If it can be done, then why hasn't anyone done so? Or to put it another way we can put to rest the rumor that it has ever been done on video
Now you just need to recreate the condition of aforementioned windows characteristics and an oak tree and maybe you would have something
In reality, Oswald had closer to nine seconds to complete the shooting
In reality, Oswald had closer to nine seconds to complete the shooting and was helped by the fact that the limo noticeably slowed down before the head shot. Under those conditions, lots of marksmen could simulate the shooting.
Also there's only one confirmed hit from Oswald, the headshot is not confirmed to be from him, so he only had to hit once on three shots. His second and third shots missed.
The headshot is confirmed to have been fired from Oswald's rifle. Two large bullet fragments found in the limo were matched to his rifle.
The headshot is confirmed to have been fired from Oswald's rifle. Two large bullet fragments found in the limo were matched to his rifle.Considering the exit wound, isn't that evidence against rather than for the bullet fragments being from the headshot?
Considering the exit wound, isn't that evidence against rather than for the bullet fragments being from the headshot?
Fair enough Paul I assume the problem is my thought that he might have needed to lay down given the dimensions of the situation I think i was pretty close of the dimensions, but admittedly on the idea that it could be done more easily kneeling or with boxes I will certainly trust others that it was possible It does seem like the frame of the bottom of the raised position of the bottom window would be obstructing ones view if one were knelling with your head above the open portion of the window . My main point is to reproduce the dimensions of the snipers nest during reenactment I did not see all the information you have provided previously on this issue until now
If it can be done, then why hasn't anyone done so? Or to put it another way we can put to rest the rumor that it has ever been done on video
BS! Citation pls.
Interesting that Frazier does not offer to explain how he has come to the conclusion that the fragment came from Oswald's rifle nor is he questioned in that regard
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2,[was admitted as CE-567] and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
.................................
Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Well, that's all I needed to know about Frazier. What forensic test did he use to determine the "fragments" came from the MC? Ballistic lines on the fragments? HA! Show me the analysis. Ironically, I agree with Frazier that those bullet fragments were likely shot from the MC into a swimming pool or whatever so they could be retrieved and mysteriously turn up as evidence, which Frazier can positively link to the alleged murder weapon. Right. Frazier was clearly a co-conspirator, a fool, or both.
No ! Leatherneck.com- Kennedy Assassination : Legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School of Quantico , Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American Military sniper in History as of 7-29-07 ( the day of this posting in Leatherneck.com). In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He conducted police Swat team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock : " Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did". (Kill Zone, pp. 89-90). Gunny Hathcock has gone on his last patrol (passed on). God keep you Gunny
Fragments, not fragment. And Frazier does explain how he came to the conclusion that the fragments came from Oswald's rifle.
Well, that's all I needed to know about Frazier. What forensic test did he use to determine the "fragments" came from the MC? Ballistic lines on the fragments? HA! Show me the analysis.
The guy who wrote "Kill zone" is a prevaricator.
I believe the fragments were identified as being from a particular bullet from very flawed material analysis using antimony content as a basis of comparison to conclude this or that fragment was from this or that bullet. I don't believe any of the expanding bullet fragments would still be in the vehicle for instance, they would have exited the vicinity of the car along with most of Kennedy's brain
Before the sun had set on 11-22-1963, they had their man.
He was a lone gunman. No need to look at conspiracy. Further investigation...un-necessary.
Oswald was already convicted of the assassination long before all of this re-enactment/analysis/ stuff ever transpired.
The Warren Commission just needed to glaze the cake that had been baked that afternoon.
So I resent being called a 'conspiracy theorist' [just because I don't believe the government's Report]...when in fact the government case against Oswald was itself based upon a theory.
There was a massive cover-up and concealment of anything that would or might exonerate Oswald.
That just simply is no theory.
Now me...if I wanted to shoot someone riding in that open car with that rifle...from that window, and make sure I finished him, I would have plugged him at the turn onto Elm St...once between the eyes and then down right through the head for good measure.
So...c'mon ::)
The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton of evidence.
So you keep claiming.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
That Conspiracy buffs like yourself refuse to accept that evidence is fine but don't expect reasonable people to take you seriously.
No ! Leatherneck.com- Kennedy Assassination : Legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U.S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School of Quantico , Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American Military sniper in History as of 7-29-07 ( the day of this posting in Leatherneck.com). In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He conducted police Swat team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock : " Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did". (Kill Zone, pp. 89-90). Gunny Hathcock has gone on his last patrol (passed on). God keep you Gunny
Your boy would fry, son
Thus proving that Oswald was a better shot under pressure...
What in hell is a 'buff'?
Jerry Freeman ........
What in hell is a 'buff'?
A naked person......
Matt,
Who can prove Oswald was even using that cheap 4x18 scope mounted on the Carano rifle? There is no reason why he could not have used the rifle's iron sights. Faster performance and certainly capable of the accuracy at that distance.
Now, if Oswald was a shooter on the sixth floor, and did use the scope, you usually have to zero in the scope by making the first shot a test shot to see where the bullet goes. Hence, the tree limb, the overhead sign post, or the concrete curbing on the south side of Elm Street. You don't buy a scoped mail order rifle and commence firing it with that accuracy as shown with General Walker and then Kennedy. He would have to had used and practiced with it once in a while somewhere. I recall his USMC qualification was only marksmen. Could it have been done? Sure. But I don't think we know the full facts, and never will.
BB
I used the same powered scope many times and it's cumbersome and time consuming to use.
Three shots in six seconds at a moving target ......that was behind a tree..... Do you think Lee Oswald or anybody could have accomplished the feat?
Could it have been done? No definitely not!
Walt
A semi-automatic weapon, with the best scope money can buy, and the proper ammo, one man would be capable of pulling off a couple of rounds accurately. A stiff, 20 year old bolt action rifle with 20 year old Western Cartridge ammo, a scope out of alignment at a moving target at that distance, in that time limit, with at least 2 hits and probably one miss? I don't buy it. I also qualified as a marksmen. Not that good. Tens of thousands of guys better than me. So what we have is a least one known round fired from behind. I don't think anyone questions a shot or more from behind. Many witnesses heard three shots, and it happens three spent shell casings, along with a rifle were found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Open and shut case for the Dallas PD it seems. Scopes are for snipers, and are very effective for their purpose, but under these time constraints using a bolt action rifle, Oswald would have to be an expert with that particular rifle and extremely lucky. As I said, many unanswered questions.
BB
I'm sure you know that the scope was not only mounted askew it was mounted high and on the left of the barrel ....Not at all comfortable and conducive to fast accurate shooting....
The scope was nothing but a cheap piece of junk that was hastily and clumsily mounted for sales appeal to help Kleins unload those cheap junky rifles.....
Unwitting and gullible reporters latched onto the idea that the DPD was peddling, Which was the BS that the scope made the rifle a deadly accurate sniper's rifle. The gullible reporters sold that BS to schocked ad grieving gullible public.... The Idea that that Carcano was the murder weapon is utterly absurd!!!
Walt
A semi-automatic weapon, with the best scope money can buy, and the proper ammo, one man would be capable of pulling off a couple of rounds accurately. A stiff, 20 year old bolt action rifle with 20 year old Western Cartridge ammo, a scope out of alignment at a moving target at that distance, in that time limit, with at least 2 hits and probably one miss? I don't buy it. I also qualified as a marksmen. Not that good. Tens of thousands of guys better than me. So what we have is a least one known round fired from behind. I don't think anyone questions a shot or more from behind. Many witnesses heard three shots, and it happens three spent shell casings, along with a rifle were found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Open and shut case for the Dallas PD it seems. Scopes are for snipers, and are very effective for their purpose, but under these time constraints using a bolt action rifle, Oswald would have to be an expert with that particular rifle and extremely lucky. As I said, many unanswered questions.
BB
So conspirators set the apparently crappy shot Oswald as a patsy, yet give him crappy ammo and rifle.. and then expect the public to believe him as the shooter.
Great plan!
Good enough to convince you apparently. What conspirators though? Bruce didn't say anything about conspirators.
LOL
Show me what CTer doesn't believe Oswald a patsy, doesn't think him a crappy shot with crappy ammo & rifle. And did it alone. Pretty sure BB dissed the rifle, ammo and minimized the 'marksman' marine level.
In no way am I being disrespectful to any man or woman in the USMC who attain a marksman level during qualifications. You have to achieve a marksman level of at least 190, or else you go back to rifle instruction and won't graduate with your platoon. My understanding was Oswald was a marksmen. Never achieved sharpshooter or expert that requires a 210 or better out of a possible 250. That being said, there are a hell of a lot of recruits who do achieve sharpshooter or expert in qualifications. Don't make Oswald something he wasn't. Like I said there are tens of thousands sharpshooters and experts. Even back in 1963, fake news would like you to believe Oswald was some expert which he never was. Average recruit, nothing more. Anyone in the business would buy an M1 Gerand or M1 carbine back in those days. Not some piece of garbage like a Carcano with a BB gun telescopic sight. Also remember Oswald was discharged as a hardship case, later changed to a dishonorable discharge. No help forthcoming from Gov. Connally to reverse it. I wonder sometimes if Kennedy was his intended victim. In any event, I take the middle road. Not a LN or CT in this case.
BB
My understanding was Oswald was a marksmen. Never achieved sharpshooter or expert that requires a 210 or better out of a possible 250.
Matt,
Who can prove Oswald was even using that cheap 4x18 scope mounted on the Carano rifle? There is no reason why he could not have used the rifle's iron sights. Faster performance and certainly capable of the accuracy at that distance. I used the same powered scope many times and it's cumbersome and time consuming to use. Now, if Oswald was a shooter on the sixth floor, and did use the scope, you usually have to zero in the scope by making the first shot a test shot to see where the bullet goes. Hence, the tree limb, the overhead sign post, or the concrete curbing on the south side of Elm Street. You don't buy a scoped mail order rifle and commence firing it with that accuracy as shown with General Walker and then Kennedy. He would have to had used and practiced with it once in a while somewhere. I recall his USMC qualification was only marksmen. Could it have been done? Sure. But I don't think we know the full facts, and never will.
BB
The Marines had three qualifications for rifle proficiency: Marksman (190 to 209 points), Sharpshooter (210 to 219 points) and Expert (220 to 250 points). In December of 1956, Oswald scored 212 points on a test...two points over the "Sharpshooter" minimum and eight points short of "expert." In earning that score, he hit 48 of 50, then 49 of 50, in shots taken at a target 200 yards away. Later, in 1959, he qualified as a "Marksman."
---------------------------------------
Would you be willing to take JFK's seat in a reenactment with an Oswald- level shooter firing live rounds at you?
Correct Walt. In Oswald's 1959 qualifications, I believe he scored 192. Just made it over the 190 minimum for marksman. There was talk in a previous time period he made sharpshooter, but by 1959 his ability had deteriorated. Without practice on a range, by November 1963 it would have probably deteriorated further. That's what happens.
This is just one of those endless CTer rabbit holes. Contend something can't be done, be given evidence that it can, suggest the recreations are flawed because they do not reflect with 100 percent accuracy the conditions. Add to this that the actual shot sequence and length of time that Oswald had to fire the shots is uncertain. He could have taken as long as 10 seconds or more depending on when the first and last shots are fired. Making this event all the more plausible from a shooter's perspective. And if there were any doubt, the evidence itself proves it was done. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant to the discussion. That would be like arguing the odds of winning the lottery are so long that someone who has won couldn't have done so even if they have the winning ticket to prove it. It's laughable. Oswald did it. The evidence confirms the matter.
in 1959, he qualified as a "Marksman."
Was he using a rusty old bolt action mannlicher carcano with the scope mounted askew??
Correct Walt. In Oswald's 1959 qualifications, I believe he scored 192. Just made it over the 190 minimum for marksman. There was talk in a previous time period he made sharpshooter, but by 1959 his ability had deteriorated. Without practice on a range, by November 1963 it would have probably deteriorated further. That's what happens.
And if there were any doubt, the evidence itself proves it was done. Once a thing has occurred, the odds against it occurring are no longer relevant to the discussion.
I know there is an exact date Oswald P/U the rifle and .38 at the post office.
The last time Marina saw the rifle was when she opened the blanket containing a rifle, while looking for parts to a crib I believe in Paine's garage about two weeks prior to the assassination. Any reason why you ask?
BB
Absolutely correct, a lot of people call it nothing less than a potshot.
Did somebody see a scope on the rifle in the window?
If there is, then it's somebody's wild-ass guess and not based on any actual evidence that Oswald ever picked either of these things up. Also, the alleged revolver was allegedly picked up at Railway Express, C.O.D.
It was six weeks earlier (late September, early October). And she didn't open the blanket, she peered into the end of a tied-up blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
Especially with that piece of crap scope and rifle you got there.
Since he was a military marksman, Oswald knew a non-sighted scope would be useless to him, in which case, there is no way Oswald would have left the scope on the rifle after he disassembled it and placed its parts into a paper bag.
If it's 1963, one would probably take the parcel card that was placed in the box, go to the window and say Box 2915, and leave with the parcel without having to show ID or sign for it.
What does it all mean? Nothing! The damning part is the fool should have destroyed the A. Hidell ID card earlier, allegedly found on Oswald's person at Police HQ.
The soviets ran a simulation of the shooting in 1963 in Russia, it can be done
Sorry.... It cannot be done.... The configuration of the cramped cubbyhole behind the window of and by itself precludes the feasibility of anybody firing a rifle as proposed by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and Honorable Men" (aka the Warren Commission)
| (https://i.ibb.co/mhWT2QH/SN-14-Count-Box-Stack.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/bc/64/qFhPoj68_o.png) |
Joe Rogan commented that Oswald may have thrown down the rifle after the shooting and therefore causing the damage to the scope.... Is it possible that he intentionally threw it down, perhaps out of frustration ....After quite meticulously wiping off his prints :D
No.
Oswald's rifle when tested was as accurate as the then current American M-14.
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
JohnM
The soviets ran a simulation of the shooting in 1963 in Russia, it can be done....That sure is a funky simulation :D
https://archive.org/details/TheSecretKGBJFKAssassinationFiles1998
Fast forward to 45 minutes
After quite meticulously wiping off his prints :D
The scope was misaligned when they found it in the TSBD. To zero it in they needed to shim it. There is no way the scope could have helped anyone shooting the Carcano hit a target on 11/22/63.
The iron sights were fixed and zero'd in at 200 meters. When US Army experts test fired the rifle for the WC using the iron sights, at the distances the WC claimed, the bullets tended to not only miss high they sailed over the top of the board holding the target at the head shot distance.
Those same Army experts found the bolt action to be sticky. Cycling the bolt between shots caused their shooters to take the sights off the
target. The LN shooter didn't have time to reacquire a moving target between shots in the time the WC came up with.
The trigger on the Carcano was 2 stage. They found the 2nd stage to be a hair trigger that took live practice firing.
There is no record of Ozzie practice firing it.
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to
shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I
think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the
target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do
you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required
to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger
would best be achieved with some firing.
~snip~
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the
recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil
of the weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.
~snip~
Sorry.... It cannot be done.... The configuration of the cramped cubbyhole behind the window of and by itself precludes the feasibility of anybody firing a rifle as proposed by LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee of Venerated and Honorable Men" (aka the Warren Commission)
Sorry but it was done. Beyond any reasonable doubt. The two large bullet fragments found in the limo, the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland, and the three empty shell casings found in the sniper's nest were matched to the rifle found in the sixth floor. Anyone who has viewed the evidence and denies that it happened is simply not reasonable. They cannot be reasoned with.
The two large bullet fragments found in the limo,
J. Edna Hoover told Lyin Bastroid Johnson that the fragments were worthless for determining if they had been fired from a particular rifle.
the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland,
Nobody knows where that "Magic Bullet" was found .... It was never verified on which stretcher the bullet was found.
the three empty shell casings found in the sniper's nest were matched to the rifle found in the sixth floor.
BFD!.... When?? I ask...Can you PROVE when the cartridges were fired in the rifle? We know that it could not have been that day because the bore was dirty and rusty....
Sorry but it was done. Beyond any reasonable doubt. The two large bullet fragments found in the limo, the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland, and the three empty shell casings found in the sniper's nest were matched to the rifle found in the sixth floor. Anyone who has viewed the evidence and denies that it happened is simply not reasonable. They cannot be reasoned with.
Wesley J. Liebeler, one of the Warren Commission’s senior attorneys, critiqued their analysis of Ozzie's rifle capabilities.
Number .17 on the list sums up his conclusion. A classic case of circular logic.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities1.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities2.png)
The two large bullet fragments found in the limo,
J. Edna Hoover told Lyin Bastroid Johnson that the fragments were worthless for determining if they had been fired from a particular rifle.
the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland,
Nobody knows where that "Magic Bullet" was found .... It was never verified on which stretcher the bullet was found.
the three empty shell casings found in the sniper's nest were matched to the rifle found in the sixth floor.
BFD!.... When?? I ask...Can you PROVE when the cartridges were fired in the rifle? We know that it could not have been that day because the bore was dirty and rusty....
11/23/63
J. Edgar Hoover: I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case -
this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they
have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment
of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man - no, to a woman by the name of "A. Hidell."... We
had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes, I told the Secret Service to see that that got taken care of.
J. Edgar Hoover: That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on
the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have
what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification. As soon as we finish the testing of the gun for fingerprints
... we will then be able to test the one bullet we have with the gun. But the important thing is that this gun was bought in Chicago
on a money order. Cost twenty-one dollars, and it seems almost impossible to think that for twenty-one dollars you could kill the
President of the United States.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Now, who is A. Hidell?
J. Edgar Hoover: A. Hidell is an alias that this man has used on other occasions, and according to the information we have from the
house in which he was living - his mother - he kept a rifle like this wrapped up in a blanket which he kept in the house. On the
morning that this incident occurred down there - yesterday - the man who drove him to the building where they work, the building from
where the shots came, said that he had a package wrapped up in paper... But the important thing at the time is that the location of
the purchase of the gun by a money order apparently to the Klein Gun Company in Chicago - we were able to establish that last night.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
J. Edgar Hoover: No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reason - we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man
who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his
appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a
letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington, inquiring as well as complaining about the harassment of
his wife and the questioning of his wife by the FBI. Now, of course, that letter information - we process all mail that goes to the
Soviet embassy. It's a very secret operation. No mail is delivered to the embassy without being examined and opened by us, so that we
know what they receive... The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction... Now if we can identify this
man who was at the... Soviet embassy in Mexico City... This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn't know anything about anything,
but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.
"The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two hits from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds." Thumb1:
If he was capable of firing three shots with two hits in 4.8 seconds, then three shots with two hits in 8.6 seconds was a piece of cake for him. :)
sorry I meant where the individual hit a moving target and an oak tree
The limousine
Nicely done, though probably not your intent.
Cherry picking that sentence and claiming it proves Ozzie could fire the weapon that fast illustrates to anyone who reads 1 thru 17, and is lucid enough to understand it, the grasping at straw and denial required to support the WC.
The HSCA found that two shots could be fired in 1.6 seconds; but only the first one could be precisely aimed, with the second only pointed.
Now who's to say that pure dumb luck couldn't have been involved.
Z-313 head shot, heard by many earwitnesses, as a shot about 1 sec after a previous shot fired. It was a rather remarkable shot that took account of JFK head turned about 45 degrees leftward, relative to his limo, leaning leftward and rather close to Jackie Kennedy, and adjustment for limo slowing from 15mph to almost a stop in only about 2 seconds,and with a vector force of cross wind gust up to 20 mph.
Many earwitnesses were wrong. There wasn't a shot 1 second before the head shot. There were only three shots. Connally was hit by the second shot. Zapruder shows him reacting to being hit almost immediately after emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.Heard the shots he did...bullets did he see...the autopsy he performed. May the farce be with us.
The limo was the intended target? Why?
Oh, wait... the 'patsy' thing, right?
J.Edna Hoover? Who was she? FBI Expert Robert Frazier testified under oath the he was able to match the fragments to the rifle.
CE399 was found on Connally's stretcher. The earliest statements made by those who handled the stretcher confirm it.
I don't need to prove when the cartridges were fired. They were found in the sniper's nest and were fired in the same rifle as the two bullets that struck Kennedy.
Many earwitnesses were wrong. There wasn't a shot 1 second before the head shot. There were only three shots. Connally was hit by the second shot. Zapruder shows him reacting to being hit almost immediately after emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.
Zapruder shows whatever the beholder wants it to show.
So if I understand your disturbingly inane point, by considering a reenactment of whether an individual "could" get off the shots in the manner the Warren commission speculates did occur we are succumbing to an admission that that is what happened?. Say it ain't so Joe Have you considered donating your brain to science?
Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mind when they didn’t line up under the microscope. ::)
:D
"precisely aimed"
A misaligned scope, sticky bolt, iron sights zeroed in for 200 yards, and a 2 stage hair trigger.
It couldn't be precisely aimed.
Firing that rifle twice in 1.6 seconds, if it didn't jam, would have given a shooter from 6th floor SE corner TSBD as much chance of hitting JFK in the neck and/or head as if they had taken their time firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mind when they didn’t line up under the microscope. ::)
Please show us all the places where Frazier had to line up marks in his mind.
1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.
Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds. Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.
1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.
Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds. Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.
And you are one of those doing said beholding
Sorry Bill , but if I understood what you were implying I was a little worried
"1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches."
At 88 yards it sailed over the top of the board holding the target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing
posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second
targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which
extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette
"Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive order?
Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first
target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.
"2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be."
"3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.'
It's not what I believe it's what is in the testimony of the CO of the Army team of expert shooters, Mr. Simmons.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.
"4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself."
Never said it did. I did however point out the testimony of Mr. Simmons who said his men found working the bolt caused them to take the sights off the target. I noted that a shooter in the 6th floor SE corner TSBD wouldn't have had time to reacquire a moving target in the WC scenario.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=451
Mr. Eisenberg: Was it reported to you by the person who ran the machine-run tests whether they had difficulties with
sighting the weapon in?
Mr. Simmons: Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using
the iron sight. We did adjust the telescope sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth,
and one which adjusted an elevation.
"Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds. Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it."
Read number 14 below.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/rifle%20capabilities1.png)
The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it."
"The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable,"
This is not as easy as one might think.....Most American shooters who were familiar with "V" notch sights, would automatically align the top of the front blade with the TOP of the "V" of the rear sight .....But the correct alignment for the Carcano is different....The correct sight picture for the Carcano has the top of the front blade at the BOTTOM of the "V" of the rear sight. It should be readily apparent that any American shooter ( who was ignorant of the correct sight picture for the carcano sights) would fire over the top of his target, and at any range of 25 yards or more would miss a 8 inch bulls eye completely......
The testimony from Frazier clears up your "brief summation", btw, the evidence still exists and can be checked for verification by your expert.Quote from: John Iacoletti on December 07, 2019, 12:08:24 AMQuoteThen you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mindThat seems to be exactly what he said ::)
Why bother, its easily done. 3 shots in 8 or 9 seconds or whatever, missed one.Very easily done...with a little imagination.
Quote from: John Iacoletti on December 07, 2019, 12:08:24 AM
That seems to be exactly what he said ::)
Oh well...some schmoe that couldn't even get a drivers license winds up being a cracker jack sniper with absolutely no practice at all whatsoever using a POS tutti fruitti rifle that was falling apart.
Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome. Sad. Close to six decades now.
It is indeed sad to see people regurgitating the WC narrative without thinking.
Most folks who regurgitate the nonsense of the WR must do so because to actually open their eyes would cause their entire fairy tale world to collapse.
If JerryF, JohnI and you want to believe the Carcano was a "POS tutti fruitti rifle that was falling apart", and that a scenario with one full miss and one wounding shot before the fatal strike indicates a "cracker jack sniper", fine with me. There's no known cure for Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome; sometimes a rare "miracle cure" comes from within.
If JerryF, JohnI and you want to believe the Carcano was a "POS tutti fruitti rifle that was falling apart", and that a scenario with one full miss and one wounding shot before the fatal strike indicates a "cracker jack sniper", fine with me. There's no known cure for Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome; sometimes a rare "miracle cure" comes from within.
.... fine with me. There's no known cure for Warren Commission Derangement Syndrome....WCDS-- is that what Organ has had all this time? Anyway...glad to hear it is ''fine with him'' :)
Possible, however I would have to wonder, as I wander, if all three shots were fired by a "patsy". That is, of course, if there were only three.
Jerry, I don't know what your agenda is ...BUT... I will wager what ever amount of money that you can afford to lose that the tale about Lee Oswald using that old carcano to murder JFK, from that so called "sniper's Nest, is a huge pile of BS.
The only two witnesses ( Brennan and Rowland) who actually saw a man with a rifle behind the windows of the sixth floor said the rifle they saw was a HUNTING (aka high powered rifle) and one of those men said the hunting rifle had a large telescopic sight mounted.
And this is just fact #1 for starters.....
"Old carcano". The Carcano was about 23 years old and in dry storage for 18 of those years. It had the same bolt-action technology armies relied on all over the world. There was a post-WWII sea change towards the assault rifle, based on strategy not the bolt-action being obsolete overnight.
Both witnesses are problematic. What do you think a high-powered rifle would look like? Would it have a compressed-air pump attached to it? A small jet engine? Klein's Sporting Goods, who were in the business, advertised the Carcano as high-powered. And they were advertised as hunting rifles.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4389/35788665934_b4c81c876b_b.jpg)
The rifle/scope size ratio of the Carcano from Klein's is comparable to others offered at the time.
Wow!...Yer desperation is hanging out a country mile, Mr O. I'd wager that if you asked 100 men what kind of rifle is a "high powered" rifle at least 75% would tell you that a high powered rifle is a big game hunting rifle. Most folks know the the term high powered rifle is synonymous with big game hunting rifle.
2 shots in 8 or 9 seconds, slow moving target, fired by a qualified sharpshooter from 190 to 265 feet. Yeah, not too difficult.Why not really overstate it? A
2 shots in 8 or 9 seconds, slow moving target, fired by a qualified sharpshooter from 190 to 265 feet. Yeah, not too difficult.
How about with a wonky scope that no one so far has incorporated into their re-enactment? The FBI needed to add 3 shims to the scope mount just so they could hit the target, let alone thread the needle. And why would qualified sharpshooter Oswald not have sighted in the scope when he practiced his ass off, as ALL sharpshooters must do to keep sharp? Ans: because he never even fired CE 139, otherwise, he would have left at least 1 print on it that wasn't put there post-mortem.
Face it, CE 139 was the planted patsy rifle. They used it to shoot magic bullet CE 399 into a swimming pool so they could plant it on the wrong stretcher in pristine condition with no DNA on it. Yeah, not too difficult.
These were short range not long range shot distances. The use of a scope was not required.Begs the question why was a scope left on the rifle then? It provided a distraction if anything.
How could anyone possibly have known they would have to "plant" anything at the hospital?A nice juicy bullet that could be linked to that rifle was required to further convince the faithful that Oswald did it.
Begs the question why was a scope left on the rifle then? It provided a distraction if anything. A nice juicy bullet that could be linked to that rifle was required to further convince the faithful that Oswald did it.
In what way would a scope, out of the line of sight of the iron sights, be a distraction? If nothing else it would work as a telescope. The use of the iron sights was in no way hindered by the scope being mounted on the rifle.So why would someone need a telescope? Either a scope was required or it wasn't.
Somebody knew in advance that the bullet would pass through JFK's neck and strike JBC in the back? They would both be in Parkland needing medical attention?If a bullet was indeed planted...it was while they were there. If the men who were shot and taken to Baylor Hospital ...who knows?
Fragments from the second bullet also matched the same rifle. The rifle found on the 6th floor.Someone knew this in advance?
How about with a wonky scope that no one so far has incorporated into their re-enactment?
How about with a wonky scope that no one so far has incorporated into their re-enactment? The FBI needed to add 3 shims to the scope mount just so they could hit the target, let alone thread the needle. And why would qualified sharpshooter Oswald not have sighted in the scope when he practiced his ass off, as ALL sharpshooters must do to keep sharp? Ans: because he never even fired CE 139, otherwise, he would have left at least 1 print on it that wasn't put there post-mortem.
Face it, CE 139 was the planted patsy rifle. They used it to shoot magic bullet CE 399 into a swimming pool so they could plant it on the wrong stretcher in pristine condition with no DNA on it. Yeah, not too difficult.
So why would someone need a telescope? Either a scope was required or it wasn't. If a bullet was indeed planted...it was while they were there. If the men who were shot and taken to Baylor Hospital ...who knows? Someone knew this in advance?
Fragments from the second bullet also matched the same rifle. The rifle found on the 6th floor.Let's explain that. That idea is absolutely impossible. A reach beyond belief.
Exactly how do you align a scope to a rifle configured in the manner the carcano had been configured in? The scope mounting is offset to the left side of the barrel. If you align it to be pinpoint with the rifle barrel it is only accurate at one distance. If you align the scope to be parallel with the barrel, LHO would have had to known to estimate the crosshair setting to the left for an accurate shot.
(http://)
These were short range not long range shot distances. The use of a scope was not required.
How could anyone possibly have known they would have to "plant" anything at the hospital?
Exactly how do you align a scope to a rifle configured in the manner the carcano had been configured in? The scope mounting is offset to the left side of the barrel. If you align it to be pinpoint with the rifle barrel it is only accurate at one distance. If you align the scope to be parallel with the barrel, LHO would have had to known to estimate the crosshair setting to the left for an accurate shot.
(http://)
These were short range not long range shot distances. The use of a scope was not required.
How could anyone possibly have known they would have to "plant" anything at the hospital?
Let's explain that. That idea is absolutely impossible. A reach beyond belief.
You just simply cannot match a fragment of a bullet to a rifle. An entire bullet was required. Bullets are matched to weapons by their groove marks.
1. There is no 'proof' that Lee Oswald fired this rifle and shot anyone.
2. There has been no re-enactment duplicating the proposed shooting attributed by the official report.
The conclusion of the WC was at least two shots were fired. The eyewitnesses confirm there was in fact only two shots fired not three.Oh hell. Here enjoy the fiasco completely...
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Even if the scope were misaligned, a shooter who practiced with that rifle could compensate for any deficiency.
Fragments from the second bullet also matched the same rifle. The rifle found on the 6th floor. The fragments were found in the Presidential Limousine. The whole bullet was found in Parkland on a stretcher.
How could anyone possibly have known they would have to "plant" anything at the hospital?
>>> In CT wonderland, contradictions are ignored or, most likely, not even recognized as such. Anything goes.
Speaking of ignoring contradictions:
Lame LN excuses (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,100.0.html)
Oh hell. Here enjoy the fiasco completely...
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2019/12/kennedy-assassination-bullets-preserved-digital-form
What eyewitlesses "confirm" only two shots?
The bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found the 6th floor. Frazier explains how that was accomplished
Again, as Jack asked, how could anyone possibly have known they would have to "plant" anything at the hospital?
Frazier “accomplished” this by lining up the marks of the mutilated fragments in his mind, even though they did not actually physically line up in the microscope.
And there is no documented chain of custody for how these fragments got to Frazier in the first place.
The bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found the 6th floor. Frazier explains how that was accomplished
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Two shot witnesses:
Jackie, Nellie, JBC, Greer, Clint Hill, Landis, BRW, Zapruder, Altgens, Brehm, Kellerman, Jarman, Brennan, Sitzman, Betzner, Hargis, Chaney, Wright, Darnell, Slack, Kantor, Roberts, Hesters, Newmans, Chisms, Jean Newman, Sheriff Decker, Mudd, M Willis, Templin, Brandt, Burney, Donaldson, Whitaker, Murphy, Miller,Summers, Powell, Kinney, Hickey, Bennett, Powers and O'Donnell....
Because they knew there were no bullets in the limo, JFK and Connally that matched the rifle they planted in the TSBD, of course. Duh.
So in a nutshell nobody could have known so the bullet was not planted?
Even if the scope were misaligned, a shooter who practiced with that rifle could compensate for any deficiency.If a scope is out of alignment...the whole purpose of practice shooting would be to put it into alignment I would think.
Huh? Use some logic for a change. They needed to plant a bullet that could positively be matched to the planted rifle. Comprende?
I hear it has been done, but have never seen a specific reference or video. Ot to put it another way we can put to bed to tale that people have duplicated the feat on video
Even Gary Mack admitted that he himself, a middle aged old man at the time, could run down the stairs as quick as Oswald.
Even Gary Mack admitted that he himself, a middle aged old man at the time, could run down the stairs as quick as Oswald.
Perhaps you should read "Girl on the Stairs"... Vicky Adams and Sandy Styles were on the stairs and they saw or heard NOBODY.
Perhaps you should read "Girl on the Stairs"... Vicky Adams and Sandy Styles were on the stairs and they saw or heard NOBODY.
Are you claiming they were actually listening for someone else on the stairs..
How does one turn off one's hearing?
Not-to-mention that 'evidence of absence is not absence of evidence'
You've got it backwards.... as per usual
Boo-hoo
Now say something important
Not-to-mention that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'
Edited re CTer fave expression
Inattention
distraction
three-inch heels
click-clacking
It’s gorillas-playing-basketball all over again.
Like the size of their heels is somehow relevant.
But thanks for you always useful input.
Says the guy who plagiarized Bill Brown and Vince Bugliosi.
When I have to correct you on something so basic, there isn't much point in saying something else because you probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
> Sticks & stones, big shot. Now stop dodging.
> The term certainly is basic to you and your species, isn't it now
But don't worry. I won't hold your limited intelligence against you.
> Still waiting for you to say something important, big shot.
Are you talking to me?
Go ahead, make my day
Points to Ponder:
It's impossible to replicate two very closely fired shots like the first and second shots with an old-fashioned gun as was supposedly used. I'm not a big fan of the witness statements because many people were not expecting this to happen [obviously] so they heard and saw this is not entirely accurate. But Connally swore until the day he died that the first shot was not the one that hit him. And the Z film backs this up.
Pat Speer did a good job of researching and finding that it'd be next to impossible for Oswald to have gone down the stairs immediately after the shooting and to have not been seen by one of the black co-workers. Look it up on his site.
There were shooting reenactments on a CBS TV special from back in the 60s and none of these so-called sharpshooters could replicate Oswald's amazingly accurate shooting...but equally amazing miss.
But speaking of the miss, I do speculate that the Tague "chips on the cheek" story could not be 100% accurate. I find it very hard to believe that a shot hit that far off target, causing the chips to fly up.
My intent wasn't to claim authorship in either case.
I apologied to Bill Brown for that particular unforced error
I recall an earlier plagiarism claim by you against me about a Bugliosi line that is arguably the most prominent line in assassination lore. In fact, I did argue that very point at the time.
I have no intent to claim authorship of what other people write at any time.
I apologized to Bill Brown during that period
I remember your attempt to claim plagiarism against me on a Bugliosi term that is arguably the most well-known in assassination lore. In fact, I made that exact argument at the time.
Dementia setting in?
Points to Ponder:
It's impossible to replicate two very closely fired shots like the first and second shots with an old-fashioned gun as was supposedly used. I'm not a big fan of the witness statements because many people were not expecting this to happen [obviously] so they heard and saw this is not entirely accurate. But Connally swore until the day he died that the first shot was not the one that hit him. And the Z film backs this up.
Pat Speer did a good job of researching and finding that it'd be next to impossible for Oswald to have gone down the stairs immediately after the shooting and to have not been seen by one of the black co-workers. Look it up on his site.
There were shooting reenactments on a CBS TV special from back in the 60s and none of these so-called sharpshooters could replicate Oswald's amazingly accurate shooting...but equally amazing miss.
But speaking of the miss, I do speculate that the Tague "chips on the cheek" story could not be 100% accurate. I find it very hard to believe that a shot hit that far off target, causing the chips to fly up.
Oswald didn't have to match a predetermined firing time
If the scope was removed and then replaced by the authorities, that could explain any misalignment. Even if the scope were misaligned, a shooter who practiced with that rifle could compensate for any deficiency.And what 'shooter practiced' with 'that' rifle? Anybody?
And what 'shooter practiced' with 'that' rifle? Anybody?
Oswald according to his own wife. Let me guess - she was in on the conspiracy to frame her own husband and can't be trusted because she can't remember exact dates and times.The usual deficient response....made over and over.
The usual deficient response....made over and over.
Marina in her testimony did state that he went to the park and shot leaves and also went out to the airport to practice.
The Commission didn't believe that and also, Richard Smith knows this but simply likes to be argumentative...it is a fun way to be (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
The usual deficient response....made over and over.
Marina in her testimony did state that he went to the park and shot leaves and also went out to the airport to practice.
The Commission didn't believe that and also, Richard Smith knows this but simply likes to be argumentative...it is a fun way to be (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
The commission did believe her. What that means is he spent a great deal of time dry firing the rifle. Dry firing the rifle is practicing.
Points to Ponder:
It's impossible to replicate two very closely fired shots like the first and second shots with an old-fashioned gun as was supposedly used. I'm not a big fan of the witness statements because many people were not expecting this to happen [obviously] so they heard and saw this is not entirely accurate. But Connally swore until the day he died that the first shot was not the one that hit him. And the Z film backs this up.
Pat Speer did a good job of researching and finding that it'd be next to impossible for Oswald to have gone down the stairs immediately after the shooting and to have not been seen by one of the black co-workers. Look it up on his site.
There were shooting reenactments on a CBS TV special from back in the 60s and none of these so-called sharpshooters could replicate Oswald's amazingly accurate shooting...but equally amazing miss.
But speaking of the miss, I do speculate that the Tague "chips on the cheek" story could not be 100% accurate. I find it very hard to believe that a shot hit that far off target, causing the chips to fly up.
Marina never said anything about "dry firing", nor do we even know what rifle he had in New Orleans.
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.
. . .
Mr. RANKIN. From what you observed about his having the rifle on the back porch, in the dark, could you tell whether or not he was trying to practice with the telescopic lens?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him why. But this time he was preparing to go to Cuba.
. . .
. . .
Mr. RANKIN. You have described your husband's practicing on the back porch at New Orleans with the telescopic scope and the rifle, saying he did that very regularly there.
Did you ever see him working the bolt, that action that opens the rifle, where you can put a shell in and push it back- during those times?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not see it, because it was dark, and I would be in the room at that time.
But I did hear the noise from it from time to time not often.
I never said anything about Marina and dryfiring. I doubt she would even know what is meant by dryfiring. Marina said he practiced with the rifle on the porch.
The WC examining CE 543 and discussing his Marine Corp training believed he was dryfiring.
Dry firing: All Dr Chapman did was look at the primer of CE 543 and noticed it was dished. If it is dished in that means the firing pin had struck the shell more than once. The reason for dry firing is to practice without actually firing the rifle. Major Anderson of the Marine Corp explained dry firing to the WC and how much of it LHO would have done while being trained in the Marine Corp training.
Dr Chapman after examing CE 543 and its primer stated the shell had been dryfired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case on this cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different mark-- although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an ejector mark. Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all three associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force. However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?
Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?
Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates
Mr. SPECTER - Would you outline the marksmanship training, if any, which a Marine recruit receives in the normal course of Marine training?
Major ANDERSON - He goes through a very intensive 3 weeks training period. During this 3 weeks for the first week he receives a basic training in the care and cleaning of the weapon. He learns sighting and aiming. He learns manipulation of the trigger.
He is exposed to various training aids. He goes through a series of exercises in what we call dry firing in which he assumes all of the positions that he is going to use in the full firing of the rifle over the qualification course
Based on LHO's Marine Corp training he had dryfired a great deal.
The commission did believe her. What that means is he spent a great deal of time dry firing the rifle. Dry firing the rifle is practicing.No they didn't and no it's not.
The point is - did LHO .......Do all that stuff. But an even greater point of the thread...Could ANYBODY at all have done all that stuff? I guess they could have if they were a combination of the Amazing Kreskin ...Houdini...and Superman.
The WC examining CE 543 and discussing his Marine Corp training believed he was dryfiring.
MARINA said she had never seen OSWALD practice with his rifle or any other firearm and he had never told her that he was going to practice.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.763 [Commission Exhibit 1401])
She cannot recall that he [Oswald] ever practised firing the rifle either in New Orleans or in Dallas. She does not think he did practice in New Orleans because as a rule he stayed home when he was not working. When he did go out, she did not see him take the rifle. [Commission Exhibit 1403]
The reporting agent interviewed Marina Oswald as to whether she knew of any place or of a rifle range where her husband could do some practicing with a rifle, and whether she ever saw her husband taking the rifle out of the house. She said that she never saw Lee going out or coming in to the house with a rifle and that he never mentioned to her doing any practice with a rifle. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.23, p.393 [Commission Exhibit 1785]
Marina Oswald was asked if she ever saw her husband doing any dry practice with the rifle either in their apartments or any place else, and she replied in the negative. [Commission Exhibit 1789]
Marina changed her tune when she testified...MARINA advised that OSWALD had told her after the WALKER incident that he had practiced with his rifle in a field near Dallas. She said further that in the beginning of January, 1963, at the Neely Street address, he on one occasion was cleaning his rifle and he said he had been practicing that day. She said [that] on an evening in March, 1963, … OSWALD left the house at about 6:00PM. OSWALD had his rifle wrapped up in a raincoat … When OSWALD returned about 9:00PM, he told her he had practiced with the rifle. She said [that] on an evening in March, 1963, … OSWALD left the house at about 6:00PM. OSWALD had his rifle wrapped up in a raincoat … When OSWALD returned about 9:00PM, he told her he had practiced with the rifle. Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.197 [Commission Exhibit 1156]
Unfortunately, the rifle which Marina Oswald had apparently watched her husband clean early in January 1963 did not [reportedly] come into his possession until more than two months later, toward the end of March (Warren Report, p.119)
The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable, and that she was under pressure to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear. According to an internal Warren Commission document, which became public 15 years after it was written, “Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).
Even if CE 543 showed signs of dryfiring,It wouldn't... as the firing pin merely strikes air in a centerfired rifle [or pistol]
The usual deficient response....made over and over.
Marina in her testimony did state that he went to the park and shot leaves and also went out to the airport to practice.
The Commission didn't believe that and also, Richard Smith knows this but simply likes to be argumentative...it is a fun way to be (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Ask for evidence, be given evidence, suggest evidence is fake. The old CTer impossible standard of proof. Oswald's own wife confirms that he practiced with his rifle.
You don't like that fact so it must be false.
Just dismiss it and move on. The WC concluded that Oswald had practiced with his rifle including dry practice as described by Marina to improve his proficiency with the rifle.
The WC concluded that Oswald had practiced with his rifleThey had to...they had already concluded that he was the lone assassin
Confirmation from his own wife who spent more time with Oswald than any other person is compelling.In this country a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse.
They had to...they had already concluded that he was the lone assassin In this country a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse.
Marina's civil rights were violated. Someday you may even be compelled to agree.
No they didn't and no it's not.
MARINA said she had never seen OSWALD practice with his rifle or any other firearm and he had never told her that he was going to practice.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.763 [Commission Exhibit 1401])
She cannot recall that he [Oswald] ever practised firing the rifle either in New Orleans or in Dallas. She does not think he did practice in New Orleans because as a rule he stayed home when he was not working. When he did go out, she did not see him take the rifle. [Commission Exhibit 1403]
The reporting agent interviewed Marina Oswald as to whether she knew of any place or of a rifle range where her husband could do some practicing with a rifle, and whether she ever saw her husband taking the rifle out of the house. She said that she never saw Lee going out or coming in to the house with a rifle and that he never mentioned to her doing any practice with a rifle. (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.23, p.393 [Commission Exhibit 1785]
Marina Oswald was asked if she ever saw her husband doing any dry practice with the rifle either in their apartments or any place else, and she replied in the negative. [Commission Exhibit 1789]
Marina changed her tune when she testified...MARINA advised that OSWALD had told her after the WALKER incident that he had practiced with his rifle in a field near Dallas. She said further that in the beginning of January, 1963, at the Neely Street address, he on one occasion was cleaning his rifle and he said he had been practicing that day. She said [that] on an evening in March, 1963, … OSWALD left the house at about 6:00PM. OSWALD had his rifle wrapped up in a raincoat … When OSWALD returned about 9:00PM, he told her he had practiced with the rifle. She said [that] on an evening in March, 1963, … OSWALD left the house at about 6:00PM. OSWALD had his rifle wrapped up in a raincoat … When OSWALD returned about 9:00PM, he told her he had practiced with the rifle. Warren Commission Hearings, vol.22, p.197 [Commission Exhibit 1156]
Unfortunately, the rifle which Marina Oswald had apparently watched her husband clean early in January 1963 did not [reportedly] come into his possession until more than two months later, toward the end of March (Warren Report, p.119)
The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable, and that she was under pressure to tell the authorities what they wanted to hear. According to an internal Warren Commission document, which became public 15 years after it was written, “Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).
It wouldn't... as the firing pin merely strikes air in a centerfired rifle [or pistol]
If dryfiring is a form of active practice...why has the military then spent millions for range ammunition?
Begging the question. Even if CE 543 showed signs of dryfiring, that doesn't mean that it had anything to do with Oswald.
In any case, Marina didn't see or hear anything that would indicate that Oswald ever "practiced" by pulling the trigger on this or any other rifle.
It is a little more complicated than that. There is a such a thing as snap caps. That is what LHO was doing when he used the CE 543 as a shell so that the firing pin would not break. A carcano firing pin is prone to breaking because it has a tapered shoulder that that strikes the bolt face if it is over extended during dryfiring.
The marksmen chosen to fire the Carcano for the WC chose not to practice dry firing the rifle for fear of breaking the Carcano's firing pin.
CE 543 shows the marks on the shell casing that it was used as a snap cap by LHO. That was the observation of Dr Chapman when he examined the shells and noticed the dished in primer. To recock the carcano to dry fire with it, the only movement that is needed is to raise then lower the bolt. That motion recocks the firing pin. Unless Marina stood there and watched LHO work the bolt she would not have known he was practicing trigger control.
No one will ever "successfully re-enact Oswald's feat" because to do so you would have to be shooting at a sitting US President. Shooting at a target mounted on a sled and being towed by a car is not the same thing.
Well, Oswald had nine to ten seconds (not six) and the limo noticeably slowed down before the head shot, so if you replicated those conditions, a lot of Marine sharpshooters could pull it off.
Are you saying that it would only have taken Lee 9 or 10 seconds to go from the first floor lunchroom to the sixth floor window?humor isn't your strong suit. come to think of it, nothing is.
humor isn't your strong suit. come to think of it, nothing is.
LHO stated he practiced by shooting leaves in the park.
Marina explained she had no knowledge of firearms. She would not have known what he was doing. Look at how many people just on this site have no understanding of the act of dryfiring or what is its purpose. You do not need to live fire to practice shooting.
No one will ever "successfully re-enact Oswald's feat" because to do so you would have to be shooting at a sitting US President. Shooting at a target mounted on a sled and being towed by a car is not the same thing.
He did? When? I think this absurd notion originated with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt.
Oswald was probably working the bolt.:D
Marina's civil rights were violated when she voluntarily cooperated with the WC?Who told you she 'voluntarily co-operated'? Robert Oswald testified that the Feds told her to co-operate or she would be deported---Why not read the evidence instead of inventing it?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, that is correct. And that this particular one agent--not the Mr. Brown I have referred to, but the other gentleman that I do not recall his name--she had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews, and my observation of this at this time, at this particular interview, was attempting to start--I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh sir.DO YOU SEE?
Mr. JENNER. Harsh towards Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, Mr, it most certainly was. And by the tone of conversation by Marina to Mr. Gopadze, who was interpreting----
Mr. JENNER. In your presence?
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there--if I might state--with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.--we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee's attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia.
I arose and called Mr. Mike Howard of the United States Secret Service into the back bathroom, and stated this to him. And I also stated that I realized there was some friction here between the United States Secret Service and the FBI to the extent that I was of the opinion that they did not want the FBI at that time to be aware of the tape recording that had been made of Marina N. Oswald, that she had been interviewed, in other words, by the United States Secret Service before the FBI arrived at the location.
Mr. JENNER. You mean that the Secret Service did not want the FBI to know that they had taped an interview with Marina?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.
The Marin Corp thinks it is practicing.:D :D
Marina explained she had no knowledge of firearms. She would not have known what he was doing. Look at how many people just on this site have no understanding of the act of dryfiring or what is its purpose. You do not need to live fire to practice shooting.Like I said above... just point the rifle [at a leaf] and say bang.... kind of like when you were a kid playing cowboys and indians
It's the bolt action that needs the most attention. Especially the Carcano. Oswald was a good enough shot to land a couple somewhere on Kennedy. The testers had just a couple of minutes, if that, to practice the bolt action.
Little Chappie,.... You're makin a bigger fool of yourself, because you are revealing that you know nothing about guns.
Clearly you believe there's nothing more to learning to fire a rifle accurately than a little "practice with the bolt action".
You my little chappie are living proof that..... there ain't no cure for stupidity
No one will ever "successfully re-enact Oswald's feat" because to do so you would have to be shooting at a sitting US President. Shooting at a target mounted on a sled and being towed by a car is not the same thing.
So to be absolutely clear then, nobody knows if Lee Oswald ever did any "dry-firing" of any weapon post-Marines, right?
Can you prove there was a third shot? LHO never fired three shots in 5 seconds. He is being credited with doing something he never accomplished.
LHO stated he practiced by shooting leaves in the park.
Ha, ha, ha, hee, hee, hee....ROTFLMAO! :D
Lee.... "I tell ya George, I'm gettin to be a crack shot with that old carcano you had me order. I've been going to the park and shooting leaves off the tree...O' course I don't actually have any ammo... but if I did... the neighbors in the park area could attest to my marksmanship...after they called the police. "
:DWho told you she 'voluntarily co-operated'? Robert Oswald testified that the Feds told her to co-operate or she would be deported---Why not read the evidence instead of inventing it? DO YOU SEE? :D :DLike I said above... just point the rifle [at a leaf] and say bang.... kind of like when you were a kid playing cowboys and indians
:D :D :D
:DWho told you she 'voluntarily co-operated'? Robert Oswald testified that the Feds told her to co-operate or she would be deported---Why not read the evidence instead of inventing it? DO YOU SEE? :D :DLike I said above... just point the rifle [at a leaf] and say bang.... kind of like when you were a kid playing cowboys and indians
:D :D :D
Can you explain why it is necessary to live fire the rifle every time you practice with the rifle? It seems to be a deciding factor to you in whether someone is practicing or not.
Can you prove there was a third shot? LHO never fired three shots in 5 seconds. He is being credited with doing something he never accomplished.Three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window. What does that prove? You tell me.
Ironically, to the extent that she might ever have been deemed to be dishonest it was in an effort to protect Oswald not to implicate him in the assassination.Duh...Oswald was dead. He did not need protection --she did.
Can you explain why it is necessary to live fire the rifle every time you practice with the rifle? It seems to be a deciding factor to you in whether someone is practicing or not.Go watch some youtube gun posts and if you see a video where someone is 'dry-firing' or pointing a gun and yelling BANG... link it and put it up for us.
You have repeatedly demonstrated having no relevant knowledge concerning firearms. Maybe only post on the subjects you have knowledge concerning.Do you have any guns? If so what kind.. and do you dry-fire them or live fire them? Both? Neither?
Marina testified to the HSCA and gave the same basic account as she did to the WC. So was she "coerced" then too?So what? She didn't have to.
.... to my knowledge she's never retracted any of her account given to the WC or HSCA or stated that she was "coerced".
Three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window. What does that prove? You tell me
Okay: That three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window.
Okay: That three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window.
I'll assume that you have used the word "allegedly" because there is good reason to doubt that there were THREE shells there when Mooney first discovered the shells.... And yes, I know that it is widely accepted that there were THREE shells there, but there is also evidence that indicates there were only TWO spent shells....And all of the documents that originated in the TSBD that afternoon state that there were TWO spent shells found.
Three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window. What does that prove? You tell me.Duh...Oswald was dead. He did not need protection --she did.Go watch some youtube gun posts and if you see a video where someone is 'dry-firing' or pointing a gun and yelling BANG... link it and put it up for us.Do you have any guns? If so what kind.. and do you dry-fire them or live fire them? Both? Neither?
Assume what you must if it helps you get to wherever you're aiming.
And note that I quoted Freeman verbatim. He couched the question like that, not in a way that takes a conflicting position.
And call me whatever you want. I don't mind.
Assume what you must if it helps you get to wherever you're aiming.
Says the guy who made one assumption after another to get a 34.8" rifle into a 27" paper bag. :D
The WC knew he had been dryfiring. They had analyzed CE 543.
Information has it that the gun bag was 38"
Not aware of any assumptions attached to that
Assumption attached to that: “gun bag”.
Oops, I meant the not-curtain-rod 38"bag
What's the point of speculating about a bag that Oswald didn't carry on Friday morning?
You have repeatedly demonstrated having no relevant knowledge concerning firearms. Maybe only post on the subjects you have knowledge concerning.
Oh... so you're you're an expert,, are you Jack?
Can you explain why it is necessary to live fire the rifle every time you practice with the rifle?
You profess to be an expert, Jack So maybe you can enlighten us with your answer to the question....
Clearly you believe that a person is "practicing to become proficient with a rifle" if that person is merely going through the motions of firing a rifle.....
Three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window. What does that prove? You tell me.Duh...Oswald was dead. He did not need protection --she did.Go watch some youtube gun posts and if you see a video where someone is 'dry-firing' or pointing a gun and yelling BANG... link it and put it up for us.Do you have any guns? If so what kind.. and do you dry-fire them or live fire them? Both? Neither?
Oops, I meant the not-curtain-rod 38"bag
What specultion.. are you claiming Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy?
Any 10 year old here knows more about firearms than you do.
So maybe you can enlighten us with your answer to the question...
No thanks, I will leave just as happily ignorant as I found you. You should not be posting about firearms if you have no answer to that question. Time to stop pretending, people here who have some knowledge of firearms know you do not.
Oh... so you're you're an expert,, are you Jack?
Does knowledge of the value of dry firing all that it takes for you to consider an individual an expert in firearms? Shows how little you truly know about any of it. If that is the case any 10 year old here that has been involved in firearms training is an expert and knows more than you do. I have seen a number of them grow up over the years and you would not ever want to be caught in their sights.
Okay: That three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window.
I'll assume that you have used the word "allegedly" because there is good reason to doubt that there were THREE shells there when Mooney first discovered the shells.... And yes, I know that it is widely accepted that there were THREE shells there, but there is also evidence that indicates there were only TWO spent shells....And all of the documents that originated in the TSBD that afternoon state that there were TWO spent shells found.
Information has it that the gun bag was 38"
A quote from Garrison's On the Trail....Of course. Remember that Oswald's favorite target was supposedly...yup-- leaves :DQuoteAn extremely large Oak tree made it unlikely that the first round fired would have hit anything more than a limb or a handful of leaves.
Of course. Remember that Oswald's favorite target was supposedly...yup-- leaves :D
No answers to the questions just whatever this is?
Question #1
Can you prove there was a third shot? LHO never fired three shots in 5 seconds. He is being credited with doing something he never accomplished.
Three empty cartridge cases were allegedly found by the so called snipers window. What does that prove? You tell me.
That is not an answer to this question. "Can you prove there was a third shot? "
----------------------
Question #2
"Can you explain why it is necessary to live fire the rifle every time you practice with the rifle? It seems to be a deciding factor to you in whether someone is practicing or not."
This is not an answer to the question, in fact it is just a ridiculous answer. "Go watch some youtube gun posts and if you see a video where someone is 'dry-firing' or pointing a gun and yelling BANG... link it and put it up for us."
LHO did not perform the feat of three shots in 5+ seconds that he has been credited with performing. Two shots is all there is evidence of having taken place.
LHO did not have to live fire the rifle to be proficient with the firearm. The firearms experts were asked if they would like to practice dryfiring the Carcano before performing the shooting sequence and refused for concern over the firing pin. Obviously the WC considered a useful method of practicing.
A quote from Garrison's On the Trail....
An extremely large Oak tree made it unlikely that the first round fired would have hit anything more than a limb or a handful of leaves.
Oops. This is John , below:
That oak tree. Keeps being mentioned. So, if the first round hit the oak tree limb,...that would perhaps explain the back wounds irregular nature?
Sorry for the formatting.
Oh Yeah, that's right..... Lee simply had to poke the carcano out of a window and say BBBoom---BANG- BANG and kill president Kennedy and wound Connelly, and James Teague. :D
The clock starts at the first shot leaving only 2 shots to perform in whatever time one is claiming. Some say 8.3 seconds. HSCA claims testers twice achieved 2 shots in 1.6 sec, although only the first shot could be precisely aimed.
The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:
The above statement is true..... But a key word is omitted..... "Accurately"
The Carcano was as fast or faster to fire accurately than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:
Now the addition of "fire accurately" to the statement includes a very important part of the sentence and it renders the sentence as posted to be very deceptive and total rubbish.
The video is also deceptive in that it portrays the man to be firing the carcano rapidly...... We have no idea of the film speed and we sure as hell don't know the range of the target ( probably stationary) and if the man hit the target. So basically the video proves NOTHING with regard to the imaginary feat that Lee Oswald was imagined to have preformed.
OTOH.... The posting of the video does prove one thing.... The person who posted it is a desperate liar.
::)
Not every Carcano review is about the assassination, Bubba.
The clock starts at the first shot leaving only 2 shots to perform in whatever time one is claiming. Some say 8.3 seconds. HSCA claims testers twice achieved 2 shots in 1.6 sec, although only the first shot could be precisely aimed.
The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:
Before the sun had set on 11-22-1963, they had their man.Add to that a rifle that was supposedly loaded with only four bullets.
He was a lone gunman. No need to look at conspiracy. Further investigation...un-necessary.
Oswald was already convicted of the assassination long before all of this re-enactment/analysis/ stuff ever transpired.
The Warren Commission just needed to glaze the cake that had been baked that afternoon.
So I resent being called a 'conspiracy theorist' [just because I don't believe the government's Report]...when in fact the government case against Oswald was itself based upon a theory.
There was a massive cover-up and concealment of anything that would or might exonerate Oswald.
That just simply is no theory.
Now me...if I wanted to shoot someone riding in that open car with that rifle...from that window, and make sure I finished him, I would have plugged him at the turn onto Elm St...once between the eyes and then down right through the head for good measure.
So...c'mon ::)
The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton of evidence. That Conspiracy buffs like yourself refuse to accept that evidence is fine but don't expect reasonable people to take you seriously.The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton load of lies. That skeptics like myself refuse to accept that crap is prudent but don't expect so called reasonable people to take me seriously.
If you observe the spent shells being ejected at the 4.41 point of the video you may conclude that the spent shells on the floor beneath the SE corner window were NOT ejected at the time of the murder of JFK. It should be obvious that the spent shells are flung with considerable force up and away from the rifle and they certainly wouldn't have landed in a tight group just a couple of feet from the alleged position of the rifle.
Add to that a rifle that was supposedly loaded with only four bullets.
Along comes the 'he did it alone anyway' group that cannot explain away the logic of head on shooting where you can actually see the results of your effort.
Instead they claim lucky shots or show off shots and any other drivel that insults the intelligence. The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton load of lies. That skeptics like myself refuse to accept that crap is prudent but don't expect so called reasonable people to take me seriously.
First...prove you are reasonable.
What makes this unbelievable?Where did I say 'unbelievable'?
..there might not be enough time to get off all five shots while the target is at a good angleThe ideal angle I proposed...
Where the shooter has to see through the windshield is within 8 feet of JFK.
the first row of passengers, within 6 feet of JFK
the second row of passengers, within 3 feet of JFK
I must confess that I still fail...Yeah.
Where did I say 'unbelievable'? The ideal angle I proposed...
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2008/09/04/JFK276.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=167f61812ad82c1cc49bd3f555524498)
The photo above was taken from a third floor window ..where is there a windshield in the way?Yeah.
…
Along comes the 'he did it alone anyway' group that cannot explain away the logic of head on shooting where you can actually see the results of your effort.
…
If you observe the spent shells being ejected at the 4.41 point of the video you may conclude that the spent shells on the floor beneath the SE corner window were NOT ejected at the time of the murder of JFK. It should be obvious that the spent shells are flung with considerable force up and away from the rifle and they certainly wouldn't have landed in a tight group just a couple of feet from the alleged position of the rifle.