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

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

You are certainly correct; witness statements about the JFKA are all over the board.

Kellerman talked about a flurry of shots  Connally talked about shots hitting the cab of the limo as if from "automatic weapons."

Other people heard only two shots!

Between my, myself and I...I trust what I see in the Z-film. Or what I think I see. Maybe I am in error.

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

BTW, I smell Tehran and Moscow money filtering around the JFKA research community...a feculent tell-tale odor.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I suggest reading this thread:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173

I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.

MTG-- Enjoyed your post. But I think I disagree in some regards.

Just recently we have had one assassination--Charlie Kirk---and one very close call (Trump-Butler, missed by less than one inch) by what appears to amateur-lone nuts armed with off-the-shelf gear (in fact Kirk appears to have been shot with a gun his assassin's grandfather owned, a family heirloom).

For the reasons I explained in another thread, I don't think the Kirk shooting bears any resemblance to the alleged shooting feat in the JFK case. And, the rifle in the Kirk shooting was a Mauser 98, a much better rifle than the alleged murder weapon. 

JFK was moving, but more or less in a straight line from the TSBD6 sniper's nest and the Dal-Tex building.

Yes, but the sixth-floor gunman would have been firing from 60 feet up and through a half-open window. Would he have known that shooting from an elevation requires factoring in the high-low formula to account for the effect of gravity on the bullet? I seriously doubt that Oswald had ever even heard of this, much less knew how to use it.

Even if there were a second gunsel in the Dal-Tex building (I think that is possible), the Dal-Tex sniper also would  not have had the opportunity to sight-in his weapon in the immediate circumstance.

A Dal-Tex Building shooter would not have needed to sight-in his rifle in the immediate circumstance. He could have done it earlier in the morning, or the day before. Plus, sighting in a better-quality rifle does not take the 10 bullets that the Carcano would have required. In the Army, we were often able to sight-in ("zero") the M-16 with just three bullets.

Assuming Oswald was the gunman, the most likely scenario is that he did not sight-in the rifle but assumed the rifle was still sighted at "mechanical zero" and was willing to rely on mechanical zero, a foolish assumption that even Oswald would have known was risky. Oswald would have known from his Marine days that rifles need to be sighted-in to ensure accuracy before firing. Okay, so the next issue is when and where Oswald could have sighted-in the Carcano before the shooting, and what ammo he would have used to do so, leaving aside the reasons to doubt that Oswald even had the rifle in his possession before the shooting.

However, the distance at which JFK on 11/22 was shot was not especially great, perhaps 70 yards. LHO was putting good clusters on silhouettes at 300 and 500 yards in 1956, with an M-1.

One, yes, he did that with an M-1, a semi-automatic, so he did not have to work the bolt when he fired at those targets in the Marines. I can assure you, based on my own Army experience with semi-automatics and with my private experience with bolt-action rifles (Mausers), that firing a semi-automatic rifle accurately is much easier than firing a bolt-action rifle accurately. Any competition riflemen will confirm this.

Two, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.

In light of the real-world recent assassination and near-miss assassination attempt...I wonder if too much is being made about the difficulty of the shots on 11/22.

I think the evidence clearly shows that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult and far beyond his rifle skills. Not only did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to duplicate the alleged shooting feat, but not one of the 11 expert riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test managed to score two hits on his first attempt.

The timing of the 11/22 shots...is another matter. Too rapid a sequence for a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

I agree completely. Way too rapid. The acoustical evidence corroborates the numerous eyewitness statements that two of the shots came nearly simultaneously, right on top of each other. 

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Your marksmen had to fire three shots as quickly as possible (maximum eight seconds).

Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots, and missed with only the first, steeply-downward-angled one.

-- Tom

[Charles Collins]

I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting t to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.

For the reasons I explained in another thread, I don't think the Kirk shooting bears any resemblance to the alleged shooting feat in the JFK case. And, the rifle in the Kirk shooting was a Mauser 98, a much better rifle than the alleged murder weapon. 
 

Yes, but the sixth-floor gunman would have been firing from 60 feet up and through a half-open window. Would he have known that shooting from an elevation requires factoring in the high-low formula to account for the effect of gravity on the bullet? I seriously doubt that Oswald had ever even heard of this, much less knew how to use it.

A Dal-Tex Building shooter would not have needed to sight-in his rifle in the immediate circumstance. He could have done it earlier in the morning, or the day before. Plus, sighting in a better-quality rifle does not take the 10 bullets that the Carcano would have required. In the Army, we were often able to sight-in ("zero") the M-16 with just three bullets.

Assuming Oswald was the gunman, the most likely scenario is that he did not sight-in the rifle but assumed the rifle was still sighted at "mechanical zero" and was willing to rely on mechanical zero, a foolish assumption that even Oswald would have known was risky. Oswald would have known from his Marine days that rifles need to be sighted-in to ensure accuracy before firing. Okay, so the next issue is when and where Oswald could have sighted-in the Carcano before the shooting, and what ammo he would have used to do so, leaving aside the reasons to doubt that Oswald even had the rifle in his possession before the shooting.

One, yes, he did that with an M-1, a semi-automatic, so he did not have to work the bolt when he fired at those targets in the Marines. I can assure you, based on my own Army experience with semi-automatics and with my private experience with bolt-action rifles (Mausers), that firing a semi-automatic rifle accurately is much easier than firing a bolt-action rifle accurately. Any competition riflemen will confirm this.

Two, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.

I think the evidence clearly shows that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult and far beyond his rifle skills. Not only did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to duplicate the alleged shooting feat, but not one of the 11 expert riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test managed to score two hits on his first attempt.

I agree completely. Way too rapid. The acoustical evidence corroborates the numerous eyewitness statements that two of the shots came nearly simultaneously, right on top of each other.

I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting t to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.

Thankfully we don’t need to rely on biased opinions such as yours. The actual results of LHO’s basic training with the rifle are published for all to see and judge for themselves. Showing a method of properly interpreting and understanding what those results represent is what the thread’s intent is all about.

[Tom Graves]

You are certainly correct; witness statements about the JFKA are all over the board.

Is that what I said?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith, Your marksmen had to fire three shots as quickly as possible (maximum eight seconds). Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots, and missed with only the first, steeply-downward-angled one. -- Tom

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.

[Lance Payette]

Say what we will about the Sports Drome story - and I'm not going to dive into it - these folksy characters are about as believable as it gets. I hadn't seen this before, but it's refreshing to see witnesses with no obvious agenda being interviewed by a reporter with no obvious agenda.

Very weird: The bolt-action rifle, wrapped and tied with string, is handed over the fence instead of being brought through the office ... "Oswald" is practicing rapid firing and gets off six shots in 6-9 seconds ... and when "Oswald" is confronted by this toothless old fart about shooting at his targets, "Oswald" says nothing in response (which indeed sounds somewhat Oswald-like).

The video repeats on here - it's really only about six minutes.

 

[Tom Graves]

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.

His last two shots (at approx. Z-222 and Z-313), were both fatal in nature and took only 4.97 seconds.

He had plenty of time (5.2 seconds) to line up his second shot (at Z-222) after missing his first shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming.