If JFK was shot from the front, Oswald still did it. JFK turned around to wave at the crowd and faced the TSBD and this is when Oswald shot him in the throat. Then a few seconds later JFK turned around again and Oswald shot him in the right temple which blasted out the right rear of his head. After this JFK stopped turning around. This would explain why the shells and Oswalds rifle were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The Zapruder film was obviously faked as it shows none of this.
JFK turned around? And that is how he ended up getting shot in the front of the head?
So, you believe the Zapruder film was faked and there was a vast conspiracy to say that he was shot in the back of the head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
OK. You were actually being sarcastic. You do not actually think that we have all the evidence that JFK was shot from the front because JFK simply turned around. You were just being sarcastic, which means you agree that JFK was shot from the front.
I think he was shot twice from the back. I think the evidence is misleading that he was shot from the front. In the Zapruder film the exit wound is at the front of Kennedys head - this is strong evidence that he was shot from the back and an exit wound blasted out the top front of Kennedys head.
I think he was shot twice from the back. I think the evidence is misleading that he was shot from the front. In the Zapruder film the exit wound is at the front of Kennedys head - this is strong evidence that he was shot from the back and an exit wound blasted out the top front of Kennedys head.
Let's recap.
In the Warren Commission’s Executive Session on January 27, 1964, the Commission’s General Counsel, Lee Rankin, stated, “We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck.”
Rankin continued, “It seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front.”
Rankin repeated that according to the autopsy report, there were “bullet fragments” from an alleged rear headshot, one of which “came out in part through the neck.”
Rankin, who had “the picture of where the bullet entered in the back,” could clearly see that President Kennedy’s back wound was “below the shoulder blade,” and he could see that the back wound was below President Kennedy’s throat wound.
The pictures on which Rankin based his statements were the real deal.
Autopsy photos were clearly fabricated to place the backwound farther up on JFK's back in order to support the new autopsy report stating that a bullet entered “above the scapula,” otherwise known as the shoulder blade.
JFK was shot from the front. Case Closed.
Case Closed??
Where was the front shot taken from and at what z-frame?
What was the trajectory of the bullet through the throat?
How many bullets were in JFK's body at the time of his death (at least two I presume)?
Was the Z-film a fabrication?
And lots of other questions but let's keep it that for now
Anyone who thinks Oswald was the lone assassin is a conspiracy theorist, because they think all of these people conspired to say JFK was shot from the front.
Those at Parkland who reported seeing a large hole in the back of the head were mistaken. The autopsy photos and X-rays do not lie.
The pathologists’ autopsy report says absolutely nothing about the front of the head.
Yet, there are autopsy photos and X-rays that show a “large wound of exit on the front top of the President’s head” where the bullet “exited on the front of the head, just above the forehead.”
In 1972, Dr. John K. Lattimer examined the photographs and X-rays purportedly from President Kennedy’s autopsy that are on file at the National Archives, and he testified to the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 that they show a “wound of entrance into the back of his skull” and a “large wound of exit on the front top of the President’s head” where the bullet “exited on the front of the head, just above the forehead.”
In February 1968, four years before Dr. Lattimer examined the autopsy material, Attorney General Ramsey Clark assembled a panel of four physicians to examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays, after which the “Clark Panel” issued a report stating that a bullet entered President Kennedy’s skull in the “occipital region,” producing a small wound measuring .23 inches by .59 inches. The bullet then “passed forward” to “explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head.”
In March 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations had their “Medical Panel” examine the autopsy photographs and listen to the testimony of President Kennedy’s three pathologists, after which the Medical Panel concluded, “The bullet exited in the top front area of the skull.”
Moving the massive exit wound to the front of the head was, however, a two-stage process.
In 1967, autopsy photos were used to support the pathologists’ autopsy report, which, again, [b}says absolutely nothing about the front of the head[/b]. It states that the bullet exited on the “right” side of the head, as opposed to the “front” of the head.
In January 1967, the Justice Department had President Kennedy’s three pathologists “examine the X-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent with the autopsy report.” The Justice Department also prepared a document for the pathologists to sign stating that the autopsy X-rays and photographs show “a small wound” in the “back of the head” and a “massive” wound located on the “right side of the head,” which “corroborates” the pathologists’ autopsy report.
The three pathologists, all of whom were military officers, dutifully signed the Justice Department document.
The following year, 1968, autopsy photographs were fabricated to move the massive exit wound to the front of the head. The “Clark Panel” then examined them and confirmed that they show a small entrance wound at the back of the head and a massive exit wound at the front of the head, thus firming up the “official” position that President Kennedy was shot from behind.
The objective of the cover up was to maintain the official government position that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who shot President Kennedy from behind, thus relieving the CIA of any culpability in the assassination.
A 1967 Secret Service document states that the autopsy photographs and X-rays “were in the custody and the possession of the United States Secret Service” from November 22, 1963, until April 26, 1965, during which time the CIA easily substituted bogus autopsy photographs.
If the autopsy photographs and X-rays are authentic, then the doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital could not see a massive exit wound at the front of President Kennedy’s head, and the pathologists who performed the autopsy could not see a massive exit wound at the front of President Kennedy’s head.
And what ever happened to those autopsy photographs and X-rays that show a “massive” wound located on the “right side of the head,” as opposed to the “front” of the head?
It’s all in my book. Click the link.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
And what ever happened to those autopsy photographs and X-rays that show a “massive” wound located on the “right side of the head,” as opposed to the “front” of the head?
If the autopsy photographs and X-rays are authentic,......
The autopsy photographs were authenticated by the HSCA and eventually computer power which only became available much later, indisputably proved their authenticity.
A lot of the autopsy photos were taken slightly apart in stereoscopic pairs and these images can be combined into one rotating image and if even one of the corresponding pixels shares a different depth map then we will no longer have a smooth rotation, which is impossible to recreate by hand and therefore what you see in the following images is PRECISELY what was photographed at the autopsy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxH6dktC/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HWwsN98Y/JFKBOHlatest-700.gif)
The earliest eyewitnesses all describe the EXACT same injury as we see in the Zapruder film.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPK3H8gF/dealey-plaza-eyewitness-1st-day-zapruder.gif)
Mary Moorman's photo captured a fraction of a second after the headshot graphically shows the same torn scalp shape as seen in the autopsy photos. Another example of independent events with a 100% corroboration.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MG9p96ny/matching-Moorman-with-autopsy-photo.gif)
Sorry Anthony, but it's all over red rover and you didn't even have to buy a book to learn the truth.
JohnM
The bullet did exit the front of his head, high in the forehead above the right eye. The large wound extends back from that, in the temporal/parietal region. The exit wound was never moved to the front. It was always there. The autopsy photos and X-rays do not lie. They were confirmed as being authentic and unaltered by two separate panels of experts working for the HSCA and well as by the photographer who took the photos and the Radiologist responsible for the X-rays.
Dr. Robert McClelland testified, “The wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound.”
Larry SPersonivan said to the Select Committee:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"The deposit of momentum from the bullet is not sufficient to cause
any dramatic movement in any direction. It would have a very slight
movement, assuming that the bullet hit him in the back of the head.
It would have a slight movement toward the front, which would very
rapidly be damped by the connection of the neck with the body."
It's been proposed that a neuromuscular reaction, the temporary cavity left behind by a bullet or "jet effect" (or a combination therefore) may account for the rearward/leftward head recoil.
So, Doctors Jones and Perry, who “took over the primary management” in the emergency room where one of their objectives was to “assess how bad his head injury was,” could not actually see “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull.”
Doctors Jones and Perry could not actually see “a large wound of the right posterior cranium,” and they could not see that President Kennedy had “a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.”
Seeing as how Doctors Jones and Perry “took over the primary management” in the emergency room and they were supposed to “assess how bad his head injury was,” they must have been grossly incompetent to ignore a massive opening on the side of the head.
The grossly incompetent doctors lied about the wound at the back of the head. They were clearly part of the conspiracy to say that he was shot from the front.
Parkland Nurse Pat Hutton was asked to “place a pressure dressing on the head wound,” but it “was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.” She obviously saw "the very back of the head," but she was clearly lying because the wound was actually on the side of the head.
Hutton was clearly part of the conspiracy to say that he was shot from the front.
Dr. Charles Carrico clearly lied when he claimed that he observed that “blood and brain were extruding” from a head wound “in the occipital region of the skull.”
Dr. Charles Carrico was clearly part of the conspiracy to say that he was shot from the front. He was not mistaken. He was a “shot from the front” conspirator, who thought he could gloss over what he did by changing his story in 1992.
I could go on, but you have me convinced that there was a massive conspiracy to say that he was shot from the front. And it all started with Secret Service Special Agent Clint Hill, who clearly lied when he wrote in his report that he saw that “a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone.”
Now that you have me convinced of the massive conspiracy to say that he was shot from the front, which, of course, is why none of these witnesses said anything about a massive wound on the side of the head, can you tell me why everyone engaged in this conspiracy?
And since Merv Griffin stopped doing his show in 1986 and has since died, I will take this opportunity to plug my book, which is meticulously sourced and rife with documentation from beginning to end and lays out the most shocking information that has ever come forth on corruption in the CIA and the United States government.
Click the link.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
The doctors at Parkland were so inefficient they couldn't see the massive wound on the top of the head. They saw a hole the size of an orange a behind the right ear, and even got the fact that they saw cerebellum coming out of the wound wrong. How did these guys get their degrees?
Ignore the facts of the case, and just judge dodgy photos provided by the authorities.
John, please show us how you know the photos are of JFK.
The Parkland doctors were not focussed on performing an autopsy. They were primarily focussed on reviving Kennedy. They hadn't even turned him over, FFS.
It is clear in the clip below that, not only is the initial movement of JFK's head forward at the moment of impact, but the resultant wound is a massive 'crater' in the top of his head (as per the images posted by John Mytton.)
Just as the autopsy report says nothing about the front of the head, the autopsy report says nothing about the top of the head.
And in 1967, after the Justice Department had the pathologists “examine the X-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent with the autopsy report,” the pathologists signed a document stating that the autopsy photos show a “massive” wound located on the “right side of the head,” which “corroborates” the pathologists’ autopsy report.
So, the massive exit wound was on the side of the head.
No wait! The massive exit wound was at the top of the head.
Or the massive exit wound was at the front of the head.
The massive exit wound can be anywhere except at the rear of the head.
KGB officers inside the CIA assassinated President Kennedy. It’s all in my book. Click the link.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
So, you don't see the massive 'crater' in the top of JFK's head in the clip I posted?
It's impossible not to see it.
What is your explanation for what we can actually see in the Z-film?
Secret Service Agent Clint Hill was summoned to the morgue “after completion of the autopsy and before the embalming” in order to “view the body and to witness the damage of the gunshot wounds,” and Hill again observed the wound located “on the right rear portion of the skull.”
Within seconds of the fatal headshot, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill observed the gaping exit wound at the back of President Kennedy’s head, and witnesses all along the way observed the massive head wound until his corpse was prepared for burial. Virtually none of these witnesses placed the massive exit wound at the top of the head.
Not a valid vimeo URL(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Abraham Zapruder on WFAA (ABC), about two hours after the assassination.
It is clear in the clip below that, not only is the initial movement of JFK's head forward at the moment of impact, but the resultant wound is a massive 'crater' in the top of his head...Zapruder demonstrated exactly what the film shows. He is not indicating the "top of his head" at all... he is illustrating that JFK had the right side of his head blown off starting at ear level .
Edward Reed, a radiology technician on duty when the X-rays were taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital, told 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.”
Like "Mytton" would know how much time was required for "any alteration".
Just as the autopsy report says nothing about the front of the head, the autopsy report says nothing about the top of the head.
And in 1967, after the Justice Department had the pathologists “examine the X-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent with the autopsy report,” the pathologists signed a document stating that the autopsy photos show a “massive” wound located on the “right side of the head,” which “corroborates” the pathologists’ autopsy report.
So, the massive exit wound was on the side of the head.
No wait! The massive exit wound was at the top of the head.
Or the massive exit wound was at the front of the head.
The massive exit wound can be anywhere except at the rear of the head.
KGB officers inside the CIA assassinated President Kennedy. It’s all in my book. Click the link.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
OMG, the wedding ring once again -- LOL
Oswald dumping wife and kids AND leaving his hard earned cash behind, sure!
ROFL
There's no need to misinterpret Clint's words, here the man himself explaining exactly what he saw.
Oh really? Just a small part of my work which was selected from hours of uploaded videos is below and just in the first few minutes of this video, I have edited together images with way over 10 layers including a number of elements independently moving in what would have been called a travelling matte
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
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
But credit where credit is due. You are amazing...
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.
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 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.
His performance with the rifle that day was nothing spectacular. Only one of his three shots could be described as precise, and on that one the target was as good as standing still.
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.
But Oswald could not have been the assassin because JFK was shot from the front.
A professional assassin would only need 1 shot, the fact that there was multiple shots is virtually conclusive evidence that Oswald did the assassination all by himself.
JohnM
does this mean that all those expert rifle men who tried (and failed)....
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, assassinating Kennedy while sitting down in a moving car is high risk with a chance of failure, it took Oswald 3 shots as it is.
Kennedy could have been assassinated while stationary at many times during his Presidency but Oswald had the golden "opportunity" and took his rifle to work and killed the President, simple as that!
JohnM
assassinating Kennedy while sitting down in a moving car is high risk with a chance of failure,
But you said; "A professional assassin would only need 1 shot"
And you went on to say that the fact that more shots were fired was "virtually conclusive evidence" that Oswald was the lone assassindid the assassination all by himself"
Now it's suddenly high risk with a chance of failure? You're not making any sense.
And how is shooting at Kennedy in a moving car (which is high risk with a chance of failure) somehow a "golden opportunity" for a non professional such as Oswald?
You're not making any sense.
In the 1967 CBS-News re-enactment, Howard Donahue said he was given a Carcano rifle he was unfamiliar with and allowed only three practice shots in a basement firing range before going out to the re-enactment scene.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"CBS News directors apparently believed that if any of
the riflemen had a chance to practice, the results of the
demonstration would be worthless."
-- Mortal Error, 1992, p. 8
They had to shoot at a moving target that represented the limousine, with stakes defining the area in which they could fire. Donahue described the shooting platform as top heavy and exposed to weather.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"A light rain began to fall and the tower swayed slightly
in the wind."
-- Mortal Error, 1992, p. 9
They had to recreate a three-shot scenario, not randomly decide on their own when to aim for the head for a one-shot kill. The marksmen were allowed three attempts each; Donahue seems to be increasingly familiar with the bolt action on each attempt, describing his third:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
"Donahue's shots had all hit within a three-inch circle on
the target's head."
-- Mortal Error, 1992, p. 9
Get a grip, I was giving you a sarcastic CT reply to your post and it went right over your head. LOL!
JohnM
Btw, does this mean that all those expert rifle men who tried (and failed) to copy what Oswald is supposed to have done were amateurs?
Is this in your book? Because 95% of it you posted in 2008.
No. Nothing about the rifle or Oswald's ability to shoot is in my book.You seriously believe that all of these revelations could have been kept secret? Nobody, no member of Congress, no staffer, no one who attended these meetings would have revealed all of this?
2 KGB officers inside the CIA and a CIA “double agent” (an American CIA officer who knowingly and willingly worked for the KGB) assassinated JFK on November 22, 1963. I know because I exposed the KGB infiltration in 1984.
After the KGB was exposed, the entire 98th Congress held secret closed-door hearings. Every Member of Congress was at the hearings, and they can all attest to the KGB infiltration of the CIA being exposed in 1984.
An abundance of testimony at the closed-door Congressional hearings in 1984 proved that the KGB-dominated CIA killed President Kennedy in 1963.
All of that is in my book. Click the link. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07V9JT65Y
You seriously believe that all of these revelations could have been kept secret? Nobody, no member of Congress, no staffer, no one who attended these meetings would have revealed all of this?
The Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. It no longer exists after that date. Revealing that Moscow was behind the assassination wouldn't have led to a crisis; the Soviet Union didn't exist, it wasn't a threat. The Marxist-Leninist government behind the act had been removed, overthrown, replaced. There would have been no war, no retaliation, no crisis as a result because the people who carried out the act were gone. And if the US government had evidence about the three KGB officers they would have been charged with the crime (I believe all are now dead).
This is frankly not believable on any level. The US government is a sieve when it comes to secrets.
We've had numerous historians and reporters do works on the figures. Robert Caro on LBJ for example. He has found no evidence - as far as I know (his last book hasn't come out) - to your allegations. Some of LBJ's people, top advisers, lived after the collapse of the USSR Several of them are still alive - Bill Moyers, Joe Califano. None of them ever gave the slightest hint to your claims. Nothing at all.
Thanks, yeah it was a fun project and shows beyond all doubt that I know what I'm talking about
It is unknown if the scope was out of alignment when Oswald used the rifle to shoot the President. He may have knocked it out of alignment as he made his way towards the stairs after firing the shots. If it was out of alignment, then he simply used the iron sights. He was certainly capable of doing so. His performance with the rifle that day was nothing spectacular. Only one of his three shots could be described as precise, and on that one the target was as good as standing still.
(https://c.tenor.com/8EFId5l93wMAAAAM/rofl-lmfao.gif)
Classic Lone Nutter MO, misrepresenting evidence by using the cut down version of the video.
Actually, of the 37 attempts 17 were called 'no time' because of trouble with the rifle.
Which can only mean the rifle jammed or otherwise malfunctions; that is close to a 50% chance of failure.
Thus none of the riflemen were as familiar with the Carcano as was Oswald, if we believe Marina's reports about Oswald's "dry-firing" on the porch.
O'Donnell doesn't seem to merely "go along" with a "narrative"; in 1964, he's laying out the rationale for what he heard:
Now O'Neill said he got Dave Powers to "confirm" the meeting but we don't know to what extent. Powers himself was a "shot from the front" fellow, suggesting the Underpass:
You yourself posted this in 2010:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"when Curry was interviewed by the news media on November 23, 1963,
he claimed that he “could tell from the sound of the three shots that they
had come from the Book Company’s building near downtown Dallas.”"
Your text above is also eleven-years-old.
Lawson doesn't say the shots came from in front:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"As the Lead Car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud,
sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like gunfire.
I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles running away."
Sorrells thought Curry referred to "the building"; if Curry did it wasn't recorded:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital,
and said, "Surround the building." He didn't say what building. He just
said, "Surround the building." And by that time we had gotten almost
in under the underpass, and the President's car had come up and was
almost abreast of us."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm Testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Special Agent Secret Service Mr. Specter - What did you observe as to Presidents Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. Hill - The right rear portion of his head was missing . It was lying in the rear seat of the car . His brain was exposed . There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car . Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not , except for the " LARGE GAPING WOUND IN THE RIGHT REAR PORTION OF OF THE HEAD .
How many years later was this? Hill’s hair should give you a clue.
And how is this the upper right REAR quadrant?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm Testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Special Agent Secret Service Mr. Specter - What did you observe as to Presidents Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. Hill - The right rear portion of his head was missing . It was lying in the rear seat of the car . His brain was exposed . There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car . Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not , except for the " LARGE GAPING WOUND IN THE RIGHT REAR PORTION OF OF THE HEAD .
S. Barber -- Why would you say that Hill said within that same testimony that JFK was lying face up ? Could you please show us that testimony ?