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

[Jerry Freeman]

Many earwitnesses were wrong. There wasn't a shot 1 second before the head shot. There were only three shots. Connally was hit by the second shot. Zapruder shows him reacting to being hit almost immediately after emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

  Heard the shots he did...bullets did he see...the autopsy he performed. May the farce be with us.

[Matt Grantham]

The limo was the intended target? Why?
Oh, wait... the 'patsy' thing, right?

 So if I understand your disturbingly inane point, by considering a reenactment of whether an individual "could" get off the shots in the manner the Warren commission speculates did occur we are succumbing to an admission that that is what happened?. Say it ain't so Joe Have you considered donating your brain to science?

[John Iacoletti]

J.Edna Hoover? Who was she? FBI Expert Robert Frazier testified under oath the he was able to match the fragments to the rifle.

Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mind when they didn’t line up under the microscope. 

Too bad those “limo fragments” were “found and removed” from the crime scene before Frazier got there and have no documented chain of possession.

CE399 was found on Connally's stretcher. The earliest statements made by those who handled the stretcher confirm it.

Confirm to whom? The guy who found it said it was on the other stretcher.

I don't need to prove when the cartridges were fired. They were found in the sniper's nest and were fired in the same rifle as the two bullets that struck Kennedy.

Wait, what? How do you know those bullets struck Kennedy?

[John Iacoletti]

Many earwitnesses were wrong. There wasn't a shot 1 second before the head shot. There were only three shots. Connally was hit by the second shot. Zapruder shows him reacting to being hit almost immediately after emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Zapruder shows whatever the beholder wants it to show.

[Bill Chapman]

Zapruder shows whatever the beholder wants it to show.

And you are one of those doing said beholding

[Bill Chapman]

So if I understand your disturbingly inane point, by considering a reenactment of whether an individual "could" get off the shots in the manner the Warren commission speculates did occur we are succumbing to an admission that that is what happened?. Say it ain't so Joe Have you considered donating your brain to science?

Sticks and stones..

[John Mytton]

Yeah, by lining up the marks in his mind when they didn’t line up under the microscope. 

The testimony from Frazier clears up your "brief summation", btw, the evidence still exists and can be checked for verification by your expert.

Mr. EISENBERG - I think I put it down here. That is right, 567.
Mr. FRAZIER - Approximately two-thirds of a groove impression from each of the two bullets is shown, with a very small portion at the bottom of the photograph of a land impression. The individual microscopic characteristics which were used in the comparison, and on which the identification was made, were photographed and are as shown in this photograph. However, this photograph did not enter into the actual conclusion reached. The microscopic characteristics appear as parallel horizontal lines extending from the test bullet on the left to the bullet Exhibit 567 on the right.
The marks used in the identification are grooves, paired lines, a series of ridges up and down the hairline on one bullet, and they also appear on the opposite side of the photograph.
In one particular instance it will be seen that at the edge of the land impression at the lower left portion of the photograph is a very definite paired ridge which appears on the right side of the photograph but in a slightly different area.
The reason for the difference in the location of this paired line on the exhibit, Exhibit 567, can be explained by the fact that this is a jacket fragment, that it was torn from the rest of the bullet, and is greatly mutilated, distorted, and bears only a very few areas suitable for identification purposes because of that fact.
The distortion has foreshortened the area of the jacket fragment, 567, to the extent that over this approximately one-tenth-of-an-inch surface represented in this photograph, these lines do not coincide exactly on the lower part of the photograph when they are lined up on the upper part of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG - When you say they don't correspond exactly, do you mean at all, or do you mean they aren't--
Mr. FRAZIER - I mean that the marks are present, but they do not line up at the hairline.
Mr. EISENBERG - But in your opinion the marks on the left are the same as the marks on the right?
Mr. FRAZIER - The marks on the left are the same marks as those on the right. In the examination this is easily determined by rotating the two bullets. As you rotate them, you can see these characteristic patterns line up.
Then you will notice these do not line up. But as you rotate one bullet, you can follow the individual marks mentally and see that the same pattern is present and you can line them up in your mind, even though they are not actually physically lined up in the microscope.
Mr. McCLOY - They are not lined up in the microscope because there is mutilation on the fragment?
Mr. EISENBERG - Yes, sir.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

"precisely aimed"

A misaligned scope, sticky bolt, iron sights zeroed in for 200 yards, and a 2 stage hair trigger.

It couldn't be precisely aimed.

Firing that rifle twice in 1.6 seconds, if it didn't jam, would have given a shooter from 6th floor SE corner TSBD as much chance of hitting JFK in the neck and/or head as if they had taken their time firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom.

1.) On a rifle zeroed for 200 yds, the difference between a 200-yard shot and one at 88 yards is about two inches.
2.) Two-stage triggers are almost ubiquitous on bolt-action military rifles. The rifle competition crowd have been increasingly using them in the past 15 years. A two-stage trigger simply isn't the impediment you seem to believe it to be.
3.) A hair trigger would actually make it easier to shoot accurately.
4.) The effort required to work the bolt doesn't affect the accuracy of the rifle itself.   

Simmons was saying that CE139 was set up differently from what his shooters were used to, and his guys had to adjust to it. Even then, all of them were able to perform to the WC's 2-out-of-3 hits, and at least one was able to achieve 3 hits in less than 5.6 seconds.  Each design has it's idiosyncrasies, and any shooter used to one type is liable to face a learning curve if they pick up another and try to shoot it. The only thing you had right is that the scope sucked. Read Frazier's account of it -- it lost zero and they had to shoot several rounds out of it to get the reticle to stabilize itself enough so that it could be reliably zeroed. The problem for you is that the iron sights were perfectly usable, and a scope that bad would easily found out as a lemon by anyone who shot it.