508 replies to this topic

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

Sure, but is that really any kind of standard to consider someone a possible assassin in this case?

Of course not. The poster I was speaking to said Oswald was "truly a terrible shot", and I presented evidence to the contrary. That's all.

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

There is evidence which seems to indicate Oswald was not at the window at the time of the shooting:

From what I'm reading here - no one could account for Oswald's whereabouts after 12:00. But shots were fired at 12:30. I don't find the fact he was calling out for the elevator to go down at 11:45 from the fifth floor to be terribly unusual. I would imagine he would want to create an alibi for himself.

[IamsSon]

TK0001, on 03 November 2010 - 06:23 PM, said:

Of course not. The poster I was speaking to said Oswald was "truly a terrible shot", and I presented evidence to the contrary. That's all.

For a sniper he was a truly "terrible shot."  That's why I said that using an average civilian is not a good standard.  We're talking about someone who hit a moving target several times; even a trained sniper would struggle under those circumstances.

Quote

From what I'm reading here - no one could account for Oswald's whereabouts after 12:00. But shots were fired at 12:30. I don't find the fact he was calling out for the elevator to go down at 11:45 from the fifth floor to be terribly unusual. I would imagine he would want to create an alibi for himself.

Quote

Bill Shelley was part of the floor-laying crew that left the sixth  floor around 11:45.  He testified  unambiguously that after coming down  for lunch he saw Oswald on the first floor near the telephones  (7H390).   Mention of this fact is entirely absent from the Report.

Piper echoed the information he had recorded in an affidavit for the  Dallas Police on November 23, 1963, namely, that he saw and spoke with  Oswald on the first floor at 12:00  noon (6H383;  l9H499).  

Additionally, there is the testimony from the first police officer at the book depository which puts Oswald at the lunch room in the second floor less than two minutes after the last shot was fired.  Source

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

For a sniper he was a truly "terrible shot."  That's why I said that using an average civilian is not a good standard.  We're talking about someone who hit a moving target several times; even a trained sniper would struggle under those circumstances.

I really don't believe Oswald would have to qualify as a sniper to make the kill shot. Keep in mind it did take him three tries to be successful. I would think an average shot by military standards wouldn't have a problem hitting the target less than 140 feet away. That's less than one half of a football field.

You keep bringing up this moving target subject. The motorcade was traveling away from Oswald at what? 5 to 10 mph? This isn't exactly like trying to hit a race car. And it wasn't even moving laterally in Oswald's scope - it was moving away.

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 06:51 PM, said:

Additionally, there is the testimony from the first police officer at the book depository which puts Oswald at the lunch room in the second floor less than two minutes after the last shot was fired.  Source

I'm still not seeing anything in there that says someone saw Oswald after 12:00 noon and before the shootings. The shots were fired 30 minutes after that. Plenty of time to go up to the 6th floor and set up.

And how hard would it be to go down 4 flights in two minutes? Of course he wanted to get down there as quickly as possible so he could create another alibi. 4 flights in two minutes is hardly unattainable.

[Eric Kiln]

Peter Levenda has a lot to say about this in his Sinister Forces triligoy. I had been on the fence about this topic until I read this series.

There is just way too much synchronicity tying it all together i feel it impossible to be as simple as a one man job.

There are so many layers of the onion to peel away it never seems to end. I'm not sure at this point anyone really knows the full story.

[IamsSon]

TK0001, on 03 November 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

I really don't believe Oswald would have to qualify as a sniper to make the kill shot. Keep in mind it did take him three tries to be successful. I would think an average shot by military standards wouldn't have a problem hitting the target less than 140 feet away. That's less than one half of a football field.

You keep bringing up this moving target subject. The motorcade was traveling away from Oswald at what? 5 to 10 mph? This isn't exactly like trying to hit a race car. And it wasn't even moving laterally in Oswald's scope - it was moving away.

Have you ever fired a rifle?  Have you ever fired at a moving target?

Quote

I'm still not seeing anything in there that says someone saw Oswald after 12:00 noon and before the shootings. The shots were fired 30 minutes after that. Plenty of time to go up to the 6th floor and set up.

And how hard would it be to go down 4 flights in two minutes? Of course he wanted to get down there as quickly as possible so he could create another alibi. 4 flights in two minutes is hardly unattainable.

The testimony shows he was seen on the first floor at noon or shortly after.  Did you read the information presented?  He was not only downstairs, he was in a room and in a location in the room which would have required him to come into the room from the 1st floor, less than 90 seconds after the last shot and was not looking agitated or out of breath.

Edited by IamsSon, 03 November 2010 - 08:50 PM.

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 08:49 PM, said:

Have you ever fired a rifle?  Have you ever fired at a moving target?

Yes and no.

In your opinion, would you say it requires a military sniper's skill to hit a target that is moving away from you at 5 mph from 140 feet away on one of three tries? I'd like to take a crack at that. I bet I could do it.

Quote

The testimony shows he was seen on the first floor at noon or shortly after. Did you read the information presented? He was not only downstairs, he was in a room and in a location in the room which would have required him to come into the room from the 1st floor, less than 90 seconds after the last shot and was not looking agitated or out of breath.

Seems the time is shrinking and the distance is growing with every post. Although, I'm popping in here from time to time while working. So I apologize for not reading the information in more detail.

So how long do you figure it takes a man to briskly walk down 5 flights of stairs and traverse across a floor? Is it utterly impossible to imagine Oswald, a guy who appeared to be in pretty decent shape, to accomplish this feat in 90 seconds?

Eric Kiln, on 03 November 2010 - 08:47 PM, said:

There are so many layers of the onion to peel away it never seems to end. I'm not sure at this point anyone really knows the full story.

Only if you think of it as a conspiracy. If you believe Oswald acted alone, it's actually pretty simple.

[IamsSon]

TK0001, on 03 November 2010 - 09:27 PM, said:

Yes and no.

What does that mean?

Quote

In your opinion, would you say it requires a military sniper's skill to hit a target that is moving away from you at 5 mph from 140 feet away on one of three tries?

If you want to insure you get a kill shot, yes.  Or at least someone with years of hunting experience.

Quote

I'd like to take a crack at that. I bet I could do it.

In just three shots, never having shot from that location and at that target before?  I'm not talking about you practicing for a while and then taking your three shots.  No, first time out you shoot and kill the target.  

Quote

Seems the time is shrinking and the distance is growing with every post. Although, I'm popping in here from time to time while working. So I apologize for not reading the information in more detail.

The first time I said LESS than two minutes, this time I simply put it closer to what the testimony says.  Read the document, it's all there.

Quote

So how long do you figure it takes a man to briskly walk down 5 flights of stairs and traverse across a floor? Is it utterly impossible to imagine Oswald, a guy who appeared to be in pretty decent shape, to accomplish this feat in 90 seconds?

It's more than just walking down the stairs.  According to testimony, the sniper had to get out of a tight spot that would require him to slip through a tight space between two stacks of book boxes, walk to the far side of the room and carefully hide the rifle, then walk down six flights, to the first floor and then back up to the lunch room in the second floor, and not be even slightly winded.

[SolarPlexus]

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

What does that mean?

It means yes I have fired a rifle and no I have not fired one at a moving target.

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

If you want to insure you get a kill shot, yes.  Or at least someone with years of hunting experience.

So you're saying only a seasoned hunter or a military qualified sniper could successfully hit a target moving away at 5 mph from 140 feet away one out of three times? I just don't see how that's a terribly challenging shot for someone with military training and a scoped rifle.

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

In just three shots, never having shot from that location and at that target before?  I'm not talking about you practicing for a while and then taking your three shots.  No, first time out you shoot and kill the target.

Yes. I'd like to try it. I bet it would take me maybe 5 shots to do it, and I don't have military training. Like I've been saying, I really don't think it's that terribly difficult of a shot.

IamsSon, on 03 November 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

The first time I said LESS than two minutes, this time I simply put it closer to what the testimony says.  Read the document, it's all there.

It's more than just walking down the stairs.  According to testimony, the sniper had to get out of a tight spot that would require him to slip through a tight space between two stacks of book boxes, walk to the far side of the room and carefully hide the rifle, then walk down six flights, to the first floor and then back up to the lunch room in the second floor, and not be even slightly winded.

I'm reading the document now. The first thing that popped into my mind is this: what am I reading? Where is this taken from? How do I know the information is correct?

I read the part where Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor, and I didn't see anything about him not being "even slightly winded", but maybe it's covered later on.

[IamsSon]

TK0001, on 04 November 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:

It means yes I have fired a rifle and no I have not fired one at a moving target.

Since you have a rifle (is it bolt action?), I would suggest you go out sometime soon and shoot at a moving target.  I think you'll find it's not quite as easy as you think.  

Quote

So you're saying only a seasoned hunter or a military qualified sniper could successfully hit a target moving away at 5 mph from 140 feet away one out of three times? I just don't see how that's a terribly challenging shot for someone with military training and a scoped rifle.

Yes.  Think about it.  Hunters who shoot at moving targets usually use shot guns with buckshot, not slugs.  Why?  Because you get a nice "cone" that expands out with distance, making it more likely you will hit the target.  Most hunters that hunt with a rifle, wait for their target to become stationary to improve the chances of a hit.

Quote

Yes. I'd like to try it. I bet it would take me maybe 5 shots to do it, and I don't have military training. Like I've been saying, I really don't think it's that terribly difficult of a shot.

Like I said, I don't think you will find it as easy as you think.  There's a reason why military forces use full or semi-automatic weapons.  Volume of fire.  That means you shoot as many rounds as possible at your target (which if it is smart is running and weaving looking for cover) to try to insure at least one hit.

Quote

I'm reading the document now. The first thing that popped into my mind is this: what am I reading? Where is this taken from? How do I know the information is correct?

I read the part where Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor, and I didn't see anything about him not being "even slightly winded", but maybe it's covered later on.

Here you go:

Quote

Officer Baker was more explicit under similar questioning:     Rep. Boggs:  When you saw him [Oswald] . . ., was he  out of breath, did he appear to have been running  or what?
      Mr. Baker: It didn't appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
      Rep. Boggs: Was he calm and collected?
      Mr. Baker:  Yes, sir.  He never did say a word or  nothing.  In fact, he didn't change his expression  one bit.
      Mr. Belin:  Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up . . .?
      Mr. Baker:  No, sir. (3H252)

Source  

BTW, this is explains where this information comes from:

Quote

A Note on Citations  
      References to the 26-volume Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of  President Kennedy follow this form:  volume number,  H, page number;  thus, for example, 4H165 refers to  volume 4, page 165.  Exhibits introduced in evidence  before the Commission are designated CE and a  number;  CE399, for example, refers to the  Commission's 399th exhibit.  References to the  Report of the President's Commission on the  Assassination of President Kennedy (Washington,  D.C.:  Government Printing Office, 1964) follow this  form:  R, page number;  R150, for example indicates  page 150 of the Report.  Most references to the  Commission's unpublished files deposited in the  National Archives follow this form:  CD,  number:  page number;  CD5:260, for example,  indicates page 260 of Commission Document 5.

So, that notation [3H252] at the end of the quote of Mr. Baker's testimony comes from Volume 3 of the Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of  President Kennedy, page 252.

Edited by IamsSon, 04 November 2010 - 10:09 PM.

[The Silver Thong]

I read that they had found a palm print with a partial thumb print on a box in the room that supposedly Oswald shot JFK from but couldn't match it. No it was on a box so it couldn't have been there long and it wasn't Oswalds. Can't seem to find much on it now but there was a video explaining it that has been now removed.

[IamsSon]

The Silver Thong, on 04 November 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

I read that they had found a palm print with a partial thumb print on a box in the room that supposedly Oswald shot JFK from but couldn't match it. No it was on a box so it couldn't have been there long and it wasn't Oswalds. Can't seem to find much on it now but there was a video explaining it that has been now removed.

If you follow the links I posted, one of the pages mentions that print.

[The Silver Thong]

IamsSon, on 04 November 2010 - 11:56 PM, said:

If you follow the links I posted, one of the pages mentions that print.

Thanks Iam I'll check out your links a bit more as I'm at work a lot and don't get the chance to really dig into all the info posted.

[SolarPlexus]

TK do you know whats a 'patsy' ?

[TK0001]

IamsSon, on 04 November 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Since you have a rifle (is it bolt action?), I would suggest you go out sometime soon and shoot at a moving target.  I think you'll find it's not quite as easy as you think.

I didn't say I own a rifle. I have shot a rifle. And I understand that in order to hit a moving target you have to lead it a bit. I also understand a target moving at 5 mph away from you barely has to be led at all.

IamsSon, on 04 November 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Yes.  Think about it.  Hunters who shoot at moving targets usually use shot guns with buckshot, not slugs.  Why?  Because you get a nice "cone" that expands out with distance, making it more likely you will hit the target.  Most hunters that hunt with a rifle, wait for their target to become stationary to improve the chances of a hit.

I am not a hunter, but my entire family is. Hunters generally don't shoot at moving targets. They usually wait until the animal is stationary before taking the shot. This is getting off-subject, but for your argument to be true, bow hunting would be non-existent.

Hitting a target with a single round really isn't as difficult as you're making it seem here.

IamsSon, on 04 November 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Like I said, I don't think you will find it as easy as you think.  There's a reason why military forces use full or semi-automatic weapons.  Volume of fire.  That means you shoot as many rounds as possible at your target (which if it is smart is running and weaving looking for cover) to try to insure at least one hit.

Yes, but that's completely beside the point, unless you're trying to convince me the only way a person can hit a target with a gun is to spray bullets all over the place and hope to hit it. No disrespect, but that's silly.

IamsSon, on 04 November 2010 - 09:31 PM, said:

Here you go:
Source  

BTW, this is explains where this information comes from:


So, that notation [3H252] at the end of the quote of Mr. Baker's testimony comes from Volume 3 of the Hearings Before the President's Commission on the Assassination of  President Kennedy, page 252.

I'm sorry that I haven't gotten more into this in detail. I want to compare this to other testimony and evidence in order to form an opinion. I still don't understand where this is taken from, but it seems to want to prove the Warren Commission wrong, which tells me it's not an unbiased source.

If Oswald truly did appear on the second floor only seconds after the shots were fired and didn't appear out of breath at all, I would certainly agree that sounds fishy. Since this case is over 40 years old, and Oswald has never been exonerated, I think there's more to the story.

Also, do you believe someone else fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD? I would say someone would have had to, if it drew the officer's attention. The question is if it was actually Oswald or not, correct?