JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Sean Kneringer on March 31, 2023, 04:57:04 PM
-
Sit in a slowly-moving convertible and let an ex-Marine sharpshooter take three shots at you with a MC (using real ammunition) if you think it's such a piece of harmless junk. Does he seriously think it's impossible to kill someone with that "joke" of a rifle from a distance of 88 yards?
(https://img85.pixhost.to/images/32/344800966_vlcsnap-2023-03-29-19h10m48s848.jpg)
-
Why not open up the challenge to anyone who might think the Carcano not worthy. We might have a few less hair-brained nay-sayers around.
-
Sit in a slowly-moving convertible and let an ex-Marine sharpshooter take three shots at you with a MC (using real ammunition) if you think it's such a piece of harmless junk. Does he seriously think it's impossible to kill someone with that "joke" of a rifle from a distance of 88 yards?
With the hands flapping furiously and Borsch Belt/Barnum delivery, Wecht delivers showman-appeal to eager chumps who hang on his every word of conspiracy. Like Mantik and Ben Carson, he can function in a structured-environment like medicine that has oversight and underlings doing the precision work, but outside the facility, he's unleashed.
Such a lethal frontline rifle (with Czech-steel bolt-action) is "junk" (in cosmetic terms anyway) compared to the $2000 special-wood, special-engraving guns the One Percent use to shot quail.
-
With the hands flapping furiously and Borsch Belt/Barnum delivery, Wecht delivers showman-appeal to eager chumps who hang on his every word of conspiracy.
I'm just wondering when a coroner became a weapons expert. Stay in your lane, doc.
-
Sit in a slowly-moving convertible and let an ex-Marine sharpshooter take three shots at you with a MC (using real ammunition) if you think it's such a piece of harmless junk. Does he seriously think it's impossible to kill someone with that "joke" of a rifle from a distance of 88 yards?
Where does he say it's impossible to kill someone with the MC?
-
Where does he say it's impossible to kill someone with the MC?
How can you kill someone with an "instrument of love"? He clearly doesn't believe that "surplus" rifle killed Kennedy, so time to put his skepticism to the test.
-
I'm just wondering when a coroner became a weapons expert. Stay in your lane, doc.
Same way a urology doctor becomes a weapons expert, I guess.
-
Same way a urology doctor becomes a weapons expert, I guess.
The urologist became a "weapons expert" by acquiring examples of the weapons in question and shooting them and testing their effects. What has Wecht done along the same vein?
-
Sit in a slowly-moving convertible and let an ex-Marine sharpshooter take three shots at you with a MC (using real ammunition) if you think it's such a piece of harmless junk. Does he seriously think it's impossible to kill someone with that "joke" of a rifle from a distance of 88 yards?
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
-
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
Three shots at Wecht with a slightly misaligned scope? Still works for me.
-
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
The rifle was found on the TSBD 6th floor hidden between rows of boxes of books. We don't know how carefully it was placed there by Oswald as he was leaving. Do we know what dropping the rifle like that might have done to the scope alignment?
-
The rifle was found on the TSBD 6th floor hidden between rows of boxes of books. We don't know how carefully it was placed there by Oswald as he was leaving. Do we know what dropping the rifle like that might have done to the scope alignment?
That's exactly right. The condition of the scope at the moment Oswald fired the shots can't be known for the reasons you note. I seem to recall that the scope was also removed to check the rifle for prints before it was test fired.
-
That's exactly right. The condition of the scope at the moment Oswald fired the shots can't be known for the reasons you note. I seem to recall that the scope was also removed to check the rifle for prints before it was test fired.
We know enough to make a few logical assumptions:
1) According to the DPD and the photos of their discovery of the rifle, it was carefully laid between boxes and not dropped from a distance that would have damaged and grossly misaligned the scope.
2) A sharpshooter would always "sight-in" a scope on the rifle he intended to assassinate the POTUS with.
3) The FBI said the scope was grossly misaligned and required 3 shims before it could be used.
4) There were no shims on the rifle when Oswald supposedly used it.
When a scope requires 3 shims to zero, it is either bent or has never been sighted-in. The DPD were careful not to damage the scope when they laid it down between the boxes because they wanted it to match the backyard photos exactly. That's why the misaligned scope was on the rifle in the first place. Same reason they left the strap on the rifle.
Since 4 contradicts 2, the MC was never sighted-in and LHO did not use it to assassinate JFK. QED
-
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
Oswald hit jfk with his shot-2, so thats 1 out of 2.
Or 2 out of 2 if u rightfully credit shot-2 as hitting 2 birds with one bullet.
And Wecht is an idiot (like most around the jfk saga).
-
We know enough to make a few logical assumptions:
1) According to the DPD and the photos of their discovery of the rifle, it was carefully laid between boxes and not dropped from a distance that would have damaged and grossly misaligned the scope.
2) A sharpshooter would always "sight-in" a scope on the rifle he intended to assassinate the POTUS with.
3) The FBI said the scope was grossly misaligned and required 3 shims before it could be used.
4) There were no shims on the rifle when Oswald supposedly used it.
When a scope requires 3 shims to zero, it is either bent or has never been sighted-in. The DPD were careful not to damage the scope when they laid it down between the boxes because they wanted it to match the backyard photos exactly. That's why the misaligned scope was on the rifle in the first place. Same reason they left the strap on the rifle.
Since 4 contradicts 2, the MC was never sighted-in and LHO did not use it to assassinate JFK. QED
There is no way to know the condition of the scope at the time Oswald fired it to assassinate JFK. The scope was also removed and reattached before even being test fired. Why would Oswald "carefully" place the rifle between the boxes while in flight from the assassination? That is speculation. He didn't care if the rifle was damaged at that point. He was making tracks and never intended to use that rifle again. He was only interested in saving time at that point. It wasn't even necessary that Oswald use the scope. Nothing here casts an iota of doubt to rebut the mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.
-
Nothing here casts an iota of doubt to rebut the mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to this crime.
LOL
-
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
Those shots were easy
-
Those shots were easy
With a grossly misaligned scope? Good luck with that. This isn't a spaghetti western and besides Oswald could not have taken those shots anyway and the MC was already planted by then. The DPD really dropped the ball when they didn't sight-in the scope before planting the rifle. They did shoot a few rounds into a swimming pool so they could retrieve the magic bullet and plant it on the wrong stretcher at the hospital. They needed a pristine bullet to magically show up that matched the ballistics of the MC. Yeah, the pristine bullet in your avatar, which is just ever so slightly deformed from striking the bottom of the pool. They made Guido jump in and go after it but nobody realized he couldn't swim ..but that's another story.
-
With a grossly misaligned scope? Good luck with that. This isn't a spaghetti western and besides Oswald could not have taken those shots anyway and the MC was already planted by then. The DPD really dropped the ball when they didn't sight-in the scope before planting the rifle. They did shoot a few rounds into a swimming pool so they could retrieve the magic bullet and plant it on the wrong stretcher at the hospital. They needed a pristine bullet to magically show up that matched the ballistics of the MC. Yeah, the pristine bullet in your avatar, which is just ever so slightly deformed from striking the bottom of the pool. They made Guido jump in and go after it but nobody realized he couldn't swim ..but that's another story.
All you're doing is kissing Oswald's arse
Oswald got what he deserved
-
With a grossly misaligned scope? Good luck with that. This isn't a spaghetti western and besides Oswald could not have taken those shots anyway and the MC was already planted by then. The DPD really dropped the ball when they didn't sight-in the scope before planting the rifle. They did shoot a few rounds into a swimming pool so they could retrieve the magic bullet and plant it on the wrong stretcher at the hospital. They needed a pristine bullet to magically show up that matched the ballistics of the MC. Yeah, the pristine bullet in your avatar, which is just ever so slightly deformed from striking the bottom of the pool. They made Guido jump in and go after it but nobody realized he couldn't swim ..but that's another story.
False premise. You have no idea what condition the scope was in at the time Oswald fired the shots. Even if you repeat this claim over and over again, it does not make it true. You are confusing your subjective desire for it to be true with a fact. And, of course, it wasn't even necessary for Oswald to have used the scope to commit this crime.
-
LHO did not use it to assassinate JFK.
Two of the bullets were definitively matched to the Carcano, so someone used that allegedly crappy rifle.
-
False premise. You have no idea what condition the scope was in at the time Oswald fired the shots. Even if you repeat this claim over and over again, it does not make it true. You are confusing your subjective desire for it to be true with a fact. And, of course, it wasn't even necessary for Oswald to have used the scope to commit this crime.
You wouldn't know a false premise if it bit you in the arse. The false premise is that you assume the scope was in alignment during the shooting and wound up grossly misaligned once the FBI got hold of it. If the FBI said the scope required 3 shims to even hit the target you can't assume that the scope was ever aligned to fit your narrative. That's the false premise, dufus.
Otherwise, all you have is a lonely palm print on the barrel that allegedly matches Oswald, with much less certainty than the 14 point match of Malcolm Wallace's print found on a box on the 6th floor of the TSBD. But the FBI laughed it off, like you do, and simply responded with "Not a match".
You have nothing. There is zero evidence that Oswald shot that rifle and plenty of evidence that he didn't. No prints. Wonky scope. No gunshot residue. And there wasn't even a valid trajectory from the 6th floor, into JFK's back and out his throat. Sorry to back up my premises with facts. You should try it some time.
-
Two of the bullets were definitively matched to the Carcano, so someone used that allegedly crappy rifle.
There was only 1 bullet found that could be matched with ballistics to the MC. That was the magic bullet CE 399, which was planted on a gurney in the corridor of Parkland Hospital. The bullet had no blood or tissue on it and looked like it was shot into a swimming pool. It was pristine (no loss of material), which would have been impossible, had it been actually shot from the SN and smashed thru several bones. Someone needs to cite a study that repeats this to support or refute it..but I won't hold my breath.
-
There was only 1 bullet found that could be matched with ballistics to the MC. That was the magic bullet CE 399, which was planted on a gurney in the corridor of Parkland Hospital. The bullet had no blood or tissue on it and looked like it was shot into a swimming pool. It was pristine (no loss of material), which would have been impossible, had it been actually shot from the SN and smashed thru several bones. Someone needs to cite a study that repeats this to support or refute it..but I won't hold my breath.
1.) The base fragment found on the floor of SS100x was also matched to CE139.
2.) CE399 is missing about 2.5 grains of material. See Lattimer's work on the average mass of the WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullets, as well as the results of his deforming one of these into the shape of CE399.
-
You wouldn't know a false premise if it bit you in the arse. The false premise is that you assume the scope was in alignment during the shooting and wound up grossly misaligned once the FBI got hold of it. If the FBI said the scope required 3 shims to even hit the target you can't assume that the scope was ever aligned to fit your narrative. That's the false premise, dufus.
Otherwise, all you have is a lonely palm print on the barrel that allegedly matches Oswald, with much less certainty than the 14 point match of Malcolm Wallace's print found on a box on the 6th floor of the TSBD. But the FBI laughed it off, like you do, and simply responded with "Not a match".
You have nothing. There is zero evidence that Oswald shot that rifle and plenty of evidence that he didn't. No prints. Wonky scope. No gunshot residue. And there wasn't even a valid trajectory from the 6th floor, into JFK's back and out his throat. Sorry to back up my premises with facts. You should try it some time.
Pay attention. Assume the fetal position and take your meds if it helps you focus. I don't assume anything. You have repeatedly claimed that the scope was misaligned. You have no idea what condition the scope was in when Oswald fired the shots. That is a false premise. And EVEN if your premise was correct, Oswald could still have committed the crime without using the scope. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing that would rebut the mountain of evidence that links him to this crime.
-
Pay attention. Assume the fetal position and take your meds if it helps you focus. I don't assume anything. You have repeatedly claimed that the scope was misaligned. You have no idea what condition the scope was in when Oswald fired the shots. That is a false premise. And EVEN if your premise was correct, Oswald could still have committed the crime without using the scope. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing that would rebut the mountain of evidence that links him to this crime.
;D Pay attention to your twisted logic? No thanks. How about I school you on logical fallacy instead. Your false premise is that there is a mountain of evidence that Oswald committed the crime when there is none. There is no evidence Oswald took any shots or that the shots came from the TSBD or that the MC was the murder weapon. Just the opposite. The evidence looks contrived and portrays Oswald as a patsy who never took a shot. That was his link to the crime, and you fell for it dufus! But you're not paying attention anymore, are you? Troll on.
-
When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.
So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.
As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.
But this ignores the alternative. What about using the iron sights?
* The iron sights could have been used instead of the scope. The scope did not "block the view" or prevent the use of the iron sights.
*Oswald was trained in the Marines to use a rifle with iron sights. He never received any training using a scope. He was able to hit a human size targets at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards, using iron sights.
* While Marines are only trained with stationary targets (it appears to be impracticable to train thousands of recruits at once using moving targets) they have proven time and time again to be proficient at hitting moving targets in battle.
* The Marines at Guadalcanal used the M1903 Springfield rifle, with iron sights, with great effectiveness, even against moving targets, Japanese infantry charging at greater speeds than the limousine at Dealey Plaza.
-
With the hands flapping furiously and Borsch Belt/Barnum delivery, Wecht delivers showman-appeal to eager chumps who hang on his every word of conspiracy. Like Mantik and Ben Carson, he can function in a structured-environment like medicine that has oversight and underlings doing the precision work, but outside the facility, he's unleashed.
Such a lethal frontline rifle (with Czech-steel bolt-action) is "junk" (in cosmetic terms anyway) compared to the $2000 special-wood, special-engraving guns the One Percent use to shot quail.
Dr. Wecht is certainly not an effective, on camera, spokesman. To me, what stands out, is his breathlessness, his apparent struggle to control his excitement, when talking about the assassination.
Of course, this could be nothing more than his lack of talent as a public speaker. Still, I don't know of any major spokesmen, on either side (Pro CT or Pro LN) who is as bad as Dr. Wecht at making a good impression while talking about the assassination.
Can anyone come up with a better candidate at being a poor public speaker on this subject?
-
As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.
We also don't know that Oswald shot anybody.
But in your "could have been" narrative, why would Oswald have bothered having a scope on the rifle at all?
-
As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.
But this ignores the alternative. What about using the iron sights?
* The iron sights could have been used instead of the scope. The scope did not "block the view" or prevent the use of the iron sights.
You obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters. A sharpshooter must practice regularly and Oswald would have practiced for such an important job. Did he ignore the scope and use the iron sights during practice? Of course not, Oswald would have sighted-in the scope during practice.
*Oswald was trained in the Marines to use a rifle with iron sights. He never received any training using a scope. He was able to hit a human size targets at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards, using iron sights.
Then why did Oswald leave the scope on the rifle if he wasn't going to use it? Don't claim that the scope would not have obstructed his view via the iron sights. How many sharpshooters would do this? None.
* While Marines are only trained with stationary targets (it appears to be impracticable to train thousands of recruits at once using moving targets) they have proven time and time again to be proficient at hitting moving targets in battle.
* The Marines at Guadalcanal used the M1903 Springfield rifle, with iron sights, with great effectiveness, even against moving targets, Japanese infantry charging at greater speeds than the limousine at Dealey Plaza.
Non sequitur/false equivalence
Conclusions:
* A sharpshooter would not have used a misaligned scope.
* A sharpshooter would not have kept the scope on the rifle if they did not intend to use it.
* A sharpshooter would have practiced with the rifle beforehand and sighted-in the scope.
* Oswald would have removed the scope from the rifle when he disassembled it and placed it into a paper bag if he did not intend to use it.
* Oswald did not even touch the rifle since there were no prints on it or gunshot residue on his face.
* Oswald could not have taken any shots because there wasn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat.
* The MC did not shoot magic bullets.
-
We also don't know that Oswald shot anybody.
But in your "could have been" narrative, why would Oswald have bothered having a scope on the rifle at all?
Answered before. When he ordered the rifle, he would not have known that the scope would not be aligned. He could still just use the iron sights. And may wish to keep the scope on because his rifle would look more like the rifle of an "expert" assassin. Just as he took a couple of minutes to change into a black sweater, to look more "dangerous", just enough time for Ruby to get there in time to shoot him.
-
You obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters. A sharpshooter must practice regularly and Oswald would have practiced for such an important job. Did he ignore the scope and use the iron sights during practice? Of course not, Oswald would have sighted-in the scope during practice.
Granted, going a few years without practice will degrade a shooters ability to fire accurately at 500 yards. But at ranges under 100 yards?
Question:
Where is the evidence that shooters who can hit a target at 200, 300 or 500 yards, if they go four years with just a little practice, won't be able to hit a target at under 100 yards?
If you cannot provide any, than you obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters.
Then why did Oswald leave the scope on the rifle if he wasn't going to use it? Don't claim that the scope would not have obstructed his view via the iron sights. How many sharpshooters would do this? None.
The rifle with the scope on looks more like a rifle of a "dangerous" assassin. That is a reason he might what to keep the scope on.
Also, the scope could be used to verify, from a distance, that JFK was in the limousine that just turned onto Houston Street. The scope doesn't have to be aligned to do that. He could, from that time forward, ignore the scope and use the iron sights for any aiming.
It is not true that Oswald has "No possible reason" for keeping the scope on, as you like to pretent.
-
Answered before. When he ordered the rifle, he would not have known that the scope would not be aligned. He could still just use the iron sights. And may wish to keep the scope on because his rifle would look more like the rifle of an "expert" assassin.
A good one to add to the “lame LN excuses” file.
-
Granted, going a few years without practice will degrade a shooters ability to fire accurately at 500 yards. But at ranges under 100 yards?
Question:
Where is the evidence that shooters who can hit a target at 200, 300 or 500 yards, if they go four years with just a little practice, won't be able to hit a target at under 100 yards?
If you cannot provide any, than you obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters.
. . .
Of course. No answer to my question. Jack cannot provide any evidence to support this claim that someone's ability to hit a person, even at ranges under 100 yards, would greatly diminish within a few years of not practicing, even if they had the ability to shoot accurately at 200, 300 or 500 yards.
But can I meet the same sort of challenge? Find an example of someone's skill not going downhill after more than a year of no shooting practice?
Yes. And I don't have to go far in time or distance from Dallas, 1963.
The Texas Tower Shooting by Charles Whitman in 1966,
Charles Whitman was trained in the Marines and had a very similar rating to Oswald. He scored 215 (close to Oswald's 212) in his Marine's marksmen test and like Oswald was rated at the level of "Sharpshooter". Like Oswald, he had shown he could hit a human size target at 200, 300 and 500 yards.
Whitman left the Marines in December 1964. The Texas Tower shooting occurred in August 1966, a year in a half later. Oswald had been out of the Maines for four years in 1963.
How well did Whitman shoot? Unfortunately, very well. He killed 15 people and wounded 31. The longest range in which he killed someone was 500 yards. His ability to shoot accurately was not diminished by his lack of practice over the course of one and a half years.
Someone tried to take him out with a rifle fired from an airplane. Whitman managed to hit the aircraft twice before the aircraft wisely moved out of range. Even though Whitman, like Oswald, only practiced at hitting stationary targets, he was still able to hit a flying airplane. So it is no surprise that Oswald was able to hit a moving limousine which travelled at 13 mph or less during the Dealey Plaza shooting.
Of course there are some differences. Whitman bought a new and better quality rifle. But still, the Carcano rifle was certainly adequate, using the iron sights, at ranges under 100 yards.
Oswald had been out of the Marines for four years, whereas Whitman was out for only one and a half years.
On the other hand, Oswald had his rifle for over six months and had some opportunity to fire it in practice. Indeed, his wife said he did that. Whitman, in contrast, and just bought his rifle that morning and had no chance to practice with it before he started shooting from the tower.
I have no experience with shooting rifles. But my guess would be, if an experienced rifle shooter was entering a shooting contest, at targets less than 100 yards away, he would choose a Carcano rifle which he had experience with over a more expensive rifle that he had no experience with.
-
One of the best Premier snipers of the Marine Corps was Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock who said that in Virginia they set up an area to duplicate the JFK Assassination so they could see how it would be to try and duplicate the Assassination of JFK and he said they could not pull it off . " Let me tell you what we did at Quantico . We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything . I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did ". Kennedy assassination : Gunny Hathcock's take . Hathcock had History's longest single kill-shot of 2,500 meters . that is 2,734 yards !
-
One of the best Premier snipers of the Marine Corps was Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock who said that in Virginia they set up an area to duplicate the JFK Assassination so they could see how it would be to try and duplicate the Assassination of JFK and he said they could not pull it off . " Let me tell you what we did at Quantico . We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything . I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did ". Kennedy assassination : Gunny Hathcock's take . Hathcock had History's longest single kill-shot of 2,500 meters . that is 2,734 yards !
to try and duplicate the Assassination of JFK and he said they could not pull it off .
Wow, if the best of the best couldn't do it, then that must mean that Kennedy survived Dealey Plaza!?
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MCZrhY2/old-Kennedy.jpg)
JohnM
-
One of the best Premier snipers of the Marine Corps was Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock who said that in Virginia they set up an area to duplicate the JFK Assassination so they could see how it would be to try and duplicate the Assassination of JFK and he said they could not pull it off . " Let me tell you what we did at Quantico . We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything . I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did ". Kennedy assassination : Gunny Hathcock's take . Hathcock had History's longest single kill-shot of 2,500 meters . that is 2,734 yards !
I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did "
Which justifies the conclusion that it most likely didn't happen the way the WC said it did.
Good luck trying to find a LN who is reasonable enough to even entertain that possibility.
-
I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did "
Which justifies the conclusion that it most likely didn't happen the way the WC said it did.
Good luck trying to find a LN who is reasonable enough to even entertain that possibility.
Sorry Martin but these shooters from a CBS NEWS special who were not familiar with the Italian Carcano, were replicating Oswald's shots in a much shorter timespan than the now commonly accepted 8 seconds and were all trying for about a five and a half seconds, all the while doing the shooting with a non slowing down target and exposed to the elements and one rifleman achieved 3 hits, better than Oswald. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The stabilized Zapruder Film showing the Limo slowdown at the time of the headshot.
Btw we know that the 3 shots (which the vast majority of Dealey Plaza earwitnesses heard) were fired from just above Norman on the 5th floor of the Depository and that makes your claim that "it most likely didn't happen the way the WC said it did." absolute self serving nonsense! But I guess finding a hardcore CT who accepts the undeniable facts in this case is like finding a month of Sundays!
JohnM
-
Hathcock appeared to have had trouble duplicating the shooting. Perhaps he used a 5-6 second time limit that many have believed in since the book Six Seconds in Dallas. But another good shooter, Michael Yardley, using his best timing estimates, did not find it that difficult as mentioned in his magazine. Yardley clearly implied the Carcano was by no means a top-of-the-line gun, but it was sufficient in his 7-8 seconds testing. The following quote is from Yardley’s magazine.
“Regular readers of this magazine may remember that some years back, I was also in Dallas on the Kennedy trail. On that trip, I proved that the shots could be made with the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly used by Oswald and fitted with a cheap ‘tin-whistle’ 4 power telescopic sight.
I made them repeatedly (half a dozen times) in the required 7-8 second time frame firing from the correct height, at the correct ranges at a vehicle moving at the correct speed using an exact replica of the Oswald rifle and scope and identical ammunition. On the first run, I hit the head target as a crossing shot at about 45 yards (which apparently Oswald missed), I also connected on the next two shots at 60 plus 90 plus yards respectively. [We did the shooting on a specially built range at the levy in Dallas - where Oswald is believed to have practiced for the shooting.]
The declared second shot - if you believe the Warren Commission official Report - was at an oblique angle (the famous magic bullet shot). It allegedly went through JFK’s back exited at his throat and went on to hit Governor Connally. The third shot - and many have suggested that there may have been more - was the killing shot where JFK’s head apparent is pushed back (leading to many suggestions that there was a second gunman positioned forward of the presidential cavalcade).
Here’s my bottom line from experience of using the weapon system. The Carcano is a poor gun, and the optical sight found upon it (as presented as evidence) was even worse - the sort of cheap thing with a moving reticule that was once used on air-rifles (I had something similar on my BSA Airsporter when I was a kid). The gun is up to the task, however - just. And, the shots with it are possible within the given time frame. I have made them again and again. Other reports notwithstanding, I believe any competent rifleman would have had a good chance of connecting at least once.”
If Yardley had tried the test taking 10 seconds, perhaps he may have found that a competent rifleman would have had even an easier time in getting those results.
-
Sorry Martin but these shooters from a CBS NEWS special who were not familiar with the Italian Carcano, were replicating Oswald's shots in a much shorter timespan than the now commonly accepted 8 seconds and were all trying for about a five and a half seconds, all the while doing the shooting with a non slowing down target and exposed to the elements and one rifleman achieved 3 hits, better than Oswald. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The stabilized Zapruder Film showing the Limo slowdown at the time of the headshot.
Btw we know that the 3 shots (which the vast majority of Dealey Plaza earwitnesses heard) were fired from just above Norman on the 5th floor of the Depository and that makes your claim that "it most likely didn't happen the way the WC said it did." absolute self serving nonsense! But I guess finding a hardcore CT who accepts the undeniable facts in this case is like finding a month of Sundays!
JohnM
It must have been a different shooter who only fired the two shots from above BR Williams or Harold Norman, or the 50 or so eyewitnesses who stated there was only two shots, which makes sense to the fact that it defies being duplicated as described by JBC. Two shots explains the assassination, with three shots it is easier to believe there was a conspiracy.
-
Hathcock appeared to have had trouble duplicating the shooting. Perhaps he used a 5-6 second time limit that many have believed in since the book Six Seconds in Dallas. But another good shooter, Michael Yardley, using his best timing estimates, did not find it that difficult as mentioned in his magazine. Yardley clearly implied the Carcano was by no means a top-of-the-line gun, but it was sufficient in his 7-8 seconds testing. The following quote is from Yardley’s magazine.
“Regular readers of this magazine may remember that some years back, I was also in Dallas on the Kennedy trail. On that trip, I proved that the shots could be made with the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano rifle allegedly used by Oswald and fitted with a cheap ‘tin-whistle’ 4 power telescopic sight.
I made them repeatedly (half a dozen times) in the required 7-8 second time frame firing from the correct height, at the correct ranges at a vehicle moving at the correct speed using an exact replica of the Oswald rifle and scope and identical ammunition. On the first run, I hit the head target as a crossing shot at about 45 yards (which apparently Oswald missed), I also connected on the next two shots at 60 plus 90 plus yards respectively. [We did the shooting on a specially built range at the levy in Dallas - where Oswald is believed to have practiced for the shooting.]
The declared second shot - if you believe the Warren Commission official Report - was at an oblique angle (the famous magic bullet shot). It allegedly went through JFK’s back exited at his throat and went on to hit Governor Connally. The third shot - and many have suggested that there may have been more - was the killing shot where JFK’s head apparent is pushed back (leading to many suggestions that there was a second gunman positioned forward of the presidential cavalcade).
Here’s my bottom line from experience of using the weapon system. The Carcano is a poor gun, and the optical sight found upon it (as presented as evidence) was even worse - the sort of cheap thing with a moving reticule that was once used on air-rifles (I had something similar on my BSA Airsporter when I was a kid). The gun is up to the task, however - just. And, the shots with it are possible within the given time frame. I have made them again and again. Other reports notwithstanding, I believe any competent rifleman would have had a good chance of connecting at least once.”
If Yardley had tried the test taking 10 seconds, perhaps he may have found that a competent rifleman would have had even an easier time in getting those results.
Hathcock appeared to have had trouble duplicating the shooting. Perhaps he used a 5-6 second time limit that many have believed in since the book Six Seconds in Dallas.
Perhaps?
But another good shooter, Michael Yardley, using his best timing estimates, did not find it that difficult as mentioned in his magazine.
Estimates?
Yardley clearly implied the Carcano was by no means a top-of-the-line gun, but it was sufficient in his 7-8 seconds testing.
So he is going with his own estimate to determine what the time-frame for the three shots was?
I made them repeatedly (half a dozen times) in the required 7-8 second time frame
Oswald is supposed to have made the shots, using a just re-assembled Carcano, in one go. No trials, no test firing and no repeated attempts.....
On the first run, I hit the head target as a crossing shot at about 45 yards (which apparently Oswald missed), I also connected on the next two shots at 60 plus 90 plus yards respectively.
So, Yardley couldn't replicate what Oswald is supposed to have done in one go?
[We did the shooting on a specially built range at the levy in Dallas - where Oswald is believed to have practiced for the shooting.]
Where is the evidence that Oswald practiced for the shooting? And how would he have been able to practice if the rifle is supposed to have been stored in Ruth Paine's garage from late September to a day before the assassination?
The gun is up to the task, however - just. And, the shots with it are possible within the given time frame. I have made them again and again.
What "given time frame"? The one he estimated?
Other reports notwithstanding, I believe any competent rifleman would have had a good chance of connecting at least once.”
What he seems to believe isn't really of any significance if he leaves out of the equation that the shooter only had a couple of seconds using a re-assembled rifle which allegedly had been stored in a garage, where it was moved around several times.
If Yardley had tried the test taking 10 seconds, perhaps he may have found that a competent rifleman would have had even an easier time in getting those results.
Only 10 seconds? Why not 15?... Oh wait, the problem the WC had (which caused the SBT) is that, according to them, the shooter only had enough time to fire 3 shots. There may well have been more shots, but the WC did not want to explore that possibility.
-
Sorry Martin but these shooters from a CBS NEWS special who were not familiar with the Italian Carcano, were replicating Oswald's shots in a much shorter timespan than the now commonly accepted 8 seconds and were all trying for about a five and a half seconds, all the while doing the shooting with a non slowing down target and exposed to the elements and one rifleman achieved 3 hits, better than Oswald. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
“Oswald’s shots”. LOL.
-
I can’t tell exactly why Yardley chose to spend his time on running his tests with a 7-8 second duration and using 3 shots. I didn’t see where he commented on how much effect of assembling the rifle would have. I’m not sure if it has been universally agreed to as to what sights would have been used. He just stated his overall opinion from his experiences.
If you have significantly better data than Yardley used for his combination of time, shots, and shooters, i.e. there was (between ~2 and 6 seconds) or (more than 7-8, or even 10 seconds) in combination with (less than 3 shots) or (more than 3 shots) in combination with (more than one shooter), I absolutely encourage you to continue to build on your research and verify your results with as much multiple independent pieces of physical evidence as possible.
-
Sit in a slowly-moving convertible and let an ex-Marine sharpshooter take three shots at you with a MC (using real ammunition) if you think it's such a piece of harmless junk. Does he seriously think it's impossible to kill someone with that "joke" of a rifle from a distance of 88 yards?
An ex-Marine "sharpshooter"??? On his best day at the range, Oswald barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories. There were three categories: Marksman, Sharpshooter, and Expert. Qualifying for one of these ratings involved firing at a rifle range using a semi-automatic rifle (i.e., no manual bolt action) at ground-level stationary targets whose location the person already knew and against which he had already practiced before firing for qualification.
As the Army's Ronald Simmons explained to the WC, the military rating of Sharpshooter required only a fraction of the skill needed to achieve the NRA rating of Master.
Yet, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, who used the alleged murder rifle itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's supposed shooting feat. They missed the head and neck area of the target boards 19 out of 21 times.
-
I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did "
Which justifies the conclusion that it most likely didn't happen the way the WC said it did.
Good luck trying to find a LN who is reasonable enough to even entertain that possibility.
The shooting didn't happen exactly the way the WC said it did, but then we didn't have the technology then that we have now applied to viewing the Zapruder film, which they partially relied on to reach their conclusions. And since the Queen Mary was used during the re-enactment of the men seated in the car, false conclusions came about. The Queen Mary wasn't even close to proving the correct measurements between both JFK and Connally--which makes a great amount of difference when testing the single bullet hitting both men. Connally was seated much lower, and seated to Kennedy's left within the SS-100-X, and Wecht knows this, yet he continues to lie to people about how JFK and JBC were seated in the limousine. Bold faced lying, I might add.
-
Qualifying for one of these ratings involved firing at a rifle range using a semi-automatic rifle (i.e., no manual bolt action) at ground-level stationary targets whose location the person already knew and against which he had already practiced before firing for qualification.
Yes, he was able to reliably hit a target well beyond the 88 yards needed in Dallas.
Yet, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, who used the alleged murder rifle itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's supposed shooting feat. They missed the head and neck area of the target boards 19 out of 21 times.
Did they have nine to ten seconds instead of six? Was the target slowing down towards the end like the limo did in Dallas?