Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

[Rob Caprio]

Mr. Oswald: I'm innocent.
Mr. Iacoletti: Okay, you can go.
Mr. Oswald: [Smirk]

Nonsense. The part you are ignoring is that the OFFICIAL evidence doesn't support the contention that LHO fired three shots.

[Ross Lidell]

Sadly for you Ross, you have never shown that LHO did fire the shots on November 22, 1963. The evidence simply doesn't support this contention.

I'm not sad, Rob. Somewhere between neutral and slightly happy.

Incidentally, you're off-topic.

What about providing "supporting evidence" (proof) that the shot's attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission and HSCA are definitively impossible. Better still: Something that rebuts my conclusion that expert shooters (who are WC/HSCA conclusion doubters) "may not be trusted to try their best during shooting reconstructions".

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

The theory that some person shot JFK as you claim is hilarious.

I never made the claim you "claim" I made about "some person" shooting JFK. Your sentence is close to being incomprehensible.

You are unable to prove anything except you just maybe as much of a blowhard as your cousin Jesse V.  I'm starting to think you spent too much time watching your cousin's show for a guy who is bothered by it.

Branding me as being a relative of Jesse Ventura could be considered a "straw-man" argument. Hypocrite!!!

You are failing miserably at persuading me to believe you are serious and you're Mr. Serious.

I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm "serious" or persuade you in any way.

I'm trying to get you to provide some insight into why a Mauser rifle would be on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963. Your lack of curiosity suggests you don't know or care to know why?

The logical mind demands an explanation as to where a declaration then leads. This a standard procedure in an investigation.

The "Mauser is suspicious/relevant" claim goes back to Mark Lane's best-selling book "Rush To Judgement" (August 1966).

Lane and other authors were either unable or unwilling to put forward a coherent, plausible explanation as to why the Mauser would be part of a JFK assassination plot.

I thought you might possess some new insight into the "whys and wherefores" of the Mauser theory backed up by evidence or even just imagination. It looks like I was overestimating your ability. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

What time do you have to be back in your cell? Fair question, right?

Insults rather than responding to a challenge suggests an acknowledgement of defeat.

That is a wonderful argument.
Because your cousin Jesse V said it's impossible.
Why would you even care if your cousin Jesse believes, I don't?

Below is some footage from Tom Alyea. This is filmed inside the TSBD after the shooting. In the 1st part of the film, you will see an FBI agent looking out a window. As he backs up out of the window he looks surprised then changes his direction and walks toward the camera filming him. What is the agent carrying in his left hand?

[John Iacoletti]

Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?

Why would you think that?

Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:

1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

[Bill Chapman]

No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":

-- Some nefarious purpose?

-- A red herring?

-- An innocent coincidence?

There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.

It exposes the flaws in this theory.

Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.

There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:

1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.

2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.

See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. 

It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.

Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.

In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.

Ventura was going for the 6 second thing, wasn't he? Some say 8.3 seconds was the actual time. Ironically, Ventura scored under nine seconds twice I think... about 8.74 for one, I recall.

With the right 'tude (after the first shot, while struggling with the bolt action, the ex-guv barked that this was a piece of xxxx) he  might have relaxed and remembered his not-quite-a-full-fledged-Seal training

[Ross Lidell]

Why would you think that?

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?

Why would you think that?

I'm so charitable in my assessment of debating opponents. So you are not a researcher (of the JFK Assassination case). That begs the question: What are you?


    Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:

    1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

Not every facet... some facets. There's something strange about someone believing the 6th floor rifle was a Mauser not the Carcano C2766: Then having no interest in exploring how it fits with a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.

It reeks of an attitude of isolated points-scoring rather than seeking to find the truth.

[Rob Caprio]

I'm not sad, Rob. Somewhere between neutral and slightly happy.

Incidentally, you're off-topic.

What about providing "supporting evidence" (proof) that the shot's attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission and HSCA are definitively impossible. Better still: Something that rebuts my conclusion that expert shooters (who are WC/HSCA conclusion doubters) "may not be trusted to try their best during shooting reconstructions".

You have failed to support the claim that LHO fired a shot so why would I waste time proving anything regarding LHO and the firing of shots?