POV: A sniper’s view of an early shot

[Charles Collins]

Charles, do something like this:

Thanks, I gave it a go and it seems to work.

[Charles Collins]

What makes you think Oswald used the scope for the first shot?

LHO was frugal (to put it mildly). He spent his money on the scope. Therefore, if he didn’t intend to use it, I think that he wouldn’t have spent the money on it. Also, a scope allows quicker shot alignment and more accuracy. It is possible to still use the open sights with the scope mounted the way it was mounted. But even if he chose to do that, it still would be very unlikely to fire an intentional early shot using the open sights and miss the entire limo.

[Tom Mahon]

LHO was frugal (to put it mildly). He spent his money on the scope. Therefore, if he didn’t intend to use it, I think that he wouldn’t have spent the money on it. Also, a scope allows quicker shot alignment and more accuracy. It is possible to still use the open sights with the scope mounted the way it was mounted. But even if he chose to do that, it still would be very unlikely to fire an intentional early shot using the open sights and miss the entire limo.

It makes no sense that he would have used it for his first, very near, shot.

But maybe he did, and maybe his doing so -- in conjunction with his standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing the steeply-downward-angled shot -- caused him to miss everything.

[Royell Storing]

  What makes "No Sense" is taking the time to construct a sniper's nest with situated boxes permitting seated position firing, and then choosing to stand up in front of a 1/2 open window and firing almost Straight Down at a POTUS.  No Sense what-so-ever.

[Charles Collins]

It makes no sense that he would have used it for his first, very near, shot.

But maybe he did, and maybe his doing so -- in conjunction with his standing and awkwardly leaning forward while firing the steeply-downward-angled shot -- caused him to miss everything.

LHO most likely purchased the scope for use at the Walker residence in April ‘63. That shot was approximately 100-feet. According to my calculations the distance of a first shot at ~Z133 was about 104’. A shot at about “Z124” would have been only a very slightly bit shorter, maybe about 100’. For what it’s worth, I use a scope for shooting airguns in my basement shooting range. It is only 10-meters (33-feet). This setup and scope usage is very common among airgun enthusiasts. So what is your reasoning for saying it makes no sense?

Also, it is not necessary to stand awkwardly or lean forward to shoot out the window at either the Z133 or Z124 target. My experiment and photos show that to be true. Even if it was an awkward shot, he shouldn’t have missed the entire limo if it was an intentional shot without interference from the window box or the metal conduit. He was an ex-marine after all.

[Charles Collins]

  What makes "No Sense" is taking the time to construct a sniper's nest with situated boxes permitting seated position firing, and then choosing to stand up in front of a 1/2 open window and firing almost Straight Down at a POTUS.  No Sense what-so-ever.

It only makes sense for attempting to support Max Holland’s idea about the shot hitting the traffic light support.

[Tom Mahon]

It only makes sense for attempting to support Max Holland’s idea about the shot hitting the traffic light support.

Do you think that's what Roselle and Scearce were trying to do in their study?

[Charles Collins]

Do you think that's what Roselle and Scearce were trying to do in their study?

They are promoting their own ideas. I think they probably just went along with Max Holland’s idea. Whether or not they fully considered the idea of a sniper standing up to shoot is something someone should ask them. If I remember correctly, Brian has posted here on this forum before.