A Simple Theory

Post by claviger
A disgrunteled ex-serviceman decides to become an urban
sniper to pick off any politicians he disapproves of, Democrat
or Republican. On that list is a US President, UN Ambassador,
former Vice President, and a local political personalty who is
belligerent and outspoken. All of them antiCastro.
The volunteer sniper decides to start at the bottom and work
his way up. The first attempt is a fluke miss on General Walker.
Next in line is Nixon or Stevenson. Then the most important
target comes to the sniper, who works in a building on the
downtown parade route.
The sniper is using a cheap rifle but at close range a deadly
weapon. The only question is will there be too many people
watching from every floor of the building? At the last minute
one employee leaves the 6th floor and the sniper now has the
opportunity to fire a shot at two political enemies riding in an
open vehicle.
The amateurs sniper fires the first shot using a defective scope
and misses badly. He instinctively fires another shot using the
fixed sight he trained on in the military. The second shot seems
to have no effect because the President is still sitting erect. The
sniper fires a third shot and sees the head explode. He exults in
the view and the damage he inflicted on the human target, then
hides the rifle and goes into patsy mode.
He is lucky an inexperienced police officer doesn't know what
to do with him in the lunchroom. Finally he leaves the building
and makes it all the way home. Amed with a pistol he relocates
to a movie theater but on the way is stopped by another police
officer. He panics and fires 4 shots into this unwary policeman
and continues to a commercial area and then hides in a movie
theater where he is arrested after a scuffle.
All that's left is pretend to be a patsy and see what happens.
The bad news is he is a suspect but the good news he's the
center of attention on a worldwide stage. Win or lose he will
be in the spotlight again just like in NO, but with a much larger
audience. This should be exciting messing with all the powers
that be.

A shame that fiction novel will never sell. It's ignoring all the
facts.

Chris

Edward Bauer

2018-07-03 04:23:20 UTC

claviger,

All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

-------

http://www.thefinaltruth.net

claviger

2018-07-03 21:09:34 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!
-------
http://www.thefinaltruth.net

I think he had a bad case of buck fever on the first shot and
yanked the trigger causing the shot to miss to the right.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-04 13:43:59 UTC

Post by claviger

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!
-------
http://www.thefinaltruth.net

I think he had a bad case of buck fever on the first shot and
yanked the trigger causing the shot to miss to the right.

Maybe the shooter saw the traffic light support bar and tried to get off
a shot before it could block a shot.

mainframetech

2018-07-04 01:26:42 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!
-------
http://www.thefinaltruth.net

Correction. Both versions are wrong. The scope on the MC rifle was
repaired at the Army center where they tested the rifle. The gunsmith
found that the scope was screwed on with only 2 screws when it required 3,
and it was found that shimming up one of the supports fixed the ability of
the scope to aim properly and zero in. The gunsmith had a story done on
him in a local paper, and he made it clear he had a very low opinion of
the rifle. That suggests to me that he tapped and used only 2 screws to
mount the scope when there should have been 3, and he didn't do it
carefully so that the scope could be zeroed in with the rifle.

The problem with the scope was diagnosed by a gunsmith, and it was one
which was present from the beginning of its life on that rifle. Here's
the gunsmith's story, which was saved by the website:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2014/03/oswald-got-very-very-lucky-gunsmith.html

Here's the testimony of the Army expert (Ronald Simmons):

"Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope,
and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust
the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth
correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it
would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible,
and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more
permanent means of correction.

Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is
sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes."

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-05 23:21:32 UTC

Post by mainframetech

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!
-------
http://www.thefinaltruth.net

False. You've been corrected about this thousands of times but you never
care about the fact. It does not require that you use all 3 holes.

Post by mainframetech
and it was found that shimming up one of the supports fixed the ability of
the scope to aim properly and zero in. The gunsmith had a story done on
him in a local paper, and he made it clear he had a very low opinion of
the rifle. That suggests to me that he tapped and used only 2 screws to
mount the scope when there should have been 3, and he didn't do it
carefully so that the scope could be zeroed in with the rifle.
The problem with the scope was diagnosed by a gunsmith, and it was one
which was present from the beginning of its life on that rifle. Here's
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2014/03/oswald-got-very-very-lucky-gunsmith.html
"Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope,
and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust
the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth
correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it
would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible,
and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more
permanent means of correction.
Mr. EISENBERG. By azimuth, do you refer to the crosshair which is
sometimes referred to as the windage crosshair?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes."
Chris

bigdog

2018-07-04 01:37:24 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

Actually I do it all the time. I don't take target practice very often
with my rifles but I never check to see if the scope is perfectly zeroed.
Since I am not a competition shooter and I am firing at fairly close
ranges, I don't need a perfectly zeroed rifle. Neither did Oswald. He was
firing at relatively close range and he didn't need a perfectly zeroed
rifle either. I scope a few inches off would do just fine given the size
of his target. Even if he wanted to, it is ludicrous to think he would
even try. A single test shot is not going to tell him how far off his
scope was and it is even sillier to think that even if he could judge how
much off it was that he could make the proper adjustment in the few
seconds he had. Firing a warning shot would also increase the chances that
the protection detail could take defensive action before the second shot
was fired. The idea that Oswald first fired a zeroing shot before taking
aim at JFK is as ludicrous as any conspiracy theory.

Edward Bauer

2018-07-05 03:03:06 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

Sorry, bigdog, I’m not biting. You’re an Arguer,
I’m a Solver. We’ve been through this before and
I’ve answered all your questions. Happy arguing! 😊

-------

http://www.thefinaltruth.net

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-05 23:16:38 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the ???defective scope??? part. You
don???t ???miss badly??? with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot ???missed badly??? because it
wasn???t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don???t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

Again, you display that you don't know anything about guns. If accuracy is
the same at any range why would they zero in the rifle at a specific
distance. You need to read Emary. If his rifle was accidetlly zeroed in
for 200 meters shooting at a target closer than 200 meters the bullet
would go too high. So if it was only 100 meters away the bullet might hit
9 inches above his point of aim.

Post by bigdog
of his target. Even if he wanted to, it is ludicrous to think he would
even try. A single test shot is not going to tell him how far off his
scope was and it is even sillier to think that even if he could judge how

Where is he going to find a place that has targets set at exactly the
distance he needs to preactice on?

Post by bigdog
much off it was that he could make the proper adjustment in the few
seconds he had. Firing a warning shot would also increase the chances that

Oswald had no way to know how to adjust his rifle. Look at how he missed
Walker at only 120 feet. He didn't attempt to fix the problem after that.

Post by bigdog
the protection detail could take defensive action before the second shot
was fired. The idea that Oswald first fired a zeroing shot before taking
aim at JFK is as ludicrous as any conspiracy theory.

What action could they take? You mean like speed up the limousine? Or do
you mean pick up a machine gun and spray the face of the TSBD hoping to
accidentally kill an innocent black man?

Steve M. Galbraith

2018-07-07 00:17:45 UTC

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

To suggest that Oswald didn't have to worry about the scope ignores the
fact that he didn't know beforehand what type/range/distance of a shot he
would have to try to kill JFK.

He's going to kill the president and he doesn't practice - as far as we
know - with the rifle before doing so? Test the scope?

Look, the evidence is overwhelming to me that Oswald killed JFK. But some
of his actions are inexplicable.

bigdog

2018-07-07 21:41:06 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

To suggest that Oswald didn't have to worry about the scope ignores the
fact that he didn't know beforehand what type/range/distance of a shot he
would have to try to kill JFK.
He's going to kill the president and he doesn't practice - as far as we
know - with the rifle before doing so? Test the scope?
Look, the evidence is overwhelming to me that Oswald killed JFK. But some
of his actions are inexplicable.

Oswald made do with what he had. He only would have had only a few days
notice of the opportunity that fell his way. He didn't have the rifle with
him. He had no time to practice. He didn't need to practice nor did he
need a rifle that was perfectly zeroed. A competition shooter needs a
rifle that is perfectly zeroed. A few inches off one way or another costs
him points. Oswald was firing at a large target from a short distance. He
didn't need precision and his shots weren't that precise. One complete
miss and two shots on the target spaced about a foot apart isn't going to
win any trophies but it was good enough to accomplish what he set out to
do. Given that he was successful, it makes no sense to me that people
would second guess him.

mainframetech

2018-07-07 22:09:29 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

To suggest that Oswald didn't have to worry about the scope ignores the
fact that he didn't know beforehand what type/range/distance of a shot he
would have to try to kill JFK.
He's going to kill the president and he doesn't practice - as far as we
know - with the rifle before doing so? Test the scope?
Look, the evidence is overwhelming to me that Oswald killed JFK. But some
of his actions are inexplicable.

You mean actions that YOU attribute to him. But you can try the same
thing that bd did, which is to list the evidence against Oswald and see if
you can prove that he was in the window firing into the plaza at the
motorcade. Give it a shot. You've heard so often that Oswald did the
murder that it's become OBVIOUS to you that he was the killer, but the
proof is flimsy.

Chris

bigdog

2018-07-08 16:39:09 UTC

Post by mainframetech

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

claviger,
All true except for the “defective scope” part. You
don’t “miss badly” with a damaged scope. The
scope was not damaged until its third shipment halfway across the country
on November 27. It was working perfectly when Oswald used it for all
three shots, the first of which was for the indispensable requirement of
zeroing the firearm. That shot “missed badly” because it
wasn’t aimed at the limo in the first place. As any marksman will
tell you, you don’t just pick up a rifle and start shooting!

To suggest that Oswald didn't have to worry about the scope ignores the
fact that he didn't know beforehand what type/range/distance of a shot he
would have to try to kill JFK.
He's going to kill the president and he doesn't practice - as far as we
know - with the rifle before doing so? Test the scope?
Look, the evidence is overwhelming to me that Oswald killed JFK. But some
of his actions are inexplicable.

I've listed a litany of physical evidence and an eyewitness that points to
Oswald as the shooter and that means nothing to you but a guy named
Richard Carr claims to have seen Mac Wallace from several blocks away and
you find that compelling. That says all we need to know about how you
weigh evidence.

Anthony Marsh

2018-07-04 13:41:42 UTC