Buell Wesley Frazier

[Tom Sorensen]

I was referring you to the evidence. So you doubt Marina?

What evidence? Both locations are based on witness testimony. Why is the rifle range the best place? What does it matter which environment he chose. He was simply trying out a new to him firearm.

The rifle range provides a safe, controlled environment to evaluate a rifle's accuracy using the open sights. A scope can be dialed in. I'm surprised this has to be explained to you.

No place is any safer than the person with the firearm. Showing up at a rifle range on foot with a gun in a blanket would have been interesting and they like to sell the ammo. Love Field would have worked better, but both have their advantages, but you pay at a rifle range. LHO did not possess a spotting scope.

My statement was qualified. I didn't say it was junk per se.

Qualified how? Junk per se?

Junk per se means what?

So now the rifle was not “junk”, as a side note, Italy at one time used them in Nato competition team shooting contests. Hardly junk in any qualification. 

Familiarize?

Yes- Remember he sat on the porch working the rifle bolt and aiming it. This is the best method to teach trigger control, trigger creep, sight picture, rifle balance, etc. Firing the rifle is the final step, not a must to practicing.

Marine practice by dryfiring. Major Anderson elaborated on it.

You keep asking questions I've already answered; your reading comprehension problem is obvious. Dry firing will not reveal anything about the capabilities of the rifle and/or scope, but it would have told him the Carcano was prone to jamming.

[Jack Nessan]

When did I say they that?
You nutters have nothing but straw

I stand corrected.

Capasse: "Do you have evidence Marines handed out 20 year old carcanos?
where?"

Clearly only you know what this gibberish means. I guessed wrong.

[Jack Nessan]

You keep asking questions I've already answered; your reading comprehension problem is obvious. Dry firing will not reveal anything about the capabilities of the rifle and/or scope, but it would have told him the Carcano was prone to jamming.

You have not addressed a single issue. Not have answered a single question. Just endless prattling on.

TM  [b"]Dry firing reveals “jamming.”[/b]

Isn’t “jamming” a live round issue? You dryfire with live rounds? There is a question you have not answered. Now translate that into safety on the rifle range while you are at it. Maybe throw in a little explanation of “junk per se” too. It would be nice if you could clear up how you qualified your statements on quality of carcano’s also.

 

 

 

[Tom Sorensen]

You have not addressed a single issue. Not have answered a single question. Just endless prattling on.

TM  [b"]Dry firing reveals “jamming.”[/b]

Isn’t “jamming” a live round issue? You dryfire with live rounds? There is a question you have not answered. Now translate that into safety on the rifle range while you are at it. Maybe throw in a little explanation of “junk per se” too. It would be nice if you could clear up how you qualified your statements on quality of carcano’s also.

Dry firing is irrelevant when discussing the scope. Richard's insane claim involved the scope. Next time, avoid commenting on threads you don't understand. Correct, problems related to jamming would not be revealed by dry firing. Repeatedly dry firing the Carcano would have been of no value to Oswald. Marina came up with the dry firing nonsense.

[Jack Nessan]

Dry firing is irrelevant when discussing the scope. Richard's insane claim involved the scope. Next time, avoid commenting on threads you don't understand. Correct, problems related to jamming would not be revealed by dry firing. Repeatedly dry firing the Carcano would have been of no value to Oswald. Marina came up with the dry firing nonsense.

The scope? This is new. No, our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.

Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.

[Tom Sorensen]

The scope? This is new. No, our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.

Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.

The scope? This is new.

No, see below.

As per Richard's suggestion earlier;

Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.



You mean on the fly or otherwise?

No,

Yes, see above.

our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.

As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility, so you can keep discussing Love Field and dry firing until the sun burns out. Good luck.

Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.

Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.

[Jack Nessan]

The scope? This is new.

No, see below.

No,

Yes, see above.

our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.

As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility, so you can keep discussing Love Field and dry firing until the sun burns out. Good luck.

Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.

Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.

You obviously have fond memories of your discussion with Richard about the scope. Good for you, but in reality, it is nothing more than trying to change course on the discussion which shows you have absolutely no idea about what you are posting.
I will make it very clear-- I had not part of your scope nonsense. Could not have cared less.

TS   “As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility”

Marina does not have credibility? Seriously two guys with zero credibility themselves claim someone else has no credibility. How does that work? How many times do you get caught piling on the BS yourself before you become an authority on when someone has no credibility?

Better yet in your mind what makes you an authority on it.


“Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.”

Not according to you. Talk about no credibility you posted earlier the marines were supposed to supply him with a carcano and teach him so he could learn.

Now here you are presenting yourself as an authority on it on how much LHO knew and why the Marine Corp and the rest of the world is all wrong about dryfiring.

[Tom Graves]

Marina does not have credibility? Seriously two guys with zero credibility themselves claim someone else has no credibility. How does that work?

A KGB true defector (Major) Pyotr Deriabin (1954), wrote a day or two after the assassination that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry her Handsome Prince Charming and leave The Worker's Paradise with him.