I would echo Lou's words, but perhaps somewhat differently, and just pose the question:

Why would anyone take what Oswald said at face value and just say: "Case closed. If he says he didn't do it, he must not have done it."

Hitler promised Chamberlain in 1938 that he wouldn't invade Poland. How did that work out? People say things they don't mean all the time, for any number of reasons and sometimes for no reason at all.

It would be pointless to try figure out the reasons why unreasonable people would do what they do. Even if you got the explanation out of him, it might not make any sense, as with Mark Chapman. Oswald was obsessed with the idea of becoming a well known figure, to the point that upon returning to the United States following his defection to the USSR his first question to his brother Robert was: "where are the reporters?" hoping that a mob of press would be there to ask him why he had returned. According to Robert Oswald, Lee was disappointed to make the realization that nobody cared.

Only six months earlier he had tried to (and came close) to assassinating General Edwin Walker, with the same purpose in mind. The idea that he would martyr a public figure was a thought he had been entertaining for some time.

I don't think the nut fell too far from the tree in the Oswald family. Lee's mother,Marguerite, publicly stated on numerous occasions that her son was an intelligence agent of the American Government,was framed for the JFK hit,and deserved to be buried at Arlington.

In her later years,she would benefit financially from giving paid interviews,and even going so far as to sell her signed expired Driver Licenses and Library cards for up to $200.00.

Supposedly,she would occasionally sell business cards that read "Marguerite Oswald,mother of Lee Harvey Oswald" to tourists in Dealey Plaza for $5.00 apiece.

You sound knowledgeable and I would like to see your reaction to Howard Donahue's theory. He is the only person to duplicate 3 hits on target from the exact spot Oswald was on a moving car duplicating the presidential limo. What is your explanation for the discrepancy in the size of the entry wound which was smaller than the round fired by the Manlichter-Carcano but the same size as the .223 fired by George Dickey? Further, the round fired by Oswald was designed for penetration, while the .223 fired by an AR15 are anti personnel and made for disintegration, like the round the struck Kennedys head. Look at this video.

I am familiar with this theory, but I don't think it's effectively established itself.

I am not an expert in forensics or ballistics so I cannot offer any great expert opinion on the wounds, but I'll give you my best layman's perspective.

As this interviewer asks in the latter part of this interview, I think this theory falls down where Mr. Donahue asserts that a different and smaller scale conspiracy took place - one between all the Secret Service Members present that day - not one of whom will come forward and admit that which should have been obvious to hundreds of eyewitnesses present in Dealey plaza. If some see fit to reject the idea that Oswald could pull of the headshot from his alleged nest in the TSBD, I can't see why there would be more appeal in the idea that a completely unintentional shot just so happened to align perfectly with the President's head by accident while somebody who was actually trying to kill him just a relatively few hundred feet away did not.

The ballistics he uses to back up his theory certainly do sound plausible - but again, I would ask - are they *more* plausible than the Warren Report's version? I'm not so certain. I have been shooting guns for the past 28 years and one thing I know for sure is that you simply cannot ever predict what a bullet will do on impact against much other than a paper target. You can shoot an empty pop can where the bullet goes right through - shoot the same can again where this time it falls over, and shoot it a third time when it propels itself straight up into the air. His opinion on which was the better round to produce the eventual result may be entirely plausible - but the question isn't "which bullet would be the better option for creating this desired result?" The question is "*could* the bullet from the Mannlicher-Caracano have achieved the same result? I am going to say that yes, it could.

A few other thoughts on the topic:

The rifle is often maligned as having been a "cheap" rifle. The problem with this characterization is that the word cheap has a few different nuances. It could mean cheap as in that it is a piece of crap, or it could mean cheap an in that it is inexpensive. The Mannlicher-Caracano was not a top-end sniper rifle; but neither was it a piece of crap either. It was an inexpensive military surplus rifle just as today surplus Russian SKS and other such former military weapons are often cheap to acquire. At the relatively short distance a sniper would have to be successful in making a kill shot from the Texas Schoolbook Depository, a high end rifle would not be required.

The so-called magic bullet theory, also referred to in this video, is a misnomer which appears to be based on an assumption initially made by Jim Garrison that Kennedy and Connally's seats were in alignment - in fact, they were not. The middle jump seat that Connally was seated in was positioned to the left - and three inches lower than Kennedy's. Once the true alignment of the seats is taken into account, the trajectory of Oswald's bullet makes a lot more sense.

Interesting, and I agree with the fact that Mr. Donahue's theory hasn't effectively established itself. However, I would point out that Mr. Donahue was the only other person, using the same exact rifle and ammunition from the same box as Oswald, to duplicate 3 hits on target from TSBD, even though 11 other marksmen attempted the same feat.
Here is a more in depth explanation of Mr. Donahue's theory with supporting facts, interviews and witnessed actions of the Secret Service in taking possession of the president's body and other indicators of a conspiracy to cover up, as is often the case in politics, it's not the crime, it's the cover up.
As far as the rifle goes, I believe that Mr. Donahue's issue is not as much with the rifle but the quality of the scope on it, which is why Oswald missed his 1st shot, which was to the right of the presidential limo and fragmented with a small piece striking the president behind the head, which is when he raises his hand to the back of his head in the Zapgruder film.
I believe Donahue agrees with you about the Magic Bullet. Further, I believe the round fired by the Carcano was designed for penetration at long distance, which would explain its condition after penetrating two victims and still remaining relatively "pristine", I believe there's some questionable Secret Service behavior regarding that bullet, also.
Here's the link to the better Donohue video

CNote,

I appreciate you posting this and I will watch it, although I probably won't have time for it until later in the week or the weekend, so I'll have to get back to you on it, although I'll certainly watch this with interest. I admittedly have spent less time on this theory than the various more salacious ones that are typically offered.

Out of curiosity, are you merely playing the devil's advocate for sake of discussion, or is this theory your favourite?

No, unlike some gadflies in this forum, I prefer to engage in reasonable discussions based on facts and not opinions. Like you, I have always been intrigued by the Kennedy assassination and felt that while there was another shooter, it was not on the grassy knoll. After reading many articles and reports about the assassination, I came across Mr. Donohue and his theory, and after watching this longer documentary came to believe Mr Donohue was correct in his assessment of the ballistics and the behavior of the Secret Service to cover up what transpired that sad day in Dallas. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this discussion with me.

. Thank You for Posting this CNote. As I mentioned in a previous post I’m not a big conspiracy theorist in any way but I’m always intrigued by the JFK assassination and different viewpoints

For me,the most difficult part of accepting the Hickey-as-killer of JFK is that in all of the photos and movies of the assassination,Hickey is never seen holding a rifle prior to the fatal head shot. It is only after that shot that Hickey is seen with his weapon. Even the iconic Dealy Plaza photos taken by Ike Altgens,do not show Hickey with a rifle in his hands until after the fatal shot. All of the ballistic "evidence" and Secret Service coverup conspiracy is moot,since Hickey couldn't have killed JFK with a rifle he wasn't holding.

I appreciate your feedback as a way to determine whether or not Donohue's theory is plausible, which is my ultimate prosecution. This is a summary of the events leading to the accidental shooting of President Kennedy according to Donohue, let me know what you think.
"According to Donahue’s analysis, the shooting unfolded like this: Oswald fired his first shot from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository soon after the motorcade made the turn onto Elm Street. But his scope was not adjusted properly, according to the Warren Commission, and the bullet missed, hitting the pavement behind and to the right of Kennedy’s limousine. Fragments ricocheted up and struck the inside windshield trim. At least two caught the president in the scalp and caused him to cry out, “My God! I’m hit!”

Oswald chambered a second round. This time, he skipped the rifle’s offset-mounted scope and instead drew a bead along the iron sights on top of the barrel. He fired again and the bullet ripped into Kennedy’s upper back, exited his neck and pierced Gov. Connally’s right side.

At this moment, photos from Dealey Plaza show Secret Service Special Agent George W. Hickey Jr. — riding in the left-rear seat of the follow-up car and sitting up high near the trunk deck — already had turned completely around and was looking back toward the book depository. He may well have spotted the barrel of Oswald’s rifle protruding from the sixth-floor window.

So Hickey reached down and grabbed the Colt AR15 select-fire, semi-automatic rifle from the floor of the car and flipped the safety lever off. He started to stand and turn to acquire Oswald’s position and return fire. But the follow-up car braked suddenly to avoid a collision with the presidential limousine and Hickey lost his balance. His finger slipped off the trigger guard and the weapon discharged. The bullet was flying at 3,300 feet-per-second when it slammed into the back of Kennedy’s head, 21 feet away, and disintegrated."
https://mokan9997.medium.com/hidden-in-plain-sight-4761be7b8115

Here's another article that presents some impressive facts supporting Mr. Donahue's theory.
"In Donahue’s first, the rifle jammed. In his second, he had trouble with the sticky bolt mechanism and only got off two shots, both of which hit. The third try was more successful. He was able to fire three shots, all of which hit, in 4.8 seconds. He later found that he was the only one of the eleven marksmen to better the target time. As a result of this test, Donahue was later approached by the editor of True magazine asking if he would write an article supporting the findings of the Warren Commission. He agreed, but asked for a little time to do his own research. And that was how it all started."
https://www.lindastratmann.com/news/26/438/Mortal-Error

I haven't had time to listen to the 2-hr interview yet, although I did read Linda Stratmann's article. Which is very well written.

She makes only passing reference to the shot that injured James Tague on the far side of Dealey Plaza, standing just outside of the underpass between Main and Commerce. Incidentally, standing in the exact spot where Tague was hit in the face with a piece of concrete where it is (generally) presumed that the first bullet hit, if you look from that location back up to the window on the sixth floor of the TSBD, it is an absolutely clear line of sight. If you draw out on a map of Dealey Plaza a line from that spot to the window it would make the most sense that would be the first of Oswald's shots as the presidential limousine would have just passed by the TSBD on Elm Street.

I look forward to the whole interview; it is unfortunate this theory has not received more attention, it is quite a rational one much like pro-conspiracy writer Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas, which even Vincent Bugliosi complimented in Reclaiming History. I think I only first heard it myself within the last ten years and I've been reading about this subject for 25. I would guess that it suffers from not being as outrageous and therefore not as attractive to someone who's confirmation bias is seeking evidence of a true "conspiracy" involving sexier conspirators (the VP, the mob, the Cubans, etc.) but I can easily see why it deserves equal consideration alongside the more "fun" conspiracy theories.

People like eastsideofvan will defend the official stories behind major world-changing events until their very last breath. He wants so badly to believe he wasn't lied to his whole life.

Actually, I was a die-hard believer in the conspiracy for many years. I would say I changed my mind circa 2013-2015.

A perfect example of how it is dangerous to make assumptions complete with a psychological profile of someone you have never met.

In any event, my personality/motivations/beliefs shouldn't be forming part of your argument. What are the facts? What is the smoking gun you are in possession of, and why will you not share it?

Many years ago I bought and read a thick paperback book titled "Contract on America"

It was a very complex and intricate, yet amazing read about the true multifaceted conspiracy to murder JFK, his brother, and many other officials and layman connected in abstract ways with President Kennedy's assassination.

If anyone is truly interested in learning just how widespread and deep this conspiracy was, then I suggest you try a get a copy of it. It is NOT an easy read. But I promise you that you're eyes will be opened in ways you never imagined.

My compliments on your restraint,calm demeanor ,and gentlemanly behavior. Let me just say that if you are actually expecting an intelligent reply to your request for a lucid counter-argument, as opposed to receiving something along the lines of "Nyah-Nyah". then I would suggest that you pursue a more attainable goal,such as explaining gravity to a chicken.

I seriously doubt that. No way he made those shots with that rifle on a moving target. No fucking way

!000% right. Different trajectories, different angles. It defies logic and common sense. I can't believe that in the year 2022 so many people refuse to believe it was a conspiracy when all evidence points that way. We will likely never know who was behind the conspiracy, although its not all that hard to surmise some of the "entities" who had to have collaborated for this to happen. But WTF people.

Here is a photo showing the view from the alleged snipers nest on the sixth floor of the TSBD:

https://www.reddit.com/r/texashisto...ugh_the_window_of_the_texas_school_book/

With apologies, I tried to upload my own photo of this which I took in April of 2016, but this will do.

The first time I saw this, my first visit to the Sixth Floor Museum, was in February of 2011 and that was the beginning of the seeds of doubt that began to sow in my mind, shaking my very firm belief in a conspiracy. Somehow, years of film, various dramatizations and archival footage had led me to believe that this area - Dealey Plaza - would be much bigger than it really was in person. In fact, the alleged kill shot from the window travelled a distance of only 265 feet.

In this photo you can see, although you will have to look closely, a white "X" marked on the centre lane of Elm Street. It's located just to the right of the third lane marker on the left. This marks the site of the fatal headshot, the alleged third of Oswald's shots.

Having fired and owned bolt action rifles since 1994 all I can tell you is that if you say you cannot make this shot at just 81m then you just don't know how to shoot. Every day across this continent, hunters kill deer and moose at distances further than this. Keep in mind that in 1956 Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter with the USMC, successfully hitting his target 48/50 and 49/50 times respectively, at a distance of 200 yards or 183 metres.

The shot from the TSBD is only 81 metres.

I wanted to add that this a must-see in Dallas. And the way they present the exhibit is without any bias as to whether it is a conspiracy or not a conspiracy; they present the facts and let you make up your own mind. I highly recommend it, it's a very impressive exhibit.

Something else to consider is that the Limo was moving at a slow speed in a direct line away from the snipers nest. In essence,this had the same effect as shooting at a stationary target.
For a man with Oswald's experience shooting rifles,the killing was a no-brainer for him.

Actually, it ended up being a no-brains-er for JFK.




Too soon?

Good one !!

The distance is not the issue, I hunt all the time and have made shots that far. But when we shoot deer they are not on the move, we generally don't shoot at them when they're moving. Too much of a chance to miss. To shoot and score hits on a shot like that is tough for even the best snipers who shoot at stationary targets. As I said before there is still too big a risk of missing on a moving target.

Now am I saying it is impossible? No. But with a mail order Italian rifle, on a moving target, and having to shoot "cold" like that it is about impossible on your first try.

Plus why would Ruby want to kill Oswald if Oswald acted alone? Why would anyone need to shut him up if he was just some crazy dude who wanted to pop the president? Makes no sense for him to act alone and pull this off. Alone. I'm generally the last to believe in conspiracy theories but there is no way Oswald done this alone.

I have a tough time arguing with your reply, dixie - for the main reason that that is precisely why I believed in a conspiracy for so long.

My thinking, in a nutshell was this: if you asked an actuary to calculate the odds of a lone assassin killing the president, combined with another crazed assassin killing the original assassin, then compounded it further by having the slain President's brother also assassinated five years later as he was on the cusp of becoming President by yet another crazed lone assassin - what would the odds be? They're be astronomical!

Or would they???

On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, the NYT put out a couple of videos with Josiah Thompson - who book Six Seconds in Dallas, published in 1966 was the first book ever published championing a conspiracy theory. Even Vincent Bugliosi describes it as a "serious, scholarly work." Thompson is pro-conspiracy although he doesn't champion any one theory - just his belief that a conspiracy took place. He made two videos, which I think were both excellent, one which served as a more cautionary tale, regarding the "Umbrella Man" (whose nickname was in fact coined by Thompson himself) and another more general video, both of which links I'll include here for whomever might be interested. The Umbrella Man video delves into the concept that coincidences do indeed occur all the time, which Thompson points out is a recurring theme in quantum mathematics.

"The Umbrella Man" (6.5 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yznRGS9f-jI

"November 22nd, 1963" (13 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ICxqP-t1Ms

Both of these shorts were directed by Errol Morris, filmmaker behind "Fog of War" and other great documentaries. He also did one about famed mob lawyer "Don't Worry Murray" Murray RIchman I believe you can find on YouTube also if you want.

Also: examples of other "unbelievable" coincidences:

https://www.cracked.com/pictofacts-10-29-mind-blowing-coincidences-you-wont-believe-happened

I remember reading somewhere that the CIA actually coined the phrase "conspiracy theorist" back in the 1960s or 70s to shut people up from questioning the "official" version behind planned events.

Let me remind everyone that no one else besides Howard Donahue was able to make the the 3 shots on target in the allotted time frame. Further, it wasn't the quality of the rifle Oswald used, it was the quality of the scope which was of even lower standards than the rifle, Howard Donahue was a far superior marksman than Oswald..
There's another article about an AR15 malfunction called Slam Firing, where a rifle can discharge without a finger ever bring placed on the trigger, my nephew has recounted to me how this happened to him in training on Parris Island. I still don't believe that Oswald was the lone shooter but the conspiracy was to cover up the accident, not to kill the president. The premise that the mob did it is undermined on numerous counts including Jack Ruby's coincidental appearance at the Dallas Courthouse as Oswald was coming out. Ruby's brought his favorite dog with him and it was unlikely he would have brought this dog, if he was planning to kill Oswald.
Here's the link to the slamfire malfunction of the AR15 and how it was never used by the Secret Service again after November 22, 1963.
https://mokan9997.medium.com/hidden-in-plain-sight-4761be7b8115

To me, the Donahue theory makes the perfect sense. Keep in mind Oswald went one for two. He didn't get three shots off. His round that hit, went in and through. The ar round caused the brain explosion.

You are referring to the report mentioned in this article: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/a341c089

As the article explains, the term conspiracy theorist predates this report by at least 100 years; in fact it had popular utility in the early 1900's when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was released.

The CIA memo you are referring to was publicly released in 1998, and you can read in its entirety here: "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" (1967)
https://conspiracy-theories.eu/countering-criticism-of-the-warren-report-psych-1967/

Interestingly, the term "conspiracy theorist" is only mentioned once, in plural form.

This is the problem with making your argument based on "I remember reading some time ago" or "my friend told me" or "I saw on Facebook"... lazy conspiracy theorists take a kernel of truth (the fact the memo exists) and blow it up out of proportion, often without having read it themselves. It is unfortunate because it detracts from the conspiracy theorists who ask real questions which everybody should be trying to answer.

I always was frustrated wanting to talk seriously about these issues with conspiracy theorists who just haven't done the research. I remember referring to the 9/11 report when this guy starts ranting about "why would I read that?? it's all lies anyway." But of course, if you haven't read it, how would you know? People reject the "mainstream" story right on the face of it, because they are unwilling to be open to what's in it - in other words, they've already made up their mind and they do not require any more information, other than "supporting information" which their confirmation bias will allow.

I actually have tremendous respect for conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible, researched, reasoned theories. Thompson's work is fantastic and from my brief exposure to Mr. Donahue here he would appear to be immersed in fact-based arguments.

The reality is that conspiracies DO happen - and we KNOW this because of proven conspiracies such as Watergate. The Mafia itself was one of the most vast conspiracies that ever existed; the fact that it did with thousands of members and it took the government 30 years to admit its' existence is simply incredible. So, if we know that conspiracies do actually happen, then there is an important role to play in asking tough questions. Asking uninformed questions however based on half-truths and misinformation simply muddies the water and gets everybody nowhere.

I've heard the official 911 story over and over again as it's been rammed down my throat, over and over again, and I can tell you that the official version is what sounds like more of a conspiracy theory to me. Take off your coat of blind patriotism that you so strongly cling to and wake up to the truth, which is that we've been lied to about everything.

Dude...I'm not even American. Remember what I said about assumptions?