Flashback: LIFE editorial Dec 6, 1963
Peter Fokes
Must there not be something wrong with a country that could let a
brilliant President, and also his accused assassin, be killed against
the laws and the general will? There is less confidence in America
today than two weeks ago. Time and Lyndon Johnson can no doubt win it
back. But the current of fear and doubt was real; and Americans must
get clear on who, or what, in our system was at fault for these
crimes.
Since they happened in Dallas, the easy assumption was that Kennedy
was killed by an agent of the far-out right-wing or white-supremacy
crowd. This conspiratorial hypothesis is still propogated by Moscow
radio, is widely believed in black Africa, and (because Oswald was
killed while surrounded by Dallas policemen) is not entirely rejected
in more sophisticated quarters even yet. More than a few American
commentators have abetted this suspicion by rooting the crimes in
racial and political bigotry. Ralph McGill blamed it on the same
"mosaic of hate" that caused violence in Birmingham and Jackson. Earl
Warren blamed the "hatred and malevolence such as today are eating
their way into the bloodstream of American life."
But this search for a guilty group or climate is a form of
scapegoating. Respect for the truth is the foundation of justice, and
the facts so far known show no connection whatever between the killer
and any indigenous hate group. Oswald was a misfit Marxist with a
life-long persecution complex, a resentful loner who found an evil
chance to employ his single skill - marksmanship - against the world's
most valuable target. Ruby is an excessively gregarious and emotional
pseudo-Texan who apparently wanted his name in the paper for what he
stupidly believed to be a gallant or popular deed. These are both
common types in the American psychic (but not political) spectrum.
They prove nothing about the danger of "hate groups," or any groups,
in American life.
<quote off>
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John Blubaugh
This must have been before it became common knowledge that LHO had no
skills as a marksman.
JB
bigdog
contrary. What you want to believe trumps all evidence.
Jason Burke
Riiight. I believe there was thread about the abilities he displayed in '56.
You know, back when he demonstrated skills? That thread. I suppose you
could look it up on Google...
claviger
skills during Marine quals.
John Blubaugh
>
You ignore all of the eyewitnesses who clearly state that LHO couldn't
shoot.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
And the testimony of the people that knew him all says he couldn't hit a
barn at ten paces. Those badges were handed out like candy to just move
people along. As long as they could fire in the general direction of the
enemy that was good enough. They were cannon fodder.
JB
imsam2021
JB
In another post you replied with,
"You ignore all of the eyewitnesses who clearly state that LHO couldn't
shoot".
In this post you replied with,
> And the testimony of the people that knew him all says he couldn't hit a
> barn at ten paces.
.
Could you list those eyewitnesses for me and when they witnessed the
inability for Oz to shoot and/or that he couldn't hit a barn at ten paces?
Most importantly, Who were the most recent?
I tend to think along the lines that his prior experience in the Marines
in the mid-late 50's (? on exact dates) wouldn't be a major factor in his
shooting ability in 1963, unless, maybe he didn't fire a weapon at all.
But he did fire that carcano prior to 11/22.
Not sure why or how you are making this argument that Oswald couldn't
shoot a barn at ten paces. He did shoot a house at more than ten paces and
in the dark, mind you.
One final question.... Did those people who knew him happen to mention the
color of that barn?
>Those badges were handed out like candy to just move
> people along. As long as they could fire in the general direction of the
> enemy that was good enough. They were cannon fodder.
I agree with you totally on this one and is based on prior military
service where I witnessed firsthand my receiving a Grenade Badge during my
BCT. I had KP the day my company went to the grenade range. I never once
threw a live grenade in my entire time in service.
Now I haven't thrown a grenade (live or dummy) since I left the military,
but I'd bet ya I could hit a barn at ten paces with one today.
Anthony Marsh
I guess there's no chance that you could figure out how to look up
things for yourself?
> Most importantly, Who were the most recent?
>
Recent? You mean like last week?
> I tend to think along the lines that his prior experience in the Marines
> in the mid-late 50's (? on exact dates) wouldn't be a major factor in his
> shooting ability in 1963, unless, maybe he didn't fire a weapon at all.
> But he did fire that carcano prior to 11/22.
>
Yeah, he missed a stationary target at 120 feet. So I guess you think
that makes him an expert marksman.
> Not sure why or how you are making this argument that Oswald couldn't
> shoot a barn at ten paces. He did shoot a house at more than ten paces and
> in the dark, mind you.
>
> One final question.... Did those people who knew him happen to mention the
> color of that barn?
>
>
>> Those badges were handed out like candy to just move
>> people along. As long as they could fire in the general direction of the
>> enemy that was good enough. They were cannon fodder.
>
> I agree with you totally on this one and is based on prior military
> service where I witnessed firsthand my receiving a Grenade Badge during my
> BCT. I had KP the day my company went to the grenade range. I never once
> threw a live grenade in my entire time in service.
>
> Now I haven't thrown a grenade (live or dummy) since I left the military,
> but I'd bet ya I could hit a barn at ten paces with one today.
>
>
>
Ask McAdams how many times he hit the target during his outing with Todd
Vaughan.
claviger
If what you say is true then LHO was no better or worse than any other
Marine, therefore you're saying its all BS and Marines can't shoot
worth a damn. Then why bother with different medals? Just hand out a
bunch of fake Marksman medals to all of them and send them on their
way. LHO evidently had no hand to hand combat skills either. So why
don't you do further research on this subject by conducting a field
test experiment. Tell the next three Marines you meet they are all a
bunch of skinny little wimps like LHO who can't shoot worth a damn and
those quals medals don't mean a thing. Get back to us on your
research data as to whether they agree with you or not.
Think of this way, what a great opportunity to gather more anecdotal
stories to report back which might confirm your personal theory about
the Marine Corp. This could be a giant step forward for the CT
cause. You will be doing a great service to CTs everywhere by
debunking LHO, LNs, and the USMC in one easy survey. We all anxiously
look forward to the results of this exciting project. This could be a
major breakthrough in this case so don't let us down. We're counting
on you to follow through and get the job done.
bigdog
what the witnesses said, you way overstate what that tells us. They
did not say he couldn't hit a barn at ten paces. According to the
anecdotal evidence, he got Maggie's drawers once on the range. That
means he missed the target. At 200 yards. On that occassion. As I have
pointed out to you a number of times, just because somebody performs
poorly on one occassion does not mean they will perform poorly on all
occassions. A golfer who hits a poor shot on one hole can come back
and hit a great shot on the next hole. Your problem is you want to
evaluate Oswald's ability only on his poorest performance and ignore
all other evidence of what he was capable of. You won't accept any
evidence that Oswald could perform well because your beliefs require
you to believe he couldn't, so you reject any and all evidence that
conflicts with the things you want to believe.
timstter
LOL! Sure thing, Blubaugh.
As usual, all you have is Blubaugh's opinion.
Naturally, physical evidence like Oswald's Sharpshooter medal and his
USMC scorebook just doesn't count with John.
I find that rather telling, myself.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
The barn story is just a poor attempt at humor. I also saw things like
you describe and getting shooting badges was one of them. I also agree
that his marksmanship in the Marines might not have much to do with
what he could do later in life if he was practicing but there doesn't
seem to be much evidence of that. One of the reports that he couldn't
shoot came from the WC. You can find it here by googling. It is an on
going issue between LNs and CTs. The CTs all think he was an expert
shot because he qualifed. The LNs believe the people who watched him
and who testified or stated that he was a very poor shot (Maggie's
Drawers). I always mention that I saw people who could not qualify
pushed through the process but peole tell me this is just impossible.
You are going to hear the same thing about your grenade experience.
They just won't believe those things happened. Well, they certainly
did or lots of people would not have been able to qualify in an
attempt to get of the army. They point out that my experience was in
the Viet Nam era and had nothing to do with LHO's experiences. I
suspect it was the same then too.
JB
imsam2021
Tony,
> > Could you list those eyewitnesses for me and when they witnessed the
> > inability for Oz to shoot and/or that he couldn't hit a barn at ten paces?
>
> I guess there's no chance that you could figure out how to look up
> things for yourself?
>
I thought we were here to share. I thought it was customary for the
claimer to support the claim. I'm asking to see that support.
> > Most importantly, Who were the most recent?
>
> Recent? You mean like last week?
No. I mean like MOST RECENT in the context for
which it was asked.
> > I tend to think along the lines that his prior experience in the Marines
> > in the mid-late 50's (? on exact dates) wouldn't be a major factor in his
> > shooting ability in 1963, unless, maybe he didn't fire a weapon at all.
> > But he did fire that carcano prior to 11/22.
>
> Yeah, he missed a stationary target at 120 feet. So I guess you think
> that makes him an expert marksman.
>
>
Nope! You guessed wrong, again.
>
>
>
> > Not sure why or how you are making this argument that Oswald couldn't
> > shoot a barn at ten paces. He did shoot a house at more than ten paces and
> > in the dark, mind you.
>
> > One final question.... Did those people who knew him happen to mention the
> > color of that barn?
>
> >> Those badges were handed out like candy to just move
> >> people along. As long as they could fire in the general direction of the
> >> enemy that was good enough. They were cannon fodder.
>
> > I agree with you totally on this one and is based on prior military
> > service where I witnessed firsthand my receiving a Grenade Badge during my
> > BCT. I had KP the day my company went to the grenade range. I never once
> > threw a live grenade in my entire time in service.
>
> > Now I haven't thrown a grenade (live or dummy) since I left the military,
> > but I'd bet ya I could hit a barn at ten paces with one today.
>
> Ask McAdams how many times he hit the target during his outing with Todd
> Vaughan.
No need to. McAdams shooting ability has no bearing in determining
Oswald's
ability. Nobody's ability has. I would think that's a given.
imsam
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jason Burke
Now I'm confused. I thought you thought the CTs thought he was a poor
shot and the LNs thought he was a great shot.
bigdog
> you describe and getting shooting badges was one of them. I also agree
> that his marksmanship in the Marines might not have much to do with
> what he could do later in life if he was practicing but there doesn't
> seem to be much evidence of that.
When has that ever stopped you from forming an opinion?
> One of the reports that he couldn't
> shoot came from the WC. You can find it here by googling. It is an on
> going issue between LNs and CTs. The CTs all think he was an expert
> shot because he qualifed. The LNs believe the people who watched him
> and who testified or stated that he was a very poor shot (Maggie's
> Drawers). I always mention that I saw people who could not qualify
> pushed through the process but peole tell me this is just impossible.
> You are going to hear the same thing about your grenade experience.
> They just won't believe those things happened. Well, they certainly
> did or lots of people would not have been able to qualify in an
> attempt to get of the army. They point out that my experience was in
> the Viet Nam era and had nothing to do with LHO's experiences. I
> suspect it was the same then too.
>
Your position that unqualified shooters were passed through so draftees
couldn't get out of the Army simply by shooting poorly would not apply to
Oswald. The Marines were an all volunteer outfit in the 1950s and it was
peacetime. Why would anyone enlist in the USMC and then deliberately fail
marksmanship in order to get kicked out. Like most of your arguments, it
makes no sense.
Anthony Marsh
You can ask him, but I think he'll be bored by your request for something
which you should be looking up yourself with a simple Google search. And
if someone paraphrases an off-hand remark don't demand an exact quote.
Maybe you're new here. You may not know the little game that the WC
defenders play called pile-on. One will demand that a conspiracy believe
prove some simple point that most of us already know. Then after a week or
two another WC defender or the same one using a different alias will ask
for exactly the same information. And they keep repeating this to wear
down the conspiracy poster and try to score points.
>>> Most importantly, Who were the most recent?
>>
>> Recent? You mean like last week?
>
> No. I mean like MOST RECENT in the context for
> which it was asked.
>
You still aren't explaining yourself? What date, what year do you want? A
lot of these things are in the FBI interviews with his fellow Marines.
Those have been posted before.
But the claim is that it is so easy a shot that almost anyone can make
it. So you should look at how other shooters did.
> imsam
>
>
Anthony Marsh
You are spouting nonsense again. You have no evidence that it only
happened once.
> pointed out to you a number of times, just because somebody performs
> poorly on one occassion does not mean they will perform poorly on all
> occassions. A golfer who hits a poor shot on one hole can come back
> and hit a great shot on the next hole. Your problem is you want to
> evaluate Oswald's ability only on his poorest performance and ignore
> all other evidence of what he was capable of. You won't accept any
> evidence that Oswald could perform well because your beliefs require
> you to believe he couldn't, so you reject any and all evidence that
> conflicts with the things you want to believe.
>
Again selection bias. You want to pick the best results and call them
the average.
Anthony Marsh
You have no statistical basis for that comment. You don't know how many
Marines shot better or worse than Oswald. You don't know what the average
score was.
> worth a damn. Then why bother with different medals? Just hand out a
> bunch of fake Marksman medals to all of them and send them on their
> way. LHO evidently had no hand to hand combat skills either. So why
> don't you do further research on this subject by conducting a field
> test experiment. Tell the next three Marines you meet they are all a
> bunch of skinny little wimps like LHO who can't shoot worth a damn and
> those quals medals don't mean a thing. Get back to us on your
> research data as to whether they agree with you or not.
>
Apples and oranges.
John Blubaugh
>
There is a post from another thread here where a man says he got a badge
for passing grenade training. Only one problem, he was on KP duty that day
and he never through a grenade in his life. Your sharpshooting medal has
about the same value. Also, I think the grenade man is an a LN. I saw
similar things. In on instance a trainee had to go to the hospital for
four days and he missed qualifying althogether. He got his medal and was
pushed on through.
JB
bigdog
That is the way it is done in most places. However on this board, Tony and
his protege John Blubaugh like to say things which they know have no basis
in fact and when they get backed into a corner and are asked to back up
their claims, they tell you to google for the non-existent support. In
other words, they expect their opponents to substantiate their claims. It
has become so predictable on this board that it has become comical. It is
a tactic they have adopted which allows them to claim just about anything
they want and not have to back it up.
bigdog
But still you can't offer any evidence that this was done for Oswald. You
assume it was done for Oswald. That's good enough for you, I guess.
John Blubaugh
>
Ah, yes, of course, every recruit was enamored with the Marines and didn't
want out. I assure you that many found that it wasn't there cup of tea and
would have used not qualifying as an exit if they could have. I was at a
VA hospital today and I had this discussion with on of the men there. He
was also Viet Nam era and he had wanted out badly. He claimed he never
aimed his weapon at anything on the firing range, he just pointed it an
fired. The end result? He was a sharpshooter, of course and quickly
shuttled on.....
JB
imsam2021
JB
> There is a post from another thread here where a man says he got a badge
> for passing grenade training. Only one problem, he was on KP duty that day
> and he never through a grenade in his life. Your sharpshooting medal has
> about the same value.
Sorry, but no way, JB. Grenade Training was a one day event and a matter
of throwing an object a short distance to a general area, not a precise
target area.
I never witnessed, nor heard of anyone getting a rifle medal without at
least knowing how to fire the rifle, in my case the M-16.
No way can you compare the two. The Rifle Medal has much greater value.
Are we clear on that now?
Coondog
>
> > > > Peter Fokes,
> > > > Toronto
>
> > > This must have been before it became common knowledge that LHO had no
> > > skills as a marksman.
>
> > > JB
>
> > Yes, his Sharpshooter badge is tangible proof he surpassed Marksman
> > skills during Marine quals.- Hide quoted text -
>
> And the testimony of the people that knew him all says he couldn't hit a
> barn at ten paces. Those badges were handed out like candy to just move
> people along. As long as they could fire in the general direction of the
> enemy that was good enough. They were cannon fodder.
>
Pure crap.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
A grenade medal? Maybe in the strange military unit you claim to have
been in but not mine. Seems like it would be hard to score the target.
Get it Blubaugh? Hint, a grenade is rather destructive.
Bill Clarke
imsam2021
Bill,
> A grenade medal?
My bad. Not sure why I typed Medal.
It's was a Grenade BADGE. Like Expert Badge/Sharpshooter Badge.
And here's a link to what a Grenade Badge looked like.
http://www.militaryitems.com/product.php?productid=21866&cat=562&page=1
"This is a US Army grenade proficiency badge. As issued during the
Vietnam war. "
>Maybe in the strange military unit you claim to have been in but not mine.
No stranger than the rest of the US Army. Thought you were supposed
to be
the MIlitary Expert around here, especially the Vietnam Era. Surprised
you never
heard of this, but can understand how one could possibly forget
something
like a Grenade Badge.
>Seems like it would be hard to score the target.
I wouldn't know. I never threw a live round. Only dummies and never
on
a range. I still received the Badge. Still have it somewhere, I'm
sure.
> Get it Blubaugh? Hint, a grenade is rather destructive.
They are.
And again I stress that the Grenade Badge in no way is of similar
value as
the Marksmanship Badges. Were scores fudged a tad? Sometimes, I'm
sure.
But I never witnessed anyone receiving a Marksmanship Badge without
knowing how to fire that M-16.
imsam
> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
John Blubaugh
This is the first comment you have made where I consider you to be an
expert on the subject. What I said happens to be true. I hope you found
where one of your own, told the story of qualifying and getting a medal
for handling grenades but it turns out he had KP that day and never
handled a grenade. People were moved on when they didn't qualify. They did
it in World War II also. I have talked to veterans who saw it happen. You
can call it crap all you want but that is the way it was handled. They
weren't going to wash anyone out of the service for failing to qualify.
Hell, in my era, you would have had at least half if not more of the
recruits failing to qualify if they thought it would get them sent home.
JB
John Blubaugh
Sure, but it is the same concept. They went to the range and learned how
to fire the weapon but it doesn't mean that they hit anything or could hit
anything. Those that couldn't were simply awarded a score, got extra KP
duty and they were moved on. I believe that is exactly what happened to
LHO.
JB
John Blubaugh
I can take what the people who served with him said and that would lead me
to believe he could never have qualified and they just moved him on. It is
something can never be proven and you have to ignore all of the comments
about his shooting ability to believe he did qualify.
JB
John Blubaugh
When we do that, we have already covered his same material. Usually many
times and most of the time with the very person who is again demanding
evidence. When we do produce it, you find some reason to ignore it and
then, sure enough, in a month or two you will ask for the same evidence
all over again. Take your little game somewhere else.
JB
Coondog
Thanks, I've never seen one before.
>
> "This is a US Army grenade proficiency badge. As issued during the
> Vietnam war. "
>
> >Maybe in the strange military unit you claim to have been in but not mine.
>
> No stranger than the rest of the US Army.
Heh, yeah it got pretty strange at times.
> Thought you were supposed to be
> the MIlitary Expert around here, especially the Vietnam Era.
No, that would be General A. Marsh and (rank unknown) Blubaugh. They know
all about the war. I just know a bit from my own little corner of the
world.
Surprised
> you never
> heard of this, but can understand how one could possibly forget
> something
> like a Grenade Badge.
>
> >Seems like it would be hard to score the target.
>
> I wouldn't know. I never threw a live round. Only dummies and never
> on
> a range. I still received the Badge. Still have it somewhere, I'm
> sure.
>
> > Get it Blubaugh? Hint, a grenade is rather destructive.
>
> They are.
>
> And again I stress that the Grenade Badge in no way is of similar
> value as
> the Marksmanship Badges.
I agree. As Marsh likes to say; Apples and Oranges.
Were scores fudged a tad? Sometimes, I'm
> sure.
> But I never witnessed anyone receiving a Marksmanship Badge without
> knowing how to fire that M-16.
Knowing the military I'm sure some scores were fudged a bit but to
hear Blubaugh they passed everyone, even those that couldn't hit the
side of a barn. I certainly didn't see that.
Bill Clarke
bigdog
I don't have to ignore anything. I look at it in the context of the
totality of evidence. I can believe that Oswald might have shot very
poorly on an occasion and the recollections of his fellow Marines is
somewhat accurate. That does not preclude Oswald from twice qualifying in
marksmanship. Even Oswald's lower score of 191 would have required level
of skill sufficient to have carried out the shooting in DP. You continue
to avoid the fact that a poor performance on one occasion does not
neccesarily indicate how someone will perform on another occasion. You
want to believe Oswald could not have the skill to have shot JFK twice
even though it took no more than above average skills, so you are forced
to ignore any and all evidence that he had any skill at all. You expect us
to believe he couldn't shoot any better than somebody who had no training
whatsoever.
We have three pieces of evidence that Oswald had more than enough skills
to have carried out the assassination. We have his qualifying score of
212, his qualifying score of 191, and the scorebook that came into the
possession of Dr. Lattimer that indicates on successive days, Oswald
scored 48 out of 50 and 49 out of 50 in rapid firing from a kneeling
position at a range of 200 yards. You choose to dismiss all this hard
evidence and rely SOLELY on recollections of his fellow Marines from years
earlier which may or may not be accurate. But that's what CTs do. They
dismiss the most reliable evidence and hang their hat on the weakest
evidence available. What a crock!
bigdog
When have you ever done that?
> we have already covered his same material. Usually many
> times and most of the time with the very person who is again demanding
> evidence. When we do produce it,
When have you ever produced anything?
> you find some reason to ignore it and
> then, sure enough, in a month or two you will ask for the same evidence
> all over again.
To produce the same evidence again, you first have to produce it once.
> Take your little game somewhere else.
>
Do you think anybody is fooled by your bullshit?
Coondog
>
> "This is a US Army grenade proficiency badge. As issued during the
> Vietnam war. "
>
> >Maybe in the strange military unit you claim to have been in but not mine.
>
> No stranger than the rest of the US Army. Thought you were supposed
> to be
> the MIlitary Expert around here, especially the Vietnam Era. Surprised
> you never
> heard of this, but can understand how one could possibly forget
> something
> like a Grenade Badge.
>
> >Seems like it would be hard to score the target.
>
> I wouldn't know. I never threw a live round. Only dummies and never
> on
> a range. I still received the Badge. Still have it somewhere, I'm
> sure.
>
> > Get it Blubaugh? Hint, a grenade is rather destructive.
>
> They are.
>
> And again I stress that the Grenade Badge in no way is of similar
> value as
> the Marksmanship Badges. Were scores fudged a tad? Sometimes, I'm
> sure.
> But I never witnessed anyone receiving a Marksmanship Badge without
> knowing how to fire that M-16.
>
> imsam
It appears that to qualify for the grenade badge you had to pass a
series of Go-No Go test. Just what these involved it didn't say.
I have my doubts about them using live grenades due to the safety
concerns. I never encountered a live grenade until I got to Vietnam.
I don't remember any grenade training as such except a short class and
the use of dummies. I certainly don't remember any qualifying test on
the grenade. This could be due to the differences in officer and
enlisted men training.
Bill Clarke
John Blubaugh
>
I don't try to fool anyone, I just refuse to play your little nutter
game....
JB
Coondog
Expert on your crap especially. I've had you pegged a long time ago.
I believe most others here have done so as well.
Bill Clarke
jas
>
> There is a post from another thread here where a man says he got a badge
> for passing grenade training. Only one problem, he was on KP duty that day
> and he never through a grenade in his life. Your sharpshooting medal has
> about the same value. Also, I think the grenade man is an a LN. I saw
> similar things. In on instance a trainee had to go to the hospital for
> four days and he missed qualifying althogether. He got his medal and was
> pushed on through.
>
> JB
I've got some news for you, being a sharpshooter (or not) in the
Marines doesn't even enter into it. Oswald was not disabled in any way
-- he had working eyes, arms, hands, fingers, etc., didn't he? That
was enough.
An amateur could have done the shooting Oswald did with that Carcano.
John Blubaugh
The man couldn't hit the targets in the Marines when he was ordered to
do so. What makes you think he could especially using that piece of
crap MC? He didn't do very well shooting Walker and that was a
stationary target.. I wonder if LHO could have even hit the limo with
that piece of junk?
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 15, 6:40 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 9:52 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But still you can't offer any evidence that this was done for Oswald. You
>>> assume it was done for Oswald. That's good enough for you, I guess.
>>
>> I can take what the people who served with him said and that would lead me
>> to believe he could never have qualified and they just moved him on. It is
>> something can never be proven and you have to ignore all of the comments
>> about his shooting ability to believe he did qualify.
>>
>
> I don't have to ignore anything. I look at it in the context of the
> totality of evidence. I can believe that Oswald might have shot very
> poorly on an occasion and the recollections of his fellow Marines is
> somewhat accurate. That does not preclude Oswald from twice qualifying in
> marksmanship. Even Oswald's lower score of 191 would have required level
> of skill sufficient to have carried out the shooting in DP. You continue
> to avoid the fact that a poor performance on one occasion does not
> neccesarily indicate how someone will perform on another occasion. You
> want to believe Oswald could not have the skill to have shot JFK twice
> even though it took no more than above average skills, so you are forced
> to ignore any and all evidence that he had any skill at all. You expect us
> to believe he couldn't shoot any better than somebody who had no training
> whatsoever.
>
I bet even you could hit a stationary target at only 5 yards away once
out of three shots. Does that prove that you could have matched what the
WC claims Oswald did or better yet what the FBI initially said Oswald did?
How many times did McAdams hit the stationary targets with Todd
Vaughan's rifle?
> We have three pieces of evidence that Oswald had more than enough skills
> to have carried out the assassination. We have his qualifying score of
> 212, his qualifying score of 191, and the scorebook that came into the
> possession of Dr. Lattimer that indicates on successive days, Oswald
> scored 48 out of 50 and 49 out of 50 in rapid firing from a kneeling
> position at a range of 200 yards. You choose to dismiss all this hard
Selection bias. Tell us how many times he got Maggie's Drawers.
bigdog
> On Jan 15, 11:14 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you think anybody is fooled by your bullshit?
>
> game....
>
The only one you are fooling is yourself.
bigdog
To hear JB tell it, Oswald didn't even know which end of the rifle to
hold. He wants us to believe he had less skill with a rifle than
someone who never picked up a firearm in their life.
John Blubaugh
>
You are making things up. I have never said that. He had experience at the
range. He failed to qualify often enough. Being able to operate the weapon
doesn't mean you can hit a target with it.
JB
John Blubaugh
That isn't likely, I know exactly what I am doing and this refusing to
play your little assassination tango.....
JB
Bud
When did Oswald ever fail to qualify?
bigdog
When did he fail to qualify?
> Being able to operate the weapon
> doesn't mean you can hit a target with it.
>
No, but scoring 212 and 191 in qualifying requires you to hit the
target repeatedly.
bigdog
So why do you keep responding?
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to his old bunk mate and other people who watched him shoot
no one ever saw him qualify.
JB
Anthony Marsh
He managed to shoot himself in the arm with an illegal derringer while
in the Marines. And a fellow Marine shot himself in the head when he
dropped his shotgun.
Anthony Marsh
Why do you misstate the facts like this? Oswald WAS disabled. He had
Dyslexia. Maybe you could come up with a theory that he thought he was
shooting at Connally in the back seat? Anything to avoid dealing with facts.
Bud
You said he failed to qualify often. Can you support that or not?
> JB
bigdog
other words, when did he fire for qualification and fail to achieve
the minimum score to qualify. If the people you name didn't see him
attempt to qualify, then what relevance do they have to the question
of how he performed when he was attempting to qualify? We are asking
you what people saw, not what some people didn't see.
John Blubaugh
>
Oh? So you think you should be allowed the last word on everything?
Good luck with that.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not if they just fudge the scores to move him on...... and that is
likely what happened.
JB
jas
>
> Why do you misstate the facts like this? Oswald WAS disabled. He had
> Dyslexia. Maybe you could come up with a theory that he thought he was
> shooting at Connally in the back seat? Anything to avoid dealing with facts.
>
>
Why do you post another ineffectual and empty rebuttal?
Dyslexia wasn't recognized as a "disability" in 1963, and it certainly
didn't keep him out of the Marines, like a missing arm, or blindness
in one eye, or whatever would have.
And it sure as hell didn't stop him from shooting sharpshooter.
imsam2021
> On 1/16/2011 7:05 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 7:18 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is a post from another thread here where a man says he got a badge
> >> for passing grenade training. Only one problem, he was on KP duty that day
> >> and he never through a grenade in his life. Your sharpshooting medal has
> >> about the same value. Also, I think the grenade man is an a LN. I saw
> >> similar things. In on instance a trainee had to go to the hospital for
> >> four days and he missed qualifying althogether. He got his medal and was
> >> pushed on through.
>
> >> JB
>
> > I've got some news for you, being a sharpshooter (or not) in the
> > Marines doesn't even enter into it. Oswald was not disabled in any way
> > -- he had working eyes, arms, hands, fingers, etc., didn't he? That
> > was enough.
>
Mr Marsh,
> Why do you misstate the facts like this? Oswald WAS disabled. He had
> Dyslexia.
Why do you stretch facts? Having Dyslexia does not necessarily hinder
one's ability to fire a rifle, let alone achieve greatness in the
positve manner.
>Maybe you could come up with a theory that he thought he was
> shooting at Connally in the back seat?
That sounds like one of yours, or something you'd even consider.
>Anything to avoid dealing with facts.
Ya mean like your avoidance of Oswald's shooting scores while in
the Marines and your reliance strictly on eyewitness accounts of
which you refuse to post?
On a sidenote, wish I could say sorry for the your Pats loss
yesterday.
But, I can say GO BEARS!!!!
imsam
> > An amateur could have done the shooting Oswald did with that Carcano.
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Blubaugh
> > no one ever saw him qualify.
>
> You said he failed to qualify often. Can you support that or not?
>
>
>
Yes, there is the witness who served with him whose statement was just
posted by Marsh and there is a statement in the WC that states he shot
Maggie's Drawers and didn't quailfy. Do you have an eyewitness who saw him
qualify?
JB
John Blubaugh
> > no one ever saw him qualify.
>
> The question both Bud and I asked was when did he fail to qualify. In
> other words, when did he fire for qualification and fail to achieve
> the minimum score to qualify. If the people you name didn't see him
> attempt to qualify, then what relevance do they have to the question
> of how he performed when he was attempting to qualify? We are asking
>
They knew that he didn't qualify from what he told them. The other say him
shoot and said he was hopeless. Who do you have that ever saw him shoot or
attempt to qualfy? Don't you find it interesting that no drill instructer
ever came forward and reported that he saw LHO qualify? In fact there is
not eye witness who ever saw him as anything but incompetent with a
weapon.
JB
Bud
So, your answer is that you can`t back up your claim that Oswald
failed to qualify often.
> JB
claviger
You're trying to prove a theory by using a negative, plus anecdotes,
versus official records. Those records indicate a low of 3 non-quals
and a high of Sharpshooter, which must have been important to LHO
because he kept that badge as one of his few prized possessions. What
this proves is LHO could shoot accurately when he was motivated to
focus and concentrate. He used a rifle sling, a gun rest, and a
scope. The target was less than 1/3rd the distance of Marine Quals.
LHO had the advantage of 60' elevation above target, which he never
had during Quals. He was aiming at moving target that centered for a
few seconds and in that short time span he placed two lethal hits on
target. Obviously he practiced somewhere with the rifle and
internalized the feel of the bolt action with constant dry fire
practice at home. No one who tried to reproduce his shooting feat had
a chance to do that, and yet several equalled or surpassed 2 shots on
target in 6 seconds or less. Now we have researchers who think the
actual time span was 8-10 seconds, which gives LHO 4-5 seconds between
shots. Sadly, every aspect of the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza
favored the sniper, not the target.
John Blubaugh
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. I did back it up with
eyewitness accounts. Do you have any eyewitness accounts that he ever
shot well enough to qualify?
JB
Bud
Why do you consistently see the truth as "nonsense"?
> I did back it up with
> eyewitness accounts.
You haven`t produces anything from any witness to support your claim
that Oswald failed to qualify often. Did you think I wouldn`t notice
this?
> Do you have any eyewitness accounts that he ever
> shot well enough to qualify?
Why do you insist on these clumsy misdirections away from your
inability to support your claim?
> JB
Anthony Marsh
We already posted the story, but you refused to read it.
bigdog
You have never presented any evidence that Oswald's scores were fudged.
That is something you have simply stated as if it were a fact with nothing
to back it up. Even if others saw him shoot poorly on another occasion,
that would not preclude him from shooting more accurately when firing for
qualification. You simply assume Oswald's scores were fudged because you
need to believe that in order to believe he was not capable of having
fired the shots in DP and you need to believe that because you are so
desperate to believe he was innocent when all the hard evidence indicates
he was guilty.
It's really quite simple. The evidence regarding Oswald's marksmanship
skills is a mixed bag. We have several documented scores that indicate he
was more than capable of the shooting in DP, and we have anecdotal
evidence that on some occasions, he shot rather poorly. If those two types
of evidence are in conflict, the sensible thing to do is determine which
is more likely to be reliable and which should be discarded. On the other
hand, if they are not conflicting, if it is possible for Oswald to have
shot poorly on one occasion and well enough to achieve his documented
scores on another occasion, there is no conflict and therefore no reason
to believe either type of evidence is unreliable. You, however, have taken
the illogical steps of first assuming the two types of evidence are
mutually exclusive and then assuming that it is the documented scores, not
the anecdotal evidence, which is unreliable. And you do that because you
need to do that to argue the things that you do.
bigdog
Now you're just making stuff up.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It proves nothing. Anyone who saw him shoot or was in the same unit he
was in said he was a terrible shot and that he failed to qualify. So
where are your eyewitnesses who will testify that he was an adequate
shot (I won't bother with great)? There aren't any!! Not one person
who knew LHO or saw him shoot every said anything other than he was a
lousy shot. I don't care about trumped up records, there are thousands
of those in the armed forces.
JB
bigdog
I guee the tango will continue.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bingo!!
JB
John Blubaugh
I don't see the truth as nonsense, I see YOU as nonsense.
> > I did back it up with
> > eyewitness accounts.
>
> You haven`t produces anything from any witness to support your claim
> that Oswald failed to qualify often. Did you think I wouldn`t notice
> this?
>
I told you that one was in the WC and the other was posted not long ago by
Marsh. Do you want me to do all of your work for you? Look them up if you
are interested.
> > Do you have any eyewitness accounts that he ever
> > shot well enough to qualify?
>
> Why do you insist on these clumsy misdirections away from your
> inability to support your claim?
>
There is nothing clumsy about it. There are no eyewitnesses who ever saw
LHO shoot who maintain he was even adequate with the weapon. I have
supported my claim. I have told you in detail where to find what you are
demanding. I'm not going to cut and paste for you.
JB
Bud
I didn`t ask for a story, I asked JB to back up a specific claim he
made.
Bud
It`s interesting that you think an absence of evidence supports your
position.
> In fact there is
> not eye witness who ever saw him as anything but incompetent with a
> weapon.
The United States Marine Corps saw him as a competent shooter when he
attained the rank of Sharpshooter. The idea that the Marines would give
such a medal to someone who failed to even qualify is silly on the face of
it. The Marines are all about morale, what does it do for morale when a
guy struts around with a sharpshooter badge that everyone knows he hadn`t
earned? What would the Marine who actually shot Sharpshooter feel about
their badges? When it got around that they were given to undeserving
candidates it would kill incentive for other Marines to strive for this
medal. And then you would have the Marines with Marksman badges who knew
they had performed better than some of those with Sharpshooter badges. It
makes no sense for the Marines to undermine a useful training tool in this
manner.
> JB
John Blubaugh
You can take that to the bank......
JB
John Blubaugh
The "story" is an account from a person who used to share the same bunk
with Oswald. He knew LHO had failed to qualify and he reported the
incident. Add that "story" to the account in the WC, you have two people
who served with LHO who both claimed he was not a good shot. In fact one
of these claims that he was a terrible shot. This means they back
corroberate each others recollections and this gives them weight. You have
the evidence that he qualifed but we all know (although some here will
never admit it) that no one was discharged for failing to qualify. The
scores were fudged and they were simply moved on. They knew how to operate
the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
good shot and an excellent marksman. Well, there aren't any. There never
have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
So you have my claim backed up while your claim that he was an expert shot
has no basis in reality. I choose to believe these witnesses and I saw the
same thing in my own experiences in the military.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 17, 12:14 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/16/2011 7:05 PM, jas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 7:18 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a post from another thread here where a man says he got a badge
>>>> for passing grenade training. Only one problem, he was on KP duty that day
>>>> and he never through a grenade in his life. Your sharpshooting medal has
>>>> about the same value. Also, I think the grenade man is an a LN. I saw
>>>> similar things. In on instance a trainee had to go to the hospital for
>>>> four days and he missed qualifying althogether. He got his medal and was
>>>> pushed on through.
>>
>>>> JB
>>
>>> I've got some news for you, being a sharpshooter (or not) in the
>>> Marines doesn't even enter into it. Oswald was not disabled in any way
>>> -- he had working eyes, arms, hands, fingers, etc., didn't he? That
>>> was enough.
>>
>
> Mr Marsh,
>
>> Why do you misstate the facts like this? Oswald WAS disabled. He had
>> Dyslexia.
>
> Why do you stretch facts? Having Dyslexia does not necessarily hinder
> one's ability to fire a rifle, let alone achieve greatness in the
> positve manner.
>
But you said that Oswald didn't have ANY disability.
>> Maybe you could come up with a theory that he thought he was
>> shooting at Connally in the back seat?
>
> That sounds like one of yours, or something you'd even consider.
>
>
>> Anything to avoid dealing with facts.
>
> Ya mean like your avoidance of Oswald's shooting scores while in
> the Marines and your reliance strictly on eyewitness accounts of
> which you refuse to post?
>
Which eyewitness accounts? I already posted one for you.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 17, 11:14 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do you misstate the facts like this? Oswald WAS disabled. He had
>> Dyslexia. Maybe you could come up with a theory that he thought he was
>> shooting at Connally in the back seat? Anything to avoid dealing with facts.
>>
>>
>
> Why do you post another ineffectual and empty rebuttal?
>
> Dyslexia wasn't recognized as a "disability" in 1963, and it certainly
> didn't keep him out of the Marines, like a missing arm, or blindness
> in one eye, or whatever would have.
>
I don't think he was ever officially diagnosed, like many kids.
Bud
You don`t know this.
> He knew LHO had failed to qualify and he reported the
> incident.
An account 54 years after the fact. Near worthless. Try to remember
who sat next to you in 1st grade, who did well on tests. Can`t be done
with any confidence of accuracy.
>Add that "story" to the account in the WC, you have two people
> who served with LHO who both claimed he was not a good shot.
One person who said that the shots of the assassination would need
the skills of a sniper, which shows he doesn`t know what he is talking
about. The other`s account has Oswald, a notorious tightwad, shooting
in a competition for money. It makes sense to you that a guy that
couldn`t shoot and was tight would a buck would enter a competition he
had no hope of winning?
> In fact one
> of these claims that he was a terrible shot. This means they back
> corroberate each others recollections and this gives them weight.
>You have
> the evidence that he qualifed but we all know (although some here will
> never admit it) that no one was discharged for failing to qualify.
You can`t back this up. You can`t produce the list of people
discharged from the Marines which show none being discharged for
inability to shoot. If it`s your contention you have to back it up.
> The
> scores were fudged and they were simply moved on.
Doesn`t make sense for the Marines that the Marines would give a
guy such an advanced ranking if everyone knows he couldn`t shoot. It
destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
memories many, many years after the fact.
> They knew how to operate
> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
> good shot and an excellent marksman.
You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
bad shot.
> Well, there aren't any.
You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>There never
> have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
> evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
They are the weakest form of evidence imaginable.
> So you have my claim backed up while your claim that he was an expert shot
> has no basis in reality. I choose to believe these witnesses and I saw the
> same thing in my own experiences in the military.
Thats how you always come to the wrong conclusions, you choose what
information to believe according to your bias instead of applying
critical thinking.
> JB
Anthony Marsh
When you don't like the story, kill the messenger. I don't see you
complaining about the Secret Service agents finally telling the truth
after 47 years.
>> Add that "story" to the account in the WC, you have two people
>> who served with LHO who both claimed he was not a good shot.
>
> One person who said that the shots of the assassination would need
> the skills of a sniper, which shows he doesn`t know what he is talking
> about. The other`s account has Oswald, a notorious tightwad, shooting
> in a competition for money. It makes sense to you that a guy that
> couldn`t shoot and was tight would a buck would enter a competition he
> had no hope of winning?
>
Hey, I thought you said Oswald was an expert shooter?
>> In fact one
>> of these claims that he was a terrible shot. This means they back
>> corroberate each others recollections and this gives them weight.
>> You have
>> the evidence that he qualifed but we all know (although some here will
>> never admit it) that no one was discharged for failing to qualify.
>
> You can`t back this up. You can`t produce the list of people
> discharged from the Marines which show none being discharged for
> inability to shoot. If it`s your contention you have to back it up.
>
No, we did not originate the claim.
>> The
>> scores were fudged and they were simply moved on.
>
> Doesn`t make sense for the Marines that the Marines would give a
> guy such an advanced ranking if everyone knows he couldn`t shoot. It
It makes sense that his superiors would not want to take the heat for
poor teaching.
> destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
> ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
> memories many, many years after the fact.
>
It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
constantly guess as you do.
>> They knew how to operate
>> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
>> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
>> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>
> You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
> bad shot.
>
>> Well, there aren't any.
>
> You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
> to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>
Many interviews. Did the WC interview everyone in Dealey Plaza?
>> There never
>> have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
>> evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
>
> They are the weakest form of evidence imaginable.
>
Sometimes the only only one available, especially when the government
destroys the records.
Anthony Marsh
You still don't get it. Someone can fail a test 100 times and then
finally get a D- on his last try. But you would say that he always got
straight As.
>
>> JB
>
>
Bud
I would say he succeeded when it counted, when he earned a Sharpshooter
ranking in boot camp and on the day of the assassination.
How does it feel to be on the cover-up being conducted on behalf of
Kennedy`s murderer, Tony? Do you think Kennedy would be proud of you?
> >> JB
Bud
Nah, I`m for viewing the information in the proper context.
> I don't see you
> complaining about the Secret Service agents finally telling the truth
> after 47 years.
They aren`t much better than most of the other witnesses in Dealey
Plaza. They didn`t see much of evidential value, either.
> >> Add that "story" to the account in the WC, you have two people
> >> who served with LHO who both claimed he was not a good shot.
>
> > One person who said that the shots of the assassination would need
> > the skills of a sniper, which shows he doesn`t know what he is talking
> > about. The other`s account has Oswald, a notorious tightwad, shooting
> > in a competition for money. It makes sense to you that a guy that
> > couldn`t shoot and was tight would a buck would enter a competition he
> > had no hope of winning?
>
> Hey, I thought you said Oswald was an expert shooter?
Count the "> >"s, Tony.
> >> In fact one
> >> of these claims that he was a terrible shot. This means they back
> >> corroberate each others recollections and this gives them weight.
> >> You have
> >> the evidence that he qualifed but we all know (although some here will
> >> never admit it) that no one was discharged for failing to qualify.
>
> > You can`t back this up. You can`t produce the list of people
> > discharged from the Marines which show none being discharged for
> > inability to shoot. If it`s your contention you have to back it up.
>
> No, we did not originate the claim.
Then who was it who first claimed that the Marines don`t discharge
recruits who can`t shoot? JB was the first person (and only one) I`ve
ever seen say this.
> >> The
> >> scores were fudged and they were simply moved on.
>
> > Doesn`t make sense for the Marines that the Marines would give a
> > guy such an advanced ranking if everyone knows he couldn`t shoot. It
>
> It makes sense that his superiors would not want to take the heat for
> poor teaching.
They`d get a lot more heat when word got back that they were giving
Sharpshooter rankings to people who hadn`t earned them. Giving unearned
medals wouldn`t be a viable solution because you would have grumbling from
the Marines who earned their medals.
> > destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
> > ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
> > memories many, many years after the fact.
>
> It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
> constantly guess as you do.
You are only guessing whether this guy provided accurate
information.
> >> They knew how to operate
> >> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
> >> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
> >> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>
> > You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
> > bad shot.
>
> >> Well, there aren't any.
>
> > You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
> > to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>
> Many interviews.
Did you really think I asked about the number of interviews, Tony?
Instead of propping up a strawman, address the issue raised, support JB`s
claim that none of the people who served with Oswald say he was a good
shot.
> Did the WC interview everyone in Dealey Plaza?
>
> >> There never
> >> have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
> >> evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
>
> > They are the weakest form of evidence imaginable.
>
> Sometimes the only only one available, especially when the government
> destroys the records.
Who cares about "sometimes"? We are discussing a specific issue,
can`t you focus?
claviger
Interesting advertisements in the Dec 6, 1963 issue of Life Magazine.
The glamour model in the Fame de Corday ad looks like Jackie Kennedy.
The male model in the Miller Beer ad looks like Sean Connery as James
Bond.
Anthony Marsh
Don't laugh, but at one conference there were some agents provocateur who
were presenting a theory that major advertisers put hint of the upcoming
assassination into their ads. The presentation was designed to embarass
the entire research community to show how gullible they are in believing
every conspiracy theory that comes along. Like a couple of people we know
here.
Anthony Marsh
I don't see you complaining about the Hill and Blaine traveling side show.
And how would they even know when you say that no records of that exist?
How would the other Marines know? All they know is the final score.
>>> destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
>>> ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
>>> memories many, many years after the fact.
>>
>> It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
>> constantly guess as you do.
>
> You are only guessing whether this guy provided accurate
> information.
>
>>>> They knew how to operate
>>>> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
>>>> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
>>>> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>>
>>> You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
>>> bad shot.
>>
>>>> Well, there aren't any.
>>
>>> You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
>>> to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>>
>> Many interviews.
>
> Did you really think I asked about the number of interviews, Tony?
> Instead of propping up a strawman, address the issue raised, support JB`s
> claim that none of the people who served with Oswald say he was a good
> shot.
>
Who DID say he was a good shot?
>> Did the WC interview everyone in Dealey Plaza?
>>
>>>> There never
>>>> have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
>>>> evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
>>
>>> They are the weakest form of evidence imaginable.
>>
>> Sometimes the only only one available, especially when the government
>> destroys the records.
>
> Who cares about "sometimes"? We are discussing a specific issue,
> can`t you focus?
>
You were talking about witness recollections in general.
Anthony Marsh
I don't care if you think Oswald was the shooter. So did the WC and the
HSCA. But they also thought it was a conspiracy and so do I. I'm in
pretty good company. You, not so much.
>>>> JB
>
>
John Blubaugh
Why I can tell you sat in front of me, behind me and either side of me in
the 1st grade although a young mind has nothing to do with an adult mind.
I can tell you who did the best on tests in that class and through
graduation.... ME.
JB
Bud
Who?
How does the guy in the article know Oswald was a bad shot?
> >>> destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
> >>> ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
> >>> memories many, many years after the fact.
>
> >> It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
> >> constantly guess as you do.
>
> > You are only guessing whether this guy provided accurate
> > information.
>
> >>>> They knew how to operate
> >>>> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
> >>>> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
> >>>> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>
> >>> You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
> >>> bad shot.
>
> >>>> Well, there aren't any.
>
> >>> You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
> >>> to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>
> >> Many interviews.
>
> > Did you really think I asked about the number of interviews, Tony?
> > Instead of propping up a strawman, address the issue raised, support JB`s
> > claim that none of the people who served with Oswald say he was a good
> > shot.
>
> Who DID say he was a good shot?
The USMC.
> >> Did the WC interview everyone in Dealey Plaza?
>
> >>>> There never
> >>>> have been and there never will be. These two witnesses are a form of
> >>>> evidence even if you don't like what they have to say.
>
> >>> They are the weakest form of evidence imaginable.
>
> >> Sometimes the only only one available, especially when the government
> >> destroys the records.
>
> > Who cares about "sometimes"? We are discussing a specific issue,
> > can`t you focus?
>
> You were talking about witness recollections in general.
But nothing about the government`s handling of records.
Bud
Do you think Kennedy would be happy that you cover-up for his
murderer?
> So did the WC and the
> HSCA. But they also thought it was a conspiracy and so do I. I'm in
> pretty good company.
You agree with them that Oswald shot Kennedy?
>You, not so much.
I don`t care too much if anyone thinks there was a conspiracy. But
denying that Oswald shot Kennedy is pissing on Kennedy`s grave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> JB
Coondog
Yes indeed, that would have been my guess.
Bill Clarke
bigdog
<snicker>
Can you cite evidence for this claim <snicker, snicker>
Is there anyone out there who doesn't know what the response will be?
Anthony Marsh
Because he was in the same group and saw him every day. You, not so much.
>>>>> destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
>>>>> ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
>>>>> memories many, many years after the fact.
>>
>>>> It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
>>>> constantly guess as you do.
>>
>>> You are only guessing whether this guy provided accurate
>>> information.
>>
>>>>>> They knew how to operate
>>>>>> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
>>>>>> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
>>>>>> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>>
>>>>> You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
>>>>> bad shot.
>>
>>>>>> Well, there aren't any.
>>
>>>>> You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
>>>>> to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>>
>>>> Many interviews.
>>
>>> Did you really think I asked about the number of interviews, Tony?
>>> Instead of propping up a strawman, address the issue raised, support JB`s
>>> claim that none of the people who served with Oswald say he was a good
>>> shot.
>>
>> Who DID say he was a good shot?
>
> The USMC.
>
No. The USMC expert called Oswald a "rather poor shot."
Bud
Then why did you ask "How would the other Marines know?"
> You, not so much.
I didn`t claim I had first hand knowledge. Or even that the guy in
the article did.
> >>>>> destroys the motivation for people to try their best to achieve that
> >>>>> ranking. When ideas don`t make sense they need better evidence than
> >>>>> memories many, many years after the fact.
>
> >>>> It's better to actually ask someone who was actually there rather than
> >>>> constantly guess as you do.
>
> >>> You are only guessing whether this guy provided accurate
> >>> information.
>
> >>>>>> They knew how to operate
> >>>>>> the weapon they were just not proficient at hitting a target. So, I ask
> >>>>>> you for any eyewitness you have who saw LHO shoot who say that he was a
> >>>>>> good shot and an excellent marksman.
>
> >>>>> You would have never heard of this guy if he didn`t say Oswald was a
> >>>>> bad shot.
>
> >>>>>> Well, there aren't any.
>
> >>>>> You have statements from everyone who served with Oswald attesting
> >>>>> to this? Or just another claim you can`t support.
>
> >>>> Many interviews.
>
> >>> Did you really think I asked about the number of interviews, Tony?
> >>> Instead of propping up a strawman, address the issue raised, support JB`s
> >>> claim that none of the people who served with Oswald say he was a good
> >>> shot.
>
> >> Who DID say he was a good shot?
>
> > The USMC.
>
> No. The USMC expert called Oswald a "rather poor shot."
You think thats what a Sharpshooter ranking denotes?
Anthony Marsh
I am telling you what the USMC expert said.
Jean Davison
Yes. Oswald's platoon sergeant in California had been on the rifle
range with Oswald and said: "It is my recollection that Oswald enjoyed
firing a rifle, and scored in the 'high expert' range."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/graf.htm
You could read 10,000 conspiracy books and never see that quote.
The witness who mentioned Maggie's Drawers, was Nelson Delgado:
QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you fire with Oswald?
Mr. DELGADO - Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on
line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but
at the same time, and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke,
because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses,
but he didn't give a darn.
Mr. LIEBELER - Missed the target completely?
Mr. DELGADO - He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic
as the rest of us.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
"He didn't give a darn" and "he just qualified, that's it." This
was near the end of Oswald's Marine Corps duty.
Jean
Bud
> On 1/21/2011 8:24 PM,Budwrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 5:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/21/2011 12:20 AM,Budwrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 20, 6:29 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 1/19/2011 10:30 PM,Budwrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 19, 4:23 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/19/2011 11:03 AM,Budwrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 18, 11:04 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 3:30 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2011 1:39 PM,Budwrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 12:02 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And I am asking you whether you think a ranking of Sharpshooter in
the Marines denotes a poor shot.
John Blubaugh
>
I have read all kinds of things in the past about this. It isn't in the WC
and they were desparate to make LHO an expert shot. I don't believe this
one. I think it is just more nutter propaganda.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nobody tried to make LHO an expert shot. Expert was the highest level
of qualification in the Marines.and Oswald initially qualified as a
Sharpshooter, the next level down. His qualifying score was just 3
points below that of Charles Whitman, who several years later and just
down the road, killed a dozen people from the University of Texas
Tower at distances far greater than Oswald shot JFK at. It didn't take
an expert shot to kill JFK in DP. It was a very ordinary shooting
feat. It didn't take a hell of a lot of skill. Had Oswald actually
been a Marine Corps Expert shooter, it's unlikely he would have needed
three shots at such a short distance.
Jean Davison
Too bad you didn't check it out before you made up your mind.
What I quoted definitely *is* in the WC Hearings, Volume VIII.
The Hearings are available at the History Matters website, which is a
well-known conspiracy site:
http://www.history-matters.com/index.htm
The quote from Delgado is here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/html/WC_Vol8_0122a.htm
Allen Graf's affidavit:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/html/WC_Vol8_0163b.htm
Have you considered the possibility that the things you've been
reading might be CT propaganda?
Jean
Bud
> On Jan 22, 5:27 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 8:41 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Jan 17, 1:13 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snicker> John demands witnesses to Oswald being a good shot and
when one is provided he rejects it out of hand since it doesn`t
conform to what he wants to believe. JB thought that Oswald being a
wife beater was something LNers made up. He makes demands for Oswald`s
tax returns, a diagram showing where the fragments in the limo were
found, a person who`s head goes towards the shooter when they are
shot, ect. When these things are provided, they don`t seem to have an
impact on JB`s faith based opinions.
Also, I wonder why the guy in the article isn`t considered CTer
propaganda, it seems unlikely his account would neverl have made it
to print if he`d said he remembered Oswald as being a good shot.
> JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You try to make him an expert all of the time. Experts were not able
do duplicating the shooting he supposedly did that day in Dallas. Some
were able if you discarded the number of times they had to start over
because the MC jammed. The fact is many experts could not do the
shooting and you claim LHO did. How does that equate to you not
claiming he was an expert?
JB
Anthony Marsh
Maybe because they set unrealistic conditions for what one shooter did.
They originally tested on the assumption of three shots, three hits, all
within 5.6 seconds. However, I bet even McAdams could get 1 hit out of
three in 10 seconds.
Just by sheer luck.