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

[Dan O'meara]

WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308) 

And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:

Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.

And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)

The FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.

Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?

I've never really understood the story about Oswald disassembling his rifle. The disassembled rifle was as long as the rifle he was going to originally buy, so it's not like he was disguising the fact he was bringing a rifle to work in a bag. The few inches lost by disassembling would gain him nothing.
The only way the rifle could have remained sighted would be to do this before taking it to the TSBD building and not disassembling it. Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it. Oswald would know this.
And when do Nutters believe Oswald had time to reassemble the rifle?

[Charles Collins]

I've never really understood the story about Oswald disassembling his rifle. The disassembled rifle was as long as the rifle he was going to originally buy, so it's not like he was disguising the fact he was bringing a rifle to work in a bag. The few inches lost by disassembling would gain him nothing.
The only way the rifle could have remained sighted would be to do this before taking it to the TSBD building and not disassembling it. Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it. Oswald would know this.
And when do Nutters believe Oswald had time to reassemble the rifle?

Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it.

Why would anyone think that? I believe that the disassembly for reducing the length to the size of the bag only involves taking the wooden stock off of the rest of the rifle. The scope stays mounted to the receiver/barrel assembly. So no alignment of the scope is changed relative to the barrel and where it would shoot. If LHO zeroed in the rifle for the (~100’) distance involved for the Walker attempt, then it should have stayed pretty much like that and been just fine for the distances involved in Dealey Plaza.

[Lance Payette]

Your post suggests you've done little reading of scholarly works that reject the lone-gunman theory, because virtually all of them discuss the accounts of the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome. Your post also suggests you don't even have a handle on your own side's talking points.

Michael, there is something seriously wrong with you. I don't know if I'm even allowed to say that here, but I'm saying it. You have got serious screws loose. The posts of yourself, KGB Tom and WC Sham Man Dan are so tedious, so nonsensical and so repetitive that they are destroying any semblance of a forum. Putting you three on Ignore leaves the forum looking like a blank canvas. Engaging with any of you is, at least in my opinion, a complete waste of time. I can put up with a CT enthusiast, or even a flock of them, if they are at least rational and/or amusing. You are neither. The folks at the Ed Forum seem to have reached the same conclusion insofar as you are concerned, which is presumably why you have taken your insane act here.

Unlike you in your deranged, one-dimensional, believe-absolutely-anything, nothing-is-too-crazy little CT world, I have no "side." I have no "talking points." Unlike you, I can acknowledge a genuine mystery when one exists without peeing in my pants because it doesn't mesh perfectly with my overarching theory of the case. Unlike the many factoids I have exposed. the Sportsdrome is a genuine mystery. It may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with Oswald or the JFKA, but it is a genuine mystery that is not easily dismissed. I have read, insofar as I know, pretty much everything published about the Sportsdrome; I simply had not seen this video.

'Bye now.

[Tom Graves]

Mmm

[Lance Payette]

From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department: The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots. I can find nothing suspicious about him, but the JFKA is certainly filled with an inordinate number of weird twists and turns. Oh, on December 1, 1963, Floyd G. Davis, owner of the Sports Drome, turned over to the FBI 66 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano casings. The FBI lab determined that these were not from Oswald’s rifle (Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, page 355), but doesn't this seem “just a bit” odd for a nine-station gun range in Grand Prairie that had only been open a few weeks? I wish I had the time and interest to do the definitive article on the Sports Drome Mystery, which I suspect would be likely to remain a genuine mystery even after my factoid-busting efforts, but I have officially run out of gas insofar as the JFKA is concerned.

Oh, before some goofball interrupts this with a truly startling factoid that even Simpich repeats, I shall clarify: The factoid is that Garland Slack said Oswald was dropped off by someone name Frazier from Irving, Texas. YEE-HA! No, actually, Slack's wife was interviewed by the FBI in September of 1964, long after his WC testimony. During the interview, she telephoned Garland to try to clarify the story. It was then that he came up with the Frazier from Irving factoid. Mrs. Slack told the FBI that she thought Garland was "confused." Weirdly, insofar as I can tell, all of the players in the Sports Drome Mystery thereafter pretty much vanished into history.

[Jack Nessan]

From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department: The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots. I can find nothing suspicious about him, but the JFKA is certainly filled with an inordinate number of weird twists and turns. Oh, on December 1, 1963, Floyd G. Davis, owner of the Sports Drome, turned over to the FBI 66 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano casings. The FBI lab determined that these were not from Oswald’s rifle (Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, page 355), but doesn't this seem “just a bit” odd for a nine-station gun range in Grand Prairie that had only been open a few weeks? I wish I had the time and interest to do the definitive article on the Sports Drome Mystery, which I suspect would be likely to remain a genuine mystery even after my factoid-busting efforts, but I have officially run out of gas insofar as the JFKA is concerned.

Oh, before some goofball interrupts this with a truly startling factoid that even Simpich repeats, I shall clarify: The factoid is that Garland Slack said Oswald was dropped off by someone name Frazier from Irving, Texas. YEE-HA! No, actually, Slack's wife was interviewed by the FBI in September of 1964, long after his WC testimony. During the interview, she telephoned Garland to try to clarify the story. It was then that he came up with the Frazier from Irving factoid. Mrs. Slack told the FBI that she thought Garland was "confused." Weirdly, insofar as I can tell, all of the players in the Sports Drome Mystery thereafter pretty much vanished into history.

The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots

No, initially he stated he heard two shots and also the sound of two shots hitting their target. (Sheriff's affidavit 11/22)  He never added a third shot until later statements.

[Jack Trojan]

As usual, WC apologists are unable to use logic and critical thinking to refute a single argument made by MTG regarding the MC rifle. Instead they spew ad-homs and obfuscation.

For your refutation:

1) Marina said Lee used the MC one time to target shoot at leaves, which was the extent of his practice and his only opportunity to sight in the scope.  Any military marksman will tell you that you must constantly practice with a familiar weapon and, most importantly, with a scope that has been sighted in if you are relying on it to shoot accurately. Why didn't LHO sight in his scope if he planned on using it?

2) For those that claim this was an easy shot, even though no one has replicated it (using the iron sights with a wonky scope obscuring your view), here is a perspective from JFK's POV of how the shot would have looked via the iron sights:

http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2_SN.jpg

Note the tiny heads in the background that were even closer to JFK than Oswald was.

4) If LHO disassembled the rifle to smuggle it into the TSBD, then why did he include the useless scope when he knew he was going to use the iron sights instead? How stupid was he?

5) LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope, and strap, even though he supposedly disassembled, reassembled, and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.

6) There is no valid trajectory for the magic bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. If you think there is, then use the 2 laser challenge to prove it and post your results.

http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png

Here are my results:

http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png

7) Lastly, if you actually believe that after Oswald took his 3rd shot, he wiped off all his prints from the rifle, ditched it, then raced down 4 floors and into the lunchroom, bought a Coke, and was not out of breath, all in less than 90 seconds, then you have more jam than Smuckers.

Unless you can refute all these and MTG's arguments then you are done. Otherwise, good luck.