Posted on 11/24/2008 12:59:19 PM PST by AJKauf
A Houston St shot is too close. The downward angle is greater. It's actually a crossing shot, And he has to shoot through the limo windcreen or Gov Connally to get to Kennedy.
On Elms st he has a clear line to Kennedy. Between the Depository and the "grassy knoll" the limo is moving almst directly away with no cross movement. And because of the rising ground the downward angle is less.
Or: Maybe Oswald didn't have the guts to shoot Kennedy in the face.
“Three evenly timed shots rang out within about 2 seconds, allegedly from an Italian Carcano bolt-action rifle. That seems highly implausible to me”
I don’t know what tape you listened to, but the general consensus is that Oswald had over five seconds to execute three shots. And he had all the time in the world to line up the first shot, so it’s really more than five seconds for two shots. Oswald’s feat has been repeated several times.
Especially the segments about him and the JFK Assassination prior to Saint John Hunt info this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt
***the stunning taped deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt”
Wow, a deathbed confession! How utterly convincing! Too bad he couldn’t point to any actual evidence while he was at it.***
Contract killing paid for by LBJ.
The rapid shots picked up by the microphone were thoroughly debunked, the motorcycle had to be in a certain place to pick them up, they used all the sound and video evidence and proved these rapid shots were not true.
Oswald fired three shots in 8.3 seconds, the first round was already chambered. They showed an 89 year old man in the documentary (search beyond conspiracy on youtube) getting the shots off with the same model rifle in 7.2 seconds taking extra time for the last shot like Oswald did.
He’s DEAD Move along please ............Move along .............
All I know is the shots I heard on the news - I can’t say what I heard was authentic. But what I heard was boom-boom-boom, about 2 seconds, not 5. Somebody might do it in 5 seconds, but not 2.
Oswalds prints found on the rifle scope and on the boxes in the snipers nest, fact.
Ballistics showed the bullet that hit JFK and Connally came from Oswald’s rifle at the school book depository, fact.
Fiber evidence from the rifle came from Oswalds, shirt, fact.
Oswald was the ONLY employee missing from the TSBD after the shooting, fact.
Witnesses saw a rifle in the 6th floor of the TSBD, that’s why they did the head count on the TSBD, fact. What an amazing, unfortunate coincidence for the innocent Oswald that he was the only employee missing, his fingerprints at the scene and on the scope of the rifle, and that ballistics proved the recovered bullet came from Oswald’s rifle.
Lee Harvey Oswald is either the unluckiest person on the planet, or he was a whack job who tried to kill General Walker, then killed JFK and Officer Tippett.
I very pointedly said that they were mistaken in believing at the time that large doses of cortisone would make a person insane. Cortisone will not do that to you. But at the time, they thought it would. And to make matters worse, it was not just a medical belief, but a public belief, as seen in that James Mason movie.
And that is likewise a critical part of my argument. Despite any efforts to hide his problems by his family, and the media, the Washington elite on both sides of the aisle would quickly have figured out what his condition was, and the only known treatment for it at the time.
Also, don’t think the Republicans would act on that knowledge. JFK blatantly stole the election from Nixon, and Nixon refused to do anything about it. That is a bad Republican habit. McCain refused to go on the attack against Obama, likewise. Medical problems were off limits, at least as far as the Republicans were concerned. Remember as well the press refusing to show FDR in a wheelchair.
Perhaps it boils down to the old saying. “First you get disciples, and then they crucify you.” The cult of personality demands perfection, that followers always praise, and scoffers be shut up. This is why the press not only ignored JFK’s sex scandals, but treated those who mentioned them as enemies of the state.
The big question is still who, if the theory is correct, would have done the deed, in their mind to prevent a nuclear exchange. It really doesn’t narrow down the suspects.
If Hunt had made his statement in public to the Warren Commission, or to the House Assassinations Committee, or even just on Sixty Minutes, the results would have been explosive. Since so much time has passed and Hunt is dead, it has had little effect.
Here is a link to the audio:.
http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/testament.html.
and here is a transcript of what Hunt said:
I heard from Frank [Sturgis] that LBJ had designated Cord Meyer, Jr. to undertake a larger organization while keeping it totally secret. Cord Meyer himself was a rather favored member of the Eastern aristocracy. He was a graduate of Yale University and had joined the Marine Corps during the war and lost an eye in the Pacific fighting.
I think that LBJ settled on Meyer as an opportunist like himself and a man who had very little left to him in life ever since JFK had taken Cord's wife as one of his mistresses. I would suggest that Cord Meyer welcomed the approach from LBJ, who was after all only the Vice President at that time and of course could not number Cord Meyer among JFK's admirers—quite the contrary.
As for Dave Phillips, I knew him pretty well at one time. He worked for me during the Guatemala project. He had made himself useful to the agency in Santiago, Chile where he was an American businessman. In any case, his actions, whatever they were, came to the attention of the Santiago station chief and when his resume became known to people in the Western hemisphere division he was brought in to work on Guatemalan operations.
Sturgis and [David] Morales and people of that ilk stayed in apartment houses during preparations for the big event. Their addresses were very subject to change, so that where a fellow like Morales had been one day, you'd not necessarily associated [sic] with that address the following day. In short, it was a very mobile experience.
Let me point out at this point, that if I had wanted to fictionalize what went on in Miami and elsewhere during the run up for the big event, I would have done so. But I don't want any unreality to tinge this particular story, or the information, I should say. I was a benchwarmer on it and I had a reputation for honesty.
I think it's essential to refocus on what this information that I've been providing you — and you alone, by the way — consists of. What is important in the story is that we've backtracked the chain of command up through Cord Meyer and laying [sic] the doings at the doorstep of LBJ. He, in my opinion, had an almost maniacal urge to become President. He regarded JFK, as he was in fact, an obstacle to achieving that. He could have waited for JFK to finish out his term and then undoubtedly a second term. So that would have put LBJ at the head of a long list of people who were waiting for some change in the executive branch.
Was Hunt telling the truth? The CIA's files would shed much light on that. Despite federal law to the contrary, millions of pages of documents were held back from the Assassinations Records Review Board.
Beyond question, the CIA engaged in a massive cover up in regard to the Kennedy assassination. Indeed, the CIA’s own internal investigation was subverted by the withholding of key evidence by CIA Director Richard Helms. Why?
Prof. George Blakely, the former chief of staff of the House Assassinations Committee, was long regarded by many as an easy touch for CIA explanations and evasions. Several years ago though, Blakely called for the reopening of the Kennedy assassination investigation when it was learned definitively that the CIA had lied about their support for Cuban exile group DRE, which was suspected of having a role in the assassination. Why the CIA cover up about their support for DRE?
During the House Assassinations Committee investigation, witness Anthony Venciana, a Cuban who was active in the anti-Castro effort, testified that a CIA officer with the cover name of Maurice Bishop as having met with Oswald in Dallas.
A police artist who was brought in produced a sketch that was an uncanny match for CIA officer David Atlee Phillips. Venciana later confirmed the identification after meeting Phillips again. On private information, I know for certain that Maurice Bishop was indeed Phillips’ cover name. What was his meeting with Oswald about?
We know now that contrary to prior testimony from the CIA, Oswald was monitored by the CIA’s counterintelligence section and that the CIA covered up and destroyed evidence about Oswald's trip to Mexico. Why?
These and similar questions are unlikely to ever be answered in a satisfactory manner -- which is what keeps the Kennedy assassination a matter of enduring controversy.
I agree, the fatal shot came from the front.
...OK, just “fact” checking. What are yer sources, enlighten me, for I am ignorant...
Best explanation I’ve ever heard for the assasination.
“Oswalds prints found on the rifle scope and on the boxes in the snipers nest, fact.”
Don’t forget his clipboard, which was essential to his job and was found discarded on the same floor.
Seek and ye shall find, it’s not that hard, just a little harder than making a joke that “Oswald wasn’t there” ; )
I agree, the fatal shot came from the front.
_______________
Proven wrong a million times, with forensic evidence and physics that would stand up in any courtroom, except with the O.J. jury.
There is just as much evidence against Oswald as O.J, just a lot more BS spread, imagine Johnnie Cochran times 10,000 and you have the JFK case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.