Oswald's Alleged Shooting Accuracy Versus The Experts?

[Joe Bauer]

18 hours 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.

Exactly.

 

[Ron Ege]

All this, without even mentioning the added problem of reacquiring the target (JFK) through the misaligned scope, after working the somewhat stubborn bolt.  Ever look at something through binoculars, move off the "target" just a wee bit and then attempt to very quickly reacquire it?  Expert sniper, perhaps.  LHO, hardly likely.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

All this, without even mentioning the added problem of reacquiring the target (JFK) through the misaligned scope, after working the somewhat stubborn bolt.  Ever look at something through binoculars, move off the "target" just a wee bit and then attempt to very quickly reacquire it?  Expert sniper, perhaps.  LHO, hardly likely.

Exactly.

[Karl Hilliard]

The most common argument that I see that tries to support the lone assassin narrative is that--- said gunman merely ignored the 4X scope and just used the iron sights ignoring the obvious observation...Why knowingly assemble a wonky scope in the first place...that is..if the intention is to utilize the mounted sight? Does any of this make sense?

[Pat Speer]

6 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

The most common argument that I see that tries to support the lone assassin narrative is that--- said gunman merely ignored the 4X scope and just used the iron sights ignoring the obvious observation...Why knowingly assemble a wonky scope in the first place...that is..if the intention is to utilize the mounted sight? Does any of this make sense?

Well, one scenario is that Oswald bought the rifle with the scope on it, and that one of the actual snipers used his weapon to implicate him in the crime. With considerable practice, a top shooter could learn to fire that weapon accurately enough. But this was almost certainly not Oswald. There was basically no evidence he'd ever practiced firing live ammunition with that weapon, and the WC's favored scenario--with the rifle being in the Paine's garage until the morning of the shooting--ruled out that he'd had any practice in the weeks leading up to the shooting. 

While not a shooter myself, I've talked with plenty and have read a number of books and articles on shooting. And the takeaway is that the sniping literature is consistent in that the shooting scenario proposed by the WC--that Oswald after having not fired his rifle in some time if at all 1) dismantled it, 2) carried it to work, 3) re-assembled it with a dime, and 4) hit two of three shots rapid fire on a moving target while firing cold, is highly unlikely. Incredibly unlikely. Heck, even those who said Oswald did the shooting, such as John Lattimer, insisted that Oswald must have had far more practice with that rifle than the WC uncovered. In short, the scenario proposed by the WC is unthinkable to anyone who knows about shooting, and LNs should acknowledge this fact if they wish to have any credibility. . 

[James DiEugenio]

The hunters I have talked to say what Ron Ege states.

Look, with that kind of rifle, once the first shot is off you have to realign the target, or why have the scope at all?

You have to wait for the scope to stop vibrating, and then line up the crosshairs again.

Frazier said this would take one second, I think it would take a bit more than that.

But the whole charade about just firing the rifle as fast as you can to show it can be done, that is just malarkey.

 

[Karl Hilliard]

The House Select Committee essentially rubber stamped the Warren Report even utilizing the same verbosity "...might have..could have...possibly..." etc.----
 

Quote

 

The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. ¹ The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. This second bullet caused a massive wound to the President's head upon exit. There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head,(19) and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. Because this conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the backward motion of the President's head in the Zapruder film, the committee consulted a wound ballistics expert to determine what relationship, if any, exists between the direction from which a bullet strikes the head and subse-

¹In many of its conclusions, the forensic pathology panel voted 8 to 1, with the dissenting vote being consistently that of Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. In all references to conclusions of the panel, unless it is specifically stated that it was unanimous, it should be assumed that Dr. Wecht dissented.

Page 44

quent head movement. (20) The expert concluded that nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear.(21) He demonstrated the phenomenon in a filmed experiment which involved the shooting of goats. (22) Thus, the committee determined that the rearward movement of the President's head would not be fundamentally inconsistent with a bullet striking from the rear.(23)

The forensic pathology panel determined that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet from the rear, one that entered just below the right armpit and exited below the right nipple of the chest. It then shattered the radius bone of the Governor's right wrist and caused a superficial wound to the left thigh. (24) Based on its examination of the nature and alinement of the Governor's wounds, the panel concluded that they were all caused by a single bullet that came from the rear. It concluded further that, having caused the Governor's wounds, the bullet was dislodged from his left thigh.

The panel determined that the nature of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally was consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all of the Governor's wounds.

 

Read further...  https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

 

Is there not a contradiction here?-----

Quote

 

...Connally was seriously wounded while riding in President Kennedy's car at Dealey Plaza in Dallas when the president was assassinated. Connally, .... recalled hearing the first shot, which he immediately recognized as a rifle shot. He said that he immediately feared an assassination attempt and turned to his right to look back to see the president. He looked over his right shoulder but did not catch the president out of the corner of his eye, so he said he began to turn back to look to his left when he felt a forceful impact to his back..." He looked down and saw that his chest was covered with blood and thought he had been fatally shot. Then he heard the third and final shot, which sprayed blood and brain tissue on the car's passengers.^[19] Connally suffered a fracture of the fifth rib, a punctured lung, a shattered wrist, and had a bullet lodged in his leg.^[20]

  In testimony before the Warren Commission Connally said that it had seemed that there were either two or three people involved, or more, in this – or that someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.^[22]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connally#Quotes

 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Karl Hilliard said:

The most common argument that I see that tries to support the lone assassin narrative is that--- said gunman merely ignored the 4X scope and just used the iron sights ignoring the obvious observation...Why knowingly assemble a wonky scope in the first place...that is..if the intention is to utilize the mounted sight? Does any of this make sense?

The 6th floor found rifle had a scope attached.

Wouldn't the mounted scope block or hinder the use of the iron site?

Edited July 24, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Mark Knight]

8 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

The 6th floor found rifle had a scope attached.

Wouldn't the mounted scope block or hinder the use of the iron site?

Not necessarily. That particular sight mount offset the scope to the left of the barrel/action, leaving the iron sights unimpaired. The particular mount would have been GREAT for a shooter who was left-eye dominant...and not so good for anyone else.

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Not necessarily. That particular sight mount offset the scope to the left of the barrel/action, leaving the iron sights unimpaired. The particular mount would have been GREAT for a shooter who was left-eye dominant...and not so good for anyone else.

I see.

[James DiEugenio]

Mark:

But that is not true of LHO is it?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mark:

But that is not true of LHO is it?

Not to pre-empt Mark's answer, but when I was looking into all things sniping and shooting I discovered that the Marines were very keen to spot right-handed shooters who were left-eye dominant and re-train them to shoot left-handed. Oswald fired right-handed while in the Marines. So if he was left-eye dominant it went unnoticed.by the people whose job it was to notice such things. 

[Mark Knight]

Tom Purvis and I pursued this, but we could find no evidence that Oswald was left-eye dominant.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks to you both, that is what I thought.

Let me add, IMO, this is some of the most powerful evidence for Oswald's innocence. And I have always felt that way.

When you have Hathcock, Brian Edwards and Craig Roberts all saying that no it could not be done.  And then you have all the technical problems with that particular piece of junk, I mean,  rifle?

I mean please.

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks to you both, that is what I thought.

Let me add, IMO, this is some of the most powerful evidence for Oswald's innocence. And I have always felt that way.

When you have Hathcock, Brian Edwards and Craig Roberts all saying that no it could not be done.  And then you have all the technical problems with that particular piece of junk, I mean,  rifle?

I mean please.

From reading a jillion pages on this stuff, and watching the various re-enactments, it's clear that a well-practiced shooter could hit any individual shot, even with that rifle. But hitting two of three rapid fire while the target was moving is highly unlikely, particularly when you consider what the commission presented--that Oswald had put the rifle together with a dime and hadn't practiced in months, if at all. It's a fairy tale.

I suppose a good analogy would be a 180 average bowler (who was, 6 years earlier, a 200 average bowler) who hadn't bowled in months, walking onto a lane and firing twelve random balls without any warm-up, and bowling 300. It's possible. But one in a million, if that.