Oswald's Shooting Ability: A Moot Point.
Chuck Schuyler
Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
None of it matters. Zero.
Why?
Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
the limo and CE399.
Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
Brokedad
Unfortunately, not so!
In event that I were attempting to sell "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed
Then I most assuredly would not want it known that LHO was in fact a
SUPERIOR shot when shooting from a fixed position at targets of 300
yards or less. (which by the way, he was)
Sort of makes "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" slightly more difficult to
"swallow" when one adds in this essential variable.
jas
Good point.
Sometimes it takes a post like this to make it so clear.
claviger
> On Jan 20, 1:41 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is a current thread arguing Oswald's shooting ability--his
> > Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
> > not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
> > rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
>
> > None of it matters. Zero.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
> > the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
> > ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
> > the limo and CE399.
>
> > Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
> > He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> Unfortunately, not so!
>
> In event that I were attempting to sell "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
>
>
> Then I most assuredly would not want it known that LHO was in fact a
> SUPERIOR shot when shooting from a fixed position at targets of 300
> yards or less. (which by the way, he was)
>
> Sort of makes "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" slightly more difficult to
> "swallow" when one adds in this essential variable.
Brokedad,
Buck Fever. It's one thing to fire on a paper target, quite another on a
live target. LHO had never been in combat. He was probably shaking like
a leaf on the first shot and yanked the trigger causing a wild shot.
Chuck Schuyler
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is a current thread arguing Oswald's shooting ability--his
> > Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
> > not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
> > rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
>
> > None of it matters. Zero.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
> > the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
> > ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
> > the limo and CE399.
>
> > Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
> > He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> Unfortunately, not so!
>
> In event that I were attempting to sell "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
>
>
> Then I most assuredly would not want it known that LHO was in fact a
> SUPERIOR shot when shooting from a fixed position at targets of 300
> yards or less. (which by the way, he was)
>
> Sort of makes "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" slightly more difficult to
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you trying to say?
1.) It's Oswalds rifle in the TSBD.
2.) The cartidges and CE399 and limo bullet fragments are a ballistic
to his rifle.
This is so simple. Oswald killed JFK.
markusp
> Brokedad,
>
> Buck Fever. It's one thing to fire on a paper target, quite another on a
> live target. LHO had never been in combat. He was probably shaking like
> a leaf on the first shot and yanked the trigger causing a wild shot.
Only through experience can anyone lessen the "buck fever", and of course
Oswald had very little experience, combined with the fact that not only
was he shooting at another human being, it was the POTUS. But I find it
difficult to accept that the first shot was not the most accurate. The
first had the most time to aim and fire accurately --- but if it's
explained away as being a missed shot, certainly there was almost no time
whatsoever to aim and fire two subsequent shots that we would expect more
accuracy. It's nearly certain that the initial impetus to cause Rosemary
Willis to stop running was a shot, and it missed. This does not
necessarily mean that Oswald fired that shot, nor does it demonstrate
intent to harm or kill. I've read proposals that have Oswald's role as
firing shots that would deliberately miss but intend to scare. That
possibility can fit in with existing evidence against Oswald. Thanks!
~Mark
Chuck Schuyler
> On Jan 20, 11:23 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brokedad,
>
> > Buck Fever. It's one thing to fire on a paper target, quite another on a
> > live target. LHO had never been in combat. He was probably shaking like
> > a leaf on the first shot and yanked the trigger causing a wild shot.
>
> Only through experience can anyone lessen the "buck fever", and of course
> Oswald had very little experience,
Doesn't matter if he'd never picked up a rifle before 11/22/63.
> combined with the fact that not only
> was he shooting at another human being, it was the POTUS. But I find it
> difficult to accept that the first shot was not the most accurate.
Doesn't matter what you find difficult to accept.
> The
> first had the most time to aim and fire accurately --- but if it's
> explained away as being a missed shot, certainly there was almost no time
> whatsoever to aim and fire two subsequent shots that we would expect more
> accuracy.
Doesn't matter what your theories are. It's Oswald's rifle and
ballistic evidence ties the bullet and bullet fragments to the rifle.
Print evidence ties the rifle to Oswald. This is beyond reasonable
doubt.
> It's nearly certain that the initial impetus to cause Rosemary
> Willis to stop running was a shot, and it missed. This does not
> necessarily mean that Oswald fired that shot,
Yes, that's what it means. Oswald fired the shots. His rifle, he
worked there, he was up there.
> nor does it demonstrate
> intent to harm or kill.
Interesting legal strategy: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, in
summary, of COURSE my client fired those shots, but he did not INTEND
to harm or kill."
> I've read proposals that have Oswald's role as
> firing shots that would deliberately miss but intend to scare.
There are thousands and thousands of interesting combinations for CTs
with the JFK Tinkertoy set. What a fascinating hobby.
> That
> possibility can fit in with existing evidence against Oswald. Thanks!
>
> ~Mark
The only impossible scenario for CTs is that Oswald acted alone.
claviger
Mark,
It's obvious you're not a hunter. "Buck fever" is a strange phenomenon.
It's a common experience for many first time hunters, and can even happen
to experienced hunters who have laid off for awhile. BF is a psychological
condition creating nervous excitement that leads to irregular heavy
breathing and accelerated heartbeat. You can almost hear your heart beat
and can feel it pounding as you gasp for air, to the point it's difficult
to keep the scope on target. Many things go through your mind on the
first shot, but after that shot is fired everything goes on instinctive
trained reaction. I know experienced hunters who have missed the easy
first shot on a stationary target, only to drop the animal on the run with
the second or third shot. They tell me they didn't have time to think
about the following shots, it just came natural. I suspect this is what
happened to LHO. BF probably had an influence on his missed shot at Gen.
Walker.
bigdog
> On Jan 20, 11:23 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brokedad,
>
> > Buck Fever. It's one thing to fire on a paper target, quite another on a
> > live target. LHO had never been in combat. He was probably shaking like
> > a leaf on the first shot and yanked the trigger causing a wild shot.
>
> Only through experience can anyone lessen the "buck fever", and of course
> Oswald had very little experience, combined with the fact that not only
> was he shooting at another human being, it was the POTUS. But I find it
> difficult to accept that the first shot was not the most accurate.
The first shot was the most difficult of the three shots for several
reasons. First of all, the relative movement to the line of fire would
have been greatest for the first shot, and that relative movement would
get progressively less with each subsequent shot. By the third shot, the
target was moving almost directly away from Oswald, making it almost a
stationary target. At the range of the shots, the added distance would not
have had much effect on accuracy. For the first shot, Oswald would have
been firing almost straight down, which would have force him to raise the
rifle butt dramatically. That would have been difficult to do from a
kneeling position so he likely would have to have fired from a crouching
or standing position. In addition, the rifle rest would have been of
little aid in steadying the rifle because at that angle, he really could
not have rested the rifle or his arms on it. I've also wondered, although
haven't been able to determine if firing at such a steep angle would have
brought the bottom of the window in line with the scope, forcing Oswald to
use the iron sights for at least that first shot. Lastly, Oswald would not
have had the a lot of time to aim the shot. He apparently made the
decision not to fire until the limo had passed him so as not to expose
himself to its occupants and the follow up car. This would have given him
just a few seconds to acquire the target and fire before the target went
under the tree. During that time the limo would have been making a 110
degree turn making his target difficult to track.
> The
> first had the most time to aim and fire accurately --- but if it's
> explained away as being a missed shot, certainly there was almost no time
> whatsoever to aim and fire two subsequent shots that we would expect more
> accuracy.
It is widely believed by proponents of the missed shot that it occurred at
or before Z160, which is about 3.5 seconds before the next shot which
would have occurred at about Z222. From then until the fatal Z313 shot was
almost 5 full seconds, so not surprisingly, Oswald's shots became more
accurate as he took longer to aim and the relative movement of his target
to the line of fire decreased.
> It's nearly certain that the initial impetus to cause Rosemary
> Willis to stop running was a shot, and it missed. This does not
> necessarily mean that Oswald fired that shot, nor does it demonstrate
> intent to harm or kill.
She turned and looked back at the TSBD. Not proof positive. But Howard
Brennan also looked up and located the sniper in time to see the last of
the shots. Jarman, Williams, and Norman were on the floor directly below
Oswald and heard all three shots above them.
> I've read proposals that have Oswald's role as
> firing shots that would deliberately miss but intend to scare.
One of the silliest of all the silly things Tony Marsh has presented. Why
would anyone fire a shot that would deliberately miss. Was he trying to
get JFK to ruin a good suit?
John Blubaugh
Obviously it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Many people here express
more than reasonable doubt every day. Millions of people around the world
have reasonable doubt about it. That may be the most blatantly untrue
statement you have ever posted.
JB
Chuck Schuyler
> On Jan 20, 2:41 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is a current thread arguing Oswald's shooting ability--his
> > Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
> > not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
> > rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
>
> > None of it matters. Zero.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
> > the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
> > ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
> > the limo and CE399.
>
> > Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
> > He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> Obviously it is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, to reasonable people, to most historians, to the Kennedy family, to
those those who understand how damning the evidence is, it's a slam dunk
case. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond an unreasonable doubt, actually.
You can argue someone put Oswald up to it or knew about it and didn't
intervene, but Oswald killed JFK. If the victim wasn't the POTUS, and if
Oswald went to trial, this would be an unremarkable murder other than the
circumstances. (Shooting at people in a moving car from the workplace is
unusual.) Short trial, Oswald is convicted.
> Many people here express
> more than reasonable doubt every day. Millions of people around the world
> have reasonable doubt about it.
So?
That may be the most blatantly untrue
> statement you have ever posted.
It's his rifle. His prints. The bullets and spent shell casings match the
rifle. He worked there. He fled after the shootings. A witness saw him
with the gun up there. He told lie after lie while in police custody. It
ain't rocket science.
claviger
JB,
There are major fallacies in your thinking.
Fallacy #1: the sniper who put two bullets into the President must have
been an expert marksman with skills greater than what LHO learned in the
Marine Corp. Three shots to kill a slow moving target inside 100 yds from
an elevated position is not expert shooting. An expert would put the
first shot in the head and make for the exit. The amateur who needed 3
shots sat there blasting away calling attention to his position. He was
lucky to escape capture. This performance would be unsat at any sniper
school on the planet.
Three shots inside short range is indicative of a first time sniper who is
not a pro, like LHO. His first try was a complete miss, a Maggie's
Drawers result he was known for among his buddies. The second shot was on
target in the upper torso so it could be rated a Marksman hit. The last
shot was a kill shot to the head, a Sharpshooter type shot. The street
layout had a lot to do with the last two shots being on target. The curve
forced the Limousine to line-up on a near perfect vector to the 6th floor
window. Every aspect of this shooting situation favored the sniper.
Fallacy #2: Human beings don't improve with time and practice. Children
at summer camp learn to shoot .22 cal rifles and bows & arrows. Kids
learn to shoot and improve with practice. So can adults.
Fallacy #3: The head shot was a well aimed perfect shot on target. Maybe
not. The sniper may have aimed at the upper torso same as before, but the
rising arc made it a head shot. The rising arc would compensate for a
slow trigger pull on both shots.
bigdog
You have doubts. Lots of people have doubts. There is nothing reasonable
about those doubts in light of the evidence. As Bugliosi wrote, anyone who
is familiar with the evidence is either convinced of Oswald's guilt or is
just a silly person.
John Blubaugh
>
Apparently it is rocket science. Your witness could not identify LHO. Who
collected the shell casings? How were they handled? Where are the
transcripts of the lies he told? Was it recorded? Yes, he worked up there
but when the police entered the building he was down stairs and he was
dismissed. He didn't flee from the shootings. He went outside and it was
clear there would be no more work that day. Other people also left. What
you have is all circumstantial evidence. Why weren't his prints all over
the MC? Why couldn't they find the palm print when they first examined the
weapon? So many questions and so few answers. History will record that his
guilt and the question about conspriacy has been and still is very much
unresolved.
JB
jas
>
> That may be the most blatantly untrue
>
> > statement you have ever posted.
>
> It's his rifle. His prints. The bullets and spent shell casings match the
> rifle. He worked there. He fled after the shootings. A witness saw him
> with the gun up there. He told lie after lie while in police custody. It
> ain't rocket science.
Watch out -- Marsh may come back and say "you know nothing about
rocket science," indicating -- in his mind, anyway -- that because you
are not a rocket scientist you couldn't possibly understand the
evidence in the JFK case.
John Blubaugh
>
It is fun to speculate on everything isn't it. You forget that the shots
were made very quickly and there is no evidence that LHO had extensive
practice with the weapon or any at all. Speculation is all that nutters
have ever done.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
Bugs is an idiot. Almost every person on this planet have doubts about
LHO's guilt but a few nutter fanatics and quite frankly, they don't
have enough intelligence to be able to doubt anything they are told.
JB
Chuck Schuyler
That sounds like a Marsh comeback alright!
Jason Burke
>> learn to shoot and improve with practice. So can adults.
>>
>> Fallacy #3: The head shot was a well aimed perfect shot on target. Maybe
>> not. The sniper may have aimed at the upper torso same as before, but the
>> rising arc made it a head shot. The rising arc would compensate for a
>> slow trigger pull on both shots.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> It is fun to speculate on everything isn't it. You forget that the shots
> were made very quickly and there is no evidence that LHO had extensive
> practice with the weapon or any at all. Speculation is all that nutters
> have ever done.
>
> JB
>
Dance around all you like. But you still can't get past your problem:
LHO pumped two shots into the president that day.
Jason Burke
Well, sure. When you write history, that's what it'll look like. And
your writing will get the respect it <snicker> deserves.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I was watching a TV show on snipers in Iraq. They made some
amazing shots at long distance.
Zapruder said JFK slumped over after the first shot he heard. Mrs.
Connally said she turned after the frst shot she heard, to see JFK
with his hands up in front of his face.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
Rocket science is not really applicable to the JFK assassination. I
don't remember any rocket scientist who has studied this case. About the
closest we got was a scientist from Draper Labs.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It isn't any problem for me. Somebody hit JFK once from behind but I
don't know that it was LHO. I do know the kill shot came from the
grassy knoll.
JB
bigdog
> don't know that it was LHO. I do know the kill shot came from the
> grassy knoll.
>
You don't know something you should know and you know something that isn't
so. You're 0 for 2.
John Blubaugh
>
No, I am 2-2. You are the one way out in "right" field........
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
That history is already written. It was a conspiracy. LHO may have
been involved or he may have been a Patsy just like he claimed. Your
side lost this battle long ago.
JB
claviger
What speculation? There is evidence LHO practiced with this rifle
both at home and elsewhere. In this case Marina provides the
evidence. She got sick of him working the bolt on the couch and made
him go outside. Marina said he would sometimes go a rifle range.
Witnesses saw LHO and his rifle at a firing range. You speculate the
head shot came from the GK but you have no evidence whatsoever. No
witnesses, no ballistic evidence, no medical evidence, only tortured
theories you desperately cling to.
claviger
> It isn't any problem for me. Somebody hit JFK once from behind but I
> don't know that it was LHO. I do know the kill shot came from the
> grassy knoll.
You "know"?! How do you know? All we know about the GK scenario is
no witness anywhere close to the fence heard or saw a person shoot a
rifle, holding a rifle, or running from the GK with or without a
rifle. There is not one shred of evidence for a sniper on the GK.
Sorry, muddy footprints and cigarette butts don't prove a thing,
unless you're a "X-Files" junkie.
jas
>
> Bugs is an idiot. Almost every person on this planet have doubts about
> LHO's guilt but a few nutter fanatics and quite frankly, they don't
> have enough intelligence to be able to doubt anything they are told.
>
> JB
If Bugliosi is an idiot, as you state so confidently, I can't post the
words that would describe you.
markusp
Claviger,
I was raised on a small dairy/hog farm in central Minnesota. I have hunted
all of my adult life, and half my childhood, both small game and big game.
I fired Expert on the US Army rifle range in basic training in 1979,
hitting 36 of 40 silhouette targets. While stationed overseas, we again
went to the rifle range, and I hit 92 of 98 targets (in both instances, I
very much enjoyed firing that weapon, although both times I placed only
2nd best). I urge you to use some caution and thought when attempting to
convince me that Buck Fever had Oswald shaky and missing the first shot,
and then having instinct or training somehow magically kick in and make
his second and third shots successful. I would have difficulty accepting
this even if Oswald was firing at white-tail deer, versus the POTUS.
~Mark
jas
> There is a current thread arguing Oswald's shooting ability--his
> Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
> not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
> rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
>
> None of it matters. Zero.
>
> Why?
>
> Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
> the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
> ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
> the limo and CE399.
>
> Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
> He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
Yes, a moot point like lots of conspiracy allegations. In fact, the entire
conspiracy movement is a moot point because there is no evidence that
anyone other than Oswald was involved.
1 No language, as presented in its entirety and in proper context between
the two documents, in NSAM 273 reversing NSAM 263.
2 No solid evidence, as presented in the entirety of speeches or
interviews, or even privately, that JFK definitely wanted to withdraw from
Vietnam and abandon the South Vietnamese. Quite the contrary, on the
morning of Nov.22 in his Ft. Worth speech he listed the U.S.'s defense
escalations -- NOT reductions.
3 No evidence of anyone or any group in government -- administration, law
enforcement and/or intelligence agencies, Joint Chiefs, etc. -- doing
anything that even remotely indicates a plot with the "military-
industrial complex" to kill JFK.
4 No evidence of a second, third, fourth, etc. shooter in Dealey other
than Oswald in the 6th floor sniper's nest.
5 No evidence of any bullets hitting JFK from the front or right front, or
any other direction other than the rear.
6 No evidence of any connection between Ferrie, Shaw, and Oswald. Judyth
Baker is a fraud.
7 No evidence Oswald was trained, or acted as an "intelligence" agent for
either the U.S. CIA, FBI, or the KGB, or any other foreign country.
8 No evidence of anyone planting a bullet (CE399) on the stretcher at
Parkland.
9 No way to even begin to effectively disprove Arlen Specter's single
bullet. (CE 399.)
10 No way to prove there was a huge hole in the back of JFK's head
indicating a shot from the front.
11 No evidence anyone, or any organization, i.e., organized crime, had
Ruby silence Oswald.
12 No evidence in Ruby's statements, when presented in their entirety and
in the proper context, that he knew of, or was any part of any plot to
kill the president.
13 No evidence of any post-assassination cover-up by the Warren
Commission, the HSCA -- or anyone or group -- revealed in the nearly 50
years since the assassination.
14 Where's Rossley these days?
Jason Burke
Only in your mind.
John Blubaugh
Oh, go ahead.......
JB
John Blubaugh
We know because the acoustic evidence indicates that. We know because
the Z-film also indicates that. We know because witnesses heard a shot
from the knoll. That has already been determined and there was a
conspiracy. You really need to catch up here.
JB
John Blubaugh
He fired the MC at his home? Dry firing isn't evidence of anything. I
don't speculate about the head shot coming from the knoll. The acoustic
evidence clearly showed that. The Z-film confirms it and witnesses heard a
shot or shots from there. This has already been determined by a government
panel.
JB
Jason Burke
But, but, you claim the government is totally full of liars, cheats,
scoundrels, frauds, etc.
Oh wait, unless they mistakenly partially agree with you.
claviger
Mark,
So you never experienced BF. I got it once and not on the first buck.
That one was easy, no problem. I started doubting the BF stories, until
it finally happened to me on a short range easy shot. Not from a blind,
had to sneak up on this one. Don't know why it happened, it just did. I
could not control my breathing and my heart was pounding. Could not keep
the crosshairs on target. It was as if my scope was bouncing up and down
like a seesaw. I passed on the shot. The idea is to kill the game, not
wound it. I could not control the shot, so end of stalk. After that I
realized BF is for real.
My buddies told me it usually happens on the first chance at a live
target, but can come around when you least expect it. The first shot is
the only one you think about. The follow-on shots are pure instinct.
It's like butterflies in the stomach before a football game. After the
first hit they go away. Same with shooting, after the first round is
fired the follow up shots come automatic. If you saw Deliverance (1972)
or Sniper (1993) both were good portrayals of BF. It's for real.
LHO had to be nervous that day and as the motorcade turned the corner he
no doubt was experiencing symptoms, and maybe his body began to tremble.
As mentioned by others, he took the first shot at a bad angle. That was
an amateur mistake. After the first shot miss he acquired the target as
the Limousine lined up and stabilized going away. Second shot on target,
but I think LHO didn't know it because the President remained upright in
his seat as if it missed. He re- chambered and fired again, and this time
the hit was obvious. LHO stood up for a second or two watching the
Limousine, then walked away.
All this is evidence of an amateur assassin. As you know squeeeze the
trigger, don't pull it. Exhale first, and some say fire between
heartbeats. I think LHO was so nervous he didn't do any of that and
probably forced himself the fire the first round, and yanked it. After
that whatever training he had kicked in. He had practiced incessantly
with the bolt action at home which irritated Marina, who demanded he do it
outside on the porch. She also knew he took his rifle to a shooting range
a few times. So he was practiced with this weapon, but I doubt he ever
shot Expert as you did. Doesn't matter because Marksman was good enough
at short range. This was a sloppy effort at shooting but it got the job
done. No indication whatsoever a pro did this. LHO was seen before and
after the shooting. No pro would make that mistake either.
The first miss was caused by either a bad angle or through the tree limbs,
or possibly both. The next two shots were at a much flatter angle and as
such were easier than the first shot. My buddies have a nickname for
follow-up shots that bring down running game. They call it "Zen Shooting"
where the brain goes on autopilot while the body reacts as trained.
Almost every hunter I know has at least one story of a first shot miss and
a follow-on shot that brings down a moving target. Sometimes instinct is
better than thought.
If you shoot Expert you probably down the target with the first shot, and
never have to re-chamber and fire again quickly. That is the whole point.
An experienced hunter waits for the right situation and drops the game
immediately with a neck shot. An experienced sniper does the same thing,
usually with a head shot. As far as we know LHO was not an experienced
sniper and even with the advantage of a scope, sling, gun rest, and
elevation it took him 3 tries. So a pro he wasn't, but still managed to
put 2/3 shots on target.
claviger
So catch me up.
> We know because the acoustic evidence indicates that.
The "acoustic evidence" has been thoroughly debunked.
> We know because the Z-film also indicates that.
A close inspection of the Z-film reveals the head goes FORWARD first
before snapping backward.
Which proves that shot came from behind, a conclusion both the WCR and
the HSCA agree on.
> We know because witnesses heard a shot from the knoll.
Were they close to the fence or behind the fence? Nope. Witnesses
who thought they heard a shot from the fence were down by the street.
None of the witnesses close to the fence heard a shot or saw anyone
lurking up there or running from the scene.
> That has already been determined and there was a conspiracy.
By the HSCA based solely on the "acoustic evidence" which was dubious
at best and junk science at worst. And the HSCA said the supposed
shot from the GK at the motorcade MISSED the Presidential Limousine
altogether. No passenger was wounded by this errant shot. The HSCA
agreed with the medical and ballistic evidence put forth in the WCR.
If "the conspiracy" was that inept to miss a shot from that close then
it wasn't very professional was it? So the HSCA agreed all wounds,
including the head shot, came from behind the Limousine, which blows
your theory to smithereens. Both the WCR and the HSCA agree that ALL
deadly wounds came from behind the Limousine. That leaves the Donahue
Theory and the Dal-Tex Theory as the only viable alternatives.
> You really need to catch up here.
To what? You're batting .000 so far.
markusp
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see your points, Claviger, and you present them well. Thanks!
~Mark
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, it is a fact. The HSCA made this determination years ago. You
decide to reject evidence that points away from LHO being the lone
assassin but you aren't the official who gets to pick the evidence you
want. Neither am I, but I try to look at everything that isn't
completely tainted. History has already made its judgment.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not at all, the WC had an agenda to declare LHO a lone nut assassin to
prevent WW III. The HSCA didn't have that agenda. I don't agree with
all of their findings either and they could have done much more to
prove conspiracy even if the offender could not be apprehended. The
only way to clear up much of this is to exhume JFK and let an
international team of forensic experts to a proper autopsy.
JB
claviger
> He fired the MC at his home?
Yes, he made Marina stand against a wall and he shot an outline around
her torso. Then she stepped aside while he shot a smily face where the
head was. She was not amused. After that he made her stand still and
put an apple on her head, but she ate the apple before he could
reload. Next she held lit candles in each hand and he snuffed them
out with bullets. The neighbors complained to the landlord and they
had to move shooting practice to a local firing range.
> Dry firing isn't evidence of anything.
Dry firing is evidence LHO knew how to smooth out the bolt action,
probably using gun oil and emory cloth, and to get the feel of the
bolt where it became so familiar he didn't have to think about it.
> I don't speculate about the head shot coming from the knoll. The acoustic
> evidence clearly showed that.
And the HSCA concluded that acoustic shot missed the Limousine
entirely. They also concluded the source of the head shot was behind
the Limousine.
> The Z-film confirms it and witnesses heard a shot or shots from there.
The Z-film confirms the HSCA conclusion the head shot came from behind
the Limousine.
> This has already been determined by a government panel.
Which government panel? Again, even with the so-called "acoustic
evidence" the HSCA concluded all shots causing wounds on the President
and Governor came from BEHIND the Limousine. According to the HSCA
the shot from the GK went sailing over the Limousine and buried
somewhere in the turf on the south side of Elm Street. The source you
are relying on contradicts your theory!
You have just struck out again, for the umpteenth time.
Chuck Schuyler
> all of my adult life, and half my childhood, both small game and big game.
> I fired Expert on the US Army rifle range in basic training in 1979,
> hitting 36 of 40 silhouette targets.
Doesn't matter what you shot or what your abilities are.
> While stationed overseas, we again
> went to the rifle range, and I hit 92 of 98 targets (in both instances, I
> very much enjoyed firing that weapon, although both times I placed only
> 2nd best).
Bravo. Good for you. you're a good shot. I am, too. Enjoy shooting,
enjoy going to the range. Life long NRA member in good standing. I
live in Minnesota, hunt and shoot. Doesn't matter, though, how good a
shot I am or you are.
> I urge you to use some caution and thought when attempting to
> convince me that Buck Fever had Oswald shaky and missing the first shot,
> and then having instinct or training somehow magically kick in and make
> his second and third shots successful.
"Buck Fever?" May be an accurate statement, and it may not be an
accurate statement. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
> I would have difficulty accepting
> this even if Oswald was firing at white-tail deer, versus the POTUS.
Doesn't matter what you'd accept. What matters is hard evidence.
Science. Oswald's rifle is on the sixth floor. He left a print on it.
He fled the building, killed a cop. He lied about who he was. He lied
about where he was. He lied about owning the rifle. He lied to the
press about why he was arrested. ("I'm just a PATSY!") The shells
found near the window match the weapon. CE399 is a match to the
Carcano, as are the large limo bullet fragments.
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
What you "feel" he could've have done with that rifle in his hands,
based on your abilities, based on your training in the military, or
based on my abilities--or even based on Oswald's abilities--is a moot
point. The facts show he fired the rifle and killed JFK, whether he
was "Maggies Drawers" on the range, as some claim, or an excellent
shot.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth!"
--Sherlock Holmes
> ~Mark
John Blubaugh
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 9:28 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > JB,
>
> > > > It isn't any problem for me. Somebody hit JFK once from behind but I
> > > > don't know that it was LHO. I do know the kill shot came from the
> > > > grassy knoll.
>
> > > You "know"?! How do you know? All we know about the GK scenario is
> > > no witness anywhere close to the fence heard or saw a person shoot a
> > > rifle, holding a rifle, or running from the GK with or without a
> > > rifle. There is not one shred of evidence for a sniper on the GK.
> > > Sorry, muddy footprints and cigarette butts don't prove a thing,
> > > unless you're a "X-Files" junkie.
>
> > We know because the acoustic evidence indicates that. We know because
> > the Z-film also indicates that. We know because witnesses heard a shot
> > from the knoll. That has already been determined and there was a
> > conspiracy. You really need to catch up here.
>
> > JB
>
> JB,
>
> So catch me up.> We know because the acoustic evidence indicates that.
>
> The "acoustic evidence" has been thoroughly debunked.
>
Only in the minds of a few nutter fanatics. It is still good science
and it was accepted by the HSCA.
> > We know because the Z-film also indicates that.
>
> A close inspection of the Z-film reveals the head goes FORWARD first
> before snapping backward.
> Which proves that shot came from behind, a conclusion both the WCR and
> the HSCA agree on.
>
The forward movement was caused by the slowing of the limo. Everyone in
the limo is moving slightly forward. It certainly does not prove that
there was a shot from behind unless you are claiming everyone in the limo
was hit.
> > We know because witnesses heard a shot from the knoll.
>
> Were they close to the fence or behind the fence? Nope. Witnesses
> who thought they heard a shot from the fence were down by the street.
> None of the witnesses close to the fence heard a shot or saw anyone
> lurking up there or running from the scene.
>
He didn't have to run. He just flashed a SS badge....
> > That has already been determined and there was a conspiracy.
>
> By the HSCA based solely on the "acoustic evidence" which was dubious
> at best and junk science at worst. And the HSCA said the supposed
> shot from the GK at the motorcade MISSED the Presidential Limousine
> altogether. No passenger was wounded by this errant shot. The HSCA
> agreed with the medical and ballistic evidence put forth in the WCR.
> If "the conspiracy" was that inept to miss a shot from that close then
> it wasn't very professional was it? So the HSCA agreed all wounds,
> including the head shot, came from behind the Limousine, which blows
> your theory to smithereens. Both the WCR and the HSCA agree that ALL
> deadly wounds came from behind the Limousine. That leaves the Donahue
> Theory and the Dal-Tex Theory as the only viable alternatives.
>
Dubious in nutter's eyes, good science by the rest of world. The WCR and
HSCA couldn't make any reasonable conclusion on where the shots came from
because the autopsy was completely botched. The only way to resolve those
issues is exhume JFK and have an independent international panel of
forensic experts go over the remains and determine for once and for all
what were entrance and exit wounds.
> > You really need to catch up here.
>
> To what? You're batting .000 so far.- Hide quoted text -
No, you are the one who is 0 for.......
JB
John Blubaugh
Nope. They were wrong. They were basing where the shots were fired from
the medical evidence. The autopsy was a sham and completely botched. You
cannot make any reasonable coclusios based on unreliable data. I know that
doesn't bother you but it does make a difference to most reasonable
people.
JB
bigdog
>
> No, it is a fact. The HSCA made this determination years ago. You
> decide to reject evidence that points away from LHO being the lone
> assassin
It is not necessary to ignore something that doesn't exist.
> but you aren't the official who gets to pick the evidence you
> want. Neither am I, but I try to look at everything that isn't
> completely tainted. History has already made its judgment.
>
But you have appointed yourself as the one who decides what is tainted.
Anthony Marsh
Why do you misstate the facts and think you'll get away with it? The
HSCA never said anything about where the grassy knoll shot went when
they said it missed. The acoustical scientists believe it hit.
Neither did the WC say where it's missed shot went.
Anthony Marsh
You intentionally misstate the evidence in this case to push a political
agenda. Some of the witnesses were only a few feet away from the fence,
the closest witnesses to the fence.
>> That has already been determined and there was a conspiracy.
> By the HSCA based solely on the "acoustic evidence" which was dubious
> at best and junk science at worst. And the HSCA said the supposed
> shot from the GK at the motorcade MISSED the Presidential Limousine
> altogether. No passenger was wounded by this errant shot. The HSCA
> agreed with the medical and ballistic evidence put forth in the WCR.
Again you misstate the evidence in this case to push a political agenda.
The HSCA said their entrance wound in the back of the head was 4 inches
higher than where the WC placed it, yet you say the HSCA agreed with the WC.
> If "the conspiracy" was that inept to miss a shot from that close then
> it wasn't very professional was it? So the HSCA agreed all wounds,
The two acoustical scientists who studied the grass knoll shot said it
hit.
> including the head shot, came from behind the Limousine, which blows
> your theory to smithereens. Both the WCR and the HSCA agree that ALL
> deadly wounds came from behind the Limousine. That leaves the Donahue
> Theory and the Dal-Tex Theory as the only viable alternatives.
>
And how many people believe in the Donahue Theory? It is physically
impossible.
John Blubaugh
> On Jan 25, 10:57 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, it is a fact. The HSCA made this determination years ago. You
> > decide to reject evidence that points away from LHO being the lone
> > assassin
>
> It is not necessary to ignore something that doesn't exist.
>
Why of course it is and you are an expert at only cherry picking
evidence you like and ignoring any evidence that you don't like. Hell,
you still claim that JFK never reacted violently "back and to the
left." You claim you can't see that. This is just another example of
your extreme tunnelvision that won't allow you see or consider
anything that points in any direction that you don't want to go.
> > but you aren't the official who gets to pick the evidence you
> > want. Neither am I, but I try to look at everything that isn't
> > completely tainted. History has already made its judgment.
>
> But you have appointed yourself as the one who decides what is tainted.
Not at all. If the evidence was mishandled or the chain of custody was
not kept then it is tainted. I didn't make those rules. It is part of
our legal system and that is to keep people like you from using
evidence that is tainted.
JB
Chuck Schuyler
>
> > JB,
>
> > > It isn't any problem for me. Somebody hit JFK once from behind but I
> > > don't know that it was LHO. I do know the kill shot came from the
> > > grassy knoll.
>
> > You "know"?! How do you know? All we know about the GK scenario is
> > no witness anywhere close to the fence heard or saw a person shoot a
> > rifle, holding a rifle, or running from the GK with or without a
> > rifle. There is not one shred of evidence for a sniper on the GK.
> > Sorry, muddy footprints and cigarette butts don't prove a thing,
> > unless you're a "X-Files" junkie.
>
> We know because the acoustic evidence indicates that.
The acoustic evidence was debunked by Steve Barber and the N.A.S. in
the early 1980's. You're thirty years behind. The assassination film
record also has been neatly tied together to prove the acoustic
evidence is invalid. Patrolman McLain wasn't in position to have
recorded the shots.
> We know because
> the Z-film also indicates that.
Where? What frame(s)? Enhanced Z film and stills from the Z film
clearly show brain matter and gore being ejected upward and forward at
Z313 and beyond.
> We know because witnesses heard a shot
> from the knoll. That has already been determined and there was a
> conspiracy. You really need to catch up here.
>
> JB
You really need to look at the physical evidence and not rely on
witnesses. Eye/earwitnesses can be helpful, and they can also be
wildly wrong, misinterpreted or taken out of context. The physical
evidence trumps what someone though they heard.
You constantly run from the tough, physical evidence.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are aware that the HSCA validated all of the major findings of the
WC and debunked much of the CT baloney that had been floating around
since the assassination, right?
The HSCA said Oswald killed Kennedy, and they could find no evidence
that he had a conspirator. Oh..there was apaprently a fourth shot that
missed everything. No one on the knoll heard it or turned around to
investigate a shooter, but somehow the mystery shot shows up on a
dictabelt recording. Figure that one out. The shot was loud enough for
a poor quality dictabelt recording on a motorcycle cop in the
motorcade but inaudible to those near the fence.
So you agree with the HSCA that Oswald killed Kennedy and a fourth
shot from some undetermined person or persons missed?
That's what you are agreeing to?
bigdog
> On Jan 25, 7:29 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 10:57 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, it is a fact. The HSCA made this determination years ago. You
> > > decide to reject evidence that points away from LHO being the lone
> > > assassin
>
> > It is not necessary to ignore something that doesn't exist.
>
> Why of course it is and you are an expert at only cherry picking
> evidence you like and ignoring any evidence that you don't like. Hell,
> you still claim that JFK never reacted violently "back and to the
> left." You claim you can't see that.
Of course I don't see that because it never happened. JFK went
STRAIGHT back. There was no left movement and you've never been able
to articulate how JFK moved leftward from his position just prior to
the head shot. Every time we have this conversation, you end up
resorting to the lame "everybody can see it" crutch. If there was any
leftward movement you should be able to describe it but you can't do
it, so this falls into that large category of things you claim but
can't back up.
> This is just another example of
> your extreme tunnelvision that won't allow you see or consider
> anything that points in any direction that you don't want to go.
>
So tell me how JFK moved left. What am I missing?
> > > but you aren't the official who gets to pick the evidence you
> > > want. Neither am I, but I try to look at everything that isn't
> > > completely tainted. History has already made its judgment.
>
> > But you have appointed yourself as the one who decides what is tainted.
>
> Not at all. If the evidence was mishandled or the chain of custody was
> not kept then it is tainted. I didn't make those rules. It is part of
> our legal system and that is to keep people like you from using
> evidence that is tainted.
>
You have made up your own rules for what you consider tainted
evidence. Like your hollow claim of leftward movement by JFK following
the head shot, this is one more thing you can't back up. You offer us
nothing but your own uninformed opinions about what the rules of
evidence are. You make up rules as an excuse to dismiss the
overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt because you can't accept that
very simple truth.
claviger
> Again you misstate the evidence in this case to push a political agenda.
> The HSCA said their entrance wound in the back of the head was 4 inches
> higher than where the WC placed it, yet you say the HSCA agreed with the WC.
Yes they did, but the HSCA agreed the source of the head wound was
behind the Limousine. That blows your theory about a shot from the
GK. The HSCA says your shooter (or rocket launcher) missed.
> The two acoustical scientists who studied the grass knoll shot said it
> hit.
And the HSCA rejected that part. No corroborating forensic medical
evidence to support that conclusion.
> And how many people believe in the Donahue Theory? It is physically
> impossible.
No it's not.
claviger
> Why do you misstate the facts and think you'll get away with it? The
> HSCA never said anything about where the grassy knoll shot went when
> they said it missed. The acoustical scientists believe it hit.
Very interesting. So the HSCA rejected the conclusion of these
"acoustic scientists". Therefore the HSCA obviously didn't have
complete confidence in this technology or the scientists using it.
> Neither did the WC say where it's missed shot went.
Yes, that be true. Maybe it was actually a mini-rocket-propelled
bullet launched from the GK and is now in orbit somewhere in space,
which explains why metal detectors never found it in grassy infield
across from the grassy knoll. Could be this high tech bullet was
launched by lighting a match and was guided by one of those plastic
rulers with a groove down the middle. That would explain several
things about this missed shot: (a) why it missed, (b) the puff of
smoke, and (c) the flash of light seen by Bowers. Also, why the guy
who launched it had no weapon to hide. I think we're on to something
here. Hey, it's kinda fun being a CT. I may have to switch sides!
claviger
> > The "acoustic evidence" has been thoroughly debunked.
> Only in the minds of a few nutter fanatics. It is still good science
> and it was accepted by the HSCA.
Not entirely. The HSCA determined the shot from the GK missed while
the acoustic scientists said it hit. Also, there were strong
dissenting opinions by some members to the validity of the "acoustic
evidence".
> > > We know because the Z-film also indicates that.
> > A close inspection of the Z-film reveals the head goes FORWARD first
> > before snapping backward.
> > Which proves that shot came from behind, a conclusion both the WCR and
> > the HSCA agree on.
> The forward movement was caused by the slowing of the limo. Everyone in
> the limo is moving slightly forward. It certainly does not prove that
> there was a shot from behind unless you are claiming everyone in the limo
> was hit.
That dog won't hunt anymore. First, it's not clear there was that
much movement by all passengers. Second, even if there was some
movement, it's obvious the forward head movement by the President is
much more sudden than all the passengers around him, especially the
First Lady sitting next to him. After one frame of sudden head tilt
forward by the President his head explodes, forcing his head and body
backward into the seat cushion before he collapses to his left.
> > > We know because witnesses heard a shot from the knoll.
> > Were they close to the fence or behind the fence? Nope. Witnesses
> > who thought they heard a shot from the fence were down by the street.
> > None of the witnesses close to the fence heard a shot or saw anyone
> > lurking up there or running from the scene.
> He didn't have to run. He just flashed a SS badge....
What did he do with the weapon?
> > > That has already been determined and there was a conspiracy.
> > By the HSCA based solely on the "acoustic evidence" which was dubious
> > at best and junk science at worst. And the HSCA said the supposed
> > shot from the GK at the motorcade MISSED the Presidential Limousine
> > altogether. No passenger was wounded by this errant shot. The HSCA
> > agreed with the medical and ballistic evidence put forth in the WCR.
> > If "the conspiracy" was that inept to miss a shot from that close then
> > it wasn't very professional was it? So the HSCA agreed all wounds,
> > including the head shot, came from behind the Limousine, which blows
> > your theory to smithereens. Both the WCR and the HSCA agree that ALL
> > deadly wounds came from behind the Limousine. That leaves the Donahue
> > Theory and the Dal-Tex Theory as the only viable alternatives.
> Dubious in nutter's eyes, good science by the rest of world.
Not true at all. There was criticism from the scientific community
and the HSCA admitted they could not get a perfect correlation for the
Zapruder film and the acoustic evidence.
> The WCR and HSCA couldn't make any reasonable conclusion on where
> the shots came from because the autopsy was completely botched.
While not what we all wished it had been, the autopsy was not
completely botched. Other medical panels reviewed the autopsy report
and there was some difference of opinion, however all panels agreed
with the basic conclusion the bullets that struck the President came
from behind the Limousine.
> The only way to resolve those issues is exhume JFK and have an
> independent international panel of forensic experts go over the
> remains and determine for once and for all what were entrance and
> exit wounds.
OK by me. Now you have convince the Kennedy family.
claviger
> Nope. They were wrong. They were basing where the shots were fired from
> the medical evidence. The autopsy was a sham and completely botched.
Not just medical evidence. Read the report.
> You cannot make any reasonable coclusios based on unreliable data.
Look whose talking. Your theory relies on the discredited acoustic
evidence. Not even the HSCA accepted it 100% and since then critics
have demolished it, yet you still cling to it like a security blanket.
> I know that doesn't bother you but it does make a difference to most reasonable
> people.
Is it unreasonable to believe experts in their field of expertise?
More than one panel of experts examined the evidence and prior
conclusions, and agree with basic facts that cannot be ignored: only
two bullets wounded the President and both of them came from behind.
Brokedad
> On Jan 20, 1:41 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > There is a current thread arguing Oswald's shooting ability--his
> > Marine awards, what his friends said about his abilities, whether or
> > not the Marines passed guys through basic training if they couldn't
> > rifle qualify or whether they fudged rifle range scores, etc.
>
> > None of it matters. Zero.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Oswald's rifle was found in the TSBD. He left identifiable prints on
> > the rifle. The three shell cartridges at the 6th floor window are a
> > ballistic match to the rifle, as are the testable fragments found in
> > the limo and CE399.
>
> > Whether Oswald had ever picked up a rifle in his life is irrelevant.
> > He fired the shots that killed JFK--beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
>
> In event that I were attempting to sell "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
>
> http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter...
>
> Then I most assuredly would not want it known that LHO was in fact a
> SUPERIOR shot when shooting from a fixed position at targets of 300
> yards or less. (which by the way, he was)
>
> Sort of makes "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" slightly more difficult to
> "swallow" when one adds in this essential variable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8580&st=0
Posted 19 November 2006 - 07:34 AM
About time to destroy the myth that LHO was a poor marksman.
First off, he was raised hunting rabbits with a .22 rifle.
Poor shots use shotguns, not .22 caliber rifles.
Secondly, his USMC rating leaves much to be explained, and if one digs
deep enough, they just may find that LHO was, in many ways, an
exceptional shot.
Mr. Hemming, you and/or any other USMC personnel, please feel free to
step in and help clarify a few items about the rifle markmanship
training of the USMC and exactly what it may, and may not mean.
Any USMC type's out there who would like to explain how one gets their
rifle markmanship rating?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8580&st=0
PRIOR REFERENCE
As stated elsewhere, I have neither attempted to duplicate Superman's
flying ability, nor have I attempted to duplicate the shooting ability
reportedly atributed to LHO by the WC.
I am neither stupid enough to think that I can fly, nor am I more
qualified than many who have attempted to get off three well aimed
shots utilizing the 91/38 Carcano, in 5.6 seconds elapsed time.
But then again, I was never so misguided as to believe the WC's shot/
shooting sequence senario either.
Now! As stated, go back to some good shooters with the information
which was long ago provided and thereafter exactly how good one has to
be to pull off such a shooting feat.
Try this, then the "test" will not be "rigged" by the WC's misguided/
mis-directed efforts.
1. First Shot: Slant distance---185 ft. (62 yards).
5.8 seconds thereafter:
2. Second Shot: Slant distance----265 ft. (88 yards)
2.3 seconds thereafter:
3. Third Shot: Slant distance------295 ft. (98 yards)
Bench Rest position for shots# 1 and #2.
Standing position leaning against wall for shot#3.
Scope usage for shots# 1 and #2.
Iron sights for shot#3.
Everything which LHO shot at in the USMC marksmanship training, began
at a distance of 200 yards.
Now! As every Marine knows: EVERY MARINE IS A RIFLEMAN!
The USMC rifle training, by far exceeds any other training of any
other branch of the Military Services.
They are ALWAYS deemed a "RIFLEMAN FIRST"!
Other services, including the US Army, only give the most basic of
rifle training during the 8-weeks of basic training.
Thereafter, if one is going to be an 11Bravo (Infantry Rifleman), his
rifle marksmanship is expanded considerably during his 8-week program
of training which gives him his military MOS.
Cooks; truck drivers; supply personnel; etc; etc; etc; in the US Army,
thereafter get very little additional rifle marksmanship training, and
are nowhere near the normal proficiency of the USMC personnel.
If and when you ask anyone (preferably USMC personnel who know what we
are speaking of) ask them if a score of 49 out of a maximum of 50
points for the 200 yard Rapid Fire sequence of marksmanship
qualification sounds like someone who was a poor shot.
One might even ask if a score of 48 out of a maximum of 50 point for
the same 200 yard Rapid Fire sequence sounded like someone who was a
poor shot.
P.S. Math also is "supposed" to count.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8580&st=0
Pre-Qualification shooting of LHO
200 Yard Rapid Fire
Friday, Dec 21 (Qualification): Score of 48 out of maximum of possible
50.
Thursday, December 20 (practice): Score of 43 out of maximum of
possible 50.
Wednesday, December 19 (practice): Score of 49 out of maximum of
possible 50.
Tuesday, December 18 (practice): Score of 73 out of maximum of
possible 80.
Monday, December 17 (practice): Appears to be a score of 46 out of
maximum of possible 50.
Thursday: (prior week) first day of shooting practice: Score of 24 out
of maximum of possible 25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that this 200 yard rapid fire shooting was from the sitting
position, and this also represents some of the best shooting of/by
LHO.
And, the above results demonstrate that LHO was quite proficient with
the rifle, in a rapid fire exercise, at a range of 200 yards, which
happens to be twice the distance of the longest shot made in Dealy
Plaza.
What most are unaware of in the shooting skills of LHO (& all
Marines), is that their qualification, not unlike he ACT/GED/etc; etc;
etc;. is based on shooting ability from a number of different
shootingj positions, from a variety of ranges/distances.
Therefore, one could shoot absolutely perfect scores at shorter ranges
and from stable firing positions, yet do badly on other portions of
the course at longer ranges and different positions, and only
therefore only qualify to the basic minimum "Marksman" or
"Sharpshooter" ability.
For all practical purposes, LHO initially began shooting in the high
"EXPERT" range for the 200 yard-rapid fire exercise, from the sitting
position.
And, even on the day in which he qualified at only barely a
"Sharpshooter", he still was in the 96 percentile rating for this
particular portion of the qualification which was for the shorter
ranges from a stable firing position (sitting).
The USMC rifle qualification requires shooting from the sitting
position; kneeling position; prone position; and unfortunately for
many, the "Off-Hand" position, which is standing with absolutely
nothing except the feet on the ground for firing position/platform
stability.
In addition, ranges for qualification begin at the 200 yard mark and
thereafter progress to 300 yard targets, and then to 500 yard targets.
So, based on LHO's initial/entry shooting ability, as well as his
shooting skill at the time of qualification, one can rest assured that
they did not want LHO to be shooting at them at a distance of 200
yards, in a rapid-fire condition, when he had a stable/sitting
position.
And, without going through all of the specifics of his shooting
ability at the 300 yard/rapid fire portion of final qualification, it
should suffice to demonstrate that he fired a score of 46 out of a
maximum possible score of 50, on this portion of qualification.
Anthony Marsh
> JB,
>
>> Nope. They were wrong. They were basing where the shots were fired from
>> the medical evidence. The autopsy was a sham and completely botched.
> Not just medical evidence. Read the report.
>
>> You cannot make any reasonable coclusios based on unreliable data.
> Look whose talking. Your theory relies on the discredited acoustic
> evidence. Not even the HSCA accepted it 100% and since then critics
> have demolished it, yet you still cling to it like a security blanket.
>
Why do you get your idea that the HSCA did not accept it 100%? Who said
that and please quote it. Do you mean that the scientists only said 95%
or more probability?
John Blubaugh
>
Because most of the physical evidence was compromised. Steve doesn't
have the credentials to debunk anything. The acoustic evidence still
holds.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> Why do you misstate the facts and think you'll get away with it? The
>> HSCA never said anything about where the grassy knoll shot went when
>> they said it missed. The acoustical scientists believe it hit.
> Very interesting. So the HSCA rejected the conclusion of these
> "acoustic scientists". Therefore the HSCA obviously didn't have
> complete confidence in this technology or the scientists using it.
>
No, I didn't say that. You have trouble paying attention. I said many
times before that the two acoustical scientists who analyzed the grassy
knoll shot kept studying the shot after the HSCA closed up shop and
concluded that the grassy knoll shot stopped in the vicinity of the limo.
Don't bother asking me for the exact time of day when they figured it out.
>> Neither did the WC say where it's missed shot went.
> Yes, that be true. Maybe it was actually a mini-rocket-propelled
> bullet launched from the GK and is now in orbit somewhere in space,
> which explains why metal detectors never found it in grassy infield
> across from the grassy knoll. Could be this high tech bullet was
> launched by lighting a match and was guided by one of those plastic
> rulers with a groove down the middle. That would explain several
> things about this missed shot: (a) why it missed, (b) the puff of
> smoke, and (c) the flash of light seen by Bowers. Also, why the guy
> who launched it had no weapon to hide. I think we're on to something
> here. Hey, it's kinda fun being a CT. I may have to switch sides!
>
>
>
I can say the same things about the WC missed shot. They say it was
fired from the sniper's nest, but couldn't say where it went.
John Blubaugh
> WC and debunked much of the CT baloney that had been floating around
> since the assassination, right?
>
> The HSCA said Oswald killed Kennedy, and they could find no evidence
> that he had a conspirator. Oh..there was apaprently a fourth shot that
> missed everything. No one on the knoll heard it or turned around to
> investigate a shooter, but somehow the mystery shot shows up on a
> dictabelt recording. Figure that one out. The shot was loud enough for
> a poor quality dictabelt recording on a motorcycle cop in the
> motorcade but inaudible to those near the fence.
>
> So you agree with the HSCA that Oswald killed Kennedy and a fourth
> shot from some undetermined person or persons missed?
>
>
No. I agree that there was a shot from knoll. That is as much of it as I
buy. The acoustic scientists claimed that shot hit JFK. I agree with them.
Jb
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Again you misstate the evidence in this case to push a political agenda.
>> The HSCA said their entrance wound in the back of the head was 4 inches
>> higher than where the WC placed it, yet you say the HSCA agreed with the WC.
> Yes they did, but the HSCA agreed the source of the head wound was
> behind the Limousine. That blows your theory about a shot from the
> GK. The HSCA says your shooter (or rocket launcher) missed.
>
>> The two acoustical scientists who studied the grass knoll shot said it
>> hit.
> And the HSCA rejected that part. No corroborating forensic medical
> evidence to support that conclusion.
>
The HSCA did not even know about the conclusion so how could they reject
it? You really are clueless and then you think a SS agent shot the
President and no one noticed it? People in glass houses should throw
bricks.
Anthony Marsh
>> decide to reject evidence that points away from LHO being the lone
>> assassin but you aren't the official who gets to pick the evidence you
>> want. Neither am I, but I try to look at everything that isn't
>> completely tainted. History has already made its judgment.
>>
>
> WC and debunked much of the CT baloney that had been floating around
> since the assassination, right?
>
> The HSCA said Oswald killed Kennedy, and they could find no evidence
> that he had a conspirator. Oh..there was apaprently a fourth shot that
> missed everything. No one on the knoll heard it or turned around to
Several people heard a shot from the grassy knoll. You have a history of
misstating the evidence for political gain. Hundreds of spectators run up
the grassy knoll looking for the shooter. So did one cop.
> investigate a shooter, but somehow the mystery shot shows up on a
> dictabelt recording. Figure that one out. The shot was loud enough for
> a poor quality dictabelt recording on a motorcycle cop in the
> motorcade but inaudible to those near the fence.
>
As always you misrepresent the evidence.
> So you agree with the HSCA that Oswald killed Kennedy and a fourth
> shot from some undetermined person or persons missed?
>
> That's what you are agreeing to?
>
Knock it off, wise-guy.
Chuck Schuyler
But they got the other points right? Oswald fired three shots? The
backyard photos are legit, etc.?
The autopsy is clear: JFK was struck in the head one time, from
behind.
Chuck Schuyler
Could you please tell me which physical evidence wasn't compromised,
or are you just blathering away?
> Steve doesn't
> have the credentials to debunk anything.
You don't hold Tony Marsh to the same standard. He's a bus driver.
Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
debunking Judyth Baker.
The acoustic evidence still
> holds.
What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
out of position?
John Blubaugh
>
The autopsy is the biggest joke in history. Don't you read these arguments
here about where the wound was in the back of his head? I notice you don't
mention the entrance wound in JFK's temple.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Nope. The acoustic scientists claimed the supposed shot from the knoll
missed.
You disagree with them.
/sm
Chuck Schuyler
I'm not in politics.
> Hundreds of spectators run up
> the grassy knoll looking for the shooter. So did one cop.
So what. Proves zilch.
>
> > investigate a shooter, but somehow the mystery shot shows up on a
> > dictabelt recording. Figure that one out. The shot was loud enough for
> > a poor quality dictabelt recording on a motorcycle cop in the
> > motorcade but inaudible to those near the fence.
>
> As always you misrepresent the evidence.
>
> > So you agree with the HSCA that Oswald killed Kennedy and a fourth
> > shot from some undetermined person or persons missed?
>
> > That's what you are agreeing to?
>
> Knock it off, wise-guy.
Knock what off? People around the knoll/fence area didn't
contemporaneously pinpoint a shot from that location, yet it was loud
enough to be picked up on a poor quality dictabelt recording along the
motorcade route? Please explain.
Please explain why Dale Myers is wrong. His simple, effective film work
shows McLain wasn't where the BBN concluded he needed to be.
Anthony Marsh
FYI I am retired. And I was not just a bus driver. That was only my latest
job. I was also a teacher and a musician. Steve Barber is also just a
musician and you seem to think that he is an expert.
> Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
> debunking Judyth Baker.
>
Silly, like killing a gnat with a nuclear bomb.
> The acoustic evidence still
>> holds.
>
> What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
> out of position?
>
Both wrong.
Anthony Marsh
No, the HSCA made some other mistakes also. Such as their SBT.
bigdog
The entrance wound in the temple exists only in your imagination. Between
you and Marsh, you keep moving that "entrance" wound from the forehead to
the temple and back again. That's easy enough to do with an imaginary
wound. It's kind of like that commercial for Head-on. Apply directly to
the forehead.
Jason Burke
Once again...
Why mention something that isn't there?
imsam2021
> The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
Here's a few....
The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
All requests to exhume JFK.
The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
As far as the best joke of alltime, here's one that made the
list "according to several comedians, as compiled by GQ magazine"
http://www.innocentenglish.com/best-funny-jokes/best-jokes-ever.html
A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. “There must be some mistake,”
the lawyer argues. “I’m too young to die. I’m only fifty five.” “Fifty
five?”
says Saint Peter. “No, according to out calculations, you’re eighty
two.”
“How’d you get that?” the lawyer asks. A
nswers St. Peter: “We added up your time sheets.”
Personally, I don't think it's that funny to make the list. Hopin'
Grizz sees the humor. :-)
imsam
> JB- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
> JB,
>
> > The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>
> Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>
> Here's a few....
>
> The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
> All requests to exhume JFK.
> The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>
> BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
>
> As far as the best joke of alltime, here's one that made the
> list "according to several comedians, as compiled by GQ magazine"
>
> http://www.innocentenglish.com/best-funny-jokes/best-jokes-ever.html
>
> A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. “There must be some mistake,”
> the lawyer argues. “I’m too young to die. I’m only fifty five.” “Fifty
> five?”
> says Saint Peter. “No, according to out calculations, you’re eighty
> two.”
> “How’d you get that?” the lawyer asks. A
> nswers St. Peter: “We added up your time sheets.”
>
> Personally, I don't think it's that funny to make the list. Hopin'
> Grizz sees the humor. :-)
>
> imsam
>
Since you started with the lawyer jokes, here's some of my favorites. So
as not to waste time, I'll go right to the punchlines.
1. A damn good start.
2. There are skid marks by the snake.
3. A whore kisses you first.
Anthony Marsh
> JB,
>
>
>> The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>
> Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>
> Here's a few....
>
> The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
> All requests to exhume JFK.
> The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>
> BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
>
But there is such a thing as a legal autopsy. Or a competent autopsy.
Neither of which JFK got.
> As far as the best joke of alltime, here's one that made the
> list "according to several comedians, as compiled by GQ magazine"
>
> http://www.innocentenglish.com/best-funny-jokes/best-jokes-ever.html
>
> A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. ?There must be some mistake,?
> the lawyer argues. ?I?m too young to die. I?m only fifty five.? ?Fifty
> five??
> says Saint Peter. ?No, according to out calculations, you?re eighty
> two.?
> ?How?d you get that?? the lawyer asks. A
> nswers St. Peter: ?We added up your time sheets.?
Chuck Schuyler
Thanks for driving home the point I was making.
Steve Barber is also just a
> musician and you seem to think that he is an expert.
I didn't say that. Steve Barber helped debunk the dictabelt stuff,
though.
>
> > Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
> > debunking Judyth Baker.
>
> Silly, like killing a gnat with a nuclear bomb.
>
> > The acoustic evidence still
> >> holds.
>
> > What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
> > out of position?
>
> Both wrong.
Prove it.
You can't of course. If there was an additional shot or more from the
knoll, McLain didn't record it. The film record Myers assembled is an
interesting, unique way of moving the argument away from the usual talking
points and invalidating the acoustics evidence. You hold on to the
acoustics work by BBN because it's the only investigatory work that gives
your conspiracy theory a veneer of official acceptance. That's why you and
other CTs nitpick at the work of others without doing any testing: You
know your results, if honestly done, will kill your hobby, and forty plus
years of fun will vanish. You'll come to the shattering conclusion that
you've been on a snipe hunt for decades. If you think all that snow
outside your window is depressing now, wait until you realize that all of
your clever theories are wrong.
I don't think you believe there was a conspiracy anymore. You like posting
here and using the JFK assassination to advance your case against tax
cuts, the dreaded CIA, Sarah Palin, etc. The JFK assassination is an entry
point for other conversations.
Anthony Marsh
If you can't see for yourself the semi-circular hole in the forehead
above the right eye then YOU have a hole in YOUR head.
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say you were a politician. You have a political agenda.
>> Hundreds of spectators run up
>> the grassy knoll looking for the shooter. So did one cop.
>
> So what. Proves zilch.
>
That people thought the shots had come from the grassy knoll.
>>
>>> investigate a shooter, but somehow the mystery shot shows up on a
>>> dictabelt recording. Figure that one out. The shot was loud enough for
>>> a poor quality dictabelt recording on a motorcycle cop in the
>>> motorcade but inaudible to those near the fence.
>>
>> As always you misrepresent the evidence.
>>
>>> So you agree with the HSCA that Oswald killed Kennedy and a fourth
>>> shot from some undetermined person or persons missed?
>>
>>> That's what you are agreeing to?
>>
>> Knock it off, wise-guy.
>
> Knock what off? People around the knoll/fence area didn't
> contemporaneously pinpoint a shot from that location, yet it was loud
> enough to be picked up on a poor quality dictabelt recording along the
> motorcade route? Please explain.
>
Contemporaneously? One little old lady telling Joe Smith that the shots
came from the bushes was the only reason that he ran up the grassy knoll
and caught the shooter. Show me anyone instantly pointing up to the TSBD.
It took people a few minutes to come forward with their stories. Some
saying the shots came from the TSBD, some saying the shots came from the
grassy knoll. And guess what? Both were right. Shots came from the TSBD
and also from the grassy knoll.
> Please explain why Dale Myers is wrong. His simple, effective film work
> shows McLain wasn't where the BBN concluded he needed to be.
>
I have explained in great detail and so has Don Thomas, but you never
bothered reading it. He lied about McLain's position and the timing of the
films he synchronized incorrectly. And even BBN was wrong about where
McLain needed to be.
Anthony Marsh
You seem to have trouble understanding the concept of time. At the time
the report was written the HSCA said the shot missed. After that report
was written the two acoustical scientists who had analyzed the grassy
knoll shot said that the bullet hit.
Sandy McCroskey
The advance of science cannot be stopped...
Science 8 October 1982:
Vol. 218 no. 4568 pp. 127-133
DOI: 10.1126/science.6750789
Reexamination of acoustic evidence in the Kennedy assassination.
Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, National Research Council
Abstract
"Sounds recorded in Dallas at the time of the assassination of John F.
Kennedy were analyzed by two research groups, whose reports formed the
basis for the opinion that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.
These reports and the acoustic evidence have been studied by the
Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, and further acoustic analyses,
including sound spectrograms, have been performed. The committee finds
that the acoustic data do not support a conclusion that a second
gunman was involved in the assassination."
/sm
imsam2021
> On 1/27/2011 9:44 PM, imsam2021 wrote:
>
> > JB,
>
> >> The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>
> > Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>
> > Here's a few....
>
> > The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
> > All requests to exhume JFK.
> > The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>
Mr. Marsh,
> BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
>
> But there is such a thing as a legal autopsy. Or a competent autopsy.
> Neither of which JFK got.
>
Again. Incorrect. The autopsy was LEGAL.
As far as competency?
A matter of defining competent. NO AUTOPSY IS PERFECT!
Sad that it was rather below par, but even by bogying they were able
to
determine a very important determination. That all the shots that hit
JFK were fired from above and behind.
imsam
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Chuck Schuyler
Is that the standard? Brennan saw a man up there with a rifle. A few
other people saw the barrel of the rifle being withdrawn back into the
building.
> It took people a few minutes to come forward with their stories. Some
> saying the shots came from the TSBD, some saying the shots came from the
> grassy knoll.
Pandemonium. Mass confusion.
And guess what? Both were right. Shots came from the TSBD
> and also from the grassy knoll.
Where people ran, what they thought they heard, etc. can be important
or not important. That's why the physical evidence trumps everything
else. The most important earwitness/eyewitness testimony,
recollections, etc. are those that corroborate what we know happened
based on the physical evidence. Those witnesses are iceing on the
cake, so to speak, because the physical evidence tells the story. I
anecdotally would say that most murders aren't witnessed or filmed, so
the hard, physical evidence is the best way of getting to the bottom
of what happened with as little bias ass possible. On the contrary,
CTs take the stories they want to believe from witnesses and use that
to discredit the physical evidence as planted, forged, and so on. It's
the opposite approach to investigating a crime.
>
> > Please explain why Dale Myers is wrong. His simple, effective film work
> > shows McLain wasn't where the BBN concluded he needed to be.
>
> I have explained in great detail and so has Don Thomas, but you never
> bothered reading it. He lied about McLain's position and the timing of the
> films he synchronized incorrectly.
No, Tony. If you see how Myers put together the films, how he linked
them together, what he used for his markers and timing, it's really a
very simple and powerful debunking of BBN. McLain isn't near the spot
BBN said he needed to be.
> And even BBN was wrong about where
> McLain needed to be.
Where can I find these scientific tests that debunk BBNs findings on
where McLain needed to be that simultaneously show their work is still
valid?
Thanks for admitting BBN was wrong. They said if McLain wasn't in the
little cone they placed him that their work would be invalid. You're
self-admittedly back to having no scientific underpinings for Bender
on the Knoll with a silencer equipped/modified Carcano.
Chuck Schuyler
How would they be able to arrive at this conclusion based on a
dictabelt recording? Silly.
Did they review the autopsy report?
Anthony Marsh
And I helped debunk the debunkers.
>>
>>> Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
>>> debunking Judyth Baker.
>>
>> Silly, like killing a gnat with a nuclear bomb.
>>
>>> The acoustic evidence still
>>>> holds.
>>
>>> What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
>>> out of position?
>>
>> Both wrong.
>
> Prove it.
>
I did so already.
> You can't of course. If there was an additional shot or more from the
> knoll, McLain didn't record it. The film record Myers assembled is an
> interesting, unique way of moving the argument away from the usual talking
> points and invalidating the acoustics evidence. You hold on to the
> acoustics work by BBN because it's the only investigatory work that gives
> your conspiracy theory a veneer of official acceptance. That's why you and
> other CTs nitpick at the work of others without doing any testing: You
> know your results, if honestly done, will kill your hobby, and forty plus
> years of fun will vanish. You'll come to the shattering conclusion that
> you've been on a snipe hunt for decades. If you think all that snow
> outside your window is depressing now, wait until you realize that all of
> your clever theories are wrong.
>
> I don't think you believe there was a conspiracy anymore. You like posting
> here and using the JFK assassination to advance your case against tax
> cuts, the dreaded CIA, Sarah Palin, etc. The JFK assassination is an entry
> point for other conversations.
>
Tax cuts? I'm all for tax cuts for the poor, middle class and small
businesses. I just wish the rich would pay some taxes, any taxes.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with the JFK assassination?
mark drenning
pounding if i was about to murder the president.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope, the acoustic scientists claim to this day that the shot from the
knoll hit Kennedy.
JB
John Blubaugh
Well, that is easy. There is very little physical evidence that was
not compromised and in the past few months I have gone over it a dozen
times. Google if you want to find the details but you know it already.
> > Steve doesn't
> > have the credentials to debunk anything.
>
> You don't hold Tony Marsh to the same standard. He's a bus driver.
> Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
> debunking Judyth Baker.
>
I have never suggested taht either Tony or Barb are debunking credible
scientists. What are Steve's credentials. What university did he
graduate from? What science courses did he take? Did he graduate from
high school?
> The acoustic evidence still
>
> > holds.
>
> What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
> out of position?- Hide quoted text -
>
The acoustic evidence is still valid and it clearly indicated three
shots from the TSBD and one from the knoll.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is far from imaginary. It is there. This is like you not being able
to see JFK's violent "back and to the left" reaction to this shot. You
don't want to believe it so you conveniently just don't see it. Like I
said, we have nothing to discuss.
JB
John Blubaugh
There certainly is an entrance wound on his temple and your claiming
it isn't there won't make it go away. This kind of crap from nutters
is why the only way to resolve this is to exhume JFK and have an
forensic examination done by a panel of international experts. I will
believe what they tell us even if it proves me wrong. Nutters will
never believe them and will claim that nothing they see or find is
even there.
JB
HistorianDetective
> On Jan 27, 9:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 1/27/2011 9:44 PM, imsam2021 wrote:
>
> > > JB,
>
> > >> The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>
> > > Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>
> > > Here's a few....
>
> > > The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
> > > All requests to exhume JFK.
> > > The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>
> Mr. Marsh,
>
> > BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
>
> > But there is such a thing as a legal autopsy. Or a competent autopsy.
> > Neither of which JFK got.
>
RE:
> Again. Incorrect. The autopsy was LEGAL.
>
You will have to forgive Tony and a few others who can't quite grasp
the fact that it was a legally performed autopsy.
Add to that, 10-1 he has never read the actual statutes in 1963 Texas
pertaining
to autopsies, let alone cite the actual statutes, and that the
District Attorney has
more legal authority than the Justice of the Peace, coroner,
whathaveyou;
that once Wade granted permission to release the body, that was the
end of
the legal dispute.
And like you posted, there certainly wasn't any sign of hostility once
Jackie
began entering the hearse. That video you linked to is quite telling.
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
>
> > The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>
> Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>
> Here's a few....
>
> The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
> All requests to exhume JFK.
> The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>
> BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
So you think exhuming JFK to clear up all of the controversy about the
location of his head wounds and where those shot came from is a joke. I
didn't realize you were a full fledged member of nutter la la land.....
There was nothing wrong with the OJ Simpson trial verdict, the jury had no
other choice. There was a great deal wrong with the LAPD and the
prosecution. I think OJ was guilty too but that doesn't mean the defense
didn't raise a reasonable doubt with the the probable planting of evidence
and the ineptness of the police and the prosecution.
I'll give you exhuming LHO as a joke.
Who said anything about a perfect autopsy? How about one that was half
assed competent? A street person would have been treated more
professionally.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
And it is big enough to drive a truck through it.
JB
John Blubaugh
So what? If they had allowed them to finish their investigation that
would have told point blank that the shot from knoll shot hit.
JB
John Blubaugh
If you manipulate the evidence enough it can be made to show anything.
That doesn't mean it was good science. Those autopsy results would have
been destroyed by a good defense team in a court of law. Experts would
have come from all over the world to proclaim how unprofessional and inept
it was.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 27, 9:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/27/2011 9:44 PM, imsam2021 wrote:
>>
>>> JB,
>>
>>>> The autopsy is the biggest joke in history.
>>
>>> Not so fast. I could name quite a few bigger jokes.
>>
>>> Here's a few....
>>
>>> The exhumation of Oswald for ID purposes.
>>> All requests to exhume JFK.
>>> The OJ Simpson Trial Verdict.
>>
>
> Mr. Marsh,
>
>> BTW! There is no such thing as a perfect autopsy.
>>
>> But there is such a thing as a legal autopsy. Or a competent autopsy.
>> Neither of which JFK got.
>>
>
> Again. Incorrect. The autopsy was LEGAL.
>
Texas law require that the autopsy be performed in Texas.
> As far as competency?
>
> A matter of defining competent. NO AUTOPSY IS PERFECT!
>
Fluff. Not being perfect can still be competent. His autopsy was not even
competent. You create a strawman argument by saying that we demand a
perfect autopsy. Is it too much just to ask people to obey the law?
> Sad that it was rather below par, but even by bogying they were able
> to
> determine a very important determination. That all the shots that hit
> JFK were fired from above and behind.
>
Because they were incompetent.
Bud
You`ve talked to them today, have you?
> JB
Sandy McCroskey
"*The* acoustic scientists." Like there aren't other acoustic scientists
who studied this, and who disagreed with them. But I suppose you don't
know the names of the people you're referring to.
You must mean the two Marsh said gave that opinion after the HSCA report
came out (I'm not sure who he means, actually. He says "acoustic
scientists," and seems to imply that they were on the original panel but
changed their minds about the knoll shot not being a hit, but I haven't
been able to find a citation for that.)
In any case, other acoustic scientists, outnumbering your two, have been
of a different opinion.
As if it even matters!
Other researchers have determined that the Dictabelt recording was
made elsewhere than in Dealey Plaza, and after the assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/skip.txt
There is no way to invalidate that finding, other than (as Marsh has done)
by modifying the original premises of the analysis, and yet pretending
that you're still basing your conclusions on it.
/sm
Jason Burke
Don't you find it funny that you're the ONLY one who believes in a
temple entrance wound? And, as usual, your "belief" has absolutely no
basis in reality.
Jason Burke
And these "acoustic scientists" are just who?
bigdog
You have claimed that dozens of times but have never offered anything to
back up the claims, despite being asked to do so many times. You don't
have a leg to stand on and everyone knows it.
> > > Steve doesn't
> > > have the credentials to debunk anything.o
>
> > You don't hold Tony Marsh to the same standard. He's a bus driver.
> > Barb J. works in healthcare. Seems to me she's done a pretty good job
> > debunking Judyth Baker.
>
> I have never suggested taht either Tony or Barb are debunking credible
> scientists. What are Steve's credentials. What university did he
> graduate from? What science courses did he take? Did he graduate from
> high school?
>
> > The acoustic evidence still
>
> > > holds.
>
> > What about the N.A.S.? What about the film evidence which shows McLain
> > out of position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> The acoustic evidence is still valid and it clearly indicated three
> shots from the TSBD and one from the knoll.
>
I guess a leaky boat is better than no boat at all.