Jump to content
The Education Forum
Mark Stapleton

How good were the shooters in DP?

Recommended Posts

Gary Mack has just brought out an item of error, in which he is quite correct!

In some posting, I , with brain not in gear and without digging out all of the survey data, referenced Elm St. as being 25 feet in width.

This is INCORRECT, and is another of those not checking out what you type items, such as CE 340, as opposed to CE 840 etc.

The 25-foot reference in in Mr. Wests survey notes and represents a distance from a measurement point in Elm St, to the curb. It IS NOT the factual width of the street.

Mr. West has Elm St as being 41-feet in width from top/center of curb to top/center of curb on the opposite side.

In that regard, he has Elm St as being only marginally wider than 40-feet in total width.

OK Gary, I owe you one (or more).

Tom

No I don't! I forgot that early in the 1990, at about 3:AM or so, I stopped that looney from chipping away a piece of brick off of the corner of the TSDB for his own personal souvenier.

Therefore, I have in effect helped to protect your job, as had every looney who comes along decided to do the same, you would not even have a place of employment by now.

(check the police records, and since they did not immediately respond, I personally chased him off until he ran across the RR tracks in back of the bldg.)

Although it was dark, he sort of looked like LHO in a trenchcoat to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duke,

No need to worry about a re-enactment. Many facts including Oswald's behavior in custody and his assassination by Ruby means he didn't do it as far as I'm concerned. LN theories are not credible, IMO.

Tom,

Even though I've never shot anything except ducks in a sideshow alley, you must be wrong about the horizontal headshot being harder than elevated headshots from behind. As the Craig Roberts piece says, it's much closer and no adjustment is needed for elevation. It was like shooting ducks in sideshow alley.

Shooting a "laterally" moving target is extremely simple when the target happens to be a turtle or some other slow moving target.

Actually, even quail, dove, and skeet are, with experience, obviously not that difficult as they will each generally "Flush" and or fly at a given speed in which, with experience, one can compensate for.

Likewise, shooting a "walking" human across a lateral kill zone is not that difficult, since we have an "average" walking speed in which one can, with experience and known range, carry the lead on the target as required for first round hit.

Estimating the speed of a vehicle through a close-in and short range lateral kill zone is, rest assured, not that simple.

Talk to a few of the old WWII AA gunners who served on board Naval Ships as to exactly how easy it is to "lead" and hit the aircraft in lateral flight to the guns.

As opposed to either head on, or from behind.

At 10 MPH, the target would have been moving laterally across the field of fire at a rate of 14.66 feet per second. Anyone want to approximate exactly how simple this shot would have been at that?

At 11 mph, the target would have been moving laterally across the field of fire at a rate of 16.133 feet per second across the field of fire.

Therefore, even 1 mph would severely effect the "target lead" required in order to achieve a head shot across a lateral field of fire.

Anyone out there who has calibrated eyeballs to the extent that they can immediately calculate the exact speed of a moving vehicle, immediately transpose that into a lateral distance movement across the field of fire, and then apply the appropriate "lead on target".

Maybe we need to hire the "Amazing Kresgin" to take care of this for us.

Simple for shotgunners perhaps, consistant head shots with rifles--Not that likely.

In fact, it would be about the "worst case" shooting scenario, and no qualified shooter would take this route unless there was absolutely no other avenue.

Give Mr. Roberts and/or any other shooter the absolute facts, and then ask them to "Produce" these "duck shooting" scenario's-----with a relaively small caliber rifle.

That is why duckhunting; quail hunting; dove hunting; pheasant hunting; grouse hunting; etc are done with shotguns.

Were it that simple, we certainly would not be loading up the meat with some size of birdshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Purvis,

Forgive me if I don't address your last post addressed to me point by point but it all became fuzzy as you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about. Therefore, any attack against me is not worth my time addressing. I will say that I did not achieve the position of training coordinator and running the police range because I was the first to raise my hand when they asked for volunteers. I was actually qualified. A term you are not familiar with. I no longer have that position as I have since requested the patrol watch and am in the position I wish to be, the overnight watch commander. This is part of the reason I have taken so long to respond here, as I really don't have the time to post much anymore, running a shift and all.

I would like to touch on your range marker theory though, and only touch on it as I could write a book on how rediculous it is. I will only say these few sentences and that should suffice. Range markers for a six to seven second shot sequence in a field of operation within a 100m? That should make trained scout snipers fall off their chairs laughing. But what would I know Tommy, since I have only read books on the subject, right? Do you think that the possibility of varying speeds of the motorcade may have been an issue if the range markers were a factor with a piece of crap bolt action rifle? Do you think elevation, varying speeds and irregular roadway horizontal and vertical terrain may have been a greater challenge than the 30-70m range factor?

This all reminds me of Gary Mack's reconstruction of the shooting scenario where he had an "expert" fire on a limo on a track away from a tower with the limo being pulled directly away at constant speed on a level surface. The shooter was able to replicate the shots but the disclaimer showed how many times it took him to do it due to weapon malfunctions. Yes the weapon malfunctioned I am sure because it is a piece of crap. The other part of the weapon malfunction was likely due to shooter error as the shooter most likely short stroked this piece of crap rifle when hurrying his shots. Again, as in the true case, we will never know.

But you are more knowlegable than me when it comes to the MC as you own 4 or more, I forget, and I only own one and have only compared it to an associates for consistency in testing. I found it only worth the 99 dollars I spent on the one as it is a piece of junk. $30 was shipping and the additional $69 was for a rifle that was the same make and model of the supposed Oswald rifle, otherwise it would have cost about $30 as it isn't worth anymore than that. So you are much smarter because you bought several of these pieces of junk. I keep mine in the laundry room!

In closing, to be fair to you and your thinking, Agent Orange does terrible things to the thought process. Blast away at me all you wish, your not worth responding to. Why, because you are an idiot!

Al

Rest assured that were my "research" capability as inept as yours would appear to be, and had I been stupid enough to "lap" of the BS as fed to you by "Dangerous Dan" Marvin, then I to would be somewhat reluctant to discuss the subject matter as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/lancer.html

16, RE: Marvin on Pitzer: Error & Embellishment

Posted by Al Carrier

No Bob, he is a retired commissioned officer with the United States Army Special Forces and his title would be Lt. Col. Daniel Marvin, USA Retired. A formal address to show respect for what he has done and earned is Lt. Col. Marvin, or Col. Marvin. But you wouldn't understand that as it is not taught at Dick Clark Productions.

Lt. Col. Marvin, Dr. Eaglesham and others have questioned my loyalty to you here and I can understand why many are challenging many things you post as there are those who are at odds with you on the inside. I am in no way versed enough in these issues that you are at odds with these people, but I continue to support and show respect for you for this simple reason. Please do not take offense, but I did check you out. I was curious because of the conflicts in issues you have here and felt it neccessary. Because of what I found of your background and the stand you are taking now on the issues of SE Asia operations, I have to believe in what you are saying because it makes no sense for you to be motivated to fabricate. I felt it was worth the effort because you are one of so few who have came forward with critical issues, and we both know that there are so many who could.

I mean no disrespect to Dr. Eaglesham with this as he also appears to be a man of honor and great knowlege. He has said in the past that his degree is unrelated and the title of Doctor is not necessary, but I am from the old school and believe in respecting ones accomplishments by way of addressing them for what they earned.

Lt. Col. Marvin, if you do take offense to me looking into your background, you should consider that I am aware you have also checked me out and I not only do not take offense to that, I respect your thoroughness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Al, he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army whose correct title is Dan Marvin, LTC Retired,

U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps. (QMC).

GOT THAT!

Your great research capability should have told you that Special Forces did not become a career branch for officers until some time after the failed helicopter rescue of hostages in Iran, which was a considerable number of years after your "HERO" Dangrous Dan Marvin had retired.

Perhaps you can get someone to assist you in looking up exactly what activities it is that Quartermaster Supply Corps Officers are normally engaged in, as well as providing a little background as to why LTC Marvin wishes to misrepresent his career branch.

Had you further continued to "check out" LTC Dangerous Dan Marvin, you would have easily found many, many, items of absolute and pure BS, which should have indicated to anyone with even the "smurf" size extent of common sense that Dangerous Dan would in fact be quite dangerous. At least to himself!

As example:

1. I do believe that Dangerous Dan at one point makes reference to how "earmuff" charges are utilized to blow up earthen dams.

Both the Engineer School at Ft. Belvoir as well as the SF Engineer Course at Ft. Bragg would be highly interested in this revelation.

Since all known and published doctrine will state that an "earmuff" charge is worthless on an earthen structure, they would no doubt want to seek Dangerous Dan's method of demolition in which he achieved this unique example of usage of explosives.

Had you either known anything, or bothered to check this one out, not unlike a witness on the stand who has lost some credibility, Dangerous Dan's credibility rating would begin to take a nose dive.

2. I do believe that Dangerous Dan makes reference to the SADM device, and thereafter talks about how it was transported down in some 3/4 ton truck, etc; and that the "timer" was out of some washing machine type timer, etc.

Get Real!

Any idiot would recognize the BS in that one.

First off: I carry a Nuclear Weapons Officer skill rating, and I have never had my hands on a live nuke.

Not to mention having one driven down for me to look at by someone riding down the road in a 3/4 ton army truck.

Nuke security is tight. And if you want to get immediately shot, try to get around one.

Secondly: is the US Military Service supposed to employ the "Maytag Repairman" to ride along on missions in event the washing machine "timer" has trouble?

Dangeous Dan, had obviously "heard" the stories, and thereafter did not even bother to verify what they were about, just as you have not.

The "Timer" is in fact a combination Timer/Detonator/and PAL (Permissive Action Link) which prevents the weapon from being detonated by anyone other than those persons who are in possession of the security code to open the detonator train.

And, you can rest assured that this portion of the device did not come from the "Maytag" washing machine factory.

Thirdly: Your "Hero" references his attempt to insert a SADM by MFF (Military Free Fall/HALO) insertion into a denied area to blow up the Aswan Dam.

WHOA BOY, do I really love this one.

A. His HALO experience is absolutely "NIL", with the exception of being around the Parachute Rigger shed where the parachutes were packed.

B. Even after having graduated from the 5-week HALO/MFF school, one is still a "novice" and must thereafter continue with multiple training exercises with his team, their equipment, etc; etc; etc.

C. Jumping the SADM requires the absolute utmost in HALO experience due to the weight of the package.

In fact, some persons can not even jump it due to their body configuration and the added speed to free fall which it gives to the person carrying the device.

D. Your "Hero" references how he would jump the device and thereafer, utilizing his front hands for control, "glide" towards the target.-------YIKES!

First off, a covert HALO insertion is normally carried out at night. Not too sneaky with all of those opened canopies in the air during daylight hours.

Secondly, Unless on some friendly terms with the enemy, it is unlikely that the target will be sufficiently lighted enough that one can distinguish it in the dark.

Thirdly, The likelihood that anyone carrying the weight of a SADM device can do anything other than "fall" is quite slim, as it is somewhat difficult, with this added weight, to even manage to fall flat and stable.

Fourthly, the "Glide" to target concept goes against all military doctrine for MFF operations, in which no one is supposed to "fly/glide" around in the air.

To do so risk collision with other falling team members, therefore taking yourself as well as your team member OUT, and saving the enemy the trouble.

HALO/MFF concept is to exit as a team, fall flat and stable, open at the same altitudes, and then come together as a group (grouping) while under canopy, in order to attempt to land in a relatively close proximity to one another, it has absolutely nothing to do with "gliding" to a target.

And were one to "glide" to the target and thus open, who knows where they would land, as the old MFF canopies placed the jumper entirely at the mercy of the wind, which fequently "drifted" one a long, long way.

E. As to insertion of a nuke device into a denied area, LTC Marvin should have read up a little more on the subject matter prior to attempting to sell this BS.

Exactly what kind of idiot is it that thinks that we would allow a nuclear device to be inserted into a denied area, without some security forces on the ground to safeguard the device.

Otherwise, it would be somewhat like merely handing over a nuke to the enemy.

This one is an absolute NO BRAINER!.

Prior to any type insertion of a tactical nuclear weapon, at minimum, half of the Team would be inserted to provide physical security for the device upon it's insertion. And in all liklihood, an entire Team would be required for this security.

F. Nevertheless, let's continue with "Dangerous Dan's) scenario in which he places the device and sets the "Maytag Timer" which continues to function properly and therefore eliminates the need to insert the "Maytag Repairman" to fix it.

Absolutely NO team member contains the PAL security code which will allow the detonator train to be activated.

This can be acquired from only the highest COMMAND, and although the device could have been inserted a considerable length of time prior to implementation, secure COMMO is required in order to receive the PAL Security Code before the device can be armed.

G. Nevertheless, should "Dangerous Dan" manage to achieve all that he thinks he can, then he truely becomes "DANGEROUS" when he, in his targeting plan, ends up creating a nuclear cloud of radioactive particles, dust, etc, which would be so large as to enter the upper atmosphere and be carried to numerous surrounding countries, as well as possibley our own shores.

Now, we know exactly why and how "Dangerous Dan" got his handle.

The single most efficient utilization of any explosive device to take out a dam, is utilized on the WATER side of the dam.

The water, since it will not compress, assists in directing the majority of the force against the structure.

Not only this, but it creates virtually NO fallout cloud for contamination of foreign countries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Big Al, if you had even the "smurf smidget" of research capability, then you would have known that "Dangerous Dan" has a severe credibility problem with those of us who just may know a little on the subject matter.

That you can not even see through the BS of Dangerous Dan, which is easily researched, would appear to demonstrate a severe lack of factual research capability.

And, from where those of us who have actually "been there" see this, it demonstrates the "know nothing" capability of anyone who has fallen for the Dangerous Dan storyline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will say that I did not achieve the position of training coordinator and running the police range because I was the first to raise my hand when they asked for volunteers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In event your long ago postings are correct, and you were found to have been found, in a court of law, to have utilized unjustified deadly force, then it is highly understandable as to why your Chief of Police took you off street duty and sent you to "rear echelon" duty.

That is basically the same thing that the U.S. Military Services do with "dumb ass" officers.

Do you recall your postings in regards to your testifying in court, and statements that the Jury believed the

other person????

Perhaps someone here will make contact with some of your town "street cops" and therefter post their revelations as regards the famous/infamous Al Carrier, Ballistincs and Firearm Expert, Extraordinare!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you are more knowlegable than me when it comes to the MC as you own 4 or more, I forget, and I only own one and have only compared it to an associates for consistency in testing. I found it only worth the 99 dollars I spent on the one as it is a piece of junk. $30 was shipping and the additional $69 was for a rifle that was the same make and model of the supposed Oswald rifle, otherwise it would have cost about $30 as it isn't worth anymore than that. So you are much smarter because you bought several of these pieces of junk. I keep mine in the laundry room!

Al Carrier Wed Sep-25-02 03:58 PM

Charter member

posts

#4036, "RE: Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 6.5 mm in general"

In response to Reply # 5

Hey Chris.

What you are referring to here is the gravitation pull effect that I have reported on several times on the forum. I was first trained to compensate for this at The Scout Sniper School at the Marathon Station in the keys over twenty years ago.

It took them some time to realize the importance of doing a study on this and to actually train snipers to compensate for this. A good number of postions are set up at higher elevation to allow for a better sight aquisition and overall view of the area as well as the ability to pull out.

When firing at a downward angle, the gravitational pull of the projectile is lessened and the shot will go high if the shooter does not compensate by optics settings or target alignment. The formulas are quite simple by making adjustments to the standard level shot settings of velocity v. weight v. distance (plus of course windage and pressure). You simply have to add angle to target which includes shooting at a higher or lower elevation as the opposite also effects shot placement.

A sportsman will sight the rifle at level plain and at a distance that will be consistent with projected target range. If they are unaware of this problem of gravitational pull, then it will have consistent effects with accuracy. LHO obviously would not be in the know.

I would like to add my two cents (again) on the MC. I have fired many weapons of various quality. The MC would be very low on my list for accuracy and reliability.

Al

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice to know that you are more qualified than the US Army Weapons Evaluation Laboratory.

No doubt, not unlike Ft. Belvoir & the SF Engineer School needing Dangerous Dan to straighten them out, the US Army Weapons Evaluation Branch needs your expertise in order to correct their erroneous interpretation of ballistic information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, actually Big Al, I counted and found that I am in possession of 6 (six) Carcano's.

Any idiot can get one well worn, one poor grade rifle, and not be able to effictively hit the target.

Proper research requires one to consider multiple variables.

And since the rifling markings on CE399 are comparible to a very good quality bore on a rifle, then one should truly look for a comparible quality rifle if they want to conduct proper research.

Not only that, anyone with shooting experience knows that with a "fixed sight" weapon, that the shooter must effectively adjust his "spot weld" in order to shoot accuracy with the weapon, as this is the only "adjustable" aspect which can correct for error, be it in the weapon or the shooter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was first trained to compensate for this at The Scout Sniper School at the Marathon Station in the keys over twenty years ago. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that you were one of the USMC "Gate Guards" at either the Naval Air Station at Boca Chica, or the Naval Air Station Annex at Fleming Key, or the main Naval Base just off downtown Key West?

Might I recommend that anyone and/or everyone "Google"/ "Yahoo"/ or whatever, for "The Scout Sniper School" at Marathon Station in the Florida Keys.

They will then Recognize fully how "credited" this great course is, or is it in fact so secret that no one has ever heard of it?

I believe that Quantico has the official USMC Sniper School, unless absolutely incorrect in that, however, each Area Command was authorized to establish their own "sub" training, which of course was not recognized and could not award the Skill Identifier of "Sniper".

Perhaps, we can even drag Mr. Hemming back into this conversation, as he is fully aware of what this portion of the discussion is about.

Kind of like claiming that one was USMC "Recon", when in fact, they were what was referred to as "Battalion Recon", and were a complete laughing joke to most of the true USMC "Marine Force Recon" Teams.

Do you also have your college degree from the "LaSalle Institute"?

Wonder exactly why it is that I hear the tune: "I wannabee an Airborne Ranger"!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to touch on your range marker theory though, and only touch on it as I could write a book on how rediculous it is. I will only say these few sentences and that should suffice. Range markers for a six to seven second shot sequence in a field of operation within a 100m? That should make trained scout snipers fall off their chairs laughing. But what would I know Tommy, since I have only read books on the subject, right? Do you think that the possibility of varying speeds of the motorcade may have been an issue if the range markers were a factor with a piece of crap bolt action rifle? Do you think elevation, varying speeds and irregular roadway horizontal and vertical terrain may have been a greater challenge than the 30-70m range factor?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be my guest and comment on it! I would especially like to hear your comments as regards rapid fire utilizing a scope and the difficulties in target acquistion during such exercises, when one has no downrange reference points with which to aid in reacquisition of the target.

Come on Big Al, explain to all of us about exactly how easy it is to acquire a moving target through a given field of fire, utilizing a scope and no downrange reference points.-----Inquiring minds want to know!

I especifically would like to know, as it sure as hell was never that easy for me!

And since you have brought the subject matter up, why not also explain exactly how EASY it is to "pan", and continue to carry the required lead on a laterally moving target that is moving at an undetermined and unestimatable speed laterally across the field of fire, while at the same time dropping in elevation.

The elevation change in/on Elm St. fell at the rate of approximately 1 foot of elevation drop for every 20 feet of distance.

Therefore, the shooter, if shooting lateral to the target, was not only having to carry a lead in order to compensate for the forward direction of the target at/around 14+ feet per second, but he was also having to carry a point of aim considerably lower than the anticipated impact point (the head), due to the elevation of the head decreasing at the rate of almost one foot per second as well.

Did you also forget to bring out this point when discussing the impractibality of anyone taking this type of shot?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In closing, to be fair to you and your thinking, Agent Orange does terrible things to the thought process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, since it is considered to be potentially responsible for all of the lesions along my feet and lower legs, from contact, and since we ( those of us who actually played around in the jungles) obviously drank the water, then perhaps there may be some merit to this.

I had thought that that the "lack of memory" things were merely one of those symptoms of old age.

Now, and in retrospect, I guess that one should assume that providing the iodine tablets for the drinking water was merely another conspiracy to cover up for the taste of the "Agent Orange", whereas we were led to believe it was to prevent dysentary, etc; and kill all of the bugs in the water.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, because you are an idiot!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When one is so stupid that he leaves the safety of the National Guard to volunteer active duty enlisted, then serve in enlisted Infantry Assignments, only to volunteer to become an Officer, only to volunteer to serve in Vietnam, only to volunteer for Special Forces Training and assignments, only to volunteer for HALO/SCUBA/Nuke Weapons Certification/ etc; etc; etc;, then it is obviously difficult to put up much of a defense against the claim of being an "idiot".

Personally, I applied for a mental discharge.

It was denied on the well founded basis that I was quite obviously somewhat crazy to begin with the minute that I volunteered for active duty with a "war" going on.

As to your "idiot" statement, at least I will die knowing that I was never stupid enough to fall for and lap up the BS as shoveled by Dangerous Dan, and also know that in the event I wanted factual information from qualified experts, that it would be a general waste of time and effort to seek out the advice of some "podunkville" cop.

There are far to many experts available to follow the BS of either Dangerous Dan, or the Al Carrier's of this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree with Al on the issue of the difficulty of the shooting, I agree with Tom on one point. The ideal position for a sniper would not have been the grassy knoll. I checked with a buddy--a captain in Special Forces--and he talked to his buddies with sniper training. To a man, they stated that the ideal position for a sniper is one where the target is moving directly away, and that a 100 yard to 200 yard shot on a man moving directly away was the superior shot to a much closer shot where the target was moving horizontally. When the target is moving directly away, it is easier to acquire the target and lead the target. It is also easier to re-acquire the target should the first shot not do the trick. They also said the superior shot is one from elevation, as it minimizes the possibility of interference from those around the target. The ideal shot, according to these SF officers with sniper training, would therefore have been a shot from the upper floors of the Dal-Tex, as the Dal-Tex was the building directly behind the motorcade. No, they didn't put this in writing. They were speaking to my friend purely on background.

Anyhow, Tom, since you are an advocate that the superior shot was the one from behind, would you agree with these SF snipers that a shot from the Dal-Tex would be superior to a shot from the sniper's nest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I agree with Al on the issue of the difficulty of the shooting, I agree with Tom on one point. The ideal position for a sniper would not have been the grassy knoll. I checked with a buddy--a captain in Special Forces--and he talked to his buddies with sniper training. To a man, they stated that the ideal position for a sniper is one where the target is moving directly away, and that a 100 yard to 200 yard shot on a man moving directly away was the superior shot to a much closer shot where the target was moving horizontally. When the target is moving directly away, it is easier to acquire the target and lead the target. It is also easier to re-acquire the target should the first shot not do the trick. They also said the superior shot is one from elevation, as it minimizes the possibility of interference from those around the target. The ideal shot, according to these SF officers with sniper training, would therefore have been a shot from the upper floors of the Dal-Tex, as the Dal-Tex was the building directly behind the motorcade. No, they didn't put this in writing. They were speaking to my friend purely on background.

Anyhow, Tom, since you are an advocate that the superior shot was the one from behind, would you agree with these SF snipers that a shot from the Dal-Tex would be superior to a shot from the sniper's nest?

YES!-- It actually decreased to some degree, the slight cross-angle of fire, being almost "straight line" behind that portion of Elm St. where impact occurred.

And, if you will check, you will find that Post Magazine was of some impression that this is where the shots came from, and took their version of the "Sniper's View" photo's from there.

Tom

P.S. Guess someone is still on active duty and have to keep their ID's somewhat mute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Purvis,

Forgive me if I don't address your last post addressed to me point by point but it all became fuzzy as you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about. Therefore, any attack against me is not worth my time addressing. I will say that I did not achieve the position of training coordinator and running the police range because I was the first to raise my hand when they asked for volunteers. I was actually qualified. A term you are not familiar with. I no longer have that position as I have since requested the patrol watch and am in the position I wish to be, the overnight watch commander. This is part of the reason I have taken so long to respond here, as I really don't have the time to post much anymore, running a shift and all.

I would like to touch on your range marker theory though, and only touch on it as I could write a book on how rediculous it is. I will only say these few sentences and that should suffice. Range markers for a six to seven second shot sequence in a field of operation within a 100m? That should make trained scout snipers fall off their chairs laughing. But what would I know Tommy, since I have only read books on the subject, right? Do you think that the possibility of varying speeds of the motorcade may have been an issue if the range markers were a factor with a piece of crap bolt action rifle? Do you think elevation, varying speeds and irregular roadway horizontal and vertical terrain may have been a greater challenge than the 30-70m range factor?

This all reminds me of Gary Mack's reconstruction of the shooting scenario where he had an "expert" fire on a limo on a track away from a tower with the limo being pulled directly away at constant speed on a level surface. The shooter was able to replicate the shots but the disclaimer showed how many times it took him to do it due to weapon malfunctions. Yes the weapon malfunctioned I am sure because it is a piece of crap. The other part of the weapon malfunction was likely due to shooter error as the shooter most likely short stroked this piece of crap rifle when hurrying his shots. Again, as in the true case, we will never know.

But you are more knowlegable than me when it comes to the MC as you own 4 or more, I forget, and I only own one and have only compared it to an associates for consistency in testing. I found it only worth the 99 dollars I spent on the one as it is a piece of junk. $30 was shipping and the additional $69 was for a rifle that was the same make and model of the supposed Oswald rifle, otherwise it would have cost about $30 as it isn't worth anymore than that. So you are much smarter because you bought several of these pieces of junk. I keep mine in the laundry room!

In closing, to be fair to you and your thinking, Agent Orange does terrible things to the thought process. Blast away at me all you wish, your not worth responding to. Why, because you are an idiot!

Al

Rest assured that were my "research" capability as inept as yours would appear to be, and had I been stupid enough to "lap" of the BS as fed to you by "Dangerous Dan" Marvin, then I to would be somewhat reluctant to discuss the subject matter as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/lancer.html

16, RE: Marvin on Pitzer: Error & Embellishment

Posted by Al Carrier

No Bob, he is a retired commissioned officer with the United States Army Special Forces and his title would be Lt. Col. Daniel Marvin, USA Retired. A formal address to show respect for what he has done and earned is Lt. Col. Marvin, or Col. Marvin. But you wouldn't understand that as it is not taught at Dick Clark Productions.

Lt. Col. Marvin, Dr. Eaglesham and others have questioned my loyalty to you here and I can understand why many are challenging many things you post as there are those who are at odds with you on the inside. I am in no way versed enough in these issues that you are at odds with these people, but I continue to support and show respect for you for this simple reason. Please do not take offense, but I did check you out. I was curious because of the conflicts in issues you have here and felt it neccessary. Because of what I found of your background and the stand you are taking now on the issues of SE Asia operations, I have to believe in what you are saying because it makes no sense for you to be motivated to fabricate. I felt it was worth the effort because you are one of so few who have came forward with critical issues, and we both know that there are so many who could.

I mean no disrespect to Dr. Eaglesham with this as he also appears to be a man of honor and great knowlege. He has said in the past that his degree is unrelated and the title of Doctor is not necessary, but I am from the old school and believe in respecting ones accomplishments by way of addressing them for what they earned.

Lt. Col. Marvin, if you do take offense to me looking into your background, you should consider that I am aware you have also checked me out and I not only do not take offense to that, I respect your thoroughness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Al, he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army whose correct title is Dan Marvin, LTC Retired,

U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps. (QMC).

GOT THAT!

Your great research capability should have told you that Special Forces did not become a career branch for officers until some time after the failed helicopter rescue of hostages in Iran, which was a considerable number of years after your "HERO" Dangrous Dan Marvin had retired.

Perhaps you can get someone to assist you in looking up exactly what activities it is that Quartermaster Supply Corps Officers are normally engaged in, as well as providing a little background as to why LTC Marvin wishes to misrepresent his career branch.

Had you further continued to "check out" LTC Dangerous Dan Marvin, you would have easily found many, many, items of absolute and pure BS, which should have indicated to anyone with even the "smurf" size extent of common sense that Dangerous Dan would in fact be quite dangerous. At least to himself!

As example:

1. I do believe that Dangerous Dan at one point makes reference to how "earmuff" charges are utilized to blow up earthen dams.

Both the Engineer School at Ft. Belvoir as well as the SF Engineer Course at Ft. Bragg would be highly interested in this revelation.

Since all known and published doctrine will state that an "earmuff" charge is worthless on an earthen structure, they would no doubt want to seek Dangerous Dan's method of demolition in which he achieved this unique example of usage of explosives.

Had you either known anything, or bothered to check this one out, not unlike a witness on the stand who has lost some credibility, Dangerous Dan's credibility rating would begin to take a nose dive.

2. I do believe that Dangerous Dan makes reference to the SADM device, and thereafter talks about how it was transported down in some 3/4 ton truck, etc; and that the "timer" was out of some washing machine type timer, etc.

Get Real!

Any idiot would recognize the BS in that one.

First off: I carry a Nuclear Weapons Officer skill rating, and I have never had my hands on a live nuke.

Not to mention having one driven down for me to look at by someone riding down the road in a 3/4 ton army truck.

Nuke security is tight. And if you want to get immediately shot, try to get around one.

Secondly: is the US Military Service supposed to employ the "Maytag Repairman" to ride along on missions in event the washing machine "timer" has trouble?

Dangeous Dan, had obviously "heard" the stories, and thereafter did not even bother to verify what they were about, just as you have not.

The "Timer" is in fact a combination Timer/Detonator/and PAL (Permissive Action Link) which prevents the weapon from being detonated by anyone other than those persons who are in possession of the security code to open the detonator train.

And, you can rest assured that this portion of the device did not come from the "Maytag" washing machine factory.

Thirdly: Your "Hero" references his attempt to insert a SADM by MFF (Military Free Fall/HALO) insertion into a denied area to blow up the Aswan Dam.

WHOA BOY, do I really love this one.

A. His HALO experience is absolutely "NIL", with the exception of being around the Parachute Rigger shed where the parachutes were packed.

B. Even after having graduated from the 5-week HALO/MFF school, one is still a "novice" and must thereafter continue with multiple training exercises with his team, their equipment, etc; etc; etc.

C. Jumping the SADM requires the absolute utmost in HALO experience due to the weight of the package.

In fact, some persons can not even jump it due to their body configuration and the added speed to free fall which it gives to the person carrying the device.

D. Your "Hero" references how he would jump the device and thereafer, utilizing his front hands for control, "glide" towards the target.-------YIKES!

First off, a covert HALO insertion is normally carried out at night. Not too sneaky with all of those opened canopies in the air during daylight hours.

Secondly, Unless on some friendly terms with the enemy, it is unlikely that the target will be sufficiently lighted enough that one can distinguish it in the dark.

Thirdly, The likelihood that anyone carrying the weight of a SADM device can do anything other than "fall" is quite slim, as it is somewhat difficult, with this added weight, to even manage to fall flat and stable.

Fourthly, the "Glide" to target concept goes against all military doctrine for MFF operations, in which no one is supposed to "fly/glide" around in the air.

To do so risk collision with other falling team members, therefore taking yourself as well as your team member OUT, and saving the enemy the trouble.

HALO/MFF concept is to exit as a team, fall flat and stable, open at the same altitudes, and then come together as a group (grouping) while under canopy, in order to attempt to land in a relatively close proximity to one another, it has absolutely nothing to do with "gliding" to a target.

And were one to "glide" to the target and thus open, who knows where they would land, as the old MFF canopies placed the jumper entirely at the mercy of the wind, which fequently "drifted" one a long, long way.

E. As to insertion of a nuke device into a denied area, LTC Marvin should have read up a little more on the subject matter prior to attempting to sell this BS.

Exactly what kind of idiot is it that thinks that we would allow a nuclear device to be inserted into a denied area, without some security forces on the ground to safeguard the device.

Otherwise, it would be somewhat like merely handing over a nuke to the enemy.

This one is an absolute NO BRAINER!.

Prior to any type insertion of a tactical nuclear weapon, at minimum, half of the Team would be inserted to provide physical security for the device upon it's insertion. And in all liklihood, an entire Team would be required for this security.

F. Nevertheless, let's continue with "Dangerous Dan's) scenario in which he places the device and sets the "Maytag Timer" which continues to function properly and therefore eliminates the need to insert the "Maytag Repairman" to fix it.

Absolutely NO team member contains the PAL security code which will allow the detonator train to be activated.

This can be acquired from only the highest COMMAND, and although the device could have been inserted a considerable length of time prior to implementation, secure COMMO is required in order to receive the PAL Security Code before the device can be armed.

G. Nevertheless, should "Dangerous Dan" manage to achieve all that he thinks he can, then he truely becomes "DANGEROUS" when he, in his targeting plan, ends up creating a nuclear cloud of radioactive particles, dust, etc, which would be so large as to enter the upper atmosphere and be carried to numerous surrounding countries, as well as possibley our own shores.

Now, we know exactly why and how "Dangerous Dan" got his handle.

The single most efficient utilization of any explosive device to take out a dam, is utilized on the WATER side of the dam.

The water, since it will not compress, assists in directing the majority of the force against the structure.

Not only this, but it creates virtually NO fallout cloud for contamination of foreign countries.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Big Al, if you had even the "smurf smidget" of research capability, then you would have known that "Dangerous Dan" has a severe credibility problem with those of us who just may know a little on the subject matter.

That you can not even see through the BS of Dangerous Dan, which is easily researched, would appear to demonstrate a severe lack of factual research capability.

And, from where those of us who have actually "been there" see this, it demonstrates the "know nothing" capability of anyone who has fallen for the Dangerous Dan storyline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will say that I did not achieve the position of training coordinator and running the police range because I was the first to raise my hand when they asked for volunteers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In event your long ago postings are correct, and you were found to have been found, in a court of law, to have utilized unjustified deadly force, then it is highly understandable as to why your Chief of Police took you off street duty and sent you to "rear echelon" duty.

That is basically the same thing that the U.S. Military Services do with "dumb ass" officers.

Do you recall your postings in regards to your testifying in court, and statements that the Jury believed the

other person????

Perhaps someone here will make contact with some of your town "street cops" and therefter post their revelations as regards the famous/infamous Al Carrier, Ballistincs and Firearm Expert, Extraordinare!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you are more knowlegable than me when it comes to the MC as you own 4 or more, I forget, and I only own one and have only compared it to an associates for consistency in testing. I found it only worth the 99 dollars I spent on the one as it is a piece of junk. $30 was shipping and the additional $69 was for a rifle that was the same make and model of the supposed Oswald rifle, otherwise it would have cost about $30 as it isn't worth anymore than that. So you are much smarter because you bought several of these pieces of junk. I keep mine in the laundry room!

Al Carrier Wed Sep-25-02 03:58 PM

Charter member

posts

#4036, "RE: Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 6.5 mm in general"

In response to Reply # 5

Hey Chris.

What you are referring to here is the gravitation pull effect that I have reported on several times on the forum. I was first trained to compensate for this at The Scout Sniper School at the Marathon Station in the keys over twenty years ago.

It took them some time to realize the importance of doing a study on this and to actually train snipers to compensate for this. A good number of postions are set up at higher elevation to allow for a better sight aquisition and overall view of the area as well as the ability to pull out.

When firing at a downward angle, the gravitational pull of the projectile is lessened and the shot will go high if the shooter does not compensate by optics settings or target alignment. The formulas are quite simple by making adjustments to the standard level shot settings of velocity v. weight v. distance (plus of course windage and pressure). You simply have to add angle to target which includes shooting at a higher or lower elevation as the opposite also effects shot placement.

A sportsman will sight the rifle at level plain and at a distance that will be consistent with projected target range. If they are unaware of this problem of gravitational pull, then it will have consistent effects with accuracy. LHO obviously would not be in the know.

I would like to add my two cents (again) on the MC. I have fired many weapons of various quality. The MC would be very low on my list for accuracy and reliability.

Al

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice to know that you are more qualified than the US Army Weapons Evaluation Laboratory.

No doubt, not unlike Ft. Belvoir & the SF Engineer School needing Dangerous Dan to straighten them out, the US Army Weapons Evaluation Branch needs your expertise in order to correct their erroneous interpretation of ballistic information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, actually Big Al, I counted and found that I am in possession of 6 (six) Carcano's.

Any idiot can get one well worn, one poor grade rifle, and not be able to effictively hit the target.

Proper research requires one to consider multiple variables.

And since the rifling markings on CE399 are comparible to a very good quality bore on a rifle, then one should truly look for a comparible quality rifle if they want to conduct proper research.

Not only that, anyone with shooting experience knows that with a "fixed sight" weapon, that the shooter must effectively adjust his "spot weld" in order to shoot accuracy with the weapon, as this is the only "adjustable" aspect which can correct for error, be it in the weapon or the shooter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was first trained to compensate for this at The Scout Sniper School at the Marathon Station in the keys over twenty years ago. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that you were one of the USMC "Gate Guards" at either the Naval Air Station at Boca Chica, or the Naval Air Station Annex at Fleming Key, or the main Naval Base just off downtown Key West?

Might I recommend that anyone and/or everyone "Google"/ "Yahoo"/ or whatever, for "The Scout Sniper School" at Marathon Station in the Florida Keys.

They will then Recognize fully how "credited" this great course is, or is it in fact so secret that no one has ever heard of it?

I believe that Quantico has the official USMC Sniper School, unless absolutely incorrect in that, however, each Area Command was authorized to establish their own "sub" training, which of course was not recognized and could not award the Skill Identifier of "Sniper".

Perhaps, we can even drag Mr. Hemming back into this conversation, as he is fully aware of what this portion of the discussion is about.

Kind of like claiming that one was USMC "Recon", when in fact, they were what was referred to as "Battalion Recon", and were a complete laughing joke to most of the true USMC "Marine Force Recon" Teams.

Do you also have your college degree from the "LaSalle Institute"?

Wonder exactly why it is that I hear the tune: "I wannabee an Airborne Ranger"!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to touch on your range marker theory though, and only touch on it as I could write a book on how rediculous it is. I will only say these few sentences and that should suffice. Range markers for a six to seven second shot sequence in a field of operation within a 100m? That should make trained scout snipers fall off their chairs laughing. But what would I know Tommy, since I have only read books on the subject, right? Do you think that the possibility of varying speeds of the motorcade may have been an issue if the range markers were a factor with a piece of crap bolt action rifle? Do you think elevation, varying speeds and irregular roadway horizontal and vertical terrain may have been a greater challenge than the 30-70m range factor?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please be my guest and comment on it! I would especially like to hear your comments as regards rapid fire utilizing a scope and the difficulties in target acquistion during such exercises, when one has no downrange reference points with which to aid in reacquisition of the target.

Come on Big Al, explain to all of us about exactly how easy it is to acquire a moving target through a given field of fire, utilizing a scope and no downrange reference points.-----Inquiring minds want to know!

I especifically would like to know, as it sure as hell was never that easy for me!

And since you have brought the subject matter up, why not also explain exactly how EASY it is to "pan", and continue to carry the required lead on a laterally moving target that is moving at an undetermined and unestimatable speed laterally across the field of fire, while at the same time dropping in elevation.

The elevation change in/on Elm St. fell at the rate of approximately 1 foot of elevation drop for every 20 feet of distance.

Therefore, the shooter, if shooting lateral to the target, was not only having to carry a lead in order to compensate for the forward direction of the target at/around 14+ feet per second, but he was also having to carry a point of aim considerably lower than the anticipated impact point (the head), due to the elevation of the head decreasing at the rate of almost one foot per second as well.

Did you also forget to bring out this point when discussing the impractibality of anyone taking this type of shot?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In closing, to be fair to you and your thinking, Agent Orange does terrible things to the thought process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, since it is considered to be potentially responsible for all of the lesions along my feet and lower legs, from contact, and since we ( those of us who actually played around in the jungles) obviously drank the water, then perhaps there may be some merit to this.

I had thought that that the "lack of memory" things were merely one of those symptoms of old age.

Now, and in retrospect, I guess that one should assume that providing the iodine tablets for the drinking water was merely another conspiracy to cover up for the taste of the "Agent Orange", whereas we were led to believe it was to prevent dysentary, etc; and kill all of the bugs in the water.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why, because you are an idiot!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When one is so stupid that he leaves the safety of the National Guard to volunteer active duty enlisted, then serve in enlisted Infantry Assignments, only to volunteer to become an Officer, only to volunteer to serve in Vietnam, only to volunteer for Special Forces Training and assignments, only to volunteer for HALO/SCUBA/Nuke Weapons Certification/ etc; etc; etc;, then it is obviously difficult to put up much of a defense against the claim of being an "idiot".

Personally, I applied for a mental discharge.

It was denied on the well founded basis that I was quite obviously somewhat crazy to begin with the minute that I volunteered for active duty with a "war" going on.

As to your "idiot" statement, at least I will die knowing that I was never stupid enough to fall for and lap up the BS as shoveled by Dangerous Dan, and also know that in the event I wanted factual information from qualified experts, that it would be a general waste of time and effort to seek out the advice of some "podunkville" cop.

There are far to many experts available to follow the BS of either Dangerous Dan, or the Al Carrier's of this world.

Here is you some "real" research Al:

Some of us have some form of proof and/or evidence to back up our BS.

Cpt. Tom Purvis

Company "D" 6th SFG (Abn), 1st SF

Photo by SFC Joe Gonzales

Team Photographer

US Army Sport Parachute Team

"The Golden Knights"

In expanding on the story, it would be remiss to point out that I also declined the XO position with the Golden Knights.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Nice picture and cover story on your heroism. Congrats, you have jumped out of planes so you are worthy of our time and respect when it comes to ballistics! You are a legend in your own mind! Now that you have done your reading and made no sense of gravitational pull factors in dealing with a sub-par rifle and totally obsurd position, you have done nothing more than prove my point. Again you are relying on what took place and gave no crecence to what may have happened as to reaction. You also are dealing with steady disruption in speed which is not the case.

Does all six of your piece of xxxx Carcano rifles have a no resistance trigger travel for 2/3 of the way before the break? Does this make it a piece of xxxx rifle when it comes to precision shooting. Maybe your boy can answer that as he is shooting on the range? Have you ever shot at a moving target? Obviously not! But you volunteered for VN and have photos of jumping out of planes so you are a ballistic expert! Sorry but my side is killing me. You have buffaloed many here with your bullxxxx, but that is as far as you will get.

Please feel free to check with my department to see if I was removed from the street. I have had one other derelict on the forum file a complaint with my chief already.

It is the people like you who keep those who can provide data that is realistic from posting. Keep the truth a secret another forty years and be proud of it. So this is my way of saying, you are an idiot and you are in good company with the others who are wandering aimlessly spreading rediculous scenarios and preventing the truth from coming forward. I tried and keep getting railroaded by dorks like you.

Signing off. I have the planner and have a pretty good take on how it went down. That was my motivation and I have accomplished that.

I hope your ego is worthy of your loss. Actually, I could care less.

FO

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom wrote:

That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand.

The reason for this is quite simple!

The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye.

There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position.

Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed.

[...]

There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away :lol:

In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too...

FWIW

No hits by ejected casings?

We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all.

Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this??

-------------------------------------

I grew up left-handed, and over the years I gave up on attempting to write anything with my right hand. (My lefty writing is atrocious enough !!)

The long hike from MCRD San Diego up to Camp Matthews (Now part of MCB San Onofre, Oceanside, CA) seemed to be all uphill. We spent a week there learning the fundamentals of Marine Corps marksmanship.

That was during 1954. Absolutely nobody was ever permitted to fire left-handed. I kept my mouth shut, and went along. The few "southpaws" stupid enough to complain were lectured heavily on the fact that the USMC has forbade left-handed shooting "for qualification" since before 1776.

["Lectured Heavily" includes being beaten about the head and shoulders rather severely]

During the 1960s, and as a part of A.I.T. (Advanced Infantry Training) -- a couple of hours were relegated to teaching the now "graduated" Marines (no longer scum-boots) how to shoot around a corner, or out of a window, while shooting left-handed. This was only done at the "combat town/village" which was built for urban warfare training.

All of my combat & competition shooting has been mostly right handed. The major difficulty on a rifle range, was that: Since my left arm was bound up in the rifle sling, I had difficulty making entries in my shooter's log book -- scribbling right-handed, that is !!

While working in uniform, some miscreants seemed perturbed that while I was filling out a "Field Inv. Report" (left-handed) -- my right hand never strayed too far from my Mod. 19 S & W .357 6 inch, which was strapped into its right-handed holster.

Just before my leaving the Naval Academy, I had a few weeks as an instructor on the North Severn River Rifle Range. We taught Midshipmen the proper etiquette required of M-1 Garand usage (right-handed ONLY), and a select few were privileged to test fire the experimental XT-44 rifle, which later was redesignated as the M-14.

A recent TV documentary covers the Marine "Boot Camp" at Parris Island, South Carolina. My grandchildren were shocked to discover that the females go through the same rigors (especially "the Crucible") as do the male "Boots" !! The rifle range sequence happens to focus on this very subject: That left-handed "Boots" are required to shoot right handed -- ONLY !!

At the "National Matchs" (Camp Perry, Ohio), I did notice two or three competitors shooting left handed, and with bolt action rifles. However, they were civilians.

-----------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy,

Nice picture and cover story on your heroism. Congrats, you have jumped out of planes so you are worthy of our time and respect when it comes to ballistics! You are a legend in your own mind! Now that you have done your reading and made no sense of gravitational pull factors in dealing with a sub-par rifle and totally obsurd position, you have done nothing more than prove my point. Again you are relying on what took place and gave no crecence to what may have happened as to reaction. You also are dealing with steady disruption in speed which is not the case.

Does all six of your piece of xxxx Carcano rifles have a no resistance trigger travel for 2/3 of the way before the break? Does this make it a piece of xxxx rifle when it comes to precision shooting. Maybe your boy can answer that as he is shooting on the range? Have you ever shot at a moving target? Obviously not! But you volunteered for VN and have photos of jumping out of planes so you are a ballistic expert! Sorry but my side is killing me. You have buffaloed many here with your bullxxxx, but that is as far as you will get.

Please feel free to check with my department to see if I was removed from the street. I have had one other derelict on the forum file a complaint with my chief already.

It is the people like you who keep those who can provide data that is realistic from posting. Keep the truth a secret another forty years and be proud of it. So this is my way of saying, you are an idiot and you are in good company with the others who are wandering aimlessly spreading rediculous scenarios and preventing the truth from coming forward. I tried and keep getting railroaded by dorks like you.

Signing off. I have the planner and have a pretty good take on how it went down. That was my motivation and I have accomplished that.

I hope your ego is worthy of your loss. Actually, I could care less.

FO

Al

Since you obviously were not in SE Asia and were not exposed to the Agent Orange, which now, according to you may also affect the mind, it must have been all of the "orange coolaide" you were drinking as a child back then that has caused your memory to continue to slip.

http://www.afte.org/AssociationInfo/a_committees.htm

Member of the Year

Mike Hall, Chair

James R. Looney

Garry Lawrence

As stated, when I seek review and or advice concerning matters in which I have no true formal training, I go to qualified experts in the various fields. And I will also repeat: NOT to some "Podunkville Cop" .

You were provided with Agent Looney's name and place of employment, as well as home long ago, along with one of the QUALIFIED FBI Agents to whom much of the information has been presented and reviewed.

Your comments were basically the same: These people don't know anything!

So Big Al, is this one of those "Catch 22" situations????

Those who have been to schooling and carry the education, experience, and credentials, NO NOTHING!

Those who attempt to present any factual evidence which contradicts "Podunkville" Cop's concepts, NO NOTHING!

Of course, there is also the "I wannabee one of those too" syndrone which obviously makes it impossible for you to recognize the pure unadulterated BS from Dan Marvin, LTC (Retired), U.S. Army Quartermaster Supply Corps, and thereafter you lap dog up this BS because you either have the inability for research, or else are just plain ole everyday stupid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so you are a ballistic expert

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Big Al, with all of your expertise, you don't even have adequate sense and experience to recognize that the copper jacket at the base of CE#99 is missing and had been "mechanically" removed by someone.

As stated there Al, this "non-expert" recognized that the first time a photo of the base of the bullet was seen, back in 1989.

And, if you will also recall there "Oh Great One", I was also the first one, to my knowledge, to complete comparative testing to determine the weight loss to a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet due to merely having been fired, as well as present that information.

You are of some misguided opinion that all of this boils down to ability and/or inability to shoot some rifle, with all of your great reading experience on ballistics.

Well, there Big Al, since my ballistic type training has also taken into consideration items such as rotational effect of the earth, air density and temperatures, powder temperature, and a whole lot of other considerations, you are still in kindergarden on the subject matter.

One does not have to know xxxx about this at the range in order to hit any target.

It all happens to be automatically compensated for when the rifle is sighted.

So all of your BS about calculations for gravitational pull, trigger tension; etc; etc etc; although factual items, are totally irrelevant to the fact that when one "Zero's" his rifle, he compensates for all of these items.

Kind like taking your car to a mechanic and getting work done on the brakes.

The person who owns the car usually has no interest in all of the hydraulics from the brake pedal to the master cylinder, through the brake lines, to the brake cylinders and pressure on the plunger, to open up the brake shoes and apply pressure against the drum/and or close the pads and apply pressure on the rotor.

Most persons who drive merely want to know that when I push on the brake pedal, the vehicle either slows down and/or stops.

Well, most of those hunters down here in my region, who are most assuredly also "shooters" could give a xxxx less about all of your book reading on exterior ballistics.

Especially since they know that all that matters is that they have "Sighted" their rifle, and that when they look through,over the sights, with a target in the sight picture, that they hit it when they shoot.

This is not olympic competition, in which each round is weighed and matched, and the exact grain weight of powder is maintained for each round, and the rounds are kept at an exact and even temperature, etc; etc.

This is plain ole everyday, sight the weapon to compensate for all aspects of the weapon and surrounding environment, as well as any shooter specific items, (which includes you great lecture on trigger tension), and thereafter, when one aims the rifle utililzing the established and "Zeroed" sight picture, they usually hit the target.

The US Military Services has been in the business of taking absolute "non-shooters" and producing some relatively good marksmen with just basic rangefire, and seldom do they go into all of the specific details which affect a bullet in flight.

And since I was hunting rabbits and shooting them in the head with a .22 rifle long before you were wearing

diapers, and I knew absolutely nothing about all of this exterior ballistic stuff, then I recognized the insignificance of all of your Diarrhea of the mouth regarding gravity; trigger tension; etc; etc; etc, as it is all compensated for when one "Zero's" and/or sights the weapon to his specific shooting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice picture and cover story on your heroism. Congrats, you have jumped out of planes so you are worthy of our time and respect when it comes to ballistics

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps incorrect, however I am of the opinion that most will recognize that the significance of the HALO photo was to demonstrate that I just may have adequate experience in this field to state that LTC Dan Marvin, USA Quartermaster Supply Corps Officer's Branch, (Retired) is feeding a bunch of idiots a lot of BS.

And, that anyone who falls for and "laps" up such BS without out even bothering to verify that LTC Dan Marvin IS NOT a retired Officer from the Special Forces Career Branch (as he attempts to represent), and that much of his other comments are pure BS, and that anyone who falls for and gives his "Worship" to Dan Marvin is not fully planted in reality as well as somewhat lacking in research ability.

One trouble with being a "Wannabee", is that one usually does not have the experiece and/or training to recognize BS when someone else is spreading it.

At least an intelligent version of a "wannabee" takes the time to verify a few items about the train before he jumps onto it and declares it's attributes.

And as repeated many, many, times, when I desire "expert advice" on forensics; ballistics; and/or any other item, I have that "doubting Thomas" attitude that I take the information to several persons who carry the education; qualifications; experience; and full certifications to soundly give such advice.

Not the "Podunkville Police" rifle range/armorer.

And, for those who are not aware, the "armorer" gets to clean all of the weapons after range qualification.

It is recalled that you once posted about how you had to work late cleaning all of those guns after some rangefire qualification.

I would therefore assume that your Police Chief recognized that the real "street cops" time was considerable more valuable and worthwhile and that you could be left to clean the weapons.

Thankfully, people such as Mr. Speer, who claims to know little about shooting, are taking the time to independently seek the advice of "real" expert riflemen as regards the difficulties, or lack thereof, for the different shooting scenario's of Dealy Plaza.

Perhaps his friend/associate, can talk some of the SF Weapons Instructors into shooting the Carcano, and thus provide us with additional independent and qualified enlightment as regards the ability of this weapon.

Hey Pat, I have not been back to Bragg for some time and have many old friends there & would even drive over, visit; provide them with 6 Carcano's and buy the bullets.

And in event that they do not want to volunteer, my old XO is now a Full Colonel, United States Army Special Operations Command, (SF) who reactived to active duty in SF & just got back from the sandy beaches of Iraq.

Perhaps he could coerce them if necessary.

I can already see from Mr. Speer's work of getting a "second opinion", that Big Al, is about to begin to lose whatever credibility he may have on the great problems of accurate shooting.

Perhaps we should further venture into the "Marathon Station Scout Sniper School" to determine whether credit hours from attending this course of instruction rate up there with other schooling, such as the TRUE USMC Scout Sniper Schooling at Quantico, VA.

Whatever, anyone who has fallen for the "Dangerous Dan" scenarios, is as they say: "Dumb, Dumb, and Dumber"!

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom wrote:

That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand.

The reason for this is quite simple!

The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye.

There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position.

Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed.

[...]

There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away ;)

In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too...

FWIW

No hits by ejected casings?

We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all.

Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this??

-------------------------------------

I grew up left-handed, and over the years I gave up on attempting to write anything with my right hand. (My lefty writing is atrocious enough !!)

The long hike from MCRD San Diego up to Camp Matthews (Now part of MCB San Onofre, Oceanside, CA) seemed to be all uphill. We spent a week there learning the fundamentals of Marine Corps marksmanship.

That was during 1954. Absolutely nobody was ever permitted to fire left-handed. I kept my mouth shut, and went along. The few "southpaws" stupid enough to complain were lectured heavily on the fact that the USMC has forbade left-handed shooting "for qualification" since before 1776.

["Lectured Heavily" includes being beaten about the head and shoulders rather severely]

During the 1960s, and as a part of A.I.T. (Advanced Infantry Training) -- a couple of hours were relegated to teaching the now "graduated" Marines (no longer scum-boots) how to shoot around a corner, or out of a window, while shooting left-handed. This was only done at the "combat town/village" which was built for urban warfare training.

All of my combat & competition shooting has been mostly right handed. The major difficulty on a rifle range, was that: Since my left arm was bound up in the rifle sling, I had difficulty making entries in my shooter's log book -- scribbling right-handed, that is !!

While working in uniform, some miscreants seemed perturbed that while I was filling out a "Field Inv. Report" (left-handed) -- my right hand never strayed too far from my Mod. 19 S & W .357 6 inch, which was strapped into its right-handed holster.

Just before my leaving the Naval Academy, I had a few weeks as an instructor on the North Severn River Rifle Range. We taught Midshipmen the proper etiquette required of M-1 Garand usage (right-handed ONLY), and a select few were privileged to test fire the experimental XT-44 rifle, which later was redesignated as the M-14.

A recent TV documentary covers the Marine "Boot Camp" at Parris Island, South Carolina. My grandchildren were shocked to discover that the females go through the same rigors (especially "the Crucible") as do the male "Boots" !! The rifle range sequence happens to focus on this very subject: That left-handed "Boots" are required to shoot right handed -- ONLY !!

At the "National Matchs" (Camp Perry, Ohio), I did notice two or three competitors shooting left handed, and with bolt action rifles. However, they were civilians.

-----------------------------

Thanks Gerry;

However, you must remember that you and I are merely "old wannabee's" who never graduated from the Marathon Key "Scout Sniper School", and thereafter could find nothing better in life to accomplish than become some "podunkville cop".

I am assuming that not unlike myself, you are not a graduate of this somewhat secretive course of instruction!

Anyway, one might ask: Exactly what the hell does this have to do with anything, anyway???

And the answer is:

Among the many variables associated with the LHO shooting ability in the USMC, and the Carcano rifle and it's reported scope alignment/sighting problems, one has been fully overlooked.

As posted, during another link to a topic on LHO, there continues to be misunderstandings related to whether LHO was in fact right-handed ----left handed---or possibly even ambidextrous?

With all of his "shooting" experience and reportedly training of shooters/snipers/whatever, one would have thought that the great Al Carrier would have at some point encountered a person who was "right-handed/left eye dominant".

I know that I have encountered several, and in fact knew that it was not BS, since my father is in fact one of these type persons.

Dad is fully right-handed in everything that he does, with the exception of shooting a rifle and/or shotgun.

It is, to those who have not encountered it, strange, to say the least.

And rest assured, as one chosen for AA duty & assignment by the US Navy during WWII, they looked for those southern boys who were already "shooters" who knew how to lead targets, etc.

Dad loved bird hunting, and was pretty good at it, which should somewhat establish his shooting ability.

Nevertheless, he shot left-handed due to this "Left-eye-dominant" characteristic.

Therefore, when I encountered this in the military service, I knew that the persons were not making it up.

And therefore, persons who were fully right-handed in all other aspects of life, thereafter would shoot a rifle/shotgun left handed.

And, since a left handed shooter can operate the bolt faster, and thereafter normally fire a bolt action rifle faster than does a right-handed shooter, this tidbit/revalation happens to be one of those variables in the assassination of JFK which has/had never been fully explored.*

(*lost a full case of beer on the bet with an ole SF Weapons Instructor on this one when he outfired me 5 to 3)----Doubting Thomas no longer doubts that one.

And, as the Massad Ayoob article also happens to mention this fact, I felt that it is worthwhile for anyone who recognizes that absolutely ALL Variables must be taken into consideration during Problem Resolution.

In that regards, I also knew how poor of a shot I was shooting left-handed, as we also trained in that technique. (kind of hard to continue to fire right handed if the right hand happens to be mangled, shot off, etc; and as those of us who have actually been there are aware, timeouts do not count in firefights.)

With this knowledge (or lack thereof) the possibility that LHO may have been one of those "Left-eye-Dominant" /right handed persons who did poorly on the rifle range due to having to fire the M1 Garand from the right handed position, had to be evaluated.

Jim Persons, who served with LHO in the MC, and is from my hometown and a former bank VP, did not know the exact answer.

And, I thereafter found that neither did anyone else, although there was circumstantial evidence to indicate that LHO may just be another one of those right-handed/left-eye-dominant/left handed shooters, and this may in fact have some bearing on his USMC firing record.

Further circumstantial evidence to support this theory is found within the "alignment/sighting" problems with the scope on the Carcano.

Perhaps they could not get the scope crosshairs close to center of scope picture for the right-handed shooters who tested the rifle, this however does not mean that the scope crosshairs were not adjusted for a lefty-shooter.

As any shooter should know, were I to shoot left handed, and thereby sight/zero the scope to my particular line-of-sight and check spot weld, that even with a perfectly mounted "over the barrel" scope, that a right-handed shooter would have problems with this sight picture and would have to re-adjust the scope in order to accurately fire the weapon.

This is of course even more so true for the manner in which the scope is mounted on the Carcano.

Therefore, the possible variables which have/had not been taken into consideration were:

1. Was LHO actually a better shot than his USMC record demonstrates, and was his failure to achieve high scores in any way related to the common practice of requiring that the M1 Garand be fired right-handed due to the ejection pattern of the expended cartridge casings, thus affecting his normal left-handed shooting ability?

2. Was LHO right-handed, yet also a "Left-eye-dominant" shooter, who in operation of and shooting of a bolt action rifle, normally exceed in time, the delay which a right-handed shooter encounters in operation of the bolt, target re-acquisition, and firing hand re-positioning on the trigger*. (which a lefty does not have to do)?

3. Was the scope crosshair position, as found, in any way related to a left handed shooter, who with the crosshairs in this position, had accurately sighted the weapon and due to firing from the left-handed position, not only could accurately strike the target, but could also operate and fire the bolt action rifle faster than a right handed shooter?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although circumstantial evidence exists that LHO may have in fact been one of these type persons, (Right-handed/Left-eye dominant/left handed shooter), the research ultimately ended with only the suspicion that this may have been a possibility.

However, one could state that the WC must have obviously suspected something related to the "right-hand/left-hand/how did he shoot" concept, as they fully gave Robert Oswald the third degree on this issue.

And, at anytime that any member(s) of the WC went into this detail on a subject matter, they had a reason.

Mr. JENNER. I notice when you are smoking that you hold the cigarette in your left hand. Are you left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I am left handed when I write and eat.

Mr. JENNER. And you are right handed otherwise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Throwing a baseball?

Mr. OSWALD. Throwing a baseball.

At one time I could handle it with both hands especially a football better than a baseball. But I have returned to my right hand on that. I was more accurate with my right hand than with my left hand, in throwing things. I kick footballs right footed and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. What about your father? Was he right handed or left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. This I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother?

Mr. OSWALD. My mother is left handed.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. He was right handed.

Representative FORD. Was there ever a time that he appeared to be left handed, as far as you recollect?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I have never known him to handle anything--throw a baseball, football, et cetera, fire a rifle, or do anything, left handed.

Mr. JENNER. In order to be certain of the details in this respect, when he wrote, did he write with his right or his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Right handed.

Mr. JENNER. Right handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you in fact have seen him write with his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever--was there ever an occasion when you saw him write or attempt to write with his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen him at any time, on any occasion, ever attempt to write or do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. You really covered my next question, but I would like to ask it anyhow.

There are men in athletics who are either right handed or left handed, but who throw or bat or do something from the other side.

Did he ever throw left handed or in any athletic endeavor employ his left hand predominantly as against his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not to my knowledge, he never did.

Mr. JENNER. From your many years of experience with him, being associated with him, as his brother, was he a predominantly right-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; he most certainly was.

Representative FORD. And you personally saw him throw, kick, or do anything athletic over the years, and saw him use his right hand exclusively?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I would say without qualification--I might be repeating myself here at no time did I ever know him to do anything left handed, to the extent that it would be predominant. Of course his hands worked together, and so forth. But I have never known him to do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. From your long acquaintance with him, and your intimate knowledge of his physical characteristics in that respect, do you have an opinion as to whether he was instinctively right-handed or instinctively a left-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say he was instinctively a right-handed person.

Mr. JENNER. In all the years you were with him, you had opportunity to see him react instantaneously without having time to think about using his right hand or left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you observe him on many occasions?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes. I have never known him to use his left hand in any manner when an occasion would require that he use either hand--instinctively went to his right hand.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a coordinated person in the use of his right hand? Some are not coordinated athletically.

Mr. OSWALD. My opinion of this, sir, would be that he was coordinated to the extent that looking at myself and many, I would compare us as two peas in a pod. Quite fast, well coordinated.

Mr. JENNER. He was dextrous?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And well coordinated?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you had an opportunity over the years to see him engage in athletics, did you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth, as a young man, in any event, did you and your brother John and Lee have an interest in guns, rifles, pistols, cap guns, firearms generally?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we certainly did. I would say this.

Mr. JENNER. Now, this includes all three of you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I understand that.

Of course John and I, when we attended military school, we had more of an opportunity to become acquainted with firearms. We certainly played with cap pistols, rubber guns, et cetera, when we were young. Lee did the same thing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The questioning of Marina Oswald also brings to light certain aspects, which are known to be some of those heriditary traits:

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether your husband was right handed or left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, he was right handed..

His brother writes with his left hand and so does--his brother and mother both write with their left hand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This line of questioning as regards the left/right-handed, etc. becomes even more obvious with Marguerite Oswald:

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. That I do not remember, Mr. Rankin. No--I am the left handed one. I would say no.

Mrs. OSWALD. About Robert knowing about the gun--I have already said that. About Lee being left handed, and he and Robert going squirrel hunting.

Mr. RANKIN. You said there was another gun matter.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is a long, long story.

The CHAIRMAN. I think she has gotten to the point----

Mrs. OSWALD. I got to the point I finished this story, really, don't you think--about the gun?

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think about Robert knowing Lee was left handed.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is one I would believe that I have stated--if he wrote it, he wrote it very careful. It is not scribbled like he usually does.

Mr. DOYLE. That is 246.

Mr. Rankin. Can you tell whether or not that is his signature on the second page of Exhibit 246?

Mrs. OSWALD. It is just a little different. That could be forged. Just a little difference. We write left handed, and we have a trend.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that one that you said before that you thought you could recognize?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know, sir. I have no way of knowing. How would I know?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recognize the handwriting now?

Mrs. OSWALD. As I have stated before, when I am looking at it, it doesn't appear to be immediately as Lee's handwriting. But it could be something that he has recopied over and over to get such a perfect lettering. It is not scribbled like we usually scribble. Now, this was one also that I would say----

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir.. 255. This looks like Lee's handwriting--a lot of misspelling, and his signature. 256.

Now his Russian handwriting I know only from return addresses. However, I do have two brown papers with Russian writing on, from gifts that were sent to me. But I don't know if Lee addressed them or not.

And this is Lee's handwriting with a very fine pen. Isn't this handwriting backwards for a left hand? It seems when I looked at "my," it should be going this way--because I write like Lee, left handed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This line of questioning continues with other family members as well:

Mr. JENNER - What are your boys, right handed or left handed?

Mr. MURRET - They are all right handed.

Mr. JENNER - Did they ever loan their equipment, particularly gloves, to Lee Oswald?

Mr. MURRET - Not to my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER - Not that you know of?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - Well, I think it's no secret that Mrs. Murret, your wife, did lend one of their gloves to Lee Harvey Oswald one time to play ball when he was in high school; did you know that?

Mr. MURRET - Well, she could have.

Mr. JENNER - She could have, and you wouldn't have known about it?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - But all of those gloves would have been gloves for boys who are right handers then, isn't that right, since all three of your boys are right handed?

Mr. MURRET - Yes, that's right. They are all right handers.

Mr. JENNER - Then the gloves were for the left hand, is that correct?

Mr. MURRET - Yes, that's correct, the left hand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. MURRET - Well, if it's anything, it's even a little better than I knew him to write, I might say. I never thought he wrote very well for his age, and he was 14 then, you know. Of course, a lot of boys don't write good. Girls, you will find, are better at penmanship than boys. You ought to see my son's writing. He graduated from law school, and he don't write good either. Now, I think he was left handed.

Mr. JENNER - I believe you said during the course of this discussion that you thought Lee was left handed. What led you to say that?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, as a child, when he was a small child, I knew he ate with his left hand, and I always thought that he did things with his left hand. Now, whether he used both hands or not, I don't know, but he did use his left hand as a child. I remember that.

Mr. JENNER - In fact, children are often ambidextrous, aren't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - They eat with either hand, don't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; they do. I have known of cases where children have started out eating with their left hands, and they switch over as they grow older to their right hands, but then there are some children who never use their right hand, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - This was an impression you had of him as a very small boy though, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you ever see Lee write left handed?

Mrs. MURRET - When?

Mr. JENNER - After he reached, say, high school age?

Mrs. MURRET - No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER - You never noticed it one way or the other?

Mrs. MURRET - No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER - When he was living with you during those 2 weeks, when they came back from New York, did you ever see him use his left hand?

Mrs. MURRET - I never noticed really.

Mr. JENNER - Your boys are all right handed, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER - I remember you told me earlier today that Lee wanted to go out and play ball, and perhaps get on some team, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - And you gave him, you said, a glove that belonged to one of your boys, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Well, wasn't that glove for a right-handed player, if it belonged to one of your boys, and they were all right handed?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; that's right.

Mr. JENNER - It was one of your boy's gloves, wasn't it?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, for the "real" USMC Marksman, of Quantico, VA.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/zahm.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Sergeant ZAHM. James A. Zahm.

Mr. SPECTER. What is your profession or occupation, please?

Sergeant ZAHM. Master sergeant.

Mr. SPECTER. And in what branch of the service are you?

Sergeant ZAHM. U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been in the Marine Corps, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Eighteen years.

Mr. SPECTER. Of what do your current duties consist?

Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the record.

Sergeant ZAHM. Noncommissioned officer.

Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular duty?

Sergeant ZAHM. Two years 4 months.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?

Sergeant ZAHM. I became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches from 1952

through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.

Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had with telescopic sights, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. One of my additional duties at the present time is the non-commissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consists of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and I am charged with training, providing weapons, and hand loading the ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards in the interservice match.

Mr. SPECTER. Are telescopic sights used regularly in those activities?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in alining the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture

Mr. SPECTER. Would you characterize it as easy, difficult, or how would you characterize it to use a scope, a four-power scope in rapid fire?

Sergeant ZAHM. A real aid, an extreme aid.

Mr. SPECTER. Suppose in focusing in through the four-power scope you do not get a completely circular view, but instead get a partial view with a corner of the view being blacked out because you don't have the scope in direct alinement, but you are still able to see a sufficient amount of daylight through the scope so

that you can see where the crosshairs line up on target. Is it in sufficient alinement at that juncture to permit the marksman to shoot accurately?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, in the assembly of the telescope, the aiming reticle or crosshair is so placed in the scope that it is in the same plane as the focus of the lenses, and regardless of the position of the eye behind the scope, this makes no apparent or no real movement of the reticle on the target itself, so if the shooter can look through the scope and see the juncture of the crosshairs, and it is on his target, if he properly manipulates the trigger he will get a hit.

Mr. SPECTER: As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and 895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle scope" there is shown the view of the marksman froth the sixth floor of the depository building as he looked down t ZAHM. Very definitely.

Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?

Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot

Mr. SPECTER. How would the fact that the street had a 3° decline affect the difficulty of the shot.

Sergeant ZAHM. It would make it easier because Oswald was in an elevated position, and therefore if the car was traveling on a level terrain, it would apparently--he would have to keep adjusting by holding up a little bit as the car traveled. But by going downgrade this just straightened out his line of sight that much better.

Mr. SPECTER. So that if you were aiming at a man in a moving car driving on the horizontal, as he got farther away from you, would you (a) hold your rifle at the same level, (B) lower it, or © raise it?

Sergeant ZAHM. If you were in an elevated, a slightly elevated position, and he was driving on straight level terrain, you would have to continually track and raise your weapon as he increased his distance from you.

Mr. SPECTER. And if he was going down in an angle of descent, would that decrease the necessity for you to raise your rifle in tracking him?

Sergeant ZAHM. Right; it would slow the movement down. There still might be a slight movement, but it wouldn't be as fast. Therefore, not affecting the aiming or possibly having to introduce a lead in your aiming, because the target is staying relatively in the same position on the line of sight.

Mr. SPECTER. So then it would have been an aid to the assassin to have had the President's car going on a downgrade because that would have taken into consideration some of the adjustment necessary by virtue of the greater distance between the rifle and the victim?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would suppose that even though USMC Master Sergeant Zahm was:

"I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.'

and the fact that he:

" became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches from 1952

through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others"

And also:

One of my additional duties at the present time is the non-commissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consists of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and I am charged with training, providing weapons, and hand loading the ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards in the interservice match.

That since Master Sergeant Zahm was not an accredited graduate of THE "Marathon Scout Sniper School" of Marathon Key, Fl, that he is just another of those "know nothing idiot's" as regards the realm of shooting.

Or else, we just may have some better indication as to exactly who the know nothing idiot may be!

Hey Big Al, why not call up the true shooters and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about.

I am certain that Quantico, and the entire USMC for that matter, is awaiting your correcting their erroneous and misguided conceptions.

About like Ft. Belvoir & the JFK SF Engineer course are awaiting Dangerous Dan to explain the proper procedures for utilization of "earmuff" charges to blow up an earthen structure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Purvis,

You are beginning to tire me and I am sure many others here on the forum with your lunatic rantings about Dan Marvin. I am also getting a little tired of your downplaying my background. I am a certified firearms instructor for my state. Are you? I am a certified weapons armorer for three major weapons manufacturers, two being should weapons. Are you? I spent several years instructing firearms to people being paid to carry and utilize them on a daily basis. Have you? I have received a national award from the International Association of Police of Chiefs for surviving and armed attack. Have you? I am a certified court expert in the field of weapons and ballistics. Are you?

I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions. What have you done? I served my country and you are not capable of researching how I did and I will not state any more than I have here and on Lancer. You keep refering to your military career and comparing how I was in diapers when you served. I am not a teenager, I am in my forties. That does not make you more qualified, just old and from your postings, apparently scenile.

You were kind enough to accept my issues of gravitational pull and trigger travel and then in the same breath stated that these obstacles can be manipulated when sighting the rifle in. Please tell me when LHO was able to sight the rifle in from a sixty foot elevation. Also explain to us how sighting a rifle in can account for a poor trigger when utilizing such a piece of crap rifle for precision shooting. I guess my years as a firearms instructor was totally wrong when the teachings and experience showed that trigger control had to be overcome with repititions.

But what the hell do I know, I am a podunct cop. What exactly are you?

And please tell the forum how a Marine radar tech received his training in tracking a moving target. You keep saying how easy it is, please tell us how and how you are so masterful at accomplishing such a feat when nobody else who has tried it has been. If you can explain all of this, I bowed down to your aged expertise.

And BTW, I was NEVER shown to be liable in a court of law when it came to use of force. Please post what I had posted that showed this. What I have posted is that a case was settled out of court because it wasn't financially feasible to challenge it for what the person was suing for. But you are an expert in all of this so you must have an explanaition for misrepresenting the facts and how could be charged with defamation of character in a civil court for this posting alone.

Don't screw with me on an issue like this. You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Purvis,

You are beginning to tire me and I am sure many others here on the forum with your lunatic rantings about Dan Marvin. I am also getting a little tired of your downplaying my background. I am a certified firearms instructor for my state. Are you? I am a certified weapons armorer for three major weapons manufacturers, two being should weapons. Are you? I spent several years instructing firearms to people being paid to carry and utilize them on a daily basis. Have you? I have received a national award from the International Association of Police of Chiefs for surviving and armed attack. Have you? I am a certified court expert in the field of weapons and ballistics. Are you?

I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions. What have you done? I served my country and you are not capable of researching how I did and I will not state any more than I have here and on Lancer. You keep refering to your military career and comparing how I was in diapers when you served. I am not a teenager, I am in my forties. That does not make you more qualified, just old and from your postings, apparently scenile.

You were kind enough to accept my issues of gravitational pull and trigger travel and then in the same breath stated that these obstacles can be manipulated when sighting the rifle in. Please tell me when LHO was able to sight the rifle in from a sixty foot elevation. Also explain to us how sighting a rifle in can account for a poor trigger when utilizing such a piece of crap rifle for precision shooting. I guess my years as a firearms instructor was totally wrong when the teachings and experience showed that trigger control had to be overcome with repititions.

But what the hell do I know, I am a podunct cop. What exactly are you?

And please tell the forum how a Marine radar tech received his training in tracking a moving target. You keep saying how easy it is, please tell us how and how you are so masterful at accomplishing such a feat when nobody else who has tried it has been. If you can explain all of this, I bowed down to your aged expertise.

And BTW, I was NEVER shown to be liable in a court of law when it came to use of force. Please post what I had posted that showed this. What I have posted is that a case was settled out of court because it wasn't financially feasible to challenge it for what the person was suing for. But you are an expert in all of this so you must have an explanaition for misrepresenting the facts and how could be charged with defamation of character in a civil court for this posting alone.

Don't screw with me on an issue like this. You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Boy am I scared!!!!!!

Big Al,

Merely point out a few facts to those who have fallen for your BS.

First off, you are so stupid, that you fell for Marvin's BS.

Secondly, your research capability (since you claim to have checked LTC Marvin out) is obviously so limited in it's scope, content, and context, that you can not even find out that:

A. There was no SF career branch for U.S. Army Officers at the time that LTC Marvin retired, therefore making it impossible for him to carry that title.

B. That not only was LTC Dan Marvin NOT a retired SF Officer, but that he was a retired officer in the United States Quartermaster Supply Corps, which few if any recognize as being a COMBAT ARMS branch of the military services.

From there, we went into a few recognized experts:

A. Massad Ayoob, a fully recognized EXPERT, by virtually any standard, is a "Prostitute" to you.

B. Both the FBI, as well as such persons as Mr. James Looney, a distinguished member of the AFTE as well as graduate of the FBI Academy, are all know nothings.

Now, we have USMC Sergeant Zahm, of the TRUE/ONE/And Only fully recognized USMC School at Quantico, VA, informing us that the shooting would have been relatively easy for anyone who had even the basic USMC rifle training that LHO had acquired. And, this does not even take into consideration any previous and/or post training and/or experience.

Not only that, SGT Zahm also explains how the slight downhill slope of Elm St., actually would aid an experienced shooter in achieving these shots.

Now, do we believe absolutely documented experts such as Sgt. Zahm?

Do we believe independent SF Sniper School shooters such as those who were independently found by Pat Speer?

Do we believe internationationally recognized experts such as Massad Ayoob?

Do we believe all of the work of those such as: Alexander Eichener; Richard Hobbs; Dave Emary; etc; etc; etc.

Especially, when "non-shooters" such as Dr. Lattimer as well as Chad Zimmerman have physically proven the exact opposite of what you keep trying to sell to the uninformed.

Sgt. Zahm, a fully recognized expert in the field of rifle marksmanship has directly contradicted you!

Might I ask exactly why it is that this fully qualified EXPERT deems the shots to have been relatively easy.

The old Italian Rifle Team reportedly remained in the TOP 5 in shooting with this rifle and their relatively poor quality ammo.

You are the one who continues to attempt to pass yourself off as some sort of "Shooting Expert", thereby claiming the impossibility of the shots, how difficult they would have been, etc; etc; etc;.

Now that persons such as Mr. Speer have gotten into the game and started questioning your claims, and a few additional points as well as the statements of some TRUE EXPERTS have been pointed out, perhaps it would be best if your either rethink your position on the difficulty of the shots in Dealy Plaza, or else change your identity.

I would assume, that even if you were no more than a USMC gate guard, that during basic rifle training, that they taught you how to "squeeze" the trigger, did they not?

Therefore, that you, from all of your claims, have difficulty in accurately shooting the 6.5mm Carcano rifle, does not mean that the remainder of the world, LHO, and/or the true experts have had this same problem.

In fact, the great majority of these other persons, as demonstrated by any search of the evidence, will demonstrate that they have not had these same difficulties, which you seem to be unable to overcome.

As to myself, rest assured that I "grew up" fast after having hunted, as well as having been hunted by a quarry that also carried weapons as well, and thereafter lost all interest in continueing to "play" with guns.

I therefore prefer to be judged on how well the flowers in the yard are doing, as well as how much the kids and other's grandkids enjoy catching the fish from the ponds which I construct on my land.

And it is of course recognized that not unlike most, I am beginning to get somewhat senile. However, the nice thing about it is that I don't give a crap about that either.

Just that if and when I get so senile that I begin to lap dog worship the likes of Dangerous Dan Marvin, and do not have the ability to not recognize and wallow in BS, then either mercy killing and/or euthanasia would be in order, as there would obviously not be adequate cerebral tissue remaining to even know that one was or was not alive.

At least dead people can not be "dumb"!

And finally:

You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Me thinks that just perhaps you should invest in a telephone call and/or email to my old Okinawan Shorin-Ji-Ru instructor just prior to going into the "whip ass" mode.

Although I love to plant flowers, there is still nothing more satisfying then playing whip ass with some wannabee who for whatever reason could not grow up and cease to play with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Tom, I'm with Al when it comes to whether or not his belief in Marvin has anything to do with his ability to discern an easy shot from a difficult one. You are out of line to insist that his faith or lack of faith in Marvin destroys any credibility he has regarding weapons. I'm sure we could line up every expert you can find on weapons and find something about their life with which to discredit them; whether they believe in creationism or scientology, or even that the U.S. Government's greatest concern is in spreading liberty to all mankind, I'm sure we could find that they fell for some nonsense somewhere down the line.

Can't you just disagree with Al without making it personal? I know he called you an idiot but I believe you attacked him first.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, Tom, I'm with Al when it comes to whether or not his belief in Marvin has anything to do with his ability to discern an easy shot from a difficult one. You are out of line to insist that his faith or lack of faith in Marvin destroys any credibility he has regarding weapons. I'm sure we could line up every expert you can find on weapons and find something about their life in which to discredit them; whether they believe in creationism or scientology, or even that the U.S. Government's greatest concern is in spreading liberty to all mankind, I'm sure we could find that they fell for some nonsense somewhere down the line.

Can't you just disagree with Al without making it personal? I know he called you an idiot but I believe you attacked him first.

Pat;

I have observed the continual misinformation regarding both the Carcano rifle, as well as the difficulty of the shots from many persons, for quite some time.

And if Al Carrier wishes to continue to spread this BS and others wish to accept and/or believe it without verification, that too is their business.

If you will follow back in this verbal exchange, I do believe that you will find that it was Carrier who decided to go onto the "attack" mode when he began to see that someone was making statements which go directly against what he has been running off at the mouth about for a considerable length of time.

You can refer back to Post#52 in that regard.

[i]Once again I am shaking my head at the likes of Mr. Purvis. In the fifteen or so odd years that I have been researching the JFK Assassination and the six or so years that I have been public with my research, I have found that the majority of my time has been spent wasted on the likes of Mr. Purvis and others who have deemed themselves worthy to interpret data and challenge those who have a background in such matters that are capable of intepreting data. The Mr. Purvis types will always find some prostitute to call an expert to drive their THEORY home while interpreting video and testimony to fit their THEORY when they have no clue as to what they are talking about as they have no background or hands-on experience to relate to what they are saying. I bring out issues such as how the MC had a considerable percentage of non-existent resistant trigger travel before the break, that would make this weapon a poor choice for a precision rifle. I also bring out that the weapon has a short stock and long bolt which would make target reaquisition extremely difficult. I also brought out how a heavy long bullet fired from a low level velocity cartridge would create considerable difficulty in adapting to elevation and changes in a moving target. These issues go on deaf ears when dealing with the Tom Purvis' of the research community because they cannot begin to understand what I am talking about. If one would take the time to study Craig Robert's recreation or look into Carlos Hathcock's interpretation of the likelihood of the official scenario, then this might come together. But what the hell does Roberts, Hathcock or I know beyond the expertise in weapons and certification and documentation of being a proven scout sniper?

And although I see no reason in which to doubt the shooting accuracy capability of Al Carrier, one would expect that anyone who apparantly "lives" on the rifle range should also have similar capability. A capability which can be easily matched by many of the young teenagers down here in the south who began shooting rifles (deer hunting, etc;) at an early age.

It is of course one thing to be told by someone who is actually a qualified "EXPERT" in a subject matter that one does not know what they are speaking of.

However, when multiple experts in the field have long stated the same thing, and then some WANNABEE such as Al Carrier comes along and sticks his foot in his mouth, then it is time for someone to tell him to either eat foot or disappear.

The "Dangerous Dan" episode merely served to demonstrate that this WANNABEE is so wrapped up in the BS that he can not even recognize absolute horse xxxx when it is being shoveled out, and that this same person after having claimed to have "checked you out" in reference to Dan Marvin, could not even adequately research enough to find the BS that Marvin has been passing around.

My apology if you take offense at my having demonstrated this obvious lack of knowledge and research capability on the part of Al Carrier.

However, in event Carrier had any true experience in the fields of military Sniper, then he would know considerably more about his counterparts such as SF, Seals, Marine Force Recon, etc; etc; etc.

Since we all respected each other's trainings and qualifications, as well as frequently shared service schools for some of the various skill identifiers, we became quite familiar with who and what the the "real" thing was.

That Carrier was completely "sucked" in by Dan Marvin, happens to be one of those severe symptoms of "WANNABE" as opposed to us old "HAS-BEEN"S.

Which basically tells us for the most part what an "Al Carrier" type is.

Lastly, please note that it is Al Carrier who now has decided that he will attempt to intimidate me by his statements:

You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

And this regards, Al has also stated that he has been stabbed on three separate occassions.

Well had anyone ever managed to get to me that many times, it is quite doubtful that I would go about bragging about my "use of force instructor" rating, and Al should recognize that he may scare some Boy Scout with such statements, but it merely makes me want to laugh at exactly how pitiful he is.

And not only that, had I managed to get myself stabbed three different times with this great qualification, I would most likely either ask for a refund from whoever taught the course or else inform my Chief that perhaps I was overdue for a "requalification".

Some points were intentionally brought to light as the fact that a police officer has been found to have utilized "excessive lethal force" is an item that most should recognize.

You are of course on the correct path to resolving many of the issues of the assassination of JFK.

And, so long as you continue to seek the input of true "Experts", I have no doubt that you will ultimately come far closer than many others ever will.

Now, would three accurate shots with ANY Carcano in 5.8 to 6 seconds have been difficult, from any firing position.

Quite obviously yes!

However, since this was only the firing time from shot#1 to shot#2, then there was most certainly nothing difficult about this one.

The last shot in about 2.3 seconds or so thereafter was also either a good or lucky shot.

Might want to provide your associates with this information as well as the actual firing distances, speed of the presidential limosine; slope of the street, and yellow marks on the curb and seek their input.

Lastly, in event Al Carrier wishes to hock his wares and qualifications about the world, that is his business and the business of those who buy what he is selling.

However, when he decides to step into my world and basically tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, then I will leave no stone unturned, if necessary, to demonstrate exactly what he has, by his own actions already demonstrated to all who have the training and experience to recognize.

It takes little effort to discredit the likes of the Al Carriers of the world. Not unlike the "Dan Marvin's", they usually do a fairly good job of discrediting themselves with little help from the outside world.

Then, when a series of experts such as some of those presented references are layed out for all to openly check and verify, then there is little difficulty to most in determination of exactly who is and who is not blowing smoke or spreading BS.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I'm right handed and left eye dominant. I can shoot both righty and lefty but still prefer righty. When I shoot birds and clays with a shotgun I keep both eyes open.

What about Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock? Is he also unqualified?

With probably more than 300 kills during the Vietnam War, Carlos Hathcock is the most famous sniper in United States History. The North Vietnamese put a $30,000 bounty on his head and called him "Long Trang" or White Feather. Hathcock was once accredited with hitting a NVA at 2,500 yards with a special scope-adapted .50 caliber machine gun converted to single shot operation. The year before going to Vietnam, Carlos won top honors at the National Rifle matches at Camp Perry Ohio. Hathcock began honing his rifle skills at an early age bringing home food for the family table in rural Arkansas. When an armored vehicle he was riding in hit a mine and caught fire in Vietnam, he was sent back to the U.S. to recover from extensive burns. Although he was unable to return to Vietnam, he put his efforts into establishing the Scout/Sniper school at Quantico Virginia. Here, Hathcock spoke against the "John Wayne" mentality of many soldiers, always emphasising skill and quiet deliberate thought as essential to be an effective sniper. Sadly, what the North Vietnamese couldn't do, was finally done by the slow debilitating disease of multiple sclerosis at the age of 57.

As quoted by Craig Roberts, another USMC sniper:

“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”

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...