Greg Burnham Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) I agree, Mike.Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty? I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that was mounted on a weapon that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it (compensate) on purpose with any degree of confidence, and "doing it by accident" is a fantasy. It would be like you aimed at Deer #1 using a known faulty scope, but before squeezing off a round, you applied rotation to compensate for the faulty scope-- and voila` -- you accurately shoot Deer #7 right between the eyes by random chance. SCORE!!! Edited May 18, 2010 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) I agree, Mike.Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty? John, My initial response is to say that no matter how damaged a clock is, it is still right twice a day. However this does not hold with a defective scope. There is no certainty that the alignment would ever meet with the barrel/scope relationship. Having said that, I believe Oswalds rifle was in need of shims, when tested, to correct the alignment. This would suggest that it would have amplified the issues of rotation. Not to make a pun, but I very much enjoy working with you, as you leave no stone unturned and no angle unexamined! Mike Edited May 18, 2010 by Mike Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 I agree, Mike.Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty? I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it on purpose. Greg, If I am reading you correctly you are saying it would be only remotely possible. I would have to agree with that. It would be a slim chance that the issue would resolve with rotation, however if I recall correctly the issue with the Oswald rifle would have been elevation and not windage adjustment. This would really make the proposed question more unlikely. I would have to go back through the exact tests and reasons why they shimmed the rifle and figure from there the issue as it pertains to rotation. If there is any interest I would be willing to do this if it would be of use to anyone. Salute! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 I agree, Mike.Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty? I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that was mounted on a weapon that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it (compensate for error) on purpose with any degree of confidence, and doing it by accident is a fantasy. It would be like you aimed at Deer #1 using a known faulty sight, and just before squeezing off a round, you applied rotation--and voila` -- you accurately shot Deer #7 right between the eyes by accidental luck. SCORE!!! I had posted before you edited. You are 100% correct and bulls-eye for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) Is this type of shooting taught in the marines or can it be a personal trait that's self taught and therefore natural? edit:typo Edited May 18, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Is this type of shooting taught in the marines or can it be a personal trait that's self taught and therefore natural?edit:typo John, By this type of shooting, you mean the shots in Dealey plaza correct? If this is the case. Oswald would have had excellent rifle training, however, there are many civilians capable of this type of shooting. These shots were all under 88 yards. Not difficult at all. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Yes and yes, Mike, I agree. Oswald had marine training. Civilians who can be superb shots and know how to correct a misshoot from a habitual rotation already stated as diffiocult brings in the question of whether within the already diminished window of opportunity that window of opportunity was in fact so minimal so as not to allow for sufficient error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Yes and yes, Mike, I agree. Oswald had marine training. Civilians who can be superb shots and know how to correct a misshoot from a habitual rotation already stated as diffiocult brings in the question of whether within the already diminished window of opportunity that window of opportunity was in fact so minimal so as not to allow for sufficient error. John, I would say that even on a weapon with no sights, I can walk a bullet to target, so long as I can see where the rounds are impacting. Now in this case with limited time and movement, it would be very very difficult, bordering on impossible. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 OK, I get you, I can do that with axes and knives. So it's just something you pick up. (that one picks up). So therfore we are back at the diminished window of opportunity. (Someone should post that pic of whatsisname lining up for taking a photo with the MC on the rack, hi res) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?" Mike Have you watched "Full Metal Jacket" as many times as I have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Is there a "Navy Irregular Program?" Mike Have you watched "Full Metal Jacket" as many times as I have? Since you seem to be the only one that picked up in that! You BET! I have also met R. Lee Ermey a few times. Nothing like his character! Have a great Tuesday Buddy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) OK, I get you, I can do that with axes and knives. So it's just something you pick up. (that one picks up). So therfore we are back at the diminished window of opportunity. (Someone should post that pic of whatsisname lining up for taking a photo with the MC on the rack, hi res) IS THIS THE PHOTO, JOHN ?? the photos related in a few posts in this thread, re the re-enactment and comments have been moved to the new scope thread for john dolva...b Edited May 23, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd W. Vaughan Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) “I have already explained the absurdity of his take on the meaning of "high velocity" and observed that no competent expert in ballistics would support the "lone nutter" thesis.” Nonsense! The U.S. military manual excerpt at this site… http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Ope...ONSFMST0424.htm …defines “low velocity” as “Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second” and “high velocity” as “Projectiles traveling faster than 2,000 feet per second.” Todd More moronic drivel from Mike Williams. I said I knew of no case in which a Marine had criticized the service of another Marine.Here he makes a dumb remark about "a serviceman" criticizing George W. Bush, who had served in the Texas Air National Guard! This is a typical example of his rubbish. He is dishonest about relatively minor matters and completely untrustworthy on others. His personal attack demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about! I had cruises each summer, not just one, and a four year, not a three year, obligation. My tour in the Far East was for 13 months, not for years. I was responsible for revising the RTR training program to process 11,000 recruits in 8 weeks instead of 8,000 in 11 weeks. He doesn't have anything right. He was spoon-fed by Josiah about higher education, which neither understand. And his pretensions about weapons are equally shoddy. I have already explained the absurdity of his take on the meaning of "high velocity" and observed that no competent expert in ballistics would support the "lone nutter" thesis. Ritchson illustrates the difference between a real expert and a fraud. As Ritchson reports, the alleged "assassin's lair" was laden with two spent cartridges which could not have been chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been made in America. The scene was completely fraudulent, like Mike. None of this matters to him or his buds because the point was to hijack the thread. And at that they have been a great success. Fetzer:And this post is riddled with informal fallacies from special pleading (by citing only evidencethat is favorable to your side) to the straw man (by exaggerating that negative evidence) and ad hominem arguments (by attacking the messenger rather than his message). Isn't it lovely to see Jim Fetzer write something like this? The one who has done nothing but breaking these unwritten rules of communication throughout this thread? Your self awareness is truly astonishing, Fetzer. Something out of the ordinary, no doubt. I also notice that "your creativity was unleashed in 1996". Isn't that a coincidence - as this applies to your favourite protege, Judyth, at about the same point in time? The two of you really have a lot in common, as you have displayed several of her most remarkable characteristics over the course of this thread. A match made in heaven, as someone said. Glenn, I also note and find it amazing that Jim not only is completely ignorant of anything resembling ballistics, but how quickly he was willing to abandon the subject matter. My exposing an accurate assessment of his background seems to have struck a nerve in old Jim, and he points out that I have issues with inadequacy? I also note that James seems to be a bit off in his assessment that he has never witnessed a serviceman devalue the service of another. Perhaps he has not read some of his own writings about George Bush, who was not only a service man, but the President of the United States! How much more hypocritical can one get? You see buddy this is yet another of Fetzers tactics. He can not and has not discredited anything I said about the ballistics in this case, so now he tries to discredit the person making the opinion, myself. He accomplishes neither. My best to you my friend! Mike Edited May 18, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williams Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 Of course every single witness who testified saw three shells. Of course the FBI was able to procure and test ammunition of the exact type found in the exact weapon found. This two casing theory was washed out years ago. Anyone, especially one who teaches "critical thinking" should have been able to easily comprehend that. They must be lining up for a refund. If not, they should be. So Jimbo, would YOU care to debate me on ballistics? Using your own extensive knowledge of the material? <DELETED> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 (edited) You picked a bizarre source, Todd. They classify knives, bayonets, rocks, sticks and glass as "low velocity" missiles. You need to brush up on your sources. This one is obviously not about the use of these terms as they apply to ammunition! And what you cite obviously ignores "medium velocity" missiles. If this was supposed to bolster the position of Mike Williams, it fails miserably. Even on the most charitable interpretation of your source, "medium velocity" missiles would range from 2,000 to 2,500 fps. That does not make a Mannlicher-Carcano with a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps a "high velocity" weapon. Go back and reread Mike Nelson. HIGH AND LOW VELOCITY MISSILES The amount of energy impacting the body is determined by the mass, size and velocity of the missile. Velocity is the primary factor which determines the energy that a missile expends. The terms "high velocity" and "low velocity" are arbitrary with a dividing line from 2,000 to 2,500 feet per second. Most commonly, 2,000 feet per second is the dividing line and will be used throughout this course of instruction. A. LOW-VELOCITY MISSILES 1. DEFINTION-Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second ie.Knives, bayonets, bullets, rocks, sticks, glass, etc. 2. DAMAGE- No significant energy is transferred to tissues, therefore only local tissue is damaged and only minimal debridement is required. “I have already explained the absurdity of his take on the meaning of "high velocity" and observed that no competent expert in ballistics would support the "lone nutter" thesis.” Nonsense! The U.S. military manual excerpt at this site… http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/Ope...ONSFMST0424.htm …defines “low velocity” as “Any missile traveling at less than 2,000 feet per second” and “high velocity” as “Projectiles traveling faster than 2,000 feet per second.” Todd More moronic drivel from Mike Williams. I said I knew of no case in which a Marine had criticized the service of another Marine.Here he makes a dumb remark about "a serviceman" criticizing George W. Bush, who had served in the Texas Air National Guard! This is a typical example of his rubbish. He is dishonest about relatively minor matters and completely untrustworthy on others. His personal attack demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about! I had cruises each summer, not just one, and a four year, not a three year, obligation. My tour in the Far East was for 13 months, not for years. I was responsible for revising the RTR training program to process 11,000 recruits in 8 weeks instead of 8,000 in 11 weeks. He doesn't have anything right. He was spoon-fed by Josiah about higher education, which neither understand. And his pretensions about weapons are equally shoddy. I have already explained the absurdity of his take on the meaning of "high velocity" and observed that no competent expert in ballistics would support the "lone nutter" thesis. Ritchson illustrates the difference between a real expert and a fraud. As Ritchson reports, the alleged "assassin's lair" was laden with two spent cartridges which could not have been chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been made in America. The scene was completely fraudulent, like Mike. None of this matters to him or his buds because the point was to hijack the thread. And at that they have been a great success. Fetzer:And this post is riddled with informal fallacies from special pleading (by citing only evidencethat is favorable to your side) to the straw man (by exaggerating that negative evidence) and ad hominem arguments (by attacking the messenger rather than his message). Isn't it lovely to see Jim Fetzer write something like this? The one who has done nothing but breaking these unwritten rules of communication throughout this thread? Your self awareness is truly astonishing, Fetzer. Something out of the ordinary, no doubt. I also notice that "your creativity was unleashed in 1996". Isn't that a coincidence - as this applies to your favourite protege, Judyth, at about the same point in time? The two of you really have a lot in common, as you have displayed several of her most remarkable characteristics over the course of this thread. A match made in heaven, as someone said. Glenn, I also note and find it amazing that Jim not only is completely ignorant of anything resembling ballistics, but how quickly he was willing to abandon the subject matter. My exposing an accurate assessment of his background seems to have struck a nerve in old Jim, and he points out that I have issues with inadequacy? I also note that James seems to be a bit off in his assessment that he has never witnessed a serviceman devalue the service of another. Perhaps he has not read some of his own writings about George Bush, who was not only a service man, but the President of the United States! How much more hypocritical can one get? You see buddy this is yet another of Fetzers tactics. He can not and has not discredited anything I said about the ballistics in this case, so now he tries to discredit the person making the opinion, myself. He accomplishes neither. My best to you my friend! Mike Edited May 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now