Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Lee Harvey Oswald Did Not Act Alone

Kennedy was shot in the temple area....not the front of his head.
That was the entrance wound. The large gaping hole in the back was the exit wound.

 

There was no wound on his temple.

The bullet entered from above and behind which has been proven beyond your weak ability to challenge.

 

You obviously have never fired a bolt action old rifle, like Oswald is accused of using....shooting down at a moving target, through tree branches is tough enough, but he may get lucky and hit with the first shot...but after that while operating the bolt and re aiming the rifle...nope..no way...the MC Italian rifle he was using was a piece of junk, and it would be difficult for him to hit the broad side of a barn in those circumstances.

 

Unlike you I have a great deal of experience with it.

Moving targets are not all the same some are much more difficult than others. In the case of Oswald the movement was negligible to the point that it may as well have been sitting still. A target moving ACROSS or OBLIQUE to your line of sight is more difficult to hit. This is because you have to lead the target and judge where it WILL be and aim ahead of it. Incidentally the most difficult place to shoot from would have been the grassy knoll and even the best and most experienced of shooters would not have picked that as a spot to shoot from.

On the other hand a target moving AT you or AWAY from you is much easier to hit as the movement does not require you to lead it. You only have to hit it before it runs into you or before it slips out of sight.

That is the situation which Oswald was dealing with. The target was moving VERY slowly away from him. Almost DIRECTLY away from him. That means a very easy target to hit. The target would have been slowly rising in his sight and only slightly. This means he could easily aim center mass and the movement would not have affected it in the least.

No one accused him of shooting through tree branches and he did not do so. That argument is idiotic as it was proven years ago the Texas Live Oak tree did not obscure his view or interfere with the shots.

He had plenty of time to work the bolt and re-aim for 3 shots and that is proven time and time again by many shooters using identical or even the exact same weapons under the same conditions.

Yes it was a cheap junkie rifle which was irrelevant. It was still a rifle and still capable of accurately hitting the target at distances less than 200 yards.

Your claim of no way indicates that you merely licked this BS of yours up in a movie. You know nothing about rifle shooting beyond movies.

Yes he did it and the evidence proves it and you can show nothing to refute it

Now then quote one specific passage of the Warren Commission report which is false and show evidence that it is false

 

I know far more about this than you.

Head wounds are often very explosive and movement and wound size does not consistently indicate where the shots come from.
The bullet entered from above and behind which is proven by the autopsy and by all the physical evidence.

Jet affect, neuro muscular reaction and other physical forces all account for the backward movement

 

It doesn't get mentioned enough but compounding the impossibility of what the Warren Commission says Oswald did were those tree branches, in full bloom, that obscured the view from the alleged shooter's window and the fact that there was no sight on the Manlicher.

FBI agents had to manufacture three metal shims just to mount a scope for test firing. The facts that no one has ever placed Lee Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he later that day tested negative for gunpowder residue on his cheeks and his horrible marksmanship as a Marine (he was universally considered a very poor shot) are all just icing on the cake.

 

The tree branches did not obscure his sight at all and that is proven fact.

There were two sights on the Manlicher Carcano. One was the telescopic sight which was not correctly mounted on the rifle which is also irrelevant.

The other sights were the built in front and rear iron sights integral to the rifle which Oswald could have easily used to hit the target.

The fact that they had to manufacture shims to properly mount the rifle is irrelevant as he could easily have used the integral iron sights.

Witnesses placed him on the sixth floor that has been linked to and proven and you are outright lying to say otherwise.

The paraffin tests were unreliable and therefore not evidence that he did not shoot a gun.

His marksmanship as a marine was average within the Marine Corps and therefore superior to most. He was not considered a poor shot and his record shows that conclusively.

Argument through repetition of falsehoods is not effective and that is all you are doing

 

You obviously do not know anything about rifles...why don't you research it and get back to us..your repetitive, erroneous posts must be getting embarrassing to you....

 

I know far more about them than you little one and everything I stated is fact.

It is you repeating errors and falsehoods

 

All part of the fiction of Lee Harvey Oswald...disaffected communist.

 

Nope all proven historic truth.

He was a disaffected communist

 

It was November.

 

He never does. Ignore his nonsense

 

Nonsense. Forensics have long been able to take unto account those forces

 

Everything I stated was fact and the forensic evidence all proves the bullet came from above and behind the backwards movement proves nothing

 

It's not bad enough that you are always wrong but you keep repeating your mistakes over and over again even after being corrected.
That's what know nothings do, I guess.
http://www.tree-land.com/trees_live_oak.asp

 

It is you who is wrong from the beginning.

Regardless of what month it was in the tree did not obscure his view for the shots

 

It wasn’t November when Kennedy got shot?

 

LOL!
You can't even keep up with your own uninformed comments.

 

An all you can do is ignore fact and evidence which destroys yours

 

Oh you and your magic bullet, again...didn;t your Mamma ever tell you fairy tales are not real? Or do you still believe in santa? Seems you do.

 

You don't even know the month it was? That figures..you and your uniformed comments...go find a sandbox to play in, thats more your speed.

 

I have stated many times it was November,

You should really read before posting you will not look so foolish.

The fact remains it is still irrelevant as the tree and it's foliage did NOT block or obstruct his view

 

I cited no magic bullet you are the believer in magic bullets I am not.