"Oswald defected to the Soviet Union for a while and came back to the States after he realized life over there wasn't the communist paradise he thought it would be."

Too true! They weren't Marin County types. They may have five guys on a site to do what two could do--but they expected you to work.

"...his "I'm a patsy" statement suggests that he was telling the press that he was being falsely accused of the assassination because of his political views."

In much the same way that every thief and murderer called himself a 'political prisoner' during the same time period.

He also called himself a "Marxist". In Russia, in the United States, and at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City.

Not so. The maximum distance was only about 265 feet. The rifle and bullets were designed for targets as far away as 1,500 meters.

Wait... JimD - 265 feet? A high-powered rifle not good enough to hit 265 feet? WHOA, I didn't even think to talk about that. That's a hilarious claim!

Man. Please, Sam5, give me an example of a single rifle that cannot hit at that range. Heck, name me some pistols that can't (and can) as well, if you want.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

The rifle was designed with the old pre-WW I combat idea in mind: Shoot accurately for a long distance, and keep your soldiers out of danger. That’s why the Carcano bullet was so long, so it would go a long distance without tumbling. But, they finally realized that most people can’t hit anything as far away as 1,500 meters.

Now the modern theory is to shoot a lot of bullets at closer range. Hit ‘em with a barrage of a lot of bullets from a rapidly-repeating rifle.

Oswald’s rifle was of the old type and thus it was very accurate. His telescopic sight wasn’t very good, but he could have used the “iron sight”, the rifle’s regular sight. Also, he might not have been aiming at the head. He was taught in the Marines to aim at the center of the silhouette, then the bullet could be as much as 18 inches off target and still score a hit. But everyone jumped to the conclusion that since he hit the head, he must have been aiming at the head. But if he had accidentally hit the heart, everyone would have assumed that he was aiming at the heart.

The idea of hitting with a barrage of bullets, with the exception of machine guns, is falling a bit out of favor, since more ammunition is being wasted than accuracy is being increased. They're teaching soldiers to just shoot straighter (this is what I've heard from an instructor, at least)

I might add, Sam, that I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not skeptical. I'm just surprised that anyone can claim that you can't accurately hit someone with a high-powered rifle from 256 feet.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Over the past 42 years, there have been people who have similar political beliefs to what Oswald had, and they have tried to promote the conspiracy concept in a specific attempt to try to take the blame off of him and place it on their political enemies. Young people come along, read their propaganda, and they often fall for it. A lot of people don’t know much about guns or shooting distances.

Sounds almost like you're calling it a commie plot. *Chuckles*

I can't agree or disagree with something of which I have no knowledge of, so I make no claims of such. However, it seems to me that those that agree with Oswald might not necessarily have been involved. If you ask me, fans of JFK and those that entirely disagree with LBJ, Vietnam, etc., might have a reason to desire to believe in a conspiracy.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

I have, practically, read the entire site of 100 things wrong with Oliver Stone's "JFK".

I have one thing to say:

I now have NO respect for Oliver Stone. While he may be good at drama, the fact that he distorted facts, made up situations that didn't exist, and then tried to survive on pure conjecture, and THEN claim that this is the truth (as the movie was pretty big on), is not only ridiculous - it is insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

As well, when a movie usually does that bit with white letters, you expect it to tell something rather truthful, since that's the POINT of it. However, all it did was further lies and distorting the truth. Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, and a lot of Conspiracy Theorists are no better than their imaginary conspiracies - they distort the truth to convince us that the government distorts the truth. Heh.

(NOte that I didn't say ALL conspiracy theorists. Somewhere out there, there are a couple of conspiracy theorists that actually love facts... I hope)

Anyone got a link on his other movies? Like Nixon? I want to see what he messed up on that, too.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

No, not at all. It’s like this... if a right-wing guy shoots someone who is liberal or leftist, a lot of other right-wing guys try to blame it on leftists. Nowadays, if a right-wing guy attacks some government facility, other right-wing guys try to accuse the government of committing the act and framing the right-wing guy. Likewise, if a leftist guy shoots someone, a lot of other leftist try to blame the crime on right-wingers or on the government or on right-wingers in the government.

I know this from years of experience in the news business. Like in the South in the old days, whenever there was a right-wing murder of a civil rights worker, all the local right-wingers would blame the other civil rights workers and accuse them killing their own people just so the right-wing would be blamed for the crime. Back in the late ‘60s, whenever a leftist killed someone, such as in an explosion at an ROTC building or at an Army recruitment center, all the other leftists would accuse right-wingers or the government of doing it in an attempt to frame the leftists.

There is nothing new about this. Political people have been blaming their political enemies for each other’s crimes for hundreds of years.

My head hurts. x.x But I see your point.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Look at it this way: You’ve got two basketball teams on the court. Both teams dislike each other and they get into a big fight. Both teams blame the other team for starting the fight.

Nono, I don't need that example, I got what you were saying. It was quite obvious

But my head still hurts with how you put it. I understood it, at least :P

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Ok.

The big big problem that the Warren Committee had was that they had too many vectors to cope with. I would say that the Committee's credibility was lost time and again. - JimD.

The main problem with the Warren Commission was that they had only about 8 months to conduct their complex investigation and write their long Report. Everyone else has had the past 42 years to study the case.

...Yeah. Right. "Study". *cough cough* I'm sure that's what the majority of people do... *cough*

At least, the majority of people I've met and talked to on the subject. Especially those that believe in the conspiracy - either they express a belief with no evidence, or express faulty evidence.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Yes, you are correct. Most people I've talked to about it who believe in a "conspiracy" have read only one or two commercial conspiracy books and they call that "studying" the case.

Perhaps I should have said that all of us -- collectively -- have had the past 42 years to study the case, while the Warren Commission had only about 8 months.

But nothing has turned up during the past 42 years that reveals anyone other than Oswald fired the three shots.

Yeah, I understand, and I agree. I just found the wording amusing.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Oswald's shooting was good but not what I would consider remarkable. As far as the distance goes, it was an easy shot. The only real challenge was getting off accurate multiple shots in the given time. The rifle he used was fairly accurate, but the operation of a bolt action rifle makes target acquisition a bit problematic when firing rapidly. However with practice a competent shooter can pull that off without too much trouble. The people who make the claim that Oswald's shots were impossible are obviously not experienced with rifles. And Oswald was a Marine. Even a bad shot by Marine Corps standards is still a damn good rifleman.

__________________
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. ---Cardinal Wolsey (1475-1530)

It was a common belief among the professional investigators and the press that Oswald was aiming for the head. If that’s the case, then it was a difficult shot. But if he was aiming for the center of the silhouette, the center of JFK's upper back, as he had been taught in the Marines, then it wasn’t such a difficult shot, since the theory of aiming for the center of the silhouette is that the aim can be several inches off target, even up to a foot or more, and still score a hit. You can look up some of his old Marine targets and see that they were silhouette targets, and he fired on them at distances up to 300 yards. His head shot in Dallas was about 265 feet.

Incidentally, I never did read anywhere if the
parafin test on Oswald was positive! (Stands
well back!!)