I'm sure that you're familiar with Carlos Hathcock Since the link I provided didn't work, I'll post additional information that may help explain why some people consider Oswald's shot to have been difficult. "JFK - How good of a shot was Oswald" http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html EXCERPT "When he was a member of a hunting club in Minsk, Russia Oswald’s fellow members considered him a bad marksman. Craig Roberts was a former Marine sniper who later wrote a book on the JFK assassination called “Kill Zone.” Roberts visited the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and instantly realized that Oswald could not have performed the shooting feat because he knew that he himself could not. And he was a professional. Roberts interviewed Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor at the Marines Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. Roberts asked Hathcock if he thought Oswald could have done what the Warren Commission said he did. Hathcock said no. Hathcock reconstructed the assassination at Quantico: the angle, moving target, time limit etc. he told Roberts, “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did."CONTINUED I'm inclined to believe Hathcock but, then again, maybe Oswald was lucky that day
While the government's refusal to release additional documents certainly makes people suspicious, there are more compelling inconsistencies in the following article. I wonder if we'll live to know the complete story? "JFK assassination: Questions that won't go away" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41741216
I am familiar, I've read both of Henderson's books on him. Or so Roberts claims. Craig Roberts is the ONLY source for this claim. No one else has ever claimed to have talked to Hathcock about JFK/Oswald, ever. Craig Roberts is a whore who tells tall tales to sell books. Ever read his stupid book Kill Zone? I have. It is complete trash. Here is my one star review on Amazon; I think Roberts is trashing the fine reputation of an American hero.
Funny your link lists no such questions. Only a couple of people with contrary opinions. What are these questions?
It's not a "suspicion" for me, it's a dead giveaway. There is a mountain of inconsistencies and impossibilities well beyond what the article exposes. I doubt it, I'm quite certain most if not all the incriminating evidence was destroyed, just like 9/11. What is being withheld is only what they are claiming is being withheld, just like 9/11. Only with 9/11 they admit to a huge amount of documents being withheld. Here's one point of view on Oswald: Only fools and trolls maniacally defend the official story 24/7 just like 9/11.
Yet you can never specifically anme any of these impossibilities or inconsistencies. you can never cite a specific passage from the Warren Commission report which is a lie and provide evidence that it is a lie. Other than fictional you tube clips your only argument is ' The government always lies the government always lies." You have only hyperbole which is what real fools and trolls believe. You have no evidence and mountiains of evidence refute you.
So does your point of view match that of the video? You have anything other than "I think the government lies"?
It is an odd little phenomenon among conspiracy theorists. They constantly claim the government lies all the time and most people are sheep who blindly believe what they are told. This gives them a sense of self importance because such a belief makes them the enlightened ones who know better than most. It is some sort of fear of giving up this perceived superiority which drives their unwillingness to answer any rational questions or present evidence. It leads to bizarre circular arguments as in.... " we know there was a conspiracy " " what evidence do you have? " " the evidence was destroyed by the conspirators " " Then how do you know there was a conspiracy? " " Because that is why the evidence was destroyed " The circularity is flawless.
I don't know enough to conclude the authenticity of the claims in the video, I doubt anyone does. However it does raise many, many questions as does the entire unproven official theory. No I don't "think" the government lies, I KNOW the government lies, that's been proven over and over again. Don't you know? In any case, it's plenty in itself, don't you think? Why would anyone in his/her right mind trust a pathological liar? Would you? As for do I have anything other than that? Of course, go back and read everything I posted.
So would you support releasing all the inmates in all prisons immediately and unconditionally? If your premise is correct the are all innocent men who were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. Can't have it both ways.
RE: He may be. So do you believe that Roberts is making up the entire story of Hathcock's tests and opinion? Wouldn't Hathcock strongly object to being misused as you suggest? For some reason, I thought that the range from Oswald's position to JFK was more than 88 yards. At any rate, you have, apparently, spent more time than I have in studying the JFK assassination but I remember exactly what I was doing at the time of the assassination and still believe that there's more to the story than a disgruntled Oswald woke up one morning and decided to kill the president or acted alone & without some form of support.
It was 88 yards or less. the target was slowly moving away from him which means the first two shots were closer than 88 yards and that range is the distance from the TSBD window to the spot where the bullet struck Kennedy in the head. There is an X in the street which marks the spot where Kennedy was at when the bullet struck him and it is very simple using many different tools to measure that distance, No one said he was disgruntled and woke up one morning deciding to shoot Kennedy. It is fine for you to believe what ever you like. The problem is lack of evidence. Why is it so hard to believe those things anyways? You do not think it likely for someone to simply decide to commit murder one day? Seems to happen all the time.
It is more accurate to say I have no reason to believe a liar like Roberts is telling the truth when he claims to be quoting Hathcock. I think he might object if he was not already dead. No one who wants to promote a JFK CT wants anyone to understand that the range to the limo was under 100 yards. .... Of course there is. Oswald had a long history of hate towards the USA. He also allegedly planned/attempted the murder of general Edwin Walker. I think he had little time to plan JFK as the route the limo took past the TSBD was only published in the newspapers a day or two prior JFK's death. In fact Oswald only brought 4 rounds of ammo to work that day.
Meet Lee Harvey Oswald, Sheep-Dipped Patsy youtube.com/watch?v=IWsAoWqc52w Note: put https://www. in front of the link. If I post the entire link the software will convert it to the video stream.
If I remember correctly, there were at least 3 issues raised by the 2nd article I cited: 1. A paraffin test done on Oswald's cheek indicated that he hadn't fired a rifle recently 2. In the Zapruder film, Kennedy's head moves rapidly to the rear suggesting he was shot from the front 3. "John Connally - the Texas governor who was also travelling in the president's car - said he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy, contradicting the Warren Commission's findings."(1) The earlier article I cited went on to describe Oswald's poor shooting skills, the rifle not being sighted in etc. When you also factor in Israel's anger with Kennedy over their Nuclear Program, Castro's hatred of JFK, Oswald's time in Cuba, Russia & his activities being followed by US Intelligence it gets to the point where any reasonable person would have doubts that the official version of events is complete & true. Yes, people do murder other people every day but assassinating the President requires planning, foreknowledge, skill and above all support from other people. I'm willing to admit that Oswald may have acted on his own & Jack Ruby may have just shot Oswald just out of malice but there comes a point when this lone gunman theory just doesn't seem credible (1)"JFK assassination: Questions that won't go away" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41741216
So then why would you believe a liar like the US government? Unless of course you believe the US government does not lie.
Thanks Bob, I just watched the entire film & perhaps the most compelling fact to support a second or more shooter(s) is the Zapruder film with Kennedy's head snapping to the rear & left. Yes, Oswald may have shot JFK from the rear but someone else definitely shot him from a different location. As ugly as they may be, photographic images don't lie.
As I mentioned earlier, it is certainly possible that Oswald could have shot JFK from behind but after just watching the Zapruder film, again, who shot Kennedy from the front?
No one. There is no evidence of a shooter from the front and in fact a great deal of evidence proving such a shot,. The back and left movement has long been debated and the facts prove it is NOT evidence of a shot from any specific direction. First of all it was too much movement to be cause by the bullet impact to the head. Bodies simply do not generally move that far as a result of bullet impact when shot. They may move a great deal but from other causes such as gravity when they fall down. Notice for example that the bullet which struck both Kennedy and Connally in the body caused very little movement from impact alone in either man. In fact if one looks CLOSELY at the Z film you will see that Kennedy's head actually moved slightly FORWARD before the back and to the left movement. That slight forward movement of a few inches was typical of what you would expect from the impact of a bullet. The back and to the left movement was likely caused by a combination of forces. Including the jet effect which has long since been demonstrated and proven. Also neuro-muscular reflex which can cause the body to jerk and spasm unpredictably in many ways especially in the immediate aftermath trauma to the brain. Then of course the deliberately overlooked fact that JFK's body was rigidly held upright by a stiff backbrace which was reinforced by a long ace bandage which wrapped around his body like a parachute harness. This would tend to cause a springboard effect when pushed in one direction. In other words his upper body would rebound back as a result of the medical gear he wore. Since it is fact that the back and to the left movement is NOT proof of a shot from the front we have to look for other evidence and there simply is none. The autopsy which was performed by experienced experts found no evidence of a frontal shot. No witnesses saw anyone shooting from the front and few heard any shots from the front. There were never any bullet fragments or shell casings found except from Oswald's rifle. In the end focusing on the movement and calling it proof or evidence is just not realistic or scientifically valid
Issues but not real questions. First of all the article like many completely misleads the reader about Paraffin tests.Such tests were unreliable and still are they are seldom if ever cited in court because of their reliability both in creating false negatives and false positives. Essentially they are used to narrow a search as in they may point out who to focus on in search of other evidence. So the idea that they prove he did not fire a weapon is simply false and ignores the reality of the weakness of the test itself/ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm I have already addressed his head movement and it is simply not evidence of a shot from the front. Connally was not a better or more reliable witness than anyone else and witnesses in general are not the best or evidence as any professional lawyer or investigator will tell you. In fact if you are going to rely on witnesses it should be noted that the VAST majority of witnesses heard 3 and only 3 shots and heard them coming from above and behind the limo which is consistent with the school book depository. Connally himself was suffering from bullet trauma terror and panic at the time which does not make for the most reliable of witnesses. You are quite wrong. Murdering the president does not REQUIRE any such help from others. It could easily be done alone in late 1963. Oswald had at least some foreknowledge because the route of the motorcade was published in the Dallas papers and took the limo with Kennedy right in front of the building Oswald worked in which was the only foreknowledge needed. The only planning he needed was to retrieve his rifle disassemble it and smuggle it in without being caught which it turns out was easily done. As for skill we have already shown he had all which was needed. Where is that point and what exactly marks that point you refer to? What is really required is evidence and so far the conspiracy theory crowd has NONE.
Can you quote the post where I said I believed the US government? You can't because I didn't. Just because I believe something happened and it happens to agree with what someone in the federal government said doesn't mean I automatically believe in them. I'm sure you and some government officials believe 2+2=4, does that make you one of their toadies? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it alone does not.
No matter how you spin or slice it, the assassination of John Kennedy was an inside job. Which agency, instigated by whom - when - and why, well ........
Same with King. The race stuff was one thing, but going after the war machine and the economic system? Yeah, you got ta go.
