 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There was a JFK thread the other day so I've copied and pasted my reply from that here..
I believe Oswald was part of the assassination but I don't believe he was a lone gunman. I'm a trained marksman and given the rifle he used, number of shots fired, number of shots on target, the fact that the scope he had fitted to the rifle was defective/poorly doped, the target was moving and he was shooting at a downward angle suggest to me he was either: A) an incredible marksman B) extremely lucky C) not the only shooter.
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *RYBBWCouple
over a year ago
Leeds. |
"There was a JFK thread the other day so I've copied and pasted my reply from that here..
I believe Oswald was part of the assassination but I don't believe he was a lone gunman. I'm a trained marksman and given the rifle he used, number of shots fired, number of shots on target, the fact that the scope he had fitted to the rifle was defective/poorly doped, the target was moving and he was shooting at a downward angle suggest to me he was either: A) an incredible marksman B) extremely lucky C) not the only shooter.
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though..."
We were heavily criticised and ridiculed for posting our opinion on this in the other thread, but we stand by our opinion.
We believe the shot that actually killed Kennedy was fired from the front. Why ? At the time the fatal shot was fired Kennedy is seen sitting back in his seat leaning to his left (toward his wife). When the bullet hits Kennedy's head is forced backwards with the impact of the bullet. Had the fatal shot been from behind (allegedly Oswald) Kennedy's head would have been pushed forward. It's common physics.
So we don't think Oswald was a lone gunman, if he was even involved at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago
Titz Towers, North Notts |
Short of me looking rather fetching in a skirt if seen in bad light from a funny angle with your eyes half shut, I've not known a secret be kept for very long at all. If there was a conspiracy someone would have talked.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"......
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though..."
I had assumed the shot had been taken from behind so that (almost) everyone was looking in the wrong direction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was a JFK thread the other day so I've copied and pasted my reply from that here..
I believe Oswald was part of the assassination but I don't believe he was a lone gunman. I'm a trained marksman and given the rifle he used, number of shots fired, number of shots on target, the fact that the scope he had fitted to the rifle was defective/poorly doped, the target was moving and he was shooting at a downward angle suggest to me he was either: A) an incredible marksman B) extremely lucky C) not the only shooter.
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though...
We were heavily criticised and ridiculed for posting our opinion on this in the other thread, but we stand by our opinion.
We believe the shot that actually killed Kennedy was fired from the front. Why ? At the time the fatal shot was fired Kennedy is seen sitting back in his seat leaning to his left (toward his wife). When the bullet hits Kennedy's head is forced backwards with the impact of the bullet. Had the fatal shot been from behind (allegedly Oswald) Kennedy's head would have been pushed forward. It's common physics.
So we don't think Oswald was a lone gunman, if he was even involved at all."
Actually its not as simple as that. A bullet dumps a huge amount of kinetic energy into whatever it hits, this causes cavitation within the target. Head shots are particularly difficult to ascertain where the shot has come from because the brain is inside the skull and the effects of cavitation combined with the brain being encased in the skull causes an almost explosive effect. It's perfectly possible that the shot did actually come from behind. The only way to be sure would have been to examine the brain, which was missing from the official autopsy, so we'll never know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"......
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though...
I had assumed the shot had been taken from behind so that (almost) everyone was looking in the wrong direction."
Everyone would still have been watching the president regardless of where the shot came from.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"......
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though...
I had assumed the shot had been taken from behind so that (almost) everyone was looking in the wrong direction.
Everyone would still have been watching the president regardless of where the shot came from.
"
I doubt the President was planning to shoot anyone.
Those tasked with his protection tend to look forward and to the sides. The attitude seems to be that once you've passed any point on the route, the threat from that point has gone.
Foolish even at the time yet, if you watch motorcades, it still works that way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Isn't there a new (well backed up) theory that the kill shot was a fed agent that fell over and discharged his weapon for the unluckiest shot ever that hit JFK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Isn't there a new (well backed up) theory that the kill shot was a fed agent that fell over and discharged his weapon for the unluckiest shot ever that hit JFK?"
The smoking gun |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was a JFK thread the other day so I've copied and pasted my reply from that here..
I believe Oswald was part of the assassination but I don't believe he was a lone gunman. I'm a trained marksman and given the rifle he used, number of shots fired, number of shots on target, the fact that the scope he had fitted to the rifle was defective/poorly doped, the target was moving and he was shooting at a downward angle suggest to me he was either: A) an incredible marksman B) extremely lucky C) not the only shooter.
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though...
We were heavily criticised and ridiculed for posting our opinion on this in the other thread, but we stand by our opinion.
We believe the shot that actually killed Kennedy was fired from the front. Why ? At the time the fatal shot was fired Kennedy is seen sitting back in his seat leaning to his left (toward his wife). When the bullet hits Kennedy's head is forced backwards with the impact of the bullet. Had the fatal shot been from behind (allegedly Oswald) Kennedy's head would have been pushed forward. It's common physics.
So we don't think Oswald was a lone gunman, if he was even involved at all."
It has been proven that a shot from the rear could make the head go back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was a JFK thread the other day so I've copied and pasted my reply from that here..
I believe Oswald was part of the assassination but I don't believe he was a lone gunman. I'm a trained marksman and given the rifle he used, number of shots fired, number of shots on target, the fact that the scope he had fitted to the rifle was defective/poorly doped, the target was moving and he was shooting at a downward angle suggest to me he was either: A) an incredible marksman B) extremely lucky C) not the only shooter.
Given his position in the book repository he picked the worst shot he possibly could anyway. Any marksman who knows what they're doing would have taken the shot as the motorcade was approaching, making the deflection far easier to quickly calculate.
That being said, he could have just been lucky, I can't see it though...
We were heavily criticised and ridiculed for posting our opinion on this in the other thread, but we stand by our opinion.
We believe the shot that actually killed Kennedy was fired from the front. Why ? At the time the fatal shot was fired Kennedy is seen sitting back in his seat leaning to his left (toward his wife). When the bullet hits Kennedy's head is forced backwards with the impact of the bullet. Had the fatal shot been from behind (allegedly Oswald) Kennedy's head would have been pushed forward. It's common physics.
So we don't think Oswald was a lone gunman, if he was even involved at all.
It has been proven that a shot from the rear could make the head go back. "
This is true, given the nature of headshots. Cavitation+high water content of the brain+enclosure by the skull can create some very strange and unexpected results. It's possible that there was enough force from the exit wound to force his head backwards. If you watch the video of the assassination the kill shot is pretty explosive.
Having said that, the shots could easily have come from the front too, I guess we'll never know as the brain would have given the answers but it was missing... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No I don't think he was.
Watch the Zappruder (sp) enough times and You see the bullet hit him in the face."Back and to the left"
Anymore seen Bill Hicks on this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There are so many groups and individuals who felt that they had been screwed by the kennedys it is almost impossible to know who was involved. I dont believe there was a single plot against jfk but that a number of groups who probably didnt know all of the others involved, bit like the cell system used by terrorist groups.
and lets face it with the public feeling on jfk i dont see anyone admitting being involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Perhaps I haven't been paying attention, but I never understood how Oswald was identified as JFK's shooter, as the former was only apprehended by officer Tippit because Oswald matched the description that was put out FIFTEEN minutes after the shooting*. Oswald subsequently shot Tippit.
That was the only murder he was charged with at the time. Jack Ruby shot Oswald before the latter could be tried in court.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Tippit Where the hell did they get that incredibly precise description of Oswald from?!
Something is very smelly in the State of Denmark. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you were to attach probabilities to each of the events that happened and represented that into an accumulator bet it would be a very unlikely event to occur -so it must have involved a great deal oif organising with all the parties possibly involved . I still think it was the CIA - JFK probably became an uncontrollable risk to national security and had to be removed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eeBee67Man
over a year ago
Masked and Distant |
Aoparently the first episode if Dr Who was aired on the BBC the same day.
Perhaps that was a cover up and the UK government really had developed time and space travel.
and it was the daleks that did it.
The whole Dr Who series us just a cover up, anyone reporting they hsd seen a dalek in Dallas was told they were confused and that they were really watching a new scifi programme.
Conspiracy theory no. 1743(b) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No I don't think he was.
Watch the Zappruder (sp) enough times and You see the bullet hit him in the face."Back and to the left"
Anymore seen Bill Hicks on this?"
If you watch it frame by frame its really obvious that the last shot 100% comes from the rear. I watched one show where they claim that the fatal shot was accidentally fired from an AR15 by a secret service agent. I was beginning to think it was plausible until they said that it was loaded with explosive fragible ammunition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I also seen that TV program and it looked to me that the fatal shot was accidentally fired from an AR15 inside the following car by a secret service agent so then there had to do a massive cover up but still its a bit fishy how it all want down |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I also seen that TV program and it looked to me that the fatal shot was accidentally fired from an AR15 inside the following car by a secret service agent so then there had to do a massive cover up but still its a bit fishy how it all want down "
This  but that would have to be the unluckiest sequence of events in the world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I also seen that TV program and it looked to me that the fatal shot was accidentally fired from an AR15 inside the following car by a secret service agent so then there had to do a massive cover up but still its a bit fishy how it all want down
This but that would have to be the unluckiest sequence of events in the world "
oh yea I wonder what he said " oops " |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I also seen that TV program and it looked to me that the fatal shot was accidentally fired from an AR15 inside the following car by a secret service agent so then there had to do a massive cover up but still its a bit fishy how it all want down "
It was almost convincing until they got into ballistics and the type of ammunition the rifle was loaded with, the 'experts' also claimed that the AR15 is a fully automatic weapon, which it isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wasn't it stated that there was a "probable conspiracy" in 1974 by a house select committee on his assasination?
I think there was 1 person involved, therefore by definition it's a conspiracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wasn't it stated that there was a "probable conspiracy" in 1974 by a house select committee on his assasination?
I think there was 1 person involved, therefore by definition it's a conspiracy. "
There should be a greater than sign in front of the 1 there. Always preview your posts kids! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
