What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?

[Michael T. Griffith]

MGriffith “I think you have a serious learning and comprehension deficiency. I have answered each of your arguments many times. I have also explained my version of the shooting many times.”

This is good. Watching you unravel over the phantom third shot indicates you get it. There were only two shots You now have gone so far as to accuse me of adding a third shot. It is too bad all your posting and papers are basically worthless because they are predicated on something that never happened. Even someone from Military Intelligence should be able to understand that you should check your facts before arriving at a conclusion. 

----------------------

What question? 

You have never done anything but prattle on. There is no question to even answer. Produce proof of a third shot. How hard can it be. All of your ramblings center on the belief that there were three shots. See, there is no question. Your whole sad story hinges on a shot that never occurred.
 
MGriffith “For any newcomers or guests, this fellow is part of the very tiny minority of lone-assassin theorists who believe that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots and that the third shot, the head shot, was fired accidentally by a Secret Service agent who was riding in the follow-up car.”

 Apparently, you are thinking you have an audience or fan club. I promise you that you don’t, nobody in his right mind would pay attention to this unsubstantiated and unproven drivel.

This is why it is pointless to even ask you a question. You don’t tell the same story twice. 

This is just a BS artists way of deflecting the conversation from his sad story. I will refresh your faltering memory on what you really think and have stated in the past.

Let’s review your recent posts. You can’t even get your story straight on the number of shots in your various posts. They have been one endless fantasy story.

1) M Griffith “One, you are part of a very tiny minority of people who believe only two shots were fired during the assassination. Every leading lone-gunman theorist rejects your two-shots scenario.”

2) M Griffith “For any newcomers, Jack Nessan belongs to a tiny, tiny fringe minority of lone-gunman theorists who argue that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots. We know that at least four shots were fired during the assassination. We know this from scientific acoustical evidence, from scientific blur-episode analysis, and from credible and corroborated accounts of extra bullets striking in Dealey Plaza and of an extra bullet being found in JFK's limo after the shooting.”
Imagine how much time and effort you would have saved yourself if only you had tried to make sense of the number of shots there were before jumping into all this conspiracy nonsense.

-------------------------

Which one is it? First it was just Oswald doing the shooting, then you changed to an alleged Oswald when the three shots you described could actually only be two shots. It really doesn’t matter in either story, it is the same result by your own admission. Two shots.

MGriffith:

1)  ....On 11/22/63, he would have had no more than 11 seconds to fire three shots (or no more than 3.6 seconds per shot), would have had to fire his final two shots in 5.6 seconds (2.3 seconds per shot), and would have had to do so from 60 feet up, in cramped quarters, with no practice in the preceding 40 days, and using a bolt-action rifle that had a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull.”

OR 

2) In contrast, Oswald, the alleged sixth-floor gunman, would have had no more than 11 seconds to fire three shots, and would have had only 5.6 seconds to fire his last two shots--and this was allegedly done using a bolt-action rifle with an odd trigger pull while firing from 60 feet up and without the benefit of any practice in the days leading up to the shooting.

--------------------------------------------

MGriffith “I have also explained my version of the shooting many times.”

Not really, it seems to be really fluid. Shots from every direction. In your stories everyone in Dealey Plaza had a gun. Anywhere from four shots to the truth that LHO only fired twice. 

-------------------------

 
MGriffith “Now is a good time to say a few more things about the Marine Corps rifle qualification firing that Oswald did in December 1956 and May 1959.
 
The firing was divided into multiple stages based on distance and firing position:”

It was not much of a shooting feat at all according to a Marine Corp shooting instructor.

Mr. SPECTER ----...My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?
Major ANDERSON - In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot

Mr. SPECTER.... I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

Oswalds Marine Corp training played no role in firing two shots in 5.6 seconds. Not at all. Even you could have done it. Everyone knows that a bolt action rifle from that era was considered more accurate than a semi auto due to machining. What is the point of you trying to compare them.
----------------------

MGriffith: “I have also explained my version of the shooting many times.”

Not really, your explanations are all over the board, the number of shots in your story seems to be extremely fluid. Anywhere from four shots to LHO only fired twice. 

This is hard to watch because you seem to be unraveling in slow motion. All that is left of your shooting sequence is now an added shot by a Secret Service Agent? Can you provide any evidence the Secret Service Agent is the third shot in your narrative? You can’t prove anything, except the two shots readily seen in the Zapruder Film.

Even in making up a story about only two shots you can’t help yourself and add an additional shot. Borderline pathological.

Whatever happened to you promoting David Josephs? Did he ever figure out he had the wrong rifle? The rifle he pictured wasn’t even available until 50 years after the assassination.

I'm not going to waste my time answering this howling nonsense, which once again seems based on your apparent problem with reading comprehension. And you don't seem to understand what it means when a statement is in the subjunctive mood, i.e., hypothetical for the sake of argument.

I would refer interested readers to the OP and to my previous replies.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I'm not going to waste my time answering this howling nonsense, which once again seems based on your apparent problem with reading comprehension. And you don't seem to understand what it means when a statement is in the subjunctive mood, i.e., hypothetical for the sake of argument.

I would refer interested readers to the OP and to my previous replies.

I will add a quick addendum to my reply to respond to your (Jack Nessan's) jaw-dropping claim about bolt-action rifles vs. semi-automatic rifles:

Everyone knows that a bolt action rifle from that era was considered more accurate than a semi auto due to machining. What is the point of you trying to compare them.

First off, LOL x infinity! No, everyone--at least down here on Earth--does not know that in that era bolt-action rifles were considered more accurate than semi-automatic rifles. The M1 Garand, used in WWII and the Korean War and for part of the Vietnam War, was a highly accurate rifle and could be fired two to three times more rapidly than its predecessor, the bolt-action M1903 Springfield. George Patton called the M1 "the greatest battle implement ever devised."

The Mannlicher-Carcano was notorious for jamming when fired rapidly, and could not be fired with a high degree of accuracy when fired rapidly, as the CBS rifle test proved, and as is well documented in literature on the rifle.

What's next? Are you going to claim that "everyone knows" that in the Civil War era musket-loaded rifles were more accurate than the Henry repeating rifle?!

I mean, is there no depth of silliness and absurdity to which you will not descend to defend your fringe version of the lone-assassin theory?

[Jack Nessan]

I will add a quick addendum to my reply to respond to your (Jack Nessan's) jaw-dropping claim about bolt-action rifles vs. semi-automatic rifles:

First off, LOL x infinity! No, everyone--at least down here on Earth--does not know that in that era bolt-action rifles were considered more accurate than semi-automatic rifles. The M1 Garand, used in WWII and the Korean War and for part of the Vietnam War, was a highly accurate rifle and could be fired two to three times more rapidly than its predecessor, the bolt-action M1903 Springfield. George Patton called the M1 "the greatest battle implement ever devised."

The Mannlicher-Carcano was notorious for jamming when fired rapidly, and could not be fired with a high degree of accuracy when fired rapidly, as the CBS rifle test proved, and as is well documented in literature on the rifle.

What's next? Are you going to claim that "everyone knows" that in the Civil War era musket-loaded rifles were more accurate than the Henry repeating rifle?!

I mean, is there no depth of silliness and absurdity to which you will not descend to defend your fringe version of the lone-assassin theory?

Your first post was ridiculous enough I had no idea you would want to add to it.

My god you cannot know this little about it. This post proves that point without the slightest of doubts. This right here shows you are absolutely clueless when discussing these firearms. The Springfield 1903’s with an 8X Unertl were the go to sniper rifle over the M1 Garand. You know as shown in Saving Private Ryan.

You claim knowledge that certain bolt action manufacturers are better than others, but you cannot understand why a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic?

This whole two shot fact has you completely unraveled, and your whole story has been laid bare for the farce that it really is. Look at what you are doing to compensate for the fact this whole conspiracy comes apart with the knowledge there were only two shots. You have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no proof of a third shot. There is no changing that fact.

[Michael T. Griffith]

My god you cannot know this little about it. This post proves that point without the slightest of doubts. This right here shows you are absolutely clueless when discussing these firearms. The Springfield 1903’s with an 8X Unertl were the go to sniper rifle over the M1 Garand. You know as shown in Saving Private Ryan.

So now you're relying on a Hollywood movie. Okay.

Just a reminder: The alleged murder weapon was not an M1903 Springfield but was a 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano, according to your camp.

You're still avoiding the fact that when Oswald fired for record in the Marine Corps, he used a superb semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand, whereas, according to you, when he allegedly shot JFK, he used a Carcano, a rifle known for jamming and inaccuracy when fired rapidly.

You claim knowledge that certain bolt action manufacturers are better than others, but you cannot understand why a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic?

You really should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to rifles. You clearly do not.

A number of well-regarded sniper rifles are semi-automatics, e.g., the Arash AM, the ArmaLite AR10T, the Azb DMR MK1, the Barrett M82, the Barrett XM109, the Barrett XM500, the Colt Canada C20 DMR, the Dragunov SVD, the Dragunov SVDK, the SA58 SPR, the FN SCAR, the IWI Galil, the Harris Gunworks M96, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, among others.

The Mannlicher-Carcano was only occasionally used as a sniper rifle by the Italian Army in World War I, and even then it was viewed as a less effective sniper weapon than other contemporary rifles. And nobody but nobody used it as a sniper rifle in World War II.

This whole two shot fact has you completely unraveled, and your whole story has been laid bare for the farce that it really is. Look at what you are doing to compensate for the fact this whole conspiracy comes apart with the knowledge there were only two shots. You have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no proof of a third shot. There is no changing that fact.

Giggle, giggle. Oh, yes, your powerful case for the "two shot fact" has me completely unraveled.

Since you're obviously never going to address the facts about the alleged shooting feat, I would like to have you answer these three questions:

1. Are you saying that Oswald did not fire the head shot?

2. If so, who fired the head shot?

3. How do you account for the bullet/fragment that struck the curb near James Tague, the bullet that burrowed into the grass near the south Elm Street manhole cover, and the bullet that made the Aldredge curb scar?

I just want to be clear on your position. I've been assuming you follow the Howard Donahue scenario, but I want to be certain that is the case.

[Jack Nessan]

So now you're relying on a Hollywood movie. Okay.

Just a reminder: The alleged murder weapon was not an M1903 Springfield but was a 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano, according to your camp.

You're still avoiding the fact that when Oswald fired for record in the Marine Corps, he used a superb semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand, whereas, according to you, when he allegedly shot JFK, he used a Carcano, a rifle known for jamming and inaccuracy when fired rapidly.

You really should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to rifles. You clearly do not.

A number of well-regarded sniper rifles are semi-automatics, e.g., the Arash AM, the ArmaLite AR10T, the Azb DMR MK1, the Barrett M82, the Barrett XM109, the Barrett XM500, the Colt Canada C20 DMR, the Dragunov SVD, the Dragunov SVDK, the SA58 SPR, the FN SCAR, the IWI Galil, the Harris Gunworks M96, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, among others.

The Mannlicher-Carcano was only occasionally used as a sniper rifle by the Italian Army in World War I, and even then it was viewed as a less effective sniper weapon than other contemporary rifles. And nobody but nobody used it as a sniper rifle in World War II.

Giggle, giggle. Oh, yes, your powerful case for the "two shot fact" has me completely unraveled.

Since you're obviously never going to address the facts about the alleged shooting feat, I would like to have you answer these three questions:

1. Are you saying that Oswald did not fire the head shot?

2. If so, who fired the head shot?

3. How do you account for the bullet/fragment that struck the curb near James Tague, the bullet that burrowed into the grass near the south Elm Street manhole cover, and the bullet that made the Aldredge curb scar?

I just want to be clear on your position. I've been assuming you follow the Howard Donahue scenario, but I want to be certain that is the case.

So now you're relying on a Hollywood movie. Okay.

You seem a little slow on the uptake, I wanted to help you with an easy example.
 
Just a reminder: The alleged murder weapon was not an M1903 Springfield but was a 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano, according to your camp.

OK- you have an A going so far.
 
You're still avoiding the fact that when Oswald fired for record in the Marine Corps, he used a superb semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand, whereas, according to you, when he allegedly shot JFK, he used a Carcano, a rifle known for jamming and inaccuracy when fired rapidly.

You are the only one who thinks it is relevant. Let me explain it simply. It has no relevance whatsoever.

LHO never fired the shots for time in Dealey Plaza. Remember two shots in 5.6 seconds. 

A Million Austrian casualties in WW1 will attest to the accuracy of the Carcano. 

Finland in 1938-39 used them to fight the Russians with great success.


You really should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to rifles. You clearly do not.

I think I will continue but thank you for your concern.   

“You claim knowledge that certain bolt action manufacturers are better than others, but you cannot understand why a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic?”

No answer, do you understand or not? How hard a question is it.

 
 
A number of well-regarded sniper rifles are semi-automatics, e.g., the Arash AM, the ArmaLite AR10T, the Azb DMR MK1, the Barrett M82, the Barrett XM109, the Barrett XM500, the Colt Canada C20 DMR, the Dragunov SVD, the Dragunov SVDK, the SA58 SPR, the FN SCAR, the IWI Galil, the Harris Gunworks M96, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, among others.

You have a list of modern weapons. What is your point. The fact you do not want to address the main issue? No proof of a third shot. This whole post seems to be about avoiding your responsibility to at least prove your a third shot in your three+ shot theory. 

You believe Oswald had access to these MODERN rifles with MODERN precision machining?
 
The Mannlicher-Carcano was only occasionally used as a sniper rifle by the Italian Army in World War I, and even then it was viewed as a less effective sniper weapon than other contemporary rifles. And nobody but nobody used it as a sniper rifle in World War II.

Huh? Exactly what is the point of this. The fact you would even write about this indicates you do not have a clue or evading the central topic of proof of a third shot. 

While reading, you obviously missed this key piece of information. 

"a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic."

You cannot understand this statement? Seriously? You then list a number of modern weapons? What kind of a goofball show do you have going on?

 

Giggle, giggle. Oh, yes, your powerful case for the "two shot fact" has me completely unraveled. 

Giggling is not a good look for an adult male. It is the internet though, maybe you aren’t one.

This is the one thing you have posted that is correct. One of the most powerful parts of the evidence was supplied by Josiah Thompson.

Powerful is a great word and does describe it. It is powerful and you are giving yourself a mental wedgie over it. You have provided absolutely no proof at all of a third shot. 

 
Since you're obviously never going to address the facts about the alleged shooting feat, I would like to have you answer these three questions:

They have been addressed. It was very doable. Remember Major Andersons testimony? What shooting feat? Believing it was hard is all you.


Shot 1

Mr. SPECTER ----...My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?
Major ANDERSON - In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot.

Shot 2

Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

 
1. Are you saying that Oswald did not fire the head shot?

No, LHO did fire the shot. You know the second shot.
 
2. If so, who fired the head shot?

Oswald
 
3. How do you account for the bullet/fragment that struck the curb near James Tague, the bullet that burrowed into the grass near the south Elm Street manhole cover, and the bullet that made the Aldredge curb scar?

No need. You have proof that these are somehow connected to the carcano and LHO?

Your turn, now you answer your questions. No 3 provide proof.
 

I just want to be clear on your position. I've been assuming you follow the Howard Donahue scenario, but I want to be certain that is the case.

HUH? There were two shots and you are struggling as to which shot is which? There is this film called the Zapruder Film you can watch that should help.

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.”

The fact there were only two shots has you confused about which shot did what? Really?

You aren’t clear on this? Really? You can’t put this together? SBT and the headshot. Why is that so hard for you? I know because it completely unravels your whole little conspiracy show. It is really hard to have this fantasy conspiracy if there were just the two shots.

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

In fact, I think shots that struck JBC and HJFK were in too-rapid succession to have been issued from a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.

Agreed. The acoustical evidence confirms this.

That does not exonerate LHO. And, LHO was a good shot in 1956, and may have practiced in 1963.

In 1956, Oswald barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories with an excellent semi-automatic rifle after hours of practice, a feat that is sometimes achieved by basic trainees who've never fired a rifle before. Even during the so-called "rapid fire" phase of the rifle qualification, Oswald had 60 seconds to fire 10 shots. For the other phases, he had 60 seconds per shot--yes, per shot.

When Oswald fired in 1959, he barely qualified in the lowest of the three categories, showing that his skills were deteriorating, not improving, which explains why he was described as a poor shot by the Russians who saw him shoot in a gun club in Minsk. It also explains why nearly all of the 50-plus Marines interviewed by Henry Hurt said Oswald was a poor shot who suffered from a lack of coordination.

Moreover, recent assassinations and attempts (Kirk and Trump) shows that relative amateurs can hit targets, at way more than 70 yards.

These shootings were very different from Oswald's alleged shooting feat, and much easier.

Tyler Robinson used a Mauser Gewehr 98 with an excellent scope. The Gewehr 98 has long been regarded as a great rifle, which is why its design was adopted by many other countries, in sharp contrast to Oswald's alleged rifle. The Gewehr 98 has an effective range of 1,100 yards when used with a scope.

Robinson had several minutes to take aim and fire just one shot at a large man, Charlie Kirk, who was sitting in a chair on a stage. When Robinson put his eye up to the scope with his target 140 yards away, his target would have been as large in the scope as if Robinson had been standing 8-10 feet from him while using the iron sights. Even without a scope, Kirk was a much larger target than the target at which Oswald supposedly fired (JFK's head and neck and the upper fifth of JFK's torso). Also, Robinson wasn't firing in cramped quarters through a half-open window.

As for Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man who shot at Donald Trump, he fired eight shots with a DR-15 semi-automatic rifle with an AEMS red-dot sight from 140 yards away. He missed with all eight shots, even though he had target-practiced at a shooting range the day before. One of his shots barely grazed Trump's right ear, while the others missed him entirely. It is hard to see how this has any relevance for Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

If Oswald's alleged shooting feat were easy, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test would not have utterly failed to duplicate it, and at least three or four of the 10 expert riflemen in the CBS rifle test would have duplicated it, especially since any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes was counted as a hit even if it landed far outside the small area that Oswald supposedly hit.

Finally, it bears repeating that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used. Here's what Dr. Vincent DiMaio, one of the world's leading forensic experts, said about bullet fragmentation and FMJ bullets:

Here's what DiMaoi said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).

JFK's skull x-rays show a "snowstorm" of some 40 small fragments in the right-frontal area, which rules out FMJ ammo.

[Michael T. Griffith]

So now you're relying on a Hollywood movie. Okay.

You seem a little slow on the uptake, I wanted to help you with an easy example.
 
Just a reminder: The alleged murder weapon was not an M1903 Springfield but was a 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano, according to your camp.

OK- you have an A going so far.
 
You're still avoiding the fact that when Oswald fired for record in the Marine Corps, he used a superb semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand, whereas, according to you, when he allegedly shot JFK, he used a Carcano, a rifle known for jamming and inaccuracy when fired rapidly.

You are the only one who thinks it is relevant. Let me explain it simply. It has no relevance whatsoever.

LHO never fired the shots for time in Dealey Plaza. Remember two shots in 5.6 seconds. 

A Million Austrian casualties in WW1 will attest to the accuracy of the Carcano. 

Finland in 1938-39 used them to fight the Russians with great success.


You really should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to rifles. You clearly do not.

I think I will continue but thank you for your concern.   

“You claim knowledge that certain bolt action manufacturers are better than others, but you cannot understand why a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic?”

No answer, do you understand or not? How hard a question is it.
 
A number of well-regarded sniper rifles are semi-automatics, e.g., the Arash AM, the ArmaLite AR10T, the Azb DMR MK1, the Barrett M82, the Barrett XM109, the Barrett XM500, the Colt Canada C20 DMR, the Dragunov SVD, the Dragunov SVDK, the SA58 SPR, the FN SCAR, the IWI Galil, the Harris Gunworks M96, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, among others.

You have a list of modern weapons. What is your point. The fact you do not want to address the main issue? No proof of a third shot. This whole post seems to be about avoiding your responsibility to at least prove your a third shot in your three+ shot theory. 

You believe Oswald had access to these MODERN rifles with MODERN precision machining?
 
The Mannlicher-Carcano was only occasionally used as a sniper rifle by the Italian Army in World War I, and even then it was viewed as a less effective sniper weapon than other contemporary rifles. And nobody but nobody used it as a sniper rifle in World War II.

Huh? Exactly what is the point of this. The fact you would even write about this indicates you do not have a clue or evading the central topic of proof of a third shot. 

While reading, you obviously missed this key piece of information. 

"a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic."

You cannot understand this statement? Seriously? You then list a number of modern weapons? What kind of a goofball show do you have going on? 

Giggle, giggle. Oh, yes, your powerful case for the "two shot fact" has me completely unraveled. 

Giggling is not a good look for an adult male. It is the internet though, maybe you aren’t one.

This is the one thing you have posted that is correct. One of the most powerful parts of the evidence was supplied by Josiah Thompson.

Powerful is a great word and does describe it. It is powerful and you are giving yourself a mental wedgie over it. You have provided absolutely no proof at all of a third shot. 
 
Since you're obviously never going to address the facts about the alleged shooting feat, I would like to have you answer these three questions:

They have been addressed. It was very doable. Remember Major Andersons testimony? What shooting feat? Believing it was hard is all you.

Shot 1

Mr. SPECTER ----...My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?
Major ANDERSON - In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot.

Shot 2

Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

[SNIPPED DEFENSE OF TWO-SHOTS-ONLY THEORY]

I've responded to your two-shots-only theory in a separate thread.

Regarding Major Anderson's claim that the alleged shooting feat would have been relatively easy, (1) WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted in an internal memo that this claim was "simply dishonest," and (2) the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance.

In fact, even if we make the silly assumption that only two shots were fired during the assassination, the WC's rifle test proves that an alleged two-shots shooting feat would have been very difficult even for Master-rated riflemen. Why? Here's why:

A total of 21 shots were fired in the WC's rifle test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit within the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots, and they were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for the first shot in each set of shots.

But, according to your fellow WC apologists, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

As for the second and third sets of shots, look at the target boards from the WC's test. You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass.

So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.

BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread is a perfect example of what happens when you try to engage lone-gunman theorists in substantive discussion about the essence of their case, i.e., the fact that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond the ability of their supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and would have been extremely difficult, and arguably impossible, even for a highly skilled rifleman.