What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?

[Michael T. Griffith]

So now you're relying on a Hollywood movie. Okay.

You seem a little slow on the uptake, I wanted to help you with an easy example.
 
Just a reminder: The alleged murder weapon was not an M1903 Springfield but was a 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano, according to your camp.

OK- you have an A going so far.
 
You're still avoiding the fact that when Oswald fired for record in the Marine Corps, he used a superb semi-automatic rifle, the M1 Garand, whereas, according to you, when he allegedly shot JFK, he used a Carcano, a rifle known for jamming and inaccuracy when fired rapidly.

You are the only one who thinks it is relevant. Let me explain it simply. It has no relevance whatsoever.

LHO never fired the shots for time in Dealey Plaza. Remember two shots in 5.6 seconds. 

A Million Austrian casualties in WW1 will attest to the accuracy of the Carcano. 

Finland in 1938-39 used them to fight the Russians with great success.


You really should stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to rifles. You clearly do not.

I think I will continue but thank you for your concern.   

“You claim knowledge that certain bolt action manufacturers are better than others, but you cannot understand why a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic?”

No answer, do you understand or not? How hard a question is it.
 
A number of well-regarded sniper rifles are semi-automatics, e.g., the Arash AM, the ArmaLite AR10T, the Azb DMR MK1, the Barrett M82, the Barrett XM109, the Barrett XM500, the Colt Canada C20 DMR, the Dragunov SVD, the Dragunov SVDK, the SA58 SPR, the FN SCAR, the IWI Galil, the Harris Gunworks M96, the Heckler & Koch PSG1, among others.

You have a list of modern weapons. What is your point. The fact you do not want to address the main issue? No proof of a third shot. This whole post seems to be about avoiding your responsibility to at least prove your a third shot in your three+ shot theory. 

You believe Oswald had access to these MODERN rifles with MODERN precision machining?
 
The Mannlicher-Carcano was only occasionally used as a sniper rifle by the Italian Army in World War I, and even then it was viewed as a less effective sniper weapon than other contemporary rifles. And nobody but nobody used it as a sniper rifle in World War II.

Huh? Exactly what is the point of this. The fact you would even write about this indicates you do not have a clue or evading the central topic of proof of a third shot. 

While reading, you obviously missed this key piece of information. 

"a bolt action would be a more precision firearm than a semi-automatic."

You cannot understand this statement? Seriously? You then list a number of modern weapons? What kind of a goofball show do you have going on? 

Giggle, giggle. Oh, yes, your powerful case for the "two shot fact" has me completely unraveled. 

Giggling is not a good look for an adult male. It is the internet though, maybe you aren’t one.

This is the one thing you have posted that is correct. One of the most powerful parts of the evidence was supplied by Josiah Thompson.

Powerful is a great word and does describe it. It is powerful and you are giving yourself a mental wedgie over it. You have provided absolutely no proof at all of a third shot. 
 
Since you're obviously never going to address the facts about the alleged shooting feat, I would like to have you answer these three questions:

They have been addressed. It was very doable. Remember Major Andersons testimony? What shooting feat? Believing it was hard is all you.

Shot 1

Mr. SPECTER ----...My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?
Major ANDERSON - In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot.

Shot 2

Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

[SNIPPED DEFENSE OF TWO-SHOTS-ONLY THEORY]

I've responded to your two-shots-only theory in a separate thread.

Regarding Major Anderson's claim that the alleged shooting feat would have been relatively easy, (1) WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted in an internal memo that this claim was "simply dishonest," and (2) the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance.

In fact, even if we make the silly assumption that only two shots were fired during the assassination, the WC's rifle test proves that an alleged two-shots shooting feat would have been very difficult even for Master-rated riflemen. Why? Here's why:

A total of 21 shots were fired in the WC's rifle test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit within the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots, and they were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for the first shot in each set of shots.

But, according to your fellow WC apologists, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

As for the second and third sets of shots, look at the target boards from the WC's test. You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass.

So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.

BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread is a perfect example of what happens when you try to engage lone-gunman theorists in substantive discussion about the essence of their case, i.e., the fact that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond the ability of their supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and would have been extremely difficult, and arguably impossible, even for a highly skilled rifleman.

[Tommy Shanks]

This thread is a perfect example of what happens when you try to engage lone-gunman theorists in substantive discussion about the essence of their case, i.e., the fact that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond the ability of their supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and would have been extremely difficult, and arguably impossible, even for a highly skilled rifleman.

Who CARES how "difficult" it may or may not have been? That is a pointless statement. EVERY piece of physical evidence in this case proves the shots were fired by a single weapon from above and behind the motorcade, no matter how "difficult" they were.

[Jack Nessan]

This thread is a perfect example of what happens when you try to engage lone-gunman theorists in substantive discussion about the essence of their case, i.e., the fact that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond the ability of their supposed lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and would have been extremely difficult, and arguably impossible, even for a highly skilled rifleman.

“the essence of their case”

The essence of the case is there were only two shots you have never proven there was third. Shooting feat? Pure fantasy. Focusing on something that never happened.

The whole expert rifle tripe is nothing but nonsense. Plays no role in understanding the shooting sequence.

[Michael T. Griffith]

“the essence of their case”

The essence of the case is there were only two shots you have never proven there was third. Shooting feat? Pure fantasy. Focusing on something that never happened.

You're a broken-record fringe troll who just repeats the same bizarre arguments and ignores fats that refute them. Your bizarre two-shots-only theory is even rejected by the vast majority of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

The whole expert rifle tripe is nothing but nonsense. Plays no role in understanding the shooting sequence.

And the Earth is flat. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted in an internal memo, released by the HSCA, that the alleged shooting feat would have been quite difficult and that it was "simply dishonest" to pretend otherwise.

Your only answer to the WC and CBS rifle tests is to float your ridiculous two-shots-only theory, even after I proved to you that the WC rifle test proved that even a two-shots-only shooting feat would have been very difficult even for Master-rated riflemen.

I've seen your fellow lone-gunman theorists point out to you that most of the witnesses said they heard three shots, yet you keep making the false claim that most of the witnesses said they only heard two shots.

It is a waste of time trying to reason with you.

[Jack Nessan]

You're a broken-record fringe troll who just repeats the same bizarre arguments and ignores fats that refute them. Your bizarre two-shots-only theory is even rejected by the vast majority of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

And the Earth is flat. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted in an internal memo, released by the HSCA, that the alleged shooting feat would have been quite difficult and that it was "simply dishonest" to pretend otherwise.

Your only answer to the WC and CBS rifle tests is to float your ridiculous two-shots-only theory, even after I proved to you that the WC rifle test proved that even a two-shots-only shooting feat would have been very difficult even for Master-rated riflemen.

I've seen your fellow lone-gunman theorists point out to you that most of the witnesses said they heard three shots, yet you keep making the false claim that most of the witnesses said they only heard two shots.

It is a waste of time trying to reason with you.

"You're a broken-record fringe troll who just repeats the same bizarre arguments and ignores fats that refute them. Your bizarre two-shots-only theory is even rejected by the vast majority of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.”

The amazing thing is repeating the same argument for your benefit, and still you cannot grasp the significance, but instead, choose to continually just keep chasing your tail with made up conspiracy fantasies based on your mistaken belief in at least three shots were fired. 

Which one of the lone-gunman theorists do you value their opinion so much that you are willing to abandon your conspiracy mindset?

LHO firing just two shots is the answer; any opinion to the contrary is wrong. Like yourself the lone-gunman theorists cannot seem to abandon a shot that cannot be proven, and both WC and the HSCA stated was the result of medias influence.

 
“And the Earth is flat. Even WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted in an internal memo, released by the HSCA, that the alleged shooting feat would have been quite difficult and that it was "simply dishonest to pretend otherwise.”

You keep repeating that the Earth is flat. Are you not certain of it? Let me help, not only is the Earth not flat, the JFKA did not have three shots fired in it, there were only just two shots fired.

Wesley Liebler probably has your skill level and maybe for Wesley Liebler it would be difficult, but not for a trained Marine like LHO, according to Major Anderson.

Mr. SPECTER ----...My question, then, is how would you characterize the difficulty or ease of that shot for a marksman with Mr. Oswald's capabilities?
Major ANDERSON - In my opinion this is not a particularly difficult shot, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make this shot

Mr. SPECTER.... I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capany opinion to the contrary is wrongabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.

 
 
“Your only answer to the WC and CBS rifle tests is to float your ridiculous two-shots-only theory, even after I proved to you that the WC rifle test proved that even a two-shots-only shooting feat would have been very difficult even for Master-rated riflemen”

Master-rated riflemen, Master-rated riflemen, Master-rated riflemen. Is Master-rated riflemen a boy Scout designation or something? Is there even such a thing or did you make that up. Major Anderson sure did not believe it was a hard shot. 

The whole shooting world knows a 55 yard and 88 yard shot would be a chip shot. Maybe lose the experts and grab a rifle yourself.


“Your only answer to the WC and CBS rifle tests is to float your ridiculous two-shots-only theory,”

The answer to these rifle tests is they were attempting to duplicate three shots in 5.6 seconds. The test should have been two shots in 5.6 seconds. You are not able to understand the difference between those two tests and how one would be difficult and the other not difficult at all.

 
“I've seen your fellow lone-gunman theorists point out to you that most of the witnesses said they heard three shots, yet you keep making the false claim that most of the witnesses said they only heard two shots.”

The lone gunman theorists are like you. They cannot prove a third shot but neither can they accept it didn’t happen no matter how much proof is presented. The lone gunman group doesn’t seem to be able to get out of their own way with all the odd explanations for a third shot. 

With the help of Pat Speer’s analysis and Josiah’s observation, these two conspiracy advocates have both supplied information helping prove there were only two shots. 
 
“It is a waste of time trying to reason with you.”

No, you have been wasting your time with all of your ridiculous conspiracy nonsense based on the premise there were three shots. Now you are realizing there were just the two shots. I bet that it is hard to accept. I do not know if this helps, but it would probably be less painful if you would burn all of your conspiracy essays instead of just throw them away or shred them.