JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

His head would've been the size of an ant through the iron sights, BStrong.

Said the guy who's never fired a rifle at any distance to the guy who grew up on a range and TEACHES SHOOTING.

First, you supposedly went to the TSBD so you know your statement is not true.

Second, the head-shot was easy.

Third, you are assuming that his scope wasn't accurized, or zeroed as the kids say. In fact, what you see in the assassination is a guy adjusting fire based on the impact of the back wound. Anybody who has any time with a scope training to shoot on the fly can do this - ANYBODY.

Fourth, if he went to iron sights it was still an easy shot.


This is where you fail: Guns don't lie.

 

[Axxman300]

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/LYUI5On.jpg[/qimg]

I can say that standing on that X, I could hit anyone standing behind every window of both buildings with the Carcano. If I had an HK-417 I could do it faster and with some style.

I wouldn't need a scope.

Call you US Army or USMC recruiter today if you'd like to meet a couple thousand more people who could also make the shot.

 

[BStrong]

FTR, anybody interested in math v. opinion, a front sight post with a thickness of 1/8" will suspend about 15" at 100 yds, depending on eye-to-front sight distance.

A 1/16" target type front will suspend something around 11" at 100.

 

[Axxman300]

Then I ask again, how large were the targets for LHO's eyes in the Marines: 200 yards, sitting posture, rapid fire, iron sights? He qualified as sharpshooter and marksman, which means he hit those targets with regularity. You have not adequately responded to that question.

This "ant" thing started after I posted a Secret Service film of the raw footage from their recreation at Dealey Plaza.

This is the finished version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeLpnnwEQUY

He is ignoring/confusing lens aperture and resolution with true vision. You know how things always look smaller in person than they do on TV? That's what he's ignoring.

 

[OKBob]

You know how things always look smaller in person than they do on TV? That's what he's ignoring.

Yes, many of MJ's arguments are arguments from personal intuition. "Wow! This seems impossible to me."

 

[bknight]

... "Wow! This seems impossible to me."

A strong trait among most CT's.

 

[abaddon]

BS. All I mean is that you need a proper scope to aim, almost certainly not the iron sights.

No. I am a rank amateur and I could make the LHO shots with iron sights let alone scoped. Or trained in the marine corps.

You are aware of the current record for a headshot, right?

 

[HSienzant]

BS. All I mean is that you need a proper scope to aim, almost certainly not the iron sights.

Now it's time for me to post an equally dismissive "BS".

I guess then I never made four out of six shots with a 98-year-old Mannlicher Carcano using only the iron sights at 100 yards (12 yards longer than Oswald's longest shot) in 2015, the first (and last) time I ever fired a firearm in my life. The target was a life sized human silhouette from about the middle of the trunk to the top of the head.

You don't need a scope for shots at 88 yards. I didn't. And I never fired a rifle before in my life, and had only about two minutes of training with my nephew, a military veteran.

Also, the Carcano found in the Depository had a scope.

Also, as noted previously, many wars were fought by men with rifles without scopes. It's your argument all those shots of 88 yards and greater all missed, I take it?

And re: the Charles Whitman shooting, he brought three rifles and a shotgun to the top of the Texas Tower to shoot. Only one had a scope. Wouldn't a trained marine know that lugging the other two rifles into the building was a wasted effort? It's a pity you weren't around to advise him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Whitman's_arsenal.jpg

Also, Oswald was trained in the Marines like Whitman. I guess he missed every shot the day this photo was taken -- do you see a scope on ANY of those shooters?

PS: In case you don't know, the kneeling guy closest to the camera is Lee Harvey Oswald.

I guess the Marines just liked wasting bullets. Is that your argument?

Hank

 

[Border Reiver]

BS. All I mean is that you need a proper scope to aim, almost certainly not the iron sights.

Soldiers regularly train to hit targets at ranges over 100m using iron sights now. In the 1950s and 60s the use of telescopic sights by non-specialists was very uncommon. And they still hit the target. The use of telescopic sights to hit a target the size of a human head at less then 100m is not a requirement.

 

[HSienzant]

Then I ask again, how large were the targets for LHO's eyes in the Marines: 200 yards, sitting posture, rapid fire, iron sights? He qualified as sharpshooter and marksman, which means he hit those targets with regularity. You have not adequately responded to that question.

And in one test for the record, Oswald scored 48 out of a possible perfect score of 50:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0344a.htm

At 200 yards. Rapid fire. No scope. At human sized targets.

But at 88 yards? Nobody could do that. Ever. Not ever.

His arguments are a joke.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope.

First off, call me Hank.

Logical fallacy of the straw man argument. That's where you advance a false argument, pretending your opponent(s) advanced it, merely to knock it down. It's easier to knock down than the real argument(s), just as a straw man is easier to attack (and beat) than a real opponent would be.

Numerous people advanced other arguments, like for example the one I pointed out: the hard evidence indicates that rifle, from that building, fired the bullet that struck JFK in the head (two large fragments - apparently remnants from the head shot - were found in the limo and ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. And if that rifle did that, then that rifle was capable of doing that, and the shooter who fired that weapon during the assassination was certainly capable of hitting the 'ant sized' head of JFK.

Please explain away the evidence. Anything that conflicts with your theories must be fraudulent, right? Is that really the best you can do?

Hank

 

[BStrong]

First off, call me Hank.

Logical fallacy of the straw man argument. That's where you advance a false argument, pretending your opponent(s) advanced it, merely to knock it down. It's easier to knock down than the real argument(s), just as a straw man is easier to attack (and beat) than a real opponent would be.

Numerous people advanced other arguments, like for example the one I pointed out: the hard evidence indicates that rifle, from that building, fired the bullet that struck JFK in the head (two large fragments - apparently remnants from the head shot - were found in the limo and ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. And if that rifle did that, then that rifle was capable of doing that, and the shooter who fired that weapon during the assassination was certainly capable of hitting the 'ant sized' head of JFK.

Please explain away the evidence. Anything that conflicts with your theories must be fraudulent, right? Is that really the best you can do?

Hank

The dirty little secret of firearms marksmanship instruction, and why the instructor shouldn't shoot in front of the instructees:

Sometimes even instructors fail to perform up to standards, and nothing is more embarrassing than missing in front of an audience.

The correlation here is that there is no requirement for LHO to have been Billy Dixon to pull off what he did in fact do in Dallas - just like instructors missing (yes, including me) lesser skilled individuals get hits. there is no rhyme or reason to it.

One of my guys once ran a Browning P35 dry - 13 rounds - at a live target firing at him within eight feet. IIRC the bad actor fired either 7 or 8 rounds out of his piece.

Neither my guy or the actor took one single hit from the exchange of fire and the festivities were ended by the actor taking a blow to the head while trying to reload his piece. He eventually took his regular room down at Folsom for an extended stay.

My guy swore he aligned on center mass. He probably did but jerked the trigger rather than squeezing and missed his rounds low/left as far as could be determined. The actor left holes in everything except the officer he was shooting at - at least my guy had somewhat of a group in his misses.

The conceit that LHO had to be another Billy Dixon or Carlos Hathcock to make the established shots is just flat-out nonsense.

ETA:

The video isn't me - guy fires a Commander sized (shorter 4.25" barrel) 1911 variant using generic .45 ball ammo at a metal target 230 yards downrange - spoiler alert: much like Billy Dixon, he hits his target with his third round...

 

[HSienzant]

ETA:

The video isn't me - guy fires a Commander sized (shorter 4.25" barrel) 1911 variant using generic .45 ball ammo at a metal target 230 yards downrange - spoiler alert: much like Billy Dixon, he hits his target with his third round...

You already know the responses; it's an altered film; it doesn't prove Oswald could do it; it's not Oswald's mannlicher carcano, so it doesn't prove his rifle was capable; etc; etc; etc... ad nauseum.

None so blind as those who choose not to see.

Hank

 

[CORed]

BS. All I mean is that you need a proper scope to aim, almost certainly not the iron sights.

People used to routinely make much more difficult shots with iron sights long before scopes were even invented. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, so your personal incredulity means nothing.

 

[SOdhner]

The correlation here is that there is no requirement for LHO to have been Billy Dixon to pull off what he did in fact do in Dallas - just like instructors missing (yes, including me) lesser skilled individuals get hits. there is no rhyme or reason to it.

I was actually going to make this point before I saw I had been beaten to it, so I'll just reiterate:

Even IF the distance made the shot improbable (which it doesn't) it could be that LHO simply lucked out. This doesn't really disprove anything, especially with all the other evidence pointing to LHO.

 

[HSienzant]

I was actually going to make this point before I saw I had been beaten to it, so I'll just reiterate:

Even IF the distance made the shot improbable (which it doesn't) it could be that LHO simply lucked out. This doesn't really disprove anything, especially with all the other evidence pointing to LHO.

And of course (although conspiracy theorists believe the testimony that follows is all part of the cover-up), there's this:

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian [population], throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

And then there's this:
Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?
Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

Both men were experts, both men had an opportunity to review Oswald's Marine Corps shooting records. Both men said Oswald was an above average shot compared to the typical civilian.

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

I was actually going to make this point before I saw I had been beaten to it, so I'll just reiterate:

Even IF the distance made the shot improbable (which it doesn't) it could be that LHO simply lucked out. This doesn't really disprove anything, especially with all the other evidence pointing to LHO.

Remember, regardless of what you think his target was, he missed the first shot. And since I argue that he was aiming to kill, that makes him 1 for 3.

Q: Why did Oswald shoot three times?
A: Because that's how many tries it took him to kill the President.

Don't know how that gets turned into "it was an impossible shot to make."

You gotta give him a few tries. It's not like he was trying to miss on the first or second shots.

 

[pgwenthold]

And of course (although conspiracy theorists believe the testimony that follows is all part of the cover-up), there's this:

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian [population], throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

And then there's this:
Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?
Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

Both men were experts, both men had an opportunity to review Oswald's Marine Corps shooting records. Both men said Oswald was an above average shot compared to the typical Marine.

Hank

(fixed a typo for you; he was above average for a Marine, excellent for civi)

But...but...but...Walter Mathau said he's got "Maggie's drawers"!

 

[Axxman300]

I was actually going to make this point before I saw I had been beaten to it, so I'll just reiterate:

Even IF the distance made the shot improbable (which it doesn't) it could be that LHO simply lucked out. This doesn't really disprove anything, especially with all the other evidence pointing to LHO.

This is the biggest truth which CTists ignore:

Oswald only had to do it all once.

If they made him repeat those shots maybe he misses all three, maybe lands one, or he gets three head shots.

Some days all you have to do is put your dollar in the slot, pull the handle, and hit the jackpot.

 

[Praktik]

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/LYUI5On.jpg[/qimg]

Incredulity is a poor substitute for an argument...

...but one that is nonetheless seductive for many.

Its kind of the grease that lines the slide into the Conspiracy Pit.