Replies

"Nope. I go for the facts. "

Well, at least the "facts" you selectively care to address.

As for Oswald being a "sharpshooter."

". . . .Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify."

Having been in the military and qualified, I can tell you that qualifying as a sharpshooter is nothing like being considered a true expert marksman like those used to test the one gunman theory.

And as far as common sense, why would you train to fire quickly with a slow weapon -- especially when it is accuracy which really matters in this case? Makes no sense. Every tries to prove the rapid fire theory without asking why? So you are a nut who has decided to take out the president. You know the odds are pretty good you're going to get caught, so you better make your shot(s) count. So, do you fire as fast as you can, increasing the chance that you'll miss, still get caught, or do you take your time and make each shot count? Even with your 8.2 seconds two shots is pushing it, though more plausible than three.

But hey, what do I know other than what the facts and common sense tells me?