Oswald Shot Kennedy

[RabidCat]

Talos, I have to differ with you on one point, that being the indication of a "massive government conspiracy". I don't think the conspiracy would necessarily need to be massive; in my military experience, a relatively small faction of trained men can make tremendous problems. Some of my acquaintances maintain, as I do, that that whole thing could have been accomplished by no more than perhaps three or four organizers, and perhaps a dozen others, with many of the involved people not knowing their involvement.

It is standard in covert warfare to keep the number of informed people very small, yet accomplish tasks using dozens or even hundreds or thousands of unwitting accomplices.

That there was something unknown that happened is without any real question, whatever is said; Oswald was, as stated by others, a bit of a substandard Marine, and I doubt that at that time a substandard marine would be able to do what was claimed to have been done. Since I was military shortly after that, and having worked closely with other branches than mine, my marksmanship surpassed that of most Marines (proved beyond question by the Marines themselves). So I doubt he did it himself.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

She was also silenced by the sinister forces which killed JFK, and later his brother RFK.

.

Ooooooh. Scary.

[goofball_mcgee]

- First shots are almost always the most accurate. The idea that a "marksman" could miss the whole car with his first shot and then follow up quickly with a neck and head shot seems very illogical. I mean, the first shot didn't hit Kennedy in the shoulder or something - it missed the whole car.

I'm no expert marksman, in fact i feel fortunate to hit the target. LOL. But in my experience, my first shot is usually the worst. It gives me a gauge of where the bullet will hit based on all the factors such as wind, distance, etc. After that 1st shot I'm able to adjust accordingly. Just my experience and 2 cents. Take it for what its worth.

[RabidCat]

I'm no expert marksman, in fact i feel fortunate to hit the target. LOL. But in my experience, my first shot is usually the worst. It gives me a gauge of where the bullet will hit based on all the factors such as wind, distance, etc. After that 1st shot I'm able to adjust accordingly. Just my experience and 2 cents. Take it for what its worth.

Without presuming to give lessons here, a good sniper will do his windage first. If scoped, he will be using a scope with gradations, he'll know approximate wind direction and speed, and will have a good approximation of distance to target. With all this information, a good sniper will in practice have a "one shot one kill" record. If the sniper isn't certain enough, he won't take the shot.

A good hunter is the same; sniping and hunting are similar enough that a good hunter will be a good sniper.

One shot, one kill.

[goofball_mcgee]

Without presuming to give lessons here, a good sniper will do his windage first. If scoped, he will be using a scope with gradations, he'll know approximate wind direction and speed, and will have a good approximation of distance to target. With all this information, a good sniper will in practice have a "one shot one kill" record. If the sniper isn't certain enough, he won't take the shot.

A good hunter is the same; sniping and hunting are similar enough that a good hunter will be a good sniper.

One shot, one kill.

Right, thank you. I'm just pointing out that for an average marksman, like myself and Oswald, it makes sense why the 3rd shot was the most accurate. If there were other shooters, better marksmen, then it would have been a one shot kill.

[RabidCat]

Right, thank you. I'm just pointing out that for an average marksman, like myself and Oswald, it makes sense why the 3rd shot was the most accurate. If there were other shooters, better marksmen, then it would have been a one shot kill.

Agreed, in principle. I suspect there were more than Oswald, and has been stated, Oswald wasn't a very good marksman. Two shooters were obviously better, the one to the rear and the one who did the head shot (this would have been a professional, most likely).

I'll say with some authority that a head shot can be made on a moderately breezy day out to over 800 yards, and the range wasn't nearly that far. But I think it's obvious that more than one shooter got JFK, being one entry in back and one in front (whatever the urine expert idiot says).

[MID]

Agreed, in principle. I suspect there were more than Oswald, and has been stated, Oswald wasn't a very good marksman. Two shooters were obviously better, the one to the rear and the one who did the head shot (this would have been a professional, most likely).

I'll say with some authority that a head shot can be made on a moderately breezy day out to over 800 yards, and the range wasn't nearly that far. But I think it's obvious that more than one shooter got JFK, being one entry in back and one in front (whatever the urine expert idiot says).

You know Rabid...

When the idea of Oswald, up there in the 6th floor window, as a lone gunman is considered...and of course the motive to kill the President is added, one has to realize (and I've been up there several times and saw first hand the supposed vantage point) that once the President's car turned onto Houston street, headed toward that left turn onto Elm, that Oswald had a clear view of a target that was clearly exposed frontally, and which was moving toward him at relatively slow speed. At closest approach, his target wasn't 75 feet away from him, and he'd have been looking straight on at him. He had a good 15 seconds to fire at a target that was approaching him straight on, getting larger in his sight the whole time...and was never as far away from him during that time as he was when he allegedly did shoot him...as he moved away from him on Elm street.

You have to wonder...a a target moving right at you...or a target moving away from you.

Which would you prefer to shoot at?

[RabidCat]

You know Rabid...

When the idea of Oswald, up there in the 6th floor window, as a lone gunman is considered...and of course the motive to kill the President is added, one has to realize (and I've been up there several times and saw first hand the supposed vantage point) that once the President's car turned onto Houston street, headed toward that left turn onto Elm, that Oswald had a clear view of a target that was clearly exposed frontally, and which was moving toward him at relatively slow speed. At closest approach, his target wasn't 75 feet away from him, and he'd have been looking straight on at him. He had a good 15 seconds to fire at a target that was approaching him straight on, getting larger in his sight the whole time...and was never as far away from him during that time as he was when he allegedly did shoot him...as he moved away from him on Elm street.

You have to wonder...a a target moving right at you...or a target moving away from you.

Which would you prefer to shoot at?

Speaking personally, target being human, my preference is to have a nice frontal target, speed considered. Angles enter into this, and from the films, had I been Oswald, I'd have shot as he was coming towards (assuming Oswald as the shooter). If the back shot came from the vicinity of the depository, but was someone other than Oswald (as some have posited the shot came from a catty corner building, which would prevent a frontal shot unless the gunman leaned out the window, highly unlikely, I would think), then I'm inclined to think it was that other building. Angles would be similar, and the actual recapitulation is, to some degree, assumption, since it's doubtful that exact angles can be determined. As it goes, a frontal shot would be easy, because a perfect chest shot could be made without worrying about the angles, because as the angle increases, the shot simply travels up the torso, making it more deadly, provided it is centered. Neck shots, properly placed, are the best, since it is instantly finished when the bullet severs the spinal cord.

A frontal shot on a human sized target is relatively easy, inclusive of a running man (bouncing along, say out on a morning jog), and a head shot under that condition is quite easy for a trained marksman. Shooting from the bushes in this case is even easier, since there is no worry about being seen (important). Having a plan for weapon disposal, and inside powers that divert attention makes the shot even easier. I know intimately of one case just such was carried out, and the plan was for the weapon (fully silenced) to be bagged, dropped, picked up, then destroyed. The shooter picked his vantage point, popped the target (whose head exploded), dropped the weapon, disappeared, and the newspaper had it as a heart attack. There was never a word why the funeral was closed coffin. Things happen.

Another example of a similar occurrance was a man walking a boardwalk in LA. This fellow had film of a movie star prior to stardom, as a performer in X-rated junk, and was threatening exposure. A decision was made to send a fixer to lesson the fellow, and while strolling the walk, virtually unseen, the fixer shattered the guy's left knee. No witnesses were found, the guy was uncertain as to what happened himself, and it was somehow decided that he had shattered his own knee. He quit making the exposure threats.

These two are instances among probably hundreds, perhaps thousands, over the years.

Edited July 4, 2007 by RabidCat

[MID]

Speaking personally, target being human, my preference is to have a nice frontal target, speed considered. Angles enter into this, and from the films, had I been Oswald, I'd have shot as he was coming towards (assuming Oswald as the shooter). If the back shot came from the vicinity of the depository, but was someone other than Oswald (as some have posited the shot came from a catty corner building, which would prevent a frontal shot unless the gunman leaned out the window, highly unlikely, I would think), then I'm inclined to think it was that other building.

I agree with that idea..

Having a plan for weapon disposal, and inside powers that divert attention makes the shot even easier.

Which leads me to the oddity of Oswald in that 6th floor window of a building he worked in.

Weapon disposal:

Let's see. He had to get the rifle into the building in which he worked (how he did that is of course disputed to this day).

He worked on the 6th floor, and several other floors, as did many throughout the day.

How would he know he had a secure nest, alone on that floor at the particular time necessary? Anyone could've walked into that floor. Someone could've been directly beneath him, and could've heard the shots.

As to weapon disposal...you just toss the rifle between some boxes and high tail it down the stairs, leaving spent casings on the floor?

And, if this all was in fact the case, you don't fire at a target frontally facing you dead on, and getting closer to you. You wait until it turns and is a couple hundred feet away from you, and increasing the distance...and all you've really got is a head shot, since most of the intended cictims upper torso is now blocked by the seat he sits in...

Smells a little, from a pragmatic assassination standpoint, eh?

...God, are we actually having this conversation?!

[RabidCat]

I agree with that idea..

Which leads me to the oddity of Oswald in that 6th floor window of a building he worked in.

Weapon disposal:

Let's see. He had to get the rifle into the building in which he worked (how he did that is of course disputed to this day).

He worked on the 6th floor, and several other floors, as did many throughout the day.

How would he know he had a secure nest, alone on that floor at the particular time necessary? Anyone could've walked into that floor. Someone could've been directly beneath him, and could've heard the shots.

As to weapon disposal...you just toss the rifle between some boxes and high tail it down the stairs, leaving spent casings on the floor?

And, if this all was in fact the case, you don't fire at a target frontally facing you dead on, and getting closer to you. You wait until it turns and is a couple hundred feet away from you, and increasing the distance...and all you've really got is a head shot, since most of the intended cictims upper torso is now blocked by the seat he sits in...

Smells a little, from a pragmatic assassination standpoint, eh?

...God, are we actually having this conversation?!

Yes, it is quite odd that this conversation is taking place, isn't it? Actually, in even a moderately decent world, we wouldn't.

I thought then, and I still think, the whole thing stinks. I don't know what we do, or how we'd obtain information, and many of the principles are dead; perhaps the groups could be prosecuted if we knew the facts, but somehow I doubt it.

[floydtheater07]

This is such a confusing topic because there is so much evidence to support the Lone Gunman theory and yet so much evidence to support the various conspiracy theories which have been floating around.

A friend of mine is on the rifling team at his college. I forget exactly what school it is, but I do know that they beat the West Point rifle team in a competition. He is a very conservative guy and is not prone to conspiracy theories in any way that I am aware of, but he does assert that Oswald's alleged shooting could not have been done as it was. Is it possible? yes, certainly. Is it probable or plausible? Not in the least.

However, I also must mention that he probably would not have shot at Kennedy when he was coming directly towards him because the Secret Service were as well, so concealing his position would be damn near impossible.

It also bothers me that he was supposedly clever and skilled enough to perform this incredibly difficult shooting, but is dumb enough to leave the shell casings right there. It doesn't make sense. Then he goes back to his house to get a revolver? I dunno, it doesn't work. Nevermind the fact that combat veterans in Dealey PLaza that day, the only innocent spectators who were trained to know where a bullet was fired from, stated that they were sure shots came from the Grassy Knoll.

[DДrk_Lotu§]

Penn and Teller proved the theory that Oswald could have made those shots in the amount of time and Penn was not trained in the military

Edited July 5, 2007 by DДrk_Lotu§

[RabidCat]

Penn and Teller proved the theory that Oswald could have made those shots in the amount of time and Penn was not trained in the military

There is sleight of hand and there is reality.

A shooter cannot do a back shot and a front shot at (effectively) the same time. Leave the performers on the stage, and leave the reality off the stage.

[DДrk_Lotu§]

ah yes so a skeptic show aimed at debunking cannot be in any way truthful or scientific because they are magicians

[RabidCat]

ah yes so a skeptic show aimed at debunking cannot be in any way truthful or scientific because they are magicians

Perhaps you should read my posts.

There is experience and there is not experience. When one deals with ballistics and hard evidence, then a 'what could have happened' MUST conform to what the evidence is; ballistics is a science, but small arms ballistics is an experimental science and deals little with theory. In other words, everything is tested, and nothing is left to chance or theory. If Speer states that 45 grains of x powder makes 52,000 psi of gas pressure behind a 150 grain .308 bullet then no amount of magic will change that. The numbers are tested with hard equipment such as pressure transducers and crush buttons with KNOWN crush pressures; nothing is left to chance.

When examining a wound, there is an entry wound and an exit wound; no amount of talk or 'magic' can alter the direction from whence the bullet comes. Neither Penn nor Teller is an expert in anything but entertainment, and to even attempt to use their findings is ridiculous and completely unscientific. If either or both of these could accompany me to the range (my choice) with my rifle and using my target in my setting, show me how one could shoot both sides of the target within a few seconds from the same vantage point, maybe I'd think about it. Till then, I rely on some 56 years of dealing with guns, in both target and actual situations.

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

Duncan Macpherson is a rocket scientist and has extensively studied bullet penetration and the human body. Here is what he has to say about Kennedy's head jerk.

Duncan Macpherson Interview

Here are two filmed experiments that demonstrate this push and pull effect.

Video Test 1

Video Test 2

Wow excellent quality!!!!!!

Was that shot by the same camera Zapruder used?

Edited July 5, 2007 by Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

[MID]

Wow excellent quality!!!!!!

Was that shot by the same camera Zapruder used?

Repros of the urologist's experiments, which proved nothing but relatively common physics. Of course shooting into the base of a melon sitting on a bench from 10 feet away will cause a backward roll of the melon.

That has no relation to shooting into the skull of a man, connected to the rest of his body by a neck, at a couple hundred feet.

Yep...excellent quality

[RabidCat]

Wow excellent quality!!!!!!

Was that shot by the same camera Zapruder used?

That IS really good quality, isn't it?

Without going into a lot of yakking, shooting a melon proves nothing, does it? I can shoot a can of soda with my air rifle and get the spray coming back at me, too, but it means absolutely nothing in comparison to hitting a human head with a high powered rifle.

As to this MacPherson character, I can say this: in all my shots at people, and animals when I hunted, I NEVER had one keep coming at me. All my kills went away from me or dropped where they were. In all my shots into target materials using powerful weapons, I never had anything come towards me save with low brisance explosive bullets, which fragmented on hard surfaces, and some fragments would come back.

The body jerks away from the shot direction; that's the normal reaction.

Regarding the article's reference to recoil and bullet energy: recoil is not a factor in bullet energy, which is a common misconception. If the guy really is a rocket scientist and a shooter, then he should know that recoil is mostly comprised of the gases leaving the barrel behind the bullet. If those gases are diverted from the plane of the barrel, then recoil is affected, depending on direction. If a muzzle brake is installed, or brake holes are drilled through the top of the barrel, there will be little rise, and if the holes are directed to the rear, recoil will be less.

I have used fully silenced sniper rifles wherein the silencer had gas diversion channels, and I guarantee that the result of this is eerie. When the trigger is pulled, the only reaction noticed is the snap of the firing pin; there is little noise from the muzzle; the shock wave of the bullet is heard, but its direction is nearly unobtainable; and there is virtually no recoil.

He is close to correct that the energy of a bullet is dependent on several things. However, overall, his statements go counter to my experience in arms. But, of course, his experience is more on the range, while mine had the implications from killing or being killed, with respect to humans.

It is commonly accepted among real pistol users that bullets of larger diameter tend to have better "stopping power" than smaller diameter bullets, as was the US Army's reason for commission of the M1911A-1 .45 Auto. In field testing, it was found that an attacker would be substantially less inclined to continue attack after being shot with a .45 than with a .38. If ballistics are consulted, it will be found that the overall power of the .38 can be considerably more than the .45, as bullet weight v. case capacity are quite different than the .45, which is limited to less than 900 fps. There are fallacies in the energy v. stopping power concepts, which is why loaders tend to go by experiential methods.

Another for instance could be this: after having used many guns, it is my conclusion that I would rather be hit by a .308 than by a muzzle-loader of .50 or .54 caliber, considering the damage done. My .54 will rip its way through targets the .308 wouldn't even think of doing (would bury itself, but not go through), and the bullet size and weight cause almost incredible internal damage. The velocity of the .54 is more than 1000 fps less than a handloaded .308, but it will still cause unrecoverable damage. The same thing is true when comparing a .357 (my personal favorite handgun) to an 1847 Colt's Walker .44 (actually a .451). The Walker tends to rip targets apart, while the .357 goes through. Rather be shot with a .357 than the Walker. Those unfamiliar with the Walker, it was the largest black powder handgun made, but the capacity was so great it had the tendency to explode the cylinder. Only about 1100 were made (1000 of record; Colt's records indicate 1087 manufactured), for the army, and those were recalled because of this problem. Modern replicas, however, are perfectly safe.

[MID]

That IS really good quality, isn't it?

Without going into a lot of yakking, shooting a melon proves nothing, does it? I can shoot a can of soda with my air rifle and get the spray coming back at me, too, but it means absolutely nothing in comparison to hitting a human head with a high powered rifle.

Nope...sure doesn't. Shoot at the base of a melon sitting on a bench...un-connected to anything, and what do you expect? You're popping up a baseball, essentially.

Besides, the shot that allegedly hit JFK in the back of his head, occurred at a point (allegedly, although it's never been confirmed by any real evidence) at a point to the right and above the external occipital protuberance, at a downward angle. If you know where that alleged point is, it is above the CG of the skull, and would move the head forward...not backward...no matter what fancy and somewhat ridiculous theory you're attemtping to cite.

The body jerks away from the shot direction; that's the normal reaction.

Ms, I believe Mr. Newton described that physical principal in his third law of motion.

It is commonly accepted among real pistol users that bullets of larger diameter tend to have better "stopping power" than smaller diameter bullets, as was the US Army's reason for commission of the M1911A-1 .45 Auto. In field testing, it was found that an attacker would be substantially less inclined to continue attack after being shot with a .45 than with a .38.

I would have hated to be the subject of those field tests!

But seriously, I learned that the higher calibre indeed had more "stopping" power, and that almost any instructor I've ever heard speak to the matter recommended the highest calibre one could handle in a self-defense weapon, as the purpose is to stop the attack in the gravest extreme. I would tend to agree that the .45 has more stopping power than the .38 or the 9mm. A .45 loaded with hollow points isn't going through anyone. But it will stop, and cause profound damage (thus, the "stop"). I've heard many times of lower calibre loads going through someone and not stopping the attack.

Recently, I read an article in the news which spoke of a local homeowner who had an intruder come banging on his front door (a homeowner who was sumarrily carted off to jail mind you). This guy's banging on his door screaming obscenities, etc. The homeownner gets his 9 mm, loaded with target rounds (FMJ), comes to the door...doesn't bother to call the police, and opens the door, warning the guy to get away from his house.

The guy makes threatening gestures, is completely buck naked (yes, this is true), and backs away from the door speaking incomprehensibles to the homeowner...bottom line is the homeowner opens fire on this nut (Jesus, I couldn't believe it when I read it), and empties 9 ROUNDS INTO THE GUY'S UPPER TORSO as he's walking way from his door before he finally falls. The naked guy dies en-route to the hospital.

Now, I cite this as an example of stopping power, and lack of stopping power.

It is a horrific story, of course, and I'm sure you full-well realize what the result of this was for the homeowner, who shot a retreating intruder to death. But 9 rounds from a 9mm it took to stop this guy (despite the fact that there was no need to stop him whatsoever...thus the impending prison term).

[RabidCat]

Nope...sure doesn't. Shoot at the base of a melon sitting on a bench...un-connected to anything, and what do you expect? You're popping up a baseball, essentially.

Besides, the shot that allegedly hit JFK in the back of his head, occurred at a point (allegedly, although it's never been confirmed by any real evidence) at a point to the right and above the external occipital protuberance, at a downward angle. If you know where that alleged point is, it is above the CG of the skull, and would move the head forward...not backward...no matter what fancy and somewhat ridiculous theory you're attemtping to cite.

Ms, I believe Mr. Newton described that physical principal in his third law of motion.

I would have hated to be the subject of those field tests!

But seriously, I learned that the higher calibre indeed had more "stopping" power, and that almost any instructor I've ever heard speak to the matter recommended the highest calibre one could handle in a self-defense weapon, as the purpose is to stop the attack in the gravest extreme. I would tend to agree that the .45 has more stopping power than the .38 or the 9mm. A .45 loaded with hollow points isn't going through anyone. But it will stop, and cause profound damage (thus, the "stop"). I've heard many times of lower calibre loads going through someone and not stopping the attack.

Recently, I read an article in the news which spoke of a local homeowner who had an intruder come banging on his front door (a homeowner who was sumarrily carted off to jail mind you). This guy's banging on his door screaming obscenities, etc. The homeownner gets his 9 mm, loaded with target rounds (FMJ), comes to the door...doesn't bother to call the police, and opens the door, warning the guy to get away from his house.

The guy makes threatening gestures, is completely buck naked (yes, this is true), and backs away from the door speaking incomprehensibles to the homeowner...bottom line is the homeowner opens fire on this nut (Jesus, I couldn't believe it when I read it), and empties 9 ROUNDS INTO THE GUY'S UPPER TORSO as he's walking way from his door before he finally falls. The naked guy dies en-route to the hospital.

Now, I cite this as an example of stopping power, and lack of stopping power.

It is a horrific story, of course, and I'm sure you full-well realize what the result of this was for the homeowner, who shot a retreating intruder to death. But 9 rounds from a 9mm it took to stop this guy (despite the fact that there was no need to stop him whatsoever...thus the impending prison term).

I think the jerk should go to jail. That's exactly the kind of people who shouldn't own guns, to my mind.

The story is that soldiers using .38 cal were sometimes overrun by attacking forces, and the army needed something more powerful. Number of rounds was less important than 'stopping power', thus the advent of the 1911A1. During both wars, the gun performed well, with few complaints about the operation. It also performed well during Korea and Vietnam. Many were disappointed to see it go.

I had a buddy, Lt. X, who commanded an armored force. He got the nickname Hickock because his group was stopped from crossing some rice paddies by a water buffalo. X went from his command vehicle to the front of the column, as the story goes, to find out what the holdup was, and he was shown the buffalo. X told his men to 'shoot the damned thing and get it off the road', but no one wanted to do so. X whipped out his Colt, and popped one at the buffalo, which immediately dropped dead. X told me (laughing) that if he tried he probably couldn't have hit the buffalo, but sheer luck had him hit the animal in the neck. I guess the good ole .45 ACP will put a person down, if it will put down a water buffalo.

[Bean Sidhe]

complete nonsense!!! the reason the bullet was called the "magic" bullet is not because it wounded two people but because it failed to deform as any normal bullet would upon encountering resistance and friction--the bullet that was claimed to have pierced kennedy and connally retained its form without the slightest alteration to its shape and form--the bullet that is called the "magic bullet" is a complete farce and did not pass through one target much less two--explain how a bullet can retain its shape after impacting two targets-then you will have demonstrated the plausibility of the official story--until then you are doing nothing more than what national geographic does with 9/11--repeat a lie without offering a shred of evidence over and over and over and...

True true.....complete and nutter nonsense.We have Skeptic102 here like an some kind of eye-opener few decades later, explaining and opening eyes to the world when it was totally obvious WHAT was happening back there and HOW did it happened and HOW it was prepared and by WHOM it was prepared.

[MID]

I think the jerk should go to jail. That's exactly the kind of people who shouldn't own guns, to my mind.

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt about that!

And, he is in jail...where he belongs.

I think it was an involuntary manslaughter conviction. It was freakin' homicide in my opinion.

I'm amazed at the number of people who own handguns, and have little grasp on the laws governing their use.

I recall a lawyer for this fellow who shot the man stating that the man thought the intruder (the naked guy who turned out to be not only mentally disturbed, but quite drunk...and thought he was attempting to get into his own house a couple doors down the street) was breakling into his home and took appropriate action.

I don't suppose the attorney was a knowledgeable gun owner either, and didn't seem to realize that the man DIDN'T break into his home, and was retreating at the time he was shot. This is an automatic homicide arrest in most parts of this country. I'm supposing most people don't realize you can't shoot a person running away from you, whether he's posed a lethal threat to you or not. If he's running away, it's probably because you drew on him, and he's messing himself. You've done your job, as the gun has in that case, and you have no further action to take.

What a world...

I had a buddy, Lt. X, who commanded an armored force. He got the nickname Hickock because his group was stopped from crossing some rice paddies by a water buffalo. X went from his command vehicle to the front of the column, as the story goes, to find out what the holdup was, and he was shown the buffalo. X told his men to 'shoot the damned thing and get it off the road', but no one wanted to do so. X whipped out his Colt, and popped one at the buffalo, which immediately dropped dead. X told me (laughing) that if he tried he probably couldn't have hit the buffalo, but sheer luck had him hit the animal in the neck. I guess the good ole .45 ACP will put a person down, if it will put down a water buffalo.

Sounds alot like that incident portrayed in the movie "Patton", when Old Blood and Guts did the same thing with a pair of donkeys that were holding up the line!

I agree, a .45 ACP will put down just about anything, and certainly any assailant.

[RabidCat]

Very quick question, Mid. How's your physics?

[MID]

Very quick question, Mid. How's your physics?

It was fair...last time I checked!

[bodacious1]

Forum members, There was a statement made to why Oswald didn't make a frontal shot attempt on Kennedy.....I believe there may have been numerous reasons for this.....One was perhaps Oswald was worried about missing and having the Limousine speed up down Houston street......Thus limiting him to one shot......Second, was perhaps hesitation on Oswald's part.....Perhaps he wasn't sure he should follow through with the shooting (this would've been normal human emotions)......Thirdly, it's different from a psychological aspect to murder somebody facing you.....The act of murdering somebody from high up with a rifle, while they're in a vulnerable position, takes no great act of heroism.....In fact, it show a great act of cowardice on Oswald's part.....This would further bolster the idea that he couldn't shoot Kennedy from the front.....

Another comment was made as to the "magic" bullet and the capabilities of the 6.5mm round.....It was a full metal jacketed bullet designed to go through multiple bodies.....In theory, you could line up 4 people back-to-back and have the bullet go through them.....So, two people is no great feat.

Why wasn't it more deformed?.....Probably because it lost velocity after going through Kennedy....And IF you notice the "magic" bullet is deformed mostly at the base.....This can be explained by the idea that that the bullet began to tumble after leaving Kennedy's neck.....The base of the bullet is more than likely what did the damage to Connelly......Bodacious1

Edited August 29, 2007 by bodacious1