Many say oswald could not have made the shots he made, judging by his rifle, his skills, the angles, etc. Is there anyone who thinks that the shots would have been easy to accomplish?

the clip found with the rifle was bent and made shooting using it impossible....

 

Army had to use one shot at a time and a new clip for use......

 

There is also some serious challenges to the rifle in the national archives not being the one oswald owned.

History Channel had a special last weekend.  They had a bunch of video and specialist on.  They threw out a theory:

1) Oswald made shot #1

2) A USSS Agent made shot #2 with a accidental discharge.  They had some video of the guy sitting on the trunk, with his legs down the back of the rear seat, and his feet on the part you rear would be.  He looked up at the book depository as shot #1 went off and then reached down and grabbed his AR-1515 on the seat by his feet.  As he pulled it up the car braked hard (as did all the cars) and the video cuts out but suddenly the second shot came.  They even had Los Angles medical examiner look at the autopsy and x-rays and said the head shot damage and angel was far more consistent that it came from a.223 round almost parallel than from the book depository. 

 

I am no conspiracy theorist but they made one hell of case. 

Mods, please move this to the Litterbox where it belongs.

Mods, please move this to the Litterbox where it belongs.

 

We will if it gets stupid.....

 

But a little friendly discussion about if that shot was possible....  is no harm

Oswald would have had the skills for the shots. But the rifle quality , angle of the shot, and the moving vehicle make it unlikely.

Well...........I'll have to say I USED to buy-into the theory that Oswald couldn't have made those shots.

 

Until about ten years ago, when I was in Dallas, and drove thru Dealey Plaza, where the deed was done.

 

As I was driving (and I stopped to take a look, too) all I could think was "easy shot".

 

Yes, IMHO, he could have done it...especially since several of his neighbors mentioned they used to hear/see him practicing running the bolt on that carcano.

Mod, no one should refer to anothers post as deserving of litterbox, shame on both of you.

Mod, no one should refer to anothers post as deserving of litterbox, shame on both of you.

I agree.

I am of the opinion that part of the "investigation" led to a cover-up, as the famous "Pristine Bullet", a round with NO rifling marks, somehow made it's way onto a stretcher in the hallway of the hospital...

 

Could Oswald make all three shots?  Probably NOT IMHO, and I've seen plenty of documentaries, the Warren Commission Report, autopsy photos, etc.

 

Bottom line:  How does a bullet turn 90* TWICE, hit two people, and not get left with so much as a scratch?  If you believe a pristine bullt could have done all of that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn lookin' for a buyer, lol!

Mod, no one should refer to anothers post as deserving of litterbox, shame on both of you.

 

 

I agree.

 

Guys.....   The member was just expressing his feeling that this topic could be deemed Litterbox material.....  and to be honest, it can be.....  if its gets stupid.

 

Dont take what he said as personal..... it was not meant to be

I had to do some research on this since I never gave a darn about the Kennedy Assassination and really don't care to start.  

 

It is not easy to hit something that is moving.  But this reenactment video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMV0Fmk2oe4

 

Shows that the vehicle was moving away.  I think it's easier to compensate for elevation rather than windage on a moving target.  Honestly, I think the shooter was just lucky.

I think the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a normal person is that the normal person follows the evidence, and the conspiracy theorist infers a reality from holes in the official story. I follow the evidence, and while there's certainly a lot of doubt about the official story, I don't think enough evidence exists to suggest a feasible narrative.

 

The ballistic evidence in this case is really weird and primary sources are hard to come by. I really have no idea what happened that day, and I'm not going to pretend I do.

If you'd like to read a good novel about the possibility of a second shooter, try Stephen Hunter's "The Third Bullet". If you are a Stephen Hunter fan (and if you are on this board you should be), you'll enjoy this.  

Easy to accomplish?  Maybe not...but he accomplished it.  He was rated marksman in the military so he had the training required for the job.  As for things like bent clip and pristine bullets....those are things people put in books to make money, not facts.

You want to know what was the easy shot?  Ruby on Oswald.  To me, a terminally man getting in close and taking out the shooter screams conspiracy.

Here's a great video where they re-create the magic bullet theory proving that it is the theory itself that is false.  Fascinating. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A

Absolutely easy shots and completely possible in my opinion. The farthest shot (head) was only about 90 yards, the neck shot being about 60 - easy with a 4x scope that is zeroed.

 

There is no "pristine" or magic bullet, it is out of round consistent with passing through soft tissue (the neck) and yawing before striking someone else.

 

Watching the following has reinforced my opinion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

 

This was also extremely interesting:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/#path/segment/11/22/2013/using-modern-ballistics-to-crack-cold-case-jfk.html

I've seen some that claim the shot was doable and then some that claim it wasn't, some of them doing their own exercises to prove one theory or the other. Personally, I have no idea I've never looked out the window of that book repository.

 

 

Here's a great video where they re-create the magic bullet theory proving that it is the theory itself that is false.  Fascinating. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A

Funny, the guy shooting the rifle for the test has a tremendous scope and has anchored the rifle to his platform with duct tape - as far as I've seen in the previews. I thought there was testimony from the Gov Connally that he heard the first shot and then he was shot?

 

Gonna have to watch this when I get a minute (or 90 lol).

What about his head moving back and to the left on the final shot?

I've seen some that claim the shot was doable and then some that claim it wasn't, some of them doing their own exercises to prove one theory or the other. Personally, I have no idea I've never looked out the window of that book repository.

 

 

Funny, the guy shooting the rifle for the test has a tremendous scope and has anchored the rifle to his platform with duct tape - as far as I've seen in the previews. I thought there was testimony from the Gov Connally that he heard the first shot and then he was shot?

 

Gonna have to watch this when I get a minute (or 90 lol).

It is long and I haven't seen it since 2004 when it came out..  You can just watch the last 15 minutes where they actually take the shot.  As for the high powered scope and tape, the shot had to be perfect to find out if they would have the same exact result.  And inspite of all of that, the shot was still slightly off.

Mods, please move this to the Litterbox where it belongs.

I hope you are not referring to my post

What about his head moving back and to the left on the final shot?

Easily explained by the magic loogie :-)

I hope you are not referring to my post

 

Nah..... the thread in general.

 

But so far..... I think good conversation

What about his head moving back and to the left on the final shot?

Newtons 3rd Law.

 

As brain tissue of more significant mass than the bullet exited the front, the head moves back - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It is a repeatable phenomenon that can be recreated by a HS senior in a Physics class.

 

There is also a neurological response that can account for that under certain conditions.

 

Additionally, any forward motion may have been too slight or too fast to be captured by the frame rate on the camera/film used. Did you ever watch video of someone shooting a semi-auto pistol and you completely miss the slide reciprocating? You know it happened, the device just didn't record it.

so anyone want to wager on the accuracy of the rifle?

 

bear in mind it was broken down to get it into the building and had to be reassembled for shooting at the President.  The military needed 8 shots to re zero it prior to testing it.  Pretty sure Oswald did not re zero it.

so anyone want to wager on the accuracy of the rifle?

 

bear in mind it was broken down to get it into the building and had to be reassembled for shooting at the President.  The military needed 8 shots to re zero it prior to testing it.  Pretty sure Oswald did not re zero it.

One could argue he was going for a head shot. In which case, you are right, it definitely wasn't zeroed in! 

the point is that the rifle was disassembled and for any accuracy (shims had to be added by the army for crying out loud), the rifle needed several shots by army marksman group to get accuracy for testing.  oswald did not do this so 2 out of 3 hit his target?  I'm no conspiracy nut but 2+2 does not equal 5.  you could look at this or....

or his passing the parrafin test

or the bent clip validated by fbi

or the bullet with no rifling marks

 

ah the list goes on.....

To answer the original question, no, I don't think I can shoot the way Oswald did regardless if it was the truth or not. First off, I'm no Marine, and secondly I think it was mostly luck anyway.

the point is that the rifle was disassembled and for any accuracy (shims had to be added by the army for crying out loud), the rifle needed several shots by army marksman group to get accuracy for testing.  oswald did not do this so 2 out of 3 hit his target?  I'm no conspiracy nut but 2+2 does not equal 5.  you could look at this or....

or his passing the parrafin test

or the bent clip validated by fbi

or the bullet with no rifling marks

 

ah the list goes on.....

 

I'm agreeing with YOU!  Too much coincidence, and no rifling marks on the pristine bullet.  I didn't remember about the Army shimming the rifle to get it to work.  Oswald was a nut and a patsy.  Everyone knows for just a few bucks more you could get an 03-A3, so why bother with a Carcano?