PDA

View Full Version : So it's official?? Died In A Nasty Accident


terryJones
14th Dec 2006, 18:38
They will have you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kenedy next, 3 rounds from a bolt action in less than 3 seconds...
In all honesty could an official report say anything but? They could hardly say "Yes we removed the potential embarassment"

tony draper
14th Dec 2006, 19:04
Wont make any difference, like the Kennedy thing its a industry now,watched a talking head on the news, through the babble he still managed to push his book and movie twice,"Just buy my book and it will all become clear"
:rolleyes:

G-CPTN
14th Dec 2006, 19:14
I listened to Lord Stevens discourse, which was well-measured and plausible (however unpalatable for some).
I also listened to the Al Fayad Press Conference (including the shopkeeper himself) which, in comparison was a bazaar event (as well as being bizarre). He does himself (and his beliefs) no favours. Rory Bremner's impressions of Al Fayad are comprehensible by comparison with the real thing.

Lord Stevens' conference available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml - Thursday 14th Listen again - from the beginning for Lord Stevens, and towards the end for the Al Fayad Conference (from 2 hours - with Al Fayad speaking from 2hrs 43mins)
Including allegations that the Savoy driver Henri Paul was a French Secret Service and MI6 'agent'. 2 hrs 56 min to end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/drive.shtml?focuswin
(Wait a while then click on Thursday to listen again - 14th December - main 'event' within the first hour - probably first half hour).

Rich Lee
14th Dec 2006, 19:34
They will have you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kenedy next, 3 rounds from a bolt action in less than 3 seconds...

From 'Full Metal Jacket'
"Do you know who Charles Witman was? Charles Witman shot people. He killed 12 people from a 28 story observation tower at the University of Texas from distances of up to 400 yards.
Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? From 250 feet away and shooting at a moving target, Oswald got off three rounds with an old italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits--including a head shot.
Those individuals showed what one well motivated marine and his rifle can do!

Now we know what a Frenchman and a tunnel can do.

AlphaMale
14th Dec 2006, 20:10
They speak of Marilyn Monroe's death 30 years on what makes them think we will all forget about the conspiracy now? :rolleyes:

Davaar
14th Dec 2006, 21:45
I am sure this site can produce many marksmen more skilled than I. In my own youth, though, at Bisley I could rattle off four aimed 0.303 rounds per minute from a bolt-action Lee-Enfiled, and land them on the bull. I thought that was pretty good, one aimed shot per 15 seconds. Each such bull had one great virtue: it was static, not moving transversely across the scenery in azimuth. Colour me sceptical of at least the JFK official story.

tony draper
14th Dec 2006, 21:59
In a documentry that debunked most of the Kennedy myths a couple of years ago a old chap of eighty got off three aimed shots at a moving target with the same rifle in the same conditions with seconds to spare over Oswalds time if I recal correctly, but as the saying goes never let truth get in the way of a good story.
:rolleyes:

El Grifo
14th Dec 2006, 22:38
So Oswald was the guy drapsey Yeah ??

brickhistory
14th Dec 2006, 23:56
Nope, GWB did JFK.........

And, alledgedly, was the driver of the white car they never found.......

Huck
15th Dec 2006, 01:17
Dennis Miller: "I had a Taco Bell burrito the other day. Went straight through me and lodged in Governor Connally's arm...."

Delta
15th Dec 2006, 02:22
I am sure this site can produce many marksmen more skilled than I. In my own youth, though, at Bisley I could rattle off four aimed 0.303 rounds per minute from a bolt-action Lee-Enfiled, and land them on the bull. I thought that was pretty good, one aimed shot per 15 seconds. Each such bull had one great virtue: it was static, not moving transversely across the scenery in azimuth. .


whats your point??.....try 19 bullets in a cemy-outo 223cal and all in the bull....in..no shit.. 1.1 minutes.... at 50m open sighted....

Civis
15th Dec 2006, 05:01
Gentlemen,
Purely marksmanship orientation here ~ no political commentary. Three fullbore rounds from a bolt gun in three seconds on a stationary target absolutely doable from a well seasoned hipower / palma rifleman. Never timed meself or anyone else on running target with fullbore bolt gun.

However: Have shot many a running target with pump long gun, revolver, self loading pistol and self loading rifle ( autoloaders to the uninitiated ) in the 3 shot, 3 second venue. All very doable.

Bolt gun debate: If you've ever been to Camp Perry ~ smallbore / hipower ~ or a Palma venue
and watched the shooters when the wind dope became " right " your eye's would blur at the speed with which a well coached and practiced rifleman ( excuse me, PC Rifleperson ) could crank them out of a bolt gun.

Three rounds from a bolt gun in three seconds on a moving target is probably pushing the envelope way up there ~ especiallly with a Carcano ? ( piece of crap ) but is inside the " outside " envelope.

Comments please from the Hipower folks here greatfully accepted.

Edit: Many bolt gun riflemen refuse to go to
" The Dark Side ~ M-16, AR-15 " because the gas system slows them down.

tinpis
15th Dec 2006, 05:07
Why chose a M 91/38 short rifle 6.5 Carcano? :confused:

Civis
15th Dec 2006, 05:20
TINPIS,
You've asked the million dollar question Mate?? The Carcano is junk. This just throws us right back into the fray ~ one has no answers.

Capt. Queeg
15th Dec 2006, 05:50
Bolt gun debate: If you've ever been to Camp Perry ~ smallbore / hipower ~ or a Palma venue
and watched the shooters when the wind dope became " right " your eye's would blur at the speed with which a well coached and practiced rifleman ( excuse me, PC Rifleperson ) could crank them out of a bolt gun.

Sounds impressive! Like the guy on the internet with the 8-shooter who empties it, re-loads and re-empties it all in about 1.75 seconds, I guess.


The weird thing about the death of Her Former Highness, though, is that despite her efforts in the field of do-gooderism (landmines, children, etc) she was a target for ridicule by much of the media, both print and television, in the last few years of her life. And especially the trashy women's mags. If not open ridicule, then at least less than favourable coverage.

After the accident, she was suddenly the Princess of Hearts amid a national outpouring of grief. Seems like she achieved more in death than she did in life, as far as her public standing goes.

And of course the trashy media, deprived of their favourite target, could now focus on her tragic death. It's a bloody industry in itself, it is.

At least that's how it looked from Aust.

tinpis
15th Dec 2006, 06:05
Oh ...theres a "grassy knoll in the tunnel" conspiracy now? :uhoh:

Solid Rust Twotter
15th Dec 2006, 06:24
The conspiracy theorists may wish to line their Bacofoil helmets with peanut butter for extra protection from the mind control rays...:hmm:

Capt. Queeg
15th Dec 2006, 06:26
Uhh, roger.

Wasn't meant as a barbed attack. It's just that it took me about four or five goes to work out what you were saying due to an absence of commas!!

Have you seen the pistol mpeg I was referring to? I think you'd be impressed... it was doing the email rounds a few months ago.

henry crun
15th Dec 2006, 07:17
Al Fayed has got more money than he knows what to do with.
I wonder why he cannot produce some evidence, anything, to prove his theory of assassination.

Civis
15th Dec 2006, 08:11
Capt. Q,
Haven't seen the pistol mpeg you're referring to but have seen some remarkable pistoler'o feats in my time. Three rounds a second from a revolver one can do quite nicely. Google Ed McGivern sp? or Elmer Keith. These were our benchmarks for pistolcraft with a sixgun when one was a pup.

Choxolate
15th Dec 2006, 08:14
Al Fayed has got more money than he knows what to do with.
I wonder why he cannot produce some evidence, anything, to prove his theory of assassination.
Because if he accepts the report (which every fule kno is correct) he will be morally and legally liable as it was HIS employee, on his instruction that was pissed and pumped up with drugs who was driving and caused the deaths. There is no substantive evidence to support his case but that is not his concern.

El Grifo
15th Dec 2006, 08:51
The conspiracy theorists may wish to line their Bacofoil helmets with peanut butter for extra protection from the mind control rays...

So Oswald was the guy twotter, yeah ?

Jelly Baby Freak
15th Dec 2006, 16:21
So it seems reasonable to assume that - in a car travelling at between 60-75 mph, in a 30 mph limit area; with a driver under the influence who loses control of the vehicle; smashes into a concrete pillar with rear seat passengers who are not wearing seatbelts - there will be some fatalities due to impact injuries sustained in the crash.
That would seem to be the result of an unfortunate accident.
However, Mr Al Fayed thinks differently!

Does it occur to anyone that Mr Al Fayed - having being refused a British passport- possibly thought that if he could match make his son with the princess, and that if somehow she accepted his offer in marriage which would give his son a tenuous link to the monarchy; it just might improve his chances of having his passport application accepted?

Doeds anyone think that had the princess been in the car with anyone else, other than his son, that Al Fayed would still have insisted that this was all a plot cooked up by MI6?

And furthermore, there wouldn’t be that awful shrine in the basement of Harrods!

G-CPTN
15th Dec 2006, 16:32
"You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment."

tony draper
15th Dec 2006, 16:36
It could have been much worse, she could have been threatening to marry someone from Sunderland.
:rolleyes:

El Grifo
15th Dec 2006, 18:52
Aw Drapsey haud away and shite like :8

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Dec 2006, 21:55
Let's see ...

(1) Deliberately chose to get into a car with a drunk driver.

(2) Deliberately chose not to do up the seat belt.

(3) Now we're into supposition but ... deliberately refrained from ordering the driver to stop disobeying the speed limit.

Now, if I were on the inquest jury would I prefer "accident" or "suicide", I wonder?:confused: :confused: :confused:

The suspicious aspect, if there is one, is that the "bodyguard", whose job one might have thought was to keep her alive, went along with all these choices ... and was the only one to survive. If that were me I'd have trouble persuading myself that I'd done a good job there, I think.

G-CPTN
15th Dec 2006, 22:11
It's interesting to listen to Al Fayed's diatribe (on the above BBC Five Live recordings) about how, having 'nursed' the bodyguard guy back to health he (the bodyguard) then 'turned against' Al Fayed. Al Fayed also rails against Henry Paul (the guy from the Paris Ritz who was driving) calling him an agent for the French Secret Service and MI6 'with his pockets stuffed with £2000' and a bank account with hundreds of thousands of pounds. "Where he get this money from?" (Don't you think M Paul might have been ripping you off, Al Fayed?)

mcgoo
15th Dec 2006, 22:18
Let's see ...

(1) Deliberately chose to get into a car with a drunk driver.

(2) Deliberately chose not to do up the seat belt.

(3) Now we're into supposition but ... deliberately refrained from ordering the driver to stop disobeying the speed limit.

Now, if I were on the inquest jury would I prefer "accident" or "suicide", I wonder?:confused: :confused: :confused:

The suspicious aspect, if there is one, is that the "bodyguard", whose job one might have thought was to keep her alive, went along with all these choices ... and was the only one to survive. If that were me I'd have trouble persuading myself that I'd done a good job there, I think.

I thought the investigation said that the party left in a rush and Henri Paul showed no visible signs of being drunk, also the car was only doing 65mph apparently, that only leaves number 2 and he chose not to wear his seat belt, I would imagine he couldn't insist on the others wearing theirs

G-CPTN
15th Dec 2006, 23:02
Much was made by Lord Stevens in his report that the Mercedes was travelling at 'twice the speed limit'. Knowing the Peripherique, it is an (urban) motorway easily capable of being traversed (especially in 'zero' traffic conditions) at speeds above that at which the crash occurred. Lord Stevens remarked that, whilst waiting at the Ritz, Henri Paul drank two measures of Ricard, which would put him above the French legal alcohol limit. OK, many would claim to be capable of driving 'competently' when above these limits of alcohol, but there are also three hours prior to the Ricard which are unaccounted for. It appears (from TRL reconstruction) that Henri Paul 'lost control' of the Mercedes 600 Limousine shortly before he entered the (tunnel) underpass and before he (allegedly) struck the Fiat a glancing blow and then struck the kerb before subsequently hitting the support pillar.

In my opinion, Henri Paul WAS 'intoxicated' and reacted adversely to the (sudden) sight of the Fiat, resulting in the chain of events which ended in the fatal crash. None of the occupants were wearing seat belts. The rear-seat passengers would be tossed around with little chance of survival. The front-seat passenger was 'saved' by the airbag. It's not clear why the driver's airbag didn't save Henri Paul's life, as the collision wasn't 'unusual' for car of the calibre of a Mercedes 600. Had the rear seat passengers been wearing seatbelts they would almost certainly have survived.

tony draper
15th Dec 2006, 23:12
Something I heard mentioned today that I have never heard mentioned before was that that particular tunnel has been the scene of many road traffic accidents and is regarded as a bit of a black spot accident wise?
Would have thought that detail would have been mentioned before now,hmm perhaps it has been and I have just never caught it.
:confused:

G-CPTN
15th Dec 2006, 23:20
Yes, there is a 'brow' followed by a dip and vehicles can suddenly find the road obstructed by previously unseen vehicles, and the change in gradient makes avoidance manoeuvres 'tricky'.

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Dec 2006, 23:29
Something I heard mentioned today that I have never heard mentioned before was that that particular tunnel has been the scene of many road traffic accidents and is regarded as a bit of a black spot accident wise?

So a professional driver (who wasn't drunk and who wasn't deliberately driving illegally and who was wearing his seat belt) would have known that and driven accordingly, eg significantly slower than the speed limit.

Just like we pilots take specific local circumstances into account when landing somewhere with "interesting" characteristics, and don't fly around drunk and illegally and without wearing our seatbelts, eh?

tony draper
15th Dec 2006, 23:36
Perhaps he was not in a very good mood,after all he thought he was off duty for the rest of the night,perhaps he took it out on the car which a lot of drivers do,I can think of one in particular who's mood is possible to gauge by the way he drives.

BlueDiamond
16th Dec 2006, 01:05
How people love their conspiracy theories!! If an inquiry had shown that the people in the Mercedes had died as a result of subversive activity, the "conspiracy theorists" would have been rubbing their hands with glee and saying, "I told you so." They would have accepted the conclusion without question. After all, they have been believing those deductions from the start based on nothing more than rumour, suspicion and dubious "evidence."

It doesn't matter how broad the scope of an inquiry, how rigorous the standards of investigation, or how exhaustive the analysis of the known facts, there will always be people who prefer to base their conclusions on street talk rather than evidence.

It takes a far less exacting evaluation to convince a Conspiracy Theorist that he/she is right ... urban legend is usually enough ... and no level of investigation will ever be high enough to persuade them that the truth lies elsewhere. There is a considerable difference in standards here. The theorists are happy to believe whispers and suggestions or "investigation by media," but refuse to accept the findings of an in-depth inquiry. Something is wrong with that attitude.

parabellum
16th Dec 2006, 10:57
The report that I read said that only Rees-Jones, the body guard, WAS wearing a seat belt, has that now been refuted?

G-CPTN
16th Dec 2006, 11:20
The (British) TRL (http://www.trl.co.uk/) investigation has stated that Rees-Jones was NOT wearing a seat belt.

Binoculars
16th Dec 2006, 11:37
The theorists are happy to believe whispers and suggestions or "investigation by media," but refuse to accept the findings of an in-depth inquiry. Something is wrong with that attitude.

They also historically have only transmitters in their equipment pack, Bluey, so are able to treat all negative comments as invisible. :rolleyes: Remember the "sacrifice in the desert"? And Harold Holt?

Come on now, don't spoil their fun, it's entertainment for us all.

:)

Krystal n chips
16th Dec 2006, 18:13
I take it this report won't mean the cessation of those er, eye catching headlines in the Daily Excess for sometime to come then ? :rolleyes: ;)