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.
You and I have participated in some of those threads. As a matter of fact, my posting in those caught somebody's attention and the result was a request for me to moderate this forum.
I thought about trying to merge all the threads about the JFK assassination together, but there were simply too many of them, and some of them overlapped, so here we are.
On the topic of the Warren Report. Have you actually read it? Before the report had been out for a year, several researchers had written entire books disagreeing with the conclusions. If you're really a student of this topic, you can name at lease half a dozen books that were published soon after the Warren report was issued in September of 1964. It was almost a year later when the 26 volumes of Hearings and Evidence were published. If you are serious about what the Warren Commission did, you can read the 26 volumes yourself for free. They are all on the Gutenberg Project. The Commission member, lawyers and investigators were under a lot of pressure to get the report done and therefore, they didn't follow some leads and they omitted questions and asked leading questions of witnesses, so the outcome wasn't as objective and complete as it should have been.
Books that I can recall for this reading would have to include:
Six Seconds In Dallas, Accessories After The Fact, Rush To Judgment, Crossfire, Inquest (about how the Commission worked), Forgive My Grief (4 volumes), and all of Harold Weisberg's books (even though they are difficult to read).
There are a lot more good books, but these were all published soon after the assassination. In his book about a hypothetical trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, lawyer Walt Brown opined that the Warren Commission report would not be admitted as evidence because so many witnesses complained that their testimony wasn't accurately reported.
The book is divided into several major parts, including a detailed chronology of the events of the assassination, as well as an exploration of the major conspiracy theories, a chapter on the trial of Jack Ruby, and a chapter featuring Bugliosi's interviews with Marina Oswald. Bugliosi also provides a "partial list of assassins...whom one or more conspiracy theorists have actually named and identified as having fired a weapon at Kennedy". The list includes 82 names.
In 2007, Bugliosi told Cynthia McFadden of ABC News that in the preceding seven years, he had devoted 80 to 100 hours per week working on the book.[3]
Yeah, "amazing" shot was mentioned. Less than 100 yards straight away. Most reasonably competent shooters wouldn't even need a scope.
First shot about 80 yards, and he missed. Poor performance for a marine actually. Apparently compensated for the range and bullet drop and hit in follow-up shots. Target moving at a slow pace away from him and down. Indeed easy shot.
I suspect he didn't use his scope, no need to and makes follow-up shots much easier. The Carcano rifle (of which I own one from exact same factory and year) is a perfect rifle for short to medium range shots like this - light, maneuverable, smaller round with less kickback enabling shooter to stay on target, good action. They still fill a combat role in conflicts in Libya, Syria, etc.
I always laugh when people that never fired a rifle in there life, not to mention a Carcano, mention that the shot was impossible.
In spite of many people talking about what an easy shot it was, the reenactments and test firings by professional shooters produced mixed results. If the shooting was that easy, it should have been a piece of cake for 95% of the pros to achieve what one nervous shooter did with a bad weapon after little or no practice. If I was sitting on a jury and a witness described the shot as an easy task for him, I would discount that witness.
See, it's not so simple. I'm not saying anybody is wrong. I'm saying there is a lot of confusing information out there. The answers people want will probably never be produced.
Regular people take part in half court shots at basketball games. And sometimes they hit the shot. Even though most actual NBA basketball players would miss way more times than they will make it. Perhaps he was lucky.
So if you can't say it would be impossible for a regular fan to hit a half court shot because its difficult for professionals to do it. How can we say that about Oswald?
Regular people take part in half court shots at basketball games. And sometimes they hit the shot. Even though most actual NBA basketball players would miss way more times than they will make it. Perhaps he was lucky.
So if you can't say it would be impossible for a regular fan to hit a half court shot because its difficult for professionals to do it. How can we say that about Oswald?
I didn't say it was impossible. I said pro shooters had mixed results, so Oswald's chances weren't all that good. Sometimes, people get lucky.
I don't recall hearing about the federal reserve, but I could tell you about the justification behind the theories that it was the CIA, the Mafia, the Cubans, the anti-Castro Cuban exiles, the Soviets, and probably a couple of others if I think a while.
Understand the justifications doesn't do anything at all toward providing even a scintilla of evidence that any of them have any credence.
It's a pretty universally accepted fact that Oswald killed police officer J.D. Tippit about 45 minutes after JFK was shot. If Oswald was innocent, what possible motivation would he have had to murder a police officer?
I don't recall hearing about the federal reserve, but I could tell you about the justification behind the theories that it was the CIA, the Mafia, the Cubans, the anti-Castro Cuban exiles, the Soviets, and probably a couple of others if I think a while.
Understand the justifications doesn't do anything at all toward providing even a scintilla of evidence that any of them have any credence.
There’s a section for the theory at the bottom. Executive order 11110 to reduce federal reserve notes and replace them with silver certificates. In other words, transferring the power of money from the federal reserve, back to the u.s treasury.
It’s as “good” as any theory I suppose. Although, I do often wonder about my first point even if I was mostly joking. What if the soviets were involved and releasing that truth was simply too inconvenient for mankind that it had to be buried?
But that’s how conspiracy theories work. No one likes the simple answer that it could have been 1 man.
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.
