Yeah, I was about to post that. He pretty much just sprayed in the general direction didn’t he? Haven’t seen that in years. I remember thinking two things when I came home from school and saw it.
why didn’t he use a bigger gun.
And someone on the other side could have lobbed a grenade into the limo at the last moment…I wasn’t a fan of Reagan.
Fair enough.
Without practice I would say you might be right. But Lee had lots of time to play with the bolt in dry runs. Maria testified he would do this night after night.
Quiet possible. I rather doubt he even used to scope, frankly. One arguement is that he tried to use the scope on the first shot and it was too close to be useful (i.e. made him miss. after that he used the iron sights. We will never know, but that scenario would not surprise me.
But the complete lack of evidence of another shooter leads me to the sinlge shoort conclusion as well.
You may be right, it might have been a hard shot. But I did a ‘replication’ of sorts with a group of friends and hit 2 of 3 (no headshot though) and, quite frankly, I suck at rifle shooting. A friend hit 3 of 3. It was nowhere near a perfect replication (we were not in a tower or building). But shit, Luther, if I can hit 2 of 3…
Well, I can find at lest one video of the attempt (and I also watched it unfold in 1981) that bolsters part of your claim. At 8 seconds into the clip on this page, Hinckley’s hands can be seen holding the pistol, though he immediately disappears under a dogpile of cops and agents. He was pretty close, by George. Oswald still had it easier, though. No people between him and his target, more time to place his shots, etc. Hinckley fired wild and got lucky. Oswald took aim and either skilfully made his shot or, at worst… got lucky.
Fine, it wasn’t the kind of shot someone with all his marbles would casually attempt. That says absolutely nothing about Oswald, though. And compared to the athletic feats that routinely make the highlight reel on the 11 o’clock news, not all that impressive.
You can do dry runs all day long, but you still have to re-aquire the target and that takes time
There are scope mounts that let you still use the iron sights as well as the scope but I doubt that rifle had them. He would have had to remove the scope to use the iron sights.
well, there is different math involved shooting downhill, there is different math involved in hitting an object moving away from you. I would be willing to bet I could hit 3 out of three on a stationary target on a flat field.
The whole hinkley easier harder thing is really beside the point. Again…hinkley had easier, harder and got lucky…who cares…he hit him
Oswalds shot was hard but not impossible. If he did it, and again, there isn’t sufficient evidence to say he didnt…he may have just started firing as fast as he cound at the car and got lucky…we don’t know, and never will.
Actually, Kennedy’s head was above the car. A close miss on his head would probably not hit the car at all. “Not hitting the car,” is not a reliable indicator of how close Oswald came to hitting Kennedy.
No, he was pretty much shooting down into the car with that first shot. A close miss would have gone into the car somewhere. If you run the JFK reloaded thing you get an idea of the angles.
4 seconds isn’t enough? Its not like the motorcade was gunning it.
You can se the mount here. I’m not expert but it looks like its designed to be out of the way of the iron sights.
Why? When discussing an improbable event, why not bring up similar events and debate just how improbable it really is? plnnr raised the issue of how the target being a president would change things, and that justifies a comparison to another time a president was shot at; in 1981.
Personally, if I was going to shoot a president, I’d want to do it in broad daylight. It makes it easier to see him.
Bdgr, let me ask you a question. It appears that the issue you’re having difficulty with is the psychological pressure of shooting Kennedy as opposed to the physical difficulty of hitting a target that size at that range. But obviously somebody shot Kennedy - and it’s hard to imagine anyone could have been shooting from a closer position than Oswald’s. So if we accept the idea that somebody was able to overcome the stress factor and shoot Kennedy, why not accept that Oswald could have?
Sure…it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about is all.
Not sure where you got that Idea. I think your confusing me with someone else.
Scroll up a bit…I’ll wait…
There, did you see where I said he could have about 20 times up there? Did you see where I said he probably did?
Four seconds between shots, if I understand the current best estimation of the total time, is the best possible time, is pushing it. as soon as you start working the the bolt on one of those things you lose your sight picture and you have to find the target again.
Could be. I looked for a picture of the thing from the rear and unable to find a picture. I’ve looked at similar mauser scope mounts that LOOKED like the same one, the scope always obscured the sites. This doesnt mean this is the case with this rifle of course… One of the pictures I’ve seen straight on from the side looks like in any case the bell of the scope would obscure the iron sight if not the mout…hard to tell with these photos.
I get the impression plnnr and bdgr are being confused. If I may:
plnnr: shooting a president is hard
bdgr: shooting a person in a slow-moving limo from a 6th-story window is hard
Neither position is really contributing anything. People do shoot presidents and nailing someone in an slow open car from six stories up isn’t going to be especially difficult for a former marine using a rifle he was comfortable with. My concern is that these irrelevancies enable the hardcore conspiracy fans.
And your position that you know more about sniping and firearms than some of the most capable firearms experts in the world isn’t contributing anything either…neither is your misstating my position again and again and again.
Shooting someone at a relatively short range is easy. Shooting someone in a slow movign limo is easy.
Shooting someone with a substandard cheap rifle with a scope in a very short time at an odd angle in a through trees is not so easy.
My position is that this particular shot under these very particular circumstance is not as easy as the armchair snipers want it to be. enabling conspiracy nuts be damned, we fight ignorance here, not create it to promote an agenda.
I shrug at your objection. An expert who says the shot was doable will simply be ignored in favour of the one who says it isn’t, because the conspiracy makes a sexier story and the conspiracy nuts love it and will buy books about it.
I’m not misstating your position - I’m just saying you’re wrong, or at best exaggerating. In any case, even if it was a million-to-one fluke shot (and ignoring that Kennedy was hit twice, and I suspect even the throat wound was life-threatening and might have proved fatal), there’s not a scrap of evidence anyone else was involved. Next time, you could write your “it’s possible Oswald acted alone” in 72-point bold type in bright red and you still wouldn’t be credible because it’s so obviously an attempt to downplay the fact that you actually believe it possible (if not probable) that Oswald didn’t act alone, with absolutely no evidence.
Well, he pulled it off, twice, so how hard could it be?
What agenda am I supposedly promoting? If you can’t elaborate, I’ll assume you just made that up in an effort to get off the defensive.
And if it’s of any significance, I’m also military trained to hit targets at three times the distance Oswald was facing. I’ve no doubt he, as a former marine, was a much better shot than me.
But almost all, if not all…experts say it was difficult, not easy. Again back to hathcock, he was not a consipiracy nut, nor was he trying to sell bucks. Your argument falls apart.
Misstating it was too kind. You are flat out lying about it…and you know it.
Thats fine, but you are stating positions that I do not hold as ones that I do…that is dishonest.
And there you go again. I have not said anywhere here that there is any evidence that anyone else was involved. You have misstated my position yet again.
Nonsense. I’ve said repeatedly that it was possible and even that it was probable.
You can jump and down all you want and insist that I’m a liar and that I’m secretly a conspiracy nut, but it’s only because I dont fit the mold you want me to fit. and your too lazy to consider the possiblity that you dont know what your talking about.
You are trying promote the lone gunman agenda, nothing wrong with it in itself, we are fighting ignorance here. But your trying to make up your own facts and shout down and label anyone who even disagrees with a minor point as a loon, just because your afraid it might support a position other than your own. We’re on the same side here, but your dishonesty is not helping the cause.
and Hathcock was a much better shot than either of you. who cares…i bet I’m better shot than you, and I bet I’ve fired more mausers than you…I bet I’ve fired more WWII era bolt action battle rifles than you. I bet you have never fired a carcano have you? I have.
Your military experience doesnt make up for your dishonesty.
I’m not shouting down anyone, nor am I jumping up and down. I don’t recall ever using a single exclamation point anywhere in this thread (possibly once or twice in paraphrases), let alone TYPING A LINE OUT 10 TIMES IN ALL CAPS. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. I assume shouting and jumping are clearly demonstrated in some fashion. Please be so kind as to use quotes and post numbers where applicable.
If this is only a disagreement with how difficult the shots really were, then I have to admit I’m confused by all the wasted effort. A major basis of the conspiracy theorists is that it’s not just highly unlikely to shoot that accurately, that quickly, at that distance, it’s actually impossible. I maintain it’s actually very possible. You think I’m understating, I think you’re overstating, and somehow I get accused of promoting an agenda. What’s the deal with that? And dishonesty? Where?
I believe that you believe it was a difficult shot. Since Oswald obviously did it (or at least there’s no evidence anyone else did it) - so what?
Anyway, did you take a carcano home for a few months, practice with it repeatedly, spend hours working the bolt? Testimony shows Oswald did, so it doesn’t matter if his particular rifle had some quirks. He had more than enough time to adapt to them.
Frankly, this whole “the carcano is a lousy rifle” meme has been repeated so often that I’m starting to have my doubts about it. Whether or not the model is inferior to other rifles is irrelevant. As I said Oswald had adequate time to get to know his particular rifle and the distance simply wasn’t that great. The meme, though, makes a handy launchpad for conspiracy theorists and if you wish to be taken seriously, I most humbly, gently, non-shoutingly, non-jumpingly suggest in the mildest possible fashion that you consider the possibility of perhaps not using it your otherwise most honourable arguments.
Your accusation of dishonesty is rejected as ridiculous and the notion of a “lone gunman agenda” is comical. What are the goals of this alleged agenda? I assume there’s some larger issue at hand than simply trying to pin down the number of assassins, or else it wouldn’t be an agenda - it’d just be a position supported by evidence. Your view of the difficulty of the shot doesn’t make you a loon. Talking about a “lone gunman agenda” is edging pretty close to if not stepping over that line, though.
made neccesary by your strawman arguments.
fine, I’ll stipulate to the idea that you probably did not leave the ground, nor raise your voice.
Perhaps you should read what people post rather than look for hidden agendas.
I cant help what conspiarcy theorists do in their spare time. I made it clear that was not my position
scroll up and read a bit. You repeatedly lied about my stated position, even after I pointed it out, in caps, 20 times.
Fighting ignorance. It’s what we do here. By presenting facts, debating details…usually civily.
I speant a good deal of time with it and other mausers. I started collecting military firearms at 16…I had a lot of friends who did as well…We’d get togeather and shoot…a lot. I probably shot 300 rounds a day 5 days a week (at least) for 6 months or so my senior year.
Frankly, this whole “the carcano is a lousy rifle” meme has been repeated so often that I’m starting to have my doubts about it. Whether or not the model is inferior to other rifles is irrelevant. As I said Oswald had adequate time to get to know his particular rifle and the distance simply wasn’t that great. The meme, though, makes a handy launchpad for conspiracy theorists and if you wish to be taken seriously, I most humbly, gently, non-shoutingly, non-jumpingly suggest in the mildest possible fashion that you consider the possibility of perhaps not using it your otherwise most honourable arguments.
[/quote]
So…abandon a fact, because some nuts use the same fact…Hmm…No, I think I’ll stick with the facts, but thanks for the suggestion. There are a lot of nice rifles built on the same basic design…its not one of them. Under better circumstances it would be capable but it just adds to the challenge of the situation.
I personally couldn’t care less what you “reject”. You have no credidibility at this point with all the silly straw men you’ve been flinging about. Yes, your attitude on this issue is so fanatical as to be called an agenda. I don’t know why you seem so threatened by the notion that it could be a difficult series of events, but you seem to be. Your calling me a loon is “double secret rejected” times infinity so there…pfft. Whatever
Just make up what you think my position should be and attack that, if it makes you feel better. I suggest something involving space aliens and illuminati.
I don’t recognize them as such.
Do you have any instances of metaphorical shouting and jumping on my part? Can you please define what you mean by shouting and/or jumping in this context. I’ll take it for granted that it wasn’t a literal description, but it does suggest some display of hostile emotion on my part and I’m eager to see your examples.
I stand by my assessment, simply because your attitude went beyond a mere technical quibble about the difficulty of making shots like Oswald’s, as well as the speed with which you accused me of trying to suppress you.
So you said.
I’m not lying - I just don’t believe your stated position.
You have been far quicker to abandon civility than I have, so this isn’t a point in your favour.
Great. Did you shoot at any targets ~285 feet away? Was it difficult?
Well, good luck with that.
All right, Oswald’s feat was a challenge, and he proved equal to it.
That makes me smile. As with metaphorical shouting and jumping, I eagerly await specific examples of this fanaticism.
Me feeling threatened implies I’m fearful or intimidated (unless there’s some alternate metaphorical use of the word) and I request examples if the accusation is to mean anything. Exactly what or whom am I supposedly threatened by? If there is solid evidence of an alternate interpretation of the events of November 22, 1963, please be so kind as to show it to me and I’ll adjust my position accordingly.
Well, when I get accused of promoting the “lone gunman agenda”, I can’t help but look askance at the accuser. It’s such a silly thing to say, as though I was part of the conspiracy, or something.
I’m not, by the way. Honest.
At this point, I’ll just assume for the sake of simplicity the most generous case; that you think Oswald did it and it was a tricky but by no means superhuman feat of marksmanship. For the sake of honesty, I add that I don’t actually believe this, but arguing about it further is pointless. If we are on the same side, you’re giving comfort to the enemy by nurturing his delusions.