Help Me Understand This

[Mark Knight]

Try though I may, I'm having trouble lining things up in the matter of bullet trajectory and the JFK assassination.

In the presidential limousine, the jump seat upon which Connally sat [i believe I spelled his name correctly--this is, of course, for Mr. Phelps, for whom accuracy of detai apparently doesn't matter] is positioned slightly inboard from the position of JFK in the corner of the back seat. So I address this question to folks such as Mr. Von Pein, who conclude that the Warren Commission essentially got it right:

Since the curvature on Elm Street is right-to-left, until the point where Elm then turns left-to right to enter the teiple overpass, how could a bullet that was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD--presumably at a slight left-to-right angle--have suddenly made a left turn, and have ended up going slightly right-to-left to wound Connaly? I might find it more believable if the shot had been made from the southWEST corner of the TSBD...but I just dont see it happening from the southEAST window, unless the limo made a sudden lurch toward the RIGHT curb--which the z-film does NOT indicate--and thereby put Connally in line with JFK from the southeast window.

It may be argued that the limo approached the right curb DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the TSBD, in its turn from Houston onto Elm...but this is, relatively speaking, several LONG seconds before someone in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD would've been able to fire at JFK's back.

Now, addressing Tom Purvis' explanation of the 3rd shot--which I believe offers a more plausible explanation of Connally's wounds--I find I also have the same probelm with Tom's proposed trajectory from the southeast window. Even if Greer steered the limo slightly right as he turned to ook into the back seat as the 3rd shot was fired, I find the angle of trajectory, left-to-right, easier to believe if the sniper was shooting from the southWEST window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. In fact, the ONLY time the proposed left-to right trajectory lines up inside the limo is as the limo turns right to go under the triple overpass...long after what EVERYONE agrees was the point of the last shot.

So can someone expain to me exactly how this works, and how you can get a bullet to make a left turn after it's fired? Might come in handy in my deer hunting to know how to do that [just joking on that last part]. And to Mr.Von Pein: Please confine your answer to any FACTS you can find, and leave the ridicule out. Unlike you, I came into the JFK assassination discussion with an open mind. I'm swayed by facts and evidence, not coulda-woulda-must've stuff. I believe that JFK was shot by an assassin on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. I believe that LHO may have had opportunity to pull the trigger. BUT I'm not yet convinced that LHO was the ONLY prson who had opportunity to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and after seeing all the evidence I have seen on bullet trajectories [suggested and otherwise], I'm not so sure that the southeast window "sniper's nest" wasn't set up as a ruse, when the actual shots more likely might've been fired from the southWEST window.

So pull out your FACTS and convince me...anyone who has 'em. Show me how, when the line of sight from the supposed "sniper's nest" to the target is slightly left-to-right, the bullet traveled right-to-left once they arrived at the limo. I just can't see the logic in that...somehow.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Mark Knight

[Chris Davidson]

Mark,

Views from both windows.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/views.png

chris

[Mark Knight]

Mark,

Views from both windows.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/views.png

chris

Chris, this simply confirms my perception...that for a bullet fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD to have traveled from right to left in the limo [as viewed from the window towards the rear of the limo], the bullet would have HAD to have come from the vicinity of the southWEST window, and NOT the southEAST window.

So how do the photos help, in ANY way, to justify the argument that the assassin was firing from the southEAST window? I simply can't make it work, even with the WC's own photos.

Thanks, Chris...that's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. I'm just a seeker of truth, and I have no axes to grind with anyone. But BEFORE any case can be made for body snatching, corpse alteration, or anything else....FIRST the shot trajectories have to line up. And from the southEAST window of the 6th floor, they simply don't. [unless, as Tom Purvis states, the first shot ONLY hit JFK...then, the southeast window IS the most likely place fo the first shot to have originated.]

Now...can anyone pencil in the lines, from the southeast window, to make the WC theory work?

[Mark Knight]

...anyone...?????

[Thomas H. Purvis]

...anyone...?????

NOPE!

However, virtually anyone can produce additional drawings (as did the HSCA) in attempt to explain everything from the problems of the cross-angle of fire, to the anomalies of the "abrasion collar".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory

Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to ask exactly why would JFK be leaning so far forward at the time of the first shot impact, just as with HSCA Exhibit#144, no one bothered to ask exactly why JBC would be leaned far to his left and turned far to his right before any shot had been fired.

A whole lot of intelligent (as well as ignorant) persons have accepted such drawings as if there was some factual basis in them.

Tom

P.S. Hope they wait a couple of more months before laying off those postal workers.

Personally, I am doing what little I can to protect their continued employment.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Try though I may, I'm having trouble lining things up in the matter of bullet trajectory and the JFK assassination.

In the presidential limousine, the jump seat upon which Connally sat [i believe I spelled his name correctly--this is, of course, for Mr. Phelps, for whom accuracy of detai apparently doesn't matter] is positioned slightly inboard from the position of JFK in the corner of the back seat. So I address this question to folks such as Mr. Von Pein, who conclude that the Warren Commission essentially got it right:

Since the curvature on Elm Street is right-to-left, until the point where Elm then turns left-to right to enter the teiple overpass, how could a bullet that was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD--presumably at a slight left-to-right angle--have suddenly made a left turn, and have ended up going slightly right-to-left to wound Connaly? I might find it more believable if the shot had been made from the southWEST corner of the TSBD...but I just dont see it happening from the southEAST window, unless the limo made a sudden lurch toward the RIGHT curb--which the z-film does NOT indicate--and thereby put Connally in line with JFK from the southeast window.

It may be argued that the limo approached the right curb DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the TSBD, in its turn from Houston onto Elm...but this is, relatively speaking, several LONG seconds before someone in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD would've been able to fire at JFK's back.

Now, addressing Tom Purvis' explanation of the 3rd shot--which I believe offers a more plausible explanation of Connally's wounds--I find I also have the same probelm with Tom's proposed trajectory from the southeast window. Even if Greer steered the limo slightly right as he turned to ook into the back seat as the 3rd shot was fired, I find the angle of trajectory, left-to-right, easier to believe if the sniper was shooting from the southWEST window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. In fact, the ONLY time the proposed left-to right trajectory lines up inside the limo is as the limo turns right to go under the triple overpass...long after what EVERYONE agrees was the point of the last shot.

So can someone expain to me exactly how this works, and how you can get a bullet to make a left turn after it's fired? Might come in handy in my deer hunting to know how to do that [just joking on that last part]. And to Mr.Von Pein: Please confine your answer to any FACTS you can find, and leave the ridicule out. Unlike you, I came into the JFK assassination discussion with an open mind. I'm swayed by facts and evidence, not coulda-woulda-must've stuff. I believe that JFK was shot by an assassin on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. I believe that LHO may have had opportunity to pull the trigger. BUT I'm not yet convinced that LHO was the ONLY prson who had opportunity to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and after seeing all the evidence I have seen on bullet trajectories [suggested and otherwise], I'm not so sure that the southeast window "sniper's nest" wasn't set up as a ruse, when the actual shots more likely might've been fired from the southWEST window.

So pull out your FACTS and convince me...anyone who has 'em. Show me how, when the line of sight from the supposed "sniper's nest" to the target is slightly left-to-right, the bullet traveled right-to-left once they arrived at the limo. I just can't see the logic in that...somehow.

The majority of your questions will be answered in the next publishing of The George County Times.

Which, will be on the stand Wednesday evening.

Tom

[Mark Wengler]

Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.

So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.

[Mark Knight]

Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.

So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.

[Robert Harris]

...anyone...?????

This illustration compares the trajectory from the alleged sniper's nest with a trajectory from a third floor window in the Daltex.

And this video discusses the possibility that the early shots were fired from that window,

Edited December 14, 2011 by Robert Harris

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.

So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.

Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from????

The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others.

However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was.

In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs.

Tom

P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized.

[Mark Knight]

Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.

So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.

Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from????

The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others.

However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was.

In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs.

Tom

P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized.

And somewhere in the dim, dark and dank recesses of my memory, I believe that someone at one time or another may have raised the point that the possibility exists that LHO may have been LEFT-eye dominant...meaning that the "high and to the right" orientation of the scope may not have applied to a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye. Notice just HOW FAR to the left the scope on the Carcano is mounted...for a shooter with a dominant RIGHT eye, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to shoot with any degree of accuracy. But a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye suddenly makes the scope orientation make MUCH more sense.

Too late now to confirm whether LHO had a dominant left eye, of course...but that WOULD answer a lot of questions about the scope.

[Mark Wengler]

I have had 13 years experience with the Carcano be caused i owned one at one time and it was set up just like Oswald's.

I did my best to set the scope on my rifle to be just like Oswald's on Nov 22.

But if you look at the reenactments that have been done they show the shooters using the scope to do the shooting but was any done using the iron sights in any of the test?

[Mark Knight]

I have had 13 years experience with the Carcano be caused i owned one at one time and it was set up just like Oswald's.

I did my best to set the scope on my rifle to be just like Oswald's on Nov 22.

But if you look at the reenactments that have been done they show the shooters using the scope to do the shooting but was any done using the iron sights in any of the test?

Doesn't really matter...with the same rifle from the same position, the view would've been almost identical...just a "pumpkin on a post" in the field of view instead of crosshairs. Nothing else changes.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Another thing is not address is the fact that telescope on the rifle was misaligned.

So if Oswald was using it to shoot President Kennedy he would have missed altogether.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.

Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from????

The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others.

However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was.

In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs.

Tom

P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized.

And somewhere in the dim, dark and dank recesses of my memory, I believe that someone at one time or another may have raised the point that the possibility exists that LHO may have been LEFT-eye dominant...meaning that the "high and to the right" orientation of the scope may not have applied to a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye. Notice just HOW FAR to the left the scope on the Carcano is mounted...for a shooter with a dominant RIGHT eye, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to shoot with any degree of accuracy. But a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye suddenly makes the scope orientation make MUCH more sense.

Too late now to confirm whether LHO had a dominant left eye, of course...but that WOULD answer a lot of questions about the scope.

Having dug deeply into LHO's family background, I am personally convinced that he was in fact one of those "left eye dominant" persons, just as was my father.

More of those things which we will never know for certain, just as we will not know if he was in fact left-handed and became right-handed through the influence of his mother and others to change this trait.

The issue of the "scope mis-alignment" is a mute item which will continue to be an argumentative item forever.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I have had 13 years experience with the Carcano be caused i owned one at one time and it was set up just like Oswald's.

I did my best to set the scope on my rifle to be just like Oswald's on Nov 22.

But if you look at the reenactments that have been done they show the shooters using the scope to do the shooting but was any done using the iron sights in any of the test?

Doesn't really matter...with the same rifle from the same position, the view would've been almost identical...just a "pumpkin on a post" in the field of view instead of crosshairs. Nothing else changes.

For the record!

The Model 91/38 Short Rifle had "non-adjustable" sighting as the front sight and the rear sight were absolutely "fixed" and could not be adjusted.

The weapon was factory "Zeroed" utilizing these fixed sights.

Therefore: If one could take up an absolutely perfect sighting picture, identical to what is established in the factory "ZERO" process, then they would hit exactly where the sights demonstrated, each and every time, at the ZERO range.

However, we are of the human species, with each of us having different lengths of arms, etc.

Therefore we differ among each other as to exactly how we hold a rifle, and even the same person, without extensive training, will take up a slightly different sight picture each and every time that we fire the rifle.

Now!

The M1-Garand, which LHO qualified with, has an adjustable rear sight which is set initially at the factory ZERO range for the weapon.

Again, for the ZERO Range, if one establishes a perfect sight picture each and every time they fire the weapon, they will have a virtually perfect shot grouping.

But! Being humans, the US was smart enough to compensate for the human error by maintaining an adjustable rear sight.

Therefore, it one will look into LHO's Rangefire qualification records they will find that LHO actually had a relatively poor sighting alignment, and he had to make considerable adjustment to the rear sight (in elevation as well as windage) in order to merely make the weapon shoot where he was looking.

This is commonly known as your individual "ZERO" as the adjustments made to the rear sight are done so in order to compensate for the inaccuracies in sighting which are injected into the targeting by the specific individual and how he holds and aims the weapon.