JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[ka9q]

Yes, it was quite effective in getting Oswald killed, but the guy who did it was Oswald. He was pretty self-destructive. Lots of people are; what made him unusual is the unusually high degree of collateral damage.

[RedneckR0nin]

Ok even if it does prove out to be how many shooters....what difference will it make at this stage?

It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish?

[twik]

Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???

This is another common element of conspiracy thinking: the conspirators are at once so extraordinarily competent that they pulled off "the crime of the century" (that's what it always is) and got away with it for years or decades, yet also so incompetent as to make dozens of simple mistakes that left absolute proof of their culpability for the conspiracists to find.

I suppose that you could resolve that paradox if you think of yourself as so brilliant that you could find mistakes even by conspirators as powerful and capable as those who killed JFK or faked Apollo...

Well, it's very similar to the 9/11 CTists, who believe that the damage was caused by anything other than 4 hijacked aircraft, and then the government black ops dropped in some plane wreckage to make the sites look believable. But, you see, they didn't use wreckage from the right type of planes. So, if the CTists can only get serial numbers from the parts recovered, it'll all unravel. Because if you're running an operation like that, why not just throw in some parts from a Piper Cub  or a water bomber or something? It's not as if it's an important part of your plan.

A CTist often believes that the Dark Side will make stupid slipups like this, because otherwise, their "anomalies" don't mean anything.

[Noldi400]

A CTist often believes that the Dark Side will make stupid slipups like this, because otherwise, their "anomalies" don't mean anything.

Or, or, or... some honest soul coerced into participating deliberately left "clues" for anyone with the intelligence to correctly interpret them.

[gillianren]

Ok even if it does prove out to be how many shooters....what difference will it make at this stage?

It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish?

Actually, there are several differences it would make, and that's not just taking Lee's family into consideration.  Leaving them aside, however, I think there is a moral good to society in learning the truth about history.

[ka9q]

It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish

Try saying something like that to the Nazi hunters. Some are still pursuing escaped Nazis who by now are in their 90s if even still alive. Now maybe that's justified because the Nazis were uniquely extreme in their evil, but assassinating the President of the United States also ranks up there somewhere.

[bobdude11]

gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The trouble with the JFK conspiracy theories in general is that they assume a simulaneous complete control of every variable, and an inability to control anything. If you need three shooters because the odds are that one cannot successfully pull off a fatal shot, your solution should be to select a better vantage point (or shooter), not have people firing from random compass points. If the grassy knoll is a better location, put the shooter there - not also two other places. Heck, its relative concealment would allow the plotters to shoot and kill a "patsy" on the spot, instead of allowing Oswald to wander off the scene completely unnoticed.

The only reason why conspiracy theorists get obsessed about multiple shooters is that it allows them to stare at fuzzy polaroids and play "let's find the anomaly".

 I really hate coming into these things so very late, but I had to respod to this one item. I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

That is not what I wanted to say - I once had the idea that the real shooter was directly across the street from the TSBD which means the shooter would not be able to see down Houston (? I think that's the street right in front of the fountain - may be confusing it with the one that ties into Stemmons) and as such, would not be able to pull the trigger until they were moving away - the only problem I have in proving this is I think that would put shots 2 and 3 way off to the wrong side. It WAS a theory - I have seen to much evidence to prove it wrong over time and the JFK Revisited game actually had someone prove that the shots could be made when where and how it has been recorded into evidence - complete disproving all other theories (Oincluding mine about the shooter being across the street).

[Jason Thompson]

I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

Off the top of my head:

1: Kennedy was in the back of the limo, therefore a shot from behind gives a better target than a shot from the front. Whatever else you may say about Oswald, he wasn't firing indiscriminately: he intended to kill Kennedy and ONLY Kennedy.

2: With the limo moving mostly away it was hardly moving from Oswald's viewpoint, and so made an easier target to line up on and shoot (and he still missed once).

3: With the limo facing away from him so were all the secret service agents, meaning it would take longer for them to find him than if they had been roughly facing his location.

[bobdude11]

I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

Off the top of my head:

1: Kennedy was in the back of the limo, therefore a shot from behind gives a better target than a shot from the front. Whatever else you may say about Oswald, he wasn't firing indiscriminately: he intended to kill Kennedy and ONLY Kennedy.

2: With the limo moving mostly away it was hardly moving from Oswald's viewpoint, and so made an easier target to line up on and shoot (and he still missed once).

3: With the limo facing away from him so were all the secret service agents, meaning it would take longer for them to find him than if they had been roughly facing his location.

All points, as you may surmise, that I had not considered - especially of note is point 2: I had not considered that the limo would actually be moving slow enough that it would almost seem to stand still.

To my original point, I thought about it further and realized some things:

1. The windows do not quite line up with the windows on the TSBD
2. Even if they did, the evidence is clear that the shots came from the 6th floor window of the TSBD (eye witnesses reporting the gun, sounds, trajectories, etc.)
3. I have not proved it, thus this is only a theory, but I believe that if the shots came from the building across the street, the trajectories would have been to flat and the angles wrong. Further, I believe that the distance is too far and would have caused the bullet to drop too much - even with the 1100 FPS or so it travelled at.

Just sayin ...

[gillianren]

No, it isn't a theory.  It doesn't have anywhere near enough evidence to qualify as a theory.

[bobdude11]

That's a very good question. The video that got pulled was titled "Reply to Jesse Ventura - JFK 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano rifle myths". It contains no other mention of any other living person. The commentary around it is highly critical of Ventura's claim that he could not reproduce the three shots of the assassination, but I saw nothing that wasn't typical of open American debate involving controversial public figures like Ventura.

So Youtube apparently responds to complaints of harassment just as they do to complaints of copyright violations: by presuming the complaint is valid and yanking the video in question, sight unseen. And it would seem that conspiracy nuts take full advantage of this loophole to censor their opponents.

I kept a copy of the video in question and would be happy to provide it on request. It really is an excellent refutation of the top 10 myths about the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by someone who owns and shoots one.

I would love to get a copy of this if that is possible. Do you need an email address?

[ka9q]

Just go to http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4

[bobdude11]

Just go to http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4

awesome! Thanks!!

[ka9q]

But the conspiracy fans still insist the Carcano couldn't do what Oswald did with it...

[gillianren]

Of course!  If it could, they'd have to change their minds!