The CIA analysis of the Z film

[David Andrews]

Larry, how do you feel about a more exotic weapon used short-range from the grassy knoll fenceline or other forward position, and about the angles there to a right front hairline wound with back-of-head exit?

"I don't know" would, of course, be a defensible response

Edited April 16, 2020 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

You got it with an "I don't know"....I don't,  what I will say is that if you go with a scenario that points the attack towards a conspiracy and particularly towards Cuba and Castro it would be best not to go too exotic....also it minimizes the risk to your shooters to not be carrying something that would be out of place on a street or parking lot in Dallas Texas....and good hunting rifles would fit that profile. Same works if the shooter is caching a weapon for later recovery. 

Introducing something else, or any weapon that forces you to get up to close to your target, increases the risk and puts the plan at more risks by last minute changes to the security screen....distance is good if your shooters are up to it. We also  know that historically the Secret Service was sensitized towards pistol attacks and to up close threats, not to longer range attacks.

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

You got it with an "I don't know"....I don't,  what I will say is that if you go with a scenario that points the attack towards a conspiracy and particularly towards Cuba and Castro it would be best not to go too exotic....also it minimizes the risk to your shooters to not be carrying something that would be out of place on a street or parking lot in Dallas Texas....and good hunting rifles would fit that profile. Same works if the shooter is caching a weapon for later recovery. 

Introducing something else, or any weapon that forces you to get up to close to your target, increases the risk and puts the plan at more risks by last minute changes to the security screen....distance is good if your shooters are up to it. We also  know that historically the Secret Service was sensitized towards pistol attacks and to up close threats, not to longer range attacks.

That caching a weapon for later recovery has intrigued me for years.  Whether a weapon or possibly two, what did they do with them.  A M1/30-06 is a fairly large eye catching weapon, especially with a scope on it.  No matter what weapon(s) were used from that vantage point the shooters, spotters and others had to get away immediately.  Through the railyard, around behind the TSBD, or drifting through the crowd and officers coming up the knoll.  What did they do with the gun(s)*   They had to move quickly, rifles would have attracted attention.  

Cigarette butts, several muddy foot prints, and mud on a car bumper were found a few feet west of the corner of the fence.  But they didn't search nearby vehicles, say the trunks for evidence.

Boom over the fence.  Throw the gun in the open waiting trunk.  Walk away, quickly, as it's shut.  

Edited April 16, 2020 by Ron Bulman

[Larry Hancock]

I'll leave two comments in one post....on the first for Robert, the image you show of a something being picked up and put in someone's pocket represents a totally lost piece of evidence, it was never officially recorded or described.  I've talked to the member of a family who also observed what they thought was a bullet strike in the grass in that area, near a manhole.  They notified police and we know an officer directed crime scene personnel over there - there is a photo of a CSI kit in the area with the photo angled back towards the TSBD.  However what they did or did not find appears in no report.  

As to Special Forces weapons, certainly, no disagreement there.  On the other hand covert and deniable operations as conducted by the CIA spent huge sums of money on obtained foreign sources weapons not traceable to US involvement or in other instances, as with Cuba, using commercially obtained weapons - the major point being deniablity and maintaining the image that conventional forces  forces were not involved in the action.  All of that looks sort of silly now but it was SOP in the fifties and early sixties.

Ron, as you say, caching a weapon would make perfect sense and has been standard practice in assaults in "denied" assaults where the shooters would be visible and immediately under suspicion by an aroused public/security force after the attack.  Bringing a hunting rifle into Dallas would be one thing, leaving with it after the shooting would be another.  We even have FBI report which mentions a several individuals with a rifle in the Plaza area days before the shooting - the only reason it was reported was somebody thought they might actually be doing "target practice".

We know cars were not searched in either knoll parking lot, we know the list of tag numbers disappeared. We know nothing was really searched that much in the TSBD after the rifle was found (no shipping crates opened) and no other buildings were searched. Caching and recovering the weapons would have been easy...especially if your plan calls for a suspicious weapon to be planted where it is quickly and easily recovered. I can't prove any of that but it once again it would be SOP in a truly organized and planned assault.  Only lone nuts abandon their weapon at the scene of the shooting where they actually work and then claim total innocence...sigh. 

[David Josephs]

15 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Check out that small sniper rifle next to him.

While diversion rifles are making Loud noises... this thing would have never been heard...

FWIW

 

 

[David Boylan]

Here is a possibility - the AR-5.

https://merdist.com/wp/2019/04/11/the-shot-from-the-front-part-2/

[Larry Hancock]

The one rule that is almost always in play is that weapons are selected based on the total mission...in Dallas that would include not only the selected shooting positions but the other aspects of the plan as a whole, including moving people in and out, the sources of the weapons used (in case something goes wrong and people are captured or their weapons recovered) and some sort of continuity with the overall intent i.e. who was to take the blame for the attack.  To some extent that also applies to the selection of the personnel - especially in the event something does go bad.

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[David Josephs]

52 minutes ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Once again, I certainly do not want to step on anybody's feet here, as I am a "F.N.G." to the forum

Not sure what FNG is... but it is sure nice having a weapons expert with hands-on experience...  feet and all.

I get PNG, Persona non Gratis... FNG? 

Anyway, didn't you mention that one of the worst spots to pick as a Sniper (for shooting down Elm instead of Houston) was that SE window... or anywhere in that building for that matter.

Have you given much consideration to Tosh's SE knoll shot(s)?

Edited April 16, 2020 by David Josephs

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[Chuck Schwartz]

The term "xxxxing New Guy" (FNG) is a derogatory term, made popular within combatants, military chaplains, and combat medics of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps deployed to South East Asia during the Vietnam War, usually to refer to newcomers.

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[David Andrews]

From the McAdams site, varieties of the grassy Knoll weapon as witnessed by Ed Hoffman and S. M. Holland.

Lector emptor, Monty, as McAdams and his debunking are held in low esteem by other researchers.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by David Andrews

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro