Oswald's "Performance" --- And Oliver Stone's "Blunder"
David Von Pein
Plaza, despite firing at stationary targets with a modified weapon was
CONCLUSIVE PROOF that a.) the weapon was incapable of committing the crime
and b.) the crime was beyond the capability of any one person." <<<
Bullshit (times "A" and "B"). Oswald's performance was easily doable with
his $21 mail-order MC.
Of course we'll never EVER see a perfect, to-the-square-inch "duplication"
of what Oswald so obviously did in '63. Can't ever happen, because of the
intricate variables involved.
But, generally speaking, the performance of LHO has been reasonably
mimicked numerous times....and the WC determined (through its firearms
experts) that Oswald's feat was certainly doable and WAS DONE by Oswald on
11/22/63. (All lies, right? That's the easy way out for the CTer...just
call somebody a "liar" and the conspiracist is off the hook for good.
Pfftt.)
A very interesting fact was brought out (by total accident) in Oliver
Stone's fairy-tale flick in 1991, when the actor playing Lou Ivon (Jay
Sanders) is seen attempting to duplicate the timing of Oswald's shots
(erroneously believed, for some reason, by the filmmakers to be shoehorned
into 5.6 seconds, when the WC explicitly stated that the shooting took
anywhere from "approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" {WR; Pg. 117};
therefore, as that passage illustrates, the WC was certainly NOT boxing
itself in to just a "5.6-second" shooting timeline as Oliver Stone's movie
wants people to believe).
Anyway, Ivon/Sanders fires three shots in UNDER SIX SECONDS, utilizing (I
can only assume) a bolt-action rifle very similar to that of Oswald's MC.
Kevin Costner/"Jim Garrison", looking at his watch, claims that Ivon took
"between 6 and 7 seconds" to get off those three shots....which is
dead-wrong, and anyone can just watch their own DVD player's elapsed-time
counter and count the seconds for themselves.
It took Sanders approx. 5.5 seconds to squeeze off those 3 shots in the
movie. Sanders fires his first shot at exactly the 1:14:50 point in the
film (elapsed running time), with shot #3 occurring prior to the DVD's
time counter reaching the 1:14:56 mark.*
* = Based on the "Director's Cut" Special Edition DVD of the film
(released in 2001).
In other words, Oliver Stone's movie, apparently without Mr. Stone even
realizing what he had placed ON FILM in his own motion picture, PROVES a
key lone-assassin-favoring aspect of the JFK murder case (i.e., that
Oswald certainly had enough time to fire three shots from a bolt-action
rifle in the allotted time per the Zapruder Film). It's hilarious.**
** = Footnote -- I want to give the proper credit where the credit is due
re. that hysterically-funny portion of Stone's film. It was a researcher
on another JFK Forum who noticed that little goof of Ollie Stone's. I
checked it myself just now numerous times. Sanders gets off three shots in
5.5 seconds without a doubt.
Maybe the Stone film has been "altered" too....ya think?? :)
~~~~~~~
JFK LOGIC BREAK..........
"Only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President." --
Vince Bugliosi
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. Oswald had the motive, the
opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." -- Vince
Bugliosi
"It was a turkey shoot." -- Vince Bugliosi
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Their failure to duplicate Oswald's alleged performance in Dealey
> Plaza, despite firing at stationary targets with a modified weapon was
> CONCLUSIVE PROOF that a.) the weapon was incapable of committing the crime
> and b.) the crime was beyond the capability of any one person." <<<
>
> Bullshit (times "A" and "B"). Oswald's performance was easily doable with
> his $21 mail-order MC.
>
> Of course we'll never EVER see a perfect, to-the-square-inch "duplication"
> of what Oswald so obviously did in '63. Can't ever happen, because of the
> intricate variables involved.
>
True, but you don't even know for sure what his rifle actually did that
day. Anyone can miss two out of three shots.
> But, generally speaking, the performance of LHO has been reasonably
> mimicked numerous times....and the WC determined (through its firearms
> experts) that Oswald's feat was certainly doable and WAS DONE by Oswald on
> 11/22/63. (All lies, right? That's the easy way out for the CTer...just
> call somebody a "liar" and the conspiracist is off the hook for good.
> Pfftt.)
>
> A very interesting fact was brought out (by total accident) in Oliver
> Stone's fairy-tale flick in 1991, when the actor playing Lou Ivon (Jay
> Sanders) is seen attempting to duplicate the timing of Oswald's shots
> (erroneously believed, for some reason, by the filmmakers to be shoehorned
> into 5.6 seconds, when the WC explicitly stated that the shooting took
5.6 seconds comes from one WC assumption.
> anywhere from "approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" {WR; Pg. 117};
> therefore, as that passage illustrates, the WC was certainly NOT boxing
> itself in to just a "5.6-second" shooting timeline as Oliver Stone's movie
> wants people to believe).
>
The WC thought the 5.6 second scenario more believable.
> Anyway, Ivon/Sanders fires three shots in UNDER SIX SECONDS, utilizing (I
> can only assume) a bolt-action rifle very similar to that of Oswald's MC.
> Kevin Costner/"Jim Garrison", looking at his watch, claims that Ivon took
> "between 6 and 7 seconds" to get off those three shots....which is
> dead-wrong, and anyone can just watch their own DVD player's elapsed-time
> counter and count the seconds for themselves.
>
> It took Sanders approx. 5.5 seconds to squeeze off those 3 shots in the
> movie. Sanders fires his first shot at exactly the 1:14:50 point in the
> film (elapsed running time), with shot #3 occurring prior to the DVD's
> time counter reaching the 1:14:56 mark.*
>
Without aiming at a moving target?
eca...@comcast.net
You're the Man DVP!
MR ;~D
David Von Pein
Ivon/Sanders was aiming through a telescopic sight and performed the
shooting in approx. 5.5 seconds (not at a "moving target" with live
ammunition coming out the barrel, true. But let's use our heads re.
that aspect).
And then Stone lies to the audience by having Costner say it took
Ivon/Sanders "between 6, 7 seconds" to do what can easily be timed
right from any ol' DVD Player as having taken 5.5 seconds. Nice
deception there eh?
Ivon/Sanders, in the film, says he did the shooting "without really
aiming"....but if you'll watch...he's "aiming" the rifle...AND (and
this is interesting too)....the 2nd and 3rd shots are slightly further
apart during his "re-creation" than are shots 1 and 2 (just like
Oswald's performance on 11/22/63).
If Oliver Stone had been smart (in his usual deceiving way), he would
have had Jay Sanders struggling like mad with the bolt of the rifle and
would have had the actor take 8 or 9 seconds (or maybe even longer) to
do the re-creation.
But as it is, Stone has his actor smoothly working that bolt and
getting off 3 shots in almost exactly the same amount of time that most
people think (incorrectly, of course) the WC was pigeonholing itself
into re. the shooting timeline.
Go watch your DVD of Stone's film for yourself...and time it for
yourself...it's quite interesting...and very funny (considering it's
proving exactly the OPPOSITE of what the filmmaker is intending to
"prove").
And -- Jay Sanders was utilizing a weapon that I can only assume
Sanders hadn't used much, if at all, prior to the filming of the scene.
Although it is possible, of course, that "Take #39" was the one with
the 5.5-second shooting re-creation that ended up on screen in the
movie -- which, if true, would only go to show that "Practice Makes
Perfect" when utilizing a bolt-action carbine for rapid-fire shooting.
wig...@xit.net
from it. In looking at differing opinions & differing demonstrations of
the time required to duplicate the three shots, the fact that a fourth
round had been chambered into the MC has been a curious fact to me. I can
only draw two possible reasons for a fourth round being chambered (I'm
sure there's more reasons that I'm missing). First, the amount of time to
make the three shots fired was in fact very doable & the assassin chamberd
the fourth round for an anticipated fourth shot but had no target within
view at this point. Or, secondly, the assassin chambered the fourth round
between his movement from the SN to the location where the MC was left, in
preparedness of shooting anyone that tried to hinder his escape from the
sixth floor. The question of why the fourth round was chambered,
considering the time & effort to do so, continues to be a question of
mine.
Neil Cerutti
>>>> "Without aiming at a moving target?" <<<
>
> Ivon/Sanders was aiming through a telescopic sight and
> performed the shooting in approx. 5.5 seconds (not at a "moving
> target" with live ammunition coming out the barrel, true. But
> let's use our heads re. that aspect).
>
> And then Stone lies to the audience by having Costner say it
> took Ivon/Sanders "between 6, 7 seconds" to do what can easily
> be timed right from any ol' DVD Player as having taken 5.5
> seconds. Nice deception there eh?
I imagine Stone would consider it artistic license, like a lot of
the other bull he splayed accross the screen. 9 seconds is boring
eternity on film.
> If Oliver Stone had been smart (in his usual deceiving way), he
> would have had Jay Sanders struggling like mad with the bolt of
> the rifle and would have had the actor take 8 or 9 seconds (or
> maybe even longer) to do the re-creation.
The other possibility, slightly more attractive to me, is that
the takes in which Sanders really took 7 or more seconds to get
the shots off were obviously too deliberate or flubbed to
convince audiences that it was impossible to go faster.
> But as it is, Stone has his actor smoothly working that bolt
> and getting off 3 shots in almost exactly the same amount of
> time that most people think (incorrectly, of course) the WC was
> pigeonholing itself into re. the shooting timeline.
It was crucial to the point Stone was making that Ivon appear to
be using the rifle skillfully, I think. And then, due to the
interlinked desires to entertain and deceive he has Costner lie
about the time.
I watched the film again for the first time in many years and was
greatly amused by the added scenes on the 2001 DVD, especially
the bizarre failed gay-sex-in-the-bathroom frame-up that the FBI
attempts to pull off. It seems to me wise that Stone left that
strange episode (I assume from Garisson's book) on the cutting
room floor. But perhaps I just misunderstood the scene.
--
Neil Cerutti
David Von Pein
SCENE.....
There was no recoil during the Ivon/Sanders re-creation, that's true.
But that doesn't remove the LIE in the film when Costner falsely says
the re-creation took "between 6 and 7 seconds".
Three other notable falsehoods in that very same TSBD scene in the film
(I'm sure there are many more than just three as well; these are merely
off the top of my head after having just watched Chapter 33 of the
Stone fantasy motion picture).....
1.) When Ivon/Garrison agree that Oswald couldn't possibly have
succeeded in shooting JFK if the limo had stayed on Main Street. "Too
far", says Ivon. Totally wrong. Oswald's MC was more than capable of
making that shot, even if JFK had stayed on Main.
2.) When Ivon claims that the shooting took place through "heavy
foliage", implying that there was "heavy foliage" throughout the ENTIRE
assassination shooting timeline....even mentioning the "88 yards"
statistic, which equates only to the FINAL shot, which was well beyond
the "foliage" in Oswald's sights. A rather blatant misrepresentation,
IMO.
3.) When Ivon/Garrison say that the motorcade route was "changed" (the
commonplace CT argument/falsehood). The pair claims that the "original"
route had the cars staying on Main in order to get to Stemmons and the
Trade Mart. Which, of course, is dead wrong. Here's why.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
It's no wonder so many people believe in Stone's and Garrison's silly
theories (esp. if they fail to follow-up and fact-check anything being
spewed forth during those 3-plus hours of on-screen
fiction)....because there are no "footnotes" or source notes to consult
when watching Stone's film. So a viewer is left to his/her own devices
to reveal the film for what it truly is -- a gross misrepresentation of
three real-life murders (JFK's, Tippit's, and Oswald's).
Anthony Marsh
How do you know it was?
Gerry Simone (O)
the right of a moving target without just practicing to make 2 out of 3
hits?
You lonenutters conveniently dismiss the WC's lower range of the shooting
time which is self-serving and wrong.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166661253....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
wig...@xit.net
On Dec 22, 4:11 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > mine.How do you know it was?
Rather ambiguous question. How do you know it wasn't? Great
discussion, thanks.