dustin999 said:

---

I think it helps to understand where difference of opinion comes from.

Person A might find one doctor trustworthy, while Person B does not.

Person B might think 4 people's testimonies are enough to overrule 2 others conflicting testimonies, while Person A might think that's not conclusive enough.

And yes, some people might have an agenda, like supporting a narrative that the government has been manipulating and covering up things for decades, or weaponizing our government against elected leaders and bringing all this to light would be damning for the government and even possibly help justify current and future actions (e.g. justification of Trump and what he's doing to clean house).

I really struggle with the last point, because I do believe the government has done some really bad things, and government is held more accountable to corporations and institutions than they are their constituents. So finding out the CIA or the FBI or whoever else was involved would really fit the narrative I want and believe to be real.

But that has to be balanced with what the facts show.

---

I think Dr. McClelland is trustworthy and believed what he said. I have no reason to think that any of the doctors spent their lives deliberately misrepresenting what they saw, felt, and experienced. I have no reason to believe that ANY doctor at Parkland or Bethesda lied. And remember, there are a LOT of doctors, nurses, etc involved, not just a handful.

But there is just no support at all for an entry wound above JFK's left eye, as Dr. McClelland has said many times. Not just the autopsy photos and x-rays, and other doctors, but think about the trajectory we would be talking about.



The shot would have had to come somewhere around where this photo was taken.

Maybe from the railroad tracks, because the shot would have had to be high enough to get over the car windshield and other passengers.



But that position would be completely and totally exposed:



There were tons of people on the other side of it and the Secret Service and other passengers and the police escort would have been looking right at it when the shot was fired.



The ballistics of a shot from the Grassy Knoll to above JFK's left eye (far side away from the Grassy Knoll) to the back of JFK's head are not possible, even with his head slightly turned. If the wound entered above his left eye like Dr. McClelland says, it would have blown out the back/left side of his head, and we know that didn't happen.

Additionally, we have other photos and video that show there were a bunch of people on the triple overpass. A sniper could not have been there with them.



When taking into account the stories, we also need to try to match it up with the evidence that we know, and the ballistic trajectory that would need to happen for that to be correct.

I don't think anyone thinks there was a sniper on top of the triple overpass to take that headshot. If McClelland is right and there was an entrance wound over JFK's left eye, then that is the only location it could have come from. Ergo, McClelland is mistaken.

Quote:

---

Nothing you have ever posted here or elsewhere can disabuse me of what I assume to be true.

---

FIFY

(And what a sad and pathetic way to go through life…)

Suffice it to say I have NO confidence in the legitimacy of the Warren Commission, believing it was a hand-picked, well-meaning group of career politicians carefully selected to rubber stamp an intended cover-up of a coup de etat performed upon JFK. I do not accuse LBJ of any involvement in the planning nor execution of it, but as the principle beneficiary, he conspired with J Edgar Hoover (immediately) after the fact, to control the ensuing "investigation" and the conclusions of The Warren Commission and resulting official government narrative that continues to be parroted all these many years later. One theory is that is was "decided" that failing to do so could have caused such a reaction within the country that could lead to destabilization. The fear-mongering of the possibility of starting a war with Russia was used in the immediate aftermath. But refusing to expose the involvement of elements within our own government was the over riding determination by LBJ and the cabal of close associates who manipulated the official government response to this historical tragedy.

I have No confidence in the legitimacy of the autopsy performed, based upon sworn testimony regarding multiple irregularities surrounding it. Far too many details to address in this post, but so many facts and witness accounts that were ignored and never considered by "officials" controlling the investigation/narrative.

LBJ was perhaps the most corrupt individual to ever occupy the office of POTUS. He used his immense power and determination to control every aspect of government involvement in the wake of this "inside Coup" to remove JFK from office. One of the first things he did after assuming the office was to reverse JFK's decision to begin a complete withdrawal of US troops from Viet Nam. And the rest, as they say, is history. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Far too many details to address in this post

---

What a cop out….Don't be lazy. Post what you've got so we can read it and weigh it against the other evidence that's out there.

Unlike you, many of us are open to reading and considering different/new ideas on the off chance they're convincing enough for us to change our minds about something.

Both BG and GS have established their positions and are engaging in a pointed discussion, not a harsh confrontational banter which tend to dominate these threads where there are different view points. Egging on antagonism via veiled dig doesn't add anything to this discussion, which some of us neophytes on the topic appreciate as all the different view points are interesting.

BG makes his position via the info he chooses to relate and is under no obligation to "show his work". GS has a wealth of knowledge and data on this subject which he has shared over the years, many of us appreciate it, and he has stated his position towards BG's views. Both of which add to the overall opinion formulating data base. For a message board is that not satisfactory?

If in government, academia, research literature there are differing opinions and view points on this deal, what makes us believe that an internet message board discussion is going to establish conclusive facts?

You do know Bethesda was picked by Jackie for the autopsy venue while flying back on AF1? The initial plan was Walter Reed but Jackie nixed that. To ensure there was a corrupt autopsy would have required collusion at both hospitals. Or is your contention there was no conspiracy but rather some incompetence? If the latter, I agree, Walter Reed had more experienced autopsists.

He challenges GS directly, refuting his statements, but fails to post anything supporting his statements. GS replies with multiple facts, cites those facts with the actual reports, photos, statements/quotes, etc., and asks Boerne to offer supporting evidence for his claims (specifically the McClellan's forehead shot statement and can he offer any support for the shot-in-the-forehead claim). Boernes reply is basically "I've got lots of facts but I don't have time to post them here", which is pretty much the definition of cop out and lazy. He's got time to type up multiple paragraphs, take his own veiled (and not so veiled) shots at GS but he doesn't have time to cite his work?

Don't defend the old codger. Let him defend his own statements and arguments with something more than "here's my opinion you're not going to change my mind" type stuff.

Which parts of Soup's post were from the Warren Commission?

BQ78 said:

---

You do know Bethesda was picked by Jackie for the autopsy venue while flying back on AF1? The initial plan was Walter Reed but Jackie nixed that. To ensure there was a corrupt autopsy would have required collusion at both hospitals. Or is your contention there was no conspiracy but rather some incompetence? If the latter, I agree, Walter Reed had more experienced autopsists.

---

I'm not aware of Jackie's involvement, but discount your conclusions in light of my previous comments regarding LBJ's close supervision of the entire scenario. The CIA was furiously pulling strings and manipulating events throughout the wake of this coup. Manipulating people is what they do 24/7, thus for all we know, she was manipulated regarding Bethesda. Regardless, the autopsy was a sham, intended to destroy and cover up evidence, which it succeeded in doing.

By law, the body should have never left Texas/Dallas before being autopsied. How inconvenient that would have been, huh?

I typed out a response to my rude detractor earlier, but as I was about to hit send, the Ethernet consumed it. Perhaps later... or not

BoerneGator said:

---

Suffice it to say I have NO confidence in the legitimacy of the Warren Commission, believing it was a hand-picked, well-meaning group of career politicians carefully selected to rubber stamp an intended cover-up of a coup de etat performed upon JFK. I do not accuse LBJ of any involvement in the planning nor execution of it, but as the principle beneficiary, he conspired with J Edgar Hoover (immediately) after the fact, to control the ensuing "investigation" and the conclusions of The Warren Commission and resulting official government narrative that continues to be parroted all these many years later.

---

Because you have espoused that opinion many, many times before, I honored your opinions by only using in my replies facts and statements that were not influenced or controlled by the Warren Commission. That includes Dr. McClelland's own witness testimony prior to the Warren Commission's formation in the academic journals.

But for some reason, you still refuse to address anything I wrote.

What is kind of interesting about the Warren Commission is that LBJ had people on it that hated him. Richard Russell led protests against LBJ in 64 at the DNC. Russell did dissent from the WC and think there was a conspiracy. John Cooper was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, and he fought with LBJ regularly, and led the investigation into LBJ's political advisor Bobby Baker. Bakers was accused of Bribery and arranging sexual favors for congressional votes. Hey, we all knew LBJ was crooked and Cooper led the charge there. Ford was obviously a prominent Republican, and someone with high integrity, imo. Because of the theories of the CIA involvement, a lot of people cite Allen Dulles as a problem being on the commission. But Dulles was appointed by LBJ at the urging of Robert F. Kennedy. McCloy was a Republican, but served as Asst Secretary of War for nearly the entirety of WWII. He was extremely well respected on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:

---

One theory is that is was "decided" that failing to do so could have caused such a reaction within the country that could lead to destabilization. The fear-mongering of the possibility of starting a war with Russia was used in the immediate aftermath. But refusing to expose the involvement of elements within our own government was the over riding determination by LBJ and the cabal of close associates who manipulated the official government response to this historical tragedy.

---

There are lots of theories. But it is interesting for all the theories that involve LBJ and that LBJ pulled the strings, many members of the Warren Commission were people that openly disliked and disagreed with LBJ to the point that they campaigned against him, protested against him, filibustered bills he supported, and Earl Warren himself was a Republican that was nominated by Ike.

Quote:

---

I have No confidence in the legitimacy of the autopsy performed, based upon sworn testimony regarding multiple irregularities surrounding it. Far too many details to address in this post, but so many facts and witness accounts that were ignored and never considered by "officials" controlling the investigation/narrative.

---

Like what. Like others have said, this is a cop out. Jackie herself picked Bethesda. And there is absolutely no evidence that that the photographs and X-Rays have been faked or manipulated.

Quote:

---

LBJ was perhaps the most corrupt individual to ever occupy the office of POTUS. He used his immense power and determination to control every aspect of government involvement in the wake of this "inside Coup" to remove JFK from office. One of the first things he did after assuming the office was to reverse JFK's decision to begin a complete withdrawal of US troops from Viet Nam. And the rest, as they say, is history. Carry on.

---

I've read all of Caro's books and I agree with your opinion of LBJ. But I also believe if Caro found anything at all that would have implicated LBJ, he would have published it. If you haven't read his books, you should. They are not flattering at all.

BoerneGator said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

You do know Bethesda was picked by Jackie for the autopsy venue while flying back on AF1? The initial plan was Walter Reed but Jackie nixed that. To ensure there was a corrupt autopsy would have required collusion at both hospitals. Or is your contention there was no conspiracy but rather some incompetence? If the latter, I agree, Walter Reed had more experienced autopsists.

---

I'm not aware of Jackie's involvement, but discount your conclusions in light of my previous comments regarding LBJ's close supervision of the entire scenario.

---

I'm sorry, but you discount the autopsy but don't know any of the circumstances surrounding it?

Jackie didn't trust anyone and insisted on Bethesda because JFK was a Navy veteran and she felt like the Navy would take care of one of their own. It should have been done at the AFIP, which is what everyone told Jackie to do, and she refused. This is insanely well documented.

--------

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1992/05/24/jfk-the-autopsy/

Boswell had been at the hospital going over autopsy slides with pathology residents. He recalls, "Early in the afternoon, we received a call from Dr. Bruce Smith from AFIP, saying, `The president`s body is on its way to Bethesda for an autopsy.` I argued, `That`s stupid. The autopsy should be done at AFIP (which was located 5 miles away at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center).`

After all, the AFIP was the apex of military pathology and, perhaps, world pathology. I was told, `That`s the way it is. Adm. (George) Burkley (the president`s personal physician) wants Bethesda.` Apparently, Adm. Burkley had called the AFIP from Air Force One en route from Dallas. Later, I was told that Jackie Kennedy selected Bethesda because her husband had been a Navy man."


--------


Because Jackie determined it would be done at Bethesda, not the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, they called in Colonel Pierre Finck. Colonel Finck was the Chair of Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Who is more qualified in the world than the head of Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to determine the ballistics of gunshots? Certainly not a doctor that is not a pathologist and did not thoroughly examine the wounds of JFK in the brief time he saw him while he was trying to save his life.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/10/05/Third-JFK-pathologist-breaks-silence/9306718257600/

'We got it right in 1963 and it still stands in 1992. All these discussions will not change the fact that the conclusion of our 1963 autopsy remains: there were two bullets striking from behind, and there is no evidence for any wounds from the front,' he said. 'In summary, to those who say the wounds came from the front, I say, 'No.''

-------

Quote:

---

The CIA was furiously pulling strings and manipulating events throughout the wake of this coup. Manipulating people is what they do 24/7, thus for all we know, she was manipulated regarding Bethesda. Regardless, the autopsy was a sham, intended to destroy and cover up evidence, which it succeeded in doing.

---

Who was on Air Force One that interacted with Jackie that was in the CIA? Jackie was being advised by all accounts to have the autopsy done at the AFIP and she refused and insisted to have it done at Bethesda Naval Base. You clearly do not know what you are talking about here and are just making things up. Everything you said here has been refused above and refuted many times.

Quote:

---

I typed out a response to my rude detractor earlier, but as I was about to hit send, the Ethernet consumed it. Perhaps later... or not

---

I wish I could have read it

Stive said:

---

He challenges GS directly, refuting his statements, but fails to post anything supporting his statements. GS replies with multiple facts, cites those facts with the actual reports, photos, statements/quotes, etc., and asks Boerne to offer supporting evidence for his claims (specifically the McClellan's forehead shot statement and can he offer any support for the shot-in-the-forehead claim). Boernes reply is basically "I've got lots of facts but I don't have time to post them here", which is pretty much the definition of cop out and lazy. He's got time to type up multiple paragraphs, take his own veiled (and not so veiled) shots at GS but he doesn't have time to cite his work?

Don't defend the old codger. Let him defend his own statements and arguments with something more than "here's my opinion you're not going to change my mind" type stuff.

---

"actual reports, photos, statements/quotes, etc."...and therein lies the problem. Govt. supplied reports (Warren Commission rpt.), statements (officials w/personal agendas/motives), ALL AS IF THEY WERE THE ONLY POSSIBLE VIEW and NO OTHER could POSSIBLY exist...EXCEPT conspiracies by the fool hardy.

Personally...I take govt. rhetoric with tons of salt. Most here agree the "DC Swamp" is a reality...most except GS and a few others who "doth protest toooooooooooo much". I don't think LHO or Sirhan Sirha had sufficient reason, motive or where-with-all on their own to carry out the assassinations.

And finally...if there is nothing new/relevant in the newly released docs...WHY keep them hidden for 62 years?????? More DC Swamp crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh...and where are Iraqi's WMD's we were promised by the DC geniuses who never...ever lie???????
I'm sure the 51 Intelligence (?) agents must know.

I appreciate that you have invested a lot of your time and have come to some conclusions very different from my own. I have no desire to debate you point by point, nor rehash judgements I made decades ago. I'm guardedly hopeful that something will be revealed in the near future that will answer the nagging questions in the minds of many, most long dead now, about this black mark upon the soul of America.

There is obviously information both embarrassing at a minimum, if not criminal (likely) in the archives that has been shrouded in secrecy for these many decades. Revealing the truth at this late date can only serve to begin to restore confidence in government, which is sorely needed. But that said, I'm equally certain most of what took place that day, and in the aftermath, has been lost to history as a result of the concerted efforts of evil men bent on deceiving the very ones they were sworn to faithfully serve.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Stive said:

---

He challenges GS directly, refuting his statements, but fails to post anything supporting his statements. GS replies with multiple facts, cites those facts with the actual reports, photos, statements/quotes, etc., and asks Boerne to offer supporting evidence for his claims (specifically the McClellan's forehead shot statement and can he offer any support for the shot-in-the-forehead claim). Boernes reply is basically "I've got lots of facts but I don't have time to post them here", which is pretty much the definition of cop out and lazy. He's got time to type up multiple paragraphs, take his own veiled (and not so veiled) shots at GS but he doesn't have time to cite his work?

Don't defend the old codger. Let him defend his own statements and arguments with something more than "here's my opinion you're not going to change my mind" type stuff.

---

"actual reports, photos, statements/quotes, etc."...and therein lies the problem. Govt. supplied reports (Warren Commission rpt.), statements (officials w/personal agendas/motives), ALL AS IF THEY WERE THE ONLY POSSIBLE VIEW and NO OTHER could POSSIBLY exist...EXCEPT conspiracies by the fool hardy.

Personally...I take govt. rhetoric with tons of salt. Most here agree the "DC Swamp" is a reality...most except GS and a few others who "doth protest toooooooooooo much".

---

Not a single thing I wrote or sourced today was from the Warren Commission or controlled by the Warren Commission.

It is interesting you want to blanket discredit what I wrote without actually reading or understanding it.

Quote:

---

I don't think LHO or Sirhan Sirha had sufficient reason, motive or where-with-all on their own to carry out the assassinations.

---

I've never studied the RFK assassination and have no opinion.

But LHO certainly had means, motive and opportunity.

I don't think any of these things are controversial or debated:

* Marine Sharpshooter and owned a rifle with a 4x scope
* He had tried to renounce his US citizenship while defecting in the Soviet Union in the years before the assassination.
* He had tried to get a VISA to Cuba/USSR in the months before the assassination
* He had tried to assassinate General Walker previously.
* He worked in the Texas SchoolBook Depository.
* He had mental health issues.
* His wife had left him and refused his attempt at reconciliation the night before the assassination

LHO certainly had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the assassination.

Quote:

---

And finally...if there is nothing new/relevant in the newly released docs...WHY keep them hidden for 62 years?????? More DC Swamp crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

I think we have seen why with what has been released on previous pages and in the WSJ article I posted earlier. One example is the CIA poisoned a batch of sugar from Cuba intended for Russia. Lots of things like that have been revealed. And that is why the CIA worked to keep those things quiet.

Guitar.

Agree for the most part, but my college roommate was a marine and met record Holding marine sniper Carlos Hathcock. When asked about LHO and the 3 shots, Hathcock w out hesitation responded "absolutely not!".

Carlos had been asked to reenact the shots from the snipers nest

Boerne: love your posts, but you are just as arrogant as he is! You posts are every bit as "I know what I am talking about, so you must not take issue with it" as anyone else here! (By the way, this is not an insult towards you. Its clear you know your stuff here)

Try not to be so uptight and easily offended! Its an internet message board!

You do realize that not all of the evidence was produced by the government right?

And which government? Feds? State? Local PD? Physicians at Bethesda and/or Parkland? Did the government control all of the witnesses in the plaza that day? The old ladies that helped LHO get his job? Did the CIA provide/control the photos and video? Did they shoot officer Tippet? Did they control Ruby's schedule the morning that he shot LHO? Did they control the delay on the morning of the transfer? How about Western Union that morning, were they in charge of that too?

So many vague claims with zero awareness of how big of an operation (people wise) it would have had to be. All of those hundreds of people involved and yet…..

Wow….you should really get that messed up connection looked into. So crazy that it seemingly just "goes out" after you type up replies to our insults.

Straight magic I tell ya..

The irony in this thread is thick. Many of the same posters on this thread who regularly call DC "the swamp" and say that govt screws up everything always show up to the JFK topic and talk about how ithe govt pulled off the crime of the century and covered it up.

And now Trump is POTUS, releases the documents and says nothing. Given his love of posting things on social media, it surprises me that he didn't immediately take to Truth Social and post about it. Either there is nothing there, or trump is in the swamp too. I don't really believe that, but that is the only conclusion you can draw about him on this topic.

Y'all need to go to the School Book Depository Museum and look out of the window. It wasn't a hard shot to make.

Im Gipper said:

---

Boerne: love your posts, but you are just as arrogant as he is! You posts are every bit as "I know what I am talking about, so you must not take issue with it" as anyone else here! (By the way, this is not an insult towards you. Its clear you know your stuff here)

Try not to be so uptight and easily offended! Its an internet message board!

---

To be fair, it has been 61 years. Countless books, articles, documentaries and claims have been made in that time (some of which were of course complete fiction to sell books or garner appearance fees). It is understandable that some people are going to be set in their belief on the matter. Some of them have probably been reading about the assassination longer than you and I have been alive.

Personally, I've been open to different theories at different times, as being at least plausible. But they mostly revolve around motives and means, not demonstrable facts.

Quote:

---

It is understandable that some people are going to be set in their belief on the matter. Some of them have probably been reading about the assassination longer than you and I have been alive.

---

Thanks for posting this bit of bit of common sense. It sounds much better coming from you, than me, but you read my mind!

I was 14 at the time and still vividly remember a news story shortly after the murder (I think it was no more than weeks) that one of the networks (perhaps CBS) did a documentary on the assassination, and they interviewed a number of eye witnesses that claimed gunshots came from "the grassy knoll" or picket fence area. Those people, and their testimony, have been lost to history.

This debate reminds me of the video of the marxist professor telling his students that there's no proof the communists ever committed a crime.

Technically the professor is correct

BoerneGator said:

---

Edit for clarification:GS edited a post wherein he stated "you don't know what you're talking about…you're making things up" which he removed, and THAT is the insult I referred to above. I had copied the post and was responding to it, but it was lost due to a poor connection.

---

This is a bald faced lie.

The only thing I deleted was a snarky comment about citing sources in APA style. I decided to not be snarky and not attack in kind as you have done here repeatedly today.

Quote:

---

Some of them have probably been reading about the assassination longer than you and I have been alive.

---

As to me, that's literally not possible!

Guitarsoup said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Edit for clarification:GS edited a post wherein he stated "you don't know what you're talking about…you're making things up" which he removed, and THAT is the insult I referred to above. I had copied the post and was responding to it, but it was lost due to a poor connection.

---

This is a bald faced lie.

The only thing I deleted was a snarky comment about citing sources in APA style. I decided to not be snarky and not attack in kind as you have done here repeatedly today.

---

Careful! He's going to come after you with a reply so mean it'll make his Internet go out again!!

Maybe you're older than your username suggests, then.

BoerneGator said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Edit for clarification:GS edited a post wherein he stated "you don't know what you're talking about…you're making things up" which he removed, and THAT is the insult I referred to above. I had copied the post and was responding to it, but it was lost due to a poor connection.

---

This is a bald faced lie.

The only thing I deleted was a snarky comment about citing sources in APA style. I decided to not be snarky and not attack in kind as you have done here repeatedly today.

---

"…you don't know what you're talking about…you're making things up"

Those were your exact words, taken out of the entire context of your post. Wish I'd taken a screenshot, but I just quoted you and replied directly to you before it disappeared from my screen. Now, I'm not sure if you are lying, or simply confused, but this will be my last response to you.

Perhaps TAs has the capability of proving me right, but it matters little. You've shown who you are to me. Actually, I am sure you're lying about this.

---

This is again a bald-faced lie. The only thing I deleted was a snarky comment about citing sources.

Those were not my words. I wish you had taken a screenshot as well, but you didn't because it never existed.

You should be ashamed.

neAGle96 said:

---

Guitar.

Agree for the most part, but my college roommate was a marine and met record Holding marine sniper Carlos Hathcock. When asked about LHO and the 3 shots, Hathcock w out hesitation responded "absolutely not!".

Carlos had been asked to reenact the shots from the snipers nest

---

I have never seen anything definitive about Hathcock's opinions other than 3rd hand hearsay.

The farthest shot was less than 100 yards and he had a 4x scope. On his 300 yard rapid fire Marine Corps Sharp Shooter test he scored a 46 of 50 using iron sights.












The shots have also been recreated many times since then.

Not doubting you but I am curious of the source of LHO marksmanship

Everything I've read over the years claimed he was an average at best (I can't validate those claims either)

Edit.

I see the sharpshooter designation assigned to him in 1956 and then marksman assigned in 59 when he scored lower.

When were his marine corps records released?

neAGle96 said:

---

Not doubting you but I am curious of the source of LHO marksmanship

Everything I've read over the years claimed he was an average at best (I can't validate those claims either)

---

Both testimonies are from their sworn testimonies under oath for the Warren Commission.

Major Eugene Anderson quoted above was assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch of the USMC when he gave his testimony. He had been active duty for 26 years when he testified (which would encompass WWII and Korea.)

Master Sgt. James Zahm was NCO in charge of Marksmanship Training Unit for the Weapons Training Battalion Armory at Quantico. He had served active duty for 18 years when he testified (which would have started right after WWII, but before Korea.)

They both seem to think that LHO was average for a Marine, but a good shot for anyone else. Sharpshooter was the middle designation. But an average Marine is probably significantly better than most of the rest of the world, and the testimony above that seems to suggest as much.


Many other posters here have been there and said it would be an easy shot. I have been there and I agree. Especially with a bolt action rifle with a 4x scope.

It was not a very long shot, and it was significantly shorter than the iron sights shots that he trained on in the Marines.

What's your opinion on the house select committees 1979 ruling there was a high probability there were 2 shooters?

Why discount this?