Science, ballistics, trajectory, and common sense proves that Oswald didn't act alone, and he probably wasn't even the shooter.
Given the totality of what I've read on the topic and all of the official secrecy behind the assassination and the investigation (sloppy, rushed, sealed, secret autopsy, destroyed autopsy film, video from many cameras was ruined or scenes edited out, etc.). I've concluded that Oswald definitely did not act alone, and I'm not even certain he was the shooter. I think he was set up either as a decoy to take the fall, or as one of several trigger men. I think that there were other shooters, perhaps in/on other buildings or the grassy knoll or even a ND from the CIA agent in the car behind the President.
Two shooter theory is supported by the rapid succession of shot #2 and #3, which would be quite difficult operating a bolt action. I've also read that Oswald was either a lefty, or left eye dominant. Either way, at under 100 yards on a moving target, we can all agree that open sites would be easier than a scope, particularly on a bolt gun, to make those quick succession shots.
Ground shooter theory is supported by where the shots were heard coming from, and also by the fact that many witnesses smelled gun powder at the ground level, and saw a shooter in the grassy knoll.
One theory is that there was a gunman on a rooftop directly behind the President.
I watched "The Smoking Gun" recently. I was immediately dismissive at the low probability that a CIA negligent discharge would happen, AND the randomness of a headshot.
BUT...The show presented itself and the evidence in such a way that it is the most probable theory I've ever heard. It's based in science and eye-witness accounts. It should be noted this theory was presented decades ago and never gained traction. It's been in magazines and book(s). It's actually hard to refute this theory.
1. Ballistics and trajectory. The angle of a 6th floor shot is wrong and more consistent with a ground level shot, from directly behind. The first hit went at an angle down through his neck, into Connolly's ribs and hand and leg. Downward angle. The headshot was level and blew off the TOP of his head. And the first FMJ bullet found was barely damaged, yet the head shot bullet was fragmented unlike a solid FMJ. This suggests strongly that it was a different shooter, different angle, and different caliber/bullet/rifle.
I know that bullets behave weirdly at times, but this is too much evidence to believe these were the same bullet, rifle, and angle.
2. The investigation was by all accounts horrible and rushed. While I don't know whether the CIA was involved in an assassination, I have no doubt that there was a high level coverup. Tons of very important evidence was ignored, dismissed, or not pursued. Why? And it was convenient that Oswald was allowed to be killed by another highly suspect person, shortly after the fact. They were definitely protecting someone or some organization(s).
I don't have any horse in this race, more just curious about what I think to be other flaws in the theory that Oswald acted alone. This suggests that he was a patsy. The whole thing raises more questions than answers.
It's based on Oswald and the rifle and the plan. These seem to be some of the weakest links factually (not theoretically) in the single shooter theory.
A. Apparently Oswald was a good or fair marksman. But I believe that he would have trained on weapons the Marine Corp were using in 1956 and 1959. I'm thinking he likely would have tested with the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine, no? I've seen his score card, and he scored with these weapons. Perhaps he would have had exposure to the previous bolt US military bolt guns, too? The 1903 or the Eddystone. He was also possibly left handed or left-eye dominant. A bolt action might not be the best choice for him. Final note, his Corp qualification would have been on stationary targets with a semi-auto rifle with much better open sights. Conversely, he had an apparently amazing day on 22 November 1963 with a substandard bolt action rifle (probably the worst rifle of WWII), hitting a moving target with the added stress that cannot be replicated in the Marine Corps training. Also we know that the last time he was definitely 'tested' with a rifle was in 1959. Perhaps he trained or shot between '59 and '63. Perhaps not. He spent a lot of time traveling around the world between the US and Russia in that time. Had a wife and child. I've never read that he spent a lot of time at the rifle ranges or shooting matches.
B. He purchased the Caranco in March '63, just 8 months prior to the assassination and witnesses said he barely shot it. Why would he not get and use a better rifle, or one with which he is more familiar? Why a 35+ year old bolt action for a lefty? Why not a semi-auto M1 Garand or Carbine with many immediate followups? A scope on a moving target 100 yards away is actually a hinderance and open sights on an M1 would be much easier to score multiple hits; fish in a barrel 8 times. Makes zero sense he would pick the rifle he did, especially as a lefty who has qualified expert on the M1 platform.
C. There are real flaws from picking the location, angle of approach vs. escape of the motorcade, etc. that any trained Marine would seem to plan differently. How did he know the President would be exposed? Not shielded by a car roof or CIA agents on the bumpers? Why not shoot him as he's approaching and getting closer, versus driving away (giving you harder shots and more limited time)? A clear frontal shot coming toward you is much easier than a partially concealed shot driving away...
D. It also just seems that the plan for a single shooter leaves a lot to chance and error. Different route, convertible car, speed, direction, misses, etc. It seems much more tactical and strategic to have multiple shooters to get the job done.
E. Probability and likelihood of making the shots. I know that the shots *can* be made and have been replicated. But I also know that many tests presented failures to make these shots. The 1967 CBS tests replicated the range, speed, etc. and had 11 experienced shooters. Whether it is 6 seconds or 9 seconds would make a difference. However, in the test of 6 seconds, most shooters could not replicate it. There were a lot of problems with the rifle. And there was no stress of the assassination, the noise, etc. involved. So in the tests, out of many trained shooters, the successful hit rates were very low. So if you're Oswald going into this, aren't you going to give yourself the best odds of success? Sure, these are POSSIBLE to make, but admittedly far from certain. It just cannot believe that someone would make such a wildly low probability attempt with a rifle that was outdated AT THE TIME...
And regarding the premise that the rifle was a sound, serviceable rifle. I dispute that. I've read that the sights and scope were not dialed in properly. And the Carcano has a poor reputation in general. Also note that in the 1967 CBS test, they had to scrap nearly 1/2 of their trials because of mechanical problems with their test rifle(s). So, hardly a Mauser or K31. By the way, why not, again, use a better quality rifle or one he's accustomed to if he's going to pull off an assassination?
The tests showed that, at 100 yards, the test shots landed within a 3 to 5 inch circle, about 2 ½ to 5 inches high.
Rifle shot 3-5 inches high, and was a 3-5 inch MOA!!! Hardly a good rifle. Imagine trying to hit a moving target with that blunderbuss! No way! Makes zero sense to be trained on ABC and then go use XYZ in the Super Bowl of shooting matches... And if that's the case, for him to have hit Kennedy's neck on the first shot, he would have to have been aiming for the trunk of the moving car. Nope. I don't buy it.
A note on the recreations. Some shooters are able to recreate, others not so much. But I don't think any recreation of just the logistics is a fair comparison. There must be some added level of stress involved to make it fair. For instance, take the example of a field goal kicker in football. Pro kickers can hit 70 yard field goals in practice and routinely do. But the record is, I think, around 63 yards during live play. Why? Stress, pressure, and quickness. It does make a difference. None of these tests can replicate it. They could implement some serious physical exertion to get the heart rate up, sweat dripping down the forehead into the eyes, sweaty palms and shaky arms, heart beating 80 beats per minute... I'm not aware of any replication that has incorporated this into the test. I'd like to see that done.
And then he had no plan after-the-fact. He was found just loitering around the area. No bags packed. No escape plan. No airline ticket anywhere. He went home and then was found walking in plain view down his street by a cop. Then he just went and sat in a movie theater without even buying a ticket to lay low...
It should be noted that a lot of witnesses said they thought the shots came from the grassy knoll, and up to 11 shots fired. And others said they smelled gun powder at the ground level. Probably unlikely to smell it if the only shots were from the 6th floor.
Anyway, I've always thought that the technical aspects were some of the weakest points of the explanation of who and what was used and where the shots were fired from.
If not the M1 line, what would have been the better rifle options to ensure higher degree of success in 1963?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F....sination_rifle
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-har...n-sharpshooter
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/5725882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
The Commission and investigators failed to get dozens of witnesses on record and didn't even bother calling many key witnesses to testify. Why?
There are tons of videos showing all parts of the parade, yet just a couple poor videos of the actual assassination, and those were tampered with. Where are all of the official videos of the route. A big mystery as to what happened to all of those videos of the entire route except the last turn onto the Daly Plaza.
And regarding pictures, I am not even convinced that is a legit picture of Oswald holding the rifle in the famous 'backyard' picture. Look at the shadowing. His shadow is casting back and hard left. Yet the other shadows of items are back and hard right. This is a 1963 photoshop if you ask me. A total con on the American people.
Doubt many people here are going to walk in to a high stress situation, with a racing heart rate and sweaty palms, with a 3-5 MOA bolt gun, and score 2 out of 3 hits, including a neck and headshot, on a moving target from 100-150 yards. Can it be done? Sure. But it is so improbable that it is insulting in my opinion that the American people were fed this big lie. The whole thing just stinks like a huge conspiracy coverup. Why is it so secret? Very little of the official Warren Commission report is believable, plausible, or even reasonable in my view. It was a rushed job given to a relatively accepting and uniformed public in the 1960s. It was on par with what you might expect from maybe middleschool kids today. By todays standards of ballistics, tactics, medical science, and investigative measures and interviews, it's a joke. And the conclusions are a total farce that just don't add up or make sense.
