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

[Lance Payette]

In my boredom, I’ve been perusing gun sites. They say that the iron sights on Oswald’s Carcano were zeroed at 200 meters and nonadjustable. It seems pretty clear that if Oswald wanted to use the iron sights, the scope would be considerably less of a nuisance if Oswald shot LH rather than RH.

Yes, there is a Marine photo of Oswald shooting RH. However, numerous ex-Marines of that era said they were required to shoot RH – LH simply wasn’t allowed.

Aunt Lillian told the WC she thought Oswald did things LH as a child. Robert, however, testified that he and Marguerite were LH but Lee was definitely RH. Lt. Day said he found faint prints from a right middle and ring finger on the Carcano trigger housing, but his WC testimony was extremely iffy.

I am completely, 100% RH. However, I am extremely left eye dominant. I discovered many years ago that I am FAR more comfortable shooting a rifle and putting golf balls LH than RH. The shift to LH putting was a challenge due to issues of feel for distance, but the shift to LH rifle shooting was immediate.

The gun sites, based on actual experience, say that with the rifle on a rest (such as the window frame or boxes), a LH shooter does not have to remove his finger from the trigger and can operate the bolt more quickly (with his RH). If one were a natural rightie, like me and Oswald, this would be even more true.

I note that the HSCA firearms panel suggested the iron sights would have been a better choice than the scope for Dealey Plaza. Since Oswald had achieved good results at 200, 300 and 500 yards in the USMC using only iron sites, why would we think he would shift to the funky scope for the JFKA?

Regardless of whether Oswald was shooting LH or RH, the “zeroing in” thing still seems to me like much ado about nothing.

"It is the opinion of this panel that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza."

"Mr. McDONALD. Would it be possible to attain the same accuracy with the iron sight on that rifle as it would with the scope, for an average marksman, at a distance of well, say less than 100 yards?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, it would be very likely to be able to do that."

[Tim Nickerson]

How is it a red herring when the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to duplicate the shooting feat that you, incredibly, continue to pretend was not all that difficult? Huh? If it was not all that difficult, then why were those three Master-rated riflemen unable to duplicate it, even though they fired under conditions that were much easier than those Oswald would have faced? If it was not all that difficult, why were 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test unable to duplicate it, even though they got to fire nine practice rounds right before the test, did not have to fire through a half-open window, and had any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes counted as a hit even if it landed far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice in three shots on his first attempt? Huh?

The shooting feat that Oswald accomplished was not that difficult. The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test did not attempt to duplicate that shooting feat. Nor did the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test. The shoot feat that they all strived for was considerably more difficult than the one performed by Oswald.

[Charles Collins]

In my boredom, I’ve been perusing gun sites. They say that the iron sights on Oswald’s Carcano were zeroed at 200 meters and nonadjustable. It seems pretty clear that if Oswald wanted to use the iron sights, the scope would be considerably less of a nuisance if Oswald shot LH rather than RH.

Yes, there is a Marine photo of Oswald shooting RH. However, numerous ex-Marines of that era said they were required to shoot RH – LH simply wasn’t allowed.

Aunt Lillian told the WC she thought Oswald did things LH as a child. Robert, however, testified that he and Marguerite were LH but Lee was definitely RH. Lt. Day said he found faint prints from a right middle and ring finger on the Carcano trigger housing, but his WC testimony was extremely iffy.

I am completely, 100% RH. However, I am extremely left eye dominant. I discovered many years ago that I am FAR more comfortable shooting a rifle and putting golf balls LH than RH. The shift to LH putting was a challenge due to issues of feel for distance, but the shift to LH rifle shooting was immediate.

The gun sites, based on actual experience, say that with the rifle on a rest (such as the window frame or boxes), a LH shooter does not have to remove his finger from the trigger and can operate the bolt more quickly (with his RH). If one were a natural rightie, like me and Oswald, this would be even more true.

I note that the HSCA firearms panel suggested the iron sights would have been a better choice than the scope for Dealey Plaza. Since Oswald had achieved good results at 200, 300 and 500 yards in the USMC using only iron sites, why would we think he would shift to the funky scope for the JFKA?

Regardless of whether Oswald was shooting LH or RH, the “zeroing in” thing still seems to me like much ado about nothing.

"It is the opinion of this panel that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza."

"Mr. McDONALD. Would it be possible to attain the same accuracy with the iron sight on that rifle as it would with the scope, for an average marksman, at a distance of well, say less than 100 yards?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, it would be very likely to be able to do that."

Lance, like you I am cross-eye dominant. In other words left eye dominant (can’t see well at all with my right eye) but right handed. I also shoot a rifle left handed. More interesting is that if what I read is true, only about 20% of people are cross-eye dominant, but eighty something percent of the professional golfers are cross-eye dominant. I can only remember one or two of them putting the opposite way than the way they swing the other clubs. However, it is supposed to be an advantage to do as you have and putt according to the dominant eye. I have experimented with putting left handed. I think with enough practice that left handed might work best for me. But the jury is still out on this one.

In my experiments with a model of the sniper’s nest boxes and window it became apparent to me that LHO would have shot right handed. This is due to the very limited leg room available. The knees point west parallel with the south wall. This makes the direction of the shots across the body as is usual for shooting. If he were to have wanted to shoot left handed, he would have wanted the knees pointing south. But there simply isn’t any way to achieve this given the positions of the boxes.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The answer from lone-gunman theorists began with "maybe Oswald zeroed the rifle at the Sports Drome rifle range." But, whoops, Oswald was known to be elsewhere when Dr. Wood and his son got a up-close, prolonged look at an Oswald double who was firing at that range.

Now, incredibly, lone-gunman theorists' consensus answer is that "well, actually, now that we realize he had no opportunity to zero the rifle, our final answer is that he not only didn't bother to zero the rifle but that he didn't need to zero it anyway!"

Right! Never mind what the FBI's Robert Frazier said about zeroing the rifle with the scope. Yeah, just never mind that. Never mind that the FBI zeroed the rifle with the scope before it was used in the WC's rifle test. Gee, now why did they do that, if zeroing is purely optional and unnecessary?

And never mind that Marine Corps rifle expert Master Sergeant James Zahm told the WC that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Just never mind that, too.

To top it all off, they argue that Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even if done with a non-zeroed rifle, would have been relatively easy for anyone with Oswald's demonstrably poor-to-mediocre rifle skills. Uh-huh, never mind that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--the only test that used the alleged murder rifle itself--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's supposed performance, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary targets, and were firing with the rifle after it had been zeroed. And never mind that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, and that the only rifleman who did scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt was an experienced and expert rifleman whose shots were counted as hits even if they landed far outside the small area on the target silhouettes that Oswald allegedly hit.

You see, folks, these guys have a cult-like mentality when it comes to the JFK case. They belong to the small minority of the Western world that still believes in the lone-gunman theory. They embrace the first government investigation, the Warren Commission in 1964, as sacred and definitive, but they reject the second--and far more thorough--government investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977-1979, because that investigation concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that there were at least four shots, that Oswald had suspicious ties with rabid right-wingers and anti-Castro Cubans, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he got into the police basement to shoot Oswald, that the first hit on JFK was fired when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree, that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's nest within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that Silvia and Annie Odio's accounts are credible, etc., etc.

Dealing with these guys is literally like dealing with 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, and Holocaust deniers. They're 20 years behind the information curve because they refuse to acknowledge the numerous and historic ARRB disclosures and the scientific research done over the last 20 years that has destroyed the lone-gunman theory.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Regarding the nonsense that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler. Here's what Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice," the alleged shooting feat, and the need to zero the rifle in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.

4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."

Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.

There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.

This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.

[Jack Nessan]

Regarding the nonsense that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler. Here's what Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice," the alleged shooting feat, and the need to zero the rifle in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):

1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .

I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.

4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."

Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.

There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.

This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.

Liebler shots

Here is your opinion on the number of shots fired by LHO. Notice you agreed with Josiah that LHO could have only fired twice. 

M Griffith--“Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.”

Josiah: The combination of these factors---- the peculiar accorded treatment accorded CE 543 by the Dallas Police, its inexplicable dent on the dented lip, the sets of three marks on the base absent on the other cases while present on CE 543 and finally its lack of the characteristic chambering mark----suggests that although two of the cartridges case may have been ejected from Oswald’s rifle, the third, CE543, is most likely an extra, unfired shell, and possibly a deliberate fake. Such a conclusion would mate perfectly with the description of events earlier laid down, namely, that only two of the shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza came from Oswald's rifle.

Why are you posting Liebler's comments about rapid fire tests. You know full well and have stated LHO only fired twice. 

Liebler's comments on the skill level of LHO and LHO being able to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds is based on the tests were nothing more than rapid fire tests. LHO Firing three times is something you have stated you do not believe in, let alone three shots in 5.6 seconds. 

As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI.

The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. The conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster that the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries. If we are going to set forth material such as this, I think we should set forth some information on how much training and how much shooting the experts had and did as a whole. The readers could then have something on which to base their judgments concerning the relative abilities of the apparently slow firing experts used by the Commission and the ability of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The problems raised by the above analyses should be met at some point in the text of the report. The figure of 2.25 as a minimum firing time for each shot is used throughout chapter 3. The present discussion of rifle capability shows that expert riflemen could not fire the assassination weapon that fast. Only one of the experts managed to do so, and his shots, like those of the other FBI experts, were high and to the right of the target. The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact, according to my recollection of the response of one of the experts to a question by Mr. McCloy asking for a comparison of an NRA master marksman to a Marine Corps sharpshooter.

The shooting feat you keep referring to and misrepresenting by suggesting LHO had accomplished it is patently false. The shooting tests performed by the FBI in no way is a comparison to what transpired on 11/22/63

[Joe Elliott]

Apparently, you don't know that the alleged murder weapon's iron sights would have had to be sighted-in as well, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult. Posner apparently didn't know these things either when he floated the idea that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.

MSG Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

Adjustments can be made to the scope.

Question: How does one make adjustments to the iron sights? How does Oswald "zero in" the iron sights?

Ordinary soldiers use rifles which they get ahold of and use them to shoot soldiers without ever "zeroing the iron sights" and still hit targets, particularly at under 100 yards.

Yes, if we were talking about shots from 800 yards, one would have to have the rifle zeroed sighted somehow. But at under 100 years?

And, BTW, what ammo would Oswald have used to sight-in the iron sights? Not a single bullet was found in his possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions. Humm, how about that?

But these bullets come in boxes of 20. Either Oswald threw away 15 bullets or he used them to practice, at some point in time. Likely 7 months earlier but he likely did practice with it.

Moreover, despite an exhaustive canvassing of gun shops, the FBI was unable to find any evidence that Oswald purchased ammo or any gun-cleaning supplies for the rifle. Humm, how about that?[/size]

This is hard to explain because everyone knows that gun shops owners all have photographic memories and it is impossible for one of them to forget that several months earlier, someone person they did not know, like Oswald, came into their shop and purchased some bullets. If they do not remember Oswald, then they never met him.

Give me a break.