A World Gone Mad

[David Josephs]

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

David Josephs just described a lot of JFK conspiracy theorists.

Thanks, DJ.

{chuckle}

David, don't you think that you're a little too old for the "I know you are, but what am I" come-back?

Given what you choose to defend and how, it really is no wonder that's the best you've got.

What you do is akin to defending cigarette smoking as not addicting or detrimental to your health and school children should start taking in the bullsh!t as early as possible...

No worries, it wont kill you... {roll eyes}

Ain't it grand how the Gov't defenders have become the freak show

Rock on Dave, rock on.

[Stephen Roy]

Some really closed-minds out here. And condescending, too.

[David Josephs]

There was a man who argued that giving any reasonable audience to insanity as the alternative to the truth is to demean the truth and give credibility to the insanity.

He too was considered condescending in his intolerance for the abuse of the truths that have surfaced to make a mockery of official explanations.

I leave then to others the fencing task DVP evokes, the give and take of truth for more officially sanctioned explanations supported by the full extent of the evidence.

No offense to you intended Mr. Roy.

Edited February 8, 2015 by David Josephs

[Stephen Roy]

The formula is pretty simple: Redefine the undesired opinion as foolish to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. A real discussion-stopper.

No offense taken.

[Jon G. Tidd]

So. DVP, you've got free rein here. Please be so kind to tell all here why and how, in your opinion, Oswald killed JFK.

I realize I'm asking for you to write on a blank slate. But I'm new here, unlike you.

And please, no links. I ask for your thinking.

[David Von Pein]

So. DVP, you've got free rein here. Please be so kind to tell all here why and how, in your opinion, Oswald killed JFK.

I realize I'm asking for you to write on a blank slate. But I'm new here, unlike you.

Nobody can answer the "WHY?" part of your question, Jon. All we can do is guess. And I think the best guess is that Oswald probably killed JFK because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).

But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive(s) was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963. But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives. And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.

As far as the JFK murder, I've said in the past that it's my belief that Oswald simply took advantage of a golden opportunity to do something on a "grand scale" when that perfect opportunity was presented to him on a platter on November 22, 1963. He realized that with very little effort and preparation on his part, he could easily be in the right place at the right time when JFK passed by the building where he worked. And if conditions were such so that he could secrete himself in a corner of that warehouse known as the School Book Depository without anyone in the building being aware of his presence in that corner, he might have a chance to change history and make up for the fact he was unsuccessful in his earlier attempt in April to kill another political figure. I think it's quite possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in effect, daring himself to take those shots at President Kennedy from his sixth-floor sniper's perch that Friday in Dallas.

However, I also think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st, 1963, the day before he took his rifle to work to shoot at the President. I think it's quite clear from Marina Oswald's testimony that Lee very much wanted to make his peace with Marina after the two of them had quarrelled on the telephone earlier in the week (a quarrel brought on by Lee's using another "alias" at his roominghouse, which Marina did not like and thought was silly).

And I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of November 21st indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away (he asked her three times to do so on the night of the 21st, but she steadfastly refused, saying she would rather stay with Ruth until "the holidays").

So unless Lee was just putting on a little "act" for Marina's benefit (or to throw people off), it would seem as if Lee Harvey Oswald, as of the night of November 21st, had every intention of hunting for lodgings for himself and his family on November 22nd rather than take his rifle to work and shoot the President.

And I doubt he could have been silly enough to think he could have performed BOTH of those tasks on 11/22/63. Lee Oswald was a very strange character with a twisted mind, yes, but I doubt very much that even his warped mind could have possessed the following thoughts in tandem with each other --- I'll shoot at President Kennedy at around noontime; I'll then leave the building and go search for that apartment, just as I promised Marina I would do last night. I doubt I'll be missed at work because of all the commotion that will follow the assassination attempt that I am also planning for tomorrow.

I think Oswald definitely had a MOTIVE--whatever that might have been--for shooting President Kennedy PRIOR to ever visiting Marina on Thursday night, November 21st. (That's obvious to me because of the "curtain rod" lie he told to Buell Wesley Frazier on Thursday morning.) But his plans to shoot at the President were not fixed in stone as of Thursday night--not until after he talked to Marina.

That scenario might sound way too simplistic (and, frankly, crazy) to many conspiracy theorists (especially those who don't think Oswald ever fired a shot at JFK), but it's what I think is the truth nonetheless.

Can I prove any of the above? No, of course I can't. But, conversely, no conspiracist can prove that Lee Oswald had NO MOTIVE at all for wanting to shoot John F. Kennedy either. The "motive" vs. "no motive" argument is endless--and it goes nowhere. The only one who could possibly answer the "What was his motive?" question is Lee Harvey Oswald. And he can't say very much now.

As for the "HOW?" part of your question, Jon -- That's not very difficult....

....Lee Oswald had ready access to a weapon (Carcano Rifle #C2766) that he knew was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. (Hence, the reason for making up the "bookend" set of "I'm getting curtain rods" lies for Buell Frazier's benefit on both Thursday and Friday.)

....Lee had ample firearms training in the U.S. military, reaching the grade of Sharpshooter in 1956. (But, for some reason, some conspiracy believers think the United States Marine Corps was in the habit of dishing out "Sharpshooter" ratings to Marines who were rotten shooters. Go figure that logic. I can't.)

....Marina testified in her 1978 HSCA session that Lee, on more than one occasion, would take his rifle out to "target practice" in New Orleans during the summer of 1963:

Mr. McDONALD. Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, he did.

Mr. McDONALD. And what did he do?

Mrs. PORTER. He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that.

Mr. McDONALD. This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?

Mrs. PORTER. It is several occasions, maybe more than once.

Mr. McDONALD. He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. And the rifle under the raincoat?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. And how long would he be gone?

Mrs. PORTER. A few hours.

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found at 2 HSCA 231.

....Lee Oswald had complete access to all seven floors of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963, including the sixth floor, which is the floor where incriminating evidence against Oswald was found by the police, including the discovery of Lee's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, plus the three spent bullet shells under the window from where witnesses Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson, and Mal Couch saw a rifle during the time when President Kennedy was being shot.

....Oswald left the Depository Building within just a few minutes of JFK's assassination. Many conspiracists say "So he left--so what?" But his quickly leaving the scene of the Presidential murder, coupled with the fact HIS RIFLE was the murder weapon, plus the additional evidence which indicates--beyond all possible reasonable doubt--that Oswald killed Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit 45 minutes later, all add up to solid circumstantial evidence of his guilt. Such facts certainly don't lead to a determination of TOTAL INNOCENCE, as many conspiracy theorists seem to suggest.

And there are, of course, lots of additional things that point to Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders. I outline many of those things here....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

And please, no links. I ask for your thinking.

Too late.

What's wrong with providing links to emphasize and flesh out the facts and a person's opinions anyway? It saves me (or anyone) from having to tediously type out every single point over and over again.

Links are our friends....not our enemies. (Most of the time anyway.)

Edited February 9, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Thomas Graves]

So. DVP, you've got free rein here. Please be so kind to tell all here why and how, in your opinion, Oswald killed JFK.

I realize I'm asking for you to write on a blank slate. But I'm new here, unlike you.

Nobody can answer the "WHY?" part of your question, Jon. All we can do is guess. And I think the best guess is that Oswald probably killed JFK because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he admired greatly (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).

But I also think Oswald's mind was very muddled on November 21st, 1963, the day before he took his rifle to work to shoot at the President. I think it's quite clear from Marina Oswald's testimony that Lee very much wanted to make his peace with Marina after the two of them had quarrelled on the telephone earlier in the week (a quarrel brought on by Lee's using another "alias" at his roominghouse, which Marina did not like and thought was silly).

And I think Marina's account of the events at Ruth Paine's house on the night of November 21st indicates that Lee would have likely been happy to go out and search for a new apartment "tomorrow" (the word Marina said Lee used on 11/21/63) had Marina agreed to get back together with Lee right away (he asked her three times to do so on the night of the 21st, but she steadfastly refused, saying she would rather stay with Ruth until "the holidays").

So unless Lee was just putting on a little "act" for Marina's benefit (or to throw people off), it would seem as if Lee Harvey Oswald, as of the night of November 21st, had every intention of hunting for lodgings for himself and his family on November 22nd rather than take his rifle to work and shoot the President.

And I doubt he could have been silly enough to think he could have done BOTH of those tasks on 11/22/63. Lee H. Oswald was a very strange character with a twisted mind, yes, but I doubt very much that even his warped mind could have possessed the following thoughts in tandem with each other --- I'll shoot at Kennedy at around noontime; I'll then leave the building and go search for that apartment, just as I promised Marina I would do last night. I doubt I'll be missed at work because of all the commotion that will follow the assassination attempt that I am also planning for tomorrow.

I think Oswald definitely had a MOTIVE--whatever that might have been--for shooting President Kennedy PRIOR to ever visiting Marina on Thursday night, November 21st. (That's obvious to me because of the "curtain rod" lie he told to Buell Wesley Frazier on Thursday morning.) But his plans to shoot at the President were not fixed in stone as of Thursday night--not until after he talked to Marina.

That scenario might sound way too simplistic (and, frankly, crazy) to many conspiracy theorists (especially those who don't think Oswald ever fired a shot at JFK), but it's what I think is the truth nonetheless.

Can I prove any of the above? No, of course I can't. But, conversely, no conspiracist can prove that Lee Oswald had NO MOTIVE at all for wanting to shoot John F. Kennedy either. The "motive" vs. "no motive" argument is endless--and it goes nowhere. The only one who could possibly answer the "What was his motive?" question is Lee Harvey Oswald. And he can't say very much now.

As for the "HOW?" part of your question, Jon -- That's not very difficult....

....Lee Oswald had ready access to a weapon (Carcano Rifle #C2766) that he knew was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. (Hence, the reason for making up the "bookend" set of "I'm getting curtain rods" lies to Buell Frazier on both Thursday and Friday.)

....Lee had ample firearms training in the U.S. military, reaching the grade of Sharpshooter in 1956. (But, for some reason, some conspiracy believers think the United States Marine Corps was in the habit of dishing out "Sharpshooter" ratings to Marines who were rotten shooters. Go figure that logic. I can't.)

....Marina testified in her 1978 HSCA session that Lee, on more than one occasion, would take his rifle out to "target practice" in New Orleans during the summer of 1963:

Mr. McDONALD. Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes, he did.

Mr. McDONALD. And what did he do?

Mrs. PORTER. He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that.

Mr. McDONALD. This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?

Mrs. PORTER. It is several occasions, maybe more than once.

Mr. McDONALD. He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. And the rifle under the raincoat?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. And how long would he be gone?

Mrs. PORTER. A few hours.

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found at 2 HSCA 231.

....Lee Oswald had complete access to all seven floors of the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963, including the sixth floor, which is the floor where incriminating evidence against Oswald was found by the police, including the discovery of Lee's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, plus the three spent bullet shells under the window from where witnesses Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson, and Mal Couch saw a rifle during the time when President Kennedy was being shot.

....Oswald left the Depository Building within just a few minutes of JFK's assassination. Many conspiracists say "So he left--so what?" But his quickly leaving the scene of the Presidential murder, coupled with the fact HIS RIFLE was the murder weapon, plus the additional evidence which indicates--beyond all possible reasonable doubt--that Oswald killed Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit 45 minutes later, all add up to solid circumstantial evidence of his guilt. Such facts certainly don't lead to a determination of TOTAL INNOCENCE, as many conspiracy theorists seem to suggest.

And there are, of course, lots of additional things that point to Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders. I outline many of those things here....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

And please, no links. I ask for your thinking.

Too late.

What's wrong with providing links to emphasize and flesh out the facts and a person's opinions anyway? It saves me (or anyone) from having to tediously type out every single point over and over again.

Links are our friends....not our enemies. (Most of the time anyway.)

David,

Do you think Oswald was ever a U.S. Intelligence agent?

Thank you,

--Tommy

[David Von Pein]

No, Tommy.

[Thomas Graves]

No, Tommy.

David,

Well, it's nice to see that you and Mr. Tidd agree on something.

--Tommy

[David Josephs]

The formula is pretty simple: Redefine the undesired opinion as foolish to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. A real discussion-stopper.

No offense taken.

Key to this statement is opinion versus authenticated evidence... All the WCR crowd can build upon is their insistance upon the Faith we should continue to have for these esteemed men and the WCR staff...

http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html

"Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Oswald was indeed at the SE 6th floor window at 12:30, and shots from there are fired by him, AND that he planned to kill JFK with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. He surely could not have killed JFK with a rifle that was not there in the first place. Oswald has a few items of information he MUST have in order to pull this off, the most important being the knowledge that the motorcade and JFK's limo would pass within shooting distance of the building. Where would he get such information, and what would that info say specifically?"

Stephen (and others), I hope you can take the time to read thru this simple exercise regarding what it takes at the bare minimum to enable WCR/DVP's Ozzie to have done what he and the WCR claims he did.

If he doesn't have a rifle and is not at the window at the correct time, he cannot accomplish the feat. A simple presentation of the authenticated evidence which accomplishes this has never been offered.

Just so we are clear... these are the conclusions being defended... if you feel the evidence from which these conclusions are derived deserves defending then we should find in this defense the evidence to establish this unconnected loner did it. We have conclusions about where shots were fired, how many shots, Tippit, the interrogation, Ruby killing Oswald, conspiracies and SS agents (not) doing their jobs...

with only Conclusion #4 being of any real bearing on establishing the guilt of Oswald. starting with "innocent until proven guilty" 4a thru 4f requires authentic evidence and (g) has already been dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Let's have him try sticking to the case at hand and present as well as authenticate the evidence which convicts Oswald...

As a lawyer Jon, you should have a field day with his presentation - and I for one would appreciate your showing us the legal aspect of such proof...

DJ

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald

(a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were tired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald.

(Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963.

© Oswald, at the time of the assassination was present at the window from which the shots were fired.

(d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcnno rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired.

(e) Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.19

(f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters.

(g) Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

[Stephen Roy]

First, you're missing the point. It is not for one of the debating parties to decide who has a right to join the debate. Next, it is simply wrong to try to pre-emptively discredit the opponent, especially by setting up a framework of debatable premises. Third, it is wrong to assert moral superiority, that one carries the flame of absolute truth in his hip pocket.

You're a talented guy, you've achieved some gravitas over the past year and you are a good guy to have as part of the discussion. But the same is true of others.

[Cliff Varnell]

First, you're missing the point. It is not for one of the debating parties to decide who has a right to join the debate. Next, it is simply wrong to try to pre-emptively discredit the opponent, especially by setting up a framework of debatable premises. Third, it is wrong to assert moral superiority, that one carries the flame of absolute truth in his hip pocket.

You're a talented guy, you've achieved some gravitas over the past year and you are a good guy to have as part of the discussion. But the same is true of others.

Is 2 + 2 = 4 debatable?

The sun rises in the east -- fact or opinion?

The base of JFK's neck extended 4 inches below the bottom of his shirt collar -- opinion, or a mis-statement of fact?

Any "debate" as to the location of the T3 back wound is fake.

There is no debate -- there are only constantly repeated conclusions to the contrary.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Stephen Roy]

Again: To try and frame a discussion as "My side is legitimate and your side is not legitimate" is anti-intellectual.

[Greg Burnham]

I certainly agree that since this section of the EF is titled "JFK Assassination Debate" then it is perhaps appropriate for those who wish to "debate" to post here. However, it is also appropriate, in my view,

for the owner of a forum to limit the scope of what is debatable on their own forum else it will become a free-for-all.

For instance, would it be appropriate, simply because this forum is titled "JFK Assassination Debate," to allow a debate on "whether or not" JFK was assassinated? What to do with those who claim that

JFK was never murdered, but rather faked his own death and then retired south of the Cliffs of Dover? Should we entertain all sorts of "debate" so long as they relate to JFK? Of course, most would agree

that my sample "debate" would not be allowed as it is way too far fetched, that there is overwhelming evidence of his death, and that to entertain such unbridled argument would be a farcical waste of time.

Gee, I've just described the Single Bullet Theory, the alleged timing of the shots from that weapon, the negative for nitrates on the cheeks paraffin test, and I'll even throw in the bunched up jacket for good

measure, and so much more.

But that's just me.

[David Josephs]

Again: To try and frame a discussion as "My side is legitimate and your side is not legitimate" is anti-intellectual.

"Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.[is this a fact or an opinion?] The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such."

Your position appears to be that defense of the WCR in debate form is in itself a legitimate and intellectual pursuit - and that this presentation should be allowed and encouraged here simply because a debate requires two sides and the "winner" of such a discussion of opposing views is decided upon by those who view it...

I've read and enjoyed your work for years Stephen and if you feel it productive to "debate" the defense of the WCR and related conclusions - have at it.

A question then... Have you at any point in time been swayed by DVP's debate to accept the conclusions or evidence of the WCR (or whatever it is he is offering as a "side") thru his presentation in a superior context?

---------------

As Cliff refers... there is no debate about the physical realities of the clothing evidence and what they suggest..

there is no debate over the laws of physics yet you would give soapbox to an argument that requires one suspend one's knowledge/understanding of the physical world and accept the "context" which one side of the argument must create for such events to exist.

I agree whole heartedly with the statement I quoted of yours above...what is "anti-intellectual" is to allow the ongoing use of published tactics to derail forums and intelligent conversation

How many times do the conclusions offered by DVP need to be proven wrong in discussions, debates, analysis or whatever else you want to call it - before it stops being used as ammunition in these "debates", ??

Take care Stephen... I'm done with this - At least debating 2 + 2 = 4 has some mathematical and philosophical possibilities. Debating/discussion the following declarations from the WCR apologist is a waste of my and your time and should no longer be necessary. the wheels on the bus go round and round...

COINTELPRO #19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

As for the "HOW?" part of your question, Jon -- That's not very difficult....

....Lee Oswald had ready access to a weapon (Carcano Rifle #C2766) that he knew was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. (Hence, the reason for making up the "bookend" set of "I'm getting curtain rods" lies to Buell Frazier on both Thursday and Friday.)

....Lee had ample firearms training in the U.S. military, reaching the grade of Sharpshooter in 1956. (But, for some reason, some conspiracy believers think the United States Marine Corps was in the habit of dishing out "Sharpshooter" ratings to Marines who were rotten shooters. Go figure that logic. I can't.)

....Marina testified in her 1978 HSCA session that Lee, on more than one occasion, would take his rifle out to "target practice" in New Orleans during the summer of 1963