From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Date: 24 Jul 1992 20:00:36 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu
Keywords: continued endemic denial of our true history consigns us to oblivion


Following Meagher, Roffman analyzes how the WR glossed over the fact that
the shots required great skill. Lattimer dismisses this, in his famous story of
him and his sons firing a Manlicher-Carcano. However, they did not fire
the same rifle that Oswald used, and the NRA's Master rifleman could barely
past the test with the alleged murder weapon. In a complete disregard for the
evidence, the WR said that the Oswald shot was "easy", an absurd
misrepresentation of the evidence:

In article <1992Jul23.144144.70@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:

[Roffman]
|         The Commission's test firers were all rated as "Master" by the
|      National Rifle Association (NRA);  they were experts whose daily
|      routines involved working with and shooting firearms (3H445).  In
|      the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feet
|      respectively from a 30-foot-high tower.  Each shooter fired two
|      series of three shots, using the C2766 rifle.  The men took 8.25,
|      6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first series and 7.00,
|      6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446).  In the first series, each
|      man hit his first and third targets but missed the second.  Results
|      varied on the next series, although in all cases but one, two
|      targets were hit.  Thus, in only two cases were the Commission's
|      experts able to fire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as
|      Oswald allegedly did.  {None} scored three hits, as was demanded of
|      a lone assassin on November 22.
|         These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short
|      time span, if not impossible, would certainly have taxed the
|      proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4]  In his testimony
|      before the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of
|      shooter necessary to have fired the assassination shots on the
|      basis that only two hits were achieved:
|
|            Mr. Eisenberg:  Do you think a marksman who is less than
|         a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be
|         able to shoot within the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [as
|         was done by the experts]?
|            Mr. Simmons:  Obviously, considerable experience would
|         have to be in one's background to do so.  And with this
|         weapon, I think also considerable experience with this
|         weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the
|         bolt. (3H449)
|
|
|            Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be
|         required that a man be an exceptional shot.  A proficient
|         man with this weapon, yes.  But I think with the opportunity
|         to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could
|         probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer.
|         (3H450)
|
|         Here arises the crucial question:  Was Lee Harvey Oswald a
|      "proficient man with this weapon," with "considerable experience"
|      in his background?
|         While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice
|      tested for his performance with a rifle.  On a scale of expert-
|      sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored two points above the minimum
|      for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only one point
|      above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959)--
|      his last recorded score.  Colonel A. G. Folsom evaluated these
|      scores for the Commission:
|
|            The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application
|         of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to
|         become qualified at least as a marksman.  To become
|         qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the
|         opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of
|         adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified.
|         Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a
|         rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification
|         indicates a fairly good "shot." (19H17-18)
|
|         There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either
|      inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his
|      obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle.
|      However, there is other information independent of the scores to
|      indicate that Oswald was in fact {not} a good shot.  In his
|      testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marine scorebook that Oswald
|      himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:
|
|            Mr. Ely:  I just wonder, after having looked through the
|         whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it
|         proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a
|         particularly outstanding shot.
|            Col. Folsom:  No, no, he was not.  His scorebook
|         indicates . . . that he did well at one or two ranges in
|         order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for
|         sharpshooter.
|            Mr. Ely:  In other words, he had a good day the day he
|         fired for qualification?
|            Col. Folsom:  I would say so. (8H311)
|
[there folows other testimony of Oswald's fellow marines. See Hurt for indepth
interviews of these men saying that Oswald was a poor shot.

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism