Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

[John Corbett]

That would be hard to believe if he was trying to shoot the limo but we can safely assume he was not.

CTs like to raise this point to make it seem improbable that the same guy who missed the limo with his first shot could fire the next two with deadly accuracy. The first shot was by far the hardest for reasons I have laid out in previous threads. It seems ironic that some of the same CTs who don't think it is plausible that Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot are perfectly willing to believe the GK shooter completely missed the limo with his one and only shot. That was the conclusion of the HSCA based on their reliance on the acoustical evidence.

Then of course we have the CTs who insist the GK shooter didn't miss the limo. They believe the GK shooter fired the kill shot to the head. This belief is illogical on so many levels. A headshot from the JFK would have resulted in massive trauma to the left hemisphere of JFK's brain. The left hemisphere was intact.

If JFK had been driven back by such a shot, he would have gone back and to the left, toward the center of the back seat. The reality is he went straight back. When his back contacted the rear seatback, he was still on the far right side of the seat. The illusion that he went back and to the left was created by the fact he was already leaning to his left when he went straight back following the headshot.

Lastly, the most compelling reason to dismiss a headshot coming from the GK is there is no medical evidence of such a shot. The medical evidence is conclusive that the headshot was fired from behind JFK. The radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the back of JFK's head establish that fact. So does the inward beveling in the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head. So does the fact that the massive brain trauma was to the right hemisphere of JFK's brain. Even WC critic Cyril Wecht agrees the medical evidence indicates conclusively that the head shot came from behind JFK. So does every qualified medicat examiner who reviewed the photos and x-rays from the autopsy. A shot from the GK simply isn't plausible no matter how you slice it.

[Tom Graves]

Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot?

What was the angular velocity of JFK's head from the Sniper's Nest point of view at "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 after a 17-secound pause?

[Lance Payette]

This seems to studiously avoid the more Occam-like and evidence-based possibilities. In my humble and exceedingly uninformed opinion, both the "missed first shot" and any "frontal shot" are fantasies and red herrings. The plausible possibilities are (1) Oswald simply fired two shots and that's all there is to the JFKA, bada-boom bada-bing; or (2) Oswald fired two shots but the SBT is incorrect and a third shot that did not miss its mark was fired on a flatter trajectory from either the Dal-Tex or County Records building. I have no emotional attachment to either possibility, but I increasingly think #2 is far from implausible. (Orr has four shots, with a pro making the head shot and Oswald missing everything with his third shot immediately after that, so there are alternative possibilities within #2.)

The more I dive into the evidence and authorities supporting my views that folks like blowhard Dan O'Meara dismiss as "discredited nonsense," as I have done this morning in regard to the issue of when JFK sustained his throat wound , the more I discover that folks way more qualified than little old me do not regard them as discredited or nonsensical at all - quite the contrary. And the more I am convinced that way too often in JFKA discussions "theory" drives the "evidence" rather than the other way around - i.e., what folks want to believe occurred drives their interpretation of the evidence as to what did occur.

It would interesting to have the photographic, medical and ballistics evidence reviewed by a panel of world-class experts who have absolutely no dog in the fight - experts from Brazil and Sweden and China who care nothing about JFK or the JFKA and who haven't been influenced by 62 years of speculation.

[Zeon Mason]

Well there is  no record of Oswald having practiced shooting at a 12-15mph target at ranges of 60-90 yds from a firing position 72 ft in height.

And since the rifle was stored in the Paines garage while Oswald lived at the boarding house then he probably had not fired the rifle for several months.

And then his plan was hastily conceived and he was probably in high state of anxiety just before he started shooting. So he could have inadvertently squeezed the trigger as he leaned over to position the rifle on the stacked box firing platform. 

Who knows if the scope was even zeroed correctly for that 100 yds range and if the reticle had drifted off it’s zero.

Could have been some minor trigger malfunction because Oswald for 15 minutes while on the 6th floor could not have prepped by operating bolt and trigger because of Bonnie Ray Williams on the floor until about 12:23. And then from
12:23-12:30 Norman was on the 5th floor directly beneath the SN and he did not hear  any sound of bolt or trigger operation preceding the shooting.

[Lance Payette]

Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.

[Tom Graves]

Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.

Dear FPR,

Oswald's first shot (at "Z-124") was the most difficult of the three.

-- Tom

[John Corbett]

Sure, we can hypothesize HOW Oswald might have missed, but the most parsimonious, evidence-based, Occam-friendly explanation is "He didn't." I have just a bit of conceptual difficulty with a shot that misses everything followed by two longer shots that are pretty much right on the money.

You probably have not done much shooting if you can't recognize how much more difficult the early first shot was compared to the to later an longer shots. At 88 yards or less, distance is hardly a factor at all. He was firing almost dead down range with little relative movement of the target to the line of fire. That was not true of the first shot which also required shooting from an awkward stance with nothing to brace the rifle with the window sash likely partially obscuring his view.

I've always wished somebody would do a reenactment of that first shot just to see what challenges it would have presented. I'm not asking for a duplication which is impossible. Just a re-enactment to highlight the difficulties.