Cold Case: JFK

[Gunny]

I'm not quite sure that the new documents say what you think they say.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-...tion-documents

Horse feathers and this is why conspiracy theorists ruin it for anyone with legitimate questions.

I can tell you right now that ANY Marine that can't hit a target moving that slow from that piddly distance won't get through boot camp. Or wouldn't back then, anyway.

The forensics backs up Oswald being the lone shooter and his marksmanship from that distance was no great feat. Who, if anyone, was behind Oswald is a completely separate issue from the actual shooting. Like anything else, this is America and if more than one person was involved, someone would have stooged to sell a book by now

[revelarts]

So...
It seems like there's more evidence that the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination.
even though you wouldn't know much from the MSM.
Looks like and inside source tell Tucker Carlson that the records show the CIA was involved.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tu...on/ar-AA15l8Ew
text

Looks like recently revealed records show that the CIA met with Oswald months before the assassination.

https://www.maryferrell.org
Looks like the the grandfather of all conspiracy theories is true.
At what point are we going to admit that many (most?) "conspiracy theories" are just uncomfortable reality we don't believe yet.

I'm not quite sure that the new documents say what you think they say.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-...tion-documents

Horse feathers and this is why conspiracy theorists ruin it for anyone with legitimate questions.
I can tell you right now that ANY Marine that can't hit a target moving that slow from that piddly distance won't get through boot camp. Or wouldn't back then, anyway.
The forensics backs up Oswald being the lone shooter and his marksmanship from that distance was no great feat. Who, if anyone, was behind Oswald is a completely separate issue from the actual shooting. Like anything else, this is America and if more than one person was involved, someone would have stooged to sell a book by now

So I guess the answer to my question
"At what point are we going to admit that many (most?) "conspiracy theories" are just uncomfortable reality we don't believe yet."
is never

[fj1200]

So I guess the answer to my question
"At what point are we going to admit that many (most?) "conspiracy theories" are just uncomfortable reality we don't believe yet."
is never

That point is at least beyond the evidence that you've proffered as the smoking gun.

[revelarts]

That point is at least beyond the evidence that you've proffered as the smoking gun.

Just curious, what evidence would convince you (& @Gunny or others here) that some portion of US intel agencies, or even LBJ had a hand in the assassination of JFK?

[fj1200]

Just curious, what evidence would convince you (& @Gunny or others here) that some portion of US intel agencies, or even LBJ had a hand in the assassination of JFK?

Correct me if I'm wrong but nothing in the latest data dump has even intimated what you just alleged.

[Gunny]

So I guess the answer to my question
"At what point are we going to admit that many (most?) "conspiracy theories" are just uncomfortable reality we don't believe yet."
is never

Here's an observation for you: I have always found it amusing that I don't dismiss anything outright without further review (unless it's beyond ridiculous); which, never seems to appease either the believers or non-believers. I do believe some "inconvenient truths" labeled conspiracy theories to be true; while, allowing for others to hold their own opinions for whatever reasons.

Here's a simple fact: theories are not supported by evidence or they would be fact rather than theory. Something to bear in mind while arguing in support of a theory because there will always be the dismissive folk who say "prove it".

I have probably read, watched and/or listened to more JFK assassination "theories" than you've even heard of. The forensic/scientific explanation for the actual shooting debunks all "theories" about this shooter, that shooter, dual shooters, guy on the grassy knoll, CIA agents in the storm drain and whatnot.

I also for the purposes of this conversation have the unique (to this board) perspective of being a Marine shooter. 265 feet is 80 meters, or 88 yards. Marines START shooting, with iron sights, at 200 meters. Then we move to 300 and 500 meters. Oswald qualified in boot camp with an m-14, which match shooters fire accurately from 1000 meters with iron sights.

Oswald fired a scoped, bolt-action Carcano rifle from a rest at a target moving less than 5 mph at spitting distance. There's nothing spectacular going on here. I'd take that shot without a scope. There's just no debate. No magic anything. The facts are there.

As far the theories of who was behind Oswald, there are as many as there are assholes. Everybody's got one. Nobody knows and I feel pretty safe in saying at this point, nobody's going to.

The CIA
Cuba
Marsella (sp?) the New Orleans Mafia boss RFK had deported
Tropicante (sp?) FL mob boss
The Irish mob
The 5 Families
The KGB (Oswald did live in Russia for awhile and had a Russian wife)

Wonder which one of those "august" groups would be willing to have all Hell rain down on them by trusting a total whack job like Oswald to murder the President of the US? Every single one had way too much to lose to deal with an attention-whoring moron like Oswald. Oswald got exactly what he was after: he's (in)famous as long as the US exists.

My "theory" on that is: pending further evidence/facts, I don't know the answer. I feel no need to make one up in the absence of one. Random shit happens sometimes.

[Gunny]

Just curious, what evidence would convince you (& @Gunny or others here) that some portion of US intel agencies, or even LBJ had a hand in the assassination of JFK?

Evidence.

How many US Presidents have been assassinated, or attempts made to assassinate them, by US intel agencies or LBJ vs lone, nutcase gunmen? I'll even give you there was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln; although, I would hardly consider any of it "intelligent".

[revelarts]

Evidence.
...

what evidence?

[fj1200]

^Beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Gunny]

what evidence?

You're trying to talk in circles. The sign of a weak argument refusing to back down.

There is physical, scientific evidence that proves Oswald fired the shots, one of them killing JFK. There's no "magic bullet". When you place Connally in the jump seat he was in down to the right and in front of Kennedy, the bullets go right where they were aimed without doing monkey flips.

Oswald was in the Book Depository with the 7.6whatever, scoped Carcano rifle that numerous photos show him in possession of. There's no rocket science here. It only becomes complicated when people who can't accept the obvious for what it is start diluting the event with irrelevant crap. Quite frankly, as proven by the actual, physical facts, there was no need for all the hoopla you and others want to dress the story up with and turn it into something it never was.

As far as if there was someone behind Oswald, you'll need some hard, physical evidence that supports any such notion, which there is not. What there IS is plenty of unrelated facts people attempt to tie together with a LOT of imagination, designed to convolute or discredit the evidence that does exist.

There is no supported, factual evidence that it was anything more than what it was; which, is supported overwhelmingly by a preponderance of evidence.

I've heard a "theory" that Edwin Stanton was behind Lincoln's assassination because Lincoln was conciliatory toward the South while the North and establishment Federal government wanted the South to pay through the nose. Supporting such a "theory" is that Stanton seized control of the Federal government upon Lincoln's assassination.

Plausible. Not likely.

[revelarts]

^Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Such as?
please give me some examples of what you mean.

[fj1200]

Such as?
please give me some examples of what you mean.

You are aware that is not how it works right?

Perhaps an email to lhoswald@cia.gov. Possibly a funds wire transfer to a numbered account from AirAmerica. Or maybe a wiretap recording that captures a known CIA handler providing scheduling information about secret service details. The possibilities are endless that to narrow it down to some is quite a challenge.

What kind of evidence do you have? The not-conjecture kind.

[revelarts]

You are aware that is not how it works right?
Perhaps an email to lhoswald@cia.gov. Possibly a funds wire transfer to a numbered account from AirAmerica. Or maybe a wiretap recording that captures a known CIA handler providing scheduling information about secret service details. The possibilities are endless that to narrow it down to some is quite a challenge.
What kind of evidence do you have? The not-conjecture kind.

Ok, You and gunny have high standards. no problem.
Just wondering if you & Gunny use the same standard across the board?
Are Hillary or Bill Clinton guilty of any crimes, OJ, Michael Jackson?
I think you both are old enough to remember that Cigarette Corps and Asbestos Corps with the FDA etc claimed that smoking did NOT cause any known problems?
Did you wait for "not-conjecture kind" of "evidence" before you allowed yourself to conclude that they might be guilty?
I get the idea that the JFK "evidence" may not be UP TO your high standards but I just doubt that you used that same High standard across the board.
I just suspect there are things you guys truly believe about events that don't have half the evidence available that the JFK case has for conspiracy.

BTW even congress grudgingly and timidly concluded that JFK's assassination was a "probably" a conspiracy. after NOT allowing certain evidence to be reviewed.
But hey you guy have standards.

House Select Committee: Summary of Findings and Recommendations
"...Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy...."
https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...t/summary.html

Gunny, all due respect to you and your experience, i've heard otherwise concerning the shots Oswald supposedly took.

Kennedy Assassination: Gunny Hathcock's take
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)....
https://www.leatherneck.com/forums/s...athcock-s-take

also

From an old telegraph article 2007
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone in assassinating President John F Kennedy, according to a new study by Italian weapons experts of the type of rifle Oswald used in the shootings.
In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough....
The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.
But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds - suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day...
..

I suspect none of the above counts as "evidence" or "not conjecture" to you 2 so I post it as interesting information others might consider to draw different conclusions

[Gunny]

You are aware that is not how it works right?

Perhaps an email to lhoswald@cia.gov. Possibly a funds wire transfer to a numbered account from AirAmerica. Or maybe a wiretap recording that captures a known CIA handler providing scheduling information about secret service details. The possibilities are endless that to narrow it down to some is quite a challenge.

What kind of evidence do you have? The not-conjecture kind.

@revalarts I concur with FJ. Not how it works. You make a statement as if it is fact - you provide the evidence to support it. It is not incumbent on others to provide evidence for your whatiffery.

As fj points out, the possibilities are endless; especially, where the basis of the discussion is imagination.

[Gunny]

Ok, You and gunny have high standards. no problem.
Just wondering if you & Gunny use the same standard across the board?
Are Hillary or Bill Clinton guilty of any crimes, OJ, Michael Jackson?
I think you both are old enough to remember that Cigarette Corps and Asbestos Corps with the FDA etc claimed that smoking did NOT cause any known problems?
Did you wait for "not-conjecture kind" of "evidence" before you allowed yourself to conclude that they might be guilty?
I get the idea that the JFK "evidence" may not be UP TO your high standards but I just doubt that you used that same High standard across the board.
I just suspect there are things you guys truly believe about events that don't have half the evidence available that the JFK case has for conspiracy.

BTW even congress grudgingly and timidly concluded that JFK's assassination was a "probably" a conspiracy. after NOT allowing certain evidence to be reviewed.
But hey you guy have standards.

House Select Committee: Summary of Findings and Recommendations
"...Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy...."
https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...t/summary.html

Gunny, all due respect to you and your experience, i've heard otherwise concerning the shots Oswald supposedly took.

Kennedy Assassination: Gunny Hathcock's take
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)....
https://www.leatherneck.com/forums/s...athcock-s-take

also

I suspect none of the above counts as "evidence" or "not conjecture" to you 2 so I post it as interesting information others might consider to draw different conclusions

Carlos Hathcock passed away in 1999. Pre-current forensics technology. As stated in your own reference, they tried to recreate. Dubious.

Aren't you the one always questioning the government? That would be the premise of your argument in this thread, I do believe. But you don't question Hathcock making such a statement? If he was part of trying to recreate in Quantico, VA a shot taken in Dallas, TX, just who do you suppose was footing his bill? Quantico is home for Marine Corps Sniper School, among others. The other federal gov player in the area is the FBI. Now suddenly their word is gold? I disagree with Hatchcock's statement.

With all do respects to Gunny Hathcock, I would have zero problem having this argument with him and/or taking his ass out to the range. He'd have to prove to me he could out-shoot me, I don't give a rat's ass who he thinks he is. That's a Marine that has nothing to do with you or your argument. It STILL wouldn't support your conspiracy theory with any evidence. Just an opinion.

The ability to shoot and kill does not a detective nor forensics expert make.