"Olympic snipers" was a vague reference to NRA Masters, "capable of Olympic competition".
From summary of the WC shooting experiments as testified by Ronald Simmons:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Rossley%20Tom/Item%2001A.pdf
And, of course, the fact that even some Lone Nutters are coming around to accepting the research indicating that the scope on the rifle in evidence is was too crappy to use. These experiments used scopes, not iron sights.
Doesn't it bother you that these experiments were presented as evidence of anything? Of course not, you already have your agenda.
Meanwhile, your strategy is to use confusion to clog any conversation. Were you one of the guys claiming that adequate noise-suppressors on rifles did not exist in 1963? Boy, that was a bust. Now your strategy is playing dumb when discussing medical evidence. If you don't have a good answer for anything, don't bother responding please.
Bonus quote from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, in which Bulio argues that Oswald could not have been a professional contract killer because the rifle in evidence did not come with a noise-suppressor:
"
Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to “substantially diminish the report” of the weapon and to “alter or disguise the sound,” such as to make it sound like “the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer” or “the operation of machinery.” He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available “probably wouldn’t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd” in Dealey Plaza."
The "worlds best snipers and Olympic snipers" jive was a quote from Sylvia Meagher (iirc) that you cut and pasted into one of your posts. You evidently didn't learn anything from trying to work that side of the street, so you come back to it when convenient
How quickly you forget. You're not the first poster in this thread to throw the "Silencer!" flag and you're not the first poster to throw out that particular strawman (somebody said silencers weren't available! wasn't it you?) argument:
From the last thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11409298&postcount=893
WRT suppressor technology at the time.
https://archive.org/details/milmanua...nd-evaluations
The cans available circa the early sixties were primarily Maxim type or modified Maxim type suppressors, and modern mono-core wipeless designs weren't even on the horizon. Since there was no great consumer market back then and no military/LE market worth producing new designs for, suppressor designs were stagnate.
The fact that suppressors existed isn't in question, the question is: Where is the evidence?
My argument wrt suppressor use in Dallas is the same now as it was before you landed here. There is no evidence that any type of suppressed firearm was in play.
If you believe that you have the actual evidence to prove a second headwound in the same area as the established GSW from the rear post it and stand up for yourself. Posting the same handed-down jive from some other CTist and not standing by your position is weak ****.
I realize that by asking you repeatedly and you avoiding answering it puts you on the defensive, but that's your problem. If you don't like what's going on with my posts, report them. If the moderators see fit to sanction me, that's OK - it's their house, not mine.
If that doesn't happen you have a positive course of action available to you - find a friendlier environment that isn't populated by individuals with experience in the subject matter or familiarity with the material.
As far as citing Bugliosi, once again you fried the irony meter. Talk about Cherry Picking! you might want to read the whole book before citing it to support your CT.
Bugliosi was not making a case for a suppressed firearm being in play, he was giving his opinion (and not a particularly well informed one) about professional killers. In my experience, experienced professional murderers are more a creature of fiction than reality. You can cite Roy DeMeo on the mafiosi side, "Mad Dog" Sullivan from the Westies (who ended up tied to DeMeo at one point) and Tony Spilotro from Vegas, and none of those guys used a long gun to get a job done. Bugliosi was a man of strong opinions, and like anybody else he wasn't always right. He is roughly correct about the sound of a suppressed weapon, but that's no proof that one was in play in Dallas.
Point of fact - there is not one professional mob murder that involved the use of a suppressor equipped rifle - ever - I've had the opportunity to go through the F.B.I. firearms reference collection (read as: armory) at Quantico with a special emphasis on NFA weapons and devices. Lots of pistols w/ cans, lots of SMG's and machine pistols. The suppressed rifles in evidence were in the majority seized as evidence involving crimes other than murder and there was no associated case involving their criminal use, only unregistered NFA violations.
The one established use of a rifle (actually an M1 carbine) by LCN was the murder of Bugsy Siegel, and the piece wasn't suppressed.
The one established use of a suppressed rifle to commit a crime was the nut-job ex-LAPD officer that declared war on LEO's down in southern California - he had legally acquired a suppressed rifle:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ons-silencers-sniper-rifle-officials-say.html
And used it in his murder spree.
If you have evidence of Mafiosi use, or any particular crime group documented use of suppressed rifles in the commission of murder or any criminal activity, please post it.
