Originally posted by HSienzant
What if there were multiple assassins? Why is a single assassin singled out in this way by you?
Which of the "other assassins" was known to have a rifle with a appropriately sighted scope? Or even a rifle with just iron sights? Wouldn't all these "other assassins" that you conjecture but have no evidence for all suffer from the same difficulty of putting a shot in JFK's head if your argument had any merit? So JFK suffered no head wound because of the difficulty, survived the shooting, and is now 100 years old a month and a half ago?
Your argument about the difficulty makes no sense. If not Oswald, who, and where's the evidence for another shooter? You have none.
Contrast this to my own experience. Prior to July 5th, 2015 (and I've mentioned this before), I had never fired a firearm of any sort in my life. On that date I went with my nephew (with a military background) and one brother to a shooting gallery and fired my nephew's recently acquired Carcano rifle (manufacture date of 1917) and hit four of six at 100 yards. Granted, this was at a stationary target, but in contrast to Oswald, who had Marine Corps training and was deemed an 'excellent shot' by civilian standards, I had about two minutes of training that focused on how to brace the rifle against my shoulder so I wouldn't injure myself. I still managed to put four of six shots into the target, including the last three in two tests of three shots each. To date, those are the only six shots I ever fired with any firearm in my life.
Compare those six shots (my total experience) to Oswald's training and how many shots he got to train with at a minimum:
Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?
Major ANDERSON - It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - By "fam" firing, what does that mean?
Major ANDERSON - This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.
Mr. SPECTER - And on what date was the A course registered?
Major ANDERSON - 21 December 1956.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was his final qualification there?
Major ANDERSON - 212.
Mr. SPECTER - And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?
Major ANDERSON - That should have been a sharpshooter.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 400 rounds for recruit firing.
Mr. SPECTER - And during what period was that?
Major ANDERSON - That was to be fired within a 2-week period.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have exposure on another course for M-1 firing at a later date?
Major ANDERSON - The record shows that 6 May 1959 he fired the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used at that time?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what score was obtained on that occasion?
Major ANDERSON - 191 for marksman.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 200 rounds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm
Oswald has to be considered a much better shot than me. And if I could do four of six with about two minutes of training at 100 yards, surely he could do two of three with his furthest shot at 88.4 yards. And bear in mind his shots were with a 23-year-old weapon (1963 minus 1940, the year of manufacture for his rifle), while mine was nearly FOUR times older (2015 minus 1917), or 98 years old.
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, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zahm.htm
And let's dispose of that "Moving Target" nonsense right now. Since the car at the time of the head shot was moving down at about four degrees and directly away from Oswald in the sixth floor window of the Depository, it was essentially a stationary target at the time. It was getting smaller as it moved away, but not moving across his field of vision as he sighted for the final shot and pulled the trigger.
And instead of your own non-expert and solely layman's opinion on what Oswald could or couldn't do with a weapon, let's look at an actual expert's opinion:
Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, I am now going to show you the same photographs which I showed to Major Anderson in setting the basis for asking you a hypothetical question on capabilities here. As the record will show, we have heretofore before the President's Commission entered into evidence Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza. Commission Exhibit No. 348, which I am now displaying to you, is a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence in the record indicates that the marksman stood at the point designated "A" with the lower half of the window being raised halfway, and the gun protruding out of that window pointing down the street called Elm Street in approximately the angle of my pencil which is virtually although not exactly straight down the street. Elm Street declines 3° as it slopes under the triple underpass.
As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and 895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle scope" there is shown the view of the marksman froth the sixth floor of the depository building as he looked down t ZAHM. Very definitely.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Now taking a look at Commission Exhibit No. 902, which as the record will show, has been introduced into evidence to depict the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from the rifle in the window to the part of the President's body being 265.3 feet. Assuming the same factors about using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and pointing it down Elm Street as shown on Commission Exhibit No. 347, would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head? Would Mr. Oswald possess the capability to complete such a shot which did, in this situation, strike the President in the back of the head?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I think that aiming at the mass of what portion of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment, he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he could have hit, got a hit.
Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at him under those circumstances?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.
And, since Oswald trained at 200 yards and 500 yards (the latter nearly SIX [6!] times the distance of the LONGEST shot he would have to make in Dealey Plaza), your argument that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 88-yard shot to JFK's head means your argument is also that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 200-yard or 500-yard shot in the Marines and put it in the bullseye. But of course we know he did do that (see his scorebook, published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence). The fact that he made shots at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines establishes he could make 88-yard shots in Dealey Plaza, and that your arguments here are a joke.
Your arguments are a big failure and simply make no sense.
Whether you understand the point or not.
