Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear  (Read 11613 times)

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2021, 09:26:26 AM »
Advertisement

'The Carcano appears to be inappropriate because the iron sights could not be adjusted for an exact range'
> Pretty sure JFK & JBC would find the Carcano all too appropriate.  ;)
> Are you saying that Oswald needed to adjust his sights every time he took a shot? Are you saying that if an enemy soldier pops up right in front of you, you should ask him to wait a moment while you adjust your sights? Haha.. shades of Monty Python right there.

I said “appears to be inappropriate”. Not “was inappropriate”. That is, a very superficial analysis says, it gives bad aim at 63 and 88 yards. Which is true. For a stationary target. But for the moving target, 13 mph at 63 yards for the second shot, 8 mph at 88 yards for the third shot, at the angles of Dealey Plaza, it provides a very good lead.

I wonder if there is any other rifle, in the world, with fixed iron sights, that would provide the appropriate lead, within 2 inches for both shots. Perhaps there is but I never heard of such a rifle. A good little research project for the CTers, perhaps.

And yes, your right. A rifle with adjustable sights could not have been used in that situation, at z222 and z312, with only 4.9 seconds to adjust the sights and aim the third shot.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2021, 09:26:26 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2021, 02:01:27 PM »
I said “appears to be inappropriate”. Not “was inappropriate”. That is, a very superficial analysis says, it gives bad aim at 63 and 88 yards. Which is true. For a stationary target. But for the moving target, 13 mph at 63 yards for the second shot, 8 mph at 88 yards for the third shot, at the angles of Dealey Plaza, it provides a very good lead.

I wonder if there is any other rifle, in the world, with fixed iron sights, that would provide the appropriate lead, within 2 inches for both shots. Perhaps there is but I never heard of such a rifle. A good little research project for the CTers, perhaps.

And yes, your right. A rifle with adjustable sights could not have been used in that situation, at z222 and z312, with only 4.9 seconds to adjust the sights and aim the third shot.

I understand that the twofer was essentially a stationary target (no panning necessary) for a few moments, due to the 3-degree downslope along Elm. Don't forget; Oswald had papered 48 out 50 in rapid-fire marine training at a much greater distance.

Additionally, I wonder if Oswald had actually aimed 'center-mass' for the z222 twofer, because the entry at the neck/back junction was just 2" off center horizontally, and practically dead-center vertically.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 03:15:08 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3602
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2021, 04:54:59 PM »
Nutter bonanza!

Despite extensive survey of the Walker property, Oswald, firing his precision instrument from less than 100 feet, couldn't even hit a sitting target.

ROFL

So, are you admitting that you believe it was LHO who made the attempt on Walker’s life?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2021, 04:54:59 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5024
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2021, 05:28:49 PM »
Nutter bonanza!

Despite extensive survey of the Walker property, Oswald, firing his precision instrument from less than 100 feet, couldn't even hit a sitting target.

ROFL

Only because the bullet deflected off a wooden frame on the window.  Maybe read up on the case.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2021, 05:35:04 PM »

I understand that the twofer was essentially a stationary target (no panning necessary) for a few moments, due to the 3-degree downslope along Elm. Don't forget; Oswald had papered 48 out 50 in rapid-fire marine training at a much greater distance.

Close but not quite. Last year I wrote an article on how to calculate the angular speed of the target, as seen from any sniper position. A link to this post is shown below:


How to Calculate the Angular Velocities of a Target as Seen from any Hypothetical Sniper Position.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2640.0.html


A link to a summary of the angular velocities is shown below:

https://ibb.co/jR68G6j

The overall angular velocity for Oswald’s three shots were:

First shot at z-153,   4.8   degrees per second.
Second shot at z-222,   1.9   degrees per second.
Third shot at z-312,   0.6   degrees per second.

So, if anything under 2 degrees per second is considered “essentially a stationary target” then, yes, the second and third shots were at essentially stationary targets.

By the way, a hypothetical shot at z-312, from either the Grassy Knoll, either from the two “Badgeman” or “Gunsmoke” locations result in an angular speed of the target of 6.2 and 5.1 degrees per second, even more difficult that the 4.8 degrees per sec. first shot from Oswald, which caused him to miss not just JFK but the entire limousine.

And as I mentioned before, the iron sights of the Carcano, by sheer chance, provide almost the perfect lead for the moving target at the speed of the limousine at those angles, within two inches for both the second and third shot. A very unfortunate fluke.



Additionally, I wonder if Oswald had actually aimed 'center-mass' for the z222 twofer, because the entry at the neck/back junction was just 2" off center horizontally, and practically dead-center vertically.

Pure speculation on your part. But, pretty good speculation. I think you may be right. He might have been aiming at the center mass target, just as he was taught in the Marines, to maximize the chances of at least wounding the target. In combat, a serious wound is about as good as a kill. In some ways better, requiring other soldiers to withdraw from the battle temporarily to move the wounded soldier away from the front line.

Engaging in pure speculation on my part, I think it is possible that:

First shot: Oswald unwisely fired the first very difficult shot, with the target having way too high an angular velocity, just before JFK disappeared behind the tree for a couple of seconds, from z-166 to z-206. And missed the limousine. This unwise first shot may have been brought on by the fear that if he waits until after the tree, the standing secret service agents in the follow up car, following right behind, might block any shot. As it turned out, they didn’t. But this would be hard to tell just from eyeballing the scene from the sixth-floor window.

Second shot: Totally rattled by that bad first shot, Oswald may have just been going for some sort of wound, maximized his odds of doing so by just shooting at the center of the visible target, similar in size and shape to the targets he practiced shooing at with the Marines at 200, 300 and 500 yards, and got a hit very near the center, right at the base of the neck upper torso area.

Third shot: Calmed down a bit after getting a hit, and with the angular speed of the target slowing down a great deal further, and took an extra second to aim at the center of the head, where his shot was again pretty accurate.

Certainly, the locations of the wounds do suggest this scenario better than any other.

But it is also possible he was just aiming at the center of the head the whole time. The 1.9 degrees per second might have been enough to throw him off some causing a miss of about 8 inches, which unfortunately for JFK, Oswald missed low, instead of missing high or left or right, resulting in a serious wound to the lower neck.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2021, 05:35:04 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2021, 07:12:41 PM »
My 'I wonder' pretty much renders your 'pure speculation on your part' remark unnecessary & redundant. Just sayin'.

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3602
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2021, 07:25:34 PM »
Of cause not (believing).

Simply pointing out the stupidity of WC cheerleaders.

Even commie hater Walker recognised how desparate the Commission was.

And I was simply pointing out the folly of your “logic”.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2021, 07:25:34 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Carcano: What Oswald Apologists don't want to hear
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2021, 07:28:09 PM »
----------------
BONUS TIP for
HIGH SCHOOL
DROP-OUTS (aka
OSWALD ARSE
KISSERS/aka
OAKers)  ;D
-----------------

'Of cause not'
https://ielts.studyhorror.com/d/cause-or-course

Which one is correct 'of course' or 'of cause'? This has been confusing many students and new English learners. 'Of cause' is not a proper phrase. Therefore, we can't use of cause as a separate phrase. It's not correct.

----------------------
'studyhorror' indeed
Hahahahahahaahaa
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 07:36:29 PM by Bill Chapman »