Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: kenmurray, dankbaar, Bob, Dealey Joe

Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby Dealey Joe » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:51 am

What do you see was involved in shooting from the TSBD 6th floor window snipers nest?
If you ask the wrong questions the answer does not matter!
then if you control the questions being asked the answer still does not matter!
To continue doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is "Insane"
User avatar
Dealey Joe
 
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby JDB4JFK » Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:05 pm

The reason the six floor museum has the window blocked off so you cant walk up and look out it is because the average person with common sense will come to three immediate conclusions. #1 Why wouldn't a person shooting from that window shoot the president when he's 60' from you not 300' plus. #2 Its a very difficult shot. #3 A right handed shooter cant make that shot from that window!

My two cents!
JDB4JFK
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:32 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby Dealey Joe » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:20 pm

Thank you JDB, my point exactly, In order for a shot from that window the shooter would need to be hanging out the window in plain sight?

Image
Note the inserted lines, this would have to be the angle of the gun to make the shot?
If you ask the wrong questions the answer does not matter!
then if you control the questions being asked the answer still does not matter!
To continue doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is "Insane"
User avatar
Dealey Joe
 
Posts: 3533
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby kenmurray » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:57 pm

HOW LONG WOULD THE ALLEGED LONE-GUNMAN HAVE HAD TO FIRE?

PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT LONE-GUNMAN SHOOTING SCENARIO AND

MORE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION

Michael T. Griffith

1999

@All Rights Reserved

Revised and Expanded on 7/3/2001

For years nearly all supporters of the Warren Commission (WC) assumed that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy by scoring two hits out of three shots in 5.6 seconds as he allegedly fired from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD).

But soon after the WC released its report, critics raised questions about the Commission's version of the shooting. They noted the evidence indicated Oswald was a rather poor shot. They cited the fact that none of the experienced, expert shooters who took part in the government's assassination reenactments of the shooting was actually able to duplicate Oswald's alleged performance. They pointed out that Oswald had little target practice in the four years leading up to the assassination, and that he apparently had no target practice whatsoever in the forty days preceding the shooting.

The extreme unlikelihood of the 2 hits/3 shots/6 seconds scenario was highlighted in the 1967 CBS rifle test. Eleven highly skilled marksmen participated in a fairly (though not totally) realistic simulation of the conditions under which Oswald would have had to fire. Not one of the eleven expert shooters managed to score two hits on his first attempt--and Oswald would have had only one attempt. In fact, of the eleven CBS shooters, seven failed to score two hits on any of their attempts.

As it has become increasingly apparent that no gunman, no matter how skilled, could have scored two hits in three shots in 5.6 seconds on his first attempt, lone-gunman theorists have sought to "expand" the supposed single assassin's firing time to over 8 seconds. Some WC supporters say he would have had 8.2 seconds, while others put the time at 8.4 seconds. However, the only way WC supporters can increase the time span is to assume their lone gunman fired at around frame 160 of the Zapruder film (Z160) and that he completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire huge limousine.

By any objective standard, this is an extremely farfetched suggestion. At Z160 the sixth-floor gunman would have been firing at the limousine from a distance of less than 140 feet, and from 60 feet up. How could even a mediocre rifleman have possibly missed the entire car from such a distance? One can imagine that the gunman could have completely missed Kennedy: Perhaps he fired at Kennedy's head and just missed the target by a fraction of an inch. But the entire limousine? How?

Obviously, the issue of how the shooting was accomplished is a crucial matter. For if no gunman could have done what the Commission said Oswald did, then this would constitute further evidence of conspiracy in the shooting.

Let's be clear about what would constitute "duplicating" Oswald's alleged feat: Oswald would have had one and only one attempt. No practice rounds. No previous shooting series. No chance to zero his rifle that morning. No nothing. Supposedly, he took the disassembled rifle to work that morning, reassembled it, and then, when the motorcade drove by the sixth-floor window, whipped off two hits out of three shots in no more than 8.4 seconds. On his first and only attempt.

I believe the evidence strongly indicates that no rifleman of average ability could have scored two hits out of three shots in 8.2 to 8.4 seconds (or even in 10 seconds, since the gunman still would have had only 5.6 seconds for his final two shots). And, as discussed above, the whole expanded-time shooting scenario is based on the extremely unlikely assumption that the sixth-floor gunman fired at around Z160 and completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine.

I am perfectly willing to believe that a shot or two was fired from the identified TSBD sniper's nest. I seriously doubt, however, that three shots were fired from that window, and I don't believe Oswald was in the sniper's nest during the shooting. If, on the other hand, one assumes there was only one gunman, that he fired three shots from the sixth-floor window, and that that gunman was Oswald, then the new single-assassin shooting scenario becomes all the more untenable because the evidence indicates Oswald was a rather poor shot--not just a mediocre shot, but a rather poor one.

The new lone-gunman shooting scenario is in some ways even more unlikely and implausible than the initial WC scenario of two hits out of three shots in 5.6 seconds. At least the Commission admitted it was hard to believe the alleged lone gunman could have missed the entire limousine with his first and closest shot, and the Commission also noted that the first shot was usually the most accurate.

What is often not appreciated is that any lone-gunman shooting scenario requires us to believe that one of the shots completely missed the entire limousine. How could even an average marksman have missed the whole limousine with any of his shots?

Most WC supporters now claim that the Carcano's firing time has been reduced to 1.66 seconds per shot. Says Gerald Posner,

According to the Warren Commission, the fastest he [the alleged lone assassin] could have fired all three shots was 4.5 seconds. However, that minimum is now out of date. CBS reconstructed the shooting for a 1975 documentary. Eleven volunteer marksmen took turns firing clips of three bullets at a moving target. None of them had dry runs with the Carcano's bolt action, as Oswald had had almost daily while in New Orleans. Yet the times ranged from 4.1 seconds, almost half a second faster than what the Warren Commission thought was possible, to slightly more than 6 seconds, with the average being 5.6 seconds, and two out of three hits on the target. Based on its 1977 reconstruction tests, the House Select Committee lowered the time between shots on the Carcano to 1.66 seconds, with the shooter hitting all the targets. (Posner, Case Closed, p. 318)

Posner makes several errors here that need to be corrected, and he also omits important information:

* All of the eleven marksmen in the CBS test were experienced, expert riflemen.

* The shooters in the CBS test did in fact practice working the Carcano's bolt prior to the simulation (Menninger, Mortal Error, pp. 7-8).

* The CBS shooters did not fire from a window that was at least halfway closed, as Oswald would have had to do; rather, they fired from a window that was wide open.

* The best of the CBS shooters, Howard Donahue, did not score at least two hits out of three shots in less than 6 seconds until his third attempt (Menninger, Mortal Error, pp. 8-10). (Donahue scored three hits on his third attempt.)

* The HSCA's shooters fired at stationary targets and merely point aimed for their fastest time.

* The HSCA's shooters did not actually score two hits out of three shots while firing at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot (8 HSCA 185; Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 101). Even though the Committee's chief counsel tried to put the best possible face on this fact, he stated that this feat was "difficult" and admitted that none of the Committee's shooters actually accomplished it:

It is apparently difficult, but not impossible--at least with only minimal practice with the firearm used--to fire 3 shots, at least two of which score "kills," with an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds or less between any two shots, even though in the limited testing conducted, no shooter achieved this degree of proficiency. (8 HSCA 185, emphasis added)

I would add that in the HSCA's tests, any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette targets, which portrayed a man from waist to head, was counted as a "hit" (or "kill") (8 HSCA 184).

* Neither the CBS nor the HSCA riflemen used the sixth-floor Carcano. They used other Carcanos.

This last point brings us to the biggest problem with the claim that the Carcano's firing time has been reduced below 2.3 seconds per shot, namely, that the sixth-floor Carcano itself was not used in any the tests in which the firing time was lowered. In the only tests where the alleged murder weapon itself was used, the fastest firing time that could be achieved, by expert rifleman, was 2.25 seconds per shot (which is usually rounded up to the figure of 2.3 seconds).

What follows are excerpts from dialogues I have had with WC supporters as they attempted to defend the new lone-gunman shooting scenario.

If Oswald fired at Z160 and missed, then he would have had over 8 seconds to shoot. That would have given him 5.6 seconds to fire his next two shots.

First, allow me to address the theory that the sixth-floor gunman completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine with his first and closest shot (the first shot, by the way, is normally the most accurate, especially when you have the opportunity to track and draw aim on the target, as the gunman would have been able to do for a Z145-160 shot).

Even the WC labeled as an "improbability" the idea that its lone gunman would have completely missed the entire limousine with his first and closest shot. It is extremely hard to believe that any halfway competent gunman in the sixth-floor window could have missed the whole car from 60 feet up and from less than 140 feet away--and using a scope no less.

A second-shot miss, which the WC favored, would have been more plausible (or at least not as implausible) because (1) the target was farther away, and (2) the target had just reemerged from beneath the oak tree. The gunman would have had to take at least 1 second to reacquire the reemerging target (i.e., to spot it and then aim at it). It takes the human eye 1/6th/sec just to register and react to data. Seeing that the car had cleared the tree, the gunman could not have known that it wouldn't suddenly speed off down the road. He would have wanted to get the first post-tree shot off as quickly as possible, as opposed to the first shot where he would have had plenty of opportunity to draw aim on Kennedy as the car had slowed down markedly to make the turn onto Elm Street (which also makes it very hard to understand how he could have managed to completely miss the vehicle).

However, you're still stuck with trying to explain how any bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have missed the whole car. This is one of the many weaknesses of the lone-gunman scenario. A shot fired from any number of alternate locations in the plaza could have just barely missed Kennedy's head and quite easily have missed the limousine as well. Yet, while one can understand how the sixth-floor gunman could have missed Kennedy with his second shot, one cannot understand how he could have missed the whole car--with any of his shots. That's the problem for the WC's scenario. No such wild miss from the sixth-floor window makes sense.

In my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," I document evidence that more than three shots were fired.

Why not? What rule of nature is there that says such a shot [an early, Z160 shot from the sixth-floor window] had to hit? When one takes into account the tension felt by Lee Harvey Oswald [LHO] as he got himself ready, or the possibility of the shot being deflected by the tree, this is no great mystery.

You must realize that the first shot did not come at Z160, but at around Z145. This is one reason that the tree-deflection theory is wholly untenable, and perhaps why it has been repudiated by some lone-gunman theorists. If the first shot wasn't fired until Z160, how, then, do you explain Kennedy's rapid turn to the right at Z154, the blur at Z155, the splice from Z154-156, and the eyewitness testimony that the first shot occurred as or just after the limo turned onto Elm Street?

Also, Governor John Connally, sitting in front of JFK, turns his head rapidly to the right at Z162. Are we supposed to believe that Connally (1) heard the shot, and (2) managed to begin to turn his head, in just 1/9th of a second? The fastest reflex reaction known to man is the eyeblink, which takes 40-50 milliseconds, or about one Z frame. The classic hot-stove reaction, that of pulling the hand away after touching a hot object, takes a minimum of 268 milliseconds, or about 4.5 Zapruder frames. It is virtually certain that Connally was reacting to a shot that was fired at least five frames earlier, and quite possibly ten to twenty frames earlier. As you can see from CE 889, the tree branches would not have in any way obscured the sixth-floor gunman's view of Kennedy until Z166 (WCR, p. 100).

The CBS shooters were limited to 6 seconds because CBS's technicians, along with everybody else, didn't give a moment's serious consideration to the idea that the sixth-floor gunman missed the whole limo with a first shot at Z145-160. In fact, Dan Rather correctly called the 2 hits/3 shots/6 seconds scenario "the WC's scenario." He said that because that's what it was, and everybody knew that was what it was, since nobody, until fairly recently, took seriously the idea that "Oswald," or any other gunman who wasn't legally blind, could have missed the whole car from less than 140 feet.

Moreover, JFK shows signs of reactions to severe external stimulus at around Z200, as the Photographic Evidence Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined, and as everyone from Richard Trask to Howard Donahue to Raymond Marcus has likewise noted. This is also the time frame (ca. Z188-200) when others in the film seem to react to the sound of a shot as well. And, it is right around this time when there's a very strong blur episode. You take the early shot at Z145-160, the shot at Z188-200, the hit on Connally at Z234-237, and the head shot at Z313, and you have four shots.

What of the alleged hit at Z224? One thing is certain: If Connally was hit in this frame, he was not struck by the same bullet that hit Kennedy at around Z188. In order for Kennedy and Connally to have been hit by the same missile, Connally would have had to be sitting 10-12 inches to Kennedy's left and would have had to be rotated some 20 degrees to his right, as shown in the single-bullet trajectories proposed by Posner, by NOVA, and by the HSCA. Yet, Z224 clearly shows Connally's shoulders rotated only slightly to the right, and he is not seated far enough to the left to make a single-bullet trajectory from Kennedy's throat possible. So clear is the Zapruder film on this point that even the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt acknowledged to the WC that in the frames immediately following Z222 Connally was facing pretty much straight ahead. Leaving aside the alignment problem, there is also the fact that to accept the idea that Connally was hit at Z224, we would have to believe that he showed no obvious reaction to his severe wounds until 50-52 frames, or nearly 3 seconds, after they occurred. Connally himself, after studying high-quality enlargements of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, insisted he was positive he was NOT hit prior to Z231. It's possible, though, that the Z236-238 reaction was a continuation of a reaction that started just after Z224. I don't dismiss this possibility. Regardless of when this bullet struck, it could not have been the same missile that hit Kennedy.

5.6 seconds for two shots is not unremarkable for a sharpshooter Marine, and the fact that the target was much clearer while proceeding away in a straight line gave him a better angle.

Let's assume the gunman was Oswald, who was at the very most a mediocre shot. It would have taken Oswald at least 1 second, and quite possibly 2 seconds, to reacquire Kennedy's upper body as it reemerged from beneath the tree. As mentioned, when I say "reacquire," I'm talking about spotting the target's general location and then drawing aim on it. Let's say it took "Oswald" only 1 second to spot and aim at Kennedy's head or upper back. One second is 18 frames, so now he's only got 4.6 seconds left, and he hasn't squeezed the trigger for his second shot yet. OK, so he pulls the Carcano's trigger, which had an odd pull to it. But never mind that--he squeezes the trigger, since he couldn't just jerk it down, for that would have thrown off his aim. Let's say it took him only half a second to squeeze the trigger, which is rather fast. Anyway, so now he has used up 27 of his 103 frames, and he's only just now gotten off his "second" shot. He's got one more shot to get off; his target is moving; and he has 76 frames left, or right around 4 seconds, give or take a few milliseconds. Unlike his first post-tree shot, this time he has to take his eye off the scope, because he has to work the Carcano's difficult bolt, which means he has to reacquire the target all over again. He also has to carefully squeeze the trigger again. Could he have done this in only 4 seconds? Could he, in 4 seconds, have (1) taken his eye off the scope, (2) reworked the difficult bolt, (3) put his eye back on the scope, (4) reacquired the target, and then (5) carefully squeezed the trigger so as to ensure a dead-eye hit on Kennedy's skull? Possibly, but not very likely.

Now, would this have been an "easy" feat? Would it have been easy for "Oswald," or for anybody, to score two hits in two shots in no more than 5.6 seconds? Absolutely not. Two of the WC's three Master-rated shooters fired no faster than 3.35 seconds per shot on their first series. "Oswald" would have had only attempt, and by all accounts he did not target practice for a good month prior to the assassination. Staley took 3.35 seconds per shot, while Hendrix took 4.1 seconds per shot. Purely theoretically speaking, could Oswald have gone two for two in 5.6 seconds? Yes. But is this probable? No, it isn't. If two Master-rated shooters required 3.35 and 4.1 seconds per shot on their first series (and, again, Oswald would have had only one attempt), and 3.2 and 3.5 seconds per shot on their second series, it certainly would have been very difficult for Oswald to go two for two in 5.6 seconds. And was this the same guy who, according to some WC supporters, missed the entire limousine with his first and closest shot?!

Yes, later "Carcano tests" reportedly pushed the firing time down, in one case to as low as 1.6 seconds, but none of these tests used the alleged murder weapon itself, but rather they used different Carcanos. When the WC's three Master-rated test shooters fired the weapon, the fastest among them, Miller, fired at a rate of 2.3 seconds per shot. The FBI's renowned Robert Frazier fired at 2.25 seconds per shot.

And there's the rub: One can't even resort to this expanded-time shooting scenario without making the wholly implausible assumption that the sixth-floor gunman completely missed the limousine with his first and closest shot.

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target boards 20 out of 21 times, even though the target boards were stationary, even though the riflemen were firing from only 30 feet up, and even though one of them took 8.25 seconds to fire. Some of the misses didn't even strike anywhere in the silhouette area of the target boards. If three Master-rated riflemen missed could only hit the head and neck area of their targets 1 out of 21 times, what are the odds that a mediocre shot like Oswald could have hit the head and neck area of his target 2 out of 3 times on his first and only attempt?

Unless you want to argue for a ground level shot, there is no way that a shot fired from behind JFK could just barely miss his head and still miss the limo. It is far more likely that the gunman would hurry a shot before the target disappeared behind the tree than that he would hurry a shot after the target was completely in the clear.

First, if you want to see, easily and quickly, that there are several alternate shooting locations from which a shot could have barely missed JFK's head and then missed the whole car, take a look at the diagrams and overlaid photos in Shaw's book Cover-Up. And we're not talking only about ground-level shots.

Second, an early first shot from the sixth-floor window would not have been hurried. Indeed, the gunman would have been able to track the limo and take his time in drawing aim on the target therein.

Firing downward from the SN [sniper's nest, i.e., the sixth- floor window] would be extremely awkward especially in light of the fact the window was open only about one foot. LHO would have to raise the butt end of the rifle abruptly which may have caused the window frame to obscure the view through the scope. It may also have caused him to raise up off the boxes that served as his brace.

How would the window have obscured the view through the scope? Unless you want to assume the window was rather dirty, this would not have been a problem. And, if he would have had to raise the butt so high that the window would have become a factor, and if the window was so dirty that it actually obscured his view through the scope, then why in the world would he have taken this shot? How would he have gone 2 for 2 on his last 2 shots?

Even with a markedly obscured view through the scope through the window glass, the outline of the car still would have been quite visible, which again raises the question of how "Oswald" or anyone else could have missed the entire huge limousine. But would the window have come into play? No, as I'll explain in a moment. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the gunman would have had to aim through the window glass.

When we in the Army fire at targets while wearing our chemical protective masks, we have a severely obscured view through the thick glass of the protective eyeglasses, and we're using iron sights, not scopes. Yet, in spite of these factors, I've personally never seen anyone miss the entire target board, which is much smaller than the limousine.

I really don't think you're stopping to consider just how wild a miss you're advocating here. Do you understand how large the limousine was? This was a three-row, six-to-eight-passenger luxury limousine. The rear hood alone was large enough for a grown man like SSA Clint Hill to lie on, as we see in the Z film. You're talking about missing this entire huge object from no more than 135 away and from 60 feet up. I don't think you grasp just how wild a miss this would have been.

If this would have been a truly "extremely awkward" shot, why wouldn't the gunman have just waited a few seconds? For that matter, why on earth wouldn't he have fired at the limo as it came up Houston Street, which would have been a truly "easy" shot? [Some WC defenders have argued that the gunman didn't fire when the limousine was on Houston Street because he would have been visible to the Secret Service agents. But the gunman could have fired while standing a few feet away from the window. This would have made it difficult for anyone to see him. This would have also made it hard to determine that the shot came from that window, since having the rifle inside the plane of the window would have muffled the sound of the shots.

Now, finally, would the gunman have had to sight the limo through the window glass? The answer to this questions appears to be No. How can we say this? Because of the footage of the WC's reenactment of the shooting. You can see this footage in any number of documentaries on the assassination, such as NOVA's Who Shot President Kennedy? It seems clear from this footage that the window would not have come between the scope and the limousine. You can also deduce this by comparing CE 887 with the Dillard and Powell photos of the sixth-floor window, which photos were taken within a few minutes of the shooting. CE 887 shows Robert Frazier aiming the rifle through the window with a camera attached to the top of the rifle, and the window is open no higher than it's open in the Dillard and Powell photos. That was the idea, of course--to simulate the view the gunman would have had at the time, so they only had the window open as much as it was during the shooting (or at least so it appears, and so one would presume). Again, to judge from this visual evidence, the window would not have obscured the gunman's view of the limousine, whether he had used the scope or in the unlikely event that, for some reason, he decided to use the iron sights.

An early first shot from the sixth-floor window would have required a sharply downward angle, probably in the unsupported position, but the gunman would have had a clear view of the car, and thus it is very hard to imagine how anyone could possibly have missed the entire limousine. As I've said before, go out to a rifle range, mark off 140 feet, and get a target even just 2/3's the size of the limo, and then fire straight at the target from the unsupported position. Then you'll see why even the WC viewed as improbable the idea that its lone assassin could have missed the entire car with his first and closest shot. You'll see what an utterly unbelievable miss this would have been, and why it's still unbelievable. You'll see that you won't once miss the entire target, that you won't even come close to doing so, even if you fire rapidly with a bolt-action rifle (or simulate this by pulling your eye away from the scope or iron sights for a second and jerk the rifle around). To miss a target this large from such a distance, you would really almost have to try to miss it. And, my goodness, see how impossible it would be to miss so badly while using a scope! It's abject nonsense.

***********************************************************

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. In addition, he has completed Advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts, including How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and One Lord, One Faith. He is also the author of a book on the JFK assassination titled Compelling Evidence (JFK Lancer, 1996).
kenmurray
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby JDB4JFK » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:36 pm

Also if you look at the Zapruder film frames 304 and until the fatal shot Mrs. Kennedy would be right in line of any shots coming from the sixth floor of the Depository. Her face is right if front of JFK'S as he is trying to cough up the throat shot! Draw a line from the sixth floor to the back of Jack's head and assuming you beleive the Warren report that says the fatal blow came from behind, it would have exited the left front of his head and nailed Jackie!
JDB4JFK
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:32 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:51 pm

11.03.2012

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

11.02. 2012 - Mr. Joe Hall Posted this intelligent Headline.

My perspective has always been that a Main Focus of Analysis, Reading,
Research, and Study should be on The Sniper's Nest, as it's called, from the
6th floor of the Texas School Depository Building. For me, in Sequential
Time Line Analysis, this is My First Sine Qua Non, more important than Dr.
Cyril Wecht's, suggested later in The JFK Event. With my greatest respects
to the works of Dr. Cyril Wecht.

This is something that is still possibly/probably proveable, even today. The
fact that the 6th floor area by the window is being sealed off from an actual
view of the "kill zone" today speaks volumes. Whether it was LHO, Mac Wallace,
or anybody else firing the shots vs. not firing the shots, that is always subject to
debate, like the never ending debate on the Zapruder Film altered vs. original.

The actuality and factuality of three (3) shots being fired in the Suggested Time
Frame from that 6th Floor window is still calculable even today. My opinion.

I firmly believe that this issue being raised and discussed, in my mind's eye, is much
more important than many other never ending discussions.

These gentlemen have raised a very serious discussion that is seriously worthy of
support from Serious JFK Researchers.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies,
thoughts, or writings on this subject matter ?

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Last edited by Bruce Patrick Brychek on Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby kenmurray » Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:58 pm

An Easy Shot ?



The Testimony of Sgt. James A Zahm

In order to show that a shot from the Texas School Book Depository was an "easy shot", the Commission called as an expert witness, Sgt. James A Zahm, a Marine Corps NCO who was in charge of the the Marksmanship Training Unit at the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.. Sgt. Zahm was the non-commissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consisted of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and he was responsible of the training, providing weapons, and hand loading the ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards.

( 11 H 306-307 )

Zahm went on to talk about his experience with rifle scopes:

" the higher powered telescopes are used in the particular type of firing we are doing right now, deliberate slow fire at extreme ranges of 600 and 1,000 yards. We use 12-power to 20-power telescopes." ( ibid.)

So here's the Commission's expert witness on rifle scopes, an NCO in charge of a Marine Corps "long range team" that fired at targets from "600 and 1,000 yards" using "12-power to 20-power telescopes".

And this is the guy whose going to give testimony saying that an 85 yard shot with a 4-power scope is an easy shot ?

But that's exactly what he did.

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.

testimony of Sgt. James a. Zahm ( 11 H 309 )



Let's look at this statement, "with the equipment he had and with his ability".



First, "the equipment he had" :

There's no evidence that Sgt. Zahm ever fired the Depository rifle and could not have possibly known the condition of the rifle prior to the assassination. Therefore, his "expert" testimony regarding "the equipment he had" is nothing more than an opinion devoid of any first hand knowledge and thus any factual basis.

Next, "his ability"

There's no evidence that Sgt. Zahm was present during either of Oswald's two rifle qualifications and thus he could not have had first hand knowledge of Oswald's ability with a rifle. Because of this, one can assume that Sgt. Zahm was also not present when Oswald's scores were tallied and had no first hand knowledge of whether or not the scores accurately depicted what Oswald shot.

Sgt. Zahm admitted under testimony that his evaluation of Oswald's ability was based solely on the documents he saw:

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.

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.

( 11 H 308 )



But when Zahm is faced with whether or not Oswald could have aimed at and hit Kennedy in the head, he backpedals:

"....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.

( 11 H 309 )



So the "easy shot" wasn't so easy after all. In fact, the only easy part about it was that a rifleman with Oswald's capabilities, using a four power scope, could have hit the President "someplace" and that a head shot from that distance would have been " a little more difficult ".

The reader should keep in mind that Oswald's qualifications with a rifle in the Marine Corps was with a .30 caliber rifle with no scope. As this photo shows:



The point being that Oswald would have had to have experience in "sighting in" a scoped rifle. There's simply no evidence to suggest that Oswald had the skills to do that. Zahm's own testimony indicated that in order to sight in a rifle, one would have to have fired at least 10 rounds through it:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

( 11 H 308 )

In other words, for Oswald to have carried the rifle into the TSBD in pieces, he would have had to have fired ten rounds through it prior to firing at the President.

There's no evidence that Oswald fired 10 rounds through the Depository rifle on November 22, 1963.

In addition to these facts, there's no evidence that Zahm had any experience with ANY Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, let alone the alleged murder weapon. The one time he was asked a question by counsel specifically about the Mannlicher-Carcano, counsel rephrased the question:

Mr. SPECTER. How much familiarity would a man with Oswald's qualifications, obtained in the Marine Corps, require in order to operate a rifle with a scope such as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. How much familiarity would he require?

Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase the question. Would it be very difficult for a man with Oswald's capabilities as a marksman to use a rifle with a four-power scope?

( ibid. )

So we see that counsel was careful not to seek out information from Zahm with respect to the Mannlicher-Carcano specifically, but rephrased the question to aim it at "a rifle" instead.

Zahm had no business testifying about Oswald's ability or about the alleged murder weapon. He had no first hand knowledge of Oswald's ability, he had no first hand knowledge whether the test scores were accurate, he had no experience with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and his expertise was with long range shooting from 600-1,000 yards using a 12 to 20-power scope.

One good point his testimony brings out however, is that if the rifle was brought into the building "broken down", the shooter had to have fired 10 rounds through it in order to scope it in.

Unless, of course, this rifle had a "Magic Scope".
kenmurray
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby Bruce Patrick Brychek » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:58 pm

10.21.2013

Dear JFK Murder Solved Forum Members and Readers:

11.02.2012 - Mr. Joe Hall Posted this intelligent, and still very
relevant Headline.

An excellent discussion developed with tremendous facts, points of
information, and opinions from Joe Hall, JDB4JFK, and Ken Murray,
some of the very best JFK Murder Solved Forum Members. My opinion.

People, please read, review, and seriously study both sets of material
Posted by Mr. Ken Murray. Ken's contributions, as always, are brilliant,
incredible, and spot on. My opinion. This alone destroys the Warren
Commission Report.

This should be considered in conjunction with the other Headlines and
Posts about LHO here on the JFK Murder Solved Forum.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research,
studies, thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this subject matter ?

Comments ?

Respectfully,
BB.
Bruce Patrick Brychek
 
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 9:09 am

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby JDThomas » Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:03 pm

For simplest response, I would defer to America's foremost postwar combat military sniper Carlos Hathcock, who later became the Marine's sniper school instructor, then later Police sniper instructor. His conclusion went something like:

Not that shooter (Oswald), Not that Position (6th floor TSB), Not that Rifle (MC) .... NO WAY!!!
User avatar
JDThomas
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Could Oswald have made the 6th floor window shot?

Postby kenmurray » Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:47 pm

kenmurray
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm


Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests