Oswald did it, Conspiracy theorists in denial and cannot accept it

Like Oswald?

Proof that killers want to rule the world? Killers are real.

Killers Kill.

Stupidity is not a virtue.

Kill, kill, kill.

 

Oh I am certain that you could kill anyone and everyone at 500 meters. If you want.

 

Granted, some of these people died of natural causes, but look at the number of unnatural or mysterious deaths. Many of these deaths occurred right before they were either going to testify or reveal somehow to the public.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/deaths.html

 

With ease.I spent 10 years as a Marine Infantryman, and have been trained to do so.

However, I have never killed anybody. But your apparent hatred of the military is noted and filed appropriately.

 

What exactly made them mysterious?....your list shows how they died,but nothing more

 

There are some things that were under seal for 75 years (which is standard) and info on the CIA operative in charge of D.R.E. but nothing there involving the autopsy. There's nothing that says im a Warren Commission believer. I just examine all the evidence and add it up. I dont skew my view towards one way. The evidence shows that Oswald was the only shooter, there were 3 shots, and they all came from behind. Now as for the possibility of there being more motive than Oswald simply being a fanatic, I would say there is a possibility. But I have yet to come across any credible evidence, or I have seen just as much evidence that leads it to be incorrect.

Jack Ruby's actions raise the biggest question for me. But I cant find any evidence to work with it. The only thing I can connect the CIA to is that they had enough knowledge to prevent this, yet ignored it, and failed. I could see them withholding information for the simple fact that they are an intelligence agency and that they embarrassingly failed, and they didnt want to expose their failure. I dont see any evidence that it was organized by the CIA.

I could see the Mafia being involved. They had motives, they had experience in assassination, and a Carcano rifle is all too close a typical weapon for the Mafia, and hey Ruby was affiliated. But again I have yet to come across any evidence that actually proves anything and I cant force a judgement on just some logical assumptions.

On another note the 50 year JFK special was on tonight and it was pretty good. Should catch it if you can.

 

Um...did you happen to notice how many were murdered or declared a "suicide"? And don't forget the plane crashes. Because that's such a common occurrence.

 

Man I already tried to talk to them about that. They know nothing about firearms. They think that .45 ACP is a high velocity round. But yeah I hear you. The target was at 88m. I could hit that using my Mauser model 1898 using iron sights. And I do believe Marines train shooting 200m. using M16's without a scope. Back then Oswald probably was trained using a M14. People really think that shot was so difficult. Its been replicated so many times.

 

2 were killed in the same plane crash,and murder was a common occurence,even in the 60's...so was suicidemore facts are needed

 

there was nothing "magic" about the bullet.

 

200 meters? Try hitting a man sized target over iron sites at 500 meters. Literally the front sight post of your weapon is bigger then the target is.

Here, this might give some people a better idea of what this would look like.



https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.091598,-122.275375&spn=0.007633,0.009098&t=h&z=17

What you are looking at is the old rifle range at Mare Island (I ran that very range from 1991-1993). Just on the other side of the fence is the 500 yard line (this range dates to 1913, yards instead of meters). What looks like a hill in the very far distance (below the mountains), that was the target line, about 525 yards downrange from the 500 yard line itself.

What looks like buildings about half-way between the 500 yard line and the target line are some storage containers at the 300 yard line, 200 yards downrange. Marines are trained to hit targets accurately at that distance, with no scope.

Oswald's first shot was at 1/4 that distance, with a scope.

Oswald was shooting at most 88 yards, with a 4x scope. Marines do not shoot at anything even remotely that close, all rifle targets being at 200, 300 and 500 yards/meters.

Oh, and it was not 88 meters, it was 88 yards. His shots were from 50-80 meters.

 

Oh yeah well aware. I use a Mauser. German gun sites are set in meters so I always refer to them lol. Pretty much the metric equivalent to yards. I have never even tried to shoot beyond 300. Not any ranges out here that go that distance. I have to go to my friends country property just to get a 300 shot.

I agree with you though.

 

exactly, those shots were not that hard to pull off at all... It has been reproduced before, with relative ease. Not only was the distance not that far, Oswald had more than enough time to make 3 shots, this has been explained many times, and proven. People forget Oswald was not focking regular chump, the mothafokker was experienced at shooting, a marksman..

This is nothing new, conspiracy theorists claim the most idiotic things like 'It was impossible for Oswald to make these shots' just like they say 'it was impossible for the twin towers to go down because jet fuel and explosions cannot heat the metal structures to the point of MELTING' For FOKKS sake, like things had to totally MELT for a building to come down! buildings as big as twin towers cannot collapse if metal structures don't totally reach melting point.. LOL

they won't stop - the moon landing was fake, 0911 was Dick Cheaney from a bunker, JFK was CIA-MOB-CASTRO-FBI-DRIVER-BADGE MAN... blah, blah, blah. All has to be a conspiracy worthy of a movie, everything has to be perpetrated by evil forces in government... These guys should go on to film making cause they come up with the craziest theories, they could sell tickets!

 

Logic states that your first shot will be your most accurate because of the time you have to prepare and aim. Why is it that the first shot was the least accurate and the third shot was the most?

 

Ok, let's start with Dorothy Kilgallen then. And in case you're wondering, this comes straight from Jesse Ventura's new book. She was the only person who was able to interview Jack Ruby. After the interview, she claimed she had all the answers and all would be revealed in her book. Soon, she was found dead in her home, a victim of an overdose of sleeping pills and alcohol. She had swallowed 15 to 20 pills and took them with large amounts of alcohol. But somehow, there was no vomit or mess of any kind in her room which is impossible in that scenario. Also, her friends said she was happy that night. Not at all suicidal.

There's more. She was found in the master bedroom but all of her closest friends knew that she didn't use that room and that it was used to maintain a false pretense that her and her husband were happy. Also, she was wearing a fancy nightgown with her makeup and fake eyelashes still on while her friends knew she normally slept in her old pajamas. She was also found with a book next to her, as if she was reading. The book was one that she had already read and had discussed with people about. She wouldn't have been reading that book. She also needed reading glasses but there were no reading glasses around her. When they ran tests on her drinking glass, they found traces of one barbiturate but it was declared that she died from a cocktail of small doses of three barbiturates. So how did she have those in her system?

And now here's the kicker. All of her notes on JFK disappeared. She was smart enough to recognize the fact that two other reporters at the time had died mysterious deaths so she kept the papers with her at all times and gave a backup copy to fellow journalist, Flo Pritchett. Guess what happened. Good old Flo was found dead two days later and the backup copies she had also vanished. Kilgallen's book was published after her death but without the chapter on JFK.

As I said earlier, when there's a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, it can't all be a coincidence and there are a lot of examples like this one I just wrote about for you.

 

Not really, especially if you have military training. Once you take your first shot you can see where your actually aiming. You can then adjust your shot accordingly.

for example, if you have your scope say slightly mis-aligned to the right, then your shot will sway slightly to the right due to mis-alignment. As a shooter you dont have time to sit there and tweak your scope but since you know you are going to sway a little you simply aim a little more to the left and presto your shot hits.

 

Having been trained to shoot in the Army, I can put a three round shot group in the size of a quarter at a hundred yards. It's not that hard if you're taught basic marksmanship.

 

The House Select Committee on Assassinations didn't agree.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

 

He was taught that skill with an M-1, not with a bolt action rifle. Difficult to keep your target within the sight picture when operating the bolt. I'm not saying he couldn't have done it, but there do seem to be a number of circumstances around the assassination that create speculation. Oswald being assassinated at the police station before he could talk always fascinated me.

 

That is all about angle.

Most people who have not done long distance shooting are not aware that bullets do follow a ballistic trajectory. They rise after they leave the muzzle and for the first 100 yards or so, then fall back down. This is why we have to adjust our sites for distance. Back in the old days (M16A1), we used "Kentucky windage", and adjusted our point of aim.



LHO was also firing at a very sharp angle at that time, almost as much down as he was out. That counteracts and natural rise or fall of the bullet. But as the car got further away, the trajectory changed until it was almost flat, which is the optimum. And as the car pulled away, each successive shot was more accurate.

At that range on a straight shot, his bullet should still have been rising, so by his training he aimed lower to counteract this effect. So of course this was the wrong thing to do, the bullet did not rise at all so his first shot landed very short.

Now you have to realize, I have long held the belief that the intended target was not President Kennedy, but Governor Connally. And also remember that the President was sitting in a seat that was elevated and to the rear of the Governor. And at the angle of the second shot, head level for the Governor was neck level for the President.

At the time of the third shot, the President had moved into an upright position (he could not duck down because of his back brace), and the Governor had started to slump down. Now by this time the angle of the shot had reduced enough that the ballistic rise would start to be a factor, so instead of hitting the Governor, it hit the President in the back of the head.

LHO was a trained "Marine Marksman", but he was not any kind of sniper. He was a RADAR operator who at most had the same 2 week basic training course in boot camp, then his annual 1 week qualification. In boot camp he qualified as Sharpshooter, but this was reduced to Marksman on his only requalification (Marksman is the lowest qualification level).

He was no "super shooter", slightly below average for a Marine in reality. And while trained in the ballistic path of a bullet, he would have had no experience in this other then on a fixed "Known Distance" course.

And do not forget, just 6 months earlier he had fired at General Edwin Walker. The distance was 100 feet, and he missed the General, hitting the window to high. Once again, he did not properly adjust for the fact that the bullet was still rising, so he shot to high.

Everything about all of his shots with a rifle screams to me somebody who had some more advanced knowledge of shooting, but not how the ballistic path affects bullets.

And finally, here is an item of note. LHO's actual boot camp "Range Book". This is his firing at 200 yards with an M-14.



Decent shooting, nothing spectacular but I have seen a lot worse. Remember, this is the distance he was most familiar with firing at (Marines fire 25 rounds at this distance, 15 at 300 yards, 10 at 500 yards). And typically this is where you get the maximum elevation on a rifle round. If this is what you are used to, anything fired at a shorter distance will hit lower then expected.

Personally, I have qualified more times then I can recall. I did my best on the Marine ranges, where targets were up to 500 meters away. My worst? Well, that is on the Army ranges, where they are from 25 to 350 meters. And it always shocked my coaches when I hit the long distance ones with no problem, but struggled to hit the close targets. I was used to shooting targets at 300+ meters, I was not used to shooting at targets so close it would be easier to hit them with a rock.

LHO would have had the exact same problem, I hit the dirt most of the time when firing at short range targets, he hit the pavement.

 

Conspiracy kooks can't even get the "magic bullet" nonsense right. They claim that there's no way a bullet can't exit thru JFK's neck hang to the left, take a right sharp turn, hit Connally in the back, exit his chest angel up thru his wrist, than angel downwards into his leg. I say well no (*)(*)(*)(*) the bullet didn't do that, because the most important fact escapes conspiracy nuts, Connally was sitting in a drop seat that was 6 inches to the left and 3 inches down from JFK . So the magic bullet wasn't so magic after all, the shot and the wounds of both men(JFK And Connally) where inline and very much possible.

See, basic facts like this are ignored by conspiracy theorists because it doesn't fit in their narrative.

 

Please explain how the bullet entered Kennedy near his shoulder blade and exited his throat.

 

You're right its harder to to keep a sight picture with a bolt action, but it's been tested again and again, and marksmen can get 3 accurate shots off under six seconds.

 

Not really. I used to do NRA matches with bolt action rifles, never had a problem.

The biggest problem most people who try to re-enact it is that they remove the rifle from their shoulder to (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Trained as a Marine, LHO would have been familiar with the principal of keeping the but firmly in his shoulder and his cheek weld. He would have cocked the rifle by feel, never moving the rifle off of his shoulder, and never taking his eyes off of the target.

This is Marksmanship 101 to any Marine, we are taught it from Day 1 of snapping in. Marines are trained to fire, plot their expected shot in their range book, then mark the actual shot location, then reload without ever moving the rifle from their shoulder. All of it with only one hand moving, the one on the forward grip moving as little as possible.

[video=youtube;EZZVnYGj5hY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZZVnYGj5hY[/video]
Notice at around the 2 minute mark how that forward hand is moved as little as possible.

Now with a bolt action rifle you move the forward hand and leave the trigger hand in place, but the principal and basics remain the same. And with a low powered scope, target re-acquisition is much faster then with iron sites.

 

Are you saying it's impossible for a round to slightly alter it's course while passing thru bone and flesh?