JFK - Why Oswald is guilty.

First topic message reminder :

As I have just spent the last three months reading the most detailed book imaginable on the JFK assassination I thought I would put that reading to some use and outline why it is pretty clear Oswald was guilty and acted alone in the act. As I know we have some subscribers to various conspiracy theories on here would be nice to hear some of the counter views.
 
1 – The ballistics tests carried out on the bullet fragments found in JFK and Governor Connally were found to have been fired from the rifle owned by Oswald, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. I should clarify that this is not the model of gun, but the specific rifle found on the sixth floor, which it was proven was owned by Oswald, beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
2 – Oswald had previously made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate another local politician, General Walker. Obviously not absolute proof he murdered Kennedy but a pretty strong indication that he was more than capable of attempting such a murder.
 
3 – No evidence has ever been found that a bullet was fired from anywhere other than the sixth floor of the Book Depository. No bullet fragments or shells were ever found in or around Dealey Plaza other than those fired by Oswald.
 
4 – The entry and exit wounds found in Kennedy and Connally were consistent with a shot being made from the upper floors of the Book Depository and no other location, as confirmed by the team of pathologists who examined the body.
 
5 - Oswald stayed with his wife the night before the assassination (they lived apart) on a Thursday night. He never stayed with her during the week. The gun used to kill Kennedy was stored at his wife’s address. What possible motivation did he have to break with a long established routine other than to collect the murder weapon.
 
6 – Of all the employees of the Book Depository Oswald was the only employee to leave the building and area after the murder. Would an innocent person act in such a manner.
 
7 – There was no magic bullet. In a presidential limousine the front seat occupied by Governor Connally was what is known as a jump seat and is lowered and set off to the left, thus meaning the bullet that struck both of them acted in a totally consistent manner from the perspective of trajectory.
 
8 – In a related point the idea that the shot was difficult or could not be made with Oswald’s rifle are a myth. Tests were carried out post the assassination where Oswald’s results were not only equalled but even bettered. Should also be remembered during his time in the marines Oswald was at one point classified as a sharpshooter, the second highest grade below expert, and at the risk of stating the obvious the US marine tests are pretty difficult.
 
9 – The only fingerprints found in the snipers nest on the sixth floor in the immediate aftermath of the murder belonged to Oswald, no credible physical evidence has ever emerged that anybody other than him or as well has him has ever emerged.
 
10 – The most popular conspiracy theory, that a shot was made from the grassy knoll does not really stand up to analysis. The grassy knoll is directly across the plaza from the main street where most people had gathered to watch the motorcade, any assassin or shot from there would have been in direct view of up to 80 witnesses, yet no credible witness or physical evidence has ever emerged to support such a proposition.
 
This is a brief run through some of the myriad factors that point to Oswald’s guilt but am always happy to hear the counter views.

To fire shots that accurate, that quickly, from that distance, with that old crappy rifle.

Come on.

FWIW, some nobody civilian firing an Oswald-type of rifle much faster than Oswald was claimed to have done:

Spoiler:

Obviously, this is a bit of a bugger for the conspiracy theorists but I don't suppose it'll stop them...

Scottrf wrote:Rate of fire is an accurate stat for an automatic weapon but not really a bolt action rifle. And each mechanism is different, so you really have to have the right gun not 'suppose' that it's quicker to operate.

True, but at least I'm trying to throw some sort of facts into the discussion. The Enfield was famously good and, well, the Carcano was Italian but even if it's a bit worse than the Enfield despite Oswald's version being ~25 years younger, it won't be that bad. Seriously, this was an Italian infantry rifle; it isn't going to be as bad as the conspiracists would like to have it.

Pr4wn wrote:To fire shots that accurate, that quickly, from that distance, with that old crappy rifle.

Come on.

Seriously, it's not a "crappy rifle". It was the Italian army's primary infantry weapon for ~50 years, Oswald achieved 'Marksman' class, twice, in the Marines (look it up - 50 rounds, rapid and Oswald, I think, scored 48 and 49) and he was only firing from ~50 yards. He also, presumably, made damned sure his weapon was in as good a condition as possible and he knew its quirks.

The specific rifle that was found in the depository was said, in the Warren Report, to be in an unsatisfactory condition with an inaccurate scope.

Significant practice would have been needed to operate this rifle accurately in the way that he was accused of doing and his wife had never recalled him taking the rifle from the property. We all know that a scope would have to be perfectly calibrated to pull off shots like this.

navyblueshorts wrote:FWIW, some nobody civilian firing an Oswald-type of rifle much faster than Oswald was claimed to have done:

Spoiler:

Obviously, this is a bit of a bugger for the conspiracy theorists but I don't suppose it'll stop them...

Scottrf wrote:Rate of fire is an accurate stat for an automatic weapon but not really a bolt action rifle. And each mechanism is different, so you really have to have the right gun not 'suppose' that it's quicker to operate.

True, but at least I'm trying to throw some sort of facts into the discussion. The Enfield was famously good and, well, the Carcano was Italian but even if it's a bit worse than the Enfield despite Oswald's version being ~25 years younger, it won't be that bad. Seriously, this was an Italian infantry rifle; it isn't going to be as bad as the conspiracists would like to have it.

Pr4wn wrote:To fire shots that accurate, that quickly, from that distance, with that old crappy rifle.

Come on.

Seriously, it's not a "crappy rifle". It was the Italian army's primary infantry weapon for ~50 years, Oswald achieved 'Marksman' class, twice, in the Marines (look it up - 50 rounds, rapid and Oswald, I think, scored 48 and 49) and he was only firing from ~50 yards. He also, presumably, made damned sure his weapon was in as good a condition as possible and he knew its quirks.

He also missed General Walker from a closer distance and hit the Window frame. And I don't remember reading any conclusive evidence that he'd undertaken to work on his shooting following that. In the absence of contrary evidence, I don't think it's far fetched to have doubts about his ability to shoot.

"He also missed General Walker from a closer distance and hit the Window frame."

1. Hasn't been proven to be him.
2. The shot didn't hit the window frame.
3. One bad shot vs an army shooting test proving he was a good shot.
4. A different gun was used.

Otherwise conclusive evidence!

Scottrf wrote:"He also missed General Walker from a closer distance and hit the Window frame."

1. Hasn't been proven to be him.
2. The shot didn't hit the window frame.
3. One bad shot vs an army shooting test proving he was a good shot.
4. A different gun was used.

Otherwise conclusive evidence!

1 - Almost conclusively his gun. Yet to hear evidence proving he was in the business of lending his gun.

2 - yes it did

3 - One bad shot vs a test taken four years ago... The fact that his rating had dropped from a sharpshooter to a marksman in the three years in the army indicates that your shooting ability isn't a constant.

3 - Yes it did. " Only a window frame across the middle of the
double window deflected the bullet and saved
Walker’s life."
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/

4 - It probably was

Pr4wn wrote:The specific rifle that was found in the depository was said, in the Warren Report, to be in an unsatisfactory condition with an inaccurate scope.

Significant practice would have been needed to operate this rifle accurately in the way that he was accused of doing and his wife had never recalled him taking the rifle from the property. We all know that a scope would have to be perfectly calibrated to pull off shots like this.

Re. my highlight above, no, we don't. He could have fired it over the iron sights at marksman level and bullseyed JFK from ~50 yards; the Carcano was pretty accurate, for all its other perceived weaknesses. If there were 3 shots, he missed once altogether and another also didn't exactly middle JFK's head - I'd say that was pretty commensurate with the rapidity, range, expertise and weapon.
So what if his wife didn't notice him practicing???? Pretty sure Oswald wasn't in her pocket.

kingraf wrote:He also missed General Walker from a closer distance and hit the Window frame. And I don't remember reading any conclusive evidence that he'd undertaken to work on his shooting following that. In the absence of contrary evidence, I don't think it's far fetched to have doubts about his ability to shoot.

All of which conveniently ignores the fact he was classed as marksman with the U.S. Marines - twice. Also, what's to stop Walker from moving? Inconvenient, but hey ho.


The truth of all this is people want to believe there was a conspiracy here. The chances that it was Oswald and him alone are far greater than it being some mafia/CIA/USSR/Martian carve-up. Occam's razor.

- As previously discussed, Oswald was a sharpshooter in 1956, by 1959 he'd become a marksman. That means his shooting ability had diminished in the three years he'd been in the army. It therefore doesnt seem a stretch to speculate that four years as a civilian could have led to further his ability being further eroded.

- Lets pretend he moved. Does that change the fact that it was a poor shot? No. He hit the frame in front of Gen Walker. A frame which being part of the house would have been there the entire time. The fact that Gen Walker was seated means he probably wasnt appearing in and out of the frame in rapid fire time.


Maybe Oswald did kill Kennedy. Maybe he didnt

kingraf wrote:...Maybe Oswald did kill Kennedy. Maybe he didnt

Indeed, although I think it most likely that he did.

It is true there have been tests where other shooters have failed to match Oswald’s performance, what is also true is there have also been tests where his marksmanship was matched or even surpassed I believe I am right in saying. Think Walter Kronkite did a TV special where they set up the same conditions and people on that special equalled the shooting of Oswald, which as I have alluded to is not quite as special as people make out. He had a good line of sight, a slow moving target and an elevated shooting position and he hit with one out of three. Let’s not make this out as though he hit a fly’s nuts from three miles away in a fog. He was a trained US marine who hit a target once out of three.

As for the magic bullet, there simply wasn’t one. As mentioned previously the presidential limo driven is not a regular car the passenger seat in the front is set low and off to the side, this is so people can see who is sat in the rear with an unencumbered view. As such the trajectory and flight path of the bullet is perfectly consistent with a shot from the sixth floor of the book depository.

None of that answers the question though as to where, if there was another shooter, did his bullets go? Because none of them hit Kennedy, the forensic and ballistic evidence, which is science, not supposition or rumour, supports no other conclusion than that the only bullets that hit Kennedy that day were fired from Oswald’s rifle.

Rowley wrote:...None of that answers the question though as to where, if there was another shooter, did his bullets go? Because none of them hit Kennedy, the forensic and ballistic evidence, which is science, not supposition or rumour, supports no other conclusion than that the only bullets that hit Kennedy that day were fired from Oswald’s rifle.  

Bit of a bugger this last point isn't it? Definitely inconvenient.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The specific rifle that was found in the depository was said, in the Warren Report, to be in an unsatisfactory condition with an inaccurate scope.

Significant practice would have been needed to operate this rifle accurately in the way that he was accused of doing and his wife had never recalled him taking the rifle from the property. We all know that a scope would have to be perfectly calibrated to pull off shots like this.

Re. my highlight above, no, we don't. He could have fired it over the iron sights at marksman level and bullseyed JFK from ~50 yards; the Carcano was pretty accurate, for all its other perceived weaknesses. If there were 3 shots, he missed once altogether and another also didn't exactly middle JFK's head - I'd say that was pretty commensurate with the rapidity, range, expertise and weapon.
So what if his wife didn't notice him practicing???? Pretty sure Oswald wasn't in her pocket.

The rifle that they found had a poorly calibrated scope on it. It was also in poor condition, as stated above.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:The specific rifle that was found in the depository was said, in the Warren Report, to be in an unsatisfactory condition with an inaccurate scope.

Significant practice would have been needed to operate this rifle accurately in the way that he was accused of doing and his wife had never recalled him taking the rifle from the property. We all know that a scope would have to be perfectly calibrated to pull off shots like this.

Re. my highlight above, no, we don't. He could have fired it over the iron sights at marksman level and bullseyed JFK from ~50 yards; the Carcano was pretty accurate, for all its other perceived weaknesses. If there were 3 shots, he missed once altogether and another also didn't exactly middle JFK's head - I'd say that was pretty commensurate with the rapidity, range, expertise and weapon.
So what if his wife didn't notice him practicing???? Pretty sure Oswald wasn't in her pocket.

The rifle that they found had a poorly calibrated scope on it. It was also in poor condition, as stated above.

I'll repeat it, just for good luck although experience says it'll make no difference.

Oswald started shooting at ~50 yards, he was marksman qualified (and had been better by the sound of it) in the U.S. Marines and it's entirely possible that he didn't even need a scope at that range. Hitting an almost stationary target at that distance, with a military rifle, by someone who's good should be idiotically simple - the head shot was what? ~80 yards? Wow. I guess he would have been buzzing on adrenaline but then he, allegedly, missed once entirely.

Again, to come back to Rowley's point - the only bullets/bullet fragments identified in JFK were from Oswald's rifle. People can say it was impossible until they're blue in the face but it doesn't alter the fact that no matter how small the chance of Oswald hitting JFK's head from his vantage point was, it happened. Call it Oswald winning the Lottery if it'll help.
All the genuine evidence points to it being Oswald, but whether Oswald was a patsy though, is another thing all together.

I'll repeat is, just for good luck although experience says it'll make no difference.

The gun had a scope on it. Whether he needed one or not is irrelevant.

I'm by no means saying he wasn't involved at all, but I don't think he was the only shooter.

Pr4wn wrote:I'll repeat is, just for good luck although experience says it'll make no difference.

The gun had a scope on it. Whether he needed one or not is irrelevant.

I'm by no means saying he wasn't involved at all, but I don't think he was the only shooter.

You're missing the point - deliberately or not I don't know. What if it had a poorly zeroed scope? The scope is evidence of what exactly? He didn't need it. I could have thrown a golf ball from 50 yards and probably hit JFK (OK, not from a Book Repository window I grant you) or got damned close. We're talking about a good rifleman, using an accurate rifle from what, effectively, was spitting distance.
Anyway, once more. The only bullet fragments were those from Oswald's gun. Ergo, if the shots were from the Repository window (as no-one seems to dispute) and that's where the rifle was found, it must have been shots from there that killed JFK. Was Oswald the shooter from that window or was it someone else? Well, I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise and it's never a point that's argued the toss about so I guess we're saying it was Oswald up there. He did it.

What's the serious evidence for another shooter? There is none and please don't say "back and to the side".

You make it sound a bit easier than it is I think. He has to adjust for height differentials as well as a moving target. The presence of a bad scope is evidence of obscuring of the normal viewing angle.

Easy, hard, impossible, possible all matter little. No matter how easy or hard the shot/shots were the fact remains they were made with Oswald’s rifle from an area in or around the sixth floor of the book depository. This is proven by science to a point that is surely incontestable. At the risk of repeating myself to the point where I am banging my head against the wall, the only bullet fragments found in either Kennedy or Connally’s body were fired from Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other guns in the world. Once we accept that fact, as surely we must, debates about how hard the shot is are surely rendered academic.

I don't think any of your points are valid Rowley. Not a single one of your posts puts the blame where it's due.










The Jews.

Scottrf wrote:You make it sound a bit easier than it is I think. He has to adjust for height differentials as well as a moving target. The presence of a bad scope is evidence of obscuring of the normal viewing angle.

Not really. He's firing a fast bullet over short range at a (very) slow moving target - at that range, he's not far off hitting where he's drawn his bead. Any shooter who's any good shouldn't have trouble. For example:

http://www.intuitor.com/student/Oswald%20Problem.php

In addition, as Rowley re-iterates, it matters not a jot how tiny the perceived probability was - the ballistic evidence says the shot was made.

Rowley wrote:
Easy, hard, impossible, possible all matter little. No matter how easy or hard the shot/shots were the fact remains they were made with Oswald’s rifle from an area in or around the sixth floor of the book depository. This is proven by science to a point that is surely incontestable. At the risk of repeating myself to the point where I am banging my head against the wall, the only bullet fragments found in either Kennedy or Connally’s body were fired from Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other guns in the world. Once we accept that fact, as surely we must, debates about how hard the shot is are surely rendered academic.

I must say I'm somewhat perplexed at the vehemence with which it seems you are determined to force your point of view upon the group, Rowley. How is this so personal to you..?

"As surely we must"...? No Sir, I disagree. We "must" do no such thing.

I wrote on this topic on Tuesday morning and my points seem to have been completely ignored by yourself. Perhaps you have missed them in which case, in the interests of balance, I suggest you go back to about halfway down page four of this thread and consider the evidence of the Zapruder film which, to my personal mind, is ample evidence of at least one shot.... the fatal kill shot.... coming from in front of the limousine, at an angle and height consistent with a person standing in the vicinity of the picket fence.

The Zapruder film has been copied many times now and picked over by more people than any other piece of cine film in history. Some of the copies made, including that which was presented to the Warren Commission had a number of frames missing which the commission were told had been "accidentally destroyed". A number of other frames had been "accidentally damaged". Whaaaaatt...? The Commission accepted into evidence a copy of a film which was incomplete, when the original was available upon subpoena..?

Why would they do that..? Why not just subpoena the original. They could have done that.

Some 30 other people took pictures and movies of the presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza that day, and some of those are inconsistent with the Zapruder film which has led to allegations that the film was a hoax, but the following edit from Wikipedia discounts those allegations:

In 1996 Roland Zavada, a former product engineer for Kodak who led the team that invented Kodachrome II, was requested by the Assassination Records Review Board to undertake a thorough technical study of the Zapruder Film.[30] Zavada concluded that there was no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in-camera original. He concluded that any alleged alterations were not feasible.[31][32] Zavada said that copying Zapruder's film would leave visible artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; [and] contrast and modulation transfer function losses.…It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, [or] contrast buildup."[33]


In other words, whilst the copies made showed evidence of human manipulation, the original did not. It was a complete and un-tampered record of events.

Contrast the evidence of an unbiased scientist making an objective assessment with that of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Centre, which said that the film must be a fake because it shows "an unnatural jerkiness or change of focus in certain sequences". Damned right it would. The bloke had just seen the President's head blown away through his viewfinder. I reckon that would make anybody jerky..!! But is it evidence of forgery..? In my opinion, no, it isn't. Why would the CIA want to discredit the film though..? A question worth asking, methinks.

We could go around and around on this one, in ever decreasing circles until we all disappear up our own rectums and never come to a certain conclusion. All I will do is state my opinions which, whether they are right or wrong, will never, I suspect either be proven or disproven.

I believe that the kill shot was fired by a gunman from the vicinity of the picket fence on Dealey Plaza. This would mean that there was more than one individual involved and therefore, a conspiracy.

I am satisfied that a gunman also fired shots from the book depository window. Whether or not that gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald is unproven.

I believe that Dealey Plaza was an ideal site for a triangulation crossfire assassination which explains why the gunman in the book depository spurned the much easier shot that would have been available as the limousine made a slow turn at the sharp bend on 9th and Elm.

I do not believe that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald for the reasons he gave, rather, he was set up by others (unknown).... possibly blackmailed..... in order to silence Oswald and prevent him giving evidence at trial which would have implicated others. Oswald, as he claimed, really was a "Patsy".

You may well dismiss my message and of course, you are entitled to your opinions. I respect that, so for this discussion old chap, I think you and I should simply agree to disagree

It isn't a case of ignoring it, but my original point remains, if there was another shooter at the picket fence, where did his bullets go, because not one of them was found in JFK, Governor Connally or around the limo. Missing all three of those targets from such a short distance simply stretches credulity to a point where it goes beyond sense for me. I am by no means an expert or weapons expert but I would suspect how a body reacts to a shot would be influenced by a number of factors, where it hits the body, the distance shot from, the power of the gun shooting, the calibre and type of bullet doing the shooting and so forth, as such I could not comment with anything approaching confidence to say JFK's reaction to being shot was inconsistent with shots being made exclusively from the sixth floor of the depository. I would guess the same is true for all of us, yourself included, irrespective of your military experience.

What I would be confident in saying though is that when countless ballistic experts have examined the body of JFK and the bullet fragments extracted from that body and all, to a man, have come to the conclusion that no other bullets hit him other than those fired from JFK's rifle, to the exclusion of all guns in the world that evidence is a little more compelling than an eye test and speculative guess at how a body would/should react based on watching a grainy video, which, by the nature of the technology available at the time, has a low frames per second ratio. I am more than happy to disagree and appreciate I am peeing in the wind trying to persuade people on this thread, but when it comes to their only being one shooter the evidence to support that theory is more than compelling.

Rowley wrote:It isn't a case of ignoring it, but my original point remains, if there was another shooter at the picket fence, where did his bullets go, because not one of them was found in JFK, Governor Connally or around the limo. Missing all three of those targets from such a short distance simply stretches credulity to a point where it goes beyond sense for me. I am by no means an expert or weapons expert but I would suspect how a body reacts to a shot would be influenced by a number of factors, where it hits the body, the distance shot from, the power of the gun shooting, the calibre and type of bullet doing the shooting and so forth, as such I could not comment with anything approaching confidence to say JFK's reaction to being shot was inconsistent with shots being made exclusively from the sixth floor of the depository. I would guess the same is true for all of us, yourself included, irrespective of your military experience.

What I would be confident in saying though is that when countless ballistic experts have examined the body of JFK and the bullet fragments extracted from that body and all, to a man, have come to the conclusion that no other bullets hit him other than those fired from JFK's rifle, to the exclusion of all guns in the world that evidence is a little more compelling than an eye test and speculative guess at how a body would/should react based on watching a grainy video, which, by the nature of the technology available at the time, has a low frames per second ratio. I am more than happy to disagree and appreciate I am peeing in the wind trying to persuade people on this thread, but when it comes to their only being one shooter the evidence to support that theory is more than compelling.  

He shot himself? Now that is a conspiracy theory and a half!

I've heard dafter Adam!

The Fourth Lion wrote:...I wrote on this topic on Tuesday morning and my points seem to have been completely ignored by yourself.  Perhaps you have missed them in which case, in the interests of balance, I suggest you go back to about halfway down page four of this thread and consider the evidence of the Zapruder film which, to my personal mind, is ample evidence of at least one shot.... the fatal kill shot.... coming from in front of the limousine, at an angle and height consistent with a person standing in the vicinity of the picket fence....

Huh? So the kill shot you claim to have occurred left no bullet residue, at all, in Kennedy? But Oswald's gun somehow did? I'm sorry, there's no decent evidence that supports you here and plenty that contradicts you. As for Kennedy's "back and to the side" motion, it's not that great for one thing. How about the fact that he'd previously just been struck by a bullet in the back of the neck? Maybe that knocked him forward and his apparent "back and to the side" motion was rebound from striking his head from forward motion as a result of the neck wound? Or even his own conscious reverse motion in reaction to being shot in the neck i.e. he actually was in the action of sitting back up when hit in the head? How about the fact that the head shot had just pulped his central nervous system with all the unconscious motor effects that would almost certainly have had on his musculature - in other words, he twitched "back and to the side" as a result of having his brains explosively destroyed?

You want to believe their was a conspiracy; that there's some explanation of control over JFKs death. Better that maybe than some nutter shoots him for no other reason than he could. Bit scary that eh? Anyone could be a killer and that's not a nice thought. Much better that its some state/mafia/Soviet plot that explains it all.

This may have been mentioned before but if Oswald was a lone assassin then why did Jack Ruby kill him? The long-time gangster suddenly got an overwhelming feeling of vengeful patriotism?

Pr4wn wrote:This may have been mentioned before but if Oswald was a lone assassin then why did Jack Ruby kill him? The long-time gangster suddenly got an overwhelming feeling of vengeful patriotism?

This reminds me a bit of the Ancient Aliens programme on National Geographic.

I don't know what happened here...therefore aliens.

Pr4wn wrote:This may have been mentioned before but if Oswald was a lone assassin then why did Jack Ruby kill him? The long-time gangster suddenly got an overwhelming feeling of vengeful patriotism?

Daft as it sounds it is as good an explanation as we have, folk have committed or attempted to commit murders for dafter reasons, Hinckley tried to murder Reagan in some sort of tribute to a teenage Jodie Foster. Firstly though the characterisation of Ruby as a long term gangster is wildly inaccurate. Most who knew him or those that were actual gangsters at the time completely reject the idea he was part of any mafia family. Similarly no crime agency had him on file as being associated with the mob prior to him shooting Oswald. He was a nightclub owner and operator though so inevitably he run into such guys. That is pretty much a by-product of doing that for a living.

But irrespective of this let’s look at Ruby “silencing” Oswald sensibly. Oswald was in police custody for two days prior to being shot by Ruby. During that period he was pretty much interviewed by every form of law enforcement agency for pretty much every waking hour. It is widely accepted during that period he said nothing, not one word to implicate other folk, be it the mob, Castro or anyone else in the murder of Kennedy. Given he had said nothing why, after two days, did the mob feel the need to silence an already silent man. Surely if you were in fear of Oswald revealing your complicity in the murder you would not allow him to spend one minute in police custody, you’d hit him the minute he left the Book Depository.

Also as I have mentioned previously Ruby was in the police station when Oswald was first taken through, most witnesses accept Oswald was within 2 feet of Ruby who did nothing. Surely if you were a mob hitman you’d shoot him at this point, before he had opportunity to spill his guts. Also when Ruby did actually shoot him Ruby had literally no means of knowing when Oswald would be transferred. The transfer was due to take place at 10am, at which point Ruby was not in the basement. It was delayed whilst they re-interviewed him and suitable transport for the transfer was located and decided upon. During this period Ruby was not sat at home waiting for a call, he was running errands such as going to the bank. In the days before mobile phones, how was the time of the transfer communicated to him? It would have been impossible. Also it is widely accepted Ruby arrived at the police station a minute or so before Oswald entered the basement, as such the whole success of his plot to murder Oswald could have been completely undone by traffic or unfavourable traffic lights! Does any of this fit the profile of Ruby as crack mafia assassin?

What is much more plausible is in the course of running his errands Ruby drove past the police station, saw there was still activity going on and went to have a look. By rights he should not have been permitted entry, but the guard who should have stopped him was involved in the transportation kerfuffle and was not doing his job, which allowed Ruby into the basement, is this indicative of him being in on the plot to kill him, or just doing his job incompetently? Given the fact that there was no way of knowing when the transfer would happen the latter seems much the more likely. From there he was able to get close enough to shoot Oswald, which he did. Does he require some good fortune/incompetence on the part of the police to do this, almost certainly, but for me it is a more plausible explanation than the idea of Ruby as mob hitman, unless of course we are willing to believe the mob would entrust one of their biggest hits ever to seemingly one of the most incompetent hitmen imaginable. Also if Ruby is a highly trained mob killer, and let’s be honest for a murder of this nature it is completely illogical they would use any other sort, why, when he is within two feet of his quarry would he shoot him in the stomach, surely he would aim for the head or chest, where there are more major organs available? You have a pretty unencumbered shot from close range and you choose to aim for a part of the body with a reasonably low fatality rate?

Surely you aren't really suggesting Ruby killed LHO on his way back from running errands? I mean... come on. He then takes his gun on the off chance that he'll get close enough to Oswald to kill him?

He frequently carried a gun. As a nightclub owner he carried large amounts of cash. Carrying a gun is not really that unbelievable.

I routinely carry a gun in Tesco in case I want to pop into a police station to commit a murder.

Scottrf wrote:I routinely carry a gun in Tesco in case I want to pop into a police station to commit a murder.

Naturally

Yeah, if you didn't know better you could come to the conclusion someone who would kill somebody he had never met in front of a load of coppers and tv cameras was not quite playing with a full deck.

Rowley wrote:It isn't a case of ignoring it, but my original point remains, if there was another shooter at the picket fence, where did his bullets go, because not one of them was found in JFK, Governor Connally or around the limo. Missing all three of those targets from such a short distance simply stretches credulity to a point where it goes beyond sense for me. I am by no means an expert or weapons expert but I would suspect how a body reacts to a shot would be influenced by a number of factors, where it hits the body, the distance shot from, the power of the gun shooting, the calibre and type of bullet doing the shooting and so forth, as such I could not comment with anything approaching confidence to say JFK's reaction to being shot was inconsistent with shots being made exclusively from the sixth floor of the depository. I would guess the same is true for all of us, yourself included, irrespective of your military experience.

What I would be confident in saying though is that when countless ballistic experts have examined the body of JFK and the bullet fragments extracted from that body and all, to a man, have come to the conclusion that no other bullets hit him other than those fired from JFK's rifle, to the exclusion of all guns in the world that evidence is a little more compelling than an eye test and speculative guess at how a body would/should react based on watching a grainy video, which, by the nature of the technology available at the time, has a low frames per second ratio. I am more than happy to disagree and appreciate I am peeing in the wind trying to persuade people on this thread, but when it comes to their only being one shooter the evidence to support that theory is more than compelling.  

More than compelling ..... in your opinion.

You would be correct in saying that that it is almost impossible for a bullet not to leave residue in a human body and if the scientific tests and techniques employed today were available in 1963 then it is possible that they may have found some. However, they weren't. The testing techniques of 1963 were quite primitive by today's standards and even if they had tested for other bullet fragments to the best of their ability at the time, which I believe did not happen (please correct me if you know better and specify which tests took place) then they would still not have been able to absolutely and irrefutably verify that microscopic traces of a different bullet were not embedded in President Kennedy's brain.

In any case, at that time, they weren't even looking for another shooter. The "Oswald Did It" version of events took hold so quickly that the news identifying Oswald as the killer was able to be printed in newspapers as far away as Australia by the time the next day's edition came out which, allowing for time differences, was but a matter of a few hours. The decision as to who had done the shooting was already cut and dried as far as officialdom was concerned.

It would be possible.... though unlikely.... to exhume Kennedy's body and carry out tests using modern day techniques but for one unfortunate.... but very convenient for those who wish to maintain the lone gunman theory.... The President's brain is missing..!!

Well, waddya know..!!

The one item of evidence which might be examined in the light of 21st century forensic techniques just kinda.... got lost. Oops. There are photographs, although I don't know about you but I figure one brain looks pretty much the same in a photo as any other to me.

Unable to find the shattered brain itself, the Assassination Records Review Board checked photos taken of it shortly after Kennedy was rushed to hospital. Douglas Horne, the board’s chief analyst, was certain the brain in the pictures was not that of JFK. According to Horne it showed much less damage than Kennedy really sustained.

Horne said: “I am 90 to 95 percent certain that the photographs in the archives are not of President Kennedy’s brain. If they aren’t, that can only mean there has been a cover-up of the medical evidence.”

Questions:

Who would have the ability, authority and access necessary to remove the President's brain..?
Why would they do it?
What would they stand to gain from doing so.


Now, we can argue the toss about which way a body will react when it is shot.... It is quite clear now that you are determined to pooh-pooh any realistic scenario in favour of an unrealistic one if it fits the version of events that you have decided cannot be disputed. Be that as it may, but there are a lot of things that have happened in this assassination.

Witnesses who were due to give evidence that contradicted the lone gunman scenario suddenly had fatal accidents on lonely roads late at night before they could testify. Note the plural.

The alleged shooter was killed by a known mafia figure who was able to get close to the suspect whilst he was surrounded by policemen.

Witnesses who gave statements later stated that their testimony had been altered without their knowledge or consent.

Undue credence many years later, given to evidence based on techniques which were simply not available at the time.

Brains went missing.

Dodgy photographs showed up.

The list could go on, and each one thing on its own would be suspicious in itself, but the weight of everything put together is....shall we say.... suspicious to say the very least.


The people who did this thing are probably no longer alive. If there was another gunman it is likely he would have been at least in his mid twenties / early thirties at the time which would put him in his mid seventies / eighties now. Still alive...? Possibly. Possibly not.

But if there was a conspiracy by figures within the US military / security apparatus and powerful figures were involved then to reveal them now would still, today, be a huge scandal. There is still a strong reason for those organisations to continue to cover up the killing.

Given enough time and all the resources available, it is possible to "tweak a little here, nudge a little there".... each snippet of altered analysis.... every little nuance of what really happened somehow slanted, even by just a little and in this way, future generations can be "persuaded" of anything.

But I remember it clearly. I remember hearing the news. I remember seeing the broadcasts on TV. I remember the seemingly endless discussions about the findings of the Warren Report. I know I'm getting old now but I'm not senile yet. The doubts, questions, and loose ends which just don't tie up persist despite every attempt to spin this to a closure.

It could be argued that the fact that after all this time, and with an "official" verdict long declared, there are those who are determined to go out of their way to keep repeating over and over and over "Oswald did it".

To paraphrase Shakespeare: I think the gentlemen protest..... TOO much.




Oh, and by the way, you didn't answer my question about why the shooter in the BDB didn't take a shot when the car took that turn at 9 and Elm. That's always bugged me.

Hang on a sec....I need to get myself a tinfoil hat....

Alternatively you could just debate the points. That's also quite cool.

I don't believe there was a shooter on grassy knoll. Someone shooting in such a public place doesnt go by with a few witnesses. But that doesnt mean the theory doesn't raise other questions.

Ok, I’ll concede for the sake of argument that it is possible that the smaller fragments of bullets that were unable to be analysed could have been from another gun, find it unlikely or a bit of a stretch that none of the ones that were of sufficient size to be analysed supported that theory but so be it. However that does not answer the question is if there was another shooter, most commonly accepted as being in front of Kennedy where is the entry and exit wound? Can’t be certain but I believe I am right in saying 8 different pathologists examined his body once dead and they all agreed his wounds were consistent with him being shot from the sixth floor. There was some debate about whether the wound at the front was as they would expect but when told the surgeons who first attended him attempted to perform a tracheotomy they agreed his wounds were consistent with this. It should also be noted that the HCSA, some fifteen years later and blessed with whatever technological advances had come to pass in the intervening period, drew much the same conclusions on both the bullets and the entry/exit wounds. These were not conspiracy authors working off second hand information but people widely regarded as experts in their chosen profession.



As I say there was one dissenting voice in the eight, if only in an exercise of accepting the balance of probabilities it seems logical that the likelihood of the 87.5 percent being right outweigh that of the 12.5%. Believing all the ballistic experts did not find one bullet fragment from another gun in Kennedy or Connally is a stretch, believing there were fragments from another gun but each and every one of them was one of the ones that was too small to analyse is a stretch even further, but to believe both or either of these and then to go on to believe that all but one the pathologists who analysed the body failed to spot an entry or exit wound or reached the wrong conclusion as to what had caused the holes in Kennedy’s head is just not something I can really get on board with I’m afraid.



I can’t rebut every single point that has been raised since 1963 that the conspiracy theorists have thrown up, Bugliosi does do this, however as I don’t have rote memory recall I cannot remember every point he raised in a nearly 2000 page book and have little intention of ploughing through it to do so.



My view is simple when it comes to the assassination, every piece of evidence, which could be considered to be scientifically rigorous points towards Oswald as being the lone gunman. The thriving cottage industry that has grown up in the 50 odd years since the assassination has thus far failed to provide one scrap of evidence that can make any claim to the same level of rigor and most if not all can be rebutted or explained.

The issue with the JFK assassination is that on its own it seems completely plauaible that a lone gun man of no importance to anything or anyone performed the assassination of a generation. But its not on its own is it? JFK had a enemies. He had a lot of enemies. He'd threatened destroy the CIA to its very core (the self same CIA which recetnly admitted that they'd witheld incendiary evidence so that the Warren Commission could focus on "what the Agency believed at the time was
the 'best truth' - that Lee Harvey Oswald, for
as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone
in killing John Kennedy." Imagine that. The people in charge of the the alphabet only gave the letters "C.A.T" and asked you to spell the word which comes naturally.

Then theres the mob, who would have been muy annoyed at Kennedy double crossing them. Next thing you know there's a low order mob man killing LHO. Remarkable that. Even more remarkable is the kill shot. To the stomach. As you've mentioned before Geoff, it's a strange location. Unless you hit a vascular structure, there's a 98% probability that the victim will survive a stomach gun shot. More over, shots fired in anger more often than not are targetted at the head or chest. Logically though if you're in a room full of cops and you need to make a shot, the stomach isn't the worst place since you don't have to have you gun become visible and cause chaos and probably miss... or get stopped. Intriguing for me anyway. Angry former military Marxist makes shot with questionable gun. Angry nightclub owner makes 100-1 shot because he was "in the neighborhood". Multiple people around the JFK murder procceed to drop like flies. Never murdered... Suicide random car accidents. You know, the normal ways people die.

Then of course the JFK assassination starts a series of suicides/assassinations.

Marilyn overdoses

Malcolm X gets got. Don't know who. NOI possibly. Case is open and shut apparently.

Martin Luther King gets shot and killed. Luckily the aasailant made a confession. No chance at all it was under duress. I mean the actual evidence is a little wavy... and he retracts his confession. But No take backs. Jesse Jackson also appears on TV with MLK's blood on his shirt. Of all the people there he's the only one who remembers Jesse Jackson being there by King's side as he passed. How'd you get the blood on you Jesse? Strange tides.

He was president of the most powerful nation in the world, in the middle of the cold war it might be added, saying he had enemies is akin to saying a 40 stone bloke has issues with his diet. Being able to list a bunch of people who may wish him dead or benefit from it proves nothing whatsoever.

Name any powerful world leader, take a random time in their reign and I'll posit you could name half a dozen agencies or people with motive to get rid of them.

Rowley wrote:He was president of the most powerful nation in the world, in the middle of the cold war it might be added, saying he had enemies is akin to saying a 40 stone bloke has issues with his diet. Being able to list a bunch of people who may wish him dead or benefit from it proves nothing whatsoever.

Name any powerful world leader, take a random time in their reign and I'll posit you could name half a dozen agencies or people with motive to get rid of them.

Indeed, but how often does a leader get killed and his killer is (a lone gun man of course) appeared on TV a few months earlier proclaiming his love for Castro (an enemy).
Then his murder is essentially handled by an organisation he swore to destroy (an enemy).
Oh and his murderer's murderer is linked to the mob (an... um.. enemy). It reads like an Anti JFK summit!!

kingraf wrote:Alternatively you could just debate the points. That's also quite cool.

I don't believe there was a shooter on grassy knoll. Someone shooting in such a public place doesnt go by with a few witnesses. But that doesnt mean the theory doesn't raise other questions.

Thanks for the cold water. I have been debating (some of) the points. There's not a lot more I can add. People want a conspiracy but I'm afraid there almost certainly wasn't one.

navyblueshorts wrote:

kingraf wrote:Alternatively you could just debate the points. That's also quite cool.

I don't believe there was a shooter on grassy knoll. Someone shooting in such a public place doesnt go by with a few witnesses. But that doesnt mean the theory doesn't raise other questions.

Thanks for the cold water. I have been debating (some of) the points. There's not a lot more I can add. People want a conspiracy but I'm afraid there almost certainly wasn't one.

Fair enough. Personally I keep a questioning line on JFK. Do stop short of saying there was a conspiracg though being a born and bred fence sitter. I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving that possibility open. If the CIA or any organisation says t that the sky is blue, I'll look outside twice a day over six days to make sure. It's madness to pretend these organisations tell us the whole truth 100% of the time . For instance Rowley opened this thread by saying he'd read the most extensive book imaginable on JFK. Great pity two months later the CIA declassifies a report that there was a "benign cover up" and that the CIA "decided to tell the Warren
Commission only the "best truth"
about Oswald"".

Even the most detailed book is only as detailed as the information available... and its more likely than not that not all about JFK has or ever will be revealed

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I read a statement like that and I interpret it as the CIA acknowledging that in the wake of the assassination and the Warren Commission, agencies like themselves went into a huge arse covering exercise. Does this mean they were involved in the planning and execution of the murder or wanted to minimise their own level of culpability for their failure to stop it? For me it is almost certainly going to be the latter.

To give you an example, a few days before the murder Oswald wrote a short note to the regional Dallas FBI office, can’t remember the exact words, but as Oswald had been visited by the FBI a few times, as was standard for former Russian defectors, it was some sort of threat to the FBI to back off him, the sort of thing the FBI must receive on an almost daily basis I’d imagine. When Hoover discovered the existence of this letter he went absolutely mental and he told the regional office to destroy it. Now is this indicative of the FBI being complicit in or turning a blind eye to the impending murder or a man obsessed with the image and reputation of his agency trying to cover his own arse and avoid anything that could look like his agency could and should have done more to prevent the assassination.

Think about yourself and whatever you do for a living, when something goes horrifically wrong I dare say your first reaction is to think sh!t, is this going to land in my lap, your first instinct will almost certainly be to look at what has gone wrong and hope and pray it is not your fault. If you are to blame, if we’re honest with ourselves our next instinct will be to start thinking of ways you can either shift the blame or minimise the perceived level of culpability you could have for the man sausage up. If you can honestly say you don’t do any of these things I’d have to say you’re a better man than I. Whilst it would be lovely to think we can and should be able to hold law enforcement agencies to higher standards of conduct I think we are being a little naïve to do so. Human nature, is human nature.

I can't go with that for the simple reason that they didn't just push for Oswald to be found guilty. But they actively went out of their way to present only evidence which would lead to Oswald being found guilty. Whether by design or accident they impeded the process. You can't then say the findings aren't then questionable.

To give an example if next week Maddie McCann's parents appear on tv crying (as is their want) and say "look we aren't saying we killed Maddie, but we may have only given information and evidence which made it look like a kidnapping to avoid them waisting their time looking for other possibilities" would anybody say "Jeez that was awfully bright of them. We could have wasted all that manpower investigating a murder when the evidence they've given clearly points to kidnapping"?

The reality is though the reason they, the Dallas police and pretty much everyone pushed for Oswald was the case was pretty much a slam dunk. Within 48 hours you could place him at the scene, tie the murder weapon to him beyond any reasonable doubt and have him acting in a ridiculously suspicious manner in the wake of the murder, including killing a police officer who tried to stop him within a couple of hours of the murder. That is to say nothing of the less solid but still compelling circumstantial evidence also suggesting it was him, such as him carrying a gun shaped package to work that day. Add into that the evidence that was to follow, such as the aforementioned bullet fragments and it is any wonder they focused their energies on Oswald?

When you have all of this evidence, which if you put aside the fact the victim was the president is beyond overwhelming why would the CIA or indeed anyone else be pushing for anyone else?

kingraf wrote:To give an example if next week Maddie McCann's parents appear on tv crying (as is their want) and say "look we aren't saying we killed Maddie, but we may have only given information and evidence which made it look like a kidnapping to avoid them waisting their time looking for other possibilities" would anybody say "Jeez that was awfully bright of them. We could have wasted all that manpower investigating a murder when the evidence they've given clearly points to kidnapping"?

Well, that was what happened.

Scottrf wrote:

kingraf wrote:To give an example if next week Maddie McCann's parents appear on tv crying (as is their want) and say "look we aren't saying we killed Maddie, but we may have only given information and evidence which made it look like a kidnapping to avoid them waisting their time looking for other possibilities" would anybody say "Jeez that was awfully bright of them. We could have wasted all that manpower investigating a murder when the evidence they've given clearly points to kidnapping"?

Well, that was what happened.

Okay yes. But you get the gist.

Have to think that as Oswald had lived in Russia, had been seen visiting the CIA offices on several occasions, was well known as a diffident..He really would make the perfect patsy..

I forgot the grassy knoll officer..

Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith : About a minute after the shooting I pulled my pistol and ran up the grassy knoll to the picket fence....I arrived to find a smartly dressed man in shirt and tie who told me he was a secret service agent and proceeded to show me what looked like bonafide credentials....

The only secret service agents working in Dallas that day were part of the motorcade...

Warren commission didn't think this piece of information was worth following up....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I forgot the grassy knoll officer..

Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith : About a minute after the shooting I pulled my pistol and ran up the grassy knoll to the picket fence....I arrived to find a smartly dressed man in shirt and tie who told me he was a secret service agent and proceeded to show me what looked like bonafide credentials....

The only secret service agents working in Dallas that day were part of the motorcade...

Warren commission didn't think this piece of information was worth following up....

CIA
"decided to tell the
Warren
Commission only the "best truth"
about Oswald"".

Quick question on this as can't recall - is there actual physical evidence linking Oswald to the killing of Tippet? E.G. was it Oswald's gun that was used?