If you have not yet seen JFK:Inside The Target Car, or want to see it again... It is available on You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e246B581jHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e246B581jHo
I'd love to get my hands on the rifle set up just like the one Oswald used. But when I mentioned such a purchase to the little woman...
Italian Carcano 6.5x52mm
995471431
Italian Carcano in 6.5x52mm typical to better shape that I have seen in these rifles. Still a fair amount of grease on them. I will only accept USPS money orders. (read more)
$145.00
The difference being... (not arguing, genuinely interested)He was classified as a sharpshooter, not an expert rifleman.
MIDWEST - " ... Couple that with all the motives for shooting JFK; Mob, Cubans, Communists, CIA...it only added fuel to the fire that there was a conspiracy."
parisite said:The thing I can't get past in it being a lone gunman is the last shot to hit JFK moved his head violently to the rear and to the left in the Zapruder film. In my opinion, just as I think the reaction would be if the shot came from the grassy knoll which was forward and to the right.
one live round in the firing chamber, one empty clip in the gun. Four rounds in a six shot clip. Spells lone nut loser to me. It also means the re-enactments should start with four rounds, not six, to dup the difficulty of firing 3 rounds in the 8.3 second time frame established by Failure Analysis Associates.the three expended shells on the floor
Pete,Ruby was standing in a line at Western Union a short distance from the Dallas jail,sending a $25 MO to one of his strippers. We have the time stamp.
I don't think a man planning a hit would be doing this! 30 seconds longer in that line and Oswald would have left the jail basement alive.
It was an flash impulse on Jack's part,IMO.
That's funny, because the evidence is against it.Here are a few thoughts having read over 50 books on the subject including Posner's fiction which makes me knowledgable on the subject but hardly an expert.
I can say with a high degree of confidence that JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
Then what was he doing on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository firing on the president's motorcade? Sleepwalking?LHO did not knowingly participate in the assassination.
The Zapruder film wasn't altered. In 1998, a man named Roland Zavada, who was a product engineer from Kodak who led the team that invented Kodachrome II, examined the film at the request of the National Archives and concluded that the film was an “in camera original” and that there was no evidence of any alterations. He stated that any attempt to create a false "in camera original" by copying Zapruder's film would leave visible artifacts of "image structure constraints of grain; [and] contrast and modulation transfer function losses.…It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, [or] contrast buildup."I've always discounted JFK's bodily movements after being shot as pretty meaningless, backwards, forward, whatever, the Zapruder film was more than likely altered, JFK had a back brace on, no conclusions can be drawn from his movement.
Who says it was for the infamy? Oswald was a s#&%%y little loser who defected to the Soviet Union, then changed his mind and came back to the US, then attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker, then attempted to go to Cuba to aid in the revolution there, and after much delay in getting his visa approved, did finally get it approved, but didn't go (this was eleven days before the Kennedy assassination). I don't even think Oswald himself knew what he really wanted, so how are we supposed to nail down his motivations and desires exactly?If Oswald did do it for the infamy, why did he vehemently deny it?
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. Every conspiracy theory out there ignores key facts. People see screw ups, inconsistencies, oversights, exclusions of evidence, errors, changing stories, or changes made to witness testimony, and they leap to the conclusion that this all means there was a conspiracy. All it really means is that there were screw ups, inconsistencies, oversights, exclusions of evidence, errors, changing stories, or changes made to witness testimony -- all things easily explainable by human error. Not nearly as well known as Occam's razor is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."I think many of guilty looking parties only looked that way because they majorly screwed up and were just trying to CYA which doesn't negate the fact that is was a conspiracy, it just means not everyone was involved.