Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: JFK Was Shot From The Front  (Read 22906 times)

Offline Anthony Frank

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
    • The CIA’s Quest to Control the Government
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2021, 11:25:37 PM »
Advertisement
GUNN: Did you see any wounds on the back of his head?
REED: No.
............
GUNN: Did you see any wounds at all on his head?
REED: Yes, I did.
GUNN: Could you describe where those wounds were?
REED: It was in the temporal parietal region, right side. I could - It was large enough that I could probably put four fingers into it.


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=794#relPageId=7

So, more than nineteen years after telling the House Select Committee on Assassinations that President Kennedy’s head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region,” Reed changed his story to go along with the official version.

Relocating the head wound was not the only thing that Reed changed.

Reed also told the ARRB that he did not see any wounds on JFK other than the throat wound and the now-relocated head wound. Reed told the HSCA that “the third wound was situated in the back.”

Reed changed his story nineteen years after acknowledging that President Kennedy’s head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region.” Reed was just one of a multitude of witnesses who saw the gaping wound at the back of President Kennedy's head on November 22, 1963.

And I am not surprised that Reed changed his story in 1997. When he acknowledged back in 1978 that the head wound was “very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region,” Reed also “mentioned that he basically believed the Warren Commission adequately covered the area.”

So, in 1997, Reed says, “Yeah, sure. A wound in the temporal parietal region, right side, and a throat wound. There were no other wounds that I saw. The Warren Commission was right. Now leave me alone.”

Anyone who wants the well-documented facts on who killed President Kennedy and why needs to read my book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 11:27:27 PM by Anthony Frank »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2021, 11:25:37 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2021, 12:43:33 AM »
That's a lot of effort....

Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about and while editing together my videos I have the luxury of working a clean digital world, but the sort of alterations that David Healey and his comrades have suggested like cutting out and enlarging the limousine is totally laughable and the single frame of Healey's presentation where he presents a photoshopped version is embarrassing and he should be ashamed of himself.

Healey here has presented a Zapruder frame where he has used photoshop to cut-out the foreground elements and slightly enlarged them but in doing so he highlights just how impossible this sort of image manipulation really is and in the Zapruder film we are not talking about 1 image but 500 consecutive images which when run together make a coherent whole, so basically if modern computer image tools can't even produce a single photo realistic frame then how the heck, pre computers, did they do alter a blurry handheld film? Btw that's a rhetorical question because there was no way!



JohnM

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2021, 12:46:41 AM »
Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about and while editing together my videos I have the luxury of working a clean digital world, but the sort of alterations that David Healey and his comrades have suggested like cutting out and enlarging the limousine is totally laughable and the single frame of Healey's presentation where he presents a photoshopped version is embarrassing and he should be ashamed of himself.

Healey here has presented a Zapruder frame where he has used photoshop to cut-out the foreground elements and slightly enlarged them but in doing so he highlights just how impossible this sort of image manipulation really is and in the Zapruder film we are not talking about 1 image but 500 consecutive images which when run together make a coherent whole, so basically if modern computer image tools can't even produce a single photo realistic frame then how the heck, pre computers, did they do alter a blurry handheld film? Btw that's a rhetorical question because there was no way!

JohnM

Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about

LOL....

But credit where credit is due. You are amazing in misrepresenting what was really said.   Thumb1:
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 12:48:32 AM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2021, 12:46:41 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2021, 01:00:49 AM »
But credit where credit is due. You are amazing...

 Thumb1:

JohnM

Offline Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7444
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2021, 01:44:25 AM »
Thumb1:

JohnM

Thanks for proving my point.

Kinda sad though that you need this kind of childish BS to bolster your self-esteem. You must be very insecure. It's so sad.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2021, 01:44:25 AM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2021, 02:04:56 AM »
Thanks for proving my point.

Kinda sad though that you need this kind of childish BS to bolster your self-esteem. You must be very insecure. It's so sad.

You're the one hanging on my every word as you chase me from thread to thread replying to as much of my posts as you can, you lead a very sad life, I truly feel sorry for you.

JohnM

Offline Anthony Frank

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
    • The CIA’s Quest to Control the Government
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2021, 02:47:30 AM »
Oswald is alleged to have assassinated JFK with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, a cheap Italian rifle manufactured for the Italian army in 1940 and left over from World War II.

According to a CIA dispatch on December 31, 1963, the rifle was among 100,000 Mannlicher-Carcanos that Adam Consolidated Industries imported into the United States in 1960, two years after “Italian military authorities” decided to “eliminate” them and declare them “obsolete.” Adam Consolidated purchased them “at an average price of $2.20 for serviceable 6.5 rifles” and “$1.10 for unserviceable 6.5 rifles.”

“The first lot of 7,000 rifles that Adam put on the American market had disastrous results. Many of them burst, with frequently fatal results, and many didn’t fire. This forced Adam to withdraw all the rifles from sale and check them before putting them back on the market.”

A March 17, 1964, FBI report states that the Mannlicher-Carcano that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy, with serial number C 2766, was among “a lot of 5,200” Mannlicher-Carcanos shipped to Adam Consolidated by an Italian machine shop in 1960. It also states that Adam Consolidated said that the rifles in this particular batch were “defective” and refused to pay for them. According to the FBI report, the machine shop was engaged in “legal proceedings” to force Adam Consolidated to pay for the rifles.

William J. Waldman, who was vice president of Klein’s Sporting Goods, the mail order company that sold the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination, testified to the Warren Commission that the rifle cost $19.95 with a scope, plus $1.50 postage and handling, and that without a scope, it would have cost only $12.95. He further testified that a gunsmith who worked for Klein’s attached a scope to the rifle after drilling holes into it.

He was then asked if the gunsmith or “anyone else” had done “boresighting” (which involves using a sight-aligning tool and aligning the crosshairs) “or actual firing with the sight” to check and see how accurately the sight was aligned with the rifle.

Waldman replied, “No; it’s very unlikely in an inexpensive rifle of this sort that he would do anything other than roughly align the scope with the rifle.”

In a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI reported, “No indication was found that the telescopic sight was remounted. Its position on the rifle, the mounting screws, and the screw holes show no evidence of having been altered.”

Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, who was in charge of test firing the Mannlicher-Carcano, was asked by the Warren Commission if the personnel who ran the test “had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.”

His reply was that “they could not sight the weapon” and had to “adjust the telescopic sight” by having “a machinist in one of our machine shops” add three shims to the telescopic sight.

FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier, with the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., testified to the Warren Commission that adjusting a telescopic sight entails “putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.” He also testified that there were no shims in the rifle when the FBI Laboratory first received it, but there were shims “mounted in the rifle” when the Army Ballistics Lab returned it to them.

After it was determined where the rifle was purchased and how much it cost, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spoke to President Johnson by phone on November 23, 1963, and said, “It seems almost impossible to think that for $21.00 you could kill the President of the United States.”

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the Warren Commission, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.” The record also showed that Oswald scored at the bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, and that he had been demoted from private first class to private.

In addition to his testimony, Colonel Folsom sent a letter to the Warren Commission on June 8, 1964, regarding Oswald’s marksmanship. It states that a Marine would qualify as an Expert with a minimum score of 220, would qualify as a Sharpshooter with a minimum score of 210, and would qualify as a Marksman with a minimum score of 190.

Folsom stated that according to Oswald’s Marine Corps record, on December 21, 1956, two months after Oswald joined the Marines and received his initial Marine Corps training, he received a score of 212, two points above the minimum for sharpshooter, while firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range. On May 6, 1959, four months before his defection to the Soviet Union, his score was 191, one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman.

Folsom also stated, “A low Marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot and a Sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good shot.”

Colonel Folsom’s information shows clearly that after Oswald’s first two months of intensive Marine Corps training, he managed to qualify at the low end of being a “fairly good shot.” But two and a half years later, with a score that was one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman, Oswald was nowhere near a “fairly good shot.” He was most definitely a “rather poor shot,” even though he was still firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range.

Oswald’s ability to pull off even one precision shot would have not only been hampered by his total lack of competence and his poor marksmanship, but it would have been rendered completely impossible by shooting at a moving target with a cheap rifle that had a scope that was in no way aligned with the rifle.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
« Last Edit: June 09, 2021, 02:48:34 AM by Anthony Frank »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4267
Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2021, 03:00:13 AM »
Oswald is alleged to have assassinated JFK with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, a cheap Italian rifle manufactured for the Italian army in 1940 and left over from World War II.

According to a CIA dispatch on December 31, 1963, the rifle was among 100,000 Mannlicher-Carcanos that Adam Consolidated Industries imported into the United States in 1960, two years after “Italian military authorities” decided to “eliminate” them and declare them “obsolete.” Adam Consolidated purchased them “at an average price of $2.20 for serviceable 6.5 rifles” and “$1.10 for unserviceable 6.5 rifles.”

“The first lot of 7,000 rifles that Adam put on the American market had disastrous results. Many of them burst, with frequently fatal results, and many didn’t fire. This forced Adam to withdraw all the rifles from sale and check them before putting them back on the market.”

A March 17, 1964, FBI report states that the Mannlicher-Carcano that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy, with serial number C 2766, was among “a lot of 5,200” Mannlicher-Carcanos shipped to Adam Consolidated by an Italian machine shop in 1960. It also states that Adam Consolidated said that the rifles in this particular batch were “defective” and refused to pay for them. According to the FBI report, the machine shop was engaged in “legal proceedings” to force Adam Consolidated to pay for the rifles.

William J. Waldman, who was vice president of Klein’s Sporting Goods, the mail order company that sold the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination, testified to the Warren Commission that the rifle cost $19.95 with a scope, plus $1.50 postage and handling, and that without a scope, it would have cost only $12.95. He further testified that a gunsmith who worked for Klein’s attached a scope to the rifle after drilling holes into it.

He was then asked if the gunsmith or “anyone else” had done “boresighting” (which involves using a sight-aligning tool and aligning the crosshairs) “or actual firing with the sight” to check and see how accurately the sight was aligned with the rifle.

Waldman replied, “No; it’s very unlikely in an inexpensive rifle of this sort that he would do anything other than roughly align the scope with the rifle.”

In a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI reported, “No indication was found that the telescopic sight was remounted. Its position on the rifle, the mounting screws, and the screw holes show no evidence of having been altered.”

Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, who was in charge of test firing the Mannlicher-Carcano, was asked by the Warren Commission if the personnel who ran the test “had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.”

His reply was that “they could not sight the weapon” and had to “adjust the telescopic sight” by having “a machinist in one of our machine shops” add three shims to the telescopic sight.

FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier, with the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., testified to the Warren Commission that adjusting a telescopic sight entails “putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.” He also testified that there were no shims in the rifle when the FBI Laboratory first received it, but there were shims “mounted in the rifle” when the Army Ballistics Lab returned it to them.

After it was determined where the rifle was purchased and how much it cost, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spoke to President Johnson by phone on November 23, 1963, and said, “It seems almost impossible to think that for $21.00 you could kill the President of the United States.”

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the Warren Commission, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.” The record also showed that Oswald scored at the bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, and that he had been demoted from private first class to private.

In addition to his testimony, Colonel Folsom sent a letter to the Warren Commission on June 8, 1964, regarding Oswald’s marksmanship. It states that a Marine would qualify as an Expert with a minimum score of 220, would qualify as a Sharpshooter with a minimum score of 210, and would qualify as a Marksman with a minimum score of 190.

Folsom stated that according to Oswald’s Marine Corps record, on December 21, 1956, two months after Oswald joined the Marines and received his initial Marine Corps training, he received a score of 212, two points above the minimum for sharpshooter, while firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range. On May 6, 1959, four months before his defection to the Soviet Union, his score was 191, one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman.

Folsom also stated, “A low Marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot and a Sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good shot.”

Colonel Folsom’s information shows clearly that after Oswald’s first two months of intensive Marine Corps training, he managed to qualify at the low end of being a “fairly good shot.” But two and a half years later, with a score that was one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman, Oswald was nowhere near a “fairly good shot.” He was most definitely a “rather poor shot,” even though he was still firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range.

Oswald’s ability to pull off even one precision shot would have not only been hampered by his total lack of competence and his poor marksmanship, but it would have been rendered completely impossible by shooting at a moving target with a cheap rifle that had a scope that was in no way aligned with the rifle.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y

OSWALD'S RIFLE CAPABILITY

In deciding whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally, the Commission considered whether Oswald, using his own rifle, possessed the capability to hit his target with two out of three shots under the conditions described in chapter Ill. The Commission evaluated (1) the nature of the shots, (2) Oswald's Marine training in marksmanship, (3) his experience and practice after leaving the Marine Corps, and (4) the accuracy of the weapon and the quality of the ammunition.

Return to Top

The Nature of the Shots

For a rifleman situated on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building the shots were at a slow-moving target proceeding on a downgrade in virtually a straight line with the alinement of the assassin's rifle, at a range of 177 to 266 feet.761 An aerial photograph of Dealey Plaza shows that Elm Street runs at an angle so that the President would have been moving in an almost straight line away from the assassin's rifle.762 (See Commission Exhibit No. 876, p. 33.) In addition, the 3° downward slope of Elm Street was of assistance in eliminating at least some of the adjustment which is ordinarily required when a marksman must raise his rifle as a target moves farther away.763

Four marksmanship experts testified before the Commission. Maj. Eugene D. Anderson, assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch of

Page 190

the U.S. Marine Corps, testified that the shots which struck the President in the neck and in the head were "not ... particularly difficult." 764 Robert A. Frazier, FBI expert in firearms identification and training, said:
From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
°     °     °     °     °     °
I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.765
Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory, said: "Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes." 766

The effect of a four-power telescopic sight on the difficulty of these shots was considered in detail by M. Sgt. James A. Zahm, noncommissioned officer in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion of the Marine Corps School at Quantico, Va.767 Referring to a rifle with a four-power telescope, Sergeant Zahm said:
... this is the ideal type of weapon for moving targets ... 768
°     °     °     °     °     °
... Using the scope, rapidly working a bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify it and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze.769 °     °     °     °     °     °
I consider it a real advantage, particularly at the range of 100 yards, in identifying your target. It. allows you to see your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements. It just is an aid in seeing in the fact that you only have the one element, the crosshair, in relation to the target as opposed to iron sights with aligning the sights and then aligning them on the target.770
Characterizing the four-power scope as "a real aid, an extreme aid" in rapid fire shooting, Sergeant Zahm expressed the opinion that the shot which struck President Kennedy in the neck at 176.9 to 190.8 feet was "very easy" and the shot which struck the President in the

Page 191

head at a distance of 265.3 feet was "an easy shot." 771 After viewing photographs depicting the alinement of Elm Street in relation to the Texas School Book Depository Building, Zahm stated further:
This is a definite advantage to the shooter, the vehicle moving directly away from him and the downgrade of the street, and he being in an elevated position made an almost stationary target while he was aiming in, very little movement if any.772

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship.773 During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger.774 He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course.775 After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.776

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.777 In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." 778 The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.779

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."

When asked to explain the different scores achieved by Oswald on the two occasions when he fired for record, Major Anderson said:
... when he fired that [212] he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle--windy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because [he] may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage. 781
Page 192

Major Anderson concluded:
I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.782
When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:
Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.783
After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded:
I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.784

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html

JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK Was Shot From The Front
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2021, 03:00:13 AM »