Robert Prudhomme

If you are not too lazy Robert, go back and read the original thread!

It is all laid out there for every ignoramus to see.

Don't blow me off like that, Raymond, and don't refer to me as an "ignoramus".

According to the WC testimony of both Lovelady AND Shelley, they stayed on the steps of the TSBD for 3-4 minutes after the last shot, and only left the steps after Gloria Cavalry returned to the steps, from her position down by where the shooting took place, with news of the assassination.

I have yet to see any proof to the contrary.

Or is it, "Fools seldom differ"?

Hey James

Great minds think alike, eh?

The Evidence is indisputable that Lovelady had left the scene when this scene was filmed

What evidence would that be, Raymond?

bump

Working entirely from memory here...Didn't Tom Purvis conclude that a shot did strike a tree limb, causing the bullet to tumble and enter JFK's back backwards? I believe he corresponded with an FBI examiner(?), Heidberger(?), on this?

Yes, that was one of Purvis's theories, ridiculous as it was. Just think what the odds are that a bullet tumbling end over end should happen to, just at the moment of entry into JFK's back, present the base of the bullet forward. Of course, this bullet would have to stop tumbling once it contacted JFK's skin, or it would continue to tumble as it was entering his back, and leave a large messy entrance wound.

File this one under "B" for bullsh*t.

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

In his 1992 book Case Closed, Gerald Posner proposed that the first shot hit the tree, was stripped of its jacket, and continued on down the street to wound Tague. Posner's book was widely praised by the mainstream media. His theory has since been repeated in TV shows, articles, and hundreds if not thousands of posts online.

One of the many problems with this theory, as I pointed out, is that the tree was not blocking Kennedy when Posner claims the first shot was fired.

The other problem with Posner's theory is that, in tests, Carcano FMJ bullets reputedly went through 48" of pine lumber without deformation. And we are supposed to believe that a Carcano FMJ bullet had its jacket stripped from it after hitting a tree branch? Or a skull?

I'm not going to further argue the details. My assertions are based on first hand knowledge as well as information received from experts on the subject. You can split hairs with someone else, Bob.

And that's why I left your forum, Greg. You know it all after talking to that BS'er Hemming, and no one can tell you anything now.

"1) The Carcano clip holds 6 rounds. It is ejected following the firing of the last round. You can't put a partially loaded clip into a Carcano. It must be a full clip (with all 6 rounds). So where did the other 3 rounds go? Surely an assassin would have arrived on scene with a full clip."

This is not actually true. It has been demonstrated that a Carcano clip can be loaded into the rifle with any number of cartridges in it, although more care must be taken when inserting it.

"3) Unlike those on a Springfield, Mouser or M1 Garand rifle, the iron sights on the Carcano are fixed. Nor does the Carcano have a barleycorn-type front sight. This is no small problem. You can't adjust for windage and other factors. Even after zeroing in the sights for the specific task at hand, if they aren't perfectly dialed in (and how could they be?), there's nothing you can do about it. That is to say, they are not adjustable sights. If and when you discover how far "off" they are all you can do is smack them with a hammer a few times and keep your fingers crossed. In polite lingo such sights are "unreliable for precision shooting." In layman's parlance, they are crap."

While the rear sight is fixed on the M91/38 Carcano, allowing no adjustment for elevation or windage, there is room for some windage adjustment on the front "blade" sight. Seen below are front blade sights for the Carcano, and below that, the front sight on a Carcano.

As can be seen, the trapezoidal base of the sight fits into a matching groove on the sight mount and is a very tight fit. By tapping the sight either left or right with a hammer and punch, adjustments can be made for windage. However, this is a tricky business, requiring a skilled hand and the use of a good gun vise at a test range. This task was most times left to the regimental armourer.

As rifle barrels wear (or corrode), back pressure on propellant gases starts to become lost, and the muzzle velocity drops accordingly. As the fixed rear sight on the M91/38 was zeroed at 200 metres, a slower muzzle velocity could start making shots aimed at 200 metres drop short of the aimed target. I'm not sure if they were available for the Carcano but, many military rifles had available replaceable front blade sights in varying heights. As the rifle loses muzzle velocity, simply replace the front blade sight with a shorter model, thus bringing the tip of the barrel up while aiming, and lobbing the bullet in a higher parabola.

In a pinch, a small flat file works, too.

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point in post 145, Bob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernie & Greg

I think we have the beginnings of a lovely conspiracy theory here.

(how come Bernie gets the film idol good looks?)

bump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on thjis forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean."

You always refer to "Hard Facts", but you seem reluctant to discuss the "Hard Fact" that, according to the medical evidence the WC decided to go with when they cooked up the SBT, the Magic Bullet had to travel a right to left course through JFK's neck that would have likely put this bullet in Greer's right armpit, not John Connally's.

As David Josephs is so fond of saying, "the evidence is the conspiracy".

I've lost you, Greg. The "bump" was to bring the thread back to the first page. How am I provoking anyone?

(You're making a joke, right, Greg?)

We can argue all day about bag length and lunch or no lunch, and never get anywhere.

Or, we can just admit there is no way a shooter in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD can put a bullet through JFK's neck and the right side of JFK's trachea without that bullet going through a vertebra.

Am I right or am I right?

Or am I right?

The "investigation" determined that LHO was laterally separated from a line drawn lengthwise through the centre of the limo by 9°. For a bullet to pass through the neck and injure the right side of the trachea (windpipe) and not hit a vertebra, requires the bullet to be travelling at a lateral angle, as measured from a line drawn lengthwise through the limo, of a minimum of 26°.

As seen in the reenactment photos, Dave, do you think Connally's right armpit was 26° to the LEFT of where the bullet exited JFK's throat?

How did LHO's bullet travel through JFK's neck at an angle of 26°, if LHO's shooting position had him lined up at an angle of 9°?

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him.

Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits."

But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable.

Colin Crowe is one of the great analytical minds researching the assassination, and it is a shame he does not frequent this forum, just as it is a shame that Sean Murphy has not been around here for a while.

However, the real shame is how DVP cherry picks Colin's comments, and attacks only part of his argument. And, of course, DVP feels quite safe attacking him here as he doesn't think Colin will respond.

DVP and Colin Crowe in a debate? I'd bet heavily on Colin, as I believe he's forgotten more about the evidence than DVP will ever know.

How did the bullet make it through JFK's vertebrae, Dave?

Let me guess.... was it....... MAGIC ??????

This guy here?

Almost time for Davie to pull one of his disappearing acts.

Of course, how silly of me to contest the great David Von Pain [sic; as usual].

Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true.

So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.

Both investigations turned a blind eye to the fact the bullet could not have travelled from where they placed the entrance wound in the back to where the wound on JFK's throat was located without smashing through either a cervical or thoracic vertebra.

These were not stupid men involved with these investigations. To ignore such a basic point of anatomy is a clear indication, on their parts, of complicity in an ongoing cover up.