Off Topic Messages

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:12 am

There was an instruction after the official congressional investigations came to their conclusions: that the matter be further investigated by the U.S. federal govt. That never happened.

rjm

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:55 pm

TJ wrote:Yes I know, because that info is in the wiki link that I included in my answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy


Please, stop. Educate yourself and then return to the discussion. Thanks.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:27 am

Found a nice image of President Kennedy today.

610809_JFK in Rose Garden.jpg
Remarks on Presenting a Trophy to the Winner of the 1960 President's Cup Regatta, Wednesday, August 9, 1961

I WANT to express my great pleasure at having an opportunity to present to the winner of last year's race, Mr. "Chuck" Thompson, who directed his boat Miss Detroit to win the President's Cup during the race here last summer, this trophy.

Mr. Thompson informed me that his average speed was around 98 miles per hour and that he had had this boat up to as high as 185 miles per hour.

I have been interested all my life in boats, and it's therefore a great personal pleasure to award this Cup to Mr. Thompson.

I think what is most impressive is the effort and courage of all those who run their boats at high speed. John Paul Jones once said, "Give me a fast boat and I'll go in harm's way." And you have a fast boat and we're very proud of you as Americans, and it's a great pleasure for me as President to present to you this Cup - and also to greet the other members of the committee who've been responsible for carrying on the tradition of this great race.

NOTE: The President presented the award to Charles ("Chuck") Thompson, Sr., at a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House.

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/publicpapers/1961/jfk317_61.html

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:35 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
TJ wrote:Yes I know, because that info is in the wiki link that I included in my answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_ ... F._Kennedy


Please, stop. Educate yourself and then return to the discussion. Thanks.


With no scientific consensus on the acoustical evidence, doesn't it make perfect sense to know what both sides have to say about it? How else do you form a conclusion that you are happy with? Even G. Robert Blakey (Chief Counsel to the HSCA) has conceded that the original conclusions on the acoustical evidence might not be correct. In 2004, he told John Simkin:

"I am less confident of the acoustical result today in light of other analyses of it. The other evidence in the plaza, however, still points to two shooters no matter how valid the acoustical study comes out in the end."

On the subject of education though, this thorough article on the acoustical evidence is interesting:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/ ... s-and.html

Dale Myers definitely falls into the non-believer category on the acoustical evidence, but he also links to Don Thomas' rebuttal of his work, so both sides can be considered.

To be clear, I do have an open mind on the possibility of a conspiracy. The lack of co-operation from the authorities on the HSCA investigation throws up more red flags for me than the acoustical evidence though. After all, there doesn't need to be a second gunman for there to be a conspiracy.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:10 am

TJ wrote:To be clear, I do have an open mind on the possibility of a conspiracy.

Hello? It's not a "possibility," according to the U.S. government it's a FACT.

Did you fail to read what I posted on page 1? Or is it easier to ignore it?

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands a re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past.

Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

- HSCA Report, p. 180

Honestly, stop nitpicking and start reading.

I have provided you a list. Learn about the massive roadblocks the HSCA faced in the 1970s, absorb expert witness testimony ignored by investigators in 1964, study the way the media covered the event at the time and after, and on and on.

If you really care, and devote yourself to the research in these publications, you will learn and your eyes will be opened.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:55 pm

mark wrote:I have had a lot of experience with the a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 i owned one at one time.
tried to do what Oswald did . Mine was just like Oswalds
Found out the rifle is a POS


And what is that ?

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:11 am

ColinB wrote:
mark wrote:I have had a lot of experience with the a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 i owned one at one time.
tried to do what Oswald did . Mine was just like Oswalds
Found out the rifle is a POS


And what is that ?
POS
Pile Of sh*t
I owned one for 13 years and i tried to get off 3 shots with 2 hits in 5.6 seconds in those 13 years i may have done it 2 or 3 times.

I was under no pressure like Oswald was

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 am

mark wrote:
ColinB wrote:
mark wrote:I have had a lot of experience with the a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 i owned one at one time.
tried to do what Oswald did . Mine was just like Oswalds
Found out the rifle is a POS


And what is that ?
POS
Pile Of sh*t
I owned one for 13 years and i tried to get off 3 shots with 2 hits in 5.6 seconds in those 13 years i may have done it 2 or 3 times.

I was under no pressure like Oswald was


Excellent point. There was an attempt, early on, to replicate what supposedly happened, and they couldn't do it.

I don't really think Oswald was under any pressure just yet; I think he was in the lunchroom. (For details, there are plenty of books.)

rjm

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:29 am

mark wrote:
ColinB wrote:
mark wrote:I have had a lot of experience with the a 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 i owned one at one time.
tried to do what Oswald did . Mine was just like Oswalds
Found out the rifle is a POS


And what is that ?
POS
Pile Of sh*t
I owned one for 13 years and i tried to get off 3 shots with 2 hits in 5.6 seconds in those 13 years i may have done it 2 or 3 times.

I was under no pressure like Oswald was


Right, thanks !

Demonstrations have 'proved' that he couldn't have gotten off all the shots in the time taken.

But I've also seen demonstrations that 'prove' he could have !

So your first-hand experience is very interesting...............

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:40 pm

I am open-minded to believe anything, but Lee Harvey Oswald's brother believes he acted alone. Doesn't mean he did, of course, but that's what I believe, too.

Until we get a name(s) of someone else proven to have been a shooter, I'll believe one man pulled a trigger.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 3:57 am

KHoots wrote:I am open-minded to believe anything, but Lee Harvey Oswald's brother believes he acted alone. Doesn't mean he did, of course, but that's what I believe, too.

Until we get a name(s) of someone else proven to have been a shooter, I'll believe one man pulled a trigger.

Spot the contradiction.

FYI: your belief is in direct contradiction to the conclusions of your own government.

Study history or the world's a mystery.
Read or bleed, people.
Learn or burn.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:15 pm

I've spent most of my life hunting,shooting and reloading.I also was a competitive shooter back when I was more involved in my hobby.People that dont really have any experience with firearms probably think the shots taken by Oswald were practically impossible to execute.That's false.The shots were not as difficult as they seem.Kennedy presented an absolutely massive target.I dont want to be morbid,but a target the size of of a human head is as big as an elephant to a person who knows their firearm and is competent with it.Their would be no problem getting off that many shots in that time frame either.I dont know if we will ever know for sure exactly what happened that day.I just feel confident that one individual could have fired those shots and struck the target with little difficulty based upon my personal experience with firearms.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:02 pm

jak wrote:I've spent most of my life hunting,shooting and reloading.
I also was a competitive shooter back when I was more involved in my hobby.
People that dont really have any experience with firearms probably think the shots taken by Oswald were practically impossible to execute.
That's false...


Again, it's fascinating to hear from someone who has practical experience of firearms.

But, of course, whether Oswald had the time or not, it doesn't prove much, as far as a conspiracy theory goes.....................

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:10 pm

ColinB wrote:
jak wrote:I've spent most of my life hunting,shooting and reloading.
I also was a competitive shooter back when I was more involved in my hobby.
People that dont really have any experience with firearms probably think the shots taken by Oswald were practically impossible to execute.
That's false...


Again, it's fascinating to hear from someone who has practical experience of firearms.

But, of course, whether Oswald had the time or not, it doesn't prove much, as far as a conspiracy theory goes.....................


Youre correct.I only say that the scenario of him killing the president from his posistion is credible.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:28 pm

Ack.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:32 pm

JFK was murdered by the CIA.

Read the Douglass book .

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:36 pm

My book list is very worthwhile, for those who care.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:12 am

Those who served with Oswald said he drew Maggie's Drawers when shooting

Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

The one on Hathcock came out several years ago.

As mentioned, no rifle test has ever included all of the factors under which Oswald would have fired. What would, therefore, constitute a valid "Oswald" rifle test? What would a test need to include in order to qualify as a genuine simulation of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? Such a test would include the following conditions:

* The riflemen cannot have scored above the level of "Sharpshooter" in the Marines (or in the Army).

* The riflemen must have little target practice during the forty days prior to the test.

* The riflemen must have been known to be somewhat uncoordinated while in the Marines (or in the Army).

* The riflemen cannot have any "practice shots" on the day of the test.

* The riflemen must use the alleged murder weapon itself, or another Carcano with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull.

* If a different Carcano is used, it must be established, by expert shooters who fire the rifle just to see how fast it can be operated (with or without minimal accuracy), that the weapon cannot be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot.

* The target silhouette must be mounted on a car.

* The car carrying the target must be the same size and shape as Kennedy's limousine.

* There must be a tree that is the same size as the oak tree in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and that is in the same position in relation to the window and the road on which the target car is moving.

* The riflemen must fire from a window that is open by no more than 15 inches.

* The window from which the riflemen shoot must have two pipes to its left on the inside. These pipes must be positioned so that they inhibit the riflemen from firing markedly to their right. To get an idea of the degree to which the pipes would have inhibited a sharply rightward shot, see Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1989, seventh photo page, and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, New York: Viking StudioBooks, 1993, p. 125; cf. Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1993, second page of second photo set.)

* The riflemen must fire from an elevation of 60 feet.

* The riflemen must score at least two hits out of three shots in less than 6 seconds ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, then they must so misaim their first shot that they COMPLETELY MISS the target car.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, not only must they completely miss the target car with their initial shot, but they must also score at least two hits out of their next two shots ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.

* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, they CANNOT deliberately miss the entire target car with their first shot (or with any shot, for that matter), but must miss the whole car without trying to do so.

* The target car must travel the same speeds that the limousine was traveling, and at the appropriate points, from frames 140-313 of the Zapruder film.

Also

The riflemen must have a shield of boxes behind them that allows them no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel and fire. (Photos of the supposed sniper's nest show that a gunman would have had no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel.)

* The riflemen must fire two of their shots in no more than 1.5 seconds. (Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a single burst from an automatic rifle.)

Also
The rifle demonstrated that that scope was badly misaligned. In fact the sight was misaligned by 6 MOA in deflection (+right) and 18 MOA in elevation (+up )
Note: MOA= at 100 yards one inch is equal to one minute of angle.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:46 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
KHoots wrote:I am open-minded to believe anything, but Lee Harvey Oswald's brother believes he acted alone. Doesn't mean he did, of course, but that's what I believe, too.

Until we get a name(s) of someone else proven to have been a shooter, I'll believe one man pulled a trigger.

Spot the contradiction.

FYI: your belief is in direct contradiction to the conclusions of your own government.

Study history or the world's a mystery.
Read or bleed, people.
Learn or burn.


There is no contradiction, Doc. We're no closer to a second name today than we were fifty years ago. If we get one tomorrow, I'll admit I was wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if we did. But I won't hold my breath waiting on that. Hence, open-minded.

Conclusions of my own government? That holds zero weight with me.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:22 am

KHoots wrote:There is no contradiction, Doc. We're no closer to a second name today than we were fifty years ago.

Do you honestly expect someone, out of the blue, 48 years after the crime, to come up with a "name"? Surely you are not that naïve.

Since you eschew the 1979 findings, from an investigation which came about because of the enormous dissatisfaction the majority of Americans had about the 1964 Warren Commission report, where do you find the temerity to express any view at all?

Unless I have missed something in your posts to date, you clearly speak from ignorance of the subject. On the other hand, I do not.

If you care about the death of President Kennedy, you'll make the effort to read even one of the books I have suggested, rather than make empty pronouncements. As should be clear, I have not bothered to engage in the parlor games of shooters, angles, rifles or general hearsay -- the truth is found in the book titles I posted. You just have to READ them.

It must be said that your comments are epidemic regarding this subject, which is very, very depressing for those of us who have gone so much deeper into the events of 11-22-1963 and its aftermath.

America has not been the same since.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:03 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
TJ wrote:To be clear, I do have an open mind on the possibility of a conspiracy.

Hello? It's not a "possibility," according to the U.S. government it's a FACT.

Did you fail to read what I posted on page 1? Or is it easier to ignore it?


I addressed a piece of evidence that in part informed the HSCA conclusions because it's an interesting discussion point. How is that ignoring it? If even Blakey has conceded that they might have got it wrong in that area, it's sensible to be cautious.

The HSCA did not publish unimpeachable, hallowed conclusions that we dare not debate. When has any Congressional Committee been infallible?

drjohncarpenter wrote:Honestly, stop nitpicking and start reading.


Seriously Doc, addressing a specific point is not nitpicking. It's called having a discussion. On the subject of reading, did you check the Myers link? If what he says is wrong, I'd be interested to know why, because it seems pretty solid stuff.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:22 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:My book list is very worthwhile, for those who care.

Is there one book in there NOT written by a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps people would like to read something from both sides and make up their own mind.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:50 am

Mister Mike wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:My book list is very worthwhile, for those who care.

Is there one book in there NOT written by a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps people would like to read something from both sides and make up their own mind.

You can read November 22, 1963 You are The Jury by David Berlin / The Death of The President William Manchester / Conspiracy of One Jim Moore/ Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery Norman Mailer / Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi. The Warren Report. All of these is the Oswald did it alone theory

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:51 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:My book list is very worthwhile, for those who care.

Can you post a link to the book i may want to get it.

Re: John F. Kennedy Would've Been 95 Today

Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:29 pm

mark wrote:You can read November 22, 1963 You are The Jury by David Berlin / The Death of The President William Manchester / Conspiracy of One Jim Moore/ Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery Norman Mailer / Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi. The Warren Report. All of these is the Oswald did it alone theory

Thanks Mark. May I add:

JFK Assassination Logic: How To Think About Claims of Conspiracy by John McAdams
The JFK Assassination Debates - Lone Gunman vs Conspiracy by Michael L. Kurtz