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.
