I'm shocked!
Posted on 03/18/2012 11:59:30 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
I don’t believe the conspiracy theories beyond, maybe Oswald wasn’t the shooter in the window. But, no doubt that the window in the Depository was the spot. After that, it’s just too easy for a reasonably competent shooter to kill him from that window. The head shot was to a certain degree the shooter getting one last round off before the limo got too far out of range, and a certain degree of “chance” that he happened to blow Kennedy’s head off.
Just because someone says they were the best doesn't mean it's true.
Using a scoped, bolt action rifle, I once shot 3 times at a deer that was running away from me through a timber cut field. One hit by itself was fatal requiring no tracking, one hit by itself would have meant tracking it for some distance but would eventually have been fatal. One hit by itself was a minor flesh wound he would have quickly recovered from.
Unlike that buck bouncing through brush, the target profile presented by JFK was essentially stationary.
I did it in possibly less than half that time on a deer running away from me across a rough timber cut field using a cheap scoped bolt action. My shots were much more difficult than those Oswald had to make.
I’ve heard the same story about the M-C...slug the bore to get the true diameter, and “tune” your ammo to suit it (even if it just means sorting and checking diameters of bullets on issue ammo with a mike) and the Mannlicher-Carcano can do very well.
Am I saying that that’s what Oswald did? No...only that even a “POS” rifle can be a tack driver if the stars all align right. And Oswald wasn’t using wartime Italian ammunition...he was using American commercial ammo.
Regarding the backspray of blood when Kennedy was shot...hasn’t it been reported that he was wearing a backbrace that day, which limited his movement?
Biggest issue I have with the idea of Kennedy’s assassination being some sort of “conspiracy”...if this was organized by a group with any sense of planning, why would Oswald have been “allowed” or “enabled” to be captured? Why not have the assassin disappear, leaving no evidence behind...or if a name and face were to be supplied, why not have the “assassin” conveniently killed before capture? For that matter, if it was the work of a conspiracy, why have either the President or assassin taken out in public view?
To leave a triggerman behind, alive and spewing inconvenient claims, reeks of either incredibly bad planning or “failure to think things through”. And that latter element—the lack of planning beyond the “I’M GONNA BE SOMEBODY!” moment—makes me think the events in Dealey Plaza were the work of one loser, a self-declared Marxist True Believer, who had attached himself to the Cuban cause after being disillusioned by the Soviet Union, and sought to make a name for himself by lashing out on its behalf.
From the book depository Kennedy was a moving target. They actually had marksmen try and hit a Kennedy dummy in the 8.4 seconds that it took to get three shots off from that angle. Can’t be done.
You might be the best marksman in the world if you think you can pull it off.
They weren't very good marksmen if they couldn't do it.
You might be the best marksman in the world if you think you can pull it off.
I could have pulled it off no problem. Thanks for the compliment but you are greatly overestimating the skill required.
I suggest you read about the "mad minute"; 15 hits from a bolt action onto a 12" round target at 300 yds within one minute. The "mad minute" was done using open sights on a rifle that weighed well over a pound more than the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 used by Oswald. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute.
And remember, the distance from the window of the book depository to JFK's moving vehicle ranged from ~50 yds for the first shot to ~85yds on the final shot.
While hitting a moving target?
The target, JFK in this case was slowly moving away from the shooters position. Based on my understanding of the events, JFK would have presented Oswald with a target that was slowly shrinking while moving slightly upward and to the right in a straight, predictable line.
Oswald had all the time to make the first shot, remember, the clock starts with his first shot. Oswald fires the first shot, reloads and aims just ahead of where he predicts the target will be and fires when the target moves into his sight picture. He repeats the process for the third shot.
I'm shocked!
You’d think this was a liberal website with the STUNNING lack of gun knowledge displayed. Notice the last response to your post. “While hitting a moving target?” Amazing. At 85 yards with a rested rifle and a seated shooter and a scope????? What kind of GD fool thinks this is an “impossible” shot. Not only is it not impossible, it’s easier than falling out of bed. Again, is this FR, where people are supposed to know a thing or two about guns? Also, as I pointed out earlier, when a target is moving toward your or away from you, as opposed to left and right, it’s not even considered to be moving.
Here’s another thing — the clock starts a millisecond AFTER the first bullet is fired. AFTER. That means Lee had 6.7 seconds to get off TWO shots, not three.
I’ve been at the scene of the crime. Oswald was practically on top off Kennedy when he made his shots. The best marksmen in the world could easily do it with iron sights. Oswald used a scope.
Mannlicher-Carcano not being accurate shows a lack of knowledge about firearms. Shooters are still using this rifle on ranges all around the country and getting solid hits. This is with rifles that are a least 50 years older than the one Oswald used. I use a 1917 SMLE, 95 years old, and it still hits the black at 100 yards no problem. Oswald was shooting half the distance.
Well, not everyone can be knowledgeable on all topics.
At 85 yards with a rested rifle and a seated shooter and a scope????? What kind of GD fool thinks this is an “impossible” shot.
Cut the guy some slack. I appreciate the many times Freepers have lent their knowledge to patiently educate me on various topics over the years for which I either had no prior knowledge or flawed knowledge.
Not only is it not impossible, it’s easier than falling out of bed.
I agree.
Again, is this FR, where people are supposed to know a thing or two about guns?
Evidently, it's a larger tent than we assumed.
Also, as I pointed out earlier, when a target is moving toward your or away from you, as opposed to left and right, it’s not even considered to be moving.
True but a minor technicality is that if shooting down at a target that is moving away from you on a flat surface, the target will appear to be slowly shrinking AND moving upward. You obviously know that but I point it out for the benefit of others who may be following this thread.
Since the road had a slight bend in it and also had a slight hill, depending on where JFK was between two points in time, he may have as you said presented a stationary AND slowly shrinking target, or one that was slowly shrinking AND moving slightly on a very predictable path. I used worst case of a target slowly shrinking and moving slightly on a very predictable path... an easy shot.
Here’s another thing — the clock starts a millisecond AFTER the first bullet is fired. AFTER. That means Lee had 6.7 seconds to get off TWO shots, not three.
Yes, I understand that. I previously pointed it out as well but it bears worth repeating.
You are patient... and correct.
Nope. Just another in a list of crackpots.
Was this the plan, where you had the three shooters and set up Oswald as the patsy? The shooters + spotters were taken away down to Mexico and then killed on the theory that dead men tell no tales.
"Forward and to the right! Forward and to the right!"
OK seriously, that's where the "inaccurate sights" were throwing the bullets. If LHO knew where the sights were puttimg the bullets, he has a gift - NO CORRECTIONS: Aim where you want the bullets to go, and the motion of JFK's car will take him into them. (the offset was only a couple of inches anyway)
Have YOU seen/heard the whole interview???
Anyone can give an interview. The fact is there have been a whole lot of people that have given entirely made up stories about the JFK assassination. You can’t take anything seriously unless there’s hard evidence. Interviews with someone claiming involvement or knowledge, without evidence to back them up, are worthless.
Madeleine Brown is no different. See: http://dperry1943.com/browns.html
Finally, I found the other person in the US that believes that.
Some people saw smoke from the area, etc. that was never truly investivated.
OK, let's not open that again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.