Posted on 03/22/2025 3:28:53 PM PDT by Steely Tom
This is a comment that is on the YouTube video given in the link.
I worked for an emergency door repair service in the year 2000, I got a call to go fix a garage door in a suburb of Memphis Tn.The man who opened the door was a very fit, silver haired guy who looked like a retired executive. He showed me the garage door and stoof by while I repaired it.
I stared making small talk while I work. I asked him what kind of work he did and he told me he was a retired FBI agent. Not only that, he said he was over the entire southeastern division of the FBI.
So I decided to make a joke and I asked him since he was a FBI agent, maybe he could tell me who killed Kennedy.
He looked at me and without missing a beat said, Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover had him killed.
I was speechless. I thought, this guy is nuts.
Well I didn't say a whole lot more until I went in his study so he could write me a check. I looked around and his walls were covered with diplomas and pictures of the guy at the FBI academy and with politicians, Lamar Alexander was one.
I said, look I just have to ask you something. He stopped me and said, you don't believe it,do you?
He knew what I was going to say.
He said, do you have time for a cup of coffee? I said, I'll make time. We went into kitchen and he made me a cup of sanka instant coffee and proceeded to tell me the whole story. It took about 30-40 minutes. After I left, I went home and told my wife and forgot about it for 18 years.
Then I saw a thing on YouTube and there was a writer selling a book about Johnson, Hoover and Kennedy.
The guy said exactly what the FBI guy said to me 18 years before. The guy who wrote the book was Roger Stone.
I was totally blown away.
Now, I know some people will say, why would a retired FBI agent tell me, a nobody, these things?
That's a good question, I don't know why he did.
Maybe he felt like getting it off of his chest.
But what I'm saying is the truth.
He went into some details that I don't feel like writing about. That day I lost all confidence in our government.
Page 194 [EXCERPT - regarding the rifle scope defect]:
Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired.
The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds.808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime.809
The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively.810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds.
Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.811
Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812
They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed.
Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it.813
Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away.
Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."
Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired.
So a professional FBI shooter tested the weapon for accuracy.
A better test would be to have a minimally qualified shooter gain some experience with that exact same weapon at a shooting range.
Then with that same sighting adjustment error on the scope actually shoot at a moving target the size as JFK’s head moving the same speed and direction. The results could be much different than the FBI’s.
Other factors to considering is if Oswald was the shooter, did he lead the target when aiming or not? It appears the FBI assumed he did not.
A bigger factor many range shooters overlook is one’s emotional state at a shooting range when compared to the battlefield. The battle field creates nervous tension affecting aim. Oswald was not in a battlefield, but he was shooting at a President in front of numerous witnesses with minimal chances of escape. This would make most people just as nervous as with in a battlefield and throw the aim off considerably, unless he was a hardened experienced professional shooter.
There are so many ifs ands buts or maybes no one will ever know for sure, that’s why they had Oswald whacked so he could not tell his own story. He claimed he was a patsy, if he would have been allowed to live he could have explained that remark.
It’s sad on many levels that JFK was murdered. One such level was his successor was a very corrupt person that started the democrat party’s plunge into deeper socialism and eventually to the crooked communism of today. LBJ’s policies which include the Great Society, were racist in nature and designed to keep the rat party in power for years. And that was by his own admission.
There are many that would have welcomed JFK’s murder. They include LBJ, the CIA, the Mafia, the Cuban communists and the Soviet Union.
By today’s standards JFK would likely be considered a conservative democrat or a Republican. His death drastically changed the course of our nation for decades to come.
Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover had him killed.
I’ll buy that. LBJ had the motive. Johnson was one crooked SOB , evil and twisted in every aspect. A scam artist, sexual predator , a megalomaniac.
LBJ’s Motive ? RFK as attorney general was onto Johnson’s cronies, Bobby Baker being one of them. Baker was Johnson’s bag man . Johnson’s version of Biden’s 10% for the big guy. Johnson had so many scams going on in Texas .
LBJ’s hatred towards RFK and JFK are legendary .
Who proposed the hit is another question all together. If LBJ didn’t order it, he certainly bought into it, of that there is no doubt.
I have doubts about Hoover ordering the hit, but again, the FBI sure as hell facilitated it , along with the ensuing goat rope dog and pony show that followed.
I would put my money on the CIA as being the masterminds behind the whole thing. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster of epic proportions. Those for it, the planners and backers hated Kennedy’s guts. They used the disaster of the Bay of Pigs as the catalyst to pull the trigger.
The Warren Report is a fairy tale . The film Rush to Judgement is a must watch . Many eye witness accounts.
I always thought that Connally’s comment of “My God, they’re going to kill us all !” is a tell. They who Mr. Connally ? Us all as opposed to just JFK ?
Oddly enough LBJ and JFK got into a heated shouting match about Connally riding with JFK. Johnson wanted someone else in Kennedy’s car. Kennedy wanted Connally as he was popular .
Mrs. Kennedy said that she had never seen JFK this angry . It got to the point where the Secret Service and Jackie went in to separate them.
This brings to question, why then was Connally shot ? Connally and LBJ were long time buddies and had served in the Navy together.
CIA sniper made a mistake ? Just a flesh wound to make it look good ? Being facetious there.
The media never tells us that Marina Oswald died a few years ago, because she didn’t. She is still alive and lives east of Dallas.
Also, Oswald never traveled to Cuba.
I've never seen that Oswald was a poor shot with poor meaning unable to consistently hit a target at 100 yards.
I also disagree that the Carcano was a poor rifle. Oswald was not a large man, the soft recoiling, lightweight Carcano with it's short length of pull matched up with Oswald's frame well.
A target moving directly towards you or directly away is not moving. It is merely changing in size; larger, or smaller.
When I was in my '20s, I could have made those shots; and I did, at about the same distance as Oswald did. Four shots offhand from a scoped bolt action rifle shooting downhill from roughly 30-40 feet in elevation above a running deer zig-zagging away from me through a brushy old timbercut; two hits.
First shot was fired at about 80 yards, last shot at about 120 yards. I have no idea which shots hit/missed.
One shot grazed him along the backbone near the shoulder, just barely broke the hide but didn't actually strike the backbone. Another inch lower and he would have dropped with a shattered backbone. The fatal hit entered just left of the base of the tail and exited the sternum. I would argue those shots were more difficult than Oswald's.
But that's my experience and why I don't dismiss the lone shooter theories.
You are correct. Perhaps the years are catching up. I thought she died a couple of years ago. Must have been someone else. Thanks for the correction.
So would McGovern and Hubert Humphrey.
Tommy Lee Jones played a different FERRY.
A FAIRY. 🧚
And it wasn't the CIA .
And it wasn't even old Fidel Castro getting even, or the Military-Industrial Complex looking for a war in Vietnam.
Nope… it was ol’ LBJ and J Edgar killing Presidents like they always did…
Not that Oswald guy who owned the rifle, worked in the building, killed one Dallas cop and tried to kill another. And even tried to kill a retired general a few weeks earlier. A guy who loved Castro. Who defected to Russia. Who was crazy as hell, who's own brother thought he did it.
Nope, not that guy.
☹️
In Italian, the "c" before a vowel is pronounced "sh". Hence, Pesci = PES-shee or Gramsci = GRAM-shee.
And in Italian, the "ch" is pronounced like our "k." Hence, chianti = kee-AHN-tee).
Sadly, I think you are right, especially HHH.
Assuming Oswald is acting alone, when should Oswald take his first shot? When Kennedy first appears, after he’s had time to sync up with the car, some other time?
Would adrenaline kick in, so that he shoots earlier than intended?
Would the game plan be one shot, make it a good one? Or get off as many shots as possible?
He doesn’t have a spotter. Would he know he needs more shots? Would adrenaline make him take more shots?
He supposedly got his shots off in a short period of time. Even if this was possible, would that be good form, or should he take more time to make better shots? Would adrenaline affect this?
“He supposedly got his shots off in a short period of time.”
Oswald was a minimally qualified shooter in the Marine Corp operating a bolt action rifle during the assassination.
If he used a semi auto rifle the target could pretty much stay acquired through out several shots.
With minimally qualified and inexperienced shooter, with a bolt action a moving target would have to be re-acquired with each shot.
I personally do not like scopes because it takes longer to acquire a target due to the scopes narrow field of view. And there is the parallax effect with such optics. Add these two factors into the mix and it becomes real doubtful he got off a good neck and head shot on a moving target.
The FBI tested the rifle to see how fast it could be operated, a Bing search revealed the following: “The FBI determined that the Carcano rifle could not be accurately fired twice in under 2.3 seconds, or 42 frames of the Zapruder film.”
Fast forward today, and the red dot solves the scope issues for a certain range. I really like them, for target acquisition is immediate without the parallax effect. If Oswald had such a sight back then, he could have gotten off as many accurate shots as he wanted, as fast as he could operate the bolt. But even with a red dot, he would have to be an expert rifleman using a premium weapon to get off two accurate shots in 2.3 seconds.
There had to be a second shooter, which makes it a conspiracy, not a lone lunatic.
Gov. John Connally: Victim or Conspirator?
Interesting episode as always . A lot crazy stuff going on in Texas !! 🤔
Thanks for the info. May I ask a few more questions?
Could the Carcano have been fired in 2.3 seconds?
If the FBI said it could not have been fired accurately in that time, doesn’t that imply that it could have been fired, just not accurately? If it couldn’t be fired that quickly, why not just say that?
If it could have been fired that quickly, how could the FBI determine that it couldn’t have been fired accurately? Would it have been impossible to hit the target or just some degree of unlikely?
Would Oswald have tried to fire in 2.3 seconds? Grant there was urgency before they got JFK to safety. Grant his adrenaline would have been flowing. Would it have made sense for him to take more time to try for a more accurate shot? Or does this fall into the realm of who the heck knows what he was thinking?
All I know is that the Bing search revealed the Carano could not be fired with accuracy in 2.3 seconds, as determined by the FBI that tested the actual weapon.
I’m guessing, but I suspect a person could cycle the bolt getting the spent cartridge out and a new one into the camber and pull the trigger in 2.3 seconds.
But never, never could he acquire a target with a scope that is moving and get in a perfect shot, all within that 2.3 seconds.
The only way to prove or disprove this is to have the same model of rifle, with the same scope, shooting at a head sized target at the same range, moving the same speed. The person doing this should have the same skill level as Oswald.
For this test, something needs to be done to get the adrenaline factor going too. That unto itself makes an inexperienced shooter frigidity.
Seriously, I’m sticking to my belief he was not a lone shooter, if he was a shooter at all. He was tested for gun shot residue and none could be found. He said he was a patsy but the cleanup crew whacked him before he could explain himself.
Compounding the difficulty of getting a second shot off is the transition from inaction.
If Oswald didn’t have a spotter, then he would have been waiting for some time for JFK to come down the road, while the tension mounted. Then switch from scanning to scope. Pull the trigger, make the decision he needs another shot, and start cycling the bolt.
On the other hand, if there was another shooter, how did they know when to shoot? Especially if Oswald didn’t know of their existence.
Could a spotter keep an eye on Oswald and JFK?
Years ago there was this theory of triangulated fire, being three shooters that was well coordinated. Personally I never believed there were three active shooters.
But a good hit team could have a well planned attack that would be coordinated. Planning, training and rehearsals of professional shooters with quality weapons could have pulled it off.
There’s not enough information to know exactly how two shooters could have had their shots so well timed. So a person would have to guess. The route of the President was obviously well known. The shooters could have been set up to fire only when the vehicle was in a certain area. When in that certain area the weapons would be zeroed in on Kennedy. The cue for the second sniper to fire could simply be hearing the shot from the lead sniper. This is all guess work, but plausible.
The only thing I’m confident of is if Oswald shot at all, he could not have gotten off a second accurate shot in that 2.3 seconds. If he did get off that first shot, then that would have been the cue for the real sniper to get off his shot.
The shooting distance was 88 yards. At that range does one need a spotter? At that range, with a quality rifle, a scope really isn’t needed for a professional shooter. I have my own rifle range. At 75 and 100 yards I can hit a head size target with my M16 that has open sights. A quality hunting rifle of the era could do the same.
Does waiting for Oswald’s shot make the sniper’s shot more difficult? My limited understanding is a smooth trigger pull is wanted. Firing after Oswald would make that difficult, no?
Why involve Oswald at all? Was it to provide a patsy or to make it easier for the sniper to escape?
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.