Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 tom wrote:That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand. The reason for this is quite simple! The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye. There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position. Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed. [...] There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too... FWIW No hits by ejected casings? We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all. Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 That is the second yellow stripe which is down, across the street from, the steps/walkway on which Mr. Hudson was standing.The person to the left, standing on the curb is Mr. James Altgens who fully observed the strike of the third/last/final shot. There is one additional yellow stripe which is approximately 45 feet (center to center) farther down the street. The last yellow stripe is approximately 22 feet (center to center) before reaching the concrete curb inlet cover. See Z435. In it you will see two additional yellow stripes, from Z's perspective, on either side of the tree, one of them between the tree and the Ft Worth Turnpike sign. They are visible but not as clear in adjacent frames, but they do continue almost to - if not all the way to - the bridge.I didn't notice any before Z295 when it appears in front of Mary Moorman's left foot. From Z231 to Z292 there's not much curb showing at all; before that, I noticed no such stripes. If you posit a shooter from the TSBD, presumably SE 6th floor window, it almost seems as if these marks would be useless as that portion of the curb is almost in the line of sight of such a shooter. Perhaps not at the SW corner windows, but most likely from the SE window. I'll check it out when I'm downtown next. It might be helpful if you could email me an overhead view showing where the stripes are ...? The "range finders" down by the bridge seem totally useless to anyone in TSBD. "Range Markers" Actually, I was aware of one additional yellow mark which was painted onto the same side of Elm St. Mr. West, in his hand written/drawn notes had indicated this mark when he did the survey work for the section of curb on Main St. where the Tague hit had occurred. And in that regard, he drew some lines and distances back across to Elm St. and indicated one of the farther down Elm St. yellow marks. However, he never drew this, or any of the other marks which you have identified onto his Survey Plat. Personally, I had always assumed that this "unplatted" yellow mark had some bearing on the last round which was chambered, yet not fired, due to SS Agent Clint Hill being on the back of the Limousine, as well as Jackie being out on the trunk and blocking the view. All of the now identified yellow marks, merely add to the confirmation that the shooter/ (in all probability LHO), quite probably did not anticipate time for more than 4 shots, and that the last shot was apparantly not taken primarily due to blockage of line-of-sight to the target by Clint Hill and Jackie out on the trunk. As regards the continuation of the yellow marks, as indicated, the Presidential Limousine had just passed it at the time of the head shot at Z313. In that regards, the first shot location is fairly well established as having occurred when JFK was behind the road sign, aka approximately Z210 or so. Under the assumption that the head shot at Z313 was in fact the second shot, ever wonder why someone would sit and wait approximately 5.8 to 5.9 seconds for a second shot? Which just coincidentally matches up with the ranges as established by the yellow mark on the curb! That is the purpose of Range Markers. And, since the third/last/final shot occurred just as JFK approached the second of these yellow markers, (Down by Mr. Altgens), the coincidence is more than convincing to me as an "old" shooter. That there are additional marks on that side of the curb along Elm St, farther down past the position of Mr. Altgens, and that there was a remaining chambered live round, would certainly add to the possibility of this scenario as well. And then, when one adds in that there were absolutely no yellow marks on the other side of Elm St. through the exact same zone of fire for Z313 down and past the concrete steps which lead to the Stockade fence, this becomes extremely curious. And lastly, the "field of fire" as well as line-of-sight from the sixth floor of the TSDB: The "range finders" (range markers) down by the bridge seem totally useless to anyone in TSBD http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0456a.htm From an old shooter's point of view, they would have certainly come in somewhat handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Tom, did you ever analyze the locations of what you believe are range-markers based upon the curvature of the road? Is it possible these yellow marks could have marked where Connally would be least likely to get wounded by a bullet passing through Kennedy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 tom wrote: That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand. The reason for this is quite simple! The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye. There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position. Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed. [...] There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too... FWIW No hits by ejected casings? We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all. Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this?? Tom, sure did, damn hot casings -- had the thing go full auto on me, too -- night fire range... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Thanks to those who have offered their opinions. Tom, your thoughts are appreciated but I really only wanted to determine the skill level which would be required of the team assuming there were three (or more) shooters. Lee, the link is interesting. It's hard to disagree with the author's choosing the eastern end of the fence as the ideal shooting point. Target is approaching not receeding, it's a flat trajectory so the downward angle allowance becomes unnecessary and the car park and railroad yard deliver the all-important escape route. A trained sniper's opinion. It's still not clear to me the skill level required to accomplish the ambush. Obviously they needed to be experienced shooters but did they need to be world class? Thanks to Pat and Chuck for the input. The JFK assassination was a rare example of a long range execution. Most assassinations have been short range, as far as I'm aware. I think the assassination of Sadat in 1981 was probably mid-range (30 feet or so), ditto for MLK in 1967. It seems to me that the JFK hit would have been the most difficult of these modern assassinations to accomplish with certainty. Of course, the shooters within or on top of the buildings were long range. Shooters located behind the fence or elsewhere much shorter in range. Or to experienced snipers, would all this be considered quite a close range assignment? A minor point: With Sadat, (which by the way has lots of interesting parallels), while starting midrange, at least two of the assassins ended up a couple of meters away pouring bullets in Sadats direction. I'm not sure they could even see him at this point as they reaised their guns over a wall/barrier to fire. Multiple assassins, machine guns, no attempt to 'hide' yet they were still not 100% sure of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Tom, did you ever analyze the locations of what you believe are range-markers based upon the curvature of the road? Is it possible these yellow marks could have marked where Connally would be least likely to get wounded by a bullet passing through Kennedy? The yellow marks on the curb are one of those items which has been kept somewhat in the back of the mind in relationship to the shots fired, the position of the presidential limo/aka JFK, and the number of rounds which were in the carcano (4 with one unfired). Having been aware of the fourth/unplatted yellow mark, this always seemed as quite a coincidence to have four marks and four bullets, with two impacts in the direct vicinity of these yellow marks. Added to this is the unverified account that either Jean Hill or Mary Moorman got some of this paint onto their shoe from standing near/beside/on the Z313 mark, and this would serve to indicate quite fresh paint. In that regards, absolutely no other marks on any side of the street with the exception of the side visible from the sixth floor window; the apparant evenly spacing of the marks, all would appear far to much to be mere coincidence. That the person who reported the yellow paint on the shoes also had no grasp as to the potential which these yellow marks could represent is also potential evidence of the validity of the stated claim regarding the paint on the shoes. Elm St. has a relative degree of curve in it for a considerable distance prior to the first yellow mark, however, there are no marks until after clear line of sight over the top of the live oak tree which is in front of the TSDB, and when added that there are no yellow marks on the curb on the Zapruder/TSDB side of Elm St., this becomes even more of a possible enigma. As regards the alignment of JFK/JBC at these markers, other than verification of the alignment for the three designated impact area, I have done nothing relative to this. As stated, the location of the fourth mark is not platted on the survey chart and is only to be found on hand made notes of Mr. West relative to the Tague curb strike. And, any other marks were not even known of until this discussion, when, as is obvious, additional marks can be seen on that side of Elm St, virtually to the RR Overpass. The single most important aspect of these marks would be the verification relative to the freshness of the paint. If these marks had been painted even a full day prior to the assassination, then the paint should have dried adequately enough not to smear off on persons shoes. If this paint was that fresh, then the coincidental aspect becomes even less likely. Whatever there true purpose, they make excellent range markers for anyone who deemed it necessary to have such items for head-shot accuracy shooting. tom wrote: That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand. The reason for this is quite simple! The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye. There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position. Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed. [...] There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too... FWIW No hits by ejected casings? We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all. Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this?? Tom, sure did, damn hot casings -- had the thing go full auto on me, too -- night fire range... David Well, assuming nothing happened to your vision, and you still have both thumbs intact, one could say that you survived the M1 Garand quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0145a.htm Mr. SIMMONS. Using the 0.7 mil aiming error, the probability of a hit at 175 feet is 0.96; at 240 feet, 0.81; at 270 feet, 0.73. Mr. SIMMONS. I think the movement of the target in this case would have practically no effect on the accuracy of fire, because from the map we are led to believe that the movement was primarily away from the firer, so that the back of the President was fully exposed to the rifleman at all times. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that. Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963. Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here. Mr. McCLOY. It may be received http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0144b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's called "Hide in plain sight"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi Tom, Just out of curiousity - why wouldn't these paint markers have worked for other shooters located in places like the GKS, Pergola, and storm drain, for example? Using Roberdeau's plat, if you draw lines to where he's captured the yellow markings - doesn't seem like they would need to correspond to the TSBD at all? If you draw a straight line from the TSBD window East to z313, for example - it goes nowhere? - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/21stCenturyS...al/message/2366 **NOTE** -- Many people have duplicated the conditions of the JFK assassination and proven that a good rifleman could make the same shots. Many conspiracy theorists point to some statement by an "expert" who claimed that nobody could fire an old Mannlicher Carcano that fast. Whoever made that statement was just full of crap. Two or three years ago at a shooting match in -- Ohio? -- the organizers recreated this scenario with a tower, moving target, and an old Mannlicher-Carcano with a cheap scope. Practically everyone who entered the match did just as well as Oswald and several did better. The top shooter was left-handed -- just like Oswald! Tom, this is evidence? Some guy on Yahoo talking out of his butt? Who doesn't even know in what state this mythical 'shooting match" took place? Who doesn't even know that Oswald shot right-handed? No one has ever duplicated Oswald's purported shooting feat. Ever. No average shot has picked up a bolt-action rifle with a mis-aligned scope for the first time in months and fired 3 shots from elevation at a moving vehicle more than 50 yards away in less than 9 seconds and (according to you) created 3 hits. While some have re-created the shots--hitting a moving target two or three times in a short time span-- none have done so, to my or anyone else who's written on the subject's knowledge, using a defective scope and after not having shot a rifle for months. If your defense of Oswald's shooting ability rests on his having a substantial amount of practice beforehand, you should say so. But you should realize that this is pure conjecture unsubstantiated by any of the accepted facts. Neither the WC nor the HSCA found any credible evidence Oswald had fired any rifle, let alone the assassination rifle, in months. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- using a defective scope ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps it is time that we threw this baby out with the washwater: Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "azimuth" correctin line is the virtical line in the scope which one moves either left or right of center. So, now we find that the "defective scope" could be made to come into alignment for the bench rest/machine test, just that it would have been fully "run out" to one side to do so, and the shim was put in more for convenience than for necessity. This convenience merely equates to a normal shooter initially looks at center of sight picture to find his cross-hair alignment, and had the scope been utilized "as-was", that the cross-hair alignment would have been either far left, or far right of center of the scope picture. There are a variety of items which severely affect the horizontal/azimuth alignment of the scope. 1. In event the scope center line is not running virtually parallel with the barrel, then in many instances, no amount of alignment (left or right) can bring the vertical crosshair into alignment with the flight trajectory of the round. And, even in instances where it can be brought into alignment, prior to the given zero distance as well as past this distance, the inaccuracy is compounded. However, therein lies the basic inconsistancy in all shooting. That being the third point of sighting alignment, which is in fact the position of the eyeball of the shooter and what is referred to as the "Spot Weld" position of the shooters cheek onto the stock of the weapon. Based on physical features of the face (dimensions) as well as arm length for holding the weapon, coupled with the stock position in the shoulder, everyone takes up a slightly different sighting picture. In that regards, based on exactly where my eyeball is placed due to the spot weld of the cheek on the stock, what may be close to alignment of crosshairs with impact for some, may not be for others. This is why we have to "Sight" in weapons. And in that regards, with a fixed front and rear sight weapon such as the 91/38 Carcano (without the scope), the only way to achieve exact accuracy is in changing sight picture/spot weld until the exact accuracy firing position is achieved. There is no correction factors in the fixed sight rifle for what we refer to as "windage"/azimuth or elevation. So, as to left and/or right alignment, the existing scope, without benefit of any shims, would work. And, without any other known factors as relates to LHO's exact shooting position/cheek spot weld alignment, it may have worked even better for him than for others. What many "non-shooters" are not aware of is that in many instances, a person can not seem to compensate correctly for his "human error" of sighting, and with a fixed sight weapon, can't hit xxxx. However, if they install a scope and thereafter run the alignment way over to whichever side their human sighting error causes the problem, then they have in fact corrected for and eliminated their human error of sighting alignment/sight picture by aligning the scope cross-hair to their actual point of impact. This is in fact the most simple form of ZERO for a weapon, and can usually result in getting the weapon accurately sighted (for the individual) in 3 or 4 shots if they know how to proceed with it. In fact, if done correctly, the second shot should usually be almost direct on target. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and one which adjusted an elevation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this regard, Mr. Simmons does not go into great detail, however, if only one shim was required to bring the crosshair alignment to where it was more conveniently in the center of the scope picture, for the vertical/elevation alignment (which is the horizontal line in the scope) then one must assume that the vertical alignment was not as far out for the shooters as was the horizontal/azimuth alignment, which could have been utilized with no shims, yet had two shims placed for sighting conveniency. As with the horizontal/azimuth alignment, sight picture/aka cheek spot well and eyeball alignment to the scope is everything. If one takes a spotweld where the check & eyeball are low on the stock, them they may have to run the horizontal crosshair way down, or vice versa for a sight picture in which the eyeball is placed high on the stock. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The usage of a scope by many persons is due to their poor ability to achieve the necessary and consistant four points of target alignment for accuracy shooting. The eye to the rear sight. The rear sight to the front sight. The front sight to the target. Eye to sight to sight to target. Utilization of a scope can correct for portions of this inability to achieve the necessary sighting picture alignment required for accuracy. Not only does the scope enlarge the target area, but it also deletes one of the fixed sight points of alignment and now cuts down to eye to crosshairs to target. Thus decreasing error. That is why, in the old survey days, the instrument and two poles were always utilized. And, the crosshairs of the scope can be run far to the left and/or right, as well as having considerable vertical adjustments in which one can compensate for poor shooting techniques which can not be corrected with fixed sight weapons or weapons of only limited windage and/or elevation adjustments. Edited February 18, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi Tom,Just out of curiousity - why wouldn't these paint markers have worked for other shooters located in places like the GKS, Pergola, and storm drain, for example? Using Roberdeau's plat, if you draw lines to where he's captured the yellow markings - doesn't seem like they would need to correspond to the TSBD at all? If you draw a straight line from the TSBD window East to z313, for example - it goes nowhere? - lee I take that last comment back. As opposed to lining up with the paint, as the other trajectories seem to do much better, a shot from the TSBD East window to z313 lines up nicely with the strike to the concrete by the manhole - a miss. But there is no yellow paint marker very close to the trajectory? - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Hi Tom,Just out of curiousity - why wouldn't these paint markers have worked for other shooters located in places like the GKS, Pergola, and storm drain, for example? Using Roberdeau's plat, if you draw lines to where he's captured the yellow markings - doesn't seem like they would need to correspond to the TSBD at all? If you draw a straight line from the TSBD window East to z313, for example - it goes nowhere? - lee First, for all of this discussion about "shooters", it would have taken one hell of a shooter with untold experience to make the horizontal travel shot. When shooting birds, either coming into, or preferably going away is the easy shot. Leading a bird on fast reaction shooting when the bird flew laterally across the field of fire has allowed many a dove and quail to live to some other day down here where we started shooting game at/around 6-years of age. So, a horizontal travel shot would be the most difficult to estimate for, as it is difficult to estimate forward speed of vehicle/target, and thus carry the necessary "lead" to insure target hit. And, since the range in a left to right horizontal travel field of fire has little change, then one does not normally require/ need range markers. If shooting "ambush" along a road and/or trail which is running virtually 90 degrees to the line of shot, range markers are seldom considered as one waits, if possible until the target is at the perfect center of the kill zone. A primary principal of range markers is that one must be positioned in such a location as to make observation of the markers easily in view, as well as, if possible to utilize them in assisting in target acquisition. In military usage, it was not uncommon to utilize a different colored ribbon as a "standard" for each range. In that manner, and with proper drilling, blue-ribbon = 200 yards automatically, thus sighting picture for 200 yards. In the case of either horizontal/GK sighting and/or manhole sighting, these yellow markes would serve absolutely no assistance in target acquisition. From the sixth floor window, and the complete distinction between the grass on one side and the curb and street on the other, all that one has to do is find the curb, which is simple with these two contrasting backgrounds, follow the curb down in the sight picture to a yellow mark, move across to center of street, and then wait for the target to arrive. Sighting with a scope has lost many a person in target acquisition, without some form of reference in which to go from easily recognized reference point through the scope, to target/kill zone area. I personally can not think of a better reference locator than the distinctive difference between the green grass and the asphalt street, then one merely has to raise or lower the sighting elevation until a yellow mark is found and recognize which yellow mark it is. Me thinks, with the 5.8 to 5.9 second delay between shot# 1 and shot#2/aka Z313, that the shooter was most probably already sighted onto the center of the street and waiting for the Limo/JFK to drive into the sight picture for the head shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 tom wrote: That being, the US Military forced EVERYONE to shoot right-handed with the M1- Garand. The reason for this is quite simple! The ejection pattern for the shell casing of the M1-Garand, if fired left-handed, would send the hot/expended casing, directly towards the right eye. There are numerous instances of eye injury, and I have one of those "Howell" cousins here, who was actually medically discharged and draws/drew a small disability check due to the injury to his right eye from having shot the M1-Garand from the left-handed position. Therefore, in the US Military, you were forced to shoot the Garand right-handed, irrelevant as to whether you were or were not right handed. [...] There are evidently exceptions to every rule -- Having joined the ARMY -- 18 June, 1962 at Fort Ord, Co. A, 10th Battle Group, 3rd Training Bdge. Our group had the distinction of being the last basic training company to utilize the M-1 Garand as 'the' assigned Basic Training weapon. After our company completed basic trainning the M-1's were to have their bolts welded shut, the rifles (we were told) we're to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean...those familiar with Fort Ord know the Pacific was less than 2 miles away In my BT squad, 3 of us were left handed, NONE of us were forced or coerced to change to right-handed shooting positions. We all shot EXPERT! I scored highest in the entire training battalion. Went to AIT qualified EXPERT with both M-14 and the .45. In Vietnam the .30 cal (air cooled), .50 cal and the 2.5 rocket laucher ALL fired [exception the .30cal air/.50cal) utilizing left the hand position... threw handgranades left handed, too... FWIW No hits by ejected casings? We had the Garand in the Guard, and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all. Perhaps Hemming may recall anything relative to the USMC position on this?? Tom, sure did, damn hot casings -- had the thing go full auto on me, too -- night fire range... David and that I recall, the shoot right-handed held for all Since I am right handed and shoot that way as well, I had no problems, and since we all somewhat "fudged" on our scores, even those who were not present usually even managed to qualify, so a lefty shooting right handed really did not matter when it came to actual "reported" scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Mr. Purvis, Forgive me if I don't address your last post addressed to me point by point but it all became fuzzy as you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about. Therefore, any attack against me is not worth my time addressing. I will say that I did not achieve the position of training coordinator and running the police range because I was the first to raise my hand when they asked for volunteers. I was actually qualified. A term you are not familiar with. I no longer have that position as I have since requested the patrol watch and am in the position I wish to be, the overnight watch commander. This is part of the reason I have taken so long to respond here, as I really don't have the time to post much anymore, running a shift and all. I would like to touch on your range marker theory though, and only touch on it as I could write a book on how rediculous it is. I will only say these few sentences and that should suffice. Range markers for a six to seven second shot sequence in a field of operation within a 100m? That should make trained scout snipers fall off their chairs laughing. But what would I know Tommy, since I have only read books on the subject, right? Do you think that the possibility of varying speeds of the motorcade may have been an issue if the range markers were a factor with a piece of crap bolt action rifle? Do you think elevation, varying speeds and irregular roadway horizontal and vertical terrain may have been a greater challenge than the 30-70m range factor? This all reminds me of Gary Mack's reconstruction of the shooting scenario where he had an "expert" fire on a limo on a track away from a tower with the limo being pulled directly away at constant speed on a level surface. The shooter was able to replicate the shots but the disclaimer showed how many times it took him to do it due to weapon malfunctions. Yes the weapon malfunctioned I am sure because it is a piece of crap. The other part of the weapon malfunction was likely due to shooter error as the shooter most likely short stroked this piece of crap rifle when hurrying his shots. Again, as in the true case, we will never know. But you are more knowlegable than me when it comes to the MC as you own 4 or more, I forget, and I only own one and have only compared it to an associates for consistency in testing. I found it only worth the 99 dollars I spent on the one as it is a piece of junk. $30 was shipping and the additional $69 was for a rifle that was the same make and model of the supposed Oswald rifle, otherwise it would have cost about $30 as it isn't worth anymore than that. So you are much smarter because you bought several of these pieces of junk. I keep mine in the laundry room! In closing, to be fair to you and your thinking, Agent Orange does terrible things to the thought process. Blast away at me all you wish, your not worth responding to. Why, because you are an idiot! Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 ... This all reminds me of Gary Mack's reconstruction of the shooting scenario where he had an "expert" fire on a limo on a track away from a tower with the limo being pulled directly away at constant speed on a level surface. The shooter was able to replicate the shots but the disclaimer showed how many times it took him to do it due to weapon malfunctions. Yes the weapon malfunctioned I am sure because it is a piece of crap. The other part of the weapon malfunction was likely due to shooter error as the shooter most likely short stroked this piece of crap rifle when hurrying his shots. Again, as in the true case, we will never know.I've got a DVD copy of this "Unsolved History" broadcast, and have voiced my opinion regarding the use of a guy who skeet-shoots from the hip with 100% accuracy to fill in as the "Oswald shooter" and a fitness instructor to stand in for the "Oswald runner/walker" (the scrawny Oswald being described as "young and fit former Marine," suggesting that all Marines are, of necessity, in top physical conditioning). I don't know what - if any - objections Mack and Perry raised in this respect, but in fairness it must be said that their jobs were to ensure the accuracy of the physical setups, locations and routes and to be objective observers of the results: it was not "their" scenario insofar as the participants were concerned, but that of the producers.The show set out to "prove" that Oswald could have done all the things attributed to him at the TSBD and in Oak Cliff. It required certain assumptions, it seems, that could only be "assumed" after the fact: e.g., the real shooter(s) could not have known in advance about the speed(s) of the limo, when it would slow down or speed up, whether it would maintain any kind of constant speed or what that constant speed would be, or where on the roadway it would be situated (i.e., in the middle, or nearer one or the other curbs). As with most people who want to "prove" something, it was skewed in favor of them reaching their verdict. Whether or not Oswald could have done something does not, of course, prove that he did any of the things he might've been "able" to do, and neither of the "actors" involved even approximated anything we know about Oswald such that their performances could reasonably be considered "proof" of anything. That, of course, won't keep this broadcast from being cited by those who wish to "prove" their own points! (It's sort of like having Tiger Woods "replicate" a golf shot of mine, basing it on the fact that I've played golf and so has Tiger, so he's therefore "as good as me" whether or not I'm as good as he!) Frankly, tho' I'm twice Oswald's age, I think that I am a better "stand-in" for Oswald, having been a "pretty good" (but by no means "excellent!") "shot" in my younger years, but having had no practice for quite a few now. I can now walk, even at a brisk pace, a whole mile(!) now, thanks largely to a quadruple bypass ... but in my teens, my best aerobics run was probably only a 6:15 to 6:30 mile (and I stuggled mightily to break 7:30 early on!). Since I live near enough to Dallas and know where the warehouse used for the "re-enactment" is, perhaps one day fairly soon I'll try to re-create it myself and let you know what my own results are. In the meantime, however, I think that it is indeed possible that Oswald could have run down the stairs and into the lunch room, unwinded, if he was on the sixth floor to begin with, and could have walked from the rooming house to 10th & Patton in plenty of time to shoot Tippit, if he was ever at 10th & Patton to begin with. I don't think either happens to be the case, however, so it doesn't really matter, does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) Duke, No need to worry about a re-enactment. Many facts including Oswald's behavior in custody and his assassination by Ruby means he didn't do it as far as I'm concerned. LN theories are not credible, IMO. Tom, Even though I've never shot anything except ducks in a sideshow alley, you must be wrong about the horizontal headshot being harder than elevated headshots from behind. As the Craig Roberts piece says, it's much closer and no adjustment is needed for elevation. It was like shooting ducks in sideshow alley. Edited February 18, 2006 by Mark Stapleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now