PBS Frontline: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

Discussion in 'JFK' started by resisting arrest, May 12, 2017.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the days since 1963 tests for forensic evidence have improved immeasurably and that probably includes gun powder residue tests. But in 1963 the science proves that paraffin tests were completely unreliable making them evidence of nothing. It seems you do not trust or believe the science at all.

    Charles Givens saw him on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting that has been proven and you are simply ignoring fact.

    No it is you lying here as you can show no evidence that another gun was found.

    Wrong again about the shooting task. Oswald was a trained marksman and the shooting was an easy one. The average deer hunter could have made those two shots ad without a telescopic sight. He was shooting at a man in an open limo at less than 100 yards and moving very slowly and almost directly away from him which is very easy.

    Because science proves that the gaping wound was caused by a bullet entering from above and behind which is fact you cannot challenge. The autopsy report which you have never read uses a great deal of science to prove this but you have never read it and ignore it and instead lie about it.

    Herd mentality of some people running up the hill proves nothing. It only shows that when one person gets excited and thinks they see something others will follow.

    You have yet to prove even one lie from the Warren Commission much less all of it. Until someone does their conclusion stands as accurate.

    Yes it has been proven OSwald shot Kennedy.
     
  2. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm just a average person and I can hit a target the size of the kill spot on a deer at that same range. I've never had military training and there's a freezer full of venison that will attest to that fact. Oswald being USMC Trained (and remember that he had to have passed Marksman which is 190 out of 250 points) at the same range could easily make that shot.

    Remember that. Marksman has been a requirement of the USMC for quite a while now and for further back than when Oswald went in. For him to have been an active duty Marine for almost three years...he had to pass at least that in Boot Camp. He was better than your average Joe because you do not pass USMC Basic Training until you do.
     
  3. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I went through rifle training in boot camp (Navy) and my father was an Army drill sergeant and rifle instructor so I know a bit about the subject. I passed my way through rifle training and don't consider myself a very proficient shooter at all (even with all my father's coaching). The Navy is not the Marines (thankfully) but the qualifications were the same (circa 1973).

    A) Going through rifle training in boot camp, even Marine Corps boot camp, does not make one an exceptional rifle shot. It means you were processed through that part of your basic training like a sausage gets processed in a meat packing plant.
    You were sent out to the range to practice and get better and if you happened to have an exceptional round that counted as your test.
    The idea that your test was an indicator of your average shooting skill is erroneous.
    In any event Oswald's continuing proficiency with a rifle (such as it was)
    was lessened necessarily because he was not known to practice his marksmanship with any regularity, if at all, once out of boot camp.

    Was he a better shot than the "average Joe"? Possibly, though he had an aversion to firearms, which was well known to his fellow Marines. Does that mean he could have accomplished what the Warren Commission claims? Not at all!

    B) Claiming that Oswald was qualified to shoot a moving target in a very compressed time period with a horrible piece of junk rifle (without a functioning sight), through the obstructions given the live oak tree foliage in the way is a claim that has never been duplicated (same time frame, same rifle in same condition, similar vantage obstructions and shooting posture, without practice, warm up etc.). Never.
    If it's so easy one would expect someone to duplicate the feat. No one has.

    Now that doesn't mean that the world class assassins brought in by the CIA and Mob and placed on the grassy knoll, among other places perhaps, couldn't make that shot but even at that, their vantage point and approximation to their target made their shot so much easier to make (that the top of Kennedy's skull was taken off by a shot from the front and side as captured on the Zapruder film is proof of that).

    Your intent may be sincere but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
    jack4freedom and Lesh like this.
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Quite wrong. You know nothing about shooting and less about the military making it likely you just told a wanna be stolen valor story.

    Nevertheless you are proven wrong training is long and intensive and improves people's ability to shoot whether they have never fired a rifle or are already proficient with it. It is far more comprehensive than you make it sound and you are quite uninformed and ignorant of the subject.

    Many of the details you claim have been proven wrong and irrefutably so. He was NOT firing through foliage at all. It is long proven that the tree was simply not large enough to obstruct his view in 1963. Even if it is that large now. The rifle was junky but still accurate at close range. HE did not need to use the scope and had the skill to hit the target with open iron sights. The moving aspect is irrelevant as it was moving almost directly away from him.


    All of those statements are facts and prove you wrong. It is your claims which do not stand up to scrutiny.

    It is proven beyond any question that you are willfully lying about no one repeating or duplicating his shooting feat, many have done so and that evidence has been presented by many posters.

    Kennedy was also shot from above and behind and from no other direction which is consistent with Oswald's sniper's nest. HE was also shot twice and only twice. No evidence of any kind supports a shooter from the grassy knoll which would have been the worst place in dealey plaza to shoot from even for an expert.

    You are simply out to lunch and repeating lies
     
  5. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What is it exactly about the shot that seems impossible to you? USMC Training is at 200, 300, and 500 yards. They're shooting at man-sized targets at ranges that are much further away than JFK was from Oswald. If he had to have the skill to rank a minimum of 190, the least competent he could be and STILL become an active duty Marine...his skill would have been more than sufficient to make a shot at a fraction of the distance.

    And no the qualifications were not the same. The Marines take pride in the fact that everyone from buck private to the Officers can pick up a gun and kick ass as needed. The USMC is the only branch of the military that even has a 500-yard qualification. My father who was a Marine prior to '73 can confirm that one of the things that the DI's would harp on about is that you'd be better than anyone else fresh out of boot. "If you stumble[bleep]s are going to be good at anything AT LEAST you will be better shots than those Army [bleep]ers."

    Direct quote from my dad describing his Drill Sargent at boot.

    Then there's the shot itself. A fraction of the range and at a very slow moving object (remember that parade speeds are walking slow even for the cars) and was moving in a straight line away from him.

    Then there is the fact that someone on camera in the documentary "Beyond the Magic Bullet" showed that it was very possible to recreate the shot...right down to the same types of wounds on the ballistics gel dummies.

    Now here's the rub. I'm not saying that Oswald wasn't a pawn or that a conspiracy wasn't behind it. I personally doubt it, but I'm aware that my doubts are far from proof. But nothing in evidence proves that Oswald was a crosseyed [bleep] who coudn't hit the inside of a barn if he was standing in it. In fact, the evidence suggests that it was very possible for him to have done that as easily as I can drop a deer in the middle of a tree-riddled forest in the early morning light.
     
  6. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Yeah but the pressure…man the pressure. It means everything!!! Pressure means you can’t do ANYTHING!!!

    Oh wait, here is 3 videos (of about 7,000 videos I found) of people making incredible shots for huge amounts of money:

    Screen Shot 2017-05-18 at 4.49.04 PM.png
    I suppose the guy for the Solar Bears has an ice rink at the house to take his shot from past center ice? And the basketball people have a court at the house to practice their shot???

    He’s just going to claim that the rifle wasn’t there even though there is a picture of a cop holding the rifle (that matches the serial number to Oswald’s) when found about an hour after he shot Kennedy.

    And about a day from now he will tell you that since there are no eyewitnesses that saw Oswald kill Kennedy, that means he didn’t do it.

    Good luck reasoning with someone who has shown no ability to reason.
     
  7. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not s particularly great shot and I missed Expert by two shots. Oswald was a horrible shot
     
  8. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nevertheless you are proven wrong training is long and intensive and improves people's ability to shoot whether they have never fired a rifle or are already proficient with it. It is far more comprehensive than you make it sound and you are quite uninformed and ignorant of the subject.

    And with all that..Oswald could only just mage to shoot "Sharpshooter"

    What did you qualify as? Did you serve at all?
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And sharpshooter in the Marines makes him an an above average shooter compared to the rank and file population.
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You were never a Marine and Oswald was not a horrible shot which his score of sharpshooter proves beyond question
     
  11. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A. Marine corp training does not encompass scopes.
    B. They shoot at stationary targets with quality weapons
    C. A rifle is a rifle. The Marine corp used the same ones that the Navy uses and the Army uses and they shoot at essentially the same stationary targets. Marine Corps training may be more physical and more demanding in lot of areas...but the range is the same
    D. No one has been able to recreate the magic bullet shot hitting the same about of bone and NOT deform the hell out of the bullet.

    I never said Oswald couldn't have made this series of shots. But it's highly unlikely that someone that bad with a rifle...using that POS rifle..could
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are going in circles. He did not need to use the scope on the rifle and could easily use the iron sight and still hit the target therefore the lack of specific training in the use of scopes is irrelevant.

    they shoot at targets at very great distances using quality rifle and the Carcano was just as accurate at close range which was all he needed in Dealey.

    No the range is not the same their training is much longer and much more comprehensive than the Army's and especially more than the Navy's which is little more than brief familiarization.
    The shots taken in Dealey need no expert marksman and Oswald had more than adequate skill to accomplish them as has been proven.

    he was a good shot which was all the skill needed. The claim he was a horrible shot is a long debunked lie
     
  13. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if Lee Oswald was the reincarnation of Annie Oakley
    paraffin gunpowder test administered by the Dallas PO on Oswald the evening of the shooting turned up negative and there was zero gunpowder residue on his cheeks and face (not that I think he could have made the shots with his crappy rifle and zero practice time put in all the years since leaving the Marines). https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html

    Furthermore, despite the shilling on Oswald's behalf due to the fact he was a Marine, it's interesting to note that Oswald's own
    fellow Marines, enlisted and officers, had a rather low opinion of his ability to shoot a rifle.


    "To this date, as far as I know, no one has ever duplicated the marksmanship attributed to Oswald.


    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.”


    Henry Hurt, author of “Reasonable Doubt” interviewed many of Oswald’s fellow Marines. Hurt said “On the subject of Oswald’s shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado’s opinion that it was laughable.


    Many of the Marines said that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that they felt was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot.”

    Furthermore:

    "When he was a member of a hunting club in Minsk, Russia Oswald’s fellow members considered him a bad marksman.


    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."

    So despite the confidence some here have in Oswald's ability to shoot due to training completed as a Marine, many Marines themselves
    didn't share that confidence. The case would seem to be closed.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The paraffin powder residue tests were unreliable and that is proven fact so they are evidence of nothing.

    No one said he was a great Marine marksman just that he was a Marine making him a better marksman than most non marines and his record proves that fact. Nor do any statements from shady witnesses prove anything different.

    Many have duplicated his shooting and proven time and again it was not difficult.

    Yes the case is closed on your claims because you consistently deny and lie about the facts
     
  15. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you know this because you served in what branch??
     
  16. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Paraffin is a test that is a reliable "positive" and an unreliable negative.

    Gunpowder residue if on the skin will show up with a paraffin test. If there is no gunshot residue obviously it will not show it. That doesn't mean it wasn't washed or shaken off.

    Same for finger prints.

    What that means is that the lack of finger prints and gunshot residue doesn't exonerate Oswald...

    But the fact remains there were no finger prints or gun shot residue
     
  17. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many have duplicated his shooting and proven time and again it was not difficult.

    Not true. Some very experienced marksman have duplicated "similar" feats...but most that tried failed...either because they couldn't make the shot or that miserable rifle failed
     
  18. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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."
     
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    Paraffin tests were unreliable both in the negative and the positive and in the case it was a negative result meaning unreliable.

    Yes there were prints and that is that.

    The fact that they had some prints is evidence. The fact that no residue was found on Oswald is not evidence
     
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet others did, and proved it was easily done so his claim is irrelevant
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong we have proven it has been done many times even though it only takes one time to prove your little est friend wrong and dishonest.

    It also proves beyond question that it was not the least bit implausible or unlikely.
     
  22. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well gee...the links to videos YOU provided support what I said.

    Do you have others?

    No?

    I didn't think so
     
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,909
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um no they do not support what you said they contradict and massively disprove what you said and that is fact.

    You are simply stating a bald faced lie about massive evidence which has made your narrative an exercise in absolute foolishness
     
  24. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sigh. Post em again and we'll take en apart AGAIN

    Oh wait..You won't because you know I'm right.

    By the way you never said what branch of the service you served in
     
  25. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You’ve copped to not fully believing he is innocent so my work is done.

    But for the matter of record; all we’re talking about is 2 out of 3 hits on a slow moving target taking NO evasive maneuvers. That takes care of A-C.

    As for D; wrong.

    Here is a recreation using the MC with the same bullet done by NOVA (another Emmy award winning PBS series!!!).

    First here is the video:



    Here is the Screen Capture of the important part; notice the bullet after going through 3 feet of wood; much more density than the soft tissue of Kennedy, Connally, and his wrist.

    Screen Shot 2017-05-19 at 1.04.47 AM.png

    A few seconds later on the same video.

    Screen Shot 2017-05-19 at 1.05.49 AM.png

    And a few seconds after that:

    Screen Shot 2017-05-19 at 1.07.43 AM.png

    Okay. So 3 feet of solid wood doesn’t significant’y damage the bullet.

    And just for the sake of comparison purposes; here is the actual bullet from the National Archives that the WC says caused the first wounds to JFK and all of the wounds to Governor Connally.

    Screen Shot 2017-05-19 at 1.10.04 AM.png

    Almost a total match.

    The guys in the video go further. Apparently, there is some gunpowder residue on the bullet when it leaves. It almost always is “wiped off” by clothing. They found the residue on JFK’s suit (or shirt)…I can’t recall but didn’t find any on Governor Connally’s garments.

    I uneasily embrace the single bullet theory.

    Again the physics has been proven possible. How plausible is it though that this bullet keep finding flesh and bone and seemingly goes parallel or even uphill at some point??? Not very but there is no other logical explanation. The only other explanation would be to have a 2nd gunman who somehow hits the Governor without hitting the President of Mrs. Kennedy. That would be a real trick shot!!!
     

Share This Page