Oswald's Alleged Shooting Accuracy Versus The Experts?

[Ron Bulman]

Nelson Delgado on Oswald and Maggie's Drawers.

Oswald A Poor Shot? (tripod.com)

I especially like the statement of Sherman Cooley.  "If I had to pick one man in the United States to shoot me I'd pick Oswald.  I saw the man shoot.  There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas".

Edited July 23, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Pat.

Allen that is correct about Hathcock.

He ran a SWAT team obstacle course. And he said they set up everything to a T.  Still could not do it. 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But he was (according to his actual MC records rather than anecdotal reports) a "competent" marksman.

I have no idea, but I’m assuming the MC target scores are something like free throw percentage as an actual measure of shooting ability in the NBA.

For an analogy, let’s say Oswald is just below the league average and shoots free throws at about 70%. The WC scenario is akin to Oswald nailing a fade-away three point shot at the buzzer to win the NBA championship after a multi-year hiatus. Is his FT% really an accurate predictor of his ability to pull off such a feat? Of course not.

Oswald was never trained, nor tested, on anything remotely approaching the WC shooting scenario. The only way to get meaningful data would be to take a large sampling of Marines, test them on the MC target test, and test them all again years later under simulated conditions of Dealey Plaza and try to find a correlation.

My long-winded point here is that the CBS tests are almost certainly an overestimation of Oswald’s odds, and that MC test scores almost certainly have a highly non-linear relationship to true shooting skill. In other words, calling Oswald a “competent marksman” is literally meaningless in the context of the JFK shooting. 

[Pat Speer]

43 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I have no idea, but I’m assuming the MC target scores are something like free throw percentage as an actual measure of shooting ability in the NBA.

For an analogy, let’s say Oswald is just below the league average and shoots free throws at about 70%. The WC scenario is akin to Oswald nailing a fade-away three point shot at the buzzer to win the NBA championship after a multi-year hiatus. Is his FT% really an accurate predictor of his ability to pull off such a feat? Of course not.

Oswald was never trained, nor tested, on anything remotely approaching the WC shooting scenario. The only way to get meaningful data would be to take a large sampling of Marines, test them on the MC target test, and test them all again years later under simulated conditions of Dealey Plaza and try to find a correlation.

My long-winded point here is that the CBS tests are almost certainly an overestimation of Oswald’s odds, and that MC test scores almost certainly have a highly non-linear relationship to true shooting skill. In other words, calling Oswald a “competent marksman” is literally meaningless in the context of the JFK shooting. 

You are correct, Tom. You can not say it would have been impossible for Oswald to have performed the shooting all by his lonesome, but the record is quite clear that it would have been highly unlikely. That's why Libeler's memo is so valuable. He knew this for a fact and alerted this to his superiors and they blew him off because the commissioners wanted to say the shots were no big deal. 

In chapter 4g I discuss numerous books and articles on sniping and numerous simulations attempted by the WC and various TV networks. And it's clear that for one person to have pulled off the shots with that rifle he would have to been well-practiced with that rifle. This was something, moreover, that even the WC determined was not true. 

So most LNs chose to fib about the evidence. They would be better off, IMO, taking Liebeler's advice and insist instead that the dude just got "lucky". 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Joe Bauer]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's actually FAR WORSE than that. You see, CBS counted any strike on the FBI silhouettes used as targets--even those far down the back, or out on the shoulders--as a hit. This, in effect, tripled or quadrupled the size of the target for their shooters, in comparison to the small area on the back and head purportedly hit by Oswald. It seems clear then that, of the 60 shots total, and 25 hits, no more than 9 hit the target in the small central area purportedly hit by Oswald, not once but twice. This, then, suggests that, even IF Oswald was a well-practiced shooter, and even IF his rifle were in optimal condition, and even IF he had been provided NINE practice shots, the odds of his hitting the small area he supposedly hit from the sniper's nest on any given shot were less than 1 in 6, and of his hitting this area 2 of 3 times something like 1 in 16.

In other words, Oswald's purported feat was highly unlikely...

If the trained shooters target was only 10 inches wide and 8 inches high and moving as much as Kennedy was in his limo and his upper body slump toward Jackie...the bullseye results would have been almost zero.

[Joe Bauer]

9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Which tests are you referring to?

I believe it was the CBS testing.

[Joe Bauer]

I'm only concerned with the head shot.

At almost a football field length away, move a 10 inch square or round target continuously farther away and from right to left right as you are lining up your scope view and actual shot and see what happens. 

Any bullseye in that moving 10 inch circle with one shot would be beyond even luck imo.

Whoever took that shot was also willing to risk taking Jackie Kennedy's head off as well, considering her face was mere inches away from JFK's when the head shot exploded it wide open.

Just one slight aiming mistake and Jackie's brains could have been obliterated like her husbands.

Whoever took that Jackie risking shot must have been one cold blooded MFer.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I'm only concerned with the head shot.

At almost a football field length away, move a 10 inch square or round target continuously farther away and once from right to left right as you are lining up your scope view and actual shot and see what happens. 

Any bullseye in that moving 10 inch circle with one shot would be beyond even luck imo.

Whoever took that shot was also willing to risk taking Jackie Kennedy's head off as well, considering her face was mere inches away from JFK's head when the head shot exploded it wide open.

Just one slight aiming mistake and Jackies brains could have been obliterated.

Whoever took that Jackie risking shot must have been one cold blooded MFer.

If you're primarily interested in the third shot (presumed to have been the head shot), here are the test results for the Army's test shooters as published by the WC. (Note that I have added two red stars noting the location of the back wound and EOP entrance wound on the target. This shows that both of these shots hit closer to the center of the target than any of the third shots fired by the Army's test shooters. Well, this right here should have been enough to force the WC to re-think their conclusions, or at least call for more tests. But, alas, they weren't interested in what really happened, were they? 

[James DiEugenio]

Brian Edwards was a police sniper and member of a SWAT team. 

He also testified in court many, many times. Which is why he is in the film.

Like Hathcock and Craig Roberts, he said about the Dealey Plaza shooting exhibition: Nope.

He said that a low to high shot is usually the hardest type.  He then added that you are always going to be high with that first shot.

And BTW, no one has mentioned the fact that Frazier said the rifle sighting was off.  And that this was simply inherent with that particular rifle.  It could not really be fixed.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you're primarily interested in the third shot (presumed to have been the head shot), here are the test results for the Army's test shooters as published by the WC. (Note that I have added two red stars noting the location of the back wound and EOP entrance wound on the target. This shows that both of these shots hit closer to the center of the target than any of the third shots fired by the Army's test shooters. Well, this right here should have been enough to force the WC to re-think their conclusions, or at least call for more tests. But, alas, they weren't interested in what really happened, were they? 

Powerful.

[James DiEugenio]

I found it in Epstein's Inquest, as excerpted in The Assassination Chronicles.

All of Frazier's shots were about five inches high and five inches to the right of the aiming point.  Frazier explained in his testimony that the inaccuracy was due to an uncorrectable mechanical deficiency in the telescopic sights. (p. 148)

In other words, with this rifle, you would inherently be a total of ten inches off by using the scope.

I would say that when that is factored in, plus all the other things we mentioned here, not only could Oswald not have done that shooting, its just about certain that no one could.

[Tom Gram]

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I found it in Epstein's Inquest, as excerpted in The Assassination Chronicles.

All of Frazier's shots were about five inches high and five inches to the right of the aiming point.  Frazier explained in his testimony that the inaccuracy was due to an uncorrectable mechanical deficiency in the telescopic sights. (p. 148)

In other words, with this rifle, you would inherently be a total of ten inches off by using the scope.

I would say that when that is factored in, plus all the other things we mentioned here, not only could Oswald not have done that shooting, its just about certain that no one could.

Didn’t the WC try to claim that the scope defect would have made it easier for Oswald to hit the target, since he wouldn’t have to lead as much? That’s a pretty desperate excuse if I ever heard one. 

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, I think they did say that.

LOL.  😚

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I found it in Epstein's Inquest, as excerpted in The Assassination Chronicles.

All of Frazier's shots were about five inches high and five inches to the right of the aiming point.  Frazier explained in his testimony that the inaccuracy was due to an uncorrectable mechanical deficiency in the telescopic sights. (p. 148)

In other words, with this rifle, you would inherently be a total of ten inches off by using the scope.

I would say that when that is factored in, plus all the other things we mentioned here, not only could Oswald not have done that shooting, its just about certain that no one could.

I have a lot on Frazier's testimony in Chapter 3 at patspeer.com.

Let's start with this.

 

[James DiEugenio]

That's rich Pat.

The faster, the worse it got.

Oh man the Warren Commission was a travesty.

Edited July 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio