JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on August 26, 2022, 07:54:08 PM
-
Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
In years past, they used to have a ‘Running Deer Shooting’ competition at the Olympics. The best thing about this competition was that they did not actually shot at real live deer.
The Wikipedia article on this gives the most complete information on the 1908 Olympics.
The range was 330 feet. The target would appear for only 4 seconds at a distance of 75 feet.
The target had an outline of a life size deer, with three concentric circles. The inner circle would could for 4 points. The next circle for 3. And the outermost circle for 2. A shot outside the largest circle, but on the outline of the deer (but not the rear part of the deer) would count as 1 point.
My father once told me, that in deer hunting, you don’t want to hit the rear of the deer. This would allow the deer to still get away but would wound it seriously enough that it would likely die in the coming days. Better to miss the deer altogether than to do that. Hence, I would guess, the somewhat strange scoring system.
Everyone would get a single shot (in the Single Shot competition) during a 4 second pass and would get 10 shots altogether.
The speed of the target was 18.75 feet per second or 12.8 mph. This is pretty slow. At 67 years old, I could run faster than that. I’m certain a real deer would run well over 30 mph. I suspect that they did not use real running deer solely for humane reasons.
Still, these were shots designed to test the best rifle shooters, at moving targets, in the world. So, I imagine they were pretty challenging.
In the real competition, the winner got 25 points, with several others just behind. So, an average shot would end up either in the “2” circle or the “3” circle. This competition appears to have been challenging because the three lowest scores were 11, 6 and 3 points.
The Angular velocity of the 1908 target varied from 3.21 to 3.26 degrees per second. Let’s compare this to the angular velocity of possible shots at Dealey Plaza. All the shots are listed from the highest to the lowest angular velocities:
The following chart lists:
Angular Velocity of the Target, in degrees per second (dps),
Tangential Velocity of the Target, in feet per second (fps),
Distance to the Target, in feet (ft)
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Obviously, Oswald was attempting a shot at z-153, with a higher angular velocity, than the best shooters in the world in 1908 had to attempt. No wonder he missed the limousine. A shot from the Grassy Knoll would have even been tougher, at least the target would have had an even higher angular velocity.
Admittedly, the Angular Velocity does not take into account distances. Perhaps a superior comparison is from the Tangential Velocity of the Target. So the following chart as the previous, except it is ordered by the Tangential Velocity:
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Either by using Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity, the two shots that hit from Oswald’s position are clearly the easiest of shots.
The 1908 data is not totally satisfactory. It does not give the size of the scoring circles. Nor the size of the outline of the deer and exactly which part of this outline was out of bounds. Still, it’s the best I have found. And the rifles available in 1908 would be roughly equivalent of Oswald’s Carcano rifle. If anyone has any data that is as good or better I would be interested in seeing a post to it. Particularly one that would show if Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity is a better measure of difficulty for shots under 200 yards.
-
Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.
In years past, they used to have a ‘Running Deer Shooting’ competition at the Olympics. The best thing about this competition was that they did not actually shot at real live deer.
The Wikipedia article on this gives the most complete information on the 1908 Olympics.
The range was 330 feet. The target would appear for only 4 seconds at a distance of 75 feet.
The target had an outline of a life size deer, with three concentric circles. The inner circle would could for 4 points. The next circle for 3. And the outermost circle for 2. A shot outside the largest circle, but on the outline of the deer (but not the rear part of the deer) would count as 1 point.
My father once told me, that in deer hunting, you don’t want to hit the rear of the deer. This would allow the deer to still get away but would wound it seriously enough that it would likely die in the coming days. Better to miss the deer altogether than to do that. Hence, I would guess, the somewhat strange scoring system.
Everyone would get a single shot (in the Single Shot competition) during a 4 second pass and would get 10 shots altogether.
The speed of the target was 18.75 feet per second or 12.8 mph. This is pretty slow. At 67 years old, I could run faster than that. I’m certain a real deer would run well over 30 mph. I suspect that they did not use real running deer solely for humane reasons.
Still, these were shots designed to test the best rifle shooters, at moving targets, in the world. So, I imagine they were pretty challenging.
In the real competition, the winner got 25 points, with several others just behind. So, an average shot would end up either in the “2” circle or the “3” circle. This competition appears to have been challenging because the three lowest scores were 11, 6 and 3 points.
The Angular velocity of the 1908 target varied from 3.21 to 3.26 degrees per second. Let’s compare this to the angular velocity of possible shots at Dealey Plaza. All the shots are listed from the highest to the lowest angular velocities:
The following chart lists:
Angular Velocity of the Target, in degrees per second (dps),
Tangential Velocity of the Target, in feet per second (fps),
Distance to the Target, in feet (ft)
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Obviously, Oswald was attempting a shot at z-153, with a higher angular velocity, than the best shooters in the world in 1908 had to attempt. No wonder he missed the limousine. A shot from the Grassy Knoll would have even been tougher, at least the target would have had an even higher angular velocity.
Admittedly, the Angular Velocity does not take into account distances. Perhaps a superior comparison is from the Tangential Velocity of the Target. So the following chart as the previous, except it is ordered by the Tangential Velocity:
Ang. Vel. Tang. Vel. Distance
1908 Running Deer: 3.2 dps 18.4 fps 330 ft
TSBD position at z-153: 4.8 dps 11.9 fps 142 ft
Grassy Knoll, Badge Man at z-312: 6.2 dps 10.8 fps 100 ft
Grassy Knoll, Smoke at z-312: 5.1 dps 9.7 fps 109 ft
TSBD position at z-222: 1.9 dps 6.4 fps 192 ft
TSBD position at z-312: 0.58 dps 2.7 fps 265 ft
Either by using Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity, the two shots that hit from Oswald’s position are clearly the easiest of shots.
The 1908 data is not totally satisfactory. It does not give the size of the scoring circles. Nor the size of the outline of the deer and exactly which part of this outline was out of bounds. Still, it’s the best I have found. And the rifles available in 1908 would be roughly equivalent of Oswald’s Carcano rifle. If anyone has any data that is as good or better I would be interested in seeing a post to it. Particularly one that would show if Angular Velocity or Tangential Velocity is a better measure of difficulty for shots under 200 yards.
Interesting stuff there Joe. I am not familiar with the term tangential velocity as it relates to this subject. But I think that I understand angular velocity.
Here’s a response (that I heartily agree with) to a question about the difficulty of the Dealey Plaza shots that I found on the internet:
If you look at this map, you can see that Oswald had a much easier shot than even most of the comments are indicating because he chose his position very carefully.
Note that he does not really have to lead in the horizontal plane. This is a difficult (though possible) shot even for a relatively slow moving target. But because of where he shot from, he only needed to correct in the vertical plane because Kennedy's limo is moving along his line-of-sight on both approach and exit. This is because the schoolbook depository is at the apex of a 120 degree bend in the route. His only necessary correction for movement was in the vertical plane (the easiest to correct for both due to trigonometry and the fact that people are longer vertically).
He chose his position very carefully. Was he that good a shot? Who knows...a lot of people could have made that shot. But he was very clever in where he chose to shoot from...I don't know if a lot of people would have thought of that.
Most of the responses point out that the relatively short distances of the shots (in Dealey Plaza) is what makes the other factors less important to the difficulty of the shots.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30c160/eli5_how_hard_is_it_for_a_sniper_to_shoot_a/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30c160/eli5_how_hard_is_it_for_a_sniper_to_shoot_a/)
-
Interesting stuff there Joe. I am not familiar with the term tangential velocity as it relates to this subject. But I think that I understand angular velocity.
Radial velocity and Tangential velocity are used to describe the motion on an object as seen from some observer. The concept is similar to the following example.
An object is moving Southeast at 5 feet per second. It's velocity in the Southern direction, along the South pointing vector might be 3 feet per second. It's velocity in the Eastern direction, along the East pointing vector might be 4 feet per second.
For an observer currently directly South of the object, its radial velocity would be 3 feet per second. It's tangential velocity would be 4 feet per second. The radial velocity has no effect on the angular speed of the object. Only the tangential velocity has an effect. So magnitude of the angular velocity does not only depend on the velocity, or speed, of the object, but also on the direction of travel. The angular velocity is zero if the object happens to be heading directly toward, or away from the observer. And at a maximum if it happens to be heading at right angles.
The observer doesn't have to be directly South of the moving object. The object could be to the northeast, moving in a southeastern, mostly southern, direction. The radial velocity could be 3 feet per second and the tangential direction could be 4 feet per second.
I don't know which is a better indicator of a difficulty of a shot that is pretty close, under 200 yards. The 'Angular velocity' or the 'Tangential velocity'. I suspect it is the 'Angular velocity'. But I decided to show both.
Here’s a response (that I heartily agree with) to a question about the difficulty of the Dealey Plaza shots that I found on the internet:
If you look at this map, you can see that Oswald had a much easier shot than even most of the comments are indicating because he chose his position very carefully.
Note that he does not really have to lead in the horizontal plane. This is a difficult (though possible) shot even for a relatively slow moving target. But because of where he shot from, he only needed to correct in the vertical plane because Kennedy's limo is moving along his line-of-sight on both approach and exit. This is because the schoolbook depository is at the apex of a 120 degree bend in the route. His only necessary correction for movement was in the vertical plane (the easiest to correct for both due to trigonometry and the fact that people are longer vertically).
He chose his position very carefully. Was he that good a shot? Who knows...a lot of people could have made that shot. But he was very clever in where he chose to shoot from...I don't know if a lot of people would have thought of that.
Most of the responses point out that the relatively short distances of the shots (in Dealey Plaza) is what makes the other factors less important to the difficulty of the shots.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30c160/eli5_how_hard_is_it_for_a_sniper_to_shoot_a/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30c160/eli5_how_hard_is_it_for_a_sniper_to_shoot_a/)
I agree with this. I think the position was chosen to minimize the angular velocity of the shot. Choosing a position where the limousine would be travelling as close as possible in a direction leading directly away from the window. Assuming the limousine travels along Elm Street, which is a pretty safe assumption. It is an obvious position to choose. It also minimizes the distance to the target, by a little, but I think that this would be of secondary importance.
-
Radial velocity and Tangential velocity are used to describe the motion on an object as seen from some observer. The concept is similar to the following example.
An object is moving Southeast at 5 feet per second. It's velocity in the Southern direction, along the South pointing vector might be 3 feet per second. It's velocity in the Eastern direction, along the East pointing vector might be 4 feet per second.
For an observer currently directly South of the object, its radial velocity would be 3 feet per second. It's tangential velocity would be 4 feet per second. The radial velocity has no effect on the angular speed of the object. Only the tangential velocity has an effect. So magnitude of the angular velocity does not only depend on the velocity, or speed, of the object, but also on the direction of travel. The angular velocity is zero if the object happens to be heading directly toward, or away from the observer. And at a maximum if it happens to be heading at right angles.
The observer doesn't have to be directly South of the moving object. The object could be to the northeast, moving in a southeastern, mostly southern, direction. The radial velocity could be 3 feet per second and the tangential direction could be 4 feet per second.
I don't know which is a better indicator of a difficulty of a shot that is pretty close, under 200 yards. The 'Angular velocity' or the 'Tangential velocity'. I suspect it is the 'Angular velocity'. But I decided to show both.
I agree with this. I think the position was chosen to minimize the angular velocity of the shot. Choosing a position where the limousine would be travelling as close as possible in a direction leading directly away from the window. Assuming the limousine travels along Elm Street, which is a pretty safe assumption. It is an obvious position to choose. It also minimizes the distance to the target, by a little, but I think that this would be of secondary importance.
Thanks for the explanation. I have a much better understanding now.
Yes, additionally, people who wonder why he chose to shoot when the target was on Elm Street instead of Houston Street should consider that the downward slope of Elm Street helped to minimize the difficulty of the shot. Also, attacking from behind made it less likely that he would be seen by the protective personnel. And it caused some initial confusion because a lot of people wrongly assumed that the shots came from the area in front of the limousine. He apparently only had a relatively short time to plan the ambush. But it appears to me that he made some good decisions in that short time period.
-
Joe,
I am late reading this but I like how you associated this to a similar analysis in sports.
This remined me of a somewhat similar thing I saw awhile back related to skeet shooting.
The reference I saw was on page 189 of the book “Mastering Skeet” by King Heiple.
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Skeet-Fundamental-Techniques-Championship/dp/0811733610?asin=0811733610&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
I’m not sure but perhaps folks can still search or scroll to page 189 on Amazon in a preview.
The gist was that when I was looking at an early first shot (somewhat earlier than what is commonly assumed), I recall the angular velocity estimate of the president’s head from the snipers nest was something like 5.4 deg/sec. This book indicated that in skeet, for station one high house, the bird is around 5 deg/sec when it’s at its center shooting position between 60 and 70 feet.
If a clay pigeon has a diameter a little less than a human head, then maybe trying to hit the president's head with a rifle at ~107 feet at ~5.4 deg/sec angular velocity is like trying to hit a clay pigeon with a rifle at ~70 feet center and ~5 deg/sec angular velocity from station one high in skeet. If such a shot was as easy as so many people insist, and no one could miss the President with a close shot like that, maybe more people should be using rifles (rather than shotguns) at the skeet range to show how easy it is to consistently blast a clay pigeon from station one, but their real skill is displayed at the other stations.
I don’t shoot skeet so can’t be sure how difficult it would be to hit a clay pigeon with a rifle but this book’s description of the mechanics of skeet shooting was interesting as I interpret the data relative to the first shot in the assassination.
-
Joe,
I am late reading this but I like how you associated this to a similar analysis in sports.
This remined me of a somewhat similar thing I saw awhile back related to skeet shooting.
The reference I saw was on page 189 of the book “Mastering Skeet” by King Heiple.
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Skeet-Fundamental-Techniques-Championship/dp/0811733610?asin=0811733610&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
I’m not sure but perhaps folks can still search or scroll to page 189 on Amazon in a preview.
The gist was that when I was looking at an early first shot (somewhat earlier than what is commonly assumed), I recall the angular velocity estimate of the president’s head from the snipers nest was something like 5.4 deg/sec. This book indicated that in skeet, for station one high house, the bird is around 5 deg/sec when it’s at its center shooting position between 60 and 70 feet.
If a clay pigeon has a diameter a little less than a human head, then maybe trying to hit the president's head with a rifle at ~107 feet at ~5.4 deg/sec angular velocity is like trying to hit a clay pigeon with a rifle at ~70 feet center and ~5 deg/sec angular velocity from station one high in skeet. If such a shot was as easy as so many people insist, and no one could miss the President with a close shot like that, maybe more people should be using rifles (rather than shotguns) at the skeet range to show how easy it is to consistently blast a clay pigeon from station one, but their real skill is displayed at the other stations.
I don’t shoot skeet so can’t be sure how difficult it would be to hit a clay pigeon with a rifle but this book’s description of the mechanics of skeet shooting was interesting as I interpret the data relative to the first shot in the assassination.
Brian
I am no kind of expert of shooting with any weapon, be it rifle or shotgun, but hitting a moving target with a shotgun must be much easier than using a rifle. The shotgun pellets spread a fair amount, I understand, so there is a good deal more for margin of error with a shotgun than a rifle.
Your information is still useful. Moving from a target moving at 3.2 degrees per second to 5.4 degrees per second, to get hits at the higher angular velocity target, one must:
1. Use a shotgun, which gives on a much greater margin of error, due to the spread of the shotgun pellets - Makes the shot easier
2. Reduce the range from 330 feet to 60 or 70 feet - Makes the shot easier
3. Use as a target something that is a lot smaller than an outline of a Running Deer. The best shooters generally scored two or three points, so they were often able to hit a target a good deal smaller than a deer. Still, overall, the size of the target was, I would guess, larger than a clay pigeon - Makes the shot harder
I don't know but factors 1 and 3 probably about cancel each other out. All in all, it appears one must give the shooter who can hit a target moving at 3.2 degrees per second a significant edge to allow them to still hit a target at 5.4 degrees per second.
So, as an aside, I think they use shotguns instead of rifles, to allow a reasonable chance of hitting a clay pigeon, or a real bird. Also, using rifles would endanger people, animals and property two or more miles down range while shotgun pellets would fall out of the sky much sooner.
Using the information I found on Running Deer shooting, and the information you found on skeet shooting, leads me to conclude:
1. A target moving at 3.2 degrees per second provides a very difficult target, requiring a world class shooter, at least by 1908 standards (and likely 2022 standards) to have a good chance of hitting such a target.
2. A target moving at 5.4 degrees per second is even much more challenging. Almost doubling the angular velocity requires making the target about five times closer.
All in all, it's not surprising that Oswald could miss the limousine, at z153, with a target moving at a higher angular velocity than Olympic athletes had to hit in 1908.
In addition:
The grassy knoll shots would have been fired from a range of 100 or so feet, with an angular velocity greater than that of skeet shooting. Not vastly different than a clay pigeon shot. So still probably quite doable with a shotgun, but pretty chancy for most rifle shooters. Michael Yardley, a British world class skeet shooter (and a JFK CTer) who reenacted rifle shots for the Discovery Channel stated that he believed he could successfully recreate a Grassy Knoll shot. He asked the Discovery Channel if he could attempt this but they only had time to test the Oswald shots. I accept Michael Yardley's opinion that the Grassy Knoll shot could be made by a world class expert. Still, the shooter was really making it tough for himself to attempt such a difficult shot. And making it much more likely he would be clearly photographed and caught if he fired from there, as opposed from a darkened window. Making the scenario that there really was a Grassy Knoll shooter pretty implausible, to me.
-
Brian
I am no kind of expert of shooting with any weapon, be it rifle or shotgun, but hitting a moving target with a shotgun must be much easier than using a rifle. The shotgun pellets spread a fair amount, I understand, so there is a good deal more for margin of error with a shotgun than a rifle.
Your information is still useful. Moving from a target moving at 3.2 degrees per second to 5.4 degrees per second, to get hits at the higher angular velocity target, one must:
1. Use a shotgun, which gives on a much greater margin of error, due to the spread of the shotgun pellets - Makes the shot easier
2. Reduce the range from 330 feet to 60 or 70 feet - Makes the shot easier
3. Use as a target something that is a lot smaller than an outline of a Running Deer. The best shooters generally scored two or three points, so they were often able to hit a target a good deal smaller than a deer. Still, overall, the size of the target was, I would guess, larger than a clay pigeon - Makes the shot harder
I don't know but factors 1 and 3 probably about cancel each other out. All in all, it appears one must give the shooter who can hit a target moving at 3.2 degrees per second a significant edge to allow them to still hit a target at 5.4 degrees per second.
So, as an aside, I think they use shotguns instead of rifles, to allow a reasonable chance of hitting a clay pigeon, or a real bird. Also, using rifles would endanger people, animals and property two or more miles down range while shotgun pellets would fall out of the sky much sooner.
Using the information I found on Running Deer shooting, and the information you found on skeet shooting, leads me to conclude:
1. A target moving at 3.2 degrees per second provides a very difficult target, requiring a world class shooter, at least by 1908 standards (and likely 2022 standards) to have a good chance of hitting such a target.
2. A target moving at 5.4 degrees per second is even much more challenging. Almost doubling the angular velocity requires making the target about five times closer.
All in all, it's not surprising that Oswald could miss the limousine, at z153, with a target moving at a higher angular velocity than Olympic athletes had to hit in 1908.
In addition:
The grassy knoll shots would have been fired from a range of 100 or so feet, with an angular velocity greater than that of skeet shooting. Not vastly different than a clay pigeon shot. So still probably quite doable with a shotgun, but pretty chancy for most rifle shooters. Michael Yardley, a British world class skeet shooter (and a JFK CTer) who reenacted rifle shots for the Discovery Channel stated that he believed he could successfully recreate a Grassy Knoll shot. He asked the Discovery Channel if he could attempt this but they only had time to test the Oswald shots. I accept Michael Yardley's opinion that the Grassy Knoll shot could be made by a world class expert. Still, the shooter was really making it tough for himself to attempt such a difficult shot. And making it much more likely he would be clearly photographed and caught if he fired from there, as opposed from a darkened window. Making the scenario that there really was a Grassy Knoll shooter pretty implausible, to me.
Thx, Your analysis seems pretty good to me.
I qualified as a Marksman on fixed targets with a .22 rifle, but I think it would be pretty difficult to hit moving targets. Ok, full disclosure, it was only an NRA Boy Scout level Marksman many years ago :) but I think accurately hitting a non-stationary target with any appreciable motion would be hard to do without decent knowledge of the target's speed and quite a bit of practice.
-
Thx, Your analysis seems pretty good to me.
I qualified as a Marksman on fixed targets with a .22 rifle, but I think it would be pretty difficult to hit moving targets. Ok, full disclosure, it was only an NRA Boy Scout level Marksman many years ago :) but I think accurately hitting a non-stationary target with any appreciable motion would be hard to do without decent knowledge of the target's speed and quite a bit of practice.
Clearly you were a good honest scout....Brian. Honesty is something that is sorely lacking in these discussions about the murder of President Kennedy.
And I wanted to tell you that you're quite right in saying:.... "I think accurately hitting a non-stationary target with any appreciable motion would be hard to do without decent knowledge of the target's speed and quite a bit of practice".
And you probably know that Lee Oswald had no practice at all... Even in the Marine Corp ( 4 years earlier) he never was taught how to hit a moving target....
And I neglected to mention that there was a tree in full foliage between the sixth floor window and the moving Lincoln. What do you believe the odds are for hitting a target with deadly accuracy if the moving target is obscured by a tree?
-
Clearly you were a good honest scout....Brian. Honesty is something that is sorely lacking in these discussions about the murder of President Kennedy.
And I wanted to tell you that you're quite right in saying:.... "I think accurately hitting a non-stationary target with any appreciable motion would be hard to do without decent knowledge of the target's speed and quite a bit of practice".
And you probably know that Lee Oswald had no practice at all... Even in the Marine Corp ( 4 years earlier) he never was taught how to hit a moving target....
Oswald had no practice at hitting a moving target. As is true of all Marines who go through basic training. Clearly, it is not practical to train thousands of recruits at once how to do so. Even so, Marines have proven effective at hitting moving targets. During World War II, Marines, just to survive, had to hit charging Japanese soldiers. Both when the enemy was charging directly toward them, giving a target with an angular velocity of zero degrees per second, and when firing at enemies that are charging a neighboring section of the line, giving a target with a non-zero angular velocity. Clearly becoming very good at hitting stationary targets allows one to be at least fairly good at hitting a moving target. Good enough to survive World War II combat.
And I am certain that Gunnery Drill Sergeants would have given Oswald and the other recruits advice on how to hit a moving target, to lead the target by an appropriate amount, although it was not practicable to shoot at real moving targets during training.
Again, according to my calculations, the angular velocity of a moving target was:
3.2 degrees per second, for the Olympic 1908 Running Deer competition.
4.8 degrees per second, for Oswald’s first shot at z-153, which missed the limousine.
1.9 degrees per second, for Oswald’s second shot at z-222, which wounded both Kennedy and Connally.
0.58 degrees per second, for Oswald’s third shot at z-312, which killed Kennedy.
Yes, when Oswald attempted a shot that was more difficult than the shots the best shooters in the world could make in 1908, he failed. As one would expect. But at a target with a much lower angular velocity, 1.9 degrees per second and 0.58 degrees per second, he made accurate shots. I know of no shooting tests that show someone with Marine training cannot be expected to make these shots. Although if anyone has more data on this, I would like to hear about it.
And I neglected to mention that there was a tree in full foliage between the sixth floor window and the moving Lincoln. What do you believe the odds are for hitting a target with deadly accuracy if the moving target is obscured by a tree?
While the HSCA favored a shot attempted while the tree blocked the shot at z-186, this position was never embraced by the LN community. I don’t think you can name a single LNer on this forum who believes in this scenario. The current LN position, which has been held for over thirty years, is that none of the shots were attempted while the tree blocked the line of sight. The first shot, at z-153 was attempted before the tree blocked the line of sight. The second and third shots were made afterwards. JFK cleared the tree totally by around z-206. Oswald would have had a clear view for 0.9 seconds before the shot at z-222.
-
Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.
-
Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.
That would be the not so rare cottontail rabbit in 1959.
-
Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.
I had heard that. Still, he only had very limited experience at shooting at moving targets, as opposed to stationary targets. Like most Marines.
But how much experience does one need with moving targets with a target within 100 yards and moving at only 0.58 or even 1.9 degrees per second? I don't know but I would guess maybe none.
I would expect that, so long as one can continue to track the target, a Marine trained shooter can still accurately aim at a moving target. Only when the angular velocity reaches a certain threshold would the aiming suddenly become wildly off. If you can't aim any shot would most likely miss by a lot, without a lot of luck.
This guess of mine would explain why thousands of Marines, with no more training at moving targets than Oswald, were able to survive and successfully shoot charging Japanese soldiers in World War II.
-
I had heard that. Still, he only had very limited experience at shooting at moving targets, as opposed to stationary targets. Like most Marines.
But how much experience does one need with moving targets with a target within 100 yards and moving at only 0.58 or even 1.9 degrees per second? I don't know but I would guess maybe none.
I would expect that, so long as one can continue to track the target, a Marine trained shooter can still accurately aim at a moving target. Only when the angular velocity reaches a certain threshold would the aiming suddenly become wildly off. If you can't aim any shot would most likely miss by a lot, without a lot of luck.
This guess of mine would explain why thousands of Marines, with no more training at moving targets than Oswald, were able to survive and successfully shoot charging Japanese soldiers in World War II.
Also, I think that a possibility of shooting (moving) skeet while in Minsk exists. I have read that he was involved with a club or group that involved shotguns. But I don’t remember any details (if they were given).
-
That would be the not so rare cottontail rabbit in 1959.
I haven't heard anything about a cottontail rabbit. I do remember seeing jackrabbits when I was in Texas. Here's what I was referring to:
(https://i.vgy.me/0n3jLz.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/yxQevt.png)
Now, we can just wait until some clown tries to say the photo of LHO with a rifle is faked.... ;D
-
The Ringtail "Cat".
A great website is at:
https://www.onezoom.org
There one can learn that the Ringtail is part of a group of animals, 8 species altogether, of Ringtail, Coati and Raccoon. They all share a common ancestor of (roughly) 14 million years ago.
If ever you are kidnapped by an Alien and told you will be released if you can tell how long ago did humans share a common ancestor with some random mammal, give an answer of 85 million years ago. Off course, the answer depends on which mammal you are talking about. For Primates, Rodents and Rabbits, the answer will be somewhat less. For Elephants, Kangaroos, somewhat more. But an answer of 85 million years (roughly) will give you the correct answer for Dogs, Cats, Horses, Cows, Bats, Whales, etc. and even for Deer (running or not), Raccoons and Ringtails. Just over 40 per cent of all Mammal species alive today.
Needless to say, that obscure ancestor of 85 million years ago was wildly successful, in a Darwinian sense. It is the ancestor of 4,642 species our of the 5,046 species of all mammals alive today, over 90 % of all mammals. Pretty good for a single obscure specie of small Mammal using all it's wits to avoid Dinosaurs, and larger mammals. There were, no doubt, many species of Mammals alive at that time. But only one was destined to have over 90 % of the mammals alive today descended from it.
To what can we give credit for our "half" of the Boreoeutheria, the Euarchontoglires, having about 60 per cent of these Boreoeutheria species? To the Rodents who have 2,096 species, out of the 2,575 species of the Euarchontoglires group. Well done lads.
By the way, Mammal groups tend to be associated with some isolated continent that existed in the past. The "Boroeutheria" (Northern True Beasts) originated in the combined Europe-Asia-North America (excluding India) continent that was isolated from the other continents at the time.
The Atlantogenata (Atlantic) group of 99 species with a common ancestor of 89.1 million years ago containing Elephants and Sloths is associated with the combined South America-Africa continent.
And the Afrotheria (Africa) group of 69 species with a common ancestor of 84.2 million years ago containing Elephants and Aarkvarks is associated with Africa which became isolated from all other continents at that time.
These continental separations were not absolute. By some minor (or major) miracle, a small group of monkeys must of rafted across the young and much narrower Atlantic ocean to become the ancestors of the New World Monkeys of South and Central America. And Bats are very good at reaching continents of some distance apart. But an ocean barrier is still a pretty serious barrier. Early Primates existed in many parts of the world. They may have originated in North America. But they died out everywhere except Africa. Why? Probably because Rodents outcompeted and wiped out all Primates in the entire World, everywhere except in Africa, which (I assume) early Primates managed to reach (by a natural wooden raft?) but no Rodent managed to do so. So our existent today depended on Africa being isolated from the other continents for tens of millions of years. And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa. And no Rodents making a lucky ocean crossing like the New World Monkeys did. To survive Darwinian competition for tens of millions of years, a group needs to be very good and get some luck along the way.
Note, for some who think they may detect a math error, 51 per cent of Mammals share a closer common ancestor to us than 85 million years ago. 41 per cent share a common ancestor with us of 85 million years ago. And 8 per cent share a common ancestor of more than 85 million years ago, perhaps as far back as 180 million years ago. Hence, in answering the Aliens question, 85 million years is only going to be the correct answer in 41 per cent of the cases, not 92 per cent of the time. But this answer still give you your best chance. Good luck.
These answers are primarily based on DNA comparisons, which provides something of a clock to tell all distantly related two species are. The more different, the farther back in time the common ancestor lived. Certainly not as accurate as measuring the age of rocks through comparing radioactive isotopes but it does give a rough measure.
In any case, don't forget to check out onezoom.org and make your own discoveries.
-
The Ringtail "Cat".
A great website is at:
https://www.onezoom.org
There one can learn that the Ringtail is part of a group of animals, 8 species altogether, of Ringtail, Coati and Raccoon. They all share a common ancestor of (roughly) 14 million years ago.
If ever you are kidnapped by an Alien and told you will be released if you can tell how long ago did humans share a common ancestor with some random mammal, give an answer of 85 million years ago. Off course, the answer depends on which mammal you are talking about. For Primates, Rodents and Rabbits, the answer will be somewhat less. For Elephants, Kangaroos, somewhat more. But an answer of 85 million years (roughly) will give you the correct answer for Dogs, Cats, Horses, Cows, Bats, Whales, etc. and even for Deer (running or not), Raccoons and Ringtails. Just over 40 per cent of all Mammal species alive today.
Needless to say, that obscure ancestor of 85 million years ago was wildly successful, in a Darwinian sense. It is the ancestor of 4,642 species our of the 5,046 species of all mammals alive today, over 90 % of all mammals. Pretty good for a single obscure specie of small Mammal using all it's wits to avoid Dinosaurs, and larger mammals. There were, no doubt, many species of Mammals alive at that time. But only one was destined to have over 90 % of the mammals alive today descended from it.
To what can we give credit for our "half" of the Boreoeutheria, the Euarchontoglires, having about 60 per cent of these Boreoeutheria species? To the Rodents who have 2,096 species, out of the 2,575 species of the Euarchontoglires group. Well done lads.
By the way, Mammal groups tend to be associated with some isolated continent that existed in the past. The "Boroeutheria" (Northern True Beasts) originated in the combined Europe-Asia-North America (excluding India) continent that was isolated from the other continents at the time.
The Atlantogenata (Atlantic) group of 99 species with a common ancestor of 89.1 million years ago containing Elephants and Sloths is associated with the combined South America-Africa continent.
And the Afrotheria (Africa) group of 69 species with a common ancestor of 84.2 million years ago containing Elephants and Aarkvarks is associated with Africa which became isolated from all other continents at that time.
These continental separations were not absolute. By some minor (or major) miracle, a small group of monkeys must of rafted across the young and much narrower Atlantic ocean to become the ancestors of the New World Monkeys of South and Central America. And Bats are very good at reaching continents of some distance apart. But an ocean barrier is still a pretty serious barrier. Early Primates existed in many parts of the world. They may have originated in North America. But they died out everywhere except Africa. Why? Probably because Rodents outcompeted and wiped out all Primates in the entire World, everywhere except in Africa, which (I assume) early Primates managed to reach (by a natural wooden raft?) but no Rodent managed to do so. So our existent today depended on Africa being isolated from the other continents for tens of millions of years. And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa. And no Rodents making a lucky ocean crossing like the New World Monkeys did. To survive Darwinian competition for tens of millions of years, a group needs to be very good and get some luck along the way.
Note, for some who think they may detect a math error, 51 per cent of Mammals share a closer common ancestor to us than 85 million years ago. 41 per cent share a common ancestor with us of 85 million years ago. And 8 per cent share a common ancestor of more than 85 million years ago, perhaps as far back as 180 million years ago. Hence, in answering the Aliens question, 85 million years is only going to be the correct answer in 41 per cent of the cases, not 92 per cent of the time. But this answer still give you your best chance. Good luck.
These answers are primarily based on DNA comparisons, which provides something of a clock to tell all distantly related two species are. The more different, the farther back in time the common ancestor lived. Certainly not as accurate as measuring the age of rocks through comparing radioactive isotopes but it does give a rough measure.
In any case, don't forget to check out onezoom.org and make your own discoveries.
And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa.
It was only supposed to be a 3-hour tour, a 3-hour tour…. ;)
-
And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa.
It was only supposed to be a 3-hour tour, a 3-hour tour…. ;)
Charles
Yes. Perhaps they were seven of them. About the minimum number for a new specie to get established, without too much inbreeding, which would likely wipe out a new colony over time. And they could never figure out how to get back home. Probably just as well since there were a bunch of rats waiting for them.
But seriously, the amount of history that can be inferred from DNA comparisons between the various species is amazing. There likely was a rafting event of very primitive primates from Eurasia to Africa, perhaps around 60 to 65 million years ago. And Rodents, for whatever reason, could not make the same voyage. And then around 25 million years ago, more advanced primates, some monkeys, made a similar voyage from Africa to South America.
By the time Rodents did reach Africa, Primates had advanced enough that they could hold their own against the Rodents. Primates (Monkeys and Apes) seem to be the primary "herbivores" of the Tropical forest canopy, while Rodents (Squirrels) seem to be the primary "herbivores" of the Temperate forest canopy.
For some reason, Primates seem to do remarkably well surviving on a tree "raft" across even hundreds of miles of ocean. This is surprising because I didn't think that Primates were very good at getting by without a good deal of fresh water. Certainly people are not able to.
Question:
Did you check out onezoom.org and find it interesting?
I think it is one of the most interesting websites around.
-
Charles
Yes. Perhaps they were seven of them. About the minimum number for a new specie to get established, without too much inbreeding, which would likely wipe out a new colony over time. And they could never figure out how to get back home. Probably just as well since there were a bunch of rats waiting for them.
But seriously, the amount of history that can be inferred from DNA comparisons between the various species is amazing. There likely was a rafting event of very primitive primates from Eurasia to Africa, perhaps around 60 to 65 million years ago. And Rodents, for whatever reason, could not make the same voyage. And then around 25 million years ago, more advanced primates, some monkeys, made a similar voyage from Africa to South America.
By the time Rodents did reach Africa, Primates had advanced enough that they could hold their own against the Rodents. Primates (Monkeys and Apes) seem to be the primary "herbivores" of the Tropical forest canopy, while Rodents (Squirrels) seem to be the primary "herbivores" of the Temperate forest canopy.
For some reason, Primates seem to do remarkably well surviving on a tree "raft" across even hundreds of miles of ocean. This is surprising because I didn't think that Primates were very good at getting by without a good deal of fresh water. Certainly people are not able to.
Question:
Did you check out onezoom.org and find it interesting?
I think it is one of the most interesting websites around.
Yes, thanks, that’s a great resource. Here’s a link to the information that they have for the ringtail cat:
https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Bassariscus=685106 (https://www.onezoom.org/life/@Bassariscus=685106)
Edit: The link works a bit different than I expected. But click on the image of the ringtail and it opens a new tab with a lot of information on the animal. Thumb1:
-
(https://i.vgy.me/yxQevt.png)
Was that in Robert’s book? In his testimony, all he mentioned was that they shot 8 cottontail rabbits between them on this outing.
-
I haven't heard anything about a cottontail rabbit. I do remember seeing jackrabbits when I was in Texas. Here's what I was referring to:
(https://i.vgy.me/0n3jLz.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/yxQevt.png)
Now, we can just wait until some clown tries to say the photo of LHO with a rifle is faked.... ;D
Why would anybody claim that the photo of LHO is faked? Paranoid much?
In fact, if nothing else, the photo shows that Oswald was photographed, more than once, holding a rifle and we know for a fact that he did not own that rifle!
What you should take away from that (but likely won't) is that the BY photos do not prove that Oswald owned a rifle. They only show that he was holding one!
-
Was that in Robert’s book? In his testimony, all he mentioned was that they shot 8 cottontail rabbits between them on this outing.
Yes, from Robert’s book. I don’t remember seeing anything about them shooting at Peter Cottontail in his book.