508 replies to this topic

[Rafterman]

MID, on 08 September 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

People get a little zealous, and sometimes radical when they argue something.

The post you were addressing was regarding the single bullet shot, you know that magic bullet that wounded two perople and shattered bone while never having a chip taken from it, and you say You've actually seen that  shot done at local gun clubs?

You saw the shot made from 200 plus feet away and 50 feet or so above ground level,  strike a man in the base of the neck, or perhaps a little lower, while that man was moving forward at approximately 16 feet per second, and you saw that it exited the front of that man's neck, left nothing but a perfectly round entry wound where there should've been a torn exit wound, then you saw it turn right, line up, turn left, then enter the back of the man sitting in front of the original target, casing severe lung damage to his right chest, shatter a rib, exit that chest, l;eaving a bionified exit wound, then shatter the man's wrist and embed inself in pieces in the man's left leg, except or the fact that that particular bullet had NO DAMAGE TO IT?   You saw that shot re-enacted more than once at a local gun club?

  I hope the "victims" participating in it are OK!

You said that the myth that the magic bukllt was an impossible shot i exactly that...a myth.

Who ever said it was an impossible shot?  All it was was a shot in the back from some distance.
What was imposible was not the shot.   It was the trajectory and the effects caused (and not caused) by this alleged bullet.

If you're arguing something here, I suggest making it clearer.

Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion then.  My comment was simply countering those that said Oswald couldn't (for whatever conspiratorial reason you want to insert here) have made the shot.  It wasn't a hard shot to make and, yes, I have seen it set up and carried out on two occasions at area gun clubs and, as I mentioned, it has been done for TV.

That was my point.  Plain and simple.

And, yes, I do disagree on your assessment of the ballistics.  But as I've learned, it's not worth my time arguing with you guys in the conspiracy section.

[booNyzarC]

Rafterman, on 10 September 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion then.  My comment was simply countering those that said Oswald couldn't (for whatever conspiratorial reason you want to insert here) have made the shot.  It wasn't a hard shot to make and, yes, I have seen it set up and carried out on two occasions at area gun clubs and, as I mentioned, it has been done for TV.

That was my point.  Plain and simple.

And, yes, I do disagree on your assessment of the ballistics.  But as I've learned, it's not worth my time arguing with you guys in the conspiracy section.

If it's any consolation, I agree with you.

[hacktorp]

Truth tends to work its way to the surface over time and this case is proving to be no different.

Virtually ALL evidence that has arisen in the last 40 years point straight to a wider conspiracy.  Foreknowledge equals complicity and many people had it.

Keep in mind that a coup of this magnitude isn't done to gain a few years in office; it is done to seize control for generations to come...or at least to wrest it from those who may already be in position to have it for generations to come.

Anyone still clinging to the story that the entire mess was the doing of a single, solitary gunman is not interested in the truth...and maybe they have good reason.  But with every new generation that comes along, the truth will be easier to accept.

booNyzarC, on 10 September 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

If it's any consolation, I agree with you.

Awww...now that's just downright sweet!

[MID]

Rafterman, on 10 September 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion then.  My comment was simply countering those that said Oswald couldn't (for whatever conspiratorial reason you want to insert here) have made the shot.  It wasn't a hard shot to make and, yes, I have seen it set up and carried out on two occasions at area gun clubs and, as I mentioned, it has been done for TV.

That was my point.  Plain and simple.

And, yes, I do disagree on your assessment of the ballistics.  But as I've learned, it's not worth my time arguing with you guys in the conspiracy section.

if it's any consolation, I agree with booNy

Edited by MID, 13 September 2012 - 12:24 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

If its any consolation Im dam tired of people that think they  got it all figured out, He`s long,Long dead Oswald Shot him, Jack got Oswald, cancer got Jack. THe Books are full of it ! Like all the C.T people Full of it !
Have a nice day !

[The Silver Thong]

DONTEATUS, on 13 September 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

If its any consolation Im dam tired of people that think they  got it all figured out, He`s long,Long dead Oswald Shot him, Jack got Oswald, cancer got Jack. THe Books are full of it ! Like all the C.T people Full of it !
Have a nice day !

Have to say it. You think the goverment isn`t full of it.... Being an old school transformer fan there is more than meets the eye.

[MID]

Rafterman, on 10 September 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Perhaps I misunderstood the discussion then.  My comment was simply countering those that said Oswald couldn't (for whatever conspiratorial reason you want to insert here) have made the shot.  It wasn't a hard shot to make and, yes, I have seen it set up and carried out on two occasions at area gun clubs and, as I mentioned, it has been done for TV.

That was my point.  Plain and simple.

But still, I'm wondering:

Which shot is contended to have been so difficult?
The one that hit JFK in the upper back, or the shot that hit him in the head?
Neither one was impossible to make.

The only problem is that the doctors at Parkland Hospital never saw a rear entry head wound...just the huge exit, and the shot in the back, well...who knows where that went? It certainly couldn't have done what Specter said it did, and no doctor ever speculated on such an impossible trajectory.

[DONTEATUS]

The facts are the Facts ! But I guess you didnt have to be there that day to know !

[crash83]

TK0001, on 05 November 2010 - 04:09 PM, said:

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.



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.



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.



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?

Ok im new here and still have not finished this thread but wanted to jump in.
I am a Military trained sniper.[Was.]
And have hunted my entire life.
I have also taken part in a re-creation of the "kill shot" on 4 different times.
Different locations,never the same twice,however the set up all the same.
First two times was before any actual sniper training.About 3 months in between, with 6 different shooters.
None of us were able to do it in four shots let alone three.
Two of us were close but would have only been a fleshwound.
And none of us could complete the "course "in the proper time allowed ,and not look "out of place".
This was simply walking to the firing location and waiting for the moving target to fire.
After sniper training...was a little different.
Again 6 shooters [4 the same as before]..3 were able to make the kill,but again not in time.
The only one of us to be able to get three shots off and complete the course in time was me, using my rifle.
But as i walked into the would be 2nd floor, not completely out of breath you could still tell something was off.
Couldn't do it with the old bolt action.
And it's alot harder to hit a moving target than you think...ask my spotter  he's still mad at me.

[DONTEATUS]

So sad ! So Sad ! why people cannot see the facts.

[Br Cornelius]

DONTEATUS, on 27 September 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

So sad ! So Sad ! why people cannot see the facts.

Indeed. Even when the facts are pointed out to them - they simply blank them. Very sad
There must be a not very flattering word for that.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

crash83, on 27 September 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Ok im new here and still have not finished this thread but wanted to jump in.
I am a Military trained sniper.[Was.]
And have hunted my entire life.
I have also taken part in a re-creation of the "kill shot" on 4 different times.
Different locations,never the same twice,however the set up all the same.
First two times was before any actual sniper training.About 3 months in between, with 6 different shooters.
None of us were able to do it in four shots let alone three.
Two of us were close but would have only been a fleshwound.
And none of us could complete the "course "in the proper time allowed ,and not look "out of place".
This was simply walking to the firing location and waiting for the moving target to fire.
After sniper training...was a little different.
Again 6 shooters [4 the same as before]..3 were able to make the kill,but again not in time.
The only one of us to be able to get three shots off and complete the course in time was me, using my rifle.
But as i walked into the would be 2nd floor, not completely out of breath you could still tell something was off.
Couldn't do it with the old bolt action.
And it's alot harder to hit a moving target than you think...ask my spotter  he's still mad at me.

I get the impression that no one is seeing your point, crash.

A pile of shooters, including Military trained sniper, unable to make the shot as it's said Oswald, a non-sniper, who held a Mrksman's badge from 1959, did.
Doesn't seem all so likely, eh?

[DONTEATUS]

MID, on 29 September 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

I get the impression that no one is seeing your point, crash.

A pile of shooters, including Military trained sniper, unable to make the shot as it's said Oswald, a non-sniper, who held a Mrksman's badge from 1959, did.
Doesn't seem all so likely, eh?

Mid are you saying that crash is right? And that Oswald could not of shot JFK ? maybe Im reading your post wrong?
THere have been far harder shots made upon people thru out the ages.
Like from moving ships onto other moving ships at far greater distance.

[lightly]

 jacklee.jpg   26.86K   3 downloads

Edited by lightly, 29 September 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 29 September 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Mid are you saying that crash is right? And that Oswald could not of shot JFK ? maybe Im reading your post wrong?
THere have been far harder shots made upon people thru out the ages.
Like from moving ships onto other moving ships at far greater distance.

Let's see what he says!