Can anybody provide proof of a successful reenactment of Oswald's feat?

[Bill Chapman]

The clock starts at the first shot leaving only 2 shots to perform in whatever time one is claiming. Some say 8.3 seconds. HSCA claims testers twice achieved 2 shots in 1.6 sec, although only the first shot could be precisely aimed.

The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

[Richard Smith]

Oh Yeah, that's right..... Lee simply had to poke the carcano out of a window and say BBBoom---BANG- BANG and kill president Kennedy and wound Connelly, and James Teague. 

How did your fantasy conspirators do it?  That is the way a gun works.  I'm not so sure what is so complex about Oswald - who was trained to shoot by the US Marines - firing a rifle and killing someone.  A fairly simple feat for an individual with Oswald's training.  Charles Whitman hit human targets at much longer distances than Oswald with similar training.  Nothing you have suggested precludes Oswald from having committed the assassination of JFK.  Very weak sauce.

[John Tonkovich]

Z207 to z350. 143 frames. 7.9 seconds. Plenty of time for 3 shots and hits.
Interesting.  8.2 seconds from HCSA. Kind of makes you think.

[Walt Cakebread]

The clock starts at the first shot leaving only 2 shots to perform in whatever time one is claiming. Some say 8.3 seconds. HSCA claims testers twice achieved 2 shots in 1.6 sec, although only the first shot could be precisely aimed.

The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

The above statement is true..... But a key word is omitted..... "Accurately"

The Carcano was as fast or faster to fire accurately than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

Now the addition of "fire accurately" to the statement includes a very important part of the sentence and it renders the sentence as posted to be very deceptive and total rubbish.

The video is also deceptive in that it portrays the man to be firing the carcano rapidly...... We have no idea of the film speed and we sure as hell don't know the range of the target ( probably stationary) and if the man hit the target.  So basically the video proves NOTHING with regard to the imaginary feat that Lee Oswald was imagined to have preformed.


OTOH....  The posting of the video does prove one thing.... The person who posted it is a desperate liar.

[Bill Chapman]

The above statement is true..... But a key word is omitted..... "Accurately"

The Carcano was as fast or faster to fire accurately than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

Now the addition of "fire accurately" to the statement includes a very important part of the sentence and it renders the sentence as posted to be very deceptive and total rubbish.

The video is also deceptive in that it portrays the man to be firing the carcano rapidly...... We have no idea of the film speed and we sure as hell don't know the range of the target ( probably stationary) and if the man hit the target.  So basically the video proves NOTHING with regard to the imaginary feat that Lee Oswald was imagined to have preformed.


OTOH....  The posting of the video does prove one thing.... The person who posted it is a desperate liar.

 

Not every Carcano review is about the assassination, Bubba.

[Walt Cakebread]

Not every Carcano review is about the assassination, Bubba.

What was your reason for posting the video, if not a feeble attempt to make the theory proposed by LBJ's cover up committee seem to be totally feasible??     It's possible to prove just about anything if you omit vital factors.   

Some folks may not notice that you are a deceptive liar who omits vital factors.......   

[Walt Cakebread]

The clock starts at the first shot leaving only 2 shots to perform in whatever time one is claiming. Some say 8.3 seconds. HSCA claims testers twice achieved 2 shots in 1.6 sec, although only the first shot could be precisely aimed.

The Carcano was as fast or faster to operate than any other bolt-action rifle of the era:

If you observe the spent shells being ejected at the 4.41 point of the video you may conclude that the spent shells on the floor beneath the SE corner window were NOT ejected at the time of the murder of JFK.    It should be obvious that the spent shells are flung with considerable force up and away from the rifle and they certainly wouldn't have landed in a tight group just a couple of feet from the alleged position of the rifle.

[Jerry Freeman]

Before the sun had set on 11-22-1963, they had their man.
He was a lone gunman. No need to look at conspiracy. Further investigation...un-necessary.
Oswald was already convicted of the assassination long before all of this re-enactment/analysis/ stuff ever transpired.
The Warren Commission just needed to glaze the cake that had been baked that afternoon.
So I resent being called a 'conspiracy theorist' [just because I don't believe the government's Report]...when in fact the government case against Oswald was itself based upon a theory. 
There was a massive cover-up and concealment of anything that would or might exonerate Oswald.
That just simply is no theory.

Now me...if I wanted to shoot someone riding in that open car with that rifle...from that window, and make sure I finished him, I would have plugged him at the turn onto Elm St...once between the eyes and then down right through the head for good measure.
So...c'mon   

Add to that a rifle that was supposedly loaded with only four bullets.
Along comes the 'he did it alone anyway' group that cannot explain away the logic of head on shooting where you can actually see the results of your effort.
Instead they claim lucky shots or show off shots and any other drivel that insults the intelligence.

The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton of evidence. That Conspiracy buffs like yourself refuse to accept that evidence is fine but don't expect reasonable people to take you seriously.

The government case against Oswald was itself based upon a ton load of lies. That skeptics like myself refuse to accept that crap is prudent but don't expect so called reasonable people to take me seriously.
First...prove you are reasonable.