Nelson Delgado

[Mike Williams]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

[Mike Williams]

Oh no, the Rifleman is back.

And he never read Mark Lane I guess.

Well hello Jimbo. I was hoping for a more formidable adversary on this topic, but I guess you will do. After all Ive been gone for a time, and you would be a good warm up until the big boys arrive.

So tell me.

Why is this clown and his testimony so important to you chaps in attempting to prove Oswald was a poor marksman?

[David G. Healy]

Or go back to Duncan's xxxxx site.

You do know by stating the above, that you are accusing Mark Lane who is a member of my Forum, of being a xxxxx, don't you?

Mark Lane is a member here, too. Mikey should read Lane, perhaps you too?

[Mike Williams]

Mark Lane is a member here, too. Mikey should read Lane, perhaps you too?

Got them, read them, still got them.

Ive read Lane.

Perhaps he would like to address the issues with Delgado with me.

[Mike Williams]

Or go back to Duncan's xxxxx site.

You do know by stating the above, that you are accusing Mark Lane who is a member of my Forum, of being a xxxxx, don't you?

Isnt Davey Boy a member of your forum as well? I have a feeling the reason Yugio has not joined is because he is way out of his league on your forum Duncan.

[Mike Williams]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question:

i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right?

ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards?

Why not tests with average marksmen?

Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three...

Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The indisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done.

Exactly

and Oswald was more than capable of getting that job done.

[Mike Williams]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question:

i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right?

ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards?

Why not tests with average marksmen?

Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three...

Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The undisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done.

And where does that leave us? And Mike's question? You are saying that someone shot JFK from some location in Dealey Plaza and they may or may not have been an expert marksman.

Wow.

Case closed.

No in point of fact what I am saying is I dont understand why the CTs use the Delgado Testimony to try and make the point that Oswald was a poor shot.

The day Delgado and Oswald qualified together, Oswald scored a 191, and Delgado called him a poor shot because of that, saying he often got Maggies Drawers.

While in the same testimony Delgado tells us what a great shot he is.

What did he score that day????

192....one single point higher than Oswald.

[Mike Williams]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

There are two specific thoughts that spring to mind concerning your question:

i) The raging debate that has taken place over the last 48 years has come down to whether Oswald was a decent shot or a poor shot. There has never been anyone make the claim that during his military service he was a crack/expert shot. He was never the best of the best. Right?

ii) So whether he was decent or poor is of little consequence due to the fact that the Frazier tests and the CBS tests that were done involved nobody that was a poor or decent shot. Correct? The first set of Frazier tests in 1963 being done by Robert Frazier, Charles Killion and Courtland Cummingham. All experts in their field. The second set in 1964 by Miller, Stanley and Hendrix. All expert marksmen. The CBS tests in 1967 also took place with expert shots did they not? The 11 experts marksmen in this test consisted of 3 Maryland state policemen, 3 White Lab employees from the H.P. White Ballistics Laboratory where the tests took place, a weapons engineer named Howard Donahue, a ballistics technician, 2 sportsmen and an ex-paratrooper just back from Vietnam. You think this is comparable to Oswald's scorecards?

Why not tests with average marksmen?

Let's not get into the results and the conditions that the tests were conducted under because that's a different story. If they'd have gotten Roger Bannister to do a Beckley to 10th & Patton test I'm sure we'd all raise an eyebrow or three...

Expert or non expert, it doesn't matter a toss. The undisputable fact is, that whoever took the shots, expert or non expert, from the 6th floor windwow or any other speculated firing location, got the job done.

And where does that leave us? And Mike's question? You are saying that someone shot JFK from some location in Dealey Plaza and they may or may not have been an expert marksman.

Wow.

Case closed.

No Wow's necessary. It leaves us, and everyone else, with the facts which I have posted in my reply to your post. That's a fact!

Of course there was a "Wow" necessary or I wouldn't have included one.

This fact you post is one that most people around the world knew about within 5 minutes of it happening. Tell us something we don't know, Duncan. I'm really not up for playing silly games. Why are you trying to drag this into complete banality?

I answered Mike's question with some thoughts of my own. Did I waste my time again? If I did I won't bother engaging with him, or you, again.

What was the point of the CBS and Frazier tests. Surely there was a point? Or were they wasting their time and a large amount of bullets?

Come down off of that high horse of yours Lee, nobody is forcing you to contribute. If you don't like what I post, ie facts, then you are not obliged to reply or respond to me.

The tests were done to try, and I emphasise the word try, to find out if a shooter, any shooter, could have fired all 3 shots from the 6th floor in the allocateted time.

My point is simple. It doesn't matter how many tests were done, or are done in the future, or by experts or average marksmen, none of who were or will ever be Oswald. The job got done, that's it!

Let's face it, Duncan:

a. You have no clue how high or how low my horse is

b. The only reason Mike came here is because your site went down

Mike asked a question. I tried to engage him with some other inconvenient FACTS. You come along and tell us all that the universe is big. Whoopy-doo.

Stating the obvious takes this nowhere. What next? You going to tell us that JFK was in an open limousine? How about that Jackie was sat next to him? Those are FACTS but we kinda know them already.

The tests were NOT set up to simply to see whether the shots could be fired within the allocated time. Although that's just about what came out of them. They were to see if you could also hit a moving target in the allocated time. You know? The way Oswald was alleged to have done?

So my question, AGAIN, is quite simple. If you want to see if the feat could be achieved why would you choose EXPERT MARKSMEN because the FACT is Oswald wasn't one. And you, and Mike, know as well as I do what the results of those three tests were when it came to hitting a moving target.

So don't come on telling me to get off something that I'm not on.

Why would a series of tests be conducted to replicate Oswald feat with EXPERTS when we all know the poor sod who got blames for doing it wasn't one?

The point of the tests were to see if the feat could actually be achieved, NOT to prove if Oswald was or was not an expert marksman.

Exactly Duncan.

Although I have no idea what issue he has with (.

Why would your site being down be an issue for me posting here, why would this seem to offend or irritate him so much?

[Mike Williams]

The point of the tests were to see if the feat could actually be achieved, NOT to prove if Oswald was or was not an expert marksman.

Jeez Luiz!

Do you not see the insanity that exists in what you are saying?

They blamed a man who was a best an average shot. His picture was emblazoned across every major newspaper for months. He was found guilty within 24 hours.

Why, if the man who was accused of performing the "feat" was an average shot AT BEST, did they then get in EXPERTS to see if it could be done?

Were they not testing to see IF OSWALD COULD DO IT? Seeing as how he was the one that they said DID DO IT?

We know what the results of those tests were so it's a moot point. None of them could do what Oswald did unless the conditions were changed in favor of the shooter.

I'm outta here...

Like I didnt see that coming.....

[Mike Williams]

None of them could do what Oswald did unless the conditions were changed in favor of the shooter.

That's because none of them were Oswald.

Duncan,

Refresh my memory here. Was not the average of the test that each rifleman hit 2 of 3 shots?

[Jim Root]

Good shot bad shot, great question that seems to divide the LN's and the CT's yet a read of the Warren Commission report with a critical eys would suggest that either point could be argued from what is written. On the one side you have Oswald's shooting scores as a Marine and many experts who will say based upon these scores that Oswald would have been more than capable of hitting the President from the 6th floor of the TSBD. On the other side there are CT's who say it would have taken a great shot to do what Oswals was alledged to have done and his Marine scores does not suggest greatness. One fact is very clear from the Warren Commission Report, and I am drawing a fact based upon what it suggested, IF Oswald was the shooter in both the Kennedy assassination and in the Walker attempted assassination, THEN in four shots made made by Oswald he only had two hits. If the CT's who wish to enter this argument are right and truely believe that Oswald was a poor shot should they be willing to concede that even his less than spectacular Marine scores would allow for a 50% bullet to target possibility?

For myself I like Delgado, not so much on what he had to say about Oswald's marksmanship but rather that he, as Oswald's best Marine buddy and probably friend before he defected to the Soviet Union says that it was his belief that Oswald was going to Germany. In my writings and research on Oswald's travel from London to Helsinki I have shown how it is very possible that Oswald could have gotten to Helsinki via Germany (either Frankfurt or Hamburg)which falls in line with exactly what Delgado suggested.

Jim Root

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

Answer: Because it supports their agenda!

Which also happens to be the exact same answer why many still cling to the completely false information which serves to indicate that all Carcano rifles were so inaccurate that this "pellet-gun" range shooting feat was not possible.

Stated simply & factually: LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 yards or less and when shooting from a fixed/stable firing position.

[Jim Root]

Hi Lee and thank you for the compliment.

Remember it is (present tense) Lee Harvey Oswald's wife that still believes and is the primary source for the information that implicates Oswald in the Walker shooting....can't get a person much closer to Oswald at teh time who would today have perhaps more reasons to deny than to continue saying that Oswald was the person who shot at Walker.

My conspiracy theroy works quite well with this information and puts John J. McCloy at the top of the heap based upon this possibility. If you look at when the FBI started watching Oswald's movements, within weeks after the alledged Oswald attempt on Walker. The Bellin report (CIA psysch profile that said Oswald would have killed the President if he was given a chance based upon the knowledge of the Walker incident). George Demohrenschildt, brother of Demitri who can be linked to John J. McCloy suggests, based upon Marina Oswald's testimony, the he thought Oswald had attempted to assassinate Walker and even mentioned it directly to Oswald the day after the attempted assassination of Walker. Demohrenschildt then, apparently, gets a nice government contract in Hatti with, as many suggest, the help of US Intelligence. There are also the photographs of Walker's home that Marina had in her possession that showed Walker's residence and construction work that was done in the days immediately preceding the Walker incident. The backyard photos....just prior to the attempt on Walker. The ordering and recieving of the carcano, just prior to the Walker incident. As a result of the FBI monitoring Oswald's movements we have Hosty third note being generated which stated exactly where LHO was working prior to the decision on the motorcade route. It is that note that is missing and IMO would lead to the real person/s behind the assassination of JFK and IF those persons that could get the FBI to monitor Oswald's movements based upon the Walker incident THEN those same people could have access to a psych report that would suggest that given the opportunity Oswald would kill the President.

And why would this person/s know about Oswald and that he would have had a reason to shoot at Walker, because as Delgado suggested, if Oswald went to Germany on his way to the Soviet Union he could easily have been on an airplane with Walker who was, in the same time frame, traveling to either Hamburg or Frankfurt. If I paraphrase what Oswald is alledged to have said, Oswald believed that Walker was the leader of a very bad organization (motive) and if sombody would have stopped Hitler....

Remember also that it was McCloy that did not want the Paris Summit to occur and the downing of the U-2 led to the failure of this summit. Oswald would speak about this failure shortly after the assassination attempt on Walker in a speech he gave at Spring Hill College showing that this information was, at a minimum, floating around in his head and was an important topic in the time leading up to the assassination of Kennedy....talk about lighting the fuse on a Manchurian candidate....and giving Oswald a reason to say while in custody that the reason he (Oswald) was being arrested is because he went to the Soviet Union, I'm a Patsy! BANG a conspiracy theory that suggests that Oswald may well have been the shooter and all he had to have to do it, the opportunity just as the CIA's memo to Bellin suggests. Even if you don't like Oswald as a shooter most CT's have to have Oswald in the TSBD to be set up. All the above information could be used for either setting Oswald up as a patsy or having him as the shooter....same people same result. Rather than accepting this possibility it seems researchers believe the only way to prove conspiracy is to prove that Oswald was not the shooter....I disagree and believe if what I have said holds water the only way the conspirators were able to get away with their crime, which I would argue they did, is to lead the public to believe that Oswald could not have been the shooter, which is as we all know is the general consensus.

Jim Root

Edited February 23, 2011 by Jim Root

[Greg Parker]

Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?

Answer: Because it supports their agenda!

Which also happens to be the exact same answer why many still cling to the completely false information which serves to indicate that all Carcano rifles were so inaccurate that this "pellet-gun" range shooting feat was not possible.

Stated simply & factually: LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 yards or less and when shooting from a fixed/stable firing position.

And would that superiority transfer when he was firing down corridors and around corners whilst eating a sandwich?

Well, it was a magic bullet!

[Paul Trejo]

...Remember it is (present tense) Lee Harvey Oswald's wife that still believes and is the primary source for the information that implicates Oswald in the Walker shooting....can't get a person much closer to Oswald at the time who would today have perhaps more reasons to deny than to continue saying that Oswald was the person who shot at Walker.

...George Demohrenschildt...thought Oswald had attempted to assassinate Walker and even mentioned it directly to Oswald the day after the attempted assassination of Walker. Demohrenschildt then, apparently, gets a nice government contract in Haiti with, as many suggest, the help of US Intelligence. There are also the photographs of Walker's home that Marina had in her possession that showed Walker's residence and construction work that was done in the days immediately preceding the Walker incident. The backyard photos....just prior to the attempt on Walker...

...As Delgado suggested, if Oswald went to Germany on his way to the Soviet Union he could easily have been on an airplane with Walker who was, in the same time frame, traveling to either Hamburg or Frankfurt. If I paraphrase what Oswald is alledged to have said, Oswald believed that Walker was the leader of a very bad organization (motive) and if sombody would have stopped Hitler....

...All the above information could be used for either setting Oswald up as a patsy or having him as the shooter...Rather than accepting this possibility it seems researchers believe the only way to prove conspiracy is to prove that Oswald was not the shooter...

Jim Root

Jim, I'm new to the Education Forum, and have been searching for threads that approximate my own theory. Your comments are interesting because you address most of my main concerns: (1) the April 10th shooting at General Walker; (2) Marina's testimony about the Walker shooting, including the letter she identified as Lee Oswald's in WC evidence; (3) George DeMohrenschildt's testimony about the Walker shooting.

I find Marina's testimony believable (all of it, actually; I would like to see hard proof if I'm mistaken about this.) DeMohrenschildt's testimony confirms Marina's testimony. I feel I am on solid ground as I build my theory on this starting point.

I'd add two more concerns: (4) Volkmar Schmidt's testimony that at a party he tried to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was pure evil; and (5) DeMohrenschildt's written statement to the HSCA (viz. his article, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!") in which he said he also tried to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was a bad person, and called him 'General Fokker' as a nickname to Lee Oswald, who laughed and also started calling General Walker 'General Fokker'.

Anyway, George DeMohrenschildt did not admit during his 1964 Warren Commission testimony that he urged Lee Oswald to hate General Walker. He was going to admit this to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 -- and did in writing -- but then he committed suicide instead. Also, in part of his testimony, George de Mohrenschildt said that he and Oswald were close with Volkmar Schmidt, and they saw him often, and they called him 'Messer' Schmidt as a nickname. Volkmar Schmidt is on video - a number of times - admitting that he spent a long time at that party convincing Oswald how bad Walker was - calling him a 'fascist' and so on.

(This raises another concern: (6) Lee Oswald's signed photo to George DeMohrenschildt with the joke, 'Hunter of fascists, Ha Ha' written on the back.)

I'd like to ask Schmidt more about this, because Schmidt came to Texas from Munich specifically to work for Walker full time! What changed his mind? Is it possible that General Walker (who was a lifetime bachelor) stepped out of line with Schmidt? I have read such things. But Schmidt at one point admired Walker, and then turned against him sharply. That's what the evidence suggests.

Here's my theory; George DeMohrenschildt told the WC that he and Jeanne found out about the Wed10Apr63 shooting at Walker on Easter Sun14Apr63. His written testimony to the HSCA admitted that he and Jeanne suspected it before they visited the Oswalds at 10pm on Easter Sunday, and that Jeanne wanted to search for the rifle on the pretext of touring the Oswald's new apartment (and Jeanne flubbed this testimony to the WC, very obviously). When they found the rifle, they quickly left the Oswald's apartment and never saw the Oswald's again - ever. It frightened them. That's their story. I find the combination of their WC and HSCA testimony believable. But I still think it is incomplete. What's missing is the further connection with General Walker. I believe that George and Jeanne told somebody about Oswald and the Walker shooting that very night. (Maybe Dymitri; maybe the CIA.) And whoever they told called General Walker that very night, and that is when Oswald became the patsy.

General Walker demonstrated many times in his personal correspondence that he knew Oswald was his shooter long before Marina told the FBI. Walker's archives in the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin document the many times he tried to convince people that Oswald was his shooter. This even came out in the Warren Commission testimony, as Liebeler tried to get Walker to explain how a German newspaper that interviewed Walker on the night after the JFK assassination, knew that Oswald was Walker's April shooter before anybody else did..

Best regards...