The Kennedy assassination

[xer0s]

Ha! No, I was typing while you was posting...

[+JuggerNaut+]

Miss my last post, did you?

you know something's awry when you use that emoticon. FAG!

[andyman]

In this book they cover a bit of the assassination from the space exploration standpoint, Kennedy want to go into joint ventures with the soviets and share all information. After he was turned down twice, they finally agreed and 10 days later he was shot. This is the shortest summary ever of that chapter, but it goes into detail of the second shooter, eyewitness accounts, and an analyzed picture of a shot from the knoll. It also goes into the political background of Kennedy and the space race, and has that picture of LBJ smiling at Albert Thomas who is winking back at him right after he is sworn in. It's all in a 'matter of fact' presentation and is really good... read it if you like...
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-Secr ... 1932595260

[Nightshade]

lol, no thanks. I'm trying to stay open-minded about all this, but I'm not going to start reading stuff from another pseudo-scientist kook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

[andyman]

lol, no thanks. I'm trying to stay open-minded about all this, but I'm..

.. failing miserably


and reading wiki

[Hannibal]

I don't know, but I know Bugliosi is extremely meticulous in his research.

Don't know if you've seen this so I'll drop it on you. I have no dog in this fight...I just became a little intrigued when I discovered that Fetzer, a philosopher of science, is a bit of a conspiracy freak. I have not read B's book.

A link to his 'review' of Bugliosi's book (originally published in the journal Assassination Research):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5 ... fetzer.pdf

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I don't know, but I know Bugliosi is extremely meticulous in his research.

Don't know if you've seen this so I'll drop it on you. I have no dog in this fight...I just became a little intrigued when I discovered that Fetzer, a philosopher of science, is a bit of a conspiracy freak. I have not read B's book.

A link to his 'review' of Bugliosi's book (originally published in the journal Assassination Research):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5 ... fetzer.pdf

Have you read Fetzer on 9/11? The guy is a total whack job.

[Nightshade]

Don't know if you've seen this so I'll drop it on you. I have no dog in this fight...I just became a little intrigued when I discovered that Fetzer, a philosopher of science, is a bit of a conspiracy freak. I have not read B's book.

A link to his 'review' of Bugliosi's book (originally published in the journal Assassination Research):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5 ... fetzer.pdf

The things I keep coming back to are Bugliosi's previous works and lack of motivation to try to cover anything up. Hell, he turned down the job as lead prosecutor in the OJ case because he knew it was going to be a circus. I'm stalled out on his book atm, too much other shit going on, but I'm trying to remain very open to picking apart what he presents.

[Hannibal]

Have you read Fetzer on 9/11? The guy is a total whack job.

No. I avoid all that shit.

[Kat]

Penn and Teller on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4

I used to like P&T until that very episode. Aiming at nothing through a fake window in a studio isn't exactly going to prove anything other than being able to fire a weapon quickly, a 90-100% hit-rate requires a bit more than that.

[andyman]

Penn and Teller on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4

I used to like P&T until that very episode. Aiming at nothing through a fake window in a studio isn't exactly going to prove anything other than being able to fire a weapon quickly, a 90-100% hit-rate requires a bit more than that.

And with no bullets

[Nightshade]

I think I stated earlier in this thread that Oswald's time was matched and bettered by a soldier not too long after the assassination.
You shoot andy, does that time seem so unreasonable?

[andyman]

I think I stated earlier in this thread that Oswald's time was matched and bettered by a soldier not too long after the assassination.
You shoot andy, does that time seem so unreasonable?

With practice, it seems very reasonable. his time was matched, but was his accuracy? I've never shot the kind of rifle and setup he used though so I can't say first hand.. but from shooting other rifles, he would have to have his body and the rifle move as one, with very little wiggle room (from recoil). The only moving parts of this rifle/body machine would be his right arm working the bolt. I don't know what kind of scope he had on it, but from my view it would have to have been a low magnification kind of scope that simply provides a reticle. From my apartment looking at the street, the lowest mag on one of my scopes is 3x and that seems reasonable trying to track people going down a 45mph street but it's still really hard... and then take into account recoil and reloading... really tough stuff UNLESS you practiced that exact scenario over and over and over and over. (It took me many magazines through the M4 to get to the point where I could shoot and not lose the reticle during the recoil/reload process. Then doing all that while walking... but that didn't take as long once i was able make my rifle and body move as one.)

Example: Every year we would go to camp blanding, FL and train there. One of the days is spent at the popup range, it's a 300yd range with ~8 popup silhouette targets placed from 25yds to 300yds. The army does this type of popup range often, and it was definitely not my first time shooting that kind of range. Being a joint unit with all four branches, the navy and air force had never done that kind of range before and damn near all of them failed the first time. Some passed the second time, but the rest had to go more than 5 times to meet a qualifying score (pathetic at best). Since I had the advantage of shooting that kind of range many time before (and a crack shot, ask anyone) I qual'd expert the first time hitting 90% of the targets. A friend of mine got the same score, so we went again for fun and i shot with a 95% hit rate.

Basically, I shot the best scores because of two things: I was familiar with that type of range, and am a really really good shot.

I believe the same applies to Oswald: He was a really really good shot, and had trained for that exact scenario many times.

I think if someone wants to accurately simulate what he did, they can't just shoot and reload a dry rifle 3 times in 5 seconds or whatever it was. They need to set up a scenario on a ranch or something that is just like the actual event (with dummies for targets) and then try to recreate Oswald's feat. If one person doesn't get it the first time, keep running through the scenario until he does... not have penn gillette go through the motions and say that's it.


it's like seinfeld says, 'that is one magic loogey'

[andyman]

also http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=9511

and the scope in the P&T video looks like it has a VERY narrow field of view, that would make it that much harder. Besides, Penn 'aimed' at one point, oswald had to hit a moving target. He's not even aiming anyway, the tip of the rifle is swaying which means he's timing his shots... even Oswald knew timing your shots is a big no-no.... and you can see the type of recoil he would have to deal with when teller shoots the melon

look at this scope... you can imagine how narrow the field of view is..


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... cano01.jpg


edit: looking for the type of scope, it's this: Ordnance Optics 4 x 18 telescopic sight.

[andyman]

Ok, there was someone standing across the street so i put my bolt action rifle scope on 4x and tried a bunch of times to shoot-reload repeatedly and keep the hairs on her. The scope is a leupold 4-12x40mm scope http://www.adorama.com/LDRVXI40MD.html
I can only imagine how HARD it would be to shoot at a moving target at increasing range with a decently powered rifle. The bolt on mine is somewhat tight anyway, so that added some difficulty (this is what I was using http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/ ... /917VS.asp )
I think I could do what he did with a lot of practice (not exactly the same of course, but a third shot as a headshot)


So here's my verdict: Someone would have had to have extensive training/practice in that exact scenario to be able to do what Oswald has been claimed to do, if it was even Oswald that did the shooting from the window.

[Ryoki]

That's all very interesting indeed Andypanda. The most clear analysis on the technical difficulties of the JFK shooting i have ever read (or seen).

And no more aiming your rifle at innocent passersby now, you weirdo

[andyman]

thanks


this site has all the media in high quality http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/

[Nightshade]

That's an interesting site their, andy. I had no idea the Zapruder film was a clever hoax.

Seriously though, I don't recall if the Oswald's alleged accuracy was matched, I believe the soldier in question may have only bettered the time, I have to look.

The shots were some 250-odd feet, that's so damn close it's not even funny. I could hit a head shot from standing at that distance, even in moderate winds. Sure, a moving target would make it more challenging, but I don't think that the FOV of the scope would be a big factor at that distance.

I'm curious, could you explain what you mean by 'timing shots being a no-no'? Btw, I'm a crack shot myself, fired 235 out of 250 at Parris Island, including 9/10 at 500 yards.

[andyman]

That's an interesting site their, andy. I had no idea the Zapruder film was a clever hoax.

I only linked to that site because it had good quality downloads of the film for review... read the description before the link maybe... and it's "there"


Timing your shots is when the reticle is moving and instead of steadying it, you try to 'time' when the crosshair will fall on your target, generally resulting in a miss from improper trigger squeeze (and bad timing). For example, when you see people doing a 'double tap', they aren't just firing two shots as fast as they can, both shots are aimed and steadied in rapid succession. So, the shooter wasn't sweeping the crosshairs and timing the shots, that's the wrong way to shoot and is taught in most fundamentals classes.


In the film you can see where he was shot in the neck, right after he clears the roadsign. That's when his hands go up to the hole in his throat, and then shortly after the guy in front of jfk turns around, probably to see what the hell just happens. Judging from the video, i would say there is 4 seconds from the first shot in the neck to the third in the head (from the single window shooter standpoint)

[Nightshade]

I wasn't commenting on your opinion on the site, just the site itself.

As far as the timing thing, the way I was trained was to allow the sights to descend (slightly) to the target with your exhalation of breath, firing at your natural respiratory pause. The key there of course being a proper, slow, steady squeeze on the trigger coinciding with your pause between breaths.

[andyman]

What part of the building was the shooter standing... i'm assuming the center in this screenshot

[lvlshot]http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6614/headshotpg0.jpg[/lvlshot]

From the center the third shot is ~230ft, from the far west it's ~202ft, and from the far east of the building it's ~260ft.

[andyman]

I wasn't commenting on your opinion on the site, just the site itself.

As far as the timing thing, the way I was trained was to allow the sights to descend (slightly) to the target with your exhalation of breath, firing at your natural respiratory pause. The key there of course being a proper, slow, steady squeeze on the trigger coinciding with your pause between breaths.

Right, i'm talking about when people can't hold still for a split second so they try to time when the sights will be on target when they are still moving. basically I'm saying that oswald would have been steadily tracking the target before he shot, the same way that skeet shooters do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To6aXUD0GDU

I'm just trying to prove that penn and teller are not the final say when it comes to recreating the scene. All penn did was prove what he later says: "I've had no marine training". why would anyone believe their video...

[scared?]

who cares if oswald was the lone shooter...that doesn't mean he wasn't killed by rogue elements of the govt...the fact that when his brother ran for president he was also killed makes it pretty obvious...

[andyman]

yeah, i'm saying the 'lone gunman' who woke up and killed kennedy without any inside help is crap. He had to have had inside help in order to even open the window without secret service jumping his ass. The whole role of the secret service is to make sure, in this case, the president does not die and they failed miserably.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

How's that job search going Andy?