Recent Posts
31
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday 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.”
32
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Duncan MacRae on Yesterday at 10:45:44 AM »Arnold Rowland
33
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:16:52 AM »That's right.
After I had neatly dealt with your challenge you started panicking and throwing in a load more items that weren't in the original challenge.
Now, getting back to the topic of this thread.
You've been challenged by me. It's a far more simple challenge.
You've pretended not to notice it because you're a bit devious like that.
I faced your challenge head on - do you have the character and backbone to face mine?
Remember - your answer must be Common Sense, it must be Rational.
I doubt you and Common Sense have ever crossed paths.
34
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:15:32 AM »
There is nothing that confirms or refutes what he claimed to see??
Are you high?
Rowland claimed to see a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building in the minutes before the assassination...and you don't think there is anything to confirm or refute this claim!!
He could have made that up from information that became public after the shooting. That doesn't establish he saw a gunman before the shooting and the fact he didn't alert a cop prior to the shooting makes his claim dubious.
Quote
There was actually, IN REALITY, a slender white guy with a high-powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building...don't you think this confirms Rowland's claim?
No I don't for the reasons stated.
Quote
The things Nutters are forced to say, thanks to the deviousness of the Warren Commission, defy belief.
Your inability to think critically defies belief.
Quote
Because you are so unfamiliar with the evidence you are unaware that Rowland did tell his story before the shots were fired. Your whole, childish argument disappears.
Rowland's observations are just a piece of the pattern of lies, manipulation, fabrication and omission the Warren Commission used to construct it's report.
Rowland's description of the man with the rifle contains key information confirmed by other eye-witnesses...information that also refutes the WC's Oswald-Did-It narrative.
But there's no point in telling you any of this.
Your undying love for the Warren Commission is creepy.
Your gullibility knows no bounds.
35
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Now What Mr. Trump?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Yesterday at 05:59:59 AM »lol now les magaz’ have a golden statue to worship, gonna put it in the middle of their Golden Arch after its tour around the globe.
It’s gonna be golden, as the Blag’ once said.
Golden like the Arches of MacDo’s. He is such a toad.
It’s gonna be golden, as the Blag’ once said.
Golden like the Arches of MacDo’s. He is such a toad.
36
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Yesterday at 03:22:59 AM »I had to start this thread in response to something a Nutter posted on another thread insinuating that Arnold Rowland made up seeing the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
Of all the crazy things the Warren Commission has forced Nutters to believe this has to be right up there.
Barbara Rowland confirms her husband's account of seeing the man with the rifle at the southwestern end of the 6th floor of the TSBD building:
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, my husband and I were talking about Mr. Stevenson’s visit and the way the people had acted, and we were talking about security measures, and he said he saw a man on the sixth floor of the School Book
Depository Building, and when I looked up there I didn’t see the man, because I didn’t know exactly what window he was talking about at first. And when I found out which window it was, the man had apparently stepped
back, because I didn’t see him.
Mr. BELIN. Which window was it?
Mrs. ROWLAND. It was the far left-hand window.
Mr. BELIN. As you face the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. It would be the window to the south side of the building?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be on the eastern part of the south side or the western part of the south side?
Mrs. ROWLAND. West.
Mr. BELIN. Would it be the farthermost west window?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Yes; the farthermost west pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. The farthermost west pair of windows. What did your husband say to you?
Mrs. ROWLAND. Well, we assumed that it was a Secret Service man.
Mr. BELIN. But what did he say, if you remember?
Mrs. ROWLAND. He told me that he saw a man there who looked like he was holding a rifle, and that it must be a security man guarding the motorcade.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting Rowland ran around telling every law enforcement officer he could find about the man with the rifle. He told three or four officials about this man before he gave his affidavit:
"...We stood there for a time talking about the security measures that were being made for the president’s visit in view of the recent trouble when Mr. Adelai Stevenson had been a recent visitor to Dallas. It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at the surrounding buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book...building and noticed that the second floor from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it.
He appeared to be holding this at a parade rest sort of position. I mentioned this to my wife and merely made the remark that it must be the secret service men.
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair. In about 15 minutes President Kennedy passed the spot where we were standing and the motorcade had just turned west on Elm heading down the hill when I heard a noise which I thought to be a back fire."
To imagine that Rowland invented this sighting is beyond belief as it would require the almost miraculous coincidence of him inventing a man (whose description closely matches that of other eyewitnesses) carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.
What are the chances Rowland making up a white, slender male carrying a scoped, high-powered rifle on the 6th floor and it turns out that's exactly what happened?
ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS.
LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS MATTER.
DON'T BE SHY.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE MIRACLE ON ELM STREET?
Where was Bonnie Ray at the time that Rowland saw the guy 15 feet inside the Southwest window of the 6th floor?
37
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Tim Nickerson on Yesterday at 03:19:18 AM »I'm really surprised at you, Tim, for posting such utter nonsense.
Finding Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor DOES NOT place Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Because Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting DOES NOT place him at the SN window at 12:30
Finding Oswald's prints on boxes in the SN DOES NOT place at the SN window at 12:30
There is no piece of evidence - NONE - that places Oswald at the SN window at 12:30
Your interpretation of these select pieces of evidence is that Oswald was the shooter - that's your interpretation of these particular pieces of evidence.
And your assumption is that if Oswald was the shooter, then he was at the SN window at 12:30pm.
It's a theory, Tim, and nothing more.
You never struck me as a true Nutter, in the mould of Corbett or Smith, but it appears you may well be.
I haven't been posting nonsense here. You have.
Oswald's rifle being the assassination weapon, together with the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the shooting, places him in the SN at 12:30pm.
38
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Determining a Timestamp for Darnell
« Last post by Royell Storing on Yesterday at 01:31:19 AM »I can't even begin to follow the hairbrained reasoning in this post or who you have arrived at the conclusions contained in it. I might get an aneurism if he tried.
Your JFK Assassination foundation is currently limited. Try becoming familiar with the JFK Assassination Films. Then, read revered material such as "Pictures Of The Pain".
Wiegman said he felt the "compression" of a bullet on his face. His seeing SA Lem Johns UP the knoll is also something you are not familiar with. It's Facts such as this which you claim to be "hairbrained". To the contrary, they challenge the currently accepted Wiegman Timeline. And this is in the face of there not being 1 single Fact substantiating that Wiegman was "sprawled" across the steps on the Bell Film. Gaining JFK Assassination knowledge will lead to your gaining confidence/courage. Give it a try.
39
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Why did Debrueys introduce LHO to Smith and Roche?
« Last post by Gerry Down on Yesterday at 12:41:02 AM »So, any ideas?
What Pena seems to be describing is a relationship between Oswald and the FBI that has been going on a long time, possibly years.
Yet Debrueys only knows Oswald 2 or 3 weeks at this stage.
What Pena seems to be describing is a relationship between Oswald and the FBI that has been going on a long time, possibly years.
Yet Debrueys only knows Oswald 2 or 3 weeks at this stage.
40
General Discussion And Debate (Any Topic) / Re: Am I the only one...
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Yesterday at 12:36:39 AM »It took 30 years to go from the crime to her attempted execution (which they botched by allowing a woke request to have an all female team). What do you think the holdup was? Do you think conservative republicans were advocating for delay? You don't think that left wingers are the ones who oppose the death penalty?
"The divide between supporters of the two major political parties shows an erosion of support for the death penalty among Independents and Democrats, but support remains constant among Republicans. According to Gallup’s October 2025 polling, 82% of Republicans favor the death penalty, compared to 47% of Independents, and just 32% of Democrats. These numbers show a 50-point difference in support between the two major political parties."
good for you - and what happened in TN in recent weeks has nothing to do with DEMS or leftists
that's your own ignorant prejudice