JF : The Smoking Gun (of a US Secret Service agent) (2 Viewers)

The Military Workshop

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
4,778
Have been reading reviews about this (one from The Australian is below) and book in last few weeks. The author/researcher is a former Australian detective and interesting to note Australia watching before USA.

Smoking gun refers to the gun of a Secret Service agent in Kennedy's protection detail. It is claimed that he discharged his firearm by mistake just after Oswald shot and his bullet hit JFK's head. No surprise this would be covered up if true.

It is on SBS at 8.30pm tonight for those in Australia. I will be watching.

I remember where I was when the news came through. On a beach in Aden.
Brett

Reviewed as follows :


MANY of us have that lurking, nagging feeling that something important is being kept secret, that things are going on behind our backs; otherwise why would conspiracy theories be laid out so confidently and so sensationally?

Is it just possible that the paranoia behind our obsessions with political assassinations, gender and race relations, stalkers and hackers, mind control, bureaucracies and the power of corporations and governments is based on something tangible?

I'm always amazed at the amount of work that goes into the creation of these theories, whether it's the way governments are covering up the evidence of UFOs or the deeply held notion that mass school shootings in the US are part of a government hoax aimed at taking away people's guns.

The "who shot JKF?" conspiracies are still virulent as the 50th anniversary of his shooting approaches this month. Be assured though: it's possible JFK: The Smoking Gun, a quite mesmerising, shocking documentary film airing this week on SBS, will lay much intrigue to rest. It certainly convinced me, for the moment anyway, at least until the next incontrovertible theory surfaces.

The film is the culmination of celebrated former detective Colin McLaren's four-year investigation into what he calls "the holy grail of conspiracy theories", a monster of a cold case, and "the perfect example of a riddle wrapped in an enigma and shrouded in mystery". He's so right. Through five decades it's been like watching one of those mesmerising genre overlap TV shows: The X Files mixed with The Outer Limits, The Twilight Zone and Altered States, all of which dealt with varying degrees of conspiracy, science and the occult.

The shooting, on a perfect Texan autumn day in 1963, was arguably the most tragic event of its kind, leading to more conjecture than any other public death in our time. Was it Lee Harvey Oswald alone, the Cubans, the mob, the Soviets, a UFO, the cartel of international bankers and industrialists known as the Illuminati, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Richard Nixon, or the jealous boyfriend of one of Jack Kennedy's many conquests?

Something else happened, too, when Oswald fired that Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle bearing serial number C2766 from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building. Out of a pervasive distrust of government authorities to tell the truth, a sense of unease about the way law-abiding rank-and-file Americans were - and still are - being played for suckers by unaccountable and unseen powers began to seep into popular culture.

Ever since the demise of the 35th US president, as writer Wallace Baine suggested recently, the notion that clandestine forces sabotage democracy through covert, government-sanctioned violence has been an abiding trope of crime novels, films and TV series.

When it comes to popular culture, we all take for granted the idea that the world works the way it does just to serve the forces of conservative big business; perhaps it has something to do with a despondent sense of a looming dystopian future of diminished resources, global warming and increasing terrorism. What if it turned out to have no basis in fact whatsoever?

JFK: The Smoking Gun is produced by Australia's Cordell Jigsaw Zapruder and Canada's Muse Entertainment, and is an intriguing co-production between SBS, Discovery Channel Canada and US cable channel Reelz. It will have you debating forensics, ballistics and methods of detection for weeks. (During that time, to help your deliberations, SBS is presenting a series of films on the Kennedys, including One PM Central Standard Time, a doco about the moment Walter Cronkite announced the news of JFK's assassination.)

McLaren, a veteran Australian homicide detective, spent 4 1/2 years on his own cold case forensic investigation of the assassination. His inquiries mark the first and only time a qualified homicide detective has carefully analysed the complete catalogue of evidence and testimony surrounding the shooting.

He's sanguine, committed and insistent, and easily reminds one of the great fictional cold case detectives such as Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch, a tough cop haunted by all the cases he failed to solve, by every killer or rapist he failed to catch. McLaren's presentational style is unassuming, eschewing showiness; his only purpose is to communicate and explain. ("It's all about having the patience of a spider," he says.)

What is so gripping, just as in fictional crime, are the procedures of policing: routine interrogation, painstaking scrutiny of bureaucratic records, legwork, the use of witnesses and, especially, serendipitous trial and error. Not that there's much of that, though there's a lot of empathy at work. (Like McLaren, I've also stood in the window of the Texas School Book Depository from where Oswald took his shots at the passing motorcade at that extreme angle, and thought: "No way." You instantly become part of the scene, measuring angles, computing probabilities, identifying with the victims and feeling your way into the strange character of the gunman.)

McLaren's investigation, in fact, parallels and shadows that of Howard Donahue, a Baltimore gunsmith, marksman and firearms expert who spent 25 years conducting his own inquiry into Kennedy's death. With Bonar Menninger, a Kansas City journalist, he published the book Mortal Error: The Shot that Killed JFK about his research and findings.

Menninger followed up on Donahue's work, verified Donahue's sources and evidence, and is a key witness in McLaren's investigation. "My reaction to reading Mortal Error was profound and it was one of the finest, if not the finest, true-crime book I've ever read," he says in the film. "His ballistics are outstanding, faultless and beautifully explained. It actually made me want to jump in with Donahue at some point in my future and help him out."

Donahue examined the ballistic and forensic evidence, including the trajectories and performance of the bullets fired, and concluded that the shot that struck Kennedy in the head did not come from Oswald but from a second shooter. Despite criticism, Donahue held firmly to his views, repeating his findings to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 and holding to them until his death in 1999.

McLaren focused strictly on the available crime scene evidence, including the full range of witness statements taken at the time of the shooting. He had at his disposal witness testimonies and autopsy reports that had been locked away by the US government but released during Bill Clinton's presidency.

He discovered detailed explanations of how it appeared certain JFK was hit by two distinct types of bullets fired from two different angles, as well as explosive evidence from key medical witnesses who participated in the autopsy but who were forced to sign oaths of silence - and who finally decided, decades later, to speak the truth of what they saw.

The Smoking Gun sees McLaren using ballistics, forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts and buried testimonies to conclude that the fatal gunshot came from a Secret Service agent riding in the car behind the president.

McLaren also reveals the Secret Service cover-up that followed JFK's assassination, using exhibits and interviews that have been previously hidden. And, as McLaren says in his just published book of the same title, what's so fascinating for the dedicated cop show fan or true TV crime nut is not so much the idea that the JFK murder is the ultimate whodunnit, it is the inside look at the way investigators get it wrong.

Tunnel vision, lack of resources, poor crime scene management, jumping the gun and playing to the media were all ticked off by the Dallas boys, McLaren discovered, leaving many stones unturned and so many avenues unvisited. "It was always going to be a crime to attract the crazies."

So McLaren's documentary convincingly purports to reveal what really happened that day: that there was a second shooter who fired his weapon accidentally and who was really responsible for the fatal shot to Kennedy - and subsequently one of the greatest cover-ups in American history.

This will really get the conspiracy buffs going, especially when it's released in the US, just after it airs here.

The film unfolds smoothly, reminding me of the historical thrillers of American author Ace Atkins, a brilliant writer I've just discovered, who uses characters from his country's true crime history to tell fictionalised stories of the best and worst of morality, and the ambiguity in between.

There are enough characters and intriguing situations in McLaren's work to fill several novels - "It's a lot like a Hollywood synopsis for a screenplay," he says - but here it's all real, the many enactments staged with just the right sense of late-50s noir.

It is engrossing and emphatic TV, stylishly directed by Malcolm McDonald, who knows all the ruses of the contemporary TV doco.

But will McLaren's exemplary detective work relieve the shadow of doubt that many of us had to live under for five decades?

Probably not. We have to have someone else to symbolically blame for our own predicaments, someone out there who is out to get us. Nothing happens randomly after all, does it?
 
Certainly very interesting. SPOILER ALERT DONT READ BELOW IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WATCH YOURSELF.

The core of the case is based on forensics by a US gun expert called Howard Donohue. He was one of a group of marksmen used by CBS in mid 60's to recreate the three shots fired by Oswald in less than 6 seconds. He was the only marksman who could fire the 3 rounds and hit a moving target (11 mph) from same distance and height in less than the 6 seconds. Using same type of gun and ammo he was able to do it but only on his third attempt which made him doubt it was possible.

After that Donohue spent 25 years examining the forensics and came up with theory about George Hockey, agent in car behind president, accidentally discharging his AR15. He published a book called Mortal Error about it.

Three bullets. Suggests 1st from Oswald missed, 2nd from Oswald went through Kennedy and into Governor. Agents bullet hollow point type hence the serious damage.

Documentary also covers a lot to do with autopsy and pressure Dr's were under. 30 people in the room but all photos taken and notes by FBI agents never seen again etc. All sworn to secrecy and guy who x-rayed the brain told to make a false x-ray (he revealed this in testimony in 1997).

Did not mention if anybody present during autopsy was still alive and would be interested to know answer to that.

A number of witness statements taken by Dallas Police mentioned smell of gunpowder at street level and also witnesses saying an agent had AR15 (there is a photo) with one saying thought agent firing back. Documentary suggests there were some questions the Warren Commission did not want to look into. Suggests Arlen Specter assistant counsel for the commission may have deliberately not called some witnesses or asked certain questions (he died a year ago). However also says in those days no computers so hard to make all the connections on certain points that can be done easily now in comparing witness evidence.

Not mentioned in the documentary but a review mentioned the impact at the time if it had come out that the bullet that blew out most of the Presidents brain was caused by one of his own agents.

Basically they had a shooter and a weapon and the shooter died soon after. The documentary looks at some of the actions by the Secret Service and gives a pretty good reason why they would be keen to lay it all on Oswald.

I found it pretty convincing.
Brett
 
Certainly very interesting. SPOILER ALERT DONT READ BELOW IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WATCH YOURSELF.

The core of the case is based on forensics by a US gun expert called Howard Donohue. He was one of a group of marksmen used by CBS in mid 60's to recreate the three shots fired by Oswald in less than 6 seconds. He was the only marksman who could fire the 3 rounds and hit a moving target (11 mph) from same distance and height in less than the 6 seconds. Using same type of gun and ammo he was able to do it but only on his third attempt which made him doubt it was possible.

After that Donohue spent 25 years examining the forensics and came up with theory about George Hockey, agent in car behind president, accidentally discharging his AR15. He published a book called Mortal Error about it.

Three bullets. Suggests 1st from Oswald missed, 2nd from Oswald went through Kennedy and into Governor. Agents bullet hollow point type hence the serious damage.

Documentary also covers a lot to do with autopsy and pressure Dr's were under. 30 people in the room but all photos taken and notes by FBI agents never seen again etc. All sworn to secrecy and guy who x-rayed the brain told to make a false x-ray (he revealed this in testimony in 1997).

Did not mention if anybody present during autopsy was still alive and would be interested to know answer to that.

A number of witness statements taken by Dallas Police mentioned smell of gunpowder at street level and also witnesses saying an agent had AR15 (there is a photo) with one saying thought agent firing back. Documentary suggests there were some questions the Warren Commission did not want to look into. Suggests Arlen Specter assistant counsel for the commission may have deliberately not called some witnesses or asked certain questions (he died a year ago). However also says in those days no computers so hard to make all the connections on certain points that can be done easily now in comparing witness evidence.

Not mentioned in the documentary but a review mentioned the impact at the time if it had come out that the bullet that blew out most of the Presidents brain was caused by one of his own agents.

Basically they had a shooter and a weapon and the shooter died soon after. The documentary looks at some of the actions by the Secret Service and gives a pretty good reason why they would be keen to lay it all on Oswald.

I found it pretty convincing.
Brett
JFK killed by Friendly Fire ?....sounds reasonable, the Yanks are good at that....makes more sense than some of the theory's doing the rounds....Will we ever know the TRUTH about who shot JFK ?...I doubt it.....cheers TomB
 
Even as far out as most JFK conspiracy theories are, this one is an outlier. The original author of this book was sued by the Secret Service agent who he alleged fired the shot and received a settlement. Gary Mack, the curator of the 6th floor museum, has pointed out there are films which prove the SS agent was not in a position to fire the shot at the time JFK was struck. It is a complete and outrageous slander. The only reason to run such a baseless show is 1) the SS agent is now dead and can't sue them; 2) it appeals to the Bigfoot/UFO crowd which apparently draws a lot of ratings. They should be ashamed of themselves for running such a slanderous program.
 
I remember where I was when the news came through. On a beach in Aden.
Brett

Years ago research over a period of years was conducted (probably some Uni people with government funding) which investigated the belief that everyone can remember where they were when the heard the news. They found that people's memories altered quite a bit over the passage of what I recall may have been five years between interviews. Are you sure it wasn't a rainforest in South America? A mountain in Scotland?
 
Even as far out as most JFK conspiracy theories are, this one is an outlier. The original author of this book was sued by the Secret Service agent who he alleged fired the shot and received a settlement. Gary Mack, the curator of the 6th floor museum, has pointed out there are films which prove the SS agent was not in a position to fire the shot at the time JFK was struck. It is a complete and outrageous slander. The only reason to run such a baseless show is 1) the SS agent is now dead and can't sue them; 2) it appeals to the Bigfoot/UFO crowd which apparently draws a lot of ratings. They should be ashamed of themselves for running such a slanderous program.



People have pretty much made up their minds when it comes to this event. I read the summary of the program and found many of the claims interesting and based on the scant information included I could see that there is an appeal to the story. But nothing will ever convince me that it was anything other than a lone gunman. There might be a thousand little details with minor errors but the general truth of the event has been established. It is like the Princess Di stories - beautiful, successful people do not die without the intervention of unseen, dark forces. Years ago I went to a lecture which discussed how people deny the Holocaust. There are tens of millions of facts. Find errors in one percent of them and you have your 'proof'.
 
People have pretty much made up their minds when it comes to this event. I read the summary of the program and found many of the claims interesting and based on the scant information included I could see that there is an appeal to the story. But nothing will ever convince me that it was anything other than a lone gunman. There might be a thousand little details with minor errors but the general truth of the event has been established. It is like the Princess Di stories - beautiful, successful people do not die without the intervention of unseen, dark forces. Years ago I went to a lecture which discussed how people deny the Holocaust. There are tens of millions of facts. Find errors in one percent of them and you have your 'proof'.

Who really shot J.F.K holds no interest for me, but what's with the new avatar? why a loud mouthed chook? you don't look anything like a chook. :wink2: so far I haven't found an image of Leghorn wearing Doc Martins :rolleyes2: so far.
Wayne.
 
Who really shot J.F.K holds no interest for me, but what's with the new avatar? why a loud mouthed chook? you don't look anything like a chook. :wink2: so far I haven't found an image of Leghorn wearing Doc Martins :rolleyes2: so far.
Wayne.

He is my favourite cartoon character (apart from Daphne on Scooby Doo - long story!) and I feel he shows off my quirky/boyishly charming side to better effect.
 
I understand it is on TV tonight in the USA.

Throughout the show it gives the appropriate witness statements / Warren Commission evidence references. There were a few witness comments raised that I have found intriguing enough that I will be looking for what they actually said in full (I presume all online).

In relation to Hickey (not Hockey) it is true he took the publishers to court. In the show it indicates his first attempt was initiated 3 years after publication of the book (1992). The show suggests this is strange in itself (ie. why wait so long to start) and the case for defamation was turned down by the court as it was out of time. This is true. However from looking at references to the defamation case online (Google Mortal Error) Hickeys lawyers indicated he was very ill and his family expected to him to die. The show suggests the publisher later settled because could not afford to keep paying legal fees to defend the action. He actually died in 2005. Would be interesting to know if Hickey ever gave an interview after publication of the book. I am guessing he did not otherwise would be a reference to it with the other references I found.

The documentary does not look at Oswald other than the aspect of him being able to fire 3 rounds in less than 6 seconds with a WW2 bolt action rifle at a vehicle moving away from him. If he was the only shooter it was incredible marksmanship. Does anyone know of other attempts to recreate the shots other than the CBS footage shown ?

As we all know there are many theories and this particular one explains better than most (to me anyway) why there were a number of anomalies afterwards. However one of the major problems with the JFK case is that wherever you look there are inconsistencies and somebody who saw or said something different.

Incidentally heard a USA JFK commentator on radio this morning and he debunked the show. He was Jeff Morley from jfkfacts.org and a critique of the shows theory is here http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/gladwells-folly-did-a-secret-service-man-shoot-jfk/#more-5625

Has raised my interest in the case enough that I will go back and read the other JFK thread.

Whether you believe this theory or not it is interesting viewing.

Regards
Brett
 
I understand it is on TV tonight in the USA.

Throughout the show it gives the appropriate witness statements / Warren Commission evidence references. There were a few witness comments raised that I have found intriguing enough that I will be looking for what they actually said in full (I presume all online).

In relation to Hickey (not Hockey) it is true he took the publishers to court. In the show it indicates his first attempt was initiated 3 years after publication of the book (1992). The show suggests this is strange in itself (ie. why wait so long to start) and the case for defamation was turned down by the court as it was out of time. This is true. However from looking at references to the defamation case online (Google Mortal Error) Hickeys lawyers indicated he was very ill and his family expected to him to die. The show suggests the publisher later settled because could not afford to keep paying legal fees to defend the action. He actually died in 2005. Would be interesting to know if Hickey ever gave an interview after publication of the book. I am guessing he did not otherwise would be a reference to it with the other references I found.

The documentary does not look at Oswald other than the aspect of him being able to fire 3 rounds in less than 6 seconds with a WW2 bolt action rifle at a vehicle moving away from him. If he was the only shooter it was incredible marksmanship. Does anyone know of other attempts to recreate the shots other than the CBS footage shown ?

As we all know there are many theories and this particular one explains better than most (to me anyway) why there were a number of anomalies afterwards. However one of the major problems with the JFK case is that wherever you look there are inconsistencies and somebody who saw or said something different.

Incidentally heard a USA JFK commentator on radio this morning and he debunked the show. He was Jeff Morley from jfkfacts.org and a critique of the shows theory is here http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/gladwells-folly-did-a-secret-service-man-shoot-jfk/#more-5625

Has raised my interest in the case enough that I will go back and read the other JFK thread.

Whether you believe this theory or not it is interesting viewing.

Regards
Brett

In the Bronson film of the assassination, Hickey can be seen still seated in the follow up car at the time JFK was struck in the head. Gary Mack pointed this out to the publisher of the book and they ignored it. That means in order for Hickey to have fired the head shot he would have to have fired through the windshield of the SS car. We know this didn't happen. And what are the odds that of all the people in Dealey Plaza that a random shot would strike JFK square in the head? It can be ruled out with 100% certainty. There are some oddities in this case, but the basic evidence is overwhelming against Oswald. His gun, his bullets, his prints, his nutty background including attempting the assassination of another public figure. His actions both before and after the assassination can only be explained as those of a guilty person. They include fleeing the scene of the crime within three minutes and shooting a police officer less than an hour later. The best books on the case are "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (a shorter version was released as "Four Days in November") and "With Malice" by Dale Myers. Although the Myers book is focused on the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit it is the definitive work on that much ignored crime committed by Oswald about 45 minutes after the assassination. It was out print for many years but recently published by Oak Cliff Press: http://www.oakcliffpress.com/
 
In the Bronson film of the assassination, Hickey can be seen still seated in the follow up car at the time JFK was struck in the head. Gary Mack pointed this out to the publisher of the book and they ignored it. That means in order for Hickey to have fired the head shot he would have to have fired through the windshield of the SS car. We know this didn't happen. And what are the odds that of all the people in Dealey Plaza that a random shot would strike JFK square in the head? It can be ruled out with 100% certainty. There are some oddities in this case, but the basic evidence is overwhelming against Oswald. His gun, his bullets, his prints, his nutty background including attempting the assassination of another public figure. His actions both before and after the assassination can only be explained as those of a guilty person. They include fleeing the scene of the crime within three minutes and shooting a police officer less than an hour later. The best books on the case are "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (a shorter version was released as "Four Days in November") and "With Malice" by Dale Myers. Although the Myers book is focused on the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit it is the definitive work on that much ignored crime committed by Oswald about 45 minutes after the assassination. It was out print for many years but recently published by Oak Cliff Press: http://www.oakcliffpress.com/

Some good points. Not seen the Bronson film but I agree about the windscreen aspect as was one of things I thought about when saw the following agent car. One of the problems with so many aspects of the JFK tragedy is that people can interpret the same event in so many ways. The shows theory was that Hickey was an inexperienced agent who should not normally have been handling the AR15. He, the shows suggests, jumped up after first shot and accidentally discharged and fell down. However if standing up would be above windscreen level (how does that affect trajectory ? - and so it goes). Unfortunately the high level of anomalies about autopsy (missing photos, FBI records) and X ray guy claiming he was told to fake an X ray with bullet fragments (he was not called before the Warren Commission after discussions with Specter) just adds fuel to the fire.

When you say Oswalds gun/bullets the show basically purports to show forensics reveal two different types of bullet used and this then becomes why the autopsy anomalies become so important. Show does not absolve Oswald in any way of his guilt.

Did see a comment online where Gov Connally was quoted as saying he thought a rifle at ground level was involved. Texas Senator Yarborough a former WW2 LTCOL with a lot of shooting experience, who was riding in one of the cars behind, was one of the witnesses who smelt gunpowder at street level and there were others (11 I think).

I doubt it was but it would have been very interesting if Warren Commission had filmed all witness evidence. The show mentioned evidence by Hickey, the head of the detail and head of the Secret Service and that in relation to the AR15 there were variations of evidence given. That was a point I found interesting and is the one I will see if I can find their actual evidence. A written transcript of evidence is not quite the same as seeing witnesses on the stand and how they react to a difficult question. It seems there were some different answers about the AR15 and that has me wondering about the detail of that.

Can understand why it is such a fascinating case and why some have spent years looking into it.

Brett
 
Some good points. Not seen the Bronson film but I agree about the windscreen aspect as was one of things I thought about when saw the following agent car. One of the problems with so many aspects of the JFK tragedy is that people can interpret the same event in so many ways. The shows theory was that Hickey was an inexperienced agent who should not normally have been handling the AR15. He, the shows suggests, jumped up after first shot and accidentally discharged and fell down. However if standing up would be above windscreen level (how does that affect trajectory ? - and so it goes). Unfortunately the high level of anomalies about autopsy (missing photos, FBI records) and X ray guy claiming he was told to fake an X ray with bullet fragments (he was not called before the Warren Commission after discussions with Specter) just adds fuel to the fire.

When you say Oswalds gun/bullets the show basically purports to show forensics reveal two different types of bullet used and this then becomes why the autopsy anomalies become so important. Show does not absolve Oswald in any way of his guilt.

Did see a comment online where Gov Connally was quoted as saying he thought a rifle at ground level was involved. Texas Senator Yarborough a former WW2 LTCOL with a lot of shooting experience, who was riding in one of the cars behind, was one of the witnesses who smelt gunpowder at street level and there were others (11 I think).

I doubt it was but it would have been very interesting if Warren Commission had filmed all witness evidence. The show mentioned evidence by Hickey, the head of the detail and head of the Secret Service and that in relation to the AR15 there were variations of evidence given. That was a point I found interesting and is the one I will see if I can find their actual evidence. A written transcript of evidence is not quite the same as seeing witnesses on the stand and how they react to a difficult question. It seems there were some different answers about the AR15 and that has me wondering about the detail of that.

Can understand why it is such a fascinating case and why some have spent years looking into it.

Brett

It's possible to match movements seen in the Bronson film to those of the Zapruder film and determine that Hickey was still seated at the time of the head shot. That has been confirmed by Gary Mack. That rules this theory out for the reasons mentioned. And I did not see it addressed although it is a long standing claim dating back to the lawsuit filed by Hickey. They did spent about ten minutes claiming that the author had somehow disproven the WC's findings on the shot sequence claiming that the WC concluded that the first shot struck JFK in the back. My recollection, however, is that the WC made no finding as to the exact shot sequence (i.e. which of three shots was the missed shot). They left open the possibility that the first shot was a miss as this program suggests is supported by the evidence. So there was no disproving of the WC's shot sequence because they never had one. In addition, they seemed fixated on the 5.3 second timeframe for the three shots. Given that the exact timing of the shot sequence is not known because it's impossible to determine when the missed shot was fired, it is entirely possible that the three shots could have been fired in as much as 10 seconds. That would be plenty of time to fire the three shots and, as the CBS recreation confirms, even if you accept the shorter timeframe it was still possible to fire three shots within that timeframe.
 
It's possible to match movements seen in the Bronson film to those of the Zapruder film and determine that Hickey was still seated at the time of the head shot. That has been confirmed by Gary Mack. That rules this theory out for the reasons mentioned. And I did not see it addressed although it is a long standing claim dating back to the lawsuit filed by Hickey. They did spent about ten minutes claiming that the author had somehow disproven the WC's findings on the shot sequence claiming that the WC concluded that the first shot struck JFK in the back. My recollection, however, is that the WC made no finding as to the exact shot sequence (i.e. which of three shots was the missed shot). They left open the possibility that the first shot was a miss as this program suggests is supported by the evidence. So there was no disproving of the WC's shot sequence because they never had one. In addition, they seemed fixated on the 5.3 second timeframe for the three shots. Given that the exact timing of the shot sequence is not known because it's impossible to determine when the missed shot was fired, it is entirely possible that the three shots could have been fired in as much as 10 seconds. That would be plenty of time to fire the three shots and, as the CBS recreation confirms, even if you accept the shorter timeframe it was still possible to fire three shots within that timeframe.

Thanks for that I will have a look more at Gary Mack / Bronson side of things. jfkfacts.org also might get a few more visits.
 
There are though a few questions concerning the SS protection that for which there are not satisfactory answers. While examining these it should be kept in mind that the standard operating procedures and protocols for this were not something new.

One is why the presidential limo had no SS riders. Another is why the driver did not put his right foot to the foot the second it was clear something was wrong. This he did - after he had slowed the car, and Kennedy's scalp and brain tissue showered the trunk of the vehicle.
 
There are though a few questions concerning the SS protection that for which there are not satisfactory answers. While examining these it should be kept in mind that the standard operating procedures and protocols for this were not something new.

One is why the presidential limo had no SS riders. Another is why the driver did not put his right foot to the foot the second it was clear something was wrong. This he did - after he had slowed the car, and Kennedy's scalp and brain tissue showered the trunk of the vehicle.

JFK had ordered the SS agents not to ride on the back of his car. Even so, Clint Hill can be seen in photos from the Dallas motorcade standing on the back of the car when the he felt the crowd was getting too close. And there were two agents in the front seat including the driver. Secret Service protection of the President was much different in 1963 than it is today. They had significantly fewer agents and resources at that time. Those agents were also older and not as well trained. In addition, they were dealing with a President riding in an open car on a preannounced route. It was a disaster waiting to happen. If not in Dallas, then some other place and time.

I do believe the agents were slow to react to the shots. Most likely from fatigue and lack of training. There is compelling evidence that the first shot occurred shortly after JFK's car turned onto Elm and that this shot missed because of the tree which briefly obscures that portion of the road from Oswald's location. In the Altgens photo, you can clearly see that none of the agents has left the follow up car when JFK is struck in the back much further down Elm (which is likely the second shot). Instead many of the agents are looking back toward the Book Depository trying to identify the source of the noise. That was a fatal mistake. It is their job to protect the President and leave it to law enforcement to determine what is going on. They should have moved toward the President on hearing the first suspicious noise even if turned out to be a car backfire. That delay was the difference between reaching his car before the fatal shot. The driver can also be seen turning toward the rear of the car to ascertain what was going on. That caused the car to briefly slow down. That's something a parent might do to see what their kids are up to, but not what he should have been trained to do which is to get the car out of the line of fire. I don't see anything sinister, though, in the actions of the secret service. More lack of training and a near impossible situation when the shooter knows when and where the President will be in advance. Even today it would be difficult to eliminate a substantial risk if the President rode around in an open car. Which, of course, is why it doesn't happen.
 
It's possible to match movements seen in the Bronson film to those of the Zapruder film and determine that Hickey was still seated at the time of the head shot. That has been confirmed by Gary Mack. That rules this theory out for the reasons mentioned. And I did not see it addressed although it is a long standing claim dating back to the lawsuit filed by Hickey. They did spent about ten minutes claiming that the author had somehow disproven the WC's findings on the shot sequence claiming that the WC concluded that the first shot struck JFK in the back. My recollection, however, is that the WC made no finding as to the exact shot sequence (i.e. which of three shots was the missed shot). They left open the possibility that the first shot was a miss as this program suggests is supported by the evidence. So there was no disproving of the WC's shot sequence because they never had one. In addition, they seemed fixated on the 5.3 second timeframe for the three shots. Given that the exact timing of the shot sequence is not known because it's impossible to determine when the missed shot was fired, it is entirely possible that the three shots could have been fired in as much as 10 seconds. That would be plenty of time to fire the three shots and, as the CBS recreation confirms, even if you accept the shorter timeframe it was still possible to fire three shots within that timeframe.
Just a comment on the 5.3 seconds....very possible to get off 3 shots in that time...but...at a moving tgt from above and the range ? 100 too 300ft ?.....you would need to be a very good marksman.....10 seconds would be more like the time for accurate shooting .....allowing the rifle is ready for action for the first shot...for the second shot you need to work the bolt backwards to eject the spent rd and forward to insert a new rd ...no matter how hard you hold the weapon with your left hand the sight will move away from the tgt...re-aim... allow for the tgt moving and then fire .. 3 shots in 5.3 seconds...that guy must have been a hell of a shot...my opinion only for what it is worth...TomB
 
To me it,s unbelievable that 50 years later some people are still questioning the JFK assasination, that there is some sort of cover up.
In this day and age nothing can be kept a secret. For the U.S. government to keep everyone silent that would have been involved in a cover up is flat out impossible!
I will say this, I did learn there was a witness in Fords Theatre that observed another gunman on the grassy knoll also take a shot at Lincoln. Why has the government kept this a secret for over 100 years?
Gary
 
Just a comment on the 5.3 seconds....very possible to get off 3 shots in that time...but...at a moving tgt from above and the range ? 100 too 300ft ?.....you would need to be a very good marksman.....10 seconds would be more like the time for accurate shooting .....allowing the rifle is ready for action for the first shot...for the second shot you need to work the bolt backwards to eject the spent rd and forward to insert a new rd ...no matter how hard you hold the weapon with your left hand the sight will move away from the tgt...re-aim... allow for the tgt moving and then fire .. 3 shots in 5.3 seconds...that guy must have been a hell of a shot...my opinion only for what it is worth...TomB

The first shot occurs at 0 seconds. So it's really getting off two more shots in the remaining time. No one knows with certainty what the exact timeframe was for the entire shooting. Oswald could have had as long as ten seconds. I believe the longest shot was about 270 feet. Oswald was trained to shoot in the Marines. And he did miss his target on one of the three shots. He was not perfect. Charles Whitman received similar Marine Corps training in the 60's and hit moving people at about five times the distance of Oswald's longest shot. The general consensus appears to be that it would have been a moderately difficult, but entirely possible shot for someone with Oswald's experience with rifles. In fact, Bugliosi argues that Oswald may not have used his scope at all, but used the iron sights as he was taught in the Marines. I doubt that was the case, but it shows that he performed no extraordinary feat in pulling this off. If you ever visit Dealey Plaza you will be amazed at how much it looks the same and how small the area is where this happened.
 
I will agree with Combat in regards to the size of Dealey Plaza. It is a small area, nothing how it looks on film.
We stopped there on the way to the San Antonio Show a few years back. What I thought was haunting were the "X" marks in the street. I assume those were the exact spots where Kennedy was hit.
I was in "study hall" when suddenly over the school intercom they started broadcasting the radio coverage of the shooting.
Gary
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top