Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Firearms experts who say; “I can't do it so it can't be done”, cannot be trusted  (Read 4259 times)

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 293
Marine Sniper , Carlos Hathcock was asked about LHO being able to pull off the shots that killed jfk and Hathcock said they set up a replica at Quantico and that nobody could duplicate the so called shots that Oswald was said to have pulled off .

        https://www.plaintruth.com/.../jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html       
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig’s word, which I do not trust.

I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.

He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.

So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley’s shooting? Or Craig Roger’s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig’s word, which I do not trust.

I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.

He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.

So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley’s shooting? Or Craig Roger’s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?

Hathcock
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?50970-Kennedy-assassination-Gunny-Hathcock-s-take

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 594
False.
Roger Craig claimed that Carlos Hathcock said these things. We have absolutely no evidence that Hathcock did these things or ever claimed he did those things.
Only Roger Craig’s word, which I do not trust.

I saw a Discovery Channel show where Michael Yardley fired 16 times at a melon moving at similar speeds and the similar angles of the November 22, 1963 shots.

He hit the melon 16 times in 16 shots.

So, which should I trust more? The video of Michael Yardley’s shooting? Or Craig Roger’s word about what Carlos Hathcock said about the test that he ran
which showed that what Michael Yardley did and what Oswald did is impossible?

"Roger Craig" and then "Craig Rogers"? Or should it be Craig Roberts? Put the crack pipe down, Joe. It's affecting your mind.

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
This topic was inspired by another: "Oswald's rifle capability".
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
 
Quote
  A word-class shooter could not fire 3 shots blah blah
I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
 
Quote
As part of the debate: 
I posted this comment, which has been avoided by Freeman [who started the topic and posted the clip] and other top intellects on this forum.
What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance.
Quote
I suggest the comment was ignored because it cannot be challenged...blah blah again.
Assessing Oswald’s rifle-shooting skills “after the event” is futile.
That is one absolutely absurd statement.
 
Quote
  It will annoy conspiracy theorists to be told: A lucky shot (or 2 lucky shots) was possible... however unlikely.
Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass  wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?
 

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2607
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was. (Here, Boone's memory failed him as it was Day who picked up the rifle by the strap)
Mr. BALL - You saw them take the photograph?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Were you alone at that time?
Mr. BOONE - There was an Officer Weitzman, I believe. He is a deputy constable.
Mr. BALL - Where was the rifle located on the floor, general location?
Mr. BOONE - Well, it was almost--the stairwell is in the corner of the building, something like this, and there is a wall coming up here, making one side of the stairwell with the building acting as the other two sides. And from that, it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell.

Sims said that he rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs, and Boone said the rifle was about 8 feet from the stairs , and Studebaker measured the distance from the rifle to the stairs and he found the distance to be 15 feet  4 inches....

The carcano was lying on the floor beneath a wooden pallet with the leather sling up ( left side up ) "it was almost directly in front or about 8 feet south, I guess, it would be, from that partition wall that made up the stairwell."

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
 I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
  What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance.  That is one absolutely absurd statement.
  Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass  wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?

So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?

Different subject. The suggestion is to debate the theory "expert rifleman cannot make Oswald's shots because they don't want to equal his performance". It would contradict their own opinion that he was not the killer of JFK. That's different from Oswald's rifle-shooting capability.

I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?

Thanks for the "spell-check". I've corrected the error.

The SUBJECT is not about Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle-shooting capability: It's about self-appointed firearms experts intentionally performing below their maximum shooting capability. I'm proposing a theory that predetermined negative outcomes are possible. This was demonstrated by Governor Jesse Ventura's obviously staged failure to meet "time limits" in firing three shots from a Carcano rifle similar to Oswald's.

What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance.  That is one absolutely absurd statement.

Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario.

Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass  wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?


You are adding together many aspects of the assassination scenario and implying that the odds against such things occurring are very high or perhaps impossible. Are these occurrences actually coincidences? I suppose anything and everything that occurs in this world could be regarded as coincidences: If not the actual event; those events leading up to it.

Divining when to prepare a sniper's nest.

When he could.
-- How do you attribute odds to that?

...assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced]

The Warren Commission demonstrated that the Carcano rifle could be assembled with a coin.
-- How do you calculate odds that it couldn't?

...then just in time for the motorcade to pass

The motorcade was five (5) minutes later than scheduled when it reached Dealey Plaza. I wish that it had been "on time". President Kennedy may have avoided Lee Harvey Oswald's evil act.
-- What are the odds that the President's motorcade would be running 5 minutes late in passing through Dealey Plaza?

wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing..

Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired. Define "half-way gone down the road" in yards or in reference to landmarks.
-- Why would you want to attribute odds to Oswald's estimate of when to fire the first shot? It's his decision made for reasons that only he knew.

... bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.

Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys".

So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?

Jump-start your mind... you may start posting sensible rebuttals to facts.



« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 12:23:28 AM by Ross Lidell »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired.

... and you know this, how?

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."


Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."


Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".

FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.

I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.

It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.

Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.
   Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.
 

JFK Assassination Forum