These posts are complete nonsense, but I'm not going to point out why. Do your own work.

Again, I would encourage everyone to do some research combined with just a tad bit of critical thinking. You might be surprised at what you find.

You sure make a lot of posts in this thread for someone unwilling to actually post any argument or reasoning.

That's because I'm not looking to convince anyone of anything by arguing here. Just pointing out ridiculousness when I see it. Sorry you don't approve.

For those interested, I have recommended reading. Judging by a lot of the comments I've seen, most of you aren't interested in that though. You just want to post ignorant arguments. Oh well.

Are you trying to say something?

I find it amusing that similar comments can be found in the flat earth thread.

I'm happy I could amuse you.

FYI I do not think the earth is flat.

Wrong - let me show you how wrong:

At the time of the fatal shot the path of the limo was not yet perpendicular to the likely position of a shooter at the top of the so-called 'Grassy Knoll'.



The distance between this firing position and the target at that point is much shorter as well (less than half that of a shooter from the so-called 'sniper nest') - a definite advantage.

Other than a wooden fence...



Other than a parking lot where a shooter hidden behind the fence could just hop in a car a drive away.



Sounds a bit superior to being trapped on the upper floors of a building surrounded by cops and witnesses.

Yes, unmistakable, which would be a very good explanation for why so many bystanders, including military veterans and police, thought the fatal shot came from there.

Unless there was a car in the parking lot and they drove away.

Also helps if accomplices have very real looking SS credentials to flash and keep people away from the area.

Good post.

There was a tree between the alleged 'sniper's nest' in the TSBD which partially obscured the line of sight from that position.

The Dallas Police took this photo which would show the view of the limo at the moment it was thought the first shot was taken.

Here's a photo from the day of the assassination which might help determine its size and the state of its foliage.



As the limo moved down the slope and away, the trajectory from that position would clear the tree.

You keep talking about target range. This is a secondary factor for the ranges involved.

~~~

Shooting from behind the fence on the GK would be a poor choice for a sniper. The access and cover provided is really not suitable.

Why is cover important?

Because the shooter needs a considerable amount of time to make the shot happen.

-- He has to arrive, with the rifle (or place the rifle in advance) undetected or at least without suspicion.

-- He has to take time to setup (perhaps assemble) his rifle/firearm.

-- He needs a suitable rest location to properly shoot from. This rest may need some adjustment (in real time) or otherwise the shooter may need time to figure out how to suitably use it. This means putting the rifle up in the shooting position for some period of time, risking discovery.

-- He needs to be relatively sure he will not be discovered while he prepares to take the shot. He cannot be looking over his shoulder while he's trying to setup. A spotter can help here, certainly, but this also means more people who risk discovery.

-- His timing needs to be coordinated with the parade procession. Otherwise, he risks arriving too early and being discovered.

-- His shooting needs to be obscured from observers and bystanders. This is a detail that GK proponents always try to (must?) minimize, and yet it is a critical part. The few dozen people in the photo in post #209 in this thread would have made no mistake at all if a shot was actually fired from the GK area. They would have been able to see the shooter, and the rifle, using the fence as a rest, immediately and clearly. (And, no, a "silencer" would not have helped in this case.)

-- He now needs time to encase or otherwise conceal the rifle and begin to egress the location. Remember though that he just fired, and many observers heads would have snapped around to look in the direction of the shot they heard. So he'd be trying to do this with many eyes directly on him.

Conspiracy theories generally ignore the considerable requirement of time that a shooter needs to get set for a shot like this.

~~~

Access is much too open to bystanders and potential interferers. Yes, the shooter needs access for himself. But he also needs that access to be denied to others. Simply having a spotter there with a badge to tell people to scram wouldn't cut it, and in fact, this would have drawn attention to the shooter instead of the desired concealment.

~~~

The shooter would also have to have considered that there is no cover at all from the parking lot side of the fence. Further, this area was uncontrolled, and access to bystanders and interferes was open.

The "expert shooter" that is claimed by GK proponents would have considered all of this in advance and most likely eliminated this area as a potential location.

The evidence indicates otherwise:

The best part though is that GK proponents ignore the fact that Zapruder himself, and his secretary Sitzman, were standing on a platform with a commanding view to the location behind the fence. Had a shot been fired, both would have immediately known it (even a suppressed shot), and literally could have filmed the shooter.

He was about 30 yards away from that area. A rifle shot, even a suppressed one, would have been unmistakable to him.

Zapruder's testimony that he assumed shots came from behind him is entirely a reflection of his own viewing of his movie. He even states this is so as he notes his assumption of where the shots came from is due to his perception of how JFK's head/body react to the shots.

Go to a local gun club some time and stand 30 yards from the firing line and listen while folks shoot various rifles. Its just not realistic that witnesses would not have been 100% certain if shots were coming from the GK.

Certainly it is a factor (even if, as you try to claim, it is 'secondary').

Anyone who has either fired a weapon at a a target or is in possession of common sense, knows it is easier to hit a given target if it is closer than if it is farther away.

By access do you mean ability to get to the place? How hard do you think it is to walk up to a fence?

You think a fence affords less cover than standing in an open window?

Yes, this would make problems if Oswald was the shooter, since he was working up until a few minutes before the assassination.

All good reasons not to try and conduct a sniper operation in a busy work space.

The TSBD would, on your own reasoning, be one of the worst places for a sniper to shoot from.

That might be true, if not for a Presidential motorcade distracting everyone's attention. How many seconds would it take to duck behind cover? Certainly only a few seconds if more than one, meanwhile onlookers might take several seconds to orient themselves to look in an entirely new direction.

The problem with would-be debunkers (aside for being ill-informed) is that they don't apply any critical thinking before declaring their 'theories' to be the one and only truth.

If there were a fence -as there was - that would tend to interfere with visual observation from all the people on the other side.

Yes, a very good reason not to try and assemble your rifle, construct a 'sniper nest' and all the other stuff you mention on your lunch break where anyone could walk in on you at any time.

As has been demonstrated, even by your own reasoning the 'Grassy Knoll' would provide ample access, cover, and ease of escape.

Aside from this, since a sniper demands so much time, much more likely someone who wasn't working until the last minute to have done the shooting.

This is a good explanation why police and bystanders identified the GK as the location where the fatal shot came from.

As you say, it is not realistic to suppose they were all wrong.

The TSBD was open for business, lots of people worked there - so as far as an alleged shooter from there access is uncontrolled, access by witness and interferers was just as open.

Taking into consideration all your points, it would appear that the 'Grassy Knoll' is superior to the TSBD in every way.

Easy to get in, easy to escape, concealed from onlookers, closer to target, and all the time in the world to set up your shot.

Lots of posts Proudfootz... all easily refuted by:

Your logic is unbelievably flawed, Lapidator. Also, this is literally the first time in my life I've heard someone try to argue that the GK wasn't the perfect spot to take a shot. I've personally talked to three expert shooters and they all said, without hesitation, that the GK would be where they would choose to be if they could select a spot. That's just me personally, you can find much more about this subject online. A couple questions:

Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?

Are you an experienced marksman?

My credentials are unverifiable in a chatroom so they are of no value.

Readers can take my comments as they are presented.

I don't care about verification....

I'm assuming you haven't been to DP? What the heck are you basing your posts on then?

When I visited, there was a lady there, probably from the exact same spot, who was literally yelling "Do they think we're idiots?!?!? There is no way one person could have shot him!!!"

I personally thought that it looked like a tough shot, but someone who knew what they were doing could make it. But I don't know anything about shooting rifles.

As for the Dal-Tex building.

I agree it seems like a good location for a sniper. I'm unaware of any evidence that shooters were actually there though. A few zoomed in photos, and lots of hearsay/speculation is all that seems to be.

Couple of drawbacks of the Dal-Tex building w/r/t the TSBD:

1) The windows on that side of the Dal-Tex building do not provide a view down Houston St. While not a show stopper, the lack of this view makes it much more difficult for a perspective sniper to prepare for the shot. Possible that "fire escape man" was a lookout?

2) The 6th floor of the TSBD was under construction at the time and had piles of books in boxes and other items providing concealment inside the room for a shooter. The Dal-Tex building was comprised of office space, where concealment of a shooter would not have been easy. People were inside the offices and would have heard a gunshot from inside the building, though localizing these may have been difficult or impossible. Gunshots inside the TSBD might have been mistaken for construction noises initially.

It is doubtless though that the Dal-Tex building is a considerably superior location for a shooter then the GK.

I make no claims of expertise. W/r/t my comments, "Take it or leave it."

But...

... is very revealing.

The question I would pose:

Is there evidence (e.g. alibi or physics) that proves LHO could not have been the lone shooter?

I am not aware of any such evidence.

There are lots of unexplained things about the JFK assassination. But there is no evidence that LHO could not have done it (alone).

(And no, I'm not asking anyone to "prove a negative".)

I would ask these expert shooters to consider the view of the GK/fence area from the parking lot side.

I would ask these expert shooters to comment on how they would conceal their location from incidental discovery by persons in the parking lot or from the railroad tower in the parking lot.

I propose expert shooters would not have looked at the fence and thought this was a good place to shoot from.

Bullet fragments were found that physically came from the rifle that Oswald ordered under the name Alec Hidell. Oswald's palm print was on the rifle, although with a somewhat mucked-up evidentiary chain. The evidence that Oswald was the shooter and shot from the sixth floor of the TSBD is compelling IMO.

That doesn't exclude a second shooter, of course, but I have seen no persuasive evidence of that. The HSCA's conclusion of a fourth shot was based solely on the acoustic evidence, and I have seen no rebuttal to the analysis I linked above.

Is a conspiracy impossible? No. But none of the conspiracy theories hang together.