With an inferior gun and further distance, and with a moving target.
shareLee harvey oswald was a marine.
I don't even think this retard fired a shot, the clintons usually hire experts, but a 1/5th of an inch away wasn't that bad.
Oswald was a highly trained soldier and operative. The movie JFK tried to claim he was a lousy shot but that was probably only compared to their most elite snipers.
If this guy Crooks had actually thought about what he was doing, then he would've taken a proper rifle course and practiced for a long time firing 1000s of shots, starting with targets at short range first before going back further and further, to the point where he could hit Trump between the eyes.
I think even a trainee sniper could've taken Trump out in his sleep.
Good points. Whats your theory about it all then?
shareA theory from me is that in both Crooks' and Oswald's cases they wanted to be big shots in a world that had left them behind and took an opportunity when it presented itself. Under the bizarre situation here it could even be that Crooks was suicidal.
shareAbout LHO or Crooks?
If it's LHO, it's a mystery. The movie JFK was one of my all time favourites, until I found out a lot of it was fabricated for entertainment. Who knows if he acted alone, but it will forever be the number one conspiracy of all time.
For Crooks, he sounds like a kid who grew up isolated and adrift of everybody and everything, you can tell that just by looking at his picture, and wanted to do something that he could be remembered by. At least he didn't take his deficiencies out on his classmates like a lot of rejects do. But he failed miserably.
There is evidence that he was in contact with DC before the shooting, and the gear he had including explosives and the tech required to operate it did not come from Amazon- it was provided by whoever his contact was. You may have Crooks motivation nailed here but there are disturbing details.
Also in a post a little lower down I linked a video that lays out the facts of the JFK assassination with multiple interviews- I strongly recommend it.
I didn't know there was a conspiracy with this guy Crooks. That's pretty interesting.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I was 100% convinced that Oswald was not alone, as Oliver Stone's movie was pretty convincing especially the final summation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btXP-dCU5PA
Stone's film was rather stupid. It was for the most part, a work of fiction. About the only things Stone got right was that JFK was shot, Garrison framed Clay Shaw for it, then the jury took under an hour to completely reject Garrison's case. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/home.htm
The clip from JFK is a real turkey.
Can we see the evidence that you have found to be so convincing?
Why do you think Crooks' improvised explosives could not have come from Amazon? They supply lots of interesting stuff. The last two ar-15's I built were from parts sold on Amazon.
The Men Who Killed Kennedy? Who are you kidding? That show was crap.
but it will forever be the number one conspiracy of all time.
https://youtu.be/FsvJzfXZI18?si=TW6naRUgNRAO2s4P
shareThe first comment, "Ree Tardy Oswald" hahah holy shit. I didn't know they were calling the shooter that.
shareCrooks was a good enough shot, if Trump did not move his head he would have been dead.
And from what media reported so far he trained at a local shooting range, so has been preparing for a while.
That's true.
I think a more dedicated shooter would've waited until they knew they could make the hit 100%. The video linked above states that had Trump not turned his head, the bullet would've hit the very back edge of his skull - which means his aim was still slightly off. It wasn't a dead center aim. They also say a better marksmen would've aimed for his center mass instead.
He was at the right side of Trump, aiming at the head I think was the best. It is not like he can aim at his heart, his arm was in the way.
share"They also say a better marksmen would've aimed for his center mass instead."
That's nonsense, though, here is why.
The idea of shooting for center mass is to maximize the chance to hit. In the context of a military conflict, there is no need to actually kill the target, you just need to hit it. A wounded combatant is a bigger burden to his squad than a dead one anyways.
However, this was an assassination attempt. The idea was to kill. A chest shot with a .223/5.56 is not necessarily a kill shot, especially if it isn't the heart or aorta that's hit/destroyed. A lung shot takes time to kill and with medical staff present, no dice.
The only real option is a headshot, period.
I'd also like to add that ANY sort of marksman would have made that shot work out. A "better marksman" going for center mass would make no sense. How is he the better marksman if he doesn't have the skill to hit a stationary head sized target at < 200 yards with a modern rifle and cartridge that shoots straight as an arrow at that distance?
He also got thrown off his game, and had to rush his shot, due to the local cop climbing up on the roof and confronting him.
shareYeah, that was reported: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51ydg792ggo
The article also has a very interesting timeline:
Around 17:11: local officers spot Crooks and notify other law enforcement but then lose track of him, according to briefings between police and lawmakersshare
17:45: A counter sniper officer calls in with a report and a photo of a man - who turned out to be Crooks - acting suspiciously around a building near the rally, according to local media reports
17:52: US Secret Service become aware of a suspicious person with a rangefinder on the ground, according to sources familiar with the briefing to lawmakers
18:03: Trump begins speaking at the rally
Around 18:09: Rallygoers spot Crooks on the roof and attempt to tell law enforcement
18:11: Crooks opens fire. He is fatally shot by Secret Service counter snipers 26 seconds later
"Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting. In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter.[21] In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.[21][41]
Oswald was court-martialed after he accidentally shot himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 caliber handgun.
He was court-martialed a second time for fighting with the sergeant he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned.
Oswald was later punished for a third incident: while he was on a night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.[42]"
It now seems this Crooks guy wasn't evem a member of the school's shooting club.
And after all that, and with additional activities in Cuba and Mexico and the USSR, Oswald was still only 24 when he died.
shareWhen did he go to Cuba and Mexico???
shareIt's in JFK, but I know most of that is fiction.
shareStone used a lot of creative license in that film. It made for great entertainment though. It’s probably the fastest moving 3 hour movie you could watch.
shareAs mentioned, he did got to Mexico City to try and get a visa for Cuba and the SU, but Stone's movie is almost completely fiction.
shareHe tried to get into Cuba. He went to Mexico City but the Cuban Embassy there refused him a visa. He attempted to get assistance from the Soviet Embassy to convince the Cubans to let him in, but with no success.
Oswald thought he could become an asset to Cuban intelligence. But being rebuffed (though some say not discouraged by Cuban officials to do what he had allegedly threatened to do, kill Kennedy) sent him into a downward spiral.
Yes, I do remember the short trip to Mexico City to try and get a visa for Cuba as well as the SU. As for any other activities there or in Cuba as suggested in the movie, yeah, I don't think so. Not sure what the OP's point was with that. I thought they were perhaps referring to some kind of training.
shareLHO did not shoot JFK- he left it to a string of more capable shooters which increased the chances of a hit many times over. Please watch this extensive but fairly comprehensive film.
https://youtu.be/G0XNiu-yutk?si=AVQQRg62NJmNHXX7
Except for the physical evidence. Sure.
shareoswald was a pretty good shot.
"[question]Describe Lee Harvey Oswald’s shooting ability.[/question]
Just three weeks after joining the Marines, he’s trained in the use of an M-l rifle. He shoots on a rifle range [a score of] 212, which means he qualified for the second-highest position in the Marine Corps, that of a sharpshooter.
Near the end of his stay in the Marines in 1959, after being court-martialed twice and his morale was low, he went back to re-qualify himself in the range — still shot a 191, and still qualified as a marksman. That meant that he could hit a 10-inch target eight times out of ten from 200 yards away."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-gerald-posner/
The Marines have marksman, sharpshooter and expert. Anything less than expert is not good.
The badge for marksman is known as the "pizza box" and if you're wearing it, you either really, really suck or you had some catastrophically bad day on the range.
it would still mean that oswald was qualified to make that fairly easy shot at kennedy, no?
the last shot at kennedy - the kill shot - was less than a 100 yards away, i believe. i don't have gerald posner's book with me right now, so i'm taking wiki's word on that.
I don’t think it was an easy shot. There are people out that don’t believe he acted alone because he wasn’t considered skilled enough to make that shot.
sharewell, based on what posner said in the quote i gave above, he still shot well enough to 'hit a 10-inch target eight times out of ten from 200 yards away.'
edit - and this was after his courtmartial, when he was undoubtedly deflated. he scored higher previously.
the kennedy car was slow-moving & less than 100 yards away.
i'm not saying it was a gimme, but for someone with his experience i don't believe it was a remarkable shot.
i can't speak to this from my own experience. i haven't fired a gun since i was 12, & that was my dad's cheap .22.
but based on the facts & his history, it seems like this was not a terribly tough shot.
Believed mainly by people who aren't skilled enough to make that judgement.
shareI’m going off memory, but it was a sniper that claimed to be higher ranked than Oswald. He said something like “as someone that can make that shot, Oswald didn’t have level of skill to do it”.
That’s just his opinion of course, but my takeaway is that it isn’t exactly considered an easy shot.
I think it was an easy shot. Close range (88 yards and less), large target, slowly moving away. Oswald was a trained Marine. Even as an indifferent marksman was he was claimed to be, he would still be better than the average casual shooter in the USA.
Why do you think any Marine could not hit a large target at close range that was slowing moving away from them? I own a 6.5 mm Carcano that is nearly the same as the one Oswald owned. It has a bore that is black and pitted, but I can still hit a 10" target three times in 6 seconds from 100 yards. It is not that hard. The action is slick when cleaned and lubed with a single drop of oil.
Can you explain why it was not an easy shot? Oswald only hit with two out of three shots.
Maybe not good for a marine. But certainly good enough for the shots that killed Kennedy.
The movie JFK is full of crap. But I like that line of Garrison's when scoffs at the Warren Commission's downplaying of Oswald's fluency in Russian, for a radio operator. "That's like saying Lester (his dog) isn't very good at chess. Last time I played him, I beat him three times out of five."
"That's like saying Lester (his dog) isn't very good at chess. Last time I played him, I beat him three times out of five."
Trump turned his head a few inches, just a microsecond before Crooks pulled the trigger. That's why the bullet clipped his ear instead of hitting his skull, not Crooks's poor marksmanship.
shareBoy ain't that the truth.
share