[QUOTE=Stink Fish Pot]
Not one FBI sharpshooter could repeat Oswald’s marksmanship. Not on the first try. Not even on the second try…
Oswald’s crappy rifle was crappy. No quotes are needed. The man supposedly paid what, $15 for it through a mail order house? The MC was not exactly known for its fit and finish. This isn’t even debatable.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t say anything about first or second tries, but
Cite. So maybe it is a little more debatable than you assert.
Regards,
Shodan
19 seconds to fire 3 rounds with a hand cycled magazine fed rifle?
Good lord, that is not far off doing it with a bleedin musket!
I’ve seen a Martini Henry do it faster, and that’s with single round reload, perhaps it might have made a bigger hole though.
I don’t really have time to do any more point-by-point rebuttal with someone who apparently has never read anything but the craziest CT material written.
I will point out that there are few better-established issues than the proven ability of a reasonably qualified shooter to replicate the shooting sequence and accuracy, using Oswald’s rifle. It was proven in Warren Commission tests in 1964, and again by one of the news organizations in 1967. No, not every shooter on every pass could duplicate the feat, but enough of them hit still and moving targets to prove that it was well within the realm of possibility. The CT’ers insisting that it’s just totally impossible are doing what they do with every other factual, long-proven point: waving it away because it gets in the way of their elaborate alternative explanations.
That dozens of CT types have had various “experts” show that its impossible by many seconds or shooting ability only proves that CTers have no idea what the word “expert” means. But that’s not much of a surprise to any of us who have waded through their fretful manure.
As for insults… I wouldn’t think it possible to insult or demean someone calling themselves “Stink Fish Pot,” but in any case my use of a short form was meant to be jocular, not insulting.
They were Italians, they kept dropping the rifle and surrendering out of habit. 
Why are we so hostile? Speaking for me, I’d say I’m more frustrated than hostile.
But why? For me there are two reasons:
Then . . .
“There is no way that he could have fired all the shots~! Not enough time!”
“Well actually he could and did. It’s been repeated many time.”
“Ohh, OK”
Then . . .
“There is a pristine bullet! No way that bullet could do all that damage!”
:smack:
And on and on it goes. Logic and proof ignored or not read.
2) Some random, completely non consequential item is not explained. Like handle on the Kennedy’s coffin is dented in one picture but doesn’t appear to be in another. As if that one potential item invalidates all the hard, solid evidence in all other areas.
My frustration is that these issues have been discussed again and again and again, and no amount of logic or common sense can change the minds of CTers. Any they in turn convince those new to the debate and this nonsense continues.
I’ve seen one of the videos on this, but couldn’t find it easily and am not bothering (this took place just before youtube became the place to put all your vidz).
They aren’t just trying to match the shots, they were duplicating them. Meaning that if Oswald hit the neck of his target, then the shooter took his time aiming each shot, and to say he was casual about cycling the bolt is putting it mildly. It like this ‘firearms expert’ had to hold his position perfectly, raise his hand slowly and then ‘bolt goes up, bolt goes forward, bolt goes back, bolt goes down la-dee-da now I will aim for the head’.
This site has commentary on the pathetic tests and links to the actual vids.
Is anyone who is disputing the ability of LHO to make the shots ever actually hunted AND been to Dealy Plaza. Point blank, I make those shots EVERY day and twice on Sunday.
First, looking at videos is misinformative. On video, the distances look a lot more than they actually are. When you’ve been there, you realize that we are talking about firing a 60 yard shot from a high position on a slow moving target. My God, you don’t get dream shots like that with deer!
As for the time to cycle the bolt and reacquire the target? Have you fired bolt action rifles? The cycle time is minimal. A British 303 is not dissimilar to a Carcano and the record for aimed fire per minute is 20 rounds.
I recall a TV program where they duplicated the magic bullet theory right down to the deformation seen in the bullet. Anyone saying the bullet is pristine only saw it from the side; it is utterly flattened.
I would like to know this. In this grand CT theory, who precisely orchestrated this conspiracy, why and what proof exists?
Quibble: Norse in America is fairly well documented actually, including remains of dwellings. It is hardly a conspiracy theory.
Norse in Newfoundland, yes. Norse in what is now the United States of America, no. Check out our threads on the Kensington rune stone or other supposed Viking relics. They’re much worse than Kennedy threads.
I thought the KRS was so cool when I discovered it in junior high. (Got to see it that summer on a family visit to NordaKota.)
But yeah. Right up there with the Cardiff Giant. Giants.
I just want to point something out. This isn’t misinformation. I never said the FBI (or any other) sharpshooters couldn’t repeat the shooting.
I said
Which is true, from what i have read. The third try was the charm for one of the sharpshooters. Yes, they were able to copy it, but not on a first try. They needed practice. And this is a relevant point, IMO. An FBI sharpshooter has had many hours on the range, knows how to shoot, and shoot well. But even without shooting at a live target, with crowds, and a once in a lifetime chance to kill a human being, they still had trouble doing it. Oswald had no dry runs. He had one chance, and hit two out of three shots, including the head shot. The other part of this is that he missed the first shot (or second shot, depending on what theory one believes). The last shot was perfect. It is hard to understand how a guy who was capable of making this shot in the first place, with the rifle loaded and his rifle perched and his not having the movement of the rifle to cycle the bolt and relocate the scope misses the first shot.
This doesn’t prove Oswald DIDN’T do the shooting. It just casts doubt. Why? Because it is one thing to shoot a cardboard cut-out. It is another thing to kill a human. And not just anyone, but the President. To have the psychological make-up to be that cool under extreme pressure is incredible to me, given the extra problem of missing his first (ad what should have been best) shot. The next two shots hit his throat and his head, that’s great shooting, under the circumstances. Add in the time constraints, the pressure, the moving target, the first miss, and the rapidly closing window of opportunity, and i’d say Oswald was one of the coolest shots of all time. And this flies in the face of a person who has been described as out of control, unhinged, and unstable. I would think a person of his temperament would be more likely to fall apart behind that rifle, not keep his composure to make two out of three shots.
And if you are so tired of reading it, why read it? I mean, why bother? It isn’t up to you to convince people of the correctness of the WR. It certainly doesn’t make sense to come into each thread and restate your opinions. Especially when you cannot do it in a rational methodical way. You yell, use vulgar language, and let everyone know what an idiot you believe everyone who doesn’t agree with you is. It’s not just you. It’s every person who comes into these threads.
It would be much more productive if someone would lay out their thoughts in a rational tone. You aren’t defending your doctoral thesis, and people are not calling you a liar. Why this causes you all such emotion baffles me.
Just a quick question: after the assassination, a number of sharpshooter experts attempted to reconstruct the three bullet shooting scenario. The all used Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, with the target moving at the correct distance and speed. some said the shooting was technically easy-any competent marksman could have done it. Except for one-and I cannot remember where I read it-this guy was an ex-Mossad agent. he said that the Mossad tried to do it (with their best marksmen); but after numerous tries, said that it was impossible-there was not enough time to deliver the three shots.
Anybody ever heard of this one?
If it was true then the Mossad has some pretty sad marksmen. There are College quarterbacks that can hit a moving target accurately at 60 yard with a thrown football.
Another possibility is that they were using the absolutely shortest amount of time the CT’ers gave them and started the clock before the first shot.
Earlier, you were arguing that Oswald did the shooting, but may have been brainwashed/egged on/something. Now you are suggesting that maybe he couldn’t have done it at all.
This is a real problem with CT logic. It posits that if there is 1% doubt for each stage of the process, then that accumulates to 50% for the story as a whole. But it doesn’t work that way: the very-slight-chances that something we don’t know about is going on don’t stack.
The question is which theory closest fits the facts. Alleged weaknesses in one theory are meaningless unless weighed against competing theories.
The one slightly good thing about the OP idea is that it doesn’t fly in the face of well-established facts about Oswald, such as that he took the Book Depository job before Kennedy planned to go to Dallas. True, the president could be expected to visit Dallas in the 1964 campaign. But the usual Dallas parade route did not pass that building, so it was a coincidence, not a conspiracy, that the President drove by a place where an obsessed loner communist who hated him had undisturbed line of sight access.*
The mainstream publisher which released the book championing the OP idea didn’t stand by it once the other side was presented:
This is not because publishers always repudiate Kennedy assassination books, or always pay off people who complain about books. They don’t.
You mean apart from where you said the FBI sharpshooters couldn’t repeat the shooting? Okay, but so what? It was Oswald’s rifle, and he had lots of time to practice working the action. Even if what you say about it taking three times to recreate the shot, and I have seen no cite to that effect, that doesn’t establish much. The FBI was able to recreate with only a small amount of practice what Oswald had weeks to work on.
Doubt on what - that Oswald did the shooting?
It was a fairly easy shot, and Oswald was a qualified Marine shooter. He had lots of time to practice dry firing his weapon and working the action - his wife describes him doing so.
I think the consensus is that the second is the shot that missed, not the first. And Oswald already fired on a human target, in his earlier assassination attempt on the general. It was not nearly as easy a shot, so he muffed that one. But a sixty yard downward shot on a slowly moving target in broad daylight is another matter.
The window of opportunity was not “rapidly closing” - Oswald got off three shots in eight seconds or so. Like I said, he had plenty of time to practice with his rifle. So he was not one of the coolest shots of all time. It was an easy shot.
Regards,
Shodan
Try googling Warren Commission Report
It is available online for free from the national archives. Here is the link http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/
So you now no longer have the I could not afford it it excuse for ignorance.
I suspect that you don’t do much rifle shooting. Being familiar with the rifle you’re using - the trigger pull, the sight picture, the action - makes a tremendous difference. Give me a strange rifle, and after a few rounds I’ll be pretty good with it. Give me one of my own rifles, and I’m pretty darn good from the first shot on.
He probably missed the second shot.
So, if he missed his second shot due to tree cover, this doubt evaporates. Agreed?
Also, missing a shot affects the accuracy of subsequent shots, but not in the way you seem to think. Assuming recoil is managed so that the scope stays on target, you can observe your miss and adjust the next shot accordingly, adding holdover, holdunder, or windage.
I thought Posner made a very strong case that it was the first shot that missed. A missed first shot also increased the amount of time that Oswald had to fire all three shots.
No, not his shooting, his “marksmanship”.
The supposed difficulty of Oswald’s shooting had been debunked to death and back. The shot is an incredibly easy one to make; anyone with the most basic training can hit a target 80-100 yards away with a rifle with ease. While the motorcade was moving, it was moving slowly almost directly at Oswald, there was virtually no deflection to compensate for. Oswald only had to work the bolt and fire two more times in a minimum of 6 seconds; the stopwatch begins with him firing the first shot. This is entirely unremarkable, prior to the outbreak of WW1 British soldiers trained and were expected to be able to fire at least 20 aimed shots a minute with their Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles, which also required reloading the 10-round magazine with at least two 5-round charger clips. The current world record for aimed bolt-action fire was set in 1914 by a musketry instructor in the British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute. This was done, mind you, using iron sights, not a scope.