[Ben Holmes]

Believers are invariably non-shooters - and those few who claim that they've duplicated Oswald's alleged feat are liars...

You see, a real test was only conducted once - and that's the one where the Warren Commission had three NRA rated 'Masters' fire the alleged murder weapon.

Since it's acknowledged that CE-139, the Mannlicher Carcano, had unique problems with firing, a difficult to work bolt, and a strange trigger pull - any test conducted with any other weapon is meaningless.

If you aren't a shooter in the NRA, competition circuit, or military, you really don't have any way to understand the difference between Oswald and the NRA rated Masters whom the Warren Commission employed.

I routinely fired between a 238-242 score (out of 250) year after year... and on a bell curve, I'd be in the very small forward section of the bell curve for Marine Corps Marksman... (the top of the bell curve would be around 210-212 or so), yet any NRA rated Master would take me apart in competition. For me, I'm shooting for the 12 inch wide center black ... and happy to get my shot in the black... NRA rated masters presume that they'll always hit the black, they are more concerned with getting a tighter group in the 'x' ring (which, if memory serves, was about 2-3 inches in diameter or thereabouts)

Oswald's most recent score was only a 191... I would make mincemeat out of Oswald in any shooting competition, and I'm NO-WHERE NEAR the ranking of the NRA rated masters that the Warren Commission employed.

Yet despite the fact that the three people who shot the Mannlicher Carcano were absolutely superb shooters (far far better than Oswald), and had the following advantages:

• Fired from half the height... 30 feet instead of 60 feet.
  Given all the time they wanted to fire the first shot (The assassin had no such advantage)
  Fired at stationary targets.

... they still couldn't hit the head or neck of the target - NOT ONE SINGLE TIME - using the scope as the Warren Commission claimed the assassin had used.

Believers cannot explain these facts - nor will they try...

[Patrick C]

"Believers cannot explain these facts - nor will they try..."

IF you are correct that the Oswald MC was incapable of the shots using the scope, you still cannot assume the assassin would not use the iron sights.....

On the subject of the shooting....and I NEVER had a straight answer from you on this, as am ex marine are you really telling me that you could not get off 2 shots in 5.2 seconds at 65 and 88 yards and strike a torso and head target.....?

I had no problem hitting 3 melons at approx 65, 75 and 90 yards with an old bolt action in the AZ desert in 7 seconds a few years ago. In the 1980s I fired an MC with my cousins
outside of Baton Rouge and again non of us had any problems hitting targets at those distances 2 out of 3 times in 8 seconds or less.

Assuming that Oswald did not fire a missed shot between the two that struck, I find it very surprising that you would challenge the 2 shots in 5.2 seconds scenario at all.

You have several seconds to line up shot one and you have 5 seconds to cycle the bolt and re acquire the target.......this is NOT difficult shooting. It is good shooting. As Michael Yardley states.

[David Healy]

well Patrick, we have evidence *professional* marksman could not accomplish what is alleged LHO did. You pipe in here with stating you and your cousins shooting prowess with no, zero, nada evidence of your shooting accomplishments (or your cousins). You are playing loon nut games Patrick. I suspect .john won't be happy you've been called out!

[Patrick C]

Of course I have no proof! You can take my word for it...! Why would I make that up......that is ridiculous!

Are you seriously telling me David Healy that YOU could not fire a bolt action rifle TWICE in just over five seconds and strike a target at 65 and 90 yards........after having training and practice...?

You are seriously bonkers. The guy I was with in Arizona fired 3 times in 5 seconds and hit the targets consistently and he did this over and over.

I know 3 or 4 people in the US with Carcanos and they have all showed the weapon to be capable of being fired twice in less than six seconds and striking targets at those distances. There is NO doubt that a half way decent shooter can make those shots. If you think there is - you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Have YOU fired a Carcano David...?
Have you gone out to a range with some one who does...?

You state:-
"we have evidence *professional* marksman could not accomplish what is alleged LHO did"

Are you kidding me ? That is hogwash.

No doubt you are suggesting the 3 shots in 5.2 seconds scenario which we can be almost certain is NOT the scenario that happened in Dallas 22 Nov 1963. Oswald almost to a certainty fired TWO shots that struck with NO Missed shot between in less than 6 seconds and just over 5. If there was a missed shot it was fired earlier giving an approx 8.5 second time span for three shots.

And you think that professional marksmen could not do that !!!

You are deluded and you are fooling yourself.

[Patrick C]

So David,

CBS 1967

37 attempts (3 shots)
17 "misfires" or jams etc
So 20 x 3 shots at a 5.6 seconds average with 1 to 3 hits......

4.1 seconds fastest time 1 hit.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg</a><!-- m -->

And of course, they are trying to replicate the "wrong scenario" in the first place!

There were probably only two shots in less than 6 seconds, not 3.

Not enough for you? Then keep making stuff up and keep dreaming.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:So David,

CBS 1967

37 attempts (3 shots)
17 "misfires" or jams etc
So 20 x 3 shots at a 5.6 seconds average with 1 to 3 hits......

4.1 seconds fastest time 1 hit.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg</a><!-- m -->

And of course, they are trying to replicate the "wrong scenario" in the first place!

There were probably only two shots in less than 6 seconds, not 3.

Not enough for you? Then keep making stuff up and keep dreaming.

Until you can explain why the CBS test did so much better than the Warren Commission test - you're blowing smoke.

Any test that was not conducted under the correct conditions is meaningless. For example, I think many people have seen a Youtube video showing a Mannlicher Carcano being fired at an amazingly fast rate - but no-one who knows the evidence would ever conflate that MC with CE-139.

And since you really don't believe in a two shot scenario, you really should stop trying to push it - unless you're willing to defend it.

[Patrick C]

I tend to favour three shots over 8+ seconds.

But I also think there would have been only two shots. There is no conflict of interest there - it is essentially academic.

The key point as you know is that the 2 shots that struck could have been fired with NO intersecting shot in between.

So trying to make THREE shots in 5.2 seconds is not IMO mirroring Oswald's shooting. It was much slower relatively speaking and therefore far less of an issue over the difficulty of the shots.

It is a game changer.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Any test that was not conducted under the correct conditions is meaningless.

Depends what you mean by "correct". I would suggest that the CBS tests were highly persuasive that Oswald's alleged 3 shots in under 6 seconds was doable.

As long as the speed is correct and the height is reasonably accurate (plus or minus a few feet matters not) I disagree with your statement.

To recreate the exact same conditions would be impossible and indeed not required.

Basically tests have shown that Oswald could have pulled off the shots and in fact with the two shots in 5.2 seconds (with or without an early missed shot) it was basically simply good shooting and not at all exceptional for a young man with his training.

How you can think otherwise I cannot imagine. It is beyond belief to me and simply illustrates how big that blindfold of yours is.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Any test that was not conducted under the correct conditions is meaningless.

Depends what you mean by "correct". I would suggest that the CBS tests were highly persuasive that Oswald's alleged 3 shots in under 6 seconds was doable.

And yet, you continue to run from explaining why the CBS test did what the Warren Commission's test could not.

Patrick C Wrote:As long as the speed is correct and the height is reasonably accurate (plus or minus a few feet matters not) I disagree with your statement.

Yet you can't explain the differences in the tests... The CBS test provably used a more credible testing method, and despite the many advantages that the Warren Commission test had over the CBS test - the WC test still couldn't get the job done.

Until you can give a credible explanation for this fact, you've lost.

No wonder you keep hyping the CBS test...

Patrick C Wrote:To recreate the exact same conditions would be impossible and indeed not required.

Why don't you list the conditions of an honest test. Keep in mind, however, that you'll be showing your basic honesty...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:the WC test still couldn't get the job done.

I don't agree, they demonstrated a shooter could get off two shots in 5 to 6 seconds which is almost certainly what happened. Be that with a missed shot and a total of 8.5 seconds approx for 3 shots.

I fail to see how anyone can argue against that.

I accept the 3 shots in 5.2 seconds is really pushing it, but even that is still possible.