The Other Single Bullet Theory

[Tom Graves]

Oswald most likely was looking through the scope as he began to try to track the moving target.

Why in the world would former sharpshooter Oswald have been looking through the crummy, dimly lit scope?

If he had "tracked" JFK's head through his scope as the limo was coming straight towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot.

[Charles Collins]

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot.

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

A scope typically provides a faster and more accurate way to shoot.


If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

I said nothing about tracking while the limo was still on Houston Street. This all begins as the limo was turning onto Elm Street.


However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

First of all, a 4X power scope is not too powerful to use at a distance of about 100-feet. You can ask many dead squirrels about that. Also, it really doesn't matter whether he was using the scope or the fixed iron sights. The point is that he would have been trying to acquire the target in his sights and not paying attention to the box on the window sill.


If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot

No it doesn't. LHO apparently bought the scope as an extra cost item to use for a shot at General Walker. That shot at Walker was about the same distance (100-feet) as an early shot at the limo. LHO apparently spent time shooting the rifle/scope combo prior to the Walker event. I believe he would have zeroed the scope for the same distance he planned to shoot at. So it seems to me that using the scope makes the most sense.

Here's a clip that shows what I think may have happened. It starts with a plan to begin shooting as soon as the limo clears out from under the tree. It takes a second or two or three to raise the rifle, acquire the target in the sights, and pull the trigger. So I think that he would have begun that process while the limo was directly below him and once he acquired the target he would track it as best he could while it was passing under the tree (from his point of view). He probably didn't have a chance to practice this except in his mind. So, when first lowering the rifle towards the limo, if it suddenly and unexpectedly hit the box on the window sill (as depicted in the clip) and his finger was on the trigger, an inadvertent (accidental discharge) shot could have occurred. That is what I believe happened.

[Tom Graves]

Why in the world would he have been looking through the scope?

A scope typically provides a faster and more accurate way to shoot.


If he had "tracked" JFK's head with his scope as the limo was coming towards him on Houston Street, he not only would have been spotted by the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car, but would have shot at JFK's huge, looming, enticing-through-the-scope head.

I said nothing about tracking while the limo was still on Houston Street. This all begins as the limo was turning onto Elm Street.


However, if he *was* "tacking" JFK's ever-more enticing head through his scope while the limo was still on Houston Street and 1) the Secret Service agents *somehow* didn't notice him and 2) he *somehow* resisted the temptation squeeze off a round at JFK's large, looming, ever-enticing, impossible-to-miss head, when the limo started turning onto Elm Street, he may have tried to switch over to his much-more-practical-at-that-close-range iron sights and . . . gasp . . . . lost his bead on JFK's head in the process.

First of all, a 4X power scope is not too powerful to use at a distance of about 100-feet. You can ask many dead squirrels about that. Also, it really doesn't matter whether he was using the scope or the fixed iron sights. The point is that he would have been trying to acquire the target in his sights and not paying attention to the box on the window sill.


If he *didn't* switch over to his iron sights when the limo turned onto Elm Street but stupidly continued "tracking" JFK's head through his scope, that in-and-of-itself could explain how he managed to miss everything with his first shot

No it doesn't. LHO apparently bought the scope as an extra cost item to use for a shot at General Walker. That shot at Walker was about the same distance (100-feet) as an early shot at the limo. LHO apparently spent time shooting the rifle/scope combo prior to the Walker event. I believe he would have zeroed the scope for the same distance he planned to shoot at. So it seems to me that using the scope makes the most sense.

Here's a clip that shows what I think may have happened. It starts with a plan to begin shooting as soon as the limo clears out from under the tree. It takes a second or two or three to raise the rifle, acquire the target in the sights, and pull the trigger. So I think that he would have begun that process while the limo was directly below him and once he acquired the target he would track it as best he could while it was passing under the tree (from his point of view). He probably didn't have a chance to practice this except in his mind. So, when first lowering the rifle towards the limo, if it suddenly and unexpectedly hit the box on the window sill (as depicted in the clip) and his finger was on the trigger, an inadvertent (accidental discharge) shot could have occurred. That is what I believe happened.

Not wanting to have to wade through the whole thread to see if you've already answered this question, please tell me what your first shot equates to Zapruder-frame-wise.

Thanks.

[Charles Collins]

Not wanting to have to wade through the whole thread to see if you've already answered this question, please tell me what your first shot equates to Zapruder-frame-wise.

Thanks.

If you read the report you might remember this image showing a clear path for the bullet/fragment(s) at about Z133. This appears to be true for a period of time from shortly before to shortly after Z133.

[Tom Graves]

If you read the report you might remember this image showing a clear path for the bullet/fragment(s) at about Z133. This appears to be true for a period of time from shortly before to shortly after Z133.

No need to be snide, Chuck.

Why don't you like Roselle's and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124"?

[Charles Collins]

No need to be snide, Chuck.

Why don't you like Roselle's and Scearce's hypothetical "Z-124"?

I wasn’t being snide. Whatever gave you that idea?

I didn’t say anything about the Roselle and Scearce idea. Why do you think I don’t like it?

[Andrew Mason]

A total velocity of 1500 fps with a downward component of 0.035 X 1500 = 52.5 fps. In 0.2419 seconds it would drop approximately the required 12.7-feet. The vertical component of the drag force would be acting to slow this descent while gravity would be acting to speed it up. Since the vertical component of the drag force would be stronger than gravity, the net effect would be deceleration of the descent. But, the point I have been making is that since there is a vertical velocity to begin with, the time required to accelerate from zero velocity (of a dropped bullet) is eliminated. Here is an image that shows the dropped bullet’s much smaller velocity and distance at the same 0.2419 seconds elapsed time. That is the running start I have been describing.

The running start is what reduces the fall due to gravity from 13.7 feet to 5 feet (or 4).  You can't count it twice.  The rate of vertical descent increases that vertical descent speed (v₀sin(2)) by gt where g=32 ft/sec² and t=time in seconds. The time, t, is horizontal distance/horizontal speed.

[Tom Graves]

Reported Post Removed By Admin

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.html