Your reply takes your trashy conduct to a new low. I see that you've now resorted to crude name-calling, referring to me as "a-hole," "a pathetic a-hole." I'm a bit surprised that the moderators are allowing such conduct. Anyway, let's continue.
I'm going to split my response into two parts, due to the length required to answer your errant claims. The first part will deal with your arguments about Oswald's marksmanship, the various rifle tests, Oswald's alleged shooting feat, and supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt.
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.
I guess you forgot that
four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two others took over six seconds to fire.Also, you have again failed to take into account the fact that any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette was counted as a hit, which at least tripled the size of the target area compared to the small area that your alleged lone gunman hit twice within 5.6 seconds.
You keep ignoring key facts that refute your spin.
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.
One would never know to read this phony protesting that you have argued that Oswald could have performed the shooting feat using the iron sights. You have not asserted that he used the iron sights, but you have clearly argued that he still could have performed the alleged shooting feat using the iron sights.
MG: One, the time span between Z209 and Z313, or 102 frames, would have been 5.60 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.
Oh my goodness. Your inability to comprehend English at a high-school level rears its head again. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "between." Saying "between Z209 and Z313" is not the same as saying "from Z209 to Z313." In using "between Z209 and Z313," this excludes Z209 and Z313, since we're talking about the time "between" those two frames.
Let me try to simplify it even more for you: If you say the distance "between the door and the wall is 10 feet" or "it takes six seconds to walk between the door and the wall," obviously your measurement in either case does not include the door itself and the wall itself.
But such basic English comprehension escaped you when you read my statement, which caused you to mistakenly infer that I was saying the gunman fired at Z209. You should have realized I was obviously not saying this anyway because I've repeatedly said the sixth-floor gunman would not have fired until JFK reemerged into view from under the oak tree, which did not happen until Z210.
I see that throughout your reply, you repeat your misreading of my statement and erroneously accuse me of positing a shot at Z209 several times. This is what happens when your education level is so poor that you can't understand the difference between saying "between Z209 and Z313" and "from Z209-313."
Also, you are, of course, assuming a priori that the head shot came from the sixth-floor window, a doubtful proposition. That's where you're getting the flight time of two to three frames. But, a shot from the grassy knoll would have only taken one frame to arrive at the target.
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.
Umm, yeah, that's why I said "between" Z209 and Z313. What is "foolish" is your assumption that I said or implied that the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209.
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.
Leaving aside your implausible timing scenario, which casts aside Connally's certainty that he was not hit before Z229, your brain seems incapable of credibly dealing with the fact that the WC's Master-rated riflemen combined missed all but one of their second and third shots. IOW, of the 14 shots fired at the second-shot and third-shot target boards, only one was a hit. Yet, you claim that Oswald's second and third shots were both hits.
I don't know why you keep insisting the shot would have to have been fired at Z209.
Umm, I don't. You just can't read English above a high-school level.
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?
Another unfortunate exhibition of your reading-comprehension deficiency. No one says the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209. No one. You just misread plain English due to your lack of education.
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.
A continuation of your discrediting juvenile dodge. Regardless of what they were trying to do, Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first set of shots and 7.0 seconds for his second set, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.
Yet, all of Hendrix and Staley's second and third shots missed.But, according to your fiction, Oswald scored hits on his final two shots and did so within 5.6 seconds. (I hope you understand the difference between "within 5.6 seconds" and "in 5.6 seconds.") Just to make sure you don't misread me again, let me rephrase to say that your alleged lone gunman scored hits on his final two shots and did so in less than 5.6 seconds.
Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army's Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch, told the WC how long the Master-rated riflemen took to fire:
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.
Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6.75 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.
Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 6.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. (3 H 446)MG: Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by one frame with the head shot being fired at Z311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 102, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.60 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.
Another unfortunate display of your reading-comprehension problem. Again, no one is saying "Oswald" fired "his" second shot at Z209. The problem is that you can't read English at a high-school level, and it's probably unfair to your average high school student to compare their readings skills with yours.
MG: 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.
Yet another discrediting evasion of the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first series and 7.0 seconds for his second series, and that all of his second and third shots missed.
It is important to note that Hendrix's time of 8.25 seconds for his first series equals a firing rate of 2.75 seconds per shot (8.25 divided by 3 shots), which was
slower than the firing rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots: 2.485 seconds per shot. You claim Oswald fired his supposed last two shots in 4.97 seconds, which equals a firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot.
Hendrix's time of 7.0 seconds for his second series equals a firing rate of 2.33 seconds per shot, not very much faster than the rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.
Hendrix's combined average firing time for his two series of shots was 2.54 seconds per shot. (2.75 seconds per shot plus 2.33 seconds per shot divided by two equals an average of 2.54 seconds per shot.)
IOW, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.Yet, Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards,
missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 second for his second series. This means his combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots.
Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots.Miller fired more rapidly than did Hendrix and Staley -- 4.6 seconds in his first series, 5.15 seconds in his second series, and 4.45 seconds in his third series --
but only one of his six final two shots landed in the head and neck area of the silhouette.But, according to you, a guy who only barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories, while firing a superb semi-automatic rifle at stationary targets that he had recently practiced against and while having at least
5 seconds per shot to fire -- went two-for-two on his final two shots while firing from a 60-foot elevation in a cramped space through a half-open window while firing, even though the WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed with 13 of their 14 second and third shots.
MG: Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8.25 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.
Uh-huh, readers should be advised that your ludicrous scenario assumes that Oswald fired at JFK before JFK passed under the oak tree, when he was less than 160 feet from the sixth-floor window, and yet somehow, someway missed not only JFK but missed the entire gigantic limousine. That's the only way you can expand your alleged lone gunman's firing time to 9 seconds or more.
Even the WC doubted that the supposed single assassin missed with his first and closest shot, noting that it was unlikely that he would have missed not only JFK but the entire limo:
On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (Warren Report, p. 11)But you guys, ignoring your beloved WC, can't accept this commonsense observation because you know you must expand your supposed lone gunman's firing time to avoid having to argue that he fired three shots within 5.6 seconds.
The least-absurd lone-gunman scenario is that Oswald did not fire until after Z209, since JFK reemerged into view from beneath the tree at Z210. But this, of course, would mean that he fired three shots in no more than 5.6 seconds. This is why you guys implausibly have him firing before JFK went under the oak tree and have him missing both Kennedy and the huge limo.
MG: 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.
This is both silly and absurd. A sixth-floor gunman would have had at least several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. He would have had no need to rush this shot, whereas he definitely would have needed to rush in order to fire just two shots, much less three shots, within 5.6 seconds after Z209.
MG: 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.
LOL! You are the poster child for hilarious confirmation bias. It is hard to fathom how you could make this statement in response to the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds on his first series and 7.0 seconds on second series. Again,
Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots. 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.
The test shooters were trying to shoot for speed instead of accuracy.
This is another howler that proves you have no business posting in this forum. You are just making up nonsense again. The WC made it clear that the riflemen were not merely firing to see how rapidly the rifle could be fired. The FBI did do such a test, and they specified that they were not firing for accuracy but just to determine the minimum time needed to operate the bolt and the trigger.
The Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, as the WC made clear, were trying to prove that Oswald could have scored two hits in three shots within the WC's posited timeframe. The WC clearly leaned toward the view that the gunman had 4.8 seconds to 7.9 seconds to fire, between "4.8 to 5.6 seconds" or "7.1 to 7.9 seconds," depending on which shot missed (Warren Report, p. 117). The Commission acknowledged that the only way to add more firing time would be to assume that "more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit." And, again, the WC clearly doubted the idea of a first-shot miss.
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.
LOL! Whitman fired over 150 shots! Your comparison is ridiculous.
MG: 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.
This evasive blather is another display of your juvenile behavior. Anyone who knows anything about marksmanship knows it is considerably easier to fire quickly and accurately with a semi-automatic rifle than with a bolt-action rifle. But you're so dishonest and immature that you can't even admit this undisputed fact.
MG: 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.
No such evidence exists. Oswald has no alibi the time the shots were fired.
You have no idea if such evidence exists because you've done only a scant amount of reading on the JFK case, and what little reading you've done has mostly been confined to pro-WC sources. People can see in the ongoing thread on Charles Givens that you have no credible answer to the evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.
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.
Says the man who can't comprehend English at a high-school level and who blunderingly misread "between Z209 and Z313" to mean a shot was fired at Z209. What makes this gaffe especially baffling is that I have repeatedly noted that JFK did not reemerge into view from under the oak tree until Z210.
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.
More juvenile ducking and dodging. Are you just hoping that all the people who read this thread will have the same juvenile mindset and the same lack of character and education that you have? Are you just hoping that people won't easily see through your deceitful claim that I have not already made perfectly clear herein what would constitute a genuine duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? In addition, you seem to have forgotten about my thread
"What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?"But, since part of me almost suspects that you just might be so severely lacking in reading and reasoning skills that you actually don't comprehend what I would consider to be a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat, let me try to make even clearer what I have already made obvious:
At a minimum, a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat would be for at least one rifleman to fire three shots and to score two hits with his final two shots in no more 5.6 seconds, on his first and only attempt. Got it?
The WC's Master-rated riflemen failed to do this, even though two of them had two attempts and one of them had three attempts. So did the HSCA's expert riflemen, even though they had more than one attempt. And so did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, even though they had more than one attempt (and the one rifleman who did score two hits in three shots on his first attempt only did so because CBS counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which at least tripled the size of the target compared to the small area that Oswald alleged hit twice in no more than 5.6 seconds).
MG: 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.
This is more of your amateurish bungling. You still refuse to process the fact that any gunman, whether novice or expert, would have had to take time to acquire the target and then aim before firing. He would not have just fired the millisecond the target came into view if he had any hope of firing accurately. I also point out, again, that it takes the human brain a minimum of 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames.
But you keep pretending that time for target acquisition and aiming doesn't count. Your sixth-floor gunman, no matter who he was, would have needed three frames, or 166.67 milliseconds, at the bare minimum, to register and respond to the visual image of JFK's reemergence from under the oak tree before he fired a shot.
If you can't understand this, watch the video clips of the 1967 CBS rifle test and see how long it takes the shooters to fire their first shot, and see how long it takes them to fire another shot after they work the bolt and put their eye back on the scope. They each took several seconds before firing their first shot and then took about one second to fire again
after they worked the bolt and put their eye back up to the scope.
When you're talking about a scenario where the target suddenly emerges into view and where two shots have to be fired from that moment until no more than 5.6 seconds later, you can't say "the clock starts when the first shot is fired." You have to allow time for the gunman to acquire and then aim at the target before firing his first shot.
Regardless of how early you want to assume your lone gunman fired his first alleged shot, he would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire his final two shots, and he would have required, at the very least, three frames just for his brain to register and react to the visual data of the image of JFK's emerging into view from under the oak tree in Z210.
I would repeat the fact that Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots
while firing at a slower rate than the rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots.I would also repeat the fact that Staley's combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's final two shots.
Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots. 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.
You again sound like a insolent teenager who's lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Again, just to make sure you understand, I did not even hint, much less say, that the sixth-floor gunman fired at Z209. Your blunderingly inferred this due to your poor reading-comprehension skills.
MG: 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.
Yeah, "so what"! Here's the "so what": This means you can't assume that the acquisition and aiming time doesn't count.
This whole surreal discussion is based on your discrediting refusal to admit that firing two shots in no more than 5.6 seconds after JFK emerged from under the oak tree would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.
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 three Master-rated riflemen scored only one hit in their 14 combined second and third shots, even though one of them had a combined firing rate that was slower than the rate you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots. Furthermore, in all the rifle tests that have been done, the shooters' first shots have always been their most accurate and have almost always been hits, whereas their second and third shots have been their most inaccurate and have almost always been misses. But your shooting scenario turns that pattern on its head and assumes your supposed lone gunman missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot.
MG: 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.
This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.
MG: 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.
This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.
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?
Here's a better idea: How about if you find one post where I said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights?
MG: 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.
Umm, yeah, and, again, I've never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You came razor close to saying it, but never actually said it. You said that he "could" have used the iron sights and that he "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat with the iron sights.
Is this supposed to be a newsflash? You really are showing signs of senility. Seriously. You should get it checked out.
Another childish reaction to an undisputed fact. This is your dishonest smokescreen to avoid the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights.
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.
No, you keep making up the strawman that I've said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You're doing this to try to obscure the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights, which is nonsense.
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.
No, what's apparent is that you have no business posting in this forum, since you obviously have no clue about the scholarly research (and, yes, it is scholarly research) on every one of the items of evidence that you recited.
Here's a short quiz for you: True or False: The WC was so suspicious of the latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly produced that they asked him to sign a sworn statement affirming when and how he saw it and lifted it, and Lt. Day refused to sign the statement.
MG: 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?
This childish nonsense again? Why do you keep proving that you can't comprehend basic English by falsely claiming that I've accused you of saying Oswald used the iron sights? This whole conversation is just ridiculous. If you weren't so poorly educated and unable to understand English at an adult level, we wouldn't even be having this idiotic discussion. Again, I never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights, even though you've repeatedly said he "could" have used them and that he "could" have performed the alleged shooting feat if he had used them.
Actually he could have because the scope was offset, a basic fact you seem ignorant of.
And, actually, as I stated in my most recent reply, I have changed my mind about this and agree that the scope was mounted to the left of center and that the gunman could have used the iron sights.
The classic Tony Marsh dodge when faced with a question he had no answer for.
You seem to have the nutty idea that I am obligated to defend positions other LNs have taken. Why is that?
Translation: Your research has been so limited that you don't even know half of what your fellow WC apologists have said, or even half of what the leading published WC apologists have said.
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.
Again, veterans who read this are gonna recognize your dishonest spin. When I went to Army basic training, even guys who had never fired a rifle before in their lives almost always qualified in the Marksman category, and a few of them even qualified in the Sharpshooter category.
Why don't you mention the fact that at the Marine Corps rifle range, Oswald had
5 seconds per shot in the two so-called "rapid fire" phases? Why don't you mention that during the three other phases of the qualification test he had
72 seconds per shot? Yes, let me repeat that:
he had 72 seconds, or 1.2 minutes per shot in three of the five phases of the qualification test.It is laughable that you and other WC apologists cite Oswald's mediocre Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, especially given the fact that none of the WC's three Master-riflemen performed the feat, that none of the HSCA's four expert riflemen performed the feat, and that only one of the 12 CBS riflemen performed the feat (he only did it because he was an expert rifleman and because the test counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which was at least three times larger than the target area that the sixth-floor gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds).
MG: 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've continued to ask it because you have yet to provide a credible, rational, fact-based answer. Your ridiculous ducking and dodging and special pleading do not qualify as a credible, rational, factual answer.
MG: 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.
Uh-huh, never mind that most of the CBS riflemen were far more experienced and skilled than Oswald, that five them took 6-7 seconds to fire one or two of their series, and that they were allowed to fire nine practice rounds before the test. Yeah, so what? Right?
MG: 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.
More ducking and dodging. Again, the sixth-floor gunman would have been able to take several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. And, again,
four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two of them took over six seconds to fire.Once more, it's like your brain simply cannot process contrary facts.
You're in luck because we have CTs on this forum who are almost as dumb as you.
Oh, yes, Mr. Teenager. Do you feel good now? And, hey, at least those "CTs" can understand English at a high-school level, unlike 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.
Good grief, where in those two sentences did you read that I said you've made this argument? Where? I said you obviously were not aware that some of your fellow WC apologists have made this argument, and that you're just too immature to admit it. And we see that you still won't admit it.
Topic: The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test (Read 708 times)