Posted on 03/22/2025 3:28:53 PM PDT by Steely Tom
What then were their most likely positions?
Yeah, he’s good at being a sleazy Good Ol’ Boy.
Like Ned Beatty, but in a different way.
More like Strother Martin.
When did he have the opportunity to do so?
I don’t need to answer that to defeat your position with your own words.
Occam’s Razor.
It seems clear then that there is no point in trying to discuss this matter further.
Oswald public statements to reporters on live TV:
“I am a patsy.”
“I didn’t kill nobody no sir.”
To me, the strangest aspect of the Oswald story is the murder of officer Tippit. I can’t make sense of that at all. It’s the strongest evidence that Oswald was guilty. Eyewitnesses ID’d him. If he was that paranoid about a policeman wanting to talk to him, he must have had a hell of a good reason.
And they caught him in the theater. There’s zero doubt about that. Right where witnesses said he went.
If Oswald was a patsy, it seems like he was a patsy who actually took a shot at the target. If Angleton arranged that, he was an arranger of beyond belief skill level.
I am not convinced Oswald shot Tippit but the evidence is complex and I am too tired to dig into it tonight.
Once the police decided that Oswald was “their guy” they were quite willing to cut a few corners to make their case.
I think Oswald told the truth when he said “I didn’t shoot anybody.”
I forgot about that, you are correct but it wouldn't be the first time in history that a guilty party has claimed innocence.
I have researched this stuff for decades and I am absolutely convinced Oswald was truly a patsy—framed by his CIA “buddies”.
They did a good job of it—since many here still believe Oswald killed two people.
Mr. Angleton—I salute you on your brilliance.
“He went into some details I don’t feel like writing about.”
Sorry, too late, you don’t get to not go there now.
Otherwise it’s bullSchiff ..
-fJRoberts-
Dallas PD : NO gunshot residue on Oswald. !!
-fJRoberts-
I would actually be open to considering that if such theory placed the shooter in a location consistent with the photographic, video and ballistic evidence. I just haven't encountered such theory but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
see 112
Google says Oswald tested positive for GSR on both hands, but negative on his right cheek.
Roger but how accurate were such tests in 1963? My understanding is they were quite unreliable resulting in false negatives and false positives.
Including JFK's just another experience in Dallas, all of them mixed in the hopper of nihilism. Good post, Teely T.
Oh, well, if Google says ..
then it’s absolutely definitely bullSchiff
Gun residue analysis was not in it’s infancy at the time. Most likely they were quite accurate results.
And they CERTAINLY would not have yielded a negative result in that environment if not true evidence. (remember the many mysterious deaths surrounding the investigation?)
-fJRoberts-
I never said I doubted a second shooter from anywhere, such as the grassy knoll. My comment was as to how the body reacts when hit by a bullet.
One observation about this thread is that it is just as contentious as any discussion about the Ukraine war. Very strong opinions that are in conflict.
If you start with my original comment it was simply that my belief was that Oswald was a poor shot using a poor rifle on a moving target and got in a neck and head shot. Based on my shooting experience, that is improbable. In other words, my belief is that there could have been a second shooter.
A couple people said Oswald was a good shooter, in that he was graded as a Marksman by the Marine Corp. The Marksman is an entry level grade that just barely qualifies a shooter. The next higher level is Sharpshooter and the highest level is Expert.
Over the years I have read numerous accounts of Oswald’s rifle. A Bing search a few seconds ago said: “The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, which was allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, could not be aimed accurately.”
I own a rifle that cannot be aimed accurately, it’s called an SKS. With a scope, at a hundred yards, using a bench rest to steady it, the best shot group I can get is 7 inches. The weapon design has a harmonics issue. My AR15 will print easily within a 50 cent piece using a red dot. Now again, here’s another pissing contest, where many will claim they can hit a gnat on a fly’s rear end at a 1000 yards with an SKS. My point is, Oswald’s rifle had design issues, it is a poor rifle.
My overall point is, and I’m sticking to it, Oswald was a minimally qualified shooter, using a substandard weapon, shooting at a moving target and supposedly got in a neck and head shot. I think that’s bullshit. There had to be a second shooter.
Another factor is there was no gun shot residue on Oswald. The argument here is bolt action rifles leave no GSR. A sloppy made rifle will bleed propellant gasses from the moving parts, even when locked into place by the bolt. If Oswald took two or three shots, simply operating the bolt to get a new round into the chamber should have gotten GSR on his hand. Again, CIA operatives on this thread will argue tooth and nail it’s not possible, the same way they argue the Russians are losing the Uke war and Zman needs more money.
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.