[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I have no doubt you know what you are talking about when it comes to defining expert shots and crack shots....though without any direction on scoring for the level of "crack" shot it remains a somewhat subjective description.

When it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald - it's not "subjective" at all.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY you can describe a marksman who actually missed the target from time to time as a 'crack shot'.

Nothing "subjective" about that at all.

Bill O'Reilly flat lied when he made that claim.

Patrick C Wrote:A crack shot might be someone who was certainly an expert, but maybe about as good as you can get.

You do though seem to be overlooking something......you don't have to be a crack shot to hit a slowly moving target with 2 shots just over 5 seconds apart at 65 and 90 yards do you......from 6 floors up....?

Ah! The invariable change of topic.

However, you cannot avoid the fact that the REAL 'crack shots' were unable to do so. So how can I be "overlooking" what is not true? Nothing you can do is going to get around the fact that the Warren Commission had three NRA rated "Masters" - certainly "crack shots" by any definition - who failed to do what Oswald is alleged to have done using that same rifle.

Patrick C Wrote:I mean even I got off 3 shots in 7 seconds firing an old bolt action rifle for I think only the second time in my life. And I hit the targets at approx those distances.

Mike Yardley ...."its possible"....."it can be done"....."its doable"..........

So never mind being a crack shot - you did not need to be......

And yet, those three NRA rated "Masters" results are still unexplained...

P.S. It's interesting to note that Patrick can't seem to bring himself to criticize Bill O'Reilly for a statement he knows to be absolutely wrong. But, as I've often pointed out, believers rarely criticize other believers...