He wasn't wasting a shot. He was giving himself an extra chance. Had he waited, he would have had to wait until the limo cleared the tree before he used his four rounds. Apparently, Oswald calculated that an early shot before the limo went under the tree was a better chance than what a fourth shot after the limo went past the tree. Given the results, he calculated correctly. As it turned out, his fourth shot was unnecessary. He only had to fire two shots after the limo cleared the tree. Again I ask, why are you second guessing his successful decisions?

I am not second guessing anything.  I don't see any evidence that he took an early shot that missed the entire car. One can't second-guess something that didn't happen.

You were suggesting he had nothing to lose by taking an early first shot at a difficult angle and making subsequent shots more difficult - rather than taking all the time he needed to line up a much easier first shot, and possibly three later shots, with the rifle strapped to him and resting on boxes. 

He had everything to lose by taking a risky early shot.  Unlike a hockey or soccer player, he was limited to four shots.  A wasted bullet would alert everyone to a shot several seconds before he would have a chance to take another shot.  Then he would have a difficult time scrambling to line up the next shot in an entirely different direction and then getting the last three shots off as the car went down the street.  That may be why there is no evidence that he did that.  In fact there is abundant evidence that he didn't.

If he had taken a first shot as the car passed in front of the TSBD and then setup the rifle for a down-street shot, Dearie Cabell, Howard Brennan and Amos Euins, who saw the rifle immediately after the first shot would have seen it moving around.  They all said they saw the rifle pointing down Elm St.

                                                                     ".....needed no revisions to remain viable"?

                          What about Gerry Ford moving the written description of the JFK BACK Wound up to the, "base of the neck"?

Yeah, that was a dumb idea. Totally unnecessary. This is what happens when amateurs try to substitute their opinions for those of the professionals. Sometimes even LNs do that, but usually it's the CTs.

Oswald made Oswald fit.
What "original LN theory" would that be. The WC findings have needed no revision.
You seem to be operating under the popular misconception that the WC concluded that Oswald fired his 3 shots under 6 seconds. That was never a WC conclusion no matter how many times the CT side has asserted it was. Six Seconds in Dallas was a book written by Josiah Thompson. He's and LN. Maybe he chose to that scenario because it was the most improbable and therefore the easiest to attack.
The WCR never had a great fall. It still stands tall almost 62 years after it was first released and has needed no revisions to remain viable. Meanwhile on silly conspiracy theory after another has fallen by the wayside. Badgeman, Greer did it, storm drain shooter, Mortal Error, etc. None have stood the test of time.

                                                                     ".....needed no revisions to remain viable"?

                          What about Gerry Ford moving the written description of the JFK BACK Wound up to the, "base of the neck"?

It is only important to someone who doesn't know how to weigh evidence.

And you know how to weigh evidence? Really?

Yes, I do. That's why I was able to figure out a long time ago that LHO killed JFK and that there is zero evidence he had even a single accomplice. I could be convinced otherwise if somebody could present actual evidence to the contrary but it's been almost 63 years since JFK was killed and the chances of that happening get more remote with each passing year.

1. Do you agree that the closer the 1st shot is to the limo as it goes  down Elm st, the quicker the shooter had to adjust/ move the rifle to track the target JFK?

Yes, that's one of the reasons the first shot was the most difficult, but not the only reason.

Do you agree Oswald had a better chance of hitting JFK by taking that early shot than by not taking it.

2. Do you agree that the iron sights on the MC rifle used by the TSBD shooter were probably zeroed for the range of 200 yards ( or meters ) ?

I have just learned within the past day that the Carcano fixed sights were actually zeroed for 300m but could be sight adjusted by positioning the front sight even with the top of the rear sight for 400m or to the bottom of the rear sight for 200m. I had always believe they were zeroed just for 200m.

3. Do you agree that when the MC rifle was found that  scope was out of alignment so bad that it required shims under the mount? The metal bracket was not bent so it looks as though the scope reticle could  never have  ever been adjusted properly with the elevation nob.

It has long been exaggerated how badly the scope was misaligned. As found, it aimed a little high and to the right which the WC speculated could have aided the shooter given that he needed to lead his target by aiming high and to the right. Oswald may or may not have known this but whether by skill or blind dumb luck, the shooter managed to hit JFK with 2 of his 3 shots. We know this because the 2 recovered bullets were both positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

4. In your opinion , if the scope had been previously zeroed for a range of 100 yds , wouid it have lost that zero if the rifle was disassembled?

There are any number of reasons the scope could have been misaligned. Maybe during the disassembly/reassembly process. Maybe when he dropped the rifle behind the boxes. Maybe it was never properly zeroed. What we do know is the shooter used that rifle to put two shots into JFK and there is ample forensic evidence that tells us that shooter was Oswald.

5. Do you agree that the 3 stacked  boxes in the SN 6th floor TSBD were most likely used as a rifle rest by the TSBD shooter and thus indicate he had thought out in advance how he was going to fire his rifle in a calm controlled manner.?

Yes, but that wouldn't preclude him from giving himself an extra chance by taking the harder early shot. Even if he only had a 1% chance of hitting JFK with that shot, he still improved his chances by that 1%.

6. Do you agree that the window was only open approx 15.5 inches per the WC photo using a surveyors measuring stick?

I don't remember how wide open the window was but I have no reason to dispute that figure.

If you answered yes to the 6 questions above, then you must concede if the shooter stood up to take an early  1st shot, that he was taking a roll the dice 1st shot totally contrary to what appears to be his original plan to wait for the limo to go down Elm st far enough so that he had an easier shot using the box platform and when everyone is looking away from TSBD at the limo.

There is nothing that tells me that Oswald's original plan was to wait until the limo was past the tree before taking his first shot. I have always said there is no way to know what Oswald was thinking either before or after the shooting. We are left to guess. We have no way of knowing whether Oswald planned to take that early shot before the motorcade arrived or whether he acted on the spur of the moment. He never told anybody what he was thinking. We are left to guess. My guess is that Oswald intended to take that early shot after the limo has passed his window.