Mark Lane - (#146)

[Ben Holmes]

In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began to discuss the rifle tests
that the Warren Commission rather dishonestly had conducted... now
we'll see just *why* they were dishonest:

"The Commission arranged a series of complicated and expensive tests,
the full results of which were not disclosed in the Report. Of the
numerous misrepresentations to be found in the Report, perhaps the
most extravagant is the Commission's claim that it tested the weapon
'under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the
assassination'. However, even though the tests were conducted in
circumstances that in no way resembled those on the day the President
was shot, the Commission could not find one rifle expert to duplicate
or even to approach the performance posthumously attributed to Oswald
with the Mannlicher-Carcano. Oswald's last known rifle test showed
that he was a 'rather poor shot', yet the Commission chose 'three
marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association', to fire
the weapon in the tests. The three marksmen were also professionals.
Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the
Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, spoke of
them with pride:

All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle
Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms
Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is
presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a
rifleman, and also has a Master rating.

The Commission found that Oswald was at a sixth-floor window, 60 feet
above the ground, but the experts fired from a tower estimated by
Simmons to be 30 feet above the ground.

The Commission said that Oswald fired at a moving target, but the
experts fired at three stationary ones.

The Commission concluded that the President was hit in the head and
neck, thereby defining the target area, but the three experts had a
considerably larger target simulating the upper portion of a man's
body, including the head and neck.

The Commission found that since the limousine was hidden by an oak
tree, Oswald had less than eight-tenths of one second to take aim and
fire the first shot, but the Report noted that 'the marksmen took as
much time as they wanted for the first target'."

Mark Lane is demonstrating just how dishonest the Warren Commission
was in their rifle testing - someone undoubtedly understood quite well
just how impossible their claimed scenario actually was. Kooks in this
forum will jump over each other to refuse to defend the Warren
Commission and refute Mark Lane here...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:31:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began to discuss the rifle tests
> that the Warren Commission rather dishonestly had conducted... now
> we'll see just *why* they were dishonest:
>
> "The Commission arranged a series of complicated and expensive tests,
> the full results of which were not disclosed in the Report. Of the
> numerous misrepresentations to be found in the Report, perhaps the
> most extravagant is the Commission's claim that it tested the weapon
> 'under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the
> assassination'. However, even though the tests were conducted in
> circumstances that in no way resembled those on the day the President
> was shot, the Commission could not find one rifle expert to duplicate
> or even to approach the performance posthumously attributed to Oswald
> with the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Mark Lane is revealing his own perfidy once more. We saw the Commission allowed 7.9 seconds or more but Lane falsely stated the Commission allowed only 5.6 seconds. He knocked at least 29% off the maximum time the Commission allowed in one possible scenario of the three they considered (first shot miss, second shot miss, third shot miss).

> Oswald's last known rifle test showed
> that he was a 'rather poor shot',

Compared to other Marines, in his last test, when he was disillusioned with the Corps, had little motivation to do well, and was already planning his defection. Compared to the average civilian, he was much better.

Did Mark Lane mention any of that?

> yet the Commission chose 'three
> marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association', to fire
> the weapon in the tests. The three marksmen were also professionals.
> Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the
> Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, spoke of
> them with pride:
>
> All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle
> Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms
> Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is
> presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a
> rifleman, and also has a Master rating.
>
> The Commission found that Oswald was at a sixth-floor window, 60 feet
> above the ground, but the experts fired from a tower estimated by
> Simmons to be 30 feet above the ground.

So Lane pretends seizing the low ground is a time-tested military strategy. I always thought the advantage went to those on the higher ground.

Below you will see they adjusted for the lower height by using the slant distance they computed Oswald had, the distance as the bird flies, rather than the distance along the ground. So the lower height conferred no advantage to the shooters in the tests. Lane withholds any mention of this adjustment from his readers.

>
> The Commission said that Oswald fired at a moving target, but the
> experts fired at three stationary ones.

Ronald Simmons, referenced but not quoted by Lane above, pointed out the issue:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.
I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.
== unquote ==

In other words, the adjustments in the tests are greater than those in the actual assassination.

>
> The Commission concluded that the President was hit in the head and
> neck, thereby defining the target area,

No, that’s a crock. The target area is what would have been exposed to Oswald from the sixth floor, and that wasn’t just the head and neck. It would have included a significant portion of the President’s upper body. That’s Oswald’s target area, unless you intend to support Lane’s claim of the target being only the neck and head of the President and Oswald hit his intended targets twice.
Personally, I think he was aiming for the center of mass, and missed his intended target twice, twice giving a bit too great a lead.

> but the three experts had a
> considerably larger target simulating the upper portion of a man's
> body, including the head and neck.

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets were well, can you describe the targets for--
Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
== unquote ==

So pretty much what was visible of the President’s body to a shooter in the sniper’s nest window. That’s what I thought. A pity Lane conceals all that info from his readers.

>
> The Commission found that since the limousine was hidden by an oak
> tree, Oswald had less than eight-tenths of one second to take aim and
> fire the first shot,

Another falsehood brought on by Lane’s ignoring the possibility of a first or third shot miss. As we’ve seen, the Commission argued for three different possibilities, of which Lane ignored all but the one that offered Oswald the shortest time to fire three shots.

> but the Report noted that 'the marksmen took as
> much time as they wanted for the first target'."

Oswald had realistically from the time the President’s limo came into view on Main Street through the turn onto Houston, and through the turn onto Elm to line up and fired his first shot. And if the first shot was a miss, that shot didn’t happen 8/10ths of a second after the limo emerged from the tree, but sometime before it went behind the tree.

>
> Mark Lane is demonstrating just how dishonest the Warren Commission
> was in their rifle testing

Lane is exposing his own dishonesty concerning the JFK assassination.

> - someone undoubtedly understood quite well
> just how impossible their claimed scenario actually was. Kooks in this
> forum will jump over each other to refuse to defend the Warren
> Commission and refute Mark Lane here...

Lane’s falsehoods exposed.

You’ll delete most or all of the points made and call me names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 19:46:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 9:31:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane began to discuss the rifle tests
>> that the Warren Commission rather dishonestly had conducted... now
>> we'll see just *why* they were dishonest:
>>
>> "The Commission arranged a series of complicated and expensive tests,
>> the full results of which were not disclosed in the Report. Of the
>> numerous misrepresentations to be found in the Report, perhaps the
>> most extravagant is the Commission's claim that it tested the weapon
>> 'under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the
>> assassination'. However, even though the tests were conducted in
>> circumstances that in no way resembled those on the day the President
>> was shot, the Commission could not find one rifle expert to duplicate
>> or even to approach the performance posthumously attributed to Oswald
>> with the Mannlicher-Carcano.

LFD.

>> Oswald's last known rifle test showed
>> that he was a 'rather poor shot',

Speculation removed.

>> yet the Commission chose 'three
>> marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association', to fire
>> the weapon in the tests. The three marksmen were also professionals.
>> Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the
>> Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, spoke of
>> them with pride:
>>
>> All three riflemen are rated as Master by the National Rifle
>> Association. Two of them are civilian gunners in the Small Arms
>> Division of our Development and Proof Services, and the third is
>> presently in the Army, and he has considerable background as a
>> rifleman, and also has a Master rating.
>>
>> The Commission found that Oswald was at a sixth-floor window, 60 feet
>> above the ground, but the experts fired from a tower estimated by
>> Simmons to be 30 feet above the ground.

LFD.

>> The Commission said that Oswald fired at a moving target, but the
>> experts fired at three stationary ones.
>
>Ronald Simmons, referenced but not quoted by Lane above, pointed out the issue:
>== quote ==
>Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?
>Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.
>I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third.
>== unquote ==
>
>In other words, the adjustments in the tests are greater than those in the actual assassination.

You're a liar, Huckster.

Pretending that three stationary targets are equal to a moving target
is something that only a non-shooter could ever spout.

>> The Commission concluded that the President was hit in the head and
>> neck, thereby defining the target area,
>
>No, that’s a crock.

Nah, your reply is a crock.

>> but the three experts had a
>> considerably larger target simulating the upper portion of a man's
>> body, including the head and neck.
>
>== quote ==
>Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, the targets were well, can you describe the targets for--
>Mr. SIMMONS. The targets are standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of approximately 2 square feet in area.
>== unquote ==

LFD.

>> The Commission found that since the limousine was hidden by an oak
>> tree, Oswald had less than eight-tenths of one second to take aim and
>> fire the first shot,
>
> Another falsehood brought on by Lane’s ignoring the possibility of a
> first or third shot miss.

Sorry stupid, this is a perfectly legitimate complaint ... the
shooters should *NOT* have been given the option to fire whenever they
were ready.

No assassin in Dealey Plaza had that advantage.

>> but the Report noted that 'the marksmen took as
>> much time as they wanted for the first target'."

LFD.

>> Mark Lane is demonstrating just how dishonest the Warren Commission
>> was in their rifle testing

LFD.

>> - someone undoubtedly understood quite well
>> just how impossible their claimed scenario actually was. Kooks in this
>> forum will jump over each other to refuse to defend the Warren
>> Commission and refute Mark Lane here...

LFD.

Notice folks, that Huckster didn't address AT ALL the fact that the WC
arranged a highly biased shooting test - one that **STILL** failed!