The best article I have seen all these many weeks

[Vince Palamara]

http://www.sott.net/article/269016-Gerald-Blaine-and-the-Kennedy-Detail-Was-the-Secret-Service-Stood-Down-in-Dallas#comment93889

[Chris Newton]

Vince,

The very first image posted in that article (showing the the SS photoshopped onto the Limo) should be enough evidence to ANYONE who has ever fired a rifle at a moving target that the "Lone Nut" theory is impossible.

Reasoning:

Imagine using the iron sights and ignoring the side mounted scope… the target (Kennedy's head) is incredibly small moving downward and away and probably has some unpredictable lateral movement… the head shot is, for all intents, impossible.

Oh, he used the side mounted scope, you say?

Here's the reason why that's even more unlikely... scopes are NOT normally side mounted…. If side mounted, the scope and the barrel can only be "zeroed" to one fixed point at one pre-determined distance.

Why is that?

Draw two lines, each extending from the scope and the barrel to infinity. They will cross at only one place (and only if you've spent HOURS at the range preparing). This is the "zero" point. At no other distance will they cross, hence at no other distance will the gun hit the target in the crosshairs at the aim point.

In 1963 there was no way to determine the targets exact range from the shooter, so there's no way to know when to fire. Add crosswind, lead, the downward slope, which all affect trajectory and you've created an impossibility.

If they had found a Springfield '03 with a top mounted scope, the mainstay of Marine Sniper's, my argument would be very weak. The Carcano, as configured, was a stupid weapon to use as a "plant".

[Blair Dobson]

" Here's the reason why that's even more unlikely... scopes are NOT normally side mounted…. If side mounted, the scope and the barrel can only be "zeroed" to one fixed point at one pre-determined distance.

Why is that?"

parallax: the train would have to get thinner as it rolled down that track.

but hey, Davis Von Pain can replicate that shot..so it ain't impossible. He does this on weekends for his friends all the time from a Houlie high reach with a couple of watermellons tied to daschunds...

and Vince,

yeah. having one guy waived off the side and the two guys waived off the back of the limo plus the bike cops told to hold back..that in itself it pretty telling stuff.

[Blair Dobson]

oh yeah...another thing...

if the SS men WERE on the bumper and the side runners that day, the easiest shot is still the "straight on" shot..before the hairpin...

right

in

the

forehead.

missed?

right

down

the

top

of

his

head!

that would also give him more time to miss.

if MY mission was to make sure he was dog food all over the inside of that car, that is the shot I would take.

why wait till the deer is running away when he is staring directly at you?

ask a hunter...no one likes to shoot a buck in the butt..

[Robert Prudhomme]

Vince,

The very first image posted in that article (showing the the SS photoshopped onto the Limo) should be enough evidence to ANYONE who has ever fired a rifle at a moving target that the "Lone Nut" theory is impossible.

Reasoning:

Imagine using the iron sights and ignoring the side mounted scope… the target (Kennedy's head) is incredibly small moving downward and away and probably has some unpredictable lateral movement… the head shot is, for all intents, impossible.

Oh, he used the side mounted scope, you say?

Here's the reason why that's even more unlikely... scopes are NOT normally side mounted…. If side mounted, the scope and the barrel can only be "zeroed" to one fixed point at one pre-determined distance.

Why is that?

Draw two lines, each extending from the scope and the barrel to infinity. They will cross at only one place (and only if you've spent HOURS at the range preparing). This is the "zero" point. At no other distance will they cross, hence at no other distance will the gun hit the target in the crosshairs at the aim point.

In 1963 there was no way to determine the targets exact range from the shooter, so there's no way to know when to fire. Add crosswind, lead, the downward slope, which all affect trajectory and you've created an impossibility.

If they had found a Springfield '03 with a top mounted scope, the mainstay of Marine Sniper's, my argument would be very weak. The Carcano, as configured, was a stupid weapon to use as a "plant".

Hello Chris

FINALLY!!!! I have come across another person on these JFK forums, beside myself, who understands the difficulty of side mounting a scope onto a rifle. You are bang on! If the scope's line of sight is offset from the barrel's line of sight, the line of sight and the path of the bullet will ONLY cross at one point in space, unlike a scope mounted directly over a barrel.

Another thing no one seems to appreciate, and with which I have personal experience, is just how insane a venture sighting in a side mounted scope at a range can be. Years ago, a friend of mine decided he just had to have a scope on his Winchester Model 94 .30-.30 lever action rifle. Why he wanted to put a scope on such a handy little bush rifle was beyond my grasp but, he was set in his ways and, being a friend, I had no choice but to help him out. Of course, as the Model 94 ejects its empty shells upwards, a scope cannot be mounted in the typical fashion and he had to have the gunsmith mount it on the left side of the chamber.

We literally spent hours sighting that stupid thing in (most of it spent waiting for the light barrel to cool down between shooting groups of three bullets) and at least two or three boxes of cartridges trying to get that rifle to hit a bullseye at 100 yards. Every adjustment we made seemed to be either too much or too little. Of course, it did not help that the Model 94 is a very light rifle and really likes to kick and jump up when you shoot it.

Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Oswald, who there is no proof had sniper training, or ever owned another rifle with a scope or, for that matter, there is any evidence he had more than minimal experience hunting, could have sighted in the Model 38/91 Carcano with the side mounted scope.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Chris Newton]

Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Oswald, who there is no proof had sniper training, or ever owned another rifle with a scope or, for that matter, there is any evidence he had more than minimal experience hunting, could have sighted in the Model 38/91 Carcano with the side mounted scope.

Thank you Robert and I agree 100%.

Regardless of the bravado I hear from my Marine brothers, being a Marine does not make one an expert shot. They are a cross section of society and possess all kinds of different proficiencies with weapons just as I observed in the Army. I'd also like to point out that in peacetime, most services and military specialties only require annual qualification with the soldiers personal weapon. Although I had grown up in a family of hunters and sportsmen, I had never fired a handgun until I joined the service and as a tanker my personal weapon was .45 which I qualified as "expert" in Basic the very first time I fired it. That particular qualification was the "Official" qualification that determined what badge I wore on my uniform for the rest of my military career whether subsequent qualifications were "expert" or not.

I have no idea what Oswald's personal weapon was as a radar operator. Does anyone know?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Chris Newton

[Paul Brancato]

My take on this is that agents riding on the back of the presidential limo would not have saved his life. The shots that killed JFK, the first in the throat (that projectile never surfaced), and the shot to the head, came from somewhere in front and to the side, not from the rear.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Oswald, who there is no proof had sniper training, or ever owned another rifle with a scope or, for that matter, there is any evidence he had more than minimal experience hunting, could have sighted in the Model 38/91 Carcano with the side mounted scope.

Thank you Robert and I agree 100%.

Regardless of the bravado I hear from my Marine brothers, being a Marine does not make one an expert shot. They are a cross section of society and possess all kinds of different proficiencies with weapons just as I observed in the Army. I'd also like to point out that in peacetime, most services and military specialties only require annual qualification with the soldiers personal weapon. Although I had grown up in a family of hunters and sportsmen, I had never fired a handgun until I joined the service and as a tanker my personal weapon was .45 which I qualified as "expert" in Basic the very first time I fired it. That particular qualification was the "Official" qualification that determined what badge I wore on my uniform for the rest of my military career whether subsequent qualifications were "expert" or not.

I have no idea what Oswald's personal weapon was as a radar operator. Does anyone know?

I'll bet you a dollar (US of course, ours is only worth 95 cents) Oswald's personal weapon was not a bolt action rifle with a side mounted scope.

[David G. Healy]

Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Oswald, who there is no proof had sniper training, or ever owned another rifle with a scope or, for that matter, there is any evidence he had more than minimal experience hunting, could have sighted in the Model 38/91 Carcano with the side mounted scope.

...

I have no idea what Oswald's personal weapon was as a radar operator. Does anyone know?

probably the M1 Garand

[Blair Dobson]

My take on this is that agents riding on the back of the presidential limo would not have saved his life. The shots that killed JFK, the first in the throat (that projectile never surfaced), and the shot to the head, came from somewhere in front and to the side, not from the rear.

yes but agents on the side runners and bike cops in front would have prevented the front shots..or at least made them more difficult.

either way, that fish was delivered in a barrel that day

Edited November 23, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi David

Yes, it was likely an M1 Garand. Did you know that the 6.5mm Carcano and the M1 Garand share a couple of interesting features?

Both require a scope to be side mounted on the left side; the Carcano because of interference from the bolt and the Garand because it ejects empty cartridges upwards and to the right.

Both rifles employ an "en bloc" charger clip to hold cartridges; six round for the Carcano and eight for the Garand. In the Carcano, the clip falls out the bottom of the magazine when the last round is chambered. In the Garand, the clip is ejected upwards when the last round is fired.