Destroying the WC Lies --- An Easy Shot ? ( video )

[Gil Jesus]

The Commission agrees with the testimony of Marine marksmanship expert Zahm that it was "an easy shot" to hit some part of the President's body, and that the range where the rifleman would be expected to hit would include the President's head. ( Report, pg. 195 )

a video by Gil Jesus ( 2022 )

 

The Secret Service couldn't even keep the crosshairs of the scope on the stand-in's body. Some easy shot.
 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/an-easy-shot.mp4

Edited January 4, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[David Andrews]

What were the shooter qualifications of the camera man?

Is it easier to acquire and hold the target without the camera?

[Pat Speer]

Yep. There are a lot of myths about the difficulty of the shooting. Yet another one is the contention the shots were made easier due to the sniper's sitting on a box and using another box to support the rifle. This is phony baloney. For one, the Marines did not train people to shoot while sitting on a box. It's doubtful Oswald would have even attempted such a thing. And for two, the use of a cardboard box for support is a bozo no-no according to the Marine Guidebook. You might use a support to steady your arm but not to steady the rifle itself, which is not supposed to touch anything. So... the "scar" on Box A supposedly caused by the rifle during the shooting is not evidence for Oswald's guilt at all. It actually suggests his innocence. 

[Micah Mileto]

58 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yep. There are a lot of myths about the difficulty of the shooting. Yet another one is the contention the shots were made easier due to the sniper's sitting on a box and using another box to support the rifle. This is phony baloney. For one, the Marines did not train people to shoot while sitting on a box. It's doubtful Oswald would have even attempted such a thing. And for two, the use of a cardboard box for support is a bozo no-no according to the Marine Guidebook. You might use a support to steady your arm but not to steady the rifle itself, which is not supposed to touch anything. So... the "scar" on Box A supposedly caused by the rifle during the shooting is not evidence for Oswald's guilt at all. It actually suggests his innocence. 

No gunshot residue known to be on the boxes, right? And the boxes nearest the window no longer exist, right? And BTW should there have been the smell of gunpowder in the Sniper's nest?

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

No gunshot residue known to be on the boxes, right? And the boxes nearest the window no longer exist, right? And BTW should there have been the smell of gunpowder in the Sniper's nest?

These aren't the problems to which I was referring. Since the nest behind an open window was not "discovered" for some time after the shooting it is not surprising that no one smelled gunpowder. And since they had witnesses saying shots were fired from the window it's not surprising that they failed to look for gunpowder. The boxes are a different story. The supposed rifle rest box is missing in the FBI photos taken on the day after the shooting, and a different box was put in its place for the sniper's nest re-enactment photos taken on the 25th. Well, this raises two questions: 1) where was this box from the 23rd to the 25th, and 2) Is it just a coincidence that when this box was sent to Washington on the 26th the FBI found Oswald's prints on the box, but not on either of the 2 boxes photographed by the FBI on the 23rd? It doesn't pass a smell test, IMO.

[Chris Davidson]

The limitations for the WC at extant z313, ballistically speaking:

btw, the slant distance of 258.08ft is approx 7.2ft short.

7.2ft short of extant z313 is extant z301, plotted and posted previously, multiple times.

The reason the WC had to raise the rifle barrel 23.2" above the window sill was for added distance.

Part of that equation(added distance) was leaving the elevation of JFK's wound at 3.27ft(= 10" added in elevation)

More than likely, JFK's head height at extant z312 was 3.54" lower than what it would have been fully upright.

That would be 52.78"(documented previously) - 3.54" = 49.24" = 4.1ft

Of course, with the window opening only being halfway up, a shooter would have to shoot through the window to complete a z313 headshot.

Unless, there were no boxes and the rifle barrel was much closer to the window sill elevation.

What is conveniently left out of the re-enactment are the boxes and any indicator of what the "angle to horizon" really is.

The pylons represented the limo front.

If memory serves me correctly, that would be the equivalent of JFK's position at extant z235, z313 and z353 approx.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Speaking of the window sill elevation and being "boxed in"

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 1/5/2022 at 1:11 AM, Chris Davidson said:

The limitations for the WC at extant z313, ballistically speaking:

btw, the slant distance of 258.08ft is approx 7.2ft short.

7.2ft short of extant z313 is extant z301, plotted and posted previously, multiple times.

The reason the WC had to raise the rifle barrel 23.2" above the window sill was for added distance.

Part of that equation(added distance) was leaving the elevation of JFK's wound at 3.27ft(= 10" added in elevation)

More than likely, JFK's head height at extant z312 was 3.54" lower than what it would have been fully upright.

That would be 52.78"(documented previously) - 3.54" = 49.24" = 4.1ft

Of course, with the window opening only being halfway up, a shooter would have to shoot through the window to complete a z313 headshot.

Unless, there were no boxes and the rifle barrel was much closer to the window sill elevation.

What is conveniently left out of the re-enactment are the boxes and any indicator of what the "angle to horizon" really is.

The pylons represented the limo front.

If memory serves me correctly, that would be the equivalent of JFK's position at extant z235, z313 and z353 approx.

 

 

A few more to help you understand what the ballistic limitations were at extant z313:

[Gil Jesus]

On 22 August 1962, France’s wartime leader Charles de Gaulle survived what would be the most serious of 30 attempts on his life. De Gaulle and his wife, Yvonne, were being driven through a Paris suburb for a flight from Villacoublay military airport, eight miles from the Élysée Palace.

The presidential couple were on their way back to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, their country home about halfway between the French capital and Strasbourg in the east. They were travelling in a black Citroën DS, followed by an escort vehicle and two motorcycle police officers on Triumph bikes.

As the Citroën passed through the southern suburb of Petit-Clamart, a hit squad with machine guns strafed De Gaulle’s vehicle and nearby shops. The president and his wife ducked and escaped unharmed despite the car being hit several times and bullets passing within a few inches of De Gaulle’s head. The president’s car roared away to the airport.

After the ambush, which lasted 45 seconds, investigators picked up a total of 187 bullet casings from the scene.

187 shots and never hit DeGaulle.

And you expect me to believe that one man, who hadn't fired a rifle in 4 years, could take a piece of junk Italian WWII surplus rifle and 20 year old ammunition and hit JFK with 2 out of 3 shots in 5 seconds ?

A feat NEVER duplicated by MASTER riflemen who fired that same weapon ?

ROFLMAO.... No way.

Edited February 12, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Ron Ege]

7 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

On 22 August 1962, France’s wartime leader Charles de Gaulle survived what would be the most serious of 30 attempts on his life. De Gaulle and his wife, Yvonne, were being driven through a Paris suburb for a flight from Villacoublay military airport, eight miles from the Élysée Palace.

The presidential couple were on their way back to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, their country home about halfway between the French capital and Strasbourg in the east. They were travelling in a black Citroën DS, followed by an escort vehicle and two motorcycle police officers on Triumph bikes.

As the Citroën passed through the southern suburb of Petit-Clamart, a hit squad with machine guns strafed De Gaulle’s vehicle and nearby shops. The president and his wife ducked and escaped unharmed despite the car being hit several times and bullets passing within a few inches of De Gaulle’s head. The president’s car roared away to the airport.

After the ambush, which lasted 45 seconds, investigators picked up a total of 187 bullet casings from the scene.

187 shots and never hit DeGaulle.

And you expect me to believe that one man, who hadn't fired a rifle in 4 years, could take a piece of junk Italian WWII surplus rifle and 20 year old ammunition and hit JFK with 2 out of 3 shots in 5 seconds ?

A feat NEVER duplicated by MASTER riflemen who fired that same weapon ?

ROFLMAO.... No way.

Gil, thanks. 

Just a thought, but what you've written is, and this is just me, pretty much seems a non sequitur - re the WR official scenario.  And, making the alleged shots even more unlikely, as everyone is aware,the MC was bolt action, not the semiautomatic rifle that Oswald used whilst in the USMC.   Adding to that, if I am remembering correctly, the MC that Oswald alleged owned had a bolt that was particularly difficult to operate, as testified to by the government experts who fired it.  And, was  not the rifle somewhat "reconditioned" before the tests of it?  Not to mention, a bolt action rifle is harder to reattain the target, subsequent to operating the bolt, compared to semiautomatic rifle.

Also, if recall correctly, in 1956, USMC rifle qualification did not include shooting at moving targets.  Even those here (or elsewhere) with rudimentary knowledge of and/or experience in rifle shooting, I believe, would agree that shooting at a stationary target, versus one moving down and away from the shooter, makes for a bit of an extra task to score a hit.

Not to mention that when one is shooting at a stationary target, one has time to perfect one's aim, before firing.  Has it not been pretty much established that Oswald did not have that kind of time?

The two times in evidence that Oswald did fire a rifle, it was semiautomatic, during his USMC enlistment.  Then he was at a rifle range, under direct supervision to ensure ideal conditions to maximize his probability of qualifying - and after multiple opportunities prior to live fire, to dry fire his rifle in order to perfect his technique.

So, on his first qualification, he scored as a sharpshooter.  The second time, as a marksman.  Not that impressive, considering the training advantages afforded to him by The Corps.  

Then we have the fact that the MC was equipped with a scope and iron sights.  So, which did he use?  Using the scope sure seems like a non-starter, for the reason discussed here, before.  So why leave it on the rifle, in the first place?  

Now we consider that on 11/22/63, Oswald was shooting to kill the POTUS.  Again, just me, unless he were a trained, cold-blooded, professional assassin (have not seen that evidence), one would surmise that he'd be a tad nervous about his self-imposed mission- which, arguably, just might have interfered with him be as successful as he is alleged to have been. 

We all are aware about what Chief Curry said about Oswald "being in that window".  Apparently, that is still a major point of contention here, but unless, only IMO, one invokes some sort of Quasi Monkey Theorem (with the accompanying proof thereof) I cannot buy (in totality) the WR conclusion.

There, in the window, shooting at least one shot (or more) or perhaps just a decoy - conceivable - but even that, on the face of it, appears to lean on the side of "not very likely". 

[Charles Blackmon]

I am beginning to think it really was a false flag operation and somebody on the sixth floor (possibly Oswald) was supposed to take a shot intended to miss. When Oswald realized it turned into the real deal, he knew he was in danger and fled.

If anybody has a more logical theory have at it by all means (except Lone Nut Theory, we are all familiar with it and we don't buy it!) 

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I am beginning to think it really was a false flag operation and somebody on the sixth floor (possibly Oswald) was supposed to take a shot intended to miss. When Oswald realized it turned into the real deal, he knew he was in danger and fled.

If anybody has a more logical theory have at it by all means (except Lone Nut Theory, we are all familiar with it and we don't buy it!) 

I agree with you.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27073-towards-a-simple-plausible-yet-explanatory-conspiracy-theory/

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Charles Blackmon]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I agree with you.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27073-towards-a-simple-plausible-yet-explanatory-conspiracy-theory/

 

And you first postulated this theory so congrats on that.

[Benjamin Cole]

12 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

And you first postulated this theory so congrats on that.

Maybe someone somewhere did that before me. I am not sure. One problem with us JFK researchers is we have been doing this so long we walk over the same ground over and over. 

But thanks for reading what I call "my pet theory." 

 

[Guest]

On 2/12/2023 at 4:18 AM, Gil Jesus said:

And you expect me to believe that one man, who hadn't fired a rifle in 4 years, could take a piece of junk Italian WWII surplus rifle and 20 year old ammunition and hit JFK with 2 out of 3 shots in 5 seconds ?

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette