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

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

No you could not. This SUBJECT is not about opinions.

We are talking about "experts" participating in an experiment: Trying to prove that a task can OR cannot de done.

The results of these experiments are worthless because the participants can slyly "under-perform" but no one can prove that they did.

Slyly underperform. Possible.  These are people who say it is impossible to perform the shooting and you say they could be underperforming.
Results are only worthless if a person is of the belief that it's impossible and then uses an expert in the experiment who knowingly underperforms.
Why are you so fascinated pointing out a sideshow? You are pre-occupied with sideshows

[John Iacoletti]

John,

I'm not "dodging" your comments.... but we are now way off-topic.

It would be better to start a new SUBJECT: What is the significance of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSBD.

Then hope and pray that "posters" stick to the Subject. Alternately, ignore it if they have nothing substantive to contribute. Speculation is welcome because that all that's possible when there is no evidence of a Mauser "planter" or "shooter".

That's ok, because there's no evidence of a Carcano "planter" or "shooter" either...

[John Iacoletti]

I don?t typically pretend to know things that I don?t actually know.

In that event.... You know NOTHING!....  Isn't that right?      There were many Iacoletti's laughing at jeering Christopher Columbus who was attempting to prove the world was a globe as he set sail to reach the Orient by sailing west.   Turns out all of those Iacoletti's were FOS.....

No, there's actually evidence of the Earth's shape and there was long before Columbus.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that "the experts at LIFE and other publications said the photo had been retouched before they ever received them", or any of your other made up stories.

[Ross Lidell]

That's ok, because there's no evidence of a Carcano "planter" or "shooter" either...

There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.

[John Iacoletti]

There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Other than speculation?  I don't think so.

Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.

Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.

Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.

[Ross Lidell]

Other than speculation?  I don't think so.

At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.

Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.

Quote from: Ross Lidell on Today at 11:13:49 PM

There is evidence of a Carcano "transporter" and "shooter: Lee Harvey Oswald.

Other than speculation?  I don't think so.

Silly statement. Physical evidence (which you routinely dispute) exists.

Your denials of fact--against all common sense--don't change the reality of Oswald's suspicious behaviour on 21 and 22 November 1963. Add to that the lack of an iron-clad alibi for 12:30 PM CST... the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

At least 5 other people in the TSBD alone don't have an alibi for 12:30 PM CST.

Which of the five (5) do you consider to be the Carcano "transporter" and/or "shooter"?

Oswald was the shooter, and in the absence of an accomplice, also the transporter.

Easy to say -- not so easy to prove.

Easy for you to deny there's no proof when you have no evidence (physical) to the contrary.

[Jerry Freeman]

Mr. Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
      Mr. Delgado: Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on the same line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position . . . and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.
      Mr. Liebeler: Missed the target completely?
      Mr. Delgado: He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. (8H235) 

 At a fixed...stationary target.
 

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

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?

So you don't know what is in his left hand? And you don't know the agent? Slyly holding back the answers, otherwise known as, underperform. Sound familiar?