RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Does anyone here still believe there was a conspiracy(25 posts)

Does anyone here still believe there was a conspiracyOldEdScott
Nov 21, 2003 10:13 AM
to assassinate JFK? I've been mildly surprised to see so many former conspiracists coming back to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

If anyone still thinks there was a conspiracy, I'd be interested in knowing why.
Certainly there wasLive Steam
Nov 21, 2003 10:23 AM
I watched most of the shows dedicated to it so far. He was shot from different angles. The one that finished him off was from the front even though the coroner says differently. The footage of that last shot clearly shows his head and body going backwards. Who conspired to kill him? He had a lot of enemies. Pick one. Some say it was the CIA. I could go with that. It was certainly a sophisticated plan.

Some scientist that uses photographic technology believes he has proven that the shots came from different angles. I think his evaluation of the data is very believable. He showed how some of the evidence such as the picture taken by the coroner, were tampered with. He is using science and math not theory to make his assessments.
Saw the same stuff Steam did, came to the opposite conclusionCory
Nov 21, 2003 3:55 PM
Well, THERE'S a surprise... But I've seen some stuff that, if it's not the same, is very similar, and it led me to exactly the opposite conclusion: One sad f***up, working alone, and he got a little lucky. The shooting was good but not remarkable, and there's a computer reenactment (on ABC last night, in fact) that explains the various angles and the holes in the two victims.
Note, now, that I like nothing better than a good conservative-conspiracy theory, but I just can't see it in this case.
I figure you guys would be the first ...Live Steam
Nov 21, 2003 4:59 PM
to go for the conspiracy theory. After all JFK was your guy. I would think the CIA did it theory woulkd be among your favorites.

The scientist on the Discovery Channel program made a very compelling case. He used spectrometers to study the different layes of light in the various movies and stills to make three dimentional models of the scene and of JFK. He was able to determine from one pic that there was a large hole in the back of JFKs head. His model was able to even go so far as to illustrate the size and the origin of the fatal shot to the head - which was from the front. He also showed how some of the coroner's pictures were tampered with. He may be a crackpot, but he also made a very good case for a second shooter.
Was he that good a marksman?RoyGBiv
Nov 21, 2003 10:48 AM
I still don't know how Oswald pulled the trigger - what four times? - in such a short time and hit the target with such accuracy.
And, have they (the reactionary revisionists) gone back to the Warren Commission theory that the reason Kennedy's head lurched backwards had to do with some kind of Newtonian dynamics of being shot in the back of the head?
Finally, it seems way too convenient that Jack Ruby had that kind of access to shoot Oswald.
I could have made the shot and I'm not a markmanDave Hickey
Nov 21, 2003 11:19 AM
I live in Dallas and I've been the Sixth Floor Museum many times. The shot was not that difficult....

I really don't know if he acted alone but the shot was not hard.
all 3? w/a bolt-action? You're good.cmgauch
Nov 21, 2003 11:45 AM
In my mind, the official version just strains the bounds of credibility.
I doubt you could...jose_Tex_mex
Nov 21, 2003 7:16 PM
Dave,
To date, no marksman has been able to replicate the shots under the identical circumstances - and they have tried.

Anyone who knows anything about rifles knows the Mannlicher Carcano is probably one of the worst rifles ever made. Think about it, Carcano makes everything but the magazine (made by Mannlicher) and markets the rifle with the Mannlicher name. If you know about rifles I am sure you agree.

Next, you have to cycle the action 3 times in six seconds realizing you come off target every cycle. Not impossible by any means, but definitely minimizing the time on target and accuracy.

Distance wise, not an impossible shot - estimates under 200ft, maybe 60 yards. Had the first shot been the kill shot I might believe you "could have made the shot." However, the first shot was the most inaccurate. As the shot became harder the shooting got better.

So, we have a mediocre shooter, shooting a piece of $hit rifle, with a scope that was out of alignment shooting at a moving target, missing the easy shot and making the hard shot. Does that sound likely?

So just send the rifle out for Oswald's prints. They do, and on day 1 the rifle is clean. Day 2 no prints. Then, Oswald is killed. Men go to corner's office with strange bag tell everyone to leave. Doctor comes back in and has to wipe gunk off of Oswald's hand. Guess what they finally find on the rifle? A smudged palm print - Yay! Case closed we have our shooter!
Just for fun....dr hoo
Nov 22, 2003 5:12 AM
"Anyone who knows anything about rifles knows the Mannlicher Carcano is probably one of the worst rifles ever made. "

And anyone that knows anything about rifles knows that manufacturing tolerances vary, and there are always some of a model that are VERY good, and some that are VERY bad. Maybe this particular rifle was one of the good ones?

"Next, you have to cycle the action 3 times in six seconds "

Very true. Practice makes it possible to do this. The trick is to throw the bolt smoothly so as not to move the aim point far.

Shooters know that after practicing, you have to trust yourself. If you let go of thought, the training takes over. For example, my family reunion for years was a "shoot". I had not gone, or picked up a gun for probably 7 years, but got roped into the trap shooting contest. I just trusted my skills, and without a practice shot managed 13-15. Now, trap with a shotgun is very different, but you take my point.

BTW, I got more points with my family for that shooting performance than I did for being in grad school :-)

"the first shot was the most inaccurate. As the shot became harder the shooting got better."

Sounds damning! But, if he was nervous on the first shot, it is quite possible that the practice took over when he got into the motions of reloading and firing. Not as likely as a first shot kill, but possible.

"...with a scope that was out of alignment ..."

How do you know it was out of alignment WHEN FIRED?
the physics of it.dr hoo
Nov 21, 2003 11:57 AM
I saw a demonstration with a pumpkin once. Basically, the exit wound works as a jet engine. When the bullet goes in it punches a small hole, but with the high velocity of the round it does not meet much in the way of resistance from brain and bone. However, there is all sorts of material flying out of the exit wound at high velocity, including some steam from the friction. It is that material that acts as a jet, the action, and the head moves in the direction of the entry wound due to the REaction.

It won't work with a .45, or even with a .22, iirc. But with a high velocity round it does. At least it did on that pumpkin. It is opening season for deer here today, so maybe I will do some testing later and report my results!
I have no idea...No_sprint
Nov 21, 2003 11:38 AM
I do think the circumstances of many aspects of the entire thing are odd though. I've seen some commercials about a show of some scientists coming together to check some things out and try to find out scientifically what happened. That sounds interesting. I don't think I could handle any more political conspiracy guesswork though. Hasn't that been done a thousand times? This is not to say conclusively there wasn't one.
There's a conspiracy to keep the conspiracy aliveContinental
Nov 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Oliver Stone is a CIA agent with a mission to perpetuate they myth of the Kennedy conspiracy. Several newsreporters tabloids, and authors are co-conspirators. The CIA needs the myth to provide an aura of power and intrigue.
Ha! If that were true...Matno
Nov 22, 2003 6:01 PM
He'd have picked a better actor than Kevin Costner to make the story credible. Some aura of power he created. (The bad accent was somewhat intriguing though...)

:^)
Simple physicsFr Ted Crilly
Nov 21, 2003 12:15 PM
There was an interesting documentary on the Science Channel the other night that disproved some of the 'flaws' put forward by the conspiracy theorists.
1. Given the same model of gun, a trained sharpshooter could fire off three accurate shots form a similar distance and height, all within 7 seconds. Saying that, the guy they had for this demonstration was recognised as an accurate sharpshooter. I don't believe that Oswald was known as a great shot, but this exercise did prove that it could be done.
2. A man of similar age and build to Oswald, (and allegedly similar fitness), could go from the 6th floor window, hide his weapon, and make it down to the 2nd floor cafeteria all within 90 seconds where he was spotted by a cop.
3. The same Oswald "double" could make it from his lodgings to the spot where he killed Officer Tibbit within 15 minutes, without moving at anything other than a brisk walk.
All three of these points were contested by many of the disbelievers.

What has never been properly explained is how Newton's laws of motion were apparently broken when JFK's head was forced backwards by a bullet coming from behind, and how the "magic" bullet that passed through two men, (JFK and Gov. Connolly), could have done so much damage and remained in almost pristine condition. There is also contradictory evidence about the head wound from the doctors who tried to treat JFK in Dallas, (they insist they saw a large exit wound at the back right of the head), and the official autopsy photos which show the back of the head intact.
Based on everything I've heard, I find it hard to believe that Oswald acted alone.
the question about the 6th floor to cafeteria....rufus
Nov 21, 2003 12:37 PM
isn't whether it could be done, but could it be done with the person exhibiting no outward signs of physical effort, such as being flushed or breathing harder. by all accounts, oswald was calm, cool and collected when spotted in the cafeteria.

I don't know about you, but if i raced down four flights of stairs in less than 90 seconds, i'd be breathing a bit harder, and have a bit of a sweat starting.
The test subject did just fine, but ...Live Steam
Nov 21, 2003 12:49 PM
he didn't just assonate the President of the Unites States a few moments prior. Oswald was no experienced assassin. If he were he would have left the building rather than stay there to found. It is a terrible theory. How the American public bought it at the time, is not understandable except for the fact that 1. they were in shock and 2. Oswald was dead and could not provide any contradictory evidence in his defense.
Go see Oliver Stone's film on the subject, then get back to me.bicyclerepairman
Nov 21, 2003 12:39 PM
As I recall, people about to testify before the Warren Commission were dropping like flies...
You are joking right? LOL nmNo_sprint
Nov 21, 2003 1:02 PM
No, I wasn't joking. nmbicyclerepairman
Nov 21, 2003 4:00 PM
No better place to get factual history than O. Stone huh?No_sprint
Nov 25, 2003 7:57 AM
LOL!
Do you realize, OES,moneyman
Nov 21, 2003 12:45 PM
That was 40 years ago? It has been relegated to anachronistic trivia. The old fogies, like you and me, who inhabit this board may well remember where we were when JFK was shot, but the under-40 crowd treats this like the assassination of Lincoln. Just another event in history. The conspiracy theories that were all the rage have been marginalized to the point that they look and sound like the ramblings of old men trying to relive their youth. I think its time we just let it gooooooooooooo................

Besides, everyone knows that LBJ was responsible.

$$
LBJ? I thought it was the mafia?RoyGBiv
Nov 21, 2003 1:06 PM
Ya, it's kinda unnerving to think that two-thirds of today's population was a mere glint in their daddy's eye the day JFK was shot.
But I refuse to dismiss it as anacrhonistic. I don't want to let it go. I believe someone - wouldn't be surprised if it was more than one - took it upon himself to change the course of (world) history that day. Who were they to do so?
Funny that you would ask that...................................MR_GRUMPY
Nov 21, 2003 1:12 PM
.....NO.
.
.
Unless...........Say, ...Where were you in 1963.
Dear Edjose_Tex_mex
Nov 21, 2003 6:50 PM
With all due respect...

Why do you believe there wasn't a conspiracy? Because the gov't says so? Because you have done your homework and have come to a well informed logical conclusion?

Well, if you believe the whatever the gov't says, what can I say? Didn't they say the Stealth Bomber didn't exist? Point taken?

Thus, I will give you the credit of having done some analysis and a fair conclusion. Simple question: do you believe in the magic bullet theory? The one pioneered by Spector?

IF YES, then you do not understand High School level Physics. The weight of your conclusion ranks theirin.

IF NO - you do not believe the magic bullet theory - then you believe there is a conspiracy, no other way around it.

Don't worry though, our gov't has not made up its mind. Warren concluded one shooter. The house senate commitee concluded two shooters.

We have A government. There was AN event. How can A government analysing AN event logically come up with two mutually exlusive scenarios.
Naw, man.OldEdScott
Nov 24, 2003 6:33 AM
I DO believe something was up in Dallas that day. I guess you can call it a 'conspiracy,' but whatever -- I don't think Oswald acted alone, and I'm not even sure Oswald was the shooter at all.

But it seems like a lot of old conspiracists are coming back to something like the Warren Commission conclusions. Norman Mailer, for one. I feel my certainty crumbling on that score, and wanted someone to give me some good reasons to still Believe..