LHO's Markmanship Ability

[Michael Hogan]

Anyone who thinks that LHO was not an excellent shot, knows little of what they speak.......

......He was, for all practical purposes, firing from a sitting/bench rest position in which he could support his entire arms as well as the weapon for shooting accuracy. (see Bench Rest for shooting accuracy).

From which position, LHO entered the USMC shooting virtually uppermost ranges for EXPERT, and qualified on December 21 in the uppermost ranges for EXPERT, in a rapid-fire shooting environment.

Ask a Marine shooter about this.

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.

In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."

The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."

(Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

The testimony of Allison G. Folsom, Lt. Col., USMG, was taken at 1:15 p.m., on May 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington, D.C., by Mr. John Hart Ely, member of the staff of the President's Commission.

Mr. Ely: All right. The primary reason that we have called you here, colonel, is not because of any contact which you have had with Oswald, but because of your position. We have here Oswald's Marine records, and we would like you to help us interpret some of the abbreviations, test scores and things like that.....

Mr. Ely: All right. Colonel, I would finally like to show you a document which has already been introduced in evidence before the Commission in connection with the testimony of Marguerite Oswald. It is, therefore, designated Exhibit 239. This exhibit is a photostatic copy. Could you tell us, Colonel, of what it is a photostatic copy?

Colonel FOLSOM: It is a photostatic copy of the U.S. Marine Corps Scorebook for use with the U.S. Rifle, Caliber 30 M-1. Now, this scorebook is issued to each individual at each time they are sent on the rifle range for qualification or requalification. They are maintained by the individual and are used to provide the individual with a record of the idiosyncracies of the weapon, and the weather on the day that the entries are made. This is referred to in the Marine Corps as the zero of the rifle, because the sight settings are individual characteristics of the particular rifle used. That is, he may--this rifle may require a half a point more windage under the same wind velocity than another rifle, and that the scale by yards may require adjustment depending upon the range that is being fired.

Mr. Ely: This book, then, is used by the individual Marine prior to his firing for record in order that he can zero his weapon so that he will do well on his record firing?

Colonel FOLSOM. This is the purpose. And it should be maintained even on the day that he fires for record.

Mr. Ely: In this particular record, it would appear that the entries were rather limited. As a matter of fact, it was not adequately maintained for the purpose for which it was designed. Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Mr. Ely: And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

Mr. Ely: And what was his score?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?

Mr. Ely: I don't see any point in doing this page by page.

I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.

Colonel FOLSOM:

No, no, he was not.

His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.

Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?

Colonel FOLSOM: I would say so.

Mr. Ely: Well, Colonel, as far as I can see, that is all the testimony that we need from you with regard to these records. No doubt there are ambiguities in the records which I have not caught. I have asked you about the ones that seemed most confusing to me. Can you think of anything else that you would like to add for the record?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I believe that the record is rather complete. There are no missing documents from this official record. The photostatic copy contains everything that is in the original record. And I do not believe that there are any discrepancies, other than those clerical errors which have been noted on such items as the summary court-martial records.

Mr. Ely: But you cannot think of any errors which we did not mention during your testimony today?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I do not.

Mr. Ely: All right. In that case, Colonel, on behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much for giving your testimony. It has been very helpful.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[David G. Healy]

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

dgh: when did the Marine Corp. utilize .22 caliber rifles and pistols during bootcamp? I believe Oswald qualified with a M-1 Garand 7.62cal rifle (30-30)

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.

In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."

The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."

(Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

The testimony of Allison G. Folsom, Lt. Col., USMG, was taken at 1:15 p.m., on May 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington, D.C., by Mr. John Hart Ely, member of the staff of the President's Commission.

Mr. Ely: All right. The primary reason that we have called you here, colonel, is not because of any contact which you have had with Oswald, but because of your position. We have here Oswald's Marine records, and we would like you to help us interpret some of the abbreviations, test scores and things like that.....

Mr. Ely: All right. Colonel, I would finally like to show you a document which has already been introduced in evidence before the Commission in connection with the testimony of Marguerite Oswald. It is, therefore, designated Exhibit 239. This exhibit is a photostatic copy. Could you tell us, Colonel, of what it is a photostatic copy?

Colonel FOLSOM: It is a photostatic copy of the U.S. Marine Corps Scorebook for use with the U.S. Rifle, Caliber 30 M-1. Now, this scorebook is issued to each individual at each time they are sent on the rifle range for qualification or requalification. They are maintained by the individual and are used to provide the individual with a record of the idiosyncracies of the weapon, and the weather on the day that the entries are made. This is referred to in the Marine Corps as the zero of the rifle, because the sight settings are individual characteristics of the particular rifle used. That is, he may--this rifle may require a half a point more windage under the same wind velocity than another rifle, and that the scale by yards may require adjustment depending upon the range that is being fired.

Mr. Ely: This book, then, is used by the individual Marine prior to his firing for record in order that he can zero his weapon so that he will do well on his record firing?

Colonel FOLSOM. This is the purpose. And it should be maintained even on the day that he fires for record.

Mr. Ely: In this particular record, it would appear that the entries were rather limited. As a matter of fact, it was not adequately maintained for the purpose for which it was designed. Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Mr. Ely: And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

Mr. Ely: And what was his score?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?

Mr. Ely: I don't see any point in doing this page by page.

I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.

Colonel FOLSOM:

No, no, he was not.

His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.

Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?

Colonel FOLSOM: I would say so.

Mr. Ely: Well, Colonel, as far as I can see, that is all the testimony that we need from you with regard to these records. No doubt there are ambiguities in the records which I have not caught. I have asked you about the ones that seemed most confusing to me. Can you think of anything else that you would like to add for the record?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I believe that the record is rather complete. There are no missing documents from this official record. The photostatic copy contains everything that is in the original record. And I do not believe that there are any discrepancies, other than those clerical errors which have been noted on such items as the summary court-martial records.

Mr. Ely: But you cannot think of any errors which we did not mention during your testimony today?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I do not.

Mr. Ely: All right. In that case, Colonel, on behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much for giving your testimony. It has been very helpful.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Anyone who thinks that LHO was not an excellent shot, knows little of what they speak.......

......He was, for all practical purposes, firing from a sitting/bench rest position in which he could support his entire arms as well as the weapon for shooting accuracy. (see Bench Rest for shooting accuracy).

From which position, LHO entered the USMC shooting virtually uppermost ranges for EXPERT, and qualified on December 21 in the uppermost ranges for EXPERT, in a rapid-fire shooting environment.

Ask a Marine shooter about this.

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.

In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."

The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."

(Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

The testimony of Allison G. Folsom, Lt. Col., USMG, was taken at 1:15 p.m., on May 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington, D.C., by Mr. John Hart Ely, member of the staff of the President's Commission.

Mr. Ely: All right. The primary reason that we have called you here, colonel, is not because of any contact which you have had with Oswald, but because of your position. We have here Oswald's Marine records, and we would like you to help us interpret some of the abbreviations, test scores and things like that.....

Mr. Ely: All right. Colonel, I would finally like to show you a document which has already been introduced in evidence before the Commission in connection with the testimony of Marguerite Oswald. It is, therefore, designated Exhibit 239. This exhibit is a photostatic copy. Could you tell us, Colonel, of what it is a photostatic copy?

Colonel FOLSOM: It is a photostatic copy of the U.S. Marine Corps Scorebook for use with the U.S. Rifle, Caliber 30 M-1. Now, this scorebook is issued to each individual at each time they are sent on the rifle range for qualification or requalification. They are maintained by the individual and are used to provide the individual with a record of the idiosyncracies of the weapon, and the weather on the day that the entries are made. This is referred to in the Marine Corps as the zero of the rifle, because the sight settings are individual characteristics of the particular rifle used. That is, he may--this rifle may require a half a point more windage under the same wind velocity than another rifle, and that the scale by yards may require adjustment depending upon the range that is being fired.

Mr. Ely: This book, then, is used by the individual Marine prior to his firing for record in order that he can zero his weapon so that he will do well on his record firing?

Colonel FOLSOM. This is the purpose. And it should be maintained even on the day that he fires for record.

Mr. Ely: In this particular record, it would appear that the entries were rather limited. As a matter of fact, it was not adequately maintained for the purpose for which it was designed. Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Mr. Ely: And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

Mr. Ely: And what was his score?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?

Mr. Ely: I don't see any point in doing this page by page.

I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.

Colonel FOLSOM:

No, no, he was not.

His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.

Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?

Colonel FOLSOM: I would say so.

Mr. Ely: Well, Colonel, as far as I can see, that is all the testimony that we need from you with regard to these records. No doubt there are ambiguities in the records which I have not caught. I have asked you about the ones that seemed most confusing to me. Can you think of anything else that you would like to add for the record?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I believe that the record is rather complete. There are no missing documents from this official record. The photostatic copy contains everything that is in the original record. And I do not believe that there are any discrepancies, other than those clerical errors which have been noted on such items as the summary court-martial records.

Mr. Ely: But you cannot think of any errors which we did not mention during your testimony today?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I do not.

Mr. Ely: All right. In that case, Colonel, on behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much for giving your testimony. It has been very helpful.

Colonel FOLSOM: Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

So, Colonel FOLSOM is telling us that "people"/everyone should get either a perfect score, or virtually perfect score while shooting from the standing position at a target which is 200 yards away???

Me thinks that Colonel Folsom is full of BS.

If "people" should get a score of 48 to 50 from the unsupported/standing/offhand position, then they most assuredly should have fired a total perfection from all other positions which have at least some minimal of stabalized firing platform/position.

Which would mean that every marine should fire an EXPERT in all catagegories.

All of which has little if any bearing on the simple fact that at ranges of 200 yards, from the sitting position, LHO was quite accurate and quite deadly, even in rapid fire conditions.

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM: Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Well now, again, according to Col Folsom, every Marine should be able to fire a minimum of 40 points out of 50 points maximum on the 200 yard "off-hand" position.

Which would mean that each and every Marine should be able to fire at minimum in the 80 percentile ranking. (This does not even take into consideration that some of the 10 shots would assumedly be within the "5" ranking/scoring circle)

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." [/indent] (Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

It would be assumed that those who have some inkling as to how to interpret data, would recognize that LHO was only a marginal shooter when firing from an unstable position such as the standing/of-hand/unsupported position. Yet, when given a fixed sitting position, he fired in the upper ranges of EXPERT, and this was as consistant as was his poor marksmanship from the standing/off-hand position.

However, since we are apparantly dealing with a considerable number of "non-shooters" here, who obviously know as little in regards to rifle marksmanship as they do about most other aspects of the actual assassination, hopefully, the provided information will bring a few heads up out of the "rabbit hole" of poor marksman Oswald, and place the shooting in Dealy Plaza into the perspective of exactly how difficult such a feat may or may not have been for LHO based on his prior record of similar type shooting.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Anyone who thinks that LHO was not an excellent shot, knows little of what they speak.......

......He was, for all practical purposes, firing from a sitting/bench rest position in which he could support his entire arms as well as the weapon for shooting accuracy. (see Bench Rest for shooting accuracy).

From which position, LHO entered the USMC shooting virtually uppermost ranges for EXPERT, and qualified on December 21 in the uppermost ranges for EXPERT, in a rapid-fire shooting environment.

Ask a Marine shooter about this.

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksman--sharpshooter--expert.

In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman."

The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot."

(Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

The testimony of Allison G. Folsom, Lt. Col., USMG, was taken at 1:15 p.m., on May 1, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE. Washington, D.C., by Mr. John Hart Ely, member of the staff of the President's Commission.

Mr. Ely: All right. The primary reason that we have called you here, colonel, is not because of any contact which you have had with Oswald, but because of your position. We have here Oswald's Marine records, and we would like you to help us interpret some of the abbreviations, test scores and things like that.....

Mr. Ely: All right. Colonel, I would finally like to show you a document which has already been introduced in evidence before the Commission in connection with the testimony of Marguerite Oswald. It is, therefore, designated Exhibit 239. This exhibit is a photostatic copy. Could you tell us, Colonel, of what it is a photostatic copy?

Colonel FOLSOM: It is a photostatic copy of the U.S. Marine Corps Scorebook for use with the U.S. Rifle, Caliber 30 M-1. Now, this scorebook is issued to each individual at each time they are sent on the rifle range for qualification or requalification. They are maintained by the individual and are used to provide the individual with a record of the idiosyncracies of the weapon, and the weather on the day that the entries are made. This is referred to in the Marine Corps as the zero of the rifle, because the sight settings are individual characteristics of the particular rifle used. That is, he may--this rifle may require a half a point more windage under the same wind velocity than another rifle, and that the scale by yards may require adjustment depending upon the range that is being fired.

Mr. Ely: This book, then, is used by the individual Marine prior to his firing for record in order that he can zero his weapon so that he will do well on his record firing?

Colonel FOLSOM. This is the purpose. And it should be maintained even on the day that he fires for record.

Mr. Ely: In this particular record, it would appear that the entries were rather limited. As a matter of fact, it was not adequately maintained for the purpose for which it was designed. Is it possible, Colonel, to tell anything from this scorebook, assuming for the moment that it was accurately maintained, concerning the marksmanship of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Mr. Ely: And even if his weapon needed a great deal of adjustment in terms of elevation or windage, he still would have a closer group than that if he were a good shot?

Colonel FOLSOM:

Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

Mr. Ely: And what was his score?

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, total shown on page 22 would be he got a score of 34 out of a possible 50 on Tuesday, as shown on page 22 of his record book. On Wednesday, he got a score of 38, improved four points. Do you want to compute these?

Mr. Ely: I don't see any point in doing this page by page.

I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.

Colonel FOLSOM:

No, no, he was not.

His scorebook indicates--as a matter of fact--that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.

Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?

Colonel FOLSOM: I would say so.

Mr. Ely: Well, Colonel, as far as I can see, that is all the testimony that we need from you with regard to these records. No doubt there are ambiguities in the records which I have not caught. I have asked you about the ones that seemed most confusing to me. Can you think of anything else that you would like to add for the record?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I believe that the record is rather complete. There are no missing documents from this official record. The photostatic copy contains everything that is in the original record. And I do not believe that there are any discrepancies, other than those clerical errors which have been noted on such items as the summary court-martial records.

Mr. Ely: But you cannot think of any errors which we did not mention during your testimony today?

Colonel FOLSOM: No; I do not.

Mr. Ely: All right. In that case, Colonel, on behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you very much for giving your testimony. It has been very helpful.

Colonel FOLSOM: Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.

So, Colonel FOLSOM is telling us that "people"/everyone should get either a perfect score, or virtually perfect score while shooting from the standing position at a target which is 200 yards away???

Me thinks that Colonel Folsom is full of BS.

If "people" should get a score of 48 to 50 from the unsupported/standing/offhand position, then they most assuredly should have fired a total perfection from all other positions which have at least some minimal of stabalized firing platform/position.

Which would mean that every marine should fire an EXPERT in all catagegories.

All of which has little if any bearing on the simple fact that at ranges of 200 yards, from the sitting position, LHO was quite accurate and quite deadly, even in rapid fire conditions.

Colonel FOLSOM: Well, yes. But very generally. For instance, at 200 yards slow fire on Tuesday, at 200 yards slow fire, offhand position----

Mr. Ely: You are referring, are you not, to the page designated 22 in Oswald's scorebook?

Colonel FOLSOM: Right--well, 22 as opposed to 23. He got out in the three ring, which is not good. They should be able to keep them--all 10 shots within the four ring.

Well now, again, according to Col Folsom, every Marine should be able to fire a minimum of 40 points out of 50 points maximum on the 200 yard "off-hand" position.

Which would mean that each and every Marine should be able to fire at minimum in the 80 percentile ranking. (This does not even take into consideration that some of the 10 shots would assumedly be within the "5" ranking/scoring circle)

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot." and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." [/indent] (Emphases added)

More of Colonel Folsom's testimony:

It would be assumed that those who have some inkling as to how to interpret data, would recognize that LHO was only a marginal shooter when firing from an unstable position such as the standing/of-hand/unsupported position. Yet, when given a fixed sitting position, he fired in the upper ranges of EXPERT, and this was as consistant as was his poor marksmanship from the standing/off-hand position.

However, since we are apparantly dealing with a considerable number of "non-shooters" here, who obviously know as little in regards to rifle marksmanship as they do about most other aspects of the actual assassination, hopefully, the provided information will bring a few heads up out of the "rabbit hole" of poor marksman Oswald, and place the shooting in Dealy Plaza into the perspective of exactly how difficult such a feat may or may not have been for LHO based on his prior record of similar type shooting.

[b]Colonel FOLSOM: Yes. As a matter of fact, at 200 yards, people should get a score of between 48 and 50 in the offhand position.[/b]

In order to place this into it's exact perspective, the following information is provided.

In order to obtain a score of 50, one must place/shoot/hit with all 10 shots within a circle which is 10 inches in diameter.

In order to obtain a score of 48, one could have only 2 of the 10 shots fired to impact outside of the 10 inch circle and into the 26 inch diameter second circle.

So, according to Colonel Folsom, "people" should be able to hit 8 out of 10 shots into a target of 10 inches in diameter, firing from the standing/off-hand/unsupported position, at a range of 200 yards.

And although I am certain that the USMC wishes that all of it's personnel could shoot this good, reality dictates otherwise.

That is also of course why they have the "easier" shooting positions which are from fixed firing positions. Otherwise, it is most unlikely that too many USMC Boot Camp personnel would even meet the qualification for Marksman.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The topic subject matter is regarding LHO's shooting ability.

Actually the topic's subject, if it is to be relevant, is Lee Oswald's shooting ability in November 1963, not his ability some 5 or so years earlier, when he was practising regularly.

Mr. Purvis: why do you keep avoiding the question I posted earlier on this thread, namely,

"Is it not the case that even a skilled marksman needs regular practice to maintain his skill, just like a violinist or a trumpet-player? Lee Oswald's life has probably been scrutinized in greater detail than any other private citizen in history, but where is the evidence that he practised marksmanship in the weeks/months preceding the assassination?"

"Is it not the case that even a skilled marksman needs regular practice to maintain his skill, just like a violinist or a trumpet-player? Lee Oswald's life has probably been scrutinized in greater detail than any other private citizen in history, but where is the evidence that he practised marksmanship in the weeks/months preceding the assassination

In the event that one is shooting "Competition", then the above would apply.

When one has had even the most basic of rifle markmanship training and has thereafter correctly boresighted their rifle and zero'ed their scope, then one hardly has to have much additional practice and/or training to hit targets at ranges of 62 yards/88 yards/& 98 yards, respectively.

Especially when their professional training started them off at shooting targets beginning at 200 yards and extending to 500 yards.

Dealy Plaza was "Boy Scout" merit badge shooting ranges.

Lastly, although none of the reports can be absolutely confirmed, LHO was reportedly observed on shooting range(s) in Dallas, even to the extent of shooting "cross-lane" into someone else's target.

However, the only shooting which LHO would/should have needed and required was that which was necessary to zero the scope if he were going to utilize it, and/or boresight the rifle, which by all reports was done at a Dallas gun shop.

P.S. Where are the records of exactly what you did each and every weekend during this period????

[Michael Hogan]

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

dgh: when did the Marine Corp. utilize .22 caliber rifles and pistols during bootcamp? I believe Oswald qualified with a M-1 Garand 7.62cal rifle (30-30)

The way I read that is that the .22 was used only to familiarize recruits with live ammunition.

[David G. Healy]

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

dgh: when did the Marine Corp. utilize .22 caliber rifles and pistols during bootcamp? I believe Oswald qualified with a M-1 Garand 7.62cal rifle (30-30)

The way I read that is that the .22 was used only to familiarize recruits with live ammunition.

that's the way I read it too, Mike...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

0.96

0.86

0.98

0.9125

0.92

0.96

0.93

http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/d...2c2291b2666764a

(image)

Tom, does this mean that on each of these shootings the shooter continuousy, or the target continuously changes or is one set of shootings in the same position/range? What sort of pressure is a shooter put under during these tests?

AFAIK: It also is one thing to shoot at a target. Shooting at a human being is an entirely different thing. Totally different. And certainly if it's the first time then the energy in the mind/body can be extremely intrusive. I think this is often forgotten in the rather blase' discussions of shooting ability. I don't think any amount of self talk can change that. Oswald must have been the sort of person who freezes emotionally in that situation. Was he that sort of person. Sounds like psychopathic. Not even the WC accused him of that. He seemed like quite a feeling sort of person.

Here we have Oswalds score rising to 100 under extreme psychological conditions while shooting down at a moving target. Does that make sense? I ask this as it doesn't seem to make sense to me, but it's based on ignorance of shooting in general and no personal experience.

John;

A score of 50 on the 200 yard rapid fire target merely meant that of 10 rounds fired, all 10 rounds impacted within a 10-inch diameter circle. (5 points per strike area)

A score of 49 would mean that of the 10 rounds fired, 9 rounds impacted inside the 10-inch circle and 1 round impacted outside the 10- inch diameter circle, yet within a 26-inch diameter circle. (4 points per strike area).

The round which landed outside the 10-inch circle may have been anywhere from 6 inches to 13 inches from target center.

A score of 48, likewise, would mean that of the 10 rounds fired, 8 rounds impacted within the 10-inch circle and the other two rounds impacted at some location within the the 26-inch diameter circle.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The topic subject matter is regarding LHO's shooting ability.

Actually the topic's subject, if it is to be relevant, is Lee Oswald's shooting ability in November 1963, not his ability some 5 or so years earlier, when he was practising regularly.

Mr. Purvis: why do you keep avoiding the question I posted earlier on this thread, namely,

"Is it not the case that even a skilled marksman needs regular practice to maintain his skill, just like a violinist or a trumpet-player? Lee Oswald's life has probably been scrutinized in greater detail than any other private citizen in history, but where is the evidence that he practised marksmanship in the weeks/months preceding the assassination?"

not a Marine Sharpshooter, just a former police sniper, swat instructor, and former contract instructor for a Fed Agency with direct counter-terrorist responsibilities. shooting at a target below you thats moving away from you is not the same as shooting from a rest at a target a known distance away. If Oswald was so high speed why did he try and do it with a piece of junk rifle instead of just stealing a quality rifle.

evan marshall

www.stoppingpower.net

First off, the Carcano is only "junk" when compared with the rifles which we have available today.

For many years of it's production, this weapon was considered to be one of the best available and much of it's design as well as it's caliber was thereafter copied by others all over the world.

For many years, the Italian Olympic team frequently outshot even the US Teams, and usually rated up in the top 5, utilizing a modified version of this weapon.

For shooting comparison, the accuracy of the weapon exactly matched that of the US Military M-14 rifle.

Which, was hardly "junk".

As to the "Why", well, had LHO shot JFK with a quality Browning, or any other weapon which cost big bucks, then there would have been little left to doubt as regards his funding.

Instead, he utilized a weapon which was now commonly found throughout the auspices of the illicit gun trade in furnishing weapons to such as the Castro revolution.

He chose a weapon in which Serial #'s were totally irrelevant and thus completely avoided all true possibility for absolutely tracing of the weapon.

He chose a weapon which could be purchased from a "Jewish" concern, and thereafter "back-traced" to additional Jewish concerns. (so long as one merely followed serial numbers)

He chose a weapon for which a considerably amount of quality ammunition had been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company, for reasons yet unknown, under some Government Contract, and for which the usage of would send many within the covert opns arena "Running for Cover".

P.S. 5.6 to 5.8 seconds between 1st to second 2nd shot is hardly "high speed" where I come from.

And 2.3 to 2.4 seconds for the last shot is not that uncommon for a "snap shot".

And, anyone who claims shooting ability, yet thinks that shots of 62 yards/88 yards/& 98 yards are difficult, even on downward firing angles of 18-degrees/15-degrees/& 12 degrees, at the above stated ranges, did not grow up among the shooting ranges which we frequented.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

'Michael Hogan' provided:

From Page 191 of The Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine Training

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in the .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

dgh: when did the Marine Corp. utilize .22 caliber rifles and pistols during bootcamp? I believe Oswald qualified with a M-1 Garand 7.62cal rifle (30-30)

The way I read that is that the .22 was used only to familiarize recruits with live ammunition.

Usage of the .22 rifle was common for a number of reasons.

1. It was by far less dangerous in the hands of some of those who had never held a rifle.

2. It taught the shooter the "basics" of how to crawl before he was required to walk and/or run with the larger caliber rifle.

3. It was highly "cost effective" for the USMC budget in regards to ammo costs.

4. "Non-shooters" were far less likely to become shell-shocked from the noise of the .22, as compared to the M1-Garand, on initial learning to shoot.

5. All of the "basics" could be taught utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be "coveted" and stolen.

Weapons theft (M1-Garand) as well as all other actual issue weapons was a common problem. By utilizing the .22 for basic introduction training, the Marine learned the importance of hanging onto his weapon utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be the target of theft.

6. Raw recruits were far less likely to come down with the "Garand Thumb" problem early in their rifle training, by utilization of the .22 to learn the basics of marksmanship.

Who remembers any other reasons???????????

[David G. Healy]

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote:

Usage of the .22 rifle was common for a number of reasons.

1. It was by far less dangerous in the hands of some of those who had never held a rifle.

2. It taught the shooter the "basics" of how to crawl before he was required to walk and/or run with the larger caliber rifle.

3. It was highly "cost effective" for the USMC budget in regards to ammo costs.

4. "Non-shooters" were far less likely to become shell-shocked from the noise of the .22, as compared to the M1-Garand, on initial learning to shoot.

5. All of the "basics" could be taught utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be "coveted" and stolen.

Weapons theft (M1-Garand) as well as all other actual issue weapons was a common problem. By utilizing the .22 for basic introduction training, the Marine learned the importance of hanging onto his weapon utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be the target of theft.

6. Raw recruits were far less likely to come down with the "Garand Thumb" problem early in their rifle training, by utilization of the .22 to learn the basics of marksmanship.

Who remembers any other reasons???????????

Thanks for the USMC info, Tom -- Certainly didn't have .22's in ARMY basic trainning-1962. I got the thumb and that rifle beat the xxxx out of me. I'll never forget the range instructor running a full clip through the M1 while resting the butt plate aganist his chin.

Edited November 22, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Antti Hynonen]

In this thread Mr. Purvis claims on several of his postings that Lee Oswald is more skilled as a shooter than what an average ex-marine would be.

Thomas H. Purvis Nov 19 2006, 05:34 AM Post #1

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1769

Joined: 17-June 05

Member No.: 3092

About time to destroy the myth that LHO was a poor marksman.

First off, he was raised hunting rabbits with a .22 rifle.

Poor shots use shotguns, not .22 caliber rifles.

Secondly, his USMC rating leaves much to be explained, and if one digs deep enough, they just may find that LHO was, in many ways, an exceptional shot.

Mr. Hemming, you and/or any other USMC personnel, please feel free to step in and help clarify a few items about the rifle markmanship training of the USMC and exactly what it may, and may not mean.

Any USMC type's out there who would like to explain how one gets their rifle markmanship rating?

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

This is in direct contradiction with those who served alongside Lee and also his immediate superiors (US Marine Corps).

This is also in contradiction with just about all the (expert) testimony of the WC pertaining to this issue. Had Lee Oswald's shooting performance been exceptional in any way, the WC would have made great efforts to show this, as it would have been one of their goals. In fact this would have been an issue they would have jumped on all over...

I believe the marine/military officers questioned about this issue take into consideration the amount and quality of training which a marine goes through, and evaluates Oswald's performance based on this.

Conclusion; at best, Lee was an average shot (among the US MC).

Therefore I would instead focus difficulty of the actual shooting performance on 11/22/63, considering the circumstances, the weapon, the scope, and perhaps lastly the shooting skills of Lee Oswald. Most forum members, who are well acquainted with rifles, will say this was a very difficult task.

The best way to settle this would be by performing a mock shooting, with a similar weapon - in similar condition, under the same circumstances (as far as possible), with the same limited time at hand, and by a group of individuals with similar skills and practise.

Their average ability would most likely prove whether the shooting was, in fact possible or impossible. (this is the 2-3 hits in some 6-7 seconds etc. etc.).

I believe, a few such tests have been undertaken, why the results of these are contradictory I do not know. It might be interesting to compare how these tests were done.

I tend to believe those who say that this shooting was a difficult one, and that the weapon was poor.

Edited November 22, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In this thread Mr. Purvis claims on several of his postings that Lee Oswald is more skilled as a shooter than what an average ex-marine would be.

Thomas H. Purvis Nov 19 2006, 05:34 AM Post #1

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1769

Joined: 17-June 05

Member No.: 3092

About time to destroy the myth that LHO was a poor marksman.

First off, he was raised hunting rabbits with a .22 rifle.

Poor shots use shotguns, not .22 caliber rifles.

Secondly, his USMC rating leaves much to be explained, and if one digs deep enough, they just may find that LHO was, in many ways, an exceptional shot.

Mr. Hemming, you and/or any other USMC personnel, please feel free to step in and help clarify a few items about the rifle markmanship training of the USMC and exactly what it may, and may not mean.

Any USMC type's out there who would like to explain how one gets their rifle markmanship rating?

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

This is in direct contradiction with those who served alongside Lee and also his immediate superiors (US Marine Corps).

This is also in contradiction with just about all the (expert) testimony of the WC pertaining to this issue. Had Lee Oswald's shooting performance been exceptional in any way, the WC would have made great efforts to show this, as it would have been one of their goals. In fact this would have been an issue they would have jumped on all over...

I believe the marine/military officers questioned about this issue take into consideration the amount and quality of training which a marine goes through, and evaluates Oswald's performance based on this.

Conclusion; at best, Lee was an average shot (among the US MC).

Therefore I would instead focus difficulty of the actual shooting performance on 11/22/63, considering the circumstances, the weapon, the scope, and perhaps lastly the shooting skills of Lee Oswald. Most forum members, who are well acquainted with rifles, will say this was a very difficult task.

The best way to settle this would be by performing a mock shooting, with a similar weapon - in similar condition, under the same circumstances (as far as possible), with the same limited time at hand, and by a group of individuals with similar skills and practise.

Their average ability would most likely prove whether the shooting was, in fact possible or impossible. (this is the 2-3 hits in some 6-7 seconds etc. etc.).

I believe, a few such tests have been undertaken, why the results of these are contradictory I do not know. It might be interesting to compare how these tests were done.

I tend to believe those who say that this shooting was a difficult one, and that the weapon was poor.

Most forum members, who are well acquainted with rifles, will say this was a very difficult task.

Actually, ALL of this forum as well as virtually ALL of the Lancer forum, and many of the McAdams forum have repeatedly claimed how difficult the shooting task was.

But then again, until Tom opened the door and informed you, ALL of you were attempting to "stuff" three shots into a 5.8 seconds or so shooting scenario.

On my tombstone I would like: NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE WC SHOOTING SCENARIO

In this thread Mr. Purvis claims on several of his postings that Lee Oswald is more skilled as a shooter than what an average ex-marine would be.

Either I missed that, or else you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

The MILITARY RECORD of LHO, for his Rangefire Qualification with the M1 Garand, demonstrates that LHO REPEATEDLY fired in the upper ranges of EXPERT when firing on the 200 yard target from the sitting position, in a "rapid fire" exercise.

The MILITARY RECORD of LHO demonstrates that on the day of his final Rifle Qualification, that he fired in the Upper Expert Range for this firing station, fired in the mid-Expert range for two of the other stations, failed to even qualifiy on the standing/unsupported/off-hand firing position, and only qualified as low "Marksman" on one station in which wind conditions appear to have been a contributing factor.

Therefore, to state that LHO was anywhere near being either a "poor" or even "average" marksman is a complete misrepresentation of the known facts.

From 200 yards, in the sitting position, in a rapid fire condition, LHO repeatedly placed approximately 8 out of 10 shots fired inside a 10-inch diameter circle.

Anyone who shoots, knows that this is neither poor, nor average shooting, and just as the USMC graded it, it ranges in the upper EXPERT range of ALL USMC shooters during Rangefire Qualification.

This is also in contradiction with just about all the (expert) testimony of the WC pertaining to this issue. Had Lee Oswald's shooting performance been exceptional in any way, the WC would have made great efforts to show this, as it would have been one of their goals. In fact this would have been an issue they would have jumped on all over...

Yeah, but unfortunately, you also believe in multiple assassins, as well as most probably Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The WC personnel were lawyers, and just as on this forum, few if any were shooters, and fewer yet were ever associated with USMC Range Fire.

However, I like nothing better than to observe those who attempt to utilize the WC to buttress their stories.

Exactly when was it that you determined that the WC was a factual search for the truth???????????

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

Mr. OSWALD. No squirrels were killed that day and perhaps I believe this was the occasion that we went into what we called a briar patch located off to the left of the farmhouse; at that particular time it was very thick with cottontails, and I believe we exterminated about eight of them at that time between the three of us because it was the type of brush and thorns that didn't grow very high but we were able to see over them, so getting three of us out there it wasn't very hard to kill eight of them.

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

"Non-shooters" hunt squirrel & rabbits with a shotgun!

Anyone who utilizes a .22 is either a good shot, or else likes to go hungry.

And, had you been raised in the South, or even done any research on the subject matter, then you would have known this also.

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

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

Actually, Robert stated that John Pic, the half-brother was the better of the three:

Mr. OSWALD. To what extent we were familiar with firearms.

To elaborate, at military school John was by far the better shot of the two of us. He was on the school rifle team. And, at this time, I was 10 years old--when I first attended there. My hunting instinct came alive.

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

You know! Had the WC demonstrated the consistant actual shooting ability of LHO, from the fixed/sitting position, up to ranges of 200 yards in a "rapid fire" situation, then it is most unlikely that too many persons would have ever had any belief in THE SHOT THAT MISSED.

Add to my Tombstone: TOM DID NOT FALL FOR THAT ONE EITHER!

I believe the marine/military officers questioned about this issue take into consideration the amount and quality of training which a marine goes through, and evaluates Oswald's performance based on this.

Conclusion; at best, Lee was an average shot (among the US MC).

And, the exact same logic told the teachers of Albert Einstein that he was virtually an idiot and incapable of learning.

Overall "average" yes!

Fixed and sitting position:-------------Upper EXPERT range-------consistantly at 200 yards.

#1. 62 Yards

#2. 88 Yards

#3. 98 Yards

And that does not even take into consideration the fact that LHO fired in the mid-EXPERT range for the 300 yard Rapid-Fire exercise as well as the 500 yard slow-fire.

Which also demonstrates that some variable exists in the 300-yard slow fire to have caused LHO to barely qualify at this station.

(5mph wind speed & 4 different settings for windage in attempt to get the correct sighting)

Essential variables are a necessity in understanding many things in life!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

'Thomas H. Purvis' wrote:

Usage of the .22 rifle was common for a number of reasons.

1. It was by far less dangerous in the hands of some of those who had never held a rifle.

2. It taught the shooter the "basics" of how to crawl before he was required to walk and/or run with the larger caliber rifle.

3. It was highly "cost effective" for the USMC budget in regards to ammo costs.

4. "Non-shooters" were far less likely to become shell-shocked from the noise of the .22, as compared to the M1-Garand, on initial learning to shoot.

5. All of the "basics" could be taught utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be "coveted" and stolen.

Weapons theft (M1-Garand) as well as all other actual issue weapons was a common problem. By utilizing the .22 for basic introduction training, the Marine learned the importance of hanging onto his weapon utilizing a weapon which was far less likely to be the target of theft.

6. Raw recruits were far less likely to come down with the "Garand Thumb" problem early in their rifle training, by utilization of the .22 to learn the basics of marksmanship.

Who remembers any other reasons???????????

Thanks for the USMC info, Tom -- Certainly didn't have .22's in ARMY basic trainning-1962. I got the thumb and that rifle beat the xxxx out of me. I'll never forget the range instructor running a full clip through the M1 while resting the butt plate aganist his chin.

Same here with the exception that my initial introduction to the Garand was through the National Guard.

However, during my enlisted assignment with an Infantry Company, I did find that virtually ALL Infantry Units had, inside their arms room, "Match-Grade" .22 rifles.

These were for usage of anyone who demonstrated a better than normal shooting ability to have to practice with, and were part of the U.S. Army's shooting team method of locating potential team members.

And, since the unit was expected to expend it's yearly allocation of .22 ammo in search for potential team members, some of us got to shoot quite a bit with match-grade .22's.

I had thought that my old Remington "Nylon-66" was an accurate .22, growing up hunting squirrels & rabbits.

Nothing compared to those match-grade rifles.

But of course, there is no written record of how many times that I hunted squirrels or headlighted rabbits, as well as shot match-grade .22's during my Infantry assignment.

Therefore, it of course did not happen!

One can rest assured that the WC DID NOT want anyone to know exactly how good LHO was at shooting from the sitting/fixed position.

Five or so pages of THE SHOT THAT MISSED demonstrates the WHY? of the WC's lack of search for the facts.

Had they demonstrated LHO's true capability from the sitting/fixed position, exactly how many would have believed the WC scenario initially??????

Can't even manage a hit on the car at ranges less than 100 yards, yet can shoot consistantly in the upper expert range with 8 out of 10 located within a 10-inch shot grouping, at 200 yards???????

There are, as previously indicated, multiple "blinds" by the WC, and there are exact reasons as well as rationale for all that they did.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[On my tombstone I would like: NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE WC SHOOTING SCENARIO

BUT REACHED THE SAME SILLY CONCLUSION ANYWAY.