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

[Benjamin Cole]

"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?"---JT

But we just had two recent examples of amateur assassins who were lethal, or not so by the slimmest margins.

Charlie Kirk's assassin, and the Trump-Butler assassin, the latter who literally missed only by an inch. Both shots from greater ranges than in Dallas.

Kirk's assassin fired one shot, with his grandfather's rifle. No, we do not know if the bore on the rifle was high-quality or loose, or whether rifle had been recently sighted at the distance, etc. But a good guess is Kirk's assassin was successful with an old rifle, and was an ordinary shot himself, and he took it off the shelf and hit Kirk with it.

The Trump-Butler scenario is only different as Trump turned his head a little bit.

BTW, due to the timing of shots on 11/22, I suspect a second rifle was used, in addition to the M-C rifle---which was a serviceable rifle, and LHO a trained marksman.

Just IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

[Jack Nessan]

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. 

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.

Why would you ever think the bullet would follow a straight line after passing through several different varying density mediums?

Since when do bullets traversing different mediums continue on in exactly perfectly straight lines?

Mr. MATHEWS. So we say F-310 and F-114 are consistent with the theory that a bullet could enter one man straight, in a straight trajectory, and on exiting that man be curved slightly? 

Mr. STURDIVAN. Well, let's put it this way. With most military bullets, like the M-193, the bullet would curve almost immediately because the yaw begins to grow almost immediately . With the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, it is much more stable, the yaw begins to grow much more slowly, and it curves much more slowly. So that at a target of 4 or 5 inches of soft tissue, that bullet would not deviate appreciably from its path. In a much longer track, particularly if the bullet were unstable when it struck, it would in fact deviate from its path. It would not go in a straight line.

But it does deviate, rendering this two laser whatever moot and something for your amusement alone. How far does it deviate? No one knows. In the JFKA it is measured by the angle of the road, JFK’s posture, and the entrance and exit wounds shown in autopsy phots. As soon as you identify what frame JFK was wounded in, we will all know the answer, including you. 

Mr. MATHEWS. On your left, sir . Let me ask you a question in F-114, why did that bullet enter straight and then yaw upwardright behind you? 

Mr. STURDIVAN. The bullet entered straight because it was unyawed in normal flight, and bullets are engineered to be stable and, therefore, it strikes at low yaw. When it is unstable inside the block, naturally unstable inside the block, it yaws dramatically, in every case. All bullets are unstable in tissue, which is 800 times as dense as air . 

Mr. MATHEWS. The point being is that all bullets do not go straight when they enter a solid mass. 

Mr. STURDIVAN. Oh, no bullet actually goes straight when it enters a solid mass. The lift forces, which are better shown, I think, on--

 

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.

If you can prove there was a third shot get after it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You just keep repeating this silly argument and ignoring the objections to it. You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the simple fact that no matter how much time you want to give Oswald to shoot, he still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds on his last two shots. Do you not understand that Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? So even if he had fired his first shot at Z000, he still would have had to wait until Z210 to fire again, which would have given him only 5.6 seconds to fire his last two shots, both of which were allegedly hits.

I don't know how much more simply to explain this fact.

None of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test went two for two even on their first two shots--they went one for two with their first two shots, and that was after taking all the time they wanted for their first shot. And, again, those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in cramped conditions, and were not firing through a half-open window.

I should add that in saying the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test went one for two with their first two shots, I am bending over backward to give them every benefit of the doubt. Actually, only three of their first 12 shots hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes. But, since they were aiming at the center of mass of the target silhouettes, I'm counting all the shots that landed within the center of mass in order to say they went one for two on their first two shots. This is being generous.

Of course, this raises an obvious question: Why didn't they aim for the head and neck area, since that was the area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit with his final two shots?

Anyway, WC apologists want us to believe that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps qualification categories on his best day at the range, using a semi-automatic rifle, and who barely managed to qualify in the bottom category in his last trip to the range as a Marine--that this guy went two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots, when three Master-rated riflemen only went one for two with their first two shots and went zero for one with their last shot using the same weapon that the supposed lone-gunman allegedly used.

No thanks. Makes no sense. Wildly unlikely and really impossible for all practical purposes.

 

[Tim Nickerson]

I should add that in saying the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test went one for two with their first two shots, I am bending over backward to give them every benefit of the doubt. Actually, only three of their first 12 shots hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes. But, since they were aiming at the center of mass of the target silhouettes, I'm counting all the shots that landed within the center of mass in order to say they went one for two on their first two shots. This is being generous.

Of course, this raises an obvious question: Why didn't they aim for the head and neck area, since that was the area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit with his final two shots?

Anyway, WC apologists want us to believe that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps qualification categories on his best day at the range, using a semi-automatic rifle, and who barely managed to qualify in the bottom category in his last trip to the range as Marine--that this guy went two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots, when three Master-rated riflemen only went one for two with their first two shots and went zero for one with their last shot using the same weapon that the supposed lone-gunman allegedly used.

No thanks. Makes no sense. Wildly unlikely and really impossible for all practical purposes.

The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.

HUH??? I wish you guys would get your story straight. All the most prominent WC apologists say the first shot was a miss and that the last two shots were hits. This has been the lone-gunman camp's line for over 20 years now, and it includes the mythical Z224-lapel-flip SBT.

I notice you avoided dealing with the fact that two of the Master-rated riflemen took between 6.45 seconds and 8.0 seconds to fire their three shots, and that they went one for three. One of them took 8 seconds and 7 seconds, and he went one for three. And those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters. But you want us to believe that your alleged lone gunman, who was a mediocre shot on his best day at the range, went one for three in 8.7 seconds while firing from 30 feet higher and through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

No one can stop you guys from believing what you want to believe, but your refusal to deal with facts that refute your view is telling.

[Tim Nickerson]

HUH??? I wish you guys would get your story straight. All the most prominent WC apologists say the first shot was a miss and that the last two shots were hits. This has been the lone-gunman camp's line for over 20 years now, and it includes the mythical Z224-lapel-flip SBT.

The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? The first shot was a miss. It occurred at about Z153. The second shot struck both JFK and Connally at about Z223. The jacket bulge is not mythical. Neither is the simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally.

I notice you avoided dealing with the fact that two of the Master-rated riflemen took between 6.45 seconds and 8.0 seconds to fire their three shots, and that they went one for three. One of them took 8 seconds and 7 seconds, and he went one for three. And those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters. But you want us to believe that your alleged lone gunman, who was a mediocre shot on his best day at the range, went one for three in 8.7 seconds while firing from 30 feet higher and through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

No one can stop you guys from believing what you want to believe, but your refusal to deal with facts that refute your view is telling.

All three of the riflemen were needlessly rushed.

Hendrix fired the set in 8.25 seconds for the first and 7.00 seconds for the second. Staley’s times were 6.75 and 6.45 seconds. Miller’s times with the scope were 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. Using the iron sights, Miller fired the set of three shots in 4.45 seconds. In the seven sets, there were two misses on the third target, four on the second, and none on the first.
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 99). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

You say that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three. You are leaving out information.  They each fired six shots.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.

I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?

The first shot was a miss. It occurred at about Z153.

Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.

Some of your fellow lone-gunman theorists put this supposed first miss far earlier than you do, and they offer the unserious speculation that your alleged "sharpshooter" was foolish enough to fire virtually straight down with this shot and, to make matters worse, was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal rod or tree limb was smackdab in the middle of his aiming point or very close to it. Not even an idiotic amateur would commit such a blunder. 

The second shot struck both JFK and Connally at about Z223. The jacket bulge is not mythical. Neither is the simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally.

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.

The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him. The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.

At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.

And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?

All three of the riflemen were needlessly rushed.

No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation. 

You say that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three. You are leaving out information.  They each fired six shots.

Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

Hendrix fired the set in 8.25 seconds for the first and 7.00 seconds for the second. Staley’s times were 6.75 and 6.45 seconds. Miller’s times with the scope were 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. Using the iron sights, Miller fired the set of three shots in 4.45 seconds. In the seven sets, there were two misses on the third target, four on the second, and none on the first.
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 99). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).

You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.

So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.

BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

It continues to genuinely amaze me at how you guys simply refuse to face obvious, undeniable facts. Anyone not blinded by the lone-gunman theory can see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, and was even beyond the ability of three Master-rated riflemen.