The Kennedy Assassination

[ryan]

Native, ive seen you around the forums and im just wondering, you never post in the Orbiter or Space forums, whys that?

 

[Deke]

It doesn't matter anymore. The man was killed forty years ago. I have no more sympathy for him than the rest of Americans that are mercilessly killed each day.

Ummm... We didn't ask for your non-caring of Americans. We're asking for people's opinions on a very... intelligent discussion of a historic event in which a large figure was assassinated.

Please keep the comments you made to yourself. It's not appreciated, or warranted.

 

[Notebook]

There was an interview with one of the surgeons who treated President Kennedy on the day of his assassination:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/saturdaylive

We hear from the neurosurgeon who tried to save JFK's life Dr Robert G Grossman - it's his first ever radio interview.

The items starts 16:30 into the programme.

 

[ryan]

I watched a video and when he gets shot, his wife reaches back, she says a peice of his skull came out, but i will admit this, dont get me wrong i hate who ever shot him, but it was a good shot, was he like a ex-army or something? the guy who shot the predisent.

 

[Native Son]

Native, ive seen you around the forums and im just wondering, you never post in the Orbiter or Space forums, whys that?

I have a post or two. Here's one:

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1373

Ummm... We didn't ask for your non-caring of Americans. We're asking for people's opinions on a very... intelligent discussion of a historic event in which a large figure was assassinated.

Please keep the comments you made to yourself. It's not appreciated, or warranted.

I said I had no more sympathy for this man than any other American who has been murdered mercilessly. No where did I say I didn't care for Americans.

I think debating on how he died is pointless, for he cannot be resurrected, but it does make for good discussion. I await until the classified documents are released to the public.

 

[ryan]

You gotta respect the man who sent man to the moon, who set the benchmark for combovers in powerful people, and had many great speechs.

 

[Capt. Windh]

I watched a video and when he gets shot, his wife reaches back, she says a peice of his skull came out, but i will admit this, dont get me wrong i hate who ever shot him, but it was a good shot, was he like a ex-army or something? the guy who shot the predisent.

To me, that last shot is a very "lucky" strike.

 

[Capt. Windh]

There was an interview with one of the surgeons who treated President Kennedy on the day of his assassination:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/saturdaylive



The items starts 16:30 into the programme.

EDIT: The link doesn´t work. It just takes me to bbc iplayer main page.


Interesting. Will have a look at this. The doctors´ testimonies are the essence of the conspiratorial community.

 

[Quick_Nick]

It should work. The player is in the top left corner. Press the 15min ahead button to get closer to 18:16:30

 

[Urwumpe]

was he like a ex-army or something?

Ex-Marine Corps, became sniper with passing the final tests with minimal score (only 1 or 2 points above the limit). But he used a completely different rifle and had less than a year time for practicing after returning from the USSR.

He bought the rifle in March by mail-order (If you ever think what can be wrong with a country - here is one thing). In April 10, he did very likely his first failed assassination attempt against Major General Walker. In November he shot Kennedy. In that time he also visited Mexico for about one month getting a Visa via Cuba to the USSR.

 

[Native Son]

You gotta respect the man who sent man to the moon, who set the benchmark for combovers in powerful people, and had many great speechs.

Haha, I had a combover that rivaled JFK's once...Now my hair is frizzy and out of control.

He bought the rifle in March by mail-order (If you ever think what can be wrong with a country - here is one thing). .

Now there's Craigslist.

 

[Ghostrider]

Lee Harvey Oswald was quite a character, I'm no shrink but "borderline" would be a pretty good definition of his personality. He had a quick temper, paranoid delusions, was prone to violence and didn't have that much of a strong mind. He became an avid Marxist after reading some stuff on the matter and the ideology gave him some needed sense of belonging.
It's odd that he wanted to join the Marines, but people like Oswald always seem to have to belong to a group in order to remain stable. It's also possible that he joined up just to follow his brother's footsteps. He managed to get himself a self-inflicted gunshot wound during the service, and to fire his weapon without a cause.
He tried to emigrate to the USSR with only rudimentary knowledge of Russian and couldn't fit in there, either. Back in the USA, he couldn't managed to hold on to a job for any appreciable amount of time.
Looks like a perfect fit for the "Lone Avenger Syndrome" to me: the guy couldn't fit in, saw conspiracies everywhere, needed strong ideology to back up himself up. That's the kind of guy who ends up being Unabomber copycat or some.

As for the rifle... With sufficient dedication (and this kind of cat lack anything but dedication once they find something that can give a meaning to their lives) one can train himself to operate any kind of firearm with some degree of proficiency. The M1 Garand is a semiautomatic rifle, the Parravicini-Carcano Modello 91 is a bolt-action repeater but it's not like you're going from semiauto pistol to Stinger missile (and the Stinger isn't that hard anyway). He probably chose the Modello 91 not out of knowledge of the model (I doubt he gave much study to the matter) but because it was the one of the few weapons he could get his hands on with a small measure of anonimity. He bought it via mail order under a false name.

He bought the rifle in March, used it to try and kill Walker one month later and failed from 30 meters. It's possible he was unfamiliar with the weapon and hadn't even properly zeroed it in. By November he had probably trained himself enough, there was enough time for a determined individual.

I'm not a supporter of any theory because I don't have sufficient evidence, but a guy like Osward could have done it: he was unhinged enough and totally uncaring about his own safety (he had pictures of him posing with the weapon taken) and unpredictable. This kind of guy exist, we're a bit better at profiling him today than we were 40some years ago, but they are around and not that uncommon. Mostly they don't do too much damage but every now and then someone comes up and poisons water bottles or mails some letter-bomb. They're any regime's best friend, because in any dictatorship they'd be the ones wearing a uniform and going around beating people up or "disappearing" them.

 

[GregBurch]

... just a personal note -- I was a Catholic kid going to Catholic school in Dallas when all this happened. Imagine the impact it had on me and my family. It's all pretty well seared in my memory.

As I grew up, I was an imaginative book-nerd (geee ... what a surprise), so I read a LOT about the continuing investigation throughout the 1960s and 1970s and was certainly open to every "conspiracy" question and theory that came along. Jim Garrison was a fixture of popular culture throughout my youth.

With all that said, I can say now with no reservations that the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald acted alone.

 

[agentgonzo]

Yes, but he fired faster and more accurate as 90% of all with sharpshooter qualification, using modern semiautomatic rifles.

Not sure of your source for this information, but apologies if you've got it from a credible source.

The film JFK (which is largely factually accurate, but woefully inaccurate in places) states that he got the 3 shots off in 6 seconds or so, whilst the actual timing is 8 seconds. I don't know the actual timings, but I do know that Oliver Stone blatantly lied about the timings in the film for dramatic effect. The actual timings are quite believable. Given the documentary-style nature of the film, a lot of people erroneously take it for granted that all the 'facts' presented in the film are true.

 

[GregBurch]

Not sure of your source for this information, but apologies if you've got it from a credible source.

The film JFK (which is largely factually accurate, but woefully inaccurate in places) states that he got the 3 shots off in 6 seconds or so, whilst the actual timing is 8 seconds. I don't know the actual timings, but I do know that Oliver Stone blatantly lied about the timings in the film for dramatic effect. The actual timings are quite believable. Given the documentary-style nature of the film, a lot of people erroneously take it for granted that all the 'facts' presented in the film are true.

Oliver Stone ... "largely factually accurate" ... please call a doctor, I think I just had a stroke ...

 

[Capt. Windh]

If anybody would like to join me in having an "open mind" on http://www.jfklancerforum.com , feel free to do so.. This forum is almost 100% CT´s..


Here´s another informative site; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

 

[GregBurch]

Let me offer the following to those who are inclined to be convinced by the things produced by contemporary amateur investigators into the JFK assassination.

I’ve been a trial lawyer for 21 years now. During that time I’ve taken literally thousands of depositions, and questioned a lot of witnesses on the stand in trials. By their nature, things that get litigated tend to be dramatic to the people involved – if they weren’t, they wouldn’t go through the time, money, trouble and heartbreak of the legal process. Especially in the first part of my legal career, I worked almost exclusively on cases involving industrial accidents – things that blew up or fell over or fell apart in a dramatic fashion were almost always involved.

Getting the testimony of eyewitnesses was a major part of what I did in those days. And I came to learn that this testimony was very, very unreliable, even when given by “disinterested” people very near the time of the events they were describing. When measured against objective evidence such as the records of video or other kinds of instruments, people would get the order, number and duration of events wildly wrong over and over and over again. And their errors were usually in direct proportion to how dramatic and emotionally charged the event and its aftermath were: If someone got hurt in a visible fashion, people’s memories would be less accurate than otherwise.

If you add the passage of time to this phenomenon, the reliability of eyewitnesses sinks even lower. Memories change over time, and are influenced by all kinds of extrinsic things. A single conversation with an investigator can alter a memory. If there are press accounts of events, the impact is even greater.

Now in all this time, I’ve only encountered a very few true liars; people who know or believe one thing, but will say a different thing under oath. The vast majority of people tell the truth as they remember it. But they get it wrong. A lot.

 

[agentgonzo]

Oliver Stone ... "largely factually accurate" ... please call a doctor, I think I just had a stroke ...

All of the basic facts that everyone knows are accurate. Kennedy was shot going through Dealey (sp?) plaza. LHO was at the 6th floor with the rifle. Jack Ruby subsequently shot him on TV. Places, names of people, The Warren commission, Jim Garrison and his team investigating the assasination, LHO being arrested in the theatre. All of these broad facts that are throughout the film are unquestionably historically accurate, whilst a lot of the the more minor, detailed and contended facts aren't (how long to fire the gun, the trial itself etc etc) aren't. That's the point that I was trying to make. If (eg) it would have been set in the present day, and LHO had shot Dubya, or it had been set in New York, then I'd say it was largly factually innaccurate.

 

[GregBurch]

All of the basic facts that everyone knows are accurate. Kennedy was shot going through Dealey (sp?) plaza. LHO was at the 6th floor with the rifle. Jack Ruby subsequently shot him on TV. Places, names of people, The Warren commission, Jim Garrison and his team investigating the assasination, LHO being arrested in the theatre. All of these broad facts that are throughout the film are unquestionably historically accurate, whilst a lot of the the more minor, detailed and contended facts aren't (how long to fire the gun, the trial itself etc etc) aren't. That's the point that I was trying to make. If (eg) it would have been set in the present day, and LHO had shot Dubya, or it had been set in New York, then I'd say it was largly factually innaccurate.

Take a moment to glance through this table:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

About the only thing he gets right is that a US president was shot in Dallas in November of 1963.

 

[agentgonzo]

Take a moment to glance through this table:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm

which agrees with what I said:

All of the basic facts that everyone knows are accurate. Kennedy was shot going through Dealey (sp?) plaza. LHO was at the 6th floor with the rifle. Jack Ruby subsequently shot him on TV. Places, names of people, The Warren commission, Jim Garrison and his team investigating the assasination, LHO being arrested in the theatre. All of these broad facts that are throughout the film are unquestionably historically accurate.