Quote: (03-04-2017 12:30 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

In summary, what I'm going to look into over time (and hopefully what some of you shooters out here can adjust my knowledge on) is the bullets themselves, and the fragments left in JFK's brain in particular. The query comes down to: is the "your head asplode" result we see on the Zapruder footage a possible consequence of being hit with one of the bullets that appear to have been loaded in "Oswald's rifle" - full metal jacket, apparently not frangible rounds?

If it's simply not possible for that to have happened, then, by pure logic, there must have been a second rifle and therefore a second gunman - because Oswald's ammunition is known and reasoned out from the physical evidence, and did not include frangible ammo.

Yes. It is quite possible for his head to explode with that round based on the average velocities and energy levels you can see on wikipedia. That round is 3-4X more powerful than a .357 magnum.

Frangible rounds have been mentioned in this topic before. That's largely the realm of Hollywood movies. Too much of our gun knowledge comes from fake hollywood movies where people get shot and fully recover. There's a reason why bullet wounds that result in no permanent injury or disability are called "million dollar wound." It's because they're quite rare.

Quote: (03-03-2017 10:41 AM)LockeAndLoad Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 03:31 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

If you believe the "official story" of the JFK assassination, you're fucking retarded.

That's an incredibly nuanced, articulate, thought-out analysis. Care to elaborate?

He may not be subtle, but he is correct.

Quote: (03-03-2017 08:48 PM)robreke Wrote:  

...
My observations:

Shooting with a rifle from the 6th floor of the building at a target in a slow moving car would not have been difficult. I grew up shooting and I'm confident that I, with my non-military background, could have probably made a head shot on someone in a slow moving car using a rifle with a sighted-in scope from that spot and at that range. It wouldn't have been difficult if you were a fairly proficient marksman.

Getting 3 shots off in less than 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle? Yes, that would have been difficult but not impossible. Especially for a young man in his prime who may have been practicing in the weeks leading up to it and an ex-Marine to boot. In addition, his adrenaline would have been hyped up, probably improving performance.

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

Quote: (03-04-2017 04:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 08:48 PM)robreke Wrote:  

...
My observations:

Shooting with a rifle from the 6th floor of the building at a target in a slow moving car would not have been difficult. I grew up shooting and I'm confident that I, with my non-military background, could have probably made a head shot on someone in a slow moving car using a rifle with a sighted-in scope from that spot and at that range. It wouldn't have been difficult if you were a fairly proficient marksman.

Getting 3 shots off in less than 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle? Yes, that would have been difficult but not impossible. Especially for a young man in his prime who may have been practicing in the weeks leading up to it and an ex-Marine to boot. In addition, his adrenaline would have been hyped up, probably improving performance.

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

Marines shoot on the range at a minimum of 200 yards with iron sights. 50 yards with a scope is kindergarten.

Hunters think that hitting a deer at 50 yards is some huge accomplishment. For a Marine, that's nothing.

Quote: (03-04-2017 04:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 08:48 PM)robreke Wrote:  

...
My observations:

Shooting with a rifle from the 6th floor of the building at a target in a slow moving car would not have been difficult. I grew up shooting and I'm confident that I, with my non-military background, could have probably made a head shot on someone in a slow moving car using a rifle with a sighted-in scope from that spot and at that range. It wouldn't have been difficult if you were a fairly proficient marksman.

Getting 3 shots off in less than 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle? Yes, that would have been difficult but not impossible. Especially for a young man in his prime who may have been practicing in the weeks leading up to it and an ex-Marine to boot. In addition, his adrenaline would have been hyped up, probably improving performance.

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

I grew up shooting and I'd agree overall. I used to shoot rabbits every day as a teenager, and a headshot at 35 years is a target the size of a coin. Scale that up to 90 yards and that's a target the size of an orange. A head is a good deal larger. No problem, especially with practise and a good rifle rest, ie. the balcony.

With military training I'd presume he would have learnt to control the adrenalin. 3 shots in six seconds is pushing it, but possible in my book if the rifle was rested.

People are saying Tasco scopes are rubbish, and yes they are- after production was moved from Japan to Korea, sometime in the 90s I believe. Older Japanese made Tascos are well regarded and I own a few. So I would put this evidence against a previous posters claims about eye relief etc, as I guess he's been using a modern Tasco.

Not saying the shot can't be made in a clinical setting, but under the circumstances?

I put a pistol to your nuts and tell you to make that same rabbit headshot or suffer an instant vasectomy and the resultant adrenalin wash is not going to be your friend.

3 shots in 6 seconds? Sure, if the second and third were simply into the wild yonder, but two to three hits? I wouldn't put money on it.

Then again, that's part of the problem. We can say something like that is unlikely but even a monkey firing the gun randomly could possibly make two hits. Possibly it could have banked the shot off the inside of Kennedy's skull and killed the first lady as well. Gunplay is crazy like that. You can predict and be right most of the time, but there's always that outlier and who's to say this wasn't one of them?

Regarding the exit wound, I've shot a lot of animals (and other stuff besides) with a lot of different rounds and I've never seen an entry wound even moderately larger than the caliber of the shot.

I even once shot a watermelon with a .223 expecting a mediocre exit wound at the back, being utterly shocked when the damn thing sent pieces all over including some ten feet upward, but the front facing of the melon just rolled forward with a little .22 hole in it. The entry point was the least damaged of everything and that's been my experience with all hunting. This goes for large caliber on small game and small caliber on large game. I've just never seen a real world instance of a shot that would lend credibility to that footage unless it came from somewhere other than behind.

So for me the Kennedy assassination is either a coverup or it's the result of a series of million to one coincidences that sadly conspired to make the "real story" appear ridiculous.

Quote: (03-04-2017 05:30 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (03-04-2017 04:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

Marines shoot on the range at a minimum of 200 yards with iron sights. 50 yards with a scope is kindergarten.

Hunters think that hitting a deer at 50 yards is some huge accomplishment. For a Marine, that's nothing.

My point is that an adrenal wash does not aid in accurate high stakes shooting. The shot is relatively easy on paper. Maybe Oswald was the epitome of the stone cold killer. The fact remains that when putting a high stakes round on target in a limited timeframe your adrenal glands would be better left in a jar at home.

Quote: (03-04-2017 04:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (03-03-2017 08:48 PM)robreke Wrote:  

...
My observations:

Shooting with a rifle from the 6th floor of the building at a target in a slow moving car would not have been difficult. I grew up shooting and I'm confident that I, with my non-military background, could have probably made a head shot on someone in a slow moving car using a rifle with a sighted-in scope from that spot and at that range. It wouldn't have been difficult if you were a fairly proficient marksman.

Getting 3 shots off in less than 6 seconds with a bolt action rifle? Yes, that would have been difficult but not impossible. Especially for a young man in his prime who may have been practicing in the weeks leading up to it and an ex-Marine to boot. In addition, his adrenaline would have been hyped up, probably improving performance.

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

Go right ahead.

I've been in hunting situations with moving and small stationary targets; squirrels/birds, etc. when I was younger. Whether it was adrenaline or some other form of brain and body 'being in the moment' or just shooting ability, several times I made some hard shots at longer range, albeit several times with a shot gun, but they still required accuracy and completely being in the moment. In layman's terms I'd call it something like hyper-focus. Maybe adrenaline wasn't the best word. I'm no expert in human physiology and anatomy.

Furthermore, I've been there where Oswald supposedly was and observed the path JKF drove on. I don't believe you have.

The first thing I thought was, 'that's much closer than I thought it would have been. That's not a really hard shot'

Could someone like me have made those shots in 5 or more tests? Probably not. But a more experienced marksman. One good series is all it takes.

About the gun and scope being low quality. Okay, I agree. That doesn't mean that for a few shots or longer they're not accurate and couldn't be efficient in the hands of an ex-marine.

I used cheap K-mart scopes and my dad's older than dirt 22 LR as a kid and picked off small birds, sometimes up to 90 yards away perched in trees. All day long too. My scope didn't 'fall out' after one or several shots. As long as they're tightly sighted in and you've practiced with that equipment, the rifle should be accurate, at least for a while. You don't need a $500+ Leupold to hit targets.

All that said, I still lean towards the conspiracy side due to reasons I stated. The point I wanted to make is I think some of the conspiracy people have overblown the whole "impossibility of such a shot" thing if Oswald shot from that position. That's one part of their argument I don't wholly agree with.

Again, guys, the "3 shots in 5.6 seconds is impossible" only applies if the neck shot and head shot are the first and third shots, respectively. Based off Zapruder, the Warren Commission timed that period as 4.8 - 5.6 seconds, and it doesn't look like anyone really disputes that as such.

But if there's a first, missed shot before the neck shot -- and a lot of researchers think there is, sometime before the limo comes out from behind the sign in Zapruder's footage -- that makes the total time for three shots at least 7.9 seconds, because the Carcano couldn't be cycled any faster than 2.3.

Thus, if you count from the first shot: 2.3 seconds at least. Second shot (the "single/magic" bullet) hits Kennedy in the neck and Connally in the body. At least four seconds pass between the neck shot and the head shot, which -- if you assume there's no shot between those two -- means Oswald takes 2.3 seconds to cycle and then roughly 2.5 - 3.3 seconds to line up for the last shot.

But as said, that still leaves the issue of disparity of results between the neck shot and head shot to consider. One Carcano bullet bashes through Kennedy's back, into Connally's wrist, flattens on hitting his wrist bone and then lodges in his thigh. The next one hits Kennedy's head and all but explodes on impact. And as Mercenary points out, Connally sure as fuck thought he was hit by a separate bullet to the one that hit Kennedy. (ETA: Saw porscheguy's contribution, will bear it in mind - thanks.)

Quote: (03-04-2017 08:50 AM)robreke Wrote:  

Go right ahead.

I've been in hunting situations with moving and small stationary targets; squirrels/birds, etc. when I was younger. Whether it was adrenaline or some other form of brain and body 'being in the moment' or just shooting ability, several times I made some hard shots at longer range, albeit several times with a shot gun, but they still required accuracy and completely being in the moment. In layman's terms I'd call it something like hyper-focus. Maybe adrenaline wasn't the best word. I'm no expert in human physiology and anatomy.

...

That stuff I can totally get on board with.

I've personally found that regulating adrenal responses to a minimum is necessary to reliably make accurate shots in a time constrained setting. If Oswald was a nut he just might have been the kind of nut that could go into a mental zone and simply go through the motions, leading to a situation where shooting the POTUS in the head was no more stressful than shooting a paper target.

If the limo came to a complete stop before the fatal headshot as many witnesses claim and the zapruder film has been altered then all bets are off regarding timing.

The point is once the warren commission used that (possibly tampered) film as definitive evidence then they had to construct the entire narrative around it which included the 6 seconds and 3 bullets.

The fact that so many medical personel say the BACK of the president's head was blasted open also contradicts the images in the zapruder film further casting doubt on its integrity. Also, the reason jackie climbed onto the back of the limo is because she was trying to grab pieces of her husband's brain. It's unlikely she would have done that with the limo moving.

I cant find it now, but years ago i saw a documentary which featured a researcher that said he saw the full uncut, unaltered film. It was longer and different in key details.

I would have thought that if the limo came to a complete stop that actually makes Oswald's job easier. He isn't trying to hit a moving target and the deceleration, stop, and then acceleration again add more time in which to line up and fire. Plus the limo coming to a stop doesn't eliminate the possibility of outright incompetence by Kennedy's driver rather than a conspiracy.

I agree with the suggestion sometimes made that the Zapruder footage doesn't capture the entire assassination, though: by the time the limo comes out from behind the sign it looks like Kennedy had already been hit; he's already clutching at his throat.

I think we can all agree that we all just want the truth, we know we are not getting the full story on this and probably never will.

If evidence was released proving conclusively Oswald acted alone I would say fair enough.

If they truly wanted transparency and trust in the government why is information still classified?

I would tie into this the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon on 9/11, why were we allowed to see planes slamming into the towers over and over on the news but this footage is never going to be released?

When people are not telling you the full story they are hiding something its thats simple.

I am surprised at some of the posters here blindly believing the official story, I mean come on guys, surely you can see the media lies to us daily, why is it such a stretch to believe this is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact!

Quote: (03-04-2017 07:35 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (03-04-2017 05:30 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

Quote: (03-04-2017 04:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

...

I'm going to take a deep breath and simply say that I have concerns about the compatibility of these two claims.

Marines shoot on the range at a minimum of 200 yards with iron sights. 50 yards with a scope is kindergarten.

Hunters think that hitting a deer at 50 yards is some huge accomplishment. For a Marine, that's nothing.

My point is that an adrenal wash does not aid in accurate high stakes shooting. The shot is relatively easy on paper. Maybe Oswald was the epitome of the stone cold killer. The fact remains that when putting a high stakes round on target in a limited timeframe your adrenal glands would be better left in a jar at home.

Some of the alternate scenarios involve a team of professional hit men, who ended up having a very high fail rate, probably because hitting a President in broad daylight is a whole lot more stressful than hitting a mob boss or underground figures that the general public won't care as much about.


The huge ballistics red flags that I see are:

-The exit wound was in the back of JFK's head, indicating he was hit from the front.

-The bullet wound on JFK's throat was a small hole, it's an entry wound, indicating once again that he was hit from the front.

-the back of his cranium was blown open, with chunks flying backwards, the hallmarks of an exit wound, indicating once more that he was shot from the front.

Quote: (03-04-2017 10:05 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  

If they truly wanted transparency and trust in the government why is information still classified?

I would tie into this the footage of the plane hitting the pentagon on 9/11, why were we allowed to see planes slamming into the towers over and over on the news but this footage is never going to be released?

When people are not telling you the full story they are hiding something its thats simple.

Well, therein lies the rub. If they're not hiding anything, then why are they hiding things? Whenever the government says, "Sorry, that's classified" then one can't help but think there's some government conspiracy. Else, why keep secrets?

Cases remain classified for 75 years, I think, then they have to release the information. At that point, then no one gives a shit. It's just old stuff.

I think people are getting bogged down in the details. Most people agree the official story stinks. Which begs the question, if it was a cover up, there is only one suspect that possibly had the resources to do this kind of cover up - it was a full on coup d'etat of the American government including the Vice President (Lyndon Johnson), recently sacked (by Kennedy) Director of the CIA Allan Dulles (who was actually placed on the Warren Commission to investigate the murder of the guy he had every reason to assassinate) and all the other groups that were violently opposed to his policies with Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union. And they've been doing dirty for decades to keep covering it up, which is why they can't release the files now, even if the original conspirators are mostly dead.

I knew nothing about the Kennedy assassination - other than it happened, basically. But last May, I got a chance to visit the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas: sight of the infamous sniper's nest. I also strolled through the grounds of the grassy knoll (which is quite small). I read, looked and contemplated.

My takeaway was that the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll. That would involve a second shooter which, if I'm not mistaken, was suggested in one of the subsequent investigations. Kennedy's forehead was basically blown off; that would imply a frontal shot, as opposed to one coming from the rear (where Oswald would have been stationed). The grim reality of the frontal shot is apparent when you see the autopsy photos.

On a related note, Oswald's widow...damn. The wall taketh away, without impunity.

Quote: (03-04-2017 12:58 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

I think people are getting bogged down in the details. Most people agree the official story stinks.

That's always the problem with conspiracies. There are lots of questions but never any answers.

The shit sounds super fucked up, but where's the evidence?

I like nothing about 9/11. I worked 9/11 and it fucking stinks to high hell. But I have no evidence to prove the official story isn't real. My gut and everything I experienced says it's all bullshit. But I can't prove it. I can not offer you any proof whatsoever that Al Queda didn't mastermind 9/11. But I know goddamn well they didn't. They had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

But ask me for proof? I'm at a loss. I can't prove a fucking thing.

I stand by my original assertion that the scope on Oswald's rifle is/was shit. I stand by my assertion that $10 walmart scopes are shit. I've got a Japanese made Tasco 4X rimfire scope that came on the Marlin 60 rifle I own which was made in the 80s. I'm not an optics snob. I did remove the Tasco and I replaced it with a better, Japanese made Bushnell.

I don't dispute the possibility of Oswald being able to get off one shot with either the scope OR the iron sights. I don't dispute the possibility of Oswald getting off another shot. But of the two shots that hit him, only one was fired by Oswald. Like Costner said in JFK about the head shot: "he fell back and to the left, back and to the left.."

LBJ was the kind of guy who knew everything that was going on. Although he may not have issued the order, I'm sure he was well aware of the plans. LBJ hated the Kennedy family.

Quote: (03-05-2017 03:09 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

I stand by my original assertion that the scope on Oswald's rifle is/was shit. I stand by my assertion that $10 walmart scopes are shit. I've got a Japanese made Tasco 4X rimfire scope that came on the Marlin 60 rifle I own which was made in the 80s. I'm not an optics snob. I did remove the Tasco and I replaced it with a better, Japanese made Bushnell.

Fun fact: the sights on Oswald's rifle had 'let go', i.e. the FBI found the spider silk crosshairs of the scope on Oswald’s rifle were broken when they recovered it. This apparently was not surprising given it was a Klein Carcano. From contemporary accounts, Klein’s bought a load of Japanese .22 scopes that reportedly failed Japan’s required shock test, and were sold to Klein’s for “salvage.” At least one of the silk crosshairs on those scopes invariably let go on the first or second shot on the very light and relatively hard kicking Carcano.

Which possibly raises the likelihood that Oswald aimed using the iron sights rather than the scope, assuming the scope was already broken before the first shot was fired.

And then, on an unrelated note, there's this account from the gunsmith who fitted the scope to the rifle...

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.e...26036.html

Quote:Quote:

Weeks later, the Warren Commission – the team of investigators researching the death of the president – sent Sharp a copy of the receipt with the alias Oswald had used to purchase the weapon: A. Hidell.

When the FBI arrived at the warehouse on Nov. 23. Sharp said an agent asked him to demonstrate the use of the Italian rifle in the basement.

"I said, 'But I don't want to shoot that rifle," Sharp remembers. He did a demonstration at their insistence and what Sharp noticed when he shot the rifle still haunts him today.

Sharp used 6.5x52 Carcano ammunition that the warehouse sold together with the Italian rifles. That type of ammunition was not sold many places. As far as Sharp knew at the time, the Chicago warehouse was one of the only places that sold that type of ammunition, he said. If Oswald used ammunition he bought from the warehouse, Sharp demonstrated the use of the rifle for the FBI with the same ammunition Oswald would have used, he said.

Before the shot rang out in the basement of the warehouse when Sharp pulled the trigger, he heard a click and felt a delay in the response of the firearm. This is called hang fire. Hang fire occurs when there is drag in release of the bullet from a rifle after the shooter pulls the trigger.

"I don't know what he bought" for ammunition, Sharp said. However, Sharp believes if the rifle and ammunition were the same as those he had shown the FBI, Oswald’s rifle likely would have hang fired as well, he said.

A delay in the response of the rifle would make shooting at a moving object very difficult because that delay in the release of the bullet would not have been accounted for when the person aimed if the shooter was unaware that the rifle would hang fire.

Sharp said the FBI agent did not seem to notice the hang fire and later the Warren Commission did not understand the significance of his hang fire hypothesis. “Everything I said to them was Greek,” Sharp said of his phone conversation with the Warren Commission. "They were very intelligent people, but they didn't know anything about firearms."

"I was very skeptical of the hang fire of the ammunition," Sharp said. “If Oswald did do it, I would say he was just very, very lucky.”

Thus we have a former US Marine firing with a broken scope, possibly a hang fire ... and then there's the contentious issue of whether Oswald was left-handed or right-handed, because if he was (as is often said) a leftie, he has to reach over the rifle and cycle the mechanism before firing again, which adds more time to the 2.3 seconds.

I've always wondered about Jack Ruby. If his role was to make sure Oswald was silenced, why the abdomen shot and not the head? I've also wondered if Oswald could have survived the shot or was allowed to die.

Zapruder was a 33rd degree freemason. The odds of the average man on the street being a 33rd degree mason is of the order of 1 in a 1000. The one person who just happened to be at the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment to document the event happened to be a 33rd degree freemason...

Just one of many data points, but it's a fairly telling one if you have a basic understanding of conditional probabilities and Bayesian statistics.

The bigger item is the video of the secret service men getting called off the back of the limo(foot holds and hand holds built in) and you can clearly see one of them raising his arms in confused frustration(why are we being told to come away???). Gotta get the shot for the president as clear as possible. Strong proof that it was an inside job. Anyways JFK was against the CIA and the FED so the deep state had to have him killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

You guys can go on and on about WHY Oswald did it and who put him up to it, but we'll never know. The fact of the matter is that these are undeniable, scientifically proven facts, in my estimation as shown by other (to follow in the link):

1. Oswald was the shooter. It has been shown time and again that it is easy to get off the three rounds. Two shots hit, 1 missed. 3 casings were immediately found, 2 bullets and the reported 3 (missed 2nd shot) have been as well. Not many know that Oswald actually killed a Dallas police officer as he left the Depository and fled --- he was clearly there and left, guilty. Photos even show him in the depository window. The simplest, and reported explanation is the correct one, as is in this case.

2. The government's account is absolutely spot on and corresponds with the science and forensics. The presumed first shot went through Kennedy and Connally (radius/ his forearm). Its appearance is PRECISELY what would be expected after traversing human tissue (this is the so-called "magic bullet"). Clearly from behind. The presumed final/3rd shot has a calvarial pattern among other things that, given parsimony, is clearly from behind as well.

How do I know this? NOVA digitally reconstructed the scene at Dealey Plaza, got two ballistics experts, shot the exact same bullets through the exact same gun. Examined all the x rays of the head and forensic pathologists all confirmed it.

It is staggering and leaves NO doubt that the official government story is in fact exactly what happened:

Oswald shot 3 times, the first went through President Kennedy and then hit Connally, missed the 2nd time, then hit JFK one final time with a bullet to the back of the head. There is absolutely no question. Go check the special. I'm leaving out details to not ruin it for those who haven't seen it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

Why? Who put him up to it? I don't know.

The above conclusions are clear though; crystal.

Quote: (03-04-2017 09:19 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

And as Mercenary points out, Connally sure as fuck thought he was hit by a separate bullet to the one that hit Kennedy.

The special deals with this too, which for any scientific mind, or awareness of human frailties, is essentially meaningless. Connally's impressions are unreliable compared to real data.