Jump to content

What conspiracy theories do you think are real or are ridiculous?


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I believe is that although there are many gossip and falsehoods about it, there are absolutely valid theories too, worthy of being taken seriously. So, I think the healthiest thing to do is... to doubt everything and not take anything for granted, whether it is something socially accepted or considered crazy. I mean, who has the absolute truth about things in life? My answer is: nobody. No one has or had in the history of mankind - at least in the official versions - the absolute truth in any particular field, be it in politics, religion, philosophy, finances, economics, science, art, technology, spirituality, whatever the fuck. One point of view says: this may be because absolute truth has always been systematically hidden and / or suppressed throughout history to prevent humanity from evolve and, therefore, stop living in this beautiful but corrupt, decadent, deceptive and sick world that we all know and call reality, a reality in which we live locked up. In other words, this implies recognizing that we are nothing more than slaves, of what? of a System in wich we live locked only in one reality map, but there are many more maps out there, or so the mystics and magicians says.

And who or what would be interested in preventing humanity from moving forward? Do you stubbornly believe that we live alone in the vastness of this Universe, or even of this planet, or even in this dimension? Even more, do you think that life, planet earth, this universe and the gods pass through our navel? In other words, do you think we are the center of Existence? Even more, do you think that what we feel and think, what we see and touch, hear, smell and taste with our senses is the absolute and unique and possible reality? Even more, don't you think that behind this reality, that in wich we as human beings interpret with what we perceive through our senses - that behind the magnificence of existence lies a vast Intelligence that exceeds our limited understanding? One or many more Intelligences maybe?

So, I think the worst thing we can do is to sit on our ass over the throne of some I-don't-know-what-God-and-or-Judge, put ourselves in a cloud and start to sentence from out there what is right or wrong, with our very limited and often miserable humanity. I mean, science is not capable of revealing the truths of Existence - it's only capable of exploring this physically measurable world. What is beyond the physical world does not work with the same rules of the physical world, mystics says. But mysticism, and even magic, recognizes physical phenomena as much as spiritual phenomena (paranormal, supernatural phenomena, whatever), but not science... conventional scientists are so arrogant and closed-minded people that they often seem complete idiots... but, their words are accepted and revered in modern societies as those of priests and politicians, and that is because 
of established dogmas and dominant paradigms in our societies...


You see, to believe in the existence of an absolute truth has proved to be one of the most horrific plagues in the history of mankind. A monster that has spawned blind fanaticism, intolerances, bloody and repressive dictatorships, violence, mass killings, catastrophic wars, etc.

Very few people are able to break down those paradigms and dogmas established all over the place in our societies, because it's something dangerous. Who wants to be treated as insane, evil, or be mocked, and therefore be condemned to marginality? Who wants to get out of his or her comfort zone? The answer is: very few people, because most of the time fear wins ...

I would like to give you some thoughts that came from an american writer and occultist, Robert Anton Wilson. This is from a 1976 interview for Science Fiction Review. You can find the entire interview here: https://rawilsonfans.org/1976/05/

  "I will venture, however, that the idea that there are no conspiracies has been popularized by historians working for universities and institutes funded by the principle conspirators of our time – the Rockefeller-Morgan banking interests, the Council on Foreign Relations Crowd.  This is not astonishing or depressing.  Conspiracy is the standard mammalian politics for reasons to be found in ethology and Von Neumann’s and Morgenstern’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.  Vertebrate competition depends on knowing more than the opposition, monopolizing information along with territory, hoarding signals. Entropy, in a word.  Science is based on transmitting the signal accurately, accelerating the process of information transfer.  Negative entropy.  The final war may be between Pavlov’s Dog and Schroedinger’s Cat (...)

"However, I am profoundly suspicious about all conspiracy theories, including my own, because conspiracy buss tend to forget the difference between a plausible argument and a real proof.  Or between a legal proof, a proof in the behavioral sciences, a proof in physics, a mathematical or logical proof, or a parody of any of the above.  My advice to all is Buddha’s last words, “Doubt, and find your own light.”  Or, as Crowley wrote, “I slept with Faith and found her a corpse in the morning.  I drank and danced all night with Doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”  Doubt suffereth long, but is kind; doubt covereth a multitude of sins’ (but) doubt puffeth not itself up into dogma.  For now abideth doubt, hope, and charity, these three and the greatest of these is doubt.  With doubt all tings are possible.  Every other entity in the universe, including Goddess Herself, may be trying to con you.  It’s all Show Biz (...)

"The most advanced shamanic techniques – such as Tibetan Tantra or Crowley’s system in the West – work by alternating faith and skepticisim until you get beyond the ordinary limits of both.  With such systems, one learns how arbitrary are the reality-maps that can be coded into laryngeal grunts by hominids or visualized by a mammalian nervous system.  We can’t even visualize the size of the local galaxy except in special High states.  Most people are trapped in one static reality-map imprinted on their neurons when they were naïve children, as Dr. Leary keeps reminding us.  Alas, most so-called “Adepts” or “Gurus” are similarly trapped in the first post-rapture reality-map imprinted after their initial Illumination, as Leary also realizes.  The point of systems like Tantra, Crowleyanity and Leary’s Neurologic is to detach from all maps – which gives you the freedom to use any map where it works and drop it where it doesn’t work."

Finally, these other thoughts comes from a 1976 interview for Conspiracy Digest. Again, you can find the entire interview here: http://www.rawilson.com/papers.html

"I see the power game resting on three levels of force and fraud. First, earliest and still most powerful is the government racket itself, the monopoly on force (military power, police power, etc.) which allows the governing group to take tribute (taxation) from the enslaved or deluded masses. Second, derivative from this primordial conquest, is the landlord racket, the mammalian monopoly on territory which allow's the king's relations (lords-of-the-land) or their successors, today's "land-lords," to take tribute (rent) from those who live within the territory. Rent is the daughter of taxation; the second degree of the same racket. Third, the latest in historical time, is the usury racket, the monopoly on the issue of currency which allows the money lords to take tribute (interest) on the creation of money or credit, and on the continuous circulation of the money or credit every step of the way. Interest is the son of rent, the rent of money. Since most people engaged in nefarious practices are, in my opinion, very loathe to acknowledge what they are doing, and are addicted to the same hypocrisies as the rest of humanity, I think all power groups quite sincerely believe that what they are doing is proper, and that anybody who attacks them is a revolutionary nut. Outside of the Klingons on Star Trek, I have never encountered a real predator who justifies himself on Stirnerite or Machiavellian grounds. I really think Saroyan was right, naive as it sounds, in saying that "every man is a good man in his own eyes."

 

For those interested:

https://archive.org/details/IsraelRegardie-TheEyeInTheTriangle-1986

 

 

 

Edited by lucisfero
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

I wonder when there is going to be proper disclosure from a government (any country) about alien objects/crafts/technology that they are aware of and have in their possession - that forces other nations to go....

"Ummm... we have also been hiding some things......"

I hope I live to see it. I think there is a good chance I will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/20/2020 at 7:14 AM, joe1QB said:

It's all about people's desire to believe in something mystical. Some people believe in the zodiac signs articles and their predictions for each zodiac sign as well. I think it's almost the same thing.

Think we should go back to reading entrails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

PeaceFrogYum, well, you're onto something :) I don't know are you kidding or not, but a lot of people in our county are being amazed by numerology, which became pretty popular for the last time. You know, they believe that articles like this about 444 angel number can make them more successful in ... some spheres, if they will do all the recommended actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I believe the CIA agent Hinchey's gun accidentally discharged and fired the fatal bullet that killed JFK.

I also believe that Charles Allen Cross Lechmere was indeed Jack the Ripper

I also believe the Phoenix Lights and the Nimitz Encounters were very real and unexplained events and could only be ships or probes from another world

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 7:59 AM, LedZeppfan1977 said:

Well I believe the CIA agent Hinchey's gun accidentally discharged and fired the fatal bullet that killed JFK.

I also believe that Charles Allen Cross Lechmere was indeed Jack the Ripper

I also believe the Phoenix Lights and the Nimitz Encounters were very real and unexplained events and could only be ships or probes from another world

No way the CIA's M-16 shot JFK and this is why. M-16's use jacketed rounds, are .223 (same size as a .22 caliber round), and extremely high velocity. The round was designed for one purpose, to create massive internal damage by the use of a high-velocity, unstable round. If he were shot in the back of the head with an M-16 there would have been a very small entry wound, no exit wound from the head (likely none at all but if it did would come out his toe or some other random point), and his brain would have been turned into tapioca pudding from the round bouncing around in his head like a pinball. JFK's head wound was most likely caused by either a large caliber, non-jacketed lead hunting round, or an explosive "dummy" round. There is another possibility but very highly unlikely. That would be a high-powered sniper rifle from a distance of greater than 150 meters as the distance would both reduce velocity and thus increase kinetic damage. The higher the velocity of the round when hitting a target the lower the kinetic damage as the energy will move through the mass instead of being distributed into the mass as happens with a lower velocity round. Quite literally 1/4 of Kennedy's head was blown completely off. The bodies of dead NVA & VC would in most cases, appear as if the person just died as the entry wound was so small it actually took effort to find it in most cases, as with the exit wound if there was one. This is why when a GI would shoot himself to get out of combat they had to pick up an AK from a dead VC, otherwise, the GI could very easily accidentally kill himself simply by shooting himself in the foot or leg whereas an AK round (7.62mm) neither tumbles nor has the velocity of a .223 and just blows a nice big hole right through.

Lechmere is as good a candidate as any. The Ripper case will likely never be solved unless the original police files were to show otherwise which they do not.

The Phx Lights could be explained away. That one could have been a top secret military dirigible. The Nimitz one though, that one is a true mystery. 

Edited by PeaceFrogYum
Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK was killed by Oswald with a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano rifle loaded with 6.5x52mm cartridges manufactured by the Western Cartridge Corporation of East Alton, Illinois from an allotment of ammunition which was purchased by the United States Marine corps in 1954 for a rifle that the Marines... or any other U.S. military branch--- DID NOT HAVE or ever use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kipper said:

JFK was killed by Oswald with a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano rifle loaded with 6.5x52mm cartridges manufactured by the Western Cartridge Corporation of East Alton, Illinois from an allotment of ammunition which was purchased by the United States Marine corps in 1954 for a rifle that the Marines... or any other U.S. military branch--- DID NOT HAVE or ever use.

Sez who? The Warren Commission and Wikipedia? Gimme a break.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2020 at 12:42 PM, Badgeholder Still said:

Sez who? The Warren Commission and Wikipedia? Gimme a break.

I think you misunderstand what Kip is saying. He said the rounds were Marine Corp. stockpile for a weapon they did not, nor ever did use. So, why did the Marines have these rounds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

I think you misunderstand what Kip is saying. He said the rounds were Marine Corp. stockpile for a weapon they did not, nor ever did use. So, why did the Marines have these rounds?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/18/round-killed-kennedy/

Our story begins with the CIA. In 1954, the Department of Defense let a contract to Western Cartridge Company, a division of Winchester-Olin, for 4 million rounds of 6.5x52mm Carcano full metal jacket ammunition. The contract was requested by the CIA, intended for anti-communist forces in some far away place (speculations include Albania, Greece, and Cuba). In 1962, this ammunition was re-imported into the United States, along with many of the M38 Carcano rifles it was intended for, and was released for sale onto the US civilian market. 

 

Ok. So, the CIA procured the ammo, then made it available to the general public where Oswald happened upon it and, acting alone, used it to kill the president. Wow. What a coincidence Oswald used the CIA's old ammo.

That is interesting and might through some shade on the CIA, but again, sez who? As a conspiracy nut, i have to question this and everything that supports the cover up that is the Warren Commission's findings. Witnesses and experts can be bought. Evidence can be tampered with or manufactured. And yes, they needed to create a back story for the patsy. 

I Am Only A Patsy”

https://historycollection.co/wasnt-oswald-killed-jfk-part-2-6-reasons-oswald-not-killer/4/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Badgeholder Still said:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/18/round-killed-kennedy/

Our story begins with the CIA. In 1954, the Department of Defense let a contract to Western Cartridge Company, a division of Winchester-Olin, for 4 million rounds of 6.5x52mm Carcano full metal jacket ammunition. The contract was requested by the CIA, intended for anti-communist forces in some far away place (speculations include Albania, Greece, and Cuba). In 1962, this ammunition was re-imported into the United States, along with many of the M38 Carcano rifles it was intended for, and was released for sale onto the US civilian market. 

 

Ok. So, the CIA procured the ammo, then made it available to the general public where Oswald happened upon it and, acting alone, used it to kill the president. Wow. What a coincidence Oswald used the CIA's old ammo.

That is interesting and might through some shade on the CIA, but again, sez who? As a conspiracy nut, i have to question this and everything that supports the cover up that is the Warren Commission's findings. Witnesses and experts can be bought. Evidence can be tampered with or manufactured. And yes, they needed to create a back story for the patsy. 

I Am Only A Patsy”

https://historycollection.co/wasnt-oswald-killed-jfk-part-2-6-reasons-oswald-not-killer/4/

I never said Oswald wasn't the lone shooter. I also never said the CIA acting through the Marine Corp or other avenue was behind the assassination. What I find curious however is why so many details like these had to be routed out like pulling teeth, and were not immediately disclosed by the government. Was it just due to the nature of how the CIA and FBI were behaving in the era at the peak of the cold war and not long after the Pay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis--- or was the lack of transparency something else?  Maybe the fact that a lot of Bozos were steering the ship? The fact that a ex Marine nut job like Oswald who had traveled to the USSR and who they ALREADY knew was a lose cannon and a threat could take up a location of high ground and kill the most powerful man in the world while in a CONVERTIBLE vehicle!!!

All of the JFK conspiracies stem from parts of the government scrambling to cover their tracks to avoid embarrassment. Personal careers on the line-- political considerations over dealing with the problem of a lack of control and transparency. The "myth" that government smarter than fifth grader.

And then a few years later the replacement president decides to ramp up a war in Southeast Asia to look tougher than a war hawk political challenger he is running against in order to win reelection. Now THAT is a conspiracy I believe in.  Had Richard Nixon won in 1960 instead of JFK there would have been no LBJ in the sequence of future events. In some way of looking at this Oswald by his lone action was the proximate cause of  the Vietnam war. Had JFK survived, his popularity would have continuedand he would not have "wagged the dog" the way Johnson did later on in order to be re-elected.

Oswald's good rifle skills therefore resulted in this. Oswald was the Gavrilo Princip of his time.

5634656571_a337d54cf4_b.jpg

IMG-6307.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What really puts a massive hole in the JFK lone gunman theory is there appears to be at least two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The accounting of "Oswalds" movements as put forth by the Warren Commission has serious problems as the Lee H Oswald who was arrested was nowhere near about hlaf of the places he was supposed to be however another Lee H Oswald was. The two men look similar in the face but other than that were very different. The one we know, the one who was arrested was about three inches taller, considerably leaner, and had a prominent scar by his left ear from a childhood surgery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kipper said:

I also never said the CIA acting through the Marine Corp or other avenue was behind the assassination.

 

I know. That's why i provided the link to shed light on the theory.

21 hours ago, kipper said:

 What I find curious however is why so many details like these had to be routed out like pulling teeth, and were not immediately disclosed by the government. Was it just due to the nature of how the CIA and FBI were behaving in the era at the peak of the cold war and not long after the Pay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis--- or was the lack of transparency something else?  Maybe the fact that a lot of Bozos were steering the ship?

 

That's the nature of a cover up. To hide things. Heck, maybe to some degree branches of the government were involved in the assassination. JFK had made enemies of military leaders, the CIA and the mafia among others. Maybe that's why truths weren't investigated and presented as fact. Maybe those Bozos pulled the wool over a lot of eyes.

21 hours ago, kipper said:

Maybe the fact that a lot of Bozos were steering the ship? The fact that a ex Marine nut job like Oswald who had traveled to the USSR and who they ALREADY knew was a lose cannon and a threat could take up a location of high ground and kill the most powerful man in the world while in a CONVERTIBLE vehicle!!!

 

They know exactly who he was and he played the part perfectly, whether he fired he fatal shot or not.

21 hours ago, kipper said:

And then a few years later the replacement president decides to ramp up a war in Southeast Asia to look tougher than a war hawk political challenger he is running against in order to win reelection. Now THAT is a conspiracy I believe in. 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/09/26/jfk-ordered-full-withdrawal-vietnam-solid-evidence/

On October 5, 1963, at a meeting at 9:30 AM, Kennedy made the formal decision to implement the withdrawal plan. Again, we have the tape. On October 11, the White House issued National Security Action Memorandum 263, which speaks of ‘the implementation of plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam."

NSAM 263 is the order to withdraw and NSAM 273 was LBJ’s order to NOT withdraw made 2-3 days after the assassination. It included, as this article says, the COMPLETE withdrawal by the end of 1965. Not sure you fully read it or not but this is not really a debate with all we know nowadays. Most of this stuff was classified until the 90’s which is why an alternative history was allowed to flourish about it. JFK knew that Vietnam was not about Communism and was in fact about Nationalism and had no intention of killing Americans over it.
The only alternative history is the one portrayed by the media and Ken Burns about how “nothing changed” between JFK and LBJ. Vietnam, Congo, Indonesia, Soviet Union, Cuba, Guinea, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Egypt, Algeria, Tanganyika, and South Africa, all had vastly different relations under JFK, far better.

 

This wasn't political maneuvering by LBJ in 1965. This was action planned before JFK was assassinated and carried out days after his death. By parties who planned and executed his assassination.

21 hours ago, kipper said:

Oswald's good rifle skills therefore resulted in this. Oswald was the Gavrilo Princip of his time.

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

Lee Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956, but his skill deteriorated and by the time he left the Marines, more than four years before the assassination, he was officially 'a rather poor shot'.

 

Who knows what kind of a shot Oswald was in 1963. He may be a patsy for killing JFK but not for the entire Vietnam war. LBJ, Nixon and their fellow Bozos are fully responsible for that. 

15 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

What really puts a massive hole in the JFK lone gunman theory is there appears to be at least two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The accounting of "Oswalds" movements as put forth by the Warren Commission has serious problems as the Lee H Oswald who was arrested was nowhere near about hlaf of the places he was supposed to be however another Lee H Oswald was. 

 

That fact that Oswald was killed almost immediately after declaring himself a patsy begs an explanation. What did he have to say? Why did he need to be silenced?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a former Marine myself I can attest being a Marine Sharpshooter is good, however it is not the same qualification as being a sniper which is a much, much higher criteria. Normal Marine rifle training does not include moving targets, only stationary. Only sniper school, which Oswald neither qualified for nor attended, practices on moving targets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

As a former Marine myself I can attest being a Marine Sharpshooter is good, however it is not the same qualification as being a sniper which is a much, much higher criteria. Normal Marine rifle training does not include moving targets, only stationary. Only sniper school, which Oswald neither qualified for nor attended, practices on moving targets.

I have gone to the site of the assassination twice.

First, the easy factor is Range.  The range was, for all practical purposes, pretty low (less than 100 yards).  Many factors that go into a shot at a longer range were at this distance not statistically significant.  This includes bullet drop and wind drift, and shooting angle, along with more esoteric things like spin drift.

Against this, Oswald was taking shots at a moving target, with relatively little time to fire, and he fired a not so great gun three times in rapid succession. Let's remember those three shots.  To hit on his FIRST shot would have been a really good shot.  But he missed, adjusted, fired, got a decent hit, and then fired again for a head shot.

Many people remember the Warren commission's testing was unable to reproduce the shots, but this is misleading, as their testing was incomplete.  Oswald probably used the iron sights on the gun, rather than the telescopic sights. The iron sights would be easier to track a moving target with, and were more than adequate for that distance. Getting off three shots under those circumstances isn't trivial, but it's not HARD.  Assuming some practice time with the gun, and some rifle training, it's certainly doable.  Expert shooters have also suggested that he fired from a standing position, which would have made for an easier shot.

Oswald's outcome was, to some extent, lucky.  But it was within the range of reasonable expectation for someone of his ability, with that weapon.

Shot #1 was the most difficult shot of the three, as the target was directly beneath the window and moving from left to right. Oswald was in a standing position and the rifle was pointed almost straight down, with no fixed support. This was a very unnatural firing position, and not one that could be easily practiced. Not to mention the “buck fever” that Oswald surely felt as he squeezed off the first shot. It is no small wonder that the first shot missed entirely. In all likelihood, the first shot was deflected, either by a metal traffic light standard, or by branches of the live oak tree, but even without a deflection, this would have been a very challenging shot.

Shots #2 and #3 would have been much easier. Oswald had time to move to a seated position and take a deep, cleansing breath. The rifle stock was now supported by a box, providing far more stability. And once the car cleared the live oak tree, its path down Elm Street was directly away from Oswald’s window. His target would have been easy to keep in the crosshairs of the scope as the car would have appeared virtually motionless.

Shot #3 was about 80 yards, moving slowly, directly away from the muzzle of the rifle. Assuming the rifle was properly sighted in, the third shot would not have required Oswald’s USMC marksmanship to execute, but given the training he did receive in the USMC it was an easy kill shot.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Badgeholder Still said:

 

This wasn't political maneuvering by LBJ in 1965. This was action planned before JFK was assassinated and carried out days after his death. By parties who planned and executed his assassination.

 

I don't buy that at all.  Eisenhower had already but the brakes on deeper involvement, and JFK post Bay of Pigs was certainly not likely to saber rattle in Vietnam much either.

LBJ was just weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

I have gone to the site of the assassination twice.

First, the easy factor is Range.  The range was, for all practical purposes, pretty low (less than 100 yards).  Many factors that go into a shot at a longer range were at this distance not statistically significant.  This includes bullet drop and wind drift, and shooting angle, along with more esoteric things like spin drift.

Against this, Oswald was taking shots at a moving target, with relatively little time to fire, and he fired a not so great gun three times in rapid succession. Let's remember those three shots.  To hit on his FIRST shot would have been a really good shot.  But he missed, adjusted, fired, got a decent hit, and then fired again for a head shot.

Many people remember the Warren commission's testing was unable to reproduce the shots, but this is misleading, as their testing was incomplete.  Oswald probably used the iron sights on the gun, rather than the telescopic sights. The iron sights would be easier to track a moving target with, and were more than adequate for that distance. Getting off three shots under those circumstances isn't trivial, but it's not HARD.  Assuming some practice time with the gun, and some rifle training, it's certainly doable.  Expert shooters have also suggested that he fired from a standing position, which would have made for an easier shot.

Oswald's outcome was, to some extent, lucky.  But it was within the range of reasonable expectation for someone of his ability, with that weapon.

Shot #1 was the most difficult shot of the three, as the target was directly beneath the window and moving from left to right. Oswald was in a standing position and the rifle was pointed almost straight down, with no fixed support. This was a very unnatural firing position, and not one that could be easily practiced. Not to mention the “buck fever” that Oswald surely felt as he squeezed off the first shot. It is no small wonder that the first shot missed entirely. In all likelihood, the first shot was deflected, either by a metal traffic light standard, or by branches of the live oak tree, but even without a deflection, this would have been a very challenging shot.

Shots #2 and #3 would have been much easier. Oswald had time to move to a seated position and take a deep, cleansing breath. The rifle stock was now supported by a box, providing far more stability. And once the car cleared the live oak tree, its path down Elm Street was directly away from Oswald’s window. His target would have been easy to keep in the crosshairs of the scope as the car would have appeared virtually motionless.

Shot #3 was about 80 yards, moving slowly, directly away from the muzzle of the rifle. Assuming the rifle was properly sighted in, the third shot would not have required Oswald’s USMC marksmanship to execute, but given the training he did receive in the USMC it was an easy kill shot.

 

Great post Steve and spot on.

All of this mythology about the shot Oswald made from that position being beyond his ability is hogwash. The same shot has been replicated many times by other shooters using the same type of rifle; even the same ammo from the same batch of ammo stock.

Then there is the "magic pristine bullet" which wasn't so pristine, it was in fact disfigured.

Even the misconceptions about the direction JFK's head moved after being hit in the scull by people with no concept about how ballistic and anatomy would make the jet effect from brain matter flying forward throw a human head backward.  Most people make assumptions on what they see in movies, not any science.

Oswald was the one, and the CIA and FBI were very embarrassed by that. They knew Oswald was a kook and they let him in the hen house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 3:25 AM, kipper said:

I don't buy that at all.  Eisenhower had already but the brakes on deeper involvement, and JFK post Bay of Pigs was certainly not likely to saber rattle in Vietnam much either.

LBJ was just weak.

Ike may have put on the brakes, but JFK delivered the kibosh (National Security Action Memorandum 263), which was reversed days after his death by LBJ (NSAM 273).

It's documented.  But, and i insist, believe what reinforces your comfort zone.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKNSF/342/JFKNSF-342-007

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-lbj/nsam-273.htm

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2020 at 4:12 PM, SteveAJones said:

I have gone to the site of the assassination twice.

First, the easy factor is Range.  The range was, for all practical purposes, pretty low (less than 100 yards).  Many factors that go into a shot at a longer range were at this distance not statistically significant.  This includes bullet drop and wind drift, and shooting angle, along with more esoteric things like spin drift.

Against this, Oswald was taking shots at a moving target, with relatively little time to fire, and he fired a not so great gun three times in rapid succession. Let's remember those three shots.  To hit on his FIRST shot would have been a really good shot.  But he missed, adjusted, fired, got a decent hit, and then fired again for a head shot.

Many people remember the Warren commission's testing was unable to reproduce the shots, but this is misleading, as their testing was incomplete.  Oswald probably used the iron sights on the gun, rather than the telescopic sights. The iron sights would be easier to track a moving target with, and were more than adequate for that distance. Getting off three shots under those circumstances isn't trivial, but it's not HARD.  Assuming some practice time with the gun, and some rifle training, it's certainly doable.  Expert shooters have also suggested that he fired from a standing position, which would have made for an easier shot.

Oswald's outcome was, to some extent, lucky.  But it was within the range of reasonable expectation for someone of his ability, with that weapon.

Shot #1 was the most difficult shot of the three, as the target was directly beneath the window and moving from left to right. Oswald was in a standing position and the rifle was pointed almost straight down, with no fixed support. This was a very unnatural firing position, and not one that could be easily practiced. Not to mention the “buck fever” that Oswald surely felt as he squeezed off the first shot. It is no small wonder that the first shot missed entirely. In all likelihood, the first shot was deflected, either by a metal traffic light standard, or by branches of the live oak tree, but even without a deflection, this would have been a very challenging shot.

Shots #2 and #3 would have been much easier. Oswald had time to move to a seated position and take a deep, cleansing breath. The rifle stock was now supported by a box, providing far more stability. And once the car cleared the live oak tree, its path down Elm Street was directly away from Oswald’s window. His target would have been easy to keep in the crosshairs of the scope as the car would have appeared virtually motionless.

Shot #3 was about 80 yards, moving slowly, directly away from the muzzle of the rifle. Assuming the rifle was properly sighted in, the third shot would not have required Oswald’s USMC marksmanship to execute, but given the training he did receive in the USMC it was an easy kill shot.

 

WRONG! Of the three shots fired, the first hit Kennedy in the back exiting his neck. The second shot was a miss, and the third shot hit its target. This is proven beyond any doubt by sound analysis.

Fun Fact: Kennedy should have survived the assassination attempt but he was wearing not one but two corsets at the time. The first one was for his back issues, the second was due to a nasty social disease he acquired form one of his "ladies." It was the second corset which prevented him from slumping over after the first shot.

So, what actually killed Kennedy was his whoring around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeaceFrogYum said:

WRONG! Of the three shots fired, the first hit Kennedy in the back exiting his neck. The second shot was a miss, and the third shot hit its target. This is proven beyond any doubt by sound analysis.

Fun Fact: Kennedy should have survived the assassination attempt but he was wearing not one but two corsets at the time. The first one was for his back issues, the second was due to a nasty social disease he acquired form one of his "ladies." It was the second corset which prevented him from slumping over after the first shot.

So, what actually killed Kennedy was his whoring around.

How anything you post can be taken seriously is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

How anything you post can be taken seriously is beyond me.

Really? This is the FBI & Warren Commission's own reports:

The FBI stated that three bullets were fired during the Kennedy assassination; the Warren Commission agreed with the FBI investigation that three shots were fired but disagreed with the FBI report on which shots hit Kennedy and which hit Governor Connally. The FBI report claimed that the first shot hit President Kennedy, the second shot hit Governor Connally, and the third shot hit President Kennedy in the head, killing him. In contrast, the Warren Commission concluded that one of the three shots missed, one of the shots hit President Kennedy and then struck Governor Connally, and a third shot struck President Kennedy in the head, killing him.

and...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-nov-22-oe-reston22-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/06/health/the-doctor-s-world-disturbing-issue-of-kennedy-s-secret-illness.html

 

Edited by PeaceFrogYum
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 11:51 AM, PeaceFrogYum said:

 

Fun Fact: Kennedy should have survived the assassination attempt but he was wearing not one but two corsets at the time. The first one was for his back issues, the second was due to a nasty social disease he acquired form one of his "ladies." It was the second corset which prevented him from slumping over after the first shot.

So, what actually killed Kennedy was his whoring around.

Or.....   not riding around in a convertible might have been an even better prophylactic measure.... don't ya think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...