JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on September 18, 2025, 08:29:22 PM
-
WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?
Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308)
And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:
Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)
The FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.
Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?
-
WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?
Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308)
And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:
Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)
WC apologists such Gerald Posner have resorted to arguing that Oswald may have used the rifle's iron sights. Why? Because the FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.
Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Maybe you didn't know it, but in order to become a Marine (Oswald was a Marine) you have to hit a relatively small target that's 500 yards away from you several times by using only the iron sights that are built into the carbine.
In other words, Oswald probably didn't use the out-of-alignment scope when he shot at his relatively largish target that was, at most, 85 yards away.
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Maybe you didn't know it, but in order to become a Marine (Oswald was a Marine) you have to hit a relatively small target that's 500 yards away from you several times by using only the iron sights that are built into the carbine.
In other words, Oswald probably didn't use the out-of-alignment scope when he shot at his relatively largish target that was, at most, 85 yards away. -- Tom
Apparently, you don't know that the alleged murder weapon's iron sights would have had to be sighted-in as well, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult. Posner apparently didn't know these things either when he floated the idea that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.
MSG Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:
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)
And, BTW, what ammo would Oswald have used to sight-in the iron sights? Not a single bullet was found in his possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions. Humm, how about that?
Moreover, despite an exhaustive canvassing of gun shops, the FBI was unable to find any evidence that Oswald purchased ammo or any gun-cleaning supplies for the rifle. Humm, how about that?
-
[...]
You don't think a former Marine sharpshooter, firing Oswald's Carcano twice from the Sniper's Nest at 70 and 90 yards, could hit JFK with those two shots if he took five or six seconds to do so?
-
You don't think a former Marine sharpshooter, firing Oswald's Carcano twice from the Sniper's Nest at 70 and 90 yards, could hit JFK with those two shots if he took five or six seconds to do so?
HUH? I'm almost tempted to ask if this is a joke. How many times are you going to ignore the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon, were unable to do this, even though one of them took 8 seconds on his first set of shots and 7 seconds on his second set, and even though another took 6.75 seconds on his first set and 6.45 seconds on his second set, despite the fact that they were only firing from 30 feet up and were firing at stationary target boards?
I take it you're not going to address the fact not a single bullet or any gun-cleaning supplies and equipment were found among Oswald's possession, that the FBI found no evidence that Oswald ever bought ammo or gun-cleaning supplies, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult? BTW, Miller's most inaccurate set of shots was the set he fired using the iron sights.
I just don't understand how you or anyone else can brush aside these facts and pretend that Oswald had the skill to perform the alleged shooting feat, when he clearly did not.
And I've explained to you before why it is quite misleading, not to mention inaccurate, to call Oswald a "Marine sharpshooter." But you just keep doing it.
-
I suggest reading this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173)
-
MTG--
Enjoyed your post. But I think I disagree in some regards.
Just recently we have had one assassination--Charlie Kirk---and one very close call (Trump-Butler, missed by less than one inch) by what appears to amateur-lone nuts armed with off-the-shelf gear (in fact Kirk appears to have been shot with a gun his assassin's grandfather owned, a family heirloom).
JFK was moving, but more or less in a straight line from the TSBD6 sniper's nest and the Dal-Tex building.
Even if there were a second gunsel in the Dal-Tex building (I think that is possible), the Dal-Tex sniper also would not have had the opportunity to sight-in his weapon in the immediate circumstance.
However, the distance at which JFK on 11/22 was shot was not especially great, perhaps 70 yards.
LHO was putting good clusters on silhouettes at 300 and 500 yards in 1956, with an M-1.
In light of the real-world recent assassination and near-miss assassination attempt...I wonder if too much is being made about the difficulty of the shots on 11/22.
The timing of the 11/22 shots...is another matter. Too rapid a sequence for a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.
Just IMHO, caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.
-
The timing of the 11/22 shots is another matter. Too rapid a sequence for a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.
IIRC, Hurchel Jacks, the DPD driver of LBJ's car, said to an interviewer while reenacting the route on Elm Street that the shots were evenly spaced and lasted ten seconds altogether.
-
TG-
You are certainly correct; witness statements about the JFKA are all over the board.
Kellerman talked about a flurry of shots Connally talked about shots hitting the cab of the limo as if from "automatic weapons."
Other people heard only two shots!
Between my, myself and I...I trust what I see in the Z-film. Or what I think I see. Maybe I am in error.
Just IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
BTW, I smell Tehran and Moscow money filtering around the JFKA research community...a feculent tell-tale odor.
-
I suggest reading this thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173)
I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.
MTG-- Enjoyed your post. But I think I disagree in some regards.
Just recently we have had one assassination--Charlie Kirk---and one very close call (Trump-Butler, missed by less than one inch) by what appears to amateur-lone nuts armed with off-the-shelf gear (in fact Kirk appears to have been shot with a gun his assassin's grandfather owned, a family heirloom).
For the reasons I explained in another thread, I don't think the Kirk shooting bears any resemblance to the alleged shooting feat in the JFK case. And, the rifle in the Kirk shooting was a Mauser 98, a much better rifle than the alleged murder weapon.
JFK was moving, but more or less in a straight line from the TSBD6 sniper's nest and the Dal-Tex building.
Yes, but the sixth-floor gunman would have been firing from 60 feet up and through a half-open window. Would he have known that shooting from an elevation requires factoring in the high-low formula to account for the effect of gravity on the bullet? I seriously doubt that Oswald had ever even heard of this, much less knew how to use it.
Even if there were a second gunsel in the Dal-Tex building (I think that is possible), the Dal-Tex sniper also would not have had the opportunity to sight-in his weapon in the immediate circumstance.
A Dal-Tex Building shooter would not have needed to sight-in his rifle in the immediate circumstance. He could have done it earlier in the morning, or the day before. Plus, sighting in a better-quality rifle does not take the 10 bullets that the Carcano would have required. In the Army, we were often able to sight-in ("zero") the M-16 with just three bullets.
Assuming Oswald was the gunman, the most likely scenario is that he did not sight-in the rifle but assumed the rifle was still sighted at "mechanical zero" and was willing to rely on mechanical zero, a foolish assumption that even Oswald would have known was risky. Oswald would have known from his Marine days that rifles need to be sighted-in to ensure accuracy before firing. Okay, so the next issue is when and where Oswald could have sighted-in the Carcano before the shooting, and what ammo he would have used to do so, leaving aside the reasons to doubt that Oswald even had the rifle in his possession before the shooting.
However, the distance at which JFK on 11/22 was shot was not especially great, perhaps 70 yards. LHO was putting good clusters on silhouettes at 300 and 500 yards in 1956, with an M-1.
One, yes, he did that with an M-1, a semi-automatic, so he did not have to work the bolt when he fired at those targets in the Marines. I can assure you, based on my own Army experience with semi-automatics and with my private experience with bolt-action rifles (Mausers), that firing a semi-automatic rifle accurately is much easier than firing a bolt-action rifle accurately. Any competition riflemen will confirm this.
Two, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.
In light of the real-world recent assassination and near-miss assassination attempt...I wonder if too much is being made about the difficulty of the shots on 11/22.
I think the evidence clearly shows that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult and far beyond his rifle skills. Not only did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to duplicate the alleged shooting feat, but not one of the 11 expert riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test managed to score two hits on his first attempt.
The timing of the 11/22 shots...is another matter. Too rapid a sequence for a single-shot-per-bolt-action rifle.
I agree completely. Way too rapid. The acoustical evidence corroborates the numerous eyewitness statements that two of the shots came nearly simultaneously, right on top of each other.
-
[...]
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Your marksmen had to fire three shots as quickly as possible (maximum eight seconds).
Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots, and missed with only the first, steeply-downward-angled one.
-- Tom
-
I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting t to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.
For the reasons I explained in another thread, I don't think the Kirk shooting bears any resemblance to the alleged shooting feat in the JFK case. And, the rifle in the Kirk shooting was a Mauser 98, a much better rifle than the alleged murder weapon.
Yes, but the sixth-floor gunman would have been firing from 60 feet up and through a half-open window. Would he have known that shooting from an elevation requires factoring in the high-low formula to account for the effect of gravity on the bullet? I seriously doubt that Oswald had ever even heard of this, much less knew how to use it.
A Dal-Tex Building shooter would not have needed to sight-in his rifle in the immediate circumstance. He could have done it earlier in the morning, or the day before. Plus, sighting in a better-quality rifle does not take the 10 bullets that the Carcano would have required. In the Army, we were often able to sight-in ("zero") the M-16 with just three bullets.
Assuming Oswald was the gunman, the most likely scenario is that he did not sight-in the rifle but assumed the rifle was still sighted at "mechanical zero" and was willing to rely on mechanical zero, a foolish assumption that even Oswald would have known was risky. Oswald would have known from his Marine days that rifles need to be sighted-in to ensure accuracy before firing. Okay, so the next issue is when and where Oswald could have sighted-in the Carcano before the shooting, and what ammo he would have used to do so, leaving aside the reasons to doubt that Oswald even had the rifle in his possession before the shooting.
One, yes, he did that with an M-1, a semi-automatic, so he did not have to work the bolt when he fired at those targets in the Marines. I can assure you, based on my own Army experience with semi-automatics and with my private experience with bolt-action rifles (Mausers), that firing a semi-automatic rifle accurately is much easier than firing a bolt-action rifle accurately. Any competition riflemen will confirm this.
Two, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, even though two of them took 6.45 to 8.0 seconds to fire their sets of three shots. Moreover, they fired their most inaccurate shots on their second and third shots, i.e., the shots fired at the two farthest targets, the same two shots that Oswald allegedly nailed in 5.6 seconds. And they were firing from only 30 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were allowed to fire practice shots before the test began.
I think the evidence clearly shows that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult and far beyond his rifle skills. Not only did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to duplicate the alleged shooting feat, but not one of the 11 expert riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test managed to score two hits on his first attempt.
I agree completely. Way too rapid. The acoustical evidence corroborates the numerous eyewitness statements that two of the shots came nearly simultaneously, right on top of each other.
I suggest reading it too, if you want a good example of attempting t to prove that Oswald could have done the shooting feat while ignoring the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate that feat, that the 11 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to duplicate the feat, and that Oswald's mediocre-to-poor Marine Corps rifle scores were done with a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to operate) after hours of practice on the same targets and while firing from a level position.
Thankfully we don’t need to rely on biased opinions such as yours. The actual results of LHO’s basic training with the rifle are published for all to see and judge for themselves. Showing a method of properly interpreting and understanding what those results represent is what the thread’s intent is all about.
-
You are certainly correct; witness statements about the JFKA are all over the board.
Is that what I said?
-
Dear Comrade Griffith, Your marksmen had to fire three shots as quickly as possible (maximum eight seconds). Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots, and missed with only the first, steeply-downward-angled one. -- Tom
You just keep repeating this silly argument and ignoring the objections to it. You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the simple fact that no matter how much time you want to give Oswald to shoot, he still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds on his last two shots. Do you not understand that Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? So even if he had fired his first shot at Z000, he still would have had to wait until Z210 to fire again, which would have given him only 5.6 seconds to fire his last two shots, both of which were allegedly hits.
I don't know how much more simply to explain this fact.
None of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test went two for two even on their first two shots--they went one for two with their first two shots, and that was after taking all the time they wanted for their first shot. And, again, those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in cramped conditions, and were not firing through a half-open window.
-
Say what we will about the Sports Drome story - and I'm not going to dive into it - these folksy characters are about as believable as it gets. I hadn't seen this before, but it's refreshing to see witnesses with no obvious agenda being interviewed by a reporter with no obvious agenda.
Very weird: The bolt-action rifle, wrapped and tied with string, is handed over the fence instead of being brought through the office ... "Oswald" is practicing rapid firing and gets off six shots in 6-9 seconds ... and when "Oswald" is confronted by this toothless old fart about shooting at his targets, "Oswald" says nothing in response (which indeed sounds somewhat Oswald-like).
The video repeats on here - it's really only about six minutes.
-
You just keep repeating this silly argument and ignoring the objections to it. You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the simple fact that no matter how much time you want to give Oswald to shoot, he still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds on his last two shots. Do you not understand that Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? So even if he had fired his first shot at Z000, he still would have had to wait until Z210 to fire again, which would have given him only 5.6 seconds to fire his last two shots, both of which were allegedly hits.
I don't know how much more simply to explain this fact.
None of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test went two for two even on their first two shots--they went one for two with their first two shots, and that was after taking all the time they wanted for their first shot. And, again, those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in cramped conditions, and were not firing through a half-open window.
His last two shots (at approx. Z-222 and Z-313), were both fatal in nature and took only 4.97 seconds.
He had plenty of time (5.2 seconds) to line up his second shot (at Z-222) after missing his first shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming.
-
Say what we will about the Sports Drome story - and I'm not going to dive into it - these folksy characters are about as believable as it gets. I hadn't seen this before, but it's refreshing to see witnesses with no obvious agenda being interviewed by a reporter with no obvious agenda.
Very weird: The bolt-action rifle, wrapped and tied with string, is handed over the fence instead of being brought through the office ... "Oswald" is practicing rapid firing and gets off six shots in 6-9 seconds ... and when "Oswald" is confronted by this toothless old fart about shooting at his targets, "Oswald" says nothing in response (which indeed sounds somewhat Oswald-like).
The video repeats on here - it's really only about six minutes.
Oh dear. Oh dear, dear, dear.
Now, I actually fully agree with you that those witnesses are credible, had no agenda, and were interviewed by reporters with no agenda. But, in viewing those witnesses as credible, you could get in big trouble with your leading lone-gunman scholars for veering dangerously off message. Why? Because according to the Warren Commission, Gerald Posner, and Bugliosi, all of the accounts of encounters with Oswald at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in Dallas were "mistaken."
Why were they supposedly "mistaken"? Because the most credible of the accounts, those of Homer and Sterling Wood, put a man who was a dead ringer for Oswald at that rifle range when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere, obviously providing more unwanted evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Dallas before the assassination, which of course "just cannot be because there was no conspiracy."
According to the Woods, "Oswald," i.e., the Oswald lookalike, was using a "6.5 Italian carbine" but with a different scope than the one on the alleged murder weapon. The man was an excellent shot. The man was driven to and from the range by another man.
Both Homer Wood and his son Sterling Wood positively identified photos and footage of Oswald as being the man they had encountered at the rifle range.
Your post suggests you've done little reading of scholarly works that reject the lone-gunman theory, because virtually all of them discuss the accounts of the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome. Your post also suggests you don't even have a handle on your own side's talking points.
Here's some of what one of the first and most scholarly WC critics, Sylvia Meagher, said about Homer and Sterling Wood's encounters with "Oswald" at the Sports Drome in her classic work Accessories After the Fact:
By treating these witnesses as a group, the Commission has obscured the
fact that the testimony of Sterling Wood and his father is not subject to
serious objections. Sterling and his father went to the rifle range on Saturday
afternoon, November 16, 1963, when Oswald was not in Irving as usual.
He had remained in Dallas, at Marina Oswald's suggestion that he might be
at the birthday party for one of Mrs. Paine's children that weekend. It was
therefore physically possible for Oswald to be at the rifle range, as the Woods
testified he was. . . .
Dr. Wood testified (10H 387) that when he saw Oswald on the television
screen on the day of the assassination, he immediately told his wife that
Oswald looked like the man at the rifle range. He decided to say nothing
to his son and to see if the boy independently recognized Oswald.
About half an hour later the boy came in and as soon as he saw Oswald on
the TV screen, he said, "Daddy, that is the fellow that was sitting next to me
out on the rifle range."
During his testimony Dr. Wood was shown photographs, first of Larry
Crafard, whom he failed to identify. Next he was shown photographs of
Oswald on the street, with other men in the background. He unhesitatingly
pointed to Oswald as the man at the rifle range. . . .
Sterling, like his father, was shown photographs of Larry Crafard, whom
he failed to recognize. When he was shown a picture of Oswald and other
men on a street, he immediately pointed to Oswald as the man he had seen
at the rifle range. He also identified a photograph of the rifle found in the
Book Depository as the weapon he had seen at the rifle range, but said
that the telescopic sight was not the same. (10H 396) Finally, he volunteered
that he had looked at his neighbor's target at the rifle range and that the
man was "the most accurate of all." (10H 397)
There is no reason to question the credibility of this thirteen-year-old boy,
and it is gratifying that the Commission did not do so. What the Commission did
was to obfuscate his story, lumping him together with the other witnesses, and
then dismissing them all. Only when the full testimony is examined does it
become obvious that the Woods' story does not suffer from the same weakness
as the others and that the man they saw must have been Oswald's double if not
Oswald himself.
If the Commission had accepted the Woods' testimony, it would have
helped to corroborate its thesis of Oswald's marksmanship—a thesis which,
as it stands, has been the subject of much justified criticism. On the other
hand, it would have introduced an unknown friend who was driving Oswald
to target practice.
If the Commission had accepted the Woods' testimony, it might have
lengthened the shadow of an unknown accomplice or of a man deliberately
engaged in impersonating Oswald. (Vintage Book Edition, 1992 reprint of
1967 edition, p. 371)
The Woods are the kinds of solid, credible witnesses that prosecutors dream of. But, nope, the WC had to reject them because the real Oswald could not have been at the Sports Drome when the Woods saw a man there who looked just like Oswald. We now know that the WC was aware of the possibility that Oswald was being impersonated, but they rejected all evidence of impersonations and ignored the issue.
-
MTG--
Thanks for your collegial replies.
BTW, there are Youtubes of gun enthusiasts shooting M-C's with good results. As war surplus, there was probably some variation in the quality of rifles, post-war on the market.
Give the relatively short range at which JFK was shot, my guess is the M-C could have been used.
We have the additional problem of Secret Service agent Paul Landis saying he found a slug, which looked like the large CE-399 slug, in the JFK limo. If Landis is speaking the truth, that strongly suggests the M-C rifle was used in the assassination. In fact, it suggests an undercharged slug from the M-C struck JFK in the upper back.
This does not rule out the use on 11/22 of another rifle (from the Dal-Tex building), or the use of rifles with silencers.
Due to multiple earwitnesses, some relatively deep within the TSBD, I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that three loud audible shots were heard inside the TSBD on 11/22. I contend that means there were three shots fired from TSBD6, almost certainly from the sniper window.
LHO is invisible during the JFKA, but remains the prime suspect as one of the shooters.
What is interesting is that there may have been three wild missed shots during the JFKA. (Tague, the Elm St. manhole cover and the asphalt behind the limo). Maybe that was LHO shooting to miss, a replay of his Walker expedition.
IMHO, the JFKA makes more sense with LHO as a participant, unwitting or otherwise, rather than totally innocent.
LHO's immediate post-JFKA behavior is that of a complicit party, or one who quickly, within moments, deduced he had been framed. That suggest he was part of the JFKA plot.
IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
We have the additional problem of Secret Service agent Paul Landis saying he found a slug, which looked like the large CE-399 slug, in the JFK limo. If Landis is speaking the truth, that strongly suggests the M-C rifle was used in the assassination. In fact, it suggests an undercharged slug from the M-C struck JFK in the upper back
Landis is not speaking the truth.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-paul-landis-really-find-a-bullet
-
Landis is not speaking the truth.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-paul-landis-really-find-a-bullet
Could be. Or maybe Landis is telling the truth.
Other witnesses reported finding the slug, which could have been CE-399, where Landis said he left it.
JFK witnesses are an exasperating lot. Some alter their commentary as the years go by, and others emerge years later. Many witness statements conflict.
My time-traveling lie detector sometimes fails me.
-
Say what we will about the Sports Drome story - and I'm not going to dive into it - these folksy characters are about as believable as it gets. I hadn't seen this before, but it's refreshing to see witnesses with no obvious agenda being interviewed by a reporter with no obvious agenda.
LP--Thanks for posting. I have never seen these vignettes before.
I agree...sure seems like LHO was at the gun range, and practicing.
Not sure what to make about the story about someone handing LHO a rifle over a fence. That would suggest a friend, or we could use the word "accomplice."
While I lean to the theory of more than one gunsel on 11/22, I think the idea that LHO "was a bad shot" and that the M-C rifle is a terrible rifle are exaggerations.
We have seen from the recent horrible assassination (Kirk) and near-assassination (Trump-Butler) that an amateur armed with a rifle can be lethal.
Just IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
WC apologists never mention the fact that the supposed lone gunman, Oswald, would have needed to fire about 10 rounds just to sight-in, or "zero," the weapon in order for it to fire accurately. Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant James Zahm, who was an instructor in marksmanship training, explained this to the WC:
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?
Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds. (11 H 308)
And FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Commission how difficult it was to sight-in the Carcano rifle:
Mr. FRAZIER. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon in as far as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the sighting point.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots. (3 H 405-406)
The FBI found that the rifle's scope was so clumsily attached and so unrelated to the weapon's line of fire that it could not be adjusted; indeed, metal shims had to be placed under the scope before the rifle's accuracy could even be tested.
Okay, so when and how would Oswald have been able to sight-in the alleged murder weapon before 12:30 on the day of the assassination?
I've never really understood the story about Oswald disassembling his rifle. The disassembled rifle was as long as the rifle he was going to originally buy, so it's not like he was disguising the fact he was bringing a rifle to work in a bag. The few inches lost by disassembling would gain him nothing.
The only way the rifle could have remained sighted would be to do this before taking it to the TSBD building and not disassembling it. Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it. Oswald would know this.
And when do Nutters believe Oswald had time to reassemble the rifle?
-
I've never really understood the story about Oswald disassembling his rifle. The disassembled rifle was as long as the rifle he was going to originally buy, so it's not like he was disguising the fact he was bringing a rifle to work in a bag. The few inches lost by disassembling would gain him nothing.
The only way the rifle could have remained sighted would be to do this before taking it to the TSBD building and not disassembling it. Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it. Oswald would know this.
And when do Nutters believe Oswald had time to reassemble the rifle?
Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it.
Why would anyone think that? I believe that the disassembly for reducing the length to the size of the bag only involves taking the wooden stock off of the rest of the rifle. The scope stays mounted to the receiver/barrel assembly. So no alignment of the scope is changed relative to the barrel and where it would shoot. If LHO zeroed in the rifle for the (~100’) distance involved for the Walker attempt, then it should have stayed pretty much like that and been just fine for the distances involved in Dealey Plaza.
-
Your post suggests you've done little reading of scholarly works that reject the lone-gunman theory, because virtually all of them discuss the accounts of the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome. Your post also suggests you don't even have a handle on your own side's talking points.
Michael, there is something seriously wrong with you. I don't know if I'm even allowed to say that here, but I'm saying it. You have got serious screws loose. The posts of yourself, KGB Tom and WC Sham Man Dan are so tedious, so nonsensical and so repetitive that they are destroying any semblance of a forum. Putting you three on Ignore leaves the forum looking like a blank canvas. Engaging with any of you is, at least in my opinion, a complete waste of time. I can put up with a CT enthusiast, or even a flock of them, if they are at least rational and/or amusing. You are neither. The folks at the Ed Forum seem to have reached the same conclusion insofar as you are concerned, which is presumably why you have taken your insane act here.
Unlike you in your deranged, one-dimensional, believe-absolutely-anything, nothing-is-too-crazy little CT world, I have no "side." I have no "talking points." Unlike you, I can acknowledge a genuine mystery when one exists without peeing in my pants because it doesn't mesh perfectly with my overarching theory of the case. Unlike the many factoids I have exposed. the Sportsdrome is a genuine mystery. It may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with Oswald or the JFKA, but it is a genuine mystery that is not easily dismissed. I have read, insofar as I know, pretty much everything published about the Sportsdrome; I simply had not seen this video.
'Bye now.
-
Mmm
-
From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department: The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots. I can find nothing suspicious about him, but the JFKA is certainly filled with an inordinate number of weird twists and turns. Oh, on December 1, 1963, Floyd G. Davis, owner of the Sports Drome, turned over to the FBI 66 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano casings. The FBI lab determined that these were not from Oswald’s rifle (Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, page 355), but doesn't this seem “just a bit” odd for a nine-station gun range in Grand Prairie that had only been open a few weeks? I wish I had the time and interest to do the definitive article on the Sports Drome Mystery, which I suspect would be likely to remain a genuine mystery even after my factoid-busting efforts, but I have officially run out of gas insofar as the JFKA is concerned.
Oh, before some goofball interrupts this with a truly startling factoid that even Simpich repeats, I shall clarify: The factoid is that Garland Slack said Oswald was dropped off by someone name Frazier from Irving, Texas. YEE-HA! No, actually, Slack's wife was interviewed by the FBI in September of 1964, long after his WC testimony. During the interview, she telephoned Garland to try to clarify the story. It was then that he came up with the Frazier from Irving factoid. Mrs. Slack told the FBI that she thought Garland was "confused." Weirdly, insofar as I can tell, all of the players in the Sports Drome Mystery thereafter pretty much vanished into history.
-
From the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department: The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots. I can find nothing suspicious about him, but the JFKA is certainly filled with an inordinate number of weird twists and turns. Oh, on December 1, 1963, Floyd G. Davis, owner of the Sports Drome, turned over to the FBI 66 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano casings. The FBI lab determined that these were not from Oswald’s rifle (Gemberling Report of 12/10/63, page 355), but doesn't this seem “just a bit” odd for a nine-station gun range in Grand Prairie that had only been open a few weeks? I wish I had the time and interest to do the definitive article on the Sports Drome Mystery, which I suspect would be likely to remain a genuine mystery even after my factoid-busting efforts, but I have officially run out of gas insofar as the JFKA is concerned.
Oh, before some goofball interrupts this with a truly startling factoid that even Simpich repeats, I shall clarify: The factoid is that Garland Slack said Oswald was dropped off by someone name Frazier from Irving, Texas. YEE-HA! No, actually, Slack's wife was interviewed by the FBI in September of 1964, long after his WC testimony. During the interview, she telephoned Garland to try to clarify the story. It was then that he came up with the Frazier from Irving factoid. Mrs. Slack told the FBI that she thought Garland was "confused." Weirdly, insofar as I can tell, all of the players in the Sports Drome Mystery thereafter pretty much vanished into history.
The toothless guy in the video is Garland G. Slack, who testified to the WC and died in 1978. On the morning of the JFKA, he was in the County Records Building. At the time of the JFKA, he was standing at Houston & Elm and heard all three shots
No, initially he stated he heard two shots and also the sound of two shots hitting their target. (Sheriff's affidavit 11/22) He never added a third shot until later statements.
-
As usual, WC apologists are unable to use logic and critical thinking to refute a single argument made by MTG regarding the MC rifle. Instead they spew ad-homs and obfuscation.
For your refutation:
1) Marina said Lee used the MC one time to target shoot at leaves, which was the extent of his practice and his only opportunity to sight in the scope. Any military marksman will tell you that you must constantly practice with a familiar weapon and, most importantly, with a scope that has been sighted in if you are relying on it to shoot accurately. Why didn't LHO sight in his scope if he planned on using it?
2) For those that claim this was an easy shot, even though no one has replicated it (using the iron sights with a wonky scope obscuring your view), here is a perspective from JFK's POV of how the shot would have looked via the iron sights:
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2_SN.jpg
Note the tiny heads in the background that were even closer to JFK than Oswald was.
4) If LHO disassembled the rifle to smuggle it into the TSBD, then why did he include the useless scope when he knew he was going to use the iron sights instead? How stupid was he?
5) LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope, and strap, even though he supposedly disassembled, reassembled, and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.
6) There is no valid trajectory for the magic bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. If you think there is, then use the 2 laser challenge to prove it and post your results.
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Here are my results:
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png
7) Lastly, if you actually believe that after Oswald took his 3rd shot, he wiped off all his prints from the rifle, ditched it, then raced down 4 floors and into the lunchroom, bought a Coke, and was not out of breath, all in less than 90 seconds, then you have more jam than Smuckers.
Unless you can refute all these and MTG's arguments then you are done. Otherwise, good luck. Thumb1:
-
"1) Marina said Lee used the MC one time to target shoot at leaves, which was the extent of his practice and his only opportunity to sight in the scope. Any military marksman will tell you that you must constantly practice with a familiar weapon and, most importantly, with a scope that has been sighted in if you are relying on it to shoot accurately. Why didn't LHO sight in his scope if he planned on using it?"---JT
But we just had two recent examples of amateur assassins who were lethal, or not so by the slimmest margins.
Charlie Kirk's assassin, and the Trump-Butler assassin, the latter who literally missed only by an inch. Both shots from greater ranges than in Dallas.
Kirk's assassin fired one shot, with his grandfather's rifle. No, we do not know if the bore on the rifle was high-quality or loose, or whether rifle had been recently sighted at the distance, etc. But a good guess is Kirk's assassin was successful with an old rifle, and was an ordinary shot himself, and he took it off the shelf and hit Kirk with it.
The Trump-Butler scenario is only different as Trump turned his head a little bit.
BTW, due to the timing of shots on 11/22, I suspect a second rifle was used, in addition to the M-C rifle---which was a serviceable rifle, and LHO a trained marksman.
Just IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
As usual, WC apologists are unable to use logic and critical thinking to refute a single argument made by MTG regarding the MC rifle. Instead they spew ad-homs and obfuscation.
For your refutation:
1) Marina said Lee used the MC one time to target shoot at leaves, which was the extent of his practice and his only opportunity to sight in the scope. Any military marksman will tell you that you must constantly practice with a familiar weapon and, most importantly, with a scope that has been sighted in if you are relying on it to shoot accurately. Why didn't LHO sight in his scope if he planned on using it?
2) For those that claim this was an easy shot, even though no one has replicated it (using the iron sights with a wonky scope obscuring your view), here is a perspective from JFK's POV of how the shot would have looked via the iron sights:
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2_SN.jpg
Note the tiny heads in the background that were even closer to JFK than Oswald was.
4) If LHO disassembled the rifle to smuggle it into the TSBD, then why did he include the useless scope when he knew he was going to use the iron sights instead? How stupid was he?
5) LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope, and strap, even though he supposedly disassembled, reassembled, and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.
6) There is no valid trajectory for the magic bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. If you think there is, then use the 2 laser challenge to prove it and post your results.
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png
Here are my results:
http://kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png
7) Lastly, if you actually believe that after Oswald took his 3rd shot, he wiped off all his prints from the rifle, ditched it, then raced down 4 floors and into the lunchroom, bought a Coke, and was not out of breath, all in less than 90 seconds, then you have more jam than Smuckers.
Unless you can refute all these and MTG's arguments then you are done. Otherwise, good luck. Thumb1:
6) There is no valid trajectory for the magic bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat. If you think there is, then use the 2 laser challenge to prove it and post your results.
Why would you ever think the bullet would follow a straight line after passing through several different varying density mediums?
Since when do bullets traversing different mediums continue on in exactly perfectly straight lines?
Mr. MATHEWS. So we say F-310 and F-114 are consistent with the theory that a bullet could enter one man straight, in a straight trajectory, and on exiting that man be curved slightly?
Mr. STURDIVAN. Well, let's put it this way. With most military bullets, like the M-193, the bullet would curve almost immediately because the yaw begins to grow almost immediately . With the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, it is much more stable, the yaw begins to grow much more slowly, and it curves much more slowly. So that at a target of 4 or 5 inches of soft tissue, that bullet would not deviate appreciably from its path. In a much longer track, particularly if the bullet were unstable when it struck, it would in fact deviate from its path. It would not go in a straight line.
But it does deviate, rendering this two laser whatever moot and something for your amusement alone. How far does it deviate? No one knows. In the JFKA it is measured by the angle of the road, JFK’s posture, and the entrance and exit wounds shown in autopsy phots. As soon as you identify what frame JFK was wounded in, we will all know the answer, including you.
Mr. MATHEWS. On your left, sir . Let me ask you a question in F-114, why did that bullet enter straight and then yaw upwardright behind you?
Mr. STURDIVAN. The bullet entered straight because it was unyawed in normal flight, and bullets are engineered to be stable and, therefore, it strikes at low yaw. When it is unstable inside the block, naturally unstable inside the block, it yaws dramatically, in every case. All bullets are unstable in tissue, which is 800 times as dense as air .
Mr. MATHEWS. The point being is that all bullets do not go straight when they enter a solid mass.
Mr. STURDIVAN. Oh, no bullet actually goes straight when it enters a solid mass. The lift forces, which are better shown, I think, on--
7) Lastly, if you actually believe that after Oswald took his 3rd shot, he wiped off all his prints from the rifle, ditched it, then raced down 4 floors and into the lunchroom, bought a Coke, and was not out of breath, all in less than 90 seconds, then you have more jam than Smuckers.
If you can prove there was a third shot get after it.
-
You just keep repeating this silly argument and ignoring the objections to it. You seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp the simple fact that no matter how much time you want to give Oswald to shoot, he still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds on his last two shots. Do you not understand that Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210? So even if he had fired his first shot at Z000, he still would have had to wait until Z210 to fire again, which would have given him only 5.6 seconds to fire his last two shots, both of which were allegedly hits.
I don't know how much more simply to explain this fact.
None of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test went two for two even on their first two shots--they went one for two with their first two shots, and that was after taking all the time they wanted for their first shot. And, again, those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in cramped conditions, and were not firing through a half-open window.
I should add that in saying the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test went one for two with their first two shots, I am bending over backward to give them every benefit of the doubt. Actually, only three of their first 12 shots hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes. But, since they were aiming at the center of mass of the target silhouettes, I'm counting all the shots that landed within the center of mass in order to say they went one for two on their first two shots. This is being generous.
Of course, this raises an obvious question: Why didn't they aim for the head and neck area, since that was the area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit with his final two shots?
Anyway, WC apologists want us to believe that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps qualification categories on his best day at the range, using a semi-automatic rifle, and who barely managed to qualify in the bottom category in his last trip to the range as a Marine--that this guy went two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots, when three Master-rated riflemen only went one for two with their first two shots and went zero for one with their last shot using the same weapon that the supposed lone-gunman allegedly used.
No thanks. Makes no sense. Wildly unlikely and really impossible for all practical purposes.
-
I should add that in saying the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test went one for two with their first two shots, I am bending over backward to give them every benefit of the doubt. Actually, only three of their first 12 shots hit the head and neck area of the target silhouettes. But, since they were aiming at the center of mass of the target silhouettes, I'm counting all the shots that landed within the center of mass in order to say they went one for two on their first two shots. This is being generous.
Of course, this raises an obvious question: Why didn't they aim for the head and neck area, since that was the area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit with his final two shots?
Anyway, WC apologists want us to believe that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps qualification categories on his best day at the range, using a semi-automatic rifle, and who barely managed to qualify in the bottom category in his last trip to the range as Marine--that this guy went two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots, when three Master-rated riflemen only went one for two with their first two shots and went zero for one with their last shot using the same weapon that the supposed lone-gunman allegedly used.
No thanks. Makes no sense. Wildly unlikely and really impossible for all practical purposes.
The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.
-
The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.
HUH??? I wish you guys would get your story straight. All the most prominent WC apologists say the first shot was a miss and that the last two shots were hits. This has been the lone-gunman camp's line for over 20 years now, and it includes the mythical Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
I notice you avoided dealing with the fact that two of the Master-rated riflemen took between 6.45 seconds and 8.0 seconds to fire their three shots, and that they went one for three. One of them took 8 seconds and 7 seconds, and he went one for three. And those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters. But you want us to believe that your alleged lone gunman, who was a mediocre shot on his best day at the range, went one for three in 8.7 seconds while firing from 30 feet higher and through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
No one can stop you guys from believing what you want to believe, but your refusal to deal with facts that refute your view is telling.
-
HUH??? I wish you guys would get your story straight. All the most prominent WC apologists say the first shot was a miss and that the last two shots were hits. This has been the lone-gunman camp's line for over 20 years now, and it includes the mythical Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? The first shot was a miss. It occurred at about Z153. The second shot struck both JFK and Connally at about Z223. The jacket bulge is not mythical. Neither is the simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally.
I notice you avoided dealing with the fact that two of the Master-rated riflemen took between 6.45 seconds and 8.0 seconds to fire their three shots, and that they went one for three. One of them took 8 seconds and 7 seconds, and he went one for three. And those guys were firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, took as much time as they wanted for their first shot, and were not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters. But you want us to believe that your alleged lone gunman, who was a mediocre shot on his best day at the range, went one for three in 8.7 seconds while firing from 30 feet higher and through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
No one can stop you guys from believing what you want to believe, but your refusal to deal with facts that refute your view is telling.
All three of the riflemen were needlessly rushed.
Hendrix fired the set in 8.25 seconds for the first and 7.00 seconds for the second. Staley’s times were 6.75 and 6.45 seconds. Miller’s times with the scope were 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. Using the iron sights, Miller fired the set of three shots in 4.45 seconds. In the seven sets, there were two misses on the third target, four on the second, and none on the first.
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 99). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.
You say that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three. You are leaving out information. They each fired six shots.
-
The three Master-rated riflemen were working under undue pressure. They were needlessly trying to get their three shots off in 5.6 seconds or less. Oswald didn't go two for two in 5.6 seconds with his last two shots. He went one for two. That's assuming that he was aiming for the head. In actuality, Oswald went one for three in about 8.7 seconds. He underperformed.
I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?
The first shot was a miss. It occurred at about Z153.
Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.
Some of your fellow lone-gunman theorists put this supposed first miss far earlier than you do, and they offer the unserious speculation that your alleged "sharpshooter" was foolish enough to fire virtually straight down with this shot and, to make matters worse, was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal rod or tree limb was smackdab in the middle of his aiming point or very close to it. Not even an idiotic amateur would commit such a blunder.
The second shot struck both JFK and Connally at about Z223. The jacket bulge is not mythical. Neither is the simultaneous reactions of JFK and Connally.
Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.
The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him. The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.
At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.
And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?
All three of the riflemen were needlessly rushed.
No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation.
You say that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three. You are leaving out information. They each fired six shots.
Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.
When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.
So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
Hendrix fired the set in 8.25 seconds for the first and 7.00 seconds for the second. Staley’s times were 6.75 and 6.45 seconds. Miller’s times with the scope were 4.6 and 5.15 seconds. Using the iron sights, Miller fired the set of three shots in 4.45 seconds. In the seven sets, there were two misses on the third target, four on the second, and none on the first.
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 99). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.
Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).
You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.
So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.
BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
It continues to genuinely amaze me at how you guys simply refuse to face obvious, undeniable facts. Anyone not blinded by the lone-gunman theory can see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, and was even beyond the ability of three Master-rated riflemen.
-
I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.
Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?
Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.
Some of your fellow lone-gunman theorists put this supposed first miss far earlier than you do, and they offer the unserious speculation that your alleged "sharpshooter" was foolish enough to fire virtually straight down with this shot and, to make matters worse, was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal rod or tree limb was smackdab in the middle of his aiming point or very close to it. Not even an idiotic amateur would commit such a blunder.
Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.
The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him. The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.
At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.
And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?
No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation.
Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.
When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.
So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).
You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.
So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.
BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
It continues to genuinely amaze me at how you guys simply refuse to face obvious, undeniable facts. Anyone not blinded by the lone-gunman theory can see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, and was even beyond the ability of three Master-rated riflemen.
The whole early missed shot hypothesis is unsupported by any witness testimony. The whole shooting test was a complete waste of time. The problem is the Marksmen weren’t duplicating what LHO had actually accomplished. They were trying to duplicate what the media thought had taken place—three shots. LHO only fired twice. Two shots are what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses stated was the number of shots. LHO was not hurried to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds instead LHO aimed for the first shot and then had 5.6 seconds to aim and fire the second shot. The constraint of the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano played no role.
This is a perfect example. The first shot by all found the target. After that they were just jacking rounds downrange as fast as they could to try and duplicate a faulty assumption. Nothing more.
When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette.
But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.
The headshot was not a great feat marksmanship; it almost was a missed shot, just that close to missing JFK’s head and possibly hitting SA Kellerman.
-
I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.
Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?
You're dyslexic, aren't you?
Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.
The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed. - Report of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, page 111
Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds. - Report of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, page 117
Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.
Connally was not always adamant that he was not hit at the same time as Kennedy.
The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him.
You are the king of ridiculous explanations. Connally wasn't turning to look behind him at Z224. He was actually in the process of turning to face forward after having turned to look behind him. Lattimer replicated the forward jacket bulge in one of his tests. Your explanation is laughable.
(https://i.imgur.com/tSfzA27.jpeg)
The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.
(https://i.imgur.com/uFqBHiv.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/lehFVSc.gif)
You were saying?
At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.
About Z223.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/about_2
a little more or less than; a little before or after
synonym: approximately
nearly; very close to
The only wound ballistics experts that I've ever referred to are Martin Fackler, Larry Sturdivan, and Vincent DiMaio. Which of those two admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? Lattimer was not actually a wound ballistics expert.
The average reflex reaction time to physical stimulus is 150 milliseconds. 150 milliseconds is equivalent to 2.745 Zapruder frames.
And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?
You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.
Interestingly enough, Lattimer actually replicated the shot through the shirt collar and the nick in the tie knot.
(https://i.imgur.com/xCM7pJI.jpeg)
No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation.
They absolutely were needlessly rushed. They were told to try to get off their three shots in 5.6 seconds or less. Give your head a shake, you addled bugger.
Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.
When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.
So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).
You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.
So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.
Sturdivan was neither lying nor blundering. Strikes within the target silhouette were considered as hits. Your claim that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three is FALSE.
BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.
Miller scored two shots to the head within his three shots using the iron sights. He got off those three shots in 4.45 seconds.
-
The whole early missed shot hypothesis is unsupported by any witness testimony. The whole shooting test was a complete waste of time. The problem is the Marksmen weren’t duplicating what LHO had actually accomplished. They were trying to duplicate what the media thought had taken place—three shots. LHO only fired twice. Two shots are what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses stated was the number of shots. LHO was not hurried to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds instead LHO aimed for the first shot and then had 5.6 seconds to aim and fire the second shot. The constraint of the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano played no role.
This is a perfect example. The first shot by all found the target. After that they were just jacking rounds downrange as fast as they could to try and duplicate a faulty assumption. Nothing more.
When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette.
But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.
The headshot was not a great feat marksmanship; it almost was a missed shot, just that close to missing JFK’s head and possibly hitting SA Kellerman.
Never mind that all three of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to hit the head of the target silhouette with their third shot, right? You guys are incredible. You can't admit any fact that contradicts, much less refutes, your version of the shooting.
So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.
FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.
Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.
Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.
-
Never mind that all three of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to hit the head of the target silhouette with their third shot, right? You guys are incredible. You can't admit any fact that contradicts, much less refutes, your version of the shooting.
So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.
FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.
Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.
Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.
So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.
What minority? The WC and the HSCA believing the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots? That is what you think is a minority?
I did not know Josiah Thompson was a WC Apologist.
It is not removing one shot it is realizing there never was a third shot.
It obvious why you have a problem with only two shots because it totally erases your whole show. You need the three-shot scenario to make your conspiracy claims. The headshot tripe and the whole necktie nonsense would be all gone. All of your fantasy papers on fantasy scenarios would become part of the sad history surrounding the assassination. What exactly do you have left to write about? How about the first shot hit both JFK and JBC. The second shot was the fatal headshot. End of story.
FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.
All of them are wrong. Reminds me of Lemmings going over the edge. It took a leading CT to point out the evidence that exists that proves there was only two shots, and they still don’t get it. They still can’t put it all together. This whole conversation should have ended in 1967 with the release of Six Seconds in Dallas. That should have signaled there was problem with the belief there was three shots fired instead of just two.
Good point though, and that has led to 70% of America believing it was a conspiracy, because these three shot scenarios fly in the face of what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated took place. Two shots are believable and provable.
“Leading”. Who is it that is leading anyone? Now that is something to laugh about. It appears to me the three shot believers can’t get out of their own way. Not one of those scenarios work with what is known about the rifle or visible on the Zapruder film. Not one of them have ever proven there even was a third shot. How do you talk about something that is totally hypothetical? They are just the flip side to a Conspiracy Nut. Making unproven claims about something that never happened.
The WC only stated there was three shots because they found three shells, but gave all the reasons they thought there were only two shots, including media influence. An early missed shot that 100% of the eyewitness do not support is the best scenario that is proposed? With a 7 second window, even the WC allowed only for a shot as early as Z185. That still does not account for the wounding of JBC and JFK other than SBT.
Josiah Thompson wrote in his book Six Seconds in Dallas that LHO only fired two shots. CE 543 was never fired in the rifle. That was his observation.
Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.
No, the tests only were undertaken to try and prove it was possible to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds. They should have been testing the ability to accurately fire two shots in 5.6 seconds. Which is what LHO accomplished. Accuracy was noted but was not initially the object of the test.
How about at least produce some kind of proof there even was a third shot instead of all the disproven theories you post. Not one thing you post is relevant if there is not a third shot. Not one.
Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.
Yes, they did. Sorry you did not know that. Maybe stop messing with these oddball theories and read what the people watching the motorcade stated happened.
-
It's worth noting that in her first interviews, which took place between 12/4 and 12/16, before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald said that Oswald had never left or returned to their house carrying a rifle, that he had never mentioned any intention to practice shooting, that to her knowledge he had never done any target practice, and that she had never even seen him holding the rifle (CE 1785; CE 1401, p. 286; CE 1790; CE 1403, p. 735).
And I see we still have WC apologists floating the zany theory that the alleged lone gunman was foolish enough to fire long before Z166, that he was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or tree limb was near or in his center of aim, that his first shot therefore hit the pole/limb and missed the entire limousine, and that he then went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from Z210-Z313. None of the WC's Master-rated riflemen were able to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds.
We have two or three folks who go even farther off the deep end. One of them says "Oswald" fired only two shots, while two others claim that "Oswald" fired two shots, that he missed JFK's head, and that the head shot was fired accidentally by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the follow-up car, never mind that no one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot, never mind that all of his ammo was accounted for, and never mind that one of the head shots hit near the right temple (as confirmed by the skull x-rays and by Dr. Burkley to White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff) and exited the back of his head.
The Head Shot from the Front
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view
-
Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it.
Why would anyone think that? I believe that the disassembly for reducing the length to the size of the bag only involves taking the wooden stock off of the rest of the rifle. The scope stays mounted to the receiver/barrel assembly. So no alignment of the scope is changed relative to the barrel and where it would shoot. If LHO zeroed in the rifle for the (~100’) distance involved for the Walker attempt, then it should have stayed pretty much like that and been just fine for the distances involved in Dealey Plaza.
Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?
-
Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?
Three screws need to be removed. After the first screw is removed, the band that holds the upper hand guard on is simply slid off of the wooden pieces. Then the second and third screws are removed and the trigger guard is removed. And then the barrel/receiver assembly is then simply lifted out of the wooden stock. The scope mount is screwed directly into the metal receiver. Therefore, neither the scope or it’s mount are affected by removing the wooden stock.
(https://i.vgy.me/EAFI6P.png)
Here’s a link to a how-to video. It isn’t the exact same model. Nor does it have a scope mounted. But the disassembly/reassembly of the wooden stock would be the same for the gun found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.
-
It's worth noting that in her first interviews, which took place between 12/4 and 12/16, before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald said that Oswald had never left or returned to their house carrying a rifle, that he had never mentioned any intention to practice shooting, that to her knowledge he had never done any target practice, and that she had never even seen him holding the rifle (CE 1785; CE 1401, p. 286; CE 1790; CE 1403, p. 735).
And I see we still have WC apologists floating the zany theory that the alleged lone gunman was foolish enough to fire long before Z166, that he was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or tree limb was near or in his center of aim, that his first shot therefore hit the pole/limb and missed the entire limousine, and that he then went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from Z210-Z313. None of the WC's Master-rated riflemen were able to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds.
We have two or three folks who go even farther off the deep end. One of them says "Oswald" fired only two shots, while two others claim that "Oswald" fired two shots, that he missed JFK's head, and that the head shot was fired accidentally by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the follow-up car, never mind that no one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot, never mind that all of his ammo was accounted for, and never mind that one of the head shots hit near the right temple (as confirmed by the skull x-rays and by Dr. Burkley to White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff) and exited the back of his head.
The Head Shot from the Front
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view
And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.
Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."
-
And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.
Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."
All we can do is speculate about when it was sighted in. However, your idea (suggestion/inference) that it had to be within a month or two of the assassination simply isn’t reasonable. As I have said before in this thread, it is reasonable to believe LHO sighted the scope in at the proper distance (~100-feet) for the Walker attempt. That same sight-in distance would be just fine for the shots taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
-
And I still not seeing anyone offer a credible explanation for when Oswald could have sighted-in the alleged murder weapon a day or two before the assassination, or even a month or two beforehand.
Lance Payette's attempt to explain this by citing Oswald's reported target practice at the Sports Drome rifle range in Dallas quickly proved abortive. He apparently didn't realize that the most credible of these reports put Oswald at the Sports Drome at times when he was known to be elsewhere, which is why his fellow lone-gunman theorists have rejected all of them as "mistaken."
Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Your hero and mine thought I had beaten it to death and beyond. In point of fact, your "known to be elsewhere" statement is completely false. The only "imposter" sighting was because Price said September 28 at the WC (when Oswald was in Mexico City) when he had previously said October 26, which was in fact the first day the Sportsdrome (spell it right, willya?) opened. There was no sighting, imposter or otherwise, on September 28. Moreover, I specifically noted that the other sightings were on weekends (including the long Veterans Day weekend) when Oswald theoretically COULD have been there. The only halfway credible sighting, that of the Woods, was the Sunday before the JFKA - but Oswald would not even have known JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD and would have been using a different, sporterized rifle that belched flame and sounded like a howitzer. In short, even though I tried to be gentle with the goofballs and their sightings, the Sportsdrome sightings are almost certainly bogus, involving neither Oswald nor an imposter.
If you think the Sportsdrome discussion was inadequate, revive the thread with something that makes sense. Otherwise, do not take the name of The World's Leading Authority on the Sportsdrome Gun Range (as it says on my business cards and letterhead) in vain or God will punish you.
Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Are you kiddin' me? (Jim Mora voice).
BTW, I don't think he sighted it in at all. I think he retrieved it as-is from the Paine garage and took his chances because the JFKA was a completely last-minute, what-the-hell operation. I never sighted in my 30.06 at all, after buying it used or in the two years I had it; when my brother-in-law test fired it before buying it from me, I held my breath as he took the first shot at a glass jug 100 yards away - and exhaled when the jug exploded.
-
All we can do is speculate about when it was sighted in. However, your idea suggestion/inference) that it had to be within a month or two of the assassination simply isn’t reasonable.
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
As I have said before in this thread, it is reasonable to believe LHO sighted the scope in at the proper distance (~100-feet) for the Walker attempt. That same sight-in distance would be just fine for the shots taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.
Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Your hero and mine thought I had beaten it to death and beyond. In point of fact, your "known to be elsewhere" statement is completely false.
You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.
The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?
Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.
The only "imposter" sighting was because Price said September 28 at the WC (when Oswald was in Mexico City) when he had previously said October 26, which was in fact the first day the Sportsdrome (spell it right, willya?) opened. There was no sighting, imposter or otherwise, on September 28. Moreover, I specifically noted that the other sightings were on weekends (including the long Veterans Day weekend) when Oswald theoretically COULD have been there. The only halfway credible sighting, that of the Woods, was the Sunday before the JFKA - but Oswald would not even have known JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD and would have been using a different, sporterized rifle that belched flame and sounded like a howitzer. In short, even though I tried to be gentle with the goofballs and their sightings, the Sportsdrome sightings are almost certainly bogus, involving neither Oswald nor an imposter.
"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.
And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.
If you think the Sportsdrome discussion was inadequate, revive the thread with something that makes sense. Otherwise, do not take the name of The World's Leading Authority on the Sportsdrome Gun Range (as it says on my business cards and letterhead) in vain or God will punish you. Abortive? ABORTIVE??? Are you kiddin' me? (Jim Mora voice).
You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.
And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.
BTW, I don't think he sighted it in at all. I think he retrieved it as-is from the Paine garage and took his chances because the JFKA was a completely last-minute, what-the-hell operation. I never sighted in my 30.06 at all, after buying it used or in the two years I had it; when my brother-in-law test fired it before buying it from me, I held my breath as he took the first shot at a glass jug 100 yards away - and exhaled when the jug exploded.
Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.
Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.
-
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.
You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.
The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?
Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.
"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.
And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.
You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.
And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.
Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.
Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.
Several unpleasant years of my legal career were spent representing a mental health agency in court proceedings to involuntarily commit persons who fit the statutory definition of Seriously Mentally Ill. I've seen and heard it all, or at least a lot of it. You are hereby consigned to the category of Eternal Ignore, which is rapidly making this forum look like a blank slate on my laptop - but I guarantee you, I am never again going to make the mistake of taking someone off of Ignore as though it were some mere Purgatory; hence my new category of Eternal Ignore (sort of like Hell, but without the pitchforks).
I have no idea what goes on inside your head, and I don't think I want to know. You twist and misstate, and twist and misstate, and twist and misstate to the point that attempting to engage with you has zero educational or amusement value.
Who or what do you conceive your audience here to be? Your inanities and misstatements might slide by if you were enthralling a class of eighth graders with your goofy theories, but I feel sure that even the lurkers here can see through you. EVERYONE to whom you respond is an idiot who obviously knows nothing about the JFKA, blah blah blah. Do you seriously think this game is going to work at a forum such as this? You simply make yourself look like a buffoon, a crank - which is, alas, what you are. You destroy or own credibility and whatever merit any of your research might actually have.
I posted a two-minute Sportsdrome video from Duncan's YouTube channel that I had not previously seen and said the people in it (Floyd and Virgina Davis and Garland Slack) seemed credible and believable. Old Garland seemed too folksy and unsophisticated to be hoaxing. Intrigued, I dived into the story in a lawyerly way and learned more about the Sportsdrome than you will ever know, whereupon I started a thread. I exposed that poor old Garland was "somewhat" less than credible, the supposed "imposter" on September 28 was factually, demonstrably false, and the entire Sportsdrome story simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, factually or logically. Having done all that, I further exposed how two or three leading CTers twist and misstate the facts of the Sportsdrome episode to suit their theories. Nevertheless, I am fair and rational enough to acknowledge that it's impossible to say that Oswald or an imposter was never at the Sportsdrome, even though an imposter makes no earthly sense and Oswald would have to have been practicing before he even knew JFK would be passing in front of the TSBD.
I don't care what the WR says about the Sportsdrome; it isn't my Bible. I have no "side" or "talking points." I do my own research and reach my own conclusions. And I'm pretty damn confident in my conclusions when it comes to the Sportsdrome, which I can at least spell.
There is something very, very, VERY wrong with your thought processes - simple as that. As always, the irony is that you are oblivious to the fact that you are destroying your own credibility. Enjoy your time in Eternal Ignore. At least, you'll have company.
Would anyone here like to dive in and argue, "No, I think Michael makes a great deal of sense and I highly value his contributions" - ? Go for it! I'm always prepared to be astonished.
-
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.
You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.
The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?
Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.
"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.
And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.
You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.
And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.
Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.
Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.
What was to zero on a fixed sight Carcano?
Good work Michael, you have proven LHO used the iron sights. They were fixed and not able to be adjusted. No need to practice with them to adjust them.
Is your argument that LHO would have waited for the next opportunity because he never had sufficient time to practice?
As far as adjusting his iron sights that was not possible.
Guns America by By Paul Helinski, Editor
One thing I have never seen explained online is that the scope on the Oswald rifle is a side mount, like an M1 Garand sniper modesl. You can still use the open sights just as you would without a scope, and you don’t have to look under the mounts like you would with a modern see-thru mount. The open sights are zeroed for 200 yards and shoot about 8″ high at 50 yards. There are published theories that Oswald used the open sights on the gun, because the thinking is he could not zero the optics anyway, and that using the awkward side optic would take too long between shots to aim. Our open sights are not adjustable, but they were pretty close to point-of-aim horizontally, but would require about an 8″ hold under. Oswald’s rifle had the same non-adjustable sights as this test gun, and it is very possible that at that distance, only 58 yards or so, he used the iron sights.
-
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
No, this argument is completely unreasonable. One, there's no credible evidence that Oswald fired at Walker. Two, the gunman who fired at Walker somehow managed to miss him even though he was firing from a level and supported position and was firing at a large person who was sitting down. Three, the best eyewitness said neither of the men he saw leaving the Walker scene resembled Oswald. Four, Walker himself insisted that the bullet recovered from his house was not a 6.5 copper-jacketed bullet. Five, before Marina was threatened with deportation, she repeatedly said that she never heard Oswald say anything about target practice and never even saw him holding a rifle.
You again show you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even know basic stuff. In fact, you don't even know your own side's talking points.
The Warren Commission rejected all of the Oswald target-practice sightings, including the Sports Drome sightings, as "mistaken" because they claimed Oswald was known to be elsewhere and/or that there was inconsistency in the accounts. Have you not read the Warren Report? Gerald Posner makes the same argument. Have you not read Case Closed?
Following the WC's lead, your fellow WC apologists use the tactic of lumping in the Woods' accounts with all the others and then dismissing them as "mistaken." They also rely on FBI interviews where certain witnesses supposedly changed their stories or gave contradictory descriptions of the man, ignoring the numerous times when the FBI misrepresented what witnesses told them.
"Almost certainly bogus"? Oh, really? That's not what you said in your OP for your thread on the Sports Drome sightings. You first said that the sightings were reported by witnesses who seemed sincere and believable and who were interviewed by journalists who did not appear to have an agenda.
And you again ignore the fact that Oswald was known to be at his daughter's birthday party at the same time the Woods saw the Oswald lookalike at the Sports Drome range, that the Woods were solid and credible people (the father was a dentist), and that both Dr. Wood and his son independently positively the man at the range as Oswald when they saw Oswald on TV after he was arrested.
You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? When you started that thread, you clearly did not realize that you were talking about Oswald sightings (reported by witnesses you said were sincere and believable) that occurred at times when the real Oswald was known to be elsewhere.
And when I pointed out this fact, you began royally back-pedaling, bobbing, and weaving, rather than just admit you'd blundered.
Oh, boy. Well, you'll forgive me if I just don't believe you. Anyone who knows anything about rifles--and I spent 21 years in the Army firing rifles--will tell you that relying on "mechanical zero," i.e., not sighting-in your rifle, especially if it has been a long time since it was previously fired, is risky and unwise.
Furthermore, go read MSG Zahm's WC testimony about sighting-in the supposed Oswald Carcano. It was of such poor quality that it took 10 rounds to zero it. And even then, when Master-rated rifleman Miller fired three shots with the iron sights, they were his most inaccurate shots.
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
First I want to thank you for your service in the US Army. :) Second, I also trained with an M-16 while in the USAF basic training. In 1973 USAF basic training entailed (in additional to classroom instructions) actual shooting at the rifle range. It was a one day affair. If I remember correctly, there was absolutely no adjustments made or needed on the sights by anyone. I scored above average that day.
Your assumption that the reason you went to the “zero range” to sight-in/zero your rifles was “because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings” is not correct. The actual reasons have to do with variable wind conditions, different distances to the targets, and to teach the soldiers how to properly zero-in their rifles and (once they are taught how to do this) to keep them proficient at it. And generally speaking, if the opportunity to zero-in a rifle is feasible, it is good practice to do that. However completely unnecessary for the short distances and relatively large target size in Dealey Plaza.
-
It's entirely reasonable to anyone who knows anything about rifles, especially older rifles. I spent 21 years in the Army, and every time we would fire, we would first go to the "zero range" to sight-in/zero our rifles because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings, and these were M-16s, not clunky Carcanos.
First I want to thank you for your service in the US Army. :) Second, I also trained with an M-16 while in the USAF basic training. In 1973 USAF basic training entailed (in additional to classroom instructions) actual shooting at the rifle range. It was a one day affair. If I remember correctly, there was absolutely no adjustments made or needed on the sights by anyone. I scored above average that day.
Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.
Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.
I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.
Your assumption that the reason you went to the “zero range” to sight-in/zero your rifles was “because a rifle can lose its zero even after routine handling for cleaning and rack storage between firings” is not correct. The actual reasons have to do with variable wind conditions, different distances to the targets, and to teach the soldiers how to properly zero-in their rifles and (once they are taught how to do this) to keep them proficient at it. And generally speaking, if the opportunity to zero-in a rifle is feasible, it is good practice to do that.
This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.
"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.
One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.
You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.
You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.
However completely unnecessary for the short distances and relatively large target size in Dealey Plaza.
More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.
I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:
When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found
that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not
sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In
attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed
the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic
sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact
or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved
the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the
elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired
several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in
the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point
of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the
telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the
spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we
had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring
was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not
be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary
to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair
ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws
(3 H 405-406)
And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.
-
Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.
Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.
I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.
This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.
"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.
One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.
You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.
You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.
More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.
I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:
When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found
that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not
sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In
attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed
the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic
sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact
or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved
the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the
elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired
several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in
the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point
of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the
telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the
spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we
had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring
was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not
be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary
to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair
ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws
(3 H 405-406)
And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.
Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.
My memory could very well be at fault. I am still in contact with some high school classmates who went through USAF basic training very close to the same time I did. I am waiting to see what they might remember.
As far as scopes go, I currently have 11 rifles, seven of them have scopes. I can test four of them in my basement gun range. It is approximately 44-feet (14.7-yards) distance to the targets. If we designate a human head (average ~ 6.5” wide) as the target, that would be 6.5 MOA at 100-yards. This would calculate to a little over 7 MOA at the longest shot distance in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, if my math is correct, this 7 MOA would calculate to a target size of approximately 0.978” at 44-feet. On the NRA 10-meter air rifle targets this equals approximately anything within the 5-ring or better.
I did this exercise this morning just to satisfy myself. I have no doubts that you will go on believing whatever you wish to believe no matter what the actual evidence indicates. However you are welcome to visit us and I will demonstrate this again while you are watching. I started at one end of the gun rack and worked my way around to the other end. I picked up each rifle and shot three shots with each one. Before I shot I reduced the magnification of each scope to 4X with the exception of the first one which only goes as low as 8X. No other adjustments were made on the scopes or rifles. I have been busy with other projects and so I have not zeroed in or even picked up any of these rifles’ sights in many months. All of these rifles and their scopes were set up and adjusted by me, myself, and I long ago.
Below please see the first target. The gun is a Barra 250Z pellet gun. It is a relatively inexpensive gun compared to the top end competition rifles available. Three shots made one ragged hole. All three shots are within the target (5-ring or better). Now if I were shooting competitively, I would adjust the zero to try to hit the aim point of the center dot in the target. However it should be clear to anyone that sees this that it is close enough to hit the target in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
(https://i.vgy.me/R7WLVB.jpg)
Below is the second target. The rifle is a Benjamin Marauder pellet gun. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is two overlapping holes. All three shots are well within the 5-ring.
(https://i.vgy.me/u9FpkR.jpg)
Below is the third target. The rifle is a Crossman 3622 which is an entry level inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made three overlapping holes. All three shots touch or are within the 5-ring.
(https://i.vgy.me/pVobPP.jpg)
Below is the fourth target. The rifle is an Umarex Notos which is another inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made one oval shaped hole. All three shots are well within the five-ring.
(https://i.vgy.me/KoarBf.jpg)
For kicks and giggles I also took three shots with a Crossman Challenger rifle. These rifles are used by youth groups such as ROTC, 4-H, etc for competition. They are still relatively inexpensive (by specification of the groups involved). It has precision sights that are not magnified. Below is the target. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is oval shaped. All three shots touched the 9-ring, with one touching the 10-dot.
(https://i.vgy.me/obIThf.jpg)
There were no practice or sight-in shots taken with any of these rifles. The ammunition was different for each gun. Each different tin of pellets was chosen at random and was probably not the same ammo that was used for zeroing-in the rifles many months ago.
-
Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.
Since I was in intelligence, I spent about 1/4 of my 21-year Army career on Air Forces bases and firing at Air Force qualification ranges (Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece, and Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas). Our Air Force counterparts were always required to zero their rifles before firing for qualification--it was part of their mandatory Combat Arms Training and Maintenance (CATM) course that they had to complete before they could fire for qualification. So you'll forgive me for doubting your alleged memory that you were not required to zero your rifle before firing for qualification.
I might add that Air Force rifle qualification standards have always been lower/easier than those in the Army and the Marine Corps, since the vast majority of Air Force personnel will never fire a rifle in wartime. Even in the 1960s, as today, the Air Force did not have the three qualification categories used by the Army and the Marines. The Air Force revamped its rifle qualification standards in 2011, but they are still easier than those of the Army and the Marines.
This is a load of nonsense mixed in with a one ancillary fact. Yes, basic trainees go to the zero range to learn how to zero their rifles, but in later years they will still zero their rifles before firing for qualification, even though the targets and distances are always the same. Zeroing ensures that the point of aim is the same as the point of impact.
"Variable wind conditions" are a minimal factor at military rifle ranges. A number of military rifle ranges are indoors, where windage is a non-factor, and windage is rarely a factor at outdoor military rifle ranges due to their location and construction.
One can always gamble on mechanical zero when using the iron sights, but any experienced rifleman will tell you this is unwise and risky.
You can check any rifle or marksmanship manual, and it will tell you that you should zero your rifle after mounting new optics, after changing ammunition, or after any significant event, such as a substantive jolt or dropping the rifle or accidentally banging it against something, which can happen when the rifle is handled, transported, cleaned, and stored in between firings.
You shouldn't try to bluff your way through discussions on rifles with your minimal Air Force experience, especially not with Army and Marine Corps veterans.
More nonsense. One, no competent gunman would risk not zeroing the rifle, especially if he were going to use a scope, before using it in an assassination. Two, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat while firing at those "short distances" and "relatively large" targets. It is amazing that you guys keep ignoring the WC and CBS rifle tests.
I'm guessing you still haven't read Zahm and Frazier's WC testimony about sighting-in the alleged murder weapon's scope. Here's some of what Frazier said on the matter:
When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found
that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not
sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In
attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed
the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic
sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact
or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved
the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the
elevation setting of the telescope.
And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired
several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in
the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point
of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the
telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the
spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we
had fired five or six shots.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring
was shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not
be sighted-in merely by changing the screws. It was necessary
to adjust it, and then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair
ring by causing this spring to press tightly against the screws
(3 H 405-406)
And it's worth repeating (1) that MSG Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult, and (2) that when Miller used the iron sights, he fired his most inaccurate shots.
The issues Frazier encountered trying to zero the scope at 100-yards are quite common whenever most any scope’s reticle tube is adjusted too far away from the action of the spring’s tension. Frazier’s basic generic diagram and his testimony explain why these problems happened. As I demonstrated in my exercise this morning, close enough to hit within 6.5 MOA of the point of aim is all that is needed for the JFK assassination shots.
-
MTG--
We just had two horrible events---the Kirk assassination, and the Trump near-miss (Butler)---by amateur gunners, with off the shelf rifles, at way longer shots than seen in DP. No zeroing in.
Kirk was a one-shot affair.
Trump turned just before being shot, and was missed by a whisker (clipped his ear).
LHO's M-C rifle was designed to be good to 200 yards, military specs. It was good enough at 70 yards.
LHO was familiar with firearms, served in the Marines (excellent shot in 1956), had a rifle in the Soviet Union, always owned guns. It is unclear whether LHO practiced shooting at Dallas' Sportsdrome, or possibly in Mexico City, or somewhere else.
But to repeat, unpracticed amateurs executed Kirk, and nearly Trump.
In fact, I am unsure whether LHO fired lethally at JFK on 11/22. He is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.
The Western Cartridge slug Paul Landis found in the limo strongly suggests an M-C rifle was used in the JFKA.
None of this rules out a conspiracy, or the use of a second rifle, and there is also the GK smoke-and-bang show, suggesting yet another conspirator.
But I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO.
-
LHO's M-C rifle was designed to be good to 200 yards, military specs. It was good enough at 70 yards.
LHO was familiar with firearms, served in the Marines (excellent shot in 1956), had a rifle in the Soviet Union, always owned guns. It is unclear whether LHO practiced shooting at Dallas' Sportsdrome, or possibly in Mexico City, or somewhere else.
But to repeat, unpracticed amateurs executed Kirk, and nearly Trump.
In fact, I am unsure whether LHO fired lethally at JFK on 11/22. He is the best suspect as the TSBD6 sniper.
The Western Cartridge slug Paul Landis found in the limo strongly suggests an M-C rifle was used in the JFKA.
None of this rules out a conspiracy, or the use of a second rifle, and there is also the GK smoke-and-bang show, suggesting yet another conspirator.
But I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO.
How did the bullet (CE-399) that that penetrated JBC's thigh end up on top of the back seat where Cellar-dweller Landis allegedly found it?
By saying, "I think the JFKA research community goes too far, stretches the narrative and evidence, in trying to exonerate LHO," you're admitting that the goal of most of the "JFKA Research Community" is to exonerate Oswald.
-
TG-
Yes, I agree, in much of the JFKA research community the ideology drive the agenda, and the agenda writes the narrative.
The left-wing narrative is that high powers in the citadels of enterprise and government had JFK assassinated to pursue endless global wars. LHO was only a patsy. The anti-Semitic crackpots add Mossad into the mix.
My best guess is LHO was involved in the JFKA, and likely the visible TSBD6 sniper, though no solid ID was made.
On the bullet that Landis said he found in the limo...I have provided the same-day 11/22 FBI memo that that says a Secret Service agent found a slug in the limo.
Frankly, I don't understand the nature of Gov. JBC's injuries. We know he was shot in the back. JBC's surgeon (Shaw) was of the view that JBC's wrist bullet wound entry, to the "dorsal" or wristwatch side on the wrist, was unlikely to have resulted from a bullet passing through JBC's chest.
I am open to the idea there was more than one shooter on 11/22.
But as I always say, thanks for the collegial comments, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
We know JBC was shot in the back. His surgeon (Shaw) was of the view that JBC's wrist bullet wound entry, to the "dorsal" or wristwatch side on the wrist, was unlikely to have resulted from a bullet passing through JBC's chest.
Shaw was JBC's thoracic surgeon.
What did his wrist surgeon (Gregory) say about it?
IIRC, he said the bullet had penetrated JBC's coat sleeve near his wrist kinda rear-end-first and carried some fibers from same into the wound.
"I am open to the idea there was more than one shooter on 11/22."
LOL!
It sounds as though you've already made up your mind.
-
TG-
Right, Shaw was the "thoracic surgeon," and also someone who had worked on 700 gunshot victims during WWII.
Shaw in fact deferred to Gregory, and Gregory said the wrist-bullet had entered the "dorsal" side of JBC's wrist, pushing fibers inwards.
Shaw said he thought it would make sense in the bullet had entered the ventral side of JBC's wrist, and questioned Gregory on this matter, but Gregory stuck to his analysis.
Shaw was open to the idea that another projectile had struck JBC's wrist.
Yes, I am open to the view there was more than on gunner on 11/22.
I would not say I believe in more one than one gunner, "beyond reasonable doubt." But then, I am just a wag in rural Thailand, and what I believe has all the importance of a fart in a typhoon.
Draw your own conclusions.
-
Then your memory is deficient, to put it charitably and generously. Even today, in Air Force basic training, trainees first zero/sight-in their rifles before firing for qualification. And you need to remember that you were not using a scope but were using the iron sights. One might be able to get away with relying on mechanical zero if they're using the iron sights, but no rifleman in his right mind would use a scope without first sighting-in the scope.
My memory could very well be at fault. I am still in contact with some high school classmates who went through USAF basic training very close to the same time I did. I am waiting to see what they might remember.
As far as scopes go, I currently have 11 rifles, seven of them have scopes. I can test four of them in my basement gun range. It is approximately 44-feet (14.7-yards) distance to the targets. If we designate a human head (average ~ 6.5” wide) as the target, that would be 6.5 MOA at 100-yards. This would calculate to a little over 7 MOA at the longest shot distance in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, if my math is correct, this 7 MOA would calculate to a target size of approximately 0.978” at 44-feet. On the NRA 10-meter air rifle targets this equals approximately anything within the 5-ring or better.
I did this exercise this morning just to satisfy myself. I have no doubts that you will go on believing whatever you wish to believe no matter what the actual evidence indicates. However you are welcome to visit us and I will demonstrate this again while you are watching. I started at one end of the gun rack and worked my way around to the other end. I picked up each rifle and shot three shots with each one. Before I shot I reduced the magnification of each scope to 4X with the exception of the first one which only goes as low as 8X. No other adjustments were made on the scopes or rifles. I have been busy with other projects and so I have not zeroed in or even picked up any of these rifles’ sights in many months. All of these rifles and their scopes were set up and adjusted by me, myself, and I long ago.
Below please see the first target. The gun is a Barra 250Z pellet gun. It is a relatively inexpensive gun compared to the top end competition rifles available. Three shots made one ragged hole. All three shots are within the target (5-ring or better). Now if I were shooting competitively, I would adjust the zero to try to hit the aim point of the center dot in the target. However it should be clear to anyone that sees this that it is close enough to hit the target in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
Below is the second target. The rifle is a Benjamin Marauder pellet gun. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is two overlapping holes. All three shots are well within the 5-ring.
Below is the third target. The rifle is a Crossman 3622 which is an entry level inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made three overlapping holes. All three shots touch or are within the 5-ring.
Below is the fourth target. The rifle is an Umarex Notos which is another inexpensive pellet rifle. Three shots made one oval shaped hole. All three shots are well within the five-ring.
For kicks and giggles I also took three shots with a Crossman Challenger rifle. These rifles are used by youth groups such as ROTC, 4-H, etc for competition. They are still relatively inexpensive (by specification of the groups involved). It has precision sights that are not magnified. Below is the target. Three shots made two holes, the one on the right is oval shaped. All three shots touched the 9-ring, with one touching the 10-dot.
There were no practice or sight-in shots taken with any of these rifles. The ammunition was different for each gun. Each different tin of pellets was chosen at random and was probably not the same ammo that was used for zeroing-in the rifles many months ago.
This is primo example of why discussions in this forum never go anywhere. They never go anywhere because you guys won't admit anything, and I mean anything, no matter how clear the facts are to a rational mind and even if the issue is not necessarily fatal to the lone-gunman theory.
-- I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).
Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.
-- I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.
I've pointed out that out of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, 10 of whom were highly skilled and experienced, only one--an expert and veteran gunman--managed to substantially duplicate Oswald's alleged feat by scoring two hits in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and he was not required to fire through a half-open window and was allowed to fire nine practice shots right before the test, and his shots were counted as hits as long as they landed somewhere within the target silhouettes, even if they landed far outside the small area that Oswald allegedly hit.
Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).
You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.
-
To Ben's point, I find that the most rational discussions of the Carcano are found on hunting and gun enthusiast sites. LOTS of people own Carcanos and like to play around with them. There is far less "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" stuff than we find in CT discussions. One example, more or less at random:
My neighbor gave me a rifle that belonged to his father. He knew nothing about it, never shot it, and it just sat in the back of the safe. I did a little research and determined it’s a 91/24 Carcano. It is possibly the worst rifle I’ve ever fired. From what I’ve read, the 91 Carcano initially had a 30 inch barrel. Later variants had shorter barrels. But the 91/24 was the result of re-arsenaling the original M91s. They cut the barrel down to 20 inches, but the first Carcanos had progressive rifling that increased the twist rate over the length of the barrel. The 10 inches of barrel they cut off left the rifle with a pitch that won’t stabilize the bullet. When I pulled the target I shot, I laughed my ass off. There are keyholed hits everywhere. But there’s still one in the X ring. It’s sideways, but it’s there.
I can't reproduce his target for some reason, but there were also three shots in the 10 ring and others in the 9 ring.
The CT assumption always seems to be that the head shot was some fabulous, precise shot. As the gun sites point out, Oswald could have been aiming for the middle of the back for all we know.
I also can't get past my own experience. My father-in-law was an old cowpoke with a ranch on which we lived. He didn't even CLEAN his arsenal, teasing me because I did: "I just let each bullet clean up after the one before it." We had a makeshift shooting range with old refrigerators, washing machines and whatnot. With my own WWII Mauser and Remington 30.06, and my father-in-law's .308 - none of which, I guarantee you, had been zeroed-in in years, if ever - I never had an experience that caused me to say, "Holy cow, that missed the entire refrigerator - is there something wrong with this gun?" I thought my Mauser with iron sites was wonderful, and for all I know it hadn't been touched since WWII. Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.
My sense is that the "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" argument is just another CT red herring.
-
This is primo example of why discussions in this forum never go anywhere. They never go anywhere because you guys won't admit anything, and I mean anything, no matter how clear the facts are to a rational mind and even if the issue is not necessarily fatal to the lone-gunman theory.
-- I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).
Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.
-- I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.
I've pointed out that out of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, 10 of whom were highly skilled and experienced, only one--an expert and veteran gunman--managed to substantially duplicate Oswald's alleged feat by scoring two hits in under 6 seconds on his first attempt, and he was not required to fire through a half-open window and was allowed to fire nine practice shots right before the test, and his shots were counted as hits as long as they landed somewhere within the target silhouettes, even if they landed far outside the small area that Oswald allegedly hit.
Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).
You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.
I've pointed out the fact that even the Air Force still requires its personnel, new trainees and veterans alike, to zero their rifles before firing for qualification, as do the Army and the Marine Corps. I've pointed out that marksmanship manuals recommend zeroing before firing. I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).
So far I haven’t heard back from my old classmates regarding USAF basic training in 1973. So, here is the results from a simple Google search:
In 1973, the USAF basic training rifle range training did not include zeroing-in rifles for recruits. Due to the drawdown of the Vietnam War and ammunition shortages, the training was reduced to "weapons familiarization" with minimal live firing. A former recruit who went through Lackland AFB in late 1973 confirmed that trainees received M-16 rifle instruction but did not do any range qualification.
https://www.google.com/search?q=In+1973%2C+did+the+USAF+basic+training+rifle+range+training+include+zeroing-in+the+rifles%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari (https://www.google.com/search?q=In+1973%2C+did+the+USAF+basic+training+rifle+range+training+include+zeroing-in+the+rifles%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)
Although I was readily willing to admit that my memory could have been faulty regarding this, apparently, my memory was accurate. We did some minimal shooting (and it was scored) in early 1973. Apparently, according to Google AI, by the later part of 1973, they didn’t even do any shooting.
I've pointed out that the FBI zeroed the alleged murder rifle before the WC's rifle test (gee, I wonder why).
Going from memory only (yes it could be faulty) the FBI first shot the rifle as they received it. Then afterwards they took it to a range with greater distance to the targets and attempted to zero it.
Yet, you still argue that zeroing is no big deal and that a skilled, experienced rifleman will often skip zeroing even when accuracy is crucial.
Precision shooting (especially at long distances) typically requires zeroing if one wants to consistently shoot accurately (as close to the point of aim as possible). The shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 were neither long distance or required accuracy better than about 7.2 MOA. There is no doubt in my mind that LHO was a much better marksman than I am. I easily achieved better accuracy than 7.2 MOA picking up five different rifles that hadn’t been zeroed-in in many months, using at random picked ammo, and scoring the first three shots with each rifle. Now I think that LHO would have preferred to have had the opportunity to zero-in his rifle and practice with it. But the evidence suggests that he simply did not have an opportunity to do that.
I've pointed out that the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, though firing under much easier conditions than those that Oswald would have faced, utterly failed to duplicate his alleged shooting feat, and this is crucial because they were using the alleged murder weapon itself after its scope had been zeroed.
And I have pointed out that none of them had practiced dry-firing the rifle in the same manner that LHO reportedly did in New Orleans on his screened porch. Nor have any of them been deemed to have very fast reflexes like Robert Oswald said LHO had. And finally, I think that there was an early (missed and perhaps inadvertent) shot. So the “alleged shooting feat” is incorrect in my opinion due to the wrong assumption that three shots were fired in such a short time period.
Yet, you guys continue to claim that the alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult, and that anyone who barely managed to qualify in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories would be skilled enough to perform the feat (never mind that some new recruits qualify in the second category even though they've never fired a rifle before in their lives, and never mind that Oswald was using a superb semi-automatic rifle when he fired at Marine Corps ranges and thus had no bolt action to work).
The rifle training that USMC recruits receive is superb. They and their fellow marines lives could depend on each other’s abilities with their rifles. Whether or not some of them had never before fired a rifle is irrelevant. It is the skills acquired during training that matters. Any marine has to be able to shoot well or else they do not graduate basic training and are released from being in the marines.
You don't want to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been abjectly impossible for someone with Oswald's rifle skills, and that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a world-class rifleman.
If this were true, then I would readily admit it. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Anyone who has followed my posts here on this forum has probably seen me admit when I was wrong. You can go on forever believing (deluding yourself in my opinion) whatever you wish. To steal a line from a movie, it don’t make no never-mind to me.
-
To Ben's point, I find that the most rational discussions of the Carcano are found on hunting and gun enthusiast sites. LOTS of people own Carcanos and like to play around with them. There is far less "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" stuff than we find in CT discussions. One example, more or less at random:
My neighbor gave me a rifle that belonged to his father. He knew nothing about it, never shot it, and it just sat in the back of the safe. I did a little research and determined it’s a 91/24 Carcano. It is possibly the worst rifle I’ve ever fired. From what I’ve read, the 91 Carcano initially had a 30 inch barrel. Later variants had shorter barrels. But the 91/24 was the result of re-arsenaling the original M91s. They cut the barrel down to 20 inches, but the first Carcanos had progressive rifling that increased the twist rate over the length of the barrel. The 10 inches of barrel they cut off left the rifle with a pitch that won’t stabilize the bullet. When I pulled the target I shot, I laughed my ass off. There are keyholed hits everywhere. But there’s still one in the X ring. It’s sideways, but it’s there.
I can't reproduce his target for some reason, but there were also three shots in the 10 ring and others in the 9 ring.
The CT assumption always seems to be that the head shot was some fabulous, precise shot. As the gun sites point out, Oswald could have been aiming for the middle of the back for all we know.
I also can't get past my own experience. My father-in-law was an old cowpoke with a ranch on which we lived. He didn't even CLEAN his arsenal, teasing me because I did: "I just let each bullet clean up after the one before it." We had a makeshift shooting range with old refrigerators, washing machines and whatnot. With my own WWII Mauser and Remington 30.06, and my father-in-law's .308 - none of which, I guarantee you, had been zeroed-in in years, if ever - I never had an experience that caused me to say, "Holy cow, that missed the entire refrigerator - is there something wrong with this gun?" I thought my Mauser with iron sites was wonderful, and for all I know it hadn't been touched since WWII. Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.
My sense is that the "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" argument is just another CT red herring.
Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.
That’s exactly right! If you want to learn all about true precision long-distance shooting I can recommend a book titled “Sight Alignment Trigger Control & The Big Lie” by M/Sgt Jim Owens, USMC (Ret.)
-
What I'm not fathoming is: Oswald had owned the rifle some eight months, certainly fiddled with it, perhaps actually practiced with it, and took a shot at Walker that missed only because it nicked a window frame. Is there any reason to suppose it was wildly out of alignment when he carefully packaged it (as described by Michael Paine) and it sat in the Paine garage? Assuming there were three shots, the first missed everything for some reason. The second hit JFK in the right shoulder. The head shot was how far from the second shot - 10", a foot maybe? Isn't this a pretty good fit with my theory that the JFKA was a last-minute, what-the-hell operation and that he simply trusted the rifle as it was? What's the big deal about zeroing in? If he'd had a fully zeroed-in scoped rifle, would the shot pattern have looked like it did? Isn't this all just based on the head shot supposedly being some "impossibly precise" shot when it may have been nothing but dumb luck and the other shots don't suggest "impossible precision" at all?
If we assume he was actually trying to hit the head, isn't what we see a typical on-the-fly adjustment? "Oops, a little low and to the right. Bingo, got him. No need for another shot. I'm outta here."
-
To Ben's point, I find that the most rational discussions of the Carcano are found on hunting and gun enthusiast sites. LOTS of people own Carcanos and like to play around with them. There is far less "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" stuff than we find in CT discussions. One example, more or less at random:
My neighbor gave me a rifle that belonged to his father. He knew nothing about it, never shot it, and it just sat in the back of the safe. I did a little research and determined it’s a 91/24 Carcano. It is possibly the worst rifle I’ve ever fired. From what I’ve read, the 91 Carcano initially had a 30 inch barrel. Later variants had shorter barrels. But the 91/24 was the result of re-arsenaling the original M91s. They cut the barrel down to 20 inches, but the first Carcanos had progressive rifling that increased the twist rate over the length of the barrel. The 10 inches of barrel they cut off left the rifle with a pitch that won’t stabilize the bullet. When I pulled the target I shot, I laughed my ass off. There are keyholed hits everywhere. But there’s still one in the X ring. It’s sideways, but it’s there.
I can't reproduce his target for some reason, but there were also three shots in the 10 ring and others in the 9 ring.
The CT assumption always seems to be that the head shot was some fabulous, precise shot. As the gun sites point out, Oswald could have been aiming for the middle of the back for all we know.
I also can't get past my own experience. My father-in-law was an old cowpoke with a ranch on which we lived. He didn't even CLEAN his arsenal, teasing me because I did: "I just let each bullet clean up after the one before it." We had a makeshift shooting range with old refrigerators, washing machines and whatnot. With my own WWII Mauser and Remington 30.06, and my father-in-law's .308 - none of which, I guarantee you, had been zeroed-in in years, if ever - I never had an experience that caused me to say, "Holy cow, that missed the entire refrigerator - is there something wrong with this gun?" I thought my Mauser with iron sites was wonderful, and for all I know it hadn't been touched since WWII. Yes, this wasn't precision target practice, but neither was the JFKA.
My sense is that the "That was IMPOSSIBLE!" argument is just another CT red herring.
How is it a red herring when the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to duplicate the shooting feat that you, incredibly, continue to pretend was not all that difficult? Huh? If it was not all that difficult, then why were those three Master-rated riflemen unable to duplicate it, even though they fired under conditions that were much easier than those Oswald would have faced? If it was not all that difficult, why were 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test unable to duplicate it, even though they got to fire nine practice rounds right before the test, did not have to fire through a half-open window, and had any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes counted as a hit even if it landed far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice in three shots on his first attempt? Huh?
Any rational, honest person assessing those rifle tests would conclude that the alleged shooting feat was impossible even for most highly skilled riflemen, and that it was abjectly impossible for someone with mediocre rifle skills such as Oswald. Any rational, honest person would admit the obvious fact that neither of those rifle tests fully simulated the conditions of the alleged shooting feat--firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters, having no chance to fire the rifle in the days leading up to the shooting, having only one attempt, and being required to score two hits that land in the same small area that Oswald allegedly hit.
You guys keep diving off into defending the Carcano as a weapon, yet you never, ever, ever mention what Frazier said about the weapon's scope and what the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test said about the alleged murder Carcano itself (difficult bolt and odd trigger pull). Nor do you ever mention the fact that the Carcano in the CBS rifle test jammed repeatedly.
You can quote posts from gun forums all you want, but I doubt that any of those men tried to fire their Carcanos three times in 6-9 seconds. If you use a Carcano for hunting or casual target practice, the weapon will normally work just fine, but look what happened when expert riflemen used Carcanos in rifle tests where they were trying to score two hits in three shots in 6-9 seconds.
You only admit you're wrong when the admission has no negative implications for the lone-gunman theory.
-
In my boredom, I’ve been perusing gun sites. They say that the iron sights on Oswald’s Carcano were zeroed at 200 meters and nonadjustable. It seems pretty clear that if Oswald wanted to use the iron sights, the scope would be considerably less of a nuisance if Oswald shot LH rather than RH.
Yes, there is a Marine photo of Oswald shooting RH. However, numerous ex-Marines of that era said they were required to shoot RH – LH simply wasn’t allowed.
Aunt Lillian told the WC she thought Oswald did things LH as a child. Robert, however, testified that he and Marguerite were LH but Lee was definitely RH. Lt. Day said he found faint prints from a right middle and ring finger on the Carcano trigger housing, but his WC testimony was extremely iffy.
I am completely, 100% RH. However, I am extremely left eye dominant. I discovered many years ago that I am FAR more comfortable shooting a rifle and putting golf balls LH than RH. The shift to LH putting was a challenge due to issues of feel for distance, but the shift to LH rifle shooting was immediate.
The gun sites, based on actual experience, say that with the rifle on a rest (such as the window frame or boxes), a LH shooter does not have to remove his finger from the trigger and can operate the bolt more quickly (with his RH). If one were a natural rightie, like me and Oswald, this would be even more true.
I note that the HSCA firearms panel suggested the iron sights would have been a better choice than the scope for Dealey Plaza. Since Oswald had achieved good results at 200, 300 and 500 yards in the USMC using only iron sites, why would we think he would shift to the funky scope for the JFKA?
Regardless of whether Oswald was shooting LH or RH, the “zeroing in” thing still seems to me like much ado about nothing.
"It is the opinion of this panel that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza."
"Mr. McDONALD. Would it be possible to attain the same accuracy with the iron sight on that rifle as it would with the scope, for an average marksman, at a distance of well, say less than 100 yards?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, it would be very likely to be able to do that."
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLKOOAIGupgwqmfLsu54nRqwdCmdlp7PZ3Ww&s)
-
How is it a red herring when the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to duplicate the shooting feat that you, incredibly, continue to pretend was not all that difficult? Huh? If it was not all that difficult, then why were those three Master-rated riflemen unable to duplicate it, even though they fired under conditions that were much easier than those Oswald would have faced? If it was not all that difficult, why were 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test unable to duplicate it, even though they got to fire nine practice rounds right before the test, did not have to fire through a half-open window, and had any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouettes counted as a hit even if it landed far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice in three shots on his first attempt? Huh?
The shooting feat that Oswald accomplished was not that difficult. The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test did not attempt to duplicate that shooting feat. Nor did the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test. The shoot feat that they all strived for was considerably more difficult than the one performed by Oswald.
-
In my boredom, I’ve been perusing gun sites. They say that the iron sights on Oswald’s Carcano were zeroed at 200 meters and nonadjustable. It seems pretty clear that if Oswald wanted to use the iron sights, the scope would be considerably less of a nuisance if Oswald shot LH rather than RH.
Yes, there is a Marine photo of Oswald shooting RH. However, numerous ex-Marines of that era said they were required to shoot RH – LH simply wasn’t allowed.
Aunt Lillian told the WC she thought Oswald did things LH as a child. Robert, however, testified that he and Marguerite were LH but Lee was definitely RH. Lt. Day said he found faint prints from a right middle and ring finger on the Carcano trigger housing, but his WC testimony was extremely iffy.
I am completely, 100% RH. However, I am extremely left eye dominant. I discovered many years ago that I am FAR more comfortable shooting a rifle and putting golf balls LH than RH. The shift to LH putting was a challenge due to issues of feel for distance, but the shift to LH rifle shooting was immediate.
The gun sites, based on actual experience, say that with the rifle on a rest (such as the window frame or boxes), a LH shooter does not have to remove his finger from the trigger and can operate the bolt more quickly (with his RH). If one were a natural rightie, like me and Oswald, this would be even more true.
I note that the HSCA firearms panel suggested the iron sights would have been a better choice than the scope for Dealey Plaza. Since Oswald had achieved good results at 200, 300 and 500 yards in the USMC using only iron sites, why would we think he would shift to the funky scope for the JFKA?
Regardless of whether Oswald was shooting LH or RH, the “zeroing in” thing still seems to me like much ado about nothing.
"It is the opinion of this panel that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza."
"Mr. McDONALD. Would it be possible to attain the same accuracy with the iron sight on that rifle as it would with the scope, for an average marksman, at a distance of well, say less than 100 yards?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, it would be very likely to be able to do that."
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLKOOAIGupgwqmfLsu54nRqwdCmdlp7PZ3Ww&s)
Lance, like you I am cross-eye dominant. In other words left eye dominant (can’t see well at all with my right eye) but right handed. I also shoot a rifle left handed. More interesting is that if what I read is true, only about 20% of people are cross-eye dominant, but eighty something percent of the professional golfers are cross-eye dominant. I can only remember one or two of them putting the opposite way than the way they swing the other clubs. However, it is supposed to be an advantage to do as you have and putt according to the dominant eye. I have experimented with putting left handed. I think with enough practice that left handed might work best for me. But the jury is still out on this one.
In my experiments with a model of the sniper’s nest boxes and window it became apparent to me that LHO would have shot right handed. This is due to the very limited leg room available. The knees point west parallel with the south wall. This makes the direction of the shots across the body as is usual for shooting. If he were to have wanted to shoot left handed, he would have wanted the knees pointing south. But there simply isn’t any way to achieve this given the positions of the boxes.
-
The answer from lone-gunman theorists began with "maybe Oswald zeroed the rifle at the Sports Drome rifle range." But, whoops, Oswald was known to be elsewhere when Dr. Wood and his son got a up-close, prolonged look at an Oswald double who was firing at that range.
Now, incredibly, lone-gunman theorists' consensus answer is that "well, actually, now that we realize he had no opportunity to zero the rifle, our final answer is that he not only didn't bother to zero the rifle but that he didn't need to zero it anyway!"
Right! Never mind what the FBI's Robert Frazier said about zeroing the rifle with the scope. Yeah, just never mind that. Never mind that the FBI zeroed the rifle with the scope before it was used in the WC's rifle test. Gee, now why did they do that, if zeroing is purely optional and unnecessary?
And never mind that Marine Corps rifle expert Master Sergeant James Zahm told the WC that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Just never mind that, too.
To top it all off, they argue that Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even if done with a non-zeroed rifle, would have been relatively easy for anyone with Oswald's demonstrably poor-to-mediocre rifle skills. Uh-huh, never mind that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--the only test that used the alleged murder rifle itself--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's supposed performance, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary targets, and were firing with the rifle after it had been zeroed. And never mind that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the 1967 CBS rifle test failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat, and that the only rifleman who did scored two hits in three shots in under 6 seconds on his first attempt was an experienced and expert rifleman whose shots were counted as hits even if they landed far outside the small area on the target silhouettes that Oswald allegedly hit.
You see, folks, these guys have a cult-like mentality when it comes to the JFK case. They belong to the small minority of the Western world that still believes in the lone-gunman theory. They embrace the first government investigation, the Warren Commission in 1964, as sacred and definitive, but they reject the second--and far more thorough--government investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977-1979, because that investigation concluded that there was a conspiracy, that there were two gunmen, that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll, that there were at least four shots, that Oswald had suspicious ties with rabid right-wingers and anti-Castro Cubans, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, that Ruby lied about how he got into the police basement to shoot Oswald, that the first hit on JFK was fired when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree, that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's nest within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, that Silvia and Annie Odio's accounts are credible, etc., etc.
Dealing with these guys is literally like dealing with 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, and Holocaust deniers. They're 20 years behind the information curve because they refuse to acknowledge the numerous and historic ARRB disclosures and the scientific research done over the last 20 years that has destroyed the lone-gunman theory.
-
Regarding the nonsense that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler. Here's what Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice," the alleged shooting feat, and the need to zero the rifle in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):
1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .
I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.
4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."
Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.
There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.
This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.
-
Regarding the nonsense that the rifle would not have needed to be zeroed, even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler. Here's what Liebeler said about Oswald's alleged "practice," the alleged shooting feat, and the need to zero the rifle in internal WC memos in which Liebeler critiqued the draft of the Warren Report (all the memos are reprinted in 11 HSCA):
1. I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald sighted through the telescopic sight on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch, and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing. . . .
I do not see how someone can conclude that a shot is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer has to shoot, that is, how much time allotted for the shots.
4. On the nature of the shots--Frazier testified that one would have no difficulty in hitting a target with a telescopic sight, since all you have to do is put the crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target * * * because of a defect in the scope."
Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a miss, or it very likely would, in any event. I have raised this question before.
There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in.
This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest.
Liebler shots
Here is your opinion on the number of shots fired by LHO. Notice you agreed with Josiah that LHO could have only fired twice.
M Griffith--“Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.”
Josiah: The combination of these factors---- the peculiar accorded treatment accorded CE 543 by the Dallas Police, its inexplicable dent on the dented lip, the sets of three marks on the base absent on the other cases while present on CE 543 and finally its lack of the characteristic chambering mark----suggests that although two of the cartridges case may have been ejected from Oswald’s rifle, the third, CE543, is most likely an extra, unfired shell, and possibly a deliberate fake. Such a conclusion would mate perfectly with the description of events earlier laid down, namely, that only two of the shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza came from Oswald's rifle.
Why are you posting Liebler's comments about rapid fire tests. You know full well and have stated LHO only fired twice.
Liebler's comments on the skill level of LHO and LHO being able to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds is based on the tests were nothing more than rapid fire tests. LHO Firing three times is something you have stated you do not believe in, let alone three shots in 5.6 seconds.
As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert riflemen of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire the two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to elapse between shots was 2.25 seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Frazier of the FBI.
The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. The conclusion at its most extreme states that Oswald could fire faster that the Commission experts fired in 12 of their 15 tries. If we are going to set forth material such as this, I think we should set forth some information on how much training and how much shooting the experts had and did as a whole. The readers could then have something on which to base their judgments concerning the relative abilities of the apparently slow firing experts used by the Commission and the ability of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The problems raised by the above analyses should be met at some point in the text of the report. The figure of 2.25 as a minimum firing time for each shot is used throughout chapter 3. The present discussion of rifle capability shows that expert riflemen could not fire the assassination weapon that fast. Only one of the experts managed to do so, and his shots, like those of the other FBI experts, were high and to the right of the target. The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact, according to my recollection of the response of one of the experts to a question by Mr. McCloy asking for a comparison of an NRA master marksman to a Marine Corps sharpshooter.
The shooting feat you keep referring to and misrepresenting by suggesting LHO had accomplished it is patently false. The shooting tests performed by the FBI in no way is a comparison to what transpired on 11/22/63
-
Apparently, you don't know that the alleged murder weapon's iron sights would have had to be sighted-in as well, and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult. Posner apparently didn't know these things either when he floated the idea that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights.
MSG Zahm explained to the WC why using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat harder:
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)
Adjustments can be made to the scope.
Question: How does one make adjustments to the iron sights? How does Oswald "zero in" the iron sights?
Ordinary soldiers use rifles which they get ahold of and use them to shoot soldiers without ever "zeroing the iron sights" and still hit targets, particularly at under 100 yards.
Yes, if we were talking about shots from 800 yards, one would have to have the rifle zeroed sighted somehow. But at under 100 years?
And, BTW, what ammo would Oswald have used to sight-in the iron sights? Not a single bullet was found in his possessions. In addition, no gun-cleaning equipment, no gun-cleaning oil, no spent cartridges, no nothing related to maintaining or using a rifle was found among his possessions. Humm, how about that?
But these bullets come in boxes of 20. Either Oswald threw away 15 bullets or he used them to practice, at some point in time. Likely 7 months earlier but he likely did practice with it.
Moreover, despite an exhaustive canvassing of gun shops, the FBI was unable to find any evidence that Oswald purchased ammo or any gun-cleaning supplies for the rifle. Humm, how about that?[/size]
This is hard to explain because everyone knows that gun shops owners all have photographic memories and it is impossible for one of them to forget that several months earlier, someone person they did not know, like Oswald, came into their shop and purchased some bullets. If they do not remember Oswald, then they never met him.
Give me a break.
-
Adjustments can be made to the scope.
Question: How does one make adjustments to the iron sights? How does Oswald "zero in" the iron sights?
Ordinary soldiers use rifles which they get ahold of and use them to shoot soldiers without ever "zeroing the iron sights" and still hit targets, particularly at under 100 yards.
Yes, if we were talking about shots from 800 yards, one would have to have the rifle zeroed sighted somehow. But at under 100 years?
But these bullets come in boxes of 20. Either Oswald threw away 15 bullets or he used them to practice, at some point in time. Likely 7 months earlier but he likely did practice with it.
This is hard to explain because everyone knows that gun shops owners all have photographic memories and it is impossible for one of them to forget that several months earlier, someone person they did not know, like Oswald, came into their shop and purchased some bullets. If they do not remember Oswald, then they never met him.
Give me a break.
Michael Griffith says there was a shooter on top of the linen truck. And other shooters elsewhere in the plaza (triangulated fire). He even says we can't reject the "possibility" that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera (or camera gun).
Yet he has no questions about how all of these shooters zeroed in on JFK. Or how they got into the plaza unnoticed. Or who ordered them. Or a dozen and one other questions. He has all sorts of demands about how Oswald shot JFK, how he got his rifle, the ammunition, et cetera but has no questions about how these teams of snipers pulled off their feat.
-
Why would a conspirator shooter use the MC rifle with a defective non zeroed scope and leave that rifle behind at the boxes near the rear staircase on the 6th floor TSBD?
From a CT point of view, one answer could be that the conspirator shooter waited until the last hour to steal the MC rifle and thus had to use it “as is” whatever its condition was.
For this scenario, however, a 2nd shooter would be required to make sure the job gets done as there is not much time to practice with the MC rifle and the TSBD shooter might have a misfire or a jammed cartridge or not able to aim as accurately as he would like to do.
So the purpose of the TSBD 6th floor shooter sticking out the MC rifle out the window and firing 3 loud shots was meant primarily as a demonstration to be seen and heard from TSBD, Oswald’s place of work.
The 2nd shooter used a suppressed rifle with similar 6.5mm bullet from probably the Daltex bldg which afforded him an easier shot more in line directly behind the JFK limos path of travel down Elm st.( an at a lower elevation= less vertical angle changing and less lateral adjustment required as well).
Ok so far, this is not so implausible imo.
However , the main problem with this theory is why Oswald was allowed to be wandering around the TSBD possibly establishing an alibi for himself at the time of the shooting?
The 2nd problem is escape of the TSBD conspirator shooter from the 6th floor not using staircase.
Possible solutions for 2nd problem:
The TSBD shooter used the west elevator (presumed to have been used by Jack Dougherty) or used the passenger elevator by accessing it thru a vent shaft on the 6th floor ( Armstrong theory)
-
Did the Trump and Kirk assassins "zero in" their weapons?
The Trump (would-be) assassin struck Trump's ear, and maybe missed only as Trump turned at last moment.
The Kirk assassin hit on his first shot.
Both shooters were rank amateurs, and shooting from much longer distances than LHO.
LHO was a good shot, certainly by civilian standards, and the M-C rifle was built to military specs to be accurate to 200 yards. That is, on a tripod, in fixed position, it would hit the same small target at 200 yards over and over again.
LHP ay have practiced at the Sportsdrome and down in MC. But how much practice did the Kirk assassin have?
The rapidity of shots fired on 11/22 raises some issues.
In modern terms, LHO was a "gun enthusiast." He was in the Marines, learned to shoot, owned private guns while in service, owned a gun in Russia, owned guns back when he came to the US.
-
LHP ay have practiced at the Sportsdrome and down in MC.
Huh?
The rapidity of shots fired on 11/22 raises some issues.
You should have said the alleged rapidity of the shots because in reality they were about five seconds apart over the 10.2 seconds that Oswald took to fire all three of them -- which total elapsed time has been determined by analyzing the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (including JFK, himself) to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.
Probably much more accurate than the "six seconds" (or whatever) conspiracy theorists like to claim, which is, unfortunately, based on the statements of traumatized witnesses to said shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
-
Huh?
You should have said the alleged rapidity of the shots because in reality they were about five seconds apart over the 10.2 seconds that Oswald took to fire all three of them -- which total elapsed time has been determined by analyzing the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (including JFK, himself) to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.
Probably much more accurate than the "six seconds" (or whatever) conspiracy theorists like to claim, which is, unfortunately, based on the statements of traumatized witnesses to said shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
TG- I have posted here before that, based on what I see in the Z-film, JBC is shot ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313.
I forget how to use the image function in this forum. Anyone know?
I meant to type, "LHO may have practiced at the Sportsdrome or down in MC." Or anywhere else for that matter. His whereabouts were not tracked 24/7.
(http://)
-
I have posted here before that, based on what I see in the Z-film, JBC is shot ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313.
In-so-doing, you unwittingly of wittingly posted misinformation.
-
In-so-doing, you unwittingly of wittingly posted misinformation.
Shame on me!
-
Huh?
You should have said the alleged rapidity of the shots because in reality they were about five seconds apart over the 10.2 seconds that Oswald took to fire all three of them -- which total elapsed time has been determined by analyzing the conscious reactions of seven prime witnesses (including JFK, himself) to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.
Probably much more accurate than the "six seconds" (or whatever) conspiracy theorists like to claim, which is, unfortunately, based on the statements of traumatized witnesses to said shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.
Utter nonsense.
The mountain of evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, there was no such early shot is overwhelming.
The Searce/Roselle 'study'( ::)) is the worst kind of tripe. A five year old could debunk it. 'Head movements'?? In a motorcade?? You can't be serious.
Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding the basics shines through.
-
Oswald's first, missing everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming (after a 17-second film-saving pause) at Z-133.
Utter nonsense.
The mountain of evidence demonstrating, beyond any doubt, there was no such early shot is overwhelming.
The Searce/Roselle 'study' is the worst kind of tripe.
A five-year-old could debunk it.
'Head movements'??
In a motorcade??
You can't be serious.
Once again, your lack of knowledge regarding the basics shines through.
Dear danny BOY o'meara,
You're so full of beans, you should be stood in the corner.
-- Tom