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

[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. 

[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.