JFK Assassination Forum

There is no federal law requiring records being kept for sales between individuals. Gun dealers have been required to keep records of gun purchases since 1938. The fact Oswald decided to purchase a rifle via mail order rather than from a private seller is evidence of nothing. Trying to read Oswald's mind an any point in time is a futile effort.

We don't have to read his mind. A mere two days after completing his preparations for the attempt on Walker, and while living in the most gun-happy, gun-friendly state in America, he chose to buy a cheap rifle by mail from a dealer in Illinois using his own post office box and an alias when he could have easily bought a better rifle that would have been completely untraceable right there in Dallas. This is what he did, regardless of why. The law allows a judge or jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. There is a clear disconnect that, together with other evidence, might lead to reasonable inferences that there was no such preparation, or Oswald didn't order the rifle, or Oswald had no intent to shoot at Walker.

This is likewise true with history. Historians are entitled to draw reasonable inferences, and sometimes their reasonable inferences are quite different. You seem to want to think that the LN narrative itself is a fact, when it simply isn't. It's a plausible account of what occurred, but it isn't sacrosanct and it isn't without problem areas. I have highlighted some of the aspects that nag at me, not in an effort to read Oswald's mind but to try to make sense of what he did in the context of the LN narrative - or any other narrative that might more plausibly explain what he did.

Ditto with his choice to assemble his rifle and set up the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the building where he was employed, having no way to control who might be on that floor and having little chance of escaping without being seen, captured or killed, when he could have exited the building with his "curtain rods" and set up in a location far less risky. Again, we are talking about what he did, not why. One reasonable inference might be "He didn't do that. He wasn't on the sixth floor." - which happens to be exactly what he claimed.

I'm not saying by any means that the only reasonable inferences favor some conspiracy theory. I'm simply saying that when we look at the evidence of what Oswald did, much of it seems somewhat problematical for the LN narrative.

LP--

On the surface, it is inexplicable when otherwise sane and high IQ people gravitate towards a whacky CT.

The 9/11 Truthers really take the cake, possibly along with the Fake Moon Landing people.

Sometimes people "snap" somewhere in life, possibly due to stress, lack of companionship, self-perceived lack of status, etc. Some men and many women seem to "go batty."

On Griffin, all I can say his specialty was outside physics or mechanical engineering and so on.

Way OT, when I lived in California I noted billionaire types who married younger women, and then supported this or that "liberal" cause. This is almost cliche. Maybe Griffin hooked up with a Truther.

That scope on that MC rifle was mounted to the left side of the stock and it’s doubtful what range the scope had been zeroed at and when it had last been checked.

And when was the last time that Oswald  had shot at a moving target prior to Nov/22/63 anyway?

So a near miss to the right side of the limo is certainly plausible at the shorter range which requires a faster tracking adjustment by the shooter to keep the scope reticle or the iron sights on target.

As has been noted before, a professional shooter probably would never have chosen this scenario of shooting at a moving target from high elevation  when there was ample opportunity to have shot  at a stationary JFK  giving a speech from a position at approx same elevation.

A CT alternative might be that a BOP survivor   decided to shoot JFK in Dealey Plaza as a spectacle execution as revenge for his fellow BOP comrades being betrayed. This person perhaps was infuriated that Oswald was a pro Castro Marxist kook from having seen Oswald in New Orleans.

We will just have to disagree. Here’s a paragraph from the study I did a while back and a link in case you wish to read more.


I have related all of the above information in hopes that it might help drive home what a suggested minimum of 36” miss from the intended point of impact at a 104’ distance really looks like. It has been suggested that an intended shot missed the entire limo due to the limo’s movement. Let’s see what that would look like in MOA. A 36” miss means that 36” would be the radius of a circle target centered on the intended point of impact. That means a 72” in diameter target would have been completely missed from a distance of 104’. That size target is ~208-MOA at 104’. Does it seem reasonable to believe that LHO might have missed by that much if his shot was an intentional shot that was not interfered with? It definitely doesn’t seem reasonable to me. And that is just one reason why I believe an early missed shot was probably inadvertent due to some unexpected interference from the box in the window.


https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173

We both recognize the difficulty of the early shot. You believe Oswald wouldn't have taken that shot on purpose due to the difficulty and I believe he took the shot even with the difficulty and missed as a result. Either seems plausible to me and there's only one person who knew the truth and he's not talking. I don't think a 3' miss would be necessary to miss the entire limo. JFK was as far to his right as possible. I estimate it would only be about 18" from his center of mass to the outside of the car. It would likely have required a miss of about 2' to miss the car entirely.  Given he likely would have raised up into a crouching position to fire at such a steep downward angle and probably wouldn't have been able to use the boxes to steady his aim, a miss of 2' seems reasonable to me.

I used to work on the 6th floor of an office building and my window was along an alley. The angle of the alley wasn't the same as Elm St. and the window didn't have a low sill like the 6th floor of the TSBD. Still, I was able to imagine myself trying fire downward at a moving target in the alley and it seemed it would have been a very difficult shot. I don't think it is a stretch to think Oswald would miss that shot badly. 

You really do have a problem with basic logic. Just because you don't know the answer to a question does not mean that the only answer you can think of is the correct one.

   Are YOU claiming the balding guy standing on the TSBD steps is Not Lovelady? If so, say so. 
   This is pretty clear, especially when considering where Lovelady was standing on Altgens 6. Lovelady is NOT 1 of the "2 Guys" moving away from the "getaway" car on the Couch and Darnell Films.