BBC2 whitewash of Kennedy assasination

by mkj - prefontaine-run.com Wed Apr 07, 2004 22:42 rcr1957 at aol dot com 544 camp street,neworleans,la. 212-454-9765

the shot from the front of the president over the picked fence,and the shot from the sewar hit kennedy at same time.
1.-thats why the expert from 1977 said he was shot twice,,the reaction to his head, and finnaly connely smelled gun- smoke at street level.

2.badgeman is so eveident,yet ignored.

3.-nixon&george bush were in dallas on nov.22nd,1963.so was j.edgar hoover.

4.-gearald ford should be tried for treason along with arlen spector.

george bush,,every american should vote against him.do not re-elect bush!!

by Danny - None Thu Mar 25, 2004 20:43 Druiz at aol dot com

You talk as if you're an authority. But you are not. In fact, because of the huge amount of contradictory information on the JFK assasination, I doubt whether anyone will ever have the facts. Just like the Warren Commission, it seems like a fine idea to zip up this case with your own narrow-minded conclussions. Please stop talking about all of your observations as though they are fact. One, do you think for one minute that you saw the actual original Zapruder film? Not likely. Second, can you explain the inconsistencies between the Dallas JFK body observations and the Bathesda JFK body observations? Can you explain why JFK's body left on a tarp and arrived in a body bag? I can go on and on, but I think the point is, there was so much bunglleing and misinformation during those critical times, that no one can decide whether there was a conspiracy or not. And your arrogance to simply state your conclusion as final is simply arrogance. Your comments simply address some insignificant facts about the asassination. There is so much more that that. I won't be so arrogant to say there definitely was a conspiracy, but I also won't acccept that there was not by narrow minded fools like yourself.

by rande Wed Mar 24, 2004 19:26 wakemaster2 at comcast dot net

the reason this case is bigger than all the other deaths are for one; it's unsolved many of the other deaths that you are talking about are murders in which the killer is for sure caught. Two: it's a publicized event with all the photographs and movies like the zapruder film all over the news there is now way that people can't hear about it. Three: The man who was killed was our nation's president he kept this country safe for god sake c'mon. Three: There is so much conspirity there is an erie feeling to it when you are reading it. nobody is sure if Oswald acted alone.

I respect all the men and women that you are talking about dying for this country but JFK died for this country and we need to put the rightful justice to his death

please email me with comments
mailto: wakemaster2@comcast.net

by podge Fri Nov 28, 2003 15:02

I don't like to give my address out over the internet .But if you want to meet up sometime,I live in Dublin. Along the coast somewhere would be a good idea. .Lets see if you're the real McCoy or ,as I suspect , just a deranged fantasist.

by Lone gunman Fri Nov 28, 2003 14:24

I have.Why dont you give me your address and Ill come round and demonstrate for you?
You just hold up the target.

by podge Fri Nov 28, 2003 14:18

Lonely , From reading your contributions I don't think you know very much about guns atall. Apart from fantasy, have you ever actually fired one ?

by Lone gunman Fri Nov 28, 2003 00:19

I will proably have forgotten more than you will ever learn about guns.May I suggest you go and have a good wank?Seeing that is about all you can contribute to this discussion.
Gobshite

by Podge Thu Nov 27, 2003 15:50

So there you have it ,game set and match to righteous pragmatist .Just shows how wrong you can be doesn't it lone gunman ? You should really do a bit better research before you start spouting on in the future.

by Lone gunman Thu Nov 27, 2003 13:25

Is that taken fully from the Warren report?One third of that article seems to be missing from the "european" sources of the above.Especially re the recreation of the shooting.

by podge Thu Nov 27, 2003 13:04

Righteous pragmatist , Why don't you show a little respect to lone gunman ,can't you tell he's trying to make overtures towards you ? He'd obviously like to get in wih you so you can share fantasies together.Go on give him a chance he's lonely.

by Righteous Pragmatist Thu Nov 27, 2003 10:46

The following is from the Warren Commission Report which you must ACTUALLY READ before you can pull it apart.
I read this monstrous 888 page blockbuster and it certainly convince me:
This is the excert which clinches it from Chapter IV:

Oswald's Rifle Capability
In deciding whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally, the Commission considered whether Oswald, using his own rifle, possessed the capability to hit his target with two out of three shots under the conditions described in chapter Ill. The Commission evaluated (1) the nature of the shots, (2) Oswald's Marine training in marksmanship, (8) his experience and practice after leaving the Marine Corps, and (4) the accuracy of the weapon and the quality of the ammunition.
The Nature of the Shots
For a rifleman situated on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building the shots were at a slow-moving target proceeding on a downgrade in virtually a straight line with the alignment of the assassin's rifle, at a range of 177 to 266 feet. An aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza shows that Elm Street runs at an angle so that the President would have been moving in an almost straight line away from the assassin's rifle. (See Commission Exhibit No. 876, p. 33.) In addition, the 3 downward slope of Elm Street was of assistance in eliminating at least some of the adjustment which is ordinarily required when a marksman must raise his rifle as a target moves farther away.
Four marksmanship experts testified before the Commission. Maj. Eugene D. Anderson, assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch of the US. Marine Corps, testified that the shots which struck the President in the neck and in the head were "not ... particularly difficult." Robert A. Frazier, FBI expert in firearms identification and training, said:

From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.

Ronald Simmons, chief of the US. Army Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory, said: "Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes." The effect of a four-power telescopic sight on the difficulty of these shots was considered in detail by M. Sgt. James A. Zahm, noncommissioned officer in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion of the Marine Corps School at Quantico, Va. Referring to a rifle with a four-power telescope, Sergeant Zahm said:

...this is the ideal type of weapon for moving targets...
...Using the scope, rapidly working a bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify it and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze.
I consider it a real advantage, particularly at the range of 100 yards, in identifying your target. It. allows you to see your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements. It just is an aid in seeing in the fact that you only have the one element, the crosshair, in relation to the target as opposed to iron sights with aligning the sights and then aligning them on the target.

Characterizing the four-power scope as "a real aid, an extreme aid" in rapid fire shooting, Sergeant Zahm expressed the opinion that the shot which struck President Kennedy in the neck at 176.9 to 190.8 feet was "very easy" and the shot which struck the President in the head at a distance of 265.3 feet was "an easy shot." After viewing photographs depicting the alignment of Elm Street in relation to the Texas School Book Depository Building, Zahm stated further:

This is a definite advantage to the shooter, the vehicle moving directly away from him and the downgrade of the street, and he being in an elevated position made an almost stationary target while he was aiming in, very little movement if any.

Oswald's Marine Training
In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in The .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.
Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksmansharp-shooterexpert. In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters US. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot" and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." When asked to explain the different scores achieved by Oswald on the two occasions when he fired for record, Major Anderson said:

...when he fired that [212] he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the riflewindy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because [he] may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage.

Major Anderson concluded:

I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal tobetter than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:

Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded:

I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

Oswald's Rifle Practice Outside the Marines
During one of his leaves from the Marines, Oswald hunted with his brother Robert, using a .22 caliber bolt-action rifle belonging either to Robert or Robert's in-laws. After he left the Marines and before departing for Russia, Oswald, his brother, and a third companion went hunting for squirrels and rabbits. On that occasion Oswald again used a bolt-action .22 caliber rifle; and according to Robert, Lee Oswald exhibited an average amount of proficiency with that weapon. While in Russia, Oswald obtained a hunting license, joined a hunting club and went hunting about six times, as discussed more fully in chapter VI. Soon after Oswald returned from the Soviet Union he again went hunting with his brother, Robert, and used a borrowed .22 caliber bolt-action rifle. After Oswald purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, he told his wife that he practiced with it. Marina Oswald testified that on one occasion she saw him take the rifle, concealed in a raincoat, from the house on Neely Street. Oswald told her he was going to practice with it. According to George De Mohrenschildt, Oswald said that he went target shooting with that rifle.
Marina Oswald testified that in New Orleans in May of 1963, she observed Oswald sitting with the rifle on their screened porch at night, sighting with the telescopic lens and operating the bolt. Examination of the cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building established that they had been previously loaded and ejected from the assassination rifle, which would indicate that Oswald practiced operating the bolt.

Accuracy of Weapon
It will be recalled from the discussion in chapter III that the assassin in all probability hit two out of the three shots during the maximum time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds if the second shot missed, or, if either the first or third shots missed, the assassin fired the three shots during a minimum time span of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. A series of tests were performed to determine whether the weapon and ammunition used in the assassination were capable of firing the shots which were fired by the assassin on November 22, 1968. The ammunition used by the assassin was manufactured by Western Cartridge Co. of East Alton, III. In tests with the Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle, over 100 rounds of this ammunition were fired by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the US. Army. There were no misfires.
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a tower at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette. Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75, and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45, and 7 seconds. None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had not even pulled the trigger because of concern about breaking the firing pin.

The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot by several inches. The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and required a movement in the basic firing position of the marksmen. This angle was used in the test because the majority of the eyewitnesses to the assassination stated that there was a shorter interval between shots two and three than between shots one and two. As has been shown in chapter III, if the three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.

Five of the six shots hit the third target where the angle of movement of the weapon was small. On the basis of these results, Simmons testified that in his opinion the probability of hitting the targets at the relatively short range at which they were hit was very high. Considering the various probabilities which may have prevailed during the actual assassination, the highest level of firing performance which would have been required of the assassin and the C2766 rifle would have been to fire three times and hit the target twice within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. In fact, one of the firers in the rapid fire test in firing his two series of three shots, hit the target twice within a span of 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. The others would have been able to reduce their times if they had been given the opportunity to become familiar with the movement of the bolt and the trigger pull. Simmons testified that familiarity with the bolt could be achieved in dry practice and, as has been indicated above, Oswald engaged in such practice. If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots. All three of the firers in these tests were able to fire the rounds within the time period which would have been available to the assassin under those conditions. Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4 seconds. At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime. The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively. Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it. Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired. Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current. military rifles. Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.

Conclusion
The various tests showed that the Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing. Oswald's Marine training in marksmanship, his other rifle experience and his established familiarity with this particular weapon show that he possessed ample capability to commit the assassination. Based on the known facts of the assassination, the Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds. Concerning the shots which struck the President in the back of the neck, Sergeant Zahm testified: "With the equipment he [Oswald] had and with his ability I consider it a very easy shot." Having fired this slot the assassin was then required to hit the target one more time within a space of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. On the basis of Oswald's training and the accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded that Oswald was capable of accomplishing this second hit even if there was an intervening shot which missed. The probability of hitting the President a second time would have been markedly increased if, in fact, he had missed either the first or third shots thereby leaving a time span of 4.8 to 5.6' seconds between the two shots which struck their mark. The Commission agrees with the testimony of Marine marksmanship expert Zahm that it was easy shot" to hit some part of the President's body, and that the range where the rifleman would be expected to hit would include the President's head.

by Lone Gunman Wed Nov 26, 2003 23:20

I belive your bother Rodge is looking for you back in Ballydung.May I suggest you retire there to a good brother/brother buttfuk love session and let me and Righteous conduct a relatively informed discussion?

Sorry Rightous the 223 it FRAGMENTS in 90% of the cases with military ball [SS109]ammo.Suggest you look up God know alone how much test reports from the US DOD US Army on this matter.The only round that "tumbles" within a body mass is the AK74 round,simply because it is a FMJ with a tip that is hollow which bends or deforms in the body.Russia taking and bending the Hauge convention abit.Irrelavant really as it only appered in 1974[?]
Yes the principle of marksmanship is the same on any rifle.BUT My point is that you would be more inclined to use somthing that you are trained with rather than a totally strange weapon.IE the M14. if the Mob was involved[highly unlikely].They would have supplied anything Oswold wanted without ANY paperwork.Nor would they be inclined to use such an idiot either.
Also if you bumped the POTUS with a mysterious plane crash or "food poisioning"there is more chance of somone in the future digging up the body for an autopsy or developing the technology to go deep sea diving to find the wreckage. [ala Bob Ballard or Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer.]The technology was there in the Sixties already.
Shoot him,it is pretty obvious,cause of death.Even if it is abit odd regarding the ballistics etc.

So to conclude it seems Oswold was a very lucky guy? [Hinkley was more lucky and had a better chance on Regan.Apart from using another shit gun for his hit.]

The secret service is all over the place on the day,and I dont mean it in a competant fashion.[The Dallas assination is used BTW around the world in BG schools inc FBI as an example of NOT WHAT TO DO!]

Oswold picks the most obvious position for a sniper, which would have been checked if the SS had been doing its job properly.
Discounting the theory that the easiest is the best.
Even if he was the worst shot he should have been able to take the shot out with the 4 power scope to 600plus yards[that is BTW the average scope on a lowly.22 rifle,accurate out to 400 yrds and can kill in the right hands as well.]

He is the most attention getting hitman in the history of assination.What with him running back and forward to the Russians,the pro Castro groups etc.

COULD YOU DO THE SHOT? On a moving accelerating target??in the time span ,with the equipment,etc?if it is so EASY as you claim.Why could the USMC and FBI snipers and the top NRA Match shooters,who shoot on average out past 800yrds not REPLICATE the shot pattern. EVEN TODAY !!I WOULD be intrested on your thoughts on this????

by podge Wed Nov 26, 2003 15:43

It's a good laugh the way Lone Gunman has begun to lick up to Righteous Pragmatist on this thread .He'd obviously like to join forces with a fellow nutcase against the lefties of indymedia but Righteous Pragmatist is staying aloof.

by Terry Wed Nov 26, 2003 15:40

Micheal Ruppert of 'From the Wilderness' website fame has written an interesting article titled:
The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11
which can be found at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html

In it, he refers to the destruction of physical evidence, similar to what has happened in the 9/11 case and indeed, although he doesn't mention, on the Oklahoma bomb.

For example he says:
'Having known several of the great RFK researchers like Jonn Christian, Bill Turner, Jim Di Eugenio and Lisa Pease, as well as the brother of RFK's alleged assassin Sirhan Sirhan, and Sirhan's lawyer, Robert Teeter, I still shudder inside when I think of the fact that it was absolutely proved that more than one gun was fired on the evening of June 5, 1968. The proof of that is as irrefutable as JFK's front-to-back motion. It consisted of photographs and sworn statements by eyewitnesses, LAPD and FBI personnel that there were bullet holes all over the place, many more than could be explained by Sirhan's eight-shot .22 revolver. Wounds in the various victims accounted for at least six shots alone.
What happened when the LAPD - the primary investigative agency in the assassination -- couldn't make the number of bullet holes and wounds match Sirhan's gun? They simply destroyed the evidence by removing and incinerating all the wood framing and tiles. (Special thanks to Christian, Turner and Probe Magazine for decades of diligent - if fruitless - work, as measured in terms of changing the political system.)

9/11 physical evidence advocates will scream, "Hey, that's what they did with the debris from the World Trade Center! They took away all the evidence and destroyed it."

That's right. That's exactly what they did'

by Righteous Pragmatist Wed Nov 26, 2003 12:30

I never said the Armalite 5.56mm bullet tumbles through the air before it hits its target!
I wrote that when it stikes the human body it begins to tumble.
I never said Oswald was trained with a bolt action rifle when he was in the USMC. He would have been trained on the principle that they eye most be level with the rear sight, the foresight and the target! Even if he had never used a bolt action in his life before he shot Kennedy that principle would have made him capable of aiming the weapon.
Yes the Mannlicher Carcano was a lousy rifle but as i said before and i say again the distance to the target was a maximum of 88 yards and with a four power scope reduced effectively to 22 yards. A poor rifle or a high accurate sniper rifle, poor weapons training or excellent sniper training , the Shot was EASY!
Maybe that fact that Oswald used a Mannlicher Carcano he bought through mail order shows he was too inept to have been a spook let alone an employee of the Mafia.
Why the hell would you recruit such an idiot to kill the President?
If i was high ranking member of the U.S. government conspiraring to kill the President of the United States surely I would come up a better plan with no "comebacks"?
Couldn't they have sabotaged Air Force One to make it look like engine failure caused a plane crash? Even better have the plane disappear over the Mid-Atlantic with no prospect of finding wreckage?
Poison in Kennedy's food or have his doctor prescribe "pain killers" ?
Why recruit a feckless moron or have an onvious "picket fence shooter"? Hundreds of people had to have been involved so how come none of them talked? Orders? Bullshit.
Oswald did it! He was a lone nut who got lucky!

by Lone gunman Tue Nov 25, 2003 22:22

FINALLY...somone around here who seems to know what he is talking about! Just one pointer the" tumbling "223 M16 round. It is a complete MYTH.if the round tumbled on its way or keyholed into its target it would be a totally inaccurate round, If you want to check this out read the book The Black Rifle,a history of the M16. BTW I own one of the civvie versions of the 16[AR15]. [Not unfortuneatly in gun controlled Ireland.] I have NEVER seen a keyhole or tumbler in either 15 or 16 after using it in military service as well.The round fragments in the target.
Yes I did pick up your point about Stone and Nam. However it was revelant to Oswold, if he was such a sooper spook, I am sure the powers that be would have equipped him with somthing better than somthing that was desinged in the thirties in Italy and was obsolete before it was even issued. I meant the design of the rifle as a clunker not Oswolds personal weapon.Ask on the shooting boards what folk think of the design".Turn the bolt ,jam the rifle."Worst design since the petersen rifle ",No saftey, no accuracy,no nothing"etc.
So why use such a piece of junk when you could have aquired with little or no hassle a more accurate and reliable,and proably more anymonus deer rifle,which was possible pre GCA 68 in the USA.

Oswold definately was the worst shot of the company,meaning as you said he made passing grade.
But it still does not answer ,why THE BEST[USMC snipers] cant or could not replicate the shots with the same rifle?
Also it is very unlikely that he would have used in service a bolt action
[.Last bolt action issued was the Springfield 3006issued in early ww2.]
UNLESS he was a USMC sniper,then he would have used a Winchester 70 cal 308.
Makes sense what you say about the enterance /exit wound.
From the damage I would have tipped on a hunting round or a dum dum. It never was clear as to what kind of ammo he was using.FMj is specifaclly desinged to be used in military ammo.must be so under the Hauge convention,which also prohibits dum dum or any ammo desinged to create unnecessary suffering.

Anyway he is dead,[sadly,I would have preferred him to Klintoon[a second rate copy] anyday]there is so much BS,truth,lies,half truths,flying around that the myth and the conspircy theories are now self perpetuating for evermore. I reckon if you look hard enough you will see Elvis in frame 248 up on the grassy knoll with a pulling somthing out of a guitar case! :]
BTW are you one of uncle Sams wayward children?If you are ,you know what I mean.

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue Nov 25, 2003 13:57

Kennedy called the Soviets bluff over Cuba.
They had been developing a huge arsenal of nukes to terrorise the freeworld and the USA stepped up their own weapons development to see the threat of Communism off.
When the Russkies tried to put short range nukes within range of the East Coast, Kennedy had to act. Through brass neck he sent the Russians scurrying.
The Russians were relentless in trying to establish a world Soviet dictatorship.
They were trying to build up their forces in Eastern Europe so they could finish the conquest of Europe they began in 1945. Kennedy built up U.S. forces in Europe to keep us free and he prevented West Berlin from being invaded.
Vietnam and other wars were where the Cold War was won. Russia was exhausted by having to fight regional conflicts against U.S. forces and right wing proxies the U.s. supported around the world and at the same time continue the race to the moon and establish space stations and maintain the nuclear and military race.
The result of Vietnam was horrifying but far more horrifying would have been full scale worldwide nuclear conflict. Better that regional wars decided the conflict tragically resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people between the USA and USSR than World War 3 which would have resulted in Billions of deaths.
Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr. , Clinton and Bush Jnr. have all establish democratic liberal capitalism as the strongest force in the world today seeing off Nazism, Communism and Islamic Fundementalism into the dust bin of history.
Kennedy was 24 carat gold hero and he was shot dead by a weedy little gobshite coward named Lee Harvey Oswald.
Of course the Left can't admit that!
Oswald was just a "patsy"!
Just as Osam Bin Laden is supposedly the "hero of the Arab world".
My Arse!

by james Tue Nov 25, 2003 13:32

Kennedy carried on Eisenhowers campaign in Vietnam to thwart democracy there. He maintained the genocide of over 1.5 million peasant men women and children in one of the poorest most oppressed countries on the planet. It was a small pay back that this murderer got a violent death himself. He was a monster, lets face it, so what that he was of "oirish" descent.

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:05

.No I never said Oswald used a M16 rifle while he was in the Marines.
He indeed would have used the M14 or M1 on the rifle range. But experience in aiming a rifle translates into ability to use any weapon once you recognise the principle that the eye should line up with the rear sight, the barrel sight and the target.
If you would go back and read my comment again you will see I said Oliver Stone would have used a M16 rifle when he was in the military and posted in Vietnam.
You are right that the shots which killed Kennedy could have been shot in the time span with a M1, M14 or M16 because they are semi-automatic or automatic weapons.
But so too with a bolt action 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano and the fragments and intact bullet that were found could only have originated from a 6.5mm bullet not a 5.56mm bullet or a .30 calibre bullet.
The .223 bullet (5.56mm) bullet is actually designed to tumble when it strikes the human body causing a small entrance wound, massive internal injuries and a large exit wound.
The 5.56mm , the .30 calibre and the 6.5mm bullet ALL have metal jackets with a lead core.
Yes , a bullet does have the power to go through two men particularly if during its passage through the first man it does not hit solid bone. The “magic” bullet passed to the right of Kennedy’s spinal column as it hit him the right side of the back of the neck and exited below his larynx at the base of his windpipe( it passed through flesh like a hot kife through butter). It ONLY struck bone when it passed through Connally’s body shattering his fifth rib as it exited his chest below the right nipple and smashed the radius bone of his right wrist.
The bullet which hit Kennedy WAS recovered but NOT intact.
It punched through the bone at the crown of Kennedy’s skull as it met straight on but struck the underside of the frontal top right area of the skull at a lateral ( sideways) angle within the cranium causing it to shatter into pieces creating the massive exit wound in the President’s head. Slivers of lead are clearly visible distributed around the inside of Kennedy’s head in the X-rays from the autopsy.
Several pieces were found on the front seat of the limousine and the chrome frame of the windshield and the inside of the windshield were marked by fragments.
About the head wound visible in the autopsy pictures?
You are clearly mistaken. There is a small entrance wound in the back of the skull but the exit wound is to the top right of the head. The autopsy pictures show this and the zapruder film clearly shows this.
The head snapped backward because of a “jet” effect. Imagine the nozzle of a rocket booster. As hot gasses are expelled the rocket is propelled in the opposite direction.
When Kennedy was hit in the head from behind his head was actually shoved forward and as the top of his head exploded the force threw his head backward.
The Mannlicher Carcano rifle was not an old clunker. It was made in 1940 but it had been oiled and cleaned and well maintained so it could still fire in working order.
It does take a lot of time to practice fast accurate shooting with a bolt action rifle.
But Oswald was a trained Marine. At that time in the late 1950’s when he would have gone through boot camp the US Marine Corp had the best rifle instruction in the world. It is mandatory that a Marine be an expert rifleman otherwise he flunks his training. Oswald simply would not have become a Marine unless he became a good shot even though he was the worst in his Company.
But shooting at a slow moving target at 88 yards with a four power scope would be an easy shot by anyone with even rudamentary experience with a rifle.
Oswald could have done it and did do it!
There was no conspiracy.
A sad bitter lonely man took out his inadequacies on society by killing the President.

by lone gunman Mon Nov 24, 2003 22:25

Oswold would hardly have used an m16.It had just arrived in Nam in 1964 as a state of the art rifle.It became general issue about 1965. Oswold would have been more fammiliar with a M14 or a 30.06 M1A Garand or 30 cal M1 carbine.Any of the shots in the time space allocated could have been done with the last three.Also the .223 round is more likely to break up on impact due to its lightness and high veloicity.Thus giving the myth that it "tumbles". Also the 6.5 cracano is a military round also known as a Full Metal Jacket.So it would deform more than a hunting round.But would it have the power to go thru two men? Questionable.Also why was the round that killed Kennedy with the head shot,never recoverd?It should have survived.BTW the autopsy pics definately show a rear head wound,exemplary of a massive gunshot exit wound.Also in the zapruder film it shows the exit "blood cloud,"for want of a better word to the rear of Kennedys head.Also the body movement suggests a forward head shot. It is very unusual that somone would use such an old clunker of a rifle.Also it takes a hell of a lot of practise to be able to get up that sort of time with a bolt action,especially that model.Why then could the best marine snipers[ala Gunny Hathcock who had 93 confirmed kills in Nam]not replicate the kill pattern?
Not critizeing,just questioning.

by jp Mon Nov 24, 2003 21:26

The documentary also failed to explain why Kennedy returned to sitting nearly upright after being shot for the first time. Shortly before his murder, he sustained a groin injury while chasing women around a pool. The injury required Kennedy to wear a brace that would keep him upright, which he was wearing when he was shot. This brought his body back into an upright position after just being shot.

by a sheep Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:50

A trial ballon has just been floated

Franks - A WMD Attack On US Will End The Constitution

by random input Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:46

I watched a programe on RTE JFK: Breaking the News, which was about the journalism ascpect of the affair.

But what I found interesting were the interviews with Oswald. Does he really look like someone who has just assassinated the _most_powerful_man_in_the_world? Bear in mind this was only hours after the assassination had taken place. He looks confused, a little scared (who wouldn't be) - but unless he was a fantastic actor then I don't think he could have pulled that off.

by Righteous pragmatist Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:21

Oswald owned the Mannlicher Carcano rifle he bought through mail order under the pseudonym "Alek Hidell". The brown paper package containing "curtain rods" he took to work was discovered to be ideal for packing the broken down components of the rifle and besides his rented room already had a curtain rail.
He also owned the .38 handgun used to kill a Dallas police officer after the assassination while he tried to escape through the Dallas suburbs because it was found on him when he was arrested at the Texas Theatre cinema after he drew it while trying to shoot one of the arresting officers.
Oswald was last seen on the sxth floor of the Book Depository by the workmen who were gong to get lunch and watch the motorcade pass by. He told them to send the elevator back up (presumably to prevent the police using it as Officer Baker found late when he had to use the stairs).
The boxes had been piled up to form a concealed position in the sixth floor corner window which had a panoramic view of Dealey plaza.
Oswald could watch the car approach along Houston and then turn beneath him and pass downhill along Elm through the plaza before the railroad underpass and onto Stemmons freeway. He had a clear shot except for a protruding branch of an oak tree which obscured his view momentarily as he tracked the moving limousine.
The rifle was a bolt action weapon. Lift the bolt handle draw it back, push it forward and slap it down like the bolt of a door. this operation took 2.3 secs to preform.
2.3 X 3 = 6.9 secs. So impossible to shoot in 5.6secs?
However if there was a bullet in the breech before aiming to fire at Kennedy he would only be required to use the bolt twice.
So 2.3 X 2 = 4.6 secs the minimum necessary to fire shots.
5.6 secs was time between Kennedy hit in neck and then hit in head giving enough time to fire shots.
The maximum distance bullet were fired was 88 yards which is an easy shot for a man trained as mandatory by the Marines to hit a target beyond 100 metres without a scope on his rifle.
With the four power scope the distance to the target is visually lowered to 22 yards.
Even a man with no weapon skills who simply has to understand that he places his crosshairs over the target in order to hit it could have killed Kennedy at this distance.
Oswald was in the sixth floor window at the time of the shooting and could have preformed the assassination.
Kennedy was hit in the back of the neck to right of the spine and the exit wound was to base of the throat nicking the knot of his tie.This trajectory suggests a shot from above and behind.
Connally seated forward of Kennedy occupied a collapsible jumpseat which was more toward the centre of the car and lower to the floor than the raised backseat. He was also turned around to his right after reacting to a shot he testified to the Warren Commision he heard over his right shoulder when he was hit at the rear of his right armpit.
A bullet despite what Oliver Stone says can in fact retain its shape and spin through the air causing several wound to two men seated together in car. The 6.5mm round was a longer round more stable in flight had a higher velocity and less prone to distortion on impact than the 5.56mm bullet used in the M16 rifle that Stone would have used in combat in Vietnam.
The position of Kennedy and Connally when the bullet hit them and the position of their wounds relative to the presumed straight line trajectory of a typical bullet suggests the bullet did not zig zag as claimed in the movie JFK but actually but continued a linear trajectory until it struck Connally in the right wrist holding his stetson in his lap and deviated ever so slightly to strike his left leg.
The fatal shot which hit Kennedy struck on the top of the back of the skull and exited through the top front right of his head above the right temple creating the massive exit wound to the head. The head wound was not to the back of the head but to the front of the skull.
The trajectories of the bullet and the fragment which struck James Tague as he stood on Commerce street down range from the Book Depository and the fragments which dented the chrome windshield frame and cracked the glass of the windshield itself suggest the shots came from above and behind ( from the School Book Depository).
The bullet removed from Connally bore the marks of the barrel of the Mannlicher Carcano owned by Oswald.
Case closed!

by Terry Mon Nov 24, 2003 17:04

I don't think any of this was mentioned.

'So before we take up this question of "why America slept," let's dwell for a moment on "failure," the mighty, little word that has done so much dutiful service in American newspapers. Just as it was ten years ago, it's the key word of Posner's explanatory paradigm.[2] Oswald did the shooting; Oswald got lucky; Dallas was a failure of security. When Secret Service agents drank themselves into a stupor until 3 a.m. the night before the Dallas motorcade; when they let open windows go unwatched all over the Plaza; when they permitted the relatively safe motorcade route to be changed to an absolutely dangerous one; when Emory Roberts ordered agent Rybka off his post on the President's limousine at Love Field; when agent Kellerman turned around in the front seat and passively watched the President, already wounded in the throat and the back, sit upright until his head exploded; and when agent Greer slowed the limousine down to a stop until the fatal shot was over - in short, when the most highly-trained professional executive protection unit in the world suffered a total collapse of the standard operating procedures which they had followed to the letter on every previous stop along the Texas trip - all of that was a failure. It's a damn shame, you see. A sorry episode of darned incompetence; spilt milk.[3]'

Taken from http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112203_failure_crime.html

by bootlegger Mon Nov 24, 2003 13:26

Check out this interesting article on the Kennedy assination from the website of a socialist grouplet in the US

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/jfk-n22.shtml

by io Mon Nov 24, 2003 13:23

well concerted ¿eh? The La Vanguardia led with the notion that LBJ believed that the USSR had launched a massive attack, and didn't expect to get back to the White House.

now what about Diana?

by Lone gunman Mon Nov 24, 2003 13:21

It doesnt add up on the lone gunman theory.
[1] the rifle & scope [mannlicher cracano] Oswold used was absolute crap.The best snipers in the world the USMC snipers could not replicate the shots in the time given to the assination.
[2] Oswold was the worst shot in his marine corps company.
[3] It is true from the film JFK .The location of his snipers perch was the worst location in the entire area for a good shot.
Somone asked wether there is a bullet that explodes when it hits you.Yes so called Dum Dum round.Or a common deer hunting bullet.very illegal to use in warfare.preferred bullett of assinations

Conspircy theory to keep us dumbed down RE 9/11?
Pretty pathetic attempt.The JFK "industry" keeps everyone guessing as to what happened due to theories,false info,etc etc.At this stage you could "prove" that Elvis shot JFK.Exactly the same with 9/11.there is so much crap and truth intermingled at this stage it is almost impossible to figure out truth from fiction.

by Terry Mon Nov 24, 2003 13:05

Clearly last week being the anniversary, it was natural to have such a program on last night.

I think they fairly well dismissed the conspiracy theories but as people pointed out here, they didn't follow up too much on stuff about Oswald and special operations, Ruby, the standing down of security and other stuff. Nor do they mention the fruits of the assisnation, which was the the escalation of the Vietnam War and the massive amount of money that flowed to the military-industrial complex as a result.

Maybe Oswald really did hit him. Afterall in the documentary, in the clip where he was interviewed by reporters he says: 'I was just a patsy'

I feel the real role of the program last night was basically this: There was no conspiracy with Kennedy. It was just a lone gun-man. We are being honest here. Look at the evidence. See for yourself.

And the not very well hidden but implicit message is: Look 9/11 was just a bunch of Arab terrorists. They hate our freedoms. There is no conspiracy and all this stuff you are hearing now about conspiracies and what they knew about 9/11 is just bogus. Look the same was true for Kennedy. There was loads of conspiracy theories and we have just proved (tonight) for once and for all, there was nothing sinister. So relax and leave it to us and let us get on with the War of Terror. All those protesters are just misguided.

By the way the program was also on at the same time as the 1st part of the 3 part series Reporters at War documentary on Discovery.
Details at: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62284

by Documentary Fan. Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:51

is it still relevant whether or not Diana was pregnant?
is it still relevant if Hitler really had one ball?
is is still relevant the assistance afforded Mengele and Borman by Western Governments in the immediate aftermath of WW2?
is it still relevant whether or not Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD?
Is it still relevant that Bush's brother was governer of the state where the votes were recounted and indeed cough cough owned a substantial controlling share in the company that counted the chads?
Is it still relevant whether or not the Apollo Moonlanding was faked?
Is still relevant whether or not the Spanish Royal Family had forewarning of the attempted coup d'etat of February 23 1981?
Is it still relevant whether or not the British Government lied and falsified effluent data and safety records at THORP/Windscale/Sellafield?
I could go on...
maybe someone will %-)

by io Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:39

The time frame of the shots in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been in question for over 30 years. Some claim that the time span from the first to the last shot was 5.6 seconds, while others have argued at least 8 and possibly as much as 10 seconds. The following offers some very interesting relationships between various evidence of shots fired.
The 5.6 second time frame is supported by the Zapruder film. If the generally accepted headshot at frame 313 is assumed to be the final shot of the 3 allowed by the Warren Commission, then 5.6 seconds earlier places the first shot at frame 210 considering that the camera was operating at 18.3 frames per second, as determined by the FBI. At that time, the President is hidden behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, but as he emerges he can be seen to have recently been wounded making frame 210 a reasonable candidate for the wounding shot. This tight timing window requires that the second shot was fired within a frame or two of frame 262. Since there is no evidence on the Z-film of a bullet strike at this time, this shot would have to be allocated tothe wounding of James Tague as he stood outside his car on Main Street just east of the Triple Underpass.

[from: http://rhepler.freeyellow.com/shottime.htm ]
I used frame Z150 a lot, always with the caption "Z150 asks is it still relevant whether or not Oswald or the Military Industrial Complex killed JFK?".
Last time I posted it was last week, on various UK sites, so I think it's sort of sweet that unty Beeb thinks it's still relevant.
Thank you Aunty Beeb!
you rot our brains with your documentaries and propaganda. So my next request:


Is it still relevant whether or not the Paratroopers shot to kill on Bloody Sunday?

by Sean Mon Nov 24, 2003 11:17

I'm not sure why people like to become so involved with this issue. In the last 40 years, there have been more Americans killed by handguns fired by other American citizens, than American soldiers killed in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, and all other military actions since WW1.
Why give this one murder so much attention? The only difference is that Kennedy was a part of the elite section of society, and so it's given attention. Why not discuss all of those other murders?
As far as all of the conspiracies go, I think they are much easier for Americans to accept than what actually happened. One lone Communist murdered the American president. Accepting that would be too much.

by Ciaran Mon Nov 24, 2003 09:38

But i remember reading something about bullets and some bullets enter the " body " and explode after impact.
I know i am not explaining this well.
Maybe this caused the front of his head to explode if u know what i mean.


I seen last night prog. and what was weird was they way the old guy showed how he could hit off 3 rounds in 7.2 seconds.

What it didn't show was that he would have to re-aim after every shot so making it near impossible to have done the 3 shots in 8 seconds.

Maybe i am wrong but i wasn't convinced still last night.

Ciaran

by pol notnice Mon Nov 24, 2003 02:10

i taped the programme tonight and just watched the part with kennedy getting his head blown off a few minutes ago. maybe i'm wrong, but it really looked to me like he got the front of his head got blown off. as for ruby having cancer, so what, lot's of old men have it. i've said it before but please if you are quoting facts please state where you are getting them from. i really want to find out the truth on this one because i'm an oliver stone fan and a massive bill hicks fan, but i've a sneaking suspicion that they're both wrong.

by Caspian Mon Nov 24, 2003 01:39

I saw the BBC whitewash tonight too. It is so obvious that bullets were flying in from all angles. That horrific shot that hit Kennedy in the front of his head blew his brains out of the back of his head. How could anyone deny that?
They also failed to mention that Jack Ruby was dying of cancer so had nothing to lose. The big question is ...why now? Why are the authorities denouncing the conspiracy theories in this way? Are they worried we might find out about the controlled demolition in New York a couple of years ago? Are they planning another big one soon? The bombs in Turkey were just to keep the pot boiling on the so-called war on terror.

by pol hardnice Mon Nov 24, 2003 00:25

all i know about the kennedy assasignation is what was in the oliver stone film, and it really looks like he's told me a great big fucking lie. i don't know anything about the back of the presidents scalp being blown off, but the bbc generally do a pretty good job on documentaries. i know the beeb are shite at covering things like the war but they are usually do this type of thing well. all the information seems to have convinced me that i've been wrong about this for years. i'm really in disbelief. anybody that uses any facts in this tread should give links or at least references to a book they've read on the subject. i've a feeling that i've been swallowing bullshit all my life