The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test

[Michael T. Griffith]

Few books on the assassination discuss the HSCA’s rifle test, which also failed to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting performance. The test involved four expert riflemen who fired at stationary target boards. Not one of the riflemen scored two hits in three shots.

HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey wrote a memorandum that described the test and its results. The test was conducted in March 1979. The riflemen in the test were four of the top marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All four had prior military experience, and all four had additional “extensive” civilian training in using rifles or handguns (8 HSCA 184).

The riflemen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at three stationary target boards from a 20-foot tower. The target boards were placed 143 feet, 165 feet, and 265 feet from the tower. Each target board had a silhouette that portrayed a human body from waist to head. Each rifleman fired two series of three shots. It should be noted that they used the iron sights for all shots. The riflemen were allowed to practice working the rifle’s bolt for several minutes. A shot was counted as a hit (“kill”) if it landed anywhere in the silhouette (8 HSCA 184 n 3).
 
Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary Cornwell also fired shots in the test, but they only fired one series of two shots (8 HSCA 184). Blakey and Cornwell apparently merely point-aimed, i.e., they merely pointed the rifle in the direction of the target and fired.

Blakey noted that the Carcano rifle “was characteristically difficult to operate, due to its poor basic design” (8 HSCA 184 n 2). Yet, many lone-gunman theorists still portray the rifle as an outstanding and reliable weapon.

The purpose of the rifle test was to see if a Carcano rifle could be fired three times in 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots while scoring at least two hits. As mentioned, any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette was counted as a hit (“kill”), thus tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area compared to the area that the supposed lone gunman allegedly hit two out of three times in 8.6-9.6 seconds (and two out of two times in 5.6 seconds).

With the four experts each firing two series of three shots, and with Blakey and Cornwell each firing one series of two shots, a total of 10 series were fired.

Significantly, four of the 10 series took over seven seconds to fire. As for the other series, two of them took over six seconds to fire; two of them took over five seconds to fire; and two of them took less than five seconds to fire (8 HSCA 185).

Blakey tried to put the best face he could on the results of the test. He said the test showed that the shooting feat was “apparently difficult, but not impossible,” but he admitted that none of the riflemen had managed to perform the feat:

It is apparently difficult, but not impossible – at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used – to fire three shots, at least two of which score “kills,” with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)

In a footnote, Blakey reported that the riflemen’s first shot in all the series was usually a hit, “since there was no time pressure imposed in aiming the rifle in preparation for that shot” (8 HSCA 185 n 4). Yet, according to the lone-gunman theory, the supposed single assassin missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first shot.

Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt commented on the HSCA rifle test as follows:

Years later, staff members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook to settle once and for all the question of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano could have done the job. At a firing range outside Washington, HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey met with four of the top rifle marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All had prior military experience.

A representative from the National Archives was present with the infamous Oswald rifle. After some testing, it was clear its condition was too poor to permit firing. A similar weapon was produced, one that had been used in earlier tests in Dealey Plaza.

The specific purpose of the test, according to Blakey, was to see if it was possible for Oswald to fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds. (The HSCA acoustics studies had determined this as the amount of time between the two closest shots.)

The results were, at best, mixed. Blakey reported to the committee that such shooting could be done. He went on to explain:

"It is apparently difficult but not impossible . . . to fire three shots, at least two of which score 'kills,' with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.”

Echoes of the Warren Commission? What Blakey is saying is that while it is not impossible to duplicate Oswald's feat, none of the experts was able to do it. Moreover, the HSCA expert marksmen, like the experts in 1964, used stationary targets and were given unlimited time to prepare for their first shot.

The fact remains that, to this day, no expert marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting skills in any official test or demonstration. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 101, emphasis added)

The HSCA’s rifle test also tended to confirm what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about how rapidly the alleged murder weapon could be fired with any degree of accuracy: Frazier said 2.3 seconds per shot was the fastest the rifle could be fired with some degree of accuracy.

When I shared a copy of my book A Comforting Lie with a co-worker, he said he was surprised to learn about the HSCA’s investigation and its conclusions. He said he’d heard of the Warren Commission but had never heard of the HSCA. This is why my chapter on the HSCA is titled “The Forgotten Investigation: The House Select Committee on Assassinations.”

[John Corbett]

Few books on the assassination discuss the HSCA’s rifle test, which also failed to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting performance. The test involved four expert riflemen who fired at stationary target boards. Not one of the riflemen scored two hits in three shots.

HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey wrote a memorandum that described the test and its results. The test was conducted in March 1979. The riflemen in the test were four of the top marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All four had prior military experience, and all four had additional “extensive” civilian training in using rifles or handguns (8 HSCA 184).

The riflemen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at three stationary target boards from a 20-foot tower. The target boards were placed 143 feet, 165 feet, and 265 feet from the tower. Each target board had a silhouette that portrayed a human body from waist to head. Each rifleman fired two series of three shots. It should be noted that they used the iron sights for all shots. The riflemen were allowed to practice working the rifle’s bolt for several minutes. A shot was counted as a hit (“kill”) if it landed anywhere in the silhouette (8 HSCA 184 n 3).
 
Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary Cornwell also fired shots in the test, but they only fired one series of two shots (8 HSCA 184). Blakey and Cornwell apparently merely point-aimed, i.e., they merely pointed the rifle in the direction of the target and fired.

Blakey noted that the Carcano rifle “was characteristically difficult to operate, due to its poor basic design” (8 HSCA 184 n 2). Yet, many lone-gunman theorists still portray the rifle as an outstanding and reliable weapon.

The purpose of the rifle test was to see if a Carcano rifle could be fired three times in 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots while scoring at least two hits. As mentioned, any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette was counted as a hit (“kill”), thus tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area compared to the area that the supposed lone gunman allegedly hit two out of three times in 8.6-9.6 seconds (and two out of two times in 5.6 seconds).

With the four experts each firing two series of three shots, and with Blakey and Cornwell each firing one series of two shots, a total of 10 series were fired.

Significantly, four of the 10 series took over seven seconds to fire. As for the other series, two of them took over six seconds to fire; two of them took over five seconds to fire; and two of them took less than five seconds to fire (8 HSCA 185).

Blakey tried to put the best face he could on the results of the test. He said the test showed that the shooting feat was “apparently difficult, but not impossible,” but he admitted that none of the riflemen had managed to perform the feat:

It is apparently difficult, but not impossible – at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used – to fire three shots, at least two of which score “kills,” with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)

In a footnote, Blakey reported that the riflemen’s first shot in all the series was usually a hit, “since there was no time pressure imposed in aiming the rifle in preparation for that shot” (8 HSCA 185 n 4). Yet, according to the lone-gunman theory, the supposed single assassin missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first shot.

Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt commented on the HSCA rifle test as follows:

Years later, staff members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook to settle once and for all the question of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano could have done the job. At a firing range outside Washington, HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey met with four of the top rifle marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All had prior military experience.

A representative from the National Archives was present with the infamous Oswald rifle. After some testing, it was clear its condition was too poor to permit firing. A similar weapon was produced, one that had been used in earlier tests in Dealey Plaza.

The specific purpose of the test, according to Blakey, was to see if it was possible for Oswald to fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds. (The HSCA acoustics studies had determined this as the amount of time between the two closest shots.)

That fact alone is enough to invalidate the acoustics studies. It would be idiotic for Oswald or any other shooter to try to fire a bolt action rifle that rapidly. Even firing a semi-auto rifle that fast wouldn't make sense. If you are trying to hit a target, accuracy takes priority over speed. Any competent marksman knows that controlling your breathing is important to accuracy and you don't try to fire rapidly. You put a slow squeeze on the trigger and let the gun fire when the trigger pressure is reached.

The results were, at best, mixed. Blakey reported to the committee that such shooting could be done. He went on to explain:

"It is apparently difficult but not impossible . . . to fire three shots, at least two of which score 'kills,' with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.”

Echoes of the Warren Commission? What Blakey is saying is that while it is not impossible to duplicate Oswald's feat, none of the experts was able to do it. Moreover, the HSCA expert marksmen, like the experts in 1964, used stationary targets and were given unlimited time to prepare for their first shot.

The fact remains that, to this day, no expert marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting skills in any official test or demonstration. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 101, emphasis added)[/font]

Define what you consider "duplicated".

The HSCA’s rifle test also tended to confirm what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about how rapidly the alleged murder weapon could be fired with any degree of accuracy: Frazier said 2.3 seconds per shot was the fastest the rifle could be fired with some degree of accuracy.

When I shared a copy of my book A Comforting Lie with a co-worker, he said he was surprised to learn about the HSCA’s investigation and its conclusions. He said he’d heard of the Warren Commission but had never heard of the HSCA. This is why my chapter on the HSCA is titled “The Forgotten Investigation: The House Select Committee on Assassinations.”

What a stupid test. Why would they limit the shooters to 1.7 seconds between shots? Oswald wasn't under any such constraint. By my calculation, he had 3.9 seconds between the first and second shots and 4.9 seconds between the second and third shots. Also, why would they use the iron sights instead of the scope. We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.

As for the Carcano rifle, nobody has said it was a great battlefield rifle as compared to the M1 Garand or the German Mauser, but it was more the adequate for Oswald's purpose. His longest shot was 88 yards, less than half the range he trained at in the USMC. We know the Carcano got the job done because the only recovered shells and bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The first thing I notice is that you never get around to dealing with the fact that not one of the four expert riflemen managed to score two hits in three shots, even though they took 6-8 seconds to fire in the majority of their shot series.

That fact alone is enough to invalidate the acoustics studies.

A mind bogglingly silly argument.

It would be idiotic for Oswald or any other shooter to try to fire a bolt action rifle that rapidly. Even firing a semi-auto rifle that fast wouldn't make sense.

Huh??? Do you just lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the obvious fact that once the limo cleared the oak tree at Z210, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only had 5.6 seconds to score two hits?

As I've explained to you countless times, no matter how early you want to assume your alleged lone gunman fired, since you also claim that his first shot missed, he would have had to score his two supposed hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

If you are trying to hit a target, accuracy takes priority over speed. Any competent marksman knows that controlling your breathing is important to accuracy and you don't try to fire rapidly. You put a slow squeeze on the trigger and let the gun fire when the trigger pressure is reached.

Just shaking my head. Umm, when you're firing at a moving target that is 2-3 seconds away from passing under an overpass, speed of fire is crucial. Again, per your own first-shot-miss scenario, your supposed lone gunman would have had to score his two alleged hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

It's like your brain just can't process facts that refute your gibberish. 

Define what you consider "duplicated".

You just flunked yourself back several grades. You cannot really need me to define what I mean by "duplicated." Once more you act like an insolent teenager who makes childish arguments because he can't bring himself to admit he's wrong.

What a stupid test. Why would they limit the shooters to 1.7 seconds between shots? Oswald wasn't under any such constraint.

My OP already answered this nonsense.

By my calculation, he had 3.9 seconds between the first and second shots and 4.9 seconds between the second and third shots.

By your "calculation" the Earth is flat. This is probably a waste of time, but let me just repeat the fact that, unless you're assuming your supposed sixth-floor gunman fired while the limo was under the oak tree (an idea that even the WC rejected), he would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds, which equals 2.8 seconds per shot [corrected typo of 2.3].

It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact.     

Also, why would they use the iron sights instead of the scope.

You don't know? Really? One reason was that some WC apologists, in trying to explain the fact that the scope on the alleged murder rifle was defective, theorized that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights, apparently unaware that it would have been impossible to use the iron sights with the scope mounted on the rifle.

Some of your fellow WC defenders still float the argument that "Oswald" used the iron sights.

We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.

Yet another downright silly argument. Umm, you cannot use the iron sights on a Carcano rile if the scope is mounted on the rifle. 

Of course, you keep assuming as a given that Oswald did the shooting, and then you proceed from there.

Did you forget that one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test used both the scope and the iron sights? (But, he had to remove the scope in order to use the iron sights.)

As for the Carcano rifle, nobody has said it was a great battlefield rifle as compared to the M1 Garand or the German Mauser, but it was more the adequate for Oswald's purpose. His longest shot was 88 yards, less than half the range he trained at in the USMC.

You're just never going to stop repeating these misleading arguments about Oswald's Marine rifle scores vs. the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, are you? People who read my replies to these arguments in other threads are going to wonder why you keep repeating them without explaining the facts that contradict them. They're going to wonder why you keep ignoring the fact that when dozens of Marines who served with Oswald were interviewed, the overwhelming majority, like over 90%, said Oswald was a poor shot.

And, FYI, many of your fellow WC believers, including some in this forum, have argued that the Carcano was high-quality, reliable weapon. 

We know the Carcano got the job done because the only recovered shells and bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

This is another prime example of your habit of repeating arguments that have been refuted while saying nothing about the facts that refute them. Newcomers would never know that you have been presented several times with facts that refute these arguments, nor would they know that you have been unable to explain those facts. But you conceal all of this by simply repeating your false arguments and saying nothing about the facts that refute them.

I know you know, because I have personally documented for you, that the recovered bullet fragments were not matched to the alleged murder weapon "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world." This myth was debunked some 20 years ago by two different groups of scientists, but you just keep ignoring this and keep repeating the myth.

When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK. In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented. The shells do not prove that the bullets they housed hit JFK or were even fired at JFK. As you know but won't admit, the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that was contained in those shells.

People who read our previous exchanges on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer ridiculous special pleading in response to the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Are you ever going to offer a shred of evidence to support your made-up nonsense that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets?

I mean, you understand that WCC FMJ bullets, like all other FMJ bullets, were designed to leave few or no fragments in order to increase their penetrating power, right? You know this much, right? Yes?

I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.

Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

And on and on we could go, but you just brush aside the whole science of wound-ballistics testing with the dishonest, amateurish dodge that no two shootings are exactly alike in every single aspect, never mind that the major aspects are the same (few if any fragments, basic fragmentation patterns, location of fragmentation).

You also brush aside the unanimous position in forensic science and ballistics literature that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when striking skull bone.   

[John Corbett]

The first thing I notice is that you never get around to dealing with the fact that not one of the four expert riflemen managed to score two hits in three shots, even though they took 6-8 seconds to fire in the majority of their shot series.

You stated in the OP these riflemen were supposed to take no more than 1.7 seconds between shots. Since the clock starts with the first shot, that would leave them 3.4 seconds to fire two more. With such a ridiculous constraint, and the fact they weren't using the scope, it's not surprising they would have trouble hitting the targets. Even if they actually took more than 3.4 seconds, The fact that they were even trying to fire the rifle as fast as they could would adversely affect their marksmanship. Oswald had neither of these constraints. He could take whatever amount of time between shots he thought was necessary to fire his shots accurately. He could also use the scope if he chose to do so.

A mind bogglingly silly argument.

Huh??? Do you just lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the obvious fact that once the limo cleared the oak tree at Z210, a sixth-floor gunman would have only had 5.6 seconds to score two hits?

Which is more than 3 times the 1.7 seconds the test shooters were triying to fire their rifle in. In actuality, Oswald took about 4.97 seconds (91 Z-frames) between the two shots he fired after the limo cleared the tree. Perfectly reasonable he could hit the target twice with those two shots. I'll bet the test shooters would have been able to hit the target twice if given that amount of time rather than the 1.7 seconds Blakey imposed upon them.

As I've explained to you countless times, no matter how early you want to assume your alleged lone gunman fired, since you also claim that his first shot missed, he would have had to score his two supposed hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

You're being too generous to Oswald. The Z313 strike would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. The second shot which struck JFK in the back would have been fired in the Z219-220 window. That's how we get 91 Z-frames between shots. Perfectly doable for a marksman the caliber of Oswald.

Just shaking my head. Umm, when you're firing at a moving target that is 2-3 seconds away from passing under an overpass, speed of fire is crucial. Again, per your own first-shot-miss scenario, your supposed lone gunman would have had to score his two alleged hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.

Oswald was firing under a time constraint but not nearly the constraint the test shooters were under. Oswald had chambered the last round in the clip and would have had time to fire it but realized it was unnecessary. Zapruder continued filming for another 113 frames following the headshot and the limo was still in range during that time. Oswald would have had more than 6 additional seconds had he chosen to fire a fourth shot.

It's like your brain just can't process facts that refute your gibberish.

How ironic that somebody as silly as you would hurl that accusation at somebody else.

You just flunked yourself back several grades. You cannot really need me to define what I mean by "duplicated." Once more you act like an insolent teenager who makes childish arguments because he can't bring himself to admit he's wrong.

I would expect to flunk when being graded by a dunce like you. If you are going to make the claim that Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated, it is incumbent upon you to define what would constitute a duplication. It's not surprising that shooters required to fire their rifles much faster than Oswald did would not be as accurate as Oswald and would have difficulty scoring as many hits as Oswald did in considerably less time.

My OP already answered this nonsense.

Yes it did and the reason give was stupid. Blakey was trying to validate the dubious acoustics evidence by showing it was possible for Oswald to accurately fire his rifle in the amount of time between shots that the acoustics team determined. As I understand, the acoustics team determine Oswald fired the first two shots from the sniper's nest in 1.7 seconds. Common sense should have told Blakey how absurd that conclusion was. That would not even be possible if Oswald took the time to aim his second shot. It has been shown that a Carcano can be fired that rapidly on a range if the shooter doesn't bother to take time to aim the rifle but I'm quite sure Oswald was trying to hit a target and not show how fast he could shoot.

By your "calculation" the Earth is flat. This is a probably a waste of time, but let me just repeat the fact that, unless you're assuming your supposed sixth-floor gunman fired while the limo was under the oak tree (an idea that even the WC rejected), he would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds, which equals 2.3 seconds per shot.

Christ, you can't even do basic arithmetic. Half of 5.6 is 2.8, not 2.3 but even 2.8 is not the right answer because the clock would start with the first shot and Oswald would have had an additional 5.6 seconds to fire the second of those shots. The WC determined the limo didn't come into the clear until Z210 and that was 5.6 seconds before the headshot, but even that isn't quite right. It would have taken 2-3 frames for the bullet to reach JFK's head so that the headshot would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. 100 Z-frames works out to about 5.46 seconds between shots. That is the theoretical maximum amount time between the last two shots. That assumes Oswald fired the first those two shots the instant JFK came into the clear. In reality, he fired that shot about a half second later, which works out to about 4.97 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK.

It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact.

I just gave you a detailed explanation of the calculation but apparently remedial arithmetic isn't your strong suit. I've been reading your crap for 35 years and I have yet to detect what your strong suit is.

     

You don't know? Really? One reason was that some WC apologists, in trying to explain the fact that the scope on the alleged murder rifle was defective, theorized that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.

Yes, I've seen some LNs theorize Oswald used the iron sights but that hardly establishes that as a fact. Oswald could have used either and only he would know which he used. Whoever made the decision that the test shooters should use the fixed iron sights seems to have assumed Oswald used the fixed iron sights without knowing that to be a fact.

What is a fact is that both the scope and the fixed iron sights would have been aiming high at the range Oswald was firing at. The WC pointed out that would have been an aid to Oswald since he would need to lead his target and to do that he would need to aim high. Whether Oswald had taken all of this into account or just got lucky we don't know. What we do know is that whatever the condition of the Carcano was and whether or not the shooter took that into account, it was the Carcano that fired the only two shots that hit JFK because those were the only two bullets that were recovered, one inside the limo and the other at Parkland.

Some of your fellow WC defenders still float the argument that "Oswald" used the iron sights.

As I just explained, that theory is not an established fact. Only a possibility. The only possibility Blakey seemed to have considered when setting up his silly test. Blakey wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Yet another downright silly argument.

As is SOP for you, you declare the argument silly without addressing the points made or explaining why it is silly. That's a pretty good indication you have no rebuttal to the argument made.

Of course, you keep assuming as a given that Oswald did the shooting, and then you proceed from there.

An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is ample evidence Oswald was the shooter. It was his rifle that fired all the recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. His palm and fingerprint was on a bag found next to the sniper's nest. That bag was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. The butt plate of the rifle contained fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Oswald's fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest at the sniper's nest window and those fingerprints were oriented as they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. In almost 63 years, no CT has ever presented a plausible explanation for how all the above could be true if Oswald was actually innocent. As Dan O'Meara demonstrated within the past day, CTs will offer a vague explanation but the devil is always in the details. No detailed narrative that explains all of the above evidence is possible without concluding Oswald was the assassin. If such a narrative were available, somebody would have thought of it by now.

Did you forget that one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test used both the scope and the iron sights?

I thought this thread was about the HSCA test, but all that indicates is that rifleman considered the possibility that Oswald could have used either sight.

The fallacy of Blakey's test wasn't that he had the test done with the iron sights. The fallacy is that he ONLY did the test with the iron sights. That was a boneheaded decision. If he was trying to determine what was possible, he would have tested with both sights.

You're just never going to stop repeating these misleading arguments about Oswald's Marine rifle scores vs. the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, are you?

Why the hell would I? Even his lower qualifying score of 191 required Oswald to consistent hit a target at ranges of 200 yards and up. His longest shot that day was less than half of that. The killing of JFK at that range was well within the capabilities of someone who qualified as a USMC Marksman.

People who read my replies to these arguments in other threads are going to wonder why you keep repeating them without explaining the facts that contradict them. They're going to wonder why you keep ignoring the fact that when dozens of Marines who served with Oswald were interviewed, the overwhelming majority, like over 90%, said Oswald was a poor shot.

I keep repeating these arguments because they are sound and yours are most definitively not.

And, FYI, many of your fellow WC believers, including some in this forum, have argued that the Carcano was high-quality, reliable weapon.

I am not obligated to accept or defend every argument any LN has made on any forum since  the day the internet became available to the general public. I've seen some LNs make arguments that are almost as dumb as yours.

This is another prime example of your habit of repeating arguments that have been refuted while saying nothing about the facts that refute them. Newcomers would never know that you have been presented several times with facts that refute these arguments, nor would they know that you have been unable to explain those facts. But you conceal all of this by simply repeating your false arguments and saying nothing about the facts that refute them.

I remember a lot of instances in which you have disputed my arguments but none in which you have actually refuted them.

I know you know, because I have personally documented for you, that the recovered bullet fragments were not matched to the alleged murder weapon "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world." This myth was debunked some 20 years ago by two different groups of scientists, but you just keep ignoring this and keep repeating the myth.

Another of your wild claims that fly in the face of the facts. The FBI crime lab determined that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had sufficient size and markings to positivley match them to Oswald's rifle. From pages 557-558 of the WCR:

"The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 40 The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6 grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co. 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.41 It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated. 42 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the

Page 558

character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle."

This conclusion was based on the expert testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier. Below is a passage from that testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle

Similar testimony was give regarding the other fragment. For those who want to read Frazier's entire testimony on this matter, they can read it here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

But the WC did not just accept Frazier's conclusion at face value. They turned to Joseph Nicol of the Illinois crime lab for verification. This, in part, was his testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399?
Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

So we have a choice here. We can accept the opinions of recognized experts in the field of ballistics, or we can accept your FUBAR amateurish analysis. Gee, that's a tough call.

When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

This is a perfect example of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK.

Are you trying to set the record for the most dumba$$ statements in one post. You have to be getting close if you have not already surpassed it.

In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented.

Still more of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis". 

The shells do not prove that the bullets they housed hit JFK or were even fired at JFK. As you know but won't admit, the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that was contained in those shells.

The shells don't prove that but the recovered bullets do.

You, on the other hand, want to believe JFK was hit by bullets for which no weapon, shells, or bullets were ever recovered. So where the hell is your evidence JFK was killed by a weapon other than Oswald's Carcano?

People who read our previous exchanges on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer ridiculous special pleading in response to the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Sensible people who have read our exchanges would laugh their asses off at some of the ridiculous arguments you have made. In this thread alone you have provided plenty of comic relief.

Are you ever going to offer a shred of evidence to support your made-up nonsense that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets?

The only example of what such ammo will do when striking a human skull is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. You are the one claiming a 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet would not fragment in that manner. You need to provide the evidence of that. So far you have provided none. That means I have provided one more example than you have.

I mean, you understand that WCC FMJ bullets, like all other FMJ bullets, were designed to leave few or no fragments in order to increase their penetrating power, right? You know this much, right? Yes?

And yet a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet was found in the limo which proves such bullets don't always do what they were designed for. I guess that went right over your head.

I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.

I would have to be seriously head-f****d to believe even half the nonsense you post.

Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

Oh, but they did fragment, didn't they, even though they were designed not to fragment. I guess they were supposed to produce the same number of fragments as the bullet that hit JFK's head.

And on and on we could go, but you just brush aside the whole science of wound-ballistics testing with the dishonest, amateurish dodge that no two shootings are exactly alike in every single aspect, never mind that the major aspects are the same (few if any fragments, basic fragmentation patterns, location of fragmentation).

You know nothing of science. One of the hallmarks of good science is to exert skepticism, even of one's own findings. Especially of one's own findings. You, on the other hand, choose to accept any claim made, no matter how baseless, if it supports your cherished belief that JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald. You are completely incapable of critical thinking, which is a prerequisite for applying good science to available data.

You also brush aside the unanimous position in forensic science and ballistics literature that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when striking skull bone.

So I guess we should just ignore the fragmented FMJ bullet that was found in the limo because "forensic science" tells us it couldn't have fragmented like that.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You stated in the OP these riflemen were supposed to take no more than 1.7 seconds between shots. Since the clock starts with the first shot, that would leave them 3.4 seconds to fire two more. With such a ridiculous constraint, and the fact they weren't using the scope, it's not surprising they would have trouble hitting the targets. Even if they actually took more than 3.4 seconds, The fact that they were even trying to fire the rifle as fast as they could would adversely affect their marksmanship. Oswald had neither of these constraints. He could take whatever amount of time between shots he thought was necessary to fire his shots accurately.

Amazingly, you again refuse to process the fact that your supposed lone gunman would have had to score both of his hits within 5.6 seconds, since you claim his first shot missed (and missed not just JFK but the entire gigantic limo). So he most certainly would have had a serious time constraint, especially given his poor rifle skills and given the firing times of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test.

And I guess you missed the fact that the HSCA's rifle test counted as hits any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette, tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

He could also use the scope if he chose to do so.

Perhaps it's an insult to juveniles to point out the juvenile nature of so many of your replies. Your supposed lone gunman would have had no choice but to use the scope, unless you want to theorize that for some odd reason he took precious time to needlessly attach the scope after the shooting before he began his impossible dash down to the second-floor lunchroom. 

Which is more than 3 times the 1.7 seconds the test shooters were triying to fire their rifle in. In actuality, Oswald took about 4.97 seconds (91 Z-frames) between the two shots he fired after the limo cleared the tree. Perfectly reasonable he could hit the target twice with those two shots. I'll bet the test shooters would have been able to hit the target twice if given that amount of time rather than the 1.7 seconds Blakey imposed upon them.

Oh boy. . . .

One, the time span between Z209 and Z312, or 103 frames, would have been 5.6 seconds, not 4.97 seconds (103 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second equals 5.62 seconds).

Two, if it is "perfectly reasonable" to believe your supposed lone assassin went two for two after the limo cleared the oak tree, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to do this? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

You're being too generous to Oswald. The Z313 strike would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. The second shot which struck JFK in the back would have been fired in the Z219-220 window. That's how we get 91 Z-frames between shots. Perfectly doable for a marksman the caliber of Oswald.

LOL! You seem to be forgetting that he would have had to acquire the target and then aim starting immediately in Z210 before he could fire his second shot. The human brain takes 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames (166.67 milliseconds divided by 54.64 milliseconds per Zapruder frame).

Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by two frames with the head shot being fired at Z310-311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 103, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.62 seconds.

Anyway, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots? 

Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first set of shots and 7 seconds for his second set, while Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.

Miller fired more rapidly (4.6, 5.15, and 4.45 seconds), but his shots were also the most inaccurate.

Even though Hendrix took 8 seconds in his first series and 7 seconds in second series, he failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat. Needless to say, Miller and Staley also failed to do so. This was the case even though all three riflemen took as long as they wanted before firing their first shot.

In fact, the second and third shots of all three of these world-class riflemen were severely off the mark, with many of them missing the silhouette completely.

But when we strip away all of your evasion, distortion, and omission, you're saying that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories while using a superb semi-automatic rifle and with at least 6 seconds per shot to fire at targets he'd recently practiced against -- you're saying that this guy did what the three Master-rated riflemen could not do. That's what you're saying.

This gets back to your discrediting unwillingness to even admit the obvious fact that it is easier to fire accurately and quickly with a semi-automatic rifle than it is with a bolt-action rifle.

Oswald was firing under a time constraint but not nearly the constraint the test shooters were under. Oswald had chambered the last round in the clip and would have had time to fire it but realized it was unnecessary. Zapruder continued filming for another 113 frames following the headshot and the limo was still in range during that time. Oswald would have had more than 6 additional seconds had he chosen to fire a fourth shot.

Uh-huh, but we've seen that you can't put Oswald in the sixth-floor window when confronted with the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

How ironic that somebody as silly as you would hurl that accusation at somebody else.

Nope, in fact we've just seen another example of your stunning inability or refusal to process contrary facts.
 

I would expect to flunk when being graded by a dunce like you.

Oh, boy! What a tough guy you are! This is the kind of juvenile sputtering I would expect from someone with such an low level of education and lack of integrity and character. You've proven you can't even comprehend English at a high-school level and that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it with any credibility.

If you are going to make the claim that Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated, it is incumbent upon you to define what would constitute a duplication. It's not surprising that shooters required to fire their rifles much faster than Oswald did would not be as accurate as Oswald and would have difficulty scoring as many hits as Oswald did in considerably less time.

Here, too, you either can't comprehend high-school-level English or you're once again pretending not to understand what would constitute duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

Yes it did and the reason give was stupid. Blakey was trying to validate the dubious acoustics evidence by showing it was possible for Oswald to accurately fire his rifle in the amount of time between shots that the acoustics team determined. As I understand, the acoustics team determine Oswald fired the first two shots from the sniper's nest in 1.7 seconds. Common sense should have told Blakey how absurd that conclusion was. That would not even be possible if Oswald took the time to aim his second shot. It has been shown that a Carcano can be fired that rapidly on a range if the shooter doesn't bother to take time to aim the rifle but I'm quite sure Oswald was trying to hit a target and not show how fast he could shoot.

Umm, just a reminder that your theory of the shooting has "Oswald" scoring two hits in two shots within 5.6 seconds, or 2.8 seconds per shot, and that the target area that he allegedly hit was at least three times smaller than the target area allowed for the HSCA's expert riflemen to score hits, and they were only firing from 20 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot in each series.

Christ, you can't even do basic arithmetic.  Half of 5.6 is 2.8, not 2.3

Obviously, 2.3 was a typo. I meant to type 2.8.

but even 2.8 is not the right answer because the clock would start with the first shot and Oswald would have had an additional 5.6 seconds to fire the second of those shots. The WC determined the limo didn't come into the clear until Z210 and that was 5.6 seconds before the headshot, but even that isn't quite right.

This is a ball of confused evasion. You purposely, or perhaps ignorantly, keep missing the forest for the trees (or in this case a few small bushes). The nanosecond that JFK emerged from beneath the tree, the sixth-floor gunman would have had to begin acquiring and aiming at his target, and the human brain takes 166.67 milliseconds (1/6th of a second) just to recognize and react to visual data. That means it would have taken him at least three Zapruder frames to acquire and aim.

It would have taken 2-3 frames for the bullet to reach JFK's head so that the headshot would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. 100 Z-frames works out to about 5.46 seconds between shots. That is the theoretical maximum amount time between the last two shots. That assumes Oswald fired the first those two shots the instant JFK came into the clear. In reality, he fired that shot about a half second later, which works out to about 4.97 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK.

This is just a continuation of your ducking and dodging around the fact that your supposed single assassin would have had to score two hits with his final two shots within 5.6 seconds, yet the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots, even though Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first series and 7 seconds for his second series, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 seconds for his second series.

MG: It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact [i.e., that "Oswald" would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds].

I just gave you a detailed explanation of the calculation but apparently remedial arithmetic isn't your strong suit. I've been reading your crap for 35 years and I have yet to detect what your strong suit is.

Your "detailed explanation" is nonsense. You keep ignoring the fact that the gunman would have had to acquire and aim at his target before firing his second shot. Your "detailed explanation" is junior-high-level sophistry in an effort to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact that going two for two in 5.6 seconds would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert riflemen, as the WC, CBS, and HSCA rifle tests all proved.

Yes, I've seen some LNs theorize Oswald used the iron sights but that hardly establishes that as a fact. Oswald could have used either and only he would know which he used. Whoever made the decision that the test shooters should use the fixed iron sights seems to have assumed Oswald used the fixed iron sights without knowing that to be a fact.

Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever).

What is a fact is that both the scope and the fixed iron sights would have been aiming high at the range Oswald was firing at. The WC pointed out that would have been an aid to Oswald since he would need to lead his target and to do that he would need to aim high. Whether Oswald had taken all of this into account or just got lucky we don't know. What we do know is that whatever the condition of the Carcano was and whether or not the shooter took that into account, it was the Carcano that fired the only two shots that hit JFK because those were the only two bullets that were recovered, one inside the limo and the other at Parkland.

You've made this same argument several times in other threads. Why don't you tell readers that I've pointed out that Marine rifle expert MSG James Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult? Huh? did this "slip your mind"? Let me repeat what I've presented to you in other threads:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

As I just explained, that theory is not an established fact. Only a possibility. The only possibility Blakey seemed to have considered when setting up his silly test. Blakey wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Another juvenile dodge. I didn't say it was an established fact that the alleged lone gunman used the iron sights. I said that a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights when they've been confronted with the fact that the rifle's scope was defective.

A few expert riflemen have said they fire more accurately with iron sights than with scopes, but they are in the minority. Most expert riflemen prefer to use scopes because they fire more accurately with them. 

MG: We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.

As is SOP for you, you declare the argument silly without addressing the points made or explaining why it is silly. That's a pretty good indication you have no rebuttal to the argument made.

You've "explained" nothing. You've just ducked and dodged around the fact that "Oswald" could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle. This is just another example of your refusal to admit anything.

An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is ample evidence Oswald was the shooter. It was his rifle that fired all the recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. His palm and fingerprint was on a bag found next to the sniper's nest. That bag was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. The butt plate of the rifle contained fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Oswald's fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest at the sniper's nest window and those fingerprints were oriented as they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. In almost 63 years, no CT has ever presented a plausible explanation for how all the above could be true if Oswald was actually innocent. As Dan O'Meara demonstrated within the past day, CTs will offer a vague explanation but the devil is always in the details. No detailed narrative that explains all of the above evidence is possible without concluding Oswald was the assassin. If such a narrative were available, somebody would have thought of it by now.

Another pile of timeworn claims that makes you sound like you're caught in a time warp and are writing in the late 1960s. Every one of those arguments has been thoroughly examined and proven to be fraught with problems or easily explainable.

I thought this thread was about the HSCA test, but all that indicates is that rifleman considered the possibility that Oswald could have used either sight.

I've already answered this. 

The fallacy of Blakey's test wasn't that he had the test done with the iron sights. The fallacy is that he ONLY did the test with the iron sights. That was a boneheaded decision. If he was trying to determine what was possible, he would have tested with both sights.

Uh-huh, again, a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights in an attempt to explain the evidence that the alleged murder weapon's scope was defective.   

Why the hell would I? Even his lower qualifying score of 191 required Oswald to consistent hit a target at ranges of 200 yards and up. His longest shot that day was less than half of that. The killing of JFK at that range was well within the capabilities of someone who qualified as a USMC Marksman.

Oh, wow, any veteran who's fired at a Marine Corps rifle range is gonna recognize what deceptive nonsense you're peddling here.

So now, according to you, even someone who qualified in the lowest category of rifle qualification had capabilities that were "well within" those required to perform the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat! What a total joke.

If so, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

I should add that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to score two hits in three shots on their first attempt, and the only one of the 12 who did this was an experienced, expert rifleman, and any of shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette were counted as hits, even if they were far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice with his final two shots.

And, of course, none of the HSCA's experienced, expert riflemen scored two hits in three shots on any of their series, even though they fired from only 20 feet up, even though any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette was counted as a hit,  and even though they were allowed to take as much as time as they wanted for their first shot.

I keep repeating these arguments because they are sound and yours are most definitively not.

You bet. I'll let readers decide whose arguments are more credible.

I am not obligated to accept or defend every argument any LN has made on any forum since  the day the internet became available to the general public. I've seen some LNs make arguments that are almost as dumb as yours.

Uh-huh. In other words, you were unaware that many of your fellow WC apologists have praised the Carcano as an accurate, reliable weapon. You're just too much of a juvenile to admit it.

I remember a lot of instances in which you have disputed my arguments but none in which you have actually refuted them.
Another of your wild claims that fly in the face of the facts. The FBI crime lab determined that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had sufficient size and markings to positivley match them to Oswald's rifle. From pages 557-558 of the WCR:

"The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 40 The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6 grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co. 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.41 It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated. 42 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the

Page 558

character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle."

This conclusion was based on the expert testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier. Below is a passage from that testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle

Similar testimony was give regarding the other fragment. For those who want to read Frazier's entire testimony on this matter, they can read it here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

But the WC did not just accept Frazier's conclusion at face value. They turned to Joseph Nicol of the Illinois crime lab for verification. This, in part, was his testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399?
Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

So we have a choice here. We can accept the opinions of recognized experts in the field of ballistics, or we can accept your FUBAR amateurish analysis. Gee, that's a tough call.

Oh, so here we go. You went grasping to McAdams' old website and stumbled across these statements. I'm not even sure you understand what you've quoting here. You're blowing a lot of smoke. Half of this stuff doesn't even actually apply to what we're talking about.

Let's cut through your smoke and put it this way: Show me where in any of these statements Frazier or Nicol explained the fact that NAA testing did not show that the limo fragments must have come from Oswald's bullets and that it showed they could have come from other bullets. Oh, gee, that's right: Frazier and Nicol testified before NAA testing had been done on any of the fragments.

Show me where they explain the fact that the limo fragments are deformed in ways that bear no resemblance to any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Ignoring contrary facts won't make them go away. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first to point out this crucial fact, noting that it is more likely the fragments were from the bullet that hit pavement and that were then sprayed into the limo. Nothing you have presented above even addresses this point.

Show me where they explain the fact that forensic science has known for decades that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull. This was widely known even in the 1960s, and it has been reaffirmed in forensic sources since then.

And this is not to mention the serious, documented, widely discussed problems with the chain of custody and origin of the bullet fragments, the spent shells, and CE 399.

MG: When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

This is a perfect example of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

Oh, really?! Well, what is your evidence that CE 399 hit anyone during the assassination? Wow, this should be interesting! No one's ever claimed to have such evidence before. Alert the news media! John "I Don't Need to Be Objective and I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett is going to present evidence that CE 399 hit JFK and/or Connally! This I gotta see.

As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK.

Are you trying to set the record for the most dumba$$ statements in one post. You have to be getting close if you have not already surpassed it.

Another one of your overheated juvenile reactions to simple facts that you don't want to hear.

MG: In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented.

Still more of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

No, this is just another example of your ignorance of long-established facts that refute your version of the shooting.

"The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"

The shells don't prove that but the recovered bullets do.

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." There were recovered bullet fragments, and two groups of scientists proved decades ago that NAA testing does not show that those fragments could have only come from Oswald's ammo, in addition to the fact that the limo fragments appear to have struck pavement first, not skull bone. 

You, on the other hand, want to believe JFK was hit by bullets for which no weapon, shells, or bullets were ever recovered. So where the hell is your evidence JFK was killed by a weapon other than Oswald's Carcano?

Still another juvenile dodge. You pretend that I haven't already presented a small mountain of documented evidence that other bullets hit JFK, starting with my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds."

Sensible people who have read our exchanges would laugh their asses off at some of the ridiculous arguments you have made. In this thread alone you have provided plenty of comic relief.

No, they would just realize that your replies exhibit juvenile, amateurish dissembling and evasion. They would realize that you've done nothing but offer comical dodges to wound-ballistics tests and observations from forensic and ballistics experts regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets.

They would also notice that you still have not offered a shred of evidence for your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all FMJ bullets. You invented this silly dodge to avoid admitting the importance of the JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests and the observations by forensic and ballistics experts about the behavior of FMJ ammo.

The only example of what such ammo will do when striking a human skull is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. You are the one claiming a 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet would not fragment in that manner. You need to provide the evidence of that. So far you have provided none. That means I have provided one more example than you have.

Yes, I have provided a ton of evidence, but you've either ignored it or offered absurd special pleading in response to it.

And yet a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet was found in the limo which proves such bullets don't always do what they were designed for. I guess that went right over your head.

Oh, were those bullet fragments found in JFK's skull?! We're talking about how FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls, not how they fragment after they leave skulls and hit other objects.

[MG]I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.

I would have to be seriously head-f****d to believe even half the nonsense you post.

Oh? What "nonsense" have I posted on this point? Let's see: I've cited sources that actually show those x-rays so that anyone can see for themselves that the test bullets did not fragment into dozens of tiny pieces and did not produce fragmentation patterns that even remotely resemble the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays. I've cited forensic experts, including Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger, considered two of the greatest forensic experts in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, who've observed that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside skulls.

I guess in your uneducated, dissembling mind, such scholarly evidence constitutes "nonsense," hey? 

[MG]Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

Oh, but they did fragment, didn't they, even though they were designed not to fragment. I guess they were supposed to produce the same number of fragments as the bullet that hit JFK's head.

Uh-huh, another juvenile dodge and a silly strawman argument. No one says FMJ bullets will never fragment at all. The point is that on the rare when FMJ bullets do fragment, they will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces. Let me refresh your memory yet again by once more quoting what Dr. Vincent DiMaio said on this issue:

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)

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, emphasis added)

When you finally felt compelled to address these statements, you committed the baffling gaffe of claiming that DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets, even though, as we see, he twice specified he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

Your fallback argument is your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets do not behave like other FMJ bullets. I'm still waiting for you to cough up a shred of evidence to support this desperate claim.

You know nothing of science. One of the hallmarks of good science is to exert skepticism, even of one's own findings. Especially of one's own findings. You, on the other hand, choose to accept any claim made, no matter how baseless, if it supports your cherished belief that JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald. You are completely incapable of critical thinking, which is a prerequisite for applying good science to available data.

I won't bother responding to this juvenile rant, especially coming from someone as uneducated and immature as you.

So I guess we should just ignore the fragmented FMJ bullet that was found in the limo because "forensic science" tells us it couldn't have fragmented like that.

More ignorance and deceit. For the hundredth time, there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo. Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo. 

I see Nickerson has posted photos of some of the fragments from the WC's headshot test. Notice that not one of them has a large part of its peeled backward by nearly 180 degrees. Certainly some of them are deformed, but not to the degree of the two limo fragments, as Donahue noted.

[Tim Nickerson]

More ignorance and deceit. For the hundredth time, there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo. Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo.

               

[John Corbett]

Amazingly, you again refuse to process the fact that your supposed lone gunman would have had to score both of his hits within 5.6 seconds, since you claim his first shot missed (and missed not just JFK but the entire gigantic limo). So he most certainly would have had a serious time constraint, especially given his poor rifle skills and given the firing times of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test.

And I guess you missed the fact that the HSCA's rifle test counted as hits any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette, tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you surprise me. I not only have acknowledged the maximum time allowed for Oswald's last two shots, I have pointed out that he actually only took about 4.97 seconds between the last two shots. That was ample time for two aimed shots at such close ranges. But you are so dumb, you think Blakey's test that limited the shooters to just 1.7 seconds was a fair comparison. It wasn't remotely possible the test shooters could have accurately fired a Carcano in such a short time span. How stupid are you that you even need to have that pointed out to you.

Perhaps it's an insult to juveniles to point out the juvenile nature of so many of your replies. Your supposed lone gunman would have had no choice but to use the scope, unless you want to theorize that for some odd reason he took precious time to needlessly attach the scope after the shooting before he began his impossible dash down to the second-floor lunchroom.

You really are a pathetic a-hole. I have never argued that I thought Oswald used the iron sights. I pointed out that Blakey chose not to have his test shooters use the scope. It was YOU who countered that OTHER LNs have postulated that as if I am obligated to defend that position. I did nothing more than point out it is theoretically possible Oswald could have used the iron sights but I never subscribed to that theory. You are just playing word games because you have no arguments of substance to make.

Oh boy. . . .

One, the time span between Z209 and Z312, or 103 frames, would have been 5.6 seconds, not 4.97 seconds (103 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second equals 5.62 seconds).

.

Now you put your piss poor reading comprehension on display for the rest of us to laugh at. Oswald did not fire a shot at Z209. The WC calculated that Oswald would not even have had a clear shot until Z210 and it is foolish to think he would fire a shot the instant his target came into the clear. Based on the reactions of JFK and JBC at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227, it is likely JFK was struck about Z222, plus or minus one frame. That shot would have been fired in the Z219-220 window, about 91 frames before the headshot was fired. I can't dumb it down for you more than that. I don't know why you keep insisting the shot would have to have been fired at Z209. That was never the conclusion of the WC. Perhaps you got your information from Walter Cronkite who made the false claim the WC concluded Oswald fired his FIRST shot at Z210, probably the sloppiest piece of reporting he did in his entire career. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Uncle Walter said that in 1988, years after he left the anchor desk at CBS and might have been getting a little fuzzy in the head at his advanced age. What's your excuse?

Two, if it is "perfectly reasonable" to believe your supposed lone assassin went two for two after the limo cleared the oak tree, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to do this? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

My source indicates the shooters were trying to fire THREE shots in under SIX seconds, a time constraint Oswald was not under. That made the test considerably more difficult.

LOL! You seem to be forgetting that he would have had to acquire the target and then aim starting immediately in Z210 before he could fire his second shot. The human brain takes 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames (166.67 milliseconds divided by 54.64 milliseconds per Zapruder frame).

Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by two frames with the head shot being fired at Z310-311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 103, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.62 seconds.

You seem to be showing signs of dementia. Why do you keep using Z209 as the time Oswald fired his second shot. You are the first person I've seen claim that. Walter Cronkite reported the WC concluded Oswald fired his first shot at Z210 which is about as dumb as what you keep insisting. It's really not much of a challenge arguing with adversaries who have such a poor command of basic facts.

Anyway, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Gee, could it be they were trying to fire 3 shots in about the same amount of time Oswald fired his last 2.

Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first set of shots and 7 seconds for his second set, while Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.

That's still faster than Oswald would have had to shoot. If my analysis is correct, Oswald had 9 seconds to fire his three shots. If Tom Graves is correct, he took over 10 seconds.

Miller fired more rapidly (4.6, 5.15, and 4.45 seconds), but his shots were also the most inaccurate.

Exactly. The faster one shoots, the less accurate they are. Oswald wasn't trying to shoot in a specified period of time. He could aim his rifle at his target an put a slow squeeze on the trigger. The shot he might have rushed was the first shot because he tried to get that shot off after the limo passed his window but before it went under the tree. Not surprising that he missed with that one.

Even though Hendrix took 8 seconds in his first series and 7 seconds in second series, he failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat. Needless to say, Miller and Staley also failed to do so. This was the case even though all three riflemen took as long as they wanted before firing their first shot.

In fact, the second and third shots of all three of these world-class riflemen were severely off the mark, with many of them missing the silhouette completely.

Yes, that's what can happen when you prioritize speed over accuracy. Oswald didn't make that mistake.

But when we strip away all of your evasion, distortion, and omission, you're saying that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories while using a superb semi-automatic rifle and with at least 6 seconds per shot to fire at targets he'd recently practiced against -- you're saying that this guy did what the three Master-rated riflemen could not do. That's what you're saying.

They test shooters were trying to shoot for speed instead of accuracy. Oswald's top score was just two points below Charles Whitman who killed a dozen people and injured many more from a height and distances far greater than Oswald. He even managed to hit a moving target when he shot a bicyclist a few blocks away.

This gets back to your discrediting unwillingness to even admit the obvious fact that it is easier to fire accurately and quickly with a semi-automatic rifle than it is with a bolt-action rifle.

Operating the bolt adds little time to the process. Mostly it involves reacquiring the target and then making a controlled squeeze on the trigger. When a shooter rushes his shot, the tendency is to jerk the trigger rather than squeeze it and accuracy suffers. [/quote]

Uh-huh, but we've seen that you can't put Oswald in the sixth-floor window when confronted with the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. [/quote]

No such evidence exists. Oswald has no alibi the time the shots were fired.

Nope, in fact we've just seen another example of your stunning inability or refusal to process contrary facts.
 
Oh, boy! What a tough guy you are! This is the kind of juvenile sputtering I would expect from someone with such an low level of education and lack of integrity and character. You've proven you can't even comprehend English at a high-school level and that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it with any credibility.

Says the clown who keeps insisting I have taken the position that Oswald fired his second shot at Z209. I can say without hesitation that in 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, I have never once taken such a stupid position.

Here, too, you either can't comprehend high-school-level English or you're once again pretending not to understand what would constitute duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

No, I want YOU to define what YOU would consider an acceptable duplication. I understand your reluctance. If you define reasonable parameters for a duplication, you know there have been duplications that would fit those parameters. If you define impossible parameters for a duplication, you will demonstrate once again what an a-hole you are. So you take the cowardly way out and refuse to specify what would constitute a duplication. It's what we've come to expect from you.

Umm, just a reminder that your theory of the shooting has "Oswald" scoring two hits in two shots within 5.6 seconds, or 2.8 seconds per shot, and that the target area that he allegedly hit was at least three times smaller than the target area allowed for the HSCA's expert riflemen to score hits, and they were only firing from 20 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot in each series.

Here's where you show just how bad your analytical skills are. 2 shots in 5.6 seconds is not 2.8 seconds per shot. The clock starts when the first shot is fired. That leaves 5.6 seconds for the next shot. This fallacy was pointed out many years ago but apparently despite your vast research, you still don't understand that.

Obviously, 2.3 was a typo. I meant to type 2.8.

It's still a half-a$$ed calculation. Using your bogus time frame for the shot being at Z209, that would have left Oswald 5.6 seconds for the follow up head shot. You ought to consider taking up a new hobby. This one requires analytical skills which you don't seem to possess.

This is a ball of confused evasion. You purposely, or perhaps ignorantly, keep missing the forest for the trees (or in this case a few small bushes). The nanosecond that JFK emerged from beneath the tree, the sixth-floor gunman would have had to begin acquiring and aiming at his target, and the human brain takes 166.67 milliseconds (1/6th of a second) just to recognize and react to visual data. That means it would have taken him at least three Zapruder frames to acquire and aim.

So what. He didn't fire that shot until about a half second. 9-10 frames after his target came into the clear.

This is just a continuation of your ducking and dodging around the fact that your supposed single assassin would have had to score two hits with his final two shots within 5.6 seconds,

Not at all difficult at such close ranges.

yet the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots, even though Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first series and 7 seconds for his second series, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 seconds for his second series.

You keep ignoring the fact that they were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald only fired 2.

Your "detailed explanation" is nonsense. You keep ignoring the fact that the gunman would have had to acquire and aim at his target before firing his second shot. Your "detailed explanation" is junior-high-level sophistry in an effort to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact that going two for two in 5.6 seconds would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert riflemen, as the WC, CBS, and HSCA rifle tests all proved.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know in all these tests, the shooters were trying to fire 3 shots, not 2, in a compressed time frame.

Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

I'll make a bet with you. I'll pay you $100 dollars if you can find a post of mine where I said Oswald used the iron sights. If you can't find such a post, you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever).

You do love your strawman arguments. For starters, I have never said Oswald used the iron sights. You also seem to be unaware the scope on his rifle was offset which means had he chosen to do so, he could have used the iron sights with the scope in place.

You've made this same argument several times in other threads. Why don't you tell readers that I've pointed out that Marine rifle expert MSG James Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult? Huh? did this "slip your mind"? Let me repeat what I've presented to you in other threads:

Is this supposed to be a newsflash? You really are showing signs of senility. Seriously. You should get it checked out.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

You keep making the strawman argument that I have claimed Oswald used the iron sights. I guess when you can't refute what I have actually written, it's easier to make up things I have never stated and take issue with those.

Another juvenile dodge. I didn't say it was an established fact that the alleged lone gunman used the iron sights. I said that a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights when they've been confronted with the fact that the rifle's scope was defective.

That's right, a-hole. OTHER LNs have postulated Oswald used the iron sights. I have never taken that position. So why do you falsely keep claiming I have?

A few expert riflemen have said they fire more accurately with iron sights than with scopes, but they are in the minority. Most expert riflemen prefer to use scopes because they fire more accurately with them. 

No $hit.

You've "explained" nothing. You've just ducked and dodged around the fact that "Oswald" could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle. This is just another example of your refusal to admit anything.

Actually he could have because the scope was offset, a basic fact you seem ignorant of.

I used to duel with Tony Marsh on McAdams' forum but he had the best command of the facts of anyone I have come across, LN or CT. You're no Tony Marsh.

Another pile of timeworn claims that makes you sound like you're caught in a time warp and are writing in the late 1960s. Every one of those arguments has been thoroughly examined and proven to be fraught with problems or easily explainable.

Apparently you aren't up to the task.

I've already answered this. 

The classic Tony Marsh dodge when faced with a question he had no answer for.

Uh-huh, again, a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights in an attempt to explain the evidence that the alleged murder weapon's scope was defective.

You seem to have the nutty idea that I am obligated to defend positions other LNs have taken. Why is that?

Oh, wow, any veteran who's fired at a Marine Corps rifle range is gonna recognize what deceptive nonsense you're peddling here.

So now, according to you, even someone who qualified in the lowest category of rifle qualification had capabilities that were "well within" those required to perform the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat! What a total joke.

The lowest class of USMC marksman were the ones that didn't qualify at all. To achieve even the grade of marksman, Oswald had to demonstrate some proficiency with a rifle and be able to consistently hit targets at ranges far greater than he shot JFK at.

If so, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Why do you keep asking the same question over an over again. Even though you are getting boring, I won't fall back on your lame dodge of "I've already answered that". I think this is the third time I've answered you question in just this post. Those other marksmen were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald took to fire his last two. I wonder if you are going to ask this question again in this post. When you can't remember what you have already written, that could be a sign of senility.

I should add that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to score two hits in three shots on their first attempt, and the only one of the 12 who did this was an experienced, expert rifleman, and any of shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette were counted as hits, even if they were far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice with his final two shots.

Not surprising given that the dummies at CBS like Cronkite and Rather were under the impression that the WC concluded Oswald fired all 3 of his shots in 5.6 seconds or less. It's not surprising at all they had trouble doing that.

And, of course, none of the HSCA's experienced, expert riflemen scored two hits in three shots on any of their series, even though they fired from only 20 feet up, even though any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette was counted as a hit,  and even though they were allowed to take as much as time as they wanted for their first shot.

They could take as much time as they wanted for the first shot but were supposed to fire the follow up shots in 1.7 seconds. At least that's the claim you made in your OP.

You bet. I'll let readers decide whose arguments are more credible.

You're in luck because we have CTs on this forum who are almost as dumb as you.

Uh-huh. In other words, you were unaware that many of your fellow WC apologists have praised the Carcano as an accurate, reliable weapon. You're just too much of a juvenile to admit it.

More of your strawman arguments. I've never made such an argument and I'm not responsible for what others have stated.

Oh, so here we go. You went grasping to McAdams' old website and stumbled across these statements. I'm not even sure you understand what you've quoting here. You're blowing a lot of smoke. Half of this stuff doesn't even actually apply to what we're talking about.

Are you really going to try to claim these are not accurate transcripts of WC testimony. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll be more than happy to find the same testimony in other sources and jam them right up your nose.

This testimony most certainly applies to what we have talked about. You made the false claim that the two large fragments recovered from the limo could not be matched to Oswald's rifle and I presented verbatim testimony that shows you lied about that.

Let's cut through your smoke and put it this way: Show me where in any of these statements Frazier or Nicol explained the fact that NAA testing did not show that the limo fragments must have come from Oswald's bullets and that it showed they could have come from other bullets. Oh, gee, that's right: Frazier and Nicol testified before NAA testing had been done on any of the fragments.

This is what you do when you've been caught in an obvious lie. You try to divert the conversation to an unrelated issue. NAA testing had nothing to do with the ballistic matching of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. That was done through the long established process of comparing recovered bullets to test bullets fired from a weapon. If the markings are the same, that establishes the recovered bullets and the test bullets were fired from the same weapon. That is how Frazier and Nicol determined the recovered fragments had passed through the barrel of Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Show me where they explain the fact that the limo fragments are deformed in ways that bear no resemblance to any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Ignoring contrary facts won't make them go away. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first to point out this crucial fact, noting that it is more likely the fragments were from the bullet that hit pavement and that were then sprayed into the limo. Nothing you have presented above even addresses this point.

Another of your pathetic attempts at diversion. The fragments were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.

So here's where we stand. Two bullets were positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. You are denying either of these bullets struck JFK. That would mean that none of the bullets that struck JFK and JBC were recovered. How do you explain that. Were they shot with magic disappearing bullets?

Show me where they explain the fact that forensic science has known for decades that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull. This was widely known even in the 1960s, and it has been reaffirmed in forensic sources since then.

This is where you try to demonstrate expertise you don't actually possess.

And this is not to mention the serious, documented, widely discussed problems with the chain of custody and origin of the bullet fragments, the spent shells, and CE 399.

At various times, you have pretended to be a doctor, a ballistics expert, a radiologist, and now you are playing lawyer. You aren't very good at any of these.

Oh, really?! Well, what is your evidence that CE 399 hit anyone during the assassination?

It was recovered from the gurney of one of the victims. How do you suppose it got there. PFM (pure freaking magic)?

Wow, this should be interesting! No one's ever claimed to have such evidence before. Alert the news media! John "I Don't Need to Be Objective and I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett is going to present evidence that CE 399 hit JFK and/or Connally! This I gotta see.

That conclusion requires common sense, an asset you clearly don't possess. I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution presented us with two bullets recovered from the site of the murder. No attempt was made to prove those two bullets had passed through the victim and the defense wasn't dumb enough to argue that they hadn't. The judge instructed us to use our judgement to make logical inferences (aka common sense) from the evidence presented. We as a jury unanimously convicted the accused because we didn't need anybody to prove to us the bullets placed in evidence had passed through the victim's body.

Another one of your overheated juvenile reactions to simple facts that you don't want to hear.

No, this is just another example of your ignorance of long-established facts that refute your version of the shooting.

In almost 63 years, no one has presented any facts the refute what I know happened on 11/22/1963, although many have tried. Most of them did a better job than you have.

"The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." There were recovered bullet fragments, and two groups of scientists proved decades ago that NAA testing does not show that those fragments could have only come from Oswald's ammo, in addition to the fact that the limo fragments appear to have struck pavement first, not skull bone.  [/quote]

We don't need NAA testing to know the recovered bullet and fragments had been fired by Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. [/quote]

Still another juvenile dodge. You pretend that I haven't already presented a small mountain of documented evidence that other bullets hit JFK, starting with my article [/quote]

Really? Whatever happened to those bullets? Were they magic disappearing bullets?

"Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds."[/u]

No, they would just realize that your replies exhibit juvenile, amateurish dissembling and evasion. They would realize that you've done nothing but offer comical dodges to wound-ballistics tests and observations from forensic and ballistics experts regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets.

They would realize that your analysis of all things related to the JFKA is FUBAR.

They would also notice that you still have not offered a shred of evidence for your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all FMJ bullets. You invented this silly dodge to avoid admitting the importance of the JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests and the observations by forensic and ballistics experts about the behavior of FMJ ammo.

You are the one claiming those bullets could not have fragmented in they manner in which they were found. The burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.

Yes, I have provided a ton of evidence, but you've either ignored it or offered absurd special pleading in response to it.

The problem isn't the evidence you present. The problem is your FUBAR analysis of that evidence.

Oh, were those bullet fragments found in JFK's skull?! We're talking about how FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls, not how they fragment after they leave skulls and hit other objects.

The lead fragments from the bullet's core found inside JFK's skull is ample proof the bullet fragmented before it exited the skull.

Oh? What "nonsense" have I posted on this point?

Just about everything you have posted.

Let's see: I've cited sources that actually show those x-rays so that anyone can see for themselves that the test bullets did not fragment into dozens of tiny pieces and did not produce fragmentation patterns that even remotely resemble the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays. I've cited forensic experts, including Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger, considered two of the greatest forensic experts in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, who've observed that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside skulls.

Why would you assume all bullets would fragment in the same manner?

I guess in your uneducated, dissembling mind, such scholarly evidence constitutes "nonsense," hey? 

I love how you throw the word "scholarly" around to give you posts credence. It's not working.

Uh-huh, another juvenile dodge and a silly strawman argument. No one says FMJ bullets will never fragment at all. The point is that on the rare when FMJ bullets do fragment, they will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces. Let me refresh your memory yet again by once more quoting what Dr. Vincent DiMaio said on this issue:

It would take hundreds of test firings of FMJ Carcano bullets into a human skull to determine how they might fragment. We only have one case study and that is the JFKA.

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)

That is based on how other types of FMJ bullets behave one striking a skull. Different makes, diameters, lengths, velocities, etc. It would be very poor science to assume that Carcano bullets would fragment in the same manner as these other bullets.

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, emphasis added)

When you finally felt compelled to address these statements, you committed the baffling gaffe of claiming that DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets, even though, as we see, he twice specified he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

I'll bet you can't find a case study DiMaio did of a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when striking a skull.

Your fallback argument is your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets do not behave like other FMJ bullets. I'm still waiting for you to cough up a shred of evidence to support this desperate claim.

The burden is on you to prove that those bullets DO fragment in the same manner as other types of FMJ bullets. Still waiting.

I won't bother responding to this juvenile rant, especially coming from someone as uneducated and immature as you.

More ignorance and deceit. For the hundredth time, there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo.

You are a liar.

Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo.

Where is Donahue's proof for his theory?

I see Nickerson has posted photos of some of the fragments from the WC's headshot test. Notice that not one of them has a large part of its peeled backward by nearly 180 degrees. Certainly some of them are deformed, but not to the degree of the two limo fragments, as Donahue noted.

What kind of dumba$$ would think bullets are going to fragment in the same manner?