CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[John Mytton]

He also didn't mention that in 17 of the 37 attempts, the shooters were unable to get off three shots because of difficulty operating the bolt.

Did they use C2766?

JohnM

[Gary Craig]

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to
shoot in the range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
Mr. SIMMONS. Obviously considerable experience would have to be in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I
think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the
target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say proficiency with this weapon, Mr. Simmons, could you go into detail as to what you mean--do
you mean accuracy with this weapon, or familiarity with the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. I mean familiarity basically with two things. One is the action of the bolt itself, and the force required
to open it; and two, the action of the trigger, which is a two-stage trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger
would best be achieved with some firing.

~snip~

Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the
recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil
of the weapon.


Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. But there are two stages to the trigger. Our riflemen were all used to a trigger with a constant pull.
When the slack was taken up, then they expected the round to fire. But actually when the slack is taken up, you tend to
have a hair trigger here, which requires a bit of getting used to.
Mr. McCLOY. This does not have a hair trigger after the slack is taken up?
Mr. SIMMONS. This tends to have the hair trigger as soon as you move it after the slack is taken up. You achieve or you
feel greater resistance to the movement of the trigger, and then ordinarily you would expect the weapon to have fired,
and in this case then as you move it to overcome that, it fires immediately. And our firers were moving the shoulder into
the weapon.

~snip~

[John Iacoletti]

Sorry, Norman who was directly underneath was still closer, try again.

a) how would you know who was closer to to the actual source of the shots?
b) how much closer than the guy kneeling (happy?) right next to him?

[Richard Smith]

 

 Big Mac logic:

Oswald worked on the 6th floor ------you got that right
His prints were on a box where he works-----that is normal but you are surprised
BRW was thereafter Oswald but before the assassination and did not see anyone.  Richard where was Oswald when BRW is eating when BRW is leaving? Is Oswald in a box or on the roof?


The Big Mac logic allows a person to make crazy assumptions, therefore, it is not a guide for proving something.

Richard, here's an example of how your Big Mac logic can give people like yourself a way to use fantasy to justify what you can not prove.

 "Hey guys, maybe Oswald was invisible when BRW was eating his lunch because when you are invisible no one can see you and that would be a good explanation for why BRW was unable to see Oswald"

Laughable.  If it was "normal" for employee prints to be on the SN boxes, then where are the prints of other employees?  So unlucky for Oswald to be implicated over and over again by bad luck!   You also forgot a couple of things Hamburglar.  Oswald's prints are on the long bag as well.  And his rifle is found on that floor.  And bullet casings fired from his rifle are found by the window from which witnesses saw a rifle (e.g. Brennan and Jackson).   And Oswald fled the scene not even bothering to ask what was going on after a cop pulled a gun on him.  And he got his pistol and shot a police officer.  Lied about owning a rifle and carrying any bag along the one described by Frazier.  And on and on.  It's a slam dunk.

[John Mytton]

a) how would you know who was closer to to the actual source of the shots?
b) how much closer than the guy kneeling (happy?) right next to him?

a) how would you know who was closer to to the actual source of the shots?

Seriously? Above Norman there is one open window, do the math.

b) how much closer than the guy kneeling (happy?) right next to him?

I didn't say "equal", you did.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Seriously? Above Norman there is one open window, do the math.

So?

I didn't say "equal", you did.

No, you said "equal" and I didn't.  Oops!

[John Mytton]

No, you said "equal" and I didn't.  Oops!

Oops, indeed! LOL!

I guess Jarman and Williams just didn't have "hearing ability the equal of Norman's".

JohnM

[Richard Smith]

As discussed many times before, by the form of mislogic the brothers contrarian apply to this case, no one saw Booth shoot Lincoln.  They merely heard a loud sound that they "thought" might be a gun shot, and looked in that direction to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln.  They then "assumed" he had shot him when Lincoln slumped to the ground with a bullet in his head.  For all we know Booth merely picked the gun up off the ground after Lincoln committed suicide.  He worked there after all!  Just bad luck for him. It is complete nonsense.  No one has to see a murderer pull the trigger to know that he did so.  Many murders are, for understandable reasons from the perspective of the murderer, not committed in the presence of witnesses.  And yet they are solved.  To suggest that because no one saw Oswald pull the trigger that there is somehow doubt that he did so or that shots were fired from that window when a variety of witnesses place a shooter there and the physical evidence discovered on that floor verifies it is outlandish kookery.  Even the most desperate defense attorney who knows he has a stone cold guilty client would blush at that bogus defense.  And, of course, there is no attempt to explain the noises above Norman's head if he didn't hear shots.  The best we are left to ponder by implication is that for some inexplicable reason some unknown person stuck a "pipe" like object out the window at the moment of the assassination and presumably beat a base drum before escaping unnoticed.  And a variety of other unknown persons pulled off the assassination and planted all the evidence to frame Oswald.  It is truly wacky, tin foil hat nonsense.