Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Did The Shot That Killed JFK Come From The Grassy Knoll?

I like your reading list. One day you may come around to my point of view about the world if you keep at it.

It's obvious you guys don't believe me. -sniff-

PS Congrats on the newborn.

College teaches you to think inside the box. Life's experiences teaches you to expand your basis of knowledge. Maybe the box ought to be stood upon so we can see beyond what we want to believe it true?

The best lessons I have learned, I did not learn in college. And all I really need to know I learned in kindergarten.

Congratulations on your newborn. Babies have mystical abilities to humble us.



Adios,

R

This topic has got me to thinking, an activity of which I have been known to engage from time-to-time. I cannot recollect ever being exposed to any Dallas PD's police reports. Since it was the primary investigating agency and had Oswald in its custody, such primary source documents would be significant.

I'd be far more inclined to believe Dallas PD cops than any other source of info. But that's just me. Others might find their mileage to vary. I'm good with that.

The_Real_Hawkeye,

Since I value your opinion, and many scholars who have studied Kennedy's murder share it, please allow me to ask you this: if Oswald did not murder Kennedy, what motivated him to murder an Dallas cop in effort to escape?

In the first place, I disagree. The shot is not particularly easy. I don't think it is as hard a shot as the movie JFK purported, but I think your analysis is just as inaccurate. I mean no offense by this and am no Scout Sniper, but I did qualify Expert. Secondly, there are a lot more issues with Oswald's having been the shooter than just the difficulty of the shot. Thirdly, your own government has contradicted its initial official report (the Warren Commission) twice in reports just as official as the first one. There were more investigations than just three by the Feds themselves, but there have been three MAJOR investigations by the Feds with more info available each time. Why people think that folks who disbelieve the initial party-line put forth by the Warren Report are kooks when two subsequent investigations by the very same entity also contradict it, is beyond me.

I'm not TRH but consider this. If you were some sort of operative with a certain amount of knowledge of what was going on, regardless of what side you were on, and you sensed that either you were being framed or you were somehow at risk, would you not kill somebody in your effort to stay free? Oswald did not murder a Dallas cop. He was accused of that murder and died in custody. It was never proven that he killed anybody, Kennedy or Tippet. Oswald may have shot Kennedy and he may have killed Tippet. If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy and if Tippet was trying to murder him or take him in for a frame-up then Oswald killing Tippet was justified self-defense. The bottom-line is nobody is guilty of murder until convicted and Oswald was never convicted in a court of law, just in the court of public opinion-and obviously not very well in that latter.

bwaahahah Bullshixt. Read my posts on the subject. Your own government disagrees with what you just said in at least two official investigations, each as comprehensive as the first one which you are alluding to and with much more info available to them.

No, I don't think so. It was a Live Oak, which is an evergreen meaning it would have been in full foliage year round which makes your case even stronger. I barely recall this part of the argument, but that's what I remember.

Until you take a trip to Deely Plaza and see for yourself, there's just no use in arguing. There is NO WAY, given the trajectories involved that any shot could have come from the grassy knoll. And my observation has nothing to do nor relies on the Warren Commission's findings but rather on the recent video and computer enhancement programs replicating the exact geometry of the incident and of course my own observations from having spent many hours on the Site. That shot was a piece of cake. So let me ask you, who do you think was behind it?

Edited to add: What specifically do you imply when you say "your government"?

Dude, I think it was Crossfire who said something about "debating from a position of ignorance" on this very thread. If you want to debate from a position other than one of ignorance you have to educate yourself on the subject matter. I mean no offense by this but when you have obviously read nothing but stuff that parrots the initial party-line, made up your mind and then dismissed a whole body of work that has emerged post-Warren Commission, then what you're doing is akin to talking about Reagan's two terms in office while only knowing about his election and maybe first year as President.

There are many proposed problems with the Tippit murder charge, one of which at random is the following: "Warren 'Butch' Burroughs, who ran the concession stand at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested, told author James Douglass in 2007 that Oswald came into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., which if true would make Oswald's alleged 1:16 shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit impossible." Wikipedia

Regardless of whether anyone feels that Oswald acted alone or that there was more than one shooter and setting everything else aside including emotion, you must look at the best possible evidence we have today which imo is the Zapruder film, the patterns of blood splatter and brain debris coming from the skull. That is the best evidence.

Earlier on this thread I posted 2 video links by Robert Harris which clearly shows the disparity or differences in the condition of Kennedy`s head from Zapruder frames 313 through 337. Anyone view them?

The explosion to the president`s right temporal area as clearly seen in frame 313 is an "EXIT" wound meaning a shot fired from the rear. If that were an entrance wound fired from the right front into the right front temple area, we would instead be seeing the exact opposite; far less of an explosion from the right temple area and far more of exploding debris coming from the back of the head.

Blood, skull and brain debris patterns as seen in the film should trump everything else to determine from where the shots came from including the president`s movement of back and to the left after frame 313.

Many nearby eye witnesses including secret service agent Clint Hill (the agent who ran and jumped onto the back of the limo), Mary Moorman and many others testified that there were two shots fired very close together (close to simultaneously) at the end of the attack. That means more than one shooter.

Two head shots fired; one from the right rear and one from the right front, is the only way that all of the damage seen to the president`s head can be accounted for.

One 6.5mm round nosed bullet fired from the right rear did all of that head damage as seen from frames 313 to 337????............I think not.

-sniff-

No offense dude, but do you actually read posts before you go off half-cocked commenting on them?

I am very much opposed to quoting myself on this since all you have to do is simply read and comprehend the posts of mine that you're commenting on to have gotten this, but I went back and looked at my own stuff, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, so I went ahead and copied it...



My Grandparents were from Dallas. I've lived in Dallas and I've been to the Book Depository, now a museum, and been over the whole grounds where it happened. I've also read a number of books on the subject and grew up in a house with the Warren Report in a hardcover copy. I simply disagree with you. I would not say the shot was an extremely hard one, but neither was it nearly as easy as you characterize. There is also the issue of the tree, which I had forgotten about. There are also issues with Oswald's whereabouts that day and simple physics, ad nauseum. I hated to even get into this discussion because you end up debating with folks who think they know everything there is to know about it when they haven't done their homework at all. Again, I mean no offense here, as I like you personally. I can think of no better analogy though than somebody with a college degree in Mathematics being taken to task over Algebra by a 2nd grader who has just begun to learn division.

Jim Marr's book Crossfire is a good start if you wish to discuss the issue intelligently. You simply can't go walk around the grounds forty or so years after it happened and know everything there is to know about it.

Naturally he means the entire Congress in joint session, plus the US Supreme Court, the president, his staff and full cabinet.

More likely a small criminal cabal in high position possessing critical elements within their control in various departments. The further out from the cabal in the chain of command, the less would be known about the cabal's purpose. Most operators on the ground (except, perhaps, the shooters themselves, most likely later disposed of) would likely have been convinced they were acting in the interest of national security (to include those who later disposed of the shooters) and under secret orders toward that end.

Man! That is just cold and super [bleep] up!

..........A brilliant contribution!...

I stand corrected, but the stuff you wrote was not on the OP I responded to (below for reference). Frankly I don't have the desire to wade through all your posts before commenting and I still stand by my opinion. No way that shot came from the knoll.As far as making the shots, I guess we all know our abilities; and limitations.