Posted on 11/22/2010 11:52:57 AM PST by EveningStar
And, in 1968, Hubert Humphrey was the last Democrat nominee who wasn't a straight up com symp.
Look out for a white male about 30 years old. He is of slim build, he is about 1601bs in weight.
The officer stopped and rolled down his window to talk to a man walking by. He got out of his vehicle and came around the front of it. The man shot him six times and ran off. Officer Tippit, a bronze medal winner in WW2, died.
A Mr Scoggins witnessed this senseless brutal murder. He identified Oswald later. Funny way for an innocent man to act, I think.
I did the research and all my questions have been answered.
It was a shooting incident. Treat it like it was.
“It was a shooting incident. Treat it like it was”
Oh wow! A shooting incident hu? Do you have some inside info where knives and blow darts were involved?Perhaps that info was contained in the 26 volumes I somehow failed to read in all my indepth and extensive research.
You left out the reverse vampires.
Yes, because we will never recover from that immigration bill, ever.
The statement that the Mannlicher-Carcano was a six-shot bolt action is meaningless in defense of any assertion of Oswald’s supposed ability to have actually fired the shots during the amount of time actually elapsed, because exhaustive re-creation and testing by Marine Corps sharpshooters and additional evidence as to Oswald’s actual performances on the firing range do not support the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission Report.
From Chapter 9 of “PRESUMED GUILTY: How and why the Warren Commission Framed Lee Harvey Oswald—A factual account based on the Commission’s public and private documents”, by Howard Roffman, the author states:
“In this chapter I will examine the Commission’s handling of the evidence related to Oswald’s rifle capability. It will be demonstrated that the Commission consistently misrepresented the record in an effort to make feasible the assertion that Oswald was the assassin.[1]
The first consideration germane to this topic is the nature of the shots, assuming theoretically that all originated from the sixth-floor window by a gunman using the Mannlicher-Carcano. For such a rifleman, “the shots were at a slow-moving target proceeding on a downgrade in virtually a straight line with the alignment of the assassin’s rifle, at a range of 177 to 266 feet” (R189). According to the Commission, three shots were fired, the first and last strikes occurring within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds; one shot allegedly missed, although the Commission did not decide whether it was the first, second, or third. While the current analysis ignores evidence of more than three shots from more than one location, I can make only a limited departure from reality in working under the Commission’s postulations. My analysis of the wounds proved beyond doubt that the President and the Governor were wounded nonfatally by two separate bullets. This demands, in line with the Commission’s three-shot-theory, that all shots hit in the car. The Zapruder film reveals that the first two hits occurred within a very brief time, probably shorter than the very minimum time needed to fire two successive shots with the Carcano, 2.3 to 3 seconds. The fatal shot came about four seconds after the one that wounded Connally.
The Report repeatedly characterizes the shots as “very easy” and “easy.” However, the experts who made these evaluations for the Commission did not consider two essential factors that cannot be excluded from any hypothesizing: 1) the President was a living, moving target, and 2) the shots had to be fired in a very short period of time. First quoted in the Report is FBI ballistics expert Frazier:
From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty hitting your target. (R190)
Frazier testified at the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, where he modified his previous Commission testimony. How would the added consideration of a moving target affect his previous assessment?
it would be a relatively easy shot, slightly complicated, however, if the target were moving at the time, it would make it a little more difficult.[2]
The next “expert” quoted is Marine Sgt. James A. Zahm, who was involved in marksmanship training in the Marine Corps:
Using the scope, rapidly working the bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze. (R190)
Zahm never used the C2766 Carcano; his comments related to four-power scopes in general as aids in rapid shooting with a bolt-action rifle. Another expert, Ronald Simmons, was directly involved in tests employing the Carcano. Although this is not reflected in the Report, he told the Commission that, contrary to Zahm’s generalization of a “minor move” necessary to relocate the target in the scope, such a great amount of effort was needed to work the rifle bolt that the weapon was actually moved completely off target (3H449). There is yet another factor qualifying Zahm’s evaluation. This was brought out during Frazier’s New Orleans testimony:
Mr. Oser: . . . when you shoot this rifle . . . can you tell us whether or not in rebolting the gun you had to move your eye away from the scope?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir, that was necessary.
Mr. Oser: Why was that necessary?
Mr. Frazier: To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking me in the face as it came to the rear.[3]
At best, the Report drastically oversimplified the true nature of the shots. It is true that shots fired at ranges under 100 yards with a four-power scope are generally easy. However, the assassination shots, in accordance with the Commission’s lone-assassin theory, were fired in rapid succession (indeed the first two would have occurred within the minimum time needed to operate the bolt) and at a moving target. The difficulty of such shots becomes apparent when it is considered that operation of the bolt would have thrown the weapon off target and caused the firer temporarily to move his eye from the sight.
One is prompted to ask what caliber of shooter would be required to commit the assassination alone as described above. Simulative tests conducted by the Commission, while deficient, are quite illuminating.
The Commission’s test firers were all rated as “Master” by the National Rifle Association (NRA); they were experts whose daily routines involved working with and shooting firearms (3H445). In the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feet respectively from a 30-foot-high tower. Each shooter fired two series of three shots, using the C2766 rifle. The men took 8.25, 6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first series and 7.00, 6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446). In the first series, each man hit his first and third targets but missed the second. Results varied on the next series, although in all cases but one, two targets were hit. Thus, in only two cases were the Commission’s experts able to fire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did. None scored three hits, as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.
These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short time span, if not impossible, would certainly have taxed the proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4] In his testimony before the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of shooter necessary to have fired the assassination shots on the basis that only two hits were achieved:
Mr. Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot within the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [as was done by the experts]?
Mr. Simmons: Obviously, considerable experience would have to be in one’s background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt. (3H449)
Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer. (3H450)
Here arises the crucial question: Was Lee Harvey Oswald a “proficient man with this weapon,” with “considerable experience” in his background?
While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice tested for his performance with a rifle. On a scale of expert-sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored two points above the minimum for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only one point above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959) — his last recorded score. Colonel A. G. Folsom evaluated these scores for the Commission:
The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot.” (19H17-18)
There exists the possibility that Oswald’s scores were either inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle. However, there is other information independent of the scores to indicate that Oswald was in fact not a good shot. In his testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marine scorebook that Oswald himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:
Mr. Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Col. Folsom: No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates . . . that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?
Col. Folsom: I would say so. (8H311)
Thus, according to Folsom, Oswald’s best recorded score was the result of having “a good day”; otherwise, Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot.”
Folsom was not alone in his evaluation of Oswald as other than a good shot. The following is exerpted [sic] from the testimony of Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald’s closest associates in the Marines:
Mr. Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
Mr. Delgado: Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on the same line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position . . . and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of “maggie’s drawers,” you know, a lot of misses, but he didn’t give a darn.
Mr. Liebeler: Missed the target completely?
Mr. Delgado: He just qualified, that’s it. He wasn’t as enthusiastic as the rest of us. (8H235)
The Report tried desperately to get around this unanimous body of credible evidence. First Marine Corps Major Eugene Anderson (who never had any association with Oswald) is quoted at length about how bad weather, poor coaching, and an inferior weapon might have accounted for Oswald’s terrible performance in his second recorded test (R191). Here the Commission scraped the bottom of the barrel, offering this unsubstantiated, hypothetical excuse-making as apparent fact. Weather bureau records, which the Commission did not bother to check, show that perfect firing conditions existed at the time and place Oswald last fired for qualification — better conditions in fact, than those prevailing during the assassination.[5] As for the quality of the weapon fired in the test, it is probable that at its worst it would have been far superior to the virtual piece of junk Oswald allegedly owned and used in the assassination.[6] Perhaps Anderson guessed correctly in suggesting that Oswald may have had a poor instructor; yet, from the time of his departure from the Marines in 1959 to the time of the assassination in 1963, Oswald had no instructor.”
The remainder of the chapter (rather lengthy) can be found at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html
"While the current analysis ignores evidence of more than three shots from more than one location, I can make only a limited departure from reality in working under the Commission’s postulations."
Here's what is a likely scenario, and keep in mind that this is how I perceive the event and what the evidence shows. It also includes a possible solution to why the scope was so far off even for the Warren Comission marksmen. And I didn't 'cut and paste' some theory as you did.
Oswald fires the first shot using the scope attached. It misses due to being dropped in the bushes after taking a shot at Gen. Edwin Walker previously. James Teague is caught by shrapnel from this round at the overpass. We can identify this shot from Zapruder Frame 194 and 195. Zapruder had vertigo, and his secretary had to support him. The camera shakes at the sound of gunshots. Also look at the little girl in the upper right. In previous frames she is running but stops to look at the TSBD. Following frames show Kennedy reacting in the car as it goes behind the sign.
Frame 194
Oswald works the bolt again realizing the scope has failed, but it is side mounted and the iron sights are available. He lines up on the base of Kennedy's head and fires. He sees the round strike at the neck to the right. He doesn't realize that Connaly has also been hit, his concentration is on Kennedy. This shot, at frame 225, bears this out. Look at Connalys shirt and the difference between Frames 224 and 225. Also notice that Kennedy and Connaly react to that hit.
Frame 224
He works the bolt again. Due to the slope of Elm at this point, Kennedy is almost in a straight line with the vehicle going slightly downhill. It is a straight shot with little perceivable movement except the target getting smaller. Oswald settles in and fires again striking Kennedy in the right portion of the head.
Frame 313
And all that in 6.5 seconds.
Now the two critical points here are, the failure of the scope, and the two remaining hits to the right of target. Check his scorebook. Oswald was fully capable.
Oswald Scorebook, Warren Commison CE239
ANY competitive shooter, be it rifle or pistol will tell you 6.5 seconds is a long time for just 3 shots. As a former IPSC competitor, 6 seconds is an enormous amount of time for 3 shots.
Oswald from the TSBD with 3 shots.
To pull this off would've involved high numbers of people from many quarters. If it was a conspiracy involving federal agencies, this has to be the first and only time any government action had ever gone off flawlessly, without so much as one single participant leaking details anywhere. Read Vince Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History." Vince did more than 20 years of research into the assassination, interviewed hundreds of experts, witnesses, etc, examined the evidence, and still came to the only viable conclusion... that Oswald did the killing. Let me ask you this... if this was all some deep, sinister act by a cabal of some kind, why wouldn't the Kennedy family be pressing for further investigation? I find it interesting they were satisfied with the findings of the Warren Commission. The fact Jackie, Bobby, Teddy et al didn't make this their lives' crusade until they breathed their last should speak loudly enough that the findings and conclusions were correct.
And what many overlook is the 6.5 seconds commenced at the sound of the first shot, so Oswald in effect had roughly 6 seconds to fire the remaining two shots.
Outstanding set of pics. Did you shoot ‘em?
Second, Oswald wasn't tested twice between 1956 and 1959. He was tested at least three times. The first two times, in 1956, he hit 48 and 49 bulls eyes out of fifty in rapid fire. His third test, in 1959, was the time he scored only as sharpshooter.
Third, are you familiar with the results of the U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory test of Oswald's Carcano and scope? Or the results of CBS's test of an identical Carcano and scope? Each test involve shooters who had never fired a Carcano and were only permitted to work the bolt on it before firing. Both involved firing at targets from a tower. CBS's test used sporting goods dealers, sportsmen, law enforcement agents, employees at a ballistics research company, and people with other diverse occupations. Both tests showed that not only could Oswald's shots be duplicated, but that some people totally unfamiliar with the weapon could hit all three shots in 5.2 seconds.
Firing tests on Oswald's Carcano showed that, although it wasn't a tack driver, it wasn't a piece of junk. At the distance of the furthest shot, it consistently left groupings of three shots in a circle five inches in diameter.
And isn't it also true that the side-mounting of Oswald's Ordnance Optics scope permitted him to fire his rifle using the scope or the steel sights?
Howard Roffman NEEDED to selectively pick out everything he does because he needed to sell his book.
And what many overlook is the 6.5 seconds commenced at the sound of the first shot, so Oswald in effect had roughly 6 seconds to fire the remaining two shots. - ScottinVA
Agreed. PLUS, modern analysis of the Zapruder film, trying to match the frame rate to actual time elapsed, suggested that 8.3 seconds elapsed between the first shot and the last shot, rather than 6.5 seconds.
And that 8.3 seconds STARTS with the first shot, so 8.3 seconds is a long time to fire two shots. Particularly when Oswald was probably familiar with his own rifle, and when sporting goods dealers, sportsmen, and others completely unfamiliar with that make of rifle were able to fire three shots, and hit targets, in 4-6 seconds in the U.S. Army and CBS tests.
I have checked on times of the assassination of the president. It appears to be at 12:30pm. Officer Tippit was likely killed around 1:15pm only 45 minutes later. He was shot three times and then the murderer put a final bullet into his head. A number of witnesses identified Oswald.
I would further hazard an opinion on the ability of Oswald with a fire arm. It has been stated he did not care very much at his training sessions with a rifle. Now it follows that in sports, an amateur and not very accomplished, can excel themselves under extreme competition. One exceptional moment.
If Oswald plotted to kill the president and his opportunity finally came, he could have had that particular moment. That is a fine honed mental and physical coordination. As Oswald was reported to have said as he swung at the arresting officer. "This is it".
Oswald could have had that moment previously as he sighted the president's automobile. Albeit a damn stupid fool, that he was.
Which most likely he was, considering he'd tried it out on retired Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker that previous April. Conspiracy types are having trouble accepting that Oswald was a bad individual with evil in his heart.
What can't be seen is it was only 18° out that day. I live in SoCal so that was pretty cold for me.
If you've never been to Dealey Plaza, I recommend going. Mrs. 40 and I are both old enough to remember that day and found our visit there very interesting.
I went there in 1999 and found it fascinating. I also remember the day of the assassination. I was in 2nd grade; teacher took an intercom call from the front office, then informed us the president had been shot.
We were there in September of 2003 for a wedding. there was a japanese film crew recreating the assassination for a 40th anniversary documentary.
They also interviewed an eyewitness at the spot he was standing back in 1963.
Could it be any clearer?
The video speaks for itself.
Against all logic, the two Secret Service bodyguards closest to Kennedy were told to stand down. Minutes later Kennedy was shot.
This footage was suppressed for many years after the assassination.
The “conspiracy theorists” who believe Kennedy was murdered by a lone nut who was in turn murdered by another lone nut have never addressed this footage.
The House Select Commitee on Assassinations concluded that John F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy based on the recording of the gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza, captured over a police radio. A total of 7 impulses were caught on the tape, but citing budgetary constraints, the HSCA only had 4 of them analysed. The analysis concluded that all 4 were gunshots, two of them occurring within 1/2 a second of each other, too close to be fired by one man. Comparisons of the echoes with test shots fired in Dealey Plaza confirmed that at least one of the recorded shots had indeed been fired from the Grassy Knoll. Needless to say, the existence of 5, rather than just 3, gunshots destroyed the Oswald as lone gunman cover-up. Warren supporters quickly tried to dismiss the audio record of the gunshots by claiming that the recording was actually of gunshots in another part of the city, and confused for Dealey Plaza shots because of a timing error. Without explaining just where the other shots had occurred, or why the echo patterns matched matched the test shots fired in Dealey Plaza, the Warren supporters declared victory. New research has shown that the report that dismissed the audio recording of the gunshots was itself deeply flawed, and ignored evidence that confirmed both the location and time of the recording as being in Dealey Plaza at the time of the JFK assassination. This means that the original House Select Committee on Assassinations conclusion is the correct one. There were at least four gunshots in Dealey Plaza, two of them within 1/2 second of each other, and at least one of the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
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.