Oswald bought the Carcano to shoot Walker with it. A better weapon on any street corner would have cost a great deal more than he was willing to pay.
In 1976, 13 years after the JFK, I bought a pristine Remington 30.06 with a good quality Weaver 4X scope for $75, no paperwork and no questions asked, from a guy who had run a classified ad in the Arizona Republic. Oswald had more cash than that, and I'm betting the Dallas newspapers were as full of gun ads as the Arizona ones were.
I don't know what the bullet passing through JFK would have done to the chrome strip of the windshield. Sitting on my porch on a ranch, I stupidly fired my 30.06 and a 30-30 lever action Winchester at an old truck frame about 25 yards away. The 30.06 drilled an absolutely perfect hole. The 30-30 ricocheted off and bounced off the side of the house right next to me. The 30.06 travels about 2700 fps, but the 30-30 is still around 2300 fps. The result of my slightly insane experiment probably had to do with precisely how the bullets impacted, but anyway I'm never prepared to say what a bullet "must" have done or "could not" have done.
What exactly were those expert marksmen attempting to duplicate?
The firing of the Carcano within the allotted time and the apparent degree of accuracy, no? As I mentioned previously, I played golf with a guy who was a MILITARY SNIPER for more than 20 years. He had no great interest in the JFKA, but he did think the supposed feats of Oswald and his Carcano were impossible.
Stop playing stupid. It's annoying.
I actually am stoopid, so hopefully that will make it less annoying. Yes, I understand the arguments as to why one bullet fragmented so completely and one remained intact, but the one that remained intact is highly puzzling and I don't find Orr's theory implausible or annoying.
The SBT is highly probable. A non single bullet scenario has a lot of problems that cannot be addressed with much degree of plausibility.
The SBT is possible, not highly probable - at least in my opinion. What do you see as the problems raised by Orr's theory that cannot be plausibly addressed?
I'm not arguing for a CT position, merely than I believe Orr is on the trail of by far the most plausible CT theory. If I reject his "Oswald the faux Marxist" and "Jack Ruby the point man" stuff, I believe his theory is quite plausible. Oswald was a genuine Marxist who desperately wanted entry to Cuba. If he were led to believe he was involved in a pro-Castro plot, he was the perfect patsy. It wouldn't have mattered if he were discovered in the TSBD before he fired or apprehended before he escaped or two hours later - anything he had to say would have been exactly what the Mafia wanted people to hear. If he thought any second gunman was part of the same pro-Castro plot, no problem. There would have been no need at all for someone like Ruby to eliminate him.
Again, I'm not arguing against the LN narrative. I am arguing that there is really only one plausible conspiracy theory and that Orr is on the right path. I'm surprised the CT community hasn't coalesced around this theory. They haven't because it isn't grand, elaborate and sexy enough and because their theorizing is driven more by a political/ideological agenda than a quest for historical truth. If there was a conspiracy, my guess is that it is to be found somewhere in the work of Larry Hancock and John Orr, with Oswald being pretty much who the LN narrative says he was. I haven't attempted to connect the dots between the anti-Castro folks and Marcello, but I'm guessing it could be done with the involvement of only a handful of participants.