McAdams / Rossley debate
bO-nana
It's possible to use a scope that's out-of-calibration. Even I know how:
You shoot with both eyes open, acting as your own spotter.
You see where the first round lands and, while working the
action, make mental adjustments. Re-acquire the target,
make the adjustments (e.g. "down and left,down and left,down and left...."
and fire again.
Ozz's pattern was classic:
First round pings the sidewalk by the overpass......second round
hits JFK but is slightly low......and the third round finds its mark.
If you look closely at 212-213, you'll notice the President's
head/body move very slightly forward right before his head
explodes. It's the missle entering from behind; Issac Newton
would explain the backward movement in terms of
action / re-action. It was one of his laws of motion.
Not having time to zero-in the scope suggests that
the assassination was a last-minute decision.
bO-nana
WhiskyJoe
> It's possible to use a scope that's
> out-of-calibration.
Maybe. But what is definitely possible is
using the iron sights. We know they were
aligned correctly because Frazier tested
the rifle using the iron sights, with the
scope still attached, and found it to be
accurate enough. Indeed, the iron sights,
set for a stationary target at 200 meters,
also work well for a target at 88 yards
moving at 9 mph. It provides just about
the perfect lead.
I think using a misaligned scope is perhaps
possible, but highly difficult. It would be
hard to understand why one would say
"Hey, the misaligned scope makes it harder,
but if I aim "X" feet high/low and "Y" feet
right/left, I can make it work" instead of
simply using the iron sights.
If one uses the scope and observes where the
shot misses and uses that information to make
an adjustment for the second shot, that is
going to be difficult to work. He might not
see exactly where that bullet struck.
And accurately determine exactly how much
it missed by and say "It looks like it missed
8 feet low and 2 feet to the left, so I'll
now aim 8 feet high and 2 feet right"?
That would be pretty difficult. I am prepared
to admit that Oswald probably did not have
the skill to do that. But using the iron
sights? That's a different story.
> Not having time to zero-in the scope
> suggests that the assassination was a
> last-minute decision.
Certainly missing the first shot, missing
the limousine no less, certainly indicates
it's not an assassination involving competent
sniper's. Whether the reason was a misaligned
scope or, more likely I think, simply choosing
an unwise shot at a difficult angle, makes it
look more like a shot from Oswald than a shot
from a competent sniper team.
jas
Your "sighting-in" scenario makes sense, whether Oswald used the scope, or
the iron sights, and is clearly demonstrated by where the 2nd and 3rd
shots struck.
The 2nd shot struck the upper back; the 3rd shot, obviously after being
aimed a bit higher, struck the back of the head, albeit a bit to the
right. Since both bullets struck a bit to the right of center, it would
appear Oswald had trouble centering the Carcano in his aim. This could
have been because of the inexactitude of the calibration of either the
iron sight, or the scope, whichever he used, *or* even Oswald's own
personal and unique aiming/firing technique.
I know enough about rifles to know that, after breaking down and
reassembling a weapon, it certainly needs to at least have the scope
re-calibrated before any truly accurate shooting can occur. Obviously,
after reassembling the Carcano Oswald didn't have the opportunity to do
any recalibrating.
So, I concur with your post.
bO-nana
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:422edc0d-97ab-43ce...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I withdraw the "last minute decision" stamement......I forgot that he
had to assemble the rifle on the spot.Thank you.