Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 27 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 26, 2008 6:36:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2008 7:01:21 AM PDT



While looking at some assassination-related documents at the excellent Mary Ferrell website at, I started reading through the original FBI Report (Warren Commission Document #1 [CD 1]; linked above at the top of this post), which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation's initial 5-volume report on the JFK assassination, issued on December 9, 1963, just 17 days after the President's murder in Dallas, Texas.

The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly style.

Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good overview (or "Summary", as it's referred to at the Ferrell website) of the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few (pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous conclusion (revealed on Page 1 of its Report) that each of the three shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated in the Presidential limousine (JFK and Governor John Connally of Texas).

This scenario of having all three shots striking a victim in the car was undoubtedly fueled mainly by the report filed by two of the FBI's agents who were present at President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), a report which stated that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back "did not exit" the body.

This determination reached by the two FBI agents, however, was found to be false via the revised autopsy report signed by all three of JFK's autopsy physicians (which was an autopsy report that the FBI apparently never bothered to read at all):

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." -- EXCERPT FROM JOHN F. KENNEDY'S OFFICIAL NOVEMBER 1963 AUTOPSY REPORT

The FBI, in its Assassination Report of December 1963, decided to rely on the Sibert/O'Neill version of events regarding the President's back wound, rather than the updated/revised autopsy report which was signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck (i.e., the three people at Bethesda who actually performed the post-mortem exam on the late President).

This same reliance on the early incorrect information about a bullet not transiting the back and neck of JFK is also evident in another blatant error made by the FBI concerning which stretcher the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet was discovered on, which is an error that can be found on Page 18 of the FBI Report:

But if the FBI had investigated further, it would have been able to easily verify the fact that the "stretcher bullet" (which was to later be labeled by the Warren Commission as "CE399") could not have possibly come from President Kennedy's hospital stretcher, since the President's stretcher was never located in the area of Parkland Hospital where the bullet was found by hospital employee Darrell Tomlinson prior to 2:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.

The Warren Commission probed further and deeper into the murder of the President and the wounding of Governor Connally throughout the year 1964, with the Commission's investigation, of course, being able to correct the initial mistakes made by the FBI.

In Vincent Bugliosi's comprehensive 2007 book "Reclaiming History", Bugliosi makes the following comments about the FBI's "All Shots Hit Somebody" mistake that surfaces not only in the original FBI Report of 12/9/63, but also in the FBI's 99-page "Supplemental Report" on the assassination, dated January 13, 1964 (which can be located in "Commission Document 107"):


"{The} FBI at first thought that three separate bullets caused the wounds: Though J. Edgar Hoover gave a good explanation in the statement he issued on November 26, 1966, for the error made in the FBI's original report of December 9, 1963, that suggested Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet, the FBI's supplementary report of January 13, 1964, made the same error, only stating it explicitly, not by implication, when it said, "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (CD 107, p.2, January 13, 1964).

"In other words, that bullet could not have gone on to hit Connally. The only explanation for this error being repeated by the FBI in its supplementary report is that whoever prepared the report failed to completely read, or read at all, the autopsy report, which had been received by the FBI at the time of this second report and contained the correct information that the bullet which entered the president's back had, in fact, exited in the front of his throat (CE 387, 16 H 981).

"It should be noted that by the time of the January 13, 1964, report, the FBI lab had examined the president's clothing and discovered what appeared, Hoover said, to be "an exit hole for a projectile" in the FRONT of the shirt "one inch below the collar button," and this finding, in fact, WAS put into the January 13 report to rebut what the autopsy surgeons had orally said on the night of the assassination and to clarify what happened (November 25, 1966, Prepared statement of J. Edgar Hoover, New York Times, November 26, 1966, pp.1, 25; CD 107, p.2).

"So the January 13, 1964, supplementary report is itself internally inconsistent. A further indication that the January 13 report merely repeats, without reflection, the essence of the December 9, 1963, FBI report is that the January 13 report did not concern itself with the autopsy.

"In its sixty-seven pages {not counting "Part 3" of the Report, which was devoted solely to "Supplemental Exhibits"}, the reference to the "medical examination" revealing that the bullet penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length is one of only two sentences making reference to the autopsy (CD 107, pp.2-3, January 13, 1964)." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGE 298 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" ENDNOTES

CD 107:


The original FBI Report is a very interesting document to look through. As mentioned earlier (and despite the few errors that exist in the Report), the December 1963 FBI Report reveals a lot of detailed research surrounding the assassination and information about President Kennedy's murderer, with this research being performed fairly quickly by a (no doubt) large number of FBI agents.

The FBI Report also contains several intriguing photographic exhibits as well, with one such very interesting exhibit appearing on Page 14 of Volume 2 of the Report. It's a picture of Oswald's disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, placed alongside the brown paper bag which was found under the assassin's window in the Book Depository.

As can easily be seen in this FBI exhibit, the lengthiest section of Oswald's rifle, when broken down into pieces, certainly did not exceed the length of the handmade paper sack found in the Sniper's Nest:

The exact same black-and-white photo linked above also appears in the 32-page photo section of Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History". While reading Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding book on the assassination, I had asked myself, "I wonder where Vince got that picture?", because I don't recall having ever seen it prior to seeing it in VB's book. But now I know where he got it -- via "CD 1" [Commission Document #1, Volume 2, Page 14].


[A conspiracy theorist who belongs to the "Anybody But Oswald" club at another forum had the following idiotic things to say in response to the above post of mine regarding the FBI's 12/9/63 Report:]

>>> "Yes....Isn't that a clever deception?? The photo supports Hoover's contention that the rifle could be easily disassembled into just two pieces. The ignorant viewer (like yourself) would think that the rifle could be quickly and easily disassembled into just two pieces and reassembled just as easily. Ol' J. Edna Hoover knew how to fool the uninformed. .... That is a clever, deceptive photo. When a fool looks at it he would think that the bag in the picture was the bag that Oswald carried that morning. But the witnesses who saw the bag that Oswald carried testified repeatedly that the bag was not any longer than 27 inches. The tape measure in the photo shows this fake bag to be 36 inches long. Simple minds are fooled by simple tricks." <<<

[I then responded to the above conspiracy kook with the following Internet message:]

{A certain unnamed kook} can't even get stuff right when there's a PICTURE to help him out.

Firstly, there's no "tape measure" in the FBI [CD 1] photo that I linked at all.

And secondly, the bag was 38 inches long, not "36". So {the unnamed kook} is wrong (as per usual).

The Kook must've thought I was linking to CE1304, which I wasn't. CE1304 does indeed show a tape measure in the picture, and the bag is exactly 38 inches long. The longest rifle section is 34.8 inches:


WR; PAGE 133:

The FBI photo in Volume 2 of "CD 1" is very valuable indeed, in that it shows LHO's dismantled rifle right smack up against the paper bag. And that IS the paper bag with Oswald's 2 prints on it that was found by police in the Sniper's Nest. And that IS Oswald's very own Carcano rifle in the very same photo in CD 1.

Read it (again) and weep :

Try again, {unnamed kook}. Maybe you'll actually LOOK at the posted photograph next time before you race to the computer to type more of your excrement. (But I won't count on it. Because we'll no doubt still get more excrement from you even AFTER looking at the photo shown above.)




In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 1:15:42 AM PDT
simplychic says:
too bad you cant link oswald to the rifle to the shooting OF JFK no prints (v.drain fbi report) none,zilch,nada no palm print nothing FACT Paraffin tests proved oswald didnt fire a rifle FACT TRY AGAIN (GUTLESS LIAR)

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 6:48:17 AM PDT
Hmmm, whom to place the most belief in, David Von Pein or 'simplychic'. It's just too close to call.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 9:23:28 AM PDT

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 11:40:10 AM PDT
Murphy says:
>>>>FACT Paraffin tests proved oswald didnt fire a rifle FACT TRY AGAIN (GUTLESS LIAR) <<<<<<<

LOL, simplychic, do a little research on the parrafin test before you post something so dumb. After a test shooting of LHO's MC rifle, the tester was also administered a parrafin test and, guess what, he tested exacltly the same as LHO, JFK's murderer.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 5:51:41 PM PDT
simplychic says:
SHHHhhh (whispers) DAVE'S having some imaginary friends over for tea.AL,DAVE,STEVE and the other multiple screennames he put up a year or so ago shows what a deluded embarrassment this guy is.So long nutty

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 6:37:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 6:40:11 PM PDT
>>> "After a test shooting of LHO's MC rifle, the tester was also administered a paraffin test and, guess what, he tested exactly the same as LHO, JFK's murderer." <<<

In point of fact, the test (FBI) shooter tested even MORE favorably than that (from the "LNer" POV) -- after firing Oswald's rifle, the FBI test shooter tested negatively EVERYWHERE...on both hands and his cheek. Which proves that the paraffin tests cannot be matter which side of the fence you reside on.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 6:38:28 PM PDT
Oh goodie! Now I'm supposedly about half-a-dozen different people because a nutty kook says so!


Nurse Ratched awaits you (with a net).

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 6:42:33 PM PDT
simplychic says:
nurse ratched awaits you (with a net)

Says the loon who's entire life is devoted to this board proving(in vain) oswalds sole guilt...ha yeah,lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:05:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 8:05:47 PM PDT
Murphy says:
>>>>SHHHhhh (whispers) DAVE'S having some imaginary friends over for tea.AL,DAVE,STEVE and the other multiple screennames he put up a year or so ago shows what a deluded embarrassment this guy is.So long nutty<<<<

Mr SimplyChic,

I think the deluded one is in the mirror staring back at you. You bring insults, David brings facts, as well as a few well earned, on your part, insults.

Come on Man (woman?) put some substance on the Board, you are wasting space.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:16:52 PM PDT
simplychic says:

FACTS?LOL,im Still waiting for you to present FACT one!!But im sorry im not talking to someone who believes the ''umbrella man '' theory, or the ''jackie did it theory'' or hell the ''beatles did it theory''..when you finally talk to someone who KNOWS the case you insult there grammar,call them a kook...because thats all his got.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:26:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 8:40:07 PM PDT
Simplychic thinks "knowing the case" equals making up wholly-unsupportable theories like "2 back wounds to JFK" and "3rd floor of Dal-Tex" contained a gunman.

Incredibly, though, this type of kook actually seems to really think that his/her rantings DON'T deserve to be ridiculed and scorned. All the while the nutcase hides behind a silly username.

Are you sure your name isn't "Robert Caprio" or "Ric Landers", Mrs. simplychic?

Caprio told me this last October---get this kids---"LHO shot no one that day".

It's one of my all-time favorite Kook Quotes....mainly due to the fact it's so utterly insane.

Not that that particular crazy belief is anything NEW or unique in the Kook world of CTers. Not at all -- just look at one of the top Mega-Crackpots of all-time--Jim Garrison. Jimbo believed that "at least five or six shots [were] fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices" (Garrison quote from 1967). And--get this!--NONE of those four or more shooters were using Oswald's gun...even within a "Frame Ozzie" pre-planned plot. (How's that for goofy?)

And, yes, Garrison actually had the 'nads to also say this in 1967 (oh, my weak bladder):

"Shots were fired at Kennedy from the Depository but also from the grassy knoll and
apparently from the Dal-Tex Building as well -- but not one of them was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, and not one of them from his Mannlicher-Carcano. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison

Maybe we could get simplychic to endorse that type of Garrison-esque thinking. What about it "chic"? Make it THAT much easier on me....dive even deeper into the Kook Quicksand by saying that you think Oswald was totally innocent.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:46:29 PM PDT
simplychic says:
deserve to be ridiculed and scorned?

now i know how the guys who KNEW the earth was round felt like.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:54:29 PM PDT
simplychic says:
''TOTALLY innocent''?

lol,your own post shows you have doubts

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 8:58:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 8:59:17 PM PDT
>>> "your own post shows you have doubts." <<<

And just when you think things can't get any kookier ----

They do.


In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 9:10:14 PM PDT
simplychic says:

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 9:18:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 9:19:17 PM PDT

And just when you think the mega-kook can't get any kookier and incoherent ----

He/she does.

Industrial-strength 'El-Oh-El'.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 9:35:42 PM PDT
simplychic says:
And just when you think a guy cant get anymore desperate to avoid the FACTS....he does.NOW its mega-kook..WOW,lol.Im really overwhelmed with the case you presented dave. Your evidence is....''your a mega-kook?...convincing stuff,yeah that will hold up in court.(cue the benny hill theme)

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 9:40:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 9:44:12 PM PDT
I already answered your first stupid question, Mrs. K-word. And very amply answered it. Not my fault you didn't like the answer. No kook like you ever does like the LN answers.

You, "chic", are an embarrassment to all CTers, English teachers, and 4th-graders everywhere.

So what's Question #2?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 10:10:10 PM PDT
simplychic says:

says the guy who's supported by,...well about as many people who believe we didnt land on the moon...umm ok.And sorry actually you DID NOT answer my first question...only speculated (a bogus-losi trademark).

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 10:15:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2008 10:15:36 PM PDT

I already answered your first stupid question, Mrs. K-word. And very amply answered it. Not my fault you didn't like the answer. No kook like you ever does like the LN answers.

You, "chic", are an embarrassment to all CTers, English teachers, and [1st]-graders everywhere.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 10:26:28 PM PDT
simplychic says:
you ''chic'' are an embarrassment....blah,blah,blah.translation: where are all those idiots who believed jackie did it,THE DRIVER did it oohhh no SOMEONE ANYONE HEEEELP?!

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2008 10:45:40 PM PDT
simplychic says:
(tumble weeds blowing past daves keyboard)...bump bump bump...another LN bites the dust..and another one bites,and another one bites another one bites the dust.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2008 1:10:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 23, 2008 1:11:03 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2008 6:48:30 PM PDT
C. Andrews says:
Regarding the brown paper bag Lee Harvey Oswald carried to the Frazier home the morning of 11/22/63 as testified to the Warren Commission by Buell Wesley Frazier and Linny Mae Randle, the following testimony is submitted:
Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did.
Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Linnie Mae Randle:
Mr. Ball: The next morning did you get breakfast for Wesley, you, and your mother?
Mrs. Randle: Yes; mother and my children.
Mr. Ball: And you were packing his lunch, too, were you?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Did you see Lee?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, I did.
Mr. Ball: Where did you see him?
Mrs. Randle: I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.
Mr. Ball: What street did he cross to go over?
Mrs. Randle: He crossed Westbrook.
Mr. Ball: And you saw him walking along, did you?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Was he carrying any package?
Mrs. Randle: Yes; he was.
Mr. Ball: What was he carrying?
Mrs. Randle: He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.
Mr. Ball: Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. Randle: That is right.
Mr. Ball: And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. Randle: No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. Ball: And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: He walked over to your house, did he?
Mrs. Randle: Well, I saw him as he started crossing the street. Where he come from then I couldn't say.
Mr. Ball: You don't know where he went from that?
Mrs. Randle: Where he went?
Mr. Ball: Did you see him go to the car?
Mrs. Randle: Yes.
Mr. Ball: What did he do?
Mrs. Randle: He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.
Mr. Ball: He put the package in the car.
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor but I just know he put it in the back.
Mr. Ball: We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven't you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Was the color of that package in any way similar to the color of this package which is 364?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Similar kind of paper, wasn't it?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs. Randle: Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.
Mr. Ball: How about the width?
Mrs. Randle: The width is about right.
Mr. Ball: The width is about right.
Can you stand up here and show us how he was carrying it. Using this package as an example only?
Mrs. Randle: What he had in there, it looked too long.
Mr. Ball: This looks too long?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.
Mrs. Randle: I would say about like this.
Mr. Ball: You mean from here to here?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr. Ball: This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. Randle: What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. Ball: I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. Randle: A little bit more.
Mr. Ball: A little more than 2 feet.
There is another package here. You remember this was shown you. It is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and remember you were asked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents if this looked like the package; do you remember?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
A few sentances later.....
Mr. Ball: Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs. Randle: This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr. Ball: I believe so, but I am not sure. But let's say it is.
Mrs. Randle: And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr. Ball: Yes.
Mrs. Randle: About this.
Mr. Ball: Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
Mrs. Randle: I measured 27 last time.
Mr. Ball: You measured 27 once before?
Mrs. Randle: Yes, sir.
Again the Warren Commission ignored direct eyewitness testimony that the brown paper bag was no longer than 28 1/2 inches and published the report stating the brown bag was 38 inches long. Wesley Frazier stated that one end of the bag was cupped in his right hand and the other end of the bag was up under his armpit.. They even published a photo of the bag with the disassembled MC in an attempt to support their claim of 38 inches. The only problem is that the brown bag was not found on the sixth floor. No one knows where the bag came from.
Fingerprint were "found" a few days later after an FBI visit to the mortuary. After the FBI left, the owner of the mortuary had to remove the ink from LHO hands, and within another day or so, FBI reports that a print from LHO was found on the MC and on the brown paper bag.. (No fingerprints were found on the 3 hulls found on the sixth floor, or on the clip) The clip was not on the sixth floor when all items were photographed on the sixth floor, minutes after the last shot.
The employee who handled the shipping bench stated that if LHO had used his bench to make the bag, he would have known about. He arrived early and left late. (Typical for shipping clerks) Also the MC was "heavily oiled" yet no gun oil was found on the bag. The source of the fibers "found inside the bag proved inconclusive. The fibers were too common to ID them as coming from LHO.
Other facts about the Mannlicher-Carcano - After the assassination, it was never tested to confirm that it had been recently fired and used to kill JFK. I wonder why??? When the expert marksman were assembled to test the MC in an attempt to recreate Oswald's expert marksmanship, the Mannlicher had to be worked on to get it ready for the test. The telescopic sight was so loose that shims had to be inserted to be able to secure the scope to the rifle. The scope then had to sighted in. The experts found (but not reported by the WC) that they had to lift their heads away from the rear end of the scope to fully operate the bolt. If you did not move your head, the bolt would have hit you in the face. This lengthens the amount of time required to re-acquire the target in the scope. This is the main reason almost all of the experts could not duplicate LHO marksmanship within the six seconds it supposedly took LHO to accomplish the deed.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  8
Total posts:  27
Initial post:  Apr 26, 2008
Latest post:  May 30, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi (Hardcover - May 15, 2007)
3.6 out of 5 stars   (330)