The Kennedy Thread

[kang]

Key point there being he was a top marksman. Oswald was not.

Where did you hear this?

 

[wobbly]

Originally posted by kang
Where did you hear this?

This is taken from another site discussing Oswald's alleged rifle skills:

"Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify."

The full article can be read here:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm

 

[MJZ]

"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

 

[kang]

Originally posted by wobbly
This is taken from another site discussing Oswald's alleged rifle skills:

"Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify."

The full article can be read here:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id87.htm

It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

 

[Max Shrek]

I STILL say it was Steven Tyler from Aerosmith.

 

[MJZ]

Originally posted by kang
It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

Indeed, and all that website does is try to spin the truth about Oswald's shooting ability. It doesn't matter that he "only scored two points above the test." Fact is, that he was a MARINE-QUALIFIED MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER. If he was such a poor shot, he would've failed dismally wouldn't he?

 

[MJZ]

Oh, and another thing re: Oswald's "fellow Marines," specifically Delgado, who's often cited by critics. What they fail to mention was that Delgado wasn't posted with Oswald when Lee qualified as a sharpshooter.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
I take it you've read all 26 volumes of the Warren Report then? Or is your knowledge limited to Stone's film and Jim Marrs' Crossfire?

And Tukiluka, the comparison was a sound one, as Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire(book on which Stone's film was based), has a book called "Alien Agenda" in which he tells us everything about UFOs and why the govt is covering that up, and why they're here,etc... I'm sure his next project will be how the govt killed Elvis as well .

Want some more laughs? Check out Coup D'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
by Alan J. Weberman, Michael Canfield . One of the authors went from digging in Bob Dylan's garbage to being a self-proclaimed researcher and assassination "expert."

Okay this topic is a LOT more important to me than how hollywood screwed up the spiderman movie with organic webshooters so I'll address you even though you are incredibly immature and have to resort to name calling when you are losing an argument.if this was about the movie,I would not bother with you,but like I said,this topic is a LOT more important so go ahead and make yourself look like the immature idiot you are with your name calling if thats what you insist on doing,I wont play your game though and I'll just ignore it.

No I havent read all the 26 volumes of the warren commission report but I have read the 850 page book of it and that american history teacher I am friends with,he HAS read all 26 volumes and he can shread those volumes to pieces because it is so full of lies its unreal,those 26 volumes are a laugh and alan weberman and canfields book is more closer to the trith than the warren report.I have not read that book of MARRS alien agenda because I really dont have an interest in UFO'S,but I would not be too surprised if its true because he obviously has done a great deal of research on CROSSFIRE and has facts to back up his claims.no all I need for more laughs is the warren report and Posners book.

 

[wobbly]

Originally posted by kang
It's just that the BBC recently had an evening to mark the assination, in which they analysed the events surrounding the attack. They found that Oswald was infact a very compitent marksman and that the car containing Kennedy was well within the limits of his skill.
In short, what they found contradicts what that website states.

Never saw that one so I can't comment on their conclusions. Did they get a marksman of similar skill to repeat the feat with the same type of rifle under similar conditions (and give them only one go at it)?

Be interested in seeing that if they did.

 

[MJZ]

That's an impressive rebuttal. "NO, I didn't read it, but someone I know did and according to him(who is obviously an authority on the matter), it's all hogwash." Right.

Learn some ****ing grammar skills next time, it's a pain in the ass trying to decipher all that babble.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
Ask yourself these questions. If there was some big govt conspiracy, why didn't anyone come out and blow the whistle? JFK was a beloved man and anyone with such first-hand knowledge would be hailed as a national hero.

If there was a big conspiracy, why didn't the Kennedy family use all their power and influence to uncover it? Surely they'd be interested in finding out the truth, and Bobby could've won the Presidential election right then and there. And again, you'd have the whole country behind you.

Lemme see if I can dig up that old Boston Globe article I posted awhile back.

People who did come out and talk about seeing a 2nd gunmen wound up as mysterious dead bodys.Rfk was going to try and win the presidency so he could open up the case again,thats why the CIA got rid of him to,to make sure he didnt open it up.they took care of that little problem.

 

[MJZ]

Originally posted by wobbly
Never saw that one so I can't comment on their conclusions. Did they get a marksman of similar skill to repeat the feat with the same type of rifle under similar conditions (and give them only one go at it)?

Be interested in seeing that if they did.

As I understand it, on the Peter Jennings special, they had an 89 year-old man repeat the feat in the alloted time(same rifle and everything), and made the obvious note that a younger man would be able to do it much better.

 

[MJZ]

Originally posted by Mr Parker
People who did come out and talk about seeing a 2nd gunmen wound up as mysterious dead bodys.Rfk was going to try and win the presidency so he could open up the case again,thats why the CIA got rid of him to,to make sure he didnt open it up.they took care of that little problem.

Notice how this guy has no sources for anything he says. Re: "mysterious deaths," Posner cites EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE BACK OF HIS BOOK. Skipped over that, did we?

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
From the Boston Globe:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting Closer to the Truth About the Death of JFK
Author: By Max Holland
Date: FRIDAY, September 18, 1998

Page: A27

Section: Op-Ed Page


For the federal government, and all Americans, it has been a long, torturous road from the 6th floor of 411 Elm St. in Dallas to the second floor of 600 E St. in Washington. But now these two red brick buildings are irrevocably connected in history as the federal government writes the last chapter of its part in the tragedy which, 35 years ago, struck dumb an entire nation.
Four-eleven Elm Street is more commonly known by the name of its former tenant, the Texas School Book Depository Company. The nondescript building at 600 E St. has no such claim on the national consciousness, though over time the work of one tenant there will do as much or more to shape history -- if reason ever prevails over our paranoia with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy.

For the past four years, five presidential appointees have labored almost anonymously, yet tirelessly, in Suite 208 to make public every significant artifact and document related to Nov. 22, 1963, and its aftermath. Within a matter of days the Assassination Records Review Board, as the appointees are collectively known, will publish its final report and shut down for good on Sept. 30.

Unlike every previous federal effort, however, the review board will not assert a single conclusion, in keeping with its mandate. It will report only what it managed to find. It's up to others to make sense out of the four-million-page collection, assembled at the cost of $8 million to the taxpayers.

While there are 10,000 stories in those documents, including many peripheral to the assassination, it is not premature to ask how, if at all, they affect our understanding of the emotional and political Grand Canyon that opened beneath our gaze in 1963.

Many of the documents have lain open for months already. Whether by accident or design, the review board has shed new light on the genuine Rosetta stone to that weekend in Dallas, namely, the response of Robert F. Kennedy to his brother's murder.

The version heretofore propagated was congenial to the Camelot metaphor, though independent of it. Roughly described, the preferred account has been that Robert Kennedy, attorney general at the time, was so profoundly devastated by the loss that he paid little heed to who was responsible for the assassination. ``Jack's gone and nothing is going to bring him back'' was RFK's refrain whenever he was intermittently pressed on his apparent uninterest in the Warren Commission's investigation.

The truth turns out to be considerably more complicated and interesting. Through the review board's efforts, you can piece together as never before the genuine, underlying reason for Robert Kennedy's uncharacteristic response. His pain was compounded by guilt. Because what occurred in Dallas was roughly what Robert Kennedy hoped and planned to have happen in Havana.

While a dozen documents retrieved and declassified help to build this case, the single most striking is an Oval Office memorandum of conversation dated Jan. 4, 1975, almost 12 years after Dallas. There are only three men in the room that Saturday morning as the discussion begins: Gerald Ford, president for a mere five months; Henry Kissinger, who held unprecedented power as Ford's secretary of state and national security adviser, and Brent Scowcroft, the note-taker (and later a national security adviser in his own right). The urgent, 9:40 a.m. meeting was called because the season of inquiry spawned by Watergate had not exhausted itself. But now the target was not a president but the sacrosanct Central Intelligence Agency, which was hanging in the fire after press reports of ``massive'' wrongdoing.

Kissinger is conveying to Ford the gist of his just-concluded breakfast conversation with former CIA Director Richard Helms, who had been summoned from Tehran to brief the White House about the alleged misdeeds. ``What is happening,'' Kissinger tells the president, ``is worse than in the days of McCarthy. You will end up with a CIA that does only reporting, and not operations.

``Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg. If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.''

The suggestion has already been made (this memo was opened in July) that the document does not really mean what it states in plain English, that it must be carefully put into context. Yet it is precisely the context that makes this document dispositive. Unless the White House could devise a mechanism, the CIA's days as an instrument of presidential power were numbered. But the president had to have all the facts to act effectively. It is inconceivable that Richard Helms told Henry Kissinger anything less than the full, hard truths as Helms knew them and as Kissinger needed to know them. As Allen Dulles once explained the need-to-know principle, ``I would tell the president of the United States anything . . . I am under his control. He is my boss.''

This truth about Robert Kennedy's bottomless melancholy, which never fully lifted during the reminder of his life, has at least three implications. For one, it helps explain his uninterest in the Warren Commission. Months before that federal panel presented its conclusion -- indeed, probably no later than Christmas 1963 -- he had reached the unavoidable conclusion, relying on his own crack investigators: Oswald, though enamored of Castro, had acted alone and Jack Ruby was a self-appointed vigilante. None of RFK's bete noires -- not Castro, Jimmy Hoffa or the Cosa Nostra -- had anything to do with the Dallas murders. Consequently the Warren Commission was not going to tell him anything he did not already know.



Conspiracy books usually treat John and Robert Kennedy as innocent babes who would not have thought about dirty tricks -- much less assassination plots -- against Castro. But the reality is very different. See:
An earlier article by Max Holland that focusses on Bobby Kennedy's attitude toward Castro and the assassination.
An article by ARRB member Anna Nelson on recent document releases, including one "smoking gun" memo that ties JFK to dirty tricks against Castro.

Indeed, in some respects the Warren Commission's investigation represented a threat, first to the Kennedy administration's image and then to RFK's own political viability. That is the only conceivable reason why Kennedy, when specifically asked by Earl Warren, did not share his knowledge of anti-Castro plotting with the Warren Commission. One is left with the bleak, sobering fact that Robert Kennedy and other high-ranking officials, no less than the CIA, realized that the national interest (as apart from the truth) would not be served by having the Warren Commission delve into and probably expose the plotting.

Rock-solid intelligence proved Castro had nothing to do with Oswald. Therefore, whatever the US government was trying to do was irrelevant to the issue of Oswald's culpability. The same need-to-know principle that compelled full disclosure in 1975 dictated in 1964 that the chief justice and Warren Commission staff be kept in the dark insofar as possible. And so they were.

Robert Kennedy's anguish and predicament turns out to be the metaphor for understanding the aftermath of the assassination. The entire, vast apparatus of the federal government had been put in motion to find out who had murdered a president. But once the facts pointed overwhelmingly in one and only one direction, the truth was portioned out to protect individuals and bureaucracies.

It's not the civic portrait (a government of laws, not men) depicted by high school textbooks. But it is the legacy left behind by the Assassination Records Review Board, and it ought to shift the entire axis of public understanding. Will Americans ever come to terms with this portrait of imperfection, and understand that for all the omissions, their government did not fail in its one supreme duty -- which was to tell the people who had killed their president.

Yes,I already knew about RK AND JFK'S ASSASSINATION plans for Castro,I never said they werent involved in dirty tricks or that they were angels or great men,thats why I really dont feel too bad about their deaths,but that doesnt change the fact there was no proof oswald did it. Also,none of that proves the warren commission was able to prove that oswald did it though,and once again you are wrong because the governement DID fail BIG TIME in its duty to tell people the truth on who had killed kennedy,you keep ignoring the truth that they never could prove that Oswald did it.

 

[Atrax robustus]

I still dont know anything about this.
But I will definitely start studying it soon, and with an open mind.

A conspiracy is definitely possible.
I dont know about over the water. But here in Britian if a high profile case is opened and they (being the police) dont know who it was who commited the murder, they will set someone up.
Always looks better if the cops "catch" someone. Makes it look like theyre doing their job. It would look bad to admit that no-one knew who the culprit was.

I beleve it happened with a good few high profile cases over the years here. Jill Dando (sp?) being one of the most obvious. (IMO)
They just blamed the local vilage idiot.

 

[MJZ]

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Yes,I already knew about RK AND JFK'S ASSASSINATION plans for Castro,I never said they werent involved in dirty tricks or that they were angels or great men,thats why I really dont feel too bad about their deaths,but that doesnt change the fact there was no proof oswald did it. Also,none of that proves the warren commission was able to prove that oswald did it though,and once again you are wrong because the governement DID fail BIG TIME in its duty to tell people the truth on who had killed kennedy,you keep ignoring the truth that they never could prove that Oswald did it.

You're such a dolt. You're the one being ignorant. All of this is a waste of time, as it's plain to see that you're not the brightest crayon in the box.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
Notice how this guy has no sources for anything he says. Re: "mysterious deaths," Posner cites EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AND THE CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE BACK OF HIS BOOK. Skipped over that, did we?

Yes Posner cites those but you also forget to mention that some alamac concluded that all those people dying the way they did within that time was something like a million to one or something like that.many of them were very mysterious.I also have spoken to witnesses over the years Beverly Oliver and Jean Hill to mention a couple,who have spoken of being threatened by authoritys and Ed Hoffman the deaf mute I know was in tears when he saw Posners book because he said everything he printed was a lie about him that none of the stuff posner said about him or happened was true.Marina Oswald also in 1993 was on with Tom Browkaw saying that Posner misquoted her in everything she said.Posner is the biggest liar who distorts things and you ignorantly fell for it,how sad.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

err No,there was never any proof that oswald was a qualified marine marksman and sharpshooter..Did it ever occur to you that Sgt could have been bribed to say that? You also forget to mention they found movement of what looked like two individuals in the photos and that there is a photo taken by a bystander down there within seconds after the shooting,and the photo shows nobody in that window.you also forget to mention that in that 1993 frontline video they showed on PBS that they forgot to conviently mention that one of the photos showed Oswald and Ferrie together.what he said is not absurd,whats absurd is that you fell for all those lies of Posners.you also fail to mention that the rifle they found had a badly misalined scope and was pure junk.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

i hate mr. parker

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
That's an impressive rebuttal. "NO, I didn't read it, but someone I know did and according to him(who is obviously an authority on the matter), it's all hogwash." Right.

Learn some ****ing grammar skills next time, it's a pain in the ass trying to decipher all that babble.

no your full of hogwash and have to get into insults when your losing the argument.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
As I understand it, on the Peter Jennings special, they had an 89 year-old man repeat the feat in the alloted time(same rifle and everything), and made the obvious note that a younger man would be able to do it much better.

your hopeless to be reasoned with if you believe all the Peter jennings bullcrap.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by MJZ
You're such a dolt. You're the one being ignorant. All of this is a waste of time, as it's plain to see that you're not the brightest crayon in the box.

For once I agree with you,this is a waste of time,you got no proof whatsoever that proves oswald did it and have to resort to name calling when losing the argument.

 

[wobbly]

Originally posted by MJZ
"I can't help it, there you go again."

From Case Closed :

Sgt. James Zahm, the NCO in charge of the marksmanship training unit, said, "In the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average... and as compared to the average male...throughout the United States, he is an excellent shot."

It continues, It "was an easy shot for a man with the equipment he had and his ability," said Sgt. Zahm. Major Eugene Anderson, of the marksmanship branch, said the assassination shots "were not particularly difficult" and that, based on his Marine record, "Oswald had full capabilites to make this shot."

Do you realize how absurd the information is you just quoted? They're trying to put a negative spin on things, when in actuality, OSWALD WAS A QUALIFIED MARINE-MARKSMAN AND SHARPSHOOTER, and they admitted as such.

I never see anyone mention the PBS Frontline special from 1993, which delved into Oswald and the investigation of JFK's murder. In one of the segments, they took an amateur film shot by people in Dealey Plaza, which included footage of the School Book Depository, just before the assassination. Scientists subjected it to a bunch of tests and enhancements, and guess what they found? Movement in the 6th floor window, indicating the presence of a person.

MJZ, 'spin' as you put it, is used by both sides of the fence to suit their arguments and always has been. I could argue you spun your inteperatation of that info to make Oswald sound like a great shot after all. Fact is, in all the accounts from experts that I've seen or read on the matter over the years, the majority felt Oswald was not up to the task, often citing those marine records as a basis for that reasoning, and none of the few who did claim he could make the shot had anything to back up their assertion.

But if a genuine and accurate re-enactment has indeed been done that supports the possibility for Oswald being able to perform the shot (I haven't seen one as yet, and this 'Jennings' special hasn't been shown yet in the Uk afaik) and it's been verified by independent experts, then I've got no problems at all conceding that point.
Though until I do see that for myslef I'm still inclined to side with those feel it was beyond him.

And all this of course has sidetracked from and does nothing to address my earlier post that an objective analysis of the physical evidence (film footage, wounds on kennedy and Connolly) discounts the possibility of a lone gunman anyway.

Whether Oswald had the abililty to hit the target or not does not detract from the fact that physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

 

[kang]

And all this of course has sidetracked from and does nothing to address my earlier post that an objective analysis of the physical evidence (film footage, wounds on kennedy and Connolly) discounts the possibility of a lone gunman anyway.

Whether Oswald had the abililty to hit the target or not does not detract from the fact that physical evidence proves the lone gunman theory is impossible.

Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by kang
Sorry, what makes the "lone gunman theory" impossible?

Well the bullet would have to stop in mid air and change paths in mid flight and do all these crazy scenarios that are plain absurd,hence thats why its called the magic bullet.