Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
4. If Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy to eliminate Oswald and prevent detection, why do the photographs show Ruby shooting Oswald in the abdomen or belly as opposed to his head or his chest? Surely Ruby knew those sorts of wounds were more likely to be fatal.
I've never understood about Jack Ruby. He was a sleazy person, a friend of the Mafia and a friend of the police at the same time. Another person who wanted to be in the know and feel important. Apparently he just shot Oswald out of emotion -- because he had killed Kennedy, although someone would have had to shut Oswald up sooner or later. If not, Oswald would have revealed who SET HIM UP. If Ruby wasn't put up to it, then someone else would have been sooner or later.
5. That there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll or elsewhere who remained undetected despite the presence of hundreds of people in the area.
After the shots many people TURNED TOWARD THE GRASSY KNOLL. Even in the utter panic and terror of the event, people turned FOR SOME REASON and looked toward the grassy knoll.This is probably where the other shots came from but this was done by true professionals, not an obvious fool like Lee Harvey Oswald, so these shooters were either not seen or were so well disguised (as Secret Service agents?) that they were not suspected.
I have no idea of the sequence of shots but most witnesses heard 3.
Skipping no. 6 because I have no idea of Oswald's shooting abilities.
7. That despite hordes and hordes of conjecture and multiple investigations, no credible evidence has surfaced in almost fifty years showing any one person as being a clear conspirator in the assassination.
Probably there will never be any proof. There are loads of mysteries that will never be solved but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It usually means that it was extremely well covered up. In this case, people died--suspiciously, people who could have provided the truth. Also, our government was and is totally capable of a cover up. There are even questions concerning the autopsy.
8. That the Warren Commission which was made of reputable people on all sides of the political spectrum including Gerald Ford and Earl Warren was part of a conspiracy to keep people from learning the "truth about Kennedy's assassination".
Not an actual conspiracy, just a quick way of explaining it to a nation in mourning. Maybe you had to be there at the time to understand how we felt.
A declassified document from the National Security Agency obtained by Last Reporter (see below) states that Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's best friend in Russia said he could not have acted alone -- and that he was a terrible shot.
NSA Document: Oswald's Russian friend says O was poor shot and didn't act alone - Last Reporter (http://lastreporter.com/2011/02/nsa-doc-oswalds-russian-friend-said-o-was-poor-shot-and-didnt-act-alone/ - broken link)
I suggest you dig deep into the skeletons in LBJ's closet.
9. That people like Mark Lane and Jim Garrison are more credible than the numerous public officials and statesmen who served on the Warren Commission.
I'm not exactly sure who they are but I've read a lot of reputable books on the subject. I haven't watched any movies. I've watched the films of the assassination and have listened to the words of eyewitnesses.
Did anyone see this Discovery Channel production? This is the most compelling argument and the most scientific analysis of the shooting that I have ever seen.
10. That the historical pattern of one, angry, mentally-ill person killing the President which occurred with respect to President Garfield and President McKinley was not correct in Oswald's case. Its also worth pointing out there have been any number of attempted assassinations where the pattern held (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan).
So where's the logic in that? Just because it happened in those cases it's always going to happen that way??JFK had A LOT of enemies. He was a courageous and even reckless man and that kind of man creates enemies. He and his brother, RFK were trying to destroy the powerful MAFIA. And it was the MAFIA who had helped put him into power in the first place! In those days at least, the mob had HUGE power in this country and they KILLED PEOPLE. Anyone they didn't like, anyone who broke a promise to them, anyone who double crossed them. I'm not making this up. Mysterious automobile "accidents".
J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and too powerful for way too long. Evil man, many people say. And not above combining his powers with Mafia powers. CIA too-- spies, not always on the right side. Terrible, unforgivable abuse of power.Believe me, I'd rather take the easy way out and assume that Oswald killed Kennedy, and on his own but that's just not the case. For those who don't care, then don't bother with it. I'm not a conspiracy believer in general, but this is one case that is totally different from any other.
[i]4. If Jack Ruby was part of a conspiracy to eliminate Oswald and prevent detection, why do the photographs show Ruby shooting Oswald in the abdomen or belly as opposed to his head or his chest? Surely Ruby knew those sorts of wounds were more likely to be fatal.
Damn I hate it when folks interject clear thinking into the debate. In point of fact, I've never given the dynamics of Ruby's attack much thought until now. Which raises another question. If the object was to silence Oswald, there sure are better ways than shooting Oswald on national TV rather than convenient suicide in his cell just like all the other mysterious died in custody cases.
To return to the OP, Oswald's Marine Corps service record showed him to be a reasonably competent marksman. In December of 1956 he scored 212 - sharpshooter. Three years later, after not having fired a rifle for some time, he scored 191 - marksman.
From the Warren Commission report:
Major Anderson concluded:
I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.
When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:
Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.
After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded:
I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
By the way, Major Eugene D. Anderson was the XO of the Marksmanship Branch of the United States Marine Corps. Master Sergeant Zahm was the senior NCO of the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion of the Marine Corps School at Quantico, Va.
Last edited by Nighteyes; 02-21-2011 at 06:31 PM..
What Oswald accomplished on a rifle range has little bearing on the real world. On a rifle range, I have put bullets through the same hole as long as I wanted. While hunting, I miss gigantic elk as often as not when they are moving. I've been hunting a few times and the large majority of hunters suffer from the same problem. Many experienced hunters can't even hit game that is standing still. This is due to nerves, they are shaking with excitement.
Oswald was shooting at a moving target.
Oswald did not have a shooting bench.
Oswald was shooting at a target roughly 30-40 feet (I think he was on the 3rd or 4th floor) lower than him.
Oswald was shooting at the President of the United States....akin to shooting at an elk with a 10 foot antler rack. Nerves kick in at an extraordinary rate. All of the successful POTUS assassinations occurred at almost point blank range.
Kennedy's body received several holes....the fatal shot hit his forehead and mushroomed in a very atypical manner....though typical of professional assassins who inject mercury into the bullet. Oswald would have been very lucky to place one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
