JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jim Brunsman on June 04, 2020, 04:30:36 PM
-
A few questions on the plans for LHO if he intended to kill JFK on 11/22/63. I assume these issues have been covered here before, but I'm only a sporadic visitor here...
1) Why would he order a rifle using an assumed name when he could have gone to almost any Dallas gun clinic without having to produce ID?
2) Why on earth would any assassin choose such an archaic and inaccurate WW II era weapon to kill the world's most powerful person?
3) What happened to the 7.65 Mauser found in the depository? Wouldn't that be the weapon a real assassin would opt for?
-
A few questions on the plans for LHO if he intended to kill JFK on 11/22/63. I assume these issues have been covered here before, but I'm only a sporadic visitor here...
1) Why would he order a rifle using an assumed name when he could have gone to almost any Dallas gun clinic without having to produce ID?
2) Why on earth would any assassin choose such an archaic and inaccurate WW II era weapon to kill the world's most powerful person?
3) What happened to the 7.65 Mauser found in the depository? Wouldn't that be the weapon a real assassin would opt for?
James,
1) Maybe because it was cheaper that way?
2) You mean to kill, at close range, Edwin Walker?
3) The Carcano looked like a mauser, even to police officers.
-- MWT ;)
PS Did you know that the round-nosed ammo for the Carcano was very stable-in-flight, and more accurate, generally speaking, than conventionally-shaped ammo?
-
Tommy, are you saying that "Lee Hardly" couldn't save up for a weapon that could accurately hit a target? Ordering a rifle by mail using an assumed name when he could get a gun in person without a paper trail makes no sense WHATSOEVER. I smell a set up. Oswald apparently struggled financially, but this is not logical.
Edwin Walker is 100% irrelevant and what proof have we that Oswald fired a weapon at Walker? Are you saying LHO was an indiscriminate attempted assassin with no political motives? Why was the license plate of the car parked in front of Walker's house blacked out? Even if Oswald fired at Walker, is this necessarily proof of his capacity for political assassination? Doesn't prove squat, especially since Walker and JFK were on different ends of the political spectrum.
The Mauser had "7.65 Mauser" clearly stamped on the barrel according to the witnesses. I believe it was Boone and Roger Craig who reported this.
Then you make a claim about accuracy of ammunition? WTF? Where did you get that???
Your explanations, as always, are nonsensical and demonstrably false.
-
A few questions on the plans for LHO if he intended to kill JFK on 11/22/63. I assume these issues have been covered here before, but I'm only a sporadic visitor here...
1) Why would he order a rifle using an assumed name when he could have gone to almost any Dallas gun clinic without having to produce ID?
2) Why on earth would any assassin choose such an archaic and inaccurate WW II era weapon to kill the world's most powerful person?
3) What happened to the 7.65 Mauser found in the depository? Wouldn't that be the weapon a real assassin would opt for?
1) At the time, LHO was working in photography and he apparently fabricated a fake ID card using the photographic techniques that he was learning, and the facilities of his employer. Subsequently, I believe that he was probably itching to use his new fake identification. And ordering the guns using his conjured up name would have given him an opportunity to present the fake card if and when he was asked for an ID. I don’t think that he really thought the traceability issue through thoroughly. (He really wasn’t as smart as he thought he was.) Also, I don’t think that he was planning the JFK assassination at that point in time.
2) He was frugal. Tests indicated that the rifle was reasonably accurate.
3 What Mauser? And apparently not.
-
Tommy, are you saying that "Lee Hardly" couldn't save up for a weapon that could accurately hit a target? Ordering a rifle by mail using an assumed name when he could get a gun in person without a paper trail makes no sense WHATSOEVER. I smell a set up. Oswald apparently struggled financially, but this is not logical.
Edwin Walker is 100% irrelevant and what proof have we that Oswald fired a weapon at Walker? Are you saying LHO was an indiscriminate attempted assassin with no political motives? Why was the license plate of the car parked in front of Walker's house blacked out? Even if Oswald fired at Walker, is this necessarily proof of his capacity for political assassination? Doesn't prove squat, especially since Walker and JFK were on different ends of the political spectrum.
The Mauser had "7.65 Mauser" clearly stamped on the barrel according to the witnesses. I believe it was Boone and Roger Craig who reported this.
Then you make a claim about accuracy of ammunition? WTF? Where did you get that??
[Crummy-attitude statement deleted]
Dear James,
1) It's my understanding that, despite the fact that the scope was about four inches out of alignment at 100 yards or so, Oswald's Carcano was quite accurate, and Oswald, realizing the scope was off (after the first shot?), could have compensated for it.
"Unfortunately" for Oswald, he (iirc) hit the wood between two window panes in the Walker attempt, and his bullet glanced the "mast" arm of the traffic light with his first shot at JFK.
2) Can you understand that a bullet with a rounded nose "wobbles" less than a pointed-nose bullet as it travels down the bore of the barrell for the simple reason that it has more of its surface area in contact with the bore than a pointed-nose bullet does?
-- MWT ;)
PS What's with the crummy attitude, btw?
-
Every comment on this thread has been beaten to death for 50+ years. The answers were buried with Oswald in 1963. Anything else is utter speculation. What’s the point of it in 2020?
-
May doesn't like the questions, so he lashes out. What about answers for once using your own brain?
-
May doesn't like the questions, so he lashes out. What about answers for once using your own brain?
You’re right. Hate 50 year old questions. Yet, you have stated multiple times “there’s a mountain of evidence” for multiple shooters. This would be refreshingly new evidence. Yet, I’ve asked you to share it with the readers. Your response? None. You disappear with the entire mountain.hiw does that happen?
-
Now who's the neophyte? Anyone who has spent three minutes researching the case can clearly see that the Zapruder film indicates a shot from the right front. Clint Hill said there was a large hole in the back of the head. This is what he said before Specter and his bunch began intimidating witnesses. Are you going to tell us that the witnesses seeing and hearing gunshots from this location are liars or mistaken? The shot in the throat was not through the tie as you continually and falsely write. Not what Doctor Perry saw and he actually did the tracheotomy. All the Dallas doctors said the same thing: wound of entrance in the front, wound of exit in the back of the head. All of it totally opposite to your impossible scenarios. Can't wait to hear our ballistics genius tell me that entrance wounds are larger than exits. Black is white. Up is down. Please provide an innocent explanation for the Lee Bowers testimony. Are you telling us Holland, Simmons, and his crew were liars? When Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell finally fessed up and told the truth of what they actually heard that day from the follow-up car, I'm sure you will prefer to believe their sanitized testimony. What about the entire Willis family swearing there was at least one frontal shot? All liars, right?
The autopsy witnesses, except for that treasonous final report, told us of a massive wound in the back of the head, a wound in the upper back THAT DID NOT EXIT, and the throat wound, which looked somewhat like an exit following the tracheotomy. Yes, it's pretty clear this wound was tampered with at Bethesda and you will have to make Dr. Crenshaw a liar to deny this.
That's really just part of the story. I don't have all day to repeat this evidence that bugs May so much. Now we await the discrediting of witnesses with no motive to prevaricate...
-
Now who's the neophyte? Anyone who has spent three minutes researching the case can clearly see that the Zapruder film indicates a shot from the right front. Clint Hill said there was a large hole in the back of the head. This is what he said before Specter and his bunch began intimidating witnesses. Are you going to tell us that the witnesses seeing and hearing gunshots from this location are liars or mistaken? The shot in the throat was not through the tie as you continually and falsely write. Not what Doctor Perry saw and he actually did the tracheotomy. All the Dallas doctors said the same thing: wound of entrance in the front, wound of exit in the back of the head. All of it totally opposite to your impossible scenarios. Can't wait to hear our ballistics genius tell me that entrance wounds are larger than exits. Black is white. Up is down. Please provide an innocent explanation for the Lee Bowers testimony. Are you telling us Holland, Simmons, and his crew were liars? When Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell finally fessed up and told the truth of what they actually heard that day from the follow-up car, I'm sure you will prefer to believe their sanitized testimony. What about the entire Willis family swearing there was at least one frontal shot? All liars, right?
The autopsy witnesses, except for that treasonous final report, told us of a massive wound in the back of the head, a wound in the upper back THAT DID NOT EXIT, and the throat wound, which looked somewhat like an exit following the tracheotomy. Yes, it's pretty clear this wound was tampered with at Bethesda and you will have to make Dr. Crenshaw a liar to deny this.
That's really just part of the story. I don't have all day to repeat this evidence that bugs May so much. Now we await the discrediting of witnesses with no motive to prevaricate...
Anyone who has spent three minutes researching the case can clearly see that the Zapruder film indicates a shot from the right front.
I love your repeated phrase “clearly see”. Simply astounding ignorance on your part. That you can even make this statement defies logic. Every single forensic pathologist, including the renowned group on the HSCA determined 2 shots from above and behind hit POTUS. Are you a forensic pathologist? Were that the case, you just might be the only one EVER to disagree with the findings of four investigations. Nor can you change the physical evidence. The nick in the tie is physical evidence of the direction of the shot. CLEARLY all of those conspiracy books you appear to devour have warped your mind. You continually CLEARLY rely on witnesses when you don’t like the actual evidence in the case. You CLEARLY are a neophyte but CLEARLY not very bright. Anyone who has spent three minutes reading your crap would CLEARLY reach the same conclusion. Not a clue. CLEARLY.
-
Somewhat disappointing you haven't shared you "understanding(s)" on Compensating Wonky Scopes.
Should provide hours of fun!
Reading up on the subject?
Dear Otto,
I would imagine that the assassin could have gotten an idea how much the scope was off by seeing where his first shot hit the traffic light's mast arm, and compensated accordingly on his second and third shots ... or hey! ... used the carbine's iron sights, instead!
By the way, what's with the crummy attitude?
Are you angry at me because I don't believe the "evil, evil, evil" CIA killed JFK?
-- MWT ;)
-
I do consider my attitude cheerful!
Even more so when I read your suggestion above as to how his first shot went BOOM-DING on the mast..... :D :D :D
Thanks for making my day, Graves!
Dear Otto,
You don't think that happened?
His first shot hitting the mast arm, or his seeing it?
How about iron sights?
Did the carbine have iron sights?
Gasp ... Were they out of alignment, too?
-- MWT ;)
-
You just keep giving, awesome!
Assume he spotted the nick, visually.
Please walk us through the correction process.
"Spotted the nick," or saw something when the bullet shed its copper jacket?
Clever dude that you are, you can figure it out for yourself, Beck.
Question:
Are you angry at me because unlike you, James B. and Jumbo Duh, I don't believe the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
Or is it because I hate your beloved KGB?
-- MWT ;)
-
Dear Mr. May: It's fine to disagree with my opinions, but you don't provide any evidence to the contrary. Please tell us how I'm wrong about the Zapruder film. Are you seriously going to foment the most unscientific horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns about a "jet effect" or "neuromuscular reaction?" You can call me stupid, but that doesn't make it so. I asked you several questions after you arrogantly and repeatedly harassed me to show my evidence. Once I did so, you just threw a temper tantrum and started trying to impugn my character. If that makes you feel better, go for it. But I've destroyed your impossible arguments on multiple occasions, which is the reason for your outsized animosity toward me. God bless...
-
Dear Mr. May: It's fine to disagree with my opinions, but you don't provide any evidence to the contrary. Please tell us how I'm wrong about the Zapruder film. Are you seriously going to foment the most unscientific horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns about a "jet effect" or "neuromuscular reaction?" You can call me stupid, but that doesn't make it so. I asked you several questions after you arrogantly and repeatedly harassed me to show my evidence. Once I did so, you just threw a temper tantrum and started trying to impugn my character. If that makes you feel better, go for it. But I've destroyed your impossible arguments on multiple occasions, which is the reason for your outsized animosity toward me. God bless...
kinda reminds me of someone else we all know
-
Dear Otto,
Are you angry at me because unlike you, James B. and Jumbo Duh, I don't believe the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
Or is it because I hate your beloved KGB?
.
No reason to be angry considering all the fun you provide. Beats Biden!
.
Dear Otto,
So, you love the KGB (today's SVR and FSB) and you hate Joe Biden, is that it?
Gonna write-in Birdie? Jill "Anti-Vax" Stein? Not vote at all?
-- MWT ;)
-
Graves unhinged.
Get help.
Bye.
Poor Otto.
-- MWT ;)
-
A few questions on the plans for LHO if he intended to kill JFK on 11/22/63. I assume these issues have been covered here before, but I'm only a sporadic visitor here...
1) Why would he order a rifle using an assumed name when he could have gone to almost any Dallas gun clinic without having to produce ID?
2) Why on earth would any assassin choose such an archaic and inaccurate WW II era weapon to kill the world's most powerful person?
3) What happened to the 7.65 Mauser found in the depository? Wouldn't that be the weapon a real assassin would opt for?
1) He risked being remembered by a gun clerk if he buys the rifle in person shortly before someone tries to shoot Walker in Dallas. If he had done so, CTers would be on here asking why he didn't just order a rifle by mail using an alias etc. Also, it's important to keep in mind that at the time he ordered his rifle, he was not contemplating a situation like the one on 11.22. He intended to use it to kill Walker but he would not leave it at the crime scene to be discovered. Using an alias provides some cover for his identity. And Oswald likely had no clue what, if any, records were retained by Klein's of his purchase. Murder entails risk. Oswald was willing to take that risk. Even if you don't accept any of those explanations and think it was stupid to order the rifle via mail, criminals often do dumb things that result in their arrest. What is being suggested by your question is that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is innocent.
2) There is no evidence that Oswald's rifle was incapable of the task. It was a lethal weapon. If Oswald had purchased a more expensive rifle, then CTers would be on here questioning where he got the money to purchase it etc. But if you are entertaining the outlandish possibility that Oswald was framed for the crime as evidence by the poor performance of the rifle, then why would your fantasy conspirators put such a rifle in his possession when they were free to connect him to any model that they wanted?
3) This question contains a false premise. No such rifle was found.
-
1) He risked being remembered by a gun clerk if he buys the rifle in person shortly before someone tries to shoot Walker in Dallas. If he had done so, CTers would be on here asking why he didn't just order a rifle by mail using an alias etc.
If Oswald had purchased a more expensive rifle, then CTers would be on here questioning where he got the money to purchase it etc.
Strawman “Smith” rides again.
-
Using an alias provides some cover for his identity.
Oswald was a reasonably intelligent person.
But made sure the order was shipped to his own P.O. box!
Good job, Richard!
Wow. It's a bit hard to receive something by mail without providing an address. Take it up with Oswald, though. He is the one who did it and left the trail evidence. What you are suggesting basically is that the evidence against him is so strong that we can only conclude he is innocent. How about demonstrating to us, for example, that Oswald knew Klein's retained records of his order and could trace this transaction months later to his PO Box. Keep in mind this was in 1963.
-
Dear Mr. May: It's fine to disagree with my opinions, but you don't provide any evidence to the contrary. Please tell us how I'm wrong about the Zapruder film. Are you seriously going to foment the most unscientific horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns about a "jet effect" or "neuromuscular reaction?" You can call me stupid, but that doesn't make it so. I asked you several questions after you arrogantly and repeatedly harassed me to show my evidence. Once I did so, you just threw a temper tantrum and started trying to impugn my character. If that makes you feel better, go for it. But I've destroyed your impossible arguments on multiple occasions, which is the reason for your outsized animosity toward me. God bless...
Dear James,
JFK's relatively slow (compared to the speed of the hypothetical bullet-from-the-front you CTers like to posit) but catastrophic backward neuromuscular reaction while sitting and wearing a tight back-brace (hint: our back muscles are stronger that our stomach muscles) is bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns?
Newton's Third Law (hint: The bullet that penetrated the back of JFK's skull, fragmented into four large pieces and created a palm-sized exit hole in the top right part of his skull created a tremendous pressure inside his skull, which pressure forced the partially liquified right half of his brain through that palm-sized hole, and, not unlike exhaust leaving a jet engine, forced his head "back, and to the left") ... is bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns?
It's really too bad that those two effects combined during the assassination of JFK to create a Giraldo Rivera-worthy shocking graphic that so easily fools gullible CTers into believing the Zapruder film shows "indisputable evidence of a head shot from the front".
Wherever that is.
-- MWT ;)
-
Really?
He's dead.
No supporting evidence for that claim.
I suggested no such thing.
Any reasonable intelligent person (which immediately excludes you) would expect Klein's to retain records for some time in case of customer complains, like not receiving what was ordered.
which means?
Oswald would not have known what type of records that Klein's retained for this transaction or how long they would have retained them. In addition, that consideration would not have mattered a great deal to him at the time he ordered his rifle because he did not anticipate leaving it at a crime scene to be found and traced back to him. The circumstance presented on 11.22 were not known to him at the time he ordered the rifle. Rather, he anticipated using it to kill Walker and then hiding it to avoid discovery. Which is exactly what he did. And it worked.
-
There is no supporting evidence for Oswald's shooting at Walker (except for Marina -- LOL)
Dear Otto,
And why would Marina say that?
Because the evil, evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil, evil FBI told her to?
LOL!
-- MWT ;)
-
He risked being remembered by a gun clerk if he buys the rifle in person shortly before someone tries to shoot Walker in Dallas.
But he didn't risk being remembered by the postal clerk that brought the rifle [that supposedly killed JFK] to the post office counter.
Nice try.
-
But he didn't risk being remembered by the postal clerk that brought the rifle [that supposedly killed JFK] to the post office counter.
Nice try.
Did the outside of Oswald's package have any indication that a rifle was within?
JohnM
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg)
Did the outside of Oswald's package have any indication that a rifle was within?
Assuming that the rifle that A J Hidell ordered was delivered completely assembled and the packaging/box said Klein's Sporting Goods as the addressee...would have been indicative. It could have contained a pair of stilts or a pogo stick.
I think that similar rifle packaging should have been obtained and entered as evidence.
But still...Hidell would be a tough name to not remember.
-
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg)Assuming that the rifle that A J Hidell ordered was delivered completely assembled and the packaging/box said Klein's Sporting Goods as the addressee...would have been indicative. It could have contained a pair of stilts or a pogo stick.
I think that similar rifle packaging should have been obtained and entered as evidence.
But still...Hidell would be a tough name to not remember.
It could have contained a pair of stilts or a pogo stick.
Exactly, it also could have been a baseball bat, a hockey stick, a golf club or basically anything that was long.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/luwAAOSwuOde2dQ1/s-l640.jpg)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0020/1025/1324/products/Vintage_Field_Hockey_Stick_Retro_WIllow_Edition_Hero_Image_1024x1024.jpg?v=1542154567)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wdUAAOSwPuhdIY-Z/s-l640.jpg)
But still...Hidell would be a tough name to not remember.
Out of thousands of names "Hidell" would be no different to any other name but maybe if he was called Alek Ballsack then that might be worth remembering.
JohnM
-
Wow. It's a bit hard to receive something by mail without providing an address. Take it up with Oswald, though. He is the one who did it and left the trail evidence. What you are suggesting basically is that the evidence against him is so strong that we can only conclude he is innocent. How about demonstrating to us, for example, that Oswald knew Klein's retained records of his order and could trace this transaction months later to his PO Box. Keep in mind this was in 1963.
How about demonstrating to us, for example, that Oswald ever received this rifle by mail?