Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Could Oswald have Done It?


Aunt Jen

Recommended Posts

I've been watching a documentary on the TV. This is a pretty knowledgeable group, so I thought I'd ask:

 

Could Oswald have made the shots?

 

Did he likely do it all alone?

 

Was there likely a 2nd shooter?

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Saw something on the JFK thing last night.

 

 

Folks that know say there is no way Oswald could have fired that many rounds with that type of rifle that fast.

 

IMHO, I believe there maybe more to what the goverment is letting out.

 

 

 

Just my 2 centvous.....

 

Just saying........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One shot hit the curb and chipped out a chunk of concrete. Shot coming from grassy knoll was the head shot.

Those guys who shot and got away were probably dead in a week themselves. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching a documentary on the TV. This is a pretty knowledgeable group, so I thought I'd ask:

 

Could Oswald have made the shots?

 

Did he likely do it all alone?

 

Was there likely a 2nd shooter?

 

AJ

 

I think it happened just like they say it did.. DV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

definately second shooter!

 

 

Really... I am so interested in this.. I just think they could have done it.. i know sharpshooters and yeah a hard shot, but not impossible. And no, I would never make fun of your opinion,.. not my style at all.. But i am so interest cuz i have seen so many stories.. Dad says Oswald did it.. and I think he could have. But all of it is an opinion, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the stories that will never have an end! I know a sharpshooter made that exact

shot from the window to a moving car (they used sandbags) as the target. He made the shot so

I would be inclined to go with Oswald did take a shot or two. Was there a 2 nd shooter behind the fence

on the grassy knoll, did the shot come from the storm drain as JFK went by? Sure anything is

possible, but will we ever know for sure "NO"! To much time has passed along with all the deception,

lies and speculation! Do we really want to know? Sure we do, but I don't know if we could handle

the truth, the real truth for a change!

Just a thought or two.

Happy trails

QDG 48525 :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really... I am so interested in this.. I just think they could have done it.. i know sharpshooters and yeah a hard shot, but not impossible. And no, I would never make fun of your opinion,.. not my style at all.. But i am so interest cuz i have seen so many stories.. Dad says Oswald did it.. and I think he could have. But all of it is an opinion, huh?

 

Now, this is simply my own humble opinion, but I believe that there is no way that Oswald could have been a lone gunman, not using that rifle. I don't care how slicked up it may have been, a bolt-action of the type he used is a balky, unwieldy action that simply would not have allowed him to make the number of shots recorded within the measured time-frame.

 

Slackwater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the stories that will never have an end! I know a sharpshooter made that exact

shot from the window to a moving car (they used sandbags) as the target. He made the shot so

I would be inclined to go with Oswald did take a shot or two. Was there a 2 nd shooter behind the fence

on the grassy knoll, did the shot come from the storm drain as JFK went by? Sure anything is

possible, but will we ever know for sure "NO"! To much time has passed along with all the deception,

lies and speculation! Do we really want to know? Sure we do, but I don't know if we could handle

the truth, the real truth for a change!

Just a thought or two.

Happy trails

QDG 48525 :FlagAm:

 

Sorry.. I have this sort of wide eyed approach to life. Do you think there was a cover UP?? I never thought so, but then I believed in Santa for years.. lol.. I have always read with great interest stories. but felt that our nation was far too "great" for me to doubt:?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, this is simply my own humble opinion, but I believe that there is no way that Oswald could have been a lone gunman, not using that rifle. I don't care how slicked up it may have been, a bolt-action of the type he used is a balky, unwieldy action that simply would not have allowed him to make the number of shots recorded within the measured time-frame.

 

Slackwater

 

 

Even if he were a marksmen... I doubt anyone but a marksmen would have take the job is my point. I can not say your are wrong , and I am right.. none of us can.. but I have wondered, the shot was possiblle was it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometime look and see how many folks involved in the surrounding events were dead within 5 years, mostly from "unusual circumstances". I have always been suspicious, but doubt if we will ever know the true story.

 

curley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read and seen just about everything available over the years about all the conspiracies and coverup. Oswald was definitely one shooter. Were there more? No one, absolutely no one, has ever produced credible proof to show there was. Could Oswald have made the shots by himself? ABSOLUTELY! 6.5 Carcano rifles were not the best in the world, but many of them did function fine, maybe it was blind luck, but Oswald's did. You cannot stand in the window of the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald made the shots, but you can stand at the window beside it, the shots were not that long, and Oswald was an expert marksman in the military. There was a lot of JUNK produced in movies like JFK, very little was based on fact. The mob, the CIA and lots of others had reason to hate Kennedy, and it is very plausable that someone else was involved, but until I see proof, I"m going to blame Oswald. The thing that stands out for me is that if there was a coverup, a lot of people would have to have kept quiet a long time, and conspiracies make money. You can't visit the site to this day without being covered up by people hawking their cheap newpapers and videos showing the same old tired, unproven theories. I'm not a fan of government, and they did a lot in the 50's and 60's and covered it up, but most of it has come to light over the years. One little known fact about Kennedy was that he was pro gun....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching a documentary on the TV. This is a pretty knowledgeable group, so I thought I'd ask:

 

Could Oswald have made the shots?

 

Did he likely do it all alone?

 

Was there likely a 2nd shooter?

 

AJ

 

 

- Could Oswald have made the shots? Did Oswald shoot Kennedy? Yes and no. Oswald made two shots. The first one missed. The second struck Kennedy in the upper back and

exited through his lower neck. It then struck Connoly in the back, exited his chest, struck his wrist and lodged in his clothing. This bullet is known as "the magic

bullet" and also as "the pristine bullet". The bullet was neither magic or in a pristine form. The shots from the School Book Depository (SBD) would not have been

overly hard shots as the target was moving away from the shooter at a fairly low speed with little lateral movement and at under 100 yards. Although the rifle and

scope used were hardly the best choice, it was not beyond the rifle or shooter's capability. It would have been beyond most people's ability to make three AIMED shots within the time frame given.

 

- Did he do it alone? No. The lethal head shot came from the right and somewhat forward of Kennedy. This would make the shot coming from the area of the grassy knoll.

This shot would have been a much harder shot, but a good shooter would not have too much difficulty in making the shot.

There is also the question of the officer, JD Tippet (sp?), that Oswald shot and killed after the assasination. I think that Tippet was supposed to kill Oswald, but

Oswald got him first. That's where Jack Ruby entered the picture, but that is for another discussion.

 

Many questions remain that will never be answered. The people who know/knew the answers at not talking or dead, most likely the latter. Why was the crime scene (limo)

cleaned up before being inspected and documented by investigators? Why was the autopsy manipulated in such a way as to attempt to show the head shot coming from the

rear? How did Oswald's profile (fit, height, build, etc) become known within such a short time frame. Who carried out the assasination, Mafia, CIA, FBI, Russians, Cubans, Johnson, Jackie? Why did the Warren Commission overlook many facts and ignore testimony from many witnesses? There are simply too many questions to list.

 

Suffice to say, the Kennedy assasination will remain an enigma for all who lived during the era and well beyond.

 

Sun

 

Edit: If the Zapruder film didn't exist, I doubt there would be any conspiracy theories. But the fact is that it does exist. The visual

record of the event is enough to make me question the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shot from the "grassy knoll" would explain why JFK's head tilted back from the bullet. If he got shot from the back his head would have went forward right? I'm not a conspiracy nut job but that is one question I have always had. Why did his head tilt BACKWARDS after he was shot? You can clearly see that in the news footage. :unsure: Rye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald did it - alone. He wanted to make a name for himself because of his failings in everything else he tried, including being a communist.

 

All this conspiracy crap is either for political gain or monetary prospects (buy the book, see the book, etc)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will all find out in 2035. That is when the gubmint will release all the documents and findings in the shooting. Was there another shooter??? Maybe. Maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald did it - alone. He wanted to make a name for himself because of his failings in everything else he tried, including being a communist.

 

All this conspiracy crap is either for political gain or monetary prospects (buy the book, see the book, etc)

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Well, there you have it. A definite answer to a very old question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A shot from the "grassy knoll" would explain why JFK's head tilted back from the bullet. If he got shot from the back only his head would have went forward right? I'm not a conspiracy nut job but that is one question I have always had. Why did his head tilt BACKWARDS after he was shot?:huh: Rye

 

The reason is the bullet exiting the head created more energy (large explosive cavity) versus the the entry in the rear of the head....it's physics. That;s why the head was forced backwards. Now if the bullet had lodged in the head than yes the head would have flung forward.

 

With that said, and won't say more on the particular point - my respects to our former president.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he were a marksmen... I doubt anyone but a marksmen would have take the job is my point. I can not say your are wrong , and I am right.. none of us can.. but I have wondered, the shot was possiblle was it not?

 

 

Oswald enlisted in the Marines on October 24, 1956, six days after his 17th birthday. In bootcamp, Lee was soon ridiculed for his bad marksmanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there you have it. A definite answer to a very old question.

 

I was in a play and my character was Lee H Oswald and I studied so much on Oswald, the times, the poitcal climate, read the books for and against and came up with my conclusion. I am not a 'professor' on the subject, but I actually studied it more than the average person. The fact that it is conceivable that he could (or anyone with his shooting capability....basically 'fair') make those shots solidifies my conclusion and it would be a waste of time to think otherwise.

 

Just like the bogus sensationalistic conspiracy crap about 9/11...

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald enlisted in the Marines on October 24, 1956, six days after his 17th birthday. In bootcamp, Lee was soon ridiculed for his bad marksmanship.

 

He was an 'ok' shot:

 

According to Wikipedia:

 

"Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting, scoring 212 in December 1956[11] (slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191[11] (barely earning the lower designation of marksman).[21]"

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Johnson's library has a section that will not be opened until 100 years after his death.

 

I think the real story will be found there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was sitting in my senior high school history class when the announcement was made and followed the controversies to this day. All I can say is that you conspiratists have overlooked the obvious, i.e., Oswalds death was faked and its said he lived in guarded seclusion until dying of tainted tofu poisoning in 1994. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyndon Johnson's library has a section that will not be opened until 100 years after his death.

 

I think the real story will be found there.

 

Well it certainle won;t be found here by us 'experts' :lol:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason is the bullet exiting the head created more energy (large explosive cavity) versus the the entry in the rear of the head....it's physics. That;s why the head was forced backwards. Now if the bullet had lodged in the head than yes the head would have flung forward.

 

With that said, and won't say more on the particular point - my respects to our former president.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Hi. Of course, I'm no ballistics expert, no physicist, and I haven't been privy to any classified information on the subject. But I am a thinking person who tries to distill information—or when it's largely absent such as this assassination, get a sense of it—and, FWIW, when I was in the Navy, I was in the National Security Agency, Ft. Meade. So some of how-things-work may be part of my analytical process, as to how information within secret groups is sectionalized, "need to know," how patriotism or devotion, or even fanaticism, can be used in a framework where the dedicated are more included in some secret groups and where orders to do something for "national security" or other agreed cause are not to be questioned but followed.

 

So let me offer some of my thoughts?

 

(1) I don't really understand the physics of the head going backward if the shot was from behind. Because more energy was generated on exit, the front right of the head, so it was forced back and up...

 

I don't see that.

 

If a bullet entered a skull from the upper back and traveled forward, exiting there, I would think there would be some splatter out the back at entry, and some exploding out the front...

 

...but the thing that would force the head back would be reactive force, yet the material blowing out the front would not push back on the head. No reactive force.

 

Rather, the material blowing out the front would be because of the force of a bullet traveling through the head forwards. The reactive force of material there would be forwards, affected by the bullet.

 

Not like a gun that is forced backward because of the gunpowder pressure pushing the bullet forwards. That expansion of air pushes the bullet forward, and the brass backward onto the gun, which pushes the gun backward.

 

But in a shooting like this, there is no contained expansion pushing forward and hence backward. Right? It's because there is an already-moving-forward bullet imparting its energy to surrounding material that blows it out the front, and the drag/friction of the bullet would move the head in the same direction as the shot.

 

I am thinking that there was likely a shot from the Grassy Knoll or some other front/right area.

 

(2) On a documentary, a Ph.D. of something showed that the "badge man" dull photo did not pan out, and I felt he made sense. But there still may have been someone there, somewhere, shooting.

 

(3) I've been to the Book Depository and done some studying. I know the JFK movie was very good as a movie, but not really accurate. But in looking at the thing from a lot of angles, with contradictory information in several areas, it seems more to me that likely Oswald was doing his thing, there, and that he had opinions, but overall, it seems more to me that he was likely used in that capacity, that his passion and zealotry were taken advantage of by others who had a more specific and lethal intent. I'm feeling like he was involved, but not really, not likely, a shooter, or not the main shooter, that there was something larger that he was not aware of.

 

(4) I know there was mob hatred of him, and Cuba and Viet Nam interests. But my questions keep looking for info that could lead to a source for the assassination more back to such as post-McCarthy-era, anti-communist, zealous "save the country at all costs" false-patriotism-type motivations, the "We have to do this to save the country" kind of false thinking. Remember how strong and successful the anti-communist movement phobia was at the time? Frustrated post-McCarthyists in and around government or secret agencies/mob etc.

 

I keep wondering if some folks of that sentiment may have been motivated and mobilized for such a horrific deed, self-righteous in false patriotism.

 

And where I know Oswald had related concerns, it keeps feeling to me that he may have been used in his history and role as someone to take the fall, which would leave me sensing some validity to his "I'm a patsy" concern.

 

He may have been involved, but set up and used, nonetheless.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it have happened as the Warren Commission says it did? Yes.

 

Did it? We'll never know.

 

Not because of "conspiracies" and the like but because the physical evidence is contradictory. Most people who have written about this event look at the evidence through the lens of pre-conceived notions and are seeking support for their theory. Because the evidence is not clear and concise the possibility of alternative scenarios exists. It is this "ambiguity" that drives the "conspiracy industry."

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. Of course, I'm no ballistics expert, no physicist, and I haven't been privy to any classified information on the subject. But I am a thinking person who tries to distill informationor when it's largely absent such as this assassination, get a sense of itand, FWIW, when I was in the Navy, I was in the National Security Agency, Ft. Meade. So some of how-things-work may be part of my analytical process, as to how information within secret groups is sectionalized, "need to know," how patriotism or devotion, or even fanaticism, can be used in a framework where the dedicated are more included in some secret groups and where orders to do something for "national security" or other agreed cause are not to be questioned but followed.

 

So let me offer some of my thoughts?

 

(1) I don't really understand the physics of the head going backward if the shot was from behind. Because more energy was generated on exit, the front right of the head, so it was forced back and up...

 

I don't see that.

 

If a bullet entered a skull from the upper back and traveled forward, exiting there, I would think there would be some splatter out the back at entry, and some exploding out the front...

 

...but the thing that would force the head back would be reactive force, yet the material blowing out the front would not push back on the head. No reactive force.

 

Rather, the material blowing out the front would be because of the force of a bullet traveling through the head forwards. The reactive force of material there would be forwards, affected by the bullet.

 

Not like a gun that is forced backward because of the gunpowder pressure pushing the bullet forwards. That expansion of air pushes the bullet forward, and the brass backward onto the gun, which pushes the gun backward.

 

But in a shooting like this, there is no contained expansion pushing forward and hence backward. Right? It's because there is an already-moving-forward bullet imparting its energy to surrounding material that blows it out the front, and the drag/friction of the bullet would move the head in the same direction as the shot.

 

I am thinking that there was likely a shot from the Grassy Knoll or some other front/right area.

 

(2) On a documentary, a Ph.D. of something showed that the "badge man" dull photo did not pan out, and I felt he made sense. But there still may have been someone there, somewhere, shooting.

 

(3) I've been to the Book Depository and done some studying. I know the JFK movie was very good as a movie, but not really accurate. But in looking at the thing from a lot of angles, with contradictory information in several areas, it seems more to me that likely Oswald was doing his thing, there, and that he had opinions, but overall, it seems more to me that he was likely used in that capacity, that his passion and zealotry were taken advantage of by others who had a more specific and lethal intent. I'm feeling like he was involved, but not really, not likely, a shooter, or not the main shooter, that there was something larger that he was not aware of.

 

(4) I know there was mob hatred of him, and Cuba and Viet Nam interests. But my questions keep looking for info that could lead to a source for the assassination more back to such as post-McCarthy-era, anti-communist, zealous "save the country at all costs" false-patriotism-type motivations, the "We have to do this to save the country" kind of false thinking. Remember how strong and successful the anti-communist movement phobia was at the time? Frustrated post-McCarthyists in and around government or secret agencies/mob etc.

 

I keep wondering if some folks of that sentiment may have been motivated and mobilized for such a horrific deed, self-righteous in false patriotism.

 

And where I know Oswald had related concerns, it keeps feeling to me that he may have been used in his history and role as someone to take the fall, which would leave me sensing some validity to his "I'm a patsy" concern.

 

He may have been involved, but set up and used, nonetheless.

 

AJ

 

Beleive what ya want - for me it was an Oswald doing - clear as day....the evidence points to it (well...what evidence has been revealed).

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like every other "guesser" I will never live long enough to know the real truth.

I question that Oswald was good enough to make that shot. The rifle WAS scoped so

he had a chance. Was he good enough? I don't know.

 

Some things that stick in MY memory.

 

1. It was a simpler time. The average person was not as "charged" with political involvement.

 

2. There were a lot of evil forces in play, but it was all in the shadows

The cold war was at high tide. The mafia was making big news, Cuba was a threat.

Politics was as nasty as ever. Kennedy was not popular EVERYWHERE and the Cuban

Missile crisis and Bay of Pigs was very fresh. Vietnam was looming on the horizon.

 

3. LBJ was a consummate politician with a big ego. He was not real pleased to be in #2

position and he was not bashful about assuming the #1 position, but I guess

that was for good reason.

 

4. I personally do not believe that the Warren Commission gave us the whole truth.

Personally, I do not believe the Warren Commission had enough brain power to

blow their own nose. It contained a lot of the members with political agendas.

 

5. Oswald was a malcontent. He was known to the government as such. He was not

remembered for his high IQ.

 

6. Jack Ruby was a strange and unexpected player. His death also presents some interesting

considerations.

 

7. I do not believe that the government thinks it is in MY best interest for ME to know the

truth and the whole truth. In other words, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.

 

 

These are my opinions to a question of historical interest and should not be construed to be a political statement. You may disagree, but you will not change my mind, nor the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like my Colts much better. Rugers are good guns..Just not "cowboy" for me. JIMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a Carcano identical to Oswald's in the 70's.

Yes he could have made the shot.

 

I'm convinced he did make the shot.

I'm convinced he acted alone.

I'm convinced Oliver Stone is an idiot.

 

I'm also pretty sure Yellowhouse Sam is right. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in a play and my character was Lee H Oswald and I studied so much on Oswald, the times, the poitcal climate, read the books for and against and came up with my conclusion. I am not a 'professor' on the subject, but I actually studied it more than the average person. The fact that it is conceivable that he could (or anyone with his shooting capability....basically 'fair') make those shots solidifies my conclusion and it would be a waste of time to think otherwise.

 

Just like the bogus sensationalistic conspiracy crap about 9/11...

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

 

Was there any nudity in that play?

 

Just askin. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.