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

[Ross Lidell]

Of course, we never know whether a person is really trying to do something well.   But the fact remains that there is scant record of people being able to duplicate the feat with ease.

What are the "facts"?

What is the "scant record"?

What are the precise details of "the feat"?

What is "with ease"?

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

I don't believe it for a very good reason: Insufficient information.

Who cares about what someone says? If one is of the belief the shooting can be accomplished, then good for them. Talk about theories, right off the bat, to say something is possible is meaningless. Anything is possible. How about probable?

[Ross Lidell]

Who cares about what someone says? If one is of the belief the shooting can be accomplished, then good for them. Talk about theories, right off the bat, to say something is possible is meaningless. Anything is possible. How about probable?

Possible and probable can be linked.

Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Possible is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, no matter how difficult the shots attributed to Oswald, he was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

[Bill Chapman]

Possible and probable can be linked.

Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Possible is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, no matter how difficult the shots attributed to Oswald, he was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

I'm 100% certain that Oswald probably did it.

[John Iacoletti]

Possible and probable can be linked.

Probable is meaningful if physical evidence supports it: Oswald owned the assassination weapon and no physical evidence of another assassination weapon exists. Therefore, it's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.

[Ross Lidell]

Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.

Ignoring your "assertions" about non-ownership of the rifle (C2766) by Lee Harvey Oswald: It's probable that the owner/possessor of the assassination weapon was the assassin. With no physical evidence of another (or if it pleases you... alternative) assassination weapon: It's probable that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

It "follows" that the shots attributed to the sole assassin were possible... because we have no physical evidence of any other weapon (or bullets fired from it).

Reconstructions by experts who do not believe Oswald is the assassin are suspect because "failure" can be intentionally achieved to suit a predetermined "negative" outcome.

Alternately, reconstructions by a believer in Oswald's guilt entails striving for "success". A deliberately sub-standard performance will prove them wrong.

Of course, it's possible that a believer in Oswald's innocence might pose as an impartial "seeker of truth" and influence the reconstruction accordingly.

As you know John: To a believer in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy... anything is possible.

[Bill Chapman]

Even if it could be proven that Oswald owned the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle (and it cannot) and if it could be proven that the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano rifle was the assassination weapon (and it cannot), it doesn't just follow that it was Oswald who fired it.

Well, certainly not to those who want to isolate and separate single pieces from the whole, and then announce that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.

[Ross Lidell]

Well, certainly not to those who want to isolate and separate single pieces from the whole, and then announce that all the evidence is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.

That's the raison d'etre of Conspiracy Theorists.

You wouldn't want them sitting on a jury when you were the defendant accused of a serious crime.

Hmmm... then again you would!!!