Exactly when you did. I was looking over your shoulder the whole time.
Now, do you care to address the OP, or are you just here to belittle the participants?
And with that, your ability to contribute to this thread is laid bare.
Oh, I have no doubt.
I’m sure there are lots of things that are settled science as far as you is concerned.
Moderating:
You’re new around here, and you should read our rules:
One thing we expect is a tone of civility, which you are not engaging in. Stop immediately with the insults.
We also expect good faith debate, meaning you will have a basis for your beliefs and will cite others to sources for them. Just spouting your world-weary commentary is not sufficient.
If you are just here to stir the pot, this message board is not a good fit for you.
Ah, a Soviet dissident. Remember those days with Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov? Good times.
I try not to go “I can’t believe you didn’t…” but I’ll make an exception here. I can’t believe you left out the Abraham Lincoln Assassination. I’m literally shaking my head.
Then don’t participate.
Bring something resembling evidence for your position and then we can have a serious discussion. All you are offering is information-free gainsaying.
Wait…do you think that’s a “point” in your favor?
Well… That Jackie Kennedy accusing LBJ was new to me, care to find the source? Because, if it was the Daily Fail, you then started with really, really, bad sources.
But you don’t.
So why are you here?
It’s neither a point-counterpoint nor a scenario. The argument that it was impossible to fire the shots is utter garbage. It doesn’t require a scenario for him to be able to do it. All it requires is him to be an entirely average shot. Actually, all it requires is him to be a sub-average shot.
Yep, the only thing remarkable about that set of shots is that Oswald missed once. It’s a 300 ft declination shot with the rifle sitting on a rest. It’s a seriously easy shot.
Good god, no wonder their army held onto the bolt action for so long.
There were 3 shots. If you figure he was always aiming for a head shot, he missed twice.
Well, I was figuring he was using the iron sights and any hit on the president’s upper torso and head would get credit. After all, it’s a round suitable for medium sized game, so that would probably result in a successful assassination.
If one was using that rifle to go for a head shot, I’d opt to use the scope that’s mounted. It was sighted off and shooting about 2 1/2 inches high and an inch to the right at that range. So, three shots to correct for that is totally reasonable, in my opinion.
Not to get too far off topic, but to at least get something useful out of the done to death “3 shots in 6 seconds with an old Italian bolt-action rifle” as if that was an extraordinary achievement conspiracy trope; the efficiency of the bolt-action rifle in delivering rapid, accurate, sustained fire at long ranges dramatically shifted how wars were going to be fought. The machine gun has passed into popular memory as the cause for the bloody trench stalemates in WWI, but the bolt-action rifle was going to do the same thing with or without the invention of the machine gun. Even a bright Polish Jewish banker saw this coming in 1898 when he wrote his treatise Is War Now Impossible? I believe it was John Keegan who noted that the machine gun was ‘the concentrated essence of infantry’ in that one machine gun firing 600 round a minute was just concentrating what 30 riflemen were doing into one gun team.
Note: you’ll run into people who think that 3 shots in six seconds means a shot every two seconds, too, but anyone familiar with a fencepost error will realize that it’s one shot every three seconds.
Which is a pretty standard rhythm for bolt action infantry fire from a prone position.
Bang, cycle, aim, bang, cycle, aim, bang.
Or more completely:
cycle, aim very carefully, [start timer], bang, cycle, aim, bang, cycle, aim, bang, [stop timer].
Who claims it was “sighted off” when Oswald was pulling the trigger, though? The rifle was initially discovered behind a pile of boxes. It doesn’t necessarily take a whole lot of banging around for a scoped rifle to lose its zero. My theory is Oswald simply chucked the rifle there after he performed the deed, and that screwed up the sighting. Or, it could have been rough-handled (or dropped) at any point along the way, going forward for weeks or even months before anu formal testing was done. For all we know the rifle and scope could have been zeroed in to be a tack driver on the day of the assassination itself.
This is one of the “facts” that is always and ever repeated ad nauseam by the CT crowd. “Rifle was no good, it was cheap, the ammunition was from WWII, and the scope was misaligned!! No WAY could he have hit anything!”
I came across something amusing.
The movie JFK makes the claim that you couldn’t do the whole 3 shots in 6 seconds thing, and provides a demonstration. In the clip, Kevin Costner (playing Jim Garrison) reports it as having taken “between 6 and 7 seconds” but if you time the clip, it’s no more than 6 seconds. (And, in my opinion, he pauses between shots 2 and 3).
Incidentally, the 3 shots in 6 seconds is a myth. The Warren Commission (I know, I know) didn’t make that finding.
(My emphasis)
The best evidence is that the first shot missed. So Oswald had about 7 seconds for his 3 shots.
Strange that the first one missed. That one would be the easiest to aim.
I disagree. If the first shot misses, you have two more opportunities to correct your aim. And since the vehicle is traveling away from you, along a slight embankment, once you hit once it’s easy to hit again.
Whereas, with the first shot you do not yet have a frame of reference.
I remember reading that when the German army had their first encounter with the BEF at the 1st battle of Mons in 1914, they thought that the British must have had light machine guns because the rate of fire was so high. But it was bolt-action rifles.
I think it was in one of Keegan’s books. Will see if I can find it.