Who shot JFK?

Sharpii

I am not an expert on guns since I am Australian and our national sport is football and not shooting people. oops

But the two types of bullets you describe sounds like the projectile not the shell.

It is, as far as I know the material in the projectile that is different ie a soft one designed to splatter on impact as opposed to a hard one that stays in tact and makes the small hole. And can be fired from the same gun.

Anyway when you consider that JFK focused on ways of killing world leaders it is not surprising that came to this end.

Poida

 

Two very good points.

But I think it very unlikely Oswald would use two different types of bullet (assuming he could find two different types which would fit the odd rifle he was using. He got it cheap for good reason. It was so notorious for jamming, almost no one wanted it).

Wouldn't he, instead, use the most lethal round for all his shots?

As far as I know, there were plots against Castro. Not all of them were intended to be lethal.

At that time, Castro was seen as a great traitor to the hemisphere, as he was instrumental in introducing communism to the America's. He was also seen as the only man who could make it work. Kill Castro and you kill communism in the western hemisphere. As far as motivations go, you can't get better than that.

The way I see it, a leader who is up to extreme evil (definitely NOT Castro, but say someone like Milosavic, or, further back, Adolf Hitler) should be fair game, when it comes to warfare.

 

copper jacketed bullets can break up inside the target if they strike something hard, like dense bone. I have seen ballistics tests where a number of rounds from the same gun were fired into clear jell, some stay intact, some yaw on impact and than break up and spread out in different directions. Military bullets are actually designed to do this since it causes more damage that a bullet that says in one piece. No need for different bullets, it is common to occur the time.

I have never heard that the Carcano rifle was unreliable, it was a mass produced bolt action military rifle that was obsolete as a military weapon by 1960. hence the reason it was cheap. It used an odd carriage size that you can buy surplus, but unless you load your own (which is possible) likely it was also cheap surplus ammo. Nothing particularly "skilled" about taking three shots in seven seconds (actually only two times cycling the bolt). the record for hitting a 4" bull's eye at 100 yards in sixty seconds is 54 using a bolt action Enfield, reloading every six rounds (using stripper clips). So a skilled markesman with a bolt action rifle could have put 5 or 6 rounds in the president's head in 7 seconds.

The reaction of the president recoiling is consistent with shots coming from the same direction under the correct circumstances. Again, this has been studies by a number of commissions and experts, no one found any evidence of more than one shooter, and found no need to have more than one shooter. A bullet that hits nothing solid will continue through the person and into the next thing in line, in this case the body of Connolly.

The real question is why are so many always ready to believe massive conspiracies after every major tragedy? from Lincoln, to JFK, from Pearl Harbor to 9/11. Paranoia and always being suspicious of all the evidence must be something in-grained into humans.

There is NOTHING to suggest that JFK was killed by anything other than a malcontent kook using an old military surplus rifle.

 

Petros some people are under the opinion that governments lie.

What I thought was strange is that Oswald was paraded in front of the public and that made it possible for someone to kill him, which is of course what happened.

He was shot by Jack Ruby who was dying of cancer. He said he shot him to save Mrs Kennedy from inquiries and so forth, but it seemed like a lame excuse.

Is there a possibility that he was sent to silence him in return for monetary gain for his remaining family.

They didn't want Oswald to talk.

Poida

 

yes, perhaps. Or as is often portrayed Ruby was patriotic citizen who was very upset that the president was killed in his home town. He had nothing to loose.

Security was not very tight around either the president, nor criminals at the time.

You know, nothing is to be gained with such fruitless discussions. Everyone's life will be better off if they just put it behind us and focus on more important, and current, issues

 

Maybe Petros

But isn't that the same as saying people shouldn't be convicted of a crime that was done 20 years ago by saying it's behind us let's move on.

This is just a thread on a discussion that I didn't start and for people that want to discuss it can. And you have contributed to it and yet say we shouldn't discuss it.

Have a nice day Petros and I may meet you again on another thread as you won't be posting on this one again.

Poida lol

 

The magic bullet theory doesn't add up. The intact bullet falling off the gurney doesn't add up. Etc. etc. etc.

 

I keep hearing this over and over by those espousing the single assassin theory, but, so far, none have stepped forward to explain how this could happen.

Assuming the bullet weighed about half an once and was traveling at about 2,200 ft/sec, when it hit the president's head, it would impart approximately 68 ft/lbs of forward momentum against the president's already slouched head.

Imagine, sitting in a car seat, with your head slouched forward, and someone coming behind you and pushing your head forward with 68 lbs of force. It would go further forward, wouldn't it?

That's the part I have trouble with.

Also, there's the public lie that the president's head moved forward rather than backward, told by a journalist, who later became prominent, who was one of a handful that were allowed to see the film.

These two issues scream cover up.

I agree this happened long ago and that it should be ancient history, but the nature of this story and the way it seems to have been shoved into a box, with it's loose ends still dangling, still haunts me. It goes to the heart of the question of whether or not this country is really a democracy, or if it is really something else.

I keep hearing of these "experts", but they are never named.

I would really like to know who they are, understand their reasoning, and see experimental evidence that they are correct.

Until then, this zombie will continue to stalk my soul.

As for 9/11, I've seen some of the ridiculous stuff put out by the "truthers", but the one question that, to me, will not die, is why an FBI investigation into certain suspicious activities by certain students at a flight school, was not followed up.

This was at the aftermath of one of the most controversial presidential elections in US history. And at the time a national magazine was about to hand count every single ballot cast in Florida. Wouldn't a terrorist event on US soil, by foreign terrorists, provide a handy distraction?

The beauty of this scheme is that they didn't have to do anything but let the hijackings happen. If they had actually quashed the FBI investigation, they would not have known how bad it was going to be.

When I say "they", I mean White House operatives, which could include and exclude anyone on the senior staff.

George W. Bush was probably left out of the loop.

 

all is explained here: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Gerald-Posner/dp/1400034620/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

Thanks. I'll check it out.

 

It's just the opinion of the writer, based on what he believes is the correct conclusion of his observations, mainly written by others (reports-news paper articles-findings etc...)
It only explains, or try to explain, why the writer "believes" that Oswald acted alone, nothing more, nothing less.

Toss it and turn it as much as possible, the assasination of JFK was very welcome for more than one opportunist at that time, wether it be the CIA,FBI,KGB, the mob, the financial world, military industry or whoever thought would benefit from Kennedy's death.