I would have to say it is an outstanding post as well. However, note that it is predicated on the "Oswald acted alone" theory. Which in my mind is not true. Again though, as the post by foxtrot whiskey says, the man (or men) who pulled the trigger do give significance beyond most any reasonable measure as to effect on the planet Earth. In that regard, even if it were multiple shooters, they still were more significant for any one feat.
Personally, I see the "body of work" being more important than one lucky placement.
Something to consider. Czolgosz' assassination of McKinley ensured the continued "American Worldwide Expansionist" movement. So in that regard Oswald was not alone as affecting the Free World. Mckinley did lead us into the Spanish American War, but he was not the progressive expansionist that Roosevelt was. Good or bad, according to ones thinking, that is historical fact. Booth's assassination of Lincoln has, of each of the three, the most lasting effect on how this nation is still coming to grips and not healed over the Civil War. Even though the latter two were accomplished by handgun, the premise is the same as what a sniper would do while pursuing a high value target. Use of intel to find and gain position on a target. In a lot of ways, they hold the same significance as LHO's assassination of Kennedy.
As we have seen, for a good marksman the shots from the Book Depository were very achievable. To others, it was not an easily repeatable feat. Given that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT considered to be an expert by the Marine Corps, I would think that would more of a knock on him. As a "significant sniper" would be one who could master his weapon. None of the three assassins were masters really of the weapon they chose. In the LHO case, it would have been even more a matter of luck. To my way of thinking this relegates the Lee Harvey nomination to more of an assassination than a true case of a capable sniper. Significant, yes. But, nothing more than an assassin because top level skills were not at play.
Last edited:
) It's one of those things that when KsThomas brought his name out and reason, I thought, yeah if you take it that way there is no beating it. But, I knew that opened another door for thought. It just took some time to get it in my mind and how to say it. The other presidential assassins pretty much did the same thing. In the case of Mckinley, it was probably as big as anything of the day because, that was American expansionism out into the world. The Spanish-American War, the beginning of the Panama Canal, the United Fruit Company's involvement in South/Central America and the Carribean. World economics were ramping up by more than a few notches. Czolgosz motive was political. In the case of Guiteau, he was not so much politically motivated, even though he felt he should have gotten a post for writing a speech, as delusional for thinking he should have gotten a post for that act. A speech that wasn't even asked to be written by the President.
