Recent Posts
11
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 04:15:36 PM »Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:42:06 PM
Oh! Did I miss your reply in which you explained the presence of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt, the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt shots and the Dealey Plaza test shots, the gunfire windshield distortions on the dictabelt, and the Weiss and Aschkenasy sonar analysis that proved a 26-point match between the 144.9 impulse pattern and the impulse pattern of the grassy knoll test-firing shot?
Did you accidentally delete the reply that explained those evidences? I can't seem to find it among your previous replies. Where is it? If you accidentally deleted it, how about reposting it?
Your logic is junior-high level and confused. First, you argued that if the dictabelt shots cannot be matched to events in the Zapruder film, the acoustical evidence must be invalid. Now, you argue that even attempting to sync the dictabelt with the film is unnecessary because the acoustical evidence is invalid, not the film.
Since the HSCA's acoustical scientists acknowledged that the dictabelt might not have recorded all the shots that were fired, how can any comparison of the dictabelt with the Zapruder film invalidate the acoustical evidence?
Your whole attack consists of two contradictory strawman arguments.
And, umm, did I also miss where you explained the scientific evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered? Which one of your replies explained that evidence? I can't find it. How about reposting that reply, too?
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 01:07:48 PM
Any attempt to match the Z-film with the Dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary because the acoustics study is invalid, not the Z-film. You will continue to remain lost as long as you insist on clinging to the validity of the acoustics study.
Which our own esteemed forum member Steve Barber proved some 45 years ago! Get learnt, Michael T. Griffith!
Barber has proved no such thing. You are decades behind the information curve. You might want to read my last 10 replies in this thread to educate yourself on the acoustical evidence.
12
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Jack Nessan on Today at 03:28:24 PM »Just to have it clearly on the record, Jack - Do you believe Rowland invented seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building?
It's a yes/no thing.
It is clearly on the record. You are trying to weasel word your way out of explaining Rowlands testimony. How about you man up and relate his sighting to reality. Here is BRW's answer on someone else up there to the west.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
13
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Tommy Shanks on Today at 03:17:08 PM »Any attempt to match the Z-film with the Dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary because the acoustics study is invalid, not the Z-film. You will continue to remain lost as long as you insist on clinging to the validity of the acoustics study.
Which our own esteemed forum member Steve Barber proved some 45 years ago! Get learnt, Michael T. Griffith!
14
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 03:16:36 PM »Any attempt to match the Z-film with the Dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary because the acoustics study is invalid, not the Z-film. You will continue to remain lost as long as you insist on clinging to the validity of the acoustics study.
Oh! Did I miss your reply in which you explained the presence of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt, the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt shots and the Dealey Plaza test shots, the gunfire windshield distortions on the dictabelt, and the Weiss and Aschkenasy sonar analysis that proved a 26-point match between the 144.9 impulse pattern and the impulse pattern of the grassy knoll test-firing shot?
Did you accidentally delete the reply that explained those evidences? I can't seem to find it among your previous replies. Where is it? If you accidentally deleted it, how about reposting it?
Your logic is junior-high level and confused. First, you argued that if the dictabelt shots cannot be matched to events in the Zapruder film, the acoustical evidence must be invalid. Now, you argue that even attempting to sync the dictabelt with the film is unnecessary because the acoustical evidence is invalid, not the film.
Since the HSCA's acoustical scientists acknowledged that the dictabelt might not have recorded all the shots that were fired, how can any comparison of the dictabelt with the Zapruder film invalidate the acoustical evidence?
Your whole attack consists of two contradictory strawman arguments.
And, umm, did I also miss where you explained the scientific evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered? Which one of your replies explained that evidence? I can't find it. How about reposting that reply, too?
15
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 02:39:09 PM »The first thing I notice is that you never get around to dealing with the fact that not one of the four expert riflemen managed to score two hits in three shots, even though they took 6-8 seconds to fire in the majority of their shot series.
A mind bogglingly silly argument.
Huh??? Do you just lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the obvious fact that once the limo cleared the oak tree at Z210, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only had 5.6 seconds to score two hits?
As I've explained to you countless times, no matter how early you want to assume your alleged lone gunman fired, since you also claim that his first shot missed, he would have had to score his two supposed hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.
Just shaking my head. Umm, when you're firing at a moving target that is 2-3 seconds away from passing under an overpass, speed of fire is crucial. Again, per your own first-shot-miss scenario, your supposed lone gunman would have had to score his two alleged hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.
It's like your brain just can't process facts that refute your gibberish.
You just flunked yourself back several grades. You cannot really need me to define what I mean by "duplicated." Once more you act like an insolent teenager who makes childish arguments because he can't bring himself to admit he's wrong.
My OP already answered this nonsense.
By your "calculation" the Earth is flat. This is probably a waste of time, but let me just repeat the fact that, unless you're assuming your supposed sixth-floor gunman fired while the limo was under the oak tree (an idea that even the WC rejected), he would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds, which equals 2.8 seconds per shot [corrected typo of 2.3].
It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact.
You don't know? Really? One reason was that some WC apologists, in trying to explain the fact that the scope on the alleged murder rifle was defective, theorized that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights, apparently unaware that it would have been impossible to use the iron sights with the scope mounted on the rifle.
Some of your fellow WC defenders still float the argument that "Oswald" used the iron sights.
Yet another downright silly argument. Umm, you cannot use the iron sights on a Carcano rile if the scope is mounted on the rifle.
Of course, you keep assuming as a given that Oswald did the shooting, and then you proceed from there.
Did you forget that one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test used both the scope and the iron sights? (But, he had to remove the scope in order to use the iron sights.)
You're just never going to stop repeating these misleading arguments about Oswald's Marine rifle scores vs. the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, are you? People who read my replies to these arguments in other threads are going to wonder why you keep repeating them without explaining the facts that contradict them. They're going to wonder why you keep ignoring the fact that when dozens of Marines who served with Oswald were interviewed, the overwhelming majority, like over 90%, said Oswald was a poor shot.
And, FYI, many of your fellow WC believers, including some in this forum, have argued that the Carcano was high-quality, reliable weapon.
This is another prime example of your habit of repeating arguments that have been refuted while saying nothing about the facts that refute them. Newcomers would never know that you have been presented several times with facts that refute these arguments, nor would they know that you have been unable to explain those facts. But you conceal all of this by simply repeating your false arguments and saying nothing about the facts that refute them.
I know you know, because I have personally documented for you, that the recovered bullet fragments were not matched to the alleged murder weapon "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world." This myth was debunked some 20 years ago by two different groups of scientists, but you just keep ignoring this and keep repeating the myth.
When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.
As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK. In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented. The shells do not prove that the bullets they housed hit JFK or were even fired at JFK. As you know but won't admit, the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that was contained in those shells.
People who read our previous exchanges on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer ridiculous special pleading in response to the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
Are you ever going to offer a shred of evidence to support your made-up nonsense that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets?
I mean, you understand that WCC FMJ bullets, like all other FMJ bullets, were designed to leave few or no fragments in order to increase their penetrating power, right? You know this much, right? Yes?
I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.
Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
And on and on we could go, but you just brush aside the whole science of wound-ballistics testing with the dishonest, amateurish dodge that no two shootings are exactly alike in every single aspect, never mind that the major aspects are the same (few if any fragments, basic fragmentation patterns, location of fragmentation).
You also brush aside the unanimous position in forensic science and ballistics literature that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when striking skull bone.
That fact alone is enough to invalidate the acoustics studies.
A mind bogglingly silly argument.
It would be idiotic for Oswald or any other shooter to try to fire a bolt action rifle that rapidly. Even firing a semi-auto rifle that fast wouldn't make sense.
Huh??? Do you just lack the frontal lobe capacity to understand the obvious fact that once the limo cleared the oak tree at Z210, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only had 5.6 seconds to score two hits?
As I've explained to you countless times, no matter how early you want to assume your alleged lone gunman fired, since you also claim that his first shot missed, he would have had to score his two supposed hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.
If you are trying to hit a target, accuracy takes priority over speed. Any competent marksman knows that controlling your breathing is important to accuracy and you don't try to fire rapidly. You put a slow squeeze on the trigger and let the gun fire when the trigger pressure is reached.
Just shaking my head. Umm, when you're firing at a moving target that is 2-3 seconds away from passing under an overpass, speed of fire is crucial. Again, per your own first-shot-miss scenario, your supposed lone gunman would have had to score his two alleged hits between Z209 and Z313, or 5.6 seconds.
It's like your brain just can't process facts that refute your gibberish.
Define what you consider "duplicated".
You just flunked yourself back several grades. You cannot really need me to define what I mean by "duplicated." Once more you act like an insolent teenager who makes childish arguments because he can't bring himself to admit he's wrong.
What a stupid test. Why would they limit the shooters to 1.7 seconds between shots? Oswald wasn't under any such constraint.
My OP already answered this nonsense.
By my calculation, he had 3.9 seconds between the first and second shots and 4.9 seconds between the second and third shots.
By your "calculation" the Earth is flat. This is probably a waste of time, but let me just repeat the fact that, unless you're assuming your supposed sixth-floor gunman fired while the limo was under the oak tree (an idea that even the WC rejected), he would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds, which equals 2.8 seconds per shot [corrected typo of 2.3].
It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact.
Also, why would they use the iron sights instead of the scope.
You don't know? Really? One reason was that some WC apologists, in trying to explain the fact that the scope on the alleged murder rifle was defective, theorized that the supposed single assassin used the iron sights, apparently unaware that it would have been impossible to use the iron sights with the scope mounted on the rifle.
Some of your fellow WC defenders still float the argument that "Oswald" used the iron sights.
We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.
Yet another downright silly argument. Umm, you cannot use the iron sights on a Carcano rile if the scope is mounted on the rifle.
Of course, you keep assuming as a given that Oswald did the shooting, and then you proceed from there.
Did you forget that one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test used both the scope and the iron sights? (But, he had to remove the scope in order to use the iron sights.)
As for the Carcano rifle, nobody has said it was a great battlefield rifle as compared to the M1 Garand or the German Mauser, but it was more the adequate for Oswald's purpose. His longest shot was 88 yards, less than half the range he trained at in the USMC.
You're just never going to stop repeating these misleading arguments about Oswald's Marine rifle scores vs. the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, are you? People who read my replies to these arguments in other threads are going to wonder why you keep repeating them without explaining the facts that contradict them. They're going to wonder why you keep ignoring the fact that when dozens of Marines who served with Oswald were interviewed, the overwhelming majority, like over 90%, said Oswald was a poor shot.
And, FYI, many of your fellow WC believers, including some in this forum, have argued that the Carcano was high-quality, reliable weapon.
We know the Carcano got the job done because the only recovered shells and bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
This is another prime example of your habit of repeating arguments that have been refuted while saying nothing about the facts that refute them. Newcomers would never know that you have been presented several times with facts that refute these arguments, nor would they know that you have been unable to explain those facts. But you conceal all of this by simply repeating your false arguments and saying nothing about the facts that refute them.
I know you know, because I have personally documented for you, that the recovered bullet fragments were not matched to the alleged murder weapon "to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world." This myth was debunked some 20 years ago by two different groups of scientists, but you just keep ignoring this and keep repeating the myth.
When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.
As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK. In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented. The shells do not prove that the bullets they housed hit JFK or were even fired at JFK. As you know but won't admit, the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that was contained in those shells.
People who read our previous exchanges on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer ridiculous special pleading in response to the fact that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.
Are you ever going to offer a shred of evidence to support your made-up nonsense that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets?
I mean, you understand that WCC FMJ bullets, like all other FMJ bullets, were designed to leave few or no fragments in order to increase their penetrating power, right? You know this much, right? Yes?
I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.
Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
And on and on we could go, but you just brush aside the whole science of wound-ballistics testing with the dishonest, amateurish dodge that no two shootings are exactly alike in every single aspect, never mind that the major aspects are the same (few if any fragments, basic fragmentation patterns, location of fragmentation).
You also brush aside the unanimous position in forensic science and ballistics literature that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when striking skull bone.
16
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Ted Sager on Today at 02:03:32 PM »Connally claimed he heard the first and third shotSo, someone firing down at 70degree angle hit K at upward angle as X-ray showed. How did that happen exactly???
The second shot he only felt
17
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 01:07:48 PM »Yes, I've seen Groden's sync of the film and the dictabelt shots. I think Dr. Thompson's is more credible. However, for the reasons I've explained in previous replies, I think any attempt to match the Z film with the dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary.
You can watch Dr. Thompson explain his sync shot-by-shot in the 2021 ABC7 News documentary produced by Dan Noyes that I've discussed in previous replies:
JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies
Any attempt to match the Z-film with the Dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary because the acoustics study is invalid, not the Z-film. You will continue to remain lost as long as you insist on clinging to the validity of the acoustics study.
18
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 01:04:01 PM »Few books on the assassination discuss the HSCA’s rifle test, which also failed to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting performance. The test involved four expert riflemen who fired at stationary target boards. Not one of the riflemen scored two hits in three shots.
HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey wrote a memorandum that described the test and its results. The test was conducted in March 1979. The riflemen in the test were four of the top marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All four had prior military experience, and all four had additional “extensive” civilian training in using rifles or handguns (8 HSCA 184).
The riflemen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at three stationary target boards from a 20-foot tower. The target boards were placed 143 feet, 165 feet, and 265 feet from the tower. Each target board had a silhouette that portrayed a human body from waist to head. Each rifleman fired two series of three shots. It should be noted that they used the iron sights for all shots. The riflemen were allowed to practice working the rifle’s bolt for several minutes. A shot was counted as a hit (“kill”) if it landed anywhere in the silhouette (8 HSCA 184 n 3).
Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary Cornwell also fired shots in the test, but they only fired one series of two shots (8 HSCA 184). Blakey and Cornwell apparently merely point-aimed, i.e., they merely pointed the rifle in the direction of the target and fired.
Blakey noted that the Carcano rifle “was characteristically difficult to operate, due to its poor basic design” (8 HSCA 184 n 2). Yet, many lone-gunman theorists still portray the rifle as an outstanding and reliable weapon.
The purpose of the rifle test was to see if a Carcano rifle could be fired three times in 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots while scoring at least two hits. As mentioned, any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette was counted as a hit (“kill”), thus tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area compared to the area that the supposed lone gunman allegedly hit two out of three times in 8.6-9.6 seconds (and two out of two times in 5.6 seconds).
With the four experts each firing two series of three shots, and with Blakey and Cornwell each firing one series of two shots, a total of 10 series were fired.
Significantly, four of the 10 series took over seven seconds to fire. As for the other series, two of them took over six seconds to fire; two of them took over five seconds to fire; and two of them took less than five seconds to fire (8 HSCA 185).
Blakey tried to put the best face he could on the results of the test. He said the test showed that the shooting feat was “apparently difficult, but not impossible,” but he admitted that none of the riflemen had managed to perform the feat:
It is apparently difficult, but not impossible – at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used – to fire three shots, at least two of which score “kills,” with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)
In a footnote, Blakey reported that the riflemen’s first shot in all the series was usually a hit, “since there was no time pressure imposed in aiming the rifle in preparation for that shot” (8 HSCA 185 n 4). Yet, according to the lone-gunman theory, the supposed single assassin missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first shot.
Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt commented on the HSCA rifle test as follows:
Years later, staff members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook to settle once and for all the question of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano could have done the job. At a firing range outside Washington, HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey met with four of the top rifle marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All had prior military experience.
A representative from the National Archives was present with the infamous Oswald rifle. After some testing, it was clear its condition was too poor to permit firing. A similar weapon was produced, one that had been used in earlier tests in Dealey Plaza.
The specific purpose of the test, according to Blakey, was to see if it was possible for Oswald to fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds. (The HSCA acoustics studies had determined this as the amount of time between the two closest shots.)
That fact alone is enough to invalidate the acoustics studies. It would be idiotic for Oswald or any other shooter to try to fire a bolt action rifle that rapidly. Even firing a semi-auto rifle that fast wouldn't make sense. If you are trying to hit a target, accuracy takes priority over speed. Any competent marksman knows that controlling your breathing is important to accuracy and you don't try to fire rapidly. You put a slow squeeze on the trigger and let the gun fire when the trigger pressure is reached.
Quote
The results were, at best, mixed. Blakey reported to the committee that such shooting could be done. He went on to explain:
"It is apparently difficult but not impossible . . . to fire three shots, at least two of which score 'kills,' with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.”
Echoes of the Warren Commission? What Blakey is saying is that while it is not impossible to duplicate Oswald's feat, none of the experts was able to do it. Moreover, the HSCA expert marksmen, like the experts in 1964, used stationary targets and were given unlimited time to prepare for their first shot.
The fact remains that, to this day, no expert marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting skills in any official test or demonstration. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 101, emphasis added)[/font]
Define what you consider "duplicated".
Quote
The HSCA’s rifle test also tended to confirm what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about how rapidly the alleged murder weapon could be fired with any degree of accuracy: Frazier said 2.3 seconds per shot was the fastest the rifle could be fired with some degree of accuracy.
When I shared a copy of my book A Comforting Lie with a co-worker, he said he was surprised to learn about the HSCA’s investigation and its conclusions. He said he’d heard of the Warren Commission but had never heard of the HSCA. This is why my chapter on the HSCA is titled “The Forgotten Investigation: The House Select Committee on Assassinations.”
What a stupid test. Why would they limit the shooters to 1.7 seconds between shots? Oswald wasn't under any such constraint. By my calculation, he had 3.9 seconds between the first and second shots and 4.9 seconds between the second and third shots. Also, why would they use the iron sights instead of the scope. We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.
As for the Carcano rifle, nobody has said it was a great battlefield rifle as compared to the M1 Garand or the German Mauser, but it was more the adequate for Oswald's purpose. His longest shot was 88 yards, less than half the range he trained at in the USMC. We know the Carcano got the job done because the only recovered shells and bullets were positively matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
19
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:42:06 PM »
Groden's matching of the film and acoustic data.
Yes, I've seen Groden's sync of the film and the dictabelt shots. I think Dr. Thompson's is more credible. However, for the reasons I've explained in previous replies, I think any attempt to match the Z film with the dictabelt shots is problematic and unnecessary.
You can watch Dr. Thompson explain his sync shot-by-shot in the 2021 ABC7 News documentary produced by Dan Noyes that I've discussed in previous replies:
JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies
20
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:23:32 PM »Few books on the assassination discuss the HSCA’s rifle test, which also failed to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting performance. The test involved four expert riflemen who fired at stationary target boards. Not one of the riflemen scored two hits in three shots.
HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey wrote a memorandum that described the test and its results. The test was conducted in March 1979. The riflemen in the test were four of the top marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All four had prior military experience, and all four had additional “extensive” civilian training in using rifles or handguns (8 HSCA 184).
The riflemen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at three stationary target boards from a 20-foot tower. The target boards were placed 143 feet, 165 feet, and 265 feet from the tower. Each target board had a silhouette that portrayed a human body from waist to head. Each rifleman fired two series of three shots. It should be noted that they used the iron sights for all shots. The riflemen were allowed to practice working the rifle’s bolt for several minutes. A shot was counted as a hit (“kill”) if it landed anywhere in the silhouette (8 HSCA 184 n 3).
Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary Cornwell also fired shots in the test, but they only fired one series of two shots (8 HSCA 184). Blakey and Cornwell apparently merely point-aimed, i.e., they merely pointed the rifle in the direction of the target and fired.
Blakey noted that the Carcano rifle “was characteristically difficult to operate, due to its poor basic design” (8 HSCA 184 n 2). Yet, many lone-gunman theorists still portray the rifle as an outstanding and reliable weapon.
The purpose of the rifle test was to see if a Carcano rifle could be fired three times in 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots while scoring at least two hits. As mentioned, any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette was counted as a hit (“kill”), thus tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area compared to the area that the supposed lone gunman allegedly hit two out of three times in 8.6-9.6 seconds (and two out of two times in 5.6 seconds).
With the four experts each firing two series of three shots, and with Blakey and Cornwell each firing one series of two shots, a total of 10 series were fired.
Significantly, four of the 10 series took over seven seconds to fire. As for the other series, two of them took over six seconds to fire; two of them took over five seconds to fire; and two of them took less than five seconds to fire (8 HSCA 185).
Blakey tried to put the best face he could on the results of the test. He said the test showed that the shooting feat was “apparently difficult, but not impossible,” but he admitted that none of the riflemen had managed to perform the feat:
It is apparently difficult, but not impossible – at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used – to fire three shots, at least two of which score “kills,” with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)
In a footnote, Blakey reported that the riflemen’s first shot in all the series was usually a hit, “since there was no time pressure imposed in aiming the rifle in preparation for that shot” (8 HSCA 185 n 4). Yet, according to the lone-gunman theory, the supposed single assassin missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first shot.
Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt commented on the HSCA rifle test as follows:
Years later, staff members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook to settle once and for all the question of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano could have done the job. At a firing range outside Washington, HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey met with four of the top rifle marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All had prior military experience.
A representative from the National Archives was present with the infamous Oswald rifle. After some testing, it was clear its condition was too poor to permit firing. A similar weapon was produced, one that had been used in earlier tests in Dealey Plaza.
The specific purpose of the test, according to Blakey, was to see if it was possible for Oswald to fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds. (The HSCA acoustics studies had determined this as the amount of time between the two closest shots.)
The results were, at best, mixed. Blakey reported to the committee that such shooting could be done. He went on to explain:
"It is apparently difficult but not impossible . . . to fire three shots, at least two of which score 'kills,' with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.”
Echoes of the Warren Commission? What Blakey is saying is that while it is not impossible to duplicate Oswald's feat, none of the experts was able to do it. Moreover, the HSCA expert marksmen, like the experts in 1964, used stationary targets and were given unlimited time to prepare for their first shot.
The fact remains that, to this day, no expert marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting skills in any official test or demonstration. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 101, emphasis added)
The HSCA’s rifle test also tended to confirm what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about how rapidly the alleged murder weapon could be fired with any degree of accuracy: Frazier said 2.3 seconds per shot was the fastest the rifle could be fired with some degree of accuracy.
When I shared a copy of my book A Comforting Lie with a co-worker, he said he was surprised to learn about the HSCA’s investigation and its conclusions. He said he’d heard of the Warren Commission but had never heard of the HSCA. This is why my chapter on the HSCA is titled “The Forgotten Investigation: The House Select Committee on Assassinations.”
HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey wrote a memorandum that described the test and its results. The test was conducted in March 1979. The riflemen in the test were four of the top marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All four had prior military experience, and all four had additional “extensive” civilian training in using rifles or handguns (8 HSCA 184).
The riflemen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at three stationary target boards from a 20-foot tower. The target boards were placed 143 feet, 165 feet, and 265 feet from the tower. Each target board had a silhouette that portrayed a human body from waist to head. Each rifleman fired two series of three shots. It should be noted that they used the iron sights for all shots. The riflemen were allowed to practice working the rifle’s bolt for several minutes. A shot was counted as a hit (“kill”) if it landed anywhere in the silhouette (8 HSCA 184 n 3).
Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary Cornwell also fired shots in the test, but they only fired one series of two shots (8 HSCA 184). Blakey and Cornwell apparently merely point-aimed, i.e., they merely pointed the rifle in the direction of the target and fired.
Blakey noted that the Carcano rifle “was characteristically difficult to operate, due to its poor basic design” (8 HSCA 184 n 2). Yet, many lone-gunman theorists still portray the rifle as an outstanding and reliable weapon.
The purpose of the rifle test was to see if a Carcano rifle could be fired three times in 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots while scoring at least two hits. As mentioned, any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette was counted as a hit (“kill”), thus tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area compared to the area that the supposed lone gunman allegedly hit two out of three times in 8.6-9.6 seconds (and two out of two times in 5.6 seconds).
With the four experts each firing two series of three shots, and with Blakey and Cornwell each firing one series of two shots, a total of 10 series were fired.
Significantly, four of the 10 series took over seven seconds to fire. As for the other series, two of them took over six seconds to fire; two of them took over five seconds to fire; and two of them took less than five seconds to fire (8 HSCA 185).
Blakey tried to put the best face he could on the results of the test. He said the test showed that the shooting feat was “apparently difficult, but not impossible,” but he admitted that none of the riflemen had managed to perform the feat:
It is apparently difficult, but not impossible – at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used – to fire three shots, at least two of which score “kills,” with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)
In a footnote, Blakey reported that the riflemen’s first shot in all the series was usually a hit, “since there was no time pressure imposed in aiming the rifle in preparation for that shot” (8 HSCA 185 n 4). Yet, according to the lone-gunman theory, the supposed single assassin missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first shot.
Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt commented on the HSCA rifle test as follows:
Years later, staff members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook to settle once and for all the question of whether the Mannlicher-Carcano could have done the job. At a firing range outside Washington, HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey met with four of the top rifle marksmen from the District of Columbia Police Department. All had prior military experience.
A representative from the National Archives was present with the infamous Oswald rifle. After some testing, it was clear its condition was too poor to permit firing. A similar weapon was produced, one that had been used in earlier tests in Dealey Plaza.
The specific purpose of the test, according to Blakey, was to see if it was possible for Oswald to fire two shots in less than 1.7 seconds. (The HSCA acoustics studies had determined this as the amount of time between the two closest shots.)
The results were, at best, mixed. Blakey reported to the committee that such shooting could be done. He went on to explain:
"It is apparently difficult but not impossible . . . to fire three shots, at least two of which score 'kills,' with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though, in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency.”
Echoes of the Warren Commission? What Blakey is saying is that while it is not impossible to duplicate Oswald's feat, none of the experts was able to do it. Moreover, the HSCA expert marksmen, like the experts in 1964, used stationary targets and were given unlimited time to prepare for their first shot.
The fact remains that, to this day, no expert marksman has ever duplicated Oswald's shooting skills in any official test or demonstration. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 101, emphasis added)
The HSCA’s rifle test also tended to confirm what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC about how rapidly the alleged murder weapon could be fired with any degree of accuracy: Frazier said 2.3 seconds per shot was the fastest the rifle could be fired with some degree of accuracy.
When I shared a copy of my book A Comforting Lie with a co-worker, he said he was surprised to learn about the HSCA’s investigation and its conclusions. He said he’d heard of the Warren Commission but had never heard of the HSCA. This is why my chapter on the HSCA is titled “The Forgotten Investigation: The House Select Committee on Assassinations.”