JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on January 11, 2025, 06:46:18 PM
-
I recently performed an exercise for my own benefit using my sniper’s nest model and a 1/24 scale model of the JFK Limo. According to my calculations, the 1/24 scale model limo is slightly too small but within a reasonable size for this application. Therefore the appearance of the limo in my photos will be slightly too small compared to if this were to be done with a full size model limo in Dealey Plaza and the TSBD. I thought I would share some of this because some questions have been recently raised regarding an early shot.
Here is a few of the photos showing how I set up the camera & rifle & scope, etc in the sniper’s nest model. The tape on the floor represents some of the various indicated locations of the shots (Z133, Z160, Z224, & Z313).
First is the rifle and scope. Magnification is set at 4X, the same as the scope found in the TSBD. My phone camera is set up on an adapter to the rear of the scope. I removed one of the boxes in order to set up the mini tripod. The other boxes are in the correct positions.
(https://i.vgy.me/1owdP9.jpg)
The next photo shows the tape on the floor representing the targets that relate to the locations described above. The earliest shot location (Z133) cannot be seen from the seated position. The next photo shows the earliest shot location from a standing position. This is standing straight up, no leaning required.
(https://i.vgy.me/C3FGhz.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/SEPjkp.jpg)
This will be continued in a second post.
-
Continuing the first post, I will show you what the view through the scope looks like. First is an image I found on the net that appears to be a reconstruction photo taken in Dealey Plaza at the Z224 location. I am showing this for reference purposes. Note the relative size of the limo to the full round image that can be seen in the scope.
(https://i.vgy.me/2iAROT.jpg)
Next is a photo through the 4X scope of my model showing the limo at the Z224 location to compare with the above photo. Compare the sizes of the limos relative to the full circle images of the scopes. I think they are reasonably close.
(https://i.vgy.me/NDpSxh.jpg)
Next is a photo through the 4X scope of my model showing the limo at the Z313 location.
(https://i.vgy.me/hWnanC.jpg)
Next is a photo through the 4X scope of my model showing the limo at the Z160 location.
(https://i.vgy.me/rzO5hn.jpg)
Next is a photo through the 4X scope of my model showing the limo at the Z133 location.
(https://i.vgy.me/6rAG3P.jpg)
Notice how the limo model appears larger and larger as the distances get shorter and shorter. As the distance doubles the image size is cut in half (inversely proportional).
Here is a photo showing the distances to the targets from my eye when sitting or standing (as needed for the Z133 location) as measured with a laser. Please feel free to check my math regarding the 1/24th scale being slightly too small. I am human and do make mistakes.
(https://i.vgy.me/vEnjmj.jpg)
-
If you have looked at the first two posts and digested what is shown, I have a question for you. How do you miss the entire limo on the early shot at Z133 or even earlier, as has been suggested. Even an awkward offhand standing position and a moving target, it doesn’t seem possible to me that one could miss the entire limo which basically fills up the entire scope and more. I suggest the most logical reason to miss the entire limo would be an inadvertent early shot.
-
If you have looked at the first two posts and digested what is shown, I have a question for you. How do you miss the entire limo on the early shot at Z133 or even earlier, as has been suggested. Even an awkward offhand standing position and a moving target, it doesn’t seem possible to me that one could miss the entire limo which basically fills up the entire scope and more. I suggest the most logical reason to miss the entire limo would be an inadvertent early shot.
To make your model better, drill a hole in the floor between the jump seats, as per Oswald's first shot at pseudo Z105.
-
If you have looked at the first two posts and digested what is shown, I have a question for you. How do you miss the entire limo on the early shot at Z133 or even earlier, as has been suggested. Even an awkward offhand standing position and a moving target, it doesn’t seem possible to me that one could miss the entire limo which basically fills up the entire scope and more. I suggest the most logical reason to miss the entire limo would be an inadvertent early shot.
Why are your images so large?
-
If you have looked at the first two posts and digested what is shown, I have a question for you. How do you miss the entire limo on the early shot at Z133 or even earlier, as has been suggested. Even an awkward offhand standing position and a moving target, it doesn’t seem possible to me that one could miss the entire limo which basically fills up the entire scope and more. I suggest the most logical reason to miss the entire limo would be an inadvertent early shot.
What makes you think Oswald used the scope for the first shot?
-
Why are your images so large?
It is all relative to the resolution of your screen vs the resolution of my phone camera and screen. Sadly this web forum site design doesn’t automatically scale images. A lot of them do. There is a way to add code to the post that will scale them down. But I don’t remember the code, I am not a computer geek. Maybe Duncan will see fit to give us an easy way to help this situation out (if we are fortunate).
Edit: I reduced the size of the photos thanks to the suggestion by John Iacoletti. I probably do not have the aspect ratios exactly right. But I gave it the old college try…
-
Charles, do something like this:
(https://i.vgy.me/v5UoqB.png)
-
Charles, do something like this:
(https://i.vgy.me/v5UoqB.png)
Thanks, I gave it a go and it seems to work.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
You don't think their study was valid?
-
You don't think their study was valid?
If this is the same study I read a few years ago, I have no problem with their timing. But I believe the timing could be explained with an inadvertent shot from a seated position easier than trying to support a standing shot.
-
Tom and Charles, I stop by the site infrequently but was looking for some material related to the third shot and saw this thread on the first shot.
Tom, I certainly agree with your comments related to the JCSA article, and would just add that subsequent data found after the journal submission additionally supports its conclusions. I also applaud Charles for your experimental setup, I really like what you’ve done trying to get a firsthand understanding on details of how the first shot was taken.
Since that journal analysis only focuses on the timing of the first shot, and given a shot taken from the sniper’s nest, it does not provide information on where the bullet went or how the rifle was being held or sight method that was used. That is something I have wondered about for quite a while, so am still open to understanding more about that. I do wonder if the iron sights or scope was used and I agree with Tom that the gun was probably purchased with a scope with its earlier intended use on Walker in mind.
Without physical evidence on bullet disposition, I’ll just provide my current best guess as to where the bullet went and why.
I have always suspected that since Oswald was a capable shooter, he did not miss horribly badly (like shooting wildly up in the air) when he was likely aiming to hit the president in the head. So, I have assumed the JFK miss (and concurrent limo miss) was not great and was probably a minimum limo miss. A minimum limo miss would be found in the pavement just ahead of where JFK was seated and almost damn near underneath the limo. The distance from JFK’s head perpendicular to that line of bullet travel would only be about 36 inches, which is a way to measure of the amount of the miss vs target.
Looking at the graph in the upper left frame on the photo below, a 36 inch miss seems to be consistent with a miss that was caused, at least in part, to the motion of the target, specifically the angular velocity of the target as it passed. Estimates on the magnitude of the shots miss from target (in inches) vs the angular velocity of the target (deg/sec) at each shot time from the sniper’s nest were plotted, and look nearly linear. If this were the case it would be consistent with Oswald missing his target by an amount proportional to the angular velocity of the target at the time of triggering for all shots. For the first shot it would be a minimum limo miss at ~36 inches (white line on upper right picture representing z124).
The bottom two snapshots are frames from the FBI and Secret Service reenactments of the shooting and the frame grabs are taken at about the z124 position like the upper picture, but they used scopes here. A white line is added from the president’s head to where their scopes were centered/pointed at for that time and shows what their temporary JFK miss would have been for their reenactment at that trigger time. The other line added is the minimum limo miss line proposed for Oswald. They are all slightly different in position, but note the distance (miss) from center of target is similar. Their aiming off-set was nearly identical to what Oswald’s would have been. Granted they had cameras attached to their set-up and Oswald didn’t, but they did have a familiarity with the exact movement of the “limo” as it passed by, where as it was a first-off and rushed event for Oswald. At that point both of these reenactments around a ~z124 positioning tended to have a similar minimum miss distance as that proposed for Oswald based on angular velocity.
Again, this is only my best estimation of what transpired during the shooting, but to me seems consistent with the data around the time of z124. I would be interested if any of this seems consistent with other reenactments or modeling on the positioning and handling of the rifle.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d/1Wow_oOxtKUMf8hjKb2eI2TSFLa3nolh5)
-
I believe the timing could be explained with an inadvertent shot from a seated position easier than trying to support a standing shot.
An inadvertent shot at approximately Z-160?
-
It’s doesn’t look to me like the shooter could have just leaned over from his seated position on the box by the pipe and get the rifle in that angle necessary for shooting an early shot at Z133-Z145 without the shooter having to stand up.
If it’s probable that Bonnie Ray Williams did not leave that window until about 12:24 then the shooter would have about 1 minute to have arranged those 2 boxes against the wall and on the window ledge.
So that might explain the seemingly odd unlevel position of the window ledge box,
The shooter might NOT have used the window ledge box for a platform, rather it was perhaps intended more as a shade device and or cover.
There is a photo of Oswald as a Marine firing while in a kneeling position so if Oswald ( or other shooter) was in this position would the rifle be high enough to have ejected the shells over the boxes?
-
Tom and Charles, I stop by the site infrequently but was looking for some material related to the third shot and saw this thread on the first shot.
Tom, I certainly agree with your comments related to the JCSA article, and would just add that subsequent data found after the journal submission additionally supports its conclusions. I also applaud Charles for your experimental setup, I really like what you’ve done trying to get a firsthand understanding on details of how the first shot was taken.
Since that journal analysis only focuses on the timing of the first shot, and given a shot taken from the sniper’s nest, it does not provide information on where the bullet went or how the rifle was being held or sight method that was used. That is something I have wondered about for quite a while, so am still open to understanding more about that. I do wonder if the iron sights or scope was used and I agree with Tom that the gun was probably purchased with a scope with its earlier intended use on Walker in mind.
Without physical evidence on bullet disposition, I’ll just provide my current best guess as to where the bullet went and why.
I have always suspected that since Oswald was a capable shooter, he did not miss horribly badly (like shooting wildly up in the air) when he was likely aiming to hit the president in the head. So, I have assumed the JFK miss (and concurrent limo miss) was not great and was probably a minimum limo miss. A minimum limo miss would be found in the pavement just ahead of where JFK was seated and almost damn near underneath the limo. The distance from JFK’s head perpendicular to that line of bullet travel would only be about 36 inches, which is a way to measure of the amount of the miss vs target.
Looking at the graph in the upper left frame on the photo below, a 36 inch miss seems to be consistent with a miss that was caused, at least in part, to the motion of the target, specifically the angular velocity of the target as it passed. Estimates on the magnitude of the shots miss from target (in inches) vs the angular velocity of the target (deg/sec) at each shot time from the sniper’s nest were plotted, and look nearly linear. If this were the case it would be consistent with Oswald missing his target by an amount proportional to the angular velocity of the target at the time of triggering for all shots. For the first shot it would be a minimum limo miss at ~36 inches (white line on upper right picture representing z124).
The bottom two snapshots are frames from the FBI and Secret Service reenactments of the shooting and the frame grabs are taken at about the z124 position like the upper picture, but they used scopes here. A white line is added from the president’s head to where their scopes were centered/pointed at for that time and shows what their temporary JFK miss would have been for their reenactment at that trigger time. The other line added is the minimum limo miss line proposed for Oswald. They are all slightly different in position, but note the distance (miss) from center of target is similar. Their aiming off-set was nearly identical to what Oswald’s would have been. Granted they had cameras attached to their set-up and Oswald didn’t, but they did have a familiarity with the exact movement of the “limo” as it passed by, where as it was a first-off and rushed event for Oswald. At that point both of these reenactments around a ~z124 positioning tended to have a similar minimum miss distance as that proposed for Oswald based on angular velocity.
Again, this is only my best estimation of what transpired during the shooting, but to me seems consistent with the data around the time of z124. I would be interested if any of this seems consistent with other reenactments or modeling on the positioning and handling of the rifle.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d/1Wow_oOxtKUMf8hjKb2eI2TSFLa3nolh5)
Thanks for the reply Brian. I had to read your post a couple of times in order to understand what you are saying. Of course it also helps to have a fresh mind early in the day vs a tired mind late in the evening. I will have more to say later about precision and accuracy in shooting. First I need to find some information I read a while back.
Thanks for your compliments regarding the model sniper’s nest, etc. I have had a computer 3D model for years and that is where I first noticed the potential interferences from the window box and metal conduit. However, being able to sit, kneel, and stand in the model myself has been invaluable and an eye-opener. I highly recommend trying this for anyone who might be interested enough.
-
An inadvertent shot at approximately Z-160?
There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests an early shot around the Z160 timeframe. I first read about it in Posner’s book “Case Closed.” If I remember correctly, a group of experts associated with the HSCA came up with this idea. And I believe that Bugliosi included it in his book “Reclaiming History.” What a lot of people might not realize is that there is definitely potential interference from the window box for a shot at ~Z160. So, to answer your question, yes I think it is possible.
-
It’s doesn’t look to me like the shooter could have just leaned over from his seated position on the box by the pipe and get the rifle in that angle necessary for shooting an early shot at Z133-Z145 without the shooter having to stand up.
If it’s probable that Bonnie Ray Williams did not leave that window until about 12:24 then the shooter would have about 1 minute to have arranged those 2 boxes against the wall and on the window ledge.
So that might explain the seemingly odd unlevel position of the window ledge box,
The shooter might NOT have used the window ledge box for a platform, rather it was perhaps intended more as a shade device and or cover.
There is a photo of Oswald as a Marine firing while in a kneeling position so if Oswald ( or other shooter) was in this position would the rifle be high enough to have ejected the shells over the boxes?
There is a photo of Oswald as a Marine firing while in a kneeling position so if Oswald ( or other shooter) was in this position would the rifle be high enough to have ejected the shells over the boxes?
If you are asking about the boxes at the window, yes. A kneeling position gets my eyes and shoulders a very slight bit higher than a seated position on the seat box. But not high enough to see the Z133 target (which should help to answer your first question. A standing position is needed to be able to shoot at the Z133 target.
-
No problem regarding my post Charles, I posted this in the evening so I may have had some mental fog when posting which made it a little unclear. Sometimes my mental fog is all day though :).
As I mentioned, the shooting of the first shot has interested me but I haven’t really looked at all the associated dynamics. I have thought that missing the limo was at least partly related to hitting a moving target. In this case the target center is the center of the Presidents head. I do think it’s probably not all that simple though, and variables that you are looking at would also contribute, like anxiety of starting to do what he planned, rushing to get off an extra early shot with JFK so close, the body position you describe and such as bumping against a pipe or wall or the positioning of the window etc. I suspect it could be a combination of variables and not only center of target angular velocity.
I’m curious on how far open the window was, do you have an approximate estimate on that?
Thanks
-
No problem regarding my post Charles, I posted this in the evening so I may have had some mental fog when posting which made it a little unclear. Sometimes my mental fog is all day though :).
As I mentioned, the shooting of the first shot has interested me but I haven’t really looked at all the associated dynamics. I have thought that missing the limo was at least partly related to hitting a moving target. In this case the target center is the center of the Presidents head. I do think it’s probably not all that simple though, and variables that you are looking at would also contribute, like anxiety of starting to do what he planned, rushing to get off an extra early shot with JFK so close, the body position you describe and such as bumping against a pipe or wall or the positioning of the window etc. I suspect it could be a combination of variables and not only center of target angular velocity.
I’m curious on how far open the window was, do you have an approximate estimate on that?
Thanks
The following photo shows that the model has a window open slightly over 19”. I have also tried to show how a shot at about Z160 has potential interference from the window box. The blue tape just above the box represents the Z160 target. Although, when sitting up as straight as possible, my eye level has a line of sight to the target, the scope is mounted about 1-1/2” above the bore of the barrel. Therefore, the barrel hits the top edge of the box (as the rifle is lowered during the aiming process) before the Z160 target appears in the line of sight through the scope. I hope that makes sense to you. These are the types of things that can only be answered while sitting in the nest. The Z133 target is hidden well below the top edge of that box and requires a standing position in order to have a clear shot at it.
Edit: oops, here is the photo I meant to include:
(https://i.vgy.me/cMKO6o.jpg)
-
There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests an early shot around the Z160 timeframe. I first read about it in Posner’s book “Case Closed.” If I remember correctly, a group of experts associated with the HSCA came up with this idea. And I believe that Bugliosi included it in his book “Reclaiming History.” What a lot of people might not realize is that there is definitely potential interference from the window box for a shot at ~Z160. So, to answer your question, yes I think it is possible.
I agree that the common consensus since the HSCA chimed in has been a z157-z160 timing. When I was looing at this awhile back, what I found agreed with what you stated, that the HSCA was basically the genesis of the z160 ish first shot timing estimate. What concerned me when looking into this was the basis they used to define their estimate.
The HSCA based their estimate for the first shot on the acoustic evidence, jiggle analysis, and Connally’s rapid head rotation right, which began at z162 (basically assuming a reflex startle reaction timing).
It’s hard to prove a negative, but some extended jiggle analysis suggests that the Zapruder z157-z158 film blur was not related to his involuntary jiggle, but rather a voluntary camera panning effect.
And neither Connally's rapid z162 left to right head rotation (nor his preceding rapid z150 right to left head rotation) were startle reactions.
What may be the most concerning is the HSCA also used the acoustic data to justify their z157- z160 timing as the acoustic data was used as an anchor justifying their jiggle analysis and Connally reactions conclusions.
The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data to jiggle analysis:
“The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gun fire at about z160.”
The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data as the logical reason for Connally’s recollections at that time:
“According to the more logical synchronization, the first shot would have occurred at approximately Zapruder frame 160. This would also be consistent with the testimony of Governor Connally, who stated that he heard the first shot and began to turn in response to it.” “His reactions, as shown in Zapruder frames 162-167, reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right.”
I don’t believe in the accuracy the acoustic data, so I think it’s another bad reason used to assign a first shot to z157-z160.
-
Thanks for the perspective, I think I see what you are saying. I will have to look out a window to get the effect, but this sounds like good insight.
Thanks again.
-
Thanks for the perspective, I think I see what you are saying. I will have to look out a window to get the effect, but this sounds like good insight.
Thanks again.
I apologize for my failure to include the photo. You replied before I realized this, so please take a look at it in the earlier post. Thanks.
-
I agree that the common consensus since the HSCA chimed in has been a z157-z160 timing. When I was looing at this awhile back, what I found agreed with what you stated, that the HSCA was basically the genesis of the z160 ish first shot timing estimate. What concerned me when looking into this was the basis they used to define their estimate.
The HSCA based their estimate for the first shot on the acoustic evidence, jiggle analysis, and Connally’s rapid head rotation right, which began at z162 (basically assuming a reflex startle reaction timing).
It’s hard to prove a negative, but some extended jiggle analysis suggests that the Zapruder z157-z158 film blur was not related to his involuntary jiggle, but rather a voluntary camera panning effect.
And neither Connally's rapid z162 left to right head rotation (nor his preceding rapid z150 right to left head rotation) were startle reactions.
What may be the most concerning is the HSCA also used the acoustic data to justify their z157- z160 timing as the acoustic data was used as an anchor justifying their jiggle analysis and Connally reactions conclusions.
The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data to jiggle analysis:
“The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gun fire at about z160.”
The HSCA on synchronizing the acoustic data as the logical reason for Connally’s recollections at that time:
“According to the more logical synchronization, the first shot would have occurred at approximately Zapruder frame 160. This would also be consistent with the testimony of Governor Connally, who stated that he heard the first shot and began to turn in response to it.” “His reactions, as shown in Zapruder frames 162-167, reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right.”
I don’t believe in the accuracy the acoustic data, so I think it’s another bad reason used to assign a first shot to z157-z160.
You have studied this much closer than I have. I agree the acoustical data should be tossed out. If I remember correctly, the acoustical data came at the 11th hour. Did the photographic panel also form their conclusion at the 11th hour?
-
You have studied this much closer than I have. I agree the acoustical data should be tossed out. If I remember correctly, the acoustical data came at the 11th hour. Did the photographic panel also form their conclusion at the 11th hour?
The HSCA quotes I used came from the HSCA Final Assassinations Report. I assume they sat down and discussed all the data they had for the final report, so it could be their hypothesis on Connally reactions and film blur results were gathered before the acoustic data was finalized. They way the wrote it up it sounded like they used the acoustic data to help justify the conclusions on the other data. If all they had was their opinions on Connally's reactions at z162 and film blur observations around z157, and no acoustic data, I assume their conclusions would still have been essentially the same.
And yes, that picture you added of your snipers window really helps. That looks good and helps me visualize what you are saying.
Thanks
-
The HSCA quotes I used came from the HSCA Final Assassinations Report. I assume they sat down and discussed all the data they had for the final report, so it could be their hypothesis on Connally reactions and film blur results were gathered before the acoustic data was finalized. They way the wrote it up it sounded like they used the acoustic data to help justify the conclusions on the other data. If all they had was their opinions on Connally's reactions at z162 and film blur observations around z157, and no acoustic data, I assume their conclusions would still have been essentially the same.
And yes, that picture you added of your snipers window really helps. That looks good and helps me visualize what you are saying.
Thanks
If you do try looking out a typical window, please keep in mind that the windows in the TSBD were only about 11” above the finished floor. That’s significantly lower than what is typical in most of today’s buildings and houses.
-
The most obvious explanation for Oswald missing the entire limo for an early shot is that he telescoped the target through the scope into the tree. When he fires the first shot, the limo disappears into the tree.