Posted on 10/25/2006 7:54:41 AM PDT by BILL_C
Actually, three shooters would infer a professional hit
which makes a lot of sense. Oswald himself said he was a
"patsy".
If the answer is yes, Gov. Connally could not hold his hat after being shot in the wrist, then, hypothetically, if Gov. Connally was holding his hat 25 seconds after Kennnedy was shot in the back, would you consider that proof that Gov. Connally was not shot in the wrist until at least 25 seconds after Pres. Kennedy was shot in the back?
I sat here and thought about WHY do you think the hat in his hand is so important? My thoughts on the subject is that it is UNLIKELY given the severity of the wound to his right wrist that he would continue to hold his hat. Common sense said that he PROBABLY dropped it when the bullet hit his right wrist.
Now I said probably, which means there's a high likelyhood that he dropped it. He might have held the hat all the way to Parkland Memorial for all we know, but most likely he didn't.
When looking at witness' statements and other evidence, you have to assign an importance multiplier to the information. In the table I have in the piece I wrote up above, there is an importance factor assigned to each thing I listed (even if subconscious, it's there), and there are probably a lot of other observations you could list to weigh whether this event could be credible.
SO, whether he held his hat or dropped it when shot in the wrist IS NOT absolute proof but only an indication. My personal opinion is that a reasonable person would be pretty sure IF Connally held his hat at Z=240, a second after the supposed shot (Single Bullet Theory) to his wrist, that it would lead one to question IF he had been shot then and NOT later.
You may give a 0.1 factor to the validity of that observation, I'd say it's over 0.9 (very important and valid).
Every time these threads surface, there's always a few people who use quotations directly from the movie in context. After all, it's where a lot of modern-day JFK conspiracists got interested in the assassination and for most the movie is all they really know. I should have been keeping track this whole time of posters who say 'You gonna tell me that some feller shootin' maggie's drawers could take an obsolete bolt-action rifle and get off three shots in six seconds at a movin' target? Hah! That dog don't hunt!'.
I roll my eyes and think 'Yes, yes. Nice Walter Matthau as Senator Russell B. Long* impersonation. Now would you care to discuss the flippin' facts instead of that ignorant-ass movie?'.
Moreover, I propose the commission of a new Internet meme along the lines of Godwin's Law for all future JFK threads where if a conspiracy theorist uses dialogue from the movie 'JFK' in a discussion thread, they instantly lose credibility and must withdraw.
I hereby name this new hyperbole 'Reductio Ad Stonum'.
(*Costumed by Oliver Stone in a Seersucker suit more befitting his late father Sen. Huey P. Long, for some unknown reason)
SO, whether he held his hat or dropped it when shot in the wrist IS NOT absolute proof but only an indication. My personal opinion is that a reasonable person would be pretty sure IF Connally held his hat at Z=240, a second after the supposed shot (Single Bullet Theory) to his wrist, that it would lead one to question IF he had been shot then and NOT later.
You may give a 0.1 factor to the validity of that observation, I'd say it's over 0.9 (very important and valid).
What factor would you give to the hypothetical fact that Gov. Connally was holding his hat 25 seconds after Pres. Kennedy was shot in the back? Would you consider that to be an indication (although not absolute proof) that Gov. Connally was not shot in the wrist until at least 25 seconds after Pres. Kennedy was shot in the back? Would you say it's over 0.9 (very important and valid)?
It was not conspiracists who came up with the idea of Oswald expressing admiration for Kennedy but testimony from those who spoke with him. Though many consider him to be a complete idiot and capable of anything I see nothing indicating that. He "tried" to shoot Walker (a deadly enemy of Kennedy) an Ultra-rightist then went after the man who fired him. How does this make any sense? I guess those who wish to believe Marina locked him in the bathroom rather than let him shoot Nixon (when such locks are on the inside of the door) have no problem with such nonsense.
Thanks for your response as to the ammo but that still leaves unanswered the problems with the rifle, practice, sighting etc. The mail order is for 21.45 which is apparently just for the rifle and sight. Is there something I am missing here? Is there a link to the exhibit you reference?
That hypothesis leaves unanswered the question of why he would deny something he should have been proud of given the portrait painted of him.
I referred to nothing from the movie. Nice try though. My use of the phrase used by Senator Long was not meant to be a reference to JFK. That phrase is far older than the movie or even Senator Long and is commonly used by people of Southern descent.
My interest in this started when I watched the hoodlum gun down Oswald. Oh, I'm sorry I should have said "that patriotic American who was just so overwhelmed with grief and concern about Jackie that he shot the little rat." Nevermind that he was an sadistic associate of the same organized crime being viciously prosecuted and tormented by JFK or that his concern for women went only as far as to how much he could make pimping them out.
As soon as Rudy fired his gun alarm bells went off and it became apparent that a conspiracy was involved.
I dunno, but perhaps the prospect of execution might have played a part. Just a guess.
Oswald has to be the most singular criminal in history. No motive, no ability acting only through totally random means. He is like no other political actor known to me.
Obviously no one, but I did give you two references to other people who have questions about him. The author of Best Evidence, David Lifton, hired Wecht as a medical expert, to look at the medical records from the JFK autopsy in the National Archives. Afterwards he questioned whether Wecht is even capable of reading an X-ray.
On a number of occasions I have seen Dr. Wecht on TV saying that the backward movement of JFK's head implies that the fatal shot must have come from the front. It was conclusively shown by the physicist Luis Alvarez that this is NOT true.
I have read a popular book by Dr. Wecht. I especially enjoyed the forward which told the story of how Wecht in his early teens, with his friends, used to sneak into the lightly-staffed Pittsburgh morgue. IIRC the forward was written by his son. The guy is obviously talented but he also has faults. He's not always right. The Wikipedia description is accurate. My brother lives in Pittsburgh and when I asked him about Wecht he also found Wecht to be a combination of good and bad qualities.
I'll look into what you say about the lapel thing and post again if I have time later.
Sometimes life is random.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, I assure I didn't mean that like it sounded :-)
That said, I can understand all you said. When I was getting my car from a parking lot across from Duquesne Univ which is just down the street from Dr. Wecht's office (at the time), I heard an earful from the parking lot attendent on the local thoughts about Dr. Wecht.
The lapel is explained simply by Connally raising his arms in reaction to the bullet fragment that hit his leg. I have a clip made on my laptop that I've shown to groups I've presented this to, I should be able to post that for you to refresh your memory.
Regards
Random is one thing random squared another.
Why are these a 'problem'? What's so problematic? I believe that it's unreasonable to presume that every single detail of Oswald's life can be accounted for: How he could acquire ammunition without a witness remembering it, how he could have picked up the rifle and pistol (which arrived the same day) on a day he was scheduled for work, where he might have gone shooting, etc.
It's interesting that you're asking for evidence or witnesses of Oswald acquiring ammunition for his rifle, yet that's unreasonable to expect even in modern California law much less Texas in 1963. I don't personally know where Oswald went shooting outside of Dealey Plaza when he murdered President Kennedy. Unless he liked to collect empty ammunition boxes, I would presume that he did practice with the 'Carcano. Why aren't you asking where he got the ammo for his pistol that he killed Officer Tippet with?
I almost added a paragraph to this response where I claim that no-one would be able to testify with any accuracy the last time I went shooting at the range or bought ammunition, but I thought better of it after realizing that sometimes my guns draw a bit of a crowd and they know me at my local club. However, I've picked up ammo and walked out of stores countless times. Who would remember something like that months later? Eyewitness testimony usually isn't even accurate by people who saw a crime as it happened -- particularly in the Kennedy Assassination case -- yet you expect that a sales clerk at a sporting goods store will remember who picked up two boxes of 6.5mm Carcano five months previous?
You're tryin' to pick gnat shit outta peppah. <--- Line from 'JFK'.
You haven't really ever read a decent account of Oswald's life as an adolescent through his adult years, or you wouldn't be asking that question. That's not entirely your fault, because it's not something that the conspiracy theorists care to address since the truth about him really screws up their life's work.
To them, Oswald was born on the day that he first shot 'Marksman' on the qualification range in USMC boot camp and only lived to his adult years where he died a 'patsy'.
Read Posner's 'Case Closed -- Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK' to find out what kind of seething wacko the real Lee Harvey Oswald was. The first half of the book is practically dedicated to his life since birth right up to the assassination.
Oswald did live a remarkably out of the ordinary life for a man who ultimately died a miserable 23 year-old loser. That book is really worth the time reading it and the money spent buying it.
I really doubt that. Tell you what. I'll bet you can't tell everyone on this board what made the Carcano so unusual. Take your time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.