FOR BROKEDAD
tomnln
You must have MISSED the testimony of Oswald's Sgt. Nelson Delgado.
Volume VIII pages 236-239.
Oswald was a Lousy shot.
We sometimes ALTERED scores to make the unit look good.
Oswald never hit anything he aimed at with a SHOTGUN
Volume V page 405.
"Brokedad" <tempty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192716552.9...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 8:30?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Brokedad wrote:
>> > On Oct 13, 10:33?am, r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >> On Oct 10, 9:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >>>> On Oct 7, 7:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >>>> SNIP
>> >>>> > > On a few occasions, long after being out of the military, i
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> been t=
>> >>>>> o a=20
>> >>>>>> shooting range, firing at a target at 100 yards. I had no trouble
>> >>>>>> hitt=
>> >>>>> ing=20
>> >>>>>> the target. It did not require great skill or experience to do
>> >>>>>> so. I=20
>> >>>>>> have not been to a range in over 5 years, but i doubt i would have
>> >>>>>> trou=
>> >>>>> ble=20
>> >>>>>> hitting target at 100 yards.
>> >>>>>> =20
>> >>>>> Not with a Mannlicher-Carcano. You are comparing apples and
>> >>>>> oranges.> ***Ron Judge
>> >>>>>> =20
>> >>>>>> =20
>> >>>> ***With an M-16, i had no trouble hitting the closest target. Same
>> >>>> with a co-workers M-1 Garand, which i had never fired before. i do
>> >>>> not think i am comparing apples and oranges.
>> >>> Yes, you are. The midrange trajectories are vastly different.
>> >> ***Oswald would not have been firing at a target over 100 yards away,
>> >> thus it is irrelavent what the difference is between an M-16 and an
>> >> M-1, at 300 yards, in terms of trajectories. Oswald had trouble
>> >> hitting the farther range target, and so did i, regardless of the
>> >> differences of trajectory of the particular rifle.
>> >> A target at 300 yards is smaller than a target at 100 yards and thus
>> >> from that perspective alone, is harder to hit.
>>
>> >> ***Ron Judge- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > "Oswald had trouble hitting the farther range target"
>>
>> > Actually!
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > LHO, on the 500 yard slow-fire range, scored 46 out of a possible 50
>> > points. (92nd percentile)
>> > Whereas it required only the 88th percentile overall average for
>> > qualification for EXPERT.
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > On the 300- yard rapid fire range, he also scored 46 out of a possible
>> > 50 points.
>> > Again demonstrating his marksmanship ability.
>>
>> Very misleading. You are generalizing from the exception. Tell everyone
>> what Maggie's Drawers means.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > However!
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > During the 300-yard slow fire exercise, the winds had increased to a
>> > purported 5mph, coming almost directly from left to right.
>> > Which in turn affected/carried bullet impact farther to the right.
>>
>> > LHO began shooting with a windage of:------------2R
>> > After one shot, he changed this to only:-----------1R (moved sighting
>> > back to left to compensate for wind)
>> > Then he again changed the windage to:-------------0 (moved sighting
>> > further back to left to compensate)
>> > Then he again changed the windage to:-----------1L (moved sighting
>> > further back to left to compensate)
>> > Then he again changed the windage to:-----------2L (moved sighting
>> > further back to left to compensate)
>>
>> > Thus! LHO was, through trial & error, attempting to correct his
>> > shooting accuracy during actual rangefire qualification.
>>
>> > Final Score: 37 out of possible 50 = 74th percentile
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > According to the "Windage" formula, 1.5 clicks to the left should have
>> > corrected for the purported 5mph crosswind.
>> > (3 X 5 = 15/10 = 1.5 clicks).
>>
>> > However, LHO ultimately moved his sighting by 4-clicks to the left
>> > (+2R initially to -2L final), and yet, was still impacting fully right
>> > of target.
>> > Based on the actual shot pattern grouping, this is more in line with
>> > an incorrect reported wind speed, than what would appear to be shooter
>> > error.
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > This is re-inforced by his previous day's practice in which he finally
>> > acquired the "ZERO" setting of 2R, and thereafter placed shots# 8, 9,
>> > & 10 within the "5"/"4" & "4" target circles.
>>
>> > It would appear that all of these purported "shooters", as well as
>> > many others, have been far too busy chasing mythological beings and
>> > have thusly not had time to deal with the FACTS of LHO's excellent
>> > marksmanship abililty.
>>
>> > Of course, one must understand something before they can explain it to
>> > others!
>>
>> All of his Marine experience could not help him with the piece of junk
>> Mannlicher-Carcano.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0343b.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0344a.htm
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0345a.htm
>
> Note: 12--"5's & 6- "4"'s certainly looks like a "shooter" to me!
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0346a.htm
>
> 46 out of possible 50----aka 92 out of possible 100-----aka 92nd
> percentile rating.
>
> Anthony!
>
> Since "higher math" appears to be above you, perhaps the pictures will
> help.
>
> P.S. Add the total for the actual day of Rangefire Qualification, and one
> comes to a total score of 417, not the "handwirtten" score of 412/ mm
> which has been forged into LHO's Service Record.
>
> 417 = 3 points below that score necessary to qualify as EXPERT (420), and
> this with having completely "blown" one firing station.
>
> P.P.S. Exactly what about application for Albert Schweitzer College in
> March 1959, when the purported requalification firing record of 191
> occurred in May 1959. Do you think LHO gave a RA about anything related to
> the USMC when he was already working towards an "Early Out" based on a
> quite fraudulent 'Hardship" discharge?
>
> Exactlly what portion of "Don't give a Rat's A** " was it that you also
> failed to understand?
>
>
Gil Jesus
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
> You must have MISSED the testimony of Oswald's Sgt. Nelson Delgado.
>
> Volume VIII pages 236-239.
>
> Oswald was a Lousy shot.
> We sometimes ALTERED scores to make the unit look good.
>
> Oswald never hit anything he aimed at with a SHOTGUN
> Volume V page 405.
Tom:
Maybe he didn't miss it. Maybe he can't read.
For those who can't read, here's the VIDEO of Delgado explaining how
BAD a shot Oswald was:
justm...@gmail.com
Of course you've scarfed a video, its irrelevent. How good/bad of a
shot LHO was doesn't matter. And why would anyone believe Delgado just
because he "Says" so? It took LHO 3 shots to accomplish his mission.
Whether he was a good shot or not is irrelevent, he did what he set
out to do. He had the knowledge of weapons and the experience shooting
them...luck was on his side that day and he hit his target. Deal with
it Bigot!
Brokedad
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
"luck was on his side that day"
Actually!
One does not require a great amount of marksmanship skill or "luck" to
accomplish:
1. A hit at an approximate slope distance range of 60 to 61 yards.
(184 feet)
2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later, a second hit a an approximate slope
distance range of 80 to 81 yards. (242 feet) aka/Z313 headshot.
However!
3. The "SnapShot" which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and
which also impacted the rear of the neck/head of JFK, was most
probably as much luck as it was skill as the limited time lapse for
this shot virtually eliminates any possibility that the scope on the
rifle was utilized.
Which shot by the way was only approximately 98 yards/294-feet slope
distance!
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
P.S.----For Mr. Von Pein!
That "Snap Shot" down in front of James Altgens position is the shot
in which the bullet passed through JFK's coat at the edge of the
collar, just prior to striking JFK in the back of the head/neck at the
lower edge of the hairline.
Were you ever going to post that information relative to how you
"Know" that the second bullet entrance hole through the coat of JFK
(the one up at the edge of the collar) was not a bullet hole???????
I for one would certainly like to know exactly who it was that relayed
that information to you, as each and every FBI Agent of the
Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI Lab has personally denied
to me that it represents where any "comparison sample" was taken.
But, just perhaps JFK was so poor that he went around wearing a coat
which had holes in it which coincidentally aligned perfectly with the
bullet entrance wound into the scalp at the edge of the hairline at
the base of the head.
tomnln
Volume III poages 446-447.
"Brokedad" <tempty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192809698.1...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
JFK had "ONE" Hole in the back of his jacket.
It was 5 3/4 inches below the top of his collar.
WCR page 92.
I LOVE it when LN's address evidence/testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> Of course you've scarfed a video, its irrelevent. How good/bad of a
> shot LHO was doesn't matter. And why would anyone believe Delgado just
> because he "Says" so? It took LHO 3 shots to accomplish his mission.
> Whether he was a good shot or not is irrelevent, he did what he set
> out to do. He had the knowledge of weapons and the experience shooting
> them...luck was on his side that day and he hit his target. Deal with
> it Bigot!
Sure he did. No one else in the world could do it including the best
the military had to offer (and this is without a tree in the way), but
LHO did? What a lame brain.
Burly...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sir,
Where are you getting this from?
There was no entrance wound at "the edge of the hairline at the base
of the head", nor was there a hole located at ''the edge of the
collar'' on the suit coat.
Please explain.
robc...@netscape.com
> Actually!
>
> One does not require a great amount of marksmanship skill or "luck" to
> accomplish:
>
> 1. A hit at an approximate slope distance range of 60 to 61 yards.
> (184 feet)
>
> 2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later, a second hit a an approximate slope
> distance range of 80 to 81 yards. (242 feet) aka/Z313 headshot.
>
> However!
>
> 3. The "SnapShot" which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and
> which also impacted the rear of the neck/head of JFK, was most
> probably as much luck as it was skill as the limited time lapse for
> this shot virtually eliminates any possibility that the scope on the
> rifle was utilized.
>
> Which shot by the way was only approximately 98 yards/294-feet slope
> distance!
Let's:
1) buy a piece of crap gun just like Oswald's - bent scope included
2) replant a giant tree in the LOS
3) give you only 3 bullets as no clip was found
4) put you in the same window and let's see how easy it is. We'll
even let you practice for a week unlike LHO.
Good luck!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think Chico better take his other identity and head for the
hills...and if you're not Chico then you better go bury your head in
the sand. You sound like a ranting little child trying to get their
way. Not to mention the stupid comments you make. Isn't there a
kiddy site you can post at?
Ben Holmes
says...
Sadly, experts with far more knowledge than you disagree.
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md20/html/Image03.htm
Dr. Petty- Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the
margin of the hair in the back?
Dr. Humes- Yes, sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. It also helps if one has spoken with Dr. Boswell on the subject
of the actual entrance into the scalp. And, the autopsy surgeons have
argued this point many times.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to
have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to
the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a
defect, one margin of which is semicircular.
Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is
our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially
with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.
Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have
described, does that go all the way through?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--
wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the
one below.
Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same
course?
Commander HUMES - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer
side?
Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.
Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I
might say, continues on through the material.
Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half
of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by
experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also
that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my
interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the
control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect
is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that
defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.
NOPE!
Better come up with more than some "note from Mom"/aka memorandum!
The top/edge of collar hole is the bullet penetration for the third/
last/final shot, which after having gone through the coat on an actute/
oblique angle, thereafter struck JFK in the edge of the hairline at
the base of the skull.
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md20/html/Image03.htm
Dr. Humes- Yes, sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
NOPE!
oblique angle, thereafter struck JFK in the edge of the hairline at
the base of the skull.
I would hope that your research would consist of more than listening
to the yahoo's on this forum.
tomnln
There was only ONE hole in JFK's Jacket at 5 3/4 inches below the top of the
collar.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Page 92 of the WCR.
"Brokedad" <tempty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192838222.6...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Brokedad
> CE-385 is a "Drawing" of JFK with an arrow through the neck.
>
> There was only ONE hole in JFK's Jacket at 5 3/4 inches below the top of the
> collar.
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
> Page 92 of the WCR.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "JFK had "ONE" Hole in the back of his jacket.
It was 5 3/4 inches below the top of his collar.
WCR page 92."
"I LOVE it when LN's address evidence/testimony."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony of Dr. Humes:
Situated to
the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a
defect,
Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect
Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have
described, does that go all the way through?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when those who expouse conspiracy do not even know that
there were two bullet holes through the back of the coat of JFK.
"There was only ONE hole in JFK's Jacket at 5 3/4 inches below the top
of the
collar."
Well! You got 50% of the examination correct. Now, if and when you
include the other hole which is located up at the edge of the coat
collar, then you will at least know that the coat had two holes which
penetrated the outer fabric as well as the inner liner.
"CE-385 is a "Drawing" of JFK with an arrow through the neck."
And, had you also done your homework on that one, then you would also
know that the WC stated that the downward angle of fire for the first
shot was approximately 17-degrees, 43-minutes, and 30-seconds
downward.
Yet, the "arrow" as you say, only has a downward angle of
approximately 11-degrees downward.
Some 6-degrees, 43-minutes, and 30-seconds shy of the WC's downward
angle of fire.
But of course, you knew that also didn't you?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11330&pid=123302&st=0&
The below attachement is only to make a point to another of the
"yahoo's" who have not taken the time to correlate what the WC has
stated, with what they have drawn.
Some may have seen this, nevertheless, it is quite typical of all of
the "cartoon character" drawings which the WC utilized.
David Von Pein
I love it when kooks like Thomas H. Purvis decide to just make up shit
to meet their nutty requirements.
TWO "bullet" holes in the coat, eh? What a kook. .....
ARLEN SPECTER -- Would you refer at this time to the coat {of JFK}, if
you please, which, may the record show, has heretofore been marked as
Commission Exhibit 393. And by referring to that coat will you
describe what, if anything, you observed on the rear side of the coat?
BOB FRAZIER -- There was located on the rear of the coat 5 3/8 inches
below the top of the collar, a hole, further located as 1 3/4 inches
to the right of the midline or the seam down the center of the coat;
all of these being as you look at the back of the coat.
==========
Frazier never said a word about a SECOND bullet hole in JFK's coat.
But, I guess Purvis must believe that Frazier just overlooked the
SECOND bullet hole...or, better still, Frazier must be a rotten,
crooked LIAR. Right, Purv-Kook?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bbcd3f516de37fa