The WC Shooting Test Results That Lane So Disparages

[timstter]

Hi All,

Further to the question that Bud asked, and on closer examination of
the published targets, I believe it is possible to ascertain the FULL
results for the three WC expert shooters @ distances of 175, 240 and
265 feet respectively:

Results for Specialist Miller:

Run 1 (4.60 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 miss
265 hit

Run 2 (5.50 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 miss
265 hit

Run 3 (4.45 seconds - iron sights)
175 hit
240 hit
265 miss

Results for Mr Hendrix:

Run 1 (8.25 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 miss
265 hit

Run 2 (7.00 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 hit
265 miss

Results for Mr Staley:

Run 1 (6.75 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 miss
265 hit

Run 2 (6.45 seconds - scope)
175 hit
240 hit
265 hit

These figures certainly put the lie to Mark Lane's claim that the WC
shooters could not even APPROACH Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

The fellow is quite simply a damn liar!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Bill Clarke]

In article <b7e930fd-d187-48a3...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...

And so is Benny Holmes.

Bill Clarke

[timstter]

On Dec 8, 1:05 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <b7e930fd-d187-48a3-9739-302793ac7...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> >X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Hi Bill,

Holmes has simply hit ROCK BOTTOM here, trying to prop up the lies
Lane told about the WC shooting tests.

There must be TEN demonstrable lies in Lane's chapter entitled The
Rifle Test alone!

Holmes's hollow claims about Lane NEVER being outed in a lie in RTJ
are quite simply untenable these days.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <k9u79...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Tell us Billy... why do you suppose the military qualifies on a fixed distance
range? Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?

How can the score of a Marine firing for qualification in Okinawa be correlated
with another Marine firing for qualification in Camp Pendleton? Or to put it
more precisely, how can you know that their proven rifle ability on a given day
is virtually identical with each other if they both fire a 227?


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[mainframetech]

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Expert shooters? I thought Oswald was a marksman in his last
quals. That's 2 notches down from 'expert'.

Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
TSBD scene. And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
per Robert Frazier of the FBI. The bolt was hard to work, making the
aim go off on each action of the bolt. No way anyone could aim
properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
murder. Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
wasn't usedto shoot at JFK. That thing was in terrible condition when
the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
broad side of a barn if you were inside it.

Chris

[Bud]

It was fine and did the job, you are just retarded.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Do you think it takes an expert to kill a guy with a rifle less than 90 yards away?

>
>
> Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
>
> to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>
> TSBD scene.

Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bullets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a moot point.

> And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
>
> per Robert Frazier of the FBI.

Ditto

> The bolt was hard to work, making the
>
> aim go off on each action of the bolt.

Keep making those irrelevant points. The condition of the rifle didn't preclude it from being the murder weapon.

> No way anyone could aim
>
> properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>
> murder.

Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.

Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>
> Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
>

Obviously, neatness didn't count.

>
>
> If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
>
> wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.

But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and another was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
'

> That thing was in terrible condition when
>
> the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
>
> broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>

But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.

[timstter]

Then why was it ballistically linked to the bullet fragments found in
the limousine?

Why could Specialist Miller hit two targets out three with the iron
sights, in the head, in 4.45 seconds?

Because the rifle couldn't shoot?

LOL! You're a know-nothing blowhard, Chris.

You couldn't research your way out of a paper bag.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[aeffects]

The flaming shithead from upah nu yawk returns -- rotflmfao.... and
what are your large caliber shooting qualifications maestro! Speak up
fool!

[timstter]

On Dec 9, 7:03 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <k9u79l01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <b7e930fd-d187-48a3-9739-302793ac7...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Notice how Holmes has no ACTUAL comment on the results that PROVE Mark
Lane LIED when he claimed that the WC experts could not EVEN APPROACH
Oswald's performance with the Mannlicher-Carcano. (They exceeded it).

All he can do is introduce some red herring about a Marine in Okinawa.

Carrico and the throat wound can't be too far behind as Benny attempts
to obfustacate the truth about Lane's lying!

Hey Holmes! Bill served in the US Army. Why TF are you asking him
about some fictitious Marine in Camp Pendleton and Okinawa?

I'll tell you why, PRECISELY, Holmes.

PRECISELY because YOU don't want to discuss Lane's documented LIES,
Holmes.

Informative Regards,

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka06d...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range since that would be
rather stupid. Is your enemy always on a fixed distance range? Oh, I forgot,
you wouldn't know about that. But they are not. We qualified with the M-16 at
pop-up targets from 50 to 400 yards. Perhaps the Marines have finally received
their pop-up targets by now.

>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?

It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
know anything about screwing?

>How can the score of a Marine firing for qualification in Okinawa be correlated
>with another Marine firing for qualification in Camp Pendleton? Or to put it
>more precisely, how can you know that their proven rifle ability on a given day
>is virtually identical with each other if they both fire a 227?

Too many variables to correlate, Benny. And if they fired a 227 I'd say they
need your expert help. Snicker.

Bill Clarke

[timstter]

On Dec 9, 9:52 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

PS, Chris, Delgado retracted much of what he said in 1986 under oath
for the docudrama *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald*.

The video is right here, Chris:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNHsNqndu5M

Note what he says about Oswald's shooting ability, Chris.

Why didn't you post THAT as well as Lane's self-serving video, Chris?

I mean, it's only been kicking around since 1986.

You're about as HONEST as Mark Lane, Chris.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka0ub...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Ah! So in your mind, a target that's 50 yards away, or one that's 400 yards
away, is not at a fixed distance.

I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...


That is, if I believed what you say.

>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>
>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>know anything about screwing?

So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?

>> How can the score of a Marine firing for qualification in Okinawa be
>> correlated with another Marine firing for qualification in Camp Pendleton?
>> Or to put it more precisely, how can you know that their proven rifle
>> ability on a given day is virtually identical with each other if they
>> both fire a 227?
>
>Too many variables to correlate, Benny.

Not at all. I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any. As I just did
below.

>And if they fired a 227 I'd say they
>need your expert help. Snicker.
>
>Bill Clarke

You just can't help showing your stupidity, can you Billy? A 227, while not an
*exceptionally* high score, is still beyond the bell curve of most Marines. I'd
guestimate that perhaps 20% or less hit that number regularly.

As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of weather,
at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.

Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of the
standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,
doesn't have.

I imagine that because of this inability on the part of the Army to standardize
their weapons training & qualifications - that some people receive promotions
ill-deserved... perhaps that's what happened to you.

But the point of all of this is that you - with your lack of understanding of
any sort of standards, can easily imagine a former Marine who had little skill
with a rifle, beating out NRA rated Masters while doing the same task over the
same set of conditions.

Because according to you, the Army doesn't *have* any sort of standards for
rifle qualification - so equating what different people have accomplished can be
done by you with no regard for the *conditions* of the test.

Moron, aren't you?

P.S. Why not help "Doc" with his inability to admit that a scope does *NOT* aid
in "rapid" firing? Teach him about the narrowed field of vision, and what that
does to the rapid acquisition of a target. Of course, if you do, you'll be
disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report - and Johnny will lower your
grade.

[mainframetech]

LOL! The usual little buddy...:) No backup, no proof that the rifle
was other than in terrible condition, and certainly no proof that
Oswald did any shooting at anybody...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

In this case, yes. Both craig Roberts ans Carlos Hathcock tried to
duplicate the TSBD shots and weren't able to. They both said it was
not doable. It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the
MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the
murder. A Mauser might have done it though...:) The shot is at an
angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
outward.

>
>
> >    Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
>
> > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>
> > TSBD scene.
>
> Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bullets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a moot point.
>

The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 people
that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
when asked, and one of them even said that the original bullet wasn't
round niosed, but it was 'pointy nosed'. So there was a replacement
of the bullet later. A quick look at the CE399 bullet next to the
CE572 test bullet shows the amazing similarity between them. Go to:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

Scroll down to F-294 and click on the picture and check out the 2
first bullets. Note the slight bend in the middle and the loss of a
bit of material at the tail end. CE399 was a test bullet that was
replaced later before the failed identification of the 4 people (2 of
which were Secret service). So who's the dimwit now? The other
bullet CE567 & CE569 were found in the middle of the night supposedly
in the limo, but the limo was cleaned at Parkland and they missed it
sitting right on the seat and under it. Even while driving the limo
to airport when stealing it no bullet fragment was noticed, and
driving it from the airport too. But late in the night it turns up?
Naah. What ever tuerned up was later replaced by another test bulet
that had been fired into a hard surface and caused it to break. As a
full metal jacket bullet it waqs made to go through people and not
break open or spread, so to cause less damage to the body.

> > And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
>
> > per Robert Frazier of the FBI.
>
> Ditto
>
> >  The bolt was hard to work, making the
>
> > aim go off on each action of the bolt.
>
> Keep making those irrelevant points. The condition of the rifle didn't preclude it from being the murder weapon.
>

However, all the other points do. And to top it off, 2 Dallas cops
swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.

> > No way anyone could aim
>
> > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>
> > murder.
>
> Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>

Nope. Won't do.

> Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>
> > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
>
> Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>

It sure did. Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't been fired
since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't so the job. And the
FBI proved it. They wereunabvle to test the rifle until they had
taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as
per Robert Frazier and Simmoins WC testimony. Simmons said the bolt
was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the
action was worked. Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2-3
minutes to get used to it. Experience that Oswald didn't have, being
a semi-auto trained fellow. Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.
Nope. Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, ands no one did with
the MC rifle. Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.
Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
Frazier and Simmons.

>
>
> >    If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
>
> > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>
> But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and another was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.

LOL! 'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the kill
weapon...:) See above. Insist all you want, it's useless. The
CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy
that tried to place it failed and it haqs been a bone of contention
ever since.

> '> That thing was in terrible condition when

>
> > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
>
> > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.

Nope. Not with that rifle. The scope didn't work, and neither did
the action. They had to work it for long periods to get it to
function at all. Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt
function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.

" And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'
testimony and here's a small part of it:
Incidentally, I have it on good authority that the “gunsmith” that
reworked the
weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
me that,
when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
and too
dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
action to
receiver."
From: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf

Sure, tell us all about the deadly MC weapon...LOL!

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > wasn't used to shoot at JFK.  That thing was in terrible condition when

> > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
> > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> > Chris
>
> Then why was it ballistically linked to the bullet fragments found in
> the limousine?
>

Because they had to have a rifle that was linked to Oswald to make
him the patsy. See my previous post as to how they used the test
bullet to replace CE399 and the silly middle of the night fragmented
bullet. They probably came from the MC rifle, but they never killed
anyone. And the stupid FBI (or clever depending on how you look at
it) wiped offf some material on the bullets so we'll never know what
blood type was there, or maybe it was it just some debris.

> Why could Specialist Miller hit two targets out three with the iron
> sights, in the head, in 4.45 seconds?
>
> Because the rifle couldn't shoot?
>
> LOL! You're a know-nothing blowhard, Chris.
>

Silly boy. You have screwed up again...:) First, the FBI had to
shim up the scope becasue it wouldn't aim properly, and when a
gunsmith has it in hi hands, there's no telling what else he had to
do. See the previous post for comments from a known gunsmith John
Ritchson. So all thios work had to be done to the MC rifle first
before they could even shoot it. That means that the condition it was
in when it was received by the FBI was not safe to shoot, and not able
to shoot straight.

> You couldn't research your way out of a paper bag.
>
>

Poor fellow...ad hominem attacks instead of intelligent debate.
When it gets to that level it's becasue there's no more answers to the
points made. Thank you for this opportunity...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

> > wasn't used to shoot at JFK.  That thing was in terrible condition when

> > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
> > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> > Chris
>
> PS, Chris, Delgado retracted much of what he said in 1986 under oath
> for the docudrama *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald*.
>
> The video is right here, Chris:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNHsNqndu5M
>
> Note what he says about Oswald's shooting ability, Chris.
>

Interesting video and I've seen it before. While Delgado thinks
that Oswald might have done better, we know that oswald never got past
Sharpshooter, and dropped down to marksman. Whether he could or could
not shoot better, we'll never know. Delgado did not retract anything
he had said previously that I can find. He never retracted the 'dirty
rifle' comment for instance, so all we can get from that dideo is that
Delgado had reason to be scared that the FBI was hounding him, which
many people had. The FBI had gotten peole to change their testimony,
or shut them up, like with Ed Hoffman or Acquila Clemmons, and they
did many other nasty things to carry out Hoover's orders that they
would support ONLY the lone nut assassin scenario. Here's an ex-FBI
agent saying they did all kinds of illegal things in Dalls as well as
elsewhere on this case:
http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

> Why didn't you post THAT as well as Lane's self-serving video, Chris?
>
> I mean, it's only been kicking around since 1986.
>

You now want to decide for me what videos I choose? LOL! Give it
up. You'll never convince anyone that Oswald shot anyone, never mind
that he actually could hit anything. His reputation was as a bad
marksman, and that was years before the murder at hand.

> You're about as HONEST as Mark Lane, Chris.
>

Aww, and I thought it was going so well...:)

Chris

[Bud]

Not to retards anyway. They like pretending Oswald was innocent. A
silly game played by retards for decades now. Doesn`t amount to
anything.

[Bud]

Of course you can`t show that either one did any such thing. Just
another thing you heard and liked the sound of.

> They both said it was
> not doable.

Then why do they give rifles to soldiers, stupid?

>  It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the
> MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the
> murder.  A Mauser might have done it though...:)  The shot is at an
> angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
> outward.

Hunters make harder shots than this every day.

> > >    Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
>
> > > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>
> > > TSBD scene.
>
> > Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bullets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a moot point.
>
>   The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 people
> that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
> when asked,

I could they say positively that it was the bullet they handled.
Unless you mark it you can`t. Tomlinson did say that CE399 looks like
the bullet he found, and he was first to handle it.

> and one of them even said that the original bullet wasn't
> round niosed, but it was 'pointy nosed'.  So there was a replacement
> of the bullet later.  A quick look at the CE399 bullet next to the

> CE572 test bullet shows the amazing similarity between them.  Go to:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearin...

>
>     Scroll down to F-294 and click on the picture and check out the 2
> first bullets.  Note the slight bend in the middle and the loss of a
> bit of material at the tail end.  CE399 was a test bullet that was
> replaced later before the failed identification of the 4 people (2 of
> which were Secret service).  So who's the dimwit now?  The other
> bullet CE567 & CE569 were found in the middle of the night  supposedly
> in the limo, but the limo was cleaned at Parkland and they missed it
> sitting right on the seat and under it.  Even while driving the limo
> to airport when stealing it no bullet fragment was noticed, and
> driving it from the airport too.  But late in the night it turns up?
> Naah.  What ever tuerned up was later replaced by another test bulet
> that had been fired into a hard surface and caused it to break.  As a
> full metal jacket bullet it waqs made to go through people and not
> break open or spread, so to cause less damage to the body.
>
> > > And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
>
> > > per Robert Frazier of the FBI.
>
> > Ditto
>
> > >  The bolt was hard to work, making the
>
> > > aim go off on each action of the bolt.
>
> > Keep making those irrelevant points. The condition of the rifle didn't preclude it from being the murder weapon.
>
>   However, all the other points do.  And to top it off, 2 Dallas cops
> swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.

Swore? Where did they swear, in court?

There is film of the rifle being found, yet you idiots insist on
focusing on the same erroneous information that has gone nowhere for
decades.

> > > No way anyone could aim
>
> > > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>
> > > murder.
>
> > Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.

Tell that to JFK.

> > Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>
> > > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
>
> > Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>
>   It sure did.  Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't been fired
> since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't so the job.  And the
> FBI proved it.  They wereunabvle to test the rifle until they had
> taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
> scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as
> per Robert Frazier and Simmoins WC testimony.  Simmons said the bolt
> was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the
> action was worked.  Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2-3
> minutes to get used to it.  Experience that Oswald didn't have, being
> a semi-auto trained fellow.  Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.
> Nope.  Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, ands no one did with
> the MC rifle.  Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.
> Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
> Frazier and Simmons.

You just don`t understand what these people said.

> > >    If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
>
> > > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>
> > But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and another was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
>
>  LOL!  'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the kill
> weapon...:)   See above.  Insist all you want, it's useless.

A retard`s mind is made up. What could matter less?

> The
> CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy
> that tried to place it failed and it haqs been a bone of contention
> ever since.

Another retard talking point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately for
retards once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher the bullet
was found on all claims that it was found on the wrong stretcher are
meaningless.

> > '> That thing was in terrible condition when
>
> > > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
>
> > > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> > But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.
>
>   Nope.  Not with that rifle.  The scope didn't work, and neither did
> the action.

Wrong twice.

>  They had to work it for long periods to get it to
> function at all.

Wrong again.

> Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt
> function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
> supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.

Empty claim.

>   " And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'
> testimony and here's a small part of it:
> Incidentally, I have it on good authority
>that the “gunsmith” that
> reworked the
> weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
> me that,
> when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
> and too
> dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
> action to
> receiver."
> From:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf

Meaningless, empty claims repeated by retards as if repeating them
makes them valid.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka122...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

True Benny but there are many targets between the 50 yard and 400 yard target,
their range unknown. Of course you know this but had rather be an asshole which
is your style.

>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...

The only thing stupid here is you.

>That is, if I believed what you say.

Then look it up, asshole.

>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>
>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>know anything about screwing?
>
>
>
>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?

So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.

>>> How can the score of a Marine firing for qualification in Okinawa be
>>> correlated with another Marine firing for qualification in Camp Pendleton?
>>> Or to put it more precisely, how can you know that their proven rifle
>>> ability on a given day is virtually identical with each other if they
>>> both fire a 227?
>>
>>Too many variables to correlate, Benny.
>
>
>Not at all. I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any. As I just did
>below.

See my comments below.

>>And if they fired a 227 I'd say they
>>need your expert help. Snicker.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>You just can't help showing your stupidity, can you Billy? A 227, while not an
>*exceptionally* high score, is still beyond the bell curve of most Marines. I'd
>guestimate that perhaps 20% or less hit that number regularly.

In other words you pulled that out of your ass. You need a score of 250 for a
marksman so it seems to me that 227 isn't so good. Are Marines that bad a shot?

>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
>weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of weather,
>at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
>of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
>same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
>firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
>handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>
>Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
>two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of

>standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,

>the doesn't have.

According to me? You just pulled that out of your ass, I said no such thing,
Marsh. Now this might be over your pin-head but check the weather that day in
Okinawa and Camp Pendleton for starters and get back to me.

>I imagine that because of this inability on the part of the Army to standardize
>their weapons training & qualifications - that some people receive promotions
>ill-deserved... perhaps that's what happened to you.

Again, the only one saying this is your sorry ass. Pardon me if I don't give a
shit.

>But the point of all of this is that you - with your lack of understanding of
>any sort of standards, can easily imagine a former Marine who had little skill
>with a rifle, beating out NRA rated Masters while doing the same task over the
>same set of conditions.
>
>Because according to you, the Army doesn't *have* any sort of standards for
>rifle qualification - so equating what different people have accomplished can
>be done by you with no regard for the *conditions* of the test.

Not so fast Marsh. This is according to you. You can't back it up.

>Moron, aren't you?

No but you damn sure are. To make it worse you are an obnoxious asshole.

>P.S. Why not help "Doc" with his inability to admit that a scope does *NOT* aid
>in "rapid" firing? Teach him about the narrowed field of vision, and what that
>does to the rapid acquisition of a target. Of course, if you do, you'll be
>disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report - and Johnny will lower your
>grade.

We've been through this before, remember. Your whine about John will pass
without comment, considering your diminished mental capacity. That ole tertiary
syphilis working on what little brain you have left?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <739a438e-d62a-4912...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Dec 9, 7:05=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Dec 8, 8:43=A0pm, jecorbett1...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Saturday, December 8, 2012 5:52:49 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>> > > On Dec 7, 7:18=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Hi All,
>>

>> > > > Further to the question that Bud asked, and on closer examination o=
>f
>>
>> > > > the published targets, I believe it is possible to ascertain the FU=
>LL
>>
>> > > > results for the three WC expert shooters @ distances of 175, 240 an=

>> > > > These figures certainly put the lie to Mark Lane's claim that the W=

>C
>>
>> > > > shooters could not even APPROACH Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
>>
>> > > > The fellow is quite simply a damn liar!
>>
>> > > > Regards,
>>
>> > > > Tim Brennan
>>
>> > > > Sydney, Australia
>>
>> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
>>
>> > > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>>
>> > > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>>

>> > > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://=

>www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>

>> > > =A0 =A0Expert shooters? =A0I thought Oswald was a marksman in his las=
>t
>>
>> > > quals. =A0That's 2 notches down from 'expert'.
>>
>> > Do you think it takes an expert to kill a guy with a rifle less than 90=
> yards away?
>>
>> =A0 In this case, yes. =A0Both craig Roberts ans Carlos Hathcock tried to

>> duplicate the TSBD shots and weren't able to.
>
> Of course you can`t show that either one did any such thing. Just
>another thing you heard and liked the sound of.
>

>>=A0They both said it was

>> not doable.
>
> Then why do they give rifles to soldiers, stupid?
>

>> =A0It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the

>> MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the

>> murder. =A0A Mauser might have done it though...:) =A0The shot is at an

>> angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
>> outward.
>
> Hunters make harder shots than this every day.

I have never understood why this was supposed to be such a difficult shot. I
simply don't understand how a 100 yard shot at a slowly moving target can be so
difficult.

As you say, hunters do it all the time.

Bill Clarke



>> > > =A0 =A0Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to all=

>ow it
>>
>> > > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>>
>> > > TSBD scene.
>>

>> > Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bu=
>llets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody=
> was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a m=
>oot point.
>>
>> =A0 The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 people

>> that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
>> when asked,
>
> I could they say positively that it was the bullet they handled.
>Unless you mark it you can`t. Tomlinson did say that CE399 looks like
>the bullet he found, and he was first to handle it.
>
>> and one of them even said that the original bullet wasn't

>> round niosed, but it was 'pointy nosed'. =A0So there was a replacement
>> of the bullet later. =A0A quick look at the CE399 bullet next to the
>> CE572 test bullet shows the amazing similarity between them. =A0Go to:htt=
>p://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearin...
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Scroll down to F-294 and click on the picture and check out the 2
>> first bullets. =A0Note the slight bend in the middle and the loss of a
>> bit of material at the tail end. =A0CE399 was a test bullet that was

>> replaced later before the failed identification of the 4 people (2 of

>> which were Secret service). =A0So who's the dimwit now? =A0The other
>> bullet CE567 & CE569 were found in the middle of the night =A0supposedly

>> in the limo, but the limo was cleaned at Parkland and they missed it

>> sitting right on the seat and under it. =A0Even while driving the limo

>> to airport when stealing it no bullet fragment was noticed, and

>> driving it from the airport too. =A0But late in the night it turns up?
>> Naah. =A0What ever tuerned up was later replaced by another test bulet
>> that had been fired into a hard surface and caused it to break. =A0As a

>> full metal jacket bullet it waqs made to go through people and not
>> break open or spread, so to cause less damage to the body.
>>
>> > > And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
>>
>> > > per Robert Frazier of the FBI.
>>
>> > Ditto
>>

>> > > =A0The bolt was hard to work, making the

>>
>> > > aim go off on each action of the bolt.
>>

>> > Keep making those irrelevant points. The condition of the rifle didn't =

>preclude it from being the murder weapon.
>>

>> =A0 However, all the other points do. =A0And to top it off, 2 Dallas cops

>> swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.
>
> Swore? Where did they swear, in court?
>
> There is film of the rifle being found, yet you idiots insist on
>focusing on the same erroneous information that has gone nowhere for
>decades.
>
>> > > No way anyone could aim
>>
>> > > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>>
>> > > murder.
>>
>> > Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>>

>> =A0 Nope. =A0Won't do.

>
> Tell that to JFK.
>
>> > Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>>
>> > > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>>

>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DnS9Zi0B60lw

>>
>> > Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>>

>> =A0 It sure did. =A0Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't been fire=
>d
>> since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't so the job. =A0And the
>> FBI proved it. =A0They wereunabvle to test the rifle until they had

>> taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
>> scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as

>> per Robert Frazier and Simmoins WC testimony. =A0Simmons said the bolt

>> was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the

>> action was worked. =A0Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2-3
>> minutes to get used to it. =A0Experience that Oswald didn't have, being
>> a semi-auto trained fellow. =A0Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.
>> Nope. =A0Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, ands no one did with
>> the MC rifle. =A0Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.

>> Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
>> Frazier and Simmons.
>
> You just don`t understand what these people said.
>

>> > > =A0 =A0If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it

>>
>> > > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>>

>> > But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and anot=

>her was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
>>

>> =A0LOL! =A0'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the kill
>> weapon...:) =A0 See above. =A0Insist all you want, it's useless.

>
> A retard`s mind is made up. What could matter less?
>

>>=A0The

>> CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy
>> that tried to place it failed and it haqs been a bone of contention
>> ever since.
>
> Another retard talking point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately for
>retards once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher the bullet
>was found on all claims that it was found on the wrong stretcher are
>meaningless.
>
>> > '> That thing was in terrible condition when
>>

>> > > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit th=

>e
>>
>> > > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>>
>> > But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.
>>

>> =A0 Nope. =A0Not with that rifle. =A0The scope didn't work, and neither d=
>id
>> the action.
>
> Wrong twice.
>
>> =A0They had to work it for long periods to get it to

>> function at all.
>
> Wrong again.
>

>>=A0Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt

>> function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
>> supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.
>
> Empty claim.
>

>> =A0 " And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'

>> testimony and here's a small part of it:
>> Incidentally, I have it on good authority

>>that the =93gunsmith=94 that

>> reworked the
>> weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
>> me that,
>> when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
>> and too
>> dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
>> action to
>> receiver."
>> From:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf
>
> Meaningless, empty claims repeated by retards as if repeating them
>makes them valid.
>

>> =A0 Sure, tell us all about the deadly MC weapon...LOL!
>>
>> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

LOL! What do you think has kept the issue alive, aside from you and
your buddies pretending there's nothing to the paranoia about the
perpetrators...:) That has helped the case immensely. Denialists
have always done that. Foolish, but who can expect them to have any
sense?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Dec 9, 12:17 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <739a438e-d62a-4912-b0bf-dd1b0ddb9...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

> ...
>
> read more »

Nope, hunters don't have to shoot at a target that is moving in
quite this way. That's why the expert snipers saw it as not doable.

Chris

[Bud]

You think the nonsense you idiots believe is the fault of the people
trying to talk sense to you?

[Bud]

How do the animals hunters shoot at move differently?

>That's why the expert snipers saw it as not doable.

Nonsense.

> Chris

[mainframetech]

You're a phony little buddy. You've been given the backup for that
before, and you have nothing to say in response, so you jusrt keep
repeating yours dumb complaints and whines. Check out Roberts' book
"Kill Zone" at page 89.

> > They both said it was
> > not doable.
>
>   Then why do they give rifles to soldiers, stupid?
>

Well stupid little buddy, didn't it occur to you after all the
evidence you've been forced to listen to, that the MC rifle was a
special case because it was in such bad condition that it couldn't be
used. It couldn't be aimed properly, and the bolt didn't work
properly. It had to worked on first before the FBI could do their
testing. Of course, that made any forensic testing invalid after
that. Sewe testimony of Robert Frazier and Simmons of the FBI.

> >  It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the
> > MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the
> > murder.  A Mauser might have done it though...:)  The shot is at an
> > angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
> > outward.
>
>   Hunters make harder shots than this every day.
>

Nope. You've been given the info you need to do better thinking
than that. You must be under some kind of orders to keep saying such
stupid things. I think you're already convinced that Oswald was
innocent and that the kill shot came from the GK, but you're not
allowed to say that or get your head handed to you...:)

> > > >    Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
>
> > > > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>
> > > > TSBD scene.
>
> > > Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bullets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a moot point.
>
> >   The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 people
> > that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
> > when asked,
>
>   I could they say positively that it was the bullet they handled.
> Unless you mark it you can`t. Tomlinson did say that CE399 looks like
> the bullet he found, and he was first to handle it.
>

Wright was the one that said that it wasn't even the same shape as
the bullet they handled. It was round nosed instead of being 'pointy
nosed'. That was probably the reason the 2 SS guys couldn't identify
it either, it was the wrong shape. Yep, a replacement that came from
the MC rifle to make it look like the kill bullets did too...:)

Poor little buddy, Have you any idea how stupid you sound to all
that read this by saying such stupid things? The points proving the
replacement of the CE399 bullet show also that conspiracy was going on
with the evidence. And the condition of the rifle relates to the
ability of a shooter to use it to carry out a murder, which it
couldn't do.

> >   However, all the other points do.  And to top it off, 2 Dallas cops
> > swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.
>
>   Swore? Where did they swear, in court?
>

What a dunce. I thought you knew this case, but obviously you have
failed again. they both swore out affidavits for the record after the
finding of the Mauser. Next day they got Weitzman to recant, but
Roger Craig never did. He paid for his principles though they hounded
him to death.

>   There is film of the rifle being found, yet you idiots insist on
> focusing on the same erroneous information that has gone nowhere for
> decades.
>

Prove that the rifle being waved around in the camera lens was the
MC. Since they looked alike, you would be hard pressed to do it.

> > > > No way anyone could aim
>
> > > > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>
> > > > murder.
>
> > > Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>
> >   Nope.  Won't do.
>
>   Tell that to JFK.
>

That rifle couldn't kill anyone unless they stood with their head
against the muzzle when it was fired, and even then it wasn't sure
that it would fire properly givewn the terrible condition it was in.

>
> > > Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>
> > > > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
>
> > > Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>
> >   It sure did.  Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't been fired

> > since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't do the job.  And the
> > FBI proved it.  They were unable to test the rifle until they had

> > taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
> > scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as

> > per Robert Frazier and Simmins' WC testimony.  Simmons said the bolt

> > was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the
> > action was worked.  Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2-3
> > minutes to get used to it.  Experience that Oswald didn't have, being
> > a semi-auto trained fellow.  Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.

> > Nope.  Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, and no one did with

> > the MC rifle.  Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.
> > Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
> > Frazier and Simmons.
>
>   You just don`t understand what these people said.

LOL! THAT is what you call a response? That is the weakest crap
I've heard in a day or two from you...:)

>
> > > >    If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
>
> > > > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>
> > > But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and another was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
>
> >  LOL!  'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the kill
> > weapon...:)   See above.  Insist all you want, it's useless.
>
>   A retard`s mind is made up. What could matter less?
>

Welp, a denialist's mind would matter less...:)

> > The
> > CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy

> > that tried to place it failed and it has been a bone of contention

> > ever since.
>
>   Another retard talking point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately for
> retards once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher the bullet
> was found on all claims that it was found on the wrong stretcher are
> meaningless.
>

Ah, but he corrected that impression that the attorney tried to
force him to say. Read the testimony. The attorney tried to get him
to say he wasn't sure. Before that he WAS sure. Anf the latest
chance he had to correct the record with the NOVA special, he did make
it clear that it was on the wrong one.

> > > '> That thing was in terrible condition when
>
> > > > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
>
> > > > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> > > But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.
>
> >   Nope.  Not with that rifle.  The scope didn't work, and neither did
> > the action.
>
>   Wrong twice.
>

Prove it. I've presented evidence to the contrary, put out
evidence to say it happened in the theoretical way the dumb WC said.

> >  They had to work it for long periods to get it to
> > function at all.
>
>   Wrong again.

> check the record fool. You will look very stupid yet again. How can you go through this day after day making an idiot out of yourself in front of the public?

> > Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt
> > function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
> > supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.
>
>   Empty claim.
>

Nope. Won't do. Just saying a couple words shows that you have no
decent response. And of course, you're lazy...:)

> >   " And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'
> > testimony and here's a small part of it:
> > Incidentally, I have it on good authority
> >that the “gunsmith” that
> > reworked the
> > weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
> > me that,
> > when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
> > and too
> > dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
> > action to
> > receiver."
> > From:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf
>
>   Meaningless, empty claims repeated by retards as if repeating them
> makes them valid.
>

Hmm. The truth bothers you and the only response is the typical ad
hominem attacks. Which fail constantly...:)

[Bud]

What is Roberts training as a sniper?

> > > They both said it was
> > > not doable.
>
> >   Then why do they give rifles to soldiers, stupid?
>
>   Well stupid little buddy, didn't it occur to you after all the
> evidence you've been forced to listen to, that the MC rifle was a
> special case because it was in such bad condition that it couldn't be
> used.

When I asked you to quote someone saying that you couldn`t, so I
assumed it was the product of your imagination.

> It couldn't be aimed properly,

At the time of the shooting?

> and the bolt didn't work
> properly.

Worked fine. How do you think Fritz was able to eject the unspent
round?

>  It had to worked on first before the FBI could do their
> testing.

I asked you to show that work was done on the bolt. You couldn`t.

> Of course, that made any forensic testing invalid after
> that.  Sewe testimony of Robert Frazier and Simmons of the FBI.

Nothing there supports your nonsense.

> > >  It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the
> > > MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the
> > > murder.  A Mauser might have done it though...:)  The shot is at an
> > > angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
> > > outward.
>
> >   Hunters make harder shots than this every day.
>
>   Nope.

Sure they do. Something like a million deer are killed every years
by hunters. They all aren`t standing still.

>  You've been given the info you need to do better thinking
> than that.

I repeatedly asked you to provide the information you are claiming
and you can`t.

> You must be under some kind of orders to keep saying such
> stupid things.  I think you're already convinced that Oswald was
> innocent and that the kill shot came from the GK, but you're not
> allowed to say that or get your head handed to you...:)

The things you retards contrive are immaterial.

> > > > >    Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up to allow it
>
> > > > > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from the
>
> > > > > TSBD scene.
>
> > > > Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered bullets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that somebody was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition a moot point.
>
> > >   The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 people
> > > that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
> > > when asked,
>
> >   I could they say positively that it was the bullet they handled.
> > Unless you mark it you can`t. Tomlinson did say that CE399 looks like
> > the bullet he found, and he was first to handle it.
>
>   Wright was the one that said that it wasn't even the same shape as
> the bullet they handled.  It was round nosed instead of being 'pointy
> nosed'.

Yet Tomlinson said the bullet in evidence looks like the one he
handed Wright.

>  That was probably the reason the 2 SS guys couldn't identify
> it either, it was the wrong shape.

Is that what you figure, retard? What is the figuring of a retard
worth?

> Yep, a replacement that came from
> the MC rifle to make it look like the kill bullets did too...:)

Yes, all the stupid ideas of retards require such hijinx. Switched
rifles, switched bullets, whatever it takes to pretend Oswald was
innocent.

You are too stupid to figure out the ">" system, I didn`t write
that.

>  The points proving the
> replacement of the CE399 bullet show also that conspiracy was going on
> with the evidence.  And the condition of the rifle relates to the
> ability of a shooter to use it to carry out a murder, which it
> couldn't do.
>
> > >   However, all the other points do.  And to top it off, 2 Dallas cops
> > > swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.
>
> >   Swore? Where did they swear, in court?
>
>    What a dunce.  I thought you knew this case, but obviously you have
> failed again.  they both swore out affidavits for the record after the
> finding of the Mauser.

You don`t swear out affidavits, stupid.

> Next day they got Weitzman to recant, but
> Roger Craig never did.  He paid for his principles though they hounded
> him to death.

Unfortunately for your ideas the finding of the rifle was filmed.

> >   There is film of the rifle being found, yet you idiots insist on
> > focusing on the same erroneous information that has gone nowhere for
> > decades.
>
>   Prove that the rifle being waved around in the camera lens was the
> MC.  Since they looked alike, you would be hard pressed to do it.

No stupid, the rifle in the film is an MC, not a Mauser.

> > > > > No way anyone could aim
>
> > > > > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>
> > > > > murder.
>
> > > > Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>
> > >   Nope.  Won't do.
>
> >   Tell that to JFK.
>
>    That rifle couldn't kill anyone

Tell that to JFK.

>unless they stood with their head
> against the muzzle when it was fired, and even then it wasn't sure
> that it would fire properly givewn the terrible condition it was in.

> > > > Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>
> > > > > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw
>
> > > > Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>
> > >   It sure did.  Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't been fired
> > > since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't do the job.  And the
> > > FBI proved it.  They were unable to test the rifle until they had
> > > taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
> > > scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as
> > > per Robert Frazier and Simmins' WC testimony.  Simmons said the bolt
> > > was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the
> > > action was worked.  Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2-3
> > > minutes to get used to it.  Experience that Oswald didn't have, being
> > > a semi-auto trained fellow.  Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.
> > > Nope.  Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, and no one did with
> > > the MC rifle.  Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waiting.
> > > Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
> > > Frazier and Simmons.
>
> >   You just don`t understand what these people said.
>
>   LOL!  THAT is what you call a response?  That is the weakest crap
> I've heard in a day or two from you...:)

They didn`t take the positions you are claiming they did. If they
had you could quote them.

> > > > >    If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murder, it
>
> > > > > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>
> > > > But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and another was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
>
> > >  LOL!  'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the kill
> > > weapon...:)   See above.  Insist all you want, it's useless.
>
> >   A retard`s mind is made up. What could matter less?
>
>   Welp, a denialist's mind would matter less...:)> > The
> > > CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy
> > > that tried to place it failed and it has been a bone of contention
> > > ever since.
>
> >   Another retard talking point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately for
> > retards once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher the bullet
> > was found on all claims that it was found on the wrong stretcher are
> > meaningless.
>
>   Ah, but he corrected that impression that the attorney tried to
> force him to say.  Read the testimony.

I did. Thats how I know Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which
stretcher he found the bullet on.

> The attorney tried to get  him
> to say he wasn't sure.  Before that he WAS sure.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, has your recollection always been the same about
the situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret
Service man and when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; I told him that I wasn't sure.

>  Anf the latest
> chance he had to correct the record with the NOVA special, he did make
> it clear that it was on the wrong one.

Memory doesn`t improve decades alter.

> > > > '> That thing was in terrible condition when
>
> > > > > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit the
>
> > > > > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>
> > > > But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.
>
> > >   Nope.  Not with that rifle.  The scope didn't work, and neither did
> > > the action.
>
> >   Wrong twice.
>
>    Prove it.  I've presented evidence to the contrary,

No, you really haven`t. You said some things you were really
impressed with, but added up to nothing.

> put out
> evidence to say it happened in the theoretical way the dumb WC said.
>
> > >  They had to work it for long periods to get it to
> > > function at all.
>
> >   Wrong again.

> >  check the record fool.

Show were they had to work the bolt a long period of time to get it
to operate.
'

> You will look very stupid yet again.  How can you go through this day after day making an idiot out of yourself in front of the public?
> > > Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt
> > > function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
> > > supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.
>
> >   Empty claim.
>
>   Nope.  Won't do.
> Just saying a couple words shows that you have no
> decent response.

It`s adequate for me to point out that you`ve made an empty claim
when you make an empty claim.

>  And of course, you're lazy...:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >   " And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'
> > > testimony and here's a small part of it:
> > > Incidentally, I have it on good authority
> > >that the “gunsmith” that
> > > reworked the
> > > weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
> > > me that,
> > > when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
> > > and too
> > > dangerous to fire, and had to essentially be completely rebuilt from
> > > action to
> > > receiver."
> > > From:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2ritchson3.pdf
>
> >   Meaningless, empty claims repeated by retards as if repeating them
> > makes them valid.
>
>   Hmm.  The truth bothers you

This drivel has been established to be true? By who? How?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka2gl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

You once again failed to grasp the essential - which is that they *ARE*
standardized distances that soldiers around the world, regardless of their duty
station, would be expected to qualify on.

Despite your denial.

>>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...
>
>The only thing stupid here is you.

So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?


I didn't, of course... I knew that you simply couldn't figure out the point.

>>That is, if I believed what you say.
>
>Then look it up, asshole.

I have. It's in an Army FM. So I know you're lying. There *ARE* standards for
Army rifle qualifications.

>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>
>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>know anything about screwing?
>>
>>
>>
>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>
>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.

So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.

>>>> How can the score of a Marine firing for qualification in Okinawa be
>>>> correlated with another Marine firing for qualification in Camp Pendleton?
>>>> Or to put it more precisely, how can you know that their proven rifle
>>>> ability on a given day is virtually identical with each other if they
>>>> both fire a 227?
>>>
>>>Too many variables to correlate, Benny.
>>
>>
>>Not at all. I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any. As I just did
>>below.
>
>See my comments below.
>
>>>And if they fired a 227 I'd say they
>>>need your expert help. Snicker.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>> You just can't help showing your stupidity, can you Billy? A 227, while not
>> an *exceptionally* high score, is still beyond the bell curve of most
>> Marines. I'd guestimate that perhaps 20% or less hit that number regularly.
>
>In other words you pulled that out of your ass.

Actually, a fairly intelligent guess, since I've fired on many USMC ranges, and
as a contender for high shooter, took exceptional interest in the listing of
scores.

I no longer have access to those scoring lists, so yes, I told the truth. I
guestimated it. I daresay I'm not far off the mark.

>You need a score of 250 for a marksman

You seem confused. Perhap this explains your inability to understand Oswald's
firing ability. The scoring in the Marine Corps is quite simple... you have a
total of 50 rounds, each worth a maximum of 5 points.

So you apparently believe that someone who hasn't missed a *SINGLE* shot is
merely a "Marksman" - which is the lowest of the three categories.

> so it seems to me that 227 isn't so good. Are Marines that bad a shot?

Nah, you just can't figure out that the Marine Corps utilizes a different
qualification system from the Army (despite the fact that you *proved* you knew
this earlier)

>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
>>weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of
>>weather,
>>at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
>>of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
>>same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
>>firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
>>handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>
>>Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
>>two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of
>>standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,
>>the doesn't have.
>
>According to me? You just pulled that out of your ass, I said no such thing,

"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range "

>Marsh. Now this might be over your pin-head but check the weather that day in
>Okinawa and Camp Pendleton for starters and get back to me.

Sorry stupid... the Marine Corps doesn't fire for qualification if weather is
too far out of the normal.

And I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Okinawa and Camp Pendleton, and I can
assure you that there weren't any noticeable differences. So unless you can find
a Marine who has *also* fired in both locations, and disputes what I say, you're
sort of stuck, aren't you?

>>I imagine that because of this inability on the part of the Army to standardize
>>their weapons training & qualifications - that some people receive promotions
>>ill-deserved... perhaps that's what happened to you.
>
>Again, the only one saying this is your sorry ass. Pardon me if I don't give a
>shit.

"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range"

>>But the point of all of this is that you - with your lack of understanding of
>>any sort of standards, can easily imagine a former Marine who had little skill
>>with a rifle, beating out NRA rated Masters while doing the same task over the
>>same set of conditions.
>>
>>Because according to you, the Army doesn't *have* any sort of standards for
>>rifle qualification - so equating what different people have accomplished can
>>be done by you with no regard for the *conditions* of the test.
>
>Not so fast Marsh. This is according to you. You can't back it up.

"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range"

>>Moron, aren't you?
>
>No but you damn sure are. To make it worse you are an obnoxious asshole.

Yep... to the moronic and illiterate, someone who can read and think logically
is a real challenge.

>>P.S. Why not help "Doc" with his inability to admit that a scope does *NOT* aid
>>in "rapid" firing? Teach him about the narrowed field of vision, and what that
>>does to the rapid acquisition of a target. Of course, if you do, you'll be
>>disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report - and Johnny will lower your
>>grade.
>
>We've been through this before, remember. Your whine about John will pass
>without comment, considering your diminished mental capacity. That ole tertiary
>syphilis working on what little brain you have left?
>
>Bill Clarke

Yep... I guess you can't help "Doc" out on this issue... you're as yellow as he
is.


By the way...

As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.

1. They're firing the same weapon,
2. Same ammo,
3. At the same time of day,
4. In roughly the same sort of weather,
5. At identical sized targets,
6. At the same standard distances,
7. At the same course of fire,
8. In the same positions,
9. Using the same set of procedures,
10. And in the same time requirements.
11. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before firing week,
12. And they fire the same number of days,
13. And to within a *small* handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.

I stated that: "I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any." and your
answer was to see your answer below...

The only one you provided was a quibble about weather in Okinawa & Camp
Pendleton - which simply isn't true. And I base that on *personal* experience.

So what happened Billy? Did your yellow streak get wider? Or do the facts I
present simply overwhelm you?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka3a7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Of course there are standards and I never said there wasn't. That is some more
of your Marsh crap. So smart boy, tell me the distant from the firing line to
the second, third, forth and so on targets. The point, dumb ass, was battle
zero in which some range estimation is required. I assume the Marine's don't
have this training.

>>>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...
>>
>>The only thing stupid here is you.
>
>
>So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?

You pretend a lot don't you. That wasn't a question.

>I didn't, of course... I knew that you simply couldn't figure out the point.

You are the simple shit that missed the point.

>>>That is, if I believed what you say.
>>
>>Then look it up, asshole.
>
>
>I have. It's in an Army FM. So I know you're lying. There *ARE* standards for
>Army rifle qualifications.

Heh! Everything is in an Army FM you stupid asshole. You got a number on that
FM? Watch Benny the coward run.

>>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>>
>>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>>know anything about screwing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>>
>>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.
>
>
>So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.

You falsely claim I made a statement that I didn't make. Marsh is a master at
it. You have a ways to go.

Do try to keep up Benny. Here you look like you are the one that doesn't know
what the fuck you are talking about. Snicker.

1. Aggregate Scoring: Starting FY 2008, Marines who successfully complete both
Table 1/1A and Table 2 training and evaluation, will have the aggregate score
from both their Table 1/1A and Table 2 evaluations reported in MCTFS as their
qualification score and classification.
2. Classification Scores: Expert 305-350, Sharpshooter280-304, Marksman
250-279.
community.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO 3574.2K.pdf

After qualifying, a Marine will receive a marksmanship badge commensurate with
the score they obtained. For annual qualification with the service rifle, scores
range from 250�279 for marksman, 280�304 for sharpshooter, and 305�350 for
expert.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Badge_(United_States)

>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
>>>weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of
>>>weather,
>>>at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
>>>of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
>>>same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
>>>firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
>>>handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>>
>>>Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
>>>two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of
>>>standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,
>>>the doesn't have.
>>
>>According to me? You just pulled that out of your ass, I said no such thing,
>
>
>"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range "
>
>
>>Marsh. Now this might be over your pin-head but check the weather that day in
>>Okinawa and Camp Pendleton for starters and get back to me.
>
>
>Sorry stupid... the Marine Corps doesn't fire for qualification if weather is
>too far out of the normal.

Normal? What is normal, Benny? You sure aren't.

>And I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Okinawa and Camp Pendleton,

BFD, I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Fort Sill, Fort Knox and Fort Hood
but didn't keep score in Quang Nam Providence.

> and I can assure you that there weren't any noticeable differences.

You can't "assure me" of anything because I don't trust you as far as I can
throw your fat ass.

You stupid bastard if you can focus your drug addled brain you[ll remember that
I agreed with you on this issue. Most beginners know you can pick up the target
much quicker with open sights. So the WCR is wrong. Mark Lane has been wrong
all his life.

>By the way...
>
>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.

So you are telling me that the Wind Speed (mph), Wind Angle (degrees), Altitude
(ft), Pressure (hg), Temperature (F) and Humidity (%) is going to be the same in
Okinawa as it is the day the Marine fires in California? Horse shit Benny.

You also omit the human variable that some days you�re hot and some days you are
not. You can�t fix that and it appears the Marine Corp notes the problem even
if you don�t. See reference below;

"The most intimidating part of the new course of fire may be the requirements
for passing. �If a Marine shoots a high expert on Wednesday but fails the basic
combat shooting portion of the qualification on Friday, then that Marine is not
qualified,� said Garcia."
usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/riflequalify.htm

>1. They're firing the same weapon,
>2. Same ammo,
>3. At the same time of day,
>4. In roughly the same sort of weather,
>5. At identical sized targets,
>6. At the same standard distances,
>7. At the same course of fire,
>8. In the same positions,
>9. Using the same set of procedures,
>10. And in the same time requirements.
>11. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before firing week,
>12. And they fire the same number of days,
>13. And to within a *small* handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>
>I stated that: "I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any." and your
>answer was to see your answer below...
>
>The only one you provided was a quibble about weather in Okinawa & Camp
>Pendleton - which simply isn't true. And I base that on *personal* experience.
>
>So what happened Billy? Did your yellow streak get wider? Or do the facts I
>present simply overwhelm you?

Your facts were wrong as hell but even that didn't overwhelm me because;
1. You are such an insignificant shit.
2. I never trust what you say.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka3sg...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

So now that you understand that there are standards, and standards allow us to
judge the shooting ability of one person versus another person... tell us if the
shooters that the Warren Commission used to test the rifle utilized the same
"standards" that the alleged assassin did.

It's a simple question, and I predict that you'll run from it.

>>>>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...
>>>
>>>The only thing stupid here is you.
>>
>>
>>So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?
>
>You pretend a lot don't you. That wasn't a question.

You didn't answer the question.

>>I didn't, of course... I knew that you simply couldn't figure out the point.
>
>You are the simple shit that missed the point.

Actually, it's quite clear that you're *running* from the point I'm making.

>>>>That is, if I believed what you say.
>>>
>>>Then look it up, asshole.
>>
>>
>>I have. It's in an Army FM. So I know you're lying. There *ARE* standards for
>>Army rifle qualifications.
>
>Heh! Everything is in an Army FM you stupid asshole. You got a number on that
>FM? Watch Benny the coward run.

FM 3-22.9 - You seem to be confused about who "runs" all the time. Here's a
simple example... I just gave the PRECISE and correct answer to your question.
Now, tell us, does a scope aid in *rapid* firing, as the Warren Commission
claimed?

Let's watch what "running" actually consists of...

>>>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>>>
>>>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>>>know anything about screwing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>>>
>>>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.
>>
>>
>>So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.
>
>You falsely claim I made a statement that I didn't make. Marsh is a master at
>it. You have a ways to go.

You made the claim, now you admit, after I quiz you, that they *do* have
standards.

So tell us, if standards are used to determine the shooting ability of one
soldier versus another, wouldn't it be reasonable to apply a similar set of
standards to the Warren Commission rifle testing?

Run Billy... Run!

Sorry stupid... Oswald never went through that.

His scores make *no sense whatsoever* on newer standards.


Why not refer to Air Force shooting qualification scoring? Or better yet, the
Boy Scout's shooting badge? They all have just as much relevance to Oswald's
shooting scores as your attempts to mislead and confuse.

>>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
>>>>weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of
>>>>weather,
>>>>at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
>>>>of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
>>>>same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
>>>>firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
>>>>handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
>>>>two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of
>>>>standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,
>>>>the doesn't have.
>>>
>>>According to me? You just pulled that out of your ass, I said no such thing,
>>
>>
>>"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range "
>>
>>
>>>Marsh. Now this might be over your pin-head but check the weather that day in
>>>Okinawa and Camp Pendleton for starters and get back to me.
>>
>>
>>Sorry stupid... the Marine Corps doesn't fire for qualification if weather is
>>too far out of the normal.
>
>Normal? What is normal, Benny? You sure aren't.

My answer stands...

>>And I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Okinawa and Camp Pendleton,
>
>BFD, I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Fort Sill, Fort Knox and Fort Hood
>but didn't keep score in Quang Nam Providence.

My answer stands...

>> and I can assure you that there weren't any noticeable differences.
>
>You can't "assure me" of anything because I don't trust you as far as I can
>throw your fat ass.

My answer stands...

>> So unless you can find a Marine who has *also* fired in both locations,
>> and disputes what I say, you're sort of stuck, aren't you?

Silence...

Kooks love their experts, except when the experts say things they don't want to
hear.

So all you have to do is state for the record that the Warren Commission *LIED*.

You see, there's *NOTHING* that would lead the Warren Commission to make a
'mistake' on this issue, they flatly lied. But you won't admit it.

>>By the way...
>>
>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.
>
> So you are telling me that the Wind Speed (mph), Wind Angle (degrees),
> Altitude (ft), Pressure (hg), Temperature (F) and Humidity (%) is going
> to be the same in Okinawa as it is the day the Marine fires in California?
> Horse shit Benny.

So too are your parameters... and *you* know it.

> You also omit the human variable that some days you’re hot and some days
> you are not. You can’t fix that and it appears the Marine Corp notes the
> problem even if you don’t. See reference below;
>
>"The most intimidating part of the new course of fire may be the requirements
>for passing. “If a Marine shoots a high expert on Wednesday but fails the basic
>combat shooting portion of the qualification on Friday, then that Marine is not
>qualified,” said Garcia."
>usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/riflequalify.htm

Nothing that refutes the fact that these standards allows the Marine Corps to
*accurately* relate the shooting ability of one Marine to another, despite the
range they fired at, or the day they fired...

>>1. They're firing the same weapon,
>>2. Same ammo,
>>3. At the same time of day,
>>4. In roughly the same sort of weather,
>>5. At identical sized targets,
>>6. At the same standard distances,
>>7. At the same course of fire,
>>8. In the same positions,
>>9. Using the same set of procedures,
>>10. And in the same time requirements.
>>11. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before firing week,
>>12. And they fire the same number of days,
>>13. And to within a *small* handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>
>>I stated that: "I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any." and your
>>answer was to see your answer below...
>>
>>The only one you provided was a quibble about weather in Okinawa & Camp
>>Pendleton - which simply isn't true. And I base that on *personal* experience.
>>
>>So what happened Billy? Did your yellow streak get wider? Or do the facts I
>>present simply overwhelm you?
>
>Your facts were wrong as hell

And yet, everytime you even *attempt* to try, you get shown up for the moron you
are...

Such as your newest attempt to toss a new scoring system on Oswald's scores.

>but even that didn't overwhelm me because;
>1. You are such an insignificant shit.
>2. I never trust what you say.
>
>Bill Clarke

Looks like you lost this one, Billy...

And my crystal ball is telling me that you'll run from the questions I posed.

[aeffects]

are you having a bad hair day, hon? perhaps a bit of GERITOL, you know, get things regular again, it'll help.

[aeffects]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 3:38:01 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Dec 9, 6:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:39 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>

...

>
> >   You're a phony little buddy.  You've been given the backup for that
>
> > before, and you have nothing to say in response, so you jusrt keep
>
> > repeating yours dumb complaints and whines.  Check out Roberts' book
>
> > "Kill Zone" at page 89.
>
>
>
> What is Roberts training as a sniper?

<Roberts quote on>

"Written from the unique perspective of a professional shooter, "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza," not only demolishes all the arguments of lone-assassin proponents, but examines the myriad reasons why Kennedy was killed.

The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it, said former US Marine sniper, Craig Roberts. Credited with numerous kills while serving in Vietnam , Roberts turned an objective eye on the shot heard ‘round the world. After he visited Dealey Plaza, after viewing the so-called sniper’s lair, on the sixth floor of the book depository, and after staring at the large oak tree overspreading much of Elm Street, Roberts said, I walked away from the window in disgust. I had seen all I needed to know that Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.

But Roberts, a retired police investigator, wanted to know what did happen. Not content to dismiss the improbable feat, he delved into the crime from every angle.

First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong. Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula, a law of physics Oswald would not have known.

Not content with his own critical appraisal, Roberts turned to another, equally knowledgeable shooter. According to my friend, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia, it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.

Let me tell you what we did at Quantico, Hathcock recalls. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?

Of course, sergeant Carlos Hathcock was only the most famous American military sniper in history, credited with a confirmed 93 kills. But apologists for a lone assassin, who continue to enjoy mainstream media sponsorship 40 years later, continue to argue that an average shooter like Oswald, using a decrepit, war surplus weapon, could have killed Kennedy. Case closed."

<Roberts quote off>

you really need to keep up here, hon!

[Bud]

On Dec 10, 10:56 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 9, 2012 3:38:01 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 6:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 9:39 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > >   You're a phony little buddy.  You've been given the backup for that
>
> > > before, and you have nothing to say in response, so you jusrt keep
>
> > > repeating yours dumb complaints and whines.  Check out Roberts' book
>
> > > "Kill Zone" at page 89.
>
> >   What is Roberts training as a sniper?
>
> <Roberts quote on>
>
> "Written from the unique perspective of a professional shooter,

So, the answer is no sniper training.

> "Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza," not only demolishes all the arguments of lone-assassin proponents, but examines the myriad reasons why Kennedy was killed.
>
> The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was because I could not have done it, said former US Marine sniper, Craig Roberts.

He wasn`t a Marine sniper. He was a rifleman.

> Credited with numerous kills while serving in Vietnam , Roberts turned an objective eye on the shot heard ‘round the world. After he visited Dealey Plaza, after viewing the so-called sniper’s lair, on the sixth floor of the book depository, and after staring at the large oak tree overspreading much of Elm Street, Roberts said, I walked away from the window in disgust. I had seen all I needed to know that Oswald could not have been the lone shooter.

You know what they say in golf, trees are mostly air.

> But Roberts, a retired police investigator, wanted to know what did happen. Not content to dismiss the improbable feat, he delved into the crime from every angle.

Mostly the angle with his head up his ass.

> First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper . . . I looked at the engagement angles. It was entirely wrong.

Oswald should have moved the building?

>Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes . . . This would be extremely difficult for a right-handed shooter. Second, I would have to be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time; the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula, a law of physics Oswald would not have known.

Apparently this idiot can only hit stationary targets.

> Not content with his own critical appraisal, Roberts turned to another, equally knowledgeable shooter.  According to my friend, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, the former senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia, it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.
>
> Let me tell you what we did at Quantico, Hathcock recalls. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything.

Like this is even possible.

> I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?

He didn`t only qualify "marksman". He also qualified "sharpshooter".

Is there any verification for this nonsense from any other source?

> Of course, sergeant Carlos Hathcock was only the most famous American military sniper in history, credited with a confirmed 93 kills.

Yes, we are supposed to believe he can hit a person a mile away, but
not 66 feet.

> But apologists for a lone assassin, who continue to enjoy mainstream media sponsorship 40 years later, continue to argue that an average shooter like Oswald, using a decrepit, war surplus weapon, could have killed Kennedy. Case closed."
>
> <Roberts quote off>
>
> you really need to keep up here, hon!

What is Robert`s training as a sniper, junkie?

[timstter]

Wow! What a GREAT contribution to the debate you make, Dave.

KUTGW!

Admiring Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka4rp...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

I'll stand firm, Benny. No, the target the WC shooters used was different from
the target the assassin used in Dallas. So it wasn't the same standards.

>>>>>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...
>>>>
>>>>The only thing stupid here is you.
>>>
>>>
>>>So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?
>>
>>You pretend a lot don't you. That wasn't a question.

>You didn't answer the question.

I didn't have to. We all know you are stupid already.

>>>I didn't, of course... I knew that you simply couldn't figure out the point.
>>
>>You are the simple shit that missed the point.
>
>
>Actually, it's quite clear that you're *running* from the point I'm making.
>
>
>>>>>That is, if I believed what you say.
>>>>
>>>>Then look it up, asshole.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have. It's in an Army FM. So I know you're lying. There *ARE* standards for
>>>Army rifle qualifications.
>>
>>Heh! Everything is in an Army FM you stupid asshole. You got a number on that
>>FM? Watch Benny the coward run.
>
>FM 3-22.9 - You seem to be confused about who "runs" all the time. Here's a
>simple example... I just gave the PRECISE and correct answer to your question.
>Now, tell us, does a scope aid in *rapid* firing, as the Warren Commission
>claimed?

>Let's watch what "running" actually consists of...

As I've told you before, no, it does not.

>>>>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>>>>know anything about screwing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>>>>
>>>>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.
>>
>>You falsely claim I made a statement that I didn't make. Marsh is a master at
>>it. You have a ways to go.
>
>
>You made the claim, now you admit, after I quiz you, that they *do* have
>standards.
>
>So tell us, if standards are used to determine the shooting ability of one
>soldier versus another, wouldn't it be reasonable to apply a similar set of
>standards to the Warren Commission rifle testing?
>
>Run Billy... Run!

Yes Benny, by all means shoot JFK again.

Nice try Marsh but you wasn't talking about Oswald. You were talking about the
Marine that shot the same score (227) in Okinawa as he would in California. Now
unless you have a time machine to send this boy back in time to the time Oswald
served your shooter will have to shoot today using the scoring used to day.

>>>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all. They're firing the same
>>>>>weapon, same ammo, at the same time of day, in roughly the same sort of
>>>>>weather,
>>>>>at identical sized targets, at the same standard distances, at the same course
>>>>>of fire, in the same positions, using the same set of procedures, and in the
>>>>>same time requirements. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before
>>>>>firing week, and they fire the same number of days, and to within a *small*
>>>>>handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, I realize that this is probably over your head, but the ability of those
>>>>>two hypothetical Marines can be correlated quite closely indeed - BECAUSE of
>>>>>standardization that the Marine Corps enjoys, and the Army - according to you,
>>>>>the doesn't have.
>>>>
>>>>According to me? You just pulled that out of your ass, I said no such thing,
>>>
>>>
>>>"well Benny, we didn't qualify on a fixed distance range "
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marsh. Now this might be over your pin-head but check the weather that day in
>>>>Okinawa and Camp Pendleton for starters and get back to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry stupid... the Marine Corps doesn't fire for qualification if weather is
>>>too far out of the normal.
>>
>>Normal? What is normal, Benny? You sure aren't.
>
>
>My answer stands...
>
>
>>>And I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Okinawa and Camp Pendleton,
>>
>>BFD, I've fired for qualification in *BOTH* Fort Sill, Fort Knox and Fort Hood
>>but didn't keep score in Quang Nam Providence.
>
>
>My answer stands...

Your answer doesn't meet the standard. It isn't worth a dog turd.

>>> and I can assure you that there weren't any noticeable differences.
>>
>>You can't "assure me" of anything because I don't trust you as far as I can
>>throw your fat ass.
>
>
>My answer stands...

Your answer doesn't meet the standard. It isn't worth a dog turd.

>>> So unless you can find a Marine who has *also* fired in both locations,
>>> and disputes what I say, you're sort of stuck, aren't you?
>
>
>Silence...
>
>Kooks love their experts, except when the experts say things they don't want to
>hear.

I hope to hell you aren't declaring yourself an "expert".

In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either mistaken
or he lied. Either way he was wrong.

>You see, there's *NOTHING* that would lead the Warren Commission to make a
>'mistake' on this issue, they flatly lied. But you won't admit it.

See above.

>>>By the way...
>>>
>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.
>>
>> So you are telling me that the Wind Speed (mph), Wind Angle (degrees),
>> Altitude (ft), Pressure (hg), Temperature (F) and Humidity (%) is going
>> to be the same in Okinawa as it is the day the Marine fires in California?
>> Horse shit Benny.
>
>
>So too are your parameters... and *you* know it.

The fact that you think wind speed and wind angle are horseshit factors takes
much of the shine off you as being a shooting expert. Now Marsh, you won't
admit it here but you know this is true. True, the other factors, while true
factors, don't really amount to much but they are factors. I threw them in just
for your sorry ass.

>> You also omit the human variable that some days you’re hot and some days
>> you are not. You can’t fix that and it appears the Marine Corp notes the
>> problem even if you don’t. See reference below;
>>
>>"The most intimidating part of the new course of fire may be the requirements
>>for passing. “If a Marine shoots a high expert on Wednesday but fails the basic
>>combat shooting portion of the qualification on Friday, then that Marine is not
>>qualified,” said Garcia."
>>usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/riflequalify.htm
>
>
>Nothing that refutes the fact that these standards allows the Marine Corps to
>*accurately* relate the shooting ability of one Marine to another, despite the
>range they fired at, or the day they fired...

So the Marine Corps give you a do-over for bad days? Neat.

>>>1. They're firing the same weapon,
>>>2. Same ammo,
>>>3. At the same time of day,
>>>4. In roughly the same sort of weather,
>>>5. At identical sized targets,
>>>6. At the same standard distances,
>>>7. At the same course of fire,
>>>8. In the same positions,
>>>9. Using the same set of procedures,
>>>10. And in the same time requirements.
>>>11. They both have almost identical 'snap-in' time before firing week,
>>>12. And they fire the same number of days,
>>>13. And to within a *small* handful of rounds, the same amount of ammo.
>>>
>>>I stated that: "I daresay you'll refuse to even *try* to name any." and your
>>>answer was to see your answer below...
>>>
>>>The only one you provided was a quibble about weather in Okinawa & Camp
>>>Pendleton - which simply isn't true. And I base that on *personal* experience.
>>>
>>>So what happened Billy? Did your yellow streak get wider? Or do the facts I
>>>present simply overwhelm you?
>>
>>Your facts were wrong as hell
>
>
>And yet, everytime you even *attempt* to try, you get shown up for the moron you
>are...
>
>Such as your newest attempt to toss a new scoring system on Oswald's scores.

You are being very dishonest here. You didn't say anything about Oswald when
you were telling me about this shooter in Okinawa and California. You get
nailed on it so now you toss Oswald to the wolves to attempt to cover your shit.
Nice try Marsh.

>>but even that didn't overwhelm me because;
>>1. You are such an insignificant shit.
>>2. I never trust what you say.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>Looks like you lost this one, Billy...
>
>And my crystal ball is telling me that you'll run from the questions I posed.

Actually Benny this is one of your weaker attempts. Getting tired?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <7fac46b0-ef03-4b8d...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Dec 9, 12:17=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <739a438e-d62a-4912-b0bf-dd1b0ddb9...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 7:05=3DA0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> On Dec 8, 8:43=3DA0pm, jecorbett1...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Saturday, December 8, 2012 5:52:49 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>> >> > > On Dec 7, 7:18=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Hi All,
>>

>> >> > > > Further to the question that Bud asked, and on closer examinatio=
>n o=3D
>> >f
>>
>> >> > > > the published targets, I believe it is possible to ascertain the=
> FU=3D
>> >LL
>>
>> >> > > > results for the three WC expert shooters @ distances of 175, 240=
> an=3D

>> >> > > > These figures certainly put the lie to Mark Lane's claim that th=
>e W=3D

>> >C
>>
>> >> > > > shooters could not even APPROACH Oswald's alleged shooting feat.
>>
>> >> > > > The fellow is quite simply a damn liar!
>>
>> >> > > > Regards,
>>
>> >> > > > Tim Brennan
>>
>> >> > > > Sydney, Australia
>>
>> >> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>

>> >> > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or =

>the
>>
>> >> > > > neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
>>

>> >> > > > Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-26=
>2.
>>
>> >> > > > And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http=
>://=3D

>> >www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> >> > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>>

>> >> > > =3DA0 =3DA0Expert shooters? =3DA0I thought Oswald was a marksman i=
>n his las=3D
>> >t
>>
>> >> > > quals. =3DA0That's 2 notches down from 'expert'.
>>
>> >> > Do you think it takes an expert to kill a guy with a rifle less than=
> 90=3D
>> > yards away?
>>
>> >> =3DA0 In this case, yes. =3DA0Both craig Roberts ans Carlos Hathcock t=

>ried to
>> >> duplicate the TSBD shots and weren't able to.
>>

>> > =A0Of course you can`t show that either one did any such thing. Just

>> >another thing you heard and liked the sound of.
>>

>> >>=3DA0They both said it was
>> >> not doable.
>>
>> > =A0Then why do they give rifles to soldiers, stupid?
>>
>> >> =3DA0It wasn't a simple straight shot from the TSBD, and the

>> >> MC rifle was in terrible condition when the FBI got it right after the

>> >> murder. =3DA0A Mauser might have done it though...:) =3DA0The shot is =

>at an
>> >> angle with the target going away in 2 dimensions, slightly left and
>> >> outward.
>>

>> > =A0Hunters make harder shots than this every day.
>>
>> I have never understood why this was supposed to be such a difficult shot=
>. =A0I
>> simply don't understand how a 100 yard shot at a slowly moving target can=

> be so
>> difficult.
>>
>> As you say, hunters do it all the time.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>

>> >> > > =3DA0 =3DA0Of course, this is after the scope had to be shimmed up=
> to all=3D
>> >ow it
>>
>> >> > > to be sighted in, which it wasn't when the FBI received it from th=
>e
>>
>> >> > > TSBD scene.
>>
>> >> > Of course you dimwits continue to ignore the fact that the recovered=
> bu=3D
>> >llets we positively matched to that Oswald's rifle so we know that someb=
>ody=3D
>> > was able to do the killing with that rifle which renders its condition =
>a m=3D
>> >oot point.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 The bullets might have been matched to the MC rifle, but 4 peopl=

>e
>> >> that handled the CE399 bullet said they couldn't identify it later
>> >> when asked,
>>

>> > =A0I could they say positively that it was the bullet they handled.

>> >Unless you mark it you can`t. Tomlinson did say that CE399 looks like
>> >the bullet he found, and he was first to handle it.
>>
>> >> and one of them even said that the original bullet wasn't

>> >> round niosed, but it was 'pointy nosed'. =3DA0So there was a replaceme=
>nt
>> >> of the bullet later. =3DA0A quick look at the CE399 bullet next to the
>> >> CE572 test bullet shows the amazing similarity between them. =3DA0Go t=
>o:htt=3D
>> >p://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearin...
>>
>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 Scroll down to F-294 and click on the picture and check ou=
>t the 2
>> >> first bullets. =3DA0Note the slight bend in the middle and the loss of=
> a
>> >> bit of material at the tail end. =3DA0CE399 was a test bullet that was

>> >> replaced later before the failed identification of the 4 people (2 of

>> >> which were Secret service). =3DA0So who's the dimwit now? =3DA0The oth=
>er
>> >> bullet CE567 & CE569 were found in the middle of the night =3DA0suppos=

>edly
>> >> in the limo, but the limo was cleaned at Parkland and they missed it

>> >> sitting right on the seat and under it. =3DA0Even while driving the li=

>mo
>> >> to airport when stealing it no bullet fragment was noticed, and

>> >> driving it from the airport too. =3DA0But late in the night it turns u=
>p?
>> >> Naah. =3DA0What ever tuerned up was later replaced by another test bul=
>et
>> >> that had been fired into a hard surface and caused it to break. =3DA0A=

>s a
>> >> full metal jacket bullet it waqs made to go through people and not
>> >> break open or spread, so to cause less damage to the body.
>>
>> >> > > And of course, the rifle was also 'worn and corroded' as
>>
>> >> > > per Robert Frazier of the FBI.
>>
>> >> > Ditto
>>

>> >> > > =3DA0The bolt was hard to work, making the

>>
>> >> > > aim go off on each action of the bolt.
>>

>> >> > Keep making those irrelevant points. The condition of the rifle didn=
>'t =3D

>> >preclude it from being the murder weapon.
>>

>> >> =3DA0 However, all the other points do. =3DA0And to top it off, 2 Dall=

>as cops
>> >> swore the rifle was a '7.65 Mauser' that was found in the TSBD.
>>

>> > =A0Swore? Where did they swear, in court?
>>
>> > =A0There is film of the rifle being found, yet you idiots insist on

>> >focusing on the same erroneous information that has gone nowhere for
>> >decades.
>>
>> >> > > No way anyone could aim
>>
>> >> > > properly with that rifle when it first came to the FBI after the
>>
>> >> > > murder.
>>
>> >> > Obviously somebody properly aimed the rifle at 12:30 pm, 11/22/63.
>>

>> >> =3DA0 Nope. =3DA0Won't do.
>>
>> > =A0Tell that to JFK.

>>
>> >> > Of course, Oswald was known for keeping a dirty rifle.
>>
>> >> > > Here's his best buddy Nelson Delgado from the service:
>>

>> >> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DnS9Zi0B60lw

>>
>> >> > Obviously, neatness didn't count.
>>

>> >> =3DA0 It sure did. =3DA0Keep a rifle dirty, especially if it hasn't be=
>en fire=3D
>> >d
>> >> since WW2, and you wil have a rifle that can't so the job. =3DA0And th=
>e
>> >> FBI proved it. =3DA0They wereunabvle to test the rifle until they had

>> >> taken it to a gunsmith to have the scope shimmed up, which meant the
>> >> scope couldn't aim properly, and the bolt was 'worn and corroded' as

>> >> per Robert Frazier and Simmoins WC testimony. =3DA0Simmons said the bo=

>lt
>> >> was very hard to work, pushing the shooters aim off each time the

>> >> action was worked. =3DA0Each expert tester had to work the rifle for 2=
>-3
>> >> minutes to get used to it. =3DA0Experience that Oswald didn't have, be=
>ing
>> >> a semi-auto trained fellow. =3DA0Bolt actions were not his cup of tea.
>> >> Nope. =3DA0Oswald didn't shoot at anybody that day, ands no one did wi=
>th
>> >> the MC rifle. =3DA0Try all you want to prove otherwise, I'll be waitin=

>g.
>> >> Anything you can do to try and go against the facts testified to by
>> >> Frazier and Simmons.
>>

>> > =A0You just don`t understand what these people said.
>>
>> >> > > =3DA0 =3DA0If the MC rifle was in the TSBD at the time of the murd=

>er, it
>>
>> >> > > wasn't usedto shoot at JFK.
>>

>> >> > But magically one bullet from that rifle was found in the limo and a=
>not=3D

>> >her was found at the ER where the shooting victims were taken.
>>

>> >> =3DA0LOL! =3DA0'magic' is how you'll have to try to make the MC be the=
> kill
>> >> weapon...:) =3DA0 See above. =3DA0Insist all you want, it's useless.
>>
>> > =A0A retard`s mind is made up. What could matter less?
>>
>> >>=3DA0The

>> >> CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland, so the guy
>> >> that tried to place it failed and it haqs been a bone of contention
>> >> ever since.
>>

>> > =A0Another retard talking point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately for

>> >retards once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which stretcher the bullet
>> >was found on all claims that it was found on the wrong stretcher are
>> >meaningless.
>>
>> >> > '> That thing was in terrible condition when
>>

>> >> > > the FBI got it directly from the TSBD and the DPD and wouldn't hit=
> th=3D

>> >e
>>
>> >> > > broad side of a barn if you were inside it.
>>
>> >> > But it could hit a guy in the head 288 feet away.
>>

>> >> =3DA0 Nope. =3DA0Not with that rifle. =3DA0The scope didn't work, and =
>neither d=3D
>> >id
>> >> the action.
>>
>> > =A0Wrong twice.
>>
>> >> =3DA0They had to work it for long periods to get it to
>> >> function at all.
>>
>> > =A0Wrong again.
>>
>> >>=3DA0Even if they tried to use iron sights the bolt

>> >> function would have messed up the aiming in the time that was
>> >> supposedly needed to fire it 3 times.
>>

>> > =A0Empty claim.
>>
>> >> =3DA0 " And to top it off, another gunsmith made a review of Simmons'

>> >> testimony and here's a small part of it:
>> >> Incidentally, I have it on good authority

>> >>that the =3D93gunsmith=3D94 that

>> >> reworked the
>> >> weapon did much more than shim it. In fact, it was his son that told
>> >> me that,
>> >> when received by Edgewood, the rifle was in an unworkable condition
>> >> and too
>> >> dangerous to fire, and had
>>
>> ...
>>

>> read more =BB

>
> Nope, hunters don't have to shoot at a target that is moving in
>quite this way. That's why the expert snipers saw it as not doable.
>
>Chris

I would have to see an exact quote by Carlos saying it couldn't be done. I
seriously doubt the man said that. Like you, I've heard this before but I have
never seen it nor any reference to it.

Back when I hunted I once shot a buck from a tree stand at a bit over 100 yards.
I believed my bullet hit a tree limb the first shot so the deer was now flat out
running. I don't mean the leisurely gallop you see on the Nature Channel but
this deer was flat down running. I missed the second shot and nailed him the
third shot. Nothing exceptional but I often think of that deer when I hear what
an impossible shot it was that killed Kennedy. I don't buy it.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka5ec...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

So you agree that the Warren Commission tests did *NOT* even attempt to follow
the same 'standards' that the Warren Commission asserted that were in place for
the assassin.

Good of you to admit the truth. (even if you could only admit that the target
wasn't the 'same'. Who knows, someday I may get you to admit the height wasn't
the same ... and who knows, someday you may get to the point of admitting that
*ALL* the 'standards' that Mark Lane pointed out were correct, and the Warren
Commission dishonest - not holding my breath, however)

So tell us, why did you label Mark Lane a liar for pointing out the same thing?

>>>>>>I'm guessing that the Army is too stupid to have any sort of standards...
>>>>>
>>>>>The only thing stupid here is you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?
>>>
>>>You pretend a lot don't you. That wasn't a question.
>
>>You didn't answer the question.
>
>I didn't have to. We all know you are stupid already.


So *I'm* stupid for pretending to accept what you claim?


>>>>I didn't, of course... I knew that you simply couldn't figure out the point.
>>>
>>>You are the simple shit that missed the point.
>>
>>
>>Actually, it's quite clear that you're *running* from the point I'm making.
>>
>>
>>>>>>That is, if I believed what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then look it up, asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have. It's in an Army FM. So I know you're lying. There *ARE* standards for
>>>>Army rifle qualifications.
>>>
>>>Heh! Everything is in an Army FM you stupid asshole. You got a number on that
>>>FM? Watch Benny the coward run.
>>
>>FM 3-22.9 - You seem to be confused about who "runs" all the time. Here's a
>>simple example... I just gave the PRECISE and correct answer to your question.
>>Now, tell us, does a scope aid in *rapid* firing, as the Warren Commission
>>claimed?
>
>>Let's watch what "running" actually consists of...
>
>As I've told you before, no, it does not.

Getting closer, coward.

How'd you like the FM reference that you stupidly didn't think I could locate?

And if a scope doesn't aid in rapid firing, are you going to give a *credible*
explanation for why the Warren Commission got it "wrong"? (rather than the
obvious explanation that they simply lied...)

>>>>>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>>>>>know anything about screwing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.
>>>
>>>You falsely claim I made a statement that I didn't make. Marsh is a master at
>>>it. You have a ways to go.
>>
>>
>>You made the claim, now you admit, after I quiz you, that they *do* have
>>standards.
>>
>>So tell us, if standards are used to determine the shooting ability of one
>>soldier versus another, wouldn't it be reasonable to apply a similar set of
>>standards to the Warren Commission rifle testing?
>>
>>Run Billy... Run!
>
>Yes Benny, by all means shoot JFK again.

Yep... the coward ran, just as I predicted.

Dead silence...

Billy clearly believes that Oswald never qualified as a Marine rifleman.

>>Why not refer to Air Force shooting qualification scoring? Or better yet, the
>>Boy Scout's shooting badge? They all have just as much relevance to Oswald's
>>shooting scores as your attempts to mislead and confuse.
>
>Nice try Marsh but you wasn't talking about Oswald. You were talking about the
>Marine that shot the same score (227) in Okinawa as he would in California. Now
>unless you have a time machine to send this boy back in time to the time Oswald
>served your shooter will have to shoot today using the scoring used to day.

There's only one shooting qualification that's *EVER* been in this case moron.


I know you'd like to hide the fact that you simply tried to Google the answer,
and was too stupid to check whether it was the same as what Oswald used, but
that's what happened.

A true expert is one who experienced it.
Another expert is one who may not have experienced it, but has ACCURATELY
researched it.

A moron is someone who researchs something he knows nothing about at Wikipedia,
and doesn't bother to correlate it with better resources.

Since you can't find a *real* expert, you'll have to just whine away.

>>>> and I can assure you that there weren't any noticeable differences.
>>>
>>>You can't "assure me" of anything because I don't trust you as far as I can
>>>throw your fat ass.
>>
>>
>>My answer stands...
>
>Your answer doesn't meet the standard. It isn't worth a dog turd.

Whine Billy... whine!

>>>> So unless you can find a Marine who has *also* fired in both locations,
>>>> and disputes what I say, you're sort of stuck, aren't you?
>>
>>
>>Silence...
>>
>>Kooks love their experts, except when the experts say things they don't want to
>>hear.
>
>I hope to hell you aren't declaring yourself an "expert".

When it comes to things I've done repeatedly, yes. While I'm sure that there's
someone who spent more years stationed at Okinawa and Camp Pendleton than I, and
thus had a few more rifle qualifications - you'd be hard pressed to find 'em.

Cite it.

But you won't. There's *NO-ONE* that told the Warren Commission that scopes aid
in rapid fire.


You'll refuse to cite, you'll refuse to admit that the WCR had *NO* evidence to
base their assertion on, and you'll give *NO* credible explanation for why the
statement is not an outright lie.

>>You see, there's *NOTHING* that would lead the Warren Commission to make a
>>'mistake' on this issue, they flatly lied. But you won't admit it.
>
>See above.

Saw it, discounted it.

Kooks like you just LOVE speculation... but when it comes to citeable facts, you
run for the hills like the cowards you are.

>>>>By the way...
>>>>
>>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.
>>>
>>> So you are telling me that the Wind Speed (mph), Wind Angle (degrees),
>>> Altitude (ft), Pressure (hg), Temperature (F) and Humidity (%) is going
>>> to be the same in Okinawa as it is the day the Marine fires in California?
>>> Horse shit Benny.
>>
>>
>>So too are your parameters... and *you* know it.
>
>The fact that you think wind speed and wind angle are horseshit factors takes
>much of the shine off you as being a shooting expert. Now Marsh, you won't
>admit it here but you know this is true. True, the other factors, while true
>factors, don't really amount to much but they are factors. I threw them in just
>for your sorry ass.

If the Marine in Okinawa was facing 7-10mph winds, and the Marine in Camp
Pendleton was facing a windless day, you *might* suspect that the Marine at
Okinawa was a marginally better shooter - BUT YOU COULDN'T PROVE IT BY THE
EVIDENCE.

So no, your silly list is simply that... silly.

The effect of altitude, pressure, temperature, and humidity are for all
practical purposes, meaningless.

Why not take such nonsense to a competition rifle forum and let them laugh at
you?

>>> You also omit the human variable that some days you’re hot and some days
>>> you are not. You can’t fix that and it appears the Marine Corp notes the
>>> problem even if you don’t. See reference below;
>>>
>>>"The most intimidating part of the new course of fire may be the requirements
>>>for passing. “If a Marine shoots a high expert on Wednesday but fails the basic
>>>combat shooting portion of the qualification on Friday, then that Marine is not
>>>qualified,” said Garcia."
>>>usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/riflequalify.htm
>>
>>
>>Nothing that refutes the fact that these standards allows the Marine Corps to
>>*accurately* relate the shooting ability of one Marine to another, despite the
>>range they fired at, or the day they fired...
>
>So the Marine Corps give you a do-over for bad days? Neat.

Yep... When we had typhoons blow in, they simply rescheduled.


You're a gutlessly yellow coward to refuse to admit that the Army does the same.

This is the same tactic you use with Mark Lane - you can't point out even a
*SINGLE* fact he "lies" about when it comes to the JFK assassination.

You're doing it again with a scoring system that you *KNOW* has no relevance to
this case.

You got caught trying to learn the facts at Wikipedia, like a moron.

I've posted quite detailed posts in the past that would have educated you far
better... but you're too stupid to find 'em.

>>>but even that didn't overwhelm me because;
>>>1. You are such an insignificant shit.
>>>2. I never trust what you say.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>Looks like you lost this one, Billy...
>>
>>And my crystal ball is telling me that you'll run from the questions I posed.
>
>Actually Benny this is one of your weaker attempts. Getting tired?
>
>Bill Clarke

Tell us Billy... why did you accuse Mark Lane of lying when all he did was point
out that the Warren Commission shooters were shooting utilizing standards far
different from what the Warren Commission claimed for the assassin?

You've finally admitted that the conditions *do* matter... you just can't seem
to apply it to this case, and label the Warren Commission dishonest, and Mark
Lane as simply telling the truth.

Cat got your tongue?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka5f4...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Nah... you don't "buy" things because you're too dishonest to examine the
evidence.

Indeed ... you REFUSE to debate the actual evidence in this case.

I'll be waiting for the cite that shows where the Warren Commission got their
statement that scopes aid in rapid fire from...

My crystal ball tells me it will *never* be offered, and that Billy will *NEVER*
admit that he's wrong yet again.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka5h9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

I don't know if they attempted to put a live man is a Lincoln for their experts
to shoot at or not. But to answer your question more clearly, I don't know what
they attempted.

>Good of you to admit the truth. (even if you could only admit that the target
>wasn't the 'same'. Who knows, someday I may get you to admit the height wasn't
>the same ... and who knows, someday you may get to the point of admitting that
>*ALL* the 'standards' that Mark Lane pointed out were correct, and the Warren
>Commission dishonest - not holding my breath, however)
>
>So tell us, why did you label Mark Lane a liar for pointing out the same thing?

See my reply in your swamp post. Basically I ask for a reference to my calling
Lane a liar on this point and said you'd be a coward and liar if you didn't
furnish this references. I'm waiting Benny.

I don't know if they lied or not. Neither do you, Marsh. I think they didn't
know enough to question their expert witness who must not have been much of an
expert.

>>>>>>>>>Why is everyone required to fire in the same amount of time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is like screwing, Benny. We all need to finish at the same time. Do you
>>>>>>>>know anything about screwing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So the Army only has a limited set of standards, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you know nothing about screwing. No shock here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So you're continuing to lie about Army standards.
>>>>
>>>>You falsely claim I made a statement that I didn't make. Marsh is a master at
>>>>it. You have a ways to go.
>>>
>>>
>>>You made the claim, now you admit, after I quiz you, that they *do* have
>>>standards.
>>>
>>>So tell us, if standards are used to determine the shooting ability of one
>>>soldier versus another, wouldn't it be reasonable to apply a similar set of
>>>standards to the Warren Commission rifle testing?
>>>
>>>Run Billy... Run!
>>
>>Yes Benny, by all means shoot JFK again.
>
>
>Yep... the coward ran, just as I predicted.

Just because you don't like my silly answer to your silly question doesn't make
me a coward and I'm damn sure not running. I think you just like to run your
mouth Benny.

Another false statement by Marsh.

>>>Why not refer to Air Force shooting qualification scoring? Or better yet, the
>>>Boy Scout's shooting badge? They all have just as much relevance to Oswald's
>>>shooting scores as your attempts to mislead and confuse.
>>
>>Nice try Marsh but you wasn't talking about Oswald. You were talking about the
>>Marine that shot the same score (227) in Okinawa as he would in California. Now
>>unless you have a time machine to send this boy back in time to the time Oswald
>>served your shooter will have to shoot today using the scoring used to day.
>
>
>There's only one shooting qualification that's *EVER* been in this case moron.

You wasn't talking about this case. You had wandered off to Okinawa. Not my
fault you are so fucked up Benny.

>I know you'd like to hide the fact that you simply tried to Google the answer,
>and was too stupid to check whether it was the same as what Oswald used, but
>that's what happened.

False again Benny. You fail to mention my second reference. Why is that? You
try to imitate your hero Mark Lane.

>A true expert is one who experienced it.
>Another expert is one who may not have experienced it, but has ACCURATELY
>researched it.
>
>A moron is someone who researchs something he knows nothing about at Wikipedia,
>and doesn't bother to correlate it with better resources.

See above. This is a lie. I gave you a better resource but you omit it like
Mark Lane would do. Very dishonest of you Benny. The act of a coward I'd say.

We can say for sure that the statement is wrong. If it was a lie or not is up
in the air. I said the statement was wrong Benny. Why do you continue to whine
about it?

>>>You see, there's *NOTHING* that would lead the Warren Commission to make a
>>>'mistake' on this issue, they flatly lied. But you won't admit it.
>>
>>See above.
>
>
>Saw it, discounted it.
>
>Kooks like you just LOVE speculation... but when it comes to citeable facts, you
>run for the hills like the cowards you are.

You stupid bastard I said the statement was wrong. If you have to have a
reference my personal experience.

>>>>>By the way...
>>>>>
>>>>>As for "variables", why... virtually none at all.
>>>>
>>>> So you are telling me that the Wind Speed (mph), Wind Angle (degrees),
>>>> Altitude (ft), Pressure (hg), Temperature (F) and Humidity (%) is going
>>>> to be the same in Okinawa as it is the day the Marine fires in California?
>>>> Horse shit Benny.
>>>
>>>
>>>So too are your parameters... and *you* know it.
>>
>>The fact that you think wind speed and wind angle are horseshit factors takes
>>much of the shine off you as being a shooting expert. Now Marsh, you won't
>>admit it here but you know this is true. True, the other factors, while true
>>factors, don't really amount to much but they are factors. I threw them in just
>>for your sorry ass.
>
>
>If the Marine in Okinawa was facing 7-10mph winds, and the Marine in Camp
>Pendleton was facing a windless day, you *might* suspect that the Marine at
>Okinawa was a marginally better shooter - BUT YOU COULDN'T PROVE IT BY THE
>EVIDENCE.
>
>So no, your silly list is simply that... silly.
>
>The effect of altitude, pressure, temperature, and humidity are for all
>practical purposes, meaningless.

Yeah, I know but I thought you could stick them up your ass along with the rest
of your silly horseshit.

>Why not take such nonsense to a competition rifle forum and let them laugh at
>you?

I'd rather stay here and watch everyone laugh at your fucked up ass.

>>>> You also omit the human variable that some days you’re hot and some days
>>>> you are not. You can’t fix that and it appears the Marine Corp notes the
>>>> problem even if you don’t. See reference below;
>>>>
>>>>"The most intimidating part of the new course of fire may be the requirements
>>>>for passing. “If a Marine shoots a high expert on Wednesday but fails the basic
>>>>combat shooting portion of the qualification on Friday, then that Marine is not
>>>>qualified,” said Garcia."
>>>>usmilitary.about.com/od/marinetrng/a/riflequalify.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing that refutes the fact that these standards allows the Marine Corps to
>>>*accurately* relate the shooting ability of one Marine to another, despite the
>>>range they fired at, or the day they fired...
>>
>>So the Marine Corps give you a do-over for bad days? Neat.
>
>
>Yep... When we had typhoons blow in, they simply rescheduled.
>
>
>You're a gutlessly yellow coward to refuse to admit that the Army does the same.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you had asked the question. Yes, if a typhoon was
blowing in the Army would reschedule. We had a typhoon while I was in Vietnam.
Hot damn, it was hell.

WHY DO YOU fail to speak of my other reference? Because you are the gutless
yellow coward and a sorry bastard to boot.

>I've posted quite detailed posts in the past that would have educated you far
>better... but you're too stupid to find 'em.

I forgot how full of yourself you are. How ugly Benny.

>>>>but even that didn't overwhelm me because;
>>>>1. You are such an insignificant shit.
>>>>2. I never trust what you say.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks like you lost this one, Billy...
>>>
>>>And my crystal ball is telling me that you'll run from the questions I posed.
>>
>>Actually Benny this is one of your weaker attempts. Getting tired?
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>Tell us Billy... why did you accuse Mark Lane of lying when all he did was point
>out that the Warren Commission shooters were shooting utilizing standards far
>different from what the Warren Commission claimed for the assassin?

For the third time, please post reference where I called Lane a liar on this
point.

>You've finally admitted that the conditions *do* matter... you just can't seem
>to apply it to this case, and label the Warren Commission dishonest, and Mark
>Lane as simply telling the truth.
>
>Cat got your tongue?

Mark Lane is a dishonest self-serving sorry POS. I told you that to start
with.

I don't know if the Commission was dishonest or not. I know there are mistakes
in the report but I also know how quick you kooks are to whine "lie". So like
crying wolf what you whine about isn't on my top shelf.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka5hg...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

Evidence Holmes! Please give me some. Most of all I'd like to see the quote
from Carlos making the statement attributed to him here. Do you have this
reference and I don't mean some dip-shit saying "Carlos told me..."? Hell no,
you don't.

>Indeed ... you REFUSE to debate the actual evidence in this case.

Give me some of that evidence Holmes. Post the great sniper's quote. As you
like to say, if you don't you are a liar and yellow coward.

>I'll be waiting for the cite that shows where the Warren Commission got their
>statement that scopes aid in rapid fire from...

Hell, I thought that was your baby. You want me to furnish references for your
bullshit? Never happen Marsh.

>My crystal ball tells me it will *never* be offered, and that Billy will *NEVER*
>admit that he's wrong yet again.

Your crystal ball is about as cracked up as you are. Get help Benny.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka6h3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

The evidence is no different from the Warren Commission evidence, which you
refuse to debate.

>>Indeed ... you REFUSE to debate the actual evidence in this case.
>
>Give me some of that evidence Holmes. Post the great sniper's quote. As you
>like to say, if you don't you are a liar and yellow coward.

If it had been the quote I'd originally provided, I'd be happy to. Of course,
being labeled a liar and a yellow coward by someone who's proven repeatedly to
be the same, bothers me not at all.

>>I'll be waiting for the cite that shows where the Warren Commission got their
>>statement that scopes aid in rapid fire from...
>
>Hell, I thought that was your baby. You want me to furnish references for your
>bullshit? Never happen Marsh.

*YOU* made the claim, Billy. I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to support
your own claim.

Here it is again:

*************************************************************************

>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either
>mistaken or he lied. Either way he was wrong.

Cite it.

But you won't. There's *NO-ONE* that told the Warren Commission that scopes aid
in rapid fire.
*************************************************************************

So tell us Billy... why the cowardice? Why can't you support YOUR OWN STATEMENT?

>> My crystal ball tells me it will *never* be offered, and that Billy will
>> *NEVER* admit that he's wrong yet again.

Looks like I was right yet again...

>Your crystal ball is about as cracked up as you are. Get help Benny.

How can it be? You've done exactly as my crystal ball said... you've refused to
support *YOUR* statement, and you've refused to retract it.

Gutless coward, aren't you?


>Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <ka7h6...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

I note you didn't answer my question. Why? A coward? Well yes but also
because you can't cite it. A liar then.

>>>Indeed ... you REFUSE to debate the actual evidence in this case.
>>
>>Give me some of that evidence Holmes. Post the great sniper's quote. As you
>>like to say, if you don't you are a liar and yellow coward.
>
>
>If it had been the quote I'd originally provided, I'd be happy to. Of course,
>being labeled a liar and a yellow coward by someone who's proven repeatedly to
>be the same, bothers me not at all.

Another Marsh side step shuffle. You didn't Marine up and answer my request for
a reference but ran off like a yellow dog.

>>>I'll be waiting for the cite that shows where the Warren Commission got their
>>>statement that scopes aid in rapid fire from...
>>
>>Hell, I thought that was your baby. You want me to furnish references for your
>>bullshit? Never happen Marsh.
>
>
>*YOU* made the claim, Billy. I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to support
>your own claim.
>
>Here it is again:
>
>*************************************************************************
>>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either
>>mistaken or he lied. Either way he was wrong.
>
>Cite it.
>
>But you won't. There's *NO-ONE* that told the Warren Commission that scopes aid
>in rapid fire.
>*************************************************************************

Here is ALL of it again, you lying POS.

You are being dishonest again, Mark Lane. You tell a half-truth, much as your
hero likes to do. It appears that YOU are the one saying the WC thought that
the scope WAS an aid, not me. Did you lie to me, Benny? Ah dear, you are a
dishonest bastard aren�t you.

Benny>>>>>>P.S. Why not help "Doc" with his inability to admit that a scope does

*NOT* aid
>>>>>>in "rapid" firing? Teach him about the narrowed field of vision, and what that
>>>>>>does to the rapid acquisition of a target. Of course, if you do, you'll be
>>>>>>disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report - and Johnny will lower your
>>>>>>grade.

Benny>>So all you have to do is state for the record that the Warren Commission
*LIED*.
>
Clarke>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either

mistaken
>or he lied. Either way he was wrong.

>So tell us Billy... why the cowardice? Why can't you support YOUR OWN STATEMENT?
>
>
>>> My crystal ball tells me it will *never* be offered, and that Billy will
>>> *NEVER* admit that he's wrong yet again.
>
>
>Looks like I was right yet again...
>
>
>>Your crystal ball is about as cracked up as you are. Get help Benny.
>
>
>How can it be? You've done exactly as my crystal ball said... you've refused to
>support *YOUR* statement, and you've refused to retract it.

It was your statement. I commented on it. Your dishonesty is becoming boring
Benny. Pick it up. Show the quote for the sniper. Man up.

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ka7pf...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

LOL!!!

You ask *me* to cite for someone else's statement, even as you refuse to cite
for your *OWN* statement.

>>>>Indeed ... you REFUSE to debate the actual evidence in this case.
>>>
>>>Give me some of that evidence Holmes. Post the great sniper's quote. As you
>>>like to say, if you don't you are a liar and yellow coward.
>>
>>
>>If it had been the quote I'd originally provided, I'd be happy to. Of course,
>>being labeled a liar and a yellow coward by someone who's proven repeatedly to
>>be the same, bothers me not at all.
>
>Another Marsh side step shuffle. You didn't Marine up and answer my request for
>a reference but ran off like a yellow dog.

Craig Roberts wrote it... a quick Google pulls this up:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6778

I realize that you're too stupid to research it yourself, and have to ask for my
help to do so... but you really should take the time to find it...

>>>>I'll be waiting for the cite that shows where the Warren Commission got their
>>>>statement that scopes aid in rapid fire from...
>>>
>>>Hell, I thought that was your baby. You want me to furnish references for your
>>>bullshit? Never happen Marsh.
>>
>>
>>*YOU* made the claim, Billy. I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to support
>>your own claim.
>>
>>Here it is again:
>>
>>*************************************************************************
>>>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either
>>>mistaken or he lied. Either way he was wrong.
>>
>>Cite it.
>>
>>But you won't. There's *NO-ONE* that told the Warren Commission that scopes aid
>>in rapid fire.
>>*************************************************************************
>
>Here is ALL of it again, you lying POS.

Just quoted it. You labeled Mark Lane a liar on this issue.

>You are being dishonest again, Mark Lane. You tell a half-truth, much as your
>hero likes to do. It appears that YOU are the one saying the WC thought that
>the scope WAS an aid, not me. Did you lie to me, Benny? Ah dear, you are a
>dishonest bastard aren’t you.

Why not open the Warren Commission Report, and read it?

>Benny>>>>>>P.S. Why not help "Doc" with his inability to admit that a scope does
>*NOT* aid
>>>>>>>in "rapid" firing? Teach him about the narrowed field of vision, and what that
>>>>>>>does to the rapid acquisition of a target. Of course, if you do, you'll be
>>>>>>>disagreeing with the Warren Commission Report - and Johnny will lower your
>>>>>>>grade.
>Benny>>So all you have to do is state for the record that the Warren Commission
>*LIED*.
>>
>Clarke>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either
>mistaken
>>or he lied. Either way he was wrong.

Still can't cite for this statement, can you?

>>So tell us Billy... why the cowardice? Why can't you support YOUR OWN STATEMENT?
>>
>>
>>>> My crystal ball tells me it will *never* be offered, and that Billy will
>>>> *NEVER* admit that he's wrong yet again.
>>
>>
>>Looks like I was right yet again...
>>
>>
>>>Your crystal ball is about as cracked up as you are. Get help Benny.
>>
>>
>>How can it be? You've done exactly as my crystal ball said... you've refused to
>>support *YOUR* statement, and you've refused to retract it.
>
>It was your statement.

No moron, it was not... here it is again:

****************************************************

Clarke>In this instance they relied on the statement of a man that was either
>mistaken
>>or he lied. Either way he was wrong.

****************************************************

Now, you're claiming that the Warren Commission relied on the statement of "a
man" yet you refuse to cite for this claim.

You're a liar.

>I commented on it. Your dishonesty is becoming boring
>Benny. Pick it up. Show the quote for the sniper. Man up.

Been there, done that... now where are your cites, coward?