Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

Recommended Posts

It appears, David, you've broken rank again.

The standard line from your side of the fence is that the rifle was quite accurate, and that any flaw with the scope would only have helped Oswald.

Your new theory, as I understand it, holds that Oswald aimed for Kennedy's head, but hit the tree. And that he then adjusted for this by aiming low on the second shot, to hit him on the back. And then a little bit higher on the next shot, to hit him in the head.

Your theory, then, is at odds with the standard line. So which is it? Are you willing to admit the recurrent claim the scope helped Oswald...is nonsense?

Well, Pat, I have repeatedly said in my posts over the years (and again in this very thread in Post 143) that the stuff we're talking about here (whether or not Oswald used the scope and the timing of Oswald's first shot) can never be proven or disproven.

So, while I have an opinion about these matters (as expressed in a previous post when I was replying to Ed Bauer at another forum), I wouldn't exactly say that the WC's opinion or the FBI's opinion about the rifle scope is nonsense. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong on this point. I don't know. I don't really think anyone can know for certain.

But the question of whether or not Oswald used his scope or the iron sights (or a combination of both, as I have suggested) is one of the forever "unknowables" connected with the JFK case. You don't disagree with me on that, do you Pat?

BTW, Pat, you have not stated my belief accurately regarding Oswald's second and third shots.....

I never said Oswald was "aiming low on the second shot". That would imply I think Oswald used the scope for that second shot. But, as I stated already in this thread (via the post I wrote when responding to Ed Bauer)....

"FWIW....If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me." -- DVP

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears, David, you've broken rank again.

The standard line from your side of the fence is that the rifle was quite accurate, and that any flaw with the scope would only have helped Oswald.

Your new theory, as I understand it, holds that Oswald aimed for Kennedy's head, but hit the tree. And that he then adjusted for this by aiming low on the second shot, to hit him on the back. And then a little bit higher on the next shot, to hit him in the head.

Your theory, then, is at odds with the standard line. So which is it? Are you willing to admit the recurrent claim the scope helped Oswald...is nonsense?

Well, Pat, I have repeatedly said in my posts over the years (and again in this very thread in Post 143 above) that the stuff we're talking about here (whether or not Oswald used the scope and the timing of Oswald's first shot) can never be proven or disproven.

So, while I have an opinion about these matters (as expressed in a previous post when I was replying to Ed Bauer at another forum), I wouldn't exactly say that the WC's opinion or the FBI's opinion about the rifle scope is nonsense. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong on this point. I don't know. And neither does anybody else. The question of whether or not Oswald used his scope or the iron sighjts (or a combination of both, as I have suggested) is one of the forever "unknowables" connected with the JFK case. You don't disagree with me on that, do you Pat?

can never be proven or disproven. Yet you regularly refer to it as 'fact'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313)."

Horse puckey. If Oswald had practiced with the rifle as much as the Lame Nuts claimed he did, he would have realized, LONG before the assassination, that the scope was not only misaligned, it was also a toy that belonged on a pellet gun or .22 rifle, shooting stationary gophers on the Prairies at 15 yards. No serious shooter would have mounted this toy scope on any large calibre rifle to shoot at any range up to or beyond 100 yards. The field of view is simply too small to make target acquisition and retention practical.

In other words, I don't believe he would have had this big revelation after the first shot that his scope was a P.O.S., and it was time to use the open sights. If he practiced regularly, he would have removed the toy scope LONG before the assassination.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts exactly. in fact, those are the same two words that I thought. well, one of those words.

seriously, this is a stupid mistake to pretend he didn't know how cheap and misaligned the scope was - AND no one who plans on using a rifle and scope the next day will do so without sighting the scope in beforehand; AND if the situation in fact DOES call for the rifle to be broken down and "bagged up" and then reassembled, the scope would have to be assumed to be off at that point anyway. So either LHO knew what he was doing with a rifle or he didn't. I don't think the nutters have reached a solid stance on that.

on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I think the idea was to paralyze the gophers with a poison pellet/dart fired from a hunting umbrella first so that 15 yards wouldn't seem such an enormous distance with that scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts exactly. in fact, those are the same two words that I thought. well, one of those words.

seriously, this is a stupid mistake to pretend he didn't know how cheap and misaligned the scope was - AND no one who plans on using a rifle and scope the next day will do so without sighting the scope in beforehand; AND if the situation in fact DOES call for the rifle to be broken down and "bagged up" and then reassembled, the scope would have to be assumed to be off at that point anyway. So either LHO knew what he was doing with a rifle or he didn't. I don't think the nutters have reached a solid stance on that.

on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?

They had a good plan for hiding the evidence and controlling the investigation. They knew they would be able to fool many (known as Lone Nutters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my thoughts exactly. in fact, those are the same two words that I thought. well, one of those words.

seriously, this is a stupid mistake to pretend he didn't know how cheap and misaligned the scope was - AND no one who plans on using a rifle and scope the next day will do so without sighting the scope in beforehand; AND if the situation in fact DOES call for the rifle to be broken down and "bagged up" and then reassembled, the scope would have to be assumed to be off at that point anyway. So either LHO knew what he was doing with a rifle or he didn't. I don't think the nutters have reached a solid stance on that.

on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?

They had a good plan for hiding the evidence and controlling the investigation. They knew they would be able to fool many (known as Lone Nutters)

it's good to know your market (PT Barnum?). i think they were hoping for a larger number of suckers, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?"

How many people on this forum knew that this scope belonged on a pellet rifle before I pointed this out to everyone?

To the majority of the population, it was a sporty looking rifle with a SCOPE mounted on it, so it MUST have been capable of doing the job.

In the final analysis, it was likely decided not to give Oswald anything this chronically unemployable man could not afford. More questions would have been asked if this low wage earner had acquired an expensive rifle and scope.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"on the other hand, my question is, if the heavies just set up having the scope mounted in order to create a 'prop', why would they have mounted such a POS...? if the whole idea was for the rifle to be found and attached to the "killer", they had to know that the POS scope would be an issue, right?"

How many people on this forum knew that this scope belonged on a pellet rifle before I pointed this out to everyone?

To the majority of the population, it was a sporty looking rifle with a SCOPE mounted on it, so it MUST have been capable of doing the job.

In the final analysis, it was likely decided not to give Oswald anything this chronically unemployable man could not afford. More questions would have been asked if this low wage earner had acquired an expensive rifle and scope.

i think it's somewhat known among the community that it was cheap and misaligned, but that's about it.

good point - makes sense that they'd ensure his choice of scopes was 'realistic'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate?

Exactly my point in post 145, Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how practical is it to use the iron sights with the scope on the rifle?

A friend of mine owned a Winchester Model 94 lever action 30-30 years ago that he used for deer hunting. Although he was a deadly shot with this rifle, he got it into his head that he just had to have a scope on this rifle, and he had a gunsmith mount a scope on it.

As the Model 94 ejects empty cartridges upwards out of the breech, it was necessary to side mount the scope on the left side of the receiver, just as the scope was mounted on the rifle found on the 6th floor.

Because the scope is not directly above the barrel, as in a normal scope mounting, it is extremely difficult to sight in a side mounted scope to make the rifle accurate at 100 yards. As Oswald unlikely had any training with rifle scopes at all, let alone a side mounted scope, I seriously doubt his capability to have been able to accomplish this task. It took us a couple of days, and two boxes of shells, and we were almost pulling our hair out by the time we were done.

How difficult is it to use the iron sights with a side mounted scope on a rifle? I tried several shots, using the iron sights on the Model 94, and I can tell you, it is beyond awkward. When I use open (iron) sights, I like to get up close and personal with the rear sight, and this is not possible with the end of the scope poking you in the face. It can be done but, it is very uncomfortable.

As I said before, if Oswald used the rifle AT ALL before the assassination, he would quickly realize that the toy scope on it was more of a hindrance than a help, and he would have removed the scope prior to shooting at JFK.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate?

Exactly my point in post 145, Bob.

I notice neither one of us is getting an answer , Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...