Replies

IOW, Oswald was a bum shot

There are LOTS OF GUESSES. Some are better than others, but they are just guessing.

WHY is the JFK mystery still a mystery? There are lots of reasons but the most important reason is that you have two sets of information:

1. US gov't supplied information in the form of official investigations, evidence etc. This overwhelming presentation over several decades proves beyond any doubt that a lone shooter fired three shots and killed President Kennedy. There was NO conspiracy.

2 Witnesses and other hearsay indicates that the US gov't scenario of one shooter is incorrect. It introduces multiple shooters, the grassy knoll, conspiracy theories.....

So which is right, (1) or (2)?

It turns out there is a way to answer that question. To do that, you have to use evidence that is mathematically (nearly) 100% valid and most importantly, could not have been tampered with.

When you use the evidence in (3) that could NOT have been forged, you get information that leads to a solution to the shooting mystery. The reason the third option is so devastating to the misinformation the public has received is that taken together with the film, the shooting mystery can be solved. In other words, you can know with (nearly) 100% assurance exactly what happened during the shooting. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a powerful conspiracy killed JFK.

Why do I say nearly? In statistics, you can deal with near 100% but you never really get there but for all practical purposes, the mystery has been solved. Few people who view this will believe it because the brainwashing of the public has been that good. But ONE thing has changed recently, the public KNOWS WITH 100% assurance thanks to WikiLeaks that the US government lies to the public. The really big lies started long before Hillary Clinton and the DNC emails.

INTRO TO SOLVING THE JFK SHOOTING MYSTERY

The goons in the US government assigned to keeping the dirty secrets hidden are NOT worried. Most people will never believe the US government has people who would lie to them to hide the truth. Until now. With WikiLeaks, that may change.

As you seem to understand (if I read your post correctly) there was no conspiracy, and year after year, the same things persist in the face of the truth. I even went through a period of my life where I considered the possibility. There are so many flaws with the common conspiracy themes that they become laughable and ridiculous when viewed in the light of what is known. (All of this is separate from the point of our government lying to us-we know factually this happens, especially in this administration. But the Kennedy Assassination is not the thing to hang our hat on here)

Oswald was not a “bum shot” and whoever says he was doesn’t know what he is talking about.

He scored a 215 out of 250 as a Marine on a range, which makes him above average in the USMC at the time, and that is pretty good company to be “above average” in. And he was taking the gun out and practicing with it on a routine basis.

People say that was an impossible shot, but it wasn’t, even when using iron sights. Several different experts classified the second shot as a “very easy” shot, and the third shot as an “easy” shot.

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle he used, though inexpensive by today’s standards, was at least as accurate as the M-14, the current infantry weapon in use at the time by the USMC, and was also being used by the Italian national shooting team. So it wasn’t an inaccurate piece of junk. And they had several people who shot the exact same gun who could reproduce or better the shooting results and time frame achieved by Oswald.

People say that there was no way anyone could get off three accurate shots in 8.6 seconds which is the time frame from the first shot to the last, especially if it took 2.3 seconds to work the action, pick up the target, aim and fire. They forget that the first round was already in the chamber, and for the first shot, he could take all the time in the world to aim and pull the trigger before the clock started, which gave him nearly four seconds for each shot.

They say it is impossible for Connally to have been wounded by the same bullet that went in Kennedy’s upper back and came out his throat, but that because those people never took the time to look at the actual geometry, and that Connally was turned in his jump seat (which was NOT directly in front of the President, but below and to the centerline of the vehicle. When the first shot that missed rang out, Connally (who was a hunter, and knew just what the sound of a high powered rifle was like) twisted in his seat to look over his right shoulder, which exposed his right side where he was actually hit. (all of this is completely verifiable by looking at the Zapruder film, which you can see on the Internet) The bullet didn’t do a stupid “U-Turn” in the middle of the air.

If you do the geometry at the moment the second bullet struck Kennedy and Connally, you can take three points to make a line, beginning at the entrance wound in Connally’s chest, draw back to the exit wound in the front of Kennedy’s throat, and even back to the entrance wound in Kennedy’s upper back, and that line created, with the geometry of the car, goes all the way back to the window in the Texas Schoolbook Depository where the sniper’s nest was found.

Oswald was not an FBI or CIA agent. Ruby was not a mobster sent to kill him. The mob didn’t do it, the CIA didn’t do it, Lyndon Johnson didn’t do it.

Oswald was a leftist Marxist, screwball who thought he was doing something that needed doing because he lived in his own little world of Oswald-rationality.

I got all of this from the book “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi (I know, he is a leftist, but he is right on this. For those of you who might not recognize the name, he prosecuted the Manson murders, which was, by no means, a “done deal”. He also was the prosecutor in the “Oswald trial” that took place in 1986 sponsored by some English television company, and he convincingly won that.)

In the foreword of his book, he gave this following anecdote which summed it all up: Back around 2000, he was giving a lecture to a large audience (in the hundreds) of high powered attorneys, and he posed a question to them: “How many of you believe that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, and that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone?” The response was nearly every single hand in the room was raised.

He then said (I have to paraphrase, don’t have the book) “What if I could convince all of you, in sixty seconds or less, that you are not thinking correctly on the subject?” There was some commotion and loud murmuring from the crowd, and one of them said aloud: “We don’t think you can do it.”

So Bugliosi turned to someone on the stage with him and said “Okay, start timing”. He turned to the crowd and said “How many of you have ever read the Warren Commission Report?”

Only one or two hands went up. Bugliosi said: “As lawyers, isn’t it vitally important, perhaps most important, to weigh all the facts available and to hear both sides of the story before you come to a conclusion? I once had a country lawyer say to me, no matter how thin I make my flapjacks, there are still two sides to them.” He turned to the timer and said asked how much time was left. The timer said twenty seconds.

There wasn’t a single peep of dissent from the audience of assembled lawyers. He later said he wasn’t even questioning whether anyone had read the entire Warren Commission Report (all volumes) but only the summary.

Bugliosi’s point is that the JFK assassination was the most investigated crime in history, for a crime in which with the circumstances, witnesses and physical evidence at hand, he could have decisively convicted the perpetrator in few days under any other circumstances. He acknowledged that there are some inconsistencies, but as he mentioned in each of his other books I have read (”Helter Skelter” and “The Sea Will Tell”) there is no analysis of any event that does not have inconsistencies. The question is always whether those inconsistencies have enough relevance to counterbalance the solid evidence.