David Von Pein

Let's see.... We've got THREE shots being fired (per more than 90 percent of the witnesses). And we've got THREE shells from LHO's gun in the SN. And we've got TWO bullets from Oswald's rifle (in the car and hospital). That leaves one more bullet to account for. Now, since I know there are THREE shells in the Nest and I know that only THREE shots almost certainly were fired as the assassination was happening, should I conclude that the third shell was planted there in the Nest? Why would any sensible person conclude that? Everything fits together perfectly. But I'm supposed to "think outside the box" (and the Nest) and conclude that the third shell must have been planted. Right? I see now why some CTers have an aversion to those two evil words I've been talking about today -- Common sense. Geez Louise.

Sure, Glenn, a jury must go by the "evidence". I totally agree (of course). But that doesn't mean they can't ALSO utilize some "common sense and deductive reasoning" in conjunction with the evidence. You seem to want to throw the words "common sense" out the window altogether. And that's crazy. In fact, I'd argue that common sense is an ESSENTIAL tool for juries to use. Because without it, you end up with verdicts like the O.J. verdict. Common sense is vital in all areas of life. Even in a jury room.

Glenn, And you don't think there's any "evidence" to show that Oswald killed Tippit? Is that what you just implied?

I'm fairly "shore" that if all juries consisted of "JFK Internet CTers", all guilty defendants would be set free. You'd find SOME evidence that you could pretend was fake. Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. And yet the CTers are stumped by it. Go figure.

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here. But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard any CTer utter. What Glenn Nall just basically said is that no juror can be allowed to use "common sense" or "deductive reasoning" in trying to arrive at the truth in a criminal case. And that I am not allowed to utilize those things either when discussing the JFK case. Because Glenn assures me there's just "NO room for plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning" in a courtroom (or at a JFK forum like this one). Glenn can't possibly realize how silly he sounded just now when he said that. For if he did realize it, he never would have said something so ridiculous.

Oh, brother. Bob Prudhomme just raised denial to yet a new height of absurdity. Oswald's answer of "I work in that building" was his attempt to use his status as "Depository employee" to deflect attention away from his involvement in the crime. That fact is quite obvious. (Except to Robert Prudhomme, I guess.) But maybe you can answer this question for me, Bob.... What "time" do you think Oswald was referring to when he said he was in the building "at the time". Do you think Oswald was referring to being in the building a week ago Tuesday? Or on New Year's Eve? Or maybe Veteran's Day? Given the fact the whole world was buzzing about JFK being killed, what other "at the time" would any reporter confronting Lee Harvey Oswald be referring to at that moment in time at 7:55 PM CST on Nov. 22nd when the reporter knows full well he is directing his question at the man who has been arrested on suspicion of murdering the President? Put on your "Denial" hat again, Bob, and try answering that question.

Are you for real, Bob? I just posted a video in my last post in which Oswald says the exact words I quoted in text form above. Are you not aware of the words Oswald said to the live TV audience just PRIOR to uttering his famous "I'm just a patsy" lie? In the short space of just 27 seconds in this video, Oswald tells numerous provable lies. And we don't need a single note from Captain Fritz to confirm those lies either. But one thing he told the truth about here, of course, is when he admits to being inside the building at the time the President was shot....

Exactly, Brian. Not even Oswald himself said he was on the front steps at 12:30. In fact, Oswald himself destroys the "Prayer Man" theory. And, of course, all veteran CTers know about this statement coming out of the mouth of Lee Oswald himself, but they'll just look the other way and ignore it.... REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building." REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir." ~~~~~~~~~~~ I've actually argued with some CTers who are so desperate to put Oswald in the TSBD doorway that they argue that when Oswald admitted to being IN THE BUILDING at the time of the shooting, they'll go to the absurd extreme of suggesting that the doorway area of the TSBD doesn't qualify as being OUTSIDE the building; it still should be considered INSIDE the building. Therefore, Oswald wasn't lying when he said what he said about being INSIDE at 12:30. Funny, isn't it? As a parallel, does anybody in the world consider themselves to be INSIDE their house when they're sitting on their their front porch?

No. Just that there is no proof that they are related to 2766. No Proof.... You're wrong. Dead wrong. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

So, Ken, you're going to just toss the two front-seat C2766 bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) out the window and either pretend they never existed or that they were planted in the car, is that it? How nice of you.

David J., IMO, Oswald was merely feigning ignorance when he spoke to James Jarman (and I think maybe even Harold Norman) about the motorcade route on the morning of November 22. LHO knew darn well what route the motorcade was going to take when he talked with Jarman. As for knowing the EXACT time when JFK would pass the building ..... Well, nobody could have known the precise time. But Oswald surely knew it would have been around noon or shortly after noon. And I think the overall weight of the testimony indicates that Oswald WAS on the sixth floor from noon forward, which means he would have been up there in (or near) his sniper's perch in plenty of time. Yes, CTers can utilize Carolyn Arnold's statements. But her account is tainted in numerous ways. And if you discard Arnold, who else do you have to keep LHO off of the sixth floor between 12:00 and 12:30? Is there anyone else? Eddie Piper won't do it. Neither will Shelley. I think it's also important to remember that Oswald was very likely quite literally winging it for most of the day on November 22. There were so many variables and so many things that could have spelled doom for his plan to kill the President, things that he could not possibly have had control over -- like people staying on the sixth floor to watch the parade (which could have easily happened, but didn't). Plus the weather. If it kept raining, the bubble would have been on the car, making a kill shot much more problematic and uncertain. So I believe a lot of "winging it" and "flying by the seat of his pants" was going on with Lee Oswald that whole day. I've always said that Oswald's mindset from the beginning of the day on 11/22/63 was likely this one: If I get a good chance to shoot at Kennedy today from my workplace, I'll take it. If I don't, so be it.

Good. Then Oswald's almost certainly guilty, isn't he? (Under such conditions, how could he not be?) To use your own words.... ...all you did was inadvertently agree with logic. I know it was an accident, but you did it.

Shouldn't just plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning spell out the answer here, Glenn? It sure does for me. Why can't any conspiracy theorist manage to perform this fourth-grade math? .... 1.) A bullet from Rifle C2766 (split in two parts) was recovered in the President's car. 2.) A whole bullet from Rifle C2766 was found in Parkland Hospital (which is where the two limo victims were taken right after the shooting occurred). [Let the booing and hissing from the "Planted Bullet" brigade begin.] 3.) Three spent bullet shell casings from Rifle C2766 were found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. 4.) No whole bullets were recovered from the bodies of either of the two victims. (Only tiny fragments were recovered from Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.) 5.) The enormous majority of the earwitnesses heard exactly THREE shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza. Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Glenn, I don't think my remark about "at least one bullet" being put into JFK's car is "contrary" to my additional thinking about three shots coming from the Sniper's Nest (and all from LHO's rifle, as proven by those three shells themselves). I worded that statement the way I did in that post -- "put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63" -- because I knew I would get slapped in the face by CTers if I even DARED say that TWO bullets positively were fired into the limousine. (So I decided to tack on the stuff about CE399 at the end of that post, after the prefacing remark of "...And when we sensibly talk about CE399".) But from the limited POV of Bullets being found inside the limousine that can be tied to the C2766 rifle, I am, of course, forced to stop at just ONE bullet POSITIVELY being pumped into the car by that rifle, because I believe Oswald's first shot missed the whole car and therefore could not be recovered at all, and CE399 was found outside the automobile--in the hospital. The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows to the CTers who continue to insist that NO SHOTS whatsoever were fired from the C2766 rifle on Nov. 22. What those CTers are therefore forced to do is what they do with CE399 as well --- they'll just pretend those two front-seat bullet fragments were planted (or that the "real" fragments--from a different rifle--were disposed of and then replaced with two banged-all-to-hell fragments fired from Oswald's rifle). Frankly, the "Everything's Fake In This Case" refrain has been laughably out of tune for decades (as far as I'm concerned anyway). It's just a crutch and a cop-out for CTers to use to try and--yet again--exonerate Mr. Oswald. (IMHO.)

All of the stuff in Greg Burnham's Post #175 becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy theorists (aka denialists) when we realize this fact.... Regardless of whether Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a so-called piece of "crap" or not, the fact remains that that exact C2766 rifle, "to the exclusion", put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63. And that fact is proven via the front-seat bullet fragments seen in CE567 & 569. And there are a variety of reasons to know that CE567 & 569 are fragments from the HEAD SHOT. So, "crap" or not, Rifle No. C2766 was GOOD ENOUGH to put a bullet into John Kennedy's head. And when we sensibly talk about CE399, which most CTers can never do, then we're up to TWO verified "C2766" bullets being pumped into Kennedy's car on November 22nd.

Related discussion..... GREG JAYNES SAID: Did you read that article David Reitzes posted about witness accounts? If you hang your hat on Connally's account, it may contrast with those ideas which could at least undermine the idea of it being the best evidence. I understand David Reitzes lines up with your ideas as do pretty much all the lone nutters and I'm the only one saying "Wait a minute, what about this?" Assuming for the sake of argument we can discount Connally's recollection and chronology, looking at what's left of the evidence, this would work too. 1st shot 224 89 frames 4.86 seconds elapse 2nd shot 313 94 frames 4.97 seconds elapse 3rd shot 407 Either way, there was plenty of time. I just arbitrarily used 407. A late missed shot could obviously have come sooner than that. I'm not trying to convince anyone this is what happened, only that it remains a possibility. In your opinion, the evidence for the early miss is best. IMO the evidence seems mighty weak if you discount Connally's account. And a rational argument can be made that his account could be wrong. [...] I have no doubt that Connally was absolutely certain about his account. It's just that of the hundreds of people in the Zapruder film, no one else visibly reacts to the sound of a rifle shot as is prescribed to Connally by the early miss scenario. At the very least, the Secret Service guys should show some sign as they are on the alert for this very thing. As Glenn pointed out, in the Altgens picture they have definitely reacted to the sound of a shot, a shot which there is no question happened. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: John Connally's account of the shooting has the benefit of having the extra element of HIS BEING HIT by one of the bullets to help guide him through his account. And Mr. Connally was always certain the first sound he heard was a GUNSHOT--not a backfire or a firecracker. He took it to be a GUNSHOT. And he was NOT hit by that gunshot. Now, wouldn't it be truly incredible if the sound Connally said he took immediately to be a RIFLE SHOT turned out to be something else, and then--just seconds later--an ACTUAL gunshot/bullet hit him in the back? What are the odds? CHRIS EDDY SAID: I think the only argument against that, David, is the reported numerous motorcycle backfires. I'm playing devil's advocate, I sit firmly in the circa frame 160 missed shot camp. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: True, Chris. But, again, Governor Connally said he immediately thought it was an ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT VIA RIFLE FIRE -- and coming from "OVER MY RIGHT SHOULDER". It all fits perfectly with a missed shot being fired BEFORE the "SBT" shot. The odds that Connally would have thought a backfire (over his "right shoulder") was an assassination attempt--and then have an ACTUAL assassination attempt commence (from over his "right shoulder") two or three seconds later are odds that I think even Greg Jaynes would admit are mighty low indeed. [...] DAVID VON PEIN SAID: How can anyone possibly think Connally was wrong about not being hit by Shot #1, a shot he clearly heard and immediately thought was a rifle shot? JBC's testimony in this regard is not debatable, IMO. STEVE ROE SAID: So where it gets murky is JBC saying he was hit by a separate shot. However, he admits he didn't see JFK when he turned and looked over his right shoulder. So he probably assumed JFK was already hit by the first bullet. And this would be reasonable because you never figure two people being hit by the same bullet. Then we are left with him saying he was hit as he was turning back to his left. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: If JBC never saw JFK, he is the WORST possible witness to rely on with respect to when JFK was hit. Again---that's not debatable either. He got the anti-SBT stuff from Nellie. And watch Connally's 1967 [CBS] interview---he says the SBT is, indeed, a possibility (despite his wife's adamant opposition to it). GLENN WHEATCROFT SAID: That's the thing. Immediately after [Zapruder frame] 160 he never looks over his right shoulder. He just looks to the right quickly, his head stays there momentarily and that's it. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But, Glenn, that's THE ONLY "right turn" that JBC can possibly be referring to with respect to the shot he HEARD but was NOT HIT BY. What other right turn fits that scenario? It can't be his drastic right turn in his seat way AFTER Z230. We know he's been HIT by then. But JBC says he turned to look into the back seat well BEFORE that time. So the Z164 right turn is the only one remaining for that to be. STEVE ROE SAID: Thanks David, your logic is solid. I never gave JBC's testimony much in depth thought. Now it's clear. GLENN WHEATCROFT SAID: David, there's a bit of contradiction here. You say it has to be the missed shot F160 because it was only shot he heard but was not hit by, and that he knew he had been hit by the second shot F224. But he REACTS like someone [who] doesn't know they've been hit at F224. Ok, the cheeks puff, the lapel flips out, but that bullet absolutely tore right through him - nearly killed him - and he calmly turns and looks into the back seat to see if JFK is hurt. His physical collapse to a wound of that magnitude is DELAYED for over 4 seconds. So that means, at least initially, he didn't know he had been hit. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I disagree, Glenn, with your analysis regarding John Connally's movements after he was shot at circa Z224. I don't think he is "calmly" turning to look into the back seat. I think he's in the process of reacting to the bullet that has just struck him, and he's also in the process of uttering the statement he said he made after he was hit -- "My God, they're going to kill us all." Are you actually suggesting that Connally has NOT been hit by a bullet when we see all the things happening to JBC between Z224 and around Z230 -- i.e., shoulders hunching, mouth opens, face gets kind of distorted, lapel flips up, hat flies up in the air? For a good look at all of the individual things happening to Governor Connally during those frames (Z224-Z230), GO HERE. DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID: Here's an alternative thought on the "slumped" remark made by John Connally in his bedside interview --- I'm wondering if Connally could be referring to seeing JFK "slump" after Connally himself was hit, which is when JBC turns completely around in his seat. It's true, however, that JBC always said in later interviews (and to the Warren Commission) that he never saw JFK at ANY time after the shooting started, but we can see in the Zapruder Film that Connally is practically staring right at Kennedy after JBC turns around in his seat. And Kennedy is certainly "slumping" at that moment. So, in reality, there definitely IS a point in the Z-Film when John Connally could certainly have physically SEEN Kennedy in a "slumped" position. That theory doesn't fit with the timing as told by JBC in his bedside interview, however, where he claims that JFK had slumped PRIOR to the time JBC himself had been hit. I'm also wondering if the pain-killers and other medications that JBC was on at the time of his bedside interview might have clouded and/or distorted his recollections at that time while he was in his hospital bed. ~shrug~ It's food for thought anyway. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-900.html

I don't have any personal knowledge whatsoever about Mary Ferrell, the woman. But I, myself, love the Mary Ferrell website (and I'm just a stupid "LNer"). I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that has been done by people like Rex Bradford to make available to everyone on the Internet (CTers and LNers alike) the thousands upon thousands of pages of primary source material associated with President John F. Kennedy's murder (more than 1.3-million pages at the Ferrell site). The massive archive at both the Mary Ferrell site and the History Matters site is something that I couldn't live without. (It'd sure be misery having to live without those sites anyway. I use them for something almost every single day.) Whenever people (like Thomas Rossley at another forum, for one example) tell me that nobody can speak with any authority on the JFK evidence because we don't "own the 26 volumes" of the Warren Report, I immediately point out that possessing the physical volumes is no longer necessary in this digital age, because people like Rex Bradford (and others who have worked with him, no doubt) have spent thousands of hours of their time in an effort to put every page of every volume online (for free, no less!). And the HSCA volumes too. But, amazingly, there seems to be a certain percentage of "JFK researchers" out there in cyberland who have no idea that the Ferrell and History Matters sites even exist, because more than once I've had to point people to those sites after they seemed to have no clue they were there. And this archive of Warren Commission "Documents" below is something I hope never disappears. It's almost unbelievable how much stuff is in here, which is material you won't find anyplace else in the online world. And I, for one, am very grateful to everyone who played a part in making material like this available to anybody with a mouse and a keyboard....

And yet, incredibly, that book doesn't have a single negative review to date (out of the first 8 reviews). It's got a 4.5-star average rating. Looks like people still like to read Fetzer's fiction, fantasy, sci-fi, and other assorted trash. (Can anyone, even the CTers at this nearly-all-CT forum at EF, imagine giving that book a perfect 5-star review? It's unfathomable.)

Well, Pat, I have repeatedly said in my posts over the years (and again in this very thread in Post 143) that the stuff we're talking about here (whether or not Oswald used the scope and the timing of Oswald's first shot) can never be proven or disproven. So, while I have an opinion about these matters (as expressed in a previous post when I was replying to Ed Bauer at another forum), I wouldn't exactly say that the WC's opinion or the FBI's opinion about the rifle scope is nonsense. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong on this point. I don't know. I don't really think anyone can know for certain. But the question of whether or not Oswald used his scope or the iron sights (or a combination of both, as I have suggested) is one of the forever "unknowables" connected with the JFK case. You don't disagree with me on that, do you Pat? BTW, Pat, you have not stated my belief accurately regarding Oswald's second and third shots..... I never said Oswald was "aiming low on the second shot". That would imply I think Oswald used the scope for that second shot. But, as I stated already in this thread (via the post I wrote when responding to Ed Bauer).... "FWIW....If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way.... Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313). The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me." -- DVP

And so you think that when I say something to the effect of "I think LHO acted alone", it's not already obvious to everybody here that I'm saying something that aligns with the Warren Commission's findings? You think that I should be required to constantly "acknowledge" that obvious alignment? That's a strange request, Jon. Where did you come up with that one? And why?

Thanks again, Brian. I think I feel an "LOL" coming on after looking at the last link you supplied. Why would anybody spend money on a framed picture of a re-created scene showing JFK being killed (with a forest in the background yet)? Hilarious. That's certainly something I'd want to hang on my living room wall to look at every day of my life. (Not.) Might as well hang up a framed picture of JFK's head exploding at Z313. As I recall, there is a scene in the "Executive Action" film where the conspirators/assassins are practicing their "triangulation of crossfire" in a wooded area with a lot of trees around them. Perhaps that's where the photo was taken. But Burt Lancaster's evil group of henchmen weren't shooting at real people (with a Jackie look-alike in the car, decked out in her pink suit). I think the assassins were firing at dummies or sandbags. But, perhaps it was being presented as a "What if I were really shooting at Kennedy now, out here in the woods?" type of thing, with the evil henchmen only envisioning in their own minds what it would be like to be shooting at JFK out there in the forest. (Of course, how the henchmen would have been able to predict that Jackie would be wearing a pink wool suit with a pink pillbox hat is another discussion altogether. Maybe they could see into the future too.)

Thanks for the info, Brian. I wonder why the picture is in black-and-white if it's from "Executive Action" (a 1973 color film)? ~shrug time~ I have that movie on DVD. And I think it's available at YouTube too. I'll have to check out the re-creation scene of the shooting and see if the forest on the south side of Dealey Plaza is in the film too. And that still picture can't be meant to represent the car after it passed under the triple underpass. If that had been the case, JFK would be out of sight and Clint Hill would be hovering over the back seat. ~shrug time again~

I noticed this interesting "re-creation" photo today, and I'm wondering what this pic was taken for? It's certainly not something that was done to replicate the assassination in any kind of detail, because it's obviously not taken in Dealey Plaza. Looks like a forest in the background. ~shrug~ And they seem to have forgotten that the Connallys were in the car at all. I don't see hide nor hair of either Nellie or John Connally (but maybe they're both hidden by the side window). And if I were a rabid conspiracy buff, I would swear that was Jack Ruby in the front seat next to the driver. If anybody knows who took this picture or where it was taken or the reason it was taken, please chime in. I'd like to know. Click to enlarge....

Related discussion.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I don't see why anyone would claim that the observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch. Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination. ED BAUER SAID: Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position would not have been necessary. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect. But it would have been a mighty risky thing for Oswald to do---firing one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope. He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was to kill the President. At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1 with a wild, stray shot. But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as fact, Ed. I certainly can't disprove it, however. And I doubt anyone else can either. ED BAUER SAID: Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me.... Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you are advocating that possibility. If so, I think that would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination. Is that really what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark? But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO. Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had fired a "zeroing in" shot after JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street. How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the scope in such a short space of time? FWIW.... If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on 11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way.... Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313). The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me. BROCK T. GEORGE SAID: Bingo! And when you consider that the Walker miss must have already introduced concerns in his mind about using the scope, I think it's doubly likely he would have reverted to the iron sites [sic]. Also, there is some indication in his military record that Oswald shot better in rapid fire conditions---indicating a tendency to overthink his shot. Once he missed that first shot, instinct probably took over and he once again displayed his aptitude for rapid fire. BT George ED BAUER SAID: David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment. No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth). More importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot. (It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough. I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3 (and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope for all three shots. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification. David Von Pein August 28, 2014 June 13, 2015 June 17-20, 2015