bknight
Master Poster
I love the last line of the report. "The "rifle" problem is still alive"
No Other fell for it or something like it.
Thanks Hank.
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
I love the last line of the report. "The "rifle" problem is still alive"
No Other fell for it or something like it.
Thanks Hank.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
JFK nonsense raised it's ugly head in my office within the last hour..
CTist: "it's as stupid as saying Oswald could shoot at Kennedy from 3 floors up."
Me: It was the sixth floor. Longest shot 88 yds. Can of corn for a trained shooter.
Witness to exchange: "You (BStrong) could have probably got him with a government model. (1911 platform USGI pistol)"
CTist: "What's a government model?"
CTist: "it's as stupid as saying Oswald could shoot at Kennedy from 3 floors up."
Me: It was the sixth floor. Longest shot 88 yds. Can of corn for a trained shooter.
Witness to exchange: "You (BStrong) could have probably got him with a government model. (1911 platform USGI pistol)"
CTist: "What's a government model?"
bknight
Master Poster
You have no clue since you've never shot a rifle. abaddon has already proven that with mathematics.
HSienzant
Philosopher
So according to this argument, because the shot was so difficult, nobody shot JFK and he turns 100 in five days?
Is that right?
Do I understand your argument correctly?
Or are you only eliminating Oswald as the shooter with this special argument?
We've discussed this class of argument already. Remember me pointing out that Mark Lane tried to eliminate Oswald as the shooter because the men on the fifth floor heard nobody walking away above them? Remember how I had to point out that eliminates not only Oswald, but anyone else who might have been up there? Remember how I pointed out about ten witnesses on the street saw someone in the window shortly before, during, or just after the shooting?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11819765&postcount=3263
So we know someone was up there, and that means whoever it was walked away quietly?
And that therefore doesn't eliminate Oswald?
Same argument for the Depository shooter. Even if your argument is correct about the relative size of JFK's head (it would depend on both the size of the ant and how far from your eye the ant was, neither of which you specify), someone shot JFK from the Depository using that rifle, according to all the evidence we have.
Ergo, your argument does NOT eliminate Oswald as the shooter.
Try to think through these arguments you intend to advance in the future.
Hank
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How amazed do your CT websites tell you to be that shooters have made longer shots at smaller targets for hundreds of years?
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
My grandfather was an accomplished deer hunter. AFIK, her never used a scope. An 88 yard shot with iron sights would be a piece of cake for any decent deer hunter.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
At what range? An ant is invisible at 10 km yet huge in any scope. Repeating over and over that JFK's head would be the size of an ant is meaningless.
Furthermore, WW1 happened. In your view, all of those blokes in the trenches with bolt action hit nothing at all. All of those graveyards are therefore fake and the Somme never happened.
For some personal reasons, you seem to get your jollies from such claims. All of those dead soldiers used iron sights, every single one. All of those soldiers died aplenty. Perhaps it amuses you to urinate on their graves. I don't find it amusing.
Your claim is that iron sights at 88 yards is impossible. Decades of war tell us that this claim is utter bollocks. Decades of further development tells us that one can do it at a range of miles with a bolt action rifle.
ETA: Go look up Simo Häyhä and come back to us. Also Carlos Hathcock, or the flotilla of female snipers the Russians put in the field. The Russians made all manner of mistakes, but I quite like their gender neutrality when it came to rifle men/women/whatever.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you know what a "gun" is?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
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.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
As long as you're ok embarrassing yourself, go for it.
bknight
Master Poster
MicahJava, I have a serious question for you. Do you believe in any other conspiracy or do you devote all your efforts into attempting to find/show anomalies on an event that history has shown you to be wrong, and yet you joust with windmills?
HSienzant
Philosopher
You say you've been to Dealey Plaza, but it's stuff like the above that makes me doubt it. The TSBD looms over the area, and from the location of the head shot, it looks like you could pick up a rock and hit the sniper's nest window. I can't (I'm too old for that), but a decent baseball player with a good arm could. Throws from the outfield can easily exceed 264 feet ON THE FLY with accuracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygfTWWw5nRQ
Again, your argument reduces to: Nobody could hit JFK in the back of the head (the TSBD is the closest building of those behind JFK and if they could not do it from the TSBD, they couldn't do it), so he wasn't assassinated on 11/22/63.
Can you try to merge your current argument with your prior one -- that JFK was struck in the back of the head near the EOP?
They seem to me to be in direct conflict with one another.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I would argue the opposite. I haven't been to the location, and I only shot a rifle with a scope once. But in my youth I was a member of the local cadets and used iron sights for target shooting.
In my completely worthless, layman opinion, from such little experience, I would suggest the shots were too close to be accurate with a scope, especially adjusting between shots, and iron sights would be apt.
But hey... Oswald had a scope available.
In my completely worthless, layman opinion, from such little experience, I would suggest the shots were too close to be accurate with a scope, especially adjusting between shots, and iron sights would be apt.
But hey... Oswald had a scope available.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Answer the question. Are you eliminating everyone from being able to shoot Kennedy or just Oswald?
The above retort is a large part of why you're consistently failing to persuade here, Micah. You dismiss logical arguments against your positions as "theoretical." But your desire to wallow in what you regard as "facts," without a thoughtful framework to organize your inferences, is working against you. This is typical of much CT. There are forums where your "ant" comments and such would be par for the course. Here they are grossly inadequate.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Tell it to Billy Dixon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Dixon
"Dixon led the founders of Adobe Walls to the Texas Plains, where he knew buffalo were in abundance. The group of 28 men and one woman occupied the outpost of five buildings 15 miles northeast of Stinnett.
The outpost was attacked on June 27, 1874, by a band of 700-1200 Indians, and that is when Dixon went into the history books for firing "The Shot of the Century" which effectively ended the siege. Although Dixon states in his biography that it was a "scratch shot", he is still honored to this day with competitions in England and the US that attempt to match his skill.
The stand-off continued into a third day, when a group of Indians were noticed about a mile east of Adobe Walls. It is said that Dixon took aim with a quickly borrowed .50-90 Sharps (as, according to his biography, he only had a .45-90 Sharps and felt it could not reach) buffalo rifle and fired, knocking an Indian near Chief Quanah Parker off his horse almost a mile away on his third shot and killing him. Unnerved, the Indians then withdrew and left the settlement alone. Commemorative "Billy Dixon" model reproduction Sharps rifles that supposedly recreate the specifications of Dixon's famous gun are still available."
The distance was later surveyed to be 1538 yards, 7/8's of a mile, iron sights.
Historically not every shooting that involves hits involves actual precision on the part of the shooter. Plenty of individuals barely able to hold "minute-of-man" have scored hits, including headshots.
For my part, had I ever encountered a target that needed shooting in similar or identical circumstances where collateral damage wasn't a concern, a good 1911 pistol would be enough to get the job done - might take more rounds, but 1911's shoot pretty well out to 100 yds.
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.
Abbadon, you indirectly glance at something here that is characteristic of some JFK CTs: a certain ghoulishness. Autopsy photos, spinning skulls with holes in them, anatomical drawings and models with bullet tracks, blood spray patterns, "ant" analogies, and such--a certain reveling in presidential gore. This is a draw for some folks.
Last edited:
- Status