When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?

[Tim Nickerson]

How is it a red herring when the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to duplicate the shooting feat that you, incredibly, continue to pretend was not all that difficult? Huh? If it was not all that difficult, then why were those three Master-rated riflemen unable to duplicate it, even though they fired under conditions that were much easier than those Oswald would have faced? If it was not all that difficult, why were 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test unable to duplicate it, even though they got to fire nine practice rounds right before the test, did not have to fire through a half-open window, and had any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes counted as a hit even if it landed far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice in three shots on his first attempt? Huh?

The shooting feat that Oswald accomplished was not that difficult. The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test did not attempt to duplicate that shooting feat. Nor did the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test. The shoot feat that they all strived for was considerably more difficult than the one performed by Oswald.

[Charles Collins]

In my boredom, I’ve been perusing gun sites. They say that the iron sights on Oswald’s Carcano were zeroed at 200 meters and nonadjustable. It seems pretty clear that if Oswald wanted to use the iron sights, the scope would be considerably less of a nuisance if Oswald shot LH rather than RH.

Yes, there is a Marine photo of Oswald shooting RH. However, numerous ex-Marines of that era said they were required to shoot RH – LH simply wasn’t allowed.

Aunt Lillian told the WC she thought Oswald did things LH as a child. Robert, however, testified that he and Marguerite were LH but Lee was definitely RH. Lt. Day said he found faint prints from a right middle and ring finger on the Carcano trigger housing, but his WC testimony was extremely iffy.

I am completely, 100% RH. However, I am extremely left eye dominant. I discovered many years ago that I am FAR more comfortable shooting a rifle and putting golf balls LH than RH. The shift to LH putting was a challenge due to issues of feel for distance, but the shift to LH rifle shooting was immediate.

The gun sites, based on actual experience, say that with the rifle on a rest (such as the window frame or boxes), a LH shooter does not have to remove his finger from the trigger and can operate the bolt more quickly (with his RH). If one were a natural rightie, like me and Oswald, this would be even more true.

I note that the HSCA firearms panel suggested the iron sights would have been a better choice than the scope for Dealey Plaza. Since Oswald had achieved good results at 200, 300 and 500 yards in the USMC using only iron sites, why would we think he would shift to the funky scope for the JFKA?

Regardless of whether Oswald was shooting LH or RH, the “zeroing in” thing still seems to me like much ado about nothing.

"It is the opinion of this panel that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza."

"Mr. McDONALD. Would it be possible to attain the same accuracy with the iron sight on that rifle as it would with the scope, for an average marksman, at a distance of well, say less than 100 yards?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, it would be very likely to be able to do that."

Lance, like you I am cross-eye dominant. In other words left eye dominant (can’t see well at all with my right eye) but right handed. I also shoot a rifle left handed. More interesting is that if what I read is true, only about 20% of people are cross-eye dominant, but eighty something percent of the professional golfers are cross-eye dominant. I can only remember one or two of them putting the opposite way than the way they swing the other clubs. However, it is supposed to be an advantage to do as you have and putt according to the dominant eye. I have experimented with putting left handed. I think with enough practice that left handed might work best for me. But the jury is still out on this one.

In my experiments with a model of the sniper’s nest boxes and window it became apparent to me that LHO would have shot right handed. This is due to the very limited leg room available. The knees point west parallel with the south wall. This makes the direction of the shots across the body as is usual for shooting. If he were to have wanted to shoot left handed, he would have wanted the knees pointing south. But there simply isn’t any way to achieve this given the positions of the boxes.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The answer from lone-gunman theorists began with "maybe Oswald zeroed the rifle at the Sports Drome rifle range." But, whoops, Oswald was known to be elsewhere when Dr. Wood and his son got a up-close, prolonged look at an Oswald double who was firing at that range.

Now, incredibly, lone-gunman theorists' consensus answer is that "well, actually, now that we realize he had no opportunity to zero the rifle, our final answer is that he not only didn't bother to zero the rifle but that he didn't need to zero it anyway!"

Right! Never mind what the FBI's Robert Frazier said about zeroing the rifle with the scope. Yeah, just never mind that. Never mind that the FBI zeroed the rifle with the scope before it was used in the WC's rifle test. Gee, now why did they do that, if zeroing is purely optional and unnecessary?

And never mind that Marine Corps rifle expert Master Sergeant James Zahm told the WC that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Just never mind that, too.

To top it all off, they argue that Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even if done with a non-zeroed rifle, would have been relatively easy for anyone with Oswald's demonstrably poor-to-mediocre rifle skills. Uh-huh, never mind that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--the only test that used the alleged murder rifle itself--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's supposed performance, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary targets, and were firing with the rifle after it had been zeroed. And never mind that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, and that the only rifleman who did scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt was an experienced and expert rifleman whose shots were counted as hits even if they landed far outside the small area on the target silhouettes that Oswald allegedly hit.

You see, folks, these guys have a cult-like mentality when it comes to the JFK case. They belong to the small minority of the Western world that still believes in the lone-gunman theory. They embrace the first government investigation, the Warren Commission in 1964, as sacred and definitive, but they reject the second--and far more thorough--government investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977-1979, because that investigation concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that there were at least four shots, that Oswald had suspicious ties with rabid right-wingers and anti-Castro Cubans, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he got into the police basement to shoot Oswald, that the first hit on JFK was fired when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree, that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's nest within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that Silvia and Annie Odio's accounts are credible, etc., etc.

Dealing with these guys is literally like dealing with 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, and Holocaust deniers. They're 20 years behind the information curve because they refuse to acknowledge the numerous and historic ARRB disclosures and the scientific research done over the last 20 years that has destroyed the lone-gunman theory.