JFK and the Unspeakable

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Without getting into the terminal ballistics, judging only from the shooting requirements that where required of Oswald, I find the lone gunman theory near impossible to believe. Fact one, Oswald was a below average shot as a Marine qualifying as a Sharpshooter and Marksman. The first shot missed Kennedy completely but yet Oswald was supposedly able to make the next 2 more difficult follow up shots, amazing.

The first shot hit a tree branch and got deflected. That is why he missed Kennedy on the first shot.

It doesn't matter if Oswald was a below average shot in the Marines. He was using a rifle with a scope from a very short distance. A novice could have hit Kennedy.

 

[Bfgrn]

AND...

The initial draft of the Warren Report stated:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

It was CHANGED at the urging of Commission member Gerald R. Ford...

Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of
his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''

The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his
neck slightly to the right of the spine.''

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

YOUR turn...

I really don't understand what your point is here -- a few minor word changes to the autopsy report indicates a conspiracy???

Posner addressed all of the supposed "inconsistencies" in the autopsy report in his book. The conspiracy theorists love to jump all over the autopsy, but there is just nothing here.

And you are wrong about another important point (which the Warren Commission also got wrong) --
The shooting lasted OVER 8 SECONDS, not the 6 seconds that the Warren Commission concluded. Posner proves this in his book in several ways by analyzing the Zapruder film. 8 seconds was plenty of time to fire all 3 shots.

Did you know that there were 3 men standing directly below Oswald on the 5th floor when the 3 shots were fired? There is even a photo of these men trying to look up at the 6th floor through their window shortly after the shooting. These men heard 3 shots and they even heard the shells hitting the floor.

This is exactly what I mean -- you conspiracy buffs completely IGNORE any inconvenient facts like this that don't fit your version of events.

MINOR points??? CHANGING the location of the first wound in the President by the Warren Commission (NOT the autopsy) is MINOR? REALLY???????????

I guess I didn't make it SIMPLE enough for you...

YOU need to get me past the first two wounds in the President, otherwise, the single bullet theory FALLS APART...

HERE is where the Warren Commission said the first wound (initial entrance wound of the single bullet) was located...

Warren Commission Exhibit CE 386

HERE is trajectory according to the Warren Commission based on their FALSE first wound location (CHANGED from back to back of neck in the Report)...

Warren Commission Exhibit CE 385

AND...

HERE is the ACTUAL location of the first wound (initial entrance wound of the single bullet)

KWO... you are really starting to piss me off...YOU are the one ignoring everything I posted and asked of you...then you have the nerve to call me a conspiracy buff? ALL I have talked about is physical and medical evidence...I have NOT forwarded ANY conspiracies theories...

NOW, either address the first wounds, or just admit you are not prepared to discuss the JFK assassination intelligently...

 

[Ryan]

Fact one, Oswald was a below average shot as a Marine qualifying as a Sharpshooter and Marksman. The first shot missed Kennedy completely but yet Oswald was supposedly able to make the next 2 more difficult follow up shots, amazing.
I have never met a Marine who doesn't think he could make that shot[/I

The Warren Commission time frame was established at between 4.6 and 5.15 seconds based on film analysis. This is a key element of the "lone gunman" theory where no more then three shot were fired in that time frame or the theory falls apart. Can this time frame be proven possible?

The ability to fire three shots has been repeatedly demonstrated. Keep in mind the first shot is already in the chamber, the clock starts once the first shot is fired. Six seconds to rire the remaining two shots is not difficult and has been proven
The 6th story window was apx. 60 feet above ground the distances were 175, 240 and 265 ft which is a short range but yet a difficult shot that has yet to be reproduced.
It has been reproduced many times, find me a single Marine who doesn't think he could make that shot.

Question for those who don't buy a lone gunman. If there were multiple gunmen, why would they only get off three shots? Wouldn't you set up a kill zone and spray the limo with gunfire?

Why would Oswald have a gun that he paid $19 for? Wouldn't the CIA provide him a $500 sniper rifle to be sure?

**********
I am a former Marine that has several rifle expert awards and while in a STA platoon was trained at the 1st Marine Division sniper school and believe I could not have made that string of shots. More importantly a former Marine, police officer and well accomplished authority on snipers Craig Roberts in his book "Kill Zone" states without hesitation that he could not have duplicated Oswald's supposed feat. The distance is not the issue and those familiar with shooting and the Dealey Plaza requirements appreciate these questions. You now have the name of a combat experienced Marine, Craig Roberts, who studied the facts, wrote a book on the issue and put his reputation on the line. Now that I have provided you with the name of an authority I would appreciate you specify what demonstration "reproduced" the theoretical lone gunman shooting results.

Your final two questions maybe legitimate by themselves but do not change the basic questions concerning a rifle and scope that could not be zeroed until Warren Commission had engineers work on the rifle using shims et cetera. Oswald was not a skilled shooter despite great efforts to portray him as such and this portrayal is key to the "lone gunman" theory. A connection between Oswald to a more expensive rifle is more complicated and apparently a faulty rifle has somehow been convincing enough evidence for the many "lone gunman" theorists. The issue of shots fired has also been controversial, but these operational issues do not zero the scope on the Mannlicher Carcano or reproduce that string of fire. What I am asking for is the best evidence that Oswald made those shots.

 

[Ryan]

The first shot hit a tree branch and got deflected. That is why he missed Kennedy on the first shot.

It doesn't matter if Oswald was a below average shot in the Marines. He was using a rifle with a scope from a very short distance. A novice could have hit Kennedy.

**********
I have never read that the first shot was deflected by a tree branch but would appreciate you listing your source. I know that a curb was hit by a projectile during the assassination and a piect of concrete hit a by stander. I have never been to Dealey Plaza and cannot say for certain where the tree branches came into play in relation to the limo on Elm Street and the first shot. Based on your post the bullet would been directed by a tree branch to such a great degree that the huge limo would be missed completely. Is that what you are saying?

It's worth noting that Military Snipers are trained to shoot from behind bushes as a form of cover and concealment. Perhaps the projectile is deflected a bit but the benefits out weigh costs and this is differant then Police Sniping. Still though the Oswald shots were supposedly made at a moving target and certainly the tree would have made tracking very difficult for that second follow up shot that hit the upper torso. I am using the Warren Commision tests which employed three Master riflemen, not novices, and the "lone gunman" theory could not be sustained.

 

[rightwinger]

While in the Marines, Oswald was trained in the use of the M1 Garand rifle. Following that training, he was tested in December 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a sharpshooter. In May 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a marksman.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

One thing we know is fact,Stones film may not be the ENTIRE truth,but its a 100 times more accurate to what really happened than the fairy tale the warren commission came up with and people still desperately want to believe in

Oh my God, now I KNOW you are truly delusional and you haven't read Posner's book. Or is you have read it, you are in total denial.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner's character) was one of the most corrupt DAs in the history of this country. Even people that worked with him have testified to this. Plus, the guy was kicked out of the Army for mental problems ("paranoia" being one of his many mental problems -- that explains a lot!). He fabricated the ENTIRE FUCKING CASE against Clay Shaw. All Garrison did was completely ruin an innocent man's life. Garrison didn't have a shred of evidence that Oswald knew Shaw or ANY of the people in that movie. He literally pulled that entire case out of his ass because he was a shameless glory hound.

your in serious denial as usual. AGAIN for the 100th freaking time,stop seeing only what you WANT to see and read the freaking book CASE OPEN, it debunks everyone of Posners fantasys .Funny how your afraid to read that book and my last post on page 5 I have to keep repeating to you. Ruined an innocent mans life? your hysterical.It was later learned through the freedom of information act years later that Clay Shaw DID work for the CIA.you crack me up.The reason Garrison couldnt prove it was cause plants of the CIA penetrated his office and knew what he was up to.Also the jury back then, even though they were not convinced that Shaw was guilty since Garrison could not prove it,they WERE convinced it was a conspiracy after looking at the zapruder film.

 

[Ryan]

Just to follow up on the issue of the shots attributed to Oswald, the rifle scope was not sighted in placing the cross hairs on the point of impact with the projectile. In other words, if a shooter placed those cross hairs on a target at any range and squeezed the trigger the result would be a miss. This circumstance was not a result of a jarred rifle that may have occurred after the assassination but was inherent to the rifle scope/mount itself and required great effort by the Warren Commission to address.

Lone gunman theorists such as Bugliosi (sp?) explain this massive problem away by suggesting that Oswald did not use the scope but instead used the iron sights. This is possible on some rifle set ups to see the iron sights below a scope to some degree. This type of scope mount serves where a hunter may have a damaged scope that occurs during a hunt or perhaps low light conditions or even scope sighted in a different distance then the distance a target appears. It does seem to me that shooting attributed to Oswald would be easier with iron sights since the objective lense of the defective scope looks to be the dimensions of a dime an reacquiring a target for a follow up shot would be very difficult. Oswald would have to had totally miss on the cold barrell shot, which should be the best, but shot 2 would be better and shot 3 the best as the target moved away from him through tree branches.

This iron sight theory has not been tested to prove that this method would be able to reproduce the same results attributed to Oswald. Surely using the iron sights would be more likely to result in a hit but the time frame of the maximum (HSCA) of 8.1 seconds firing three shots with the MC bolt action at a moving target is still tight. Then the question arises as to why Oswald would not use the scope? Did Oswald realize that the scope was defective? If so, then why did he leave that the scope and mounting system on the rifle especially since the useless bulk would obstruct the view of the iron sights and make tracking a target more difficult? It really does not add up and even Bugliosi must have held his nose when he offered up that one.

Another major problem with the lone gunman theory is that Oswald was a below average shot for a Marine. When Oswald qualified a on stationary targets he was using the M-1 Garand which was the best battle rifle that existed at that time. The Warren Commission and the CBS tests could not produce the shots attributed to Oswald under controlled conditions and so how anyone believes that Oswald could make those shots under the intense stress that would naturally occur when shooting a US President is hard for me to understand. Even using the time frame of the HSCA is beyond the skill of Oswald. Two very big problems for the lone gunman theorists.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

AND...

The initial draft of the Warren Report stated:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

It was CHANGED at the urging of Commission member Gerald R. Ford...

Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of
his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''

The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his
neck slightly to the right of the spine.''

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

YOUR turn...

I really don't understand what your point is here -- a few minor word changes to the autopsy report indicates a conspiracy???

Posner addressed all of the supposed "inconsistencies" in the autopsy report in his book. The conspiracy theorists love to jump all over the autopsy, but there is just nothing here.

And you are wrong about another important point (which the Warren Commission also got wrong) --
The shooting lasted OVER 8 SECONDS, not the 6 seconds that the Warren Commission concluded. Posner proves this in his book in several ways by analyzing the Zapruder film. 8 seconds was plenty of time to fire all 3 shots.

Did you know that there were 3 men standing directly below Oswald on the 5th floor when the 3 shots were fired? There is even a photo of these men trying to look up at the 6th floor through their window shortly after the shooting. These men heard 3 shots and they even heard the shells hitting the floor.

This is exactly what I mean -- you conspiracy buffs completely IGNORE any inconvenient facts like this that don't fit your version of events.

and AGAIN ,the book CASE OPEN addressed all of Posners lies and proved they were.the only ones that ignore facts because it doesnt go along with their version of events,are you lone nut theorists who only see what you WANT to see since your in so much serious denial.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

oh god here I got to repeat it again for you brainwashed kennedy deniars.read my last post on page five where I listed the lies of Posners and read the freaking book CASE OPEN before you start posting this crap here about Posners fantasy that oswalkd killed kennedy and was the lone gunman.also you might actually want to read the posts of mine and the thread starters.if you STILL think Oswald did it after all that,you guys are in serious denial.

I don't see what you're talking about on page 5. If you've read Case Closed and still believe the conspiracy crap, then you are in denial. Pure and simple.

This controversy is dead and has been since Case Closed came out 15 years ago. Nobody has refuted anything Posner wrote in the book. Plus, the fact that you said the movie "JFK" is legit tells me that you are a total blowhard not worth listening to.

No its just unlike you,I do research and dont ignore facts.Also unlike you,I dont go into it seeing only what I want to see.thanks for proving your afraid to read that last post of mine on page 5 since you know it proves what a liar he is.if you STILL believe in that lone nut crap after all these years,then you are in serious denial.plain and simple.you know it,I know it.

 

[Ryan]

9/11

I do not have "Case Open" and hope to get it at some time. As I recall reading sometime ago, Clay Shaw was an OSS man during WWII and the transition to CIA operative is not a big leap. Also, Shaw was linked to a shadowy organization PERMINDEX.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yeah your right on everything you said about Shaw.Those facts were learned through the ARRB-assassinations records review boards in the 90's.I cannot remember the authors name who wrote it, but Im sure you can find that out in a google search but the book Case Open blows away all of Posners fantasys that this lone nut theorist here wants so desperatly to believe in.I suggest everybody here ignore this nutcase.He only see's what he WANTS to see and he didnt even bother reading that post of mine I kept referring him to since he knows it proves all the lies of Posners were just that.

I have read over a 100 books on the assassination over the years and have been fortunate enough to meet some of the witnesses that were there that day as well to know enough that it was a home grown plot by our government.Whats funny about these lone not theorists who refer to Posners book as the ultimate truth is he was invited to come down to a november in dallas convention one time to debate it and he didnt take them up on their challenge to do so cause he knew they would shread to pieces his book and make him look like a fool.LOL.

 

[Ryan]

I have Posners book from the secondary market, see for sale for $1 at book sales. Have not read it yet but will someday just to see what got so many fish in the bucket.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Just to follow up on the issue of the shots attributed to Oswald, the rifle scope was not sighted in placing the cross hairs on the point of impact with the projectile. In other words, if a shooter placed those cross hairs on a target at any range and squeezed the trigger the result would be a miss. This circumstance was not a result of a jarred rifle that may have occurred after the assassination but was inherent to the rifle scope/mount itself and required great effort by the Warren Commission to address.

Lone gunman theorists such as Bugliosi (sp?) explain this massive problem away by suggesting that Oswald did not use the scope but instead used the iron sights. This is possible on some rifle set ups to see the iron sights below a scope to some degree. This type of scope mount serves where a hunter may have a damaged scope that occurs during a hunt or perhaps low light conditions or even scope sighted in a different distance then the distance a target appears. It does seem to me that shooting attributed to Oswald would be easier with iron sights since the objective lense of the defective scope looks to be the dimensions of a dime an reacquiring a target for a follow up shot would be very difficult. Oswald would have to had totally miss on the cold barrell shot, which should be the best, but shot 2 would be better and shot 3 the best as the target moved away from him through tree branches.

This iron sight theory has not been tested to prove that this method would be able to reproduce the same results attributed to Oswald. Surely using the iron sights would be more likely to result in a hit but the time frame of the maximum (HSCA) of 8.1 seconds firing three shots with the MC bolt action at a moving target is still tight. Then the question arises as to why Oswald would not use the scope? Did Oswald realize that the scope was defective? If so, then why did he leave that the scope and mounting system on the rifle especially since the useless bulk would obstruct the view of the iron sights and make tracking a target more difficult? It really does not add up and even Bugliosi must have held his nose when he offered up that one.

Another major problem with the lone gunman theory is that Oswald was a below average shot for a Marine. When Oswald qualified a on stationary targets he was using the M-1 Garand which was the best battle rifle that existed at that time. The Warren Commission and the CBS tests could not produce the shots attributed to Oswald under controlled conditions and so how anyone believes that Oswald could make those shots under the intense stress that would naturally occur when shooting a US President is hard for me to understand. Even using the time frame of the HSCA is beyond the skill of Oswald. Two very big problems for the lone gunman theorists.

very well said.yeah that was what I mentioned earlier is that there was no way Oswald could have fired the shots cause when the police found the rifle,it was a piece of crap.Great to hear someone who knows something about rifles such as yourself to be talking about this.The scope was badly misaligned with the crosshairs, and oswald sure as hell wouldnt wait till he got down on Elm where it was a much more difficult shot,he would take the shot on Main where he is out in the open for a wide open shot.

The other thing that blows away the lone nut theory is Posner says the same shot that hit Kennedy,hit Connely as well.we know thats impossible cause frame 313 I think is the frame,shows Kennedy being hit in the throat and Connely visibly holding his hat which is impossible to do if his wrist has been shattered by the bullet.

You also got to ignore the laws of physics to accept the warren commissions report.Anybody with logic and common sense,knows that the laws of physics prove that your head goes forward when you get hit in the head from behind.Not backward.Matter of fact,this one author who wrote a book about it,knew immediately the warren commission was a lie when he went up to the Museam years later, cause he served in vietnam and had dozens of kills and he said not one time did he ever remember seeing someones head go backwards after shooting them in the head from behind.Also anybody who knows anything about forensics,knows that the blood that gushs from the head after being shot from behind,knows it would have gone forward and hit the secret service men in front.The patrolman on the motorcycle on Jackies side who was riding behind the wheels of the Limo,was splattered with blood on him which is impossible if a has been fired from behind, as anybody who knows anything about forensics plainly knows.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I have Posners book from the secondary market, see for sale for $1 at book sales. Have not read it yet but will someday just to see what got so many fish in the bucket.

Whats really funny is when I got the book,it was marked down at a dollar as well.Shows you how much people "at least in my area at that time" believed in that propaganda of Posners.They could not sell hardly any copies of it so it got marked down drastically. as i said previously before,the first 50 pages or so had me going.I really wanted to believe that it was the truth.and it had me believing that the first 50 pages or so.Its very cleverly written.so I can see who so many people could have allowed themselves to get brainwashed by Posners lies and propaganda.If your not careful,it can fool you.But like I said on my last post on page 5,after reading through it and knowing so much of what he said was outright lies as I proved in that post of mine-last one on page five,I got nausiated with it just like you will when you read it.

 

[Bfgrn]

But if you really have read Posner's book and you still believe this nonsense, I'm afraid there is not much else I can do.

So what do you specifically disagree with in Posner's book?

Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK. By Gerald Posner. (New York: Random House, 1993. Pp. xvi, 607. $25.00, ISBN 0-679-41825-3.)

Gerald Posner argues that the Warren Commission properly investigated the assassination of JFK. He claims to have refuted the critics, purports to show what actually occurred, and asserts simple factual answers to explain complex problems that have plagued the subject for years. In the process he condemns all who do not agree with the official conclusions as theories driven by conjectures. At the same time his book is so theory driven, so rife with speculation, and so frequently unable to conform his text with the factual content in his sources that it stands as one of the stellar instances of irresponsible publishing on the subject.

Massive numbers of factual errors suffuse the book, which make it a veritable minefield. Random samples are the following: Pontchartrain is a lake not a river. The wounded James Tague stood twenty feet east, not under the triple underpass. There were three Philip Geracis, not one; he confuses the second and the third. A tiny fragment, not a bullet, entered Connally's thigh. The Army did the testing that he refers to the FBI. None, not three, commissioners heard at least half the hearings. The Warren Commission did not have any investigators. Captain Donovan is John, not Charles, and a lieutenant. The critics of the official findings are not leftists but include conservatives such as Cardinal Cushing, William Loeb, and former commissioner, Richard Russell.

Posner often presents the opposite of what the evidence says. In the presentation of a corrupt picture of Oswald's background, for example, he states that, under the name of Osborne, Oswald picked up leaflets he distributed from the Jones Printing Company and that the "receptionist" identified him. She in fact said that Oswald did not pick up the leaflets as the source that Posner cites indicates.

No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder. All the data that Posner presents to do so is either shorn of context, corrupted, the opposite of what the sources actually say, or nonsourced. For example, 100 percent of the witness testimony and physical evidence exclude Oswald from carrying the rifle to work that day disguised as curtain rods. Posner manipulates with words to concoct a case against Oswald as with Linnie Mae Randle, who swore the package, as Oswald allegedly carried it, was twenty-eight inches long, far too short to have carried a rifle. He grasped its end, and it hung from his swinging arm to almost touch the ground. Posner converts this to "tucked under his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground"(p. 225). The rifle was heavily oiled, but the paper sack discovered on the sixth floor had not a trace of oil. Posner excludes this vital fact.

To refute criticism that the first of three shots (the magic bullet) inflicted seven nonfatal wounds on two bodies in impossible physical and time constraints, he invents a second magic bullet. He asserts that Oswald fired the first bullet near frame 160 of the Zapruder film, fifty frames earlier than officially held, and missed. The bullet hit a twig or a branch or a tree, as he varies it, then separated into its copper sheath and lead composite core. The core did a right angle to fly west more than 200 feet to hit a curbstone and wound Tague while the sheath decided to disappear. The curb in fact had been damaged. He omits that analysis of the curb showed the bullet came from the west, which means the bullet would have had to have taken another sui generis turn of 135 degrees to get back west with sufficient force to smash concrete, which he pretends was not marred.

He asserts proof of a core hit because FBI analysis revealed "traces of [sic per reviewer] lead with a trace of antimony" (p. 325) in the damage. What he omits destroys his theory. He does not explain that a bullet core has several other metallic elements in its composition, not two, rendering his conclusion false. He further neglects to inform the reader that by May 1964 the damage had been covertly patched with a concrete paste and that in August, not July, 1964, the FBI tested the scrapings of the paste, not the damage, which gave the two metal results.

He says the second shot transited JFK's neck and caused the nonfatal wounds striking Connally at Zapruder film frame 224 where Connally is seen turned to his right, allegedly lining his body up with JFK's neck, thus sustaining the single bullet explanation. He finds proof that a bullet hit then in Connally's lapel that was flapping in that one frame as it passed through. But he does not conform to fact. Wind gusting to twenty miles per hour that day ruffled clothing. And, there is no bullet hole in the lapel but in the jacket body beneath the right nipple area.

Posner crowns his theory with the certainty of science by using one side of the computer-enhanced studies by Failure Analysis Associates of Menlo Park that his text implies he commissioned. The firm, however, lambastes his use as a distortion of the technology that it had developed for the American Bar Association's mock trial of Oswald where both sides used it.

Posner fails. I believe that irrefutable evidence shows conspirators, none of them Oswald, killed JFK. A mentally ill Jack Ruby, alone and unaided, shot Oswald. The federal inquiry knowingly collapsed and theorized a political solution. Its corruption spawned theorists who tout solutions rather than define the facts that are locked in the massively muddied evidentiary base and released only by hard work.

David R. Wrone
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

My God, that Wisconsin professor David Wrone is a total fucking idiot --

Massive numbers of factual errors suffuse the book, which make it a veritable minefield. Random samples are the following: Pontchartrain is a lake not a river. The wounded James Tague stood twenty feet east, not under the triple underpass. There were three Philip Geracis, not one; he confuses the second and the third. A tiny fragment, not a bullet, entered Connally's thigh. The Army did the testing that he refers to the FBI. None, not three, commissioners heard at least half the hearings. The Warren Commission did not have any investigators. Captain Donovan is John, not Charles, and a lieutenant. The critics of the official findings are not leftists but include conservatives such as Cardinal Cushing, William Loeb, and former commissioner, Richard Russell.

Unfortunately for Wrone, NONE of this hot air refutes Posner's strong case that Oswald alone killed Kennedy. This guy is obviously desperate -- he is looking for any minor factual error because he can't do ANYTHING to refute Posner's case.

No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder

Jesus Christ, this guy gets stupider with each paragraph. Here is just some of the evidence from Posner's book that shows that Oswald killed Kennedy --

1) An eyewitness standing directly across the street from the book depository watched Oswald fire all 3 shots. He told the police about it immediately after the assassination. He didn't wait 20 years like the grassy knoll "witnesses"

2) The same rifle that Oswald used to killed Kennedy was also used in an attempt to kill a right-wing politician (General Edmin Walker) at his Dallas home in March 1963. Oswald fired a round through Walker's kitchen window and it was just a fluke of luck that prevented Walker from getting killed. Tests on the bullet for this failed attempt later matched Oswald's rifle. Oswald TOLD his wife that he tried to kill Walker and even took pictures of Walker's house that were later found by the police.

Until you conspiracy loons actually read Posner's book, you should just give this nonsense a rest.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

The first shot hit a tree branch and got deflected. That is why he missed Kennedy on the first shot.

It doesn't matter if Oswald was a below average shot in the Marines. He was using a rifle with a scope from a very short distance. A novice could have hit Kennedy.

**********
I have never read that the first shot was deflected by a tree branch but would appreciate you listing your source. I know that a curb was hit by a projectile during the assassination and a piect of concrete hit a by stander. I have never been to Dealey Plaza and cannot say for certain where the tree branches came into play in relation to the limo on Elm Street and the first shot. Based on your post the bullet would been directed by a tree branch to such a great degree that the huge limo would be missed completely. Is that what you are saying?

It's worth noting that Military Snipers are trained to shoot from behind bushes as a form of cover and concealment. Perhaps the projectile is deflected a bit but the benefits out weigh costs and this is differant then Police Sniping. Still though the Oswald shots were supposedly made at a moving target and certainly the tree would have made tracking very difficult for that second follow up shot that hit the upper torso. I am using the Warren Commision tests which employed three Master riflemen, not novices, and the "lone gunman" theory could not be sustained.

Regarding the deflected first shot, it comes from Posner's book, Case Closed.

The Warren Commission did determine that one man could fire all 3 shots, so I don't understand your last sentence.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

One thing we know is fact,Stones film may not be the ENTIRE truth,but its a 100 times more accurate to what really happened than the fairy tale the warren commission came up with and people still desperately want to believe in

Oh my God, now I KNOW you are truly delusional and you haven't read Posner's book. Or is you have read it, you are in total denial.

Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner's character) was one of the most corrupt DAs in the history of this country. Even people that worked with him have testified to this. Plus, the guy was kicked out of the Army for mental problems ("paranoia" being one of his many mental problems -- that explains a lot!). He fabricated the ENTIRE FUCKING CASE against Clay Shaw. All Garrison did was completely ruin an innocent man's life. Garrison didn't have a shred of evidence that Oswald knew Shaw or ANY of the people in that movie. He literally pulled that entire case out of his ass because he was a shameless glory hound.

your in serious denial as usual. AGAIN for the 100th freaking time,stop seeing only what you WANT to see and read the freaking book CASE OPEN, it debunks everyone of Posners fantasys .Funny how your afraid to read that book and my last post on page 5 I have to keep repeating to you. Ruined an innocent mans life? your hysterical.It was later learned through the freedom of information act years later that Clay Shaw DID work for the CIA.you crack me up.The reason Garrison couldnt prove it was cause plants of the CIA penetrated his office and knew what he was up to.Also the jury back then, even though they were not convinced that Shaw was guilty since Garrison could not prove it,they WERE convinced it was a conspiracy after looking at the zapruder film.

Dude, Garrison was a total crackpot, just like you. Not even the conspiracy buffs still believe Garrison's bullshit!! (well, except for you). This is a major reason why Oliver Stone was so heavily criticized for making a movie based on Garrison's bullshit book.

 

[Bfgrn]

My God, that Wisconsin professor David Wrone is a total fucking idiot --

Massive numbers of factual errors suffuse the book, which make it a veritable minefield. Random samples are the following: Pontchartrain is a lake not a river. The wounded James Tague stood twenty feet east, not under the triple underpass. There were three Philip Geracis, not one; he confuses the second and the third. A tiny fragment, not a bullet, entered Connally's thigh. The Army did the testing that he refers to the FBI. None, not three, commissioners heard at least half the hearings. The Warren Commission did not have any investigators. Captain Donovan is John, not Charles, and a lieutenant. The critics of the official findings are not leftists but include conservatives such as Cardinal Cushing, William Loeb, and former commissioner, Richard Russell.

Unfortunately for Wrone, NONE of this hot air refutes Posner's strong case that Oswald alone killed Kennedy. This guy is obviously desperate -- he is looking for any minor factual error because he can't do ANYTHING to refute Posner's case.

No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder

Jesus Christ, this guy gets stupider with each paragraph. Here is just some of the evidence from Posner's book that shows that Oswald killed Kennedy --

1) An eyewitness standing directly across the street from the book depository watched Oswald fire all 3 shots. He told the police about it immediately after the assassination. He didn't wait 20 years like the grassy knoll "witnesses"

2) The same rifle that Oswald used to killed Kennedy was also used in an attempt to kill a right-wing politician (General Edmin Walker) at his Dallas home in March 1963. Oswald fired a round through Walker's kitchen window and it was just a fluke of luck that prevented Walker from getting killed. Tests on the bullet for this failed attempt later matched Oswald's rifle. Oswald TOLD his wife that he tried to kill Walker and even took pictures of Walker's house that were later found by the police.

Until you conspiracy loons actually read Posner's book, you should just give this nonsense a rest.

Interesting...you continue to rant and rave and call people conspiracy "loons"...but you refuse to address the first wound of the "supposed" single bullet in the President's back, not in his neck as the Warren Commission FALSELY claimed in their report and in their illustrations entered as evidence. You refuse to answer WHY the Warren Report CHANGED the location of the wound and even CHANGED the description on that wound from "back" to "back of neck"...

HERE is documented proof that officials in the HIGHEST levels of our government wanted to "cut off" all speculation of a second gunman and wanted nothing BUT an outcome from the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone...

This memo was sent from the Justice Department to the White House on November 25, 1963...3 days after the President was assassinated and one day after Oswald was killed and no longer able to stand trial.

The "intent" of our government in regards to any investigation is CLEAR in this memo and they are mirrored in phone conversations between LBJ and J Edgar Hoover in the same time frame...


Memo from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumor and speculation. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job. The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

FBI JFK Assassination File (62-109060)

 

[Ryan]

Whats really funny is when I got the book,it was marked down at a dollar as well.Shows you how much people "at least in my area at that time" believed in that propaganda of Posners.They could not sell hardly any copies of it so it got marked down drastically. as i said previously before,the first 50 pages or so had me going.I really wanted to believe that it was the truth.and it had me believing that the first 50 pages or so.Its very cleverly written.so I can see who so many people could have allowed themselves to get brainwashed by Posners lies and propaganda.If your not careful,it can fool you.But like I said on my last post on page 5,after reading through it and knowing so much of what he said was outright lies as I proved in that post of mine-last one on page five,I got nausiated with it just like you will when you read it.

*******
Luckily in my area of IL we have several used book sales. I just picked up a copy of the "Oswald Affair" that I never heard of before. It was translated to English from French and has good reviews. If nothing else with Posner's book, I will at least have a big door stop.