| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132302
|
| Posted: 15 December 2014 at 3:41pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
A few decades back, CBS presented a special in which they investigated Oswald's capabilities. Sharpshooters of the same ranking as he were given the same kinds of rifles, put at the top of a tower that set them at the same height as Oswald, and told to fire at targets moving on tracks at the same speed as the Presidential limo. All but one duplicated Oswald's shooting. The one who didn't hit "Kennedy" three times with three shots.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1734
|
| Posted: 15 December 2014 at 4:10pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
One thing that always made me chuckle, was the idea floated that, if they had assassinated JFK, the mob would have had the juice to run a cover-up involving the government, the media etc. That seems absurd.
I think one reason that so many people believe in JFK conspiracy theories is that, in 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations said Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Roy Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1323
|
| Posted: 15 December 2014 at 4:56pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Donahue is one of the shooters in the CBS special. He was able to fire the 3 shots in the time frame.
No idea how accurate THIS is. Since I'm too lazy to upgrade my browser, it won't let me see videos or I'd link to YouTube.
Edited by Roy Johnson on 15 December 2014 at 5:02pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marc Cheek
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 June 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1785
|
| Posted: 16 December 2014 at 6:25am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I read Mortal Error many years ago - probably about the time it was released. At the time it seemed to me like a plausible theory that didn't involve a huge conspiracy to kill Kennedy - only a conspiracy to cover up his accidental killing.
I've since come to the conclusion that it was Oswald alone.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jeremy Simington
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 April 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: 16 December 2014 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
One of the amazing things about conspiracy theorists is how, without fail, every fact you use to refute them turns into more proof that they are correct. Give them facts proving the mafia couldn't have masterminded the JFK assassination? "Of course not, that's why the Trilateral Commission had to be involved." Show them that it was indeed possible for Oswald to be the sole shooter? "Of course he was the sole shooter, he was trained as a marksman by the Illuminati." Any effort to convince them is useless. The only reason to bother refuting them is to show others, who might be ignorant of the facts but are open to reason, how crazy the conspiracy theories are.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132302
|
| Posted: 16 December 2014 at 3:23pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Conspiracy theories invariably fail the test of time. Fifty years, and it's all still "theory"? Flog dead horses much?As Paul Kupperberg likes to say, the Clinton administration couldn't even cover up a blowjob.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 17 December 2014 at 2:50pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The notion that the fatal shot was accidentally fired by a Secret Service agent does not hold up against basic common sense scrutiny. Let's say a Secret Service agent did accidentally discharge his rifle and shoot the President. Why did none of the other agents in the car react to this or do anything? Certainly if a guy sitting right next to them had fired the shot, they all would have been well aware of this. And they would have had no way of knowing it was an accident at that point. For all they would know, it was a deliberate shot by a rogue agent. So they would have reacted by wrestling him to the ground and taking the rifle away from him. Yet no such thing happened. Why not?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1220
|
| Posted: 17 December 2014 at 4:31pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
The wrestle-a-rogue-agent-to-the-ground solution would be 'common sense' if it were to occur in it's own vacuum. Taken in the context that every agent is likely looking multiple directions to determine where Oswald was shooting from, echos and other distractions with the crowd and other vehicles in the motorcade, I can see where they wouldn't have the time to necessrily watch what each other was doing to the point where a shot couldn't have 'slipped by'.
I wasn't even aware of the Secret Service 'friendly fire' theory until a former Secret Service friend of mine mentioned it to me a few years back. He wasn't in the service until during the Nixon administration, but even then, the theory was around and had it's hard-fast believers. As such, the 'conspiracy' to cover up a Secret Service blunder like that ranks up there with every possible battlefield friendly-fire that was unconditionally passed off as the soldier being killed by enemy fire.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 17 December 2014 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Michael, if you were in a car and someone sitting (or standing on the running board) right next to you in the same car fired a rifle, you would not be looking in multiple directions to determine where the shot came from or be distracted by echoes. It would be obvious to you where the shot had come from, especially if you were a Secret Service agent who was highly trained and quite familiar with the sound of rifle fire. If a rifle is fired that close to you, you would know, and likely you would immediately turn in the direction from which the shot had been fired. There were seven other agents in that car, and it defies common sense to suggest not one of them would have seen the accidental rifle fire and reacted to it by subduing the agent who fired the rifle.
Beyond that, not one eyewitness has ever come forward claiming to have seen a Secret Service agent fire his rifle. Given the hundreds of people watching, does it seem likely that not one person would have seen it, even with all the confusion going on?
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 17 December 2014 at 7:27pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1220
|
| Posted: 18 December 2014 at 8:36am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Jason, why would all seven agents be trained on the actions of one of their own when other stuff is going on around them? Sure, they may have heard a shot, might have even acknowledged it as originating from one of their own after the fact... but not to the extent of knowing that that was the fatal shot. I had the same questions when my friend was telling me about the theory, and he likened it to being on a firing range. The short version being: Everyone on the range, although cognisent that there are other armed individuals around, should first and foremost be concerned what they are doing with their own weapon, keeping it pointed down range and all that. When you expect to hear shots going off (as would have been the case by that point in Dallas), and if your focus is either on protecting the motorcade, driving the vehicle, whether you're riding or walking alongside.... you're not going to turn and look and wheel and pivot after each and every pop...and necessarily be able to trace which shot hit what target right there on the scene. Add to that the unrelaible/inconsistant eyewitness accounts of how many shots were fired and from what direction. Lots of people "saw" lots of things, but the eyes and memory play lots of tricks in situations like that. WIth eyes trained on the President and Governor, how many would have been looking at other (non-dignitary) cars? I had been a proponent of the sole-Oswald theory myself, but when I heard the accidental Secret Service shot theory (barring direct forensic disproving), it made just as much (more actually) sense as any other loopy theory that has been out there for 50 years. I'm not totally convinced that that's what happened, but to hear the theory coming from someone who actually used to work there (an 'internal' SS Urban Legend, perhaps?), it sounded more credible than the mob, Cubans, aliens and/or time traveller theories. :-)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 18 December 2014 at 2:08pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I do agree that the "accidental Secret Service rifle shot" theory is more plausible than all the conspiracy theories out there, but that's a pretty low bar to set. "More plausible" doesn't mean it's at all plausible when it's being compared to notions that are ridiculous and easily disproven by the evidence. It's certainly not more plausible than the simple theory that Oswald fired all the shots and acted alone.
I still maintain that if a rifle was discharged a yard or less away from seven highly-trained secret service agents, their natural reaction would be to immediately turn in the direction of the gunfire and react to the shot. They were on high alert once the first shot was fired, and it seems very unlikely they wouldn't react to a shot fired right next to them. Moreover, given the fact there were seven of them, it seems likely at least one of them would have even seen the shot being fired.
And again, given the hundreds of people watching, it also seems very implausible that at least one spectator would not have seen the agent discharge his weapon. There's at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald fire, and he was in a far more concealed place. It seems extremely unlikely that not one person would have seen the agent when he was out there in the open like that.
Then there's the issue of coincidence. What is the likelihood that immediately after being shot by an assassin, JFK would be accidentally shot by a Secret Service agent? That's a pretty big coincidence.
Beyond all this, the only evidence supporting the Secret Service theory is a questionable ballistics analysis which is hardly definitive and is disputed by a preponderance of experts. Given this and all the points mentioned above, it's pretty clear the theory should be dismissed.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 18 December 2014 at 2:09pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1220
|
| Posted: 18 December 2014 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
You know, I completely agree with that Jason. Ultimately, it's a forensics quandry, and would be one of the shittiest examples of coincidence in human history. What I would take issue with is the idea of seeing the SS agent fire vs reacting to the weapon being fired, which I think is an exercise in omniscience, failing to take into account any degree of human error (eyewitness account) and what happens in the 'heat of the moment'. The Secret Service got raked over the coals good for what happened. Perhaps an institutional 'survivors guilt' (as early as the early 1970s when my friend was in the SS) has fueled the Mortal Error theory.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
