JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on June 28, 2022, 09:06:53 PM
-
According to the FBI, Oswalds rifle scope was so misaligned that they had to place metal shims under the scope in order to be able to zero-in the rifle. And no shims were ever found among Oswalds possessions. The question then is did Oswald ever use metal shims at all? For example, did the rifle come to Oswald with the scope misaligned already and this is why Oswald missed Walker when he tried to shoot him? Perhaps the scope was aligned properly but only became misaligned in the journey in Ruth Paines car from New Orleans to Dallas, and so Oswald never got the chance to get shims or make sure the rifle was zeroed in before he shot JFK (because he never got a chance to test fire the rifle in Dallas before the assassination). A scope can become misaligned in transit:
-
Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit. There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination. The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy. Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
-
"Oswald's rifle scope" - - LOL
More downtime with Gerry.
At least get your facts straight before you start rambling.
I thought this statement was hilarious! Oswald never got the chance to get shims or make sure the rifle was zeroed in before he shot JFK (because he never got a chance to test fire the rifle in Dallas before the assassination). ROTFLMAO
The Clown says that : " According to the FBI, Oswalds rifle scope was so misaligned that they had to place metal shims under the scope in order to be able to zero-in the rifle. "
IOW Nobody could have shot JFK with that Carcano because the scope could not be zeroed without placing shims under the scope mount. BUT Wait!.... He believes that Oswald was the assassin and could accurately fire that carcano with the misaligned scope.....ROTFLMAO!
-
IOW Nobody could have shot JFK with that Carcano because the scope could not be zeroed without placing shims under the scope mount. BUT Wait!.... He believes that Oswald was the assassin and could accurately fire that carcano with the misaligned scope.....ROTFLMAO!
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
But the scope as the FBI found it needed to have shims. Did Oswald have shims prior to the assassination or is it possible that Ruth Paine damaged the rifle scope in her car and therefore while the rifle initially might not have needed shims, after Ruth Paines car journey the rifle would now require shims.
-
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
But the scope as the FBI found it needed to have shims. Did Oswald have shims prior to the assassination or is it possible that Ruth Paine damaged the rifle scope in her car and therefore while the rifle initially might not have needed shims, after Ruth Paines car journey the rifle would now require shims.
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
If I understand your "reasoning"..... You believe the WR, and that Lee Oswald was the assassin. And you further believe that he knew that the scope was worthless as an aid to firing the rifle accurately..... But he kept that worthless piece of junk attached to the rifle even though it increased the weight and bulkiness of the rifle, which made it more difficult to conceal and transport. And you clearly believe that an assassin could simply pickup that rifle and use the iron sights and rely on them to be adjusted accurately. Are you drunk?
-
And you clearly believe that an assassin could simply pickup that rifle and use the iron sights and rely on them to be adjusted accurately. Are you drunk?
There is no adjustment for iron sights. They are fixed on the rifle.
-
There is no adjustment for iron sights. They are fixed on the rifle.
So....What's the correct sight picture for the iron sights on a Carcano model 91/38?
Could the average American pick up a carcano and hit the bullseye at 100 yards?
-
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
But the scope as the FBI found it needed to have shims. Did Oswald have shims prior to the assassination or is it possible that Ruth Paine damaged the rifle scope in her car and therefore while the rifle initially might not have needed shims, after Ruth Paines car journey the rifle would now require shims.
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
HOW, ??... would Lee have known that disassembling the rifle, placing it in a paper bag, transporting it, and then putting it back together again would require a re-zeroing of the scope? There's no record of Lee ever using a rifle with a telescopic sight...So HOW would he have known??
But let's say he was aware of that problem.... And if he was, then he would have known that he would have to fire the rifle using the scope and examine the target, to determine what he would need to do to zero the scope. If Lee had been the assassin using that Carcano.... and he knew the scope was worthless, then he could easily have removed the scope....
I'd suggest that you give up the idea that Lee Oswald was the assassin who was brilliant on one hand and an idiot on the other.
-
Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit. There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination. The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy. Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit.
So you think that flimsy window sash was effective in deflecting a 30mm ( !.19" ) long 160 grain FMJ bullet?
Why don't you take that idea to the government.....and tell them that our troops and Police officers don't need that heavy body armor.... All they need as some cedar window sash ......
There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination. The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy. Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
-
Oswald's bullet deflected off the window frame otherwise Walker would have been hit. There is no way to know whether any misalignment existed at the time of the JFK assassination. The rifle was dropped by Oswald in the aftermath and the scope was actually removed to search the rifle for prints before it was tested for accuracy. Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
Please post verification that Lee Oswald was even introduced to a scope mounted rifle while in the USMC..... The USMC never trained it's recruits to use rifles with telescopic sights....so how would Lee have known how to compensate for a misaligned scope? A person can compensate for a slight misalignment of a telescopic sight when firing at a fixed target....But not even an expert could fire a rifle with a misaligned sight at a MOVING target that was behind a tree 50 yards away.
Please keep presenting your absurd ideas..... Many of us need a good belly laugh...
-
The Carcano was not designed to have a scope. A scope does not work well because it can’t be mounted on the top, without preventing the bolt from working. So, the scope won’t help the rifle aim high, which is necessary to take into account gravity, but will aim high and to the left.
Also, the scope added to the rifle only added a few dollars to the cost. They could have not zero-sighted the rifle without losing money. So, the rifle probably did not have shims installed with the scope.
Why sell a rifle with a scope? Because a scope looks cool. It makes a buyer think he looks like a real dangerous shooter, who really knows what he is doing. This may have been the reason why Oswald bought the rifle with a scope and kept it on.
Also, as I recall, an executive with the company told WC investigators, that the scope added to the rifle was not zero sighted. The scope was just slapped onto the rifle. The executive would have no motive to lie, to make his company’s products sound not as good as they really were.
So, it would unlikely that a company would add a scope, go through the expense of zero-sighting the scope, sell the rifle/scope at a lost and claim they never bothered to zero-sight the scopes. That makes no sense.
All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.
Also, the iron sights help with the accuracy of the second and third shots, at z222 and z312. The target is rising and at the short ranges, the rifle would miss high, at a stationary target, but provides a lead that in theory should hit the target within two inches for both shots.
More details on this are in a post I made six years ago, which disappeared when all the posts at this site disappeared, but which I have reposted.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3522.0.html
These figures are reasonably accurate. Since making this post, I have adjusted my estimate of the limousine at z312 from 9 mph to 8 mph. And I use the ranges of 65 and 90 yards instead of 63 and 88 yards because the ballistic calculator program only provides numbers for every 5 yards. I could have extrapolated but did not bother. My 2016 estimates are still pretty accurate.
My expertise in rifle shooting? None. But I am good at math and I think I have entered the appropriate settings for the ballistic calculator and my analysis is pretty good, I believe.
-
The Carcano was not designed to have a scope. A scope does not work well because it can’t be mounted on the top, without preventing the bolt from working. So, the scope won’t help the rifle aim high, which is necessary to take into account gravity, but will aim high and to the left.
Also, the scope added to the rifle only added a few dollars to the cost. They could have not zero-sighted the rifle without losing money. So, the rifle probably did not have shims installed with the scope.
Why sell a rifle with a scope? Because a scope looks cool. It makes a buyer think he looks like a real dangerous shooter, who really knows what he is doing. This may have been the reason why Oswald bought the rifle with a scope and kept it on.
All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.
Also, the iron sights help with the accuracy of the second and third shots, at z222 and z312. The target is rising and at the short ranges, the rifle would miss high, at a stationary target, but provides a lead that in theory should hit the target within two inches for both shots.
More details on this are in a post I made six years ago, which disappeared when all the posts at this site disappeared, but which I have reposted.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3522.0.html
These figures are reasonably accurate. Since making this post, I have adjusted my estimate of the limousine at z312 from 9 mph to 8 mph. And I use the ranges of 65 and 90 yards instead of 63 and 88 yards because the ballistic calculator program only provides numbers for every 5 yards. I could have extrapolated but did not bother. My 2016 estimates are still pretty accurate.
My expertise in rifle shooting? None. But I am good at math and I think I have entered the appropriate settings for the ballistic calculator and my analysis is pretty good, I believe.
All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights.
Are the iron sights on a M-1 Garand anything comparable to a Model 91/38 carcano? Aren't the adjustable sights peep and blade sights on a Garand far and away superior to fixed V notch / blade sights on a carcano? And what is odd about the sight picture for the V notch / blade sight on the carcano ?.... Isn't it true that the correct sight picture for the carcano has the top of the front blade resting at the bottom of the V....?. This makes it difficult aim the rifle....
-
All this is irrelevant because Oswald could just simply use the iron sights. Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights. At ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards. Much further than the maximum range at Dealey Plaza of 88 yards. And the scope does not prevent the iron sights from being used.
Oswald was trained in the Marines to shoot, not with a scope but with iron sights.
Are the iron sights on a M-1 Garand anything comparable to a Model 91/38 carcano? Aren't the adjustable sights peep and blade sights on a Garand far and away superior to fixed V notch / blade sights on a carcano? And what is odd about the sight picture for the V notch / blade sight on the carcano ?.... Isn't it true that the correct sight picture for the carcano has the top of the front blade resting at the bottom of the V....?. This makes it difficult aim the rifle....
The world’s best authority on the Carcano is (was?) Dave Emary
In the following article:
https://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html
he states that:
“I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 - 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could it have been made.”
Dave Emary believes the fixed sights of the Carcano are good to use, even easy to use, even under very stressful situations.
Question:
Why should I trust you opinion about the Carcano more than that of Dave Emary?
-
The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists Don't Want to Hear
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3042.msg114164.html#msg114164
-
Even if a misalignment existed, a shooter trained in the USMC could simply have compensated for the known misalignment.
Please post verification that Lee Oswald was even introduced to a scope mounted rifle while in the USMC..... The USMC never trained it's recruits to use rifles with telescopic sights....so how would Lee have known how to compensate for a misaligned scope? A person can compensate for a slight misalignment of a telescopic sight when firing at a fixed target....But not even an expert could fire a rifle with a misaligned sight at a MOVING target that was behind a tree 50 yards away.
Please keep presenting your absurd ideas..... Many of us need a good belly laugh...
I keep forgetting that the intellectual capabilities of forum members ranges widely with some on the lower end of the scale. Here's how you do it. Take notes if necessary. You fire at a target. Notice that it fires a bit high. Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate. Not rocket science. JFK was not behind a tree when he was shot. LOL. Although he was "moving" he was doing so at a very slow rate of speed. Charles Whitman, who received similar USMC training during a similar timeframe as Oswald, hit moving human targets at distances three times that of Oswald.
-
Being low and off the chart yourself why would you bring up the subject?
Um, I don't see Oswald's notes in evidence.
At what range?
You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.
You worked that out yourself?
False equivalence.
False equivalence. LOL. I thought you objected to fancy words? HA HA HA. No wonder since you misapplied it here. Charles Whitman was trained in the USMC around the same time as Oswald. He received similar training on how to use a rifle. He hit moving targets at three times the distance of Oswald. And it was Walt who suggested that JFK was behind a tree when he was shot. Take it up with him.
-
The world’s best authority on the Carcano is (was?) Dave Emary
In the following article:
https://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/emary.html
he states that:
“I contend with the Carcano the Italians had a very intelligent approach for a battle rifle. The fixed sights were basically fool proof. The Italians must have realized with the M38 models that nearly all small arms engagements occurred inside of 200 meters. The fixed sights with a 200 meter zero would have been fool proof for a soldier under stress, who was probably a poor judge of distance to begin with. The soldier would have had to do nothing but point and shoot at the middle of his enemy for ranges out to 220 - 230 meters. How much more simple and effective could it have been made.”
Dave Emary believes the fixed sights of the Carcano are good to use, even easy to use, even under very stressful situations.
Question:
Why should I trust you opinion about the Carcano more than that of Dave Emary?
I'd suggest that you actually try to use he iron sights of the carcano....Personally, I find them difficult to use to fire the rifle accurately. But I was trained to use the peep & blade sights of the M-1 Garand. Thers no doubt that the peep & blade sights are far superior to the open V notch of the carcano. Sure, the carcano sights are effective ....but in a shooting contest, the Peep & blade are far and away superior. ( the peep sights score far more "bullseyes" than the V notch sights, with the rifles in the hands of the same shooter. )
-
You forgot the horisontal offset, genius.
I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊
******************************************************************************************
In any case, the approximate horizontal offset for the three shots were:
First shot: z153: 4.6 inches miss to the left
Second shot: z222: 3.0 inches miss to the left
Third shot: z312: 0.7 inches miss to the left
All three shots would miss, in theory, to the left, due to the motion of the limousine.
******************************************************************************************
The approximate vertical offset for the three shots were:
First shot: z153: 0.8 inches miss low
Second shot: z222: 1.5 inches miss low
Third shot: z312: 1.7 inches miss high
This takes into account both the motion of the limousine and the iron sights being zero-sighted at 200 meters.
******************************************************************************************
The approximate angular speed for the three shots were:
First shot: z153: 4.8 degrees per second
Second shot: z222: 1.9 degrees per second
Third shot: z312: 0.6 degrees per second
Note, this vertical offset takes into account both
******************************************************************************************
The shots would, in theory, get easier and easier for Oswald, primarily due to the angular speed of the target getting smaller and smaller, from 4.8 to 1.9 to 0.6 degrees per second for the three shots. This matches well with Oswald missing the center of the head by over 60 inches, then 8 inches, then 2 inches, for the three shots.
And the iron sights being set to 200 meters allows all three shots to be, vertically, hitting within two inches of the center of the head, if the sights were lined up on the center of the head when the shot was fired.
If the iron sights could have been adjusted between shots (impossible even with adjustable sights in the time allowed) for a range of 43, 63 and 88 yards, the shots would have all missed low by 4.6, 6.1 and 3.7 inches.
All in all, Oswald was, unfortunately, well served having a rifle with fixed sights set to 200 meters, for this particular target.
-
So how wonky was Whitman's scope?
This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK. However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination. His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped). The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle. So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation. What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle. Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.
-
I know this was not directed toward me, but I have calculated the horizontal offset. Although I have not calculated the horisontal offset, whatever that is. 😊
If you’re going to be pedantic, you should at least be aware that not everybody around the world uses American spellings.
-
I keep forgetting that the intellectual capabilities of forum members ranges widely with some on the lower end of the scale. Here's how you do it. Take notes if necessary. You fire at a target. Notice that it fires a bit high. Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate. Not rocket science. JFK was not behind a tree when he was shot. LOL. Although he was "moving" he was doing so at a very slow rate of speed. Charles Whitman, who received similar USMC training during a similar timeframe as Oswald, hit moving human targets at distances three times that of Oswald.
You fire at a target. Notice that it fires a bit high. Next time you aim a bit lower to compensate.
Wow!... That's all there is to it?..... You know with just one shot that it was a misalignment of the sights that caused the bullet to strike high? So you fire a bit lower at the target on the second shot....
How did you know that it wasn't for some other reason ( there are many) that the first round struck high?
I tell ya, Mr "Smith" yer a genius!.....
-
This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK. However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination. His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped). The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle. So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation. What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle. Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.
His rifle was hidden behind BENEATH some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).
So you were there, and saw that it was Lee Oswald who hid the rifle....And you saw him drop it.... Is that right mr "Smith"?
-
I believe he used the iron sights. That was his only choice as regardless of shims at all, Oswald would have known that disassembling a rifle, placing it in a paper bag, and then assembling it inside the TSBD would mean the scope could not be trusted as it had not been zeroed in in its assembled state which is the only way to zero in a rifle.
You guys would believe it if there were no sights at all on a bald barrel :D
? Question---Why proceed and mount this presumably useless scope in the first place?
That is if a [theoretical] shooter would have known it could not be trusted :-\
-
This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK. However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination. His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped). The authorities actually removed the scope to search for prints before testing the rifle. So it is impossible to say whether Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used it to assassinate JFK and, for similar reasons, impossible to compare to any other situation. What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle. Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.
This question contains a false premise as it implies that Oswald's scope was "wonky" at the time he used his rifle to assassinate JFK. However, no one knows the condition of Oswald's scope at the time of the assassination.
If nobody knows what the condition of the scope was, then how do you know that the question contains a false premise?
His rifle was hidden behind some boxes after the assassination (i.e. dropped).
How do you know the rifle was dropped?
What we do know is that Oswald and Whitman received similar training in the USMC on how to use a rifle. Neither were a novice with a rifle and it was an easy shot for Oswald with his training with or without a scope.
And how exactly do "we" know that is was an easy shot for Oswald (or anybody else)?
-
According to Robert Oswald (in his book) LHO was home on leave around the end of February 1957. And they went hunting for squirrels. LHO was the only one who shot anything. It turned out to be a ring-tailed cat. These are related to the raccoon family and only grow to be between 1.5 and 3.3 pounds. Robert doesn’t elaborate on all the details and circumstances. But, generally speaking, one needs to be a pretty good shot to hit such a small animal in the wild.
-
Oswald flaunts his commie papers, pistol on the hip, scoped rifle... maybe a smirk or two.
He's going for a look.. a 'vibe'
Yo, if you can't be good, at least look good
-
According to Robert Oswald (in his book) LHO was home on leave around the end of February 1957. And they went hunting for squirrels. LHO was the only one who shot anything. It turned out to be a ring-tailed cat. These are related to the raccoon family and only grow to be between 1.5 and 3.3 pounds. Robert doesn’t elaborate on all the details and circumstances. But, generally speaking, one needs to be a pretty good shot to hit such a small animal in the wild.
But, generally speaking, one needs to be a pretty good shot to hit such a small animal in the wild.
Or just a lucky one
-
Oswald flaunts his commie papers, pistol on the hip, scoped rifle... maybe a smirk or two.
He's going for a look.. a 'vibe'
Yo, if you can't be good, at least look good
Yes indeed....Look good for this silly carnival photo.... After all I'm trying to portray myself as a rough and ready communist revolutionary.....
-
But, generally speaking, one needs to be a pretty good shot to hit such a small animal in the wild.
Or just a lucky one
Ring tail cats are almost exclusively nocturnal BTW.
They are rarely seen.
If Oswald was such a crack shot...why didn't he rate an Expert badge?
If he was such a prospective killer...why didn't he go on to sniper school instead of becoming a pansy radar tech?
-
Right, happy to see you eventually figured it out.
However, your fine math doesn't support the claim that Oswald pulled the trigger.
How unfortunate!
No, it doesn’t. No math can do that. But what math can do is:
1. Answer a common CT question. If Oswald was the assassin, why did he miss the easiest shot, at 43 yards, but miss the hardest shot at 88 yards.
Because the target for the first and, so called “easiest shot” had an angular speed of 4.8 degrees per second.
And the target for the second shot had an angular speed of 1.9 degrees per second.
And the target for the third and, so called “hardest shot” had an angular speed of 0.58 degrees per second.
And so, this provides an explanation of why the shots missed the center of the head by over 60 inches, then 8 inches, then 2 inches. As the angular speed of the target got less and less, the shots became more and more accurate.
2. Show the sights helped compensate for the movement of the target. If the rifle was, somehow, which was impossible, given the same time available, adjusted for the correct ranges (for a stationary target), the rifle would miss low by 6.1 inches for the second shot and miss low by 3.7 inches for the third. But, with the Carcano zero sighted for 200 meters, the rifle would miss 1.5 inches low for the second shot and miss 1.7 inches high for the third. The Carcano rifle, by sheer luck, and not by design, provides a pretty good lead for all three shots.
So, I hold that math, alone, can provide some pretty good insights about Oswald’s shooting, and make some things that seem surprising about the Oswald shooting sequence not that surprising after all.
-
Ring tail cats are almost exclusively nocturnal BTW.
They are rarely seen.
If Oswald was such a crack shot...why didn't he rate an Expert badge?
If he was such a prospective killer...why didn't he go on to sniper school instead of becoming a pansy radar tech?
Robert Oswald wrote that none of the three hunters had ever seen that kind of animal before. And that none of them knew what it was. It was only when they returned to Robert’s father-in-law’s farm house with it that his father-in-law identified it as a ringed tailed cat. And he said that he hadn’t seen one in 15 or 20-years.
Robert wrote that the Marines training includes practicing shooting 50-rounds per day for five days at distances up to 500-yards before the qualifying testing begins. In my opinion anyone who qualifies at even the minimum requirements for the marines is well above the average American civilian in shooting abilities.
-
Robert Oswald wrote that none of the three hunters had ever seen that kind of animal before. And that none of them knew what it was. It was only when they returned to Robert’s father-in-law’s farm house with it that his father-in-law identified it as a ringed tailed cat. And he said that he hadn’t seen one in 15 or 20-years.
Robert wrote that the Marines training includes practicing shooting 50-rounds per day for five days at distances up to 500-yards before the qualifying testing begins. In my opinion anyone who qualifies at even the minimum requirements for the marines is well above the average American civilian in shooting abilities.
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter. Like they say; you have to be damned good to get to even mediocre in anything
-
The saga of not making a point continues.
Thumb1:
The irony!
-
If you dropped the "Oswald" BS and said "the shooter" you might gain a bit of credibility.
Those who ignore statements from those they disagree with never learn anything.
I used to believe in Dr. Alvarez’s “Jet Effect” theory. But after hearing arguments by CTers against it and looking again at William Hoffman’s data, it became clear to me that this data, regarding JFK’s movement from z312-z318, eliminated not only a single shot from the front but also a shot from the back that caused a “Jet Effect” from causing this backwards movement. Neither would cause a constant acceleration of JFK backwards which was several times greater than the much gentler acceleration of the limousine during that time. Only a Neurological Spasm would cause this constant acceleration of JFK’s head and torso backwards, along with his right elbow suddenly rising 6 inches from z315-z318.
One should listen and consider arguments from those one disagrees with.
Missed the first shot by over 60 (sixty) inches?
I would question that number.
Well, it missed the entire limousine. From the angle Oswald shot at, and the evidence is strong enough to say it was Oswald, he would not only have to miss Kennedy and the interior of the limousine he would also have to miss the right side of the limousine, just to miss the entire limousine by the minimum possible amount. Certainly, missing the entire limousine would require a much greater miss, in inches, at z153 than such a miss at z312, when firing from almost straight behind, which would have required only a miss of two to three feet to the right to miss the entire limousine. I have not done any calculations on this, but 5 feet seems to be a reasonable guess. In any case, at z153, a miss of several feet, at a minimum, is needed for a shot aimed at JFK to miss him and the entire limousine.
-
...the Marines training includes practicing shooting 50-rounds per day for five days at distances up to 500-yards before the qualifying testing begins. In my opinion anyone who qualifies at even the minimum requirements for the marines is well above the average American civilian in shooting abilities.
Missed the first shot by over 60 (sixty) inches?
Well, it missed the entire limousine.
Your average American civilian could do that. :D
-
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter. Like they say; you have to be damned good to get to even mediocre in anything
You are not even a mediocre researcher then :D
Lee Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956, but his skill deteriorated and by the time he left the Marines, more than four years before the assassination, he was officially 'a rather poor shot'.
In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
-
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter. Like they say; you have to be damned good to get to even mediocre in anything
/quote]
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter.
It's a puzzle to me why some folks keep referring to Lee's Marine Corps shooting ability..... It's totally irrelevant.
Lee was trained to use The M-1 Garand with adjustable peep & blade sight, which is totally different than the fixed V notch / blade sight of a model 91/39 carcano.
Some ignorant folks think that simply because a man is a good shot with one particular rifle that he's equally good with some other rifle...... They are simply exposing their ignorance.
-
You are not even a mediocre researcher then :D http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter.
It's a puzzle to me why some folks keep referring to Lee's Marine Corps shooting ability..... It's totally irrelevant.
Lee was trained to use The M-1 Garand with adjustable peep & blade sight, which is totally different than the fixed V notch / blade sight of a model 91/38 carcano.
Some ignorant folks think that simply because a man is a good shot with one particular rifle that he's equally good with some other rifle...... They are simply exposing their ignorance.
-
"Lee Oswald qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956, but his skill deteriorated and by the time he left the Marines, more than four years before the assassination, he was officially 'a rather poor shot'. In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’. In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’."
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter
It's worth remembering that a 191 score would require Oswald hitting the target a minimum of 39 times out of 50 rounds, 78% of the time. This assumes he only hit the center of the target or missed completely, minimizing the number of hits required to reach a certain score.
-
Oswald was rated as a little better than average by the marines which made him an excellent shot as against the usual sport hunter.
It's a puzzle to me why some folks keep referring to Lee's Marine Corps shooting ability..... It's totally irrelevant.
Lee was trained to use The M-1 Garand with adjustable peep & blade sight, which is totally different than the fixed V notch / blade sight of a model 91/38 carcano.
Some ignorant folks think that simply because a man is a good shot with one particular rifle that he's equally good with some other rifle...... They are simply exposing their ignorance.
A smooth, consistent trigger pull is the single most important factor in good marksmanship, and the hardest to master. Learning the correct sight picture only takes seconds; a proper trigger pull takes considerably longer.
-
A smooth, consistent trigger pull is the single most important factor in good marksmanship, and the hardest to master. Learning the correct sight picture only takes seconds; a proper trigger pull takes considerably longer.
'
Thank you for mentioning the trigger pull.... The M-1 Garand has a much better trigger than a carcano....If you've fired a carcano you are familiar with the long take up and the difficulty of the actual release of the firing pin...