How good were the shooters in DP?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For the record I'm right handed and left eye dominant. I can shoot both righty and lefty but still prefer righty. When I shoot birds and clays with a shotgun I keep both eyes open.

What about Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock? Is he also unqualified?

With probably more than 300 kills during the Vietnam War, Carlos Hathcock is the most famous sniper in United States History. The North Vietnamese put a $30,000 bounty on his head and called him "Long Trang" or White Feather. Hathcock was once accredited with hitting a NVA at 2,500 yards with a special scope-adapted .50 caliber machine gun converted to single shot operation. The year before going to Vietnam, Carlos won top honors at the National Rifle matches at Camp Perry Ohio. Hathcock began honing his rifle skills at an early age bringing home food for the family table in rural Arkansas. When an armored vehicle he was riding in hit a mine and caught fire in Vietnam, he was sent back to the U.S. to recover from extensive burns. Although he was unable to return to Vietnam, he put his efforts into establishing the Scout/Sniper school at Quantico Virginia. Here, Hathcock spoke against the "John Wayne" mentality of many soldiers, always emphasising skill and quiet deliberate thought as essential to be an effective sniper. Sadly, what the North Vietnamese couldn't do, was finally done by the slow debilitating disease of multiple sclerosis at the age of 57.

As quoted by Craig Roberts, another USMC sniper:

“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?”

My first reaction, which is most assuredly not directed at Mr. Roberts, would be exactly who said that one should believe the Warren Commission.

It is their intentional misrepresentation of the simple facts that has this thing going around in circles anyway.

Now, as stated to Pat Speer, go back to the true Experts with.

1. Three shots fired.

2. Elapsed time from first shot to second shot-----5.8 to 6.0 seconds.

3. Elapsed time from second shot to third/last/final shot----2.0 to 2.3 seconds.

4. Shot distances: (flat/angle)

First shot:---------- 171'/185'

Second shot:------ 257'/267'

Third shot:--------- 285'/294'

4. Downward angle of fire:*

First shot:---------21 degrees downward from horizontal

Second shot:-----16 degrees downward from horizontal

Third shot:------- 14 degrees downward from horizontal

5. Cross-angle of fire:

First shot:-----Approximately 11 degrees right to left from rifle position to travel line of vehicle

Second shot:--Less than 2 degrees right to left from rifle position to travel line of vehicle

Third shot:----Approximately 3 degrees right to left from rifle position to travel line of vehicle

6. Downward slope of Elm St: Flat from firing position to first 430 feet flat-line horizontal distance

1 foot elevation drop for each 20 feet of horizontal distance thereafter

7. Speed of vehicle:

Less than 10 mph from shot#1 to shot#2

Less than 10 mph from shot# 2 to shot# 3

8. Yellow marks on curb:

a. first mark: Exactly 20 feet to left side of target impact of second shot & 10 feet to rear of target

impact. Three feet in length.

b. second mark: Exactly 20 feet to left side of target impact of third shot & 6 feet prior to to target

impact location. Three feet in length.

*This represents the distances and downward angle of fire to the impact point on the shooting field. The actual height of target decreases each of these downward angles by approximately 3-degrees.

The actual height of the target was approximately 40 to 42 inches above the shooting field elevation if recalled correctly, however, without digging for all the notes for verification, this may not be absolutely exact.

Now that we have established the somewhat correct parameters, let's see what ALL of the experts have to say.

It is just one of those personal things with me, however, before I ask anyone to pass judgement on anything such as this, I prefer to provide them with ALL of the applicable facts and relevant information.

As with any "test", one is considerably more likely to get the correct answer if the correct facts have been intitially provided.

And I have always detested those "trick" questions on any exam presented by anyone.

Tom

P.S. Glad that someone out there independently has brought out the "Left-eye" dominant trait of what are considered to be many right-handed persons.

Sort of makes on wonder exactly why some other "expert" has never brought this subject to light for all to be aware of it, as well as understand that in event a good lefty is shooting a bolt action rifle, then the operating time is usually less than those of us who are handicapped with right-hand/right-eye shooting.

Ever attempted to time yourself with a bolt action rifle?????

I long ago lost my case of beer on the lefty/bolt action operating speed event! Go find another sucker.

[Chris Newton]

Tom,

I went and dug my Springfield '03 out of my closet. The problem that arises in a lefty scenario is the bolt itself. When the rifle is held left handed the bolt is not in an optimal position for me to work it. It's on the wrong side at that point. So maybe I don't yet understand how shooting left handed would help me. My '03 is not a "shooting" weapon any more - it's an "unmolested" 1912 model and I'm not risking it.

A few notes about being left eyed dominant (20-20 left 20-40 right):

- playing catcher I've had several baseballs that I was sure I was going to catch strike me square in the face.

- several times I've shot rifles right handed using my left eye with success

- despite those incidents I have a Schuetzenshnur in silver

So, If I have this correct, you're saying LHO did it and the WC was wrong in how they went about proving it?

[Pat Speer]

Tom, while you could very well be right about the difficulty of your scenario, you are undoubtedly wrong about the consensus of experts on how easy it was. You make it sound like EVERYONE who knows anything acknowledges how easy it was. I think it was this tone that angered Al so. Craig Roberts, who was a top sniper, makes the shots out to be quite difficult. As Chris stated, legendary sniper Carlos Hathcock believed them to be quite difficult as well. Was he misquoted? Along with Hathcock's quote, I think back on FBI-man William Sullivan's admission in his book on Hoover that he sat in the sniper's nest and felt fairly certain that he himself would be unable to make the shots, even though he was a pretty good shot.

While you seem to think adding 2 seconds onto the scenario makes it much easier, I'm not so sure this is true. This would seem to give the shooter an extra second to aim on the last two shots. One whole second. Unfotunately, YOU don't believe these extra seconds were used for aiming. Instead, the time allotted for aiming the first shot in your scenario is the same as in the WC scenario; the second shot takes more than 5 seconds, and the third shot is EVEN more rushed than in the WC scenario. This shot came after the car started to speed up, and after Kennedy's body was set in motion, but, according to you, was taken with the absolute minimum of aiming time, and successful. Would you at least acknowledge then that this was more than just a lucky shot but was instead an incredibly lucky shot?

I'm still trying to understand how a bullet heading right to left and striking Connally while he was laying down, with his head to the left of his torso, could deflect along his rib and exit several inches back towards the direction it came before deflecting sharply downwards towards his thigh. If the bullet had impacted at such an angle wouldn't it have driven rib fragments deeper into Connally's lung and perhaps even his heart? Remember that Connally's doctor felt that the bullet glanced along the outside of Connally's fifth rib. This means he felt that the bullet came from above and behind Connally. You're saying that the bullet came from below and behind and then reversed directions. Do you have any medical evidence to support this?

[Al Carrier]

Mr. Purvis,

You are beginning to tire me and I am sure many others here on the forum with your lunatic rantings about Dan Marvin. I am also getting a little tired of your downplaying my background. I am a certified firearms instructor for my state. Are you? I am a certified weapons armorer for three major weapons manufacturers, two being should weapons. Are you? I spent several years instructing firearms to people being paid to carry and utilize them on a daily basis. Have you? I have received a national award from the International Association of Police of Chiefs for surviving and armed attack. Have you? I am a certified court expert in the field of weapons and ballistics. Are you?

I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions. What have you done? I served my country and you are not capable of researching how I did and I will not state any more than I have here and on Lancer. You keep refering to your military career and comparing how I was in diapers when you served. I am not a teenager, I am in my forties. That does not make you more qualified, just old and from your postings, apparently scenile.

You were kind enough to accept my issues of gravitational pull and trigger travel and then in the same breath stated that these obstacles can be manipulated when sighting the rifle in. Please tell me when LHO was able to sight the rifle in from a sixty foot elevation. Also explain to us how sighting a rifle in can account for a poor trigger when utilizing such a piece of crap rifle for precision shooting. I guess my years as a firearms instructor was totally wrong when the teachings and experience showed that trigger control had to be overcome with repititions.

But what the hell do I know, I am a podunct cop. What exactly are you?

And please tell the forum how a Marine radar tech received his training in tracking a moving target. You keep saying how easy it is, please tell us how and how you are so masterful at accomplishing such a feat when nobody else who has tried it has been. If you can explain all of this, I bowed down to your aged expertise.

And BTW, I was NEVER shown to be liable in a court of law when it came to use of force. Please post what I had posted that showed this. What I have posted is that a case was settled out of court because it wasn't financially feasible to challenge it for what the person was suing for. But you are an expert in all of this so you must have an explanaition for misrepresenting the facts and how could be charged with defamation of character in a civil court for this posting alone.

Don't screw with me on an issue like this. You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Boy am I scared!!!!!!

Big Al,

Merely point out a few facts to those who have fallen for your BS.

First off, you are so stupid, that you fell for Marvin's BS.

Secondly, your research capability (since you claim to have checked LTC Marvin out) is obviously so limited in it's scope, content, and context, that you can not even find out that:

A. There was no SF career branch for U.S. Army Officers at the time that LTC Marvin retired, therefore making it impossible for him to carry that title.

B. That not only was LTC Dan Marvin NOT a retired SF Officer, but that he was a retired officer in the United States Quartermaster Supply Corps, which few if any recognize as being a COMBAT ARMS branch of the military services.

From there, we went into a few recognized experts:

A. Massad Ayoob, a fully recognized EXPERT, by virtually any standard, is a "Prostitute" to you.

B. Both the FBI, as well as such persons as Mr. James Looney, a distinguished member of the AFTE as well as graduate of the FBI Academy, are all know nothings.

Now, we have USMC Sergeant Zahm, of the TRUE/ONE/And Only fully recognized USMC School at Quantico, VA, informing us that the shooting would have been relatively easy for anyone who had even the basic USMC rifle training that LHO had acquired. And, this does not even take into consideration any previous and/or post training and/or experience.

Not only that, SGT Zahm also explains how the slight downhill slope of Elm St., actually would aid an experienced shooter in achieving these shots.

Now, do we believe absolutely documented experts such as Sgt. Zahm?

Do we believe independent SF Sniper School shooters such as those who were independently found by Pat Speer?

Do we believe internationationally recognized experts such as Massad Ayoob?

Do we believe all of the work of those such as: Alexander Eichener; Richard Hobbs; Dave Emary; etc; etc; etc.

Especially, when "non-shooters" such as Dr. Lattimer as well as Chad Zimmerman have physically proven the exact opposite of what you keep trying to sell to the uninformed.

Sgt. Zahm, a fully recognized expert in the field of rifle marksmanship has directly contradicted you!

Might I ask exactly why it is that this fully qualified EXPERT deems the shots to have been relatively easy.

The old Italian Rifle Team reportedly remained in the TOP 5 in shooting with this rifle and their relatively poor quality ammo.

You are the one who continues to attempt to pass yourself off as some sort of "Shooting Expert", thereby claiming the impossibility of the shots, how difficult they would have been, etc; etc; etc;.

Now that persons such as Mr. Speer have gotten into the game and started questioning your claims, and a few additional points as well as the statements of some TRUE EXPERTS have been pointed out, perhaps it would be best if your either rethink your position on the difficulty of the shots in Dealy Plaza, or else change your identity.

I would assume, that even if you were no more than a USMC gate guard, that during basic rifle training, that they taught you how to "squeeze" the trigger, did they not?

Therefore, that you, from all of your claims, have difficulty in accurately shooting the 6.5mm Carcano rifle, does not mean that the remainder of the world, LHO, and/or the true experts have had this same problem.

In fact, the great majority of these other persons, as demonstrated by any search of the evidence, will demonstrate that they have not had these same difficulties, which you seem to be unable to overcome.

As to myself, rest assured that I "grew up" fast after having hunted, as well as having been hunted by a quarry that also carried weapons as well, and thereafter lost all interest in continueing to "play" with guns.

I therefore prefer to be judged on how well the flowers in the yard are doing, as well as how much the kids and other's grandkids enjoy catching the fish from the ponds which I construct on my land.

And it is of course recognized that not unlike most, I am beginning to get somewhat senile. However, the nice thing about it is that I don't give a crap about that either.

Just that if and when I get so senile that I begin to lap dog worship the likes of Dangerous Dan Marvin, and do not have the ability to not recognize and wallow in BS, then either mercy killing and/or euthanasia would be in order, as there would obviously not be adequate cerebral tissue remaining to even know that one was or was not alive.

At least dead people can not be "dumb"!

And finally:

You won't like the outcome! I am also a use of force instructor and will bury your aged ass if you speak out of line against my character on an issue such as this!

Me thinks that just perhaps you should invest in a telephone call and/or email to my old Okinawan Shorin-Ji-Ru instructor just prior to going into the "whip ass" mode.

Although I love to plant flowers, there is still nothing more satisfying then playing whip ass with some wannabee who for whatever reason could not grow up and cease to play with guns.

Tommy,

Once again you feeble minded old fool, have failed to address anything I have said. You are like the lunatic from the keys who sent an e-mail to my chief last year screaming that I threatened him. I am not that stupid, although could take the likes of you on my worst day with my strong arm tied behind my back. What I was referring to and you are too far gone to understand is that you are misquoting me here and making me out to be a brutal cop who was found so in a court of law. I mention the fact that I am a use of force instructor as these false accusations effect me professionally, you f****g idiot! And what you won't like is when I sue your worthless ass!

How about addressing how I am much more qualified to address these issues than you instead of your lunatic ramblings. Maybe you ought to lay off the shine? Or seek professional help for your shortcominings on reality. How about addressing how sighting a rifle can overcome obstacles such as gravitational pull from a sixty foot perch and a piece of crap trigger travel when you try to use this weapon as a precision instrument. And how are you qualified to judge ones ability on hitting a moving target at varying speeds? Keep talking laughing boy. You are making a bigger fool of yourself than I thought you could.

I posted my qualifications and will attach certificates to back them up. What again are yours?

Al

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, while you could very well be right about the difficulty of your scenario, you are undoubtedly wrong about the consensus of experts on how easy it was. You make it sound like EVERYONE who knows anything acknowledges how easy it was. I think it was this tone that angered Al so. Craig Roberts, who was a top sniper, makes the shots out to be quite difficult. As Chris stated, legendary sniper Carlos Hathcock believed them to be quite difficult as well. Was he misquoted? Along with Hathcock's quote, I think back on FBI-man William Sullivan's admission in his book on Hoover that he sat in the sniper's nest and felt fairly certain that he himself would be unable to make the shots, even though he was a pretty good shot.

While you seem to think adding 2 seconds onto the scenario makes it much easier, I'm not so sure this is true. This would seem to give the shooter an extra second to aim on the last two shots. One whole second. Unfotunately, YOU don't believe these extra seconds were used for aiming. Instead, the time allotted for aiming the first shot in your scenario is the same as in the WC scenario; the second shot takes more than 5 seconds, and the third shot is EVEN more rushed than in the WC scenario. This shot came after the car started to speed up, and after Kennedy's body was set in motion, but, according to you, was taken with the absolute minimum of aiming time, and successful. Would you at least acknowledge then that this was more than just a lucky shot but was instead an incredibly lucky shot?

I'm still trying to understand how a bullet heading right to left and striking Connally while he was laying down, with his head to the left of his torso, could deflect along his rib and exit several inches back towards the direction it came before deflecting sharply downwards towards his thigh. If the bullet had impacted at such an angle wouldn't it have driven rib fragments deeper into Connally's lung and perhaps even his heart? Remember that Connally's doctor felt that the bullet glanced along the outside of Connally's fifth rib. This means he felt that the bullet came from above and behind Connally. You're saying that the bullet came from below and behind and then reversed directions. Do you have any medical evidence to support this?

Shot time begins of course with the first shot, and had it not been for extenuating circumstances, JFK should have and would have been most assuredly struck in the head by this shot.

Nevertheless, one could have the practice shooters shoot at whatever portion of JFK they would like in this shot.

Secondly, give these shooters the stated 5.8 to 6.0 seconds for target acquisition and shooting for the elapsed time from the first shot to the second shot and see how they do.

Then, give them the additional 2.0 to 2.3 seconds for the last shot.

The Presidential Limousine had "surged", yet it had not fully achieved any great amount of speed gain at the time of the third/last/final shot, which was down by Mr. Altgens position.

As to the accuracy of the last shot, one can state that based on it's impact point, it was most certainly either a lucky shot or an excellent and lucky shot.

It is highly unlikely that the scope was utilized in this last shot due to the short elapsed time, therefore it was merely what is frequently referred to as a "snap shot".

However, JFK was leaning well forward at the time which placed almost a horizontal plane target, and with the downward angle of fire, one certainly should not have completely missed him.

As Chris stated, legendary sniper Carlos Hathcock believed them to be quite difficult as well. Was he misquoted?

If an when everyone ceases to attempt to "squeeze" three shots into the time frames as established by the WC, then the difficulty rating is decreased considerably.

“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.

Give Mr. Hathcock, or for that matter almost anyone who has served in the USMC and satisfactorily passed basic range fire, 5.8 to 6.0 seconds from the first to the second shot, under similar range and target conditions, and see it they can't get a head shot.

Especially if they have a scope.

And, then, even with only the mere 2.0 to 2.3 seconds for the last shot, let them "snap" shot utilizing the rifle and see if they do not also get a hit under similar range and target conditions.

The playing field of the WC/three shots in the 5.8 to 6.0 second time frame is not a recognized, accepted, and legitimate field. I highly recommend the 10 pages of circular reasoning in the WC as regards "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

The shots were not difficult shots, however, the shots were made difficult due merely to the time constraints as dictated by the WC, and when finally that settled on some "Shot That Missed" having to be fired in between the first and the second shot, (which is merely a derivitive of the FBI Lie that was caught and found out), then one is forced into attempting to get off three shots in extremely rapid fire succession.

This of course gives little time for proper target acquisition as well as hasty aiming, in which even the best of the best would have trouble accomplishing the task.

And in that regard, I have always had to question exactly why the person waited, after the first shot, for the full 5.8 to 6.0 seconds until the Presidential Limo/aka JFK approached the first yellow mark on the street curb, at which time the second shot to the head at Z313 occurred.

In fact, if there are "signs of a pro" in the shooting in Dealy Plaza, then these type items are the signs.

Lastly, as regards the position of JBC at the third/last/final shot, perhaps it would be best addressed under it's own topic heading.

I will attempt to dig for some of the stuff which I have boxed away and provide it.

Meanwhile, might I recommend a review of the testimony of Dr. Humes as well as FBI Agent Frazier in regards to the coat worn by JFK, and the SECOND hole in the coat which is some four inches or so higher than the back entry hole, and is located just at the edge of the collar.

The coat was introduced into evidence during the testimony of Dr. Humes, with what I like to refer to as a "note from mom" in regards to the higher BULLET entrance hole.

Of course, this note from Mom is also now among the items of evidence which has disappeared from the National Archives.

[Al Carrier]

CLARIFICATION ON POSTINGS OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF OR SO...

I have not logged onto Lancer or The Education Forum here for nearly two weeks. I was brought to it when a fellow researcher whom I respect a great deal sent me an e-mail advising me of his support of the nasty exchanges I have been having with Tom Purvis on this thread. I have now reviewed this and while I tend to agree with most of the things posted here in my name, it has not been me posting them. If I am doing the math correctly for the time to calculate it into Central Time where I am at, the posts have been entered either when I have been at work in the middle of the night or in the middle of my sleep during the late mornings. I have had this problem once before on Lancer a year and a half ago or better. I had upgraded my firewall and added internet security software and a secure router. In the past month or so, the three have had problems interfacing and opening my computer to intrusion.

I apologize to Mr. Purvis, although I don't necessarily agree with his scenario, I do not treat respectable researchers in the way that he has been in my name in the past two weeks or so. Whoever has taken my identity has obviously studied my past posts here and on Lancer as they are representing me well, except for their failure to conceive some ballistic issues and their demeanor toward others such as Mr. Purvis.

I am asking that Mr. John Simkin cancel my registration to this forum so this does not continue. I am off to Southern New Mexico/Southern Arizona in less than two weeks for a week or so and when I return, will hook up with Mr. Simkin again to reregister. In the meantime, I will fix my computer security issues. For those who wish to contact me during this downtime, I ask that you e-mail me at my work e-mail at al.carrier@waterloo-ia.org and I will respond. I just want to assure everyone it is me responding.

I apologize for this long exchange that is in poor taste and done in my name. I hope others realize that this is not my character.

Al C.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I was first trained to compensate for this at The Scout Sniper School at the Marathon Station in the keys over twenty years ago

Does this mean that you were one of the USMC "Gate Guards" at either the Naval Air Station at Boca Chica, or the Naval Air Station Annex at Fleming Key, or the main Naval Base just off downtown Key West?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having posted this, I have now received a communication which would serve to indicate that I now owe the USMC as well as the US Marine Corps Barracks at Key West, FL, an apology.

My general assumption being that "Scout Sniper School" is primarily associated with the USMC, and the only USMC personnel that I was once aware of in the Florida Keys, came from the Marine Barracks located at the U.S. Naval Station, Key West, FL.

Now, having received information from a relatively reliable source, I find that I have in fact given Al Carrier more credit than he would appear to deserve for his military service, and in that regard I now apparantly owe the USMC as well as the Marine Barracks at Key West, FL, a full apology for having insinuated that Al Carrier was associated with the USMC.

In fact, the source has informed me that Al Carrier was in the U.S. Army, and served as an M.P.

And in this regard, it would mean that he, in all probability served not as a USMC Gate Guard, but rather as a US Army Gate Guard.

Now, one must ask exactly what purpose would be served in the military services sending some M.P. to some reportedly "Scout Sniper School" training.

And, it is further understandable as to exactly how Al Carrier ended up in the Law Enforcement field.

Mr. Hemming, please accept my aplology on behalf of your fellow members of the USMC for my having degraded your heritage and organization.

Tom

[Tim Gratz]

What an interesting and disturbing post by Mr. Carrier!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who have an interest in research.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who have an interest in research.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who have an interest in research.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who have an interest in research.

For those who have an interest in research.

For those who have an interest in research.

For those who have an interest in research.

For those who have an interest in research.

[Dawn Meredith]

CLARIFICATION ON POSTINGS OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF OR SO...

I have not logged onto Lancer or The Education Forum here for nearly two weeks. I was brought to it when a fellow researcher whom I respect a great deal sent me an e-mail advising me of his support of the nasty exchanges I have been having with Tom Purvis on this thread. I have now reviewed this and while I tend to agree with most of the things posted here in my name, it has not been me posting them. If I am doing the math correctly for the time to calculate it into Central Time where I am at, the posts have been entered either when I have been at work in the middle of the night or in the middle of my sleep during the late mornings. I have had this problem once before on Lancer a year and a half ago or better. I had upgraded my firewall and added internet security software and a secure router. In the past month or so, the three have had problems interfacing and opening my computer to intrusion.

Very troubling that someone would go to SUCH lengths to impersonate you. To be able to use your photo id.

I don't begin to understand how this can happen. Obviously the imposter is very computer savvy and can penetrate a firewall system. But who and why????

Dawn

[Thomas H. Purvis]

For those who have an interest in research.

For those who have an interest in research.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Chris Newton]

Very troubling that someone would go to SUCH lengths to impersonate you. To be able to use your photo id.

I don't begin to understand how this can happen. Obviously the imposter is very computer savvy and can penetrate a firewall system. But who and why????

Dawn

All someone needs to do is hack the password to this forum. One doesn't need to hack Al's computer. The lesson is that people should not let their browser store their password and "fill" it automatically nor store them on your computer. You should also practice a routine of using "strong" passwords that get changed to new unique ones every 30-60 days. A "strong" password contains at least 8 charachters, a combination of letters and numbers, no actual words and if the system allows it a special charachter such as "!" or "$".

This is internet security 101.

Chris