Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

[John Iacoletti]

Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?

Why would you think that?

Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:

1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

[Bill Chapman]

No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":

-- Some nefarious purpose?

-- A red herring?

-- An innocent coincidence?

There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.

It exposes the flaws in this theory.

Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.

There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:

1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.

2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.

See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. 

It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.

Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.

In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.

Ventura was going for the 6 second thing, wasn't he? Some say 8.3 seconds was the actual time. Ironically, Ventura scored under nine seconds twice I think... about 8.74 for one, I recall.

With the right 'tude (after the first shot, while struggling with the bolt action, the ex-guv barked that this was a piece of xxxx) he  might have relaxed and remembered his not-quite-a-full-fledged-Seal training

[Ross Lidell]

Why would you think that?

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?

Why would you think that?

I'm so charitable in my assessment of debating opponents. So you are not a researcher (of the JFK Assassination case). That begs the question: What are you?


    Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:

    1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.

Yet somehow you think it IS necessary for someone to completely explain every possible facet of the Mauser observation. Go figure.

Not every facet... some facets. There's something strange about someone believing the 6th floor rifle was a Mauser not the Carcano C2766: Then having no interest in exploring how it fits with a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.

It reeks of an attitude of isolated points-scoring rather than seeking to find the truth.

[Rob Caprio]

I'm not sad, Rob. Somewhere between neutral and slightly happy.

Incidentally, you're off-topic.

What about providing "supporting evidence" (proof) that the shot's attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission and HSCA are definitively impossible. Better still: Something that rebuts my conclusion that expert shooters (who are WC/HSCA conclusion doubters) "may not be trusted to try their best during shooting reconstructions".

You have failed to support the claim that LHO fired a shot so why would I waste time proving anything regarding LHO and the firing of shots?

[Ross Lidell]

That is a wonderful argument.
Because your cousin Jesse V said it's impossible.
Why would you even care if your cousin Jesse believes, I don't?

Below is some footage from Tom Alyea. This is filmed inside the TSBD after the shooting. In the 1st part of the film, you will see an FBI agent looking out a window. As he backs up out of the window he looks surprised then changes his direction and walks toward the camera filming him. What is the agent carrying in his left hand?

Pete, there's one thing that we can agree on: The very-low definition of movie cameras (circa 1963) used by news organizations causes great frustration when viewing archival film footage exposed in them . If HD Video Cameras were available in 1963, we could now identify with accuracy details that would eliminate silly theories. Ergo, the exact type of rifle might be discerned.

The rifle carried by the man is not a Mauser. I cannot see a bolt-action, so it might be a M1 Garand? It's probably a rifle carried as an attack/defense weapon.

Incidentally, how do you know the man is an FBI agent?

[Ross Lidell]

You have failed to support the claim that LHO fired a shot so why would I waste time proving anything regarding LHO and the firing of shots?

Then don't post in this topic.

[Rob Caprio]

Then don't post in this topic.

So you are admitting that you cannot support the WC's claim that LHO fired any shots on November 22, 1963. Good of you to do that.

[Ross Lidell]

So you are admitting that you cannot support the WC's claim that LHO fired any shots on November 22, 1963. Good of you to do that.

No I'm not making that admission... any admission.

Look at the Subject: title.

You are invited to accept or reject my theory. If it's the latter... with "supporting evidence".

Something like: "Yes they can be trusted implicitly and here's the reason why:      ".