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

[Gerry Down]

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.

Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?

[Charles Collins]

Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?

Three screws need to be removed. After the first screw is removed, the band that holds the upper hand guard on is simply slid off of the wooden pieces. Then the second and third screws are removed and the trigger guard is removed. And then the barrel/receiver assembly is then simply lifted out of the wooden stock. The scope mount is screwed directly into the metal receiver. Therefore, neither the scope or it’s mount are affected by removing the wooden stock.





Here’s a link to a how-to video. It isn’t the exact same model. Nor does it have a scope mounted. But the disassembly/reassembly of the wooden stock would be the same for the gun found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's worth noting that in her first interviews, which took place between 12/4 and 12/16, before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald said that Oswald had never left or returned to their house carrying a rifle, that he had never mentioned any intention to practice shooting, that to her knowledge he had never done any target practice, and that she had never even seen him holding the rifle (CE 1785; CE 1401, p. 286; CE 1790; CE 1403, p. 735).

And I see we still have WC apologists floating the zany theory that the alleged lone gunman was foolish enough to fire long before Z166, that he was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or tree limb was near or in his center of aim, that his first shot therefore hit the pole/limb and missed the entire limousine, and that he then went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from Z210-Z313. None of the WC's Master-rated riflemen were able to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds.

We have two or three folks who go even farther off the deep end. One of them says "Oswald" fired only two shots, while two others claim that "Oswald" fired two shots, that he missed JFK's head, and that the head shot was fired accidentally by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the follow-up car, never mind that no one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot, never mind that all of his ammo was accounted for, and never mind that one of the head shots hit near the right temple (as confirmed by the skull x-rays and by Dr. Burkley to White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff) and exited the back of his head.

The Head Shot from the Front
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view

And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.

Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."

[Charles Collins]

And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.

Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."

All we can do is speculate about when it was sighted in. However, your idea (suggestion/inference) that it had to be within a month or two of the assassination simply isn’t reasonable. As I have said before in this thread, it is reasonable to believe LHO sighted the scope in at the proper distance (~100-feet) for the Walker attempt. That same sight-in distance would be just fine for the shots taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

[Lance Payette]

And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.

Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."

Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Your hero and mine thought I had beaten it to death and beyond. In point of fact, your "known to be elsewhere" statement is completely false. The only "imposter" sighting was because Price said September 28 at the WC (when Oswald was in Mexico City) when he had previously said October 26, which was in fact the first day the Sportsdrome (spell it right, willya?) opened. There was no sighting, imposter or otherwise, on September 28. Moreover, I specifically noted that the other sightings were on weekends (including the long Veterans Day weekend) when Oswald theoretically COULD have been there. The only halfway credible sighting, that of the Woods, was the Sunday before the JFKA - but Oswald would not even have known JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD and would have been using a different, sporterized rifle that belched flame and sounded like a howitzer. In short, even though I tried to be gentle with the goofballs and their sightings, the Sportsdrome sightings are almost certainly bogus, involving neither Oswald nor an imposter.

If you think the Sportsdrome discussion was inadequate, revive the thread with something that makes sense. Otherwise, do not take the name of The World's Leading Authority on the Sportsdrome Gun Range (as it says on my business cards and letterhead) in vain or God will punish you.

Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Are you kiddin' me? (Jim Mora voice).

BTW, I don't think he sighted it in at all. I think he retrieved it as-is from the Paine garage and took his chances because the JFKA was a completely last-minute, what-the-hell operation. I never sighted in my 30.06 at all, after buying it used or in the two years I had it; when my brother-in-law test fired it before buying it from me, I held my breath as he took the first shot at a glass jug 100 yards away - and exhaled when the jug exploded.

[Michael T. Griffith]

All we can do is speculate about when it was sighted in. However, your idea suggestion/inference) that it had to be within a month or two of the assassination simply isn’t reasonable.

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

As I have said before in this thread, it is reasonable to believe LHO sighted the scope in at the proper distance (~100-feet) for the Walker attempt. That same sight-in distance would be just fine for the shots taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.

Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Your hero and mine thought I had beaten it to death and beyond. In point of fact, your "known to be elsewhere" statement is completely false.

You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.

The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?

Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.

The only "imposter" sighting was because Price said September 28 at the WC (when Oswald was in Mexico City) when he had previously said October 26, which was in fact the first day the Sportsdrome (spell it right, willya?) opened. There was no sighting, imposter or otherwise, on September 28. Moreover, I specifically noted that the other sightings were on weekends (including the long Veterans Day weekend) when Oswald theoretically COULD have been there. The only halfway credible sighting, that of the Woods, was the Sunday before the JFKA - but Oswald would not even have known JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD and would have been using a different, sporterized rifle that belched flame and sounded like a howitzer. In short, even though I tried to be gentle with the goofballs and their sightings, the Sportsdrome sightings are almost certainly bogus, involving neither Oswald nor an imposter.

"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed  sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.

And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.

If you think the Sportsdrome discussion was inadequate, revive the thread with something that makes sense. Otherwise, do not take the name of The World's Leading Authority on the Sportsdrome Gun Range (as it says on my business cards and letterhead) in vain or God will punish you. Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Are you kiddin' me? (Jim Mora voice).

You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.

And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.

BTW, I don't think he sighted it in at all. I think he retrieved it as-is from the Paine garage and took his chances because the JFKA was a completely last-minute, what-the-hell operation. I never sighted in my 30.06 at all, after buying it used or in the two years I had it; when my brother-in-law test fired it before buying it from me, I held my breath as he took the first shot at a glass jug 100 yards away - and exhaled when the jug exploded.

Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.

Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.

[Lance Payette]

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.

You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.

The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?

Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.

"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed  sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.

And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.

You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.

And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.

Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.

Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.

Several unpleasant years of my legal career were spent representing a mental health agency in court proceedings to involuntarily commit persons who fit the statutory definition of Seriously Mentally Ill. I've seen and heard it all, or at least a lot of it. You are hereby consigned to the category of Eternal Ignore, which is rapidly making this forum look like a blank slate on my laptop - but I guarantee you, I am never again going to make the mistake of taking someone off of Ignore as though it were some mere Purgatory; hence my new category of Eternal Ignore (sort of like Hell, but without the pitchforks).

I have no idea what goes on inside your head, and I don't think I want to know. You twist and misstate, and twist and misstate, and twist and misstate to the point that attempting to engage with you has zero educational or amusement value.

Who or what do you conceive your audience here to be? Your inanities and misstatements might slide by if you were enthralling a class of eighth graders with your goofy theories, but I feel sure that even the lurkers here can see through you. EVERYONE to whom you respond is an idiot who obviously knows nothing about the JFKA, blah blah blah. Do you seriously think this game is going to work at a forum such as this? You simply make yourself look like a buffoon, a crank - which is, alas, what you are. You destroy or own credibility and whatever merit any of your research might actually have.

I posted a two-minute Sportsdrome video from Duncan's YouTube channel that I had not previously seen and said the people in it (Floyd and Virgina Davis and Garland Slack) seemed credible and believable. Old Garland seemed too folksy and unsophisticated to be hoaxing. Intrigued, I dived into the story in a lawyerly way and learned more about the Sportsdrome than you will ever know, whereupon I started a thread. I exposed that poor old Garland was "somewhat" less than credible, the supposed "imposter" on September 28 was factually, demonstrably false, and the entire Sportsdrome story simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, factually or logically. Having done all that, I further exposed how two or three leading CTers twist and misstate the facts of the Sportsdrome episode to suit their theories. Nevertheless, I am fair and rational enough to acknowledge that it's impossible to say that Oswald or an imposter was never at the Sportsdrome, even though an imposter makes no earthly sense and Oswald would have to have been practicing before he even knew JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD.

I don't care what the WR says about the Sportsdrome; it isn't my Bible. I have no "side" or "talking points." I do my own research and reach my own conclusions. And I'm pretty damn confident in my conclusions when it comes to the Sportsdrome, which I can at least spell.

There is something very, very, VERY wrong with your thought processes - simple as that. As always, the irony is that you are oblivious to the fact that you are destroying your own credibility. Enjoy your time in Eternal Ignore. At least, you'll have company.

Would anyone here like to dive in and argue, "No, I think Michael makes a great deal of sense and I highly value his contributions" - ? Go for it! I'm always prepared to be astonished.

[Jack Nessan]

It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.

No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.

You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.

The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?

Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.

"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed  sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.

And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.

You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.

And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.

Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.

Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.

What was to zero on a fixed sight Carcano?

Good work Michael, you have proven LHO used the iron sights. They were fixed and not able to be adjusted. No need to practice with them to adjust them.
Is your argument that LHO would have waited for the next opportunity because he never had sufficient time to practice?
As far as adjusting his iron sights that was not possible.

Guns America by By Paul Helinski, Editor

One thing I have never seen explained online is that the scope on the Oswald rifle is a side mount, like an M1 Garand sniper modesl. You can still use the open sights just as you would without a scope, and you don’t have to look under the mounts like you would with a modern see-thru mount. The open sights are zeroed for 200 yards and shoot about 8″ high at 50 yards. There are published theories that Oswald used the open sights on the gun, because the thinking is he could not zero the optics anyway, and that using the awkward side optic would take too long between shots to aim. Our open sights are not adjustable, but they were pretty close to point-of-aim horizontally, but would require about an 8″ hold under. Oswald’s rifle had the same non-adjustable sights as this test gun, and it is very possible that at that distance, only 58 yards or so, he used the iron sights.