Yes as I demonstrated it HAS been conclusively proven but you simply ignore this fact because it does not fit your conspiracy theory narrative. The evidence makes the offiicial Warren Commission report true which is something none of your theories have.
I have an old Carcano much like the one they found in the TSBD. It's in terrible condition but is accurate enough to hit a man sized target at 100 yards. With a single drop of oil on the action it is slick enough to easily operate the bolt to fire several shots 2 seconds apart. It's not as slick as my Enfield, but faster than my Savage or Remington actions. In my opinion a mediocre marksman would not have a problem doing what Oswald was said to have done that day. I'm certain it was well within the capabilities of anyone who made it through MC boot camp. Ranb
I'm not insisting that it is absolutely impossible for someone to have assassinated Kennedy with a Carcano only that I don't believe that Oswald was a "lone gunman" or that the official version is true & complete. Kennedy had some pretty formidable enemies at home & abroad with ties to influential people in the US Intelligence community & US Government. At the time he was assassinated, he was strongly at odds with Israel about their developing nuclear program and at odds with the MIC over drawing out of Viet Nam etc.
Yes all presidents make enemies and formidable ones. There is simply no evidence of any other person shooting Kennedy however or conspiring with Oswald. No investigation is EVER 100% true and complete but in the case of JFK one they proved it conclusively.
You claimed in part; So you believe the official version of events is BS due to the rifle (your friend's rifle anyway) being harder to operate than your mauser. That is a rather broad statement. Based upon my experience with rifles in general and the Carcano, I find it very difficult to accept that anyone familiar with rifles would call what Oswald was alleged to have done difficult. It is like a person who says driving a car is difficult; it is if they've never been behind the wheel before. Surely you understand that the limo JFK was in was moving slowly at a small angle to the TSBD and that the shooter had about 6 seconds to cycle the bolt twice and pull the trigger three times. If the shooter was aiming for JFK's head, he missed twice. Not a great feat of marksmanship at all. Do what makes you think it was not a lone shooter? Do you have actual evidence or is it just a feeling?
It's been almost 3 months since I posted on this thread and said: "I've been shooting a very wide variety of firearms for 60+ years (everything from .22 cal. to .50BMG, bolt action to fully automatic weapons) qualified "Expert" with several firearms in the Military & continue to shoot WW2 era bolt action & semi auto rifles in competition. There's no way that Oswald could have made those shots." I've also been around long enough to concede that almost anything is possible including the possibility that Oswald was the lone shooter. Since I haven't made an extremely thorough study of this tragic event & make no claim to be an expert on this subject I will only say that my sense that there is more to the story than the official version is more of a gut feeling. Meanwhile, there are many more documents that were scheduled to be released in October but the US Intelligence community urged Trump to keep them resealed which he has done I wonder what there is to hide?
Mine is absolute certainty based on the evidence and the fact that the US government is a pathological liar never to be trusted. And that's part of the evidence. There's only one reason to cover up a crime, it's to protect the criminals. And this is more than 50 years later. How can any intelligent person in his right mind believe the official story when no one knows what is being deliberately hidden? No one knows what is missing from the story, a story filled with contradictions and impossibilities. It's not just your gut feeling, it's evidence and logic that's telling you they are full of caca. The pattern of deceit is repeated with 9/11 and that pattern is also proven.
Your claim that the US government is a pathological liar is both contradictory and unsupported by any evidence. There fore it is not a fact but merely an uninformed opinion. You have never been able to name any such contradictions or impossibilities. Much like 911 you do not even bother to educate yourself about what the government claims as we have proven and you have admitted you never read the Warren Commission report, or the 911 report or any other official investigation. You simply believe in knee jerk fashion whatever you see on you tube.
You are wrong and no little if anything about shooting. It was not only possible but in fact EASY for Oswald to have made those shots ad your claim to authority is not valid or good enough. You cannot explain WHY it would have been difficult to make those shots and that proves your experience is meaningless and likely self aggrandizing claims. So explain why it would have been difficult because the evidence proves you wrong. The fact has been proven that millions could have done what he did and have proven it in endless testing.
Exactly what the conspiracy crowd will not answer. Anyone can claim to be an " expert " shot and form and " expert " opinion but that means nothing. A true expert can clearly explain the technical reasons why they have that opinion as in it was too far or the target was moving too fast etc etc. Of course in the case of JFK the range was very close and easy and the movement was so slow as to be negligible.
According to my calculations a lead of a few inches would be required to keep the impact in the center of the target; but this was not required due to the size of the target. If claimed experience counts here, I'm a 20 year Navy vet, former gun dealer, current competitive shooter (small bore and air), amateur gunsmith and experienced with rifles from 17 to 50 caliber. But it doesn't really count for much at all when the discussion is whether or not a person can hit a slowly moving large target at short range with a rifle. I'll never really understand the drive of a person who claims expertise on guns to prostitute themselves by saying this hardly difficult feat of marksmanship is unlikely.
It is reasonable to state that Oswald probably aimed at the head for all 3 shots. This is simply because the head and neck and upper shoulders were the only parts of Kennedy's body protruding up from the limo seat. Aiming a strip of a couple of inches of his shoulder would make no sense since he was trying to kill Kennedy. Since we can reasonably assume he aimed at the head all 3 times his actual performance was not very good. He missed the intended target two out of three times. The shot which hit Kennedy's body was probably meant to be a head shot and although it caused very serious and possibly even fatal wounds it's still a miss since the specific intended target was probably the head. Hitting the target 2 or even 1 out of three times was not impossible or terribly difficult when the target was moving very slowly and was at very close range. Range and movement are not really the most important challenges to overcome. Usually angle is the most important problem. The Angle from the 6th floor was actually very easy. From Oswald's position the movement of the target was negligible and he did not need to concern himself with leading the target. The apparent movement was so slight that he may have well been shooting at a stationary target. Some people probably do not get what APPARENT movement is. IF a target is moving across your line of sight the actual motion and movement will require leading it. However if it is moving directly toward you or away from you the movement is reduced to the target either growing or shrinking and therefore there is no need to lead it. In Oswald's case it was only shrinking and slowly moving up in his field of vision. And again the target was at very close range for a rifle. Oswald's military records prove he was easily able to hit such targets at even greater ranges. The claim that it was impossible is simply absurd and no amount of self proclaimed expertise is evidence.
It's not so much that the shots were hard but that Oswald was a rotten marksman according to those familiar with his shooting abilities. According to the following source, Oswald's rifle wasn't even sighted in correctly. "JFK - How good of a shot was Oswald" http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html EXCERPT "In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy: Expert: a score of 220 to 250. Sharpshooter: 210 to 219. Marksman: 190 to 209. According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice: In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’. In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’. Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission: The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”. Former Marines recall that Oswald was a poor shot. Nelson Delgado said Oswald on the firing line was “a pretty big joke” because he got a lot of complete misses. Delgado told researcher Mark Lane that Oswald just was not that interested in guns. He was always being penalized for not taking proper care of his rifle or cleaning it regularly. Sherman Cooley, another Marine, said “If I had to pick one man in the entire United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.”CONTINUED
The explanation of his record is very misleading. Yes he barely scored high enough to be rated as a sharpshooter which means he was not a terrible or even bad shot it means he qualified as a sharpshooter which is significantly higher than the minimum. His later lower score can easily put down to not even trying as he was soon to be discharged anyways and why bother. The witnesses are not reliable as neither of them served in the same platoon as Oswald and were unlikely therefore to have seen him shoot. There testimony is contradictory to his marine record which proves conclusively that he was in fact a good shot. This is especially true in that Marine basic rifle marksmanship training is the best in the US military and even a below average Marine shooter is a good shot in comparison to most people who are not trained to fire a rifle. The facts simply prove conclusively that his skill was more than adequate to making the shots in Dealey. Opinions mean nothing in comparison to that. The rifle was in fact properly sited in. It was the scope on the rifle which was not properly aligned or sited in. The scope was found to be out of alignment but that is irrelevant. It was irrelevant because the rifle ( like many rifles ) was equipped with mounted open iron sights. Essentially Oswald did not need to use the scope. The target was in easy close range for a rifle and he could easily and simply ignored the scope and aimed with the iron sights which happens to be how he was trained to shoot by the Marines and he stood a goo chance of hitting the target when doing so. A very likely and probable explanation for his missed shot is that he used the misaligned scope to aim with when firing the first shot. Since he would have immediately realized he missed he would likely have chosen to simply ignore the scope and aim down the rifles integral sights. Thus achieving better accuracy on shots 2 and 3. None of this proves that he WAS the shooter. A great deal of other evidence proves conclusively that he was. The facts simply prove that the claim he could not have done it is a false claim.
He may have been a rotten marksman compared to other Marines; in fact he probably sucked compared to most of his fellow Marines. Based on his scores he was certainly proficient with a rifle; compared to the average shooter in the USA he was probably just fine with a rifle. I can't get your link to work, but I've read these claims before. As found the scope was not well aligned; it might have ben damaged after he hide it and prior to the authorities testing it. Oswald could have used the sights or adjusted for the misaligned scope provided he had zeroed the rifle prior to using it. This is not unrealistic at all.
I'm sorry that the link didn't work for you, I just rechecked it & it worked on my rickety, patched-up old Mac. Please try googling the title because the link is quite informative. You're right, the scope might have knocked out of alignment etc, Oswald may have had a lucky day, any number of things could have happened. I simply don't believe that the Warren Report is a true & complete rendition of JFK's assassination
I'll admit that I was wrong to say that Oswald could not have made the shot(s). As I said in an earlier post, I simply don't believe that the official explanation of events is true & complete based on events both prior to & after the assassination.
Well it's a fact that the official explanation of events isn't true & complete, whether anyone wants to believe it or not. The US government admits it isn't true & complete simply by stating they have classified information they refuse to release.
That is only your belief it is NOT a fact. Saying they have classified information is not such an admission as you claim. Through all of your proclamations about government lies you have never been able to prove any. You do not even know what is in the Warren Commission report as you have never read it. You cannot cite a single specific lie or provide evidence that it is a lie. Your entire argument about both 911 and jfk is " the government always lies the government always lies the government always lies " Massive failure for you
The conclusions in the Warren Report don't really concern me at all. I've read portions of it for other information it contains. It's just that I've yet to encounter any evidence at all that would show Oswald could have not shot JFK nor have I seen any evidence that strongly suggests there was another shooter. Anyone in the limo that day was a sitting duck for any sniper in one of the top south facing windows of the TSBD. Anyone with a credible amount of experience with a rifle should understand why this is true. I believe that anyone who says it was a hard shot acts like they believe the people they're speaking to are idiots.
