Did Lee Harvey Oswald assassinate JFK?

[bdgr]

@Bryan Ekers

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.

No. Who cares? No jumping or shouting. You are totally earthbound and quiet. Move on.

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.

nonsense.

So you said.I’m not lying - I just don’t believe your stated position.

Right…whatever…you base calling me a liar on what? Your magic 8 ball?

You have been far quicker to abandon civility than I have, so this isn’t a point in your favor.

You abandoned it first, bud. You insulted me first. You called me a liar and repeatedly stated that I was saying something I clearly was not. You cant insult someone and then try to play that card when they react.

Great. Did you shoot at any targets ~285 feet away?

Yep.

Was it difficult?

Really poor group from the carcano, my SMLE I could hit with pretty steady.

Well, good luck with that.

Don’t need luck. facts are on my side.

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.

[/quote]

This post and all the other ones where you frantically look for a way to brand me a conspiracy nut and even insist that I must be lying because the only way someone could possiby believe all the exerts over you is if they were a tin foil hat.

Me feeling threatened implies I’m fearful or intimidated

If the shoe fits…

(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?

Anyone with a different opinion, apparently

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

Please be so kind to show where I have said or even implied that there is? didn’t think so.

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.

Oh hell…he’s looking askance at me…how can I ever sleep at night.

I’m not, by the way. Honest.

I agree with this statement…You arent, 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.

why would you think that…oh yeah…BECAUSE THATS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYIING ALL ALONG!

4

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.

No, you are discrediting us because anyone on the fence who has read articles by people like Hathcock, and you know…people who know what they are talking about is going to read your saying “it was easy” and discredit anything else you say.

And nice of you, once again, to throw in a totally baseless “I don’t actually believe this” in there as well. It says so much about your character.

[tomndebb]

Gentlemen, you have now descended into the arena of “are too”/“is not”. I suspect that you are each expending a lot of time that could be more profitably spent gazing at your navels and neither of you is going to “win” at this point.

I strongly urge you to just walk away, at least for a while.

[ /Moderating ]

[Themenin]

I don’t understand why the debate seems to be breaking out as “difficult shot equals conspiracy” vs “easy shot equals lone shooter”. This seems to weaken both positions.
scenario 1 : Easy shot - I’m Conspiracy Guy on November 21 - I have dozens of shooters and locations at my disposal - OK, Oswald’s a loose cannon, and not too hot with a rifle, but he’s got the perfect easy access and line of fire. I swivel around in my leather armchair, put down my kitten, and send out Umbrella-Man to give Oswald the go-ahead.

scenario 2 : Tough shot - There’s no conspiracy. The whole thing’s a quasi-accident. The shot’s insanely difficult, and only a madman would even try it. In 99 out of a hundred parallel universes Oswald would have completely missed the motorcade, and accidentally shot Zapruder and Umbrella-Man leaving America forever mystified - but no, the impossible happens, and this loser gets lucky. A quasi-accident.

scenario 3 : Either way - Oswald did attempt a shot, and any number of cabals were gunning for JFK at the same time, but Oswald was not involved with them. Any evidence relating to Oswald or his shot becomes irrelevant to any conspiracies.
In other words, easy-shot supports conspiracy better than difficult-shot. Surely the alleged conspirators would have given their patsy an easy, or at least feasible shot (for credibility’s sake, if nothing else) ? The “crappy rifle” position also seems to argue against a conspiracy, for either effectiveness or credibility. As chief conspirator, I think I would have gone with a large explosion, or perhaps a laser beam, for a better chance of a kill.
For me, the strongest argument against a conspiracy of any consequence is the difficulty of intentionally (and fore-sightedly) placing Oswald on the motorcade’s itinerary. This would imply a large number of backup plans and co-conspirators. The only vaguely feasible way I can see to pull this off is for most of the conspirators to (still) believe that they were part of the security setup rather than the assassination team.

[BJMoose]

May I suggest that it is time to move past the “could he have done it” question?

The only question of forensic value here is, could it be done. If you can show that it was impossible for Oswald (or anyone else) to do what he is said to have done, then that theory of the case is untenable.

If you can show that it is possible, all you do is knock down a defense argument that it couldn’t be done. Whether or not it actually happened that way must depend on other evidence.

There has been ample evidence presented that it was possible, a point that virtually everyone in this thread agrees on. Whether Oswald could have done it is an eternally moot point, unless you can figure out some way to resurrect him, hand him a rifle, and see how he does. (Course, if he did in fact kill Kennedy, we would expect him to “dog” this test.)

It’s time to move on to evidence that shows Oswald was actually the shooter. If you can prove that Oswald was the shooter, then he must have been good enough, or lucky enough, or whatever, to do what he did. If you can’t prove that he did it, then it just doesn’t matter whether or not he could have.

[CurtC]

@Themenin

In other words, easy-shot supports conspiracy better than difficult-shot. Surely the alleged conspirators would have given their patsy an easy, or at least feasible shot (for credibility’s sake, if nothing else) ?

Careful, you’re getting into the “through the looking glass” world of the mucho insane Jim Garrison, where evidence that implicates Oswald is argued against the idea that he did it, because powerful conspirators would surely make it seem that way.

This kind of talk is common in the 9/11 conspiracy circles, where the towers obviously fell because of a controlled demolition, but the conspirators were smart enough to make it look nothing at all like a controlled demolition, and blasted it from the top-down. Yes, they really say this.

[plnnr]

To re-state my position (which I seem to have done a poor job at the first time around)

I believe LHO shot the President.
I don’t believe he was acting alone. This is a point for which I have no evidence. Call it a gut feeling.
The point I was trying to make about Oswald being under pressure, nervous, excited, etc. etc. etc. was NOT that it made him any less a suspect (I’ve already concedd that he did it), but that it is an element that the “arm chair” snipers have either dismissed out of hand; however, cold blooded nerves of steel or blind dumb luck, the result is the same.

[Fiver]

@plnnr

To re-state my position (which I seem to have done a poor job at the first time around)

I believe LHO shot the President.
I don’t believe he was acting alone. This is a point for which I have no evidence. Call it a gut feeling.

What I don’t understand is where your gut tells you an accomplice is necessary for LHO, if you concede that LHO was the shooter.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@bdgr

Four seconds between shots, if I understand the current best estimation of the total time, is the best possible time, is pushing it.

Not at all. The best estimates of time give Oswald 7.1 to 7.9 seconds minimum. for three shots. Keep in mind the clock starts when you fire the first shot.

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.
.

The German Army expected soldiers to fire their Mausers 15 times a minute, which translates to a shot every four seconds. That includes clip reloading time.

[CannyDan]

I cannot find a picture now, so this is probably worth less than my usual 2 cents, but—

I seem to recall that this rifle had the scope mounted high, and the mount was attached along the side of the receiver. This was necessary because the clip is inserted from above, and both the scope and the scope mount had to be clear of the loading path. In this configuration, again as I recall but cannot demonstrate, the open sights (iron sights) are unobstructed and available.

Perhaps indeed the first shot went astray because of close-focus problems with the scope. Neither position change nor disassembly would be needed to use the open sights for subsequent shots.

[Little_Nemo]

I agree with Tom.

When all

the posts

start

looking

like this

it’s difficult

to understand

what’s being

said

let alone

res

pond.

[Lemur866]

No it doesn’t.

[bdgr]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Not at all. The best estimates of time give Oswald 7.1 to 7.9 seconds minimum. for three shots. Keep in mind the clock starts when you fire the first shot.

The German Army expected soldiers to fire their Mausers 15 times a minute, which translates to a shot every four seconds. That includes clip reloading time.
[/QUOTE]

far superior weapon and not using a scope or even really aiming for the time. Four seconds between shots and aiming with a scope is difficult…not impossible but difficult.

I’ve got work to do…You guys have fun with this.

[Bobotheoptimist]

@bdgr

far superior weapon and not using a scope or even really aiming for the time. Four seconds between shots and aiming with a scope is difficult…not impossible but difficult.

Paging Martini Enfield
With their Enfields, a far (far) superior weapon, British troops were expected to do 15 rounds of accurate fire (hit target at 300 meters) in a minute. That’s with a reload, not just cycling the bolt. One guy did 35 in a minute.
The Carcano isn’t the finest rifle ever made, but it’s not such a hunk of crap that you can’t work it at a decent speed. I’ve never timed myself because I don’t do speed shooting (and ammo* is so hard to find for the thing) but a it’s hard to imagine anyone taking the times I’ve seen mentioned.

With a rest you can take your shot, work the bolt and reacquire much faster than you can offhand. The Carcano is reloaded from the top, so the scope would have to be offset, from the picture it appears the iron sights are still usable (as one would expect) and even 100 yards is not an extreme shot for a human-sized target if using open sights.

Frankly, I don’t give a hoot who killed JFK, if LHO was framed, if Cubans in cahoots with the Knights of Columbus hired a disgruntled Templar or whatever, just that the rifle in question is certainly capable of making the shots described.

• Disclaimer in the interest of accuracy - I have a 7,35x51 rather than the more popular 6,5X52 that Oswald used

[Fish]

If it’s “obvious” now to the conspiracy theorists that Oswald’s shot was nigh impossible, it was obvious in 1963. So the ten million dollar question is, “Why did the conspiracy plant Oswald in a place where nobody would ever believe he could have made the shot from?”

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Bobotheoptimist

Paging Martini Enfield
With their Enfields, a far (far) superior weapon, British troops were expected to do 15 rounds of accurate fire (hit target at 300 meters) in a minute. That’s with a reload, not just cycling the bolt. One guy did 35 in a minute.
The Carcano isn’t the finest rifle ever made, but it’s not such a hunk of crap that you can’t work it at a decent speed. I’ve never timed myself because I don’t do speed shooting (and ammo* is so hard to find for the thing) but a it’s hard to imagine anyone taking the times I’ve seen mentioned.

In fairness, the Enfield is a straight pull, which is faster. But Mausers could do well, and the Carcano’s design was based off the Mauser. You’d have to be very finicky to tell the difference. Tim Mullin, who wrote ‘Testing the weapons of war’ put it in the top five best rifles.:

“The M91 Italian Carcano carbine with fixed sights was the most surprising of the weapons fired. I had always thought of them these rifles as cheap wartime emergency weapons, but instead they are light, handy, and easy to shoot with great combat sights. It is he best rifle fielded by the Italians during the war and much better than any other bolt action rifle used in the two world wars by the combatants - except as noted earlier with the Pattern 14/m1917 Enfield”

With a rest you can take your shot, work the bolt and reacquire much faster than you can offhand. The Carcano is reloaded from the top, so the scope would have to be offset, from the picture it appears the iron sights are still usable (as one would expect) and even 100 yards is not an extreme shot for a human-sized target if using open sights.

In rereading some of the WC testing accounts, it seems the scope did not interfere with the use of the iron sights, as the testers were able to switch between the two without removing it.

In addition: If the Carcano was such an awful rifle, why was Italy’s NATO shooting team still using them when JFK was shot? Were they that backwards? I doubt it.

[Rick]

@bdgr

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.

Don’t doubt. The scope is mounted high and too the left to allow for reloading of the weapon. The iron sights are not obstructed.
for an interesting look at the scope mount and rate of fire of the the weapon in question, check out this video clip where the shooter using the same type rifle as LHO gets off 7 aimed shots in 6.8 seconds.

[Bobotheoptimist]

@Mr. Miskatonic

In fairness, the Enfield is a straight pull, which is faster. But Mausers could do well, and the Carcano’s design was based off the Mauser.

Exactly, I fear I didn’t phrase it well. The Lee-Enfield cocks on closing, and is usually considered one of the greatest battle rifles of all time. Still, the British were expected to hit at 4 times the distance. IMHO, the difference between 100 and 300 yards is substantial enough to make a difference.

Seems it’s been fairly well demonstrated that the shots were not impossible, but I have a weird feeling the matter isn’t closed.

[denquixote]

@Fish

If it’s “obvious” now to the conspiracy theorists that Oswald’s shot was nigh impossible, it was obvious in 1963. So the ten million dollar question is, “Why did the conspiracy plant Oswald in a place where nobody would ever believe he could have made the shot from?”

I think we only have the time frame because of the zapruder film, no film - then pure speculation as to the time. who knew zapruder would be there? Oswald was working at the SBDB from Oct. 16 long before any motorcade route was established. a more interesting question is how the route was decided upon. (i for one, though, do not say it was impossible, just improbable.)

[denquixote]

@Rick

Don’t doubt. The scope is mounted high and too the left to allow for reloading of the weapon. The iron sights are not obstructed.
for an interesting look at the scope mount and rate of fire of the the weapon in question, check out this video clip where the shooter using the same type rifle as LHO gets off 7 aimed shots in 6.8 seconds.

I don’t understand, is this shooter using a clip to reload? Did Oswald use a clip?

[Rick]

Look at the linked video. About 21 seconds in, it shows how the rounds are held in a clip prior to loading. Six rounds are held in a “clip” that is inserted into the rifle with the bolt open. When the bolt is closed, the first round is fed to the chamber, and the rifle is ready to fire.
After the last round is fired, when the bolt is opened, the empty “clip” is ejected.
The M1 rifle (used by the US during WWII) also used a similar system. The M1 was a semi auto rifle, but the loading is very similar to the gun LHO used. If you watch this video , you can see an M1 being loaded (poorly) and fired. At about 1:11 into the video the last round is fired, and the clip ejects.
Also in the first video I linked to, you can also see the offset position of the scope in this video. High and to the left of the centerline of the gun. The scope does not interfere with the use of the iron sights at all.