Squeaky Fromme, anyone?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Conspiracy theorists rejoice: JFK files soon to be released.
- Thread starter Rob_BW
- Start date
Squeaky Fromme, anyone?
Just like John Hinckley, she was a wacko. It's far easier to approach and attempt to shoot someone at close range with a handgun than it is to shoot at a moving target from far away with a rifle.
And the "facts" that are presented by the "lone gunman theory" supporters are very suspect indeed. Determining what actually happened here is akin to how we each read the Scriptures and come up with a different interpretation as we both look at the "evidence" laid down before us. I think I am thinking logically and without bias about the whole event, and what we have been told so far is too shaky a story to believe.
The fact is, Kennedy was not universally loved and had many enemies in this country. The CIA was humiliated by Kennedy during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Mafia was upset that they were double crossed by him for what they did for him during the election and by what then AG Bobby Kennedy was doing to them with the full force of government power.
So what was Oswald's beef? Why did he kill the President? If the aforementioned organizations hated Kennedy and wanted to take him out you can bet that they would use professionals to do the job, not an amateur like Oswald.
Who really killed Kennedy? None of us don't know but we all have our own ideas of who was behind the trigger and why it happened. For me there are just too many inconsistencies behind the lone gunman theory.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. Depends on the handgun and the distance. What's close range?
JFK was shot from what, 250 feet? That's an easy shot with a rifle.
The conspiracy books certainly present the material that way. The reality of it is quite different.
I was a couple of years from being born when Kennedy was murdered and my first introduction to the crime was from a conspiracy theorist. I consumed several conspiracy books, studied the diagrams and looked at the evidence the way the books presented it. I also went down to Dealey Plaza during the filming of JFK to look at the Plaza where everything was restored (mostly changing out of signage and alteration of the facade of the former Texas School Book Depository). It was my first time there (I am not originally from North Texas) and I was surprised how small of an area it is based on the maps and photos I had studied very carefully. At that moment I realized my perceptions did not necessarily match reality.
I saw the movie JFK and generally believed much of what was presented, although Stone's interpretation of certain bits of evidence was different than what I had understood. A few years later, I visited the Sixth Floor Museum and had the opportunity to see the vantage points from the windows. At that point, I would have agreed with you that Oswald (if he had done it) would have taken the head on shot.
A few years later, I worked for a firm that had a Dallas office in the West End, very near Dealey Plaza, and I would ride the train from Fort Worth to Union Station and literally walk through Dealey Plaza several times a month on my way to the office in all kinds of weather. I would also explore the historic area while waiting for the next train on my walks back to the station. Every time I walked through, I would think about those theories in regard to the reality of the layout. Thinking through things rationally, I realized that everything hinged on the so-called "magic bullet" theory.
One day in the earlier days of the internet, I was creating a collection of assassination-related photos from various websites for my personal reference, including the diagrams of the alleged positions of Kennedy and Connelly in the limo. While searching for photos of the limo, I found a photo of the interior of the limo as it sat in the ambulance bay at Parkland Hospital. I was stunned to see that the seating configuration in the limo was NOT like it was presented by the conspiracy authors. Suddenly, I realized that the only evidence that proved it was a conspiracy was the allegedly "pristine" bullet. Once I found better photos of the bullet and discovered it was not pristine at all, the conspiracy theories collapsed like a house of cards. I reexamined all of the evidence and realized that Oswald was most likely the only shooter.
So my bias was strongly for conspiracy, but real evidence and familiarity with the assassination site changed my mind because I was willing to let go of my investment in a conspiracy. It is troubling that a single person can change the course of history in such a devastating way, but it happens way too often in history. Gavrilo Princip touched off World War I which has had a profound effect on history, even today. His act caused nations to rise and fall, launched the first Communist government, set the state for Nazism, moved us into the atomic age and the Cold War, and changed Middle Eastern politics in such a way that resulted in the rise of the current war on terror. And all that began with a kid with a handgun and a head full of nonsense.
No kidding. Never have been much of a fan of the Kennedys. You write this as if it is news.
He didn't explicitly say. However, he was a guy whose life was a mess. He didn't fit in anywhere and was looking for significance. He embraced Communism and defected, but Russia didn't even want him. His marriage was essentially dissolved and he had nothing to lose. It is quite likely he was profoundly mentally-ill, and perhaps blamed the US for his situation. The President represents the nation (especially in that day), so what better way to strike out against the nation than to end the life of the head of the nation. Beyond all of that, Kennedy was coming right by his building according to the newspapers, so it probably seemed like fate.
Yes. But you have yet to prove that they tried to assassinate Kennedy. That's why, since you have no evidence that a government agency assassinated Kennedy, your argument points to Oswald.
I realize you have already promised to change your mind, but I am not close-minded. You haven't pointed out any "inconsistencies" regarding the lone gunman theory, other than your circular logic. Would you like to present some?
Last edited:
Why were they sealed if there was nothing to hide? I understand there may have been a fear of nuclear war if the public were to know the extent of suspected Soviet involvement in it.
You agree?
Here's a quick one about the "single bullet" theory. It's from an interview of Gov. Connelly in Life magazine. He said: "They talk about the "one bullet or two bullet theory", he concluded, "but as far as I am concerned there is no "theory". There is my absolute knowledge and Nellie's too, (his wife), that one bullet caused the President's first wound, then an entirely separate shot struck me." Mrs. Connelly added, "No one will ever convince me otherwise". Her husband concurred: "It's a certainty, I'll never change my mind". Since he (and his wife) were there, perhaps we should lend great credence to his recollection, no? To be continued........
I suspect that the documents were sealed because of means and methods, especially as they relate to the NSA and intelligence agents.
James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets, goes into some detail regarding what the NSA learned through their signals intelligence regarding the USSR, Cuba, China, and some other nations. Essentially, they were all scared to death that they would be blamed and there was lots of traffic up and down the chains of command to determine if anyone in their government was responsible for the assassination. Castro was especially worried, thinking that he might be blamed anyway as a pretext for invading Cuba with world opinion on the side of the US. The Russians would not have much leverage to help Castro if the US could make a plausible case that Cuba had something to do with it.
Last edited:
Thank you for a reasonable bit of evidence. It must be taken quite seriously. We also must remember that Connelly was being shot at the time, and his recollection may be a bit scrambled due to the trauma. Moreover, Connelly, as a hunter, knew the sound of a rifle and apparently turned at the sound of the first shot - the shot that missed and went past the limo, striking the sidewalk and slightly injuring a bystander with concrete fragments. He may have mistaken the fire shot for the shot that caused Kennedy's wounds.
Forensic evidence and film evidence is more reliable than an eyewitness testimony - especially ones who were literally under fire.
Something to enjoy while we wait. They must have redacted the stuff about death rays and time travel.
Nikola Tesla Part 01 of 03
Nikola Tesla Part 01 of 03
Not necessarily. It could be the Commission knew that, no matter what they said, it was going to be second guessed ad nauseum. So they were sealed in order to close the book.
This thread is a food example. All anyone had to do was mention relweaing the information and the "theories" start jumping off the page.
That being said, you could be 100%, or any portion thereof, correct. I just don't think we will find out much we don't already know and the theories will continue on into the next 3 centuries.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
The JFK assassination was before my time, but when I was younger I was caught up in the "magic bullet" idea. It was actually my first exposure to any thoughts on the assassination, and I took it at face value, assuming there was more to the story. Since then, I've read a little more about it.
One of the things that I find hilarious is the "Oswald was a poor shot" argument. He was a sharpshooter at one point in the marines (not a sniper, just an ability rating). When he got out of the Marines, he was still qualified as a Marksman. Marksman is the lowest qualification of shooter, but it is still qualifying.
The limo was traveling somewhere between 5-11 miles per hour, depending on who you believe. But we can go with 11 mph. (Some people studying the footage have come to the conclusion of 11.2mph). JFK was roughly 81m from Oswald when shot. I don't know about you other sport shooters here and your abilities, but that is a crazy easy shot. In the Army, without optics (just iron sights), we were expected to hit four 300m targets that were stationary, but were only exposed for a few seconds. Current day marines have targets that pop up at 350m, if memory serves.
My point is, that it is such an easy shot, that even with a "cheap rifle" it could be done. Especially given the fact that multiple shots were fired. It doesn't seem far fetched to me that Oswald was the only shooter.
Now, I will not rule out that Oswald did not act of his own volition. He could have been instructed to do so by someone else. But there's no doubt in my mind that he was the only shooter.
One of the things that I find hilarious is the "Oswald was a poor shot" argument. He was a sharpshooter at one point in the marines (not a sniper, just an ability rating). When he got out of the Marines, he was still qualified as a Marksman. Marksman is the lowest qualification of shooter, but it is still qualifying.
The limo was traveling somewhere between 5-11 miles per hour, depending on who you believe. But we can go with 11 mph. (Some people studying the footage have come to the conclusion of 11.2mph). JFK was roughly 81m from Oswald when shot. I don't know about you other sport shooters here and your abilities, but that is a crazy easy shot. In the Army, without optics (just iron sights), we were expected to hit four 300m targets that were stationary, but were only exposed for a few seconds. Current day marines have targets that pop up at 350m, if memory serves.
My point is, that it is such an easy shot, that even with a "cheap rifle" it could be done. Especially given the fact that multiple shots were fired. It doesn't seem far fetched to me that Oswald was the only shooter.
Now, I will not rule out that Oswald did not act of his own volition. He could have been instructed to do so by someone else. But there's no doubt in my mind that he was the only shooter.
In the same interview with Life, Gov. Connelly and the reporter had a copy of the Zapruder film, and were watching it as Gov. Connelly was explaining what happened in conjunction with those key key frames playing out before them. . His story never changed, it was the same story that he told while recuperating earlier at Parkland hospital right after the shooting.
The Warren Commission had to make their theory fit to what they had come up with, but the single bullet is not the only problem. From what I read, the autopsy was also extremely problematic. I believe it was done by a regular doctor, not a pathologist who would have had the expertise for such a momentous post mortem. It just went on and on, from one thing to another.
Last edited:
Here's some information you might have missed.
Former Marines recall that Oswald was a poor shot. Nelson Delgado said Oswald on the firing line was “a pretty big joke” because he got a lot of complete misses. Delgado told researcher Mark Lane that Oswald just was not that interested in guns. He was always being penalized for not taking proper care of his rifle or cleaning it regularly.
Sherman Cooley, another Marine, said “If I had to pick one man in the entire United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.”
And the following:
Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called “Kill Zone.” Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional.
Roberts interviewed Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor at the Marines Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. Roberts asked Hathcock if he thought Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. Hathcock said no.
Hathcock reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.
And this:
CBS news did a reenactment in 1967 involving several expert riflemen firing from a 60 foot tower at a moving sled using a similar Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. None of these expert riflemen hit the target twice on their first try and 7 of them failed to do so on any try. They also were able to fire several practice rounds before the test.
The Warren Commission’s tests were equally bad. The WC paid 3 expert riflemen to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat. These shooters fired 18 rounds using Oswald’s gun and scope. They fired 3 rounds with just the iron sites. These shooters missed the head and neck area of the target 18 out of 18 times using the telescopic sight and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sites. Some of the shots missed the target completely. They were able to take as long as they wanted for the first shot. They were firing from a height of only 30 feet. Oswald fired from a height of 60 feet. They were also shooting at stationary targets instead of a moving limousine.
Now, what is the truth?
That's fine. My main point still stands - our personal experiences may not be the finest guide, especially when we are wounded in the middle of the events. Shock has a way of distorting our sensations. I have broken bones without feeling it for minutes afterward. Only when my brain made sense of the unexpected pain signals it was suddenly receiving did it is start to hurt. We need to take Connelly's testimony very seriously, but it is not definitive.
There were some issues with the autopsy because of the way the body of the President was illegally hustled out of Dallas by the Secret Service out of fear that there might be a plot against Johnson. However, the autopsy was performed by a team of autopsy physicians at Bethesda naval hospital (aka Walter Reed) that included a wound ballistics pathology specialist. There was nothing shoddy about the autopsy.
A good summary.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a Marine sniper.
However I have a friend who retired from the Marines a couple of years ago because of hearing damage from firefights. He was special forces (doesn't elaborate) and was a sniper for a time in the Middle East. I asked him a few years ago if he could make the shots from the sixth floor and he told me he thought he could do it fairly easily, although he would want to use a better rifle than Oswald. I pressed him about Oswald's rifle. He said he has never fired a rifle like that, but if he had time to get used to the action and the sights, he could probably get up to speed and be fairly accurate rather quickly.
Since we are having this discussion, I'll ask him again when I see him later this week and see if that still holds true, but honestly, I don't think he thinks about it very much.
Since people have been able to do it, and my friend thinks he could do it himself, I think it is plausible that Oswald could have fired the shots.
Personally, I'm quite good shooting pistols, but I'm not great with rifles since I don't shoot them very often. I don't hunt for sport and have mostly done target shooting with rifles. However, when I have had a rifle in my hands, the stakes were high and I needed to be accurate, I have found the ability to hit the target. Just because someone doesn't focus on target shooting on the range and is a bad soldier doesn't mean they don't have the ability to step up to the challenge.
Carlos Hathcock, do you know who he was? Nothing less than a man who racked up 93 confirmed kills as a Marine Corps sniper. Was your friend as good as him? Again as I said before, Hathcock is said to have reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did". If this is true then we can take what he said to the bank and come up with the appropriate conclusion. Either that is a lie, or the FBI's failed attempt's was a lie, or the CBS attempts were a lie. Funny, it seems no one could re-create every single time in a leisurely manner what Oswald was supposed to have done at showtime in Dallas.
In a court of law the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm sorry, but I still maintain that Oswald as the lone assassin has not reached that standard. Still clinging to him as the lone assassin?
Neither have I. But I am a trained Marine marksman who qualified expert with both the M14 and the M16, but the weapon I carried onto combat was a 12 guage shotgun. Wasn't much need for shots over 100 yds. for a Marine infantryman in Vietnam.
I don't have a clue whether I could pull off that feat off or not. It's a bolt action rifle, and it takes an instant longer to get back on target after each shot, but it's less than 100 yards. With practice...who knows?
On his show some years back, Jesse Ventura tried to re-create Oswald's shot within the allotted time - and he couldn't do it. It was that Carcano that gave him plenty of trouble, working that bolt back and forth was a chore. Now for a bolt action rifle, one of the sweetest weapons I have ever fired was the British SMLE. It had an action that was smooth as silk. Bingo, bango - one round after the other zinging downrange with no problems at all.