I have far less free time right now than I have had recently - thankfully - so I admit I just haven't looked through hours of video. But I did look through some. I had a number of responses to what I did see and realized this would devolve into a multi-thousand word ping pong match like other threads have. That sort of thing will convince no one and will bore the passingly interested.
I don't want to lose sight of the fact that a human being has his brains blown out, another grievously injured, a uniformed police officer murdered and unfortunately that's easy to do.
To tie this into other things we post about there are similarities. In many iconic cases we are here decades after the event and there are those who seize upon details and create a story line or theory out of them for their own purposes, which tend to attract followers. Even after the s**t's come out in the wash there are those who cling to their belief in the face of evidence that says otherwise. Kind of like finding out that Roger Patterson was out actually looking for Bigfoot to make a buck for his family before he died or that photo of Travis Walton holding up a check for some kind of UFO contest (thanks Creepy Green Light), or finding out that there really was a lighthouse flashing it's light in the Rendlesham Forest and the local cops knew it. Yada yada yada.
Not in this case obviously, and not in the case of 9/11 - which bears many of the same conspiracy flags.
But I do see authors and lecturers, attention seekers and those with some tangential involvement talking about trees, smoke, cigarette butts, blurry pictures and making references to specifics about firearms all trying to come to a specific conclusion. Details molded to fit a theory - which incidentally sells a book or fills an auditorium.
You know what three letter agency I really believe is behind all this? Not the FBI or CIA although they absolutely play a part. In fact Oswald probably
did kill Kennedy by himself and
CYA was at the beating heart of the conspiracy. Have a look at this short article from 25 years ago that I think probably cuts to the chase:
FBI'S HASTE SOWED SEEDS OF SUSPICION
If you have to bet on either complicated-whatever or simple cover-your-ass-because-you-f****d-up-big-time I bet on the latter every time. Could the Russians have whispered "
kill him" in Oswald's ear? Yup. Did CSI cordon off the area and properly account for the the spent rifle brass? Nope. No such thing at that time and the evidence wasn't handled in a fashion even close to current standards. Doesn't mean the Dallas PD was incompetent or wrong it just means it was 1963, and if you look into the specifics the Chief of Police had his own ego and agenda as did J.Edgar Hoover which benefited only the CYA.
As to the specifics about the shooting - well, if you want to accept eyewitness testimony from those who saw smoke on the Grassy Knoll OK. If you want to make hay out of a Secret Service agent wagging around what was an advanced and uncommon weapon for the era, OK too. But the Warren Commission addressed many of the details regarding the witnesses, number of shots, angles, damage done by bullets, paraffin testing - to me - a man who has more than a passing knowledge of the topic - it sounds reasonable. If they got some of the details confused or wrong because of the chaos that reigned at the time I don't dismiss the conclusion or look for a different answer.
Warren Commission Report: Table of Contents
I have an interest in the technical side of the shooting. Yes, they can absolutely can identify a specific firearm by examining the cartridge cases and spent bullets. You would be very surprised to see that some spent bullets appear brand new, with rifling marks, no matter
what they have passed through - which can be a considerable amount of material - or sometimes in what direction they travel. Got literally shot in the leg once by a highly unlikely ricochet and understand
that at a visceral level. It didn't break the skin. It did hurt a
LOT. In other instances, even into the same materials at the same time bullets and bullet jackets can fragment or even disintegrate. I have no problem with a single bullet theory passing through two men nor do I find it a stretch of the imagination that two shots from less than 100 yards from that old rifle at that angle could have done the damage seen.
I've also fired my fair share of .223 and 5.56/45 - not the exact same thing - one of which that AR rifle used. IMO at the range indicated, a matter of a very few yards, there would have been far less of JFK's head available for autopsy and Jackie would have needed a squeegee and sponge to collect it off the trunk.
Bolt faces, extractors, ejectors and firing pins also leave identifiable marks easily seen with a magnifying glass - of which the FBI had no lack. Dents in cases were likely a result of hitting the mount for the crappy scope or lip of the chamber, or even the floor. Bolt rifles depend upon how hard the human operates it. I lovingly extract the brass from my rifles because I want to preserve it for reloading - if I were fighting off zombies it would be a different story. Even with semi-auto rifles where that isn't a factor the case markings vary. Again, there are other marks and indicators that very much do matter and those are the ones the FBI used to match the weapon known to be in Oswald's possession. And yes, two cases, three, one fully loaded - chalk it up to human crapulence and CYA - and lack of CSI. Two shots were enough to get the job done.
Sorry to drone on a thousand words (which I had hoped to avoid) . I was going to post some pics of extractors, firing pins, cases - and will if anyone cares - but have my doubts at this point.