Questions for Jesse Ventura!

[Angel of Ioren]

i am not denying it is possible to cock and pull the trigger 3 times in 6 seconds. The trick is AIMING at a moving target. I have been a hunter and shot guns since I was 10, I know Oswald could never have pulled off all the alleged shots. No way.
Have you ever tried to shoot something in the head that is speeding away from you at an angle?

Okay, I just wanted to make sure that was the case. My point is that the argument that the gun can't do it is invalid, but it's still used to show that Oswald did not act alone.
Now, making the shot is a completely different story. I have never shot at anything, so I have to take the word of experts on that. From what I have heard, the shot was far from being easy. That's something that has me interested.

The way his head moved has been shown to be consistent with the position Oswald was in, through basic physics, so that's another invalid argument used which people need to get away from. Just because it's consistant with a shot from Oswald's position does not mean that he acted alone though.

Again, I have not seen an argument from both sides of the case that convinces me either way. It is an even that changed the course of history. Who knows what the world would be like if Kennedy had lived.

 

[Ron Collins]

Pixelsmith, in my opinion,has nailed it. The Italian rifle was crap and the optics were crap. I have a Remmington 700 chambered for a .308 winchester. I have an 3-12 x42 Schmidt Bender scope with a mil dot reticle. I have an ipad/iphone app called "Ballistic" that allows me to enter in a whole slew of data and get some pretty accurate settings for my scope in order to hit things at a distance. By any reckoning my setup is about 300x better and more accurate than his. (if you insist I can go into vivid detail). All of this and it still comes down to my ability to control my breathing and apply even pressure to the trigger while holding the target in my sights. Even for a stationary target it is not easy.

But he is said to take this, and lets be honest, shity rifle with a shitty scope and manage 3 shots for 3 hits on a moving target while shooting through a window(meaning he wasn't hanging out of it, he was recessed in the room like a modern sniper). To do this he has to have calcuated distance, windage, and motion mentally and then had the dexterity to follow that calculated line(there was no time to adjust the scope settings) and make 3 flawless shots. As I mentioned before I have a mildot reticle. This was specificaly designed to assist the shooter in calculating distance, and adjusting for windage on a target without reseting the scope. That crappy little scope was a basic crosshairs reticle. So he had no help. He was relying on dead reckoning.

Carlos Hathcock tried to dulpicate this with that exact rifle and scope and could not. For those of you who are not familiar with Hathcock you need to look him up. He was an astoundingly precise sniper. This is a guy that actually put a bullet through the scope (and by extension the eye and head) of a VC sniper in the Viet Nam war at over 100 yards. Hathcock is still considered to be the greatest sniper in U.S. history. So what we are to believe is that Oswald somehow planned and pulled off something the greatest sniper in history could not reporduce. For me personally, that is enough to call shennanigans.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This is what bothered me the first time I saw a lecture from Kennedy conspiracy pioneer Mark Lane years ago. Also, I think Gov. Ventura nailed it too, pointing out that he, a Navy "Expert" shooter, could not duplicate those shots. That puts him two steps above Oswald's classification.

Sure, I suppose the laws of chance might make it possible for even a mediocre rifleman to make the right shots at the right time. I suppose the fates could have been against Kennedy that day, but can we really accept that?

 

[tyder001]

As an American born and raised when we still said the pledge and the local preacher prayed before the football games (no, I am not trying to start an argument over the validity of prayer or seperation of church and state so please don't go there. Or at least don't go there on my dime.) I can say that the murder of President Kennedy left a collective psychic scar on the nation that nothing has been able to heal. I don't think "we" as a nation have ever really gotten over it. I am not firmly in either camp as far as the conspiracy goes. But, being a bit of a student of the "soft" sciences I do find it interesting. Certain folks just automatically "rush" to the skeptical side of things. As if it were a badge of honor. Simple truth is U.F.O.'s have to deserve automatic skeptism to an extent simply because they are out of the "ordinary" of everyday (doesn't mean they are not real) give and take exsistence. Pyschic or PSI expereinces are in the same place as far as I'm concerned. But, it is well withing the everyday human experience for people to be murdered. It's well within the everyday human experience for people to collude with each other and "conspire" to commit a crime. It's within the everyday human experience for people to be born in Kenya or to hate the government or to despise somebody else. So, it's at those times that I think "some" folks just simply shout names and scoff when the thing they are scoffing at is not even that extraordinary. But, with that said no I'm not a birther or a Kennedy conspiracist or a Raliian waiting for the saviors from the sky. But, I am a bit of a student of "human" interaction.

Peace. 8)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

How about two shooters? I am not suggesting he didn't hit anything or anyone, but the question is whether he could successfully get 2 or 3 shots to work.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So gentlemen are you now claiming that Oswald missed EVERY time?
Again the demonstrations have been done that show that it IS possible and if you agree that Oswald scored one hit, any objection that he scored 2 are considerably weakened.

Gene, after dealing with Michael Horn's bleated demands that you produce an EXACT duplicate of the Meirs photos I would think it might give you pause before you travel down this lane (pun) of thinking.

Lance

My viewpoint has always been skepticism. But I can't say he didn't make one shot successfully. The argument has always been that this pathetic weapon couldn't get off three shots in rapid succession that would do the deadly deed. Conspiracies are all over the place. Some suggest there were two or more shooters present in Dallas that day. Oswald's involvement, or lack thereof, will probably never be proven one way or the other.

I am not, however, responsible for what anyone believes about the matter.

 

[pixelsmith]

So gentlemen are you now claiming that Oswald missed EVERY time?
Again the demonstrations have been done that show that it IS possible and if you agree that Oswald scored one hit, any objection that he scored 2 are considerably weakened.

Gene, after dealing with Michael Horn's bleated demands that you produce an EXACT duplicate of the Meirs photos I would think it might give you pause before you travel down this lane (pun) of thinking.

Lance

It is possible he hit every time but i doubt he even made one hit. It is also possible I could grow a horn in the middle of my forehead and win the lottery 3 times in a row.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

My viewpoint has always been skepticism. But I can't say he didn't make one shot successfully. The argument has always been that this pathetic weapon couldn't get off three shots in rapid succession that would do the deadly deed. Conspiracies are all over the place. Some suggest there were two or more shooters present in Dallas that day. Oswald's involvement, or lack thereof, will probably never be proven one way or the other.

I am not, however, responsible for what anyone believes about the matter.

I can agree with that sentiment Gene. To me, that making all three shots like that was extremely difficult, is a valid argument. Some of the other arguments made though are not, like the fact that the gun was not capable of shooting that quickly.

Unless there is a conspiracy, and absolute proof comes to light, there will always be questions.

 

[stphrz]

Only within the realm of the unknowable or no longer knowable can conspiracy theories thrive.

Gaps in knowledge are like sores, persistant and galling. Thus imagination and invention cover the wounds and lessen the sting.

Note: This is just me trying to come accross all wise and shit in the hopes of being quoted one day

 

[pixelsmith]

Yes, Pixel but are you admitting that you think Oswald scoring one hit is likely?

no. it is very unlikely he could pull off even one head shot. I think he might have been able to hit the car at best.

 

[pixelsmith]

Thanks Pixel.

That puts you among the conspiracy buffs most removed from reality.

Which is not surprising.

===

By the way Ventura enthusiastically endorsed the nutty story of Judyth Baker.

Here's a link to show you the kind of story that impresses someone like Jesse.

Lance

I already stated it is possible he could have done one or more shots.
I am no conspiracy "buff".
When did Ventura endorse Judyth Baker?

 

[Ron Collins]

Thanks Pixel.

That puts you among the conspiracy buffs most removed from reality.

Which is surprising

Well then I must be there too. I also doubt he could make even one of the shots. I don't think you can appreciate the difficulty. Especially considering that setup. In fact, I think that as a skeptic you should be more likely to question that aspect of the story. Now I have no clue what happened that day and I also doubt we will ever really know.

 

[Ron Collins]

Again, shooters have recreated the shots in the amount of time with the same weapon.
I don't know how much more clearly this can be shown as a non-issue.

What shooters. Can you show me were this was done?

 

[Ron Collins]

The Warren report did it twice. Life Magazine did it. The Cronkite NOVA program did it. (I think there are more and I believe that I am correct on these).

Edit adding more:

For the 1975 CBS Special eleven volunteer marksmen (without even dry runs with the Carcano as Oswald surely would have had) had time ranging from 4.1 seconds to slightly more than 6 seconds (average was 5.5 and two out of three hits).

The House Select committee had a reduced time of 3.3 seconds and were hitting all three shots!

Again--this is a non issue.

I am shocked if all this a surprise. Does everyone get their Kennedy info from Oliver Stone's JFK.

By the way, I think have now shown counter evidence to every question brought up int his thread so far.

Lance

Honestly before this thread I could care less. So I had done almost no research whatsoever. Even now I have no clue why I suddenly want to look a this closer. But... I will look at this and get back to you. So far I have found this.

One of the marksmen selected to try this was a guy named Howard Donahue. He says that 10 marksmen were selected after given at least 1 test fire. Then they were driven to a range that had a tower at the approximate height as the nest Oswald occupied. They had a car on a track and 3 targets inside. There were also some stakes laid out representing the position of the first clear shot and the last known shot. Each marsman was given 3 attempts to duplicate Oswald. On Donahue's first attpempt the rifle jammed.On his second he only got off two shots because of the sticky bolt issue.The third try, and after the rifle was warm, he managed to get off all 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with a 100% hit rate. Donahue later pioneered the theory that JFK was accidentally killed by a secret service agents .223 M-16 after noticing that the bullet did not exit the body properly.

I am still looking up the other results and tring to find out if anyone had cold bore sucess in the trials.

I have also found a site opporated by a sniper that has a very good article collection on it. One thing I was not aware of is that the scope was unmounted so they could search the rifle for finger prints. That is why it was delivered to the FBI with loose mounts. If that is the case then it illustrates a major problem. It would mean that it is impossible to know the zero of the rifle and it could account for the high and rih results of the FBI shooting tests.

Anyway, I will look more at this tonight.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The Warren report did it twice. Life Magazine did it. The Cronkite NOVA program did it. (I think there are more and I believe that I am correct on these).

Edit adding more:

For the 1975 CBS Special eleven volunteer marksmen (without even dry runs with the Carcano as Oswald surely would have had) had time ranging from 4.1 seconds to slightly more than 6 seconds (average was 5.5 and two out of three hits).

The House Select committee had a reduced time of 3.3 seconds and were hitting all three shots!

Again--this is a non issue.

I am shocked if all this a surprise. Does everyone get their Kennedy info from Oliver Stone's JFK.

By the way, I think have now shown counter evidence to every question brought up int his thread so far.

Lance

Thanks for this Lance. I didn't know that the shots had been recreated this way, which raises the probability that Oswald was able to make the shots alone.
Of course there will always be doubt because one can not deny the difficulty of the shots, but at least this does remove the thought that they were "impossible" as suggested by Jesse Ventura.

 

[Kieran]

I believe differently to other JFK conspiracy theorists. I believe Oswald, maybe, had known about the assassination, before it happened, and he did indeed, as the Warren Commission, have claimed fired his rifle, directionally at Kennedy?

However, that doesn't close the book on this event, for me. The second shot that fatally wounded Kennedy, for me, that shot could only have been fired by someone firing from a right angle / meaning there was a second shooter in Dallas that fateful day.

Anyway I don't know if Oswald could have hit Kennedy, twice with the rifle, he was using that day. But after Watching the Zapruder film a numbers of time now. Here is my personal take on it.

We can debate, all day and all night, were the "FIRST" that hit Kennedy came from, to the right or from behind? In my opinion is looks to me like it was shot taken from just behind Kennedy.

Now Oswald might have been using a shitty rifle, but that doesn't mean he could not have hit Kennedy at least once, "the first shot is always the best one as they say!!

I can't tell from watching the Zapruder film, how many bullets was fired at Kennedy, that day? The Warren report, I believe claims three bullets were fired at Kennedy, by Oswald only. The gap between the first, and second shot, was somewhere between 4 to 5 seconds, the third shot not sure about.

If this bullet had come from the 6th floor of Texas Book Despository?

Well how fast, would the second bullet have been traveling from behind, before it hit Kennedy?

Shouldn't this be considered crucial? Remember that second shot hit the back of Presidents Kennedy's, head first, then decided to turn right, or do something inside the skull area, which caused the right side, of President Kennedy's brain to explode.

From the video Lance posted*

A distance of 88 yards, has been given between the, Texas Book Despository, and the Presidents limousine.

My argument would be one would expect to see noticeable damage, to the back of Presidents Kennedy's head, if the second bullet had been fired from behind, but what do we see with the Zapruder film, well nothing!!! Know clear or visible sign, from the Zapruder film of Kennedy having been hit by a bullet from behind the second time!! The Zapruder Film shows the complete opposite guys and girls, it shows all damage to the brain of Kennedy, having happened on his right side, which clearly is an obvious sign the bullet was fired from the right.

I have to be contempatuous to the official version of events, not just because of that alone, but also how Kennedy reacted to the second shot. His body moved back again, and more to the left, that should not have happened.

His head should have moved forward with a backhead shot, and if the bullet caused the right side of his brain to explode, the violent nature of this would, have surely forced his head forward, and to the right, but magically it forced his head more to the left again. Something doesn't add up there for me!

Here is the Bell Film of the Assassination of JFK. Observe were the Eyewitnesses run to, there going to Grassy Knoll, were some of the people present that day believed the shots came from!!

​http://youtu.be/AhmeQicc6YE

​

 

[Kieran]

Hi Kieran,

Just to clear a few things up:

The current thinking is like this:

1st shot - Miss (injured bystander with debris)
2nd shot Neck & connellly
3rd shot Head

The total estimated tine available is more like 8 secs.

And with respect, you telling me what you would expect to see is not of particular interest in the face of multiple re-creations that show that the skull WOULD have moved backwards.


Thanks

Lance

One could claim the first shot was missed by Oswald, and obviously like a bystander, was injured, but we can't say for sure Oswald, missed with his first shot, and that more shots were not fired and missed, but your fully entitled to believe the official version of what happened, if you choose to.

All we can say for sure is Kennedy, was hit one time, and then a second time, two bullets everything after that is open to speculation.

It just amazing to me how the first bullet, that hit Kennedy came from behind, it left Kennedy, forward, as one would expect, and hit Connelly, but did the completely opposite thing, for the second shot, that too allegedly came from behind!

Well I don't count the first shot out of three. You count from when Kennedy is hit, first time, there is then a gap of 4to 5 seconds bang again he is hit again second time.,

1-2 Around 4to 5 seconds timed / 2-3 probably the same again. So eight 8 to 9 seconds is probably right. You have eight.

​Examples of this please Lance. Video reconstructions doesn't cut it with me, like what is showing in the last video you posted, doesn't prove anything it just a computer model.

​

 

[stphrz]

Ok. After reading through this thread I'm actually starting to get a bit angry. Until now, I thought most conspiracy theorists were just off center but basically honest folks who were unsatisfied with what they percieved as the official story. I though they were just kinda nutty and mostly harmless.

It's more than that now. There seems to be some dishonesty at work. They state "facts" that are not facts. "The shots were impossible" (they weren't) "The building wasn't damaged" (it was). When you confront them with facts, they evade and shift the goalposts. They besmirch the names of individuals both living and dead with very little evidence (if any) and even less care.

Like other posters in this thread, I have actually found myself being taken in somewhat by their claims. I sometimes would find myself thinking "Yeah, what about that? That does seem a little suspicious" Then someone comes along with facts and once again I'm brought back to realizing just how little is behind every conspiracy theory ever.

Freedom of speech protects what they have to say. But now I realize they need to be challenged, because if they go unchallenged they can do harm.

So, the next time a parroter of non facts calls me a sheep/sheeple and tells me I'm incapable of independent or critical thought, I'm just going to tell them to shove it.

During the show, Mr. Ventura said a lot of things. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. Overall I found him likable. Now I realize he also said things that were untrue. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance rather than any attempt to deceive. However, I have reason now to like him less.

Thanks Lance and Ron.

 

[pixelsmith]

Now I realize he also said things that were untrue.

what was untrue?

 

[stphrz]

Kieran,

@stphrz:

Conspiracy theories are very interesting as a sociological matter. People seem to need them as they need religion. It can make you angry to see they way the buffs work. Basically the main method is to find things to pick at in an explanation (you didn't take account of the wind, Oswald's rifle had a bad scope, etc. etc.) but rarely do they offer up their own tests and explanations. In the end you have to realize that for some folks, no answer will ever be good enough unless it embraces the preconceived notion of the conspiracy. Interest in the paranormal follows along the same lines, I think.

Lance

I agree, although I think mere interest in the paranormal is a different kind of thing. I'm not talking about all the government coverups and stuff like that. That's more conspiracy. I'm talking about just the wonder about it. It's my belief that some people have had genuine experiences that defy what we know of reality. I don't claim to know the source of those experiences. I'm suspicious of any authoritative claims in the matter. However, I do find the overall mythology interesting and the study of it potentially valuable.

Will we find something that is "not us" behind any of it? Don't know. If we don't I'm prepared to accept it.