Did Oswald Shoot Kennedy?

[Big Don]

Tommy Lee Jones did it.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Interesting PBS story on the topic.

 

[Mr. E]

I think he did, but there were other shooters. Ever use a Carcano rifle? I've never known or heard of anyone who could get those shots off with that accuracy in that short time.

To me, the bigger question is if anyone put him up to it. My thought is Castro's intelligence service subcontracted by the Soviet Union.

What could have made a diverse body such as the Warren Commission cover up and never break faith? Only the knowledge that if the above ever came out, a thermonuclear war or military coup would result.

But think about it from the view from the Kremlin. Nuclear war could be the result of descovery for a large operation that involved possible leaks in two countries intelligence services.

And there was nothing that came to light when the Soviet Union fell about the matter. And there was some pretty damning stuff that was discovered.

So it seems unlikely.

As stated, the Carcano rifle could have done the shooting in the 8 or so seconds Oswald had. He did not train with the Carcano in the military, but shooting skills carry over to other weapons if you get a little time to practice on the new one, which Oswald seems to have done.

As for the idea that a bullet came from the front, I assume that is thought because Kennedy's head jerked back after the shot. That is not uncommon in cases like the shooting. There is a video of Penn & Teller shooting a modified melon and it falls back toward the shot just like Kennedy's head went back. They also explain why it happens. It seems silly to think that people could expect to shoot from multiple angles and have everything go so well that no one would really be able to tell where they came from. One shot gone wrong, and things do go wrong all the time, and it goes into something or someone from the wrong angle and the whole gig is up. Too much to bet on for anyone that is supposed to have been proffesional enough to pull this off.

 

[Mr. E]

As for the idea that a bullet came from the front, I assume that is thought because Kennedy's head jerked back after the shot. That is not uncommon in cases like the shooting. There is a video of Penn & Teller shooting a modified melon and it falls back toward the shot just like Kennedy's head went back. They also explain why it happens.

Found the video on youtube. Enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=27&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

 

[grydth]

But think about it from the view from the Kremlin. Nuclear war could be the result of descovery for a large operation that involved possible leaks in two countries intelligence services.

And there was nothing that came to light when the Soviet Union fell about the matter. And there was some pretty damning stuff that was discovered.

So it seems unlikely.

As stated, the Carcano rifle could have done the shooting in the 8 or so seconds Oswald had. He did not train with the Carcano in the military, but shooting skills carry over to other weapons if you get a little time to practice on the new one, which Oswald seems to have done.

As for the idea that a bullet came from the front, I assume that is thought because Kennedy's head jerked back after the shot. That is not uncommon in cases like the shooting. There is a video of Penn & Teller shooting a modified melon and it falls back toward the shot just like Kennedy's head went back. They also explain why it happens. It seems silly to think that people could expect to shoot from multiple angles and have everything go so well that no one would really be able to tell where they came from. One shot gone wrong, and things do go wrong all the time, and it goes into something or someone from the wrong angle and the whole gig is up. Too much to bet on for anyone that is supposed to have been proffesional enough to pull this off.

Not bad points at all.... I think the idea behind this thread was to see who believes in "conspiracy theories" and why. I think part of what plays into this is a fundamental distrust of whether our own government is truthful with us. While many of you may disagree with the abuse heaped on Bush - will you believe what President Hellary tells you? Do you believe either of them?

I have no special expertise at all on this one, just my own opinion.

Yes, the opening of the old Soviet Archives was a bonanza of data, especially for a Russian Front historian like me. I'll be pouring over those revelations for years to come. But I do not believe every state secret in every area was opened... and some areas were rather quickly reclosed. While the Soviet Archives were opened, there has not been a full opening of the American ones - if memory serves me, the Warren Commission's were sealed for a century. Now, why would that be? What are they hiding?

The actual operation could have been small, could have been kept to just a few small cells, Russian and Cuban. After all, if one believes that Oswald could do it himself.... then only a few others becomes possible as well.

Oswald's recorded shooting skills were not exemplary, the rifle is just better than junk and the situation the highest of pressure. He was neither a trained sniper nor an experienced assassin. I simply do not believe he could have done it by himself.

:idunno:........and I really don't.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

He was neither a trained sniper nor an experienced assassin. I simply do not believe he could have done it by himself.

:idunno:........and I really don't.

And that is one of the explinations commonly given for why people believe in conspiracy theories. Theres something in human nature that cant accept the fact that major world altering events can be done by normal people. The VT killer wasnt a trained shooter either and look at what he did. If the point is that Oswald never fired that weapon prior to the assassination, maybe theres a point there, but is that a proven fact?

If J. Hinkley had killed Regan and subsequently been killed by the secret service, Id wager that there would be a big conspiracy around that too.

 

[jks9199]

Not bad points at all.... I think the idea behind this thread was to see who believes in "conspiracy theories" and why. I think part of what plays into this is a fundamental distrust of whether our own government is truthful with us. While many of you may disagree with the abuse heaped on Bush - will you believe what President Hellary tells you? Do you believe either of them?

Hell...

I KNOW the government's not honest with us... Whether it's the town government that doesn't want to admit (publicly) that bad things happen in the town, so won't do press releases when cops do good police work, or the feds that have plenty of things marked "CLASSIFIED" at various levels for no better reason than it's easier to stamp it that way than actually read it... or even because it'd someone look stupid...

There's plenty of ways the governments are not honest with us.

I just personally won't make the leap that many conspiracy-minded folks do to conclude that there are one or more vast (or even smallish) plots that underlie most of this. I just figure that the motivations and even the occasional plot are much simpler and more basic. People are lazy, people are greedy, people look to their own self-interest, and people are stupid. Combine these in various proportions, and most of these "vast conspiracies" aren't needed...

 

[CoryKS]

It was a dwarf named Markoff Chaney, who was just doing his part to imminentize the Eschaton. fnord.

 

[grydth]

And that is one of the explinations commonly given for why people believe in conspiracy theories. Theres something in human nature that cant accept the fact that major world altering events can be done by normal people. The VT killer wasnt a trained shooter either and look at what he did. If the point is that Oswald never fired that weapon prior to the assassination, maybe theres a point there, but is that a proven fact?

If J. Hinkley had killed Regan and subsequently been killed by the secret service, Id wager that there would be a big conspiracy around that too.

No, not really. As a student of military history, I am aware of numerous situations where battles turned on the actions on 1 ordinary soldier or a small unit. It isn't that theory at all; I do not subscribe to it.

I think the VT killings are distinguishable on their facts. There, defenseless people were mowed down by a well armed nut in a confined area at short range. Here, we are discussing one of the best defended men on the planet, a moving target at moderate to long distance.

Similarly, Hinckly-Reagan was a short range attack with a semi-auto fire arm. It is far more factually comparable to Princip - Franz Ferdinand in 1914 .... which, incidentally, was a conspiracy.

I just do not think that Oswald could have done it alone with that rifle.

Disclaimer::idunno: It's just my opinion.

 

[grydth]

Hell...

I KNOW the government's not honest with us... Whether it's the town government that doesn't want to admit (publicly) that bad things happen in the town, so won't do press releases when cops do good police work, or the feds that have plenty of things marked "CLASSIFIED" at various levels for no better reason than it's easier to stamp it that way than actually read it... or even because it'd someone look stupid...

There's plenty of ways the governments are not honest with us.

I just personally won't make the leap that many conspiracy-minded folks do to conclude that there are one or more vast (or even smallish) plots that underlie most of this. I just figure that the motivations and even the occasional plot are much simpler and more basic. People are lazy, people are greedy, people look to their own self-interest, and people are stupid. Combine these in various proportions, and most of these "vast conspiracies" aren't needed...

See, that's where the endless lying on relatively less important things saps the government's trustworthiness on the major stuff. Whether it's Nixon or Bush I (Read my lips, no new taxes) or both Clinton's pathological lying or so on.... eventually these take their toll. People are more than willing to consider many other views when those in power are deemed corrupt and mendacious.

Add to that the well known assassinations where a conspiracy was involved.... how about Abraham Lincoln? Look how many (sadly) unsuccessful efforts were made to kill Hitler..... or more to the point here, Castro.

I do not believe that an individual with the qualities cited in your final paragraph would and could have done this alone.

:idunno: