...
And you're also forgetting that the "world's best snipers and Olympic snipers" in fact couldn't replicate the single-assassin scinareo and that is not a flub by me whatsoever.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Rossley%20Tom/Item%2001A.pdf
Volume III pge. 441 starts the testimony of Ronald Simmons, whose -e is: Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, in a nutshell he used three NRA MASTERS Staley, Miller and Hendrix (capable of Olympic competition) in an attempt to duplicate the accuracy and timing attributed to Oswald. Their reenactments were under better conditions than Oswald contended with.
1. All the time they wanted to aim first shot.
2. No oak tree obscuring their vision.
3. Thirty feet up instead of the sixth floor
4. Targets two feet square.
5. Stationary targets as opposed to a moving target.
6. Had advantage of shimmed scope for accuracy.
7. Targets. No pressure of killing a President of the U.S.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, THREE NRA "MASTERS" COULD NOT DUPLICATE SHOOTING SKILLS OF ONE LONE NUT NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
You're simply quoting a conspiracy theorist's opinion as your support for your own conspiracy theorist opinion. Sorry, that's meaningless.
And they all bettered Oswald's time and shooting ability. "Duplicating" is a false premise. All Oswald set out to do was shoot the President. And he certainly didn't set out to do it in a particular way. He merely wanted the President dead. Asking anyone to duplicate the feat is a false premise.
I could flip a coin 20 times and get a particular succession of heads and tails. Asking anyone to DUPLICATE EXACTLY my particular succession of heads and tails is next to impossible (it's one chance out of two to the 20th power). But it wasn't hard for me to do at all. I just flipped a coin 20 times.
This has been explained to you numerous times in the past. You ignored it every time and just recycle the same arguments over and over.
Full fringe reset mode.
Hank
Some of those "better conditions" objections are pretty specious anyway. For example-
2. No oak tree obscuring their vision.
The oak tree was out of the way by, what, Z210? If you want to duplicate LHO's timing and accuracy, then it makes no sense to impose an obstacle on the re-enactors that Oswald didn't have by the time he began his shooting (or at least by the time the first effect of any shot can be seen).
3. Thirty feet up instead of the sixth floor
5. Stationary targets as opposed to a moving target.
Taking these two together (a little out of order, but the same idea applies to both)- I'll admit, I'm no rifleman, but it seems to me that these "better conditions" are actually
worse ones. As a very crude analogy, shooting a fish in a barrel is harder if you make the angle shallower, shooting more across than down. As for the "stationary target" thing- because Oswald was shooting at that steeper angle at a target moving downward and away in effectively a straight line, his target was, in fact, relatively stationary in respect to him- his own movement was minimized. But shooting at actually stationary targets, at different distances at a shallower angle, means that that the rifleman-
the re-enactor- had to move to compensate for the target not doing so. And remember, these re-enactors, unlike Oswald, weren't familiar with the action of the bolt of the trigger- from
here:
Mr. Eisenberg: How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. Simmons: They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. Eisenberg: Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. Simmons: They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. Eisenberg: Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. Simmons: Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.
There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.
To sum up- re-enactors having to move themselves and a rifle they were unfamiliar with to simulate the movement of a target is not a "better condition" than Oswald firing a rifle he'd practiced with at a target that was in a position throughout which minimized his own movements.
Next "better condition"-
4. Targets two feet square.
They could have been ten feet square for all the difference this makes- if the issue is accuracy, then the placing of the hits is what matters, not how big the surrounding area is.
6. Had advantage of shimmed scope for accuracy.
This whole "shims" issue is a red herring- from what I can understand, they were placed because the rifle,
as received by the labs, was difficult to test in that condition. But (from
here, near the bottom of the page):
Representative Boggs: Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
(My bold)
So the "shims" issue is framed as a "better condition" only on the assumption that the rifle as received, and needing correction for testing, was the same as the way Oswald used it.
Finally-
7. Targets. No pressure of killing a President of the U.S.
Gotta love this one. Not only does it assume that the "pressure of killing a President" would have been a significant obstacle to Oswald in achieving what was, after all, his aim- the idea seems to be that the only equitable condition for the re-enactors to duplicate the accuracy and timing required to kill a President would have been for them to kill another one. I can just hear that conversation with LBJ-
"Mr. President, would you mind awfully going back down to Dallas for a bit and riding down Elm St. in that limo?...Well, sir, we need to re-enact as exactly as possible the conditions of the assassination, which requires our enactors to fire at a President in the car...Well, yes sir- live fire, actual bullets and all that...What's that, Mr. President? Suck your
what?"
