Lee Harvey Oswald...

[Ranb]

Oh, I've fired rifles alright. But I could never duplicate what Oswald is alleged to have done. Neither could you. Nor has anyone to date. .................


-- Rouser

So how do you define duplicate?

If I perch myself in a stand 60 feet off of the ground and shoot at target moving 5 mph at a slight angle away from me with a 91/48 carcano rifle equiped with a 3/4" 4 power scope adjusted to hit a bit high and right, will this duplicate things enough?

Or do I need to shutdown Dealey Plaza long enough to have a limo of the same type used by JFK drive by with 4 animatronic dummies in it while I fire away from the 6th floor of the Book Depository using the actual Oswald carcano?

I have read what "duplicate" means to some conspiracy folks. They even want a Marine who is indifferant to sharpshooting and only had 45 rounds of practise with his old surplus war rifle to do the shooting. Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?

Ranb

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[The famous backyard p]hotos [of Oswald], demonstrably fake.

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Again (in reference to the old JFK thread), we so b***h-slapped Mr. R on the "faked" photo point that it was embarrassing.

Rouser2
Embarrassing for you, obviously.

Regnad Kcin
From that and other aspects of the discussion there quickly emerged a picture of one who ain't gonna budge on nuttin'.

Rouser2
What emerged is what you could not deal with, namely a replication of the photo evidence, something neither you, nor the House Committee, nor anyone else has ever been able to do.

IIRC, you posited that because the angle of the rifle's (and Oswald's arm's) shadow doesn't match up with the angle of the figure itself the photo is therefore "demonstrably fake."

To refresh your memory (and for anyone who missed it the first time around), you conveniently sidestepped the phenomenon of parallax. Oswald isn't just holding the rifle off to his side, but also forward & away from his body. This is not evident at first since we, the viewers of the photo, are looking at a two-dimensional representation of a 3-D object. This really is so painfully simple.

As to whether anyone could duplicate the effect, all one would need is a strong light source and a few objects to stand in for the body and the rifle. (Say, a pin spot and a GI Joe.) And no, I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[Aoidoi]

Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?

I suspect a time machine would be involved. You see, it wasn't Oswald that shot Kennedy- it was a time traveler proving that Oswald was the one who shot Kennedy that did it!

It's all so clear now!

(In case you're wondering, I've given up on Rouser presenting a believable argument and will now just proceed to make smart*ss comments whenever the whim strikes me. So, pretty much back to usual for me. )

 

[Rouser2]

From your quote:

Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.
Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?
Lutz: I do not.


I don't know of anybody who flew B-2, doesn't mean it didn't happen now did it. Further more, with a little research you can find out just how many tests were conducted again and again that showed just how possible it was to do that.

Possible? Of course. Never said it wasn't. Even though none of your "tests" were able to do it on a first try. It is just as absurd to say such a feat of was impossible as it is to say it was easy.

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

So how do you define duplicate?

If I perch myself in a stand 60 feet off of the ground and shoot at target moving 5 mph at a slight angle away from me with a 91/48 carcano rifle equiped with a 3/4" 4 power scope adjusted to hit a bit high and right, will this duplicate things enough?

Or do I need to shutdown Dealey Plaza long enough to have a limo of the same type used by JFK drive by with 4 animatronic dummies in it while I fire away from the 6th floor of the Book Depository using the actual Oswald carcano?

I have read what "duplicate" means to some conspiracy folks. They even want a Marine who is indifferant to sharpshooting and only had 45 rounds of practise with his old surplus war rifle to do the shooting. Jushow close do conditions have to match Dallas 1963 before you will accept that the feat was duplicated and you will believe a competent shooter could do it?

Ranb

So who duplicated it?

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

IIRC, you posited that because the angle of the rifle's (and Oswald's arm's) shadow doesn't match up with the angle of the figure itself the photo is therefore "demonstrably fake."

To refresh your memory (and for anyone who missed it the first time around), you conveniently sidestepped the phenomenon of parallax. Oswald isn't just holding the rifle off to his side, but also forward & away from his body. This is not evident at first since we, the viewers of the photo, are looking at a two-dimensional representation of a 3-D object. This really is so painfully simple.

As to whether anyone could duplicate the effect, all one would need is a strong light source and a few objects to stand in for the body and the rifle. (Say, a pin spot and a GI Joe.) And no, I'm not going to do it for you.

Of course I've done it. Tried it, that is. No way, Impossible. Parrallax pitch and all. Can't be done. Nor have you done it. All you can do is posit that it could be done. But talk is cheap. Of course there is much more evidence of photo fraud than just the anomalies in the photos. There is that cryptic ghosted photo discovered in the DPD evidence locker in 1993. Pretty funny when Lone Nutters try to explain that away. And then there is the fact that two photo processors said the FBI give them backyard color transpariencies to develop on Nov. 22nd, the night before they "found" them in the Paine garage. That too is a laugher when LNs to explain that one.

The Ghosted Photo --- Neeley backyard minus Oswald.

 

[Ranb]

So who duplicated it?

-- Rouser

I have read in the past about other experiments, but I would have to dig to get a link or other details. The closest I have come to duplicating it myself was with a carcano 6.5 mm rifle at 100 yards into a man sized target. Three shots in about 6 seconds, all in a group about 8" wide on the target.

But we are getting away from the question. I was asking for YOUR opinion on what constitutes a valid duplication of what Oswald did. How close to the conditions and results of that day in 1963 are good enough to call it a valid test? Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Of course I've done it. Tried it, that is. No way, Impossible. Parrallax pitch and all. Can't be done. Nor have you done it. All you can do is posit that it could be done. But talk is cheap.

"Nor have you done it." So I'm a liar now? Splendid.

Tell you what, please go on about your conspiracy. Go on until your dying day. The rest of us meanwhile will be accomplishing things with our lives.

 

[Rouser2]

I have read in the past about other experiments, but I would have to dig to get a link or other details. The closest I have come to duplicating it myself was with a carcano 6.5 mm rifle at 100 yards into a man sized target. Three shots in about 6 seconds, all in a group about 8" wide on the target.

But we are getting away from the question. I was asking for YOUR opinion on what constitutes a valid duplication of what Oswald did. How close to the conditions and results of that day in 1963 are good enough to call it a valid test? Thanks.

Ranb

Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice.

Rouser

 

[Ranb]

"Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice."

A few comments. Oswald had a rest, the boxes he knelt behind while shooting. Only the first shot was blocked by the tree.

Given that the range was short, the target large, angle small, target speed slow, rifle of sufficient power/accuracy, the shot was not a hard one to make. Shooting through tree branches certainly complicates things.

The first shot should have been one that hit JFK. I can only imagine that LHO was following JFK through his scope as he passed the building. Shooting while the limo was directly in front of him would have been more difficult to lead properly. After the limo passed, Oswald only had to lead the target about 3-4 inches, or at the top/right of JFK's head, (according to my calculations using a ballistics program) for a center hit. If he was concentrating on the target through the scope, then the branches must have been a bit of a surprise as they appeared in the field of view. The two follow-up shots after the limo cleared the tree branchs would not have been hard as the limo was heading almost directly away from him. Jerking the trigger as some people are apt to do while shooting quickly could have resulted in hitting JFK low in the upper back, if the head was the target.

I have lots of experience shooting, although none of it is exactly like the conditions JFK was shot in. I can lead a target, operate a bolt rifle quickly, and can shoot well with-in the 7 minute of angle accuracy required for this shot. Making this shot is nothing to brag about. Please do not imply I am trying to be macho by saying I can shoot as well as Oswald was alleged to have done.

I am also very likely to believe an expert like Robert Frazier when he says a person with Oswald's experience could have made the shot.

Ranb

 

[Rouser2]

"Nor have you done it." So I'm a liar now? Splendid.

Tell you what, please go on about your conspiracy. Go on until your dying day. The rest of us meanwhile will be accomplishing things with our lives.

Well now, you don't have to go and have a hissy-fit about it.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

"Same distance, same angle, moving target, through tree branches, same or similar weapon, same mis-aligned sight, no gun rest, same time frame, head and shoulders hit, etc., etc., etc. First attempt; no practice."

A few comments. Oswald had a rest, the boxes he knelt behind while shooting. Only the first shot was blocked by the tree.

Given that the range was short, the target large, angle small, target speed slow, rifle of sufficient power/accuracy, the shot was not a hard one to make. Shooting through tree branches certainly complicates things.

The first shot should have been one that hit JFK. I can only imagine that LHO was following JFK through his scope as he passed the building. Shooting while the limo was directly in front of him would have been more difficult to lead properly. After the limo passed, Oswald only had to lead the target about 3-4 inches, or at the top/right of JFK's head, (according to my calculations using a ballistics program) for a center hit. If he was concentrating on the target through the scope, then the branches must have been a bit of a surprise as they appeared in the field of view. The two follow-up shots after the limo cleared the tree branchs would not have been hard as the limo was heading almost directly away from him. Jerking the trigger as some people are apt to do while shooting quickly could have resulted in hitting JFK low in the upper back, if the head was the target.

I have lots of experience shooting, although none of it is exactly like the conditions JFK was shot in. I can lead a target, operate a bolt rifle quickly, and can shoot well with-in the 7 minute of angle accuracy required for this shot. Making this shot is nothing to brag about. Please do not imply I am trying to be macho by saying I can shoot as well as Oswald was alleged to have done.

I am also very likely to believe an expert like Robert Frazier when he says a person with Oswald's experience could have made the shot.

Ranb

Could have but didn't. The large blow-out in the back of the head along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch must point to at least one other shooter. Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.

-- Rouser

 

[Bjorn]

The large blow-out in the back of the head

Any pictures of it?

along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch

Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.

False. He was seen there about 90 seconds after the shooting, giving him sufficient time to get there.

 

[corplinx]

Any pictures of it?

Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

It actually appears to me that his head twitches forward and bounces back when I watched the tape. Consistent with a shot from behind. Not to mention the bullet fragments spread out towards the front.

Yes, his head could have fallen forward or back but the location of the bullet fragments is the only evidence you need to prove a rear shooter. This is why some people try their best to discredit that evidence. If you passed out sketches of the head wound and the location of the fragments to a forensics class who didn't know it was Kennedy, you will get a resounding answer of a shot from the rear.

There are three kinds of "experts" who claim the shot was from the front. One's who already believe there was a conspiracy and compromise their integrity to support that belief. Those who won't compromise simple forensic evidence and instead refuse to belief the xrays/etc are real. And finally, people who are not qualified to make that pronouncement (i.e. someone in a medical profession but not a forensic investigator like a radiologist).

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The large blow-out in the back of the head
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any pictures of it?

No. Course not. What we have is a picture of the back of the head in tact. Which means that either all of the doctors, nurses and attendents are lying or the picture is a lie.

 

[Rouser2]

Rouser quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
along with the blast from the right front and violent backward lurch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Did you ever see the videos of melon-shooting (or the goat) showing that a shot can actually make the head (or the melon) lurch towards the point where the shot came from?

Yes. But a melon does not replicate a human head. Moreover, the Warren Commision conducted test of 10 human skulls. Each time the skulls moved away from the shooter. The results of this test were suppressed and were not revealed until fifteen years later during the HSCA investigation. (1HSCA404)

Moreover, Alverez did not use carcano bullets. In separate
experiments performed by Dr. Doug DeSalles and physicist Art Snyder, the jet effect did not occur on melons shot with Mannlicher-Carcano bullets.

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Oswald was seen in the lunchroom having a coke, probably waiting for his big assignment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>False. He was seen there about 90 seconds after the shooting, giving him sufficient time to get there.

Actually, 60 to 80 seconds later, with coke already in hand.


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by corplinx [/i]


>>If you passed out sketches of the head wound and the location of the fragments to a forensics class who didn't know it was Kennedy, you will get a resounding answer of a shot from the rear.

And just which "sketches" would you be referring to?


>>There are three kinds of "experts" who claim the shot was from the front. One's who already believe there was a conspiracy and compromise their integrity to support that belief. Those who won't compromise simple forensic evidence and instead refuse to belief the xrays/etc are real.

What is required to believe the X-Rays are real? A prounouncement from on high?

>> And finally, people who are not qualified to make that pronouncement (i.e. someone in a medical profession but not a forensic investigator like a radiologist).

Like Cyril Wecht, for instance?

-- Rouser

 

[Bjorn]

What we have is a picture of the back of the head in tact. Which means that either all of the doctors, nurses and attendents are lying or the picture is a lie.

.... and I realize that showing you more pictures or reports won't work - if they give no evidence of the back of the head blown out, they're faked ...

I rest my case.

Anyway, shortly after this accession, the 3 prosectors,
the radiologist who took the x-rays, and the medical
photographer who took the photos went to the Archives to
review the material. They agreed unanimously that the
photos and x-rays turned over by the Kennedys accurately
depicted JKF's wounds and were the authentic x-rays and
photos exposed on the night of the autopsy. Until the
House Select Committee on Assassinations looked into this
issue in 1977-1978 no further authentication was attempted.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Bjorn [/i]

>> .... and I realize that showing you more pictures or reports won't work - if they give no evidence of the back of the head blown out, they're faked ... :

What pictures? You haven't shown nor cited any. What reports? You haven't cited any reports

>>I rest my case.

What case? You've yet to make a case.

>>Anyway, shortly after this accession, the 3 prosectors,
the radiologist who took the x-rays, and the medical
photographer who took the photos went to the Archives to
review the material. They agreed unanimously that the
photos and x-rays turned over by the Kennedys accurately
depicted JKF's wounds and were

Says who? And just what pictures? Of what? Obviously, you haven't a clue.

-- Rouser