Main Menu

New anti-Corsi web site: claims plagiarism

imageI spotted via Twitter a new web site kicked off in October, titled “Jerome Corsi: America’s Worst Journalist (?).” Their November 6 article claims that portions of Corsi’s new JFK assassination book were plagiarized from a 1992 book titled  Coup d’Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield.

I must say, their case seems pretty strong.

,

238 Responses to New anti-Corsi web site: claims plagiarism

  1. avatar
    Bob November 15, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

    Someone might oughta double-check Corsi’s PhD dissertation.

  2. avatar
    Daniel November 15, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    He probably thought no one would notice. It’s not like anyone that matter ever reads his stuff.

  3. avatar
    JPotter November 15, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

    What? Corsi is an aficionado of nutty CT literature? Considering his topics of choice, who’d thunk it! And double-gosh, he published cribbed conspiratorial crap timed to coattail on the 50th-anniversary?

    Wow, no opportunity or angle to shameful for that man!

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2013 at 6:33 pm #

    I actually have a copy.

    Bob:
    Someone might oughta double-check Corsi’s PhD dissertation.

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    Color me completely unsurprised…which a kinda blueish-orange.

  6. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I actually have a copy.

    That’s very disturbing.

  7. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater November 15, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

    Jerome Corsi got into a twitter meltdown with Terry Krepel of Conwebwatch over this earlier in the week. Corsi has since stopped responding.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    I’ve been over updating Corsi’s Wikipedia article.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    The story’s not all that remarkable. Some time ago there was a translation of a document circulating about the Internet that claimed to be a North Vietnamese intelligence report about the effect of certain American anti-war protests. The idea behind the circulation was that John Kerry’s remarks in opposition to the war gave aid and comfort to our enemies.

    The document, as I recall it, sounded rather academic in style, and I had some doubts whether it was authentic. I knew somehow that Corsi’s thesis talked about the protests against Vietnam, and I wondered if possibly the North Vietnamese document was actually from Corsi’s PhD thesis. So I ordered a microfilm copy of the thesis from the Harvard University Library. My suspicions didn’t pan out.

    CarlOrcas: That’s very disturbing.

  10. avatar
    Curious George November 15, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    Should we be surprised? And this was the guy who was leading Zullo around by the nose?

  11. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2013 at 9:23 pm #

    It’s interesting that Corsi’s book is being outsold by a JFK assassination book called “The Man Who Killed Kennedy” by Roger Stone. Corsi claims that the CIA was behind the assassination; Stone says that LBJ was responsible for it. Stone’s book is of interest to me only because I went to the same high school as the author, although I didn’t know him because he was in junior high when I was a senior.

  12. avatar
    Dave November 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    Whether or not Corsi is the world’s journalist would defend first on whether it makes sense to classify Corsi as a journalist; and second on who else we can then call a journalist.

    I mean, if Jim Hoft is a journalist, then I’d say Corsi just can’t be the worst.

  13. avatar
    Keith November 15, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    An an ex-Homicide detective from Australia has studied the evidence and revived an old theory that went pretty much ignored.

    Australian detective uncovers JFK clues

    Smoking Gun documentary seeks to answer the question: Who shot JFK? – See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/smoking-gun-documentary-seeks-to-answer-the-question-who-shot-jfk/story-fn9n8gph-1226750428615#sthash.PG1rAqT6.dpuf

    …McLaren, a veteran Australian homicide detective, spent 4 1/2 years on his own cold case forensic investigation of the assassination. His inquiries mark the first and only time a qualified homicide detective has carefully analysed the complete catalogue of evidence and testimony surrounding the shooting.

    McLaren’s investigation, in fact, parallels and shadows that of Howard Donahue, a Baltimore gunsmith, marksman and firearms expert who spent 25 years conducting his own inquiry into Kennedy’s death. With Bonar Menninger, a Kansas City journalist, he published the book Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK about his research and findings.

    McLaren focused strictly on the available crime scene evidence, including the full range of witness statements taken at the time of the shooting. He had at his disposal witness testimonies and autopsy reports that had been locked away by the US government but released during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

    He discovered detailed explanations of how it appeared certain JFK was hit by two distinct types of bullets fired from two different angles, as well as explosive evidence from key medical witnesses who participated in the autopsy but who were forced to sign oaths of silence – and who finally decided, decades later, to speak the truth of what they saw.

    The Smoking Gun sees McLaren using ballistics, forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts and buried testimonies to conclude that the fatal gunshot came from a Secret Service agent riding in the car behind the president.

    Of all the ‘theories’ espoused over all the years, this is the only one that gives me the least bit of pause. He does have to connect a lot of dots, but they are pretty justifiable in most instances. I am not ready to give it thumbs up, but I won’t dismiss it out of hand.

    McClaren’s conclusion: The fatal shot was from the Secret Service AR15 in the chase car. The agent was inexperienced, unqualified on the gun he was using, and not supposed to be there. He accidentally fired the fatal shot as the cars lurched forward after the first two shots. The fatal shot was just a sad, sad accident, and Kennedy may have survived the ‘magic bullet’ shot. The subsequent SS cover-up just encouraged the 50 year old conspiracy industry.

  14. avatar
    Suranis November 16, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    That actually seems pretty damn plausible.

  15. avatar
    JPotter November 16, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    Hmmm … the just-launchd, anonymous blog keeps referring to Corsi as a “journalist”. Seems awfully late in the decade to bother launching a site dedicated to a largely (and deservedly) forgotten man.

  16. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 16, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    The reference to the allegation that a secret service agent shot Kennedy deserves a prompt correction. McLaren’s notion is false and bogus, and if the agent were still alive, he would sue and win because it is defamatory and libelous.

    The theory has been rejected even by assassination skeptics like experienced former Washington Post journalist Jefferson Morley: “Reelz Channel’s new JFK documentary claiming that a Secret Service agent shot President Kennedy is based on a 30-year old book which triggered a lawsuit from the agent involved, resulting in a formal apology from the book’s publishers.

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reelz-channel-to-air-discredited-jfk-theory/

    McLarens theory has no support in extensive records of the assassination. It is on the same level as the worst of the birther allegations about Obama. Similarly, it has been seized upon by a sensational cable channel, as have other JFK theories in the past. It has elements of the Zullo-Arpaio investigations of Obama.

    After studying the assassination for nearly 50 years, including reading the entire Warren Commission report in 1964, I have concluded that Oswald acted alone in shooting the President. No credible evidence of a conspiracy has been produced — note the word credible.

    If anyone wants to pursue this in depth, the best — by far — starting point is the website of Marquette Professor John McAdams: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

    For many years, he has been the Doctor Conspiracy of the JFK assassination theories. His site has detailed discussions of all the major issue and links to all major sites, including pro-conspiracy ones. The place to finish is Vince Bugliosi’s book Reclaiming History.

    Yet another revealing comparison is the uncanny resemblance between the ridicule and obloquy heaped upon McAdams and the Good Doctor. If any JFK conspiracy theorist look in, I expect to encounter the same reaction here.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    Nova had a nicely done program that aired this week examining the “magic bullet” and “grassy knoll” theories. The first is very likely to be true and the second is pretty much impossible.

    Vince Treacy: The reference to the allegation that a secret service agent shot Kennedy deserves a prompt correction. McLaren’s notion is false and bogus, and if the agent were still alive, he would sue and win because it is defamatory and libelous.

  18. avatar
    Keith November 16, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    Vince Treacy: The theory has been rejected even by assassination skeptics like experienced former Washington Post journalist Jefferson Morley: “Reelz Channel’s new JFK documentary claiming that a Secret Service agent shot President Kennedy is based on a 30-year old book which triggered a lawsuit from the agent involved, resulting in a formal apology from the book’s publishers.

    The settlement of the suit and the reason that the author and publisher settled was not that simple of course.

    A much better argument against Hickey making the fatal shot is that the likely hood of him fumbling with the gun, getting the safety off, just happening to get it pointed in the wrong direction when the car lurched and caused his finger to twitch is really difficult to swallow. Furthermore, witnesses claim that they smelled gunpowder, but no-one seems to have heard the AR-15 go off just a few feet away – what about the WH staffers in the jump seats just behind Hickey?

    Now maybe the SS could “get to” the staffers, but onlookers at the side of the road 10 feet away would have seen and heard the gun go off.

    Like I say, this ‘explanation’ is the most plausible I have seen in 50 years; but it is not without its glaring holes and I am in no way suggesting that it is the answer to how Oswald could get off 3 shots in such an impossibly short time (which is the only problem I have with the ‘single shooter’ explanation).

  19. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 16, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    Keith: Like I say, this ‘explanation’ is the most plausible I have seen in 50 years; but it is not without its glaring holes and I am in no way suggesting that it is the answer to how Oswald could get off 3 shots in such an impossibly short time (which is the only problem I have with the ‘single shooter’ explanation).

    The question whether Oswald could have gotten of three shots has been dealt with by many but here is a quick rundown from the website Vince Treacy mentions:

    Could Oswald Have Gotten the Shots Off?
    It’s in almost every conspiracy book: the claim that Oswald could not possibly have gotten off the shots in the necessary time. Conspiracy authors always claim that Oswald had under six seconds to get three shots off — although the Warren Commission was vague on this and most contemporary lone gunman theorists believe he has about 8.5 seconds. Further, conspiracy authors exaggerate the difficulty in Oswald’s “shooting feat.” Craig Zirbel, in his book The Texas Connection, badly misrepresents the results of the Warren Commission’s shooting tests. Compare Zirbel’s account with what really happened.

    Josiah Thompson dry firing Mannlicher-Carcano

    FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier got off three accurate shots with Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in 4.5 seconds — recycling the mechanism and reaiming the rifle twice. In this hilarious sequence, conspiracy author Josiah Thompson misstates Frazier’s results, and proceeds to cycle the mechanism of the rifle in 1.83 seconds, all the while explaining that it can’t be done in under 2.3 seconds. Clicking on the still at right will download a video clip of Thompson.

    Again, you will need Real Player to play this clip from your hard drive after you have downloaded it.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

  20. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 16, 2013 at 10:50 pm #

    Carl is right, there is no time problem for the single shooter. The first shot was at Zapruder frame 161;the third at frame 312, At 18,3 frames per second, the shooter had 8.25 seconds to make two shots. The rifle could be cycled in @ 2.5 seconds using the scope sight or 1.6 secs. using the iron sights

    This speed has been matched or bettered by nt shooters for nearly 50 years , beginning with the Warren Commission. See Bugliosi at pages 490 to 492.

    There is nothing impossible about the time needed for three shots.

    The notion that Oswald was a poor shot is another myth. He earned a Sharpshooter badge, the second highest grade. He practiced dry-firing his rifle for months. He missed killing General Walker by inches.

    Vince Treacy

  21. avatar
    Loren November 17, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    There is, I think, an apt comparison to be made between the ‘tests’ of Birthers and JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. I’m thinking particularly of attempts to precisely recreate Oswald’s three shots, versus attempts to precisely recreate supposed anomalies in the White House pdf of the birth certificate.

    What both of these efforts ignore is that they’re trying to match what was originally the product of chance. With Oswald, he was just aiming to hit the President, and he was substantially off with the first bullet. But recreationists often want their marksman to imitate not just getting off three well-aimed shots, but the EXACT three trajectories that Oswald used. And that’s a different and more difficult task.

    The same goes for the birth certificate, as with Zullo and his ‘one-button’ solution to all of the anomalies he wants explained.

    As an analogy, I could take a paintball gun and, with a blindfold on, rapidly shoot three paintballs at the side of a barn, creating a unique pattern. Could another blindfolded shooter recreate that pattern *exactly*? Almost certainly not. But that doesn’t mean my original, simple act was somehow implausible.

  22. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

    Loren: There is, I think, an apt comparison to be made between the ‘tests’ of Birthers and JFK assassination conspiracy theorists.

    Absolutely spot on, Loren! Any reading of conspiracy nuts rambles confirms that their final refuge is in the uncertainties created by the chaotic nature of mundane reality, the random variations present in any given specific instance of a general pattern.

    Could a man in this position firing at targets moving in that direction with this weapon possible make these shots? For these reasons, yes. Let’s say you stage an exacting simulation and run it 1000s of times, to approximate the probability of “The Single Bullet”. It’s trivial to demonstrate that a jacketed, cylindrical rifle bullet will pass through a medium and, due to assymmetrical drag, tumble on at speed. But how repeatable is the trajectory of The Single Bullet? Not very, but how repeatable is any final trajectory of any shot, subject to the twin chaos of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics? Reproducibility would also depend on shooters repeating their performance exactly, and targets reacting identically.

    So let’s say you conclude that any given shot, same distance, angle, environment, shooter, target, etc, ad nauseum, has a 1% chance of approximating that final trajectory within a given tolerance.

    The conspiracy nut, consumed by “gambler’s fallacy”, will be reinforced in his believe that the shot, having been shown to be improbable, is indeed impossible!

    When in truth, as Loren said, in the moment of the original action, all “random” variations are equally possible.

    And, yes, I love the parallel to PDF madness. You can scan that document over and over again, each time with generally similar results, but never exactly identical results. And the birfer nuts will always say, as they cower behind an impossible standard, nope, not good enough! Not a pixel-for-pixel match! The bullet tumbled slightly differently!

  23. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

    Keith: The fatal shot was from the Secret Service AR15 in the chase car. The agent was inexperienced, unqualified on the gun he was using, and not supposed to be there.

    This alleges a monumental incompetence on the part of the Secret Service! And … the Secret Service had already adopted AR15s in 1963? That was a very quick and early adoption if so! And I don’t recall anyone in the chase car brandishing long weapons in any footage or images I have seen .. finally, this would require the “cover-up” to have included placing a fractured 6.5mm round in the President’s car. Where did the supposed AR’s 5.56 round go?

    This insulting ‘coverup’ theory implies not merely a coverup of an accident, but foresight, which in turn implies the Secret Service was part of an assassination conspiracy.

    Yeesh.

  24. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    JPotter: This alleges a monumental incompetence on the part of the Secret Service! And … the Secret Service had already adopted AR15s in 1963? That was a very quick and early adoption if so! And I don’t recall anyone in the chase car brandishing long weapons in any footage or images I have seen .. f

    This insulting ‘coverup’ theory implies not merely a coverup of an accident, but foresight, which in turn implies the Secret Service was part of an assassination conspiracy.

    finally, this would require the “cover-up” to have included placing a fractured 6.5mm round in the President’s car. Where did the supposed AR’s 5.56 round go?

    Into the victim’s braincase. The Houston doctor that started the autopsy claims there were fragments everywhere and had X-rays taken to document that fact (which dissappeared when the SS took the body and evidence to D.C.)

    Remember, this is not my theory, and I’m not defending it. I am just reporting it.

    I was not aware that the ‘rapid-fire’ issue had been completely discredited – because I was never interested enough to pay attention. Its always struck me as the only thing that is even the least bit doubtful, but certainly not impossible, and certainly not worth contemplating a huge conspiracy.

    The only thing that really pisses me off is that the body was essentially stolen. This was a crime committed in Texas and should have been handled by the Texas judicial system. The autopsy should have been done by the coroner in Texas. Assisted by the Feds if need be, but the body should not have been stolen – and frankly, the excuse that ‘Mrs. Kennedy wanted it done that way’ doesn’t enter into it.

    Here’s an article debunking the story : Shooting holes in theory that a Secret Service agent killed President Kennedy

    The photo of Hickey in the chase car holding the AR15 is at the top of the article.

  25. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Vince Treacy: The notion that Oswald was a poor shot is another myth. He earned a Sharpshooter badge, the second highest grade. He practiced dry-firing his rifle for months. He missed killing General Walker by inches.

    Other researchers assert that Oswald was a terrible shot. A lot of his problems in the Marine Corp stemmed from his failure to qualify on the rifle range, a the resulting “peer pressure” to get him to shape up.

    After studying the assassination for nearly 50 years, including reading the entire Warren Commission report in 1964, I have concluded that Oswald acted alone in shooting the President. No credible evidence of a conspiracy has been produced — note the word credible.

    Ho-hum. I have studied quantum physics for 50 years and still don’t understand it. Merely making bombastic assertions doesn’t make them fact. Mark Lane, in my opinion, have certainly present a credible alternative along with evidence and witnesses. Whether or not someone chooses to accept the witnesses as credible is, of course, a personal decision.

    I wasn’t in a combat unit of the Army (ASA) but in our unit. after basic training we marked our own scores in rifle qualifications.

    ps: How do you explain the pristine “magic bullet” that allegedly struck three people?

  26. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 17, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    You are entitled to your opinions, Monkey Boy, but not to your facts.

    The statement that there was a “failure to qualify on the rifle range” is completely false.

    He qualified as Sharpshooter, where Marksman was the lowest, Sharpshooter the next higher, and Expert the top level. Bugliosi lists his qualifying scores on the range.

    He shot again before his discharge and scored as Marksman. Moreover he had the benefit of Marine rifle training. He never failed to qualify on the range.

    The fact of Oswald’s qualification on the rifle range has been verified empirically — not as matter of witness credibility.

  27. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

    Monkey Boy: “magic bullet” that allegedly struck three people?

    Who was the third person?

    Keith: The photo of Hickey in the chase car holding the AR15 is at the top of the article.

    Thanks for linking to that, I had not seen that photo before. Early adoption indeed!

  28. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 17, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    Monkey Boy, again the facts.

    The single bullet theory posits that the second shot passed through Kennedy and then struck Connally.

    That is TWO — not three — people.

    It is a matter of opinion whether is was pristine. It was moderately deformed.

  29. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    Vince Treacy:
    You are entitled to your opinions, Monkey Boy, but not to your facts.

    The statement that there was a “failure to qualify on the rifle range” is completely false.

    He qualified as Sharpshooter, where Marksman was the lowest, Sharpshooter the next higher, and Expert the top level. Bugliosi lists his qualifying scores on the range.

    He shot again before his discharge and scored as Marksman. Moreover he had the benefit of Marine rifle training. He never failed to qualify on the range.

    The fact of Oswald’s qualification on the rifle range has been verified empirically — not as matter of witness credibility.

    I distinctly remember reading a forensic biography of Oswald, some 25 years ago, in which the author states that, in basic training, Oswald failed to qualify on the rifle range, I give his statements just as much credibility as yours, since I don’t have first hand information.

    As for later qualifications, it is very likely that the shooters self-scored their results, since a commanding officer generally likes high scores on all qualifications.

  30. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    @MrTreacy

    I would like a credible explanation of the condition of the “magic bullet.”

  31. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I would like a credible explanation of the condition of the “magic bullet.”

    Refer back to the topic of this thread:

    NOVA
    Cold Case JFK
    Aired: 11/13/2013 52:57 Rating: TV-PG
    http://video.pbs.org/video/2365118537/

    Kinda disturbing that the Zapruder film and related assassination imagery is “TV-PG”!

  32. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    Vince Treacy: It is a matter of opinion whether is was pristine. It was moderately deformed.

    From all the photos that I saw, it was not at all deformed.

    Regardless, a soft-nosed bullet passing through a body and then striking bone (John Connaly’s wrist) would not be ‘moderately’ deformed, it would be splattered.

    I apologize for my vehemence in an earlier post, but I’m under control now.

  33. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

    Magic bullet? Sure.

    Just Google McAdams JFK single bullet theory.

  34. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    JPotter: Refer back to the topic of this thread:

    NOVA
    Cold Case JFK
    Aired: 11/13/201352:57Rating: TV-PG
    http://video.pbs.org/video/2365118537/

    Kinda disturbing that the Zapruder film and related assassination imagery is “TV-PG”!

    As is happens, I have it on pvr. I think I’ll view it now, since the Raptors are finished.

  35. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 17, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    Probably would not have been splattered. It was a full metal jacket round.

    Check out the Nova special that Doc mentioned.

  36. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    JPotter: Who was the third person?

    Thanks for linking to that, I had not seen that photo before. Early adoption indeed!

    John Connally twice, according to the Warren Report.

  37. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

    Monkey Boy: John Connally twice, according to the Warren Report.

    Ah, if counting that way, it should be Connally 3 times (back, wrist, thigh), for a total of 4 people (parts) 😉

  38. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2013 at 7:13 pm #

    JPotter:
    Thanks for linking to that, I had not seen that photo before. Early adoption indeed!

    No problem, I’m amazed you could figure it out, I mangled the markup and post so badly.

    I was doing it at work, between customers, kept having to switch back and forth between the POS screen and the browser and then my relief came in, so I just sent it. Man, what an unreadable mess that was. Sorry folk.

  39. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 17, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    Try reading Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History at pages 494 and 549.

    During boot camp on December 21 1956 he shot 212 on the Garand M-1 with iron sights. It was two points above. Marksman and 12 below Expert. It is footnoted to sources.
    MB,

    Any citation to the forensic biography so that it I can check it? I will certainly consider its conclusion in light of the records..

    They didn’t self score in the Army in those days. Any source that they scored themselves in USMC? Or is that just speculation..

    A commander would pass out unqualified shooters from Marine boot camp? You are entitled to THAT opinion as well, but my opinio is that he would not have lasted long once the field commanders got the untrained recruits. I was an Army man and even I would not make that charge against Marines .

    Another fact: The Carcano penetrated several feet of pine on Nova.

  40. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 17, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    Keith: The only thing that really pisses me off is that the body was essentially stolen. This was a crime committed in Texas and should have been handled by the Texas judicial system. The autopsy should have been done by the coroner in Texas. Assisted by the Feds if need be, but the body should not have been stolen – and frankly, the excuse that ‘Mrs. Kennedy wanted it done that way’ doesn’t enter into it.

    The Dallas District Attorney said at the time he didn’t have any problem with the removal of Kennedy’s body from Texas.

    Three high ranking Navy doctors, all experienced pathologists, handled the autopsy that evening at Bethesda.

  41. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    Monkey Boy: From all the photos that I saw, it was not at all deformed.

    Regardless, a soft-nosed bullet passing through a body and then striking bone (John Connaly’s wrist) would not be ‘moderately’ deformed, it would be splattered.

    “It’s called a ‘pristine bullet,'” said [noted forensic medical examiner] Dr. Michael Baden, “which is a media term that is inaccurate; it’s like being a little bit pregnant – it either is pristine or it is not pristine. This is a damaged bullet and it is not pristine. It is deformed; it would be very difficult to take a hammer and flatten it to the degree that this is flattened. This is a partially deformed bullet with a heavy jacket.” – testimony of Dr. Michael Baden to the House Select Committee on Assassinations

    Ballistics expert Howard Donahue examined the bullet and described it as “obviously somewhat bent and extremely flattened, so much so that a small amount of lead had been extruded from the bullet’s base.” – quoted in “Case Closed” by Gerald Posner, p. 335

    Dr. John Lattimer concluded that the bullet did not “splatter” when it hit Connolly’s wrist because the bullet was tumbling as it passed through Connolly’s body and it was the back of the bullet – protected by the jacket – which struck Connolly’s wrist. The evidence that the bullet was tumbling is the fact that the entry wound in Connolly’s shoulder measure 1 1/4 inches, which is the exact length of the bullet. Further evidence of this is the fact that the bullet barely broke Connolly’s skin when it struck his thigh because his thigh was struck by the back of the bullet and by that time its speed had been reduced by at least 75%.

  42. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

    Vince Treacy:

    Another fact: The Carcano penetrated several feet of pine on Nova.

    When it was tested by Dr. John Nichols and Dr. John Lattimore it penetrated four feet of pine and two feet of elm without exhibiting any damage.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    The Nova documentary that was broadcast last week examined this by firing the same type of bullet through ballistics gel. they found that the bullet went through the gel intact and straight, tumbling only on exit. The entry wound on Connoly;s back indicated a tumbling bullet. By the time the bullet hit Connoly’s wrist it had slowed enough not to shatter but only be deformed, which it was, and leaving lead fragments in Collonly’s wrist where it had spilled out of the copper jacket.

    The fact that Conolly’s wound was not head on proves that the bullet went through something else first to make it tumble. The deformation of the bulled showing lead being extruded plus the lead fragments in Conolly’s hand are strong evidence that the bullet found on Conolly’s stretcher was the one that went through his hand.

    It was a very neat package.

    Rickey: Dr. John Lattimer concluded that the bullet did not “splatter” when it hit Connolly’s wrist because the bullet was tumbling as it passed through Connolly’s body and it was the back of the bullet – protected by the jacket – which struck Connolly’s wrist.

  44. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I distinctly remember reading a forensic biography of Oswald, some 25 years ago, in which the author states that, in basic training, Oswald failed to qualify on the rifle range,I give his statements just as much credibility as yours, since I don’t have first hand information.

    As for later qualifications, it is very likely that the shooters self-scored their results, since a commanding officer generally likes high scores on all qualifications.

    Monkey Boy: I distinctly remember reading a forensic biography of Oswald, some 25 years ago, in which the author states that, in basic training, Oswald failed to qualify on the rifle range,I give his statements just as much credibility as yours, since I don’t have first hand information.

    I’m not disputing that you read it, but it’s not accurate. Lt. Col. Allison Folsom testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter on December 21, 1956, while he was still in recruit training (Warren Commission Vol. VIII, p. 304). I can guarantee you that Marine recruits were not allowed to self-score.

  45. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 9:09 pm #

    Rickey: “It’s called a ‘pristine bullet,’” said [noted forensic medical examiner] Dr. Michael Baden, “which is a media term that is inaccurate; it’s like being a little bit pregnant – it either is pristine or it is not pristine. This is a damaged bullet and it is not pristine. It is deformed; it would be very difficult to take a hammer and flatten it to the degree that this is flattened. This is a partially deformed bullet with a heavy jacket.” – testimony of Dr. Michael Baden to the House Select Committee on Assassinations

    Ballistics expert Howard Donahue examined the bullet and described it as “obviously somewhat bent and extremely flattened, so much so that a small amount of lead had been extruded from the bullet’s base.” – quoted in “Case Closed” by Gerald Posner, p. 335

    Dr. John Lattimer concluded that the bullet did not “splatter” when it hit Connolly’s wrist because the bullet was tumbling as it passed through Connolly’s body and it was the back of the bullet – protected by the jacket – which struck Connolly’s wrist. The evidence that the bullet was tumbling is the fact that the entry wound in Connolly’s shoulder measure 1 1/4 inches, which is the exact length of the bullet. Further evidence of this is the fact that the bullet barely broke Connolly’s skin when it struck his thigh because his thigh was struck by the back of the bullet and by that time its speed had been reduced by at least 75%.

    _________________________________________________

    According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter (1.2″)-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination. The Warren Commission found that this gurney was the one that had borne Governor Connally.[3] This bullet became a key Commission exhibit, identified as CE 399. Its copper jacket was completely intact. While the bullet’s nose appeared normal, the tail was compressed laterally on one side

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

  46. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The fact that Conolly’s wound was not head on proves that the bullet went through something else first to make it tumble. The deformation of the bulled showing lead being extruded plus the lead fragments in Conolly’s hand are strong evidence that the bullet found on Conolly’s stretcher was the one that went through his hand.

    Yes, there is no way that the bullet would have left an entry wound greater than an inch in diameter unless it had hit Kennedy first.

  47. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

    Rats! I deleted the Nova program and PBS won’t stream it to Canada.

  48. avatar
    JPotter November 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    No worries, NOVA repeats several times a week (well, here, anyway…), and will eventually pop up on YouTube. Maybe. There’s already a bonus short on the official NOVA YouTube channel:

    The Shot That Missed
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiUv2WQKBjo&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLtiOgIRVt405MBYmOCuotH7oGKy9JRuCv

  49. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    Monkey Boy: While the bullet’s nose appeared normal, the tail was compressed laterally on one side

    Yes, because the bullet’s nose didn’t do any of the damage to Connolly.

    The bullet grazed a verterbra in Kennedy’s neck, which did little damage to the bullet but presumably was a factor in causing the the bullet to begin tumbling. The bullet did not strike any other bone in Kennedy’s body.

    The bullet entered Connolly’s shoulder sideways, leaving a 1 1/4 inch entry wound. The bullet continued to tumble after it struck Connolly’s rib. We know this because the exit wound was nearly 2 inches in diameter, much too wide to have been caused by the nose of the bullet. Connolly’s wrist was then shattered by the jacketed tail end of the bullet, not the nose.

  50. avatar
    Keith November 17, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    CarlOrcas: The Dallas District Attorney said at the time he didn’t have any problem with the removal of Kennedy’s body from Texas.

    Three high ranking Navy doctors, all experienced pathologists, handled the autopsy that evening at Bethesda.

    But Texas law. the Dallas County Medical Examiner and the on duty Justice of the Peace did not. The DA had no authority in the manner – all he could do is not prosecute the SS agents that broke Texas law.

    I am not faulting the experience, skill, or results of the Navy doctors. I am faulting the flouting of the law. There was no legal authority to remove the body. None. Zero. Nada.

    Murder, even of the President of the U.S.A., was NOT a federal crime in 1961. It is now, but not then. Texas law and Texas procedure should have been followed. This is not, in my opinion, something that can be argued against. It doesn’t matter that the autopsy in D.C. was good or even superior, what matters is that the SS arrogantly assumed authority they did not possess to steal the body from the legal jurisdiction.

  51. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Keith: But Texas law. the Dallas County Medical Examiner and the on duty Justice of the Peace did not. The DA had no authority in the manner – all he could do is not prosecute the SS agents that broke Texas law.

    I am not faulting the experience, skill, or results of the Navy doctors. I am faulting the flouting of the law. There was no legal authority to remove the body. None. Zero. Nada.

    Murder, even of the President of the U.S.A., was NOT a federal crime in 1961. It is now, but not then. Texas law and Texas procedure should have been followed. This is not, in my opinion, something that can be argued against. It doesn’t matter that the autopsy in D.C. was good or even superior, what matters is that the SS arrogantly assumed authority they did not possess to steal the body from the legal jurisdiction.

    Actually, it was LBJ who made the decision. LBJ wasn’t going to leave for D.C. without Jackie and Jackie refused to leave Dallas without the body. See LBJ’s statement to the Warren Commission. Dr. Charles Baxter, the chief of the emergency room at Parkland, then authorized the release of the body.

  52. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    Keith: But Texas law. the Dallas County Medical Examiner and the on duty Justice of the Peace did not. The DA had no authority in the manner – all he could do is not prosecute the SS agents that broke Texas law.

    I am not faulting the experience, skill, or results of the Navy doctors. I am faulting the flouting of the law. There was no legal authority to remove the body. None. Zero. Nada.

    Murder, even of the President of the U.S.A., was NOT a federal crime in 1961. It is now, but not then. Texas law and Texas procedure should have been followed. This is not, in my opinion, something that can be argued against. It doesn’t matter that the autopsy in D.C. was good or even superior, what matters is that the SS arrogantly assumed authority they did not possess to steal the body from the legal jurisdiction.

    Lots of problems with your points:

    First, the DA is the go to person on matters of the law for other county officials. He was going to prosecute Oswald and if he didn’t see a problem with moving the body and having the autopsy done in Washington.

    But, as Rickey notes, LBJ insisted the body accompany them back to Washington. First, he wasn’t going to hang around Dallas. And leaving JFK’s body there really wasn’t an option.Think about it for a minute.

    You’re wrong about murder not being a federal crime at the time. There just wasn’t one dealing with the killing of the president or vice-president.

  53. avatar
    Keith November 18, 2013 at 2:03 am #

    CarlOrcas: But, as Rickey notes, LBJ insisted the body accompany them back to Washington. First, he wasn’t going to hang around Dallas. And leaving JFK’s body there really wasn’t an option.Think about it for a minute.

    Think about what? Jackie should have stayed in Dallas, I have no problem with that. I don’t think what LBJ wanted has anything to do with it.

    You’re wrong about murder not being a federal crime at the time. There just wasn’t one dealing with the killing of the president or vice-president.

    Then why were all the murderers of the various Civil Rights workers tried under Federal ‘denial of civil rights’ charges instead of Federal murder charges. The answer is that a murder is only under Federal jurisdiction where the Feds have the sole jurisdiction. Where there is dual jurisdiction, the State jurisdiction is primary.

    According to Wikipedia (article: Murder (U.S. Law)):

    In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to homicide as to other crimes. If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction.

    Since the Kennedy shooting, the law has been updated to specify that murder of a federal official, including but not limited to the President, is federal jurisdiction. In 1961 that was not the case.

    Further from discussion here: ‘Federal Jurisdiction’ (i don’t know the author from Adam, but the discussion seems rather straightforward… IANAL so there maybe other considerations that I don’t know about)

    Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government’s admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:

    The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,” 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

    In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:

    “What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?

    “We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power,” 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.

    “The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. … Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

    “It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction,” 3 Wheat., at 388.

    Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution.

    That is why I don’t like the fact that JFK’s body was removed from the proper jurisdictional authority.

    Since the JFK shooting, Congress has created a NEW crime: ‘violence against certain Federal officials’ (Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, Congresscritters, etc). Even so, a murder that occurs within a State jurisdiction is the State’s case. Murder of a President can now be tried both in the State court and the Federal court – that was NOT true in 1961.

  54. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2013 at 2:22 am #

    Keith: Think about what? Jackie should have stayed in Dallas, I have no problem with that.

    Seriously? Her young children were in D.C. Jackie was supposed to leave them there without their mother present to comfort them?

  55. avatar
    JPotter November 18, 2013 at 2:38 am #

    The last section in Corsi’s JFK book is (I kid you not….):

    “Conclusion: The JFK Assassination and The New World Order”

    Yeesh.

  56. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 8:17 am #

    Keith: Think about what? Jackie should have stayed in Dallas, I have no problem with that. I don’t think what LBJ wanted has anything to do with it.

    That’s so absurd it hurts. Let me get this straight: They have no idea if there is a wider conspiracy involved in JFK’s death and you’re just ducky leaving his widow and his body in Dallas while everyone else flies off in Air Force 1. Sersiously?

    Keith: Then why were all the murderers of the various Civil Rights workers tried under Federal ‘denial of civil rights’ charges instead of Federal murder charges.

    Many of the civil rights murders had already involved prosecutions for murder under state law and they had been found not guilty.

    The federal murder statute dates back to the first half of the 20th century. It deals with specific situations and circumstances that allow federal jurisdiction: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51

    People were surprised in 1963 when it was revealed that it didn’t specifically cover the President.

  57. avatar
    Keith November 18, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    Rickey: Seriously? Her young children were in D.C. Jackie was supposed to leave them there without their mother present to comfort them?

    The kids can be brought to her if need be. What do families do? We are talking about a few hours while the Texas niceties are taken care of and the body is released.

  58. avatar
    Rickey November 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

    Keith: The kids can be brought to her if need be. What do families do? We are talking about a few hours while the Texas niceties are taken care of and the body is released.

    You’re forgetting that LBJ wanted her on the flight with him back to D.C. That would have been impossible if Jackie had stayed behind, because LBJ wasn’t about to remain in Dallas until an autopsy could be completed. Jackie wasn’t going to leave Dallas without the body and LBJ wanted Jackie on the plane with him. LBJ’s advisors were telling him to get out of Dallas immediately, but Air Force One remained on the ground until Jackie and the casket were onboard.

    LBJ biographer Robert Caro goes into great detail about this in the latest installment of his biolography.

    In retrospect, the really unfortunate thing was that the Dallas police were allowed to retain custody of Oswald. If he had been in Federal custody Jack Ruby wouldn’t have been able to get anywhere near him.

  59. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Rickey: In retrospect, the really unfortunate thing was that the Dallas police were allowed to retain custody of Oswald. If he had been in Federal custody Jack Ruby wouldn’t have been able to get anywhere near him.

    Possibly true though that sort of media “perp walk” was quite common then, even for federal agents.

    But, the bottom line is that the Feds didn’t have any authority to take custody of Oswald.

  60. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    Keith: The kids can be brought to her if need be. What do families do? We are talking about a few hours while the Texas niceties are taken care of and the body is released.

    The flight time to Dallas from Washington is about two and a half hours. How long would it have taken someone to get the kids to the airport? Where would Mrs. Kennedy have stayed in Dallas while she waited for the kids and the autopsy? Who would have taken care of her security?

    Justices of the peace are elected in Texas. Coroners were also until recently. Whether or not that was the case in 1963 I don’t know.

    If you were a White House official would you really have left the widow and the former President’s body in the hands of local elected officials?

  61. avatar
    Loren November 18, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    Keith: But Texas law. the Dallas County Medical Examiner and the on duty Justice of the Peace did not. The DA had no authority in the manner – all he could do is not prosecute the SS agents that broke Texas law.

    One, “Texas law” can’t exactly speak for itself. And if you’re looking for someone who *can *speak on behalf of Texas law in the moment, that would probably be the DA.

    Two, the Dallas County Medical Examiner doesn’t exactly trump the District Attorney when it comes to legal matters.

    Three, the Justice of the Peace? JP’s have jurisdiction over *misdemeanor* matters. In Texas, they don’t even have to be attorneys. Why would a JP’s opinion possibly be controlling, or even relevant, in a murder case?

    Was the decision to release JFK’s body to the feds legally incorrect? Possibly. But under the circumstances, it’s hardly irrational or suspicious.

  62. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

    I’ve read a number of books on the JFK assassination, which refuses to go away.

    My favorite was the book that had Sherlock Holmes himself take a look at the case, and Holmes decided that Oswald was the decoy and patsy for rogue CIA agents. My favorite theory was that a guy wearing a World War I German helmet shot JFK from the grassy knoll. How he escaped baffles me.

    I think Oswald did it, but yes, there was cover-ups, mostly of the ghastly incompetence of the federal, state, and city agencies tasked with preventing and addressing the situation. The investigation was badly handled, down to the autopsy. The Secret Service driver who was driving Kennedy, when he heard the shots and Kennedy was hit, was supposed to hit the gas and drive out of there. Instead, he slowed the car to a crawl, which only made Oswald’s task easier. The Secret Service agents on the scene were not the best physical specimens, and at first thought the shots were firecrackers. Poor training.

    The Dallas police did not cover themselves with glory, in allowing Jack Ruby to walk up and blast Oswald to eternity. The FBI, Secret Service, and CIA seemed more concerned with covering their own posteriors than investigating the tragedy. A lot of this all got caught up in some of the bizarre Cold War insanity and games that were going on, because of Oswald’s little jaunt to the Soviet Union. I wouldn’t let J. Edgar Hoover and James J. Angleton investigate who stole the tarts, let alone an act of regicide.

    However, it doesn’t matter any more. Even if the real killer were to walk before a galaxy of microphones at a press conference, and say,”Yes, I did it. Here’s the evidence, the weapon, my photographs, my paper and financial trails, my reasoning, the whole inventory,” nobody would believe him. Nobody.

    The truth of the assassination has been buried by people with penknives to grind and dollar signs in their eyes. People are making a lot of money out of the assassination, and they will continue to do so, probably for at least another 50 years.

    The difference between this assassination and the previous attempts on various presidents (which include FDR, Truman, Andrew Jackson and a failed attempt on JFK) is that this one was caught on worldwide television (the first one to do so, and ended in a tangled mess, with the killer shot dead before he’d even been arraigned, let alone got his time with a defense lawyer. It has a permanent grip on the American imagination, like Pearl Harbor, the Titanic, 9/11, and Elvis. Nobody will remember Kennedy the president and his actual achievements and failures. Just the assassination. That’s a disservice to his life and memory, as well as American history.

    However, Willie Mays, of all people had an interesting theory on the assassination, which is repeated now by reporter James Reston Jr., in yet another new book on the shooting: that Oswald’s real target was not JFK, but the man next to him, Texas Governor and former Secretary of the Navy John Connally. Oswald had a massive grievance with Connally — as SECNAV, Connally had turned down Oswald’s requests to upgrade his dishonorable discharge, and Oswald apparently turned a grudge over that issue into murderous rage. He may very well have missed his target, and instead got a better one.

    And as Oswald was never interrogated nor tried, we’ll never know.

  63. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    Let’s see. Keith first alludes to a theory that a Secret Service agent fired the kill shot. Then he backs down when called on it.

    Then he says that there was not enough time: “how Oswald could get off 3 shots in such an impossibly short time (which is the only problem I have with the ‘single shooter’ explanation).” We politely explain that there was plenty of time and that the feat has been replicated.

    Then he asserts that ” the body was essentially stolen.” This is similar to conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone that the body was taken illegally.

    Really? How about giving us the text of the Texas law that covered this at the time? Without that, how do they conclude that it was illegal?

    In fact, when the ME asserted that the law barred removal of the body, the federal agents asked if there could be a waiver. A Justice of the Peace, a local elected (not-necessarily a lawyer) magistrate named Theron Ward was summoned. He refused to waive the law, but the called the District Attorney, the top municipal lawyer in Dallas and member of the Texas bar.

    The District Attorney said he had no objection to removal. Wade waved the body out of the hospital.

    Does this make the removal of the body the crime of the century, on a day when a president had been killed, a police officer shot on the street, and an arresting officer nearly shot in the Texas Theatre. Well, that is not in accordance with the facts.

    The DA authorized the removal, twice, first to the ME and then to the JP. He had apparent authority. Even if a non-lawyer, non-Texan movie-maker has a different opinion 50 years later, it does not alter the fact that the DA made it legal at the time. If he was wrong, then take it up with the Texas courts or the Texas bar. Since the removal was okayed by the highest legal officer in the city government, it cannot be characterized as a body being stolen. It was not a flouting of the law, because the top law-enforcement official approved.

    This just another long-standing conspiracy meme. They just keep repeating this stuff to each other until the believe it implicitly.

    But give it a rest.

    See Manchester, Death of a President, page 304.

  64. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

    Keith has no problem with Mrs. Kennedy staying in Dallas.

    Well, I have a problem, as do other posters on this thread.

    Amazing. Consider that two actual murders and an attempted murder have occurred within hours. The new President fears a world war if the USSR, Cuba or some other hostile power is behind the assassination. No one knows if Mrs. Kennedy or President Johnson may be the next target.

    Johnson and his new staff take charge and get everyone and everything out of Dallas. The argument that they twiddle there thumbs while an officious local ME carries out a bureaucratic process is ludicrous in the extreme. The DA had the good judgment, basic common sense, and the legal authority (prosecutorial discretion) to waive the requirement. He did not “flout” the law.

  65. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    And who was going to protect Mrs. Kennedy from the threat of other gunmen in the city?

    The Secret Service? No, the were not authorized by the law at the time to protect families of former Presidents at that time. Under the law, they had to stay with the new President.

    The Dallas Police force?

    Those guys who could not even protect their own prime suspect, in their own jail cells, for more than two days?

    Ha!

  66. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    The theory of James Reston, Jr., that Oswald targeted Connally rather than Kennedy is inherently incredible. It is self-contradictory.

    Oswald’s first shot missed. His second shot wounded both Connally and Kennedy.

    If Connally had really been his prey, the he would have aimed his third shot at Connally, not Kennedy.

    But, as we know, it hit and killed Kennedy.

    This theory has been around for years, and it gets no more credible as time goes by.

    James L. Swanson, author of the new book, End of Days, dismissed Reston’s theory out of hand when asked about it at a book signing last Saturday.

  67. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 18, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

    Vince Treacy:
    The theory of James Reston, Jr., that Oswald targeted Connally rather than Kennedy is inherently incredible. It is self-contradictory.

    Oswald’s first shot missed. His second shot wounded both Connally and Kennedy.

    If Connally had really been his prey, the he would have aimed his third shot at Connally, not Kennedy.

    But, as we know, it hit and killed Kennedy.

    This theory has been around for years, and it gets no more credible as time goes by.

    James L. Swanson, author of the new book, End of Days, dismissed Reston’s theory out of hand when asked about it at a book signing last Saturday.

    Well, that takes care of that…your logic is good enough for me. I just thought it was an interesting idea.

    However, my point was…everybody has a pet conspiracy theory. Even Willie Mays. And he’s in league with the Giants, Dodgers, Mets, and Braves.

  68. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Vince Treacy:
    Keith has no problem with Mrs. Kennedy staying in Dallas.

    Well, I have a problem, as do other posters on this thread.

    Amazing. Consider that two actual murders and an attempted murder have occurred within hours. The new President fears a world war if the USSR, Cuba or some other hostile power is behind the assassination. No one knows if Mrs. Kennedy or President Johnson may be the next target.

    Johnson and his new staff take charge and get everyone and everything out of Dallas. The argument that they twiddle there thumbs while an officious local ME carries out a bureaucratic process is ludicrous in the extreme. The DA had the good judgment, basic common sense, and the legal authority (prosecutorial discretion) to waive the requirement. He did not “flout” the law.

    Here’s some interesting stuff from a site I’d never seen before dealing with the moments surrounding the removal of Kennedy’s body. Nothing surprising and quite understandable given the circumstances:

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

  69. avatar
    Keith November 18, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

    Vince Treacy: Let’s see. Keith first alludes to a theory that a Secret Service agent fired the kill shot. Then he backs down when called on it.

    You misunderstood my post. I didn’t back down on ‘any’ position. I said that the ‘theory’ put forward was the only one that even came close to being as plausible as what is agreed by officialdom as what really happened.

    I did not ‘allude’ to a theory, I linked to a report and quoted the essential conclusion of that theory. I found it interesting only because on a scale from 1 to 10 of plausibility it reached about 4. The only thing even approaching a ‘backdown’ was when I pointed out the glaring holes that I found from a cursory glance without even having to study it for 50 years. At no time did I ‘accept’ the theory. There was nothing for me to back down from.

    I expressed my unease at Oswald’s ability to get off 3 shots – I was shouted down and acknowledged that fact. It is of no consequence to me. I have been uneasy at this, but it was clear that it happened, so it must not have been impossible. The fact that it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the identification of the Xerox as the ‘forger’, serves to remove that nagging unease. Nothing more.

    My disagreement with the handling of the body has nothing to do with any of that. That is a legal/procedural process that has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything to do with due process of law and respect for the institutions.

  70. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

    Can somebody riddle me this.

    Crack shot, Oswald, who could get off three shots in 5 seconds, using a mass-produced bolt action rifle that he became an expert on with minimal exposure, miss the first shot that he would have the most time for, but reacquire a moving target and nail it twice while rushed–could miss a comparatively stationary Edwin Walker?

  71. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

    We know from the physical evidence that he actually did it, so we don’t have to prove that he could have done it. The conspiracy theorists have never shown that he could not have done it.

    PS, MB, do you still believe he was a lousy shot because he failed to qualify on the rifle range in boot camp? How about title and author of the forensic biography from 25 years ago?

  72. avatar
    predicto November 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm #

    Jesus.

    This entire blog is about debunking idiot birther conspiracy theorists and their moving goalposts.

    And now we get a new conspiracist going off on another famous conspiracy theory in the exact same way, and the goddamn goalposts are just flying around again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  73. avatar
    JPotter November 18, 2013 at 8:15 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Can somebody riddle me this.

    The first shot is cold. Corrections are made. The following shots hit the target within inches of each other. This is not only not unusual, but exactly what’s expected.

    As for the time frame, the distance was very short for a scoped rifle. Oswald would have faced much longer distances over iron sights in the Marines.

    Have you done much shooting?

  74. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    Monkey Boy:
    Can somebody riddle me this.

    Crack shot, Oswald, who could get off three shots in 5 seconds, using a mass-produced bolt action rifle that he became an expert on with minimal exposure, miss the first shot that he would have the most time for, but reacquire a moving target and nail it twice while rushed–could miss a comparatively stationary Edwin Walker?

    “5 seconds”? What is your source for that?

    The Warren Commission says Oswald fired the three shots in 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. That has been repeated many times.

    The “target” was moving away from Oswald in just about a straight line.

    As far as missing a “comparatively stationary Edwin Walker” I would say he probably missed that one for the same reason he missed the first shot at Kennedy.

  75. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    JPotter: The first shot is cold. Corrections are made. The following shots hit the target within inches of each other. This is not only not unusual, but exactly what’s expected.

    As for the time frame, the distance was very short for a scoped rifle. Oswald would have faced much longer distances over iron sights in the Marines.

    Have you done much shooting?

    Indeed, I have done shooting since I was 13 and plinking squirrels with my uncle’s bolt-action 22. And, a scoped rifle would be a MORE difficult shot for a moving target, since a scope can only be zeroed for a fixed distance,

    I went hunting once with another person who had a fancy scope on his .22. He didn’t get a single squirrel.

    I disagree that missing the first shot should be expected. A hunter relies on the first shot nailing the target, since the next one would be rushed or non-existent.

    Have you ever shot at live targets?

  76. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Vince Treacy: PS, MB, do you still believe he was a lousy shot because he failed to qualify on the rifle range in boot camp? How about title and author of the forensic biography from 25 years ago?

    It was some time ago, when I was reading a lot about the assassination. A search of Amazon failed to turnup anything that triggered a recall. Sorry.

  77. avatar
    JPotter November 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I disagree that missing the first shot should be expected.

    That’s not at all what I said was to be expected. The first shot is cold, testing the environmental conditions. Missing is not expected; what’s expected is that following shots, informed by the results of the first, will be more accurate.

  78. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    CarlOrcas: “5 seconds”? What is your source for that?

    The Warren Commission says Oswald fired the three shots in 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. That has been repeated many times.

    The “target” was moving away from Oswald in just about a straight line.

    As far as missing a “comparatively stationary Edwin Walker” I would say he probably missed that one for the same reason he missed the first shot at Kennedy.

    According to the Nova documentary, the second and third shots were fired within 30 frames of the Zapruder film. At 18 frame/sec that computes to 1-2/3 second between shots 1 and 2. Extrapolating that and it seems that a single shooter would get all the shots off within five seconds, since he would be rushing the second and third shots.

    Anyhow, five seconds or eight seconds, quibbling over that is a strawman.

  79. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    JPotter: That’s not at all what I said was to be expected. The first shot is cold, testing the environmental conditions. Missing is not expected; what’s expected is that following shots, informed by the results of the first, will be more accurate.

    Unless he fired a tracer, what information could he have garnered from the missed shot? He already could deduce wind conditions and target speed and approximate distance.

  80. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

    Monkey Boy: As far as missing a “comparatively stationary Edwin Walker” I would say he probably missed that one for the same reason he missed the first shot at Kennedy.

    Perhaps, because he really wasn’t really the second coming of Annie Oakley. Or, Oswald didn’t really shoot at Walker.

  81. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 9:16 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Anyhow, five seconds or eight seconds, quibbling over that is a strawman.

    The strawman is on the grassy knoll.

  82. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Perhaps, because he really wasn’t really the second coming of Annie Oakley. Or, Oswald didn’t really shoot at Walker.

    Of course. The strawman shot at Walker.

  83. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Of course. The strawman shot at Walker.

    Okay, you’re good at lame ridicule attempts, but how are you on answering the points I raised?

  84. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Okay, you’re good at lame ridicule attempts, but how are you on answering the points I raised?

    What points?

    Annie Oakley? No….you’re right….he wasn’t Annie Oakley.

    Walker? Oswald told his wife he did it. Later analysis of the Walker and Kennedy bullets indicated it was “extremely likely” they were made by the same folks. But, of course, he might not have done it.

    As far as the elapsed time for the shots most people think an accurate understanding would be important to understanding whether it was feasible or not. Why do you view it as a strawman?

    I believe your other points have been dealt with but if you have something else in mind go ahead and shoot.

  85. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:36 pm #

    Monkey Boy: At 18 frame/sec that computes to 1-2/3 second between shots 12 and 23.

  86. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I believe your other points have been dealt with but if you have something else in mind go ahead and shoot.

    If Oswald was such a sharpshooter he could hit a moving target in rushed shots, how could he have missed a standing still (or sitting still) Edwin Walker.

    No, sorry, I cannot believe seven impossible things before breakfast. (poetic license–not to taken literally)

  87. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

    Monkey Boy: If Oswald was such a sharpshooter he could hit a moving target in rushed shots, how could he have missed a standing still (or sitting still) Edwin Walker.

    That really is a silly question. Anyone who has ever shot more than a couple rounds on a range knows how easy it is to miss an immobile target.

  88. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 18, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    MB wrote: “According to the Nova documentary, the second and third shots were fired within 30 frames of the Zapruder film. At 18 frame/sec that computes to 1-2/3 second between shots 1 and 2.”

    I don’t recall that fact on Nova. I will look for it when I watch it again.

    It is unclear whether the 30 frames refers to shots 2 and 3, or shots 1 and 2. Which is it? In either case, the shooter had more that 30 frame for each of the final two shots.

    According to Bugliosi, the consensus of researchers is that the first shot missed at around the time of Zapruder frame 161. The second shot took place just before or during the time the car passed behind a road sign, from frames 204 to 224. By 225, Kennedy has been hit, and is holding his elbows out with his hands at his neck.

    The third explosive head shot hit around 311. It is not clear when the second shot hit, but there was reaction by both Kennedy and Connally when the car emerged from behind a road sign at around 220.

    So subtracting the most conservative times, 311 minus 225, there were 86 frames between the second and third shots, not 30 frames. At 18.3 frames per second, there were about 4.7 seconds between the shots. There were at least 43 seconds between the first and second shot, or 2.35 seconds.

    If the shooter was using iron sights, and had practiced the bolt motion for months until it became automatic, he could have a new round in the chamber in 1.6 seconds, giving him had three full seconds for the final head shot. Even using the scope, and a slow 2.5 seconds to cycle the bolt, he had ample time.

    The rifle had both iron sights and a scope. He could have used either. We will never know. Using the iron sights, a shooter could cycle the bolt in about 1.6 seconds. It would have been easier to pick up a more distant, moving target with the iron sights. Oswald qualified on iron sights. He had practiced the bolt action for many months after the attempt on Walker right after he bought the rifle. He practiced sighting the rifle. He had only missed the head shot at Walker by less than an inch. It was deflected slightly by the window frame. He had months of practice for November 22.

    The Carcano was not junk. That is conspiracy myth. It was a high speed, military weapon sold as surplus. Many expert shooters have used Oswald’s rifle or other Carcanos with good accuracy.

    The first shot was more difficult because the car was moving left to right in front of the shooter. The road then curved to the left and began to decline at about a 4 per cent grade. As the car traveled slowly, it became nearly a fixed target as it moved directly away from the shooter in a straight line.

  89. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    CarlOrcas: That really is a silly question. Anyone who has ever shot more than a couple rounds on a range knows how easy it is to miss an immobile target.

    No, that really is a stupid reply. It is not easy for a crack shot to miss something that big, but it is MUCH easier to miss moving target when the adrenalin is pumping.

  90. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:22 pm #

    Vince Treacy:
    MB wrote: “According to the Nova documentary, the second and third shots were fired within 30 frames of the Zapruder film. At 18 frame/sec that computes to 1-2/3 second between shots 1 and 2.”

    I don’t recall that fact on Nova. I will look for it when I watch it again.

    It is unclear whether the 30 frames refers to shots 2 and 3, or shots 1 and 2. Which is it?In either case, the shooter had more that 30 frame for each of the final two shots.

    According to Bugliosi, the consensus of researchers is that the first shot missed at around the time of Zapruder frame 161. The second shot took place just before or during the time the car passed behind a road sign, from frames 204 to 224. By 225, Kennedy has been hit, and is holding his elbows out with his hands at his neck.

    The third explosive head shot hit around 311. It is not clear when the second shot hit, but there was reaction by both Kennedy and Connally when the car emerged from behind a road sign at around 220.

    So subtracting the most conservative times, 311 minus 225, there were 86 frames between the second and third shots, not 30 frames. At 18.3 frames per second, there were about 4.7 seconds between the shots. There were at least 43 seconds between the first and second shot, or 2.35 seconds.

    If the shooter was using iron sights, and had practiced the bolt motion for months until it became automatic, he could have a new round in the chamber in 1.6 seconds, giving him had three full seconds for the final head shot. Even using the scope, and a slow 2.5 seconds to cycle the bolt, he had ample time.

    The rifle had both iron sights and a scope. He could have used either.We will never know. Using the iron sights, a shooter could cycle the bolt in about 1.6 seconds. It would have been easier to pick up a more distant, moving target with the iron sights. Oswald qualified on iron sights.He had practiced the bolt action for many months after the attempt on Walker right after he bought the rifle. He practiced sighting the rifle. He had only missed the head shot at Walker by less than an inch. It was deflected slightly by the window frame.He had months of practice for November 22.

    The Carcano was not junk. That is conspiracy myth. It was a high speed, military weapon sold as surplus. Many expert shooters have used Oswald’s rifle or other Carcanos with good accuracy.

    The first shot was more difficult because the car was moving left to right in front of the shooter. The road then curved to the left and began to decline at about a 4 per cent grade. As the car traveled slowly, it became nearly a fixed target as it moved directly away from the shooter in a straight line.

    Thanks. That was really is an informative reply.

    I, too, will watch the Nova program again in order to reaffirm(or correct) my previous understanding.

    Incidentally, I was mistaken about the type bullet. I, somehow, got the impression that the bullets were soft-nosed.

    It would have been easier to pick up a more distant, moving target with the iron sights.

    Hear, hear.

  91. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Monkey Boy: No, that really is a stupid reply.It is not easy for a crack shot to miss something that big, but it is MUCH easier to miss moving target when the adrenalin is pumping.

    You’re all over the map. The response was to your point about Walker. “Crack shots” miss all the time. That’s why they score their shooting. That’s why there are shooting contests. If they never missed there wouldn’t be any point in all that, would there?

  92. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

    Monkey Boy: No, that really is a stupid reply. It is not easy for a crack shot to miss something that big, but it is MUCH easier to miss moving target when the adrenalin is pumping.

    Unless you are Sarah Palin.

  93. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:34 pm #

    I apologize for my intemperance in the previous post.

  94. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

    Monkey Boy:Anyhow, five seconds or eight seconds, quibbling over that is a strawman.

    Actually, no. At worst it would be a red herring. At best, it would be a refutation of the claim that there was enough tome for Oswald to get off all three shots.

  95. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 10:40 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Unless he fired a tracer, what information could he have garnered from the missed shot? He already could deduce wind conditions and target speed and approximate distance.

    Having actually run rifle ranges for the Army, nothing in that comment rings true. Especially the comment regarding deducing wind conditions. The difference between his aiming pint and the impact (something readily visible to most shooters) would have filled that gap. Sitting in the window of a building would not.

  96. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    Vince Treacy: He had only missed the head shot at Walker by less than an inch.

    Odd, that he would try to be a hero and do a risky head shot with such a high-powered rifle. In my basic training (before body armor), we were taught to aim for the middle of the body mass between the solar plexus and neck.

  97. avatar
    JPotter November 18, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Unless he fired a tracer, what information could he have garnered from the missed shot? He already could deduce wind conditions and target speed and approximate distance.

    Perhaps, if he were intimately familiar with his weapon (you maintain he was not—can’t have it both ways, MB!), and with shooting in that particular setting. I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a habit out of plinking out of that particular window in the days and weeks leading up.

    “what information could he have garnered from the missed shot?”

    I’ll let that bit of ignorance stand on its own!

  98. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

    HistorianDude: Having actually run rifle ranges for the Army, nothing in that comment rings true. Especially the comment regarding deducing wind conditions. The difference between his aiming pint and the impact (something readily visible to most shooters) would have filled that gap. Sitting in the window of a building would not.

    Pardon me if I don’t defer to authority here, since it conflicts with common sense. You would be able to feel the breeze and determine the direction. There is no chance that someone using a telescopic sight could determine where the bullet went if it missed. The window of visibility is to small.

    You are a smart guy, granted, but not right in every instance.

  99. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

    JPotter: Perhaps, if he were intimately familiar with his weapon (you maintain he was not—can’t have it both ways, MB!), and with shooting in that particular setting. I’m pretty sure he didn’t make a habit out of plinking out of that particular window in the days and weeks leading up.

    “what information could he have garnered from the missed shot?”

    I’ll let that bit of ignorance stand on its own!

    The bit of ignorance, i fear, is you entire statement.

  100. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 10:51 pm #

    Monkey Boy: .At 18 frame/sec that computes to 1-2/3 second between shots 1 and 2.

    You later corrected that to “between shots 2 and 3.”

    Kennedy and Connally are already both responding to shot #2 when the car appears from behind the sign in frame Z225. Shot #3 strikes the President’s head in frame Z313. At 18 frame/sec that would be about 4.9 seconds.

  101. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Odd, that he would try to be a hero and do a risky head shot with such a high-powered rifle.In my basic training (before body armor), we were taught to aim for the middle of the body mass between the solar plexus and neck.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Oswald was shooting though a window. He would have aimed at whatever he could see. Furthermore, the bullet struck the window frame and was deflected. You seem to have a magic ability for discerning details that do not appear to be obviously true.

  102. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    HistorianDude: Kennedy and Connally are already both responding to shot #2 when the car appears from behind the sign in frame Z225. Shot #3 strikes the President’s head in frame Z313. At

    You later corrected that to “between shots 2 and 3.”

    Kennedy and Connally are already both responding to shot #2 when the car appears from behind the sign in frame Z225. Shot #3 strikes the President’s head in frame Z313. At 18 frame/sec that would be about 4.9 seconds.

    I’ll re-watch the Nova program.

  103. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    HistorianDude: Assumes facts not in evidence. Oswald was shooting though a window. He would have aimed at whatever he could see. Furthermore, the bullet struck the window frame and was deflected. You seem to have a magic ability for discerning details that do not appear to be obviously true.

    I’ve never run a rifle range, but I know to aim at the glass of a window when shooting through it.

    And, how do you know what the alleged assasin could see??

  104. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Pardon me if I don’t defer to authority here, since it conflicts with common sense.You would be able to feel the breeze and determine the direction.There is no chance that someone using a telescopic sight could determine where the bullet went if it missed.The window of visibility is to small.

    You are a smart guy, granted, but not right in every instance.

    In point of fact, whatever breeze you might feel sitting in the 5th floor window of a large building would tell you nothing about the wind conditions in the plaza below. As to the “window of visibility” available to a scope user, your “common sense” seems to have forgotten that most people have two eyes, only one of which would be at a scope.

  105. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I’ve never run a rifle range, but I know to aim at the glass of a window when shooting through it.

    You do? That’s weird. I’ve never, ever before heard of anybody aiming at something other than what they were actually trying to shoot. Were I shooting through a window, I would certainly not be aiming at the glass… unless of course my objective was to kill the glass.

  106. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I’ll re-watch the Nova program.

    Why would you do that when you could just watch the Zapruder film and see for yourself?

  107. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    HistorianDude: As to the “window of visibility” available to a scope user, your “common sense” seems to have forgotten that most people have two eyes, only one of which would be at a scope.

    And, how many would be open? Did you really teach shooting?

  108. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    Monkey Boy: And, how many would be open?Did you really teach shooting?

    At the moment I pulled the trigger, one. At the moment immediately following, especially if I wanted to see where my round landed, two.

    And yes, I taught shooting. Both the M16A1 and the M1911A1 (Yes, I’m that old. We were still using 45s). I also ran the hand grenade range.

  109. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    HistorianDude: You do? That’s weird. I’ve never, ever before heard of anybody aiming at something other than what they were actually trying to shoot. Were I shooting through a window, I would certainly not be aiming at the glass… unless of course my objective was to kill the glass.

    The figure (or even just the head) certainly would fill most of a window pane–or one adjacent. Think before you type.

  110. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    HistorianDude: At the moment I pulled the trigger, one. At the moment immediately following, especially if I wanted to see where my round landed, two.

    By the time you got the eye open and focused, all evidence of where the bullet went would be gone. I think that you are just blowing smoke about teaching shooting.

  111. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm #

    Monkey Boy: The figure (or even just the head) certainly would fill most of a window pane–or one adjacent.Think before you type.

    You have exactly no way of knowing that. Once again, you display a gift for inventing details out of whole cloth.

  112. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    Monkey Boy: By the time you got the eye open and focused, all evidence of where the bullet went would be gone.I think that you are just blowing smoke about teaching shooting.

    Nonsense. Bullets travel very fast. The evidence of their impacts do not.

  113. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    HistorianDude: You have exactly no way of knowing that. Once again, you display a gift for inventing details out of whole cloth.

    An empty statement that is surprising from such a smart guy. No, I don’t know that, but I can make an informed judgement from your statements

  114. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    Monkey Boy: An empty statement that is surprising from such a smart guy.No, I don’t know that, but I can make an informed judgement from your statements

    How can you make an informed judgment from my statements regarding a detail that I have no possible way of knowing myself? I mean… seriously. Why have you not won the lottery with those gifts of extra-sensory perception?

  115. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

    HistorianDude: Nonsense. Bullets travel very fast. The evidence of their impacts do not.

    There were NO evidence that the shooter could deduce. No people flailing around, and certainly no visible impact from six stories up. That is not invention.

  116. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm #

    HistorianDude: How can you make an informed judgment from my statements regarding a detail that I have no possible way of knowing myself? I mean… seriously. Why have you not won the lottery with those gifts of extra-sensory perception?

    You claimed to have “run a rifle range” and paraded that as an authority that requires deference. Yet, you subsequent statements indicate that you know diddly squat about shooting.

    Oh, yes. Every thing else in the statement is an attempted deflection worthy of scott e.

  117. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm #

    Monkey Boy: There were NO evidence that the shooter could deduce.No people flailing around, and certainly no visible impact from six stories up. That is not invention.

    Once again, you seem to have all this amazing detailed knowledge that nobody else has access to? Where does it come from? Voices in your head?

    The impact of a bullet will kick up a cloud at impact that could hang there as long as several seconds and be more than a foot in diameter. It would be easily visible from that distance, especially if you were looking for it.

  118. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    Monkey Boy: You claimed to have “run a rifle range” and paraded that as an authority that requires deference.Yet, you subsequent statements belie that you know diddly squat about shooting.

    I’m sorry you feel that way. I am content with what I have posted, and confident in the accuracy of my comments. And certainly, I am not the one making up impossible to know details in the frantic effort to salvage an argument already staggering under its own ponderous improbability.

  119. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

    HistorianDude: Once again, you seem to have all this amazing detailed knowledge that nobody else has access to? Where does it come from? Voices in your head?

    The impact of a bullet will kick up a cloud at impact that could hang there as long as several seconds and be more than a foot in diameter. It would be easily visible from that distance, especially if you were looking for it.

    The bullet was never found; no news reports (to my knowledge) reported people stampeding, and the possible impact was not found until much later.

    Oh, Mr Shooting Expert, a bullet striking the edge of a curb does not result in a cloud of dust.

  120. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:26 pm #

    HistorianDude: I’m sorry you feel that way. I am content with what I have posted, and confident in the accuracy of my comments. And certainly, I am not the one making up impossible to know details in the frantic effort to salvage an argument already staggering under its own ponderous improbability.

    Projection, projection!

  121. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    Monkey Boy: The bullet was never found; no news reports (to my knowledge) reported people stampeding, and the possible impact was not found until much later.

    And what does any of that have to do with what the shooter saw or knew? Exactly?

    Oh, Mr Shooting Expert, a bullet striking the edge of a curb does not result in a cloud of dust.

    Are you nuts? A bullet striking concrete? Do you have any idea what concrete is made out of?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezq1kiz9dQU

  122. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:28 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Projection, projection!

    LOL… your fine grasp of irony has abandoned you it seems.

  123. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    HistorianDude: LOL… your fine grasp of irony has abandoned you it seems.

    Projection, projection.

  124. avatar
    JPotter November 18, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

    HistorianDude: Are you nuts?

    Nah, just committed to pointless foolishness, and incapable of backing down. He has still to explain why it is not possible for one person to have made those shots.

    Quite eye-ro-nay-ick-ly, repeated from above, concerning the missed shot:

    The Shot That Missed
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiUv2WQKBjo&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLtiOgIRVt405MBYmOCuotH7oGKy9JRuCv

    … if you actually need a demo of a jacketed round striking pavement at an angle.

  125. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm #

    HistorianDude: And what does any of that have to do with what the shooter saw or knew? Exactly?

    Are you nuts? A bullet striking concrete? Do you have any idea what concrete is made out of?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezq1kiz9dQU

    If a “cloud of dust” resulted, how is it that it was not reported in any news account? Certainly, it would have been noticed by the nearby bystanders.

  126. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm #

    JPotter: Nah, just committed to pointless foolishness, and incapable of backing down. He has still to explain why it is not possible for one person to have made those shots.

    Quite eye-ro-nay-ick-ly, repeated from above, concerning the missed shot:

    The Shot That Missed
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiUv2WQKBjo&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLtiOgIRVt405MBYmOCuotH7oGKy9JRuCv

    … if you actually need a demo of a jacketed round striking pavement at an angle.

    Projection, projection.

    You made a manifestly stupid statement earlier, was called on it, so you called you big brother.

    He he he.

  127. avatar
    HistorianDude November 18, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

    Monkey Boy: If a “cloud of dust” resulted, how is it that it was not reported in any news account? Certainly, it would have been noticed by the nearby bystanders.

    Seriously?

    I’m pretty sure at this point you have lost track of what the word “certainly” means. But whether it was noticed by anybody else or not, when exactly did news accounts become perfect and complete records of everybody’s experiences in Dealy Plaza?

    It is a safe bet that not everything people experienced that day was reported, and that much of what was reported that day never happened. Welcome to the real world of eyewitness accounts of a sudden and confusing event.

  128. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:51 pm #

    HistorianDude: Seriously?

    I’m pretty sure at this point you have lost track of what the word “certainly” means. But whether it was noticed by anybody else or not, when exactly did news accounts become perfect and complete records of everybody’s experiences in Dealy Plaza?

    Now, you are just prating. If bystanders had noticed the impact of a bullet preceded by a gunshot, there would have be a scramble to get away from there. That’s not invention but an analysis of human nature. That activity would have been noticed and reported.

    When you don’t have either the facts on you side, pound the table and try to intimidate.

  129. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 18, 2013 at 11:58 pm #

    Monkey Boy: Now, you are just prating.If bystanders had noticed the impact of a bullet preceded by a gunshot, there would have be a scramble to get away from there.That’s not invention but an analysis of human nature.That activity would have been noticed and reported.

    When you don’t have either the facts on you side, pound the table and try to intimidate.

    And some people pound on their keyboard. That’s you.

    Pictures of people in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting show them running in all directions.

    Have you ever been there? Sound bounces all over the place. People thought they heard shots coming from all over the plaza.

  130. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 18, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

    When I was in the Army, stateside Officers didn’t do diddly and didn’t have to know diddy. Everything was run by NCOs.

    So, the statement, “I ran a rifle range” is really irrelevant unless you were down in the trenches teaching shooting, which is, on reflection, unlikely.

  131. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:01 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, Mr Shooting Expert, a bullet striking the edge of a curb does not result in a cloud of dust.

    Go outside and find a concrete curb. Take along a heavy hammer. Now…..strike the edge of the curb as hard as you can and let us know what happens.

  132. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:01 am #

    CarlOrcas: Pictures of people in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting show them running in all directions.

    Again, to my knowledge, there were no reports of people saying “a bullet struck here, so I ran.”

    The Zapruder film didn’t show that, certainly not immediately following the first shot.

  133. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Monkey Boy:
    When I was in the Army, stateside Officers didn’t do diddly and didn’t have to know diddy.Everything was run by NCOs.

    So, the statement, “I ran a rifle range” is really irrelevant unless you were down in the trenches teaching shooting, which is, on reflection, unlikely.

    What did you do in the Army?

  134. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    CarlOrcas: Go outside and find a concrete curb. Take along a heavy hammer. Now…..strike the edge of the curb as hard as you can and let us know what happens.

    You try it and tell me that you got a cloud of dust visible from six stories up. Think of a jackhammer tearing up a sidewalk. Do you see a “cloud of dust?”

    Think before you type.

  135. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    CarlOrcas: What did you do in the Army?

    I am willing to tell you, but first, tell me why that is relevant.

  136. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    Monkey Boy: Now, you are just prating.If bystanders had noticed the impact of a bullet preceded by a gunshot, there would have be a scramble to get away from there.That’s not invention but an analysis of human nature.That activity would have been noticed and reported.

    I’m sorry, but that’s just dumb. None of the tendentious assumptions in that account deserve any confidence that they are true. Have you ever been in the situation where bullets were being fired in your direction in anger?

    On May 12, 1979, I was standing with a group of other soldiers in front of the Yesilkoy Hotel in Istanbul waiting for the detachment bus to take us to work, when terrorists pulled up in (what I remembered) as a blue Anadol sports car and started shooting at us. My team chief, Tom Mosley was killed. One of our radio operators was wounded. There were about a dozen of us and to this day no four of us were able to recall the same details. We could not agree on the color of the car (I still say blue, about half the guys said black, one said green), the number of terrorists involved (A driver an two shooters? Two shooters, one of which was the driver? Three shooters?) or even what direction they drove away.

    First rule of holes, Monkey Boy. Stop digging.

  137. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:06 am #

    Monkey Boy: Again, to my knowledge, there were no reports of people saying “a bullet struck here, so I ran.”

    The Zapruder film didn’t show that, certainly not immediately following the first shot.

    Couple questions:

    Why do you think the people ran?

    Was Zapruder shooting the curb?

  138. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:07 am #

    Monkey Boy: I am willing to tell you, but first, tell me why that is relevant.

    You brought it up.

  139. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:09 am #

    Monkey Boy: You try it and tell me that you got a cloud of dust visible from six stories up. Think of a jackhammer tearing up a sidewalk. Do you see a “cloud of dust?”

    OMG, you are funny but you are not very well versed in the art of shooting and taking clues from where the bullets strike.
    Before you claim that it is impossible, why not do some proper research?

  140. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:10 am #

    Monkey Boy: You try it and tell me that you got a cloud of dust visible from six stories up.Think of a jackhammer tearing up a sidewalk.Do you see a “cloud of dust?”

    Think before you type.

    A small metal object traveling at the velocity of a rifle shot could easily raise up a cloud of dust or debris visible to someone with the field of vision Oswald had.

    Have you been to Dealy Plaza? It’s really not that big.

  141. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:11 am #

    Monkey Boy:
    When I was in the Army, stateside Officers didn’t do diddly and didn’t have to know diddy.Everything was run by NCOs.

    So, the statement, “I ran a rifle range” is really irrelevant unless you were down in the trenches teaching shooting, which is, on reflection, unlikely.

    The ranges I ran were at West Point. At West Point, the underclass cadets are trained by the upperclass cadets. Yes, I ran the range, to include being in the trenches teaching shooting.

    I have to tell you, Monkey Boy, you do yourself no more favors when you frantically reach for the flaccid ad hominem than you do when you invent phony details out of whole cloth.

  142. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:11 am #

    HistorianDude: First rule of holes, Monkey Boy. Stop digging.

    A wise comment indeed. But probably ignored.

  143. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:11 am #

    HistorianDude: I’m sorry, but that’s just dumb. None of the tendentious assumptions in that account deserve any confidence that they are true. Have you ever been in the situation where bullets were being fired in your direction in anger?

    On May 12, 1979, I was standing with a group of other soldiers in front of the Yesilkoy Hotel in Istanbul waiting for the detachment bus to take us to work, when terrorists pulled up in (what I remembered) as a blue Anadol sports car and started shooting at us. My team chief, Tom Mosley was killed. One of our radio operators was wounded. There were about a dozen of us and to this day no four of us were able to recall the same details. We could not agree on the color of the car (I still say blue, about half the guys said black, one said green), the number of terrorists involved (A driver an two shooters? Two shooters, one of which was the driver? Three shooters?) or even what direction they drove away.

    First rule of holes, Monkey Boy. Stop digging.

    Oh, boy. Trotting out the authority credentials again are we? What is the relevance that anecdote?

    I don’t believe that you are a fool, so I can only presume you are duplicitous. Walk into a shopping mall and start waving a handgun–on second thought, that’s a bad idea–and see what happens. Fire it…and then what?

  144. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    Monkey Boy: Again, to my knowledge, there were no reports of people saying “a bullet struck here, so I ran.”

    So what?

    The Zapruder film didn’t show that, certainly not immediately following the first shot.

    There’s really no good reason to believe that Zapruder’s camera was even running when the first shot was fired.

  145. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    nbc: OMG, you are funny but you are not very well versed in the art of shooting and taking clues from where the bullets strike.
    Before you claim that it is impossible, why not do some proper research?

    Do you also claim that a missed shot raised “a cloud of dust” visible from six stories up? You don’t need to do research, but apply sensible science.

  146. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:16 am #

    nbc: A wise comment indeed. But probably ignored.

    Remove the mote from your own eye(s).

  147. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3vpfk3Ms0

    Enjoy and learn

  148. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    Monkey Boy: Do you also claim that a missed shot raised “a cloud of dust” visible from six stories up? You don’t need to do research, but apply sensible science.

    No one has claimed any such thing. You’re flailing…..frothing at your keyboard,

  149. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:18 am #

    CarlOrcas: Have you been to Dealy Plaza?

    Flash backs of our Vietnam antiwar protests.
    “Have you been to Vietnam” warmongers would shout as a gotcha.

  150. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:18 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, boy. Trotting out the authority credentials again are we?What is the relevance that anecdote?

    To demonstrate that your very weird assumptions concerning what eyewitness would have seen and what would have been reported are baseless. I am frankly very surprised that you had to ask.

    I don’t believe that you are a fool, so I can only presume you are duplicitous.

    Those are not the only options.

    Walk into a shopping mall and start waving a handgun–on second thought, that’s a bad idea–and see what happens.Fire it…and then what?

    Why?

  151. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:18 am #

    Monkey Boy: Remove the mote from your own eye(s).

    Which is interesting because I have yet to contribute here… A bit defensive perhaps?.. Deeply entrenched in the hole you have insisted on digging yourself you reach out and miss again.

  152. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:19 am #

    CarlOrcas: What did you do in the Army?

    I was an electronic technician for the ASA. Again, how is that relevant?

  153. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    Monkey Boy: Do you also claim that a missed shot raised “a cloud of dust” visible from six stories up? You don’t need to do research, but apply sensible science.

    And yet that is exactly what snipers look for tell tale signs where bullets hit and yes they make puffs of smoke. But have you done your own research? Or is this just ‘intuition’ followed by ‘ridicule’ rather than a serious attempt to understand the physics involved?

  154. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    HistorianDude: To demonstrate that your very weird assumptions concerning what eyewitness would have seen and what would have been reported are baseless. I am frankly very surprised that you had to ask.

    Those are not the only options.

    Why?
    Watch the reactions of the people.

  155. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    CarlOrcas: No one has claimed any such thing. You’re flailing…..frothing at your keyboard,

    Actually, I have.

  156. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    Monkey Boy: Flash backs of our Vietnam antiwar protests.
    “Have you been to Vietnam” warmongers would shout as a gotcha.

    Wow! You’re spinning out of control.

  157. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    CarlOrcas: No one has claimed any such thing. You’re flailing…..frothing at your keyboard,

    Exactly, the claim was

    The impact of a bullet will kick up a cloud at impact that could hang there as long as several seconds and be more than a foot in diameter. It would be easily visible from that distance, especially if you were looking for it.

  158. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    HistorianDude: Actually, I have.

    I thought you said a slug could raise a cloud of dust and, of course, it could but I didn’t think you said that happened in Dealy Plaza.

  159. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, boy. Trotting out the authority credentials again are we? What is the relevance that anecdote?

    First hand experience. Nothing about authority, just about facts. And yes, this is quite common in eye witness testimonies.

  160. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:25 am #

    Monkey Boy: I was an electronic technician for the ASA.Again, how is that relevant?

    I was more interested in your rank.

  161. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:26 am #

    I have fired .22s and my grandfather’s Winchester into the ground and at rocks, and I can tell you that no evidence of where the bullet struck from a distance away.

  162. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    HistorianDude made an excellent rebuttal

    HistorianDude: Nonsense. Bullets travel very fast. The evidence of their impacts do not.

    And then observed for example that bullets can leave tell tale puffs of cloud when they hit. Again, that is something that sharp shooters rely upon and bullets hitting concrete tend to leave quite a tell tale mark.

  163. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    nbc: First hand experience. Nothing about authority, just about facts. And yes, this is quite common in eye witness testimonies.

    Oh, Loren…c’mon. How is the experience of soldiers indicative of the general public. Don’t do research, engage the brain.

  164. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    Monkey Boy: I have fired .22s and my grandfather’s Winchester into the ground and at rocks, and I can tell you that no evidence of where the bullet struck from a distance away.

    Now you are switching to rocks… Wow… But your limited experience should not be confused as being necessarily factual. For that we rely on more scientific data.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 19, 2013 at 12:29 am #

    There is no answer to that question. Whether to close the non-scope eye is a matter of training and preference. There is no consensus about the best way to do it, and some would argue that it depends on whether there is a dominant eye (as most soldiers do).

    A remark like “Did you really teach shooting?” is a vacuous challenge–meaning it is a challenge that lacks an assertion or an argument. It sounds like bluster.

    Monkey Boy: And, how many would be open? Did you really teach shooting?

  166. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:31 am #

    nbc: Exactly, the claim was

    The impact of a bullet will kick up a cloud at impact that could hang there as long as several seconds and be more than a foot in diameter. It would be easily visible from that distance, especially if you were looking for it.

    Time for a deep breath: Monkey Boy said: Do you also claim that a missed shot raised “a cloud of dust” visible from six stories up? You don’t need to do research, but apply sensible science.

    No one claimed it happened that day but everyone has acknowledged a round could raise dust if it hit concrete.

  167. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:31 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, Loren…c’mon.How is the experience of soldiers indicative of the general public.Don’t do research, engage the brain.

    “Don’t do research?” Did you really just say that?

  168. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:32 am #

    nbc:
    HistorianDude made an excellent rebuttal

    And then observed for example that bullets can leave tell tale puffs of cloud when they hit. Again, that is something that sharp shooters rely upon and bullets hitting concrete tend to leave quite a tell tale mark.

    As it happened, the presumed did leave a telltale mark…of about 3-4 inches by taking off the edge of a curb. Are you saying that someone six stories up could see that with the naked eye?

    Anyway, as the damage was notice much later, there is no guarantee that the missed shot strluck concrete.

  169. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:32 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, Loren…c’mon. How is the experience of soldiers indicative of the general public. Don’t do research, engage the brain.

    Well, for one it is one additional piece of evidence into the research of eye witness testimony. I suggest that you do the research before you attempt to engage your brain.

  170. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    So Monkey Boy how familiar are with the research on eye witness testimony? I bet you that a single google search could have resolved the issue…

  171. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    Monkey Boy: Oh, Loren…c’m

    Monkey Boy: Oh, Loren…c’mon.How is the experience of soldiers indicative of the general public.Don’t do research, engage the brain.

    Good suggestion re the brain.

    If you have any friends who are police officers ask them about eyewitness accounts of fast moving incidents like a traffic accident, a bar brawl, etc.

  172. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:35 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There is no answer to that question. Whether to close the non-scope eye is a matter of training and preference. There is no consensus about the best way to do it.

    A remark like “Did you really teach shooting?” is a vacuous challenge–meaning it is a challenge that lacks an assertion or an argument. It sounds like bluster.

    No that is not vacuous, but a sensible challenge. I have never seen anyone aim a rifle with both eyes open. Not to say that it doesn’t happen, but not likely.

  173. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:36 am #

    Monkey Boy: Are you saying that someone six stories up could see that with the naked eye?

    Possibly. Are you saying that someone could not? What research do you have to support your opinion here? I have viewed several videos which show quite a tell tale sign, and our mind is extremely sensitive to changes so yes, I would not rule it out.

    It starts with first understanding that bullets can leave tell tale signs when they hit something. This is a very important aspect in sniping for example but even in regular shooting, you can learn a lot from these signs.

  174. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:37 am #

    Monkey Boy: I have never seen anyone aim a rifle with both eyes open

    That my friend, is a typical argument from ignorance. Which is why it is often best to do some research beyond your own little world.

  175. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:37 am #

    CarlOrcas:
    Good suggestion re the brain.

    If you have any friends who are police officers ask them about eyewitness accounts of fast moving incidents like a traffic accident, a bar brawl, etc.

    That is a (one of many) non-sequitar. If you have any friends present when bullets were flying, ask them what they did. On second thought, you really don’t need to ask.

  176. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:37 am #

    CarlOrcas: Time for a deep breath: Monkey Boy said: Do you also claim that a missed shot raised “a cloud of dust” visible from six stories up? You don’t need to do research, but apply sensible science.

    No one claimed it happened that day but everyone has acknowledged a round could raise dust if it hit concrete.

    Actually, Carl, the context is this. Monkey Boy (for some inexplicable reason) could not figure out why a second shot might be more accurate than a first shot. I explained the standard habit of shooters to adjust (we called it “Kentucky windage”) the second shot based on the difference between where the first shot was aimed and where it landed.

    Monkey Boy insists (falsely) that Oswald could never have seen where the bullet landed… an assertion hopelessly clueless out of the gate. He has been doubling, quadrupling and octupling down on that cluelessness ever since.

  177. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:39 am #

    Monkey Boy: If you have any friends who are police officers ask them about eyewitness accounts of fast moving incidents like a traffic accident, a bar brawl, etc.

    Monkey should have taken your advice, or done some reading. The unreliable nature of eyewitness accounts has been painfully well described and documented.

  178. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:39 am #

    nbc: That my friend, is a typical argument from ignorance. Which is why it is often best to do some research beyond your own little world.

    Your statement is ignorant. I stated what is generally true. How many people have you asked, “Do you close one eye when you shoot?”

  179. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:40 am #

    Monkey Boy: That is a (one of many) non-sequitar.If you have any friends present when bullets were flying, ask them what they did.On second thought, you really don’t need to ask.

    I don’t need to ask anyone.

  180. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:41 am #

    Monkey Boy: Your statement is ignorant. I stated what is generally true. How many people have you asked, “Do you close one eye when you shoot?”

    You are confusing argument from ignorance with making an ignorant statement. A common confusion perhaps. An argument from ignorance goes as follows; I have never seen anyone shoot with both eyes open, therefore people do not (often) shoot that way.

    A simple google search again could have resolved the issue without making such a fuss about what you believe versus what reality is all about?

    So how generally true is your claim, how did you calculate the relative odds? It’s not very helpful to limit oneself to a limited sample to draw general conclusions.

  181. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:41 am #

    nbc: Monkey should have taken your advice, or done some reading. The unreliable nature of eyewitness accounts has been painfully well described and documented.

    Another non-sequitar. I believe the question was how would ordinary people react after hearing gunfire seeing the impact of bullet nearby.

  182. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    nbc: You are confusing argument from ignorance with making an ignorant statement. A common confusion perhaps. An argument from ignorance goes as follows; I have never seen anyone shoot with both eyes open, therefore people do not (often) shoot that way.

    A simple google search again could have resolved the issue without making such a fuss about what you believe versus what reality is all about?

    You are either duplicitous or careless in you reading. Go back and read my post.

  183. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    HistorianDude: Monkey Boy insists (falsely) that Oswald could never have seen where the bullet landed… an assertion hopelessly clueless out of the gate. He has been doubling, quadrupling and octupling down on that cluelessness ever since.

    I got that part of the conversation but, as he usually does, I thought he was taking it another step and claiming you or nbc were saying the shot raised “a cloud of dust”.

    Now I see he’s moved on and is wondering if you think Oswald could have seen the scuff market on the curb from his perch in the School Book Depository.

  184. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:44 am #

    Monkey Boy: Anyway, as the damage was notice much later, there is no guarantee that the missed shot strluck concrete.

    True but at least we have the possibility that it happened. However, I believe you are missing the point here.

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 19, 2013 at 12:45 am #

    It’s not vacuous now that you added an assertion, but it appears to be wrong. The US Army Special Operations Sniper Training and Employment manual says:

    “If the sniper does not have a cross -dominant problem, it is best to aim with both eyes open. This allows him to see naturally and helps him relax. Also, with both eyes open, the sniper can find targets more quickly in his telescopic sight. Closing one eye puts an unnatural strain on the aiming eye and limits the sniper’s protective peripheral vision, ”

    http://archive.org/stream/milmanual-us-army-special-operations-sniper-training-and-employment/us_army_special_operations_sniper_training_and_employment_djvu.txt

    “I have never seen” is the mark of somebody winging it.

    Monkey Boy: No that is not vacuous, but a sensible challenge. I have never seen anyone aim a rifle with both eyes open. Not to say that it doesn’t happen, but not likely.

  186. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:45 am #

    Monkey Boy: You are either duplicitous or careless in you reading. Go back and read my post.

    I have read your posting and my comments stand, so you are now guilty of a false dichotomy, another logical fallacy.

  187. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 12:45 am #

    nbc: However, I believe you are missing the point here.

    There’s the understatement of this century!

  188. avatar
    JPotter November 19, 2013 at 12:46 am #

    So, back to the subject found at the top of the page, Corsi also recently published, to nearly zero fanfare last summer, a winger apologia,What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 . . . And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time [worst subtitle ever], that attempts to explain how Obama got the best of them. WND has posted a clip of Corsi talking about it on Youtube, it’s garnered a whopping 122 views in 4 months:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9nkjWQ_4E

    This review has garnered no comments whatsoever:
    http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/08/26/book-review-what-went-wrong-by-jerome-corsi/

    I’d love to peruse a copy looking for conspiracy nuttery (maybe a rehash of 2008’s “Obama Hypnotized the Masses” 😛 ), but, judging from the commentary in the above links, It’s the same tired talking points, along with allegations that there was indeed a vast, diabolical conspiracy to re-elect Obama, in the form of a well-run campaign that would stoop to any low, including the use of science and mathematics. Shocking.

    Being the same-old, same-old, it makes me wonder: is plagiarism inevitable among the members of a groupthinking reactionary subculture, that openly disdains intellectual achievement and poo-poos academic rigor? It’s trivial and common to see the same talking points, word for word, employed on blogs, uttered by TV talking heads, and rattled off on radio. And, no, not just on the right. But if you combine the cult of repetition with a disregard for academics and a lack of emphasis on intellectual honesty … why wouldn’t plagiarism be expected, even common?

  189. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:47 am #

    Monkey Boy: Another non-sequitar. I believe the question was how would ordinary people react after hearing gunfire seeing the impact of bullet nearby.

    As opposed to hearing the sound of a shot? If you are not looking for it, the tell tale sign may not be that noticeable. The best way to test this is to actually have some controlled situations. And it is non sequitur

    As to the issue

    Again, to my knowledge, there were no reports of people saying “a bullet struck here, so I ran.”

    So it is about eye witness reports after all..

  190. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It’s not vacuous now that you added an assertion, but it appears to be wrong. TheUS Army Special Operations Sniper Training and Employment manual says:

    “If the sniper does not have across -dominant problem, it is best to aim with both eyes open. This allows him to see naturally and helps him relax. Also, with both eyes open, the sniper can find targets more quickly in his telescopic sight. Closing one eye puts an unnatural strain on the aiming eye and limits the sniper’s protective peripheral vision, ”

    http://archive.org/stream/milmanual-us-army-special-operations-sniper-training-and-employment/us_army_special_operations_sniper_training_and_employment_djvu.txt

    “I have never seen” is the mark of somebody winging it.

    Yabbut…merely because some wonk suggest it doesn’t mean that it’s generally adopted. I stand by assertion that most (an unscientifically estimate of nearly all) people aim a rifle with one eye closed.

  191. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:49 am #

    nbcAnd it is non sequitur

    That was bugging me too.

  192. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:50 am #

    nbc: And it is non sequitur

    I stand corrected.

  193. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:51 am #

    Monkey Boy: Yabbut…merely because some wonk suggest it doesn’t mean that it’s generally adopted.I stand by assertion that most (an unscientifically estimate of nearly all) people aim a rifle with one eye closed.

    Monkey Boy: Yabbut…merely because some wonk suggest it doesn’t mean that it’s generally adopted.I stand by assertion that most (an unscientifically estimate of nearly all) people aim a rifle with one eye closed.

    First rule of holes, MB. First rule of holes.

  194. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:51 am #

    HistorianDude: That was bugging me too.

    Really grasping at straws, i’d say.

  195. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    Monkey Boy: Really grasping at straws, i’d say.

    I thought you stood corrected?

  196. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    HistorianDude:
    First rule of holes, MB. First rule of holes.

    Did you teach with one eye closed or both open?

    Case closed.

  197. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    Monkey Boy: HistorianDude: That was bugging me too.

    Really grasping at straws, i’d say.

    Not really… I totally understand HistorianDude. If you want to use fancy terms, then make sure you know what they mean and how to spell them. Otherwise you fail to leave the impression you intended to make.

  198. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:54 am #

    HistorianDude: I thought you stood corrected?

    He was sitting down when he responded to you…

  199. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    Monkey Boy: Yabbut…merely because some wonk suggest it doesn’t mean that it’s generally adopted. I stand by assertion that most (an unscientifically estimate of nearly all) people aim a rifle with one eye closed.

    I agree totally. Unscientific estimate, which brings me to the argument from ignorance again.

  200. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:56 am #

    Monkey Boy: Did you teach with one eye closed or both open?

    Case closed.

    With iron sites, one. With scopes, two except during the trigger pull.

  201. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 12:58 am #

    nbc: Not really… I totally understand HistorianDude. If you want to use fancy terms, then make sure you know what they mean and how to spell them. Otherwise you fail to leave the impression you intended to make.

    Of course, the perfect Loren never made a spelling error. (which has nothing to do with understanding the intended term, by the way)

    Spare me.

  202. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 12:59 am #

    Monkey Boy: Of course, the perfect Loren never made a spelling error.(which has nothing to do with understanding the intended term, by the way)

    Spare me.

    Your misuse of the term was a whole ‘nother issue. But that would be piling on.

  203. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 1:00 am #

    HistorianDude: With iron sites, one. With scopes, two except during the trigger pull.

    When I was at Fort Dix, during basic training, everyone closed one eye.

  204. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 1:01 am #

    HistorianDude: Your misuse of the term was a whole ‘nother issue. But that would be piling on.

    Your claim of misuse is a misuse, but I’m to fatigued explore that.

  205. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:02 am #

    Monkey Boy: When I was at Fort Dix, during basic training, everyone closed one eye.

    Stop digging…

  206. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:04 am #

    Monkey Boy: Of course, the perfect Loren never made a spelling error. (which has nothing to do with understanding the intended term, by the way)

    Well, you used the term somewhat inappropriately and misspelled it. Noone is perfect but this was just somewhat too ironic to ignore.

  207. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 1:07 am #

    Monkey Boy: When I was at Fort Dix, during basic training, everyone closed one eye.

    And yet when this discussing began, the shooting experience you chose to demonstrate your madd shooting skillzz was “plinking at squirrels” with your uncles bolt action 22. We were even already talking about Oswald’s performance during his military training (performance that you misrepresented, by the way). And now is the first time you bring up basic at Fort Dix?

    I find that fascinating.

    We’ll ignore that during basic training you would never have gotten within a half mile of a scope on your M16, so this sudden recollection does not contradict my previous answer anyway.

    I simply can no longer tell when you’re making stuff up again.

  208. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:09 am #

    HistorianDude: I simply can no longer tell when you’re making stuff up again.

    Sometimes facts are stranger than fiction.

  209. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 1:20 am #

    Monkey Boy: Yabbut…

    Put the shovel away.

  210. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 1:24 am #

    HistorianDude: And yet when this discussing began, the shooting experience you chose to demonstrate your madd shooting skillzz was “plinking at squirrels” with your uncles bolt action 22. We were even already talking about Oswald’s performance during his military training (performance that you misrepresented, by the way). And now is the first time you bring up basic at Fort Dix?

    I find that fascinating.

    We’ll ignore that during basic training you would never have gotten within a half mile of a scope on your M16, so this sudden recollection does not contradict my previous answer anyway.

    I simply can no longer tell when you’re making stuff up again.

    No, you are making stuff up in attempts at deflection. I never claimed “madz shooting skilz” (sic), but replied to a question of whether I had “done much shooting.”

    For the life of me, I cannot see how being at Ft. Dix impeaches anything I’ve asserted.

    And, who said anything about scopes there?

    Dude, you are extremely good at making argument when you have something to go on, but Clarence Darrow couldn’t make a good argument out of an unarguable (did I spell that right) position.

    Is that why you constantly switch topics and try to make something out of nothing?

  211. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:25 am #

    Monkey Boy: Is that why you constantly switch topics and try to make something out of nothing?

    OMG, the irony…

    Hard to admit that you have really nothing much to go on? Be careful, once you hit the water table, the hole will quickly fill. Once you learn to understand a bit of sarcasm and you will do much better.

  212. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 1:32 am #

    And, how would it be strange–or somehow sinister (did I speel dat rite) for an Army recruit to train at Fort Dix?

    Help me out.

  213. avatar
    Monkey Boy November 19, 2013 at 1:33 am #

    nbc: OMG, the irony…

    Hard to admit that you have really nothing much to go on? Be careful, once you hit the water table, the hole will quickly fill. Once you learn to understand a bit of sarcasm and you will do much better.

    Meaningless pratter. Make an argument.

  214. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:43 am #

    Monkey Boy: Meaningless pratter. Make an argument.

    The irony is piling up now… Come on Monkey Boy, do you not know when to stop?

  215. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 1:57 am #

    nbc: Come on Monkey Boy, do you not know when to stop?

    Who wants to explain to MB what a rhetorical question is?

  216. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:59 am #

    CarlOrcas: Who wants to explain to MB what a rhetorical question is?

    Was that a rhetorical question? I am soooo confused.

  217. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 2:08 am #

    nbc: Was that a rhetorical question? I am soooo confused.

    LOL!! It certainly requires no response from MB.

  218. avatar
    The European November 19, 2013 at 3:34 am #

    CarlOrcas: You’re all over the map. The response was to your point about Walker. “Crack shots” miss all the time. That’s why they score their shooting. That’s why there are shooting contests. If they never missed there wouldn’t be any point in all that, would there?

    /offtopic on
    No, the real cracks do rarely miss. Ever watched professional skeet shooters or even biathlon ?
    /offtopic off

  219. avatar
    Whatever4 November 19, 2013 at 4:10 am #

    Monkey Boy: Of course, the perfect Loren never made a spelling error.(which has nothing to do with understanding the intended term, by the way)

    Spare me.

    Just wondering… what makes you think NBC is Loren?

  220. avatar
    The European November 19, 2013 at 4:12 am #

    There are enough credible people here who tell me that Oswald acted alone. Nothing to see there.

    What about Jack Ruby ? He reminds me too much of some people in the Godfather series. Remember the guy with the glasses frame ?

  221. avatar
    The European November 19, 2013 at 4:47 am #

    I do some hunting on very fast moving targets (wild boar). At the distance the shots were fired by Oswald (between 50 and 100 meters) you do not think about (and you do not have to think about) wind speed or other sophisticated external factors. You have to consider the movement of the target and that movement is the main factor for missing.

    As far as I have read the car went across at the time of the first shot. The relative movement was fast. Easy to miss even for a very good marksman. During the following shots the car had slowed down and went straight away from Oswald. Nearly a sitting target. No wonder that he had these shots on target.

  222. avatar
    Bovril November 19, 2013 at 5:18 am #

    Mainly as one is a tad bored and one used to shoot competitively as well as at targets that kinda shot back….

    Accurate shooting is about consistency, repetition and repeatability.

    If you ever see someone who really does shoot there is a degree of OCD in the entire cycle.

    The aim is to remove as many variables as possible to ensure that those that remain can be calculated or compensated for…so

    A serious shooter will

    Ammunition,

    Load your own, weigh every powder throw, use the same batch as well as manufacturer of powder, use the same primers, weigh and inspect each projectile before seating it, weigh the assembled round, measure OAL and record each batch. When he/she is setting up a new run they will take a sample of the batch and shoot it on a range and chrono the projectile velocity. All this will be recorded along with the test date, time, temperature, altitude and humididty where relevant

    Stance,

    The shooter will, in addition to range time, spend time dry firing. The goal is to ensure as close to identical seating of the butt, cheek weld, eye alignment, hand position, bipod seating (if used), sling placement (if used) etc each time every time. identify a set of standard body positions and repeat placing yourself in them repetitively until it’s burnt into muscle memory

    Breath control,

    As part of the range and dry firing the shooter will practice breath control. Making sure they remember the “Breath in deeply, breath out deeply, repeat, breath out, do not hold breath, bring sights to target and when ready squeeze”. Hold your breath and your pulse and straining will cause the sight picture to bounce up and down

    Environmental

    The shooter has removed as many personal variations as practical now it’s about understanding and compensating for those you have no management control over, wind, distance, temperature, humidity, is the target mopving and how fast, if over 1000 mts you even have to factor in the Coriolis Effect and the gyroscopic effect of the spinning round.

    So, yes accurate shooters DO miss, however they will “miss” far less frequently, with a far smaller/lower CEP (circular area probability) and will be capable of consistently and rapidly correcting their follow up shots.

    This class brought to you be Figure 11 Targets LLC and Bangie-Shootie PLC

  223. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 7:56 am #

    Whatever4: Just wondering… what makes you think NBC is Loren?

    I was wondering the same thing, but the question never made it onto the critical path.

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 19, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    I doubt it.

    Monkey Boy: When I was at Fort Dix, during basic training, everyone closed one eye.

  225. avatar
    The European November 19, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    Bovril:
    Mainly as one is a tad bored and one used to shoot competitively as well as at targets that kinda shot back….

    Accurate shooting is about consistency, repetition and repeatability.

    /snipped

    This class brought to you be Figure 11 Targets LLC and Bangie-Shootie PLC

    Bovril, you teach about “sniping” here. As I tried to explain earlier, Oswald was much more in the position of a hunter who shoots at a fast moving game than a sniper who shoots at a fixed or slowly moving target. When shooting at a running wild boar with a small window of visibility even a good hunter will miss more often than he hits (and my excuses for comparing the shooting of JFK with hunting).

    About the identity of nbc – do some people here know more than others ? Doc ? Some redacting necessary ?

  226. avatar
    Bovril November 19, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    Sniping, not me, can’t prove it, no video evidence……..

  227. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 19, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    I do not know NBC’s name, nor who else might know it.

    Obviously he’s not Loren Collins, since both of them have published audio on the Internet that can be compared. I’ve met Loren and listened to NBC on RC’s radio show.

    Any serious attempt at identifying folks who post anonymously on the Internet is off limits for this blog and can result in a lifetime ban.

    The European: About the identity of nbc – do some people here know more than others ? Doc ? Some redacting necessary ?

  228. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I doubt it.

    I have this vision of MB out in front of the line looking down each soldier’s rifle to see how many eyes each one has open.

  229. avatar
    The Magic M November 19, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    The European: Oswald was much more in the position of a hunter who shoots at a fast moving game than a sniper who shoots at a fixed or slowly moving target

    I watched the beginning of “Shooter” the other day where Mark Wahlberg’s character was shooting at people in fast-moving vehicles. I think sniper work comprises more than just slow/fixed targets by now.

  230. avatar
    HistorianDude November 19, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    I think The European has offered the most likely explanation for why the first shot missed and second and third shots did not.

    That only detracts a tiny bit from the hilarity of MB’s sequence of desperate posts.

  231. avatar
    nbc November 19, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Whatever4: Just wondering… what makes you think NBC is Loren?

    I had missed that one 🙂 I cannot speak for Loren but I am rather certain that I am not him.

  232. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 19, 2013 at 4:49 pm #

    Okay, I just waded through this entire furious argument over the Kennedy assassination, and as far as that goes, I’ll just stick with what I’ve said earlier…even if the “killer” came out, brandishing his rifle, photographs, videos, notarized documents, and the whole trail of his story, at a press conference…it would not settle the issue.

    Too many people are making too good a living peddling conspiracy theories of all sorts.

    My favorite is still the guy in the Kaiser Wilhelm helmet who blew JFK away from the grassy knoll. Presumably with the KAR98k Mauser he was issued when he went off to the Battle of the Marne. How he escaped, wearing that helmet, is not explained.

    My second favorite theory was from a guy in one of my college politics classes, who said Aristotle Onassis did it. He wanted to get it on with Jackie.

    My third favorite theory was that the shot did not kill JFK, only crippled him, and he’s living in Switzerland in a sanitarium.

    All that being said, you do realize that right now, the birthers are laughing their heads off at us, because we’re arguing in favor of conspiracy theories, doing so with incredible vitriol, insulting each other, and hurling flames.

    Let’s not become what we behold. The truth, sadly, has been buried with the players in the tawdry drama, and the dollar signs. Let’s not get caught up in that nonsense any further.

    The saddest part of the whole JFK assassination drama is that it obscures the real President Kennedy. We all remember the day he was shot. We have a harder time remembering much more about who he really was, and what his life and presidency were all about.

    How many of us can remember the day he was shot? All of us. How many of us know the day he was born? May 29, 1917. Just think…the centenary of his birth is coming up in four years. We may have our first female president sitting in the White House, delivering remarks to honor the first Catholic president.

    We should remember the life he led — both good and bad — and not the tawdry way he died.

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

  233. avatar
    Majority Will November 19, 2013 at 5:01 pm #

    Kiwiwriter:
    Okay, I just waded through this entire furious argument over the Kennedy assassination, and as far as that goes, I’ll just stick with what I’ve said earlier…even if the “killer” came out, brandishing his rifle, photographs, videos, notarized documents, and the whole trail of his story, at a press conference…it would not settle the issue.

    Too many people are making too good a living peddling conspiracy theories of all sorts.

    My favorite is still the guy in the Kaiser Wilhelm helmet who blew JFK away from the grassy knoll. Presumably with the KAR98k Mauser he was issued when he went off to the Battle of the Marne. How he escaped, wearing that helmet, is not explained.

    My second favorite theory was from a guy in one of my college politics classes, who said Aristotle Onassis did it. He wanted to get it on with Jackie.

    My third favorite theory was that the shot did not kill JFK, only crippled him, and he’s living in Switzerland in a sanitarium.

    All that being said, you do realize that right now, the birthers are laughing their heads off at us, because we’re arguing in favor of conspiracy theories, doing so with incredible vitriol, insulting each other, and hurling flames.

    Let’s not become what we behold. The truth, sadly, has been buried with the players in the tawdry drama, and the dollar signs. Let’s not get caught up in that nonsense any further.

    The saddest part of the whole JFK assassination drama is that it obscures the real President Kennedy. We all remember the day he was shot. We have a harder time remembering much more about who he really was, and what his life and presidency were all about.

    How many of us can remember the day he was shot? All of us. How many of us know the day he was born? May 29, 1917. Just think…the centenary of his birth is coming up in four years. We may have our first female president sitting in the White House, delivering remarks to honor the first Catholic president.

    We should remember the life he led — both good and bad — and not the tawdry way he died.

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

    Hear, hear.

  234. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: My third favorite theory was that the shot did not kill JFK, only crippled him, and he’s living in Switzerland in a sanitarium.

    A variant of that one is that he was (still is?) alive in a suite of rooms in Parkland Hospital in a permanent vegetative state.

    That tidbit aside the rest of your post is right on the mark.

  235. avatar
    Rickey November 19, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

    Monkey Boy:
    Can somebody riddle me this.

    Crack shot, Oswald, who could get off three shots in 5 seconds, using a mass-produced bolt action rifle that he became an expert on with minimal exposure, miss the first shot that he would have the most time for, but reacquire a moving target and nail it twice while rushed–could miss a comparatively stationary Edwin Walker?

    Oswald missed Walker because the bullet was deflected slightly when it went through Walker’s window. The bullet went through a screen and barely grazed the wooden middle frame of the double window. This deflected the bullet enough to cause it to go through Walker’s hair rather than going into his skull.

  236. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    Rickey: Oswald missed Walker because the bullet was deflected slightly when it went through Walker’s window. The bullet went through a screen and barely grazed the wooden middle frame of the double window. This deflected the bullet enough to cause it to go through Walker’s hair rather than going into his skull.

    Think how the world would have been changed if Oswald had hit Walker…he would doubtless have been soon hauled in by the cops.

  237. avatar
    CarlOrcas November 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Think how the world would have been changed if Oswald had hit Walker…he would doubtless have been soon hauled in by the cops.

    My recollection is that Oswald wasn’t a suspect in the Walker shooting (police didn’t have any, in fact) until they analyzed bullet fragments from the Walker house and compared them to bullets in the Kennedy killing.

  238. avatar
    Kiwiwriter November 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    CarlOrcas: My recollection is that Oswald wasn’t a suspect in the Walker shooting (police didn’t have any, in fact) until they analyzed bullet fragments from the Walker house and compared them to bullets in the Kennedy killing.

    Fair enough…still, if Walker had been killed, there would at least have been more interest in that case.