JFK Assassination Forum

I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.

When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.

I find it far more probable that the witnesses' judgement of flying objects doing things that are physically impossible is flawed.

The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes,

Again, it makes far more sense to question the judgement of the witnesses than to question our understanding of physical laws.

time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.

Either that or the eyewitness accounts are FUBAR. I know which one I am betting on.

UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.

What makes these witnesses credible?

A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.
[/quote]

All theoretical. No proof of additional dimensions.

I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations

It doesn't defy the explanation that eyewitnesses are very frequently wrong about what they thought they saw.

(and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.

The parallel with the JFKA is that a lot of people would prefer to believe something fantastic over the plain old boring truth.

No proof of practice is needed. We have ample proof Oswald fired that rifle on 11/22/63. That is all that is needed.

  Chain of custody is not needed either huh?
Excuses abound.

There they are. Excuses every one. Forget about proof, there is no evidence for any of it.

No proof of practice is needed. We have ample proof Oswald fired that rifle on 11/22/63. That is all that is needed.

You guys own rifles. I don't. How long can you go without cleaning it and still use it?

Depends on how often you fire it.

Interesting there is no sign of any maintenance kit for the gun. It is required.
He had the gun for 8 months. The bolt would stick, the crappy scope wobbled. The gun nut never bettered it.
And no cleaning kit. No empty shells. No shell boxes.  Nothing.

What excuse do you have for these?

No excuse needed. Whatever flaws the rifle had, real or imagined, the ballistics prove that someone killed JFK with that rifle. There is ample evidence that the someone was Oswald.

cite?

Mr. Rankin: …there are a good many stories about his practicing with a gun, you know, around various rifle ranges and so forth,
we have checked those out and none of them stand up at all. (Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964)

He would have paid cash at a rifle range so there would be no record of it. He also could have found an open area somewhere where he wouldn't have to pay. Some have speculated he could have practiced down by the Trinity River. In any case, lack of a record of his practicing does not rule out that he practiced. Carcano ammo is sold in boxes of 20. He fired one shot at Walker and had four rounds left when he shot JFK. That leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for. It's also possible he could have bought more than one box of ammo. We don't know how much he practiced or when, but it is probable he practiced somewhere, sometime. Regardless, there is conclusive evidence he fired three shots on 11/22/63 and three of those shots hit JFK.

How does he shoot a rifle mounted on boxes out of a window, that is about 12 inches from the floor and only open about 13 inches?

Not difficult at all. He could have fired from a kneeling position which he would have practiced in the USMC. He showed proficiency from that position. Only the first shot would have been complicated by the low window which might explain why he missed.