The "Missed Shot" Controversy
David Von Pein
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Some might think it was CE 399 {that went into JFK but never exited}." <<<
Not even remotely possible, of course (and Tony knows this full
well...he just wants to argue the obvious), because Kennedy's
stretcher was never even close to that corridor where CE399 was found
by Tomlinson. Why this major fact is totally ignored by many CTers can
only elicit a shoulder shrug from yours truly.
>>> "How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near Tague?" <<<
That's what I certainly believe happened--although, admittedly, it's
just a guess...but I think it's by far the best guess, and it's a
guess that solves two problems.
One, if the bullet hit the tree and separated the jacket from the lead
core....the lead can go on out to hit Main St. and then Tague; hence,
no copper tracing on the curb. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.
Two, with the bullet now split into two parts, the copper jacket can
strike Elm St., resulting in the "sparks" that some witnesses said
they saw near JFK's limo. While the other portion of the bullet can
separately go on out to meet Mr. Tague without having to perform any
hopping, skipping, or jumping from one curbstone to yet another.
I completely disagree with Vince Bugliosi's explanation re. the first-
shot miss and the Tague wounding...which, btw, Vince only briefly
mentions in his book. He gives the whole matter two short paragraphs
on pages 471 and 472.
Vince thinks that the first Oswald (missed) shot hit the Elm pavement
on the fly, and then the same bullet somehow finds its way (at grass
level all the way?) over to Main Street to hit the Main curb and cause
Tague's cheek injury.
I, myself, find that scenario hard to swallow, although I cannot
disprove it, of course; nor can anyone else. Since we're talking about
a shot that missed the limo occupants completely and was never
recovered, all we can do is guess. But I find Posner's "guess" to be
the best guess....in that it can explain multiple questions
surrounding the shooting -- e.g., the sparks on the Elm pavement and
the non-copper tracings on the Main curb and Tague's wounding.
I respect Vince Bugliosi's opinion re. the first shot at Z160...I just
don't agree with his complete scenario of the path that bullet
followed on November 22. (At least we agree about one thing about the
first shot though -- when it was fired by Oswald -- Z160. I agree with
VB on that 100%.)
As a footnote to the above discussion re. the Tague wounding --- I
must also point out that Mr. Bugliosi does mention in "Reclaiming
History" (in an endnote on the CD-ROM disc that comes with the book)
that Gerald Posner's tree-branch deflection theory "is possible" (VB;
footnote on page 315 of endnotes).
David Von Pein
>>> "Which is also why he {LHO} would not have shot before the limo went under the oak tree. He would have to point the rifle down and track across his field of view, which is the most difficult kind of shot." <<<
Which is probably why he missed with shot #1. He either rushed the
shot or some other forever-unknown variable influenced Oswald's aim.
It's a guessing/parlor game, of course. I've admitted that. Nobody can
know these things for sure.
Vincent Bugliosi believes that Oswald just couldn't resist the sight
of JFK's head looming large just beneath the 6th-Floor window, so LHO
abandoned (temporarily) the use of the pre-arranged W/SW rifle-rest
boxes and aimed almost straight down at JFK, and missed.
Bugliosi says on page 471 of "Reclaiming History" -- "Apparently
Oswald couldn't resist a target so temptingly close."
With the rifle being a little more unstable for this first shot (since
LHO couldn't use the rifle-rest boxes at that point), Bugliosi
postulates that this "unstable" nature of the weapon was a possible
contributing factor in Oswald's first shot being a miss, with the shot
missing the oak tree and hitting Elm St. on the fly, then ricocheting
over to Main St. (per VB).
I, however, will stick with the scenario of the bullet striking the
oak tree first; because the very same bullet bouncing off of TWO curbs
just doesn't quite add up, IMO.
There's also a slight timing problem with VB's "temptingly close"
theory too (IMO). Because Vince believes, as do I, that the first shot
came at approximately Z160 on the Zapruder Film.
But Z160 doesn't put the car right AT the corner (with the corner
itself being the point where the car would be pretty close to being
directly below Oswald's perch, as illustrated below via these photos
taken from CE875).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0452b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0453a.htm
.....but Z160 has the limousine at a point on Elm that is well PAST
the actual Elm/Houston corner, as we all know.
The ultimate "I Just Can't Resist Shooting At JFK Now" time would have
been when JFK was right AT the corner of Elm and Houston, which, of
course, would have been a few seconds before Abe Zapruder even started
filming.
Another random thought (as this guessing game continues)......
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, per the FBI's firearms expert
Robert Frazier, fired bullets "high and to the right" when using the
4x scope. If this was also the case when Oswald was shooting at JFK on
November 22, and Oswald for some reason forgot this quirk about his
scope when he squeezed off his first shot that day (if he used the
scope at all, which is also debatable, of course), that could be at
least a partial explanation as to why his first shot missed and struck
the nearby tree....a tree that would have been to Oswald's RIGHT if he
was aiming a little to the tree's LEFT through the scope just as JFK's
car was nearing it from LHO's POV.
bigdog
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> .....but Z160 has the limousine at a point on Elm that is well PAST
> the actual Elm/Houston corner, as we all know.
>
> The ultimate "I Just Can't Resist Shooting At JFK Now" time would have
> been when JFK was right AT the corner of Elm and Houston, which, of
> course, would have been a few seconds before Abe Zapruder even started
> filming.
>
> Another random thought (as this guessing game continues)......
>
> Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, per the FBI's firearms expert
> Robert Frazier, fired bullets "high and to the right" when using the
> 4x scope. If this was also the case when Oswald was shooting at JFK on
> November 22, and Oswald for some reason forgot this quirk about his
> scope when he squeezed off his first shot that day (if he used the
> scope at all, which is also debatable, of course), that could be at
> least a partial explanation as to why his first shot missed and struck
> the nearby tree....a tree that would have been to Oswald's RIGHT if he
> was aiming a little to the tree's LEFT through the scope just as JFK's
> car was nearing it from LHO's POV.
We can't know about the accuracy of the educated guesses you have made
but they are good ones. You have adequately pointed out the
difficulties with the first shot which contrary to CT claims would not
have been the easiest shot. His target would have been moving abrubtly
across his line of fire rather than the second two shots in which the
target was moving almost directly down his line of fire. For those
shots there would have been much less relative movement of the target
in relation to the firing line.
Also, contrary to what many CTs argue, Oswald could not have taken a
lot of time to fire his first shot. He obviously made the decision to
wait for the limo to turn the corner before he commenced firing. He
also knew the tree would be an issue. He apparently decided to try to
get a shot in before the limo passed under the tree. He would have had
only seconds from the time JFK had his back to him until the limo went
under the tree. Apparently, he was unable to get the shot off until
his target was at least partially obscured by the tree.
One other issue I rarely see discussed is what Oswald's aiming point
was, and again we must guess. Unless he aimed the second shot at JFK's
back and the third at his head, this was not as CTs like to claim,
"world class" accuracy. One of those shots was off target. My own
guess is that Oswald, as a trained Marine, would have been firing at
the center of mass which is the torso. Only the upper part of JFK's
back would have been exposed so this would have been his likely
target. The bullet which struck the upper back just right of his spine
was probably the only truly accurate shot and the head shot was
actually high. On the other hand, he may have decided a head shot
would be the more certain kill shot so this could have been his target
and it was the second shot that hit low.
Greg Jaynes
Easiest? That's kind of relevant but it would not have been hard to
hit him
with the first shot. But to miss the whole car seems like a stretch.
Then a shot being fired down on such a trajectory probably would not
have sparked.
If the tree stripped the copper jacket, the jacket remnants would not
have penetrated the
street. They would be in a position to have been found.
The first shot miss, richochet to James Tague idea is completely
absurd.
It literally defies common sense.
The headshot would seem to be more challenging as the car was in a
different plane due to 3 degree slope of Elm street, it's farther away
and
it's still moving of course. But that would not have been too tough
either.
These scenarios don't make good sense. Possible somehow? Ok, what
can I say... maybe.
I prefer my theory. It accounts for physical evidence and is more
rational.
First shot = magic bullet
second shot = headshot - chrome strip damage- fragments in car
third shot = miss to James Tague
Thats the way Charles Brehm said it went down. The last shot the miss.
Then I like this part of my theory: Why shoot after headshot?
He wasn't expecting to see Jackie crawling around on the trunk
and hurried a shot trying to pick her off. This one missed and
glanced
off curb near Tague. No copper found months later doesn't seem like a
big deal.
Finally a warning, theories like this require years of study and
training.
Kids should not try this in their own homes or garages.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
While a third shot miss is a theoretical possibility that the WC could
not categorically dismiss, I believe it is at least as unlikely as a
second shot miss. It does give Oswald at least as much time to fire as
a first shot miss, but there are other serious problems.
First of all, for a shooter of Oswald's ability to miss the entire
limo at any range on Elm St is hard to accept, unless something
deflected that bullet. After Z210, LHO had a clear shot until the limo
passed through the underpass. The only time he had any interference
would have been from around Z160-Z210. I think he fired that first
shot just as the tree appeared in his scope as he tracked JFK. This
may have caused him to rush the shot or he fired just as the tree
appeared thinking he could slip a shot between the branches. He was
wrong.
A first shot miss is supported by the observable reactions of JBC and
Rosemary Willis accompanied by their later statements. JBC said he
clearly heard the first shot before he was hit and having been hunting
recently, he instantly recognized it as a shot from a high powered
rifle. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder which he is
seen doing at Z164. I cannot believe he could have been hit by this
shot and not instantly felt it. Instead, we don't see him reacting
until about Z226, almost 3 seconds later. That delayed reaction simply
makes no sense. Rosemary Willis said she was running along side the
limo until she heard the first shot at which time she stopped and
looked back toward the TSBD. Unlike JBC who reacted almost
immediately, RW came to a gradual stop before looking back which she
is seen doing at about Z188, about a second and a half after a Z160
shot. Now any one witness can be wrong about what they heard, saw, or
felt, but in this case we have two witnesses who independently through
their testimony and observed reactions indicate an early first shot.
The observed reactions of both these witnesses is hard to explain if
there had not been a shot prior to these reactions.
Burly...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with the first shot missed scenario, but there is one detail
many people forget to mention. Not only does Connally make a sudden
head turn, so does JFK, at the same time. They BOTH seem to have been
reacting to something that caused them to turn their heads quickly.
Some poeple also think that Mrs. Kennedy turns her head in that
direction, as a result of Connally's "Oh no, no, no" scream, before
they disappear behind the sign.
I disgaree.
Mrs. Kennedy's head turn is too lax for her to be reacting a to
hearing the Governor yelling. Another reason is, Connally described
saying only 2 things during the shooting. The first, "Oh no, no, no!"
the second "My God, they're going to kill us all!" You can see both
Connally's mouth movements after Stemmons Freeway sign. The second
comes as he is falling towards Mrs. Connally seconds before the head
shot. His mouth is forming words as the headshot is fired. I suppose
that it is highly possible that Mr. Connally said more than what he
recalled, though.
Greg Jaynes
They are rational and intelligent.
> While a third shot miss is a theoretical possibility that the WC could
> not categorically dismiss, I believe it is at least as unlikely as a
> second shot miss. It does give Oswald at least as much time to fire as
> a first shot miss, but there are other serious problems.
> First of all, for a shooter of Oswald's ability to miss the entire
> limo at any range on Elm St is hard to accept, unless something
> deflected that bullet.
I don't know. I can see the little commie democrat bastard sitting
there
admiring the head shot when all of a sudden there was this bright pink
dress worn by the first lady crawling around on the trunk in a panic.
It's like a jackpot for him. He hurries to get this shot before they
take off.
The car is farther away, farther down the grade. It seems like a
likey
scenario for a miss.
>After Z210, LHO had a clear shot until the limo
> passed through the underpass. The only time he had any interference
> would have been from around Z160-Z210. I think he fired that first
> shot just as the tree appeared in his scope as he tracked JFK. This
> may have caused him to rush the shot or he fired just as the tree
> appeared thinking he could slip a shot between the branches. He was
> wrong.
Even if........., but then you have the problem of the deflection
toward
James Tague. I defy anyone ever to repeat it. You would have to put
some serious english on a billiard ball to get an angle like that.
Never mind
the downward velocity.
> A first shot miss is supported by the observable reactions of JBC and
> Rosemary Willis accompanied by their later statements. JBC said he
> clearly heard the first shot before he was hit and having been hunting
> recently, he instantly recognized it as a shot from a high powered
> rifle. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder which he is
> seen doing at Z164.
>I cannot believe he could have been hit by this
> shot and not instantly felt it. Instead, we don't see him reacting
> until about Z226, almost 3 seconds later.
When Hinckley shot Reagan, Reagan did not even know he was hit until
he started coughing up blood later in the car. And Reagan didn't pass
out into unconciousness JBC. He was awake thru it all. Told his old
lady
he forgot to duck.
>That delayed reaction simply
> makes no sense.
Please see above.
>Rosemary Willis said she was running along side the
> limo until she heard the first shot at which time she stopped and
> looked back toward the TSBD. Unlike JBC who reacted almost
> immediately, RW came to a gradual stop before looking back which she
> is seen doing at about Z188, about a second and a half after a Z160
> shot. Now any one witness can be wrong about what they heard, saw, or
> felt, but in this case we have two witnesses who independently through
> their testimony and observed reactions indicate an early first shot.
> The observed reactions of both these witnesses is hard to explain if
> there had not been a shot prior to these reactions.- Hide quoted text -
These two witnesses? Well, there were hundreds of other people in the
vicinity at the same time. Do they react to a shot? The first visible
reaction
to a shot by others that I have seen is in the Altgens picture (I
think it's no.5)
I believe they are reacting to what we call the magic bullet shot.
The crime Oswald was not asked about: The attempted murder of Jackie
Kennedy
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
aeffects
ahhhh, the Nutter circle jerk is underway, knee pads for all -- hate
to piss on your parade kids but LHO didn't fire a rifle or pistol that
day.... Carry on!
bigdog
You could fire 1000 shots into a tree branch or any other object and I
doubt any two are going to react exactly the same way. You'd probably
get deflections in every conceivable direction. Some may end up close
to another, but each bullet path is going to be unique. I have no
problem believing a bullet could have deflected several times, off the
branch, off Elm St, off the curb, before either striking Tague or
kicking up a piece of concrete which scratched his cheek. Each
deflection would change the trajectory of the bullet. Also, the shape
of the bullet would influence how it deflected and the shape would
change each time it hit something, at least until most of its velocity
was spent. I really don't put much stock in trying to say how a bullet
would have or should have deflected. There are simply too many
variables in play. Suffice it to say, the bullet had to end up
somewhere. The curb in front of Tague on Main St qualifies as
somewhere.
> Never mind
> the downward velocity.
>
> > A first shot miss is supported by the observable reactions of JBC and
> > Rosemary Willis accompanied by their later statements. JBC said he
> > clearly heard the first shot before he was hit and having been hunting
> > recently, he instantly recognized it as a shot from a high powered
> > rifle. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder which he is
> > seen doing at Z164.
> >I cannot believe he could have been hit by this
> > shot and not instantly felt it. Instead, we don't see him reacting
> > until about Z226, almost 3 seconds later.
>
> When Hinckley shot Reagan, Reagan did not even know he was hit until
> he started coughing up blood later in the car. And Reagan didn't pass
> out into unconciousness JBC. He was awake thru it all. Told his old
> lady
> he forgot to duck.
>
But, unlike Reagan, JBC knew he had been hit and he felt it when it
hit him. He said it felt like someone had punched him in the back with
a fist. He also recalled he felt this after he had looked over his
right shoulder in reaction to the sound of the first shot. Reagan was
shot with a small caliber handgun that penetrated from his left said
to within an inch of his heart. The caliber of the bullet that hit JBC
wasn't much bigger but it was a much higher velocity and inflicted far
greater damage. JBC visibly reacted to being shot and that reaction
began about Z226. If he and Rosemary Willis are correct about how they
reacted to the sound of the first shot, and the Z-film supports them,
JBC was not hit with that first shot.
> >That delayed reaction simply
> > makes no sense.
>
> Please see above.
>
> >Rosemary Willis said she was running along side the
> > limo until she heard the first shot at which time she stopped and
> > looked back toward the TSBD. Unlike JBC who reacted almost
> > immediately, RW came to a gradual stop before looking back which she
> > is seen doing at about Z188, about a second and a half after a Z160
> > shot. Now any one witness can be wrong about what they heard, saw, or
> > felt, but in this case we have two witnesses who independently through
> > their testimony and observed reactions indicate an early first shot.
> > The observed reactions of both these witnesses is hard to explain if
> > there had not been a shot prior to these reactions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> These two witnesses? Well, there were hundreds of other people in the
> vicinity at the same time. Do they react to a shot? The first visible
> reaction
> to a shot by others that I have seen is in the Altgens picture (I
> think it's no.5)
> I believe they are reacting to what we call the magic bullet shot.
>
> The crime Oswald was not asked about: The attempted murder of Jackie
> Kennedy
>
> Respectfully,
> Greg Jaynes
I really doubt Oz had any thought of killing Jackie. Whatever his
motivation may have been for killing JFK, I don't think bagging the
first lady would have enhanced whatever he hoped to accomplish by
murdering the President.
robc...@netscape.com
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> >>> "Some might think it was CE 399 {that went into JFK but never exited}." <<<
>
> Not even remotely possible, of course (and Tony knows this full
> well...he just wants to argue the obvious), because Kennedy's
> stretcher was never even close to that corridor where CE399 was found
> by Tomlinson. Why this major fact is totally ignored by many CTers can
> only elicit a shoulder shrug from yours truly.
So you're calling Hoover a liar? Hoover told LBJ that the full bullet
discovered was on JFK's stretcher. Or a second one was planted.
>
> >>> "How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near Tague?" <<<
> One, if the bullet hit the tree and separated the jacket from the lead
> core....the lead can go on out to hit Main St. and then Tague; hence,
> no copper tracing on the curb. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.
Nothing reasonable about it. A tree couldn't do that. In all
probablility it would know the lead core and jacket off course and
cause it to miss the target.
> Two, with the bullet now split into two parts, the copper jacket can
> strike Elm St., resulting in the "sparks" that some witnesses said
> they saw near JFK's limo. While the other portion of the bullet can
> separately go on out to meet Mr. Tague without having to perform any
> hopping, skipping, or jumping from one curbstone to yet another.
And you don't think the splitting part would cause both sections to
alter course dramitically? In your scenario only one part does as the
other maintains a straigh ahead course and continues all the way to
the overpass. Makes no sense.
>
> I completely disagree with Vince Bugliosi's explanation re. the first-
> shot miss and the Tague wounding...which, btw, Vince only briefly
> mentions in his book. He gives the whole matter two short paragraphs
> on pages 471 and 472.
OMG!!! He finally doesn't agree with himself, er I mean with VB?
Everyone make a note of this.
>
> Vince thinks that the first Oswald (missed) shot hit the Elm pavement
> on the fly, and then the same bullet somehow finds its way (at grass
> level all the way?) over to Main Street to hit the Main curb and cause
> Tague's cheek injury.
He's a kook. The first shot missed completely and hit the street
behind the limo. It was fired from the Dal-Tex bldg. and was a bad
round as everyone said it sounded like a "firecracker".
>
> I, myself, find that scenario hard to swallow, although I cannot
> disprove it, of course; nor can anyone else. Since we're talking about
> a shot that missed the limo occupants completely and was never
> recovered, all we can do is guess. But I find Posner's "guess" to be
> the best guess....in that it can explain multiple questions
> surrounding the shooting -- e.g., the sparks on the Elm pavement and
> the non-copper tracings on the Main curb and Tague's wounding.
Dave getting some common sense. I find the multiple gunmen guess to be
the best guess and it can be proved by all the bullet damage noted.
8-9 shots were probably fired.
> As a footnote to the above discussion re. the Tague wounding --- I
> must also point out that Mr. Bugliosi does mention in "Reclaiming
> History" (in an endnote on the CD-ROM disc that comes with the book)
> that Gerald Posner's tree-branch deflection theory "is possible" (VB;
> footnote on page 315 of endnotes).
Of course a tree branch deflected bullet hitting Tague is possible,
anything is when you have the SBT as your core proof of your case. So
we now have a mini-magical bullet.
robc...@netscape.com
> MISSED-SHOT CONTROVERSY (CONTINUED)...............
>
> >>> "Which is also why he {LHO} would not have shot before the limo went under the oak tree. He would have to point the rifle down and track across his field of view, which is the most difficult kind of shot." <<<
>
> Which is probably why he missed with shot #1. He either rushed the
> shot or some other forever-unknown variable influenced Oswald's aim.
> It's a guessing/parlor game, of course. I've admitted that. Nobody can
> know these things for sure.
He rushed the shot? He watched the president coming towards him on
Houston St. when he could have easily shot at close range, but he
waits for all of this to develop and then rushes the shot? He should
have been prepared after all the time he was waiting.
>
> Vincent Bugliosi believes that Oswald just couldn't resist the sight
> of JFK's head looming large just beneath the 6th-Floor window, so LHO
> abandoned (temporarily) the use of the pre-arranged W/SW rifle-rest
> boxes and aimed almost straight down at JFK, and missed.
More theorizing from a kook. His whacky accusations are accepted like
the gospel, but let anyone make any sense and they are called kooks by
Herr Goebbles.
>
> Bugliosi says on page 471 of "Reclaiming History" -- "Apparently
> Oswald couldn't resist a target so temptingly close."
Yeah he could as he passed up a shot while the limo was on Houston St.
>
> With the rifle being a little more unstable for this first shot (since
> LHO couldn't use the rifle-rest boxes at that point), Bugliosi
> postulates that this "unstable" nature of the weapon was a possible
> contributing factor in Oswald's first shot being a miss, with the shot
> missing the oak tree and hitting Elm St. on the fly, then ricocheting
> over to Main St. (per VB).
Because he is a gun expert right? How much shooting has ol' VB done?
What level did he qualify for? I love a has been A.D.A. acting like
he actually investigated any crimes. The police did that for him.
>
> I, however, will stick with the scenario of the bullet striking the
> oak tree first; because the very same bullet bouncing off of TWO curbs
> just doesn't quite add up, IMO.
All this talk of the shot hitting the tree, but no discussion of why
any person intent on killing someone would shoot through a tree when
they had a perfect shot just a minute before (Houston St.)
>
> There's also a slight timing problem with VB's "temptingly close"
> theory too (IMO). Because Vince believes, as do I, that the first shot
> came at approximately Z160 on the Zapruder Film.
>
> But Z160 doesn't put the car right AT the corner (with the corner
> itself being the point where the car would be pretty close to being
> directly below Oswald's perch, as illustrated below via these photos
> taken from CE875).....
The first shot came after the car completed its turn onto Elm St. as
JFK's and JBC's reactions show.
> .....but Z160 has the limousine at a point on Elm that is well PAST
> the actual Elm/Houston corner, as we all know.
So, this the way it happened. The car had completed its turn.
>
> The ultimate "I Just Can't Resist Shooting At JFK Now" time would have
> been when JFK was right AT the corner of Elm and Houston, which, of
> course, would have been a few seconds before Abe Zapruder even started
> filming.
Or sooner as in right after the turn onto Houston so he could get at
least two off at close range. You finally catching on to the lies of
the official theory people.
> Another random thought (as this guessing game continues)......
>
> Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, per the FBI's firearms expert
> Robert Frazier, fired bullets "high and to the right" when using the
> 4x scope. If this was also the case when Oswald was shooting at JFK on
> November 22, and Oswald for some reason forgot this quirk about his
> scope when he squeezed off his first shot that day (if he used the
> scope at all, which is also debatable, of course), that could be at
> least a partial explanation as to why his first shot missed and struck
> the nearby tree....a tree that would have been to Oswald's RIGHT if he
> was aiming a little to the tree's LEFT through the scope just as JFK's
> car was nearing it from LHO's POV.
Listen to yourself. You are so close to realizing the lies you have
been told for 44 years are just that - lies!! IF his first shot is so
off the mark, how could he have adjusted the scope or even the gun's
sights in 5.6 seconds to make the second and third shots so good?
Impossible. You're right there Dave, so close to the truth. Think
about that, if the first shot is so off the mark, what adjustments
could he have made to make the second and third ones dead hits in 6
seconds (all the while working a very stiff bolt action). Just can't
be done.
David Von Pein
shot....then, after noticing (obviously!) that his first shot hit
NOTHING, he abandoned the scope and switched to the iron sights for
shots 2 and 3.
David Von Pein
With only ONE witness (among hundreds) claiming to have heard that
many.
Lovely.
That one "8-shot" witness -- A.J. Millican. Embrace him like he was
the Second Coming, Mr. Kook. Because he's all you've got (earwitness-
wise). And "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE-WISE", you've got even less
stuff...meaning: you've got NOTHING physical at all to support your
8-9-shot speculation.....
"Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come
from up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building,
and then immediately I heard two more shots from the Arcade between
the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from
the same direction only sounded further back."
YoHarvey
The only controvery is the inane comments by CT's.
robc...@netscape.com
And he did this adjustment and worked the bolt all in 5.6 seconds?
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "8-9 shots were probably fired." <<<
>
> With only ONE witness (among hundreds) claiming to have heard that
> many.
>
> Lovely.
I'm not basing that assumption on a witness, but rather the dictabelt
and the hits to the car, bodies, curbs and sidewalks.
David Von Pein
He had 8.36 seconds, idiot.
And the "clock" doesn't even BEGIN until the moment of Oswald's first
shot. So, in reality, Oz had all of the 8.36 seconds to get off his
last TWO shots, not three. The clock doesn't start until the first
shot's already been fired.
1st shot = At Zapruder Film frame 160 (approximately).
2nd shot = Z224 (3.50 seconds after the first shot).
3rd shot = Z313 (4.86 seconds after the second shot).
Total Time = 8.36 seconds (approximately).
YoHarvey
>>> "8-9 shots were probably fired." <<<
Where is the evidence for 8-9 shots?
tomnln
It is quite possible
It is quite possible
It is quite possible
It is quite possible
It is quite possible
Did YOU write the Warren report?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194051569.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Target could NOT be seen prior to frame 210.
Last shot at 313. (That's 103 frames)
Speed of camera was 18.3 fps.
EQUALS, 5.6 seconds.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194055745....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194057389.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Where is the evidence for 8-9 shots?
Look where they put the note Oswald delivered to the Dallas FBI office.
Look where they put the 4 fragments they took outta JBC's wrist.
Look where they put the Mauser.
Look where they put part 3 of the P O Box application.
There's MORE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> Even Helen Keller would NOT fire through a tree Rinky-Dink.
>
> Target could NOT be seen prior to frame 210.
> Last shot at 313. (That's 103 frames)
>
> Speed of camera was 18.3 fps.
>
> EQUALS, 5.6 seconds.
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "And he did this adjustment and worked the bolt all in 5.6 seconds?"
> >>>> <<<
>
> > He had 8.36 seconds, idiot.
>
> > And the "clock" doesn't even BEGIN until the moment of Oswald's first
> > shot. So, in reality, Oz had all of the 8.36 seconds to get off his
> > last TWO shots, not three. The clock doesn't start until the first
> > shot's already been fired.
>
> > 1st shot = At Zapruder Film frame 160 (approximately).
> > 2nd shot = Z224 (3.50 seconds after the first shot).
> > 3rd shot = Z313 (4.86 seconds after the second shot).
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley is so fucking stupid he thinks the tree blocked Oswald's view
from the time the limo turned the corner until Z210. This is the level
of intellect we are dealing with.
Greg Jaynes
Thank you for that. You leave me no choice but to haul out
the old infallible technique of claiming " He did too! "
Respectfully,
Greg jaynes
Greg Jaynes
> On Nov 2, 3:25 pm,GregJaynes<jay...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You could fire 1000 shots into a tree branch or any other object and I
> doubt any two are going to react exactly the same way. You'd probably
> get deflections in every conceivable direction. Some may end up close
> to another, but each bullet path is going to be unique.
See. I would expect there to be similarities in numerous
tests under the same conditions. This reminds me of the claim
to have produced cold fusion.
> I have no
> problem believing a bullet could have deflected several times, off the
> branch, off Elm St, off the curb, before either striking Tague or
> kicking up a piece of concrete which scratched his cheek. Each
> deflection would change the trajectory of the bullet. Also, the shape
> of the bullet would influence how it deflected and the shape would
> change each time it hit something, at least until most of its velocity
> was spent.
I don't know. I'm no expert on what bullets do. But I do understand
that you cannot get a negative deflection angle and the closer
you get to the zero point the less likely you are to have a certain
result. The downward angle from the snipers nest then to Tague
might be possible as a matter of billard table geometry but I don't
see how it could not be overcome by the bullets velocity.
> I really don't put much stock in trying to say how a bullet
> would have or should have deflected. There are simply too many
> variables in play.
I'm glad because if you did I wouldn't be able to respond to it.
> Suffice it to say, the bullet had to end up
> somewhere. The curb in front of Tague on Main St qualifies as
> somewhere.
Ha! Everywhere qualifies as somewhere.
> But, unlike Reagan, JBC knew he had been hit and he felt it when it
> hit him. He said it felt like someone had punched him in the back with
> a fist. He also recalled he felt this after he had looked over his
> right shoulder in reaction to the sound of the first shot.
Yep. I understand your point entirely. It just goes to his ability
to put it all together. Don't forget he was unconcious within
seconds of these events. Now, is going to wake up later
and have a perfect recall? I know he thinks he did.
> Reagan was
> shot with a small caliber handgun that penetrated from his left said
> to within an inch of his heart. The caliber of the bullet that hit JBC
> wasn't much bigger but it was a much higher velocity and inflicted far
> greater damage. JBC visibly reacted to being shot and that reaction
> began about Z226.
> If he and Rosemary Willis are correct about how they
> reacted to the sound of the first shot, and the Z-film supports them,
> JBC was not hit with that first shot.
That would be indisputable. But what is in dispute is that they
and only they reacted to a first shot while everyone else in
the vicinity stood by without noticing it including Nellie Connally
who disagreed with her husbands account of it while sitting
beside of him.
> I really doubt Oz had any thought of killing Jackie. Whatever his
> motivation may have been for killing JFK, I don't think bagging the
> first lady would have enhanced whatever he hoped to accomplish by
> murdering the President.-
You procede here as if there might have been some
rational reason to murder Kennedy. To my simple mind
the assassination was a crime of opportunity and
nothing more. If that is true, then shooting at Jackie
would have been just another crime of opportunity.
I have presented my case in the face of all these
arguments before. I haven't convinced anyone yet.
But that's not really the intention as I cannot claim my
theory to be a fact and say I am convinced either.
But it cannot be dismissed on any factual basis.
I just wanted to present the ideas again.
Thanks for the debate.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes