the children's show" Romper Room"?
When a person like yourself avoids the subject at hand, capitulation is usually right around the corner
-
That was beautiful, are you any relation to that crazy lady on the children's show" Romper Room"?
When a person like yourself avoids the subject at hand, capitulation is usually right around the corner
Seems you're the one still watching kiddie shows
-
We wouldn?t necessarily have heard from Carlos Hathcock but we would have heard from someone.
We did. We heard from Craig Roberts.
Let me rephrase that. We would have heard from multiple people. And some of those people would have been Marines who were known associates Carlos Hathcock. Hathcock trying to find a Marine who could hit a human size target, moving at speeds of 8 to 13 mph, all at under 100 yards, would have been known by many people.
It staggers belief that no Marine and known associate of Hathcock would speak of these tests.
It also staggers belief that no Marine could be found who could hit such a target 2 out of 3 times. Particularly since Michael Yardley was able to do so 16 out of 16 times.
-
Seems you're the one still watching kiddie shows
Things are never what they seem, for example, it appears to you LHO is guilty but the problem you have is no evidence to support your stupid idea
-
It also staggers belief that no Marine could be found who could hit such a target 2 out of 3 times. Particularly since Michael Yardley was able to do so 16 out of 16 times.
Yardley shot at watermelons from a scaffold and then took "shots" in Dealey Plaza with a rifle hooked up to a laser switch.
-
Yardley shot at watermelons from a scaffold and then took "shots" in Dealey Plaza with a rifle hooked up to a laser switch.
The show I am talking about is the 2003 Discovery Channel program:
Unsolved History - JFK Conspiracy
The firing tests I am talking about are shown during: 10:00 ? 18:00
Now, there were some problems. Yardley, unlike Oswald, did not have weeks to practice with the bolt of the rifle, to practice working it smoothly. So, in about half his tests, the rifle jammed at some point.
But in about half the tests, he got off all three shots. And all the shots he successfully fired, hit the target.
So basically, we are seeing Yardley succeed when Hathcock and the best shooters at Quantico (allegedly, according the Roberts) could not come close to doing. Hitting a moving target with a Carcano rifle with at least two of their three shots. No one could do this.
Buy Robert?s story and I have a bridge to sell you.
Question:
Is any poster here willing to step up and say that they believe Robert?s story about Hathcock? Yes or No.
-
The show I am talking about is the 2003 Discovery Channel program:
Unsolved History - JFK Conspiracy
The firing tests I am talking about are shown during: 10:00 ? 18:00
Now, there were some problems. Yardley, unlike Oswald, did not have weeks to practice with the bolt of the rifle, to practice working it smoothly. So, in about half his tests, the rifle jammed at some point.
But in about half the tests, he got off all three shots. And all the shots he successfully fired, hit the target.
So basically, we are seeing Yardley succeed when Hathcock and the best shooters at Quantico (allegedly, according the Roberts) could not come close to doing. Hitting a moving target with a Carcano rifle with at least two of their three shots. No one could do this.
Buy Robert?s story and I have a bridge to sell you.
Question:
Is any poster here willing to step up and say that they believe Robert?s story about Hathcock? Yes or No.
Why was Yardley using the scope, which he obviously had enough practice to sight in? Otherwise, what a waste of time and money. And did he dust the rifle for his prints afterwards, and found none?
-
The show I am talking about is the 2003 Discovery Channel program:
Unsolved History - JFK Conspiracy
The firing tests I am talking about are shown during: 10:00 ? 18:00
Now, there were some problems. Yardley, unlike Oswald, did not have weeks to practice with the bolt of the rifle, to practice working it smoothly. So, in about half his tests, the rifle jammed at some point.
But in about half the tests, he got off all three shots. And all the shots he successfully fired, hit the target.
So basically, we are seeing Yardley succeed when Hathcock and the best shooters at Quantico (allegedly, according the Roberts) could not come close to doing. Hitting a moving target with a Carcano rifle with at least two of their three shots. No one could do this.
Buy Robert?s story and I have a bridge to sell you.
Question:
Is any poster here willing to step up and say that they believe Robert?s story about Hathcock? Yes or No.
Are you serious?
Lone nut believers always show their stupidity when they present videos that contain at least one of the following.
-People from the Discovery Channel
-People from National Geographic
-or even worse Gary "I change my mind more than a woman" Mack
"unlike Oswald, did not have weeks to practice with the bolt of the rifle, to practice working it smoothly."
You can't even prove that Oswald shot a gun that day.
What makes you think someone practiced? So if someone shot from a window they must have practiced from that window, assuming it was a window and assuming it was that window.
Your cousin Gary "I change my mind more than a woman"Mack even says the WC changes the amount of time for the shots to be fired,
yet these idiots create randoms situations blowing up any possible scenarios that may or may not have taken place
-
Now, there were some problems. Yardley, unlike Oswald, did not have weeks to practice with the bolt of the rifle, to practice working it smoothly. So, in about half his tests, the rifle jammed at some point.
What?s your evidence that Oswald practiced working the bolt of any rifle for weeks?
-
What?s your evidence that Oswald practiced working the bolt of any rifle for weeks?
Oswald had weeks of opportunity to practice working the bolt.
In the testimony of Mrs. Oswald:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
we learn that he did at least have some practice working the bolt of the rifle.
And even if he had no more practice than Michael Yardley, he should have about a 50-50 chance of getting off 3 shots. Yardley attempted firing 3 shots in quick session 7 times. This should result in 21 shots. Instead he only got off 16 shots. As I recall he got off all 3 shots about half the time, while sometimes only able to fire just one or two shots.
Every time he got off a shot, he hit the target. Indicating that accurately aiming the rifle at a moving target at under 100 yards was not too difficult.
-
In the testimony of Mrs. Oswald:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
we learn that he did at least have some practice working the bolt of the rifle.
I suggest you read it again.
And even if he had no more practice than Michael Yardley, he should have about a 50-50 chance of getting off 3 shots. Yardley attempted firing 3 shots in quick session 7 times.
Are you suggesting that Oswald?s skills were comparable to Yardley?s?
-
Why was Yardley using the scope, which he obviously had enough practice to sight in? Otherwise, what a waste of time and money.
Yardley was using the scope. I would prefer tests where half the time he used a scope and half the time he didn?t.
In the following article we learn:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm
we learn that riflemen with only a few minutes of practice working the bolt was able to use the Carcano iron sights were able to firing rapidly at targets of various distances of 143, 165 and 266 feet, even with very tight timing of only 5 seconds and even under 4 seconds. Of course, between z153 and z312, Oswald had 8.8 seconds.
In any case, testing the scope is not ?worthless? because, for all we know, the scope may have been used by Oswald. We don?t know if the scope was aligned properly or not because it was removed to check for fingerprints (and Oswald?s fingerprints were found) on the evening after the assassination. I believe it probably was not. But I could be mistaken on this point. Nobody knows.
And did he dust the rifle for his prints afterwards, and found none?
The Dallas Police Department found Oswald?s fingerprints on the rifle when they took off the scope and dusted the rifle the evening after the assassination.
The FBI was not able to find any fingerprints when they tried to lift fingerprints later. This is not surprising because one cannot continue to lift fingerprints time after time again and always find more fingerprints. After one or two such ?lifting?, subsequent lifting attempts will always fail.