Posted on 05/04/2007 8:54:49 AM PDT by mission9
What color is the sky on your world? Is there a best-seller list? There's a new JFK investigation every day and twice on Sundays; it's a show that was running before "The Fantasticks" opened. David Lane, to name the one most prominent "investigator," has made a lucrative career of it, and he ain't riding that gravy train all by himself.
But yes, by all means, let's spend taxpayer funds on a new investigation, because I'm sure we'll turn up new information now that the evidence has gotten forty-odd years older and most of the witnesses are dead. I mean, CSI wasn't a hit TV show in 1963, so obviously now we can settle things in an hour. With groovy computer animation, even.
You know what rifling is? How it works?
The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Oswald were on trial in a court of law, that would be the relevant standard. It is unlikely at this late date that any conclusion will ever convince a casual reader "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ever.
But the strongest, most likely case, by a preponderance of the evidence, points toward Lee Harvey Oswald firing three shots from one rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas school book depository. That's the Occam's razor conclusion. It's where the facts point.
You've got to be kidding; "-- flying drill --"? Good grief
ReignOfError wrote:
You know what rifling is? How it works?
I was a rifleman in the US Army for three years, and then in '63 held a FFL gunsmiths license.
The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Oswald were on trial in a court of law, that would be the relevant standard. It is unlikely at this late date that any conclusion will ever convince a casual reader "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ever.
Yep. - That was my point.
But the strongest, most likely case, by a preponderance of the evidence, points toward Lee Harvey Oswald firing three shots from one rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas school book depository.
You are simply parroting the Warren Report, which has many errors of fact, some even admitted to by those who wrote it.
That's the Occam's razor conclusion. It's where the facts point.
It's where ~you~ want the 'facts' to point. Why you want to support a flawed report is beyond all logical comprehension.
Then surely you understand that a bullet from a rifled barrel spins on its longitudinal axis -- that's the whole idea behind rifling. "Flying drill" is an exaggerated and lurid turn of phrase, but it's not just made up.
The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.
There will never be a resolution of the JFK assassination beyond a reasonable doubt. We've just got to get used to that. There will be no trial, no conviction, because the assassin was dead long before I was born.
You are simply parroting the Warren Report, which has many errors of fact, some even admitted to by those who wrote it.
I am not parroting the Warren Commission. I am reaching a conclusion based on the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations and reconstructions by, among others, Gerald Posner, Cyril Wecht, Henry Lee, 60 Minutes, the CIA, the FBI, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
The Warren Commission report is certainly flawed; the commission had a short time to do a big job, and was hamstrung by security and political considerations. And, conveniently, every member of the Warren Commission is now dead -- Gerald Ford was the last. So now the spinners of conspiracy tales can impute whatever motives they wish without fear of contradiction or a suit for libel.
I'm not fixated on the subject. I've written more words about the JFK assassination in the last week than in the preceding five years. But I have invested a fair bit of time in it, and my conclusion is not a bleating sheeple knee-jerk. The available evidence -- including the evidence that was missed by the Warren Commission, and that raised by technology that was not available to the WC -- points more strongly to a single shooter than in any other direction.
The various conspiracy theories -- and they're more numerous than dandelions in a meadow -- are all based on the claim that the one-man, one-rifle, three-shots theory is impossible. If it's possible, plausible, or even not all that hard, the basis for a conspiracy melts like an ice cream cone on a Phoenix sidewalk in August.
The scary, simple fact is that a former Marine could have pulled off three shots with a bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds, one complete miss, one hit but off the mark, and a final hit in the X-ring. A Marine DI would have probably flunked him for that performance, and he certainly would not have been recommended to sniper school. It's hardly a superhuman feat.
"Flying drill" is an exaggerated and lurid turn of phrase, but it's not just made up.
That was my point. Thanks.
The factual evidence I've seen to date does not support the Reports 'Oswald as lone gunman theory' beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Warren Commission report is certainly flawed. I'm not fixated on the subject.
Good to hear, but hard to believe.
The scary, simple fact is that a former Marine could have pulled off three shots with a bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds, one complete miss, one hit but off the mark, and a final hit in the X-ring. It's hardly a superhuman feat
The single bullet scenario as outlined by Specter, combined with the timeline provided by the Zapruder film, make the 'feat' far from simple. Many have tried to duplicate the event and failed, yet they insist that their inaccurately mocked up simulations prove it could be done.
-- Garbage in, - garbage out.
Show me an accurate mock up, with an average [under pressure] shooter like Oswald doing the deed. -- You can't.
marking for a later read
I see you've found your Zen Koan. I hope it clears your mind. I dealt with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" nonsense, and won't waste my time doing it again.
The Warren Commission report is certainly flawed. I'm not fixated on the subject.
Good to hear, but hard to believe.
Believability is subjective.
Are you familiar with the word "ellipsis?" It is a grammatical mark used to indicate that material has ben omitted from the quoted text. Usually in the form [...].
What you did above was slap together two sentences, indicating to the reader that I wrote one after the other. They were, in fact, two paragraphs apart. That is a deliberate distortion, a deliberate quoting out of context.
In some situations I would be offended. On a public message board, I'm merely amused, because my comments in context are readily available a short scroll up. My words stand on their own, and your cheap tricks are as obvious as a Cheeto floating in the punchbowl.
And just for the record, you didn't hear me because I didn't speak. I wrote and you read. Iy you hear voices, none of them is mine.
The single bullet scenario as outlined by Specter
Jim Garrison is dead. If you want to pick up his flag, that's your deal. There is no "single bullet scenario." There were three shots. There is no "magic bullet." It obeyed the laws of physics and caused bodily harm. That's what rifle bullets are made for.
combined with the timeline provided by the Zapruder film, make the 'feat' far from simple.
The "timeline provided by the Zapruder film" is often distorted. It is a silent 8mm movie, so you can't use the report to track the time. Garrison and other conspiracy theorists have interpreted the Z-film to frame a time frame of less than five seconds. If you look at the film and consider the first hit to be in the frame where Connally;s lapel flies forward and he drops his hat, the time frame is more than eight seconds. Three shots in eight seconds -- locked and loaded for the first -- would hardly be a record.
Many have tried to duplicate the event and failed
Millions of people have tried to put a basketball through a hoop and failed. That doesn't mean Steve Nash has a dozen other shooters on the Grassy Knoll.
yet they insist that their inaccurately mocked up simulations prove it could be done.
"Inaccurately mocked up" is a summary of your assumptions. I think I could make that shot, I'd bet good American money you could. Given an accurate timeline and an accurate depiction of the scene. With a decent rifle and scope, the fatal shot is no more remarkable a feat tha dozens every day during deer season.
Show me an accurate mock up, with an average [under pressure] shooter like Oswald doing the deed. -- You can't.
"Average?" Please. He was a Marine. Not a good one, by any stretch, but the worst Marine who makes it through Basic is a better shot than the average civilian. Oswald was barely adequate as a rifleman for the USMC. It isn't like he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
Under pressure? He had planned, settled in, and was determined. He was, of course, batshit crazy, but he was on a mission and focused. He was, to use a popular phrase, in the zone.
Several military and police sharpshooters have duplicated Oswald's shots, more accurately and in less time. But I suspect that your definition of "accurate mock up" will differ from mine.
As Twain wrote, the problem isn't what you don't know, it's how much you know that's wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPrI7JnsKeo
No scope. Three times the distance of Oswald’s second shot.
The single bullet scenario as outlined by Specter, combined with the timeline provided by the Zapruder film, make the 'feat' far from simple. Many have tried to duplicate the event and failed, yet they insist that their inaccurately mocked up simulations prove it could be done.
-- Garbage in, - garbage out.
Show me an accurate mock up, with an average [under pressure] shooter like Oswald doing the deed. -- You can't.
There is no "single bullet scenario." There were three shots. There is no "magic bullet." It obeyed the laws of physics and caused bodily harm. That's what rifle bullets are made for.
You're simply denying what Specter speculated about for several pages in the Report. Those pages exist, and they outline in detail how Specter came to the conclusion that the second shot had to have hit both JFK & Connelly, or his 'lone gunman' theory collapses.
The "timeline provided by the Zapruder film" is often distorted. It is a silent 8mm movie, so you can't use the report to track the time.
BS. the film & camera exist, and the timeline has been established frame by frame using the speed of the camera as it shot on that day.
Garrison and other conspiracy theorists have interpreted the Z-film to frame a time frame of less than five seconds. If you look at the film and consider the first hit to be in the frame where Connally;s lapel flies forward and he drops his hat, the time frame is more than eight seconds. Three shots in eight seconds -- locked and loaded for the first -- would hardly be a record.
No one is saying it was a record, - but the fact remains; no one can show me an accurate mock up, with an average marine [under pressure] shooter like Oswald doing the deed. --
Millions of people have tried to put a basketball through a hoop and failed. That doesn't mean Steve Nash has a dozen other shooters on the Grassy Knoll.
"Inaccurately mocked up" is a summary of your assumptions.
I've seen films of the mock-ups. Pathetic and inaccurate are generous.
I think I could make that shot, I'd bet good American money you could. Given an accurate timeline and an accurate depiction of the scene. With a decent rifle and scope, the fatal shot is no more remarkable a feat tha dozens every day during deer season.
"Average?" Please. He was a Marine. Not a good one, by any stretch, but the worst Marine who makes it through Basic is a better shot than the average civilian. Oswald was barely adequate as a rifleman for the USMC. It isn't like he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
You're making my points. Thanks.
Under pressure? He had planned, settled in, and was determined. He was, of course, batshit crazy, but he was on a mission and focused. He was, to use a popular phrase, in the zone.
I see you've found your Zen Koan "zone". -- Amusing.
Several military and police sharpshooters have duplicated Oswald's shots, more accurately and in less time.
There you go; - you train sharpshooters, set them up in socalled 'duplicate' conditions, and sure enough they can make the shots, more accurately and in less time.
-- Amazing how garbage in, garbage out works once again..
But I suspect that your definition of "accurate mock up" will differ from mine. As Twain wrote, the problem isn't what you don't know, it's how much you know that's wrong.
Yep, and obviously you see yourself as 'just knowing' whats right. - Dream on.
At least JFK cut taxes.
.
THAT'S what drives them nuts. It was one of their ideological own.
I heard a few years later, how LBJ had been in a "festive" mood the evening of the asssassination and had immediately ordered the remaining Kennedy's to vacate the WH. Everyone was appalled by the callousness of it.
Most of that stuff was put out by the Kennedy camp because the Kenedys had always hated LBJ and even more, they hated the fact that Saint Jack couldn’t have won without him.
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.