Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted  (Read 35481 times)

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Advertisement
So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?
 I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?
  What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance.  That is one absolutely absurd statement.
  Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass  wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?

So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?

Different subject. The suggestion is to debate the theory "expert rifleman cannot make Oswald's shots because they don't want to equal his performance". It would contradict their own opinion that he was not the killer of JFK. That's different from Oswald's rifle-shooting capability.

I guess you mean WORLD class? Where did that come from? Ratings even higher than 'Expert' are Master..then Premier Specialist [someone who never misses] Saying that about Oswald?----How really full of it can you get?

Thanks for the "spell-check". I've corrected the error.

The SUBJECT is not about Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle-shooting capability: It's about self-appointed firearms experts intentionally performing below their maximum shooting capability. I'm proposing a theory that predetermined negative outcomes are possible. This was demonstrated by Governor Jesse Ventura's obviously staged failure to meet "time limits" in firing three shots from a Carcano rifle similar to Oswald's.

What is "ignored" is Oswald's capability and your ignorance.  That is one absolutely absurd statement.

Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario.

Well there...he said it himself. The number of coincidences that surround Oswald's activities including divining when to prepare a sniper nest, assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced] ...then just in time for the motorcade to pass  wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing.. bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed. See how full of themselves these guys are?


You are adding together many aspects of the assassination scenario and implying that the odds against such things occurring are very high or perhaps impossible. Are these occurrences actually coincidences? I suppose anything and everything that occurs in this world could be regarded as coincidences: If not the actual event; those events leading up to it.

Divining when to prepare a sniper's nest.

When he could.
-- How do you attribute odds to that?

...assemble a rifle [using a coin it was pronounced]

The Warren Commission demonstrated that the Carcano rifle could be assembled with a coin.
-- How do you calculate odds that it couldn't?

...then just in time for the motorcade to pass

The motorcade was five (5) minutes later than scheduled when it reached Dealey Plaza. I wish that it had been "on time". President Kennedy may have avoided Lee Harvey Oswald's evil act.
-- What are the odds that the President's motorcade would be running 5 minutes late in passing through Dealey Plaza?

wait until it's half-way gone down the road to start firing..

Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired. Define "half-way gone down the road" in yards or in reference to landmarks.
-- Why would you want to attribute odds to Oswald's estimate of when to fire the first shot? It's his decision made for reasons that only he knew.

... bullet's that go through 2 guys etc etc.

Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys".

So we have to jump up and start another thread on the same subject?

Jump-start your mind... you may start posting sensible rebuttals to facts.



« Last Edit: March 18, 2019, 12:23:28 AM by Ross Lidell »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
Not correct. President Kennedy's limousine had just turned the corner when the first (missed) shot was fired.

... and you know this, how?

Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."


Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
"Oswald's capability does not need to be taken into account when discussing other shooter's "intentions" in performing a replication scenario"

Another meaningless statement. Since you believe the WC theory, the least you could do is present evidence. It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion, but you do believe their conclusion. All you do is answer questions with questions. 

Here is another statement that has no relevance

"Metal-jacketed bullets can go through two (2) human bodies. That is a 100% certain fact.
-- If you disagree: Calculate the odds that bullets cannot go through "2 guys"."


Another statement that shows you are not very serious. You need to finish your ideas. Since you bring up"odds" you need to calculate in the odds a bullet shows up on a hospital transport bed. "100% certain fact", right? If you believe anything

Weak reply. You "dodged" most of the replies I made to your "assertions".

FACT: Oswald's rifle-shooting ability is not "front and center" when debating the possibility of "expert shooters not trying their best" in reconstructions.

I didn't bring up "the odds"... Jerry Freeman did.
The chances all must number into the thousands ..lucky indeed.

It is obvious you don't even know the WC version or how they come to their conclusion...

I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.

Is there some rule that says I cannot ask a question when your reply is vague or just an assertion?

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
I have a copy of the report of the Warren Commission (New York Times Edition - hard cover version). I've read it thoroughly.
   Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.
 

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
   Seriously? Is that is all you have ever read? Not even Re-clamoring History? Throw that Readers Digest condensed version away and read the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that this report is is supposedly supported by. Come back when you have learned something substantial.

Very funny. Slightly funny.

More inaccuracy by JFk (guess what "k" stands for?): The New York Times "reprint" of the Warren Commission Report is the full version with 17 Appendixes .

The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
The NYT does not now and never did own Reader's Digest.
A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.
 

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
A metaphor. Understand this though...the Oswald did it alone story is based on a THEORY that Oswald did it alone.
That report that you read states that no conspiracy could be found. No one ever looked for one.

A metaphor.

Still wrong because the New York Times authorized version of The Warren Commission Report is not abbreviated. Words per page is greater but that's the only discernible difference.

JFK Assassination Forum