Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mannlicher Carcano Carbine
406 views
Skip to first unread message
claviger
Nov 6, 2012, 11:51:33 PM11/6/12
to
MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html - 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm - 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html - 17k - similar
pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm - 17k - similar pagesThe
6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
claviger
Nov 7, 2012, 12:25:10 PM11/7/12
to
Surplusrifle Forum • View topic - Carcano rifles and ammo ...
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=56338 - 107k -
similar pagesMay 29, 2008 ... This article will discuss the
characteristics of the 6.5 X 52 mm and 7.35 x 51mm ... In fact, much
of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was ... From
my point of view the 6.5 X 52 is a very efficient cartridge,
offering ..... POWDER WEIGHT M41 VELOCITY (fps) M38 CAVALRY VELOCITY
(fps) ...
Previous topic - JFK Lancer Forums - Viewing message
http://www.jfklancerforum.com / dc / dcboard.php?az=show_mesg... - 25k
- similar pagesSep 18, 2011 ... Loading the 6.5 mm Carcano round with
a .264 slug will, according to the experts , ... The 6.5 mm slug was
longer and weighed 160 grains.
Web Blast: Italy's Mannlicher – Carcano | Guns Magazine
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/web-blast-italys-mannlicher-carcano/ - 67k
- similar pagesDec 17, 2010 ... In addition to the extremely flat
trajectory of the 6.5mm cartridge, the ... carbine weight also
includes the bayonet while that of the “TS” carbine does not. .... The
weapon was serviceable and effective and was much loved by the ...
Modern Firearms - Carcano M91
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/repeating-rifle/it/carcano-m91-e.html - 44k
- similar pagesParaviccini - Carcano M91 rifle (Italy) The Carcano M91
rifle is a manually operated, ... 6.5mm Carcano M91 Moschetto da
Cavalleria (cavalry carbine). ... Weight, empty, 3.8 kg, 3.4 kg with
integral bayonet, 3.4 kg ... of the 6.5mm M91 long rifles were
shortened to the M38 length, which was much more ... and can not be
used ...
claviger
Nov 7, 2012, 12:25:24 PM11/7/12
to
the ce 399 bullet - Vectors
http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_11.html - 55k - similar pagesAug 1,
2012 ... FRAME 145-162: The weight of the evidence shows that the
first shot was ... However, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5
millimeter bullets .... at that time do not suggest that he was doing
much more than looking around for the shooter. .... disrupted by a
previous impact -- the Carcano bullet was known by ...
claviger
Nov 7, 2012, 12:28:52 PM11/7/12
to
Mannlicher-Carcano M1891, Italian infantry rifle Modello 91.
http://ww2total.com / WW2 / Weapons / Infantry / Firearms / Italian /
Modello-91 / Mannlicher-Carcano.htm - 36k - similar pagesMannlicher-
Carcano M1891 : history, technical data, statistics, pictures, ...
With the Garand, the only other clip-loader in use during World War
II, it will ... Its principal drawback was the somewhat weak 6.5mm
cartridge which it fired; ... A new rifle with a 21in barrel but
otherwise much the same as the 1891/24 was developed.
Rifles in the UK: Choosing a rifle calibre
http://www.riflesintheuk.com/cartridges.htm - 69k - similar
pagesChoosing a calibre can be quite a bewildering task and really
depends on what ... One thing very noticeable if you study the bullet
weight versus energy figures is ... (or 12.7x99mm) is pretty much the
king of all the 'standard' centrefire cartridges. ..... 32) 6.5
Carcano The 6.5 Carcano, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano to give it it's ...
Bob Shell's Blog: September 2008
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html - 128k -
similar pagesSep 16, 2008 ... If you use 32-20 cases the bullet can be
seated out about ¼” or so ... They were . 310 and .314 in diameter
weighing 47 and 48 grains respectively. ... It was originally brought
out in 1891 created by Salvatore Carcano ... The 6.5 version isn't
rated much better but at least it has a more or less standard bullet.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 7, 2012, 1:10:57 PM11/7/12
to
do here?
Bill Clarke
Nov 7, 2012, 1:11:35 PM11/7/12
to
In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
claviger says...
for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
bullet.
Bill Clarke
claviger
Nov 7, 2012, 3:24:28 PM11/7/12
to
On Nov 7, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-13223c79a...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
> In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-13223c79a...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
> >http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE
> >pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an
> >ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
> >Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
> >attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
>
> >Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
> >http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe
> >ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher
> >Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then
> >attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ...
>
> >Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's
> >6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So
> >long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
> >placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
> >bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
> >insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
>
> I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
> for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
> grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
>
> For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
> a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
> bullet.
>
> Bill Clarke
Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a
> >long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet
> >placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to
> >bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all
> >insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30.
>
> I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better
> for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55
> grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate.
>
> For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with
> a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain
> bullet.
>
> Bill Clarke
military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind
of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
John Fiorentino
Nov 7, 2012, 10:14:57 PM11/7/12
to
Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
years, and there are many variants of the:
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ff1cb4b-cb08-4046...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
years, and there are many variants of the:
"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
required in production.
So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
looking into.
John F.
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ff1cb4b-cb08-4046...@3g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Nov 7, 2012, 10:15:10 PM11/7/12
to
needed to frame the patsy.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 7, 2012, 10:20:39 PM11/7/12
to
On 11/7/2012 12:28 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> Mannlicher-Carcano M1891, Italian infantry rifle Modello 91.
> http://ww2total.com / WW2 / Weapons / Infantry / Firearms / Italian /
> Modello-91 / Mannlicher-Carcano.htm - 36k - similar pagesMannlicher-
> Carcano M1891 : history, technical data, statistics, pictures, ...
> With the Garand, the only other clip-loader in use during World War
> II, it will ... Its principal drawback was the somewhat weak 6.5mm
> cartridge which it fired; ... A new rifle with a 21in barrel but
> otherwise much the same as the 1891/24 was developed.
>
>
> Rifles in the UK: Choosing a rifle calibre
> http://www.riflesintheuk.com/cartridges.htm - 69k - similar
> pagesChoosing a calibre can be quite a bewildering task and really
> depends on what ... One thing very noticeable if you study the bullet
> weight versus energy figures is ... (or 12.7x99mm) is pretty much the
> king of all the 'standard' centrefire cartridges. ..... 32) 6.5
> Carcano The 6.5 Carcano, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano to give it it's ...
>
>
> Bob Shell's Blog: September 2008
> http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html - 128k -
> similar pagesSep 16, 2008 ... If you use 32-20 cases the bullet can be
> seated out about ?? or so ... They were . 310 and .314 in diameter
>
> Mannlicher-Carcano M1891, Italian infantry rifle Modello 91.
> http://ww2total.com / WW2 / Weapons / Infantry / Firearms / Italian /
> Modello-91 / Mannlicher-Carcano.htm - 36k - similar pagesMannlicher-
> Carcano M1891 : history, technical data, statistics, pictures, ...
> With the Garand, the only other clip-loader in use during World War
> II, it will ... Its principal drawback was the somewhat weak 6.5mm
> cartridge which it fired; ... A new rifle with a 21in barrel but
> otherwise much the same as the 1891/24 was developed.
>
>
> Rifles in the UK: Choosing a rifle calibre
> http://www.riflesintheuk.com/cartridges.htm - 69k - similar
> pagesChoosing a calibre can be quite a bewildering task and really
> depends on what ... One thing very noticeable if you study the bullet
> weight versus energy figures is ... (or 12.7x99mm) is pretty much the
> king of all the 'standard' centrefire cartridges. ..... 32) 6.5
> Carcano The 6.5 Carcano, or 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano to give it it's ...
>
>
> Bob Shell's Blog: September 2008
> http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html - 128k -
> similar pagesSep 16, 2008 ... If you use 32-20 cases the bullet can be
> weighing 47 and 48 grains respectively. ... It was originally brought
> out in 1891 created by Salvatore Carcano ... The 6.5 version isn't
> rated much better but at least it has a more or less standard bullet.
>
>
>
What exactly do you think you are trying to prove with your random
> out in 1891 created by Salvatore Carcano ... The 6.5 version isn't
> rated much better but at least it has a more or less standard bullet.
>
>
>
babbling?
Bill Clarke
Nov 8, 2012, 2:47:28 PM11/8/12
to
In article <509ad90d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
>
>Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
>While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
>The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
>The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>years, and there are many variants of the:
>
>"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
>Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>required in production.
>
>So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
>The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>looking into.
>
>John F.
I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
>Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
>While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
>The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
>The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>years, and there are many variants of the:
>
>"Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
>Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>required in production.
>
>So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
>The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>looking into.
>
>John F.
Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
Bill Clarke
claviger
Nov 8, 2012, 2:48:35 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 9:14 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
> years, and there are many variants of the:
>
> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
> required in production.
>
> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
> looking into.
John F.
Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
> years, and there are many variants of the:
>
> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
> required in production.
>
> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
> looking into.
John F.
Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
Slingshots are deadly at short range. Cheap low quality Saturday
Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
except for an amateur who didn't know better or could not afford a
better weapon. LHO was a low tech assassin with a low cost military
surplus weapon. After three tries he achieved his purpose. CTs like
to claim LHO was innocent and sitting in the lunchroom at the time
shots were fired from the 6th floor window. If so, why did it take
the pro hitman 3 shots to kill the target? Why did this pro miss the
first shot? Makes no sense at all. It does make sense a nervous
amateur with the shakes yanked the first shot because he was trembling
and took a bad angle shot to begin with. All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin.
claviger
Nov 8, 2012, 2:48:44 PM11/8/12
to
Anthony,
> A pro would have to use a military surplus rifle if he was told it was
> needed to frame the patsy.
Do you have any evidence LHO was framed?
> A pro would have to use a military surplus rifle if he was told it was
> needed to frame the patsy.
claviger
Nov 8, 2012, 5:17:10 PM11/8/12
to
[PDF] Rifles of WW l Allies
http://home.earthlink.net/~mhclary/Rifles%20of%20WW%20l.pdf - similar
pagespowder had been around since 1886 so most of them have bores from
6.5 to 8 mm in ... They used a full metal jacketed bullet to shoot
down German observation ... bears a close resemblance to the 6.5
Carcano but is 1 mm longer and was loaded ... used barrel jackets much
as the model 88 does though the last version the ...
Historic Firearm of the Month, September 2001
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-december01.html - 57k - similar
pagesBy late 1890, the finalized 6.5x52mm cartridge had been approved,
and it was decided that only rifles featuring Mannlicher type
magazines would be considered ...
claviger
Nov 8, 2012, 5:17:26 PM11/8/12
to
Bob Shell's Blog: August 2008
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html - 138k -
similar pagesAug 31, 2008 ... It is a very detailed book on reloading
including much info not found elsewhere. ... They felt and correctly
so that pure copper bullets will give superior ..... The 6.5 bullets
are long for their weight that helps with penetration. ..... The rifle
that shot J.F.K was a 6.5 Carcano and at that time they could be
bought ...
Compared: Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Ruger Mini-14
http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_mini-14_m-s_carbine.htm - 35k -
similar pagesHowever, they are about the same size and weight, hold
the same number of cartridges of ... At least conceptually, not much
has changed between the 1904 introduction of the 1903 ... As our
comparison moves along, we will explore the differences and ....
Fortunately, recoil is not a problem with the mild 6.5x54mm cartridge.
Rifle: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rifle - 110k - similar
pagesuse because rifles were much more prone to problems due to powder
fouling the barrel. ... an English mathematician, realized that an
elongated bullet would retain the ..... Anti-materiel rifles can be
used against human targets, but the much higher weight of rifle ...
rifle, that used the 6.5?52mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge.
http://bobshellsblog.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html - 138k -
similar pagesAug 31, 2008 ... It is a very detailed book on reloading
including much info not found elsewhere. ... They felt and correctly
so that pure copper bullets will give superior ..... The 6.5 bullets
are long for their weight that helps with penetration. ..... The rifle
that shot J.F.K was a 6.5 Carcano and at that time they could be
bought ...
Compared: Mannlicher-Schoenauer and Ruger Mini-14
http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_mini-14_m-s_carbine.htm - 35k -
similar pagesHowever, they are about the same size and weight, hold
the same number of cartridges of ... At least conceptually, not much
has changed between the 1904 introduction of the 1903 ... As our
comparison moves along, we will explore the differences and ....
Fortunately, recoil is not a problem with the mild 6.5x54mm cartridge.
Rifle: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rifle - 110k - similar
pagesuse because rifles were much more prone to problems due to powder
fouling the barrel. ... an English mathematician, realized that an
elongated bullet would retain the ..... Anti-materiel rifles can be
used against human targets, but the much higher weight of rifle ...
rifle, that used the 6.5?52mm Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 8, 2012, 5:18:56 PM11/8/12
to
On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination. He missed a
> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged. The
iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
which revealed the conspiracy.
> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
> years, and there are many variants of the:
>
out for a better model.
> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
> material required in production.
>
> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
As Dave Emary said:
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
> looking into.
>
bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
John Fiorentino
Nov 9, 2012, 12:25:07 AM11/9/12
to
Claviger says.........
"All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin."
I say.........
I thought we were talking about the rifle?
Just some brief comments:
1) the first shot miss *may* have an explanation other than just a "miss."
2) The second shot may well have been fatal to JFK, but we'll never be
sure of that.
3) Within about 8 seconds this bumbling fool (Oswald) had managed to shoot
off a large portion of the top of the President's head and approx. 40% of
his brain had been semi-liquefied.
4) I think Oswald was neither a fool or a poor shot.
5) The ammunition issue needs further investigation, which I am doing now.
news:a39dbab6-6041-4bfd...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
"All evidence and logic
points to LHO as the assassin."
I thought we were talking about the rifle?
Just some brief comments:
1) the first shot miss *may* have an explanation other than just a "miss."
2) The second shot may well have been fatal to JFK, but we'll never be
sure of that.
3) Within about 8 seconds this bumbling fool (Oswald) had managed to shoot
off a large portion of the top of the President's head and approx. 40% of
his brain had been semi-liquefied.
4) I think Oswald was neither a fool or a poor shot.
5) The ammunition issue needs further investigation, which I am doing now.
news:a39dbab6-6041-4bfd...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Nov 9, 2012, 12:25:33 AM11/9/12
to
Claviger:
I don't think you need to operate under the premise that someone would
need to have evidence that Oswald was framed to conjecture as Tony did.
I think it's always wise to remember this axiom: " absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence."
news:09e85525-123b-40f1...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I don't think you need to operate under the premise that someone would
need to have evidence that Oswald was framed to conjecture as Tony did.
I think it's always wise to remember this axiom: " absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence."
news:09e85525-123b-40f1...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 12:26:31 AM11/9/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 12:26:47 AM11/9/12
to
On 11/8/2012 2:48 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:14 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>
>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>
>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>
>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>> required in production.
>>
>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>> looking into.
>
> John F.
>
> Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
> Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
> This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
> Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
The rifles are even worse at short range.
>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>
>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>
>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>
>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>> required in production.
>>
>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>> looking into.
>
> John F.
>
> Everything you say about the M38 Fucile Corto is true. In fact all
> Carcanos were good rifles, if not great rifles as some critics claim.
> This rifle was certainly sufficient for the task at short range.
> Almost any rifle is sufficient at short range as is any pistol.
Midrange trajectory height makes them miss high.
As Dave Emary said:
6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early
model M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero
sight. Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed
sights. The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint
the WWII era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and
simplicity. The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight
being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected
the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a
maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175
to 200 yards, depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian
soldiers life was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
> Slingshots are deadly at short range. Cheap low quality Saturday
> Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
> point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
> modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
> with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
> that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
You assume too many things.
> Night Specials have killed more people than any other handgun. My
> point is a professional sniper would most likely prefer a rifle using
> modern ammo with soft nose bullets that are devastating to the target
> with one shot. What advantage would there be using military FMJ ammo
> that took at least two shots to kill this target? It makes no sense
When AM/LASH requested a special assassination rifle from the CIA, did
he specifically ask for a Mannlicher-Carcano because he said it was the
best rifle to kill Castro? That idiot Robert Murrow claimed that the CIA
had him buy 4 Carcanos for the Castro assassination.
Does that make any sense to you?
> except for an amateur who didn't know better or could not afford a
> better weapon. LHO was a low tech assassin with a low cost military
> surplus weapon. After three tries he achieved his purpose. CTs like
> to claim LHO was innocent and sitting in the lunchroom at the time
lunch room. The Domino Room is on the FIRST floor where the manual labor
ate lunch. The Lunch Room is on the second floor where the white collar
workers and bossed ate lunch. The Lunch Room on the second floor is also
where Oswald had to go to buy a Coke.
> shots were fired from the 6th floor window. If so, why did it take
> the pro hitman 3 shots to kill the target? Why did this pro miss the
The scope was damaged and defective. And it jammed after the second shot.
> first shot? Makes no sense at all. It does make sense a nervous
> amateur with the shakes yanked the first shot because he was trembling
> and took a bad angle shot to begin with. All evidence and logic
> points to LHO as the assassin.
>
When Baker saw Oswald he was cool as ice.
Now for extra credit give us some examples of professional assassins who
missed with their first shot.
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 12:27:42 AM11/9/12
to
John Fiorentino
Nov 9, 2012, 12:27:53 AM11/9/12
to
Anthony:
When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Bill Clarke
Nov 9, 2012, 12:31:19 AM11/9/12
to
In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
He missed a
>stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
cops dropped it.
The
>iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
>
>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>
>
>The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>which revealed the conspiracy.
Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>
>Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>out for a better model.
>
>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>
>
>Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>
>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>> material required in production.
>>
>
>None of that is true.
Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
the .223 round?
>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>
>Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>As Dave Emary said:
I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>
>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>> looking into.
>>
>
>Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
The 0.268.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>
>
>Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>
>
>Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
He missed a
>stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
cops dropped it.
The
>iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
Same same as Dallas that day.
>
>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>
>
>The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>which revealed the conspiracy.
>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>
>Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>out for a better model.
>
>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>
>
>Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>
>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>> material required in production.
>>
>
>None of that is true.
the .223 round?
>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>
>Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>As Dave Emary said:
> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>
>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>> looking into.
>>
>
>Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
Bill Clarke
claviger
Nov 9, 2012, 12:37:00 AM11/9/12
to
Here is a link to the entire article by Dave Emary and his analysis of
the Carcano rifle:
Shooting the Carcano Rifles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ac53f1df091443d3
claviger
Nov 9, 2012, 12:39:59 AM11/9/12
to
Carcano? [Archive] - The Firing Line Forums
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-330017.html - 34k
- similar pagesThe Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (and its variants) was the
main service rifle of the Italian ..... Also, here's an article by
Dave Emary of Hornady.
claviger
Nov 9, 2012, 12:40:08 AM11/9/12
to
[PDF] Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence - Assassination Research
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson2.pdf - similar
pagesBlack Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him
gun- smithing ..... til the 1990s that Dave Emory, chief ballistican
for Hornady Arms, was able to ... Mannlicher Carcano cartridges, and
one live round identified as an unfired ...
claviger
Nov 9, 2012, 12:40:16 AM11/9/12
to
Mouseguns Links to Military Surplus Pistols and Rifles
http://mouseguns.com/milsurp.htm - 34k - similar pagesItaly's
Mannlicher-Carcano: how did such a good rifle get such a bad
reputation? Carcano Model 38 · Video of Someone Shooting the Carcano
at a Range ...
[13.0] The Balance Of Evidence (4)
http://www.vectorsite.net/twjfk_13.html - 36k - similar pagesAug 1,
2012 ... [13.3] ACCURACY & LETHALITY OF THE CARCANO RIFLE .....
Mannlicher- Carcano: How Did Such A Good Rifle Get Such A Bad
Reputation?
Bill Clarke
Nov 9, 2012, 12:09:39 PM11/9/12
to
In article <509c2413$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
the facts. The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 11/8/2012 2:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509ad90d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>
>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>
>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>
>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>
>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>
>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>>> required in production.
>>>
>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>>
>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.
>>>
>>> John F.
>>
>> I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
>> Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
>> impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
>> think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>
>
>It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:
I've read the article. It would be nice if you wouldn't twist what he said with
>On 11/8/2012 2:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509ad90d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>
>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>
>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>
>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>
>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>
>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less material
>>> required in production.
>>>
>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>>
>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.
>>>
>>> John F.
>>
>> I agree, it certainly did the job that day in Dallas. The article by Dave
>> Emary spoke very well of the Mannlicher Carcano and he shot some
>> impressive groups with the one he was using in his test. I no longer
>> think of the MC as a junk rifle; it just isn't the one I would have used.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>
>
>It would be nice if you would actually read what Dave Emary wrote:
the facts. The fact are that this foolish 300 yard zero was not used for long
and then the 200 yard zero was used. That gives you around a 4 inch mid
trajectory height and I doubt many Austrian soldiers were spared by 4 inches.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 6:49:14 PM11/9/12
to
On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>
>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>
>>
>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>
The one in the TSBD failed.
> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>
>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>
>>
>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>
> He missed a
>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>
> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
> cops dropped it.
>
elephant stepped on it.
> The
>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>
> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
> Same same as Dallas that day.
>
And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
You pulled that number out of your ass.
>
>>
>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>
>>
>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>
> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>
>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>> out for a better model.
>>
>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>> material required in production.
>>>
>>
>> None of that is true.
>
> Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
> the .223 round?
>
and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
bullets for the same weight.
>
>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> As Dave Emary said:
>
> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>
>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>> looking into.
>>>
>>
>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
>
> The 0.268.
>
ammo was.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 6:50:18 PM11/9/12
to
On 11/9/2012 12:27 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony:
>
> When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.
>
> John F.
>
Never. Please killfile me.
> Anthony:
>
> When you bone up on your manners, *maybe* I'll respond to you.
>
> John F.
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 6:50:53 PM11/9/12
to
the rifle to miss at close range.
Never having served in war you have your wars mixed up. Emary said World
War 1. The Great War. The War to end all wars. I doubt the Italians were
shooting at any Austrian soldiers in WWII.
bigdog
Nov 9, 2012, 6:54:38 PM11/9/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:24:28 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-13223c79a...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, > claviger says... > > > > > > > > > > > > >MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE > >http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar > >pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an > >ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher > >Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then > >attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ... > > >Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's > >http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe > >6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So > >long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet > >placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to > >bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all > >insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30. > > I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better > for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55 > grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate. > > For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with > a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain > bullet. > > Bill Clarke Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
The most important point is that Oswald learned of the opportunity chance
> On Nov 7, 12:11 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > In article <d2dd8d5a-46f1-473d-a46d-13223c79a...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, > claviger says... > > > > > > > > > > > > >MANNLICHER CARCANO CARBINE > >http://www.vincelewis.net/mannlichercarcano.html- 17k - similar > >pagesOct 5, 2012 ... Originally issued to the Italian army, it was an > >ideal, light weight and ... Below, on the left is shown the Mannlicher > >Carcano 6.5mm bullet and on the right a ... but too much oil then > >attracts sand and dirt particles that can only ... > > >Shooting the "Other" 6.5mm's > >http://www.chuckhawks.com/other_6-5mm.htm- 17k - similar pagesThe > >6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, 6.5x52 Carcano and 6.5x50 Arisaka ... So > >long as the hunter does his part with regard to proper bullet > >placement ... 6mm Remington and .257 Roberts, which are limited to > >bullets weighing 87 to 120 grains. ... all their reports and all > >insist it to be a much more reliable load than the .30-30. > > I think we need to remember that while a 160 grain bullet may be better > for killing a bear it certainly isn't required to kill a man, as the 55 > grain M-16 round was to later clearly demonstrate. > > For the range Oswald was shooting he would have been much better off with > a Winchester or Remington bolt rifle in .243 or .257 shooting a 100 grain > bullet. > > Bill Clarke Agreed. Only a rank amateur would attempt an assassination with a military surplus rifle. A pro would make sure they had the right kind of rifle for a hit on such an important target.
circumstance had dealt him and he only had one rifle, so it's not as if he
really made a choice about which rifle to use for the task at hand. He
chose the MC the previous March possibly for the purpose of killing
Walker. His reasons for selecting that particular rifle were known only to
him. My guess is it's relatively cheap price and his financial situation
had a lot to do with his choice.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 9, 2012, 10:23:01 PM11/9/12
to
specifically to assassinate the President in November. Please, pretty
please make my Century.
Bill Clarke
Nov 9, 2012, 11:42:05 PM11/9/12
to
In article <509d4603$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
I put it to you Marsh that I have served in one more war than you have.
Easy done since you have yet to serve in your first war.
Bill Clarke
Easy done since you have yet to serve in your first war.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 9, 2012, 11:42:52 PM11/9/12
to
In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> He missed a
>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>
>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>> cops dropped it.
>>
>
>Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>elephant stepped on it.
>
>> The
>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>
>Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>You pulled that number out of your ass.
Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
close to 100 yards.
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>>
>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>> out for a better model.
>>>
>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>>
>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>> material required in production.
>>>>
>>>
>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
>> the .223 round?
>>
>
>Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>bullets for the same weight.
So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
true. Good.
>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>>
>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>> looking into.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
>>
>> The 0.268.
>>
>
>Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>ammo was.
Good going Marsh.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>
>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>
>
>The one in the TSBD failed.
Horse apples.
>On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>
>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>
>
>The one in the TSBD failed.
>> He missed a
>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>
>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>> cops dropped it.
>>
>
>Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>elephant stepped on it.
>
>> The
>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>
>Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>You pulled that number out of your ass.
close to 100 yards.
You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>>
>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>> out for a better model.
>>>
>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>>
>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>> material required in production.
>>>>
>>>
>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
>> the .223 round?
>>
>
>Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>bullets for the same weight.
true. Good.
>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>>
>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>>>> looking into.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
>>
>> The 0.268.
>>
>
>Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
>ammo was.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Nov 10, 2012, 10:12:29 PM11/10/12
to
On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>
>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>
>>
>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> Horse apples.
>
Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>
>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>
>>
>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> Horse apples.
>
Just like the CBS tests.
>
>>> He missed a
>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>>
>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>> cops dropped it.
>>>
>>
>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>>> The
>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>>
>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>>
>>
>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>
> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
> close to 100 yards.
>
inches to the cowlick?
> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>
You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>
>
>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>>>
>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>>>> out for a better model.
>>>>
>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>>>
>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
>>>>> material required in production.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of that is true.
>>>
>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
>>> the .223 round?
>>>
>>
>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
>> bullets for the same weight.
>
> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
> true. Good.
>
Bill Clarke
Nov 11, 2012, 1:49:53 PM11/11/12
to
In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>> He missed a
>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>> cops dropped it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>
>So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>inches to the cowlick?
I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
Weak Marsh.
>
>On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>
>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> Horse apples.
>>
>
>Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>Just like the CBS tests.
This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>
>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> Horse apples.
>>
>
>Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>Just like the CBS tests.
>>>> He missed a
>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>> cops dropped it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>
>So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>inches to the cowlick?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 12, 2012, 8:04:19 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>
>>> Horse apples.
>>>
>>
>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>
>>> Horse apples.
>>>
>>
>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
three shots because the rifle jammed.
You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
>>>>> He missed a
>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
>>>>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>>
>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>>> close to 100 yards.
>>>
>>
>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
>> inches to the cowlick?
>
> I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
claviger
Nov 12, 2012, 8:47:08 PM11/12/12
to
Anthony,
> >>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
> >>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>
> >>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> >>> Horse apples.
>
> >> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> > This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> three shots because the rifle jammed.
> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
"One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the
following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average
time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean
was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds,
and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence
of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds.
The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least
was 0 (back to back)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
> >>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
> >>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>
> >>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> >>> Horse apples.
>
> >> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> > This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> three shots because the rifle jammed.
> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average
time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean
was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds,
and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence
of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds.
The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least
was 0 (back to back)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
Anthony Marsh
Nov 12, 2012, 9:49:33 PM11/12/12
to
a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. It was discussed by
Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). Another poster has quoted
extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
incorporated the same information. I independently verified the accuracy
of his information during the mid-Seventies. In evaluating the results of
the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
that Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not permitted to
use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me first tell you
about an earlier trial.
On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The slopoe of the track approximated
the slope of Elm Street. Remember the colors of the target because they
figure prominently in all the results. Crossman fired clips of three
rounds each six times. Here were the results:
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (live
Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. The
January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
within the orange silhouette. In May, however, Lister was content merely
with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
"OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. What happened in the other 17 cases?
Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
before they could get off their third shot. Of course, CBS never told its
audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (and
you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, performed
the best):
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target completely)
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed target
We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. The same was not
necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
assassination). In the end, one must also consider the difference between
what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
-- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. Taking into
account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
hits for every three shots fired."
Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
equaled?" Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your
point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
used. However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information, judge for
yourself.
-roger-
Now let's hear you dismiss all these KNOWN FACTS by calling me a
conspiracy kook. Pretty please with sugar and molasses on it.
Bill Clarke
Nov 13, 2012, 11:11:58 AM11/13/12
to
In article <50a07713$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>
>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>
>It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>three shots because the rifle jammed.
It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>
>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>
>It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>three shots because the rifle jammed.
necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
for years now. You just don't get it.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Nov 13, 2012, 5:27:03 PM11/13/12
to
On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <50a07713$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>>
>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>>
>>
>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>
> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>
Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
> In article <50a07713$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>>
>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>>
>>
>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>
> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>
only be caused by the rifle jamming.
at the feet you might have a point.
Bill Clarke
Nov 14, 2012, 10:01:13 AM11/14/12
to
In article <50a29be2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? I believe you but I've
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
>
>On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <50a07713$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>>>
>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>>
>
>Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>only be caused by the rifle jamming.
No you don't. Despite my relating personal experience and despite the excellent
>On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <50a07713$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <509eb17c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <509d3dea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>>>
>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>>
>
>Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>only be caused by the rifle jamming.
reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifle jamming
you continue to support a falsehood. Why is that?
Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have a point.
So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? I gotta
have a reference on that one Marsh. You do understand.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 14, 2012, 4:56:30 PM11/14/12
to
of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. So will extraction. Again Marsh, you
> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>
How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>
process on YouTube.
A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
condition of that shell.
Bill Clarke
Nov 15, 2012, 12:37:53 PM11/15/12
to
In article <50a3e11a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Yes she did. And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up a reference.
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
Okay Marsh. Right after you give me a credible reference that jamming is the
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
>any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>condition of that shell.
It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times. And
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aiming. Now do
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
Bill Clarke
What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
>any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>condition of that shell.
evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
you get it? Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech
Nov 15, 2012, 1:53:52 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 14, 4:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
something that has already been said. As much as it's interesting about
the finer points of the testing of the rifle, it seems more of a solution
to look at the FBI testing that was testified to by Frazier and Simmons of
the FBI lab to the WC.
Here's part of Frazier's testimony:
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth,
as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much
use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion."
...
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
So now we have a statement that the rifle "showed the effects of wear
and corrosion." and the lands and grooves in the barrel were not in good
condition either. As well we get a dodge to avoid answering how many
bullets had gone through the rifle. The lands and grooves in the barrel
were not in good condition either. It could have been none, or 50.
However, we have the talkative Simmons who will help us immensely in
determining the condition of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was alleged
to have been used in the TSBD to shoot JFK. Now we hear from Simmons:
"Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope,
and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust
the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth
correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it
would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible,
and the shim was a more..."
Now a basic fault is found in the rifle before it is tried by the
FBI lab. The scope cannot be used to draw a bead on a target. It
needs to be shimmed first. That alone can make the rifle a non-
starter for assassination. The rifle was found with the scope screwed
on, and it's not sensible to say that the shooter shot first with iron
sights and then screwed on the scope and hid the rifle. So the rifle
wasn't in condition to shoot anyone. But let's belabor the point.
Simmons goes on:
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
Mr. Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of
our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
Simmons makes a mistake and let's a cat out of the bag. A gunsmith
worked on the weapon! He applied at least 2 shims to make the scope
operable, but as we'll see soon, he did much more to make the rifle
shootable. Here's more of Simmons:
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
So the bolt was hard to work? Would that slow someone down when
trying to shoot rapidly?
Now Simmons has helped us further. He has said that "considerable
experience" would be necessary to "work the weapon" to do with
"working the bolt"! As we know, Oswald had only semi-automatic skill
(M1), and none with bolt action weapons to our knowledge. Now Simmons
let's out the piece de resistance that again help us immensely:
"Mr. Eisenberg. How much practice had they had with the weapon,
Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
Oh boy! They were afraid of breaking the firing pin!! Now why
would that be? The firing pin is in the bolt, which was hard to
work. Earlier Simmons said the testers each took 2-3 minutes working
the bolt. I have to assume to not only get used to it, but to free it
up some, since it was hard to work. We also know from Frazier that
there was a problem with "Wear and Corrosion". That could be a cause
of a bolt that was difficult to work. And with the firing pin
embedded in the bolt, if there was wear and corrosion in the rifle,
and the rifle had to go to the gunsmith anyway, perhaps he also used
some gun oil or WD40 or some such to free up the bolt. That they were
able to work the bolt for a few minutes each after the guinsmith, we
can reasonably assume that he did more to the rifle than just fix the
impossible scope.
All in all, the testers (all NRA masters) received the rifle in
such terrible condition that it would be lucky to hit a barn if you
swung the butt at it. Any tests with a 'similar' rifle won't show the
problems that Frazier and Simmons told us about. It seems moot to
bother with such testing once you hear that the rifle was in such
condition that it couldn't be used to do any kind of
'sharpshooting'. An expert marksman couldn't use the rifle with the
problems described. And we also know from testimony that Oswald was
always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle. Sort of like the M-C rifle
we just discussed, 'worn and corroded'. It was, after all, a used
item from WW2.
Maybe we'd be better off trying to find a 'Mauser 7.65' and go with
that.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Nov 15, 2012, 11:32:42 PM11/15/12
to
> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
quickly.
I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
claim it.
Bill Clarke
Nov 15, 2012, 11:38:15 PM11/15/12
to
In article <e215c316-cb21-402a...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for=
>e excellent
>> > reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifl=
>e jamming
>> > you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the results of
>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first tell you
>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target because they
>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of three
>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was not
>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking into
>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, judge for
>> yourself.
>>
>> -roger-
>>
>> > Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0Agai=
>> >>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and dam=
>aged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or a=
>> >>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect =
>aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inche=
>gain you
>> >>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inc=
>hed. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure =
>up 4
>> >>>>>>>>> inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off does=
>>
>> >>>> =A0 =A0But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
>>
>> >>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inche=
>s doesn't
>> >>> necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain battle z=
>ero to you
>> >>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>a point.
>>
>> > So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? =
>=A0I gotta
>> > have a reference on that one Marsh. =A0You do understand.
>>
>> > Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =A0Run it you=
>rself. =A0I
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shoo=
>ter to
>> >>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy k=
>noll,
>> >>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. =A0Sure.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensive=
> list of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetratio=
>n at
>> >>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and l=
>, faster
>> >>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the numbe=
>ndeed
>> >>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carc=
>arly model
>> >>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle ze=
>ro sight.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixe=
>d sights.
>> >>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoin=
>t the WWII
>> >>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simpli=
>city. The
>> >>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight bei=
>ng at 300
>> >>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected th=
>e trend of
>> >>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a max=
>imum height
>> >>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 20=
>0 yards,
>> >>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian s=
> am still
>> >>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a d=
>ifferent
>> >>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or=
> 0.268?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Ital=
rifles were in combat or used on the range and fired many rounds. Some
never went to combat or the range and have very little bore wear. Note
that he says the bolt was smooth!
>"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
>shape?
>Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
>were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
>corrosion or wear.
>Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
>Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
>Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
>fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
>you found it?
>Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
>an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
>allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
>to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
>barrel."
>
> So now we have a statement that the rifle "showed the effects of wear
>and corrosion." and the lands and grooves in the barrel were not in good
>condition either. As well we get a dodge to avoid answering how many
>bullets had gone through the rifle. The lands and grooves in the barrel
>were not in good condition either. It could have been none, or 50.
This wasn't a dodge about the number of rounds the rifle had fired.
There is no way of knowing. All you can say is that the barrel was worn.
Most sporter rifle barrel are good for at least 1,500 rounds. We carried
spare barrels for our .50 cal and 7.62 machine guns. They go through
barrels quick.
>However, we have the talkative Simmons who will help us immensely in
>determining the condition of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was alleged
>to have been used in the TSBD to shoot JFK. Now we hear from Simmons:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
>machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
>weapon?
>
>Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope,
>and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust
>the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
>adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth
>correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it
>would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible,
>and the shim was a more..."
>
> Now a basic fault is found in the rifle before it is tried by the
>FBI lab. The scope cannot be used to draw a bead on a target. It
>needs to be shimmed first. That alone can make the rifle a non-
>starter for assassination. The rifle was found with the scope screwed
>on, and it's not sensible to say that the shooter shot first with iron
>sights and then screwed on the scope and hid the rifle. So the rifle
>wasn't in condition to shoot anyone. But let's belabor the point.
>Simmons goes on:
We don't know that Oswald used the scope. The scope had to be side
mounted so the clip could be inserted. This allows the open sights to be
also used if the shooter desires. I don't know and neither does anyone
else but it is my guess that Oswald used the open sights.
> "Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
>mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
>Mr. Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of
>our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
>
> Simmons makes a mistake and let's a cat out of the bag. A gunsmith
>worked on the weapon! He applied at least 2 shims to make the scope
>operable, but as we'll see soon, he did much more to make the rifle
>shootable. Here's more of Simmons:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
>skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
>range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
>Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
>one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
>considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
>effort required to work the bolt.
>
>Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
>Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
>was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
>with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
>
> So the bolt was hard to work? Would that slow someone down when
>trying to shoot rapidly?
But Frazier said the bolt was smooth? Usually on a rifle with that much
wear the bolt would be loose and sloppy.
> Now Simmons has helped us further. He has said that "considerable
>experience" would be necessary to "work the weapon" to do with
>"working the bolt"! As we know, Oswald had only semi-automatic skill
But Oswald irritated his wife by constantly working the bolt and dry
firing his weapon.
>(M1), and none with bolt action weapons to our knowledge. Now Simmons
>let's out the piece de resistance that again help us immensely:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. How much practice had they had with the weapon,
>Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
>Mr. Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
>ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
>had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
>were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
>
> Oh boy! They were afraid of breaking the firing pin!! Now why
>would that be?
You don't have experience with firearms, do you? To dry fire ANY rifle
can cause damage and breakage to the firing pin. Therefore, it is never a
good ideal to pull the trigger without a round being in the chamber.
They even make dummy rounds to put in the chamber so if one want to
practice working the bolt and dry firing without causing the firing pin to
break.
The firing pin is in the bolt, which was hard to
>work. Earlier Simmons said the testers each took 2-3 minutes working
>the bolt. I have to assume to not only get used to it, but to free it
>up some, since it was hard to work. We also know from Frazier that
>there was a problem with "Wear and Corrosion". That could be a cause
>of a bolt that was difficult to work. And with the firing pin
>embedded in the bolt, if there was wear and corrosion in the rifle,
>and the rifle had to go to the gunsmith anyway, perhaps he also used
>some gun oil or WD40 or some such to free up the bolt. That they were
>able to work the bolt for a few minutes each after the guinsmith, we
>can reasonably assume that he did more to the rifle than just fix the
>impossible scope.
>
> All in all, the testers (all NRA masters) received the rifle in
>such terrible condition that it would be lucky to hit a barn if you
>swung the butt at it.
While that may be true of the scope (and it might not be)we don't know if
it was true for the open sights since they didn't bother to zero with the
open sights.
Any tests with a 'similar' rifle won't show the
>problems that Frazier and Simmons told us about.
What makes you think other Mannlicher Carcano surplus rifles would show
the same characteristics as the one Oswald used?
It seems moot to
>bother with such testing once you hear that the rifle was in such
>condition that it couldn't be used to do any kind of
>'sharpshooting'. An expert marksman couldn't use the rifle with the
>problems described. And we also know from testimony that Oswald was
>always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle. Sort of like the M-C rifle
>we just discussed, 'worn and corroded'. It was, after all, a used
>item from WW2.
>
> Maybe we'd be better off trying to find a 'Mauser 7.65' and go with
>that.
That would have been a better choice but that isn't what Oswald used.
And it worked fine for him that day in Dallas.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 14, 4:56=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says..=
>On Nov 14, 4:56=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says=
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for=
> the job.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> >>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> >>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswal=
>> >>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> >>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>d or not.
>>
>> >> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> >> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>> > No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despite th=
>>
>> >> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> >> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>e excellent
>> > reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the rifl=
>e jamming
>> > you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>>
>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discussed by
>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mouth
>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about
>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their
>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing test,
>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discussion in
>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data to
>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and
>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quoted
>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, which
>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the accuracy
>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the results of
>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the
>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not permitted to
>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity
>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at the
>>
>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first tell you
>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the Zapruder
>>
>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motorized
>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) to do
>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI head
>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track approximated
>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same relative
>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target because they
>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of three
>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in blue.
>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> head.
>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> over head.
>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle (liv=
>> head.
>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> over head.
>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots in
>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who recorded
>>
>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for CBS
>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. =A0The
>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who began his
>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Warren
>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accuracy
>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was content merely
>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he did
>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
>>
>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they did back
>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., shoulder,
>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained. If
>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
>>
>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswald's
>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the moving
>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 cases?
>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR
>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt
>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never told its
>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its run
>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> assassination). =A0In the end, one must also consider the difference between
>>
>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one has
>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of the
>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms of the
>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 seconds
>> or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to three hits
>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking into
>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was 1.2
>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>> equaled?" =A0Well, let's hope that it never is. =A0But so as not to evade
>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
your
>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
>> used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to have
>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
>> without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge and jury
>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, judge for
>> yourself.
>>
>> -roger-
>>
>> > Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0Agai=
>n Marsh, you
>> > don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> condition of that shell.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired.=
>> > don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't show
>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> condition of that shell.
>>
>>
>>
> But
>> >>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
>> >>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and dam=
>aged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or a=
>fter the
>> >>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also clai=
>> >>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>m and
>> >>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 The
>> >>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect =
>aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inche=
>s about the
>> >>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =A0And a=
>> >>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>gain you
>> >>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inc=
>hed. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure =
>up 4
>> >>>>>>>>> inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off does=
>n't it?
>> >>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding =
>> >>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>target at
>> >>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>> >>>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went u=
>> >>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>p 4
>> >>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >>>>> I don't know where he aimed. =A0You don't either.
>> >>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>>
>> >>>> =A0 =A0But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
>>
>> >>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inche=
>s doesn't
>> >>> necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain battle z=
>ero to you
>> >>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>>
>> >> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>> > So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =A0I believe y=
>> >> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>ou but I've
>> > seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
>>
>> >> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might have =
>> > seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the head.
>>
>a point.
>>
>> > So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of head? =
>=A0I gotta
>> > have a reference on that one Marsh. =A0You do understand.
>>
>> > Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =A0Run it you=
>rself. =A0I
>> >>>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>>
>> >>>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory=
>>
>.
>> >>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>> >>>>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite d=
>> >>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>> >>>>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>>
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shoo=
>ter to
>> >>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy k=
>noll,
>> >>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. =A0Sure.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensive=
>ly for many
>> >>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and p=
>> >>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>hasing it
>> >>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" =A0which is the correct name.
>> >>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long=
>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
> list of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetratio=
>n at
>> >>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and l=
>ess
>> >>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. =A0Do you know why our milit=
>> >>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>ary went to
>> >>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter=
>> >>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>, faster
>> >>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the numbe=
>r of
>> >>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>> >>>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is i=
>> >>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>ndeed
>> >>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carc=
>anos.
>>
>> >>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. E=
>>
>> >>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>arly model
>> >>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle ze=
>ro sight.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixe=
>d sights.
>> >>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoin=
>t the WWII
>> >>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simpli=
>city. The
>> >>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight bei=
>ng at 300
>> >>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected th=
>e trend of
>> >>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a max=
>imum height
>> >>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 20=
>0 yards,
>> >>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian s=
>oldiers life
>> >>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I=
>> >>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
> am still
>> >>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a d=
>ifferent
>> >>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or=
> 0.268?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Ital=
>ian SMI
>> >>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>
> I'm coming in to this thread late, so please forgive me if I state
>something that has already been said. As much as it's interesting about
>the finer points of the testing of the rifle, it seems more of a solution
>to look at the FBI testing that was testified to by Frazier and Simmons of
>the FBI lab to the WC.
>
> Here's part of Frazier's testimony:
>
>"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth,
>as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much
>use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
>excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
>words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion."
This could be said for many if not most military surplus rifles. Some
>> >>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>
> I'm coming in to this thread late, so please forgive me if I state
>something that has already been said. As much as it's interesting about
>the finer points of the testing of the rifle, it seems more of a solution
>to look at the FBI testing that was testified to by Frazier and Simmons of
>the FBI lab to the WC.
>
> Here's part of Frazier's testimony:
>
>"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth,
>as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much
>use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
>excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
>words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion."
rifles were in combat or used on the range and fired many rounds. Some
never went to combat or the range and have very little bore wear. Note
that he says the bolt was smooth!
>"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
>shape?
>Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
>were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
>corrosion or wear.
>Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
>Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
>Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
>fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
>you found it?
>Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
>an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
>allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
>to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
>barrel."
>
> So now we have a statement that the rifle "showed the effects of wear
>and corrosion." and the lands and grooves in the barrel were not in good
>condition either. As well we get a dodge to avoid answering how many
>bullets had gone through the rifle. The lands and grooves in the barrel
>were not in good condition either. It could have been none, or 50.
There is no way of knowing. All you can say is that the barrel was worn.
Most sporter rifle barrel are good for at least 1,500 rounds. We carried
spare barrels for our .50 cal and 7.62 machine guns. They go through
barrels quick.
>However, we have the talkative Simmons who will help us immensely in
>determining the condition of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was alleged
>to have been used in the TSBD to shoot JFK. Now we hear from Simmons:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
>machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
>weapon?
>
>Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope,
>and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust
>the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
>adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth
>correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it
>would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible,
>and the shim was a more..."
>
> Now a basic fault is found in the rifle before it is tried by the
>FBI lab. The scope cannot be used to draw a bead on a target. It
>needs to be shimmed first. That alone can make the rifle a non-
>starter for assassination. The rifle was found with the scope screwed
>on, and it's not sensible to say that the shooter shot first with iron
>sights and then screwed on the scope and hid the rifle. So the rifle
>wasn't in condition to shoot anyone. But let's belabor the point.
>Simmons goes on:
mounted so the clip could be inserted. This allows the open sights to be
also used if the shooter desires. I don't know and neither does anyone
else but it is my guess that Oswald used the open sights.
> "Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
>mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
>Mr. Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of
>our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
>
> Simmons makes a mistake and let's a cat out of the bag. A gunsmith
>worked on the weapon! He applied at least 2 shims to make the scope
>operable, but as we'll see soon, he did much more to make the rifle
>shootable. Here's more of Simmons:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
>skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
>range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
>Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
>one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
>considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
>effort required to work the bolt.
>
>Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
>Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
>was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
>with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
>
> So the bolt was hard to work? Would that slow someone down when
>trying to shoot rapidly?
wear the bolt would be loose and sloppy.
> Now Simmons has helped us further. He has said that "considerable
>experience" would be necessary to "work the weapon" to do with
>"working the bolt"! As we know, Oswald had only semi-automatic skill
firing his weapon.
>(M1), and none with bolt action weapons to our knowledge. Now Simmons
>let's out the piece de resistance that again help us immensely:
>
>"Mr. Eisenberg. How much practice had they had with the weapon,
>Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
>Mr. Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
>ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
>had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
>were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
>
> Oh boy! They were afraid of breaking the firing pin!! Now why
>would that be?
can cause damage and breakage to the firing pin. Therefore, it is never a
good ideal to pull the trigger without a round being in the chamber.
They even make dummy rounds to put in the chamber so if one want to
practice working the bolt and dry firing without causing the firing pin to
break.
The firing pin is in the bolt, which was hard to
>work. Earlier Simmons said the testers each took 2-3 minutes working
>the bolt. I have to assume to not only get used to it, but to free it
>up some, since it was hard to work. We also know from Frazier that
>there was a problem with "Wear and Corrosion". That could be a cause
>of a bolt that was difficult to work. And with the firing pin
>embedded in the bolt, if there was wear and corrosion in the rifle,
>and the rifle had to go to the gunsmith anyway, perhaps he also used
>some gun oil or WD40 or some such to free up the bolt. That they were
>able to work the bolt for a few minutes each after the guinsmith, we
>can reasonably assume that he did more to the rifle than just fix the
>impossible scope.
>
> All in all, the testers (all NRA masters) received the rifle in
>such terrible condition that it would be lucky to hit a barn if you
>swung the butt at it.
it was true for the open sights since they didn't bother to zero with the
open sights.
Any tests with a 'similar' rifle won't show the
>problems that Frazier and Simmons told us about.
the same characteristics as the one Oswald used?
It seems moot to
>bother with such testing once you hear that the rifle was in such
>condition that it couldn't be used to do any kind of
>'sharpshooting'. An expert marksman couldn't use the rifle with the
>problems described. And we also know from testimony that Oswald was
>always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle. Sort of like the M-C rifle
>we just discussed, 'worn and corroded'. It was, after all, a used
>item from WW2.
>
> Maybe we'd be better off trying to find a 'Mauser 7.65' and go with
>that.
And it worked fine for him that day in Dallas.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Nov 15, 2012, 11:38:52 PM11/15/12
to
how you can break any firing pin. This was not unique to Oswald's rifle.
> the bolt. I have to assume to not only get used to it, but to free it
> up some, since it was hard to work. We also know from Frazier that
> there was a problem with "Wear and Corrosion". That could be a cause
> of a bolt that was difficult to work. And with the firing pin
> embedded in the bolt, if there was wear and corrosion in the rifle,
> and the rifle had to go to the gunsmith anyway, perhaps he also used
> some gun oil or WD40 or some such to free up the bolt. That they were
> able to work the bolt for a few minutes each after the guinsmith, we
> can reasonably assume that he did more to the rifle than just fix the
> impossible scope.
>
> All in all, the testers (all NRA masters) received the rifle in
> such terrible condition that it would be lucky to hit a barn if you
> swung the butt at it. Any tests with a 'similar' rifle won't show the
> problems that Frazier and Simmons told us about. It seems moot to
> bother with such testing once you hear that the rifle was in such
> condition that it couldn't be used to do any kind of
> 'sharpshooting'. An expert marksman couldn't use the rifle with the
> problems described. And we also know from testimony that Oswald was
> always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle. Sort of like the M-C rifle
> we just discussed, 'worn and corroded'. It was, after all, a used
> item from WW2.
>
> Maybe we'd be better off trying to find a 'Mauser 7.65' and go with
> that.
>
> Chris
>
Bill Clarke
Nov 16, 2012, 12:47:13 PM11/16/12
to
In article <50a5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert. Far
from it.
>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>
>The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>quickly.
So will other bolt guns. So what?
>I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
>say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
are talking about, Marsh.
The bullet never rises Marsh. Simple laws of physics. You cannot adjust the
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
Bill Clarke
from it.
>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>
>The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>quickly.
>I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
>say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
are talking about, Marsh.
line of bore or the line of trajectory. The only thing you can adjust is the
line of sight by adjusting the scope. Now think about it a bit.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech
Nov 16, 2012, 3:34:23 PM11/16/12
to
rifle owned previously by Lee Harvey Oswald...:)
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Nov 16, 2012, 6:46:31 PM11/16/12
to
already admitted that.
>
>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>
>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>> quickly.
>
> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>
can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>> I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and you
>> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denial?
>
> I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. That is what we
> are talking about, Marsh.
>
Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weapon.
Bill Clarke
Nov 16, 2012, 10:52:12 PM11/16/12
to
In article <50a69234$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Careful Marsh. You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. I
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>
>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>> quickly.
>>
>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>
>
>So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>can't get a dented lip without jamming.
You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
Stick with this Marsh. The scope is above and parallel to the line of
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
didn't say that. In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles.
She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>
>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>> quickly.
>>
>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>
>
>So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>can't get a dented lip without jamming.
ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
ejection port. This is normal.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
"rise" to the line of sight? I'll be waiting.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech
Nov 17, 2012, 3:59:55 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 6:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. Details if
requested.
Chris
mainframetech
Nov 17, 2012, 4:00:48 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 10:52 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <50a6923...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
Chris
> In article <50a6923...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
> >On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
> >On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
> tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
>
> How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
> One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
> tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
>
had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
other points.
Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Nov 17, 2012, 6:26:01 PM11/17/12
to
dispute that in court, fine with me.
>
>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>
>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>> quickly.
>>>
>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>
>>
>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>
> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>
witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
The major problem of the M-16's jamming can be traced to an idea that
the then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and some of his top
Generals got; Since there were so much old ball power left from WW-1,
WW-2 and the Korean War, why not substitute the original powder used in
the 5.56mm round with this old ball power? That's what they did against
the advice of Mr. Eugene Stoner; the iventor of the weapon. This change
upped the cyclic-rate of fire from about 300 rounds per minute to well
over 1,000rpm! This much higher chamber pressure was the cause of much
higher cyclic-rate which in turn was the cause of many double-feeds;
no-feeds; failure to feed; failure to extract and worst, rim-sheers! The
ball powder also left considerable residue after firing which
contributed to clogging the weapon and especially choking off the thin
gas tube which directed cartridge gases to operate the weapon.
Making matters worse was the fact that it was deployed in the middle of
a war. Something that you don't do unless you absolutely have to.
Initially troops in Vietnam were told that the M-16 needed no cleaning
and those early production M-16s were issued to the troops in the field
without any sort of cleaning kit.
Still another problem was that when a jam occured in those early
weapons, because of the unique design features of the M-16 soldiers and
Marines could not clear the jammed round easily.
These problems were solved eventually by modifications to the weapon;
the introduction of cleaning kits and better instruction on the weapons
care and cleaning. A bolt-assist handle was introduced so that the bolt
to be fully closed when the weapon was dirty; The chamber was
chrom-plated to prevent failures to extract and rim-sheers; A heavier
barrel was incorporated to lessen overheating & warping. Today the
weapon can function in all climactic conditions with virtually no problems.
Read more: What was the M16's jamming problem all about? | Answerbag
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14291#ixzz2CV8Kca28
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I never used both. The Marine Corps only used M-14's when I served. The
Army used M-16's, and the jamming problems were legend, even then. It
was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
them. From what I've discovered since I served, the M-14 was superior.
It was .30 caliber, not .22 like the M-16, so it had greater range and
stopping power. True, it didn't carry as many rounds as the AK and the
M-16, which had 30 round mags, but it carried 20, and they were hard
hitting. Hell, you only needed one round to do the job! And yes, the
M-14 was an M-1 descendant. It used a shorter round than the M-1 (the
.308 instead of the 30-06), but it was just as powerful, and the shorter
case meant lighter weight so a man could carry more ammo, always a plus
in combat! It also had a 20 round mag instead of the 8 rounds the M-1
carried. Like I said, the Corps wouldn't use M-16's when I served
because of the jamming problems. But eventually, Uncle Sam got the bugs
out, and the Marines changed over too. Trouble was, they still didn't
have the stopping power of a .30 caliber round, but the .22's were
lighter, so a man could carry more ammo, and the Corps figured that made
the .22's more of an asset than a liability, after the jamming problem
was overcome. I still have a civilian version (semi-auto) of the M-14,
not because I think it's superior to an M-16 (although in some ways,
like stopping power, it is) but because I was trained on that rifle. I'm
used to it, and I can hit anything I can see. The M-16 is totally
different. The civilian version, the AR-15, was uncomfortable to me. It
looked, and felt, like Flash Gordon's ray gun. I never could get used to
it. Can't teach an old devil dog new tricks, I guess.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/
November 2, 2009, 9:29 am
How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
By C.J. CHIVERS
First of two parts
Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether
they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated
more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault
rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.
In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions
in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian�s report that documented
small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
for war?
Don�t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
at once � many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
Westmoreland�s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
checkered.
This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
weapon�s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What�s more, the jamming
was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as �failure to
extract,� which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment � including the cleaning
rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.
A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
offspring, too.
To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality. Their
lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds.
A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
day I�ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
composition.
The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
M855�s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
energy transfer into a victim, too.
First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
If all of this seems complex, it�s only the background. Tomorrow we�ll
discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
reliability tests, and share the Army�s position.
Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
� 2012 Nokia� 2012 Microsoft Corporation
Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
�resentment� of American forces. That included such things as the type
of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
�M-16�s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.
The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
They want their AK-47�s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
obsolete leftover from World War II�
Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
U.S. military were also defective.
Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
�Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm�.A soldier named Abdul Karim
said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16� (see
article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
Disrespect
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
).
The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
the worst battles are prone to fail.
Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality.
Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn�t fire after
being submerged in water. It also didn�t hold up to simple abuse like
being dropped from 4-5 feet (see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn�t jam as much and required
less maintenance�
It represented one area where the Afghans felt they were slighted by the
U.S. military.
> Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
> can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.
> http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
>
> One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
> tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port.
>
> How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.com
> http://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_fix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkfeM4v
>
> As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes the
> case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
> ejection port. This is normal.
>
> http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=121&t=507244
>
not say line of bore.
The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 18, 2012, 9:08:04 AM11/18/12
to
Bill Clarke
Nov 18, 2012, 10:09:40 AM11/18/12
to
In article <a047a554-bc62-45d7...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>t in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
>swald or not.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. I=
>e the excellent
>> >>>>>>reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
>rifle jamming
>> >>>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>>
>> >>>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mo=
>out
>> >>>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. T=
>a reference.
>>
>> >>> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference me=
>ans.
>>
>> >> You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms exper=
>t. =A0Far
>=A0I
>> didn't say that. =A0In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles=
>.
>>
>> >>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload t=
>oo
>> >>> quickly.
>>
>> >> So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
>.
>>
>> How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_f=
>ix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
>>
>> As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes th=
>you
>> >>> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Deni=
>al?
>>
>> >>I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
>est,
>> >>>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discus=
>sion in
>> >>>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associat=
>e
>> >>>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw dat=
>a to
>> >>>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discu=
>ssed by
>> >>>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967=
>) and
>> >>>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quot=
>ed
>> >>>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whi=
>ch
>> >>>>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the =
>accuracy
>> >>>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the r=
>esults of
>> >>>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction betwee=
>n the
>> >>>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opport=
>unity
>> >>>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano=
> rifle
>> >>>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not per=
>t the
>> >>>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first =
>zed
>> >>>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) =
>to do
>> >>>>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the =
>Zapruder
>> >>>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI=
>elative
>> >>>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track app=
>roximated
>> >>>>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becau=
>se they
>> >>>>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of t=
>hree
>> >>>>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> >>>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in =
> in
>> >>>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifl=
> find.
>> >>>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the s=
>corded
>> >>>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests =
>for CBS
>> >>>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who beg=
>an his
>> >>>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Wa=
>rren
>> >>>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.=
> =A0The
>> >>>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's acc=
>uracy
>> >>>>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was conten=
>t merely
>> >>>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he=
> did
>> >>>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., sh=
>oulder,
>> >>>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtaine=
>d. =A0If
>> >>>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to se=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Osw=
>ald's
>> >>>>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they =
>did back
>> >>>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the =
>moving
>> >>>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS=
> THEIR
>> >>>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 cas=
>es?
>> >>>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bo=
>lt
>> >>>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its=
> run
>> >>>>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never=
>(and
>> >>>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, perf=
>get
>>
>> >>>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the r=
>ifle
>> >>>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was=
>e between
>> >>>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum cont=
>rolled
>> >>>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms =
>of the
>> >>>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of =
>the
>> >>>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 se=
>conds
>> >>>>> or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to t=
>hree hits
>> >>>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking in=
>to
>> >>>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average wa=
> evade your
>> >>>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- C=
> have
>> >>>>> used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he di=
>d, you
>> >>>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of th=
>ese
>> >>>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three afte=
>r
>> >>>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky =
>day
>> >>>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge=
> and jury
>> >>>>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, =
>judge for
>> >>>>> yourself.
>>
>> >>>>> -roger-
>>
>> >>>>>>Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0=
>s. =A0And
>red. But
>> >>>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary targe=
>t.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and=
> damaged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perf=
>ect aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 i=
>nd again you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4=
> inched. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and meas=
>ure up 4
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off =
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 i=
>nches doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain batt=
>le zero to you
>> >>>>>>>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aimin=
>g. =A0Now do
>> >>>> you get it? =A0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
>>
>> >>> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit =
> adjust the
>> >> line of bore or the line of trajectory. =A0The only thing you can adju=
>st is the
>> >> line of sight by adjusting the scope. =A0Now think about it a bit.
>pon.
>>
>> Stick with this Marsh. =A0The scope is above and parallel to the line of
1. The rifle wasn't "inoperable". Fifteen rounds were missing from the box of
ammo Oswald had, three were fired at JFK. It worked. Now it certainly wasn't a
jewel of a rifle but it worked. The AK 47 is a cheap made sloppy and ugly rifle
but it works. It works all over the world.
2. Note that Marsh and I both have told you one of the first things you learn
about a rifle is to not "snap it" or pull the trigger on an empty chamber. That
can break the firing pen on the finest rifle. Your firing pin argument is moot.
On the rare occasions Marsh and I agree you can take it to the bank.
3. Who said Oswald used the scope? I don't think he did but I don't know.
Neither do you or anyone else.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 16, 10:52=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <50a6923...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says.=
>On Nov 16, 10:52=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <50a6923...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>..
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh say=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>s...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh s=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>ays...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh =
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvemen=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>t in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
> for the job.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot o=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>ut of
>> >>>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with O=
>> >>>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>swald or not.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. I=
>t can
>> >>>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>> >>>>>>No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despit=
>> >>>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>e the excellent
>> >>>>>>reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
>rifle jamming
>> >>>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>>
>> >>>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mo=
>uth
>> >>>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >>>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> >>>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed ab=
>> >>>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >>>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>out
>> >>>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. T=
>heir
>> >>>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>> >>>>Yes she did. =A0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up =
>> >>>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>a reference.
>>
>> >>> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference me=
>ans.
>>
>> >> You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms exper=
>t. =A0Far
>> >> from it.
>>
>> >Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
>> >already admitted that.
>>
>> Careful Marsh. =A0You are making a misstatement that is easy to prove. =
>>
>> >Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
>> >already admitted that.
>>
>=A0I
>> didn't say that. =A0In fact, for all I know Jean knows a lot about rifles=
>.
>> She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
>>
>> >>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =A0I know what I've seen many times=
>> She certainly knew a good article when she found it.
>>
>.
>>
>> >>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload t=
>oo
>> >>> quickly.
>>
>> >> So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
>>
>> >So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> >can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>
>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>> ballistics and marksmanship. =A0Pay attention to the last reference, Mars=
>> >So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> >can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>
>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>h.
>>
>> Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
>> can also damage rims badly enough to retire the case.http://www.exteriorb=
>>
>> Extraction is yet another violent phase in an autoloaders operation that
>allistics.com/reloadbasics/caseinspect.cfm
>>
>> One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
>> tendency to dent the fired cases during the trip out of the ejection port=
>>
>> One of the difficulties of reloading ammo for autoloading rifles is their
>.
>>
>> How to Fix Dented Rifle Cases | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/how_6584389_f=
>ix-dented-rifle-cases.html#ixzz2CGkf...
>>
>> As the empty case is being extracted, pressure from the ejector causes th=
>e
>> case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
>> ejection port. This is normal.
>>
>> http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3D3&f=3D121&t=3D507244
>> case mouth to strike the inside of the receiver just forward of the
>> ejection port. This is normal.
>>
>>
>> It happens on automatics and
>>
>> >semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>> >>> I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and =
>> It happens on automatics and
>>
>> >semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>you
>> >>> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Deni=
>al?
>>
>> >>I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
> is what we
>> >> are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>> >>>>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing t=
>> >> are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>est,
>> >>>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discus=
>sion in
>> >>>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associat=
>e
>> >>>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw dat=
>a to
>> >>>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discu=
>ssed by
>> >>>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967=
>) and
>> >>>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quot=
>ed
>> >>>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whi=
>ch
>> >>>>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the =
>accuracy
>> >>>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the r=
>esults of
>> >>>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction betwee=
>n the
>> >>>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opport=
>unity
>> >>>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano=
> rifle
>> >>>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not per=
>mitted to
>> >>>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >>>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> >>>>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, a=
>> >>>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >>>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>t the
>> >>>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first =
>tell you
>> >>>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>> >>>>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motori=
>> >>>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>zed
>> >>>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) =
>to do
>> >>>>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the =
>Zapruder
>> >>>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI=
> head
>> >>>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> >>>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same r=
>> >>>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>elative
>> >>>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track app=
>roximated
>> >>>>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becau=
>se they
>> >>>>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of t=
>hree
>> >>>>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> >>>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in =
>blue.
>> >>>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> >>>>> head.
>> >>>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> >>>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blu=
>> >>>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> >>>>> head.
>> >>>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>e
>> >>>>> over head.
>> >>>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >>>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >>>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> >>>>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots=
>> >>>>> over head.
>> >>>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >>>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >>>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
> in
>> >>>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifl=
>e (live
>> >>>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >>>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> >>>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could=
>> >>>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >>>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
> find.
>> >>>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the s=
>ample
>> >>>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> >>>>> Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who re=
>> >>>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>corded
>> >>>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests =
>for CBS
>> >>>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who beg=
>an his
>> >>>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the Wa=
>rren
>> >>>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction.=
> =A0The
>> >>>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's acc=
>uracy
>> >>>>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was conten=
>t merely
>> >>>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he=
> did
>> >>>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., sh=
>oulder,
>> >>>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtaine=
>d. =A0If
>> >>>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to se=
>e.
>>
>> >>>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Osw=
>ald's
>> >>>>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they =
>did back
>> >>>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the =
>moving
>> >>>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS=
> THEIR
>> >>>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 cas=
>es?
>> >>>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bo=
>lt
>> >>>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its=
> run
>> >>>>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never=
> told its
>> >>>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>> >>>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" =
>> >>>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>(and
>> >>>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, perf=
>ormed
>> >>>>> the best):
>>
>> >>>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >>>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >>>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >>>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >>>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >>>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >>>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >>>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >>>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> >>>>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (bes=
>> >>>>> the best):
>>
>> >>>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >>>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >>>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >>>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >>>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >>>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >>>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >>>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >>>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >>>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>t
>> >>>>> target)
>>
>> >>>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> >>>>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette borde=
>> >>>>> target)
>>
>> >>>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>r
>> >>>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >>>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >>>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >>>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >>>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >>>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >>>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >>>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >>>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
>>
>> >>>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >>>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >>>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> >>>>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target compl=
>> >>>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >>>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >>>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >>>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >>>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >>>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >>>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >>>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >>>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
>>
>> >>>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >>>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >>>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>etely)
>> >>>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >>>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed tar=
>> >>>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >>>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>get
>>
>> >>>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the r=
>ifle
>> >>>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was=
> not
>> >>>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>> >>>>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no =
>> >>>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>one has
>> >>>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> >>>>> assassination). =A0In the end, one must also consider the differenc=
>> >>>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>e between
>> >>>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum cont=
>rolled
>> >>>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms =
>of the
>> >>>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of =
>the
>> >>>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 se=
>conds
>> >>>>> or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to t=
>hree hits
>> >>>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking in=
>to
>> >>>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average wa=
>s 1.2
>> >>>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >>>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>> >>>>> equaled?" =A0Well, let's hope that it never is. =A0But so as not to=
>> >>>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >>>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
> evade your
>> >>>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- C=
>arcano
>> >>>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
>> >>>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to=
>> >>>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
> have
>> >>>>> used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he di=
>d, you
>> >>>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of th=
>ese
>> >>>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three afte=
>r
>> >>>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky =
>day
>> >>>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge=
> and jury
>> >>>>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, =
>judge for
>> >>>>> yourself.
>>
>> >>>>> -roger-
>>
>> >>>>>>Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0=
>Again Marsh, you
>> >>>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >>>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> >>>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >>>>Okay Marsh. =A0Right after you give me a credible reference that jamm=
>> >>>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >>>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> >>>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>ing is the
>> >>>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>> >>>>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't s=
>> >>>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>how
>> >>>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >>>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>> >>>> It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many time=
>> >>>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >>>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>s. =A0And
>> >>>> evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
>>
>> >>> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fi=
>>
>> >>> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>red. But
>> >>>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary targe=
>t.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and=
> damaged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK =
>or after the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>claim and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perf=
>ect aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 i=
>nches about the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =A0A=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>nd again you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4=
> inched. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and meas=
>ure up 4
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off =
>doesn't it?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstand=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>ing target at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet we=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>nt up 4
>> >>>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know where he aimed. =A0You don't either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the h=
>>
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 i=
>nches doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain batt=
>le zero to you
>> >>>>>>>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>> >>>>>>So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =A0I belie=
>> >>>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>ve you but I've
>> >>>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> >>>>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the h=
>> >>>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>ead.
>>
>> >>>>So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aimin=
>g. =A0Now do
>> >>>> you get it? =A0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
>>
>> >>> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit =
>the
>> >>> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
>> >>> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line o=
>> >>> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
>f
>> >>> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
>> >>> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >>> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >>> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
>> >>> claim it.
>>
>> >> The bullet never rises Marsh. =A0Simple laws of physics. =A0You cannot=
>> >>> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
>> >>> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >>> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >>> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
>> >>> claim it.
>>
> adjust the
>> >> line of bore or the line of trajectory. =A0The only thing you can adju=
>st is the
>> >> line of sight by adjusting the scope. =A0Now think about it a bit.
>>
>> >I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
>> >Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
>> >to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any wea=
>> >I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
>> >Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
>pon.
>>
>> Stick with this Marsh. =A0The scope is above and parallel to the line of
>> bore. The bullet cannot rise over the line of bore, the line of sight is
>> above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
>> "rise" to the line of sight? =A0I'll be waiting.
>> above the line of bore therefor how does the line of trajectory or bullet
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
>had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
>should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
>in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
>other points.
>
> Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
>there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
>to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
>aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
>no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
>it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
>
>Chris
>
Thanks for offering details.
>> Bill Clarke
>
> It would seem moot if the rifle was inoperable beforew such testing and
>had to be reconditioned just to fire it. The FBI testing was first and
>should be addressed first. If that shows that the rifle wasn't even used
>in the murder, there's no sense going on to the other tests or arguing
>other points.
>
> Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
>there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
>to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
>aim properly, and to get the bolt to work more smoothly. The gun was in
>no condition to be used by anyone prior to the FBI work done on it, and
>it's doubtful it was used on Walker either. Details if requested.
>
>Chris
>
1. The rifle wasn't "inoperable". Fifteen rounds were missing from the box of
ammo Oswald had, three were fired at JFK. It worked. Now it certainly wasn't a
jewel of a rifle but it worked. The AK 47 is a cheap made sloppy and ugly rifle
but it works. It works all over the world.
2. Note that Marsh and I both have told you one of the first things you learn
about a rifle is to not "snap it" or pull the trigger on an empty chamber. That
can break the firing pen on the finest rifle. Your firing pin argument is moot.
On the rare occasions Marsh and I agree you can take it to the bank.
3. Who said Oswald used the scope? I don't think he did but I don't know.
Neither do you or anyone else.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 18, 2012, 10:10:27 AM11/18/12
to
In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>t in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
>swald or not.
>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It=
>e the excellent
>> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
>rifle jamming
>> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>>
>> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mou=
>ut
>> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Th=
>a reference.
>>
>> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference mea=
>ns.
>>
>> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert=
>. =A0Far
>>
>> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload to=
>o
>> >> quickly.
>>
>> > So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
>ou
>> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denia=
>l?
>>
>> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
>st,
>> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discuss=
> to
>> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discus=
>sed by
>> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967)=
> and
>> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quote=
>d
>> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whic=
>h
>> >>>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the a=
>ccuracy
>> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the re=
>sults of
>> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between=
> the
>> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportu=
>nity
>> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano =
>rifle
>> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not perm=
> the
>> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first t=
>ed
>> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) t=
>o do
>> >>>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the Z=
>apruder
>> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI =
>lative
>> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track appr=
>oximated
>> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becaus=
>e they
>> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of th=
>ree
>> >>>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in b=
>in
>> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle=
>find.
>> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sa=
>orded
>> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests f=
>or CBS
>> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who bega=
>n his
>> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the War=
>ren
>> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. =
>=A0The
>> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accu=
>racy
>> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was content=
> merely
>> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he =
>did
>> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., sho=
>ulder,
>> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained=
>. =A0If
>> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see=
>.
>>
>> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswa=
>ld's
>> >>>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they d=
>id back
>> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the m=
>oving
>> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS =
>THEIR
>> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 case=
>s?
>> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bol=
>t
>> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its =
>run
>> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never =
>and
>> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, perfo=
>> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target comple=
>et
>>
>> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the ri=
>fle
>> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was =
> between
>> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum contr=
>olled
>> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms o=
>f the
>> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of t=
>he
>> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 sec=
>onds
>> >>>> or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to th=
>ree hits
>> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking int=
>o
>> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was=
>evade your
>> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Ca=
>have
>> >>>> used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did=
>, you
>> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of the=
>ay
>> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge =
>and jury
>> >>>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, j=
>udge for
>> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0=
>. =A0And
>red. But
>> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target=
>.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and=
> damaged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perf=
>ect aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 i=
>nd again you
>ad.
>>
>> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 i=
>nches doesn't
>> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain batt=
>le zero to you
>> >>>>>>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>ad.
>>
>>
>> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit t=
>> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =A0The only thing you can adjus=
>t is the
>> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =A0Now think about it a bit.
>ave a point.
>>
>> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of he=
>ad? =A0I gotta
>> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =A0You do understand.
>>
>> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =A0Run it=
> yourself. =A0I
>or
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is qui=
>te dead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the =
>shooter to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the gras=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used exten=
>long list of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetr=
>ation at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, a=
>hter, faster
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the n=
>is indeed
>> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with =
>s. Early model
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battl=
>e zero sight.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had =
>fixed sights.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user stand=
>point the WWII
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and si=
>mplicity. The
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight=
> being at 300
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflecte=
>d the trend of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a=
> maximum height
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 t=
>o 200 yards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austri=
> a different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264=
Forget the firing pin argument, you need to understand that you do not snap the
rifle on an empty chamber. That is why the boys didn't pull the trigger when
they were practicing with the rifle. They knew that act could break the firing
pin on a brand new gun.
Getting the bolt to work more smoothly doesn't improve the safety, it improves
the operation. And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth. So what the
hell?
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 16, 6:46=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says..=
>On Nov 16, 6:46=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says=
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh sa=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>ys...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh =
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvemen=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>t in the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient=
> for the job.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot ou=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>t of
>> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> >>>>>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with O=
>> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>swald or not.
>>
>> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It=
> can
>> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>> >>>>> No you don't. =A0Despite my relating personal experience and despit=
>> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>e the excellent
>> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without the =
>rifle jamming
>> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =A0Why is that?
>>
>> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the mou=
>th
>> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> >>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed abo=
>> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>ut
>> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Th=
>eir
>> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>> >>> Yes she did. =A0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to look up =
>> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>a reference.
>>
>> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference mea=
>ns.
>>
>> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms expert=
>. =A0Far
>> > from it.
>>
>> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
>> already admitted that.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =A0I know what I've seen many times.
>>
>> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. You
>> already admitted that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload to=
>o
>> >> quickly.
>>
>> > So will other bolt guns. =A0So what?
>>
>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
>> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>> >> I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point and y=
>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
>> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>ou
>> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? Denia=
>l?
>>
>> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =A0That=
> is what we
>> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing te=
>> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>>
>>
>st,
>> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the discuss=
>ion in
>> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
>> >>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw data=
>> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associate
> to
>> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =A0It was discus=
>sed by
>> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (1967)=
> and
>> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =A0Another poster has quote=
>d
>> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, whic=
>h
>> >>>> incorporated the same information. =A0I independently verified the a=
>ccuracy
>> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =A0In evaluating the re=
>sults of
>> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction between=
> the
>> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal opportu=
>nity
>> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano =
>rifle
>> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =A0(Of course, CBS was not perm=
>itted to
>> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> >>>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =A0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967, at=
>> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
> the
>> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =A0Let me first t=
>ell you
>> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>> >>>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same motoriz=
>> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>ed
>> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.) t=
>o do
>> >>>> six trials. =A0Presuming that the assassination occured during the Z=
>apruder
>> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard FBI =
>head
>> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> >>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same re=
>> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>lative
>> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =A0The slopoe of the track appr=
>oximated
>> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =A0Remember the colors of the target becaus=
>e they
>> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =A0Crossman fired clips of th=
>ree
>> >>>> rounds each six times. =A0Here were the results:
>>
>> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =A03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in b=
>lue.
>> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> >>>> head.
>> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> >>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> >>>> over head.
>> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> >>>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots =
>> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
>> >>>> head.
>> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> >>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
>> >>>> over head.
>> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>in
>> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle=
> (live
>> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>> >>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could =
>> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
>find.
>> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sa=
>mple
>> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> >>>> Two important points to note are these: =A0First, the person who rec=
>> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>orded
>> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests f=
>or CBS
>> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who bega=
>n his
>> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the War=
>ren
>> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direction. =
>=A0The
>> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's accu=
>racy
>> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =A0In May, however, Lister was content=
> merely
>> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and he =
>did
>> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., sho=
>ulder,
>> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtained=
>. =A0If
>> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see=
>.
>>
>> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate Oswa=
>ld's
>> >>>> feat. =A0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as they d=
>id back
>> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at the m=
>oving
>> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS =
>THEIR
>> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =A0What happened in the other 17 case=
>s?
>> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky bol=
>t
>> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed its =
>run
>> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =A0Of course, CBS never =
>told its
>> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>> >>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count" (=
>> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results,
>and
>> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, perfo=
>tely)
>> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed targ=
>> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>et
>>
>> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the ri=
>fle
>> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =A0The same was =
>not
>> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>> >>>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no o=
>> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>ne has
>> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> >>>> assassination). =A0In the end, one must also consider the difference=
>> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
> between
>> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum contr=
>olled
>> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms o=
>f the
>> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =A0To quote Josiah Thompson: "Of t=
>he
>> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 sec=
>onds
>> >>>> or less. =A0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero to th=
>ree hits
>> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =A0Taking int=
>o
>> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average was=
> 1.2
>> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>> >>>> equaled?" =A0Well, let's hope that it never is. =A0But so as not to =
>> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>evade your
>> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Ca=
>rcano
>> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
>> >>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to =
>> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
>have
>> >>>> used. =A0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did=
>, you
>> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of the=
>se
>> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
>> >>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky d=
>> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
>ay
>> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =A0CBS tried to be both the judge =
>and jury
>> >>>> for the rest of the country. =A0Now that you have the information, j=
>udge for
>> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =A0So will extraction. =A0=
>Again Marsh, you
>> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >>> Okay Marsh. =A0Right after you give me a credible reference that jamm=
>> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate this
>> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>ing is the
>> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>> >>>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't sh=
>> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>ow
>> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>> >>> It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many times=
>> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>. =A0And
>> >>> evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
>>
>> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fi=
>>
>> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>red. But
>> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target=
>.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 He missed a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and=
> damaged.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK =
>or after the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>claim and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perf=
>ect aim at a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 i=
>nches about the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =A0A=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>nd again you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4=
> inched. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and meas=
>ure up 4
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inches. =A0The bullet still blows the top of your head off =
> inched. =A0Now
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and meas=
>ure up 4
>doesn't it?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstand=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>ing target at
>> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet we=
>> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>nt up 4
>> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know where he aimed. =A0You don't either.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the he=
>>
>ad.
>>
>> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 i=
>nches doesn't
>> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =A0I've been trying to explain batt=
>le zero to you
>> >>>>>>> for years now. =A0You just don't get it.
>>
>> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>> >>>>> So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =A0I belie=
>> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>ve you but I've
>> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> >>>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the he=
>> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>ad.
>>
>> >>> So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was aimin=
>g. =A0Now do
>> >>> you get it? =A0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge.
>g. =A0Now do
>>
>> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hit t=
>he
>> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
>> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
>> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
>> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
>> >> claim it.
>>
>> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aiming
>> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line of
>> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and the
>> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when I
>> >> claim it.
>>
>> > The bullet never rises Marsh. =A0Simple laws of physics. =A0You cannot =
>adjust the
>> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =A0The only thing you can adjus=
>t is the
>> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =A0Now think about it a bit.
>>
>> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
>> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
>> to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any weap=
>> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight.
>> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bullet
>on.> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you might h=
>>
>> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>ave a point.
>>
>> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of he=
>ad? =A0I gotta
>> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =A0You do understand.
>>
>> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =A0Run it=
> yourself. =A0I
>> >>>>>>>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajec=
>>
>tory.
>> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculat=
>> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>or
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is qui=
>te dead.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the =
>shooter to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the gras=
>sy knoll,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. =A0Sure.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used exten=
>sively for many
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk a=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>nd phasing it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" =A0which is the correct n=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>ame.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a =
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>long list of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetr=
>ation at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, a=
>nd less
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. =A0Do you know why our m=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>ilitary went to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lig=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>hter, faster
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the n=
>umber of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>is indeed
>> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with =
>Carcanos.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sight=
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>s. Early model
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battl=
>e zero sight.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had =
>fixed sights.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user stand=
>point the WWII
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and si=
>mplicity. The
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight=
> being at 300
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflecte=
>d the trend of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a=
> maximum height
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 t=
>o 200 yards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austri=
>an soldiers life
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue th=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
>at I am still
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with=
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
> a different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264=
>, or 0.268?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original =
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>Italian SMI
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>
> Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
>there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
>to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
>aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. Details if
>requested.
>
>Chris
>
What did they do to the rifle to make it safer?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>
> Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
>there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>side of a barn from inside it. From the testimony of Frazier and Simmons
>to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope to
>aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. Details if
>requested.
>
>Chris
>
Forget the firing pin argument, you need to understand that you do not snap the
rifle on an empty chamber. That is why the boys didn't pull the trigger when
they were practicing with the rifle. They knew that act could break the firing
pin on a brand new gun.
Getting the bolt to work more smoothly doesn't improve the safety, it improves
the operation. And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth. So what the
hell?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 18, 2012, 10:11:26 AM11/18/12
to
In article <50a7d380$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
She produced a reference that proved you wrong as hell. Live with it.
>>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>
>>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>
>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>>
>
>I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
>witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
>You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>them.
Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
Go to end of message.
>in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian�s report that documented
>at once � many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
>was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as �failure to
>extract,� which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
>obsolete leftover from World War II�
>said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16� (see
>being submerged in water. It also didn�t hold up to simple abuse like
>less maintenance�
I know what you said and I'm not the one losing the battle against the laws of
physics here Marsh.
>The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
Well glory be. After decades of wandering in the wilderness you're on to
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
>>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>
>>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>
>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>>
>
>I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
>witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
to be very lacking.
>You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
unhappy about that to this day.
Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
failure? I hope not.
Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>them.
By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
tap..............
Go to end of message.
>small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
>rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
>for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
>for war?
>
>Don�t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
>rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
>for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
>for war?
>
>at once � many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
>the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
>conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
>anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
>
>This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
>Westmoreland�s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
>conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
>anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
>
>This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
>American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
>checkered.
>
>This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
>Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
>weapon�s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What�s more, the jamming
>checkered.
>
>This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
>Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
>was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as �failure to
>extract,� which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
>chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
>
>The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
>muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
>words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
>at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
>1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
>The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
>rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
>
>The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
>investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
>other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
>well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
>neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment � including the cleaning
>
>The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
>muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
>words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
>at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
>1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
>The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
>rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
>
>The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
>investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
>other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
>well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
>rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.
>
>A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
>incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
>But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
>acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
>offspring, too.
>
>To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
>Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>the worst battles are prone to fail.
>
>Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality. Their
>
>A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
>incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
>But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
>acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
>offspring, too.
>
>To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
>Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>the worst battles are prone to fail.
>
>lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
>fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>wounds.
>
>A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
>day I�ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
>fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>wounds.
>
>A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
>would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
>composition.
>
>The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
>core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
>complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
>through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
>it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
>
>Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
>M855�s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
>composition.
>
>The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
>core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
>complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
>through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
>it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
>
>Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
>energy transfer into a victim, too.
>
>First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
>lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
>Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
>likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
>
>If all of this seems complex, it�s only the background. Tomorrow we�ll
>
>First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
>lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
>Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
>likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
>
>discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
>reliability tests, and share the Army�s position.
>
>Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
>how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
>rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
>
>
>� 2012 Nokia� 2012 Microsoft Corporation
>Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
>how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
>rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
>
>
>Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
>34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
>
>The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
>�resentment� of American forces. That included such things as the type
>34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
>
>The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
>of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
>rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
>
>�M-16�s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
>rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
>
>constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.
>
>The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
>
>They want their AK-47�s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
>
>The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
>
>obsolete leftover from World War II�
>
>Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
>U.S. military were also defective.
>
>Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
>the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
>
>�Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
>Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
>U.S. military were also defective.
>
>Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
>the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
>
>firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
>their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm�.A soldier named Abdul Karim
>said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16� (see
>article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
>Disrespect
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
>).
>
>The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
>rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
>for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
>Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>the worst battles are prone to fail.
>
>Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality.
>Disrespect
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
>).
>
>The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
>rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
>for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
>Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>the worst battles are prone to fail.
>
>
>Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
>when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
>http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
>
>The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
>unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
>
>The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn�t fire after
>Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
>when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
>http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
>
>The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
>unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
>
>being submerged in water. It also didn�t hold up to simple abuse like
>being dropped from 4-5 feet (see video:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
>
>Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
>superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn�t jam as much and required
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
>
>Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
>less maintenance�
physics here Marsh.
>The line of sight goes below the line of bore. That's what a sight does.
something. Yes, the line of sight is adjusted so that it goes below the line of
bore, intersecting the line of trajectory in two places. The bullet doesn't
rise, the line of sight goes under the bullet path.
Damn I'm proud of you Marsh. Now don't forget what you have said here.
Bill Clarke
claviger
Nov 18, 2012, 10:11:47 AM11/18/12
to
Bill,
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
dented.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 18, 2012, 11:32:33 PM11/18/12
to
Yes, the dent is caused during the ejection process. Not a normal
function. A malfunction typical of that rifle. The WC did not document
exactly how it reproduced the dent on their cartridge. It's hard to see
and film exactly what is happening in the chamber while reloading.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 18, 2012, 11:33:35 PM11/18/12
to
>
>>>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>>>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>>
>>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>>> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>>>
>>
>> I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
>> witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
>
> Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
> myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
> cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
stuck halfway open.
> case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
> jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
did.
> claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
> to be very lacking.
>
>
>> You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>> the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
>
> What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
> jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
> know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
> unhappy about that to this day.
>
> Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
> So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
> impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
> failure? I hope not.
>
> Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>
>> It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>> them.
>
> Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
>
> By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
> The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
> combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
> that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
> the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
> yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
>
> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>
>> small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has
>> rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
>> for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
>> for war?
>>
>> Don�t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers
>> rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available
>> for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal
>> for war?
>>
>> at once � many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to
>> the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The
>> conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
>> anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
>>
>> This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
>> Westmoreland�s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary
>> conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting
>> anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
>>
>> This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C.
>> American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been
>> checkered.
>>
>> This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
>> Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
>> weapon�s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What�s more, the jamming
>> checkered.
>>
>> This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out.
>> Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the
>> was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as �failure to
>> extract,� which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the
>> chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
>>
>> The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
>> muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
>> words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
>> at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
>> 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
>> The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
>> rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
>>
>> The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
>> investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
>> other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
>> well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
>> neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment � including the cleaning
>>
>> The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the
>> muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other
>> words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified
>> at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of
>> 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing.
>> The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best
>> rifle available for fighting in Vietnam.
>>
>> The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee
>> investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among
>> other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked
>> well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for
>> rod essential for clearing jammed rifles.
>>
>> A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
>> incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
>> But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
>> acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
>> offspring, too.
>>
>> To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
>> Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>> sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>> the worst battles are prone to fail.
>>
>> Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality. Their
>>
>> A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the
>> incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too.
>> But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful
>> acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its
>> offspring, too.
>>
>> To their critics, the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited for Afghanistan and
>> Iraq. Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>> sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>> the worst battles are prone to fail.
>>
>> lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially when
>> fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>> results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>> wounds.
>>
>> A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
>> day I�ll take that on. But any discussion about M-4 and M-16 lethality
>> fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>> results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>> wounds.
>>
>> A discussion about the mechanisms of wounding could be a full post. One
>> would be incomplete without mentioning an essential variable: bullet
>> composition.
>>
>> The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
>> core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
>> complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
>> through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
>> it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
>>
>> Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
>> M855�s bullet tends not to fragment. This reduces the wound channels and
>> composition.
>>
>> The most commonly used round today, the M855, has a steel penetrator
>> core and was designed to pass through Soviet body armor; some soldiers
>> complain that when it strikes a man wearing only a shirt it can travel
>> through him like an ice pick. Unless it strikes bone squarely, they say,
>> it tends not to dump adequate kinetic energy inside a victim.
>>
>> Moreover, unlike the former round, the M193, the metal jacket of the
>> energy transfer into a victim, too.
>>
>> First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
>> lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
>> Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
>> likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
>>
>> If all of this seems complex, it�s only the background. Tomorrow we�ll
>>
>> First translation: the M855 is not the best cartridge for shooting
>> lightly clad insurgents; it is a cartridge designed for a different war.
>> Second translation: some complaints about M-4 and M-16 lethality are
>> likely related to the ammunition, not the rifles.
>>
>> discuss the performance data from surveys of veterans and from
>> reliability tests, and share the Army�s position.
>>
>> Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
>> how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
>> rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
>>
>>
>> � 2012 Nokia� 2012 Microsoft Corporation
>> Do American troops deserve a better rifle-cartridge combination? If yes,
>> how to define better? More lethal? Greater range? More reliable? What
>> rifle and what cartridge combination would work best?
>>
>>
>> Location: Kabul, Afghanistan
>> 34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
>>
>> The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
>> �resentment� of American forces. That included such things as the type
>> 34.531551361084 ; 69.125350952148
>>
>> The ANSF members also complained about other things, that cause
>> of weapons provided to them by the U.S. military, particularly the M-16
>> rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
>>
>> �M-16�s were strongly disliked. Complaints were that the rifle jammed
>> rifle, which the Afghan's think are defective because they jam so much.
>>
>> constantly and are very unreliable" the report noted.
>>
>> The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
>>
>> They want their AK-47�s back. Some ANSF members though the M-16 was
>>
>> The Afghans resented that the U.S. supplied them with such unreliable rifle.
>>
>> obsolete leftover from World War II�
>>
>> Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
>> U.S. military were also defective.
>>
>> Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
>> the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
>>
>> �Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce
>> Apparently some of the ANSF members felt the rifles given to them by the
>> U.S. military were also defective.
>>
>> Interestingly the Huffington News did an article that mentioned some of
>> the same problem the ANSF are having with the M-16.
>>
>> firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired
>> their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm�.A soldier named Abdul Karim
>> said he'd prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16� (see
>> article: Afghanistan Army: Troops Complain Of Poor Equipment And
>> Disrespect
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
>> ).
>>
>> The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
>> rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
>> for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>> Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>> sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>> the worst battles are prone to fail.
>>
>> Critics also complain about the weapons� relative lethality.
>> Disrespect
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/afghanistan-army-troops-disrespected-supplies-treatment_n_1531136.html
>> ).
>>
>> The New York Times also did an article about the problem prone M16
>> rifle. It noted their critics, saying the M-16 and M-4 are ill-suited
>> for combat conditions Afghanistan and Iraq.
>>
>> Unlike the Kalashnikov rifles carried by insurgents, they are too
>> sensitive to sand and fine dust, they say. They overheat quickly and in
>> the worst battles are prone to fail.
>>
>>
>> Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
>> when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>> results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>> wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
>> http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
>>
>> The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
>> unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
>>
>> The M-16 the Russians tested jammed repeatedly and didn�t fire after
>> Their lightweight bullets lack knock-down power, they say, especially
>> when fired by the M-4, because the reduced barrel length of the carbine
>> results in a reduced muzzle velocity, which lessens the severity of many
>> wounds (see article: How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?
>> http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/how-reliable-is-the-m-16-rifle/ ).
>>
>> The Russian military tested the American made M-16 and found it
>> unsuitable in many respects, not the least of which was reliability.
>>
>> being submerged in water. It also didn�t hold up to simple abuse like
>> being dropped from 4-5 feet (see video:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
>>
>> Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
>> superior to the M-16 any day because it doesn�t jam as much and required
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8Jkqlzqf0 ).
>>
>> Afghan soldiers confirm that in terms of reliability the AK-47 is far
>> less maintenance�
Anthony Marsh
Nov 18, 2012, 11:34:03 PM11/18/12
to
about how stiff the bolt was?
> Bill Clarke
>
>
mainframetech
Nov 18, 2012, 11:39:55 PM11/18/12
to
First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
part:
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
Frazier goes on:
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
move on to Simmons testifying:
Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
rifle. But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
rifle back together before hiding it. We have to face it...the rifle
couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from
Simmons:
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
this later.
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
Ut-oh! He let a big one out! The firing pin is in the bolt. If
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
then what was it they saw? The only thing I can see is that the bolt
was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
they tried it would break the firing pin inside. Either that or the
firing pin was rusted to the barrel. Either way, the rifle wasn't
safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
anyone else had a chance at it. Let's go on:
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."
This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
above. The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar. Either
way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
help to free it up after the gunsmith.
All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in firing
condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
they tried to work the bolt. The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
they could aim it. The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it. Something that
Oswald never did as far as we know. His experience was with semi-
automatic rifles, not bolt action.
Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
mainframetech
Nov 18, 2012, 11:40:33 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 10:10 am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill,
I just posted the details on this thread further down. Check it
out. But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. The
rifle according to Robert Frazier of the FBI labs had wear and
corrosion, and the lands and grooves were worn down. But the zinger
that you were mentioning was the fear that working the bolt would
break the firing pin. But they weren't afraid of that after it went
to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
Probably used some gun oil or such. Each tester after that worked
the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. The details all include the
actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
rifle that Oswald bought. Catch ya later.
Chris
> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
I just posted the details on this thread further down. Check it
out. But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. The
rifle according to Robert Frazier of the FBI labs had wear and
corrosion, and the lands and grooves were worn down. But the zinger
that you were mentioning was the fear that working the bolt would
break the firing pin. But they weren't afraid of that after it went
to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
Probably used some gun oil or such. Each tester after that worked
the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. The details all include the
actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
rifle that Oswald bought. Catch ya later.
Chris
mainframetech
Nov 18, 2012, 11:40:49 PM11/18/12
to
because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
thread for the details and testimony.
Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
Chris
Jean Davison
Nov 19, 2012, 1:45:38 PM11/19/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Nov 13, 4:27 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> >>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in the
> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>
> >>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for the job.
>
> >>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
> >>>>>>> How do you claim that? It damn sure worked.
> >>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>
>
> >>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> >>>>> Horse apples.
>
> >>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> >>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
> >> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
> >>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>
> >>>>> Horse apples.
>
> >>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
> >>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>
> >>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>
> >> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>
> > It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald or not.
>
>
> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
In another thread you wrote, "If you make a claim the burden
is on you to prove it." I agree.
Where's your evidence that the dented lip can only be caused
by the rifle jamming?
Jean
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he fired. But
> >> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary target.
>
> >>>>>>> He missed a
> >>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective and damaged.
>
> >>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed JFK or after the
> >>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>
> >>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could also claim and
> >>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a perfect aim at a
> >>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-6 inches about the
> >>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>
>
> >>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. And again you
> >>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
> >>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
> >>>>>>> inches. The bullet still blows the top of your head off doesn't it?
> >>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows is 4 inched. Now
> >>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and measure up 4
> >>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>
> >>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
> >>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
> >>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>
> >>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outstanding target at
>
> >>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misses.
> >>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
> >>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>
> >>>>> close to 100 yards.
>
> >>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet went up 4
> >>>> inches to the cowlick?
>
> >>> I don't know where he aimed. You don't either.
>
> >> But you opined that he aimed for the middle of the head.
>
>
> > No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the 4 inches doesn't
> > necessary make a missed shot. I've been trying to explain battle zero to you
> > for years now. You just don't get it.
>
> Aiming at the head it does. Not if you want to claim that he was aiming
> at the feet you might have a point.
>
>
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. Run it yourself. I
> >>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>
> >>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat trajectory.
>
> >>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>
> >>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is quite dead.
>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused the shooter to
> >>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the grassy knoll,
> >>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>
> >>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. Sure.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used extensively for many
> >>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>
> >>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of junk and phasing it
>
> >>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" which is the correct name.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have a long list of
>
> >>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding penetration at
> >>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions, and less
> >>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>
> >>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>
> >>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. Do you know why our military went to
>
> >>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>
> >>>>>>> the .223 round?
>
> >>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, lighter, faster
> >>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice the number of
> >>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>
> >>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was posted is indeed
>
> >>>>> true. Good.
>
> >>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do with Carcanos.
>
> >>> Weak Marsh.
>
> >>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
> >>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
> >>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>
> >>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>
> >>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of sights. Early model
> >>> Weak Marsh.
>
> >>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose.
>
> >>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
> >>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>
> >>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>
> >>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed battle zero sight.
> >>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII had fixed sights.
> >>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user standpoint the WWII
> >>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and simplicity. The
> >>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300
> >>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of
> >>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height
> >>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 175 to 200 yards,
> >>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Austrian soldiers life
> >>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue that I am still
>
> >>>>>>>>> looking into.
>
> >>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each with a different
> >>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.264, or 0.268?
>
> >>>>>>> The 0.268.
>
> >>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the original Italian SMI
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 1:46:53 PM11/19/12
to
In article <50a93f68$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
She sure as hell did and it sure as hell proved you were wrong. You are wrong
when you say jamming is the only thing that causes a bent case lip. You are
wrong as hell. This is one of your "conclusions" that serves to matche your
theory that the rifle jammed on Oswald. You can't furnish one reference that
backs you up here.
>>>>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>>>>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>>>
>>>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>>>> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
>>> witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
>>
>>Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
>>myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
>>cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
>
>The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
>stuck halfway open.
Good god, you are getting worse all the time. The bent case lip doesn't cause
the jam, failure of extraction causes the jam. The jam causes the bent case
lip.
>
>> case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
>> jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
>
>Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
WRONG. I'm a rifleman, Marsh. If a rifle jams with me I'm damn sure going to
find out the problem.
>Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
>to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
rifles than you do.
>The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
>did.
Another rash claim that you have no support for.
>>claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
>> to be very lacking.
>>
>>
>>> You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>>> the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
>>
>> What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
>> jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
>>know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
>> unhappy about that to this day.
>>
>>Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
>> So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
>>impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
>> failure? I hope not.
>>
>> Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>>
>>> It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>>> them.
>>
>> Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
>>
>> By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
>>The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
>>combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
>>that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
>>the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
>> yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
>>
>
>You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
My point General. How about Iraq?
>> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>>
>
>I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
>>Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
>> being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
>> tap..............
On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
a
>> Go to end of message.
Much stuff snipped so Marsh might receive my salute for finally getting it
right.
Bill Clarke
when you say jamming is the only thing that causes a bent case lip. You are
wrong as hell. This is one of your "conclusions" that serves to matche your
theory that the rifle jammed on Oswald. You can't furnish one reference that
backs you up here.
>>>>>>>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. I know what I've seen many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload too
>>>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So will other bolt guns. So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>>>>> can't get a dented lip without jamming.
>>>>
>>>> You are flat out wrong here as you often are when dealing with firearms,
>>>> ballistics and marksmanship. Pay attention to the last reference, Marsh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I fired the AR-7 and witnessed it myself several times. You have never
>>> witnessed it yourself. That's why you don't know.
>>
>>Don't let that AR-7 run away with you, Marsh! Snicker! Yes I have witnessed it
>>myself Marsh and that is why I have said several times that a jammed rifle can
>>cause a bent case lip. You say that is the only thing that will produce a bent
>
>The case lip being dented is what causes the jam because the bolt is
>stuck halfway open.
the jam, failure of extraction causes the jam. The jam causes the bent case
lip.
>
>> case lip and that is wrong. I've seen case lips dented by extraction with no
>> jamming of the rifle. Due to lack of experience you haven't seen it so you
>
>Because you cleared the jam without bothering to look to see that caused it.
find out the problem.
>Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
>to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
rifles than you do.
>The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
>did.
>>claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
>> to be very lacking.
>>
>>
>>> You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>>> the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
>>
>> What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
>> jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
>>know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
>> unhappy about that to this day.
>>
>>Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
>> So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
>>impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
>> failure? I hope not.
>>
>> Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>>
>>> It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>>> them.
>>
>> Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
>>
>> By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
>>The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
>>combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
>>that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
>>the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
>> yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
>>
>
>You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
>> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>>
>
>I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
>>Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
>> being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
>> tap..............
to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
a
>> Go to end of message.
right.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 1:47:18 PM11/19/12
to
In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
claviger says...
I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
Bill Clarke
claviger says...
case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 1:48:44 PM11/19/12
to
In article <68b52985-611e-433a...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>Chris
>
You are way off base here. You are trying to make something from nothing. Pray
tell what the "gunsmith" did to make the rifle safer? And one more time, how do
you know that Oswald didn't use the open sights.
The woods are now full of deer hunters. You would find, from my experience,
many rifles scratched and beat up and with dirty and rusted barrels. It doesn't
mean they are unsafe, it simply means they haven't been taken care of.
Please get off the firing pin. You don't understand what you are talking about.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 18, 10:11=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> during rapid recycling? =A0If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>On Nov 18, 10:11=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> dented.
>
> It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
>because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
>corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
>fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
>thread for the details and testimony.
>
> Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
>Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
>'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DnS9Zi0B60lw
>
> It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
>because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
>corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
>fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
>thread for the details and testimony.
>
> Remember that Oswald's buddy Nelson Delgado had testified that
>Odwasl was always getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle and was a
>'Maggie's Drawers' specialist.
>
>Chris
>
You are way off base here. You are trying to make something from nothing. Pray
tell what the "gunsmith" did to make the rifle safer? And one more time, how do
you know that Oswald didn't use the open sights.
The woods are now full of deer hunters. You would find, from my experience,
many rifles scratched and beat up and with dirty and rusted barrels. It doesn't
mean they are unsafe, it simply means they haven't been taken care of.
Please get off the firing pin. You don't understand what you are talking about.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 1:48:52 PM11/19/12
to
In article <fe329dda-45fa-46a9...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 18, 10:10=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>s..=3D
>ays=3D
> sa=3D
>sh =3D
>men=3D
>> >t in the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite suffici=
>ent=3D
> ou=3D
>h O=3D
>> >swald or not.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that.=
> It=3D
>espit=3D
>> >e the excellent
>> >> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without t=
>he =3D
>> >rifle jamming
>> >> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =3DA0Why is that?
>>
>> >> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the =
>mou=3D
>abo=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied.=
> Th=3D
>k up =3D
>> >a reference.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference =
>mea=3D
>> >ns.
>>
>> >> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms exp=
>ert=3D
>> >. =3DA0Far
>> >> > from it.
>>
>> >> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. Y=
>ou
>> >> already admitted that.
>>
>> >> >>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =3DA0I know what I've seen many t=
>imes.
>>
>> >> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload=
> to=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> quickly.
>>
>> >> > So will other bolt guns. =3DA0So what?
>d y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? De=
>nia=3D
>> >l?
>>
>> >> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =3DA=
>0That=3D
> te=3D
>> >st,
>> >> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the disc=
>uss=3D
>> >ion in
>> >> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associ=
>ate
>> >> >>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw d=
>ata=3D
>> > to
>> >> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =3DA0It was d=
>iscus=3D
>> >sed by
>> >> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (19=
>67)=3D
>> > and
>> >> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =3DA0Another poster has =
>quote=3D
>> >d
>> >> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, w=
>hic=3D
>> >h
>> >> >>>> incorporated the same information. =3DA0I independently verified =
>the a=3D
>> >ccuracy
>> >> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =3DA0In evaluating t=
>he re=3D
>> >sults of
>> >> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction betw=
>een=3D
>> > the
>> >> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal oppo=
>rtu=3D
>> >nity
>> >> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carca=
>no =3D
>> >rifle
>> >> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =3DA0(Of course, CBS was not=
> perm=3D
>7, at=3D
>> > the
>> >> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =3DA0Let me fi=
>rst t=3D
>riz=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.=
>) t=3D
>> >o do
>> >> >>>> six trials. =3DA0Presuming that the assassination occured during =
>the Z=3D
>> >apruder
>> >> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard F=
>BI =3D
> re=3D
>> >lative
>> >> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =3DA0The slopoe of the track=
> appr=3D
>> >oximated
>> >> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =3DA0Remember the colors of the target b=
>ecaus=3D
>> >e they
>> >> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =3DA0Crossman fired clips =
>of th=3D
>> >ree
>> >> >>>> rounds each six times. =3DA0Here were the results:
>>
>> >> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =3DA03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all=
> in b=3D
>> >lue.
>> >> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left =
>ts =3D
>> >in
>> >> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the ri=
>fle=3D
>ke
>> >> >>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they cou=
>ld =3D
>> >find.
>> >> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the=
> sa=3D
>o rec=3D
>> >orded
>> >> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the test=
>s f=3D
>> >or CBS
>> >> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who b=
>ega=3D
>> >n his
>> >> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the =
>War=3D
>> >ren
>> >> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same directio=
>n. =3D
>> >=3DA0The
>> >> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's a=
>ccu=3D
>> >racy
>> >> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =3DA0In May, however, Lister was co=
>ntent=3D
>> > merely
>> >> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and =
>he =3D
>> >did
>> >> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., =
>sho=3D
>> >ulder,
>> >> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtai=
>ned=3D
>> >. =3DA0If
>> >> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to =
>see=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate O=
>swa=3D
>> >ld's
>> >> >>>> feat. =3DA0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as t=
>hey d=3D
>> >id back
>> >> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at th=
>e m=3D
>> >oving
>> >> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" =
>AS =3D
>> >THEIR
>> >> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =3DA0What happened in the other 17=
> case=3D
>> >s?
>> >> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky =
>bol=3D
>> >t
>> >> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed i=
>ts =3D
>> >run
>> >> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =3DA0Of course, CBS n=
>ever =3D
>> >told its
>> >> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results=
>,
>> >> >>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count=
>" (=3D
>> >and
>> >> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, pe=
>rfo=3D
>ple=3D
>arg=3D
>> >et
>>
>> >> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the=
> ri=3D
>> >fle
>> >> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =3DA0The same=
> was =3D
>o o=3D
>rence=3D
>> > between
>> >> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum co=
>ntr=3D
>> >olled
>> >> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in term=
>s o=3D
>> >f the
>> >> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =3DA0To quote Josiah Thompson: =
>"Of t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 =
>sec=3D
>> >onds
>> >> >>>> or less. =3DA0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero =
>to th=3D
>> >ree hits
>> >> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =3DA0Takin=
>g int=3D
>> >o
>> >> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average =
>was=3D
>not to =3D
>> >evade your
>> >> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher-=
> Ca=3D
>> >rcano
>> >> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never bee=
>n
>> >> >>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged =
>to =3D
>> >have
>> >> >>>> used. =3DA0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says h=
>e did=3D
>> >, you
>> >> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of =
>the=3D
>> >se
>> >> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three af=
>ter
>> >> >>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily luck=
>y d=3D
>> >ay
>> >> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =3DA0CBS tried to be both the j=
>udge =3D
>> >and jury
>> >> >>>> for the rest of the country. =3DA0Now that you have the informati=
>on, j=3D
>> >udge for
>> >> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =3DA0So will extraction=
>. =3DA0=3D
>is
>> >> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >> >>> Okay Marsh. =3DA0Right after you give me a credible reference that=
> jamm=3D
> sh=3D
>mes=3D
>> >. =3DA0And
> fi=3D
>> >red. But
>> >> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary tar=
>get=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 He missed a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective =
>and=3D
>> > damaged.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed J=
>FK =3D
>so =3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a p=
>erf=3D
>> >ect aim at a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-=
>6 i=3D
>> >nd again you
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows i=
>s 4=3D
>> > inched. =3DA0Now
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and m=
>eas=3D
>> >ure up 4
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inches. =3DA0The bullet still blows the top of your head=
> off =3D
>and=3D
> we=3D
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0But you opined that he aimed for the middle =
>of the he=3D
>> >ad.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the =
>4 i=3D
>> >nches doesn't
>> >> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =3DA0I've been trying to explain=
> batt=3D
>> >le zero to you
>> >> >>>>>>> for years now. =3DA0You just don't get it.
>belie=3D
> he=3D
>> >ad.
>>
>> >> >>> So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was ai=
>min=3D
>> >g. =3DA0Now do
>> >> >>> you get it? =3DA0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge=
>.
>>
>> >> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hi=
>t t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aimi=
>ng
>> >> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line=
> of
>> >> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and th=
>I
>> >> >> claim it.
>>
>> >> > The bullet never rises Marsh. =3DA0Simple laws of physics. =3DA0You =
>cannot =3D
>> >adjust the
>> >> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =3DA0The only thing you can =
>adjus=3D
>> >t is the
>> >> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =3DA0Now think about it a bit.
>>
>> >> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight=
>.
>> >> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bull=
>et
>> >> to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any w=
>eap=3D
>t h=3D
>> >ave a point.
>>
>> >> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of=
> he=3D
>> >ad? =3DA0I gotta
>> >> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =3DA0You do understand.
>>
>> >> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =3DA0R=
>un it=3D
>> > yourself. =3DA0I
>jec=3D
>lat=3D
>> >or
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is =
>qui=3D
>> >te dead.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused t=
>he =3D
>> >shooter to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the g=
>ras=3D
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used ex=
>ten=3D
>k a=3D
>ect n=3D
> a =3D
>> >long list of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding pen=
>etr=3D
>> >ation at
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions=
>, a=3D
>our m=3D
>lig=3D
>> >hter, faster
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice th=
>e n=3D
>ed =3D
>> >is indeed
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do wi=
>th =3D
>> >Carcanos.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose=
>ght=3D
>> >s. Early model
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed ba=
>ttl=3D
>> >e zero sight.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII h=
>ad =3D
>> >fixed sights.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user st=
>and=3D
>> >point the WWII
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and=
> si=3D
>> >mplicity. The
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle si=
>ght=3D
>> > being at 300
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but refle=
>cte=3D
>> >d the trend of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would hav=
>e a=3D
>> > maximum height
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 17=
>5 t=3D
>> >o 200 yards,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Aus=
>tri=3D
> th=3D
>ith=3D
>> > a different
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.=
>264=3D
>al =3D
>to
>> >aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. =A0Details if
>ap the
>> rifle on an empty chamber. =A0That is why the boys didn't pull the trigge=
>r when
>> they were practicing with the rifle. =A0They knew that act could break th=
>roves
>> the operation. =A0And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth. =A0=
weapons vary greatly in the wear and tear they have received, including how many
rounds have been fired to wear the rifling down. I understand that Oswald's
rifle was well worn and used. But this doesn't make it inoperable or dangerous
to shoot. It makes it more difficult to make a good shot but certainly not
impossible.
If I remember your message concerning Frazer and Simmons they were not afraid to
work the bolt but were afraid to pulled trigger for fear of breaking the firing
pin. This is true for any rifle. You don't snap the firing pin on an empty
chamber for fear of breaking the firing pin.
I'll go back and look at what Frazer had to say.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 18, 10:10=A0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 16, 6:46=3DA0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says.=
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 16, 6:46=3DA0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>..
>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh say=
>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>s..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh s=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>ays=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> sa=3D
>> >ys...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Mar=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>sh =3D
>> >says...
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involve=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>men=3D
>> >t in the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite suffici=
>ent=3D
>> > for the job.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =3DA0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
> ou=3D
>> >t of
>> >> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed wit=
>> >> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>h O=3D
>> >swald or not.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that.=
> It=3D
>> > can
>> >> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>> >> >>>>> No you don't. =3DA0Despite my relating personal experience and d=
>> >> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>espit=3D
>> >e the excellent
>> >> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused without t=
>he =3D
>> >rifle jamming
>> >> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =3DA0Why is that?
>>
>> >> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against the =
>mou=3D
>> >th
>> >> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >> >>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>> >> >>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jammed =
>> >> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >> >>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's never
>abo=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS lied.=
> Th=3D
>> >eir
>> >> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>> >> >>> Yes she did. =3DA0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert to loo=
>> >> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>>
>k up =3D
>> >a reference.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the reference =
>mea=3D
>> >ns.
>>
>> >> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms exp=
>ert=3D
>> >. =3DA0Far
>> >> > from it.
>>
>> >> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms. Y=
>ou
>> >> already admitted that.
>>
>> >> >>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =3DA0I know what I've seen many t=
>imes.
>>
>> >> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to reload=
> to=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> quickly.
>>
>> >> > So will other bolt guns. =3DA0So what?
>>
>> >> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> >> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
>> >> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>> >> >> I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point an=
>> >> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. You
>> >> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics and
>> >> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>d y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick? De=
>nia=3D
>> >l?
>>
>> >> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =3DA=
>0That=3D
>> > is what we
>> >> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>> >> >>>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its firing=
>> >> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
> te=3D
>> >st,
>> >> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the disc=
>uss=3D
>> >ion in
>> >> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied associ=
>ate
>> >> >>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the raw d=
>ata=3D
>> > to
>> >> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =3DA0It was d=
>iscus=3D
>> >sed by
>> >> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas (19=
>67)=3D
>> > and
>> >> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =3DA0Another poster has =
>quote=3D
>> >d
>> >> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992, w=
>hic=3D
>> >h
>> >> >>>> incorporated the same information. =3DA0I independently verified =
>the a=3D
>> >ccuracy
>> >> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =3DA0In evaluating t=
>he re=3D
>> >sults of
>> >> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction betw=
>een=3D
>> > the
>> >> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal oppo=
>rtu=3D
>> >nity
>> >> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carca=
>no =3D
>> >rifle
>> >> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =3DA0(Of course, CBS was not=
> perm=3D
>> >itted to
>> >> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >> >>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>> >> >>>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =3DA0It was shot on May 19 and 20, 196=
>> >> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >> >>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
>7, at=3D
>> > the
>> >> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =3DA0Let me fi=
>rst t=3D
>> >ell you
>> >> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>> >> >>>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same moto=
>> >> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>riz=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (ret.=
>) t=3D
>> >o do
>> >> >>>> six trials. =3DA0Presuming that the assassination occured during =
>the Z=3D
>> >apruder
>> >> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standard F=
>BI =3D
>> >head
>> >> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
>> >> >>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the same=
>> >> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blue)
> re=3D
>> >lative
>> >> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =3DA0The slopoe of the track=
> appr=3D
>> >oximated
>> >> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =3DA0Remember the colors of the target b=
>ecaus=3D
>> >e they
>> >> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =3DA0Crossman fired clips =
>of th=3D
>> >ree
>> >> >>>> rounds each six times. =3DA0Here were the results:
>>
>> >> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =3DA03 hits clustered low and slightly left, all=
> in b=3D
>> >lue.
>> >> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left =
>of
>> >> >>>> head.
>> >> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> >> >>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 b=
>> >> >>>> head.
>> >> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>lue
>> >> >>>> over head.
>> >> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> >> >>>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between sho=
>> >> >>>> over head.
>> >> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
>> >> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>ts =3D
>> >in
>> >> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the ri=
>fle=3D
>> > (live
>> >> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >> >>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to ta=
>> >> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>ke
>> >> >>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they cou=
>ld =3D
>> >find.
>> >> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the=
> sa=3D
>> >mple
>> >> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> >> >>>> Two important points to note are these: =3DA0First, the person wh=
>> >> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>o rec=3D
>> >orded
>> >> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the test=
>s f=3D
>> >or CBS
>> >> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who b=
>ega=3D
>> >n his
>> >> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the =
>War=3D
>> >ren
>> >> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same directio=
>n. =3D
>> >=3DA0The
>> >> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman's a=
>ccu=3D
>> >racy
>> >> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =3DA0In May, however, Lister was co=
>ntent=3D
>> > merely
>> >> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, and =
>he =3D
>> >did
>> >> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e., =
>sho=3D
>> >ulder,
>> >> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he obtai=
>ned=3D
>> >. =3DA0If
>> >> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to =
>see=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate O=
>swa=3D
>> >ld's
>> >> >>>> feat. =3DA0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as t=
>hey d=3D
>> >id back
>> >> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at th=
>e m=3D
>> >oving
>> >> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" =
>AS =3D
>> >THEIR
>> >> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =3DA0What happened in the other 17=
> case=3D
>> >s?
>> >> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the balky =
>bol=3D
>> >t
>> >> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target completed i=
>ts =3D
>> >run
>> >> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =3DA0Of course, CBS n=
>ever =3D
>> >told its
>> >> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the results=
>,
>> >> >>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "count=
>" (=3D
>> >and
>> >> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown, pe=
>rfo=3D
>> >rmed
>> >> >>>> the best):
>>
>> >> >>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >> >>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >> >>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >> >>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >> >>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (b=
>> >> >>>> the best):
>>
>> >> >>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >> >>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >> >>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >> >>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >> >>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>est
>> >> >>>> target)
>>
>> >> >>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette bor=
>> >> >>>> target)
>>
>> >> >>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>der
>> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >> >>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >> >>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >> >>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >> >>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >> >>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >> >>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
>>
>> >> >>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >> >>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target com=
>> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >> >>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >> >>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >> >>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >> >>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >> >>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >> >>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
>>
>> >> >>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >> >>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>ple=3D
>> >tely)
>> >> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed t=
>> >> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>arg=3D
>> >et
>>
>> >> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the=
> ri=3D
>> >fle
>> >> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =3DA0The same=
> was =3D
>> >not
>> >> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>> >> >>>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (n=
>> >> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>o o=3D
>> >ne has
>> >> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>> >> >>>> assassination). =3DA0In the end, one must also consider the diffe=
>> >> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
>rence=3D
>> > between
>> >> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum co=
>ntr=3D
>> >olled
>> >> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in term=
>s o=3D
>> >f the
>> >> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =3DA0To quote Josiah Thompson: =
>"Of t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6 =
>sec=3D
>> >onds
>> >> >>>> or less. =3DA0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from zero =
>to th=3D
>> >ree hits
>> >> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =3DA0Takin=
>g int=3D
>> >o
>> >> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the average =
>was=3D
>> > 1.2
>> >> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >> >>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>> >> >>>> equaled?" =3DA0Well, let's hope that it never is. =3DA0But so as =
>> >> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >> >>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was never
>not to =3D
>> >evade your
>> >> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher-=
> Ca=3D
>> >rcano
>> >> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never bee=
>n
>> >> >>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged =
>to =3D
>> >have
>> >> >>>> used. =3DA0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says h=
>e did=3D
>> >, you
>> >> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of =
>the=3D
>> >se
>> >> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three af=
>ter
>> >> >>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily luck=
>y d=3D
>> >ay
>> >> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =3DA0CBS tried to be both the j=
>udge =3D
>> >and jury
>> >> >>>> for the rest of the country. =3DA0Now that you have the informati=
>on, j=3D
>> >udge for
>> >> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =3DA0So will extraction=
>. =3DA0=3D
>> >Again Marsh, you
>> >> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >> >>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate th=
>> >> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>is
>> >> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >> >>> Okay Marsh. =3DA0Right after you give me a credible reference that=
> jamm=3D
>> >ing is the
>> >> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>> >> >>>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you can't=
>> >> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
> sh=3D
>> >ow
>> >> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>> >> >>> It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many ti=
>> >> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate the
>> >> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>mes=3D
>> >. =3DA0And
>> >> >>> evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
>>
>> >> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think he=
>>
>> >> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
> fi=3D
>> >red. But
>> >> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary tar=
>get=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 He missed a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defective =
>and=3D
>> > damaged.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald killed J=
>FK =3D
>> >or after the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could al=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>so =3D
>> >claim and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 The
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so a p=
>erf=3D
>> >ect aim at a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point 5-=
>6 i=3D
>> >nches about the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =
>=3DA0A=3D
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle. =
>> >nd again you
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes knows i=
>s 4=3D
>> > inched. =3DA0Now
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head and m=
>eas=3D
>> >ure up 4
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inches. =3DA0The bullet still blows the top of your head=
> off =3D
>> >doesn't it?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet misse=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>s.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an outst=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>and=3D
>> >ing target at
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bullet=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
> we=3D
>> >nt up 4
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't know where he aimed. =3DA0You don't either.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0But you opined that he aimed for the middle =
>of the he=3D
>> >ad.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that the =
>4 i=3D
>> >nches doesn't
>> >> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =3DA0I've been trying to explain=
> batt=3D
>> >le zero to you
>> >> >>>>>>> for years now. =3DA0You just don't get it.
>>
>> >> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>> >> >>>>> So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =3DA0I =
>> >> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>belie=3D
>> >ve you but I've
>> >> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> >> >>>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of the=
>> >> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
> he=3D
>> >ad.
>>
>> >> >>> So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was ai=
>min=3D
>> >g. =3DA0Now do
>> >> >>> you get it? =3DA0Hell no, you'll never understand common knowledge=
>.
>>
>> >> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and hi=
>t t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was aimi=
>ng
>> >> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the line=
> of
>> >> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and th=
>e
>> >> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >> >> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible when =
>> >> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>I
>> >> >> claim it.
>>
>> >> > The bullet never rises Marsh. =3DA0Simple laws of physics. =3DA0You =
>cannot =3D
>> >adjust the
>> >> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =3DA0The only thing you can =
>adjus=3D
>> >t is the
>> >> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =3DA0Now think about it a bit.
>>
>> >> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of sight=
>.
>> >> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the bull=
>et
>> >> to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for any w=
>eap=3D
>> >on.> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you migh=
>>
>> >> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>t h=3D
>> >ave a point.
>>
>> >> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top of=
> he=3D
>> >ad? =3DA0I gotta
>> >> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =3DA0You do understand.
>>
>> >> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =3DA0R=
>un it=3D
>> > yourself. =3DA0I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat tra=
>>
>jec=3D
>> >tory.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calcu=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>lat=3D
>> >or
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK is =
>qui=3D
>> >te dead.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and caused t=
>he =3D
>> >shooter to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from the g=
>ras=3D
>> >sy knoll,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. =3DA0Sure.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used ex=
>ten=3D
>> >sively for many
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of jun=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>k a=3D
>> >nd phasing it
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" =3DA0which is the corr=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>ect n=3D
>> >ame.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to have=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
> a =3D
>> >long list of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding pen=
>etr=3D
>> >ation at
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensions=
>, a=3D
>> >nd less
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. =3DA0Do you know why =
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>our m=3D
>> >ilitary went to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smaller, =
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>lig=3D
>> >hter, faster
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice th=
>e n=3D
>> >umber of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was post=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>ed =3D
>> >is indeed
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do wi=
>th =3D
>> >Carcanos.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purpose=
>.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of si=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>ght=3D
>> >s. Early model
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed ba=
>ttl=3D
>> >e zero sight.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWII h=
>ad =3D
>> >fixed sights.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user st=
>and=3D
>> >point the WWII
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness and=
> si=3D
>> >mplicity. The
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle si=
>ght=3D
>> > being at 300
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but refle=
>cte=3D
>> >d the trend of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would hav=
>e a=3D
>> > maximum height
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of 17=
>5 t=3D
>> >o 200 yards,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one Aus=
>tri=3D
>> >an soldiers life
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* issue=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head.
>>
> th=3D
>> >at I am still
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, each w=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>ith=3D
>> > a different
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256, 0.=
>264=3D
>> >, or 0.268?
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the origin=
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>al =3D
>> >Italian SMI
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> > =A0 Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the FBI,
>> >there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>> >side of a barn from inside it. =A0From the testimony of Frazier and Simm=
>> >there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the broad
>ons
>> >to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>> >feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the scope =
>> >to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just to
>to
>> >aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. =A0Details if
>> >requested.
>>
>> >Chris
>>
>> What did they do to the rifle to make it safer?
>>
>> Forget the firing pin argument, you need to understand that you do not sn=
>>
>> >Chris
>>
>> What did they do to the rifle to make it safer?
>>
>ap the
>> rifle on an empty chamber. =A0That is why the boys didn't pull the trigge=
>r when
>> they were practicing with the rifle. =A0They knew that act could break th=
>e firing
>> pin on a brand new gun.
>>
>> Getting the bolt to work more smoothly doesn't improve the safety, it imp=
>> pin on a brand new gun.
>>
>roves
>> the operation. =A0And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth. =A0=
>So what the
>> hell?
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Bill,
> I just posted the details on this thread further down. Check it
>out. But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
>It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. The
>rifle according to Robert Frazier of the FBI labs had wear and
>corrosion, and the lands and grooves were worn down. But the zinger
>that you were mentioning was the fear that working the bolt would
>break the firing pin. But they weren't afraid of that after it went
>to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
>order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
>Probably used some gun oil or such. Each tester after that worked
>the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. The details all include the
>actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
>rifle that Oswald bought. Catch ya later.
>
>Chris
>
Yes Chris, I understand it was military surplus and I've noted that these
>> hell?
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Bill,
> I just posted the details on this thread further down. Check it
>out. But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
>It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. The
>rifle according to Robert Frazier of the FBI labs had wear and
>corrosion, and the lands and grooves were worn down. But the zinger
>that you were mentioning was the fear that working the bolt would
>break the firing pin. But they weren't afraid of that after it went
>to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
>order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
>Probably used some gun oil or such. Each tester after that worked
>the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. The details all include the
>actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
>rifle that Oswald bought. Catch ya later.
>
>Chris
>
weapons vary greatly in the wear and tear they have received, including how many
rounds have been fired to wear the rifling down. I understand that Oswald's
rifle was well worn and used. But this doesn't make it inoperable or dangerous
to shoot. It makes it more difficult to make a good shot but certainly not
impossible.
If I remember your message concerning Frazer and Simmons they were not afraid to
work the bolt but were afraid to pulled trigger for fear of breaking the firing
pin. This is true for any rifle. You don't snap the firing pin on an empty
chamber for fear of breaking the firing pin.
I'll go back and look at what Frazer had to say.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 6:16:06 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/18/2012 11:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Nov 18, 10:11 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>> dented.
>
> It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
> because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
> corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
> fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
> thread for the details and testimony.
>
You are exaggerating totally. Do you even know what you think you mean
> On Nov 18, 10:11 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>> dented.
>
> It won't matter if the MC rifle wasn't able to be used by anyone
> because the scope was not aligned and if the thing was so rusted and
> corroded that it wasn't safe to fire without going to a gunsmith to
> fix the problems before testing by the FBI. See a later post on this
> thread for the details and testimony.
>
by "the scope was not aligned" or did you just make that up? The scope
could not be zeroed in by the FBI because it was damaged and defective.
We don't know exactly when that happened.
It was not SOOO rusted and corroded that it wasn't safe to fire.
Where is the testimony of this gunsmith who fixed the rifle? Can you
post it for us?
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 6:16:42 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/18/2012 11:40 PM, mainframetech wrote:
working the bolt? Then wouldn't the DPD break the firing pin just by
opening the bolt to eject the live round?
> to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
> order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
that you are conflating them.
What about the shims?
What did the gunsmith do to the firing pin? Massage it?
> Probably used some gun oil or such. Each tester after that worked
> the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. The details all include the
> actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
> rifle that Oswald bought. Catch ya later.
>
> Chris
>
John Fiorentino
Nov 19, 2012, 6:19:08 PM11/19/12
to
Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
(218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
rifle.
John F.
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a355b03c-68fa-4455...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
(218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
rifle.
John F.
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a355b03c-68fa-4455...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 10:23:06 PM11/19/12
to
> Frazier goes on:
> "Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
> shape?
> Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
> were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
> corrosion or wear.
> Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
> Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
of course we mere mortals are not allowed to examine it.
> Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
> fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
> you found it?
> Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
> an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
> allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
> to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
> barrel."
>
> So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
> grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
> saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
> move on to Simmons testifying:
>
the stock.
> Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
> machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
> weapon?
> Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
> telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
> sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
> shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
> an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
> addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
> all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
>
> Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
> fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
> couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
> a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
it was that way on 11/22/63 before the shooting. Some people claim it
was damaged when the shooter hid it between the boxes so it could have
been used during the shooting. I have speculated that it was damaged
when Oswald buried it after shooting at General Walker.
> JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
> and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
> rifle. But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
about rifles. There was no need to remove the scope to use the iron
sights. You can use the iron sights while the scope is still on the
rifle. It is high enough over the iron sights so that it does not interfere.
> shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
> rifle back together before hiding it. We have to face it...the rifle
> couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from
> Simmons:
>
ACCURATELY it can be aimed.
> "Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
> mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
> Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
> machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
>
> Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
> gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
> it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
> hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
> this later.
person might well be a gunsmith. But if they fix it inhouse the
machinist does not have to be a gunsmith. Likewise Frazier had a lot of
experience but he was not a gunsmith by trade.
> ---
> "Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
> skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
> range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
> Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
> one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
> considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
> effort required to work the bolt.
> Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
> Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
> was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
> with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
>
> Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
> this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
> intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
> work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
> aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
> there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
to their jammed rifles.
> smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
> Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
> ---
> Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
> 139, before they began firing?
> Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
> ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
> had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
> were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
>
> Ut-oh! He let a big one out! The firing pin is in the bolt. If
> they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
> then what was it they saw? The only thing I can see is that the bolt
work the bolt. They did work the bolt often. What they were afraid to do
was pull the trigger because that MIGHT break the firing pin even on a
brand new rifle.
That's why the Italians made a dummy round with a wooden bullet just for
this purpose.
> was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
> they tried it would break the firing pin inside. Either that or the
> firing pin was rusted to the barrel. Either way, the rifle wasn't
concept of what that would mean or do you just string words together
until you fill up a sentence? Just make sure you have a subject, verb
and predicate even if the words don't make any sense.
> safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
> anyone else had a chance at it. Let's go on:
>
replaced a broken firing pin or repaired the damaged and defective
scope? Some people already complained about his disassembling the rifle
to dust for prints. Look up discussions about glass bedding. Imagine if
Day had rebedded the action and not told anyone.
Also consider that the stock now on the rifle was an old 1891 stock
which was recycled. Look carefully at the fresh cut marks around the
receiver.
> Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
> used in this dry-run practice, each?
> Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
> Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
> Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
> respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
> of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
> firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
> he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
> first round.
> There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
> as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
> operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
> relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
> fire the weapon."
>
> This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
Germans just gave up on their old Mausers and developed the assault rifle.
> for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
> firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
> above. The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
> about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
> up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar. Either
> way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
> help to free it up after the gunsmith.
>
to work the bolt? They took the time to become familiar with how the
bold operates even if it was a brand new weapon. Each rifle has its own
quirks.
> All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
> to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
> letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in firing
> condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
> they tried to work the bolt. The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
> they could aim it. The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
> wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
> minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it. Something that
> Oswald never did as far as we know. His experience was with semi-
> automatic rifles, not bolt action.
>
> Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
> fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
>
Neither was it accurate.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 10:25:33 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/19/2012 1:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>> dented.
>
> I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
> case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
>
Of course you couldn't find it. Because they hid it from the public.
> In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>> dented.
>
> I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
> case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
>
That's why we want ALL the files released.
> In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
> I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
> dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
> know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
> to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
>
> Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
> case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
>
rifle and my rifle was an example of how it can also happen in a
semi-automatic. Your dad was on Full Auto?
Todd Vaughan got a dented lip about every third shot with his Carcano.
> Bill Clarke
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 10:26:36 PM11/19/12
to
cause.
>> Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
>> to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
>
> WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
> is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
> much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
> rifles than you do.
>
study his rifle.
>> The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
>> did.
>
> Another rash claim that you have no support for.
>
>
>>> claim it is false. Lord forbid we have to depend on your experience which seems
>>> to be very lacking.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You claimed to have gone to Vietnam yet you don't know that the M-16s
>>>> the troops were initially given jammed frequently.
>>>
>>> What the hell gives you the impression that I don't know the early model M-16
>>> jammed? Your imagination again? You guessed? Well you are wrong Marsh. I
>>> know some Marines that had to turn in their M-14 for the M-16 and they are very
>>> unhappy about that to this day.
>>>
>>> Now thanks for these articles on the M-16 but not one mentioned bent case lips.
>>> So what the hell Marsh? Your side step shuffle or what? Are you under the
>>> impression that every jam produces a bent case lip? Especially with a rim-sheer
>>> failure? I hope not.
>>>
>>> Since you posted these references a quick look at them.
>>>
>>>> It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Horse apples. Lots of things are said about Vietnam, much of it is crap.
>>>
>>> By the time I got to the war the M-16 worked fine. I'd pick it over the AK.
>>> The Military Channel series of "Top Ten" list the AK 47 # 1 and the M-16 # 2 of
>>> combat rifles. Yes, the AK is more dependable because it has sloppy tolerances
>>> that are not as sensitive to sand and dust. The AK is not near as accurate as
>>> the M-16. This wasn't critical in Vietnam where a lot of shots were under 100
>>> yards. In the middle east it would become a problem.
>>>
>>
>> You rarely needed accuracy out to 1000 yards deep in a jungle.
>
> My point General. How about Iraq?
Afghanistan, but it wasn't with an M-16. I don't know what the record for
an M-16 is, but probably not over 1,000 yards.
>
>
>>> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>>>
>>
>> I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
>
> Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
>
>>> Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
>>> being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
>>> tap..............
>
> On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
> to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
> a
>
You probably used a later issue M-16 which no longer had the jamming
problem.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 10:27:34 PM11/19/12
to
researchers. Have you ever read Six Seconds in Dallas?
Where's your experience with ANY firearms?
mainframetech
Nov 19, 2012, 10:29:59 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 19, 1:48 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <fe329dda-45fa-46a9-a649-974bf6ac1...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill,
Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I posted the info, but it got
swallowed up in a 'Read more' section. Better to check out Simmons'
testimony than Frazier. Simmons blew it on the stand. Here is the
complete section I wrote for the MC problem from the WC testimony of
Frazier and Simmons. All quoted text is from WC testimony.
-------------------------
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
this later. The rifle no longer is any good for a forensic
examination, since a gunsmith messed with it before testing.
the bolt so much. What condition was this thing in when the testers
just working the bolt. Simmons let it out that working the bolt was
hard enough to mess up their aim, meaning the target would have to be
reacquired after each reload. A shooter that had the rifle before the
testers would surely have trouble working the bolt, and losing sight
of the target (if the scope had been working). Let's go on:
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
gunsmith first, as noted above. Either way, the testers each had 2-3
All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that Frazier mentioned seems
condition so they tried to work the bolt to free it up. If it wasn't
free when they got it, presumably right after the shooter in the TSBD,
then that shooter didn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it.
The gunsmith had to fix the scope so they could aim it, and after that
of problems were: a) the scope was found on the rifle yet the scope
needed work by a gunsmith before the testers could fire it
successfully b) the bolt was so stiff (probably from lack of use for
years) that they had to work it for minutes each for the testers to
test fire it c) the trigger was 2-stage, which they found an extra
difficulty in working with the weapon.
-------------------------------------
Again, the odds are that a shooter in the TSBD after having just
fired at the president with iron sights, isn't ready to take out his
handy screwdriver and put the scope back on the rifle while whistling
a tune, then go hide it in the books. This leaves the situation of
the rifle being unable to aim or fire successively without trouble.
If Oswald was the shooter in the TSBD, then he was notorious for not
cleaning his rifle and getting 'gigged' for it, as per his best buddy,
Nelson Delgado:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
It would be better to use the Mauser 7.65 that was seen and sworn
to by 2 policemen. To go along with that possibility, I should
mention the CE399 bullet found on the uninvolved stretcher by
Tomlinson had 4 people that refused to identify it at a later time
after the FBI had it in their possession. One of those people said
the bullet wasn't the pointy one he remembered, but now it was a round
nosed one. To me, that sounds like a quick replacement happened
somewhere along the line. The other possibility is that all 4 people
were lying or crazy, which the odds are against.
Chris
> In article <fe329dda-45fa-46a9-a649-974bf6ac1...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I posted the info, but it got
swallowed up in a 'Read more' section. Better to check out Simmons'
testimony than Frazier. Simmons blew it on the stand. Here is the
complete section I wrote for the MC problem from the WC testimony of
Frazier and Simmons. All quoted text is from WC testimony.
-------------------------
First the WC questioned Robert Frazier and here's what they got in
part:
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is--was not, when we
part:
"Mr. Frazier. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively
smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually
first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and
corrosion."
Frazier goes on:
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
"Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
move on to Simmons testifying:
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?
Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel."
So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
move on to Simmons testifying:
Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
JFK. But there's more from Simmons:
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
examination, since a gunsmith messed with it before testing.
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
smoothly, but he must have ben talking about after the testers worked
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
the bolt so much. What condition was this thing in when the testers
got it? Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
While not firing it while unloaded, they were still having trouble
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
just working the bolt. Simmons let it out that working the bolt was
hard enough to mess up their aim, meaning the target would have to be
reacquired after each reload. A shooter that had the rifle before the
testers would surely have trouble working the bolt, and losing sight
of the target (if the scope had been working). Let's go on:
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also a comment made about the trigger pull which is
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-
stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."
This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."
for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so they didn't work the trigger. It must have gone to the
gunsmith first, as noted above. Either way, the testers each had 2-3
minutes to work the bolt, so that would help to free it up after the
gunsmith. I wonder if he applied some gun oil or even WD40...:)
All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that Frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in good
condition so they tried to work the bolt to free it up. If it wasn't
free when they got it, presumably right after the shooter in the TSBD,
then that shooter didn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it.
The gunsmith had to fix the scope so they could aim it, and after that
they worked it 2-3 minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with
it. Something that Oswald never did as far as we know. His
experience was with semi-automatic rifles, not bolt action.
Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI testers. The list
of problems were: a) the scope was found on the rifle yet the scope
needed work by a gunsmith before the testers could fire it
successfully b) the bolt was so stiff (probably from lack of use for
years) that they had to work it for minutes each for the testers to
test fire it c) the trigger was 2-stage, which they found an extra
difficulty in working with the weapon.
-------------------------------------
Again, the odds are that a shooter in the TSBD after having just
fired at the president with iron sights, isn't ready to take out his
handy screwdriver and put the scope back on the rifle while whistling
a tune, then go hide it in the books. This leaves the situation of
the rifle being unable to aim or fire successively without trouble.
If Oswald was the shooter in the TSBD, then he was notorious for not
cleaning his rifle and getting 'gigged' for it, as per his best buddy,
Nelson Delgado:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
It would be better to use the Mauser 7.65 that was seen and sworn
to by 2 policemen. To go along with that possibility, I should
mention the CE399 bullet found on the uninvolved stretcher by
Tomlinson had 4 people that refused to identify it at a later time
after the FBI had it in their possession. One of those people said
the bullet wasn't the pointy one he remembered, but now it was a round
nosed one. To me, that sounds like a quick replacement happened
somewhere along the line. The other possibility is that all 4 people
were lying or crazy, which the odds are against.
Chris
Jean Davison
Nov 19, 2012, 10:31:01 PM11/19/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Nov 19, 5:19 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:
time ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=en&q=%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%22+author:Jean+author:davison
Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
Jean
>
> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
wrote:
> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>
> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
> rifle.
>
> John F.
Thanks, John. I posted that very quote to Mr. Marsh some
>
> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
> rifle.
>
> John F.
time ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=en&q=%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%22+author:Jean+author:davison
Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
Jean
>
> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
Nov 19, 2012, 10:31:49 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/19/2012 6:19 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>
> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139
> rifle during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired
> the rifle.
>
> John F.
>
Sure, but they did not document or demonstrate exactly how it was caused.
> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>
> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139
> rifle during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired
> the rifle.
>
> John F.
>
That is the only thing this argument is about. We all agree it happened
during the ejection. Not even Jean will claim it happened by someone
stepping on it.
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 10:33:57 PM11/19/12
to
In article <a355b03c-68fa-4455...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>he
>> >>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for t=
supplied by Marsh.
Do you happen to have the excellent reference you posted on bent case lips
being caused by extraction? I forgot to save it and I've looked twice
without finding it. It was a good one. Pity Marsh couldn't understand
it.
Bill Clarke
kk
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Nov 13, 4:27=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says..=
>On Nov 13, 4:27=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others involvement in t=
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>he
>> >>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite sufficient for t=
>he job.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>> >>>>>>> How do you claim that? =A0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassination.
>>
>>
>> >>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> >> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> > It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed with Oswald =
>> >>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one shot out of
>> >> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>or not.
>>
>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>
>In another thread you wrote, "If you make a claim the burden
>is on you to prove it." I agree.
>
>Where's your evidence that the dented lip can only be caused
>by the rifle jamming?
>Jean
I also agree but we all three know there will be no evidence to this
>>
>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It can
>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>
>In another thread you wrote, "If you make a claim the burden
>is on you to prove it." I agree.
>
>Where's your evidence that the dented lip can only be caused
>by the rifle jamming?
>Jean
supplied by Marsh.
Do you happen to have the excellent reference you posted on bent case lips
being caused by extraction? I forgot to save it and I've looked twice
without finding it. It was a good one. Pity Marsh couldn't understand
it.
Bill Clarke
kk
Bill Clarke
Nov 19, 2012, 10:34:17 PM11/19/12
to
In article <50aa...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
Bill Clarke
>
>Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>
>(218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>rifle.
>
>John F.
Thank you very much.
>Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>
>(218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>rifle.
>
>John F.
Bill Clarke
claviger
Nov 19, 2012, 11:34:16 PM11/19/12
to
Anthony,
> Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
> a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.
First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
quotation marks which makes it look like you wrote the whole thing. By not
using proper quotation protocol you could be accused of plagerism. The
author should be clearly identified and receive credit for his research
and work product.
Second, the H P White Test Facility is located in Street, Maryland.
Their postal address is Bel Air, MD.
> > No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed
> > against the mouth of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
women?
> In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
Where did you get this statistic? Cite please.
> You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their internal
> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its
> firing test, although the relevant information has found its way
> into the discussion in other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired,
> a dissatisfied associate producer of their 1967 series of
> documentaries provided the raw data to several prominent critics
> of the Warren Commission.
How can we be sure of this provenance and how was this data verified?
> It was discussed by Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to
> Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent
> (1968). Another poster has quoted extensively from a Village Voice
> article that appeared in 1992, which incorporated the same information.
Who is this other poster?
> I independently verified the accuracy of his information during the
> mid-Seventies.
Please tell us more. By what process did you do this?
> In evaluating the results of the CBS test it is important to bear
> in mind the distinction between the following concepts: speed,
> accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity for recent practice
> with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
> Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not
> permitted to use the actual rifle in evidence.)
Yes indeed. The 11 shooters did not have a liberal opportunity to
familiarize themselves with these rifles. That would require at least one
week of practice with the same rifle they would use in the CBS field test.
It's amazing they performed as well as they did. With more practice we
would expect them to score even better results.
1/3
> Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
> a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.
First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
quotation marks which makes it look like you wrote the whole thing. By not
using proper quotation protocol you could be accused of plagerism. The
author should be clearly identified and receive credit for his research
and work product.
Second, the H P White Test Facility is located in Street, Maryland.
Their postal address is Bel Air, MD.
> > No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed
> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about.
> She's never handled a rifle in her life.
You know this for a fact or just your condescending attitude toward
> She's never handled a rifle in her life.
women?
> In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
> You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their internal
> memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
We shall see.
> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its
> into the discussion in other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired,
> a dissatisfied associate producer of their 1967 series of
> documentaries provided the raw data to several prominent critics
> of the Warren Commission.
How can we be sure of this provenance and how was this data verified?
> It was discussed by Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to
> Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent
> (1968). Another poster has quoted extensively from a Village Voice
> article that appeared in 1992, which incorporated the same information.
> I independently verified the accuracy of his information during the
> mid-Seventies.
Please tell us more. By what process did you do this?
> In evaluating the results of the CBS test it is important to bear
> in mind the distinction between the following concepts: speed,
> accuracy, experience, and liberal opportunity for recent practice
> with the same model and year Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
> Oswald is alleged to have used. (Of course, CBS was not
Yes indeed. The 11 shooters did not have a liberal opportunity to
familiarize themselves with these rifles. That would require at least one
week of practice with the same rifle they would use in the CBS field test.
It's amazing they performed as well as they did. With more practice we
would expect them to score even better results.
1/3
Jean Davison
Nov 20, 2012, 10:28:11 PM11/20/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Nov 19, 9:33 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <a355b03c-68fa-4455-a29f-8d6e29c99...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
Absolutely.
>
> Do you happen to have the excellent reference you posted on bent case lips
> being caused by extraction? I forgot to save it and I've looked twice
> without finding it. It was a good one. Pity Marsh couldn't understand
> it.
Do you mean this from the HSCA's firearms panel?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45858
Jean
> In article <a355b03c-68fa-4455-a29f-8d6e29c99...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Do you happen to have the excellent reference you posted on bent case lips
> being caused by extraction? I forgot to save it and I've looked twice
> without finding it. It was a good one. Pity Marsh couldn't understand
> it.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45858
Jean
claviger
Nov 20, 2012, 10:28:41 PM11/20/12
to
Anthony,
> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
> duplicating Oswald's feat. It was shot on May 19 and 20, 1967,
> at the H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me
> first tell you about an earlier trial.
> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same
> during the Zapruder interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire
> at a standard FBI head and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in
blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
> in order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle
> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
> Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
> the following results was the same person who supervised the tests for
> orange silhouette, and he did not specify to his bosses how good
> those hits really were (i.e., shoulder, back, neck, head), except in the
> single best result that he obtained. If CBS ever releases the film
> outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate
> Oswald's feat. However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just as
> they did back in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3
> shots at the moving target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT
> THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE
> TEST.
> What happened in the other 17 cases? Either a bullet jammed in the
> bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt action slowed up the marksmen
> so much that the target completed its run before they could get off their
> third shot. Of course, CBS never told its audience about these problems.
> The following were ALL the results, including those 20 attempts that CBS
> carefully selected to "count"...
From a statistical standpoint there is nothing wrong with this approach as
a subset of all attempts to fire this group of test rifles. The only
results that can serve as a comparison are the instances where the rifles
fired 3 shots in sequence as did the sniper in the 6th floor window. So
we have two basic subsets: a) 3 consecutive shots without jamming and b)
less than 3 consecutive shots without jamming. The first compares the
shooters and the second compares the rifles. Both were objectives of the
test.
CBS intentionally purchased a group of rifles off the shelf and used them
as is, with no improvements. The rifles were only cleaned and oiled. No
engineering took place. We don’t know what LHO did with his rifle, if
he had any improvements made by a gunsmith. We do know he worked the bolt
constantly while sitting on his couch, much to the chagrin of Marina who
made him go outside when he was in the mood to do that. There is a high
probability LHO knew about emery cloth and oil to smooth the bolt action.
This is common knowledge among hunters and target shooters. So it’s not
possible to compare all the test rifles exactly to the one owned by LHO.
Chances are his was in better condition having received more care and use.
2/3
> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try at
> at the H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. Let me
> first tell you about an earlier trial.
> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same
> motorized track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman,
> USA (ret.) to do six trials. Presuming that the assassination occured
> during the Zapruder interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire
> at a standard FBI head and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a
> 4-by-4 foot (blue) background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower
> platform the same relative height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. The
> slopoe of the track approximated the slope of Elm Street. Remember
> the colors of the target because they figure prominently in all the results.
> Crossman fired clips of three rounds each six times.
> Here were the results:
> slopoe of the track approximated the slope of Elm Street. Remember
> the colors of the target because they figure prominently in all the results.
> Crossman fired clips of three rounds each six times.
1- 6.54 seconds. 3 hits clustered low and slightly left, all in
blue.
2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just left of
head.
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, 1 blue
3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
over head.
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between shots
5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just over
shoulder, 1 blue higher
6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
> in order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the rifle
> (live Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to take
> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they could find.
> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with the sample
> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
Actually they were looking for a cross section of riflemen.
> Two important points to note are these: First, the person who recorded
> CBS both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man who
> began his participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in the
> Warren Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same
> direction. The January results specify in detail the degree of Col.
> Crossman's accuracy within the orange silhouette. In May, however,
> Lister was content merely with getting any hits anywhere within the
> Warren Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same
> direction. The January results specify in detail the degree of Col.
> Crossman's accuracy within the orange silhouette. In May, however,
> orange silhouette, and he did not specify to his bosses how good
> those hits really were (i.e., shoulder, back, neck, head), except in the
> single best result that he obtained. If CBS ever releases the film
> outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance to see.
> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicate
> they did back in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3
> shots at the moving target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT
> THEY CHOSE TO "COUNT" AS THEIR "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE
> TEST.
> What happened in the other 17 cases? Either a bullet jammed in the
> bolt-cycling process, or the balky bolt action slowed up the marksmen
> so much that the target completed its run before they could get off their
> third shot. Of course, CBS never told its audience about these problems.
> The following were ALL the results, including those 20 attempts that CBS
> carefully selected to "count"...
From a statistical standpoint there is nothing wrong with this approach as
a subset of all attempts to fire this group of test rifles. The only
results that can serve as a comparison are the instances where the rifles
fired 3 shots in sequence as did the sniper in the 6th floor window. So
we have two basic subsets: a) 3 consecutive shots without jamming and b)
less than 3 consecutive shots without jamming. The first compares the
shooters and the second compares the rifles. Both were objectives of the
test.
CBS intentionally purchased a group of rifles off the shelf and used them
as is, with no improvements. The rifles were only cleaned and oiled. No
engineering took place. We don’t know what LHO did with his rifle, if
he had any improvements made by a gunsmith. We do know he worked the bolt
constantly while sitting on his couch, much to the chagrin of Marina who
made him go outside when he was in the mood to do that. There is a high
probability LHO knew about emery cloth and oil to smooth the bolt action.
This is common knowledge among hunters and target shooters. So it’s not
possible to compare all the test rifles exactly to the one owned by LHO.
Chances are his was in better condition having received more care and use.
2/3
claviger
Nov 20, 2012, 10:29:26 PM11/20/12
to
Anthony,
> (and you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown,
> performed the best):
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area (best
> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
took place on these rifles.
> The same was not necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
We will never know the answer to that question. At such short range
LHO may have used open sights. The scope defect actually aided the
sniper.
> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one
One was at a park and another time where LHO took his rifle on a bus
under his raincoat to a rifle range. A witness claims he saw LHO at a
rifle range and said he was a good shot.
> In the end, one must also consider the difference between what is
> theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms
> of the actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson:
> "Of the thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5.6
> seconds or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from
> zero to three hits -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.
> Taking into account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the
> average was 1.2 hits for every three shots fired."
The sniper in the 6th floor window only did slightly better than this
average. He made hits on 2 of 3 shots fired (33 percent vs 27
percent).
> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was
> never equaled?"
No, because his shooting feat was surpassed.
> Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your point,
> the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to
> have used.
His rifle was probably in better condition than any of the test
rifles.
> However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
> without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and
> jury for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information,
> judge for yourself.
Thank you for playing “Let’s Prove A Negative!” No one knows what
they can or can’t do until they try. Some people have beginner’s luck
and others just have a better than average day. That’s part of the
normal average. Some people actually perform better under pressure and
some don’t. The first shot is always the most difficult.
LHO had the distinct advantage of knowing the feel of his bolt action
rifle. None of the other shooters enjoyed that significant advantage,
especially in a speed shooting situation. If you are trying to say all
this proves LHO didn’t have the talent to make these shots on a slow
moving target inside short range from an elevated position then whoever
did fire on the Limousine didn’t do much better than the average you
mention above.
It is amazing the CBS volunteers performed as well as they did with an
unfamiliar rifle, so this test was not an apples-to-apples comparison.
To have that kind of comparison each volunteer would take home his test
rifle for two weeks and go to a firing range to get the feel of that
particular rifle, then come back and participate in the CBS Test. That
didn’t happen.
Also, the CBS shooters were firing from a wooden tower that swayed in a
strong wind. This happened to Howard Donahue as he took his turn as rain
began falling. So the TSBD shooter had the advantage of a solid platform
unaffected by the wind briskly blowing through Dealey Plaza.
-roger-
3/3
> (and you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown,
> performed the best):
1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
NO TIME -- jam after first shot
target)
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette border
5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target
completely)
6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
NO TIME -- jam again
6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives up
9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
NO TIME -- jammed again
5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target
4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed
target
NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
NO TIME -- jammed
NO TIME -- jammed
6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely missed
> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, the rifle
> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted.
The test rifles were cleaned and oiled, that's all. No engineering
took place on these rifles.
> The same was not necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
We will never know the answer to that question. At such short range
LHO may have used open sights. The scope defect actually aided the
sniper.
> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice (no one
> has satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before the
> assassination).
Marina mentions two occaisions where LHO practiced with his rifle.
> assassination).
One was at a park and another time where LHO took his rifle on a bus
under his raincoat to a rifle range. A witness claims he saw LHO at a
rifle range and said he was a good shot.
> In the end, one must also consider the difference between what is
> theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum controlled
> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in terms
> of the actual circumstances on 11/22/63. To quote Josiah Thompson:
> seconds or less. On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from
> zero to three hits -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired.
> Taking into account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the
> average was 1.2 hits for every three shots fired."
The sniper in the 6th floor window only did slightly better than this
average. He made hits on 2 of 3 shots fired (33 percent vs 27
percent).
> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was
> never equaled?"
> Well, let's hope that it never is. But so as not to evade your point,
> the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlicher- Carcano
> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never been
> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleged to
> have used.
His rifle was probably in better condition than any of the test
rifles.
> However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC says he did, you
> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best of these
> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three after
> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily lucky day
> without his rifle jamming on him. CBS tried to be both the judge and
> jury for the rest of the country. Now that you have the information,
> judge for yourself.
they can or can’t do until they try. Some people have beginner’s luck
and others just have a better than average day. That’s part of the
normal average. Some people actually perform better under pressure and
some don’t. The first shot is always the most difficult.
LHO had the distinct advantage of knowing the feel of his bolt action
rifle. None of the other shooters enjoyed that significant advantage,
especially in a speed shooting situation. If you are trying to say all
this proves LHO didn’t have the talent to make these shots on a slow
moving target inside short range from an elevated position then whoever
did fire on the Limousine didn’t do much better than the average you
mention above.
It is amazing the CBS volunteers performed as well as they did with an
unfamiliar rifle, so this test was not an apples-to-apples comparison.
To have that kind of comparison each volunteer would take home his test
rifle for two weeks and go to a firing range to get the feel of that
particular rifle, then come back and participate in the CBS Test. That
didn’t happen.
Also, the CBS shooters were firing from a wooden tower that swayed in a
strong wind. This happened to Howard Donahue as he took his turn as rain
began falling. So the TSBD shooter had the advantage of a solid platform
unaffected by the wind briskly blowing through Dealey Plaza.
-roger-
3/3
Jean Davison
Nov 20, 2012, 10:30:16 PM11/20/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
lip can only be caused by jamming. If you think it does, QUOTE IT. What
experience and testing support your claim? Please be specific.
>
> Where's your experience with ANY firearms?
My experience is irrelevant since I'm not saying "believe this
because I say so." I've quoted the HSCA's firearms panel and two
researchers who say the dents occur when the shells are ejected, NOT
during any jamming. Do you want those links again?
And the evidence for your claim is what, exactly?
(Incidentally, I learned to fire a rifle when I was about 9
years old.)
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Nov 20, 2012, 10:31:13 PM11/20/12
to
On 11/19/2012 11:34 PM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
>> a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
>
> Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.
>
> First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
You are so far out of the loop. Roger Feinman is a lawyer who worked for
> Anthony,
>
>> Thanks for uploading the official cover-up story. Unfortunately for you
>> a CBS insider leaked the internal CBS memo.
>
> Why is that unfortunate for me? Could prove otherwise.
>
> First, who is -roger- and what part did he write? You failed to use
CBS.
> quotation marks which makes it look like you wrote the whole thing. By not
> using proper quotation protocol you could be accused of plagerism. The
> author should be clearly identified and receive credit for his research
> and work product.
>
> Second, the H P White Test Facility is located in Street, Maryland.
> Their postal address is Bel Air, MD.
>
Are their offices in the same place as their field test facility? Clueless
as usual. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed
>>> against the mouth of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about.
>> She's never handled a rifle in her life.
>
> You know this for a fact or just your condescending attitude toward
> women?
>
>> In the CBS tests their rifle jammed about 1/3 of the time.
>
> Where did you get this statistic? Cite please.
>
>> You continue with your fiction because CBS lied. Their internal
>> memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confront.
>
> We shall see.
>
>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its
>> firing test, although the relevant information has found its way
>> into the discussion in other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired,
>> a dissatisfied associate producer of their 1967 series of
>> documentaries provided the raw data to several prominent critics
>> of the Warren Commission.
>
> How can we be sure of this provenance and how was this data verified?
>
Ask Tink.
>> It was discussed by Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to
>> Six Seconds in Dallas (1967) and Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent
>> (1968). Another poster has quoted extensively from a Village Voice
>> article that appeared in 1992, which incorporated the same information.
>
> Who is this other poster?
>
>> I independently verified the accuracy of his information during the
>> mid-Seventies.
>
> Please tell us more. By what process did you do this?
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 20, 2012, 10:31:29 PM11/20/12
to
On 11/19/2012 10:34 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <50aa...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
You should have known this already if you had done your homework and
> In article <50aa...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
read the HSCA volumes.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 20, 2012, 10:33:09 PM11/20/12
to
On 11/19/2012 10:31 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:19 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> wrote:
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thanks, John. I posted that very quote to Mr. Marsh some
> time ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=en&q=%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%22+author:Jean+author:davison
>
> Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
>
Because it was not new to me. I read the HSCA volumes long before you did.
> On Nov 19, 5:19 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> wrote:
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thanks, John. I posted that very quote to Mr. Marsh some
> time ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dc9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=en&q=%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%22+author:Jean+author:davison
>
> Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
>
John Fiorentino
Nov 20, 2012, 10:37:51 PM11/20/12
to
Jean:
Anthony can be very hard to "dent" at times...... :-)
news:e00a791d-05e9-4401...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony can be very hard to "dent" at times...... :-)
news:e00a791d-05e9-4401...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
Nov 20, 2012, 10:38:02 PM11/20/12
to
Bill:
You are very welcome!
John F.
"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k8esv...@drn.newsguy.com...
You are very welcome!
John F.
"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k8esv...@drn.newsguy.com...
mainframetech
Nov 20, 2012, 10:42:16 PM11/20/12
to
> > Frazier goes on:
> > "Mr. Mccloy. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
> > shape?
> > Mr. Frazier. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
> > were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
> > corrosion or wear.
> > Mr. Mccloy. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
> > Mr. Frazier. I did not examine it for that.
>
> What he didn't tell them is that he made a sulfur cast of the bore. But
> of course we mere mortals are not allowed to examine it.
>
not.
> > Mr. Mccloy. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
> > fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
> > you found it?
> > Mr. Frazier. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
> > an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
> > allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
> > to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
> > barrel."
>
> > So now we have a barrel with 'wear and corrosion'. Lands and
> > grooves were worn. It's not in good shape so far. Frazier avoids
> > saying that firing a bullet through it cleaned it out some. Now we
> > move on to Simmons testifying:
>
> Yeah, it was actually used during WWII. Look at all the wear marks on
> the stock.
>
> > Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
> > machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
> > weapon?
> > Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
> > telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
> > sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
> > shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
> > an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
> > addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
> > all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."
>
> > Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
> > fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
> > couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
> > a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at
>
> Yes, the scope was unusable, damaged and defective. But we can't be sure
> it was that way on 11/22/63 before the shooting. Some people claim it
> was damaged when the shooter hid it between the boxes so it could have
> been used during the shooting. I have speculated that it was damaged
> when Oswald buried it after shooting at General Walker.
>
> > JFK. Of course, there is the possibility that he used the iron sights
> > and then got out a screwdriver and put the scope back on and hid the
> > rifle. But I tend to think that wasn't the case in the midst of
>
> What the Hell are you babbling about now? You know absolutely nothing
> about rifles. There was no need to remove the scope to use the iron
> sights. You can use the iron sights while the scope is still on the
> rifle. It is high enough over the iron sights so that it does not interfere.
>
be civil. I owned a rifle with a scope and you could NOT use the iron
sights with the scope on. That may not be the case with the MC, and I
have no problem saying that I'm not familiar with the MC type of
weapon. I will look over whatever I can here and see if what you say
is possible. If it is possible, it introduces one more block to using
the rifle from the TSBD, since using iron sights would be a loss in
one's ability to shoot to the degree necessary to hit the skull rather
than center mass.
OK, I looked exhibit 139 over. When looked at from the side it
appears that the forward part of the scope is only a quarter inch
above the rear sight. Personally, I think that would really crowd a
shooter if trying to use the iron sights. Here's where I checked, see
what you think:
http://research.archives.gov/description/305134
> > shooting at the president, I don't think a shooter is going to put his
> > rifle back together before hiding it. We have to face it...the rifle
> > couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers. But there's more from
> > Simmons:
>
> Any rifle no matter how defective can be aimed. The question is how
> ACCURATELY it can be aimed.
>
> > "Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
> > mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?Mr.
> > Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of our
> > machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."
>
> > Oops! Simmons let's the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
> > gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
> > it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
> > hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. More on
> > this later.
>
> Semantics. He they had sent it out to a another place to be fixed that
> person might well be a gunsmith. But if they fix it inhouse the
> machinist does not have to be a gunsmith. Likewise Frazier had a lot of
> experience but he was not a gunsmith by trade.
>
here. The usual policy is to present some backup of some kind for
that type of statement. So the first word out of Simmons' mouth was
gunsmith, THEN he changed it to machinist. Why? If the fellow really
was a gunsmith, would that make a forensic examination invalid for him
to be messing with the rifle before the testrers had fired it and made
their appraisals?
> > ---
> > "Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
> > skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
> > range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
> > Mr. Simmons. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in
> > one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
> > considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
> > effort required to work the bolt.
> > Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
> > Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
> > was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
> > with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."
>
> They couldn't even get accuracy with bench rests.
>
things I can think of to cause that is something in the path of the
bolt in the receiver. Could be protective goop (cosmoline?), meaning
the gun hadn't been fired since it was packed and sold, or it might be
rust (corrosion) because no one had taken care of the rifle (Oswald
was known for always having a dirty rifle in service). Either way the
rifle wasn't able to do any 'fast' shooting, or decent aiming if they
tried to do that too. Frazier mentioned corrosion earlier. I believe
that was it and not any protective grease or some such holding up the
bolt. Now might be the time to have the speed of the 3 shots
discussion.
> > Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
> > this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
> > intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
> > work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
> > aiming diffficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
> > there will dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
>
> Tell that to the families of the soldiers who died in South Vietnam next
> to their jammed rifles.
>
manufacture from the original specifications has no part in this. The
bolt on the MC was hard to work when they received it. There is much
less chance that the bolt and receiver were damaged while hiding the
rifle, as you might try to say with the scope which stuck up.
> > smoothly. What condition was this thing in when the testers got it?
> > Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
> > ---
> > Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
> > 139, before they began firing?
> > Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
> > ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
> > had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
> > were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."
>
> > Ut-oh! He let a big one out! The firing pin is in the bolt. If
> > they were afraid to work the bolt for fear of breaking the firing pin,
> > then what was it they saw? The only thing I can see is that the bolt
>
> Again, you know absolutely nothing about rifles. They were not afraid to
> work the bolt. They did work the bolt often. What they were afraid to do
> was pull the trigger because that MIGHT break the firing pin even on a
> brand new rifle.
> That's why the Italians made a dummy round with a wooden bullet just for
> this purpose.
>
rifle with scope myself in early years and firing it empty was never a
problem and I did it many times without loss. A mistake on my part to
make the assumption that it was OK for other rifles. All other rifles
I fired were with cartridges in them, except the M1, which we clicked
off many times without mishap. Try to get along a bit more. I'm not
some babe in the woods you can be nasty to with no response. This is
a moderated forum. Try and pretend that you're being watched...:)
> > was corroded to the receiver and wouldn't work and they were afraid if
> > they tried it would break the firing pin inside. Either that or the
>
> You've never seen a rifle, have you?
>
> > firing pin was rusted to the barrel. Either way, the rifle wasn't
>
> "Rusted to the barrel"? What does that even mean? Do you have any
> concept of what that would mean or do you just string words together
> until you fill up a sentence? Just make sure you have a subject, verb
> and predicate even if the words don't make any sense.
>
to work it for all it's worth won't play with me. The bolt action
rifle I had had extractor clips that went right up to the barrel.
Think it over before you say something dumb.
> > safe or ready to fire, yet it had come to the testers first before
> > anyone else had a chance at it. Let's go on:
>
> Lt, Carl Day had a chance at it. Can you imagine the howls if Day had
> replaced a broken firing pin or repaired the damaged and defective
> scope? Some people already complained about his disassembling the rifle
> to dust for prints. Look up discussions about glass bedding. Imagine if
> Day had rebedded the action and not told anyone.
> Also consider that the stock now on the rifle was an old 1891 stock
> which was recycled. Look carefully at the fresh cut marks around the
> receiver.
>
for any serious shooting, especially presidents.
> > Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
> > used in this dry-run practice, each?
> > Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
> > Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
> > Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
> > respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
> > of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
> > firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
> > he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
> > first round.
> > There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different
> > as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage
> > operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
> > relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
> > fire the weapon."
>
> > This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
>
> The Italians knew that and were in the process of replacing it. The
> Germans just gave up on their old Mausers and developed the assault rifle.
>
> > for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
> > firing pin, so it must have gone to the gunsmith first, as noted
> > above. The only way it could have been fired with no one worrying
>
> No. Just working the bolt would not break the firing pin.
>
was in when the testers received it (before Frazier). Just more
evidence that the bolt wouldn't work.
> > about breaking the pin was if the gunsmith had gotten it and freed it
> > up...maybe with gun oil or with WD40 or something similar. Either
>
> Freed it up?
>
had to be freed up by working it, and at first it wouldn't work
properly of freely, messing up a shooter's aim, therefore taking more
time to shoot multiple shots in a short time. Obvoiously no one
tested or used the rifle before the FBI got it.
> > way, the testers each had 2-3 minutes to work the bolt, so that would
> > help to free it up after the gunsmith.
>
> The the gunsmith fixed it then why would the shooters need 2-3 minutes
> to work the bolt? They took the time to become familiar with how the
> bold operates even if it was a brand new weapon. Each rifle has its own
> quirks.
>
The critique of Simmons' testimony by an independent gunsmith had a
lot to say about that. I wil give a link to his critique, but his
comments aren't sworn testimony, though he had a good reputation in
the field. Some here may have already read it:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf
One of Ritchson's comments (without backup) was:
"(Incidentally, I have it on good authority that the “gunsmith” that
reworked the
weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
me that,
when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
and too
dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
action to
receiver.)"
> > All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that frazier mentioned seems
> > to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
> > letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in firing
> > condition because they were afraid they would break the firing pin if
> > they tried to work the bolt. The gunsmith had to fix the scope so
>
> Not true.
>
be used at first, and the bolt would mess up the aim if it were
worked.
> > they could aim it. The gunsmith had to do something to it so they
>
> Not true.
>
> > wouldn't be afraid to work the bolt, and after that they worked it 2-3
> > minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with it. Something that
>
> Not to free it up.
>
with a bolt that was hard to work and ruined their aim when doing
rapid shooting? That all their practice did nothing to help 'free up'
the bolt'?
> > Oswald never did as far as we know. His experience was with semi-
> > automatic rifles, not bolt action.
>
> Marina says he worked the bolt all the time rather than fire live rounds.
>
smooth, and he does that in place of shooting live rounds? Yep, odd.
And then when the rifle goes directly to the FBI, the testers find the
bolt is very hard to work. At least with her background, Marina would
never say anything the US government wouln't want her to say.
> > Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
> > fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI tsters.
>
> And yet it was fired and it didn't blow up.
> Neither was it accurate.
agree was that the condition the rifle was in, and the fact that it
got better by the time Frazier got it back means it wasn't in any
condition to be fired when it was in the TSBD. And don't forget the
scope being misaligned, which we have NO evidence saying that it was
done after shooting at a president.
Oswald was probably not the shooter, but if he was, his service
record was less than exemplary when it came to caring for his weapon,
or shooting well. He was well known for having a dirty rifle and many
'Maggie's Drawers'(missing the whole target) among his buddies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
Chris
Bill Clarke
Nov 20, 2012, 10:43:30 PM11/20/12
to
In article <50aa9689$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Here is exactly what you said. You will note the absence of "in this
case".
Marsh; "Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It
caused by things other than a jam. Well good for you.
Nope what? You don't have a clue.
>>> Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
>>> to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
>>
>>WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
>> is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
>> much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
>> rifles than you do.
>>
>
>In a firefight, no soldier is going to ask for a timeout so that he can
>study his rifle.
Good thinking Marsh about something you know nothing about.
>>> The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
>>> did.
>>
>> Another rash claim that you have no support for.
>>
>
>We now have most of their files.
Yes we do. Some of them describe how the communist thought what a foolish
blunder it was to remove Diem. We know who did that don't we.
You're probably right. The max effective range of the M-16 was 400 meters
when I was in the Army. They have fine tuned the round and rifle since
then so this might have changed since then.
>>>> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
>>
>> Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
>>
>>>>Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
>>>>being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
>>>> tap..............
>>
>>On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
>> to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
>> a
>>
>
>My AR-7 jammed and I knew what to do.
So you are an expert on the rinky dink AR-7 but not the M-16. I
understand.
>You probably used a later issue M-16 which no longer had the jamming
>problem.
I have stated this on several occassions.
case".
Marsh; "Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves that. It
can only be caused by the rifle jamming."
So now you are admitting that "in other cases" a dented case lip can be
caused by things other than a jam. Well good for you.
>>> Did the average soldier in Vietnam know exactly that caused their M-16
>>> to jam so often? No. Just point and shoot.
>>
>>WRONG AGAIN. When the damn case is stuck in the chamber caused by rim sheer it
>> is very obvious what caused the problem. I realize you consider the military
>> much below your intelligence level but a raw boot camp grad knows more about
>> rifles than you do.
>>
>
>In a firefight, no soldier is going to ask for a timeout so that he can
>study his rifle.
>>> The North Vietnamese knew more about the M-16 defects than the Americans
>>> did.
>>
>> Another rash claim that you have no support for.
>>
>
>We now have most of their files.
blunder it was to remove Diem. We know who did that don't we.
when I was in the Army. They have fine tuned the round and rifle since
then so this might have changed since then.
>>>> Useless to compare the M-14 and the M-16. Two different ducks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was never comparing the M-14 and the M-16.
>>
>> Your reference did. You post it, it is your baby.
>>
>>>>Now General, tell me the immediate action for a failure to fire on the M-16, you
>>>>being the expert with much experience with the 16! I'll give you a hint; tap
>>>> tap..............
>>
>>On dear, I was afraid of this. Marsh's M-16 has jammed and he doesn't know what
>> to do despite his alleged knowledge of rifles. I'm shocked.
>> a
>>
>
>My AR-7 jammed and I knew what to do.
understand.
>You probably used a later issue M-16 which no longer had the jamming
>problem.
Bill Clarke
Nov 20, 2012, 10:44:02 PM11/20/12
to
In article <50aa922e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
point.
I was specific about Oswald's
>rifle and my rifle was an example of how it can also happen in a
>semi-automatic. Your dad was on Full Auto?
>Todd Vaughan got a dented lip about every third shot with his Carcano.
Semi-automatic.
Bill Clarke
>
>On 11/19/2012 1:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> claviger says...
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>>> dented.
>>
>> I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
>> case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
>>
>
>Of course you couldn't find it. Because they hid it from the public.
>That's why we want ALL the files released.
>
>>In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
>>I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
>> dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
>>know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
>> to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
>>
>>Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
>> case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
>>
>
>I did not generalize about ALL rifles.
You did not make this point. Now and only now have you started making this
>On 11/19/2012 1:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>In article <673947f3-4bdc-4e64...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> claviger says...
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I thought the Warren Commission already proved the MC rifle would dent
>>> an empty shell during normal extraction or was it hard extraction
>>> during rapid recycling? If so all 3 empty shells could have been
>>> dented.
>>
>> I made a quick run on the WCR and didn't find what they had to say about bent
>> case lips. I'll have more time tomorrow and will try again.
>>
>
>Of course you couldn't find it. Because they hid it from the public.
>That's why we want ALL the files released.
>
>>In my experience the auto loaders are worse about this than the bolt rifles but
>>I've seen it occur in bolt rifles also. My Dad's automatic Remington .270 would
>> dent the lip of about one in 10 rounds. Why id didn't dent them all I don't
>>know but I was hand loading at the time and picked up all the used brass cases
>> to be reused so they were carefully inspected.
>>
>>Marsh is simply wrong about a jam being the ONLY thing than can cause a dented
>> case lip. Dad's Remington never had a jam but produced dented case lips.
>>
>
>I did not generalize about ALL rifles.
point.
I was specific about Oswald's
>rifle and my rifle was an example of how it can also happen in a
>semi-automatic. Your dad was on Full Auto?
>Todd Vaughan got a dented lip about every third shot with his Carcano.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 20, 2012, 10:45:54 PM11/20/12
to
In article <d6b0ca06-54c1-41c4...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 19, 1:48=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <fe329dda-45fa-46a9-a649-974bf6ac1...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 18, 10:10=3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 16, 6:46=3D3DA0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> w=
>ys.=3D
>say=3D
>> >s..=3D3D
>h s=3D
>> >ays=3D3D
>rsh=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>Mar=3D
>> >sh =3D3D
>lve=3D
>> >men=3D3D
>> >> >t in the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite suff=
>ici=3D
>> >ent=3D3D
>> >> > for the job.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassinati=
>on.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =3D3DA0It damn sure worked.
>hot=3D
>> > ou=3D3D
>wit=3D
>> >h O=3D3D
>> >> >swald or not.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves th=
>at.=3D
>> > It=3D3D
>and d=3D
>> >espit=3D3D
>> >> >e the excellent
>> >> >> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused withou=
>t t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >rifle jamming
>> >> >> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =3D3DA0Why is that?
>>
>> >> >> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against t=
>he =3D
>> >mou=3D3D
>ver
>> >> >> >>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jamm=
>ed =3D
>> >abo=3D3D
>> >> >ut
>> >> >> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS li=
>ed.=3D
>> > Th=3D3D
>> >> >eir
>> >> >> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confro=
>nt.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Yes she did. =3D3DA0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert t=
>o loo=3D
>> >k up =3D3D
>> >> >a reference.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the referen=
>ce =3D
>> >mea=3D3D
>> >> >ns.
>>
>> >> >> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms =
>exp=3D
>> >ert=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0Far
>> >> >> > from it.
>>
>> >> >> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms=
>. Y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> already admitted that.
>>
>> >> >> >>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =3D3DA0I know what I've seen m=
>any t=3D
>> >imes.
>>
>> >> >> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to rel=
>oad=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> >o
>> >> >> >> quickly.
>>
>> >> >> > So will other bolt guns. =3D3DA0So what?
>>
>> >> >> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. Y=
>ou
>> >> >> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics an=
> an=3D
>> >d y=3D3D
>> >> >ou
>> >> >> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick?=
> De=3D
>> >nia=3D3D
>> >0That=3D3D
>ing=3D
>> > te=3D3D
>> >> >st,
>> >> >> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the d=
>isc=3D
>> >uss=3D3D
>> >> >ion in
>> >> >> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied ass=
>oci=3D
>> >ate
>> >> >> >>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the ra=
>w d=3D
>> >ata=3D3D
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =3D3DA0It =
>was d=3D
>> >iscus=3D3D
>> >> >sed by
>> >> >> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas =
>(19=3D
>> >67)=3D3D
>> >> > and
>> >> >> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =3D3DA0Another poster=
> has =3D
>> >quote=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992=
>, w=3D
>> >hic=3D3D
>> >> >h
>> >> >> >>>> incorporated the same information. =3D3DA0I independently veri=
>fied =3D
>> >the a=3D3D
>> >> >ccuracy
>> >> >> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =3D3DA0In evaluat=
>ing t=3D
>> >he re=3D3D
>> >> >sults of
>> >> >> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction b=
>etw=3D
>> >een=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal o=
>ppo=3D
>> >rtu=3D3D
>> >> >nity
>> >> >> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Ca=
>rca=3D
>> >no =3D3D
>> >> >rifle
>> >> >> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =3D3DA0(Of course, CBS wa=
>s not=3D
>> > perm=3D3D
> at
>> >> >> >>>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =3D3DA0It was shot on May 19 and 20=
>, 196=3D
>> >7, at=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =3D3DA0Let =
>me fi=3D
>> >rst t=3D3D
>oto=3D
>> >riz=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (r=
>et.=3D
>> >) t=3D3D
>> >> >o do
>> >> >> >>>> six trials. =3D3DA0Presuming that the assassination occured du=
>ring =3D
>> >the Z=3D3D
>> >> >apruder
>> >> >> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standar=
>d F=3D
>> >BI =3D3D
>> >> >head
>> >> >> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blu=
>e)
>> >> >> >>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the s=
>ame=3D
>> > re=3D3D
>> >> >lative
>> >> >> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =3D3DA0The slopoe of the =
>track=3D
>> > appr=3D3D
>> >> >oximated
>> >> >> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =3D3DA0Remember the colors of the tar=
>get b=3D
>> >ecaus=3D3D
>> >> >e they
>> >> >> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =3D3DA0Crossman fired c=
>lips =3D
>> >of th=3D3D
>> >> >ree
>> >> >> >>>> rounds each six times. =3D3DA0Here were the results:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =3D3DA03 hits clustered low and slightly left=
>, all=3D
>> > in b=3D3D
>> >> >lue.
>> >> >> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just le=
>ft =3D
>1 b=3D
>> >lue
>> >> >> >>>> over head.
>> >> >> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just ov=
>sho=3D
>> >ts =3D3D
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the=
> ri=3D
>> >fle=3D3D
> ta=3D
>> >ke
>> >> >> >>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they =
>cou=3D
>> >ld =3D3D
>> >> >find.
>> >> >> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with =
>the=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>on wh=3D
>> >o rec=3D3D
>> >> >orded
>> >> >> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the t=
>est=3D
>> >s f=3D3D
>> >> >or CBS
>> >> >> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man wh=
>o b=3D
>> >ega=3D3D
>> >> >n his
>> >> >> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in t=
>he =3D
>> >War=3D3D
>> >> >ren
>> >> >> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direc=
>tio=3D
>> >n. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DA0The
>> >> >> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman'=
>s a=3D
>> >ccu=3D3D
>> >> >racy
>> >> >> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =3D3DA0In May, however, Lister w=
>as co=3D
>> >ntent=3D3D
>> >> > merely
>> >> >> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, a=
>nd =3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >did
>> >> >> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e=
>., =3D
>> >sho=3D3D
>> >> >ulder,
>> >> >> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he ob=
>tai=3D
>> >ned=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0If
>> >> >> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance =
>to =3D
>> >see=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicat=
>e O=3D
>> >swa=3D3D
>> >> >ld's
>> >> >> >>>> feat. =3D3DA0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just=
> as t=3D
>> >hey d=3D3D
>> >> >id back
>> >> >> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at=
> th=3D
>> >e m=3D3D
>> >> >oving
>> >> >> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUN=
>T" =3D
>> >AS =3D3D
>> >> >THEIR
>> >> >> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =3D3DA0What happened in the oth=
>er 17=3D
>> > case=3D3D
>> >> >s?
>> >> >> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the bal=
>ky =3D
>> >bol=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target complete=
>d i=3D
>> >ts =3D3D
>> >> >run
>> >> >> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =3D3DA0Of course, =
>CBS n=3D
>> >ever =3D3D
>> >> >told its
>> >> >> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the resu=
>lts=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "co=
>unt=3D
>> >" (=3D3D
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown,=
> pe=3D
>> >rfo=3D3D
> (b=3D
>bor=3D
>com=3D
>> >ple=3D3D
>d t=3D
>> >arg=3D3D
>> >> >et
>>
>> >> >> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, =
>the=3D
>> > ri=3D3D
>> >> >fle
>> >> >> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =3D3DA0The=
> same=3D
>> > was =3D3D
> (n=3D
>> >o o=3D3D
>> >> >ne has
>> >> >> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before =
>the
>> >> >> >>>> assassination). =3D3DA0In the end, one must also consider the =
>diffe=3D
>> >rence=3D3D
>> >> > between
>> >> >> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum=
> co=3D
>> >ntr=3D3D
>> >> >olled
>> >> >> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in t=
>erm=3D
>> >s o=3D3D
>> >> >f the
>> >> >> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =3D3DA0To quote Josiah Thomp=
>son: =3D
>> >"Of t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5=
>.6 =3D
>> >sec=3D3D
>> >> >onds
>> >> >> >>>> or less. =3D3DA0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from =
>zero =3D
>> >to th=3D3D
>> >> >ree hits
>> >> >> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =3D3DA0=
>Takin=3D
>> >g int=3D3D
>> >> >o
>> >> >> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the avera=
>ge =3D
>> >was=3D3D
>ver
>> >> >> >>>> equaled?" =3D3DA0Well, let's hope that it never is. =3D3DA0But=
> so as =3D
>> >not to =3D3D
>> >> >evade your
>> >> >> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlich=
>er-=3D
>> > Ca=3D3D
>> >> >rcano
>> >> >> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never =
>bee=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleg=
>ed =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >have
>> >> >> >>>> used. =3D3DA0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC s=
>ays h=3D
>> >e did=3D3D
>> >> >, you
>> >> >> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >se
>> >> >> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three=
> af=3D
>> >ter
>> >> >> >>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily l=
>uck=3D
>> >y d=3D3D
>> >> >ay
>> >> >> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =3D3DA0CBS tried to be both =
>the j=3D
>> >udge =3D3D
>> >> >and jury
>> >> >> >>>> for the rest of the country. =3D3DA0Now that you have the info=
>rmati=3D
>> >on, j=3D3D
>> >> >udge for
>> >> >> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =3D3DA0So will extra=
>ction=3D
>> >. =3D3DA0=3D3D
> th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Okay Marsh. =3D3DA0Right after you give me a credible reference=
> that=3D
>> > jamm=3D3D
>n't=3D
>> > sh=3D3D
>> >> >ow
>> >> >> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate t=
> ti=3D
>> >mes=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0And
> he=3D
>> > fi=3D3D
>> >> >red. But
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary =
>tar=3D
>> >get=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 He missed a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defecti=
>ve =3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> > damaged.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald kille=
>d J=3D
>> >FK =3D3D
> al=3D
>> >so =3D3D
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so =
>a p=3D
>> >erf=3D3D
>> >> >ect aim at a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point=
> 5-=3D
>> >6 i=3D3D
>. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0A=3D3D
>> >> >nd again you
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes know=
>s i=3D
>> >s 4=3D3D
>> >> > inched. =3D3DA0Now
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head an=
>d m=3D
>> >eas=3D3D
>> >> >ure up 4
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inches. =3D3DA0The bullet still blows the top of your=
> head=3D
>> > off =3D3D
>sse=3D
>tst=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>let=3D
>> > we=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0But you opined that he aimed for th=
>e middle =3D
>> >of the he=3D3D
>> >> >ad.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that t=
>he =3D
>> >4 i=3D3D
>> >> >nches doesn't
>> >> >> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =3D3DA0I've been trying to ex=
>plain=3D
>> > batt=3D3D
>> >> >le zero to you
>> >> >> >>>>>>> for years now. =3D3DA0You just don't get it.
>DA0I =3D
>> >belie=3D3D
>the=3D
>> > he=3D3D
>> >> >ad.
>>
>> >> >> >>> So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was=
> ai=3D
>> >min=3D3D
>> >> >g. =3D3DA0Now do
>> >> >> >>> you get it? =3D3DA0Hell no, you'll never understand common know=
>ledge=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and=
> hi=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was a=
>imi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the l=
>ine=3D
>> > of
>> >> >> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and=
> th=3D
>en =3D
>> >I
>> >> >> >> claim it.
>>
>> >> >> > The bullet never rises Marsh. =3D3DA0Simple laws of physics. =3D3=
>DA0You =3D
>> >cannot =3D3D
>> >> >adjust the
>> >> >> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =3D3DA0The only thing you=
> can =3D
>> >adjus=3D3D
>> >> >t is the
>> >> >> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =3D3DA0Now think about it a=
> bit.
>>
>> >> >> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of si=
>ght=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the b=
>ull=3D
>> >et
>> >> >> to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for an=
>y w=3D
>> >eap=3D3D
>igh=3D
>> >t h=3D3D
>> >> >ave a point.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top=
> of=3D
>> > he=3D3D
>> >> >ad? =3D3DA0I gotta
>> >> >> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =3D3DA0You do understand.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =3D=
>3DA0R=3D
>> >un it=3D3D
>> >> > yourself. =3D3DA0I
>tra=3D
>> >jec=3D3D
>lcu=3D
>> >lat=3D3D
>> >> >or
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK =
>is =3D
>> >qui=3D3D
>> >> >te dead.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and cause=
>d t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >shooter to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from th=
>e g=3D
>> >ras=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used=
> ex=3D
>> >ten=3D3D
>jun=3D
>> >k a=3D3D
> corr=3D
>> >ect n=3D3D
>ave=3D
>> > a =3D3D
>> >> >long list of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding =
>pen=3D
>> >etr=3D3D
>> >> >ation at
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensi=
>ons=3D
>> >, a=3D3D
> why =3D
>> >our m=3D3D
>r, =3D
>> >lig=3D3D
>> >> >hter, faster
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice=
> th=3D
>> >e n=3D3D
>ost=3D
>> >ed =3D3D
>> >> >is indeed
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do=
> wi=3D
>> >th =3D3D
>> >> >Carcanos.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purp=
>ose=3D
> si=3D
>> >ght=3D3D
>> >> >s. Early model
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed=
> ba=3D
>> >ttl=3D3D
>> >> >e zero sight.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWI=
>I h=3D
>> >ad =3D3D
>> >> >fixed sights.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user=
> st=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> >point the WWII
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness =
>and=3D
>> > si=3D3D
>> >> >mplicity. The
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle=
> si=3D
>> >ght=3D3D
>> >> > being at 300
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but re=
>fle=3D
>> >cte=3D3D
>> >> >d the trend of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would =
>hav=3D
>> >e a=3D3D
>> >> > maximum height
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of=
> 17=3D
>> >5 t=3D3D
>> >> >o 200 yards,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one =
>Aus=3D
>> >tri=3D3D
>> >> >an soldiers life
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* is=
>sue=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>h w=3D
>> >ith=3D3D
>> >> > a different
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256,=
> 0.=3D
>> >264=3D3D
>gin=3D
>> >al =3D3D
>> >> >attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the F=
>BI,
>> >> >there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the bro=
>ad
>> >> >side of a barn from inside it. =3DA0From the testimony of Frazier and=
> Simm=3D
>> >ons
>> >> >to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just =
>to
>> >> >feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the sco=
>pe =3D
>> >to
>> >> >aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. =3DA0Detail=
> sn=3D
>> >ap the
>> >> rifle on an empty chamber. =3DA0That is why the boys didn't pull the t=
>rigge=3D
>> >r when
>> >> they were practicing with the rifle. =3DA0They knew that act could bre=
>ak th=3D
>imp=3D
>> >roves
>> >> the operation. =3DA0And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth=
>. =3DA0=3D
>> > =A0 =A0I just posted the details on this thread further down. =A0Check =
>it
>> >out. =A0But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
>> >It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. =A0The
>> >the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. =A0 The details all include the
>ow many
>> rounds have been fired to wear the rifling down. =A0I understand that Osw=
>ald's
>> rifle was well worn and used. =A0But this doesn't make it inoperable or d=
>angerous
>> to shoot. =A0It makes it more difficult to make a good shot but certainly=
> not
>> impossible.
>>
>> If I remember your message concerning Frazer and Simmons they were not af=
>raid to
>> work the bolt but were afraid to pulled trigger for fear of breaking the =
>firing
>> pin. =A0This is true for any rifle. =A0You don't snap the firing pin on a=
a. We have no evidence that he used the scope. The scope has to be side
mounted on the rifle to allow the clip to be inserted into the rifle.
This side mount allows you to either use the scope or the open sights.
It also, in my opinion, makes the scope hard to use since it is not
mounted over the receiver like is normally seen. Oswald wouldn't have had
to take the scope off to use the iron sights. Therefore he wouldn't have
to put the scope back on. Also the range Oswald was shooting didn't
require a scope. He could reacquire his target after each shot with the
iron sights than with the scope. But we don't know which he used; scope
or iron sights.
b. Frazer said the bolt was smooth but yet they had trouble with the
bolt. You seem to discount Frazer so we will assume that the bolt was
hard to operate. This would be another reason Oswald used the iron sights
to get back on target faster. Most rifles with as much wear as Oswald's
showed have sloppy or loosed bolts due to the wear. I wonder what caused
his rifle to have a hard bolt?
c. The poor trigger pull, the pitted and worn bore all are detrimental to
accuracy. No doubt this wasn't an accurate rifle in my opinion. But
again at the distance JFK was from Oswald you wouldn't have to have a tack
driver. It would help but I'm not saying Oswald's rifle couldn't do the
job it did.
No doubt the rifle was a dog but a dog can still bite you.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech says...
>
>On Nov 19, 1:48=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <fe329dda-45fa-46a9-a649-974bf6ac1...@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 18, 10:10=3DA0am, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <7017b13f-8635-45ce-a4b0-2052d27a0...@h9g2000yqd.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >On Nov 16, 6:46=3D3DA0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>> In article <50a3e11...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says=
>> >> >> On 11/16/2012 12:47 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <50a53...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> >> >> On 11/15/2012 12:37 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>...
>>
>> >> >> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> In article <50a29be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh sa=
>>
>> >> >> >>>> On 11/14/2012 10:01 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>ys.=3D
>> >..
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> In article <50a0771...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh =
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 11/13/2012 11:11 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>say=3D
>> >s..=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> In article <509eb17...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Mars=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/2012 1:49 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>h s=3D
>> >ays=3D3D
>> >> >...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <509d3de...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Ma=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 11:42 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>rsh=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>> >> >ys...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <509be0f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony =
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2012 12:31 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>Mar=3D
>> >sh =3D3D
>> >> >says...
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While I'm not trying to make a case for others invo=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 10:14 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claviger: Bill Clarke and all:
>>
>lve=3D
>> >men=3D3D
>> >> >t in the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assassination, nor for the rifle, it was quite suff=
>ici=3D
>> >ent=3D3D
>> >> > for the job.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald's rifle was not sufficient for an assassinati=
>on.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you claim that? =3D3DA0It damn sure worked.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is a fact that in the CBS tests they missed about one s=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The one in the TSBD failed.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Horse apples.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Two misses out of three shots and it jammed.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Just like the CBS tests.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> This is your opinion and not based on evidence.
>>
>hot=3D
>> > ou=3D3D
>> >> >t of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> It is still a fact that you don't know if the rifle jammed =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> three shots because the rifle jammed.
>>
>wit=3D
>> >h O=3D3D
>> >> >swald or not.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Yes, I do. the empty cartridge with the dented lip proves th=
>at.=3D
>> > It=3D3D
>> >> > can
>> >> >> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> No you don't. =3D3DA0Despite my relating personal experience =
>> >> >> >>>>>> only be caused by the rifle jamming.
>>
>and d=3D
>> >espit=3D3D
>> >> >e the excellent
>> >> >> >>>>> reference Jean gave you on bent case lips being caused withou=
>t t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >rifle jamming
>> >> >> >>>>> you continue to support a falsehood. =3D3DA0Why is that?
>>
>> >> >> >>>> No, she did not. The lip is dented because it jammed against t=
>he =3D
>> >mou=3D3D
>> >> >th
>> >> >> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>> >> >> >>>> Jean doesn't know what the Hell she is talking about. She's ne=
>> >> >> >>>> of the chamber. That jams the rifle.
>ver
>> >> >> >>>> handled a rifle in her life. In the CBS tests their rifle jamm=
>ed =3D
>> >abo=3D3D
>> >> >ut
>> >> >> >>>> 1/3 of the time. You continue with your fiction because CBS li=
>ed.=3D
>> > Th=3D3D
>> >> >eir
>> >> >> >>>> internal memo reveals the facts which you are afraid to confro=
>nt.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Yes she did. =3D3DA0And one doesn't need to be an arms expert t=
>o loo=3D
>> >k up =3D3D
>> >> >a reference.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, one does need to be an arms expert to know what the referen=
>ce =3D
>> >mea=3D3D
>> >> >ns.
>>
>> >> >> > You missed it so as I had long ago concluded you are not an arms =
>exp=3D
>> >ert=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0Far
>> >> >> > from it.
>>
>> >> >> Jean dis not understand it because she knows nothing about firearms=
>. Y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> already admitted that.
>>
>> >> >> >>> What CBS did doesn't concern me. =3D3DA0I know what I've seen m=
>any t=3D
>> >imes.
>>
>> >> >> >> The CBS tests proved that the rifle often jams if you try to rel=
>oad=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> >o
>> >> >> >> quickly.
>>
>> >> >> > So will other bolt guns. =3D3DA0So what?
>>
>> >> >> So did my AR-7. So what? It demonstrates what causes the jamming. Y=
>ou
>> >> >> can't get a dented lip without jamming. It happens on automatics an=
>d
>> >> >> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >> >> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
>> >> >> >> I show you something that you never saw before to prove my point=
>> >> >> semi-automatics as well. It happened on the Sten used in the Petit
>> >> >> Clamart attempt on de Gaulle.
>>
> an=3D
>> >d y=3D3D
>> >> >ou
>> >> >> >> say it doesn't matter. What's the name of that rhetorical trick?=
> De=3D
>> >nia=3D3D
>> >> >l?
>>
>> >> >> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =
>=3D3DA=3D
>>
>> >> >> > I don't believe your reference mentioned bent case lips at all. =
>> >0That=3D3D
>> >> > is what we
>> >> >> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> CBS News has not released the backup documentation for its fir=
>> >> >> > are talking about, Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> We are talking about a common problem with Oswald's Carcano.
>>
>ing=3D
>> > te=3D3D
>> >> >st,
>> >> >> >>>> although the relevant information has found its way into the d=
>isc=3D
>> >uss=3D3D
>> >> >ion in
>> >> >> >>>> other ways, e.g., shortly after they aired, a dissatisfied ass=
>oci=3D
>> >ate
>> >> >> >>>> producer of their 1967 series of documentaries provided the ra=
>w d=3D
>> >ata=3D3D
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >>>> several prominent critics of the Warren Commission. =3D3DA0It =
>was d=3D
>> >iscus=3D3D
>> >> >sed by
>> >> >> >>>> Prof. Josiah Thompson in an appendix to Six Seconds in Dallas =
>(19=3D
>> >67)=3D3D
>> >> > and
>> >> >> >>>> Mark Lane in A Citizen's Dissent (1968). =3D3DA0Another poster=
> has =3D
>> >quote=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> >>>> extensively from a Village Voice article that appeared in 1992=
>, w=3D
>> >hic=3D3D
>> >> >h
>> >> >> >>>> incorporated the same information. =3D3DA0I independently veri=
>fied =3D
>> >the a=3D3D
>> >> >ccuracy
>> >> >> >>>> of his information during the mid-Seventies. =3D3DA0In evaluat=
>ing t=3D
>> >he re=3D3D
>> >> >sults of
>> >> >> >>>> the CBS test it is important to bear in mind the distinction b=
>etw=3D
>> >een=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >>>> following concepts: speed, accuracy, experience, and liberal o=
>ppo=3D
>> >rtu=3D3D
>> >> >nity
>> >> >> >>>> for recent practice with the same model and year Mannlicher-Ca=
>rca=3D
>> >no =3D3D
>> >> >rifle
>> >> >> >>>> that Oswald is alleged to have used. =3D3DA0(Of course, CBS wa=
>s not=3D
>> > perm=3D3D
>> >> >itted to
>> >> >> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Actually, what you saw in the CBS film was their last best try=
>> >> >> >>>> use the actual rifle in evidence.)
>>
> at
>> >> >> >>>> duplicating Oswald's feat. =3D3DA0It was shot on May 19 and 20=
>, 196=3D
>> >7, at=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >>>> H.P. White Laboratory firing range in Bel Air, Md. =3D3DA0Let =
>me fi=3D
>> >rst t=3D3D
>> >> >ell you
>> >> >> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> On January 31, 1967, at the same location and using the same m=
>> >> >> >>>> about an earlier trial.
>>
>oto=3D
>> >riz=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> >>>> track, CBS employed Colonel Edward B. ("Jim") Crossman, USA (r=
>et.=3D
>> >) t=3D3D
>> >> >o do
>> >> >> >>>> six trials. =3D3DA0Presuming that the assassination occured du=
>ring =3D
>> >the Z=3D3D
>> >> >apruder
>> >> >> >>>> interval 210-313 (5.5 seconds), they had him fire at a standar=
>d F=3D
>> >BI =3D3D
>> >> >head
>> >> >> >>>> and shoulders silhouette target (orange) on a 4-by-4 foot (blu=
>e)
>> >> >> >>>> background moving at 16 fps from a firing tower platform the s=
>ame=3D
>> > re=3D3D
>> >> >lative
>> >> >> >>>> height as the 6th floor of the TSBD. =3D3DA0The slopoe of the =
>track=3D
>> > appr=3D3D
>> >> >oximated
>> >> >> >>>> the slope of Elm Street. =3D3DA0Remember the colors of the tar=
>get b=3D
>> >ecaus=3D3D
>> >> >e they
>> >> >> >>>> figure prominently in all the results. =3D3DA0Crossman fired c=
>lips =3D
>> >of th=3D3D
>> >> >ree
>> >> >> >>>> rounds each six times. =3D3DA0Here were the results:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 1- 6.54 seconds. =3D3DA03 hits clustered low and slightly left=
>, all=3D
>> > in b=3D3D
>> >> >lue.
>> >> >> >>>> 2- 6.34 seconds. 2 hits in orange (shoulder), one blue just le=
>ft =3D
>> >of
>> >> >> >>>> head.
>> >> >> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>> >> >> >>>> 4- 6.26 seconds. 1 hit orange in neck, 1 blue above shoudler, =
>> >> >> >>>> head.
>> >> >> >>>> 3- 6.44 seconds. 2 hits in orange at neck, one low in blue.
>1 b=3D
>> >lue
>> >> >> >>>> over head.
>> >> >> >>>> 5- 6.99 seconds. 1 hit orange in left shoulder, 1 blue just ov=
>er
>> >> >> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >> >> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Crossman had to take the rifle stock off his shoulder between =
>> >> >> >>>> shoulder, 1 blue higher
>> >> >> >>>> 6- 6.20 seconds. 2 hits in orange, 1 blue center low.
>>
>sho=3D
>> >ts =3D3D
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >>>> order to get leverage because of the sticky bolt action of the=
> ri=3D
>> >fle=3D3D
>> >> > (live
>> >> >> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Apparently not content with these limp results, CBS decided to=
>> >> >> >>>> Western Cartridge ammo was used in all the tests).
>>
> ta=3D
>> >ke
>> >> >> >>>> another stab at it in May with 11 of the finest marksmen they =
>cou=3D
>> >ld =3D3D
>> >> >find.
>> >> >> >>>> As with Crossman, all of them were allowed practice time with =
>the=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>> >> >mple
>> >> >> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Two important points to note are these: =3D3DA0First, the pers=
>> >> >> >>>> rifle at an indoor range prior to the actual shoot.
>>
>on wh=3D
>> >o rec=3D3D
>> >> >orded
>> >> >> >>>> the following results was the same person who supervised the t=
>est=3D
>> >s f=3D3D
>> >> >or CBS
>> >> >> >>>> both in January and May 1967, producer Walter Lister, a man wh=
>o b=3D
>> >ega=3D3D
>> >> >n his
>> >> >> >>>> participation in the CBS project with an unswerving faith in t=
>he =3D
>> >War=3D3D
>> >> >ren
>> >> >> >>>> Report and knew that his bosses were leaning in the same direc=
>tio=3D
>> >n. =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DA0The
>> >> >> >>>> January results specify in detail the degree of Col. Crossman'=
>s a=3D
>> >ccu=3D3D
>> >> >racy
>> >> >> >>>> within the orange silhouette. =3D3DA0In May, however, Lister w=
>as co=3D
>> >ntent=3D3D
>> >> > merely
>> >> >> >>>> with getting any hits anywhere within the orange silhouette, a=
>nd =3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >did
>> >> >> >>>> not specify to his bosses how good those hits really were (i.e=
>., =3D
>> >sho=3D3D
>> >> >ulder,
>> >> >> >>>> back, neck, head), except in the single best result that he ob=
>tai=3D
>> >ned=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0If
>> >> >> >>>> CBS ever releases the film outtakes, maybe we'll get a chance =
>to =3D
>> >see=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Second, in total, the 11 marksmen made 37 attempts to duplicat=
>e O=3D
>> >swa=3D3D
>> >> >ld's
>> >> >> >>>> feat. =3D3DA0However, what CBS reported on its 1992 tape (just=
> as t=3D
>> >hey d=3D3D
>> >> >id back
>> >> >> >>>> in 1967) was the average time (5.6 seconds) to fire 3 shots at=
> th=3D
>> >e m=3D3D
>> >> >oving
>> >> >> >>>> target ONLY IN THE 20 TIMES OUT OF 37 THAT THEY CHOSE TO "COUN=
>T" =3D
>> >AS =3D3D
>> >> >THEIR
>> >> >> >>>> "OFFICIAL RECORD" OF THE TEST. =3D3DA0What happened in the oth=
>er 17=3D
>> > case=3D3D
>> >> >s?
>> >> >> >>>> Either a bullet jammed in the bolt-cycling process, or the bal=
>ky =3D
>> >bol=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> >>>> action slowed up the marksmen so much that the target complete=
>d i=3D
>> >ts =3D3D
>> >> >run
>> >> >> >>>> before they could get off their third shot. =3D3DA0Of course, =
>CBS n=3D
>> >ever =3D3D
>> >> >told its
>> >> >> >>>> audience about these problems. The following were ALL the resu=
>lts=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >>>> including those 20 attempts that CBS carefully selected to "co=
>unt=3D
>> >" (=3D3D
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >>>> you will notice that Howard Donahue, of "Mortal Error" renown,=
> pe=3D
>> >rfo=3D3D
>> >> >rmed
>> >> >> >>>> the best):
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >> >> >>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
>> >> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 3 hits in orange silhouette grouped in head area=
>> >> >> >>>> the best):
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 1. Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 2 hits in orange silouhette, 1 blue low
>> >> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue high (1st 2 shots in 2.2 seconds)
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed at third cartridge
>> >> >> >>>> 5.2 seconds - 1 hit, two low
>> >> >> >>>> 5.0 seconds - 1 hit, 2 upper left blue
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 2. Ron George, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 2nd shot; 3rd fired very late
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 3rd bullet jammed
>> >> >> >>>> 4.9 seconds - 2 hits, 1 blue upper right
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 3. John Concini, Maryland State Trooper
>> >> >> >>>> 6.3 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>> >> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- 1 hit in silhouette, 2 blues "just low"
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 4. Howard Donahue, weapons engineer
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- second bullet jammed
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after first shot
> (b=3D
>> >est
>> >> >> >>>> target)
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>> >> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 3 borderline hits, low & left along silhouette =
>> >> >> >>>> target)
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 5. William Fitchett, sporting goods dealder
>bor=3D
>> >der
>> >> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >> >> >>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >> >> >>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >> >> >>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- 2 shots in 5 seconds; 3 shots in 9 seconds; gives u=
>> >> >> >>>> 6.0 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 low blue
>> >> >> >>>> 6.1 seconds -- number of hits unreported
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 6. Somerset Fitchett, sportsman
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed at 3rd bullet
>> >> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 wide left
>> >> >> >>>> 5.5 seconds -- 2 hits, 1 low
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 7. John Bollendorf, ballistics technician
>> >> >> >>>> 6.8 seconds - 2 hits in silhouette, 1 blue low left
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam again
>> >> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 1 orange hit, 2 near misses blue upper left
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 8. Douglas Bazemore, ex-paratrooper (Viet vet)
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- stiff bolt action
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- unable to work bolt fast enough
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- just too stiff for him
>p
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>> >> >> >>>> 5.9 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 1 blue, 1 nowhere (missed target =
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 9. Carl Holden, H.P. White employee
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- bolt jammed after 1st shot
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed again
>> >> >> >>>> 5.4 seconds -- tight group of 3 hits in blue high right
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 10. Sid Price, H.P. White employee
>com=3D
>> >ple=3D3D
>> >> >tely)
>> >> >> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >> >>>> 6.5 seconds -- 2 blues close to silhouette, 1 completely misse=
>> >> >> >>>> 4.3 seconds -- no hits reported
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jam after 2nd shot
>> >> >> >>>> 4.1 seconds -- 1 hit orange, 2 complete misses (off blue)
>>
>> >> >> >>>> 11. Charles Hamby, H.P. White employee
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>> >> >> >>>> NO TIME -- jammed
>d t=3D
>> >arg=3D3D
>> >> >et
>>
>> >> >> >>>> We can safely assume that, in all of these final round tests, =
>the=3D
>> > ri=3D3D
>> >> >fle
>> >> >> >>>> scope was carefully calibrated and properly fitted. =3D3DA0The=
> same=3D
>> > was =3D3D
>> >> >not
>> >> >> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> I've mentioned speed, accuracy, experience and recent practice=
>> >> >> >>>> necessarily so for the presumed assassination weapon.
>>
> (n=3D
>> >o o=3D3D
>> >> >ne has
>> >> >> >>>> satisfactorily proved that Oswald took target practice before =
>the
>> >> >> >>>> assassination). =3D3DA0In the end, one must also consider the =
>diffe=3D
>> >rence=3D3D
>> >> > between
>> >> >> >>>> what is theoretically or hypothetically possible under optimum=
> co=3D
>> >ntr=3D3D
>> >> >olled
>> >> >> >>>> conditions, and what is reasonably probable and plausible in t=
>erm=3D
>> >s o=3D3D
>> >> >f the
>> >> >> >>>> actual circumstances on 11/22/63. =3D3DA0To quote Josiah Thomp=
>son: =3D
>> >"Of t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >>>> thirty-seven firing runs only ten (27 percent) were fired in 5=
>.6 =3D
>> >sec=3D3D
>> >> >onds
>> >> >> >>>> or less. =3D3DA0On these runs the marksmen made anywhere from =
>zero =3D
>> >to th=3D3D
>> >> >ree hits
>> >> >> >>>> -- their average was 1.3 hits for every 3 shots fired. =3D3DA0=
>Takin=3D
>> >g int=3D3D
>> >> >o
>> >> >> >>>> account all the runs fired in less than 7.5 seconds, the avera=
>ge =3D
>> >was=3D3D
>> >> > 1.2
>> >> >> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Is this the same as saying that "Oswald's shooting feat was ne=
>> >> >> >>>> hits for every three shots fired."
>>
>ver
>> >> >> >>>> equaled?" =3D3DA0Well, let's hope that it never is. =3D3DA0But=
> so as =3D
>> >not to =3D3D
>> >> >evade your
>> >> >> >>>> point, the complete answer is: Within the universe of Mannlich=
>er-=3D
>> > Ca=3D3D
>> >> >rcano
>> >> >> >>>> rifles probably not in theory, but his alleged feat has never =
>bee=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> >>>> duplicated with the actual rifle in evidence that he was alleg=
>ed =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >have
>> >> >> >>>> used. =3D3DA0However, to believe that Oswald did what the WC s=
>ays h=3D
>> >e did=3D3D
>> >> >, you
>> >> >> >>>> have to believe not only that he was as good as the very best =
>of =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> >se
>> >> >> >>>> topflight marksmen in his only successful attempt out of three=
> af=3D
>> >ter
>> >> >> >>>> indoor practice, but also that Oswald had an extraordinarily l=
>uck=3D
>> >y d=3D3D
>> >> >ay
>> >> >> >>>> without his rifle jamming on him. =3D3DA0CBS tried to be both =
>the j=3D
>> >udge =3D3D
>> >> >and jury
>> >> >> >>>> for the rest of the country. =3D3DA0Now that you have the info=
>rmati=3D
>> >on, j=3D3D
>> >> >udge for
>> >> >> >>>> yourself.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> -roger-
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Yes, jamming will cause a bent case lip. =3D3DA0So will extra=
>ction=3D
>> >. =3D3DA0=3D3D
>> >> >Again Marsh, you
>> >> >> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> How does a clean extration cause the rifle to jam? Demonstrate=
>> >> >> >>>>> don't know if the rifle jammed or not.
>>
> th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >>>> process on YouTube.
>>
>> >> >> >>> Okay Marsh. =3D3DA0Right after you give me a credible reference=
> that=3D
>> > jamm=3D3D
>> >> >ing is the
>> >> >> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> A clean extraction will not cause a dented case lip and you ca=
>> >> >> >>> only thing that causes a bent case lip.
>>
>n't=3D
>> > sh=3D3D
>> >> >ow
>> >> >> >>>> any such examples. Josiah Thompson was not able to duplicate t=
>he
>> >> >> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
>> >> >> >>> It certainly can cause a dented case lip, I've seen it too many=
>> >> >> >>>> condition of that shell.
>>
> ti=3D
>> >mes=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0And
>> >> >> >>> evidently Josiah Thompson didn't have the right rifle.
>>
>> >> >> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> You think Oswald missed on shot out of the three you think=
>>
>> >> >> >> Huh? Can't you tell just by looking which rifle Tink has?
>>
> he=3D
>> > fi=3D3D
>> >> >red. But
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> you need to count hitting Connally as missing his primary =
>tar=3D
>> >get=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 He missed a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary target at 120 feet. The scope was defecti=
>ve =3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> > damaged.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know if this damage was before Oswald kille=
>d J=3D
>> >FK =3D3D
>> >> >or after the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where's your proof that the cops dropped it. You could=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cops dropped it.
>>
> al=3D
>> >so =3D3D
>> >> >claim and
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 The
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> elephant stepped on it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> iron sights were fixed and preset for 200 meters so =
>a p=3D
>> >erf=3D3D
>> >> >ect aim at a
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point 270 feet away would send the bullet to a point=
> 5-=3D
>> >6 i=3D3D
>> >> >nches about the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't a clue about what makes an accurate rifle=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point of aim. That is not what I call accuracy.
>>
>. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0A=3D3D
>> >> >nd again you
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fudge the mid range height which even Ben Holmes know=
>s i=3D
>> >s 4=3D3D
>> >> > inched. =3D3DA0Now
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Marsh, find the mid point of the back of your head an=
>d m=3D
>> >eas=3D3D
>> >> >ure up 4
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inches. =3D3DA0The bullet still blows the top of your=
> head=3D
>> > off =3D3D
>> >> >doesn't it?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Measure up 4 inches from the cowlick and the bullet mi=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Same same as Dallas that day.
>>
>sse=3D
>> >s.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Who said Oswald was aiming at the cowlick, hardly an ou=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And show me your scientific proof of 4 "inched."
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You pulled that number out of your ass.
>>
>tst=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> >ing target at
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> So now you claim it that he aimed at the EOP and the bul=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> close to 100 yards.
>>
>let=3D
>> > we=3D3D
>> >> >nt up 4
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't know where he aimed. =3D3DA0You don't either.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> inches to the cowlick?
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0But you opined that he aimed for th=
>e middle =3D
>> >of the he=3D3D
>> >> >ad.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> No, I was trying to show you, as simply as required, that t=
>he =3D
>> >4 i=3D3D
>> >> >nches doesn't
>> >> >> >>>>>>> necessary make a missed shot. =3D3DA0I've been trying to ex=
>plain=3D
>> > batt=3D3D
>> >> >le zero to you
>> >> >> >>>>>>> for years now. =3D3DA0You just don't get it.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> So you have a head that is less than 4 inches in height? =3D3=
>> >> >> >>>>>> Aiming at the head it does.
>>
>DA0I =3D
>> >belie=3D3D
>> >> >ve you but I've
>> >> >> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>> >> >> >>>> The placement of the head wound by the HSCA was at the TOP of =
>> >> >> >>>>> seen pictures of JFK and his head was much taller.
>>
>the=3D
>> > he=3D3D
>> >> >ad.
>>
>> >> >> >>> So measure down only 4 inches and you will see where Oswald was=
> ai=3D
>> >min=3D3D
>> >> >g. =3D3DA0Now do
>> >> >> >>> you get it? =3D3DA0Hell no, you'll never understand common know=
>ledge=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >> So now you backtrack and claim that he was aiming at the EOP and=
> hi=3D
>> >t t=3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> >> cowlick 4 inches higher? But years ago when I said that he was a=
>imi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >> for Walker's head, but the bullet went 5 or 6 inches above the l=
>ine=3D
>> > of
>> >> >> >> sight and hit the window frame, you said that was impossible and=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> >> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>> >> >> >> Something is possible when YOU claim it, but it is impossible wh=
>> >> >> >> bullet can not rise that high above the point of aim.
>> >> >> >> Seems you change your tune to match what you want to debunk.
>en =3D
>> >I
>> >> >> >> claim it.
>>
>> >> >> > The bullet never rises Marsh. =3D3DA0Simple laws of physics. =3D3=
>DA0You =3D
>> >cannot =3D3D
>> >> >adjust the
>> >> >> > line of bore or the line of trajectory. =3D3DA0The only thing you=
> can =3D
>> >adjus=3D3D
>> >> >t is the
>> >> >> > line of sight by adjusting the scope. =3D3DA0Now think about it a=
> bit.
>>
>> >> >> I did not say line of bore or line of trajectory. I said line of si=
>ght=3D
>> >.
>> >> >> Stick to the topic. The sights on a gun are designed to cause the b=
>ull=3D
>> >et
>> >> >> to rise above the line of sight. That's why there are sights for an=
>y w=3D
>> >eap=3D3D
>> >> >on.> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Not if you want to claim that he was aimingat the feet you m=
>>
>> >> >> >>> Bill Clarke
>>
>igh=3D
>> >t h=3D3D
>> >> >ave a point.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> So you have a man that is less that 4 inches from feet to top=
> of=3D
>> > he=3D3D
>> >> >ad? =3D3DA0I gotta
>> >> >> >>>>> have a reference on that one Marsh. =3D3DA0You do understand.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> You are an expert on pulling stuff out of your ass. =3D=
>3DA0R=3D
>> >un it=3D3D
>> >> > yourself. =3D3DA0I
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> believe Emary mentions the 4 inches himself.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Fine, but when I say 4 inches you say no, it was a flat =
>>
>tra=3D
>> >jec=3D3D
>> >> >tory.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-ca=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> You ignore when Emary says 5-6 inches.
>>
>lcu=3D
>> >lat=3D3D
>> >> >or
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results of course is the evident fact that JFK =
>is =3D
>> >qui=3D3D
>> >> >te dead.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that Oswald's rifle was defective and cause=
>d t=3D
>> >he =3D3D
>> >> >shooter to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> miss is what necessitated the insurance shot from th=
>e g=3D
>> >ras=3D3D
>> >> >sy knoll,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes indeed, the grassy knoll. =3D3DA0Sure.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which revealed the conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The MC Rifle has had many critics, and yet was used=
> ex=3D
>> >ten=3D3D
>> >> >sively for many
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, it was used while they knew it was a piece of =
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, and there are many variants of the:
>>
>jun=3D
>> >k a=3D3D
>> >> >nd phasing it
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Fucile di Fanteria Mod. 91/38" =3D3DA0which is the=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out for a better model.
>>
> corr=3D
>> >ect n=3D3D
>> >> >ame.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re: the ammo::: The small bore cartridges seem to h=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe if you are an Italian. We are Americans.
>>
>ave=3D
>> > a =3D3D
>> >> >long list of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantages, as flatness of trajectory, outstanding =
>pen=3D
>> >etr=3D3D
>> >> >ation at
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, less weight, less recoil, smaller dimensi=
>ons=3D
>> >, a=3D3D
>> >> >nd less
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually a good bit of it is true. =3D3DA0Do you know=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material required in production.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of that is true.
>>
> why =3D
>> >our m=3D3D
>> >> >ilitary went to
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not the same type of bullet. Because there were smalle=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the .223 round?
>>
>r, =3D
>> >lig=3D3D
>> >> >hter, faster
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and those little soldiers in Vietnam could carry twice=
> th=3D
>> >e n=3D3D
>> >> >umber of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is that a good bit of what was p=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bullets for the same weight.
>>
>ost=3D
>> >ed =3D3D
>> >> >is indeed
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> true. Good.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that the real reason had nothing to do=
> wi=3D
>> >th =3D3D
>> >> >Carcanos.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Weak Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, all in all not really a bad weapon for the purp=
>ose=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.5 mm Carcanos were equipped with a wide variety of=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good enough to cause Italy to lose the war.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Dave Emary said:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt that is what caused Italy to lose the war.
>>
> si=3D
>> >ght=3D3D
>> >> >s. Early model
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> M91 series rifles had adjustable sights with a fixed=
> ba=3D
>> >ttl=3D3D
>> >> >e zero sight.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most models of rifles made just before or during WWI=
>I h=3D
>> >ad =3D3D
>> >> >fixed sights.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The exception to this was the M41 model. From a user=
> st=3D
>> >and=3D3D
>> >> >point the WWII
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era Carcano's sights are the model of effectiveness =
>and=3D
>> > si=3D3D
>> >> >mplicity. The
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle=
> si=3D
>> >ght=3D3D
>> >> > being at 300
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meters was probably not the greatest decision but re=
>fle=3D
>> >cte=3D3D
>> >> >d the trend of
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that time. With this sight setting the rifles would =
>hav=3D
>> >e a=3D3D
>> >> > maximum height
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of trajectory of approximately 15"-17" at a range of=
> 17=3D
>> >5 t=3D3D
>> >> >o 200 yards,
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on barrel length. I suspect more than one =
>Aus=3D
>> >tri=3D3D
>> >> >an soldiers life
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was spared in WWI because someone shot over his head=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ammo of course is an even more *interesting* is=
>sue=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at I am still
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Diameter. I have three different brands of ammo, eac=
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking into.
>>
>h w=3D
>> >ith=3D3D
>> >> > a different
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullet diameter. Which one shoots better, the 0.256,=
> 0.=3D
>> >264=3D3D
>> >> >, or 0.268?
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what Oswald's ammo was. Which is what the ori=
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The 0.268.
>>
>gin=3D
>> >al =3D3D
>> >> >Italian SMI
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 Considering the terrible condition that the Mannlicher-Carcano
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ammo was.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Good going Marsh.
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> >attributed to Oswald was in when it was looked at and tested by the F=
>BI,
>> >> >there's no chance that anyone, sharpshooter or not, could hit the bro=
>ad
>> >> >side of a barn from inside it. =3DA0From the testimony of Frazier and=
> Simm=3D
>> >ons
>> >> >to the WC, it was clear that a gunsmith had to rework the rifle just =
>to
>> >> >feel safe shooting it without breaking the firing pin, to get the sco=
>pe =3D
>> >to
>> >> >aim properly, and getting the bolt to work more smoothly. =3DA0Detail=
>s if
>> >> >requested.
>>
>> >> >Chris
>>
>> >> What did they do to the rifle to make it safer?
>>
>> >> Forget the firing pin argument, you need to understand that you do not=
>> >> >requested.
>>
>> >> >Chris
>>
>> >> What did they do to the rifle to make it safer?
>>
> sn=3D
>> >ap the
>> >> rifle on an empty chamber. =3DA0That is why the boys didn't pull the t=
>rigge=3D
>> >r when
>> >> they were practicing with the rifle. =3DA0They knew that act could bre=
>ak th=3D
>> >e firing
>> >> pin on a brand new gun.
>>
>> >> Getting the bolt to work more smoothly doesn't improve the safety, it =
>> >> pin on a brand new gun.
>>
>imp=3D
>> >roves
>> >> the operation. =3DA0And one of the FBI boys said the action was smooth=
>. =3DA0=3D
>> >So what the
>> >> hell?
>>
>> >> Bill Clarke
>>
>> > =A0Bill,
>> >> hell?
>>
>> >> Bill Clarke
>>
>> > =A0 =A0I just posted the details on this thread further down. =A0Check =
>it
>> >out. =A0But to answer your immediate questions, the rifle wasn't new.
>> >It was bought used and probably used back in WW2 is my guess. =A0The
>> >rifle according to Robert Frazier of the FBI labs had wear and
>> >corrosion, and the lands and grooves were worn down. =A0But the zinger
>> >that you were mentioning was the fear that working the bolt would
>> >break the firing pin. =A0But they weren't afraid of that after it went
>> >to a guinsmith for work, like adjusting the scope which was out of
>> >order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
>> >Probably used some gun oil or such. =A0 Each tester after that worked
>> >order, and doing something to make the firing pin fears go away.
>> >the bolt for 2-3 minutes to free it up. =A0 The details all include the
>> >actual testimonty of the 2 FBI experts that worked with the actual
>> >rifle that Oswald bought. =A0Catch ya later.
>>
>> >Chris
>>
>> Yes Chris, I understand it was military surplus and I've noted that these
>> weapons vary greatly in the wear and tear they have received, including h=
>> >Chris
>>
>> Yes Chris, I understand it was military surplus and I've noted that these
>ow many
>> rounds have been fired to wear the rifling down. =A0I understand that Osw=
>ald's
>> rifle was well worn and used. =A0But this doesn't make it inoperable or d=
>angerous
>> to shoot. =A0It makes it more difficult to make a good shot but certainly=
> not
>> impossible.
>>
>> If I remember your message concerning Frazer and Simmons they were not af=
>raid to
>> work the bolt but were afraid to pulled trigger for fear of breaking the =
>firing
>> pin. =A0This is true for any rifle. =A0You don't snap the firing pin on a=
mounted on the rifle to allow the clip to be inserted into the rifle.
This side mount allows you to either use the scope or the open sights.
It also, in my opinion, makes the scope hard to use since it is not
mounted over the receiver like is normally seen. Oswald wouldn't have had
to take the scope off to use the iron sights. Therefore he wouldn't have
to put the scope back on. Also the range Oswald was shooting didn't
require a scope. He could reacquire his target after each shot with the
iron sights than with the scope. But we don't know which he used; scope
or iron sights.
b. Frazer said the bolt was smooth but yet they had trouble with the
bolt. You seem to discount Frazer so we will assume that the bolt was
hard to operate. This would be another reason Oswald used the iron sights
to get back on target faster. Most rifles with as much wear as Oswald's
showed have sloppy or loosed bolts due to the wear. I wonder what caused
his rifle to have a hard bolt?
c. The poor trigger pull, the pitted and worn bore all are detrimental to
accuracy. No doubt this wasn't an accurate rifle in my opinion. But
again at the distance JFK was from Oswald you wouldn't have to have a tack
driver. It would help but I'm not saying Oswald's rifle couldn't do the
job it did.
No doubt the rifle was a dog but a dog can still bite you.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Nov 20, 2012, 10:46:33 PM11/20/12
to
In article <e00a791d-05e9-4401...@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Nov 19, 5:19=A0pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
>c9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=3Den&q=3D%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%2=
said "in the case of Oswald's rifle" or something like that.
I love to watch Marsh do his side step shuffle.
Thanks for the link.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Nov 19, 5:19=A0pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
>wrote:
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thanks, John. I posted that very quote to Mr. Marsh some
>time ago:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/d=
>> Here's what the HSCA Firearms Panel said about it:
>>
>> (218) In the opinion of the panel, the dent on the mouth of the CE 543
>> case (one of three found on the sixth floor) was made by the CE 139 rifle
>> during ejection. The panel duplicated the dent when it test-fired the
>> rifle.
>>
>> John F.
>
> Thanks, John. I posted that very quote to Mr. Marsh some
>time ago:
>
>c9ac49a81c39ccf/18f4f3f4155ffee9?hl=3Den&q=3D%22panel+duplicated+the+dent%2=
>2+author:Jean+author:davison
>
> Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
>
>Jean
I believe Marsh is feeling the heat. Today he is claiming that that he
>
> Of course it made no dent at all in his opinion.
>
>Jean
said "in the case of Oswald's rifle" or something like that.
I love to watch Marsh do his side step shuffle.
Thanks for the link.
Bill Clarke
mainframetech
Nov 20, 2012, 10:51:19 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 9, 12:26 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 2:48 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>
> >> A pro would have to use a military surplus rifle if he was told it was
> >> needed to frame the patsy.
>
> > Do you have any evidence LHO was framed?
>
> Nothing that you would accept.
That's an easy one. Since the throat and kill shots came from the
front of JFK, it didn't come from the TSBD. This is attested to by
witnesses at Parkland hospital.
Start with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
Chris
> On 11/8/2012 2:48 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>
> >> A pro would have to use a military surplus rifle if he was told it was
> >> needed to frame the patsy.
>
> > Do you have any evidence LHO was framed?
>
> Nothing that you would accept.
That's an easy one. Since the throat and kill shots came from the
front of JFK, it didn't come from the TSBD. This is attested to by
witnesses at Parkland hospital.
Start with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c
Chris
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages