The whole magic bullet thing is a blind alley as far as I can see, but there are a mess of reasons for being suspicious about the Kennedy assassination that have nothing to do with the forensics of the actual shot itself. For example, nobody has ever articulated a plausible motivation either for Oswald killing Kennedy, or for Ruby killing Oswald. Oswald was known to have expressed nothing but fondness for Kennedy publicly; if he really was a pro-Castro zealot, killing Kennedy would make no sense whatever, because Kennedy was Castro’s best hope in the American political establishment, and Oswald said as much in police interviews after the assassination. Most people say he was a nobody who wanted to be a somebody, but if that were the case, why did he not only deny having done it when arrested, but actually relegate himself to the pathetic role of a “patsy”? One nebulously motivated killing can be accounted for by some appeal to madness, but two in a row is just suspicious. The idea that cash-strapped, mobbed-up nightclub owner Jack Ruby killed Oswald for “Jackie and the kids” is inherently implausible.
The Carcano rifle was Italy’s military rifle during WW1 and WW2. It had some bugs, but it was considered a fine weapon, and perfectly capable of that kind of accuracy at such short range. Hell, with a worn out Mosin-Nagant, I can hit a 6" steel gong at 100m four shots out of five in quick succession with iron sights, and I’m just some backwater oik with no training.
Having been at a loved one’s side when he died (my 14 year old son), I would offer that she was not feeling yet. She reaches back across the deck lid for part of John’s skull, I would think in an effort to “help” because he would need it, right? The feelings come later, intermittently, and even then, if she was anything like me, she pushed the horror away so that she could remain in the moment. Jackie showed so much strength and poise afterwards
But wasn’t the Jackal a real pro? His confidence and experience may have made that difference
Interesting question: to shoot as the target is moving towards you or away from you? When I jumped over to the other post about new photos of that day that were discovered, there is one looking at the TBD and it appears that the sun might have been in LHO’s eyes if he took the shot that you suggest. Another factor may have been that shooting into a man’s face would feel quite different for the shooter than targeting the back of his head
Well, the assassination happened at 12:30. The book depository window Oswald fired from was looking south and it was in the winter, so the sun would have been lower in the sky (and in that direction), but still a good 40 degrees up even if Oswald were shooting horizontally instead of at a downward angle. Never having fired a rifle while looking through a sight, I don’t know how wide an angle they end up catching. Also seems plausible that the sun would have been at the right angle to cause reflective glare off the hood or trunk of the limo into the sight.
I wondered if another problem might have been that the angle was just bad, since Kennedy was in the back (of three) rows in the car, but it seems like the sixth floor would have been high enough to get a downward trajectory that would have cleared the passenger seat and Connolly, especially by the time the limo was preparing to make the left in front of the depository–and, as the Slate article mentioned, Kennedy’s seat was three inches higher than Connolly’s.
It may come down to psychological factors, like you suggested, or maybe it’s something unrelated and (at this point) unknowable, like Oswald ran into somebody in the hall and wasn’t quite set in his position when Kennedy was coming up Houston.
Strange how there is no response from the people on the sidewalk to the president as he drives by. No waving or applause. Just silent witnesses to what is about to happen seconds later. I know JFK was hated by many Texans but I assume those who made a point of watching the motorcade that day did so because they wanted to see the president for positive reasons.
The best data I’ve seen on the likelyhood of Oswalds shots was from a Second Chance Body Armor competition (they had one every year). It was with a target moving at the right speed at the right distance, with the same kind of rifle (different but equally crappy scope, which was reported to be so loose as to be useless on Oswalds rifle).
Several people made the three shots in the time required. The all shot left handed (Oswald was a lefty), and kept their right hand on the bolt, and used the iron sights, (not the scope). Certainly an expert can fire an aimed shot from a bolt action rifle every 1.5 seconds.
Of course, the most upsetting and disturbing account of the events immediately following JFK’s assassination is highlighted in “The Parts That Were Left Out of the Kennedy Book” - published by The Realist in 1967 - the narrative is available on the Internet only here (it seems)
The Realist - JFK - pdf
http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/
I’ve heard an entertaining and not completely unreasonable hypothesis that it’s because Ruby was, indeed, “mobbed up,” that he killed Oswald, who, so the hypothesis goes, was hired by the mob to whack Jack because, despite their help in “getting out the vote” in Chicago, brother Bobby had come down hard on them.
So, mobsters. Possibly alien.
Well, I’ll buy effing aliens before I buy that he did it because he was all cut up over Jackie!
I’m repeating myself here (from the other JFK post), but the best theory is the one from Red Dwarf.
The rifle had ballistics similar to a modern .270 - high speed bullet with a moderate recoil.
If you’ve ever hunted with someone that gets regular practice with a bolt action rifle, they can easily take down a deer bounding through the trees at twice that range. You could grind the sights off the rifle entirely and they would still do it. And a really well trained person can drop a second deer unbelievably fast.
Also, Kennedy was traveling away from Oswald, not crossing his line of sight. From LHO’s perspective, Kennedy was almost stationary.
I don’t know what angle he had when JFK was on the approach, but there were people in the front seat and possibly people waving their hands.
I think you seeing an artifact of the stabilisation. There is no apparent reaction from the people for the same reason there’s no apparent reaction from the hoarding; what you’re looking at is basically a static photo that happens to include an animated element - the car - moving from left to right through the centre of the photo.
This is a common question posed by people who haven’t been to the Texas School Book Depository and stared out the window. Oswald, although a wacko, was a trained soldier and knew the basics of created a shooting position. By shooting as he did he did two things. First he was able to create a concealed shooting position that was difficult to see from the street. Had Oswald shot at the front of the limo he would have been easily spotted. Second, by shooting after the turn the car was moving quite slow having just turned a corner and thus it was an incredibly easy shot to make. If you travel to the School Book Depository you can stand very near the window and you can see how Oswald stacked a series of boxes to create a shooting rest for the rifle.
The little-known, but most important clue to the JFK assassination can be found in this Youtube video:
less than 100 meters is nothing. Especially if he had kept up his skills.
Coming up next:
Dallas '63 - The Musical
Arafat was assassinated: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/meast/arafat-remains-polonium/
