My article, "The JFK assassination - Could Oswald have made the shots?"

[jmr40]

For those who have never actually been there imagine this scenario. As a deer hunter you are in an elevated stand. A deer is 40 yards away from you walking slowly almost straight away. Could you make that shot? I'm not saying it is a slam dunk easy shot, but almost all of us would consider it an ethical shot and not pass on it, especially if it were a really nice trophy. I think most experienced hunters would make that shot more often than not. That is what the shooter saw when he was shooting at Kennedy.

Many non-shooters, meaning most reporters, simply have no concept of what type of shooting skills even average shooters and hunters have. These are the people who have fueled the concept that the shot simply couldn't be made for 50 years. I don't think they have done it on purpose, they simply don't have any concept.

This point was driven home a few years ago as one of the 24 hour news programs was covering a shooting where a husband was accused of shooting and killing his wife's boyfriend with a hunting rifle from a range of 100 FEET, not yards, FEET. The show host simply couldn't grasp the concept that the shot was possible by anyone other than a trained military sniper! These are the people influencing the public opinion.

 

[JohnKSa]

I came away thinking that the shots were easily make-able by anyone with even the most rudimentary rifle skills.

This was my impression as well.

I was VERY surprised to see how small Dealey Plaza is when viewed in person. In all the video footage I had seen, it looks like a huge expanse. It's really not large at all.

Tom Clancy opined that Mr. Oswald could have made the shots with iron sights, which is what I sort of tend to believe.

My eyes are fading a little, but I feel certain that when I was LHO's age I could have made the shots with iron sights. I have hit human sized silhouettes with an iron-sighted pistol shooting offhand and at longer distances.

At any rate, it is definitely possible--at least one person who replicated LHO's performance did so using iron sights, not a scope.

This has been the most informative of anything I've read.

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/fo...ttach_id=20446

I stopped reading partway through the pdf so I can't comment on it in its entirety. But I can tell you that it is based on suppositions and hypotheses which have been thoroughly debunked by careful, high-fidelity simulations/recreations.

 

[JD0x0]

This point was driven home a few years ago as one of the 24 hour news programs was covering a shooting where a husband was accused of shooting and killing his wife's boyfriend with a hunting rifle from a range of 100 FEET, not yards, FEET. The show host simply couldn't grasp the concept that the shot was possible by anyone other than a trained military sniper! These are the people influencing the public opinion.

Yep, it seems like most uneducated people, assume that you can't shoot any better than the Bond villain henchmen. Shooting full magazines from automatic weapons at 20 feet and missing every shot.
Or like in the show 'Burn Notice' when the main character is on top of a house and needs to make a shot across a suburban street, and his handler reminds him the wind has changed and he should adjust his windage. (for a shot less than 100 feet with what seems to be a .30 caliber sniper rifle.)
The media tends to exaggerate this kind of stuff.

 

[leadcounsel]

Fine line walking the parameters given for this conversation. OP presented an opinion, and dissent seems to be shut down... Apparently you agree that he made the shot, or basically dissent is not allowed - or must be extremely narrowly tailored. I'll try to answer the question using the undisputed facts and drawing logical conclusions without drawing scorn from the mods. This answer is solely the likelihood and probability of the shots.

So, I amend my earlier post by saying technically a blind person "could" make the shots. But I don't buy it. A neck shot and headshot (2 for 3) with his skill, weapon, distance, and movement. Nope. I have spent a lot of time with rifles, and I have qualified expert several times in the army. I don't think I could have made those shots with that weapon at that distance on a moving target, nor would I have taken such unlikely-to-succeed shots.

These 'facts' are taken directly from the article the OP wrote and referenced, along with other info from the commission report.

The estimated distance between the window and the location where the third shot hit Kennedy in the head is only 81 meters.

at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),

limousine was traveling ... an estimated 9 - 11 mph

the FBI tested the rifle found that the scope couldn’t be sighted in as it existed without first adding two metal shims. The scope tube was also visibly scrapped and the scope itself may have been damaged....While the scope could not be sighted in by the FBI, and may have been damaged, there is no way to know whether this occurred before Oswald fired or after.

The tests showed that, at 100 yards, the test shots landed within a 3 to 5 inch circle, about 2 ½ to 5 inches high.

So, a 'perfect' shot with this rifle, would still be minimum 3 MOA off and 2.5" high, or up to 5.5" off the mark under benchrest conditions. I suppose it could be 3" off low, and then end up being 1/2 inch low... A bad benchrest shot could be 5 inches high, AND 5 inches MOA, or 10" off the mark! Bottom line, THAT rifle, that particular rifle, was too wild and most of us would agree: garbage!

Oswald was in the Marines, and was scored twice with SEMIAUTOMATIC rifles in a much higher class than the Italian curio... once with an M1 and once with an M1 carbine, in the Marine Corp. He hit 212 (sharpshooter) out of 250 and 191 out of 250 (barely Marksman). I think we can all agree that the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are inherently better and more accurate rifles, and they are semi-autos (easier to qualify with). Presumably he went through rifleman training with the M1 and M1 Carbine. And presumably these exact semi-automatic Marine Corp rifles were in better condition and more accurate (better than 3-5 MOA rifle that shot up to 5 inches high) than the surplus Italian bolt gun he was using on 22 November 1963. We don't know exactly how often he trained with the Carcano, but we do know he only owned it for 8 months prior to Kennedy's assassination. Apparently not long enough to zero it very well, or fix the inherent inaccuracies in HIS rifle.

His training shows that under ideal Marine Corp training conditions where he was presumably trying to qualify, Oswald MISSED his training targets 15% and 24% of the time under dramatically better circumstances (less stress, non-moving targets, better equipment, etc.). Now, to think Oswald did score a neck and headshot with that rifle on a moving target given all of what is listed above is beyond plausible.

As a deer hunter you are in an elevated stand. A deer is 40 yards away from you walking slowly almost straight away. Could you make that shot? I'm not saying it is a slam dunk easy shot, but almost all of us would consider it an ethical shot and not pass on it, especially if it were a really nice trophy. I think most experienced hunters would make that shot more often than not.

This is a flawed analogy. First, the car was going 9-11 MPH. That's the average human in a full sprint speed. I doubt many people could score a headshot on a human in full sprint at 80 yards under the above conditions. And how often people hunting deer with a 3-5 MOA rifle? I bet not many folks would take that same shot with a rifle that could be off by as much as 3-8 inches at that range of 80 yards, on a running buck or person. And there's no 'risk' to the hunter that fails.

Other tests show that it CAN be done. It also shows that there are a LOT of failures in trying to replicate it. It certainly is no guarantee.

I absolutely do not believe that Oswald was capable of those shots with that weapon on that day. Why? Science and ballistics.

I have not delved into any 'conspiracy' theories, films, etc. to stay in line with the mods directions. But I believe it's important to shed a different opinion on whether he could make these shots. And my answer is no, he could not to the point that he would not have attempted the unlikely.

 

[Coyote Blue]

Yet 53 pieces of direct evidence show Oswald to be the lone shooter. 50 years have gone by and NO credible evidence to link anyone else to the crime.

See this interview with Vince Bugliosi who wrote Reclaiming History ,1518 pages, debunking every conspiracy theory known to man!

Dallas, Texas. Friday. November 22, 1963. President John F. Kennedy died after a sniper attack on his motorcade. For many, the assassination remains a mystery. A 2003 Gallup Poll revealed that 75 percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind the killing of President Kennedy.

In his massive new book on the murder, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (W.W. Norton), former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi concludes that an unstable Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy, and incisively dissects every conspiracy theory: the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, Castro, the mob, LBJ, and others.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/41490#sthash.9qiiiYUK.c1yD4Cic.dpuf

 

[JohnKSa]

So, a 'perfect' shot with this rifle, would still be minimum 3 MOA off and 2.5" high, or up to 5.5" off the mark under benchrest conditions.

There are assumptions inherent in this analysis.

1. If we assume that LHO used the scope, then the analysis assumes that the scope/mount was misaligned PRIOR to the shooting.

LHO clearly discarded it after shooting; there's no reason to assume he would have handled it carefully after he was done with it. So it's reasonable to assume (or at least accept the possibility) that if the scope did get misaligned, it happened after the shooting, not before.

In addition, there's ample evidence to prove that LHO had practiced shooting this rifle in addition to his extensive dryfire practice. There's every reason to assume that if the scope was off prior to the shot he would have either known that and fixed it before the big day or simply not used the scope at all. And that's the second big assumption hidden in the analysis.

2. It assumes that LHO used the scope.

LHO could very well have used the iron sights. At least one reenactor ignored the scope and used the iron sights to duplicate the necessary hits under re-created conditions. The scope mount allowed the easy use of the iron sights without requiring the removal of the scope/mount.

A neck shot and headshot (2 for 3) with his skill, weapon, distance, and movement.

Again, this hides an inherent assumption. There is nothing to suggest that LHO was aiming for the head or neck (upper back, actually--it wasn't really a neck shot). Given that he missed entirely with one of his three shots, it's far more reasonable to assume that he was aiming COM (per his military training) for the exposed portion of JFK's body and that the two out of three bullets that connected happened to hit in the head and upper back.

First, the car was going 9-11 MPH. That's the average human in a full sprint speed. I doubt many people could score a headshot on a human in full sprint at 80 yards under the above conditions.

First of all, a human can sprint a good deal faster than 9-11mph. The record is nearly 28mph and the average, from the sources I can find is 12-15mph.

However, that's essentially irrelevant since the last shot was taken with the target moving nearly directly away from LHO's position. There was virtually no need to correct for the target motion. In other words, he missed one of the two shots taken when he would have needed to correct for motion (although much of the target motion during that timeframe was also directed away his position and therefore not an issue) and elevation and connected with the one that required the least correction for elevation and motion.

In addition, the analysis is still based on the idea that a headshot was what was intended--an assumption that can not be verified and isn't particularly likely to be correct given the point of impact of the other two rounds--one of which appears to have missed the entire vehicle.

Strange things happen in the real world. Some years ago, a DFW area LEO became frustrated after pursuing a fleeing criminal on foot and shot the top of the running felon's head off at about 70yards with a single shot from his issue service handgun. I'm sure he wished that someone could have proved that what he did was impossible since it cost him his job.

...he could not to the point that he would not have attempted the unlikely.

It takes very little study to establish that LHO made a habit of attempting the unlikely and doing the irrational.

Other tests show that it CAN be done. It also shows that there are a LOT of failures in trying to replicate it. It certainly is no guarantee.

One thing that's important to remember is that the re-creations are done assuming that the 2 out of 3 shots that did hit the target hit exactly where LHO intended them to hit. That's a much higher standard than would be imposed in the more likely scenario. If one looks at a shooting scenario where the shooter takes 3 shots and makes 2 hits on the scoring portion of the target and misses the entire backer board with the other shot, it's pretty unlikely that the 2 shots that did hit the scoring portion of the target hit exactly where the shooter meant for them to go, even if one hit in the X-Ring.

I absolutely do not believe that Oswald was capable of those shots with that weapon on that day. Why? Science and ballistics.

And those are the two best reasons to believe that he took the shots.

There have been numerous painstakingly detailed and high-fidelity recreations and analyses which demonstrate that the shots came from LHO's position.

Basically there's nothing in the evidence that proves he couldn't have, ample evidence to prove that it was possible and even more evidence to show that the shots came from his location.

 

[Coyote Blue]

And to add the obvious, SOMEBODY made those 2 shots that killed JFK and wounded Governor Connally. Again, over 50 years there is not one thread of evidence to link another person,living or dead,to the murder of the century.

It was Oswald, pure and simple. His rifle, his prints, his escape from the building, the only employee to leave, killing Dallas Police Officer J.D.Tippitt 45 minutes later in front of at least 6 witnesses.

Then corralled in the Texas Theater and pulling the gun on another cop,who only survived because he got his finger in between the hammer and the firing pin.

Do we need more ?

 

[Buzzcook]

So, a 'perfect' shot with this rifle, would still be minimum 3 MOA off and 2.5" high, or up to 5.5" off the mark under benchrest conditions.

Not quite. The Carcano iron sites are zeroed at 300yds iirc. So about 3.5" high at 100yds is not out of whack.

I should have added to my post that when I shot the Carcano we aimed low in order to hit our targets. Once we knew to adjust the point of aim it was no problem keeping shots on target.

A rifle hitting high (or low) is not a problem if it is consistent.

3moa at 81m is about 2.9". That doesn't mean that the margin of error from poa is 5.8". It means that shots will be in 2.9 groups in a defined x,y axis from poa.

Once again, if that x,y axis high/low/left/right is predictable, then adjusting the point of aim shouldn't be that much of a problem.

 

[Mike Irwin]

OK, let's get this straight becase I'm getting tired of the whining and bitching.

This conversation IS on topic because it concerns ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald, the Carcano rifle, his ability to shoot the rifle, and whether the rifle itself was capable of that kind of accuracy.

That is NOT conspiracy theory. That is a firearms discussion.

What IS conspiracy theory, and what WILL get your post deleted in a heartbeat?

It was a Government coverup.

There were multiple shooters.

There was a shooter on the grassy knoll.

Lyndon Johnson/The Cubans/The Russians/The Mafia/Someone else actually killed Kennedy.

Kennedy was shot from the front, not from behind.

The Zapruder film proves (insert pet theory here).

Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nasuseum...


IF you want to talk about anything OTHER than the narrowly defined paramaters I have laid out above, please go do it on another forum. There's no shortage of forums for discussing these conspiracy theories.

This is a firearms forum, and it will remain a firearms forum.

If you have a problem with that, sorry, but we can't help you.

 

[Mike Irwin]

John, nice analysis/rebuttal.

You make several very interesting points regarding which sighting system LHO was using, and where he was sighting. The assumption has always been that he used the telescopic sights and that he was intending to make head shots on Kennedy.

I think you're pretty close to spot on in saying that it's likely that LHO used the iron sights, and that he was aiming center of mass.

The iron sights on a Carcano rifle are, IIRC, calibrated so that with the sight ladder in the battle sight position the bullet will strike about 8 inches high at 100 yards.

If LHO was aiming COM, or the middle of the exposed portion of Kennedy's back above the limousine seat, the bullet would have struck Kennedy in the neck to head area.

LHO wanted to kill Kennedy. There's no doubt of that. I think it makes a lot of sense that he would have aimed and fired at the portion of the body that would have guaranteed the highest potential for a hit, and that certainly would not have been Kennedy's head, and especially not with a moving target.

So...

The rifle was capable of the accuracy required. LHO was capable of operating and firing the gun within the timeframes required. The shots didn't require a huge amount of skill to make.

 

[Mike Irwin]

LeadCounsel,

My apologies. I deleted your post on the first page when I meant to delete a different post entirely.

I have restored it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The entire question of capability is a straw man argument in my opinion. All that is needed is desire enough to try and dumb "luck".

I once made a shot through a button buck's heart at over 150 yards with a smooth-bore, 18" barrel Remington 870 firing Winchester Super-X rifled slugs.

Anybody want to argue the gun or my capability to repeat that shot? I don't. It doesn't matter if I have the skill or the gun/ammo has the mechanical capability. It happened, once, and that's all that matters when it only HAS to happen once.

In other words, it's essentially the Weak Anthropic Principle. The odds don't really matter, it happened or we wouldn't be here talking about whether or not it could happen.

This is the best recreation I've ever seen.

 

[leadcounsel]

So either he trained with the rifle, or he didn't.

If he did, and the rifle and the shooter were 'accurate,' then why two lethal shots and one errant shot that missed the vehicle altogether?

If he did, then why wasn't the darn thing sighted in better? The tests of his rifle were that it was NOT an accurate rifle able to maintain a reasonable MOA.

If he did train with it, then why both with the scope. I agree that irons at that distance for repeated shots on a moving target were a better choice. So why have a scope, zeroed or not, on the rifle. He knew the route, knew the angle of approach and egress, and anyone familiar with rifles would know that the scope is in the way, EVEN with see-through sights. And particularly if the scope was not zeroed, which is possible given the evidence.

While working the action, and dryfiring for trigger squeeze and steadiness are some form of training, it doesn't put lead on targets. And by the FBI reports, the rifle was INHERENTLY inaccurate (by our standards anyway). It seems to be about as accurate as a pistol at 100 yards (3-5 MOA). That shot would be difficult with a pistol.

If he didn't train with it, as strongly suggested by the 1 errant shot that entirely missed the target, well then that demonstrates that he just didn't have the right ability and/or rifle for the job.

Folks here are reasonably good shooters presumably. Here's what really puzzles me. Can anyone explain why this guy, who most accept had the ability and rifle for the task, ENTIRELY MISSED the limousine and people inside, with 1 of 3 shots, (possibly the first and least hurried of shots), yet manages to score two lethal shots? It's a serious question. I've never been able to put that together. Literally missing the broadside of the barn, then hitting two bullseyes.

I fully get the 'dumb luck' explaination. Heck, I'm fascinated by dumb luck shots. I once read an article about a cop who shot at the armed assailant and the cops bullet literally scored a hit inside the assailants revolver cylinder, thereby jamming his gun. Talk about dumb luck. But relying on the dumb luck explaination for the most tragic and public of assassinations just doesn't seem to really cut it... I feel like I need more than just dumb luck here.

I'm really NOT trying to stir the pot or argue. It's a legit question. Absent another explanation, it just seems like this guy just took 3 random shots with a below average rifle and scored his best possible score... I suppose that's possible, but when you're talking about an assassination, rather than just a good day at the range, it just seems highly implausible.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks miss easy shots all the time, even trained master level competitors.

A touch of tension, a failure in trigger control when nervous and then you correct.

I've seen all of this. The argument that since he missed the first shot and then hit as a basis for some vast whatever is quite silly.

For example, at the last match - we had a target with 6 hits required. A trained shooter fires 5 in the zero, throws in one in the three. OMG!

We are close to having diminishing returns in this thread when folks argue against well known shooting phenomena and peformance in favor of the Illuminati or the Lizard People from the Center of the Earth.

 

[SPEMack618]

If he did, then why wasn't the darn thing sighted in better? The tests of his rifle were that it was NOT an accurate rifle able to maintain a reasonable MOA.

We have no way of knowing what happened to the rifle from the time is was fired to the time it was tested by the Feds. How was it handled? How was shipped? Did Oswald just throw the damn thing in the corner as he ran out?

I still believe that he used the iron sights and was holding low aiming at COM.

Perhaps he was never able to take the scope off, or liked the looks of it.

 

[leadcounsel]

For example, at the last match - we had a target with 6 hits required. A trained shooter fires 5 in the zero, throws in one in the three. OMG!

Got it. But we're not talking about a relatively meaningless match, where this shooter probably experiencing almost zero stress because it's low threat and near perfect muscle memory. He's done this countless times. Near zero risk. He knows his weapon like the back of his hand. ETC ETC ETC.

Contrast that with an assassin.

NEVER been in this situation. Perhaps he's fired the weapon a handful of times, dryfired it a bunch, worked the action. Now, about to murder in public with thousands watching. And not just any murder, but the biggest murder of the century. A LOT of variables not in his favor. How does he know he's not been spotted and the FBI about to kick in the door of the room? Or shoot him in a counter-sniper move? What if he misses? On the first or second shot, when he is REALLY trying to hit, his round is so wild, it totally misses a HUGE target. He doesn't hit ANYTHING near the target. He collects himself and then scores 1 or 2 lethal shots.

I just can't accept the 'dumb luck' theory.

IMO what we have here is a "B" or "C" grade shooter, from his known marksmanship training in the Marine Corp (again, better rifles, less stress, easier targets), using a below average slower bolt gun. A gun that probably falls into the "C" category, below the Mausers and K31s of the bolt action world, and well below the M1 Garands of the world at that time. On probably the most difficult of tests (combining all of the variables of stress, movement, distraction, etc. against him), he scores the best possible shots and an effective "A+."

By analogy, this is like your average highschool math student. He's using an outdated, slow calculator. He walks into his SATs and scores the highest score in school. Life just so rarely works that way, particularly when it 'really' matters. Can it happen? Sure, it can. Do miracles happen? Of course. Full court basketball shots are improbable, and do happen to win games.

But my point is that no team goes into a game with the strategy that they're going to plan to win on a full court buzzer beating shot.

Well I guess LHO had the best shooting day of anyone in recorded history when it really counted IMO.

I do see this as diminishing returns, and have nothing more to add that isn't getting into forbidden areas...

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

You may want a more plausible or satisfying explanation but the simple fact of life is that there is none required.

If he had missed, we'd be talking about an attempted assassination. He didn't miss. It really doesn't matter how likely it is, how skilled or unskilled he was or the condition of the gun.

The FBI, BTW, tested the actual gun and said "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired showed that.") Maybe not by our standards of accuracy but our standards aren't required for this shot.

I've read theories that every situation of every kind with a statistical probability below 100% actually creates divergent time-lines, one each wherein every statistical probability of the event happened. We live in the one where he missed the first shot and connected with the other two. Why not?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"If he did, and the rifle and the shooter were 'accurate,' then why two lethal shots and one errant shot that missed the vehicle altogether?"

The assumption in that statement assumes that any trained shooter will either hit or miss completely, that there's absolutely no middle ground at all. That's not realistic.

It also assumes that Oswald was a robot, completely unaffected by changes in his autonomic nervous system. Also unrealistic.

Thinking about doing something, and then actually engaging in it, are two different things. It's very likely that once LHO fired the first shot his heart rate, breathing, and pulse, likely already high, absolutely skyrocketed. He was also likely sweating buckets.

Even if he could control those reactions to a degree, you also completely discount the "oh crap" factor, that factor that says that, even if every tiny detail is accounted for, and planned for, something unseen, unthought of, etc., can still break through and screw everything up.

For example, we don't know if he missed completely with the third shot because his elbow slipped, he overcompensated for the limo's increase in speed, because someone on the ground turned and that flashed light off a camera lens and into his eyes, whatever.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I just can't accept the 'dumb luck' theory."

You don't have to accept the dumb luck theory, because it wasn't a case of dumb luck.

I don't accept it, either. The dumb luck theory would account for someone with no firearms training at all, firing an unknown gun, with unknown sights, manages to assassinate the president.

Kennedy's assassination comes under the heading of "just enough skill and a dash of luck thrown in."

 

[SPEMack618]

Hope this doesn't breach the parameters of what is an appropiate post.


In the same Tom Clancy article previously mentioned, Clancy states that the reason so many people refuse to accept that Oswald acted alone and succeed in killing JFK is because the man was such a colossal screw up before that. The notion of a failure like Oswald killing the most powerful man in the world just does not compute, so obviously, must be a conspiracy.