Mark Hansen wrote:

Boombats wrote:

AlBStern wrote:Does anyone find it strange that the test was conducted by unnamed "Italian weapons experts" and that there doesn't appear to be any accompanying video of the test? Why would their identities need to be kept secret?

Hey, fugghedaboutit! Vinny don't need ta tell nobody nothin'.

I think you need us to manage your waste, if you get my drift.

Hey, just because a few self-employed Italian-Americans in the carting business happen to have some meetings at some strip clubs, and then somebody gets whacked the next day, don't mean nothin'.

Earwicker wrote:And didn't the gun have a fault (the scope?)

And why wouldn't he go for the clearer, easier shot as the vehicle was traveling slowly, directly toward the window Oswald (1,2 or 3) was allegedly in?

(granted this last question does nothing to highlight the situation but adds to the overall sense that the official explanation is suspicious)

Anyways, Galanter, I've heard there is some explanation for how the bullet swam around in mid air shooting several people in several different places before being discovered later and I'd be interested in seeing this explanation. Can you point me to a link to some info on that?

Also Galanter were you around when the thread regarding the CIA's involvement in Bobby Kennedy's death was floating around?

I've been able to actually look out the window Oswald shot from. At the time the very first thing I thought was "Why didn't he shoot when the cars were coming at him?" It looked like a better shot to me too. Some ideas:

* Because he wanted to be sure he was shooting at Kennedy and there was a long stream of cars.

* Because he was really shooting at Connelly who, riding in the jump seat, would be lower and harder to see.

*Because after the first shot it would be easier for agents or others to shield Kennedy from the front than the back. (Recall the agent climbing on the back of the limo well after it was too late).

* Because he was a coward, and shooting someone in the face is a lot harder than shooting them in the back.

* Because he was uncertain until the very last moment about doing it at all.

Ultimately we may never know. I lean towards some combination of the last three.

I believe the scope was a bit misaligned, but if he had been target shooting with the rifle he could compensate for that from experience.

Regarding the magic bullet...

The little magical dance would be required if Kennedy and Connelly were seated one directly in the front of the other and both at the same level. So here is what the standard theory critics would present.





This seating is a natural assumption to make...but it's factually incorrect. Connelly was in a limo jump seat which was both lower than and to the left of Kennedy's position. Here is what actually happened.





Keep in mind that Connelly's seat is also lower than Kennedy's, and that is why the shot can travel downward through both of them as it does.

I can't explain why this one particular guy thinks the shots are so hard to make. I've heard others say it was no big deal. I've seen it demonstrated more than once (on video).

We can judge for ourselves with common sense.

We know Oswald could hit a 10 inch target 600 feet away 8 out of 10 times (80%).

Is it surprising he hit Kennedy at less than 1/3 the distance 2 out of 3 times (67%)?

(Yes the target was moving...but only slowly...)

If it had been fired by Sam Giancana from behind Judith Campbell Exner's labium this story would hold some weight.

this may clarify the term "marksman" used in the military.

in this case, it is a C average.

http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16 ... 6qual.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/

The more you learn about Oswald, the less surprising the standard theory sounds.

Small high pitched voice from the corner: BUT THAT'S ALL PLANTED INFO FROM THE CIA. EVERYONE KNOWS THERE WERE 7 OSWALDS. BUT REALLY THERE WERE 13. YOU CAN TELL BY THE SHADOW FROM HIS NOSE IN ALL THE FAKED PHOTOS EXCEPT ONE A RESEARCHER SHOWED ME. IT'S ALL RELATED TO THE ROYAL FAMILY AND THEIR NEED TO CORNER THE MARKET IN PORK RINDS....

etc etc etc

Whether Oswald could have pulled of this shooting feat(I would say possible- not probable given the rifle, elevation, moving target, 2nd time, if conceded Walker shot, time shooting at a human) is a sidelight.
The important part of the article is the actual behavior of the bullet that traversed Kennedy and Connally is typical of a copper jacketed bullet.
It keeps its integrity even when passing though human bodies(maybe not quite to the degree of CE399 which is in the state similar to being shot into a barrel of water).
The problem is the kill shot into Kennedy's head fragmented into a thousand pieces which is not consistent with a full jacketed round. This is consistent with a soft round or exploding round. A copper jacketed round is more than capable of traversing a human skull and exiting somewhat intact.
As the article states the two wounds can not be reconciled one is consistent with a copper jacketed round another is consistent with a soft round.

galanter wrote:I've seen more than one demonstration of Oswalds shooting being entirely possible. And contrary to some reports, it wasn't a difficult shot (I've looked out that window and can personally affirm that), and Oswald was a pretty good marksman who loved his gun.

I've stood in that window too, and I'd like to take you hunting, eagle eye. I got a feeling if that looked like an easy shot to you and I can get you into the woods, then I am never going to have to buy meat again.

Three shots with a bolt action, mil-spec, iron sighted rifle from that distance and every one of them dead on the money?

Hell, yeah, son, let's go fill up the freezer! You're gonna be my sharp-shootin' Rain Man!

"Yeah, you can visit that book depository and look out that window and its set up exactly like it was on the day of the assassination...and its really accurate...
cause Oswald's not in it."
B. Hicks

Forgive me for my naivete, and for dragging this thread out even longer, but I'd like to bring up what I consider the main flaw in the "Oswald was a patsy" slew of conspiracy theories:

All questions about the actual circumstances of the shooting aside, none of the conspiracy theories have demonstrated how Kennedy's death was of *real* benefit to the CIA, mafia, Soviets, Cubans or anybody purported to have been responsible for offing him. Kennedy's successors showed no real signs of lightening up on the these groups (OK, I admit I'm not sure about the CIA). In nearly 45 years since Kennedy's death, convincing evidence on how the assassination helped anyone has yet to emerge.

In this light, the 'US government did the World Trade Center' theory seems downright plausible, as evidence for how this tragedy was of benefit to the government is all over the place (just to use it as an example).