Running Deer Shooting at the 1908 Olympics.

[Joe Elliott]

Clearly you were a good honest scout....Brian.     Honesty is something that is sorely lacking in these discussions  about the murder of President Kennedy.

And I wanted to tell you that you're quite right in saying:....  "I think accurately hitting a non-stationary target with any appreciable motion would be hard to do without decent knowledge of the target's speed and quite a bit of practice".

And  you probably know that Lee Oswald had no practice at all...   Even in the Marine Corp ( 4 years earlier)  he never was taught how to hit a moving target....

Oswald had no practice at hitting a moving target. As is true of all Marines who go through basic training. Clearly, it is not practical to train thousands of recruits at once how to do so. Even so, Marines have proven effective at hitting moving targets. During World War II, Marines, just to survive, had to hit charging Japanese soldiers. Both when the enemy was charging directly toward them, giving a target with an angular velocity of zero degrees per second, and when firing at enemies that are charging a neighboring section of the line, giving a target with a non-zero angular velocity. Clearly becoming very good at hitting stationary targets allows one to be at least fairly good at hitting a moving target. Good enough to survive World War II combat.

And I am certain that Gunnery Drill Sergeants would have given Oswald and the other recruits advice on how to hit a moving target, to lead the target by an appropriate amount, although it was not practicable to shoot at real moving targets during training.

Again, according to my calculations, the angular velocity of a moving target was:

3.2 degrees per second, for the Olympic 1908 Running Deer competition.
4.8 degrees per second, for Oswald’s first shot at z-153, which missed the limousine.
1.9 degrees per second, for Oswald’s second shot at z-222, which wounded both Kennedy and Connally.
0.58 degrees per second, for Oswald’s third shot at z-312, which killed Kennedy.

Yes, when Oswald attempted a shot that was more difficult than the shots the best shooters in the world could make in 1908, he failed. As one would expect. But at a target with a much lower angular velocity, 1.9 degrees per second and 0.58 degrees per second, he made accurate shots. I know of no shooting tests that show someone with Marine training cannot be expected to make these shots. Although if anyone has more data on this, I would like to hear about it.

And I neglected to mention that there was a tree in full foliage between the sixth floor window and the moving Lincoln. What do you believe the odds are for hitting a target with deadly accuracy if the moving target  is obscured by a tree?

While the HSCA favored a shot attempted while the tree blocked the shot at z-186, this position was never embraced by the LN community. I don’t think you can name a single LNer on this forum who believes in this scenario. The current LN position, which has been held for over thirty years, is that none of the shots were attempted while the tree blocked the line of sight. The first shot, at z-153 was attempted before the tree blocked the line of sight. The second and third shots were made afterwards. JFK cleared the tree totally by around z-206. Oswald would have had a clear view for 0.9 seconds before the shot at z-222.

[Charles Collins]

Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.

[John Iacoletti]

Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.

That would be the not so rare cottontail rabbit in 1959.

[Joe Elliott]

Anyone who thinks LHO had no practice hitting moving targets doesn’t know about LHO being the only hunter to kill a small animal (I forget the name of the animal, but it was a rare one) while hunting on his brother’s in-law’s farm. I can’t say for certain that the animal was moving in a certain direction at any certain speed. Only that small animals in the wild don’t normally stay stationary for very long.

I had heard that. Still, he only had very limited experience at shooting at moving targets, as opposed to stationary targets. Like most Marines.

But how much experience does one need with moving targets with a target within 100 yards and moving at only 0.58 or even 1.9 degrees per second? I don't know but I would guess maybe none.

I would expect that, so long as one can continue to track the target, a Marine trained shooter can still accurately aim at a moving target. Only when the angular velocity reaches a certain threshold would the aiming suddenly become wildly off. If you can't aim any shot would most likely miss by a lot, without a lot of luck.

This guess of mine would explain why thousands of Marines, with no more training at moving targets than Oswald, were able to survive and successfully shoot charging Japanese soldiers in World War II.

[Charles Collins]

I had heard that. Still, he only had very limited experience at shooting at moving targets, as opposed to stationary targets. Like most Marines.

But how much experience does one need with moving targets with a target within 100 yards and moving at only 0.58 or even 1.9 degrees per second? I don't know but I would guess maybe none.

I would expect that, so long as one can continue to track the target, a Marine trained shooter can still accurately aim at a moving target. Only when the angular velocity reaches a certain threshold would the aiming suddenly become wildly off. If you can't aim any shot would most likely miss by a lot, without a lot of luck.

This guess of mine would explain why thousands of Marines, with no more training at moving targets than Oswald, were able to survive and successfully shoot charging Japanese soldiers in World War II.

Also, I think that a possibility of shooting (moving) skeet while in Minsk exists. I have read that he was involved with a club or group that involved shotguns. But I don’t remember any details (if they were given).

[Charles Collins]

That would be the not so rare cottontail rabbit in 1959.

I haven't heard anything about a cottontail rabbit. I do remember seeing jackrabbits when I was in Texas. Here's what I was referring to:







Now, we can just wait until some clown tries to say the photo of LHO with a rifle is faked....   

[Joe Elliott]

The Ringtail "Cat".

A great website is at:

https://www.onezoom.org

There one can learn that the Ringtail is part of a group of animals, 8 species altogether, of Ringtail, Coati and Raccoon. They all share a common ancestor of (roughly) 14 million years ago.

If ever you are kidnapped by an Alien and told you will be released if you can tell how long ago did humans share a common ancestor with some random mammal, give an answer of 85 million years ago. Off course, the answer depends on which mammal you are talking about. For Primates, Rodents and Rabbits, the answer will be somewhat less. For Elephants, Kangaroos, somewhat more. But an answer of 85 million years (roughly) will give you the correct answer for Dogs, Cats, Horses, Cows, Bats, Whales, etc. and even for Deer (running or not), Raccoons and Ringtails. Just over 40 per cent of all Mammal species alive today.

Needless to say, that obscure ancestor of 85 million years ago was wildly successful, in a Darwinian sense. It is the ancestor of 4,642 species our of the 5,046 species of all mammals alive today, over 90 % of all mammals. Pretty good for a single obscure specie of small Mammal using all it's wits to avoid Dinosaurs, and larger mammals. There were, no doubt, many species of Mammals alive at that time. But only one was destined to have over 90 % of the mammals alive today descended from it.

To what can we give credit for our "half" of the Boreoeutheria, the Euarchontoglires, having about 60 per cent of these Boreoeutheria species? To the Rodents who have 2,096 species, out of the 2,575 species of the Euarchontoglires group. Well done lads.

By the way, Mammal groups tend to be associated with some isolated continent that existed in the past. The "Boroeutheria" (Northern True Beasts) originated in the combined Europe-Asia-North America (excluding India) continent that was isolated from the other continents at the time.

The Atlantogenata (Atlantic) group of 99 species with a common ancestor of 89.1 million years ago containing Elephants and Sloths is associated with the combined South America-Africa continent.

And the Afrotheria (Africa) group of 69 species with a common ancestor of 84.2 million years ago containing Elephants and Aarkvarks is associated with Africa which became isolated from all other continents at that time.

These continental separations were not absolute. By some minor (or major) miracle, a small group of monkeys must of rafted across the young and much narrower Atlantic ocean to become the ancestors of the New World Monkeys of South and Central America. And Bats are very good at reaching continents of some distance apart. But an ocean barrier is still a pretty serious barrier. Early Primates existed in many parts of the world. They may have originated in North America. But they died out everywhere except Africa. Why? Probably because Rodents outcompeted and wiped out all Primates in the entire World, everywhere except in Africa, which (I assume) early Primates managed to reach (by a natural wooden raft?) but no Rodent managed to do so. So our existent today depended on Africa being isolated from the other continents for tens of millions of years. And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa. And no Rodents making a lucky ocean crossing like the New World Monkeys did. To survive Darwinian competition for tens of millions of years, a group needs to be very good and get some luck along the way.

Note, for some who think they may detect a math error, 51 per cent of Mammals share a closer common ancestor to us than 85 million years ago. 41 per cent share a common ancestor with us of 85 million years ago. And 8 per cent share a common ancestor of more than 85 million years ago, perhaps as far back as 180 million years ago. Hence, in answering the Aliens question, 85 million years is only going to be the correct answer in 41 per cent of the cases, not 92 per cent of the time. But this answer still give you your best chance. Good luck.

These answers are primarily based on DNA comparisons, which provides something of a clock to tell all distantly related two species are. The more different, the farther back in time the common ancestor lived. Certainly not as accurate as measuring the age of rocks through comparing radioactive isotopes but it does give a rough measure.

In any case, don't forget to check out onezoom.org and make your own discoveries.

[Charles Collins]

The Ringtail "Cat".

A great website is at:

https://www.onezoom.org

There one can learn that the Ringtail is part of a group of animals, 8 species altogether, of Ringtail, Coati and Raccoon. They all share a common ancestor of (roughly) 14 million years ago.

If ever you are kidnapped by an Alien and told you will be released if you can tell how long ago did humans share a common ancestor with some random mammal, give an answer of 85 million years ago. Off course, the answer depends on which mammal you are talking about. For Primates, Rodents and Rabbits, the answer will be somewhat less. For Elephants, Kangaroos, somewhat more. But an answer of 85 million years (roughly) will give you the correct answer for Dogs, Cats, Horses, Cows, Bats, Whales, etc. and even for Deer (running or not), Raccoons and Ringtails. Just over 40 per cent of all Mammal species alive today.

Needless to say, that obscure ancestor of 85 million years ago was wildly successful, in a Darwinian sense. It is the ancestor of 4,642 species our of the 5,046 species of all mammals alive today, over 90 % of all mammals. Pretty good for a single obscure specie of small Mammal using all it's wits to avoid Dinosaurs, and larger mammals. There were, no doubt, many species of Mammals alive at that time. But only one was destined to have over 90 % of the mammals alive today descended from it.

To what can we give credit for our "half" of the Boreoeutheria, the Euarchontoglires, having about 60 per cent of these Boreoeutheria species? To the Rodents who have 2,096 species, out of the 2,575 species of the Euarchontoglires group. Well done lads.

By the way, Mammal groups tend to be associated with some isolated continent that existed in the past. The "Boroeutheria" (Northern True Beasts) originated in the combined Europe-Asia-North America (excluding India) continent that was isolated from the other continents at the time.

The Atlantogenata (Atlantic) group of 99 species with a common ancestor of 89.1 million years ago containing Elephants and Sloths is associated with the combined South America-Africa continent.

And the Afrotheria (Africa) group of 69 species with a common ancestor of 84.2 million years ago containing Elephants and Aarkvarks is associated with Africa which became isolated from all other continents at that time.

These continental separations were not absolute. By some minor (or major) miracle, a small group of monkeys must of rafted across the young and much narrower Atlantic ocean to become the ancestors of the New World Monkeys of South and Central America. And Bats are very good at reaching continents of some distance apart. But an ocean barrier is still a pretty serious barrier. Early Primates existed in many parts of the world. They may have originated in North America. But they died out everywhere except Africa. Why? Probably because Rodents outcompeted and wiped out all Primates in the entire World, everywhere except in Africa, which (I assume) early Primates managed to reach (by a natural wooden raft?) but no Rodent managed to do so. So our existent today depended on Africa being isolated from the other continents for tens of millions of years. And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa. And no Rodents making a lucky ocean crossing like the New World Monkeys did. To survive Darwinian competition for tens of millions of years, a group needs to be very good and get some luck along the way.

Note, for some who think they may detect a math error, 51 per cent of Mammals share a closer common ancestor to us than 85 million years ago. 41 per cent share a common ancestor with us of 85 million years ago. And 8 per cent share a common ancestor of more than 85 million years ago, perhaps as far back as 180 million years ago. Hence, in answering the Aliens question, 85 million years is only going to be the correct answer in 41 per cent of the cases, not 92 per cent of the time. But this answer still give you your best chance. Good luck.

These answers are primarily based on DNA comparisons, which provides something of a clock to tell all distantly related two species are. The more different, the farther back in time the common ancestor lived. Certainly not as accurate as measuring the age of rocks through comparing radioactive isotopes but it does give a rough measure.

In any case, don't forget to check out onezoom.org and make your own discoveries.

And a lucky Primate rafting adventure to Africa.


It was only supposed to be a 3-hour tour, a 3-hour tour….