The first shot was the closest but by far was the most difficult and it did not require a wild miss. His target was in the extreme right of the limo and only had to miss a foot or two to the right to miss the limo.
LOL! "Only" had to miss "a foot or two to the right" to miss the limo?! "Only"?!
And, pray tell, where would that bullet have gone at that early point in the shooting? Huh? It certainly could not have caused the Tague curb strike and the wound on Tague's cheek, nor could it have been the bullet that struck the manhole cover and the grass near the manhole cover far down Elm Street.
And, BTW, your supposed lone gunman would have had to miss by at least 3 feet to miss the limo. You don't know what you're talking about.
I've listed the difficulties of the first shot before but I will do so again:
1. He would have had to acquire and track his target as it was making the turn onto Elm St. it would have been moving in an arc rather than a straight line.
2. His target was moving across his line of fire rather down the line of fire as it was for the subsequent shots. This created a difficult cross shot at a moving target.
3. Firing downward at such a steep angle would have forcedd him to raise up out of either the sitting or kneeling position that he would have had for his subsequent shot. He would have been firing
from an unsteady crouching position.
4. The boxes he stacked to create a rifle rest would have been of little to no use in steadying the rifle on a near vertical shot.
5. With the window open only about a foot or so, the bottom of the sash would have partially obscured his view, especially if he was using the scope. This might have forced him to use the iron sights.
6. His target was about to pass under the true which could have forced him to rush the shot.
I guess it just never occurred to you that your argument begs the question: "Why, then, would even a mediocre marksman have tried to take such a shot in the first place?!"
You've done nothing but validate my point that it is illogical to posit a shot from the sixth-floor window at that time in the shooting.
Given these difficulties which would not have been present for the second or third shots, it's easy to understand why he would miss his first shot.
You really need to sign yourself up for a class in basic logic and critical thinking. Your posts contain numerous textbook examples of circular reasoning, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and begging the claim.
Again, given the difficulties of such an early first shot, not even a novice gunman would have been dumb enough to fire at that time. Yet, even then, it is hard to fathom how he could have missed so wildly as to miss the entire gigantic limo.
Missing the limo would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo which I'm betting he was not. He was trying to shoot a guy on the extreme right side of the limo and only had to pull his shot to miss the limo.
More silliness. Even someone literally hanging out the window and firing with one hand would have had a hard time missing the entire gigantic limo--21.25 x 6.5 feet--from that range.
No shooting feat has ever been duplicated. Never. Not once. Every shooting is unique with its own set of variables.
Yeah, let's just toss aside the established science of shooting incident reconstruction! Sheesh, you must be kidding. Do you have any idea how silly you're making yourself look with this stuff?
All such tests I am aware of did not give the shooters 11 seconds. They were expected to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds. A limitation Oswald was not operating under.
What?! Eee-gads. Once again, you prove you don't know what in the world you're talking about. I have to wonder if you've even read the WC volumes (I know you haven't read the HSCA volumes or the ARRB materials).
Obviously, you're not aware that the WC's Master-rated riflemen took well over 5.6 seconds for a number of their shooting sequences. Hendrix's
fastest sequence was 7.0 seconds, while his slowest was 8.25 seconds. Staley's
fastest sequence was 6.45 seconds, while his slowest sequence was 6.75 seconds. Miller was the fastest of the three, firing his third sequence in 4.45 seconds, his first sequence in 4.6 seconds, and his second sequence in 5.15 seconds, but all three of his second shots missed the entire target silhouette, and all three of his third shots landed nowhere near the head. (Miller fired three sequences, while Hendrix and Staley fired two, because Miller fired one sequence using the iron sights instead of the scope.)
Similarly, in the CBS rifle test, a number of the 12 riflemen took longer than 5.6 seconds, with some sequences taking 6.5 seconds or longer. You'd know these things if you had done a modicum of balanced research.
You keep ignoring a fact that virtually everyone else on both sides has acknowledged: if the first shot came before Z166 and missed, the gunman would have had to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds after the limo reemerged from beneath the oak tree. It doesn't matter if you assume he fired at Z100; he still would have had only 5.6 seconds (actually 5.57 seconds) to go 2/2 because Z210 to Z312 is 102 frames.
Oswald had 8 months to practice with his rifle. We don't know how many practice rounds he fired but he fired one shot at Walker and had four more rounds in his rifle when he commenced firing. The ammo was sold in boxes of 20 so that leaves 15 rounds unaccounted for and we don't know how many boxes he purchased.
Wow, this stuff was debunked literally decades ago. One, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or even gun-cleaning supplies--not one bullet or gun-cleaning item was found in his belongings. Two, the FBI could find no evidence that Oswald ever practiced shooting at targets in the months leading up to the assassination. Three, the FBI couldn't even establish that Oswald picked up the mail-order rifle and admitted that no "Hidell" was authorized on Oswald's mail form to pick up mail from his post office box. Four, General Walker himself said that the bullet that was recovered from his wall was not the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
The rifle as tested aimed a few inches high and to the right. This approximates the amount of lead Oswald would have had to make on his target. Oswald might have known this, he might not have known this and just got lucky, or the scope might have been knocked out of alignment when he dropped it behind the row of boxes on the 6th floor.
More dated, debunked claims. The rifle was not "dropped" behind the row of boxes but was carefully slid in between them and covered with other boxes. Even with the scope zeroed for the WC's rifle test, the Master-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
Whatever the combination of circumstances were with the rifle, we know that rifle put two rounds into JFK because the only two recovered bullets were fired by that rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.
You are decades behind the information curve. I've made you aware of the fact that the skull x-rays show bullet fragmentation that is totally inconsistent with the fragmentation caused by the kind of ammo that Oswald supposedly used. There is no way that an FMJ bullet would shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside the skull and also leave several fragments in the rear outer table (and in a location that couldn't be associated with an entry wound).
One of the bullet fragments supposedly recovered from the limo shows damage that would never have occurred from transiting a human skull. None of the known fragments from any of the various wound ballistics tests have emerged with a flap folded a 180 degrees and razor-sharp edge.
SOMEBODY used that rifle to kill JFK and the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
LOL! Uh, the overwhelming forensic evidence, as confirmed by Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, says that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. Let me once again quote DiMaio:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)And:
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'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)Notice two crucial points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
Why do you keep ducking this fact?
Oswald was not a large man so it was not that cramped for him.
Oh, just stop. I know you haven't even looked at the relevant crime-scene photos and reconstruction photos, or else you wouldn't float this stuff. Oswald was of average height and weight for a man in 1963. In fact, he was slightly taller than the average height of 5'8". And, yes, the sniper's nest would have been quite cramped for him, as Pat Speer has proved.
Given that his rifle was the murder weapon and 3 shells from that rifle were found in the sniper's nest, we can safely say SOMEBODY fired the shots from "the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth floor sniper's nest". Again, the overwhelming amount of forensic evidence tells us that somebody was Oswald.
No, we can safely say that you will continue to ignore the compelling evidence that Oswald's ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the fact that neither of the rear head entry wounds can be aligned back with the sixth-floor window (unless we simply ignore the damage inside the skull and ignore the position of JFK's head when the hit occurred), that you will continue to ignore the fact no one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting feat, that you will continue to ignore the severe and undeniable conflicts between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, that you will continue to ignore the evidence that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting, etc., etc.
This is why I said earlier that no shooting has ever been duplicated. Oswald was not required to duplicate anybody else's shots. He just needed to put a bullet on his target which he did twice in three shots with deadly consequences.
This fluff would get you an F grade in a high school debate class. If a valid lone-gunman rifle test were ever held and at least one rifleman actually duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance, you would be trumpeting this from the rooftops. But, oops, no such test has ever been held, and the two tests that duplicated most of the conditions failed to produce a single rifleman who could duplicate the alleged feat.
MG: -- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.
JC: Even a mediocre trained Marine was capable of making those shots.
You bet, and never you mind that even the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, firing from only 30 feet up and firing at stationary targets, failed to make those shots, or that only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test scored two hits on his first attempt and only because the test counted as "hits" any shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes.
Even the USMC's minimum qualifying standards required Oswald to be able to consistently hit his target at 200 yard. His longest shot in Dealey Plaza was only 88 yards.
Again, just stop. If you knew anything about rifles and marksmanship and Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores, you would know there is a world of difference between firing a superb semi-automatic rifle like the M1 at stationary targets that you've practiced against for weeks and when the fastest you have to fire is 6 seconds per shot vs. going 2/3 with a bolt-action rifle in 4.8 to 11 seconds and with your two hits having to come in the final 5.6 seconds. There's just no comparison.
None of the tests I've seen required the shooters to shoot from an awkward stance at a target moving across the target line.
Yeah, that's because they didn't buy the idiotic, illogical scenario that the sixth-floor gunman fired before Z133.
The targets were moving in a straight line away from the shooters, making their first shots fairly easy as compared to what Oswald faced.
You mean as compared to your absurd theory that has Oswald practically hanging out the window and firing virtually straight down on his first shot, yet still missing the entire gigantic limo. Yeah, uh-huh.
Were they asked to fire 2 shots or 3 in the 5.6 seconds?
Do you just not understand the English I'm using? Do you still not grasp the erroneous assumption you're making with this argument, which you keep repeating? Again, if the first shot was a miss, the two hits would have had to come after Z209 and would have had to be made within 5.6 seconds. If you don't believe me, go ask a grade school math teacher to tell you how many seconds would elapse in 102 frames (Z210-Z312) with the camera filming at the speed of 18.3 frames per second. I promise you the teacher will tell you that the answer is 5.57 seconds, which everyone usually rounds up to 5.6 seconds.
MG: It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).
JC: That would be true if Oswald had to fire 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
Sigh. . . . See above. . . . It is astounding that you don't even understand such a basic fact about the shooting sequence.
If you were really interested in critical thinking, you would have applied it to your own arguments. You would have considered the points I have made to your arguments.
Yeah, you bet! Somewhere deep in the back of your mind you have to at least suspect that you are blundering badly and are trying to obscure your incompetence by posturing that I'm not interested in critical thinking.
I've actually had two courses on critical thinking. What training have you had on the subject?
That's true if one believes in junk science. If one relies on solid forensic evidence, there is only a basis for a 3 shot scenario.
This is your answer to the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, which includes photographic evidence?! I bet you didn't even read my article on the subject, did you? I'd like to see you respond to that article ("Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza").
If your "junk science" comment is aimed at the HSCA's acoustical evidence, even though I didn't mention it in my reply and in my "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots" article, we already saw in an exchange in another thread that you haven't even read the NAS panel's report, much less the HSCA's acoustical research, Dr. Donald Thomas's research, and the follow-up research that was done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 and published in Dr. Josiah Thompson's book
Last Second in Dallas.
That exchange proved that you obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists were not even acoustical scientists and that they didn't even try to explain the windshield distortion correlations, the presence of N-waves on the dictabelt, and the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, not to mention the fact that those phenomena come in the correct sequence and interval, an astonishing coincidence if the dictabelt did not record shots during the assassination. You also obviously had no idea that the NAS scientists admitted there was a 93% chance that the time-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the recording was made by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern on the dictabelt was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.
MG: which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.
JC: Wrong again. It is only necessary to believe SOME of the witnesses were wrong and since the witnesses gave differing accounts of the shooting, we KNOW some of them had to be wrong.
HUH? If some of the witnesses were right, then there were more than three shots fired. How can you not understand this? Clearly, you haven't even bothered to read the accounts of extra bullets and missed shots, or else you'd know better than to present such a vacuous argument.
The FBI expert who examined the shells disagrees with your assessment. He had the actual shells to examine instead of low resolution copies of photos of the shells examined by amateur sleuths. I'm going with the FBI's expert on this one.
Uh-huh, of course you are. What shells did this FBI expert examine? Did he examine the shells from the HSCA's ballistics test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Did the FBI expert examine the shells from Zimmerman's test, of which we have good pictures, and none of which emerged as dented as CE 543? Dr. Chapman examined CE 543 himself. So did ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue. So did Dr. Josiah Thompson. In addition, Dr. Chapman did his own test and concluded that CE 543's dent was too large for the case to have fired a bullet during the assassination.
The SBT has been disputed, not refuted. Critics keep telling us it is impossible but are never able to give us a valid reason why it is impossible. I have asked you to explain why on numerous occasions and I have yet to see you attempt to do so. Have I missed your reply?
Say what?! I've written entire articles on why the SBT is impossible. I've posted numerous replies on why the SBT is impossible. Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers have explained why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. What in the world are you talking about?
Now you are just making &*&^% up.
No, you are. I know you didn't read my article on why JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. You have a habit of making emphatic statements based on little or no actual knowledge. You also have a habit of attacking research that you haven't even read.
Like you, they didn't explain why it was impossible. They thought just saying so would suffice. I guess it did suffice for the CT who paid for the study, that being John Orr.
Umm, as mentioned, Knott Laboratory's forensic engineers did in fact explain why their SBT trajectory analysis proves the SBT is impossible. I provided two links to their articles. Obviously, you didn't bother to read either of them, and then you get on here and make the erroneous claim that they didn't explain why the SBT is impossible.
Do you not understand how much you discredit yourself when you pull this stunt? And you pull this stunt quite often.
JBC refuted the SBT because he believed the myth that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He knew he had been hit by the second shot. If JFK had also been hit by the second shot, that would mean they were both hit by the same shot.
Another example of faulty logic and flawed a priori assumptions.
Anyway, Connally only heard one shot before he was hit, but this does not mean there was only one shot before he was hit. The Zapruder film shows two sets of readily visible shot reactions before Z224. In addition, two of the strongest blur episodes identified by the HSCA's photographic experts occur before Z224, i.e., Z158-165 and Z189-197.
Blur episodes are important because they indicate that Zapruder jiggled his camera in response to hearing a shot. Tests have proved that a person will jiggle their camera in a reflex reaction when they hear gunfire, even if they know it is coming. By even the most conservative criteria, there are at least four significant blur episodes in the Zapruder film.
Not a bad guess. He was only off by about 1/2 second, Not as good as his earlier guess. That one was off by 2/3 of a second.
I already answered this argument. You keep ignoring contrary facts and then repeating your talking points and acting like you've proven your point. As I've explained to you before, forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it only takes 150-300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224.
You lamely brush aside the fact that Connally saw no significance in any of the few minor pre-Z229 movements that you claim are wound reactions. I mean, nah, what did he know, right? He was just the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else. Oh, but he "must" have been "mistaken"--because otherwise the SBT collapses.
I'll leave it to the people who believe that nonsense to reply to that.
You even duck easy issues like this one. If the SBT is false, then it is self-evident that Connally must have been hit by a separate bullet fired by a second gunman from behind. How can you not figure this out? It doesn't matter if you accept or reject the mortal error theory. If, as your theory says, Oswald only fired three shots, and if Connally was not hit by the alleged SBT bullet, then another gunman firing from behind must have shot Connally, since your theory says Oswald's first shot missed and his third shot hit JFK's head. If one accepts the mortal error theory, which says Oswald only fired two shots, then if the SBT is false, this still means a second gunman must have been firing from behind. I mean, this is simple math and basic logic.
I think I've dealt with enough of your nonsense.
No, you've either ducked and dodged or offered blundering arguments in response to inconvenient facts. I hate to put it this way, and I rarely say this even when it's deserved, but you are far out of your league. I'll get back to this point in a moment.
I don't have to go on a scavenger hunt to dig up more.
In other words, you're still going to refuse to read any scholarly research that challenges your theory of the shooting, and then you're going to get back on here and once again either ignore or mischaracterize that research, all the while pretending that you've proven your point.
I feel like I've traveled back in time to 1991 when I first started to refute these same arguments made by you and your Prodigy cohorts back then. Nothing much has changed. Same old crap. Oswald wasn't a good enough marksman. The rifle couldn't have made the kill shots. The SBT is impossible. Blah, blah, blah.
Oh, yes, we've seen how you've "refuted" my arguments here! Honestly, you have no business pretending to be any kind of an authority on the JFK case. You should be here to learn from people who have done far, far more research on the case than you have.
You should feel like you've traveled back in time to the 1960s because you repeatedly show you know nothing about many of the important disclosures and developments that have occurred since the 1970s. You appear to know almost nothing about the historic ARRB disclosures and the JFKRCA-related disclosures since then. Moreover, it seems obvious that you haven't even read all of the WC volumes, much less the HSCA volumes.
Who are you, anyway? Where's your JFKA website? (I have one of the most frequently visited JFKA websites around). What books have you published? (I've published two.) How many books and articles have cited your research? (Numerous books and articles have cited my research, but I can't find any that have cited your research.) How many major news outlets have interviewed you on the JFK case? (BBC Canada interviewed me on the case; two local radio stations have interviewed me on the case; and two JFKA podcasts have interviewed me.) How many of your articles have been reprinted or linked on other JFKA sites? (Many of my articles have been reprinted/linked on other JFKA websites, but I can't find a single article you have written, much less any sites that have reprinted/linked one of them.)
And what are your qualifications? I spent 21 years in Army military intelligence and continued to work in the Intelligence Community as a contractor for some years afterward, so I know my way around the intelligence aspects of the case. I qualified at all three levels of Army marksmanship (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). I've conducted a ballistics test on the effects of bullets on clothing. When it comes to the acoustical evidence, my signals intel training included courses on radio wave propagation, modulation, the effects of automatic gain control, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. I don't claim to be an acoustical expert, but I know more about the subject than your average Joe. I've interviewed numerous photographic lab technicians, professors of photography, and professional photographers about the backyard rifle photos. I've interviewed a former Army sniper about Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
The irony is that you called for logic and critical thinking in the title of this thread and yet you don't seem to have applied either to your goofy ideas.
No, the irony is that you clearly lack the education to credibly even discuss what constitutes logic and critical thinking in the first place, and that you've proved over and over that you don't have a handle on many of the basics of the JFK case or even on all the components of the lone-gunman theory.
