• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was the shot Oswald had to take really all that hard?

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
I was reading something about the JFK CT and you know, I think I could make that shot 1 time in 1000 or so. Now, Oswald was likely a much, much better shot than I am - he had training. So maybe he was ten times better then I am, so one time in 100.

What I'm saying is these people just don't consider how much luck enters into long-range shooting of any sort. You gotta squeeze the trigger just right at the pause between two heartbeats (I suck at that) and it helps a lot to have some sort of a rest, and Oswald did. So much is not in your control. Did Remington put just the right number of grains in that cartridge? Is there too much windage in the cheap gun? They go on and on about how superhuman a shot Oswald was and they just forget that had he missed we wouldn't even know his name now.
 
Well,if we assume he was aiming for JFK's melon,then Ozzie missed twice.
 
It really wasn't, it has been recreated before I believe. I could post the relevant sections from Vincent Bugliosi's book but I am too lazy and I don't think anyone really still believes the silly claims do they?
 
e^n said:
It really wasn't, it has been recreated before I believe. I could post the relevant sections from Vincent Bugliosi's book but I am too lazy and I don't think anyone really still believes the silly claims do they?
Click to expand...
I saw the show. Not only did they recreate the shot but they proved that it was impossible for any of the "theories" to work. Im fairly certain people still do. I think there was a news story about the shooting (I forgot about what) on Slashdot and the kooks were out in full force.
http://www.archive.org/details/jfks19610427

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049
Click to expand...
You see e^n. They are aparently still out there. Way out there.
 
The shot was at about 50 meters if I recall correctly; target moving at about 15 KPH (?) and light obscurement through trees. Excellent aspect. Slight downward angle and great field of view.

This is peanuts for a skilled rifleman, and Oswald was a Marine.

Years ago I attended a talk by Failure Analysis Associates (now Exponent) who recreated the scenario, and hired their own rifleman to estimate its feasibility. The only remotely challenging part was the time -- six seconds for three shots, so three seconds to cycle the bolt and reacquire the target -- but that too was well within his abilities. If you know your way around a rifle, you'd probably be able to do it too.

The moral question is something different, but technically, it's just not that hard.
 
BenBurch said:
I was reading something about the JFK CT and you know, I think I could make that shot 1 time in 1000 or so. Now, Oswald was likely a much, much better shot than I am - he had training. So maybe he was ten times better then I am, so one time in 100.
Click to expand...
They weren't long-distance shots, and the target was moving at a convenient angle. Everyone I know who's been there says they were surprised at how much less the distance was than they'd imagined.

Edit: Mackey!
 
I visited Dealey Plaza in March. I was actually surprised by how small and close-up the whole thing was. 40m is an easy shot with iron sites, much less a scope. The motorcade was not moving fast, and took the corner right in front of Oswald's position. For any trained marksman, it would not be very difficult.
 
BenBurch said:
What I'm saying is these people just don't consider how much luck enters into long-range shooting of any sort.
Click to expand...


50-100 yards is considered long distance shooting?

When my oldest was 4 he managed to hit a few targets at 50 yards with a open sight muzzleloader.
 
Last edited:
The shot was at about 50 meters if I recall correctly; target moving at about 10 MPH, and light obscurement through trees. Excellent aspect. Slight downward angle and great field of view.

This is peanuts for a skilled rifleman, and Oswald was a Marine.
Click to expand...
Well part of the problem is that on the bullet did do some really funky things and I was watching the debunking special.
 
technoextreme said:
Well part of the problem is that on the bullet did do some really funky things and I was watching the debunking special.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

The Failure Analysis Associates presentation spent more time on the post-impact trajectory than on the rest of the reconstruction. If you assemble the targets correctly, you see that the bullet's path was a fairly standard yawing deflection, complicated by the fact that bodies moved also as driven by spall, and entirely typical for ball ammo.

Once again, anyone who knows their way around a rifle will understand this. It only looks weird if you consider the different targets individually, and present your argument to people totally unfamiliar with terminal ballistics.
 
In the Warren Commission firearms panel, the distance to the fatal shot was stated as 165 feet (50.3 m). I could have hit him with a javelin 3 times out of 10 at that distance.

Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the panel, any one of all of you, would comment on what has been one of the widely written about and discussed features of the actual shooting. As I understand it, the distance from the window where Oswald was supposed to have been located to the President was 165 feet. With that weapon which you now have inspected and test fired, how difficult a shot is it with the scope or without the scope, sort of from left to right?

Mr. LUTZ. The answer I would give, I believe, would be that it would not appear to be a difficult shot with either device with reasonable training or a reasonable capability of a firer that was familiar with that firearm.

I personally feel that the iron sights would have provided a better capability because of the problems of sighting through the other device, through the telescopic sight, but I feel that it could have very easily been accomplished from that distance with that rifle.

Mr. FITHIAN. And with the car moving at the estimated speed?

Mr. LUTZ. From the data I have about the movement of the vehicle and the speeds involved, I still feel that it would not have been a difficult target at that distance.

Mr. FITHIAN. Is there any other member of the panel who believes that it would be somehow an exceptional feat to have hit the target from that range?

Mr. BATES. I don't believe so, no.
Click to expand...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
No, not really.

The Failure Analysis Associates presentation spent more time on the post-impact trajectory than on the rest of the reconstruction. If you assemble the targets correctly, you see that the bullet's path was a fairly standard yawing deflection, complicated by the fact that bodies moved also as driven by spall, and entirely typical for ball ammo.

Once again, anyone who knows their way around a rifle will understand this. It only looks weird if you consider the different targets individually, and present your argument to people totally unfamiliar with terminal ballistics.
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you telling me that it's normal to get an undeformed bullet that went through two people. Im sorry but this isn't normal. Dumb luck? Yes.
 
technoextreme said:
Huh? Are you telling me that it's normal to get an undeformed bullet that went through two people.
Click to expand...

Completely ordinary. Provided it's ball ammo, that is.

ETA: I should also add that 6.5mm x 54 ammunition has a relatively high sectional density, as hunting bullets go, and therefore would be even more likely to penetrate with light damage to the round, provided it missed most bones or metals.

ETAII: This photo shows the round, indeed, to be ball ("full jacketed") in nature. Its condition after firing is 100% credible, as it would appear to any hunter, or anyone familiar with high-powered rifles.

I'm not a Kennedy researcher, so bear with me.
 
Last edited:
Undeformed?CE399 is NOT undeformed.It is flattened (laterally?) with it's lead core extruded.
 
R.Mackey said:
The shot was at about 50 meters if I recall correctly; target moving at about 15 KPH (?) and light obscurement through trees. Excellent aspect. Slight downward angle and great field of view.

This is peanuts for a skilled rifleman, and Oswald was a Marine.

Years ago I attended a talk by Failure Analysis Associates (now Exponent) who recreated the scenario, and hired their own rifleman to estimate its feasibility. The only remotely challenging part was the time -- six seconds for three shots, so three seconds to cycle the bolt and reacquire the target -- but that too was well within his abilities. If you know your way around a rifle, you'd probably be able to do it too.

The moral question is something different, but technically, it's just not that hard.
Click to expand...
Yep. And actually the time between the first and third shot was estimated at 8 seconds. About 3 seconds between 1st and 2nd shot, about 5 seconds between 2nd and 3rd shot.

Oswald had qualified as a sharpshooter in the Marines (score 212, M-1 rifle, December 21, 1956). Indicating that he could, from a standing position, hit a 10-inch bullseye from a minimum of 200 yards away, 8 times out of 10. A few years later just before leaving the Marines, he still qualified as a marksman in the Marines (score 191). Above average shooter when compared to other Marines, excellent shooter when compared to your average American male.

Source: Case Closed, Gerald Posner.
 
R.Mackey said:
Completely ordinary. Provided it's ball ammo, that is.
Click to expand...
What type of ammo is the magic bullet? I know nothing about guns.
What is your implication?

All I did was post words that JFK spoke and a documnet he signed.
Click to expand...
I thought it was some crazy conspiracy theory. What does silver have anything to do with JFK being shot?
ETA: I should also add that 6.5mm x 54 ammunition has a relatively high sectional density, as hunting bullets go, and therefore would be even more likely to penetrate with light damage to the round, provided it missed most bones or metals.
Click to expand...
I knew that. Water is good at stopping rounds without deformation. Humans are mainly water.
Undeformed?CE399 is NOT undeformed.It is flattened (laterally?) with it's lead core extruded.
Click to expand...
Your right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom