Why the first shot missed

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Marine infantry training would make a little interference from a box seem like nothing to get worried about.

What a comparison, now I understand how you come up with these ideas that fall out of the range of possibility.

[Ray Mitcham]

In my opinion Ray, while attempting to be clever and despite his conspiracy beliefs, managed to stupidly quote James Jarman in the belief he was quoting a three shot testimony, not realizing he was really endorsing SBT with a second shot as the headshot as described by Jarman. Also in my opinion, Ray seemingly lacks the intestinal fortitude to admit his mistake. Also in my opinion, I doubt Ray has the where with all to realize there really was just two shots.

Ignoring the childish insults, Jack, you don't seem to understand that  Jarman didn't see any of the shots hit the President (His sworn testimony to the W.C.) how could he have seen which hit the President?

His sworn testimony.

"Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.
Mr. McCLOY You have had military experience, haven't you?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you can recognize rifle shots when you hear them?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - But you didn't hear, you didn't catch the sound of the bolt moving?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Did you see the President actually hit by the bullets?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir. I couldn't say that I saw him actually hit, but after the second shot, I presumed that he was, because I had my eye on his car from the time it came down Houston until the time it started toward the freeway underpass.
Mr. McCLOY - You saw him crumple, you saw him fall, did you? Mr. BALL - How long was it before you ran down to the west end, from the time of the shots until you ran down to the west end, about how much time do you think it was?
Mr. BALL - After the third shot was fired I would say it was about a minute.


So Jack's "evidence" that Jarman' second shot was to the head is wrong.  Nowhere does Jarman say the second shot hit the President in the head. He is reported to have said (note NOT actually said)
"he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. [Throat shot?] After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."

Nowhere does he say he saw a shot hit the President in the head.

So the third shot he heard was the head shot.

So he heard three shots. Q.E.D.

[Charles Collins]

What a comparison, now I understand how you come up with these ideas that fall out of the range of possibility.

If you ever wake up to reality, you might understand that they are not only feasible but probable. And that the point I am making is that marines are trained not to loose their composure, and to focus on hitting their targets even under intense attack from the enemy. Therefore a little bump into an unarmed small box with a rifle is not likely to deter one from hitting the target on the next two shots.

[Bill Chapman]

That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.

Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".

Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it

I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target. 
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.

Wouldn't that be something?

Tell us where in the shooting sequence, other than just after the last shot, Brennan said or even implied that the shooter didn't seem to be in a hurry. Trying to misplace Brennan's words in an attempt to rescue your own quickly-sinking delusions is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Richard Smith]

I think it's hilarious but tragic that people are still trying to "shoehorn" LHO into that window with malicious intent. There are a lot of potential assassins I'd be concerned about, but "Lee Hardly" is not one of them, especially with his unimpressive shooting record and that embarrassing rifle. Virtually every bit of evidence in this case has been tampered with or has a dubious chain of possession. Autopsy witnesses reported bullets and fragments recovered that were never introduced as evidence.

So you are arguing that Oswald was a lousy shot with a bad rifle to demonstrate his innocence in a thread discussing why the first shot missed!  LOL.  I guess the assassin hired by your fantasy conspirators wasn't such a great shot either.

 No one will ever know exactly why Oswald's first shot missed.  Perhaps he tunnel visioned his first shot into the path of the tree because he was looking through the scope.  His target moved under cover of the tree when he fired the shot causing either a deflection or miss because he lost sight of JFK.

[Charles Collins]

That is interesting, especially assuming 3 shots came from that window. So explain at what point did this shooter start this tracking motion with this rifle.

Do you even understand what you are saying? When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film,
I mean, we already have Brennan, if you believe his description of a shooter as "did not seem to be in any hurry".

Why not just say this shooter in the middle of this tracking motion decided to stop and light a cigarette for the hell of it

I get it, the rifle collided with the cardboard, the shot is fired, but the bullet hits the pavement and not the intended target. 
Then after this apparent blunder, it is followed by a couple of perfect recovery shots.

Wouldn't that be something?

When considering this tracking motion idea of yours it would have to be visible on the Hugh's film

Thank you for pointing this out. It gave me incentive to investigate this further. I believe that it is visible on the Hugh's film.

A view of the sniper's window from Hughes' position as generated by my mock-up should give us an idea of what it should look like just before Z133:




Here is a stabilized clip of the end of the segment of Hughe's film that includes the beginning of the tracking motion (but still is still about two seconds before when I believe the first shot was made):



P.S. This clip from the Hughes film is one that I downloaded a number of years ago. I don't remember who created it. But it was probably someone from this forum. So if you recognize it, please let me know who created it so I can properly credit them.

Here is an enlarged portion of the last frame in that clip:



The rifle can be seen in approximately the same position and at a similar angle to what is seen in the mock-up image. The sniper's left arm appears in the lower right corner of the window, similar to what is seen in the mock-up image.

If you use a program to view the Hughes film clip (like irfanview) which allows you to enlarge the clip and watch the motion at the same time, you can see that the rifle isn't there at the beginning of the clip but appears near the end. This is the sniper tracking the target.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

If you ever wake up to reality, you might understand that they are not only feasible but probable. And that the point I am making is that marines are trained not to loose their composure, and to focus on hitting their targets even under intense attack from the enemy. Therefore a little bump into an unarmed small box with a rifle is not likely to deter one from hitting the target on the next two shots.

Reality? The problem is your idea is not probable and it is not even possible based on the information you presented. I did not know the assassin had an enemy I thought the assassin had a target. Did JFK have a weapon? Was the assassin more of a sniper or a soldier in combat. You could take you general ideas of marine and say it had to be Oswald.

[John Mytton]

Reality? The problem is your idea is not probable and it is not even possible based on the information you presented. I did not know the assassin had an enemy I thought the assassin had a target. Did JFK have a weapon? Was the assassin more of a sniper or a soldier in combat. You could take you general ideas of marine and say it had to be Oswald.

Did JFK have a weapon?

Maybe? But what we do know is that the SS agents were packing some serious weaponry.



JohnM