Nicely put.
I avoid most of these threads, probably because I too think that some dweebus shooting Kennedy isn’t nearly exciting or exotic enough. But it appears to be true. Bummer.
It’s been an education, though. Thanks, everybody (almost! 
).
Oswald had some stuff helping him here, though–remember, he was using a gun rest which adds more stability and will make it easier to reacquire a target.
Cite? Oswald made his shot at 45 feet. That is 15 yards. Find out at what range recruits to any of America’s armed forces starts shooting targets out within days of their entering initial training, and with accuracy at that, if you really think this was a difficult shot.
Now sure, there is obviously a difference between target shooting and shooting at real people who are moving, but we are talking about 15 yards and a target going 15 mph. We’re also talking about a rifle here, even rifles from the era of the Revolutionary War could hit people up to 300 yards away (and they did.) You don’t have to be a weapons expert to realize that 15 yards is a trivial distance when talking about shooting a rifle.
The only hard thing about repeating Oswald’s feat is the fact that the experts are “trying to reproduce Oswald’s feat” as opposed to just show that what happened in general is easy to reproduce. They’re rushing against artificial time limits (5.6 seconds, an unrealistic amount of time) whereas Oswald had no preset “time limit” that he was necessarily rushing to “beat.” He probably had at least 8.5 seconds of clean shooting at Kennedy.
Whoa, Martin, you need to recheck your numbers. Oswald was at least 50 feet above the ground - so no way it was a 45-foot shot. It was rather close range, closer than the distance at which Marines qualify.
EJsGirl: Thanks for the comment. I often wonder if these threads ever accomplish anything useful, and it’s nice to know that some of the lurkers are getting something out of it.
That’s what I was just thinking. Oswald was on the 6th floor, right? And generally the stories of an office building are 10 feet each, so even if he was firing from right at floor level (which he wasn’t; presumably the window sill would be a couple of feet higher) that’s 50 feet, as you say.
If the ground and the height of Oswald are then the legs of a right triangle, then Oswald fired down the hypotenuse.
If Martin Hyde meant to say the distance from the Book Depository (ground floor) to Kennedy was 45 feet, then Oswald’s shot was the square root of (50^2 * 45^2), or about 67 feet, 4 inches.
Still not a difficult shot, so despite the math error his point stands.
It seems this is correct, 65 feet seems to be the exact distance. One of the sources I was reading was talking about a test done at 45 feet, so I assumed that was the distance in question. We’re still only talking about 21 yards, someone who is a a novice shot should be able to hit something at 100 yard range, and for marksmanship qualification in the marines you shoot at targets at various yard ranges, up to 500 yards.
This is from the Warren Commission’s report:
And his first shot missed the entire car…That should tell you something is not as simple or easy as you are making it out to be.
The carbine he was using was worn out, and not particularly accurate even when it was new. My enfield would have been a better choice, and its older.
He did fire the shots in a short period time despite him not having to
He did fire one of the shots that hit trhough a tree, despite the fact that he didn’t have to
And Hathcock said they couldn’t duplicate it at Quantico…
These weren’t easy shots.
From my recolation of the hinkley shooting, from watching it on TV the day it happened…Hinkleys was pretty easy.
Put away that strawman, I never said it was difficult to believe.
Can we have a cite as to where I said it was impossible for Oswald to shoot Kennedy? Because thats another strawman. I didn’t say that.
Its just I find the whole “Yep, I could make that shot easy” thing tiring. You couldn’t, most people couldn’t. If Oswald did make it, it was luck. But that doesnt at all mean he didn’t do it.
Do you have anything to back up this claim? What about the shot, in your opinion, makes it difficult?
The idea that the shot was difficult is not based on anything that I’ve seen other than claims by conspiracy theorists which often take experts out of context or quote experts of dubious quality/validity.
The claim that even expert marksmen can’t hit a target at 21 yards is so dubious it is beyond belief. If that is true then how do thousands of new armed forces recruits across the United States regularly hit targets at over 100 yards?
Sure, one his shots missed the car. Of course, he wasn’t aiming for the car. I imagine if he was none of his shots would miss, but when you’re aiming for Kennedy’s head, it’s a bit easier to miss.
Moving target shooting at a downward angle with an inferior weapon through and past obsticles in a short period of time under preassure. The distance is not huge but it’s there.
I’ve read a lot of statements by marksmen, but the multple statements by hathcock on the matter settle it for me. I cant think of a bigger authority on the matter and he was clear…it was not an easy shot.
I also base it on the considerable experiance I have with firearms, but That doesnt mean squat here.
Because were talking about shooting at a stationary paper target on a flat range. The distance isn’t the problem, anyone can hit a man sized tarket at 75 yards or a hundred with a little training on a range. I can consistantly shoot a 1 inch group at twice that range with iron sights. I’ve got a friend who shot someone in the head at much much further (marine recon) Thats not the issue.
Kennedys head was in the car. He aimed at kennedy and he not only missed him, he didn’t even get close…and that was when the limo was at its closest. If it was an easy shot, why did he miss?
Because it wasn’t an easy shot.
On the McAdams site referenced to previously in the thread, there is a memorandum concerning some tests that the D.C. Police Department did. They had several shooters doing the tests, some of which were expert marksmen or trained police snipers, two however were individuals with some military and police background but no special rifle training or special experience with rifles. They spaced out targets at three distances (to simulate the movement of Kennedy’s car) and even the guy who had no extensive weapons training only missed the target’s head at 266 feet (shooting from a tower) by two inches.
This was with no prior experience using the weapon and no significant form of practice prior to its use. Oswald had been practicing with his rifle for days prior to the assassination, even specifically practicing with the bolt action to make sure he knew how to use it comfortably.
Or perhaps his nerves got the better of him on the first shot. We may never know.
On what basis do you claim the MC was ‘worn out’?
He fired as fast as he could chamber rounds and aim.
No offense to Hathcock, but he’s looking at it from a sniper’s perspective and it really wasn’t. It was more like a WW1 or 2 battlefield fire. Sure, Lee had a scope. But he was not doing anything that falls under sniper doctrine. No fire and relocation, no efforts to conceal the firearm, nothing like that. Just point and shot as fast as you can load and aim.
I’ll ask again before I give up, and if you don’t answer, I figure I’ve successfully given you something you can’t reconcile - is Oswald hitting Kennedy a more or less difficult feat than Hinckley hitting Reagan?
Weapons
Oswald - rifle with scope
Hinckley - .22 revolver
Training
Oswald - Marine Corps
Hinckley - none
Firing rate
Oswald - 3 shots in ~8 seconds
Hinckley - 6 shots in 3 seconds
Range
Oswald - ~285 feet
Hinckley - I’m not sure, maybe 40 feet
Firing position
Oswald - alone in 6th-floor storeroom, weapon braced
Hinckley - standing near crowd of spectators outside Washington Hilton
Obstacles
Oswald - trees notwithstanding, ample direct line-of-sight to Kennedy’s upper torso and head
Hinckley - numerous police officers, secret service agents, James Brady, Thomas Delehanty, Timothy McCarthy
Movement during critical shot
Oswald - Kennedy’s limo had slowed, was travelling in a straight predictable line
Hinckley - Fired at Reagan while Reagan was being shoved into a bulletproof limousine by a service agent and officers rapidly closed in to tackle Hinckley
If your argument is that Oswald’s feat was so very unlikely that he could not have pulled it off, I assume you have similar feelings about Hinckley and must believe there was a conspiracy there, too. A comparison clearly indicates Hinckley’s feat was far less probable - with his sole advantage being that he was closer. Or you could just admit that maybe both Hinckley and Oswald got lucky.
Honestly, I don’t remember. I’ve read it in multiple books, both pro lone gunman and consipracy nut. If I’m off on this, I’m off, but I seem to remember it being accepted fact.
Which is the difficult part
Well, I dont think he was. Hathcock was marine infantryman first, and I’m sure he would have conidered that. In trying to recreate it, which he said they did at quantico, I’m pretty sure they tried everything.
stationary targets. so what.
I already answered this above. Hinckley was the easier shot. Are you just deliberatly trying to be annoying?
Again, I answered this above and you must be deliberatly trying to put words in my mouth.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
IT WAS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT OSWALD SHOT KENNEDY ACTING ALONE.
Now, as to hinkly, As I remember it, he was less than 10 feet away with no obstructions between him and the president when he fired. All he had to do was point and shoot and people do that every day. They have nothing to do with each other.
I don’t see how you reach that conclusion. Can you explain it? I’d like to see a cite that puts Hinckley within ten feet of Reagan (I looked for maps of the attempt but didn’t find any in a casual search). Besides, if Hinckley had an unobstructed close-range view of Reagan, why did it take the sixth shot (which was a ricochet) to get him? Heck, Oswald took three shots to get his kill, but he had more time, a better weapon, a better stance and no obstructions.
I don’t believe that you believe that, though. It’s too unromantic.
You do have to be careful with such buff ‘accepted facts’
It certainly is true that by the time HSCA got their experts to look at it, it was rather worn out. Hence they used another MC to do their tests. The reason it was worn out is because it is part of the national archives, which any US citizen, with some supervision, can examine it and check it out. Give any rifle a treatment where a different person messes with almost every day for 15 years and any rifle will get ‘worn out’. But when tested for the WC, it was serviceable and accurate.
But not very difficult to do when you’ve worked with the rifle. Its certainly not a bad fire rate for a bolt-action rifle for wartime firing.
Perhaps. But whatever his expertise, I must reject his findings based on my own experience, the demonstrations of other marksmen, and the complete lack of evidence for any other snipers. I just can’t accept his findings as being that solid.
I watched th video on tv the day it happened…but it’s been 20 years or so. IIRC he was close up, pulled his gun and started firing as the secret service taclked him One round hit th president. Not particularly hard, but there was an element of luck to it. Maybe it’s on youtube. It doesn’t matter.
I’m not much of a romantic. Am I 100% certain that oswald acted alone? No. I think its possible, maybe even probable. There are things about the shooting that raise questions for me that will never be answered, like why he didn’t shoot on the approach. but absent any real evidence otherwise we have to assume thats what happened. But it wasn’t an easy shot…all I’m saying.
Absolutely, and I own up to it when I do it.
well…theres that then.
It’s a fairly slow action (I’ve fired one) but it wouldn’t be difficult with iron sights. I t woud be verry difficult with a scope attached. I personally think it would have been an easier shot at that range without the scope.
eh…i draw the opposite conclusion. I’ve seen enough people say they had a hard time replicating it, and my previous experience with bolt action scoped rifles makes me think he’s right on in saying it was difficult.
It is.
Remember that a lot of his bullets hit other people.