From: mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:51:00 GMT

In article <92220.003714U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...

>How about another opinion to throw into the hat on how hard the TSBD shots
>were?  Lets pick a famous left wing fanatic and world renowned JFK
>assassination looney, the former FBI assistant to Hoover, William C.
>Sullivan.  Now here's a person with no background in criminology and is
>bereft of any knowledge in ballistics.

	To be honest, I find that pro-conspiracy "loonies" tend to
	come more from the right wing than the left. Lefties tend 
	to be more hangers-on to conspiracy theories. Libertarians,
	with their inherent distrust of government suprisingly seem
	to be split evenly. Of the anarchists I've known, they like
	the idea of Oaswlad-as-assassin --the idea of a single
	individual shooting the president and watching the rest of 
	the population worriedly wander about like a disturbed antbed
	appeals to them.
	

	Certainly, Mr Alain Rodgers, an expert at rifles, and guns in
	general, knows the differences between the terms "markmanship"
	and "ballistics." 


>From "The Bureau...My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI" by
>      William C. Sullivan  Page 52

>"If I had to guess I'd say the Oswald acted alone, but I was puzzled by the
>accuracy of his shooting.   Oswald didn't have a record of being an out-
>standing marksman and yet he hit the president with two shots while his
>car was moving slowly down the road.   .......  I went to the book depository
>from which Oswald fired at the president and I looked out the window where he
>was positioned.  I've been around guns all my llfe and I'm a reasonbly good
>shot, but I must say that that would be quite a task for me.  It was,
>tragically, damn good shooting."

	As I've said before, I do not consider missing the target (in
	this case, JFK's head) two out of three times to be fantastic
	shooting, especially when the range is no greater than 90 yards.
	The limo certainly wasn't speeding down Elm street, and it also
	happened to be heading almost directly away from Oswald's position.

	I've been to Dealy plaza many a time, and I've seen it from
	"the perch" and the street below. I don't find the shots
	particularly hard, even considering the moving limo. 
	



>And while I'm at it, let's look at some of the Lattimer factoids offered
>in some postings.

>On page 128 of Lattimer's book, he states that "He may have developed
>his prowess because his older brother Robert, who later commented on the
>quickness of Lee's reflexes and the strength of his forearms, 

>This is a wonderful quote and must send shivers of warmth all through the
>bodies of every pro-WC poster out there.  The only problem here is that
>Lattimer, who uses this trick throughout his book, is doing what JFK
>assassination researchers have been accused of doing constantly, which is
>taking testimony and statements out of context.  Anyone reading Robert's
>book will find that this statement is surrounded by pages of testimony
>declaring with no ifs, ands, or buts that Lee was a lousy shot as a boy,
>he was a lousy shot as a teenager and he continued to be a lousy shot
>as a man.

	From what I remember of Robert Oswald's book, the only time
	Robert comments on his brother's accuracy is when he gives
	Oswald's test scores. RO does mention that he often went hunting
	when he and LHO were together, but that's it.


>Now for another factoid.  On page 293, Lattimer produces pages of
>marksmanship scoring book of Marine Oswald.  Terrific.  So impressive.
>The only problem is that Lattimer never tells us at which testing period
>did this scoring come from.  LHO was tested two times in his Marine
>carreer.  Once after the end of basic training and then again in California
>after he had returned from Japan.  In the first testing, he scored with
>passing grade, which is understandable considering that he was just out
>from being trained to the teeth and probably excited with being in the
>service.  The second testing occurred when he was already planning to
>leave the service and didn't have any motivation to show his COs that he
>was worth being in the service.  Here his scores are not only just enough
>to pass but are thrown into question by testimony from his service buddies,
>who implied that he was a famous lousy shot and was given this passing
>score so there wouldn't be any bad marks on the outfit he was in.

	Oswald's first firing test earned him the *middle* rating for
	Marine riflery. That certaily implies that Oswlad wasn't 
	quite as lousy a shot as Alain would like us to believe.
	Further, the military has higher standards for shooters than
	most people.

	Consider this:

	You are trying to hit a six-inch diameter target at 200 yards,
	100 yards, and 50 yards. You get a point each time you hit
	the target. On the 50yd target, one round is an inch away from
	the center of the target, one round is two inches away from the
	center of the target, and one round is three inches away from
	the center of the target. At 50 yards, you've scored a perfect 
	3. Using the same angular error in aim, at 100 yards, the 
	bullets will fall 2in, 4in, and 6in away from the center of
	the target. This time your score has dropped to one point.
	Not good shooting! Still using the same angular error, the
	bullets will fall 4in, 8in, and 12in away from the center of
	the target at 200yds. Your score this time is a zero. My, what
	a bad shot you are! 
	  
	A good shot would have grouped the shots closely together
	and closer to the center at 50 yards. Because of the
	scoring, he would have the same score as you. However, As the
	range increased, his score would drop less than yours, if at 
	all. At 200 yards, he would be the "great shot" and you would
	be the duffer, however, at 50 yards, you would be good enough.
	If the target was someone's head, the object being to kill
	them, you would be just as deadly at 100 yards as the marksman.
	It might take more bullets, but youd' kil the target just the
	same.

	The debate over Oswald's marksmanship isn't about whether Oswald
	is a bona-fide marksman. It's over whether he was good enough
	for Dealy. 


>The point of all this is Lattimer never tells us from which testing these
>scores are taken from.  Since it fits the pattern to most of the factiods
>in his book, I would guess that he doesn't tell us because it was in the
>first testing and would have been nullified by the second testing.

	If I ever get Lattimer's address, I intend to.

	However, given the quality of shooting the WC attributes to
	to Oswald at Dealy, I would say that a score of 25-30, given the
	same range and target as in the pages we see, would be enough to
	say that Oswald could have "done the deed."

                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\    
                       	

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3053 alt.conspiracy:10134 sci.skeptic:14628