Kennedy Assassination theory that actually makes some sense

[mistermack]

A documentary on channel five last night about the Kennedy Assassination was quite surprising.
It's based on a book that came out in 1992 with a new theory (then) of what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Err ... Killed_JFK

That wikipedia page doesn't give much of the story, but I found the channel five documentary quite interesting, quite convincing, and certainly not full of the usual conspiracy bullshit.

The essence of the argument was that there WAS a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but that he fired two shots, not three, as has been normally thought, and that the third shot was let off accidentally by a secret service agent, as he pulled an AR15 from the floor of the following car, to respond to the first two shots.

I'm not posting this to say I'm convinced, but just to put it up for discussion, to see what others think.

The bits of information that I find strongest are

1) The entry wound to JFK's head was measured at the autopsy as 6mm, but the bullets from Oswald's gun were 6.5 mm.
If the autopsy was correct, the bullet could NOT have come from Oswald's gun.
2) The first bullet that hit JFK, the ''magic'' bullet, passed through his neck, damaged one or two vertebrae, then hit the governor in front, smashed one of his ribs, smashed his hand, I think, and ended up in his leg, still in one piece.
The second bullet that hit JFK in the head exploded into bits, and blew a seven inch hole in the top of his skull, with bits of bone and brain flying everywhere.
If they had been the same bullets from the same gun, the second shot should have drilled a clean hole straight through his head, with a small exit wound. They concluded on the documentary that the second bullet was a hollow point bullet, designed to cause maximum damage, and that it came from the AR15 that was accidentally fired.

3) Ten or eleven reliable witnesses testified that they smelt gunpowder at ground level after the shooting. Seven of them were secret service agents, you would think they would know. Oswald was a long way away, high up, with the wind blowing away from the witnesses. They couldn't possibly have smelt HIS gunsmoke.

Obviously, there was a lot of other stuff in the documentary. It's worth watching. It will probably get on youtube. I don't understand how this didn't get more publicity when the book came out in 1992. At first sight, it's quite convincing.

[klr]

Channel 5? That makes Channel 4 look positively conservative.

Re the AR-15: That's hardly a new theory AFAIK. I love how all these programs present a theory as if it's new.

The chances of someone in a vehicle some distance away letting off a shot that hit the President square in the head would have been extremely low. Unless of course this was supposed to be deliberate ...

[klr]

A quick search on Google shows that none of the big media players will touch this story, which has been in the public domain for months. Hardly scientific. I know.

[mistermack]

Channel 5? That makes Channel 4 look positively conservative.

Re the AR-15: That's hardly a new theory AFAIK. I love how all these programs present a theory as if it's new.

The chances of someone in a vehicle some distance away letting off a shot that hit the President square in the head would have been extremely low. Unless of course this was supposed to be deliberate ...

No, it's from the 1992 book. Although I've never heard it before. They didn't present it as if it was new.
I agree the odds of hitting him by accident are low. But the cars were very close together, and the agent Hickey was clearly pictured standing up in the car, with the gun in his hands. He was also seen holding it by the people in the car behind. Looking at the video, he was about twenty feet from Kennedy. Not much more. If someone let off a gun accidentally twenty feet from me, I'd think myself lucky I wasn't hit, even though it would have been odds against.

A lot of people expressed doubt originally that Oswald could have got the three shots off in just over five seconds. But two shots would have been much more doable.

[HomerJay]

I don't understand how this didn't get more publicity when the book came out in 1992. At first sight, it's quite convincing.[/color]

Hickey sued and Menninger bravely waited until he was dead before filming his theory.

Hickey supposedly confirmed the day after the assassination that he hadn't fired, so you'd think that would be easy for someone to check his gun.

[klr]

Channel 5? That makes Channel 4 look positively conservative.

Re the AR-15: That's hardly a new theory AFAIK. I love how all these programs present a theory as if it's new.

The chances of someone in a vehicle some distance away letting off a shot that hit the President square in the head would have been extremely low. Unless of course this was supposed to be deliberate ...

No, it's from the 1992 book. Although I've never heard it before. They didn't present it as if it was new.
I agree the odds of hitting him by accident are low. But the cars were very close together, and the agent Hickey was clearly pictured standing up in the car, with the gun in his hands. He was also seen holding it by the people in the car behind. Looking at the video, he was about twenty feet from Kennedy. Not much more. If someone let off a gun accidentally twenty feet from me, I'd think myself lucky I wasn't hit, even though it would have been odds against.

A lot of people expressed doubt originally that Oswald could have got the three shots off in just over five seconds. But two shots would have been much more doable.

A very good BBC documentary a few years ago showed someone doing just that, from the same position, with the same type of rifle.

So many things smell about the AR-15 theory, including whether or not someone on close security detail for the president would be armed with a relatively new type of weapon that they had not been thoroughly trained in. Even 50 years ago, protocol and standards in these matters would have been very strict.

[mistermack]

I don't understand how this didn't get more publicity when the book came out in 1992. At first sight, it's quite convincing.[/color]

Hickey sued and Menninger bravely waited until he was dead before filming his theory.

Hickey supposedly confirmed the day after the assassination that he hadn't fired, so you'd think that would be easy for someone to check his gun.

Not if they didn't WANT to check it. I think if it did happen that way, Hickey might not have known straight away that the bullet hit Kennedy. If it was an accidental discharge, he wouldn't have been aiming it.
The rifle was on the floor of the car, and he grabbed it to respond to the shots coming from behind.

Hickey didn't sue for two years after the book came out. Why not? And eventually he lost, because of the delay.
Then he did sue when the paperback came out, but dropped it for an undisclosed confidential settlement. That could mean anything. It's a bit suspicious that he didn't sue straight away. He might have been waiting to see if anyone else would come forward, and say that they saw his gun go off. After two years, he gets confident enough to sue, but then it's too late.

[mistermack]

A very good BBC documentary a few years ago showed someone doing just that, from the same position, with the same type of rifle.

Yes, I saw that. It can be done. But it's very rushed. And there's a big difference between getting the shots off, and actually hitting with two out of three.

So many things smell about the AR-15 theory, including whether or not someone on close security detail for the president would be armed with a relatively new type of weapon that they had not been thoroughly trained in. Even 50 years ago, protocol and standards in these matters would have been very strict.

It's on record that the gun was there. He was photographed standing up in the car, with the gun in his hands. Other secret service people testified that the gun was there, and a senator ( I think ) in the following car testified that he had the gun in his hands. There's not room for doubt that the gun WAS there.

Hickey himself testified that he picked the gun up from the floor, but he said that he did that as he passed under the underpass, whereas the other witnesses said that they saw it in his hands just after the shooting, which the photo also confirms.

Anyway, it's the bullet that exploded that needs explaining. How can one bullet pass through two men, hitting various vertabrae and ribs and wrist bones on the way, and end up virtually unmarked, when the next one passes through a thin bit of skull, make a hole smaller than it's own diameter, and explodes into bits within a few centimeters of doing so?
It's impossible, if it was the same bullet as the first one.

[Seth]

I don't understand how this didn't get more publicity when the book came out in 1992. At first sight, it's quite convincing.[/color]

Hickey sued and Menninger bravely waited until he was dead before filming his theory.

Hickey supposedly confirmed the day after the assassination that he hadn't fired, so you'd think that would be easy for someone to check his gun.

Gun went missing, and the Secret Service didn't WANT to check it because they desperately wanted to cover up the gross mistake. Of ever theory I've ever heard this is by far and away the most plausible, and the evidence laid out in the book and the documentary are very compelling, logical and rational, and that's based on my experience as a police officer.

And yes, Hickey sued, but the case went nowhere because the publisher of the book withdrew it, likely under strong pressure from the powers that be. It's unsurprising that Menninger would wait, but he did, as I recall, attempt to contact Hickey and told him about the documentary but was stonewalled.

As for Hickey "confirming" that he didn't fire, would you admit you killed the President of the United States by accident if you had the entire Secret Service helping you to cover it up?

Not that it really matters anymore, but I find the theory quite compelling. Certainly more so than any other.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to argue that Oswald fired all three shots has to explain the exploding bullet of the headshot, and the fact of the too-small entry wound.
I'm willing to bet you could re-create that shot a hundred times, with a bullet from Oswald's rifle, and not get that result.

[FBM]

I find it hard to imagine an entry wound in pliable flesh that could be measured to within 0.5mm accuracy. Once the projectile passes through, the tissue will close up a bit behind it. And if the first bullet didn't directly hit bone, it's reasonable that it didn't fragment. Furthermore, a bullet doesn't have to be a hollowpoint to shatter upon impact with a skull. Those parts seem kinda weak to me.

[Seth]

I find it hard to imagine an entry wound in pliable flesh that could be measured to within 0.5mm accuracy. Once the projectile passes through, the tissue will close up a bit behind it. And if the first bullet didn't directly hit bone, it's reasonable that it didn't fragment. Furthermore, a bullet doesn't have to be a hollowpoint to shatter upon impact with a skull. Those parts seem kinda weak to me.

The entry wound of the third and fatal shot was measured in the skull bone of the President at the autopsy, not the soft tissue, and the Oswald bullet recovered from Connoly would not have fit the hole, being a 6.5mm round, but a .223 (5.56mm) round would. It's pretty simple. It explains why the President's brain went missing and was later given to the Kennedy family without it being forensically analyzed. The belief is that such an analysis would reveal frangible bullet fragments in the brain matter, which would conclusively prove that Oswald, who was shooting round-nose solid jacketed bullets capable of piercing two different people with minimal deformation as demonstrated by the second shot that hit Kennedy and Connoly, did not fire the instantly-fatal brain shot.

[FBM]

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

It's a compelling theory.

[mistermack]

As far as I'm concerned, the Warren Commission was a joke.

The Texas Governor, John Connally, who was shot by the ''magic'' bullet that traveled through Kennedy, stated that he was absolutely certain that he heard the first shot, and was hit by the second one.
He said that there was no doubt whatsoever. And yet, the Warren Commission concluded that he was wrong, and that he was hit by the first shot. Even though other witnesses also testified that they saw the first shot bounce off the pavement, making sparks.
It's pretty obvious that Warren et al were just trying to make the facts fit a story, and ignoring the ones that didn't.

I do wonder about the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby now. If the secret service had been thinking of covering up their own cock-up, Oswald was a problem. He could later admit to firing only two bullets, and missing with the first.
I can't see how they could persuade Jack Ruby to do it, though. But it was very convenient for them, if they were covering up an accidental shooting of a president.