ka9q, that's an interesting point, and one that I think tells against the conspiracy theory in more than one way. We must assume that the presumed conspirators would know how bullets work. If getting rid of JFK was imperative, why didn't they use ammunition that would be more likely to be immediately lethal? Not to mention, something that a civilian would be more likely to have on hand? Lots of hunters in Texas. Whereas the Marine-trained Oswald would naturally gravitate towards using a military weapon.
The Discovery Channel program made that exact point. If there was a second gunman, we don't know what weapon he used because no second weapon, spent shells or bullets were ever found. But it's reasonable to assume that if it were a well-organized conspiracy they'd pick an effective one. So to test the conspiracy claims they hired an expert marksman and let him choose an appropriate weapon and ammunition: a .30 Winchester hunting rifle with soft-point ammunition and a good scope. Then he showed that several supposed shooting locations didn't even have a clear shot of the target at the time. When they did simulate a shot from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, the results were totally different from what actually happened. That's the test where nothing was left of the target. It was obviously a much more capable weapon than the Carcano -- not that the Carcano wasn't sufficient.
They also tried a shot from the same location using Oswald's type of rifle. Instead of obliterating the target, the FMJ bullet passed completely through and out the left side of JFK's head -- and right through Jackie. Since Jackie was alive 31 years after the assassination, and since we know there was no damage to the left side of JFK's head, we can reasonably rule out that possibility too.
An interesting bit of trivia from the JFK case is that not long before the assassination, Oswald saw some of his co-workers bring in and show off several new hunting rifles. (After all, this
was Texas.) Now if a well-organized conspiracy wanted to frame someone in that building, wouldn't it make sense to use a rifle just like one of those openly shown by those other workers? Better yet, wouldn't they have
stolen one of those specific rifles, used it and then left it in the building?
Probably the most common attribute of conspiracy theorists is a complete unwillingness to follow the logical implications of their pet theories. Any real scientist spends very little time theorizing and almost all of his time seeing where they lead, and if they lead to contradictions or make predictions known to be false, the theories have to be modified or discarded.
PS. Did anyone else who saw that show get nervous when the shooter pointed his rifle at the actors in the limousine? I know he removed the bolt as a safety precaution, but as a kid I was so heavily conditioned to
never point a weapon at anyone under
any circumstances that it still bothers me to see it done on TV or in the movies. (The Brandon Lee tragedy didn't help.) If I were that shooter, or one of the producers, I would have gone further and physically handed the bolt to one of the actors.
