Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Wednesday, 25 November, 2020

From a Shooter's Perspective — The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (Part one of three)

Date: 15 October, 2017

By: Chief

Imageneed to preface this story, especially the title "From a Shooter's Perspective." I was a competitive rifle shooter. That was my hobby, my sport. Both small bore and big bore. At the time I competed against the very finest riflemen this country had to offer — civilian and military alike. I was taught by a National Rifle Association (NRA) national high power rifle champion. And I beat him in competition — more than once. I have beaten other high power champions as well. I have numerous trophies, silver cups and bowls to back up my claim. I no longer compete. Not that I don't want to it is merely:

As such, movement for me is both difficult and can be quite painful. But those were the cards I drew. I am also too old. Thus, this story is literally from a 'shooter's perspective'.

Alrighty then, having gotten all of that out of the way it is time to begin the journey.

A lot and I do mean a lot has been written, spoken, video'ed, folded, spindled and mutilated about the murder of President John F. Kennedy some 54 years ago this coming November 22nd. And it continues. Just look at this story as one small example of the multitudes of stories written since the assassination.

Why this is so is simple — people are not satisfied with government reports of the killing. The FBI report and the Warren Commission report are the two main players or culprits in this saga. People just don't buy 'em. Something just does not fit. Something ain't quite right. The whole thing just stinks. And guess what? The people are right.

Just the facts ma'am

Now I am not saying there was a vast conspiracy involving government agents covering up something dastardly. Further, I am not saying agents of the government were in anyway, shape or form involved in murdering the president. I am also not saying that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved or that Oswald did not attempt to kill the president. None of those things. Not at all.

What I am saying is this — there was, at least, a second shooter involved. I am further going to show this by introducing three irrefutable, immutable facts. Not evidence. Facts. Indeed facts so mundane, so taken for granted that we overlook them all the time. To be sure these facts were not only around at the time of the assassination but basically since time began.

Facts that were first discovered by Sir Isaac Newton and published in his work the "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in 1687.

Okay, you are thinking, old Chief has finally succumbed to mind expanding drugs. What could some really old dead guy who, when he was alive, lived in the 1600's possibly have to do with the 1963 assassination of the President of the United States?

For those of you who are thinking that or something even less flattering I shall say this — you should not have slept through your elementary school physics class.

Speaking of Newton it is time to check out Newton's first law of motion: The law of inertia (quoting Wikipedia):

"Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

- Or -

"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed."

Another way to put is — An object that is not moving will not move until an external force acts upon it. And an object that is in motion will continue to move in its original direction until an external force acts upon it.

Everybody got that? Okay, moving right along to Newton's second law of motion: Net force is equal to the rate of change of momentum (quoting Wikipedia):

"Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.

- Or -

"The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed."

To put it another way — how an external force acts upon a body in motion will affect the momentum of that particular body in motion.

Newton's third law of motion: Law of reciprocal actions (again, quoting Wikipedia):

"Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

- Or -

"All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction."

In other words — For every force or action there is an equal, yet opposite, force or action.

Yup, there you have it. And those three simple laws of motion appear to have been completely overlooked or ignored by every person and government agency investigating the Kennedy assassination.

Yet they are the linchpins. They are irrefutable facts which utterly destroys the single or lone gunman theory.

I am going to take them out of order as it is easier, at least for me, to explain the actions involved.

It's all about recoil

We shall start off with the third law of motion. So what does Newton's third law have to do with the Kennedy assassination?


The law of reciprocal action shatters the myth that a single gunman could have done what Oswald allegedly did — in the time he had to do it. It is a physical impossibility. To be sure it can be summed in a single word — recoil.

That's right recoil. And I didn't stutter either.

Every time you squeeze, not pull or jerk, the trigger of a loaded rifle several things happen. However we are currently only interested in two of those things. First, the powder contained in the cartridge case fires the bullet out of the barrel of the rifle. Second, and here is the first linchpin, the rifle recoils — just as Sir Isaac Newton wrote it would. Opposing forces, who would have thunk it? Newton did. And Newton was 100% correct.

'Big deal' say you doubting Thomas'es. 'That does not prove, let alone shatter, the myth of the lone gunman theory or concept' says you. So I say to all you Thomas'es you are right — in the first part. It is a big deal. Indeed, and in fact, it is the big deal. Why? Because recoil takes the shooter off target. That is why.

Allegedly Oswald fired three rounds though there is a dispute between the Warren Commission Report and the FBI report as to sequence of rounds fired, which impacted who. There is also a dispute in the time frame from the first shot being fired until the last shot was fired. However, it is undisputed that Oswald had:

Under ten seconds (the maximum amount of time) may sound like a whole lot of time given the digital world we now occupy but in reality ten seconds for a shooter is not much time at all.

Quoting Wikipedia:

"Former U.S. Marine sniper Craig Roberts and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, who was the senior instructor for the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Quantico, Virginia, both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators. 'Let me tell you what we did at Quantico', Hathcock said. 'We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it'?"

For the unenlightened, if Gunny Hathcock said it couldn't be done — you can take that to the bank. Period.

Okay, for those of you unfamiliar with firing a rifle I need to explain the mechanics involved so you can understand and appreciate what all transpires and, more importantly, how difficult it actually is. Those who are familiar with firing a rifle, this will just refresh your memory or you can go to the fridge and grab a beer.

Now before we begin with the mechanics of firing a rifle we need to put in place the type of:

Continue on to part two.

(Return to the top)