Newbie asks some questions about head shot

[John McAdams]

W...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
: I just finished reading "Kill Zone" by Craig Roberts, a Marine and
: police sniper. He says the shot is extreemly difficult even with good
: equipment. No one has yet duplicated the hits in the same way (ie.
: moving target, 6 floor height). The WC didn't take the time to set up
: a mock-up of this for their tests.

What people have done is to fire at a head and torso target, with
"duplicating Oswald's feat" being defined at two out of three shots
hitting *either* the head or torso.

When you do this (it was done for the Warren Commission, and for CBS News)
it turns out that duplicating Oswald's feat is difficult but possible in
5.6 seconds, and not especially difficult in 8.4 seconds.

In fact, a more accurate trial would be to have shooters aim only at the
head, with success being defined at one of three shots.

: My question is (and I will more than likely get flammed) that so many
: people here think it's an easy shot. Some even brag about how much
: experience they have with guns and the military. If it is so easy,
: why hasn't anyone duplicated it correctly?

Nobody has *tried* to do it that way.

But look: we are talking about a four power scope and shooting at a
target 80 yards away. Just how difficult do you really think this is?
Why don't you try talking to some shooters, don't mention the JFK
assassination at all, and see what they say.

: I also read Jim Moores book where he says he could do it because he
: stuck a broom handle out the window of the TSBD and looked along it.

This is a distortion of what Moore did. He was debunking a claim (from
Meager, if memory serves) that Oswald could not have drawn a bead on JFK
from that position. And debunk it he did.

Is Roberts where you got this misrepresentation of what Moore did? If so,
doesn't that suggest caution with his *other* statements?

.John

[John McAdams]

Daeron <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Chloe Carter wrote:
: >
: > In article <34B4BA...@ix.netcom.com>, sta...@ix.netcom.com writes:
: >
: It is also
: interesting, that all the spent shell casings were found aligned in the
: *same* direction, about one inch from each other. One wonders how many
: times this circumstance can occur in the collective history of the
: cosmos. I would warrant about as often as the probability that all air
: molecules collect in one corner of a closed room, suffocating all
: inhabitants.

This is a silly story that Roger Craig invented. It is contradicted both
by the photos Day/Studebaker took at the time, and by the testimony of
Luke Mooney, who discovered the SN.

Also, Craig was not telling this tale in 1963/64. It is something he
cooked up later.

Interested parties might want to see:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm

: Finally, an oak tree branch had prevented any clear shot before Z-210.
: Please refer to second photo section ('High Treason') 5th page, lower
: left.

It would not have prevented a shoot at 155-160, since that is before the
limo disappeared behind the tree.

: Connecting all the dots, one comes away with the unmistakable impression
: of high chicanery.

If you believe people like Roger Craig you do.

.John

[Tracy Riddle]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> W...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> : I just finished reading "Kill Zone" by Craig Roberts, a Marine and
> : police sniper. He says the shot is extreemly difficult even with good
> : equipment. No one has yet duplicated the hits in the same way (ie.
> : moving target, 6 floor height). The WC didn't take the time to set up
> : a mock-up of this for their tests.
>
> What people have done is to fire at a head and torso target, with
> "duplicating Oswald's feat" being defined at two out of three shots
> hitting *either* the head or torso.
>
> When you do this (it was done for the Warren Commission, and for CBS News)
> it turns out that duplicating Oswald's feat is difficult but possible in
> 5.6 seconds, and not especially difficult in 8.4 seconds.
>
> In fact, a more accurate trial would be to have shooters aim only at the
> head, with success being defined at one of three shots.
>
> : My question is (and I will more than likely get flammed) that so many
> : people here think it's an easy shot. Some even brag about how much
> : experience they have with guns and the military. If it is so easy,
> : why hasn't anyone duplicated it correctly?
>
> Nobody has *tried* to do it that way.
>
> But look: we are talking about a four power scope and shooting at a
> target 80 yards away. Just how difficult do you really think this is?
> Why don't you try talking to some shooters, don't mention the JFK
> assassination at all, and see what they say.
>

The difficulty is in using that particular weapon (with its stiff
bolt-action) and getting two out of three shots at a moving target in a
matter of seconds. Remember that in the WC recreations the shooters were
given as much time as they wanted to aim for the first shot, they didn't
fire from a tower as high as the 6th floor, the scope was adjusted for
them with shims, etc. etc.

Tracy

[John McAdams]

In article <34B5FF...@tfb.com>, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nobody has *tried* to do it that way.
>>
>> But look: we are talking about a four power scope and shooting at a
>> target 80 yards away. Just how difficult do you really think this is?
>> Why don't you try talking to some shooters, don't mention the JFK
>> assassination at all, and see what they say.
>>
>
>The difficulty is in using that particular weapon (with its stiff
>bolt-action) and getting two out of three shots at a moving target in a
>matter of seconds. Remember that in the WC recreations the shooters were
>given as much time as they wanted to aim for the first shot, they didn't
>fire from a tower as high as the 6th floor, the scope was adjusted for
>them with shims, etc. etc.
>

A couple of points:

1. Of course they had a lot of time to aim. But so, presumably did
Oswald.

2. The scope was adjusted with shims. But Oswald may have knocked it out
of alignment when he jammed it into that stack of boxes. Or he may have
usd the iron sights. One of the WC tests used iron sights.

See:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt

But finally, it's misleading for the conspiracy books to say that
"Oswald's supposed feat" has "never been duplicated," with the clear
implication that people have *tried* but failed.

What they really mean is that it has never been *tried* to their
satisfaction. To the extent that it has been tried, it's been duplicated.

.John

[Robert Harris]

In article <6959j0$a...@nntp02.primenet.com>, John McAdams
<jmca...@primenet.com> wrote:

> W...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> : I just finished reading "Kill Zone" by Craig Roberts, a Marine and
> : police sniper. He says the shot is extreemly difficult even with good
> : equipment. No one has yet duplicated the hits in the same way (ie.
> : moving target, 6 floor height). The WC didn't take the time to set up
> : a mock-up of this for their tests.
>
>
> What people have done is to fire at a head and torso target, with
> "duplicating Oswald's feat" being defined at two out of three shots
> hitting *either* the head or torso.
>
> When you do this (it was done for the Warren Commission, and for CBS News)
> it turns out that duplicating Oswald's feat is difficult but possible in
> 5.6 seconds, and not especially difficult in 8.4 seconds.

But you know very well, that it is not possible for a single gunmen using
the MC to have gotten off both the shot at Z285 and the one at Z312. Those
reports were seperated by 1.5 seconds, far less than the minimum time
required to reload and aim the weapon.

That was confirmed by the FBI in '64 and later by the HSCA. The HSCA
proved the point a third time in tests involving the Wash. D.C. police
force, when none of the experts was able to execute their theoretical, two
early shots seperated by 1.65 seconds.

The evidence for this shot is beyond any reasonable doubt, John. Would you
like me to prove that to you?

Bob

--
Check out my website, The JFK Assassination Home Page
http://users.southeast.net/~bgoldman/jfk.html

the FTP site is:
ftp://ftp.southeast.net/private/bgoldman/

[Bruce J Schuck]

Quoting from Fraziers testimony:

"The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target. "

"2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right"

"4 inches high and 1 inch to the right "

"4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right "

"The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25
yards, instead of 15 yards."

"4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right"

"one was about 1 inch high, and the other about 4 or 5 inches high, and the
maximum spread was 5 inches"

Remove the nospamatall from my e-mail address

[George Lamm, Jr.]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> W...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> : I just finished reading "Kill Zone" by Craig Roberts, a Marine and
> : police sniper. He says the shot is extreemly difficult even with good
> : equipment. No one has yet duplicated the hits in the same way (ie.
> : moving target, 6 floor height). The WC didn't take the time to set up
> : a mock-up of this for their tests.
>
> What people have done is to fire at a head and torso target, with
> "duplicating Oswald's feat" being defined at two out of three shots
> hitting *either* the head or torso.
>
> When you do this (it was done for the Warren Commission, and for CBS News)
> it turns out that duplicating Oswald's feat is difficult but possible in
> 5.6 seconds, and not especially difficult in 8.4 seconds.
>

> In fact, a more accurate trial would be to have shooters aim only at the
> head, with success being defined at one of three shots.
>
> : My question is (and I will more than likely get flammed) that so many
> : people here think it's an easy shot. Some even brag about how much
> : experience they have with guns and the military. If it is so easy,
> : why hasn't anyone duplicated it correctly?
>

> Nobody has *tried* to do it that way.
>
> But look: we are talking about a four power scope and shooting at a
> target 80 yards away. Just how difficult do you really think this is?
> Why don't you try talking to some shooters, don't mention the JFK
> assassination at all, and see what they say.
>

> : I also read Jim Moores book where he says he could do it because he
> : stuck a broom handle out the window of the TSBD and looked along it.
>
> This is a distortion of what Moore did. He was debunking a claim (from
> Meager, if memory serves) that Oswald could not have drawn a bead on JFK
> from that position. And debunk it he did.
>
> Is Roberts where you got this misrepresentation of what Moore did? If so,
> doesn't that suggest caution with his *other* statements?
>
> .John

John...

I'm surprised at you... the scope was so badly aligned that shims
had to be placed under the scope to bring it back into alignment... LHO or
anybody else using the scope on the MC found at the TSBD COULD NOT HAVE
HIT ANYTHING no matter how much time they had... later... george

[John McAdams]

In article <34B70F...@erols.com>,
George Lamm, Jr. <geor...@erols.com> wrote:

>John McAdams wrote:
>>
>
>John...
>
> I'm surprised at you... the scope was so badly aligned that shims
>had to be placed under the scope to bring it back into alignment... LHO or
>anybody else using the scope on the MC found at the TSBD COULD NOT HAVE
>HIT ANYTHING no matter how much time they had... later... george
>

There are two possibilities here:

1. Oswald may have knocked the scope out of alignment when he jammed the
rifle into that pile of book cartons, or

2. He may have known or suspected that the scope was misaligned, and used
the iron sights.

But are you admitting that the rifle was Oswald's, left by him in the
Depository? If The Conspiracy left it to frame our boy Lee, it's very
difficult to see why they would have left a gun that obviously could not
do the shooting.

.John

[Tracy Riddle]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> In article <34B5FF...@tfb.com>, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >>
> >>

> >> Nobody has *tried* to do it that way.
> >>
> >> But look: we are talking about a four power scope and shooting at a
> >> target 80 yards away. Just how difficult do you really think this is?
> >> Why don't you try talking to some shooters, don't mention the JFK
> >> assassination at all, and see what they say.
> >>
> >

> >The difficulty is in using that particular weapon (with its stiff
> >bolt-action) and getting two out of three shots at a moving target in a
> >matter of seconds. Remember that in the WC recreations the shooters were
> >given as much time as they wanted to aim for the first shot, they didn't
> >fire from a tower as high as the 6th floor, the scope was adjusted for
> >them with shims, etc. etc.
> >
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1. Of course they had a lot of time to aim. But so, presumably did
> Oswald.

How do you figure that? Oswald would have had a matter of seconds to
fire his shots before the car reached the underpass. But no, I guess
time stood still while Oswald aimed his first shot (which appears to
have missed, by many accounts).

> 2. The scope was adjusted with shims. But Oswald may have knocked it out
> of alignment when he jammed it into that stack of boxes. Or he may have
> usd the iron sights. One of the WC tests used iron sights.

Speculation, John, speculation! We're looking for facts here, aren't we?

> See:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt
>
> But finally, it's misleading for the conspiracy books to say that
> "Oswald's supposed feat" has "never been duplicated," with the clear
> implication that people have *tried* but failed.

> What they really mean is that it has never been *tried* to their
> satisfaction. To the extent that it has been tried, it's been duplicated.
>

> .John

Sure it has, John. And Ruby was really a good guy, and Banister and
Ferrie had no ties to the CIA, and former defectors really can get new
passports in 24 hours, and pigs really can fly to the moon....

Tracy

[Tracy Riddle]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> In article <34B70F...@erols.com>,
> George Lamm, Jr. <geor...@erols.com> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >>
> >
> >John...
> >
> > I'm surprised at you... the scope was so badly aligned that shims
> >had to be placed under the scope to bring it back into alignment... LHO or
> >anybody else using the scope on the MC found at the TSBD COULD NOT HAVE
> >HIT ANYTHING no matter how much time they had... later... george
> >
>
> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1. Oswald may have knocked the scope out of alignment when he jammed the
> rifle into that pile of book cartons, or
>
> 2. He may have known or suspected that the scope was misaligned, and used
> the iron sights.

I thought you lone-nutters just stick to the facts and don't engage in
speculation!

> But are you admitting that the rifle was Oswald's, left by him in the
> Depository? If The Conspiracy left it to frame our boy Lee, it's very
> difficult to see why they would have left a gun that obviously could not
> do the shooting.
>
> .John

They probably figured that most Americans were trusting types like you,
John, and wouldn't ask a lot of difficult questions.

Tracy

[George Lamm, Jr.]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> In article <34B70F...@erols.com>,
> George Lamm, Jr. <geor...@erols.com> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >>
> >
> >John...
> >
> > I'm surprised at you... the scope was so badly aligned that shims
> >had to be placed under the scope to bring it back into alignment... LHO or
> >anybody else using the scope on the MC found at the TSBD COULD NOT HAVE
> >HIT ANYTHING no matter how much time they had... later... george
> >
>
> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1. Oswald may have knocked the scope out of alignment when he jammed the
> rifle into that pile of book cartons, or
>
> 2. He may have known or suspected that the scope was misaligned, and used
> the iron sights.
>

> But are you admitting that the rifle was Oswald's, left by him in the
> Depository? If The Conspiracy left it to frame our boy Lee, it's very
> difficult to see why they would have left a gun that obviously could not
> do the shooting.
>
> .John

John...

While i tend to believe that LHO took the MC into the TSBD i can't
prove that he did since the package he carried in the morning of 11/22/63
was too short to carry the MC by the way he carried it; but i still think
he took the rifle in at some point... other than possibly firing one shot
at Walker (which missed... a closer stationary target) the only other
shots MC i think fire from the MC from the time LHO purchased it until
found at the TSBD were into a bucket of water where no sighting was
needed... i don't think anybody knew how badly aligned the scope was until
examined by the FBI experts... later... george

[Tony Pitman]

George Lamm, Jr. wrote:

Your dead right there George.

If the scope had merely been knocked out of alignment when someone stashed
it behind the book cartons it would have been a simple job to resight it.
The fact that it had to be fitted with shims in order to resight it tends
to suggest that the scope had never been properly fitted in the first
place. Or at least the mounts had not. I've also heard it said by WC
supporters that LHO was not only such a good marksman that he could pull
off the shots in the time frame but that he was able to do it while
compensating for the sight in it's misaligned state.

That really is stretching it.

Tony

[Michael Johnson]

Why does everyone assume that the weapon that LHO was "caught" with was
the same weapon which was used to kill JFK?