LHO's Markmanship Ability

David G. Healy · November 26, 2006

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.

Interesting and a few questions, the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate? Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)? Brennen spoke of the "entire barrel" exposed, did he elaborate further? Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time? Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

Edited November 26, 2006 by David G. Healy

Thomas H. Purvis · November 26, 2006

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.

Interesting and a few questions, the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate? Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)? Brennen spoke of the "entire barrel" exposed, did he elaborate further? Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time? Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

David;

One would have thought that by now, I would have answered my quota of questions!

the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate?

Not on my part!

And, it would appear, not on the part of Allan and his excellent work, which also includes the discussions with Tom Alyea.

Which would include:

1. The boxes were arranged in a position which effectively placed them looking directly down Elm St. into the zone of fire.

2. The boxes constituted two boxes stacked one atop the other, and another box resting on the window ledge and somewhat back, possibly against the forward edge of the two that were stacked.

So, I would hope that either Allan, who has done fantastic research onto this subject, would interject here.

The "three high" boxes were utilized by the WC in order to make some attempt to justify the firing position of the rifle as demonstrated by the Shaneyfelt/tripod position.

In this regards, one needs to completely review the testimony of FBI Agent Frazier as he was doing his "sighting" from the window and the later testimony of Shaneyfelt when he was doing his sighting.

I like to call it "Who's on First"!, but since Abbot & Costello long ago more or less patented this one, lets just call it "Who's sighting When"!

Now, if one could only resolve exactly why would the WC want to "Jack up" the re-enactment firing position of the rifle for taking some photo's.

Certainly, not unlike all other obfuscations, there must be some logical reason for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)?

Now, we are getting down to the "Brass Tacks".

If recalled, I long ago posted in regards to the confusion surrounding LHO's right/left handedness?????

Based on acceptance of the witnesses who observed the Shooter(?)/LHO at the window of the TSDB, they were holding the weapon from a right handed shooting position.

Which of course made it extremely difficult for later right-handed shooters to obtain accurate alignment with the scope on the weapon, to the extent that they had to install shims in order to get the cross-hair alignment to fall within the center of the scope for their shooting/sighting.

Of course, a right-handed person is normally also "right-eyed".

Since no one here seemed to appreciate the significance of a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, and all that they wanted to talk about was the poor shooting performance of LHO; the impossibility of the shots; the poor alignment of the scope; etc;, I left them to continue in their lack of knowledge.

Fortunately, Mr. McKnight somewhat recognized what I was discussing along this lines.

My father, who is right handed, yet he is left-eye dominant, normally shoots left-handed.

However, he can shoot virtually as well shooting right handed, yet utilizing his left eye for sighting.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.

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

From all indications, as reported by his brother Robert as well as half-brother John Pic, LHO appeared to be fully right-handed.

Robert, the brother, had certain left-hand tendancies. Yet according to LHO's mother, he was left-handed.

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

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed

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

Mrs. MURRET - Well, if it's anything, it's even a little better than I knew him to write, I might say. I never thought he wrote very well for his age, and he was 14 then, you know. Of course, a lot of boys don't write good. Girls, you will find, are better at penmanship than boys. You ought to see my son's writing. He graduated from law school, and he don't write good either. Now, I think he was left handed.

Mr. JENNER - I believe you said during the course of this discussion that you thought Lee was left handed. What led you to say that?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, as a child, when he was a small child, I knew he ate with his left hand, and I always thought that he did things with his left hand. Now, whether he used both hands or not, I don't know, but he did use his left hand as a child. I remember that.

Mr. JENNER - In fact, children are often ambidextrous, aren't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - They eat with either hand, don't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; they do. I have known of cases where children have started out eating with their left hands, and they switch over as they grow older to their right hands, but then there are some children who never use their right hand, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - This was an impression you had of him as a very small boy though, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

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

Based on the number of witnesses which the WC questioned along the lines of whether LHO was or was not right or left handed, there appears to be some reasoning for all of this.

In this regards, it is my opinion that these persons (the WC) had never encountered a person who may be right-handed, yet left-eye dominant.

In event that this was the case with LHO, then this would fully explain the aspects of the scope mis-alignment for a normal right-handed/right-eyed shooter.

In event LHO fired the Carcano right handed, yet sighted with his left eye, then his left eye would have been far more in alignment with the scope crosshairs, whereas a right-handed/right-eyed shooter would have considerable difficulty in adjusting the crosshairs onto the target yet remain somewhat near the center of the scope optics.

Not only that, it is far more difficult for a right handed shooter to re-aquire a sight picture through a left-side mounted scope.

Normally, when the cheek "spot weld" is taken on the stock, it places the right eye in almost direct alignment with the rear sight and the front sight. (that's why rifles are made the way that they are).

In order for a right-handed/righ-eyed shooter to accurately shoot a weapon in which the scope is left of center of the barrel/sight alignment, the shooter must effectively modify his normal cheek spot weld and "cock" his head and eye to the left in order to sight through the scope optics.

However, for a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, the spot weld of the cheek to the weapon stock remains the same, yet the left eye is in virtually automatic alignment with the scope optics when the spotweld is achieved.

Therefore, in event LHO was left-eye dominant, then the position of the scope as well as the crosshair alignment which he would have had through the optics, was in fact a beneficial factor in his shooting ability.

This, in my opinion, is the reasoning behind LHO's/the shooter's ability to shoot accurately with the scope, as mounted, without the addition of any shims, whereas a normal shooter was somewhat at a loss.

And, some of these great "reportedly" shooter should have long ago brought out this well known fact.

(among shooters that is!)

Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time?

Depends primarily to what extent one believes the testimony of the only eyewitness who claimed to identify him as the person observed there holding the rifle.

Other than this, we have only the rifle/bag/clipboard/palmprint evidence to place him there.

Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

Lost in space as to the exact nature of the question.

Tom.

P.S. Keep on, I am certain that you are getting close to the answer(s) now.

Thomas H. Purvis · November 27, 2006

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.

Interesting and a few questions, the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate? Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)? Brennen spoke of the "entire barrel" exposed, did he elaborate further? Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time? Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

TOP POST!

David, this reply appears to have been "Lost in Space" and still does not show up as my having posted it.

Hope it answers some of your additional questions.

Tom

David;

One would have thought that by now, I would have answered my quota of questions!

the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate?

Not on my part!

And, it would appear, not on the part of Allan and his excellent work, which also includes the discussions with Tom Alyea.

Which would include:

1. The boxes were arranged in a position which effectively placed them looking directly down Elm St. into the zone of fire.

2. The boxes constituted two boxes stacked one atop the other, and another box resting on the window ledge and somewhat back, possibly against the forward edge of the two that were stacked.

So, I would hope that either Allan, who has done fantastic research onto this subject, would interject here.

The "three high" boxes were utilized by the WC in order to make some attempt to justify the firing position of the rifle as demonstrated by the Shaneyfelt/tripod position.

In this regards, one needs to completely review the testimony of FBI Agent Frazier as he was doing his "sighting" from the window and the later testimony of Shaneyfelt when he was doing his sighting.

I like to call it "Who's on First"!, but since Abbot & Costello long ago more or less patented this one, lets just call it "Who's sighting When"!

Now, if one could only resolve exactly why would the WC want to "Jack up" the re-enactment firing position of the rifle for taking some photo's.

Certainly, not unlike all other obfuscations, there must be some logical reason for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)?

Now, we are getting down to the "Brass Tacks".

If recalled, I long ago posted in regards to the confusion surrounding LHO's right/left handedness?????

Based on acceptance of the witnesses who observed the Shooter(?)/LHO at the window of the TSDB, they were holding the weapon from a right handed shooting position.

Which of course made it extremely difficult for later right-handed shooters to obtain accurate alignment with the scope on the weapon, to the extent that they had to install shims in order to get the cross-hair alignment to fall within the center of the scope for their shooting/sighting.

Of course, a right-handed person is normally also "right-eyed".

Since no one here seemed to appreciate the significance of a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, and all that they wanted to talk about was the poor shooting performance of LHO; the impossibility of the shots; the poor alignment of the scope; etc;, I left them to continue in their lack of knowledge.

Fortunately, Mr. McKnight somewhat recognized what I was discussing along this lines.

My father, who is right handed, yet he is left-eye dominant, normally shoots left-handed.

However, he can shoot virtually as well shooting right handed, yet utilizing his left eye for sighting.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.

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

From all indications, as reported by his brother Robert as well as half-brother John Pic, LHO appeared to be fully right-handed.

Robert, the brother, had certain left-hand tendancies. Yet according to LHO's mother, he was left-handed.

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

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed

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

Mrs. MURRET - Well, if it's anything, it's even a little better than I knew him to write, I might say. I never thought he wrote very well for his age, and he was 14 then, you know. Of course, a lot of boys don't write good. Girls, you will find, are better at penmanship than boys. You ought to see my son's writing. He graduated from law school, and he don't write good either. Now, I think he was left handed.

Mr. JENNER - I believe you said during the course of this discussion that you thought Lee was left handed. What led you to say that?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, as a child, when he was a small child, I knew he ate with his left hand, and I always thought that he did things with his left hand. Now, whether he used both hands or not, I don't know, but he did use his left hand as a child. I remember that.

Mr. JENNER - In fact, children are often ambidextrous, aren't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - They eat with either hand, don't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; they do. I have known of cases where children have started out eating with their left hands, and they switch over as they grow older to their right hands, but then there are some children who never use their right hand, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - This was an impression you had of him as a very small boy though, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

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

Based on the number of witnesses which the WC questioned along the lines of whether LHO was or was not right or left handed, there appears to be some reasoning for all of this.

In this regards, it is my opinion that these persons (the WC) had never encountered a person who may be right-handed, yet left-eye dominant.

In event that this was the case with LHO, then this would fully explain the aspects of the scope mis-alignment for a normal right-handed/right-eyed shooter.

In event LHO fired the Carcano right handed, yet sighted with his left eye, then his left eye would have been far more in alignment with the scope crosshairs, whereas a right-handed/right-eyed shooter would have considerable difficulty in adjusting the crosshairs onto the target yet remain somewhat near the center of the scope optics.

Not only that, it is far more difficult for a right handed shooter to re-aquire a sight picture through a left-side mounted scope.

Normally, when the cheek "spot weld" is taken on the stock, it places the right eye in almost direct alignment with the rear sight and the front sight. (that's why rifles are made the way that they are).

In order for a right-handed/righ-eyed shooter to accurately shoot a weapon in which the scope is left of center of the barrel/sight alignment, the shooter must effectively modify his normal cheek spot weld and "cock" his head and eye to the left in order to sight through the scope optics.

However, for a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, the spot weld of the cheek to the weapon stock remains the same, yet the left eye is in virtually automatic alignment with the scope optics when the spotweld is achieved.

Therefore, in event LHO was left-eye dominant, then the position of the scope as well as the crosshair alignment which he would have had through the optics, was in fact a beneficial factor in his shooting ability.

This, in my opinion, is the reasoning behind LHO's/the shooter's ability to shoot accurately with the scope, as mounted, without the addition of any shims, whereas a normal shooter was somewhat at a loss.

And, some of these great "reportedly" shooter should have long ago brought out this well known fact.

(among shooters that is!)

Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time?

Depends primarily to what extent one believes the testimony of the only eyewitness who claimed to identify him as the person observed there holding the rifle.

Other than this, we have only the rifle/bag/clipboard/palmprint evidence to place him there.

Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

Lost in space as to the exact nature of the question.

Tom.

P.S. Keep on, I am certain that you are getting close to the answer(s) now.

Thomas H. Purvis · November 27, 2006

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.

Interesting and a few questions, the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate? Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)? Brennen spoke of the "entire barrel" exposed, did he elaborate further? Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time? Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

TOP POST!

David, this reply appears to have been "Lost in Space" and still does not show up as my having posted it.

Hope it answers some of your additional questions.

Tom

David;

One would have thought that by now, I would have answered my quota of questions!

the alignment of boxes; theoretical or actual, is there debate?

Not on my part!

And, it would appear, not on the part of Allan and his excellent work, which also includes the discussions with Tom Alyea.

Which would include:

1. The boxes were arranged in a position which effectively placed them looking directly down Elm St. into the zone of fire.

2. The boxes constituted two boxes stacked one atop the other, and another box resting on the window ledge and somewhat back, possibly against the forward edge of the two that were stacked.

So, I would hope that either Allan, who has done fantastic research onto this subject, would interject here.

The "three high" boxes were utilized by the WC in order to make some attempt to justify the firing position of the rifle as demonstrated by the Shaneyfelt/tripod position.

In this regards, one needs to completely review the testimony of FBI Agent Frazier as he was doing his "sighting" from the window and the later testimony of Shaneyfelt when he was doing his sighting.

I like to call it "Who's on First"!, but since Abbot & Costello long ago more or less patented this one, lets just call it "Who's sighting When"!

Now, if one could only resolve exactly why would the WC want to "Jack up" the re-enactment firing position of the rifle for taking some photo's.

Certainly, not unlike all other obfuscations, there must be some logical reason for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was Oswald right OR left handed (and his sighting eye)?

Now, we are getting down to the "Brass Tacks".

If recalled, I long ago posted in regards to the confusion surrounding LHO's right/left handedness?????

Based on acceptance of the witnesses who observed the Shooter(?)/LHO at the window of the TSDB, they were holding the weapon from a right handed shooting position.

Which of course made it extremely difficult for later right-handed shooters to obtain accurate alignment with the scope on the weapon, to the extent that they had to install shims in order to get the cross-hair alignment to fall within the center of the scope for their shooting/sighting.

Of course, a right-handed person is normally also "right-eyed".

Since no one here seemed to appreciate the significance of a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, and all that they wanted to talk about was the poor shooting performance of LHO; the impossibility of the shots; the poor alignment of the scope; etc;, I left them to continue in their lack of knowledge.

Fortunately, Mr. McKnight somewhat recognized what I was discussing along this lines.

My father, who is right handed, yet he is left-eye dominant, normally shoots left-handed.

However, he can shoot virtually as well shooting right handed, yet utilizing his left eye for sighting.

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

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.

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

From all indications, as reported by his brother Robert as well as half-brother John Pic, LHO appeared to be fully right-handed.

Robert, the brother, had certain left-hand tendancies. Yet according to LHO's mother, he was left-handed.

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

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed

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

Mrs. MURRET - Well, if it's anything, it's even a little better than I knew him to write, I might say. I never thought he wrote very well for his age, and he was 14 then, you know. Of course, a lot of boys don't write good. Girls, you will find, are better at penmanship than boys. You ought to see my son's writing. He graduated from law school, and he don't write good either. Now, I think he was left handed.

Mr. JENNER - I believe you said during the course of this discussion that you thought Lee was left handed. What led you to say that?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, as a child, when he was a small child, I knew he ate with his left hand, and I always thought that he did things with his left hand. Now, whether he used both hands or not, I don't know, but he did use his left hand as a child. I remember that.

Mr. JENNER - In fact, children are often ambidextrous, aren't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - They eat with either hand, don't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; they do. I have known of cases where children have started out eating with their left hands, and they switch over as they grow older to their right hands, but then there are some children who never use their right hand, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - This was an impression you had of him as a very small boy though, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

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

Based on the number of witnesses which the WC questioned along the lines of whether LHO was or was not right or left handed, there appears to be some reasoning for all of this.

In this regards, it is my opinion that these persons (the WC) had never encountered a person who may be right-handed, yet left-eye dominant.

In event that this was the case with LHO, then this would fully explain the aspects of the scope mis-alignment for a normal right-handed/right-eyed shooter.

In event LHO fired the Carcano right handed, yet sighted with his left eye, then his left eye would have been far more in alignment with the scope crosshairs, whereas a right-handed/right-eyed shooter would have considerable difficulty in adjusting the crosshairs onto the target yet remain somewhat near the center of the scope optics.

Not only that, it is far more difficult for a right handed shooter to re-aquire a sight picture through a left-side mounted scope.

Normally, when the cheek "spot weld" is taken on the stock, it places the right eye in almost direct alignment with the rear sight and the front sight. (that's why rifles are made the way that they are).

In order for a right-handed/righ-eyed shooter to accurately shoot a weapon in which the scope is left of center of the barrel/sight alignment, the shooter must effectively modify his normal cheek spot weld and "cock" his head and eye to the left in order to sight through the scope optics.

However, for a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, the spot weld of the cheek to the weapon stock remains the same, yet the left eye is in virtually automatic alignment with the scope optics when the spotweld is achieved.

Therefore, in event LHO was left-eye dominant, then the position of the scope as well as the crosshair alignment which he would have had through the optics, was in fact a beneficial factor in his shooting ability.

This, in my opinion, is the reasoning behind LHO's/the shooter's ability to shoot accurately with the scope, as mounted, without the addition of any shims, whereas a normal shooter was somewhat at a loss.

And, some of these great "reportedly" shooter should have long ago brought out this well known fact.

(among shooters that is!)

Was Oswald indeed at the 6th floor window, at ANY time?

Depends primarily to what extent one believes the testimony of the only eyewitness who claimed to identify him as the person observed there holding the rifle.

Other than this, we have only the rifle/bag/clipboard/palmprint evidence to place him there.

Any of the illustrations/measurements account for the scope?

Lost in space as to the exact nature of the question.

Tom.

P.S. Keep on, I am certain that you are getting close to the answer(s) now.

John Dolva · November 27, 2006

One cannot,yet most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

The only diagram where Alan includes the pipes is the one on the right. The pipes are incorrectly placed. He has the bottom rest box standing an inch or so into the correct pipe place. I think he is almost right so the bottom box is up against the pipe.

The diagram on the left is, I think, correct. See Oswald there scaled to match and the overhead crated from this. This is Oswald sitting upright on the corner of the seat box.

Edited November 27, 2006 by John Dolva

Antti Hynonen · November 27, 2006

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. 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. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Edited November 27, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

Thomas H. Purvis · November 27, 2006

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. 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. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Well!

Since all of "These guys" were dumb enough to believe the WC and attempt to "STUFF" three shots into less than 6 seconds, might I first recommend that one check out the IQ of anyone who has fallen for/believed the WC shooting scenario and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on it.

Certainly tells me something in regards to capabilities for separate and independent thought process.

Also makes me dream of "sheeples".

P.S. Believe the evidence.

P.P.S. Most high school plane geometry students could have informed one as to the exact "plane" in which the back of JFK's head had to be in order for a 6.5mm bullet to have created the elongated entrance through the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons found and measured.

Too bad all of these "shooters" never bothered to check out the actual evidence, they just may have learned something.

Guess that they were not "math majors" or President of the Mu Alpha Theta in school?

As in the vehicle speed, "Math Counts"!

P.P.P. S. It is also recognized as an "Established Fact" in virtually every court in the United States.

Antti Hynonen · November 28, 2006

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Yesterday, 05:00 PM

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. 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. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Well!

Since all of "These guys" were dumb enough to believe the WC and attempt to "STUFF" three shots into less than 6 seconds, might I first recommend that one check out the IQ of anyone who has fallen for/believed the WC shooting scenario and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on it.

Certainly tells me something in regards to capabilities for separate and independent thought process.

Also makes me dream of "sheeples".

P.S. Believe the evidence.

P.P.S. Most high school plane geometry students could have informed one as to the exact "plane" in which the back of JFK's head had to be in order for a 6.5mm bullet to have created the elongated entrance through the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons found and measured.

Too bad all of these "shooters" never bothered to check out the actual evidence, they just may have learned something.

Guess that they were not "math majors" or President of the Mu Alpha Theta in school?

As in the vehicle speed, "Math Counts"!

P.P.P. S. It is also recognized as an "Established Fact" in virtually every court in the United States.

I doubt very much that one or two extra seconds of shooting time would dramatically change the opinions of everyone. If these top level experts say it is impossible in 6 seconds, I doubt it could have been possible for Lee in 8.

Homework done.

I can not believe Mr. Purvis' proposed scenario of events, despite his numerous attempts to convince otherwise. To me it ranks just slightly above the WC scenario, still, unbelievable.

Thomas H. Purvis · November 28, 2006

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Yesterday, 05:00 PM

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. 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. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Well!

Since all of "These guys" were dumb enough to believe the WC and attempt to "STUFF" three shots into less than 6 seconds, might I first recommend that one check out the IQ of anyone who has fallen for/believed the WC shooting scenario and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on it.

Certainly tells me something in regards to capabilities for separate and independent thought process.

Also makes me dream of "sheeples".

P.S. Believe the evidence.

P.P.S. Most high school plane geometry students could have informed one as to the exact "plane" in which the back of JFK's head had to be in order for a 6.5mm bullet to have created the elongated entrance through the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons found and measured.

Too bad all of these "shooters" never bothered to check out the actual evidence, they just may have learned something.

Guess that they were not "math majors" or President of the Mu Alpha Theta in school?

As in the vehicle speed, "Math Counts"!

P.P.P. S. It is also recognized as an "Established Fact" in virtually every court in the United States.

I doubt very much that one or two extra seconds of shooting time would dramatically change the opinions of everyone. If these top level experts say it is impossible in 6 seconds, I doubt it could have been possible for Lee in 8.

Homework done.

I can not believe Mr. Purvis' proposed scenario of events, despite his numerous attempts to convince otherwise. To me it ranks just slightly above the WC scenario, still, unbelievable.

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.

I do believe it was "Forest Gump" who coined the phrase "Stupid is as Stupid Does!"

I have no doubts that all of those who could not "stuff" the three shots into the WC's completely misrepresented timing, at least appreciate company in the rabbit hole maze.

Having never been to Finland, not to mention never attended schooling there, I can not speak of exactly how the educational system operates.

Here in the ole "bad" US of A educational system, we expect for someone to provide us with the correct information, if they expect us to in turn respond with the correct answers.

I might add, that those of us who have studied the political system to any extent, fully recognize and expect to be "lied" to by Politicians. Most of who are also lawyers.

And, the more wary/intelligent, are fully aware that they should not place a great deal of credence in anything which comes out of the mouth of them.

So, I will again ask? Exactly what form of idiot believed the WC and their "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on three shots having been fired in less than 6 seconds?

And to expound on this, exactly what form of idiot would think that even the poorest/worst shooter to be found, could not have at least hit the Presidential Limo (which happens to be in excess of 20 feet in length as well as an excess of 6 feet in width), three out of three shots at ranges less than 100 yards. Even in the WC's diversionary 6-second time frame.

Most 12 year old boys down here in south MS could easily accomplish this!

Let me give all who bother to read, a "hint"!

Anytime that the WC devotes some 5-pages of circular reasoning (politician talk) to any subject matter within the WC, then one had best take a good look, as they are attempting to sell something which rates up there with the Titaninc.

It don't and won't float!

P.S. Just in case they did not know it, Superman truly can not fly, and I would not recommend that any of them attempt to do so from any tall buildings.

Thomas H. Purvis · November 28, 2006

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Yesterday, 05:00 PM

Just to get a few qualified opinions on the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._poor_shot.html

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. 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. (KILL ZONE, pp. 89-90)

Are Gunny Hathcock (now deceased) and Craig Roberts qualified to make such statements? Have a look and decide for yourself. Just to be clear, these gentlemen say Oswald could not have shot like he has been said to to have shot...

http://www.riflewarrior.com/resume.htm

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...loshathcock.asp

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Who to believe, These guys or Mr. Purvis?

Well!

Since all of "These guys" were dumb enough to believe the WC and attempt to "STUFF" three shots into less than 6 seconds, might I first recommend that one check out the IQ of anyone who has fallen for/believed the WC shooting scenario and thereafter based their entire sum of knowledge on it.

Certainly tells me something in regards to capabilities for separate and independent thought process.

Also makes me dream of "sheeples".

P.S. Believe the evidence.

P.P.S. Most high school plane geometry students could have informed one as to the exact "plane" in which the back of JFK's head had to be in order for a 6.5mm bullet to have created the elongated entrance through the skull of JFK which the autopsy surgeons found and measured.

Too bad all of these "shooters" never bothered to check out the actual evidence, they just may have learned something.

Guess that they were not "math majors" or President of the Mu Alpha Theta in school?

As in the vehicle speed, "Math Counts"!

P.P.P. S. It is also recognized as an "Established Fact" in virtually every court in the United States.

I doubt very much that one or two extra seconds of shooting time would dramatically change the opinions of everyone. If these top level experts say it is impossible in 6 seconds, I doubt it could have been possible for Lee in 8.

Homework done.

I can not believe Mr. Purvis' proposed scenario of events, despite his numerous attempts to convince otherwise. To me it ranks just slightly above the WC scenario, still, unbelievable.