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

[Dan O'meara]

Huh?

You should have said the alleged rapidity of the shots because in reality they were about five seconds apart over the 10.2 seconds that Oswald took to fire all three of them -- which total elapsed time has been determined by analyzing the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (including JFK, himself) to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.

Probably much more accurate than the "six seconds" (or whatever) conspiracy theorists like to claim, which is, unfortunately, based on the statements of traumatized witnesses to said shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.

Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.

Utter nonsense.
The mountain of evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, there was no such early shot is overwhelming.
The Searce/Roselle 'study'( ) is the worst kind of tripe. A five year old could debunk it. 'Head movements'?? In a motorcade?? You can't be serious.
Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding the basics shines through.

[Tom Graves]

Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.

Utter nonsense.

The mountain of evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, there was no such early shot is overwhelming.

The Searce/Roselle 'study' is the worst kind of tripe.

A five-year-old could debunk it.

'Head movements'??

In a motorcade??

You can't be serious.

Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding the basics shines through.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You're so full of beans, you should be stood in the corner.

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

The replies of WC apologists in this thread show how detached from reality and serious research they are, with some of them making the specious argument that the alleged murder weapon would not have needed to be zeroed (sighted-in). They do this because they know they can't explain when and how their alleged lone gunman, Oswald, could have zeroed the alleged murder rifle.

When using a scope, you absolutely must zero the rifle so that the scope's point of aim matches the point of impact at a specific distance. This process requires a stable shooting platform and patience. WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted that the supposed murder weapon would have had to be zeroed to be usable during the assassination.

In a tacit admission that the rifle's scope was problematic at best, some WC apologists have resorted to arguing that their alleged lone gunman used the iron sights, since zeroing the rifle would have been less crucial when using the iron sights. However, Marine rifle expert MSG Zahm explained to the WC that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult, not to mention the fact that in the WC's rifle test the shots fired when the iron sights were used were wildly inaccurate.

There is also the fact that not one of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test even came close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary target boards, did not fire in the cramped conditions in which Oswald would have had to fire, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot. This rifle test is crucial because it was the only one that used the alleged murder weapon.

Lone-gunman theorists just ignore these severe problems with their theory and continue to post reply after reply that assumes that Oswald was the gunman and that his alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult at all.