Wrong. Your statement is a proven lie. I have stated and proven many facts destroying your lame theory
It's hard, no...make that impossible, to keep Oswald's connections to Military Intelligence, and later the CIA, a secret. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Scott Peter Dale/Item 02.pdf When it came to his connections to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) the Warren Commission looked the other way when they had to convince the public this patsy was just a loser and Commie lover but his record tells another story altogether. Why do some people think they can deny the truth? It's sad and pathetic.
He had no links to the CIA or military intelligence to keep secret. He had no connections to ONI. Your link is from a book which offers no evidence and merely makes baseless claims
Exactly. Minimal USMC qualification is 190 out of a maximum score of 250 That's 76% at the absolute worst. And since if you don't pass, they recycle you back in the program until you do. And since he was a Marine for almost 3 yeras...he had to have passed at some point.
Let's try to be accurate in our BS defense of the debunked Warren Commission. It was 2 and a half times but at a stationary target that WASN'T the POTUS
No gunpowder residue no finger prints No one placed Oswald on the sixth floor The claim is that Oswald put the scope on that rifle...carried it to the TSBD but then ignored it and shot AROUND it? Sure Oswald WAS a horrible shot and his record proves that Many witnesses at Parkland (almost all of them) saw a massive EXIT would in the back of JFK's head Many witnesses heard shot from the grassy knoll AND saw smoke Stop lying
The Warren Commission has not been debunked. Only massive failures have been made to debunk it unlike yours. This fact has been stated time and time again but you dishonestly ignore it. The fact that Kennedy's limo was in motion is irrelevant. A moving target is MOST difficult when it crosses your line of sight especially at an oblique angle. On the other hand a target moving directly towards you or directly away from you is very easy to hit because it is not perceived to be moving at all. It is either growing or shrinking in your line of sight. In the case of Oswald from his nest in the TSBD the target was moving almost directly away from him. Because of his elevated position the target would have slowly risen in his sight but not enough to cause a problem with his aim. Essentially despite the movement from his perspective it was barely seen to move if at all. It was merely shrinking as it drew away from him. The movement of the target so often sighted by conspiracy fools is a foolish and worthlessly lame argument which does nothing whatsoever to challenge the fact that Oswald did the shooting and that was proven by the Warren Commission which has never been debunked or discredited or invalidated
Yes there ere prints found on an expended shell casing and on the rifle which you also admitted to proving it is you lying and not me. Post a link Oswald did not put the scope on the rifle it was shipped to him with the scope mounted. You have also admitted he did not need to use the scope and could easily use the iron sights integral to the rifle. There fore it is fact the misaligned scope IS NOT evidence. And that proves you the liar again. So he left the scope on the rifle knowing it was unusable and just shot AROUND it? Have you eve FIRED a rifle in your life?
Charles Givens?? The very latest sighting of Oswald on the sixth floor by a TSBD employee occurred more than half an hour before the assassination: Charles Givens testified that he saw Oswald there at 11:55 (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.352). Givens may, however, not be reliable; his testimony contradicts a statement he had made to the FBI on the day after the assassination (Commission Document 5, p.329), in which he states that his sighting of Oswald occurred on the first floor. Several employees saw Oswald having lunch on a lower floor after Givens claimed to have seen him on the sixth floor (e.g. Oswald’s boss, William Shelley: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.328). One employee, Bonnie Ray Williams, spent about 10 minutes on the sixth floor from around 12:00, and claimed that he was the only person present on that floor (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, pp.169–170).
I have been shooting for years and he did not shoot around it he merely had to ignore it as it was mounted at an angle which left the iron integral sights opened. Your questions are idiotic and irrelevant.
Wrong and you are lying again. Givens saw him on the sixth floor prior to the shooting proving your earlier post an outright baldfaced cowardly lie. No witness saw him in the lower rooms or floors AFTER givens testified seeing Oswald there. You added the word after in a cowardly dishonest fashion and you are proven wrong AGAIN. Williams never claimed he was the only person there he only claimed he saw no one else
The same could be asked if you've ever seen the scope mount on a Carcano. https://www.google.com/search?q=sco...Wp_vfTAhUhxVQKHUt-DX4QsAQISA&biw=1680&bih=914 Notice how it's slightly offset to make room for the action of the bolt? So you can use the bole without having to worry about bashing your knuckles on the scope or worst the bole handle itself and possibly knocking the sights off? Especially this picture. Notice how you can still sight down the Iron Sights?
That makes some sense until you ask yourself why someone would leave scope on knowing they weren't going to use it
It also makes sense that he simply left it on because that is how he got it. It also makes sense that he missed the first shot because he used the scope and ignored it on the follow up shots which he hit. All of which is far more logical and plausible than the claim that he could not hit the target because the scope was misaligned. The simple fact is that the misaligned scope was in no way a problem which would have prevented him from shooting Kennedy and that is the consistent lie which is claimed by conspiracy theorists
Didn't have the tools to remove it? Thought it was sighted in and found out that it totally wasn't and then used the Iron Sights? Perhaps in smuggling the gun he pranged the scope and threw the sighting off? I've done that while hunting. Had the choice of giving it up and going home or stick it out with the Iron Sights. Stuck it out and got my deer. Wasn't my best shot but dead is dead no matter how I did it.
The test is notoriously unreliable. Good to see you trust the authorities again though. Funny how you only trust them when you think it helps your moronic case. Means nothing; most people were looking at the President; not a clerk they see everyday. Photographic evidence shows you’re lying. Don’t use them? We who are serious about investigating stick with his scores. At worst he did 76%; fare better than the 66.6% he needed to kill Kennedy that day. Science tells a far different story. I’ll be happy to entertain the thought of a 2nd shooter. Oswald was clearly one of them. “Multiple eye witnesses” can’t “All report the same thing” when others mention nothing of it. As stated, I’m quite happy to allow for 2nd shooter. Oswald was clearly one of them. The WC could be correct about some of it and not others. They found his weapon. There is a picture of the cop in the TSBD with the weapon. Unless someone is frankly stupid enough to think they took the rifle back there for a photo-op, they would have to agree. They didn’t find his rifle at the house/rent house or any curtain rods at the TSBD…. That’s just for starters. His conduct after the shooting (why did he go home???), killing Tippit, entering the theater, leaving his savings with his wife before he left for work…. The idea of Oswald being innocent is laughable.
I'm not willing to say that Oswald was innocent. I do however think that there was more than one shooter. If Oswald WAS s patsy it would make sense to have him take a shot. That very well may account for the missed shot...after which REAL marksmen scored the hits
I've watched real marksmen in action. Missing the first shot is nothing uncommon for them. They miss, see where the shot landed, and adjust the sights/scope and/or simply shift their point of aim. Especially when they first start shooting. Here's a good example. Rob Furlong, the Canadian Sniper who managed to get that 1.5 mile kill against the Taliban. First shot missed. He adjusted his aim (doping the scope) and fired again...killing the target. So it's not impossible that Oswald firing three shots within the range of the weapon at a slow moving target (parade slow) could have done the deed. And if it wasn't Oswald, then who was it? The Government? The Mafia? The Cubans? JFK's time-traveling doppelganger from the future come to set the timeline back to rights? I've heard so many stories, so many conspiracies that it's hard to know what to believe apart from the evidence presented. The shot was not impossible. the shot and the wounds are repeatable, the magic bullet is possible, Oswald was at least competent with a rifle, and Oswald had issues. If he had shot the Chief of Police instead of the President would we even be having this discussion? Would we think "Conspiracy" or "Whack Job with Rifle and a bug up his ass"?
Contrary to what many conspiracy nuts claim the first shot is usually the least accurate and the one most likely to miss. The movie JFK for example has some actor playing a member of the Long family who proclaims that the first shot is ALWAYS the most accurate. Many conspiracy nuts think that the movie is true ( it is fiction ) and take such lines of hollywood dialogue as gospel truth. In this particular instance it is not merely fictional dialogue but an outright falsehood. What you describe is essentially what is referred to as Kentucky windage and is a very common method used by many to correct after missing the first shot. For example if you fire and miss high and to the right you can aim lower and to the left on your next shot and come closer to the bullseye. Or you can adjust your sights but that takes a little time and if your pressed for time you simply aim at a different spot. Shooters such as the average Marine are trained to call their shot as well. This means that even if you are not shooting at a paper target you can see that very very brief instance where the gun is actually pointed as it is fired and extrapolate where the bullet went as in did you hit or miss in one way or the other. It takes some practice but one can learn through training how to do this and it allows one to compensate by adjusting the point of aim. As has already been discussed to death the scope on Oswald's rifle was probably not aligned properly. I say probably because this problem was not identified until AFTER several members of the law enforcement community had dis-assembled and re-assembled the rifle looking for evidence. The mistake in the scopes mounting can therefore really only be attributed to those people and not to Oswald. But since they needed to manufacture and mount a piece of metal to make the scope mount properly it is seems likely that it was mis-aligned when Oswald used it. The point is the mis-aligned scope easily explains the first shot which missed. It would make perfect sense for him to realize he missed that first shot and simply ignore the scope and aim with the iron sights for the second and third shots which hit. This is what any marine or trained shooter would do in a similar situation. The target was very close for a rifle and a trained rifle man. In the Marines he was trained to hit targets much farther away with open iron sights. The rifle itself was proven to be as accurate as any US military issue rifle at distances closer than 200 yards and the farthest shot he hit Kennedy with was slightly over 80 yards. This is the head shot which was the last shot and it was 83 yards from the window he fired from. Very easy range for a man of his skill and the rifle he had even if the rifle was a cheap junky rifle. The target's movement is irrelevant as it was moving VERY slowly and almost directly away from his position meaning it was only shrinking in his line of sight which in turn means he only had to aim center mass. You are very correct that the conspiracy theories are contradictory. There have literally been over 100 people claiming to be the " other " shooter or shooters. None of them have any corroborating evidence and none of them have any credibility. The only logical conclusion is that they are all lying or none of them are. If none of them are lying Kenned was hit by over 100 bullets from over 100 directions. The of course the theorists cannot agree on who did it. Some say LBJ some Say J Edgar Hoover some say Jackie Kennedy, the mob , the CIA , the Soviets, The Cubans, the Military industrial complex, the free masons and so on. No solid evidence supports any of these claims however The real magic bullet is the one never found which would be the bullet or bullet fired by some other shooter who managed to make the bullet vanish into thin air. Every bullet or bullet fragment recovered matched exclusively to Oswald's rifle. No other shell casing was found. Few witnesses heard shots coming from anywhere except the TSBD. There are always some witnesses to ANY event who disagree with other witnesses but in this case the vast majority of witnesses agree with all of the physical evidence. This is why conspiracy loons get wrapped around the axle trying to make lame arguments which are debunked as Lesh's claims have been. It is not about examining evidence for them it is about a faith like belief that there had to be a conspiracy because that is more entertaining. Or they simply hate the government and wish to preach that the government ALWAYS lies.
The test is still being used by law enforcement agencies http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/gsrstillviable.html Do I trust the science behind the test? Of course. It seems you don't like science at all, however. So who looks like the clown here? And before and after? Who saw him on the sixth floor then? Who saw him totting his gun around? No one! Hey smart guy...holding up a gun says nothing about how it got there and who found it. You are lying here. Not me. Brilliant answer. That makes a near impossible task completely out of the capability of even an expert marksman...let alone a very average shot, at best, like Oswald. If Oswald had been shooting at stationary targets with a scope and without any practice or warm up instead of hypothetically firing at the president's limousine you might have a point. But he wasn't, supposedly, and you don't. How does "science" invalidate the gaping exit wound in the back of Kennedy's skull? So amusing. “ Ever see a photo of all the people scrambling up the grassy knoll to see where all the shots came from? You fail again. You fail hard. You fail consistently. How is this possibly true? How can anyone believe anything the Warren Commission tells the public when they've been proven liars on the matter so much? One has to be a complete fool. He's never been proven to have shot the president. I doubt you can show otherwise.
