Three Problems with the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:

1. The marksmanship feat alleged by the lone-gunman theory was far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, to perform.

-- Oswald’s Marine rifle scores show that, at best, he was a mediocre marksman, and keep in mind he made those scores using a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to work) and while firing at stationary, ground-level targets, after hours of practice.
-- Most of Oswald’s fellow Marines who were asked about his shooting skills said he was a poor shot.
-- Members of Oswald’s gun club in Minsk, Russia, said he was a poor shot.
-- David Ferrie said Oswald was a terrible shot.
-- One of the most renowned snipers in U.S. Marine Corps history, Carlos Hathcock, tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting feat but failed to do so. After repeatedly trying and failing to duplicate Oswald’s supposed performance, Hathcock said he did not believe the WC’s shooting scenario.
-- The Warren Commission (WC) hired three Master-rated riflemen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. They used the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly used. They missed the head and neck area of the target board silhouettes 18 out of 18 times when they used the scope, and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sights. In other words, they missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times.  Several of their misses were far apart on the boards. Some of their shots missed the silhouettes entirely.

It is revealing that these experienced, Master-rated riflemen shot so poorly even though they were allowed to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though two of them took longer than 6 seconds to fire, even though they were only firing from 30 feet up, and even though they were shooting at stationary--yes, stationary--target boards. Oswald would have been firing from 60 feet up and at a moving target.

2. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

-- We now know that the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek was subjected to three tests, including a highly sensitive test done by the Atomic Energy Commission at its Oak Ridge facility. When the DPD lab test found no traces of the nitrates barium and antimony in the cast, the cast was subjected to more sophisticated testing, including neutron activation analysis (NAA), by the FBI lab (outsourced) and by the Atomic Energy Commission. Those tests, like the DPD test, found no traces of barium or antimony in the cheek cast.
-- The Mannlicher-Carcano would have plastered Oswald’s right cheek with invisible nitrate deposits, and those deposits would have been detectable by NAA even if Oswald had washed his face before the paraffin cast was made. Dr. Gerald McKnight:

NAA is so highly sensitive that it can pick up trace elements such as barium and antimony in parts per billion and trillion. Even if Oswald had used that brief stopover at the rooming house to scrub his skin to remove surface residues, the scientific certainty is that there would still remain enough atoms of barium and antimony deep in his facial pores, especially considering the heavy blowback from this particular type of rifle, to be detectable. Once the hot paraffin is applied to the cheek or hands, the heat will extract any residual nitrates buried in the pores. Short of Oswald spending the afternoon in a Russian steam bath sweating out his pores, the negative results of the paraffin cast of his right cheek argue strongly for his exculpation [being proved innocent]. (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, 2015, p. 260)

-- We now know from internal FBI and WC memos that the FBI and the WC were deeply troubled by the negative results from the paraffin cast of the cheek, especially when the NAA found no nitrates in the cheek cast.
-- We also now know from internal FBI memos that the FBI was advised that reenactments done at the Oak Ridge facility established that every time the Mannlicher-Carcano was fired, paraffin casts of the shooter’s right cheek tested positive for barium and antimony (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).
-- The internal memos make it all the more revealing, and damning, that the WC falsely claimed that “expert testimony” said the paraffin test was “unreliable” (WCR, p. 180). The WC staffers who wrote the report may not have known about the Oak Ridge reenactments, but we know the FBI was aware of them (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).
-- The WC could not accept the positive results from the paraffin casts of Oswald’s hands because it would have been forced to also accept the far more meaningful negative results from the cheek cast. WC staffers might have realized, and the FBI certainly knew, that the paraffin test on Oswald’s hands was of minimal evidentiary value because the presence of nitrates on hands can be innocently explained if the person has handled a number of common substances such as soap, sugar, rust, cloth, and, most important, printed materials such as books, and because earlier in the day Oswald had helped lay new flooring on the sixth floor, had moved a large number of book cartons, and had moved a large amount of school supplies. 

3. The lone-gunman theory requires the single-bullet theory (SBT). If the SBT is wrong, then at least four shots were fired at JFK and at least two gunmen were involved. The SBT is one of the most ridiculous, dubious theories ever put forth in a criminal investigation.

-- No one has yet been able to explain how any non-deformed bullet could have made the irregular H-shaped tears in the front of Connally’s shirt, but the SBT says that CE 399, a nearly pristine bullet, somehow made those tears.
-- We now know from a number of released documents that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. We also know that even the second version of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The autopsy report that was submitted to the WC was written after Oswald was killed and after the government knew there would be no trial and thus no defense examination of the autopsy materials and no cross-examination of the autopsy doctors. Then and only then did the autopsy doctors claim that the throat wound was the back wound’s exit point.
-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.
-- CE 399, the SBT’s bullet that supposedly caused all of JFK’s and Connally’s non-fatal wounds, is virtually pristine. Its lands and grooves are even intact, and it is missing virtually no substance. However, every single bullet from the WC’s wound ballistics tests that struck one or more bones emerged with considerably more damage and deformity than CE 399 exhibits.
-- According to the SBT, CE 399 somehow nicked JFK’s tie knot when it allegedly exited his throat, but the nick on the knot is visibly inward from the edge of the knot.
-- CE 399 supposedly also made the irregular slits in the front of JFK’s shirt, but even a cursory examination of the slits shows that if a bullet had made them, that bullet would have had to go through the middle part of the tie knot—not dead center but at some point between the edges of the knot. Photos and video of JFK taken 1-5 minutes before he was shot show his tie knot in its normal position in the center of the collar. The actions of waving his hand and turning his head would not have caused his tie knot to shift markedly to the right or left.
-- Spectrographic and NAA testing of the shirt slits found no metallic residues on the front shirt slits, whereas such residues were found on the holes in the back of JFK’s shirt and coat. This finding agrees with the evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that the throat wound was an entrance wound, and that the slits were made by Parkland Hospital nurses as they hurried cut away JFK’s clothing.
-- In 2007, scientists at Texas A&M University reviewed the NAA research done by the WC and the HSCA and found that research to be markedly flawed, and they argued that the NAA results might actually indicate that more than one gunman was involved:

Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is A Second Shooter Possible?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf

[Bill Chapman]

BAD THINGS COME IN THREES FOR THE CONSPIRACY CROWD

1) Alek Hidell (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of armament procurement
2) O.H. Lee (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of safe-house procurement
3) Dirty Harvey (AKA Lee Harvey Oswald) was in charge of making Lee Harvey Oswald a somebody

--------
BONUS
--------
BOOM>Click-Click
BOOM>Click-Click
BOOM>Click-Click

[Jerry Organ]

I'll try a few at a time.

There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:

1. The marksmanship feat alleged by the lone-gunman theory was far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, to perform.

-- Oswald’s Marine rifle scores show that, at best, he was a mediocre marksman, and keep in mind he made those scores using a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to work) and while firing at stationary, ground-level targets, after hours of practice.

Oswald wasn't a model soldier. How do you know if he put in his best effort?

-- One of the most renowned snipers in U.S. Marine Corps history, Carlos Hathcock, tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting feat but failed to do so. After repeatedly trying and failing to duplicate Oswald’s supposed performance, Hathcock said he did not believe the WC’s shooting scenario.

    “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed
     the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the
     obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t
     duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it,
     how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later
     only qualified 'marksman' do it?”

Pretty vague. Was Hathcock trying to duplicate exact placement of the shots as occurred? That's harder than Oswald's randomly choosing when to fire and having a large overall target of head and shoulder to aim for, with no per-determined point on the target that he has to hit.

The Hathcock quote is from Craig Roberts who said he couldn't see how Oswald did it "after staring at the large oak tree overspreading much of Elm Street", not realizing the tree had grown since 1963.

-- No one has yet been able to explain how any non-deformed bullet could have made the irregular H-shaped tears in the front of Connally’s shirt, but the SBT says that CE 399, a nearly pristine bullet, somehow made those tears.

Not a valid vimeo URL

The vertical tears are rips with no material missing. The pluck-forward of material from the bullet would cause the vertical tears.

-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.

The throat wound when first observed was measured? Or just a few quick visual estimations?



Isn't 3mm kind of small to be assumed to be a bullet hole?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Not a valid vimeo URL

The vertical tears are rips with no material missing. The pluck-forward of material from the bullet would cause the vertical tears.

I already dealt with this silly GIF, but, as usual, you repost your claims without mentioning the counter-arguments, much less the refutations. The tears are not H-shaped, for starters, as I already noted.

Sure, argue with Hathcock, who is only considered the greatest Marine sniper of the 20th century. Yeah, what did he know?  The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat either, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up and could take as long as they wanted to aim and fire their first shot.

Oh, Oswald didn't try when he fired at the range?  Really?  Then he was no serious marksman.  When I was in the Army, even guys who were normally goof-offs and loafers tried their hardest at the range because marksmanship was considered a manly trait and because no one wanted to take the ribbing and teasing if they shot poorly.

[Bill Chapman]

I already dealt with this silly GIF, but, as usual, you repost your claims without mentioning the counter-arguments, much less the refutations. The tears are not H-shaped, for starters, as I already noted.

Sure, argue with Hathcock, who is only considered the greatest Marine sniper of the 20th century. Yeah, what did he know?  The three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's test could not duplicate Oswald's alleged feat either, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up and could take as long as they wanted to aim and fire their first shot.

Oh, Oswald didn't try when he fired at the range?  Really?  Then he was no serious marksman.  When I was in the Army, even guys who were normally goof-offs and loafers tried their hardest at the range because marksmanship was considered a manly trait and because no one wanted to take the ribbing and teasing if they shot poorly.

'Then he was no serious marksman'

Yet a marksman nevertheless
And what level did you attain 

[Michael T. Griffith]

'Then he was no serious marksman'

Yet a marksman nevertheless.

How silly can you get?  I guess if you want to define "marksman" as someone whose best day at the range was to barely qualify in the second of three categories, using a semi-automatic rifle against ground-level pop-up targets, after hours of practice--then, yeah, you can call him a "marksman."

Why do you suppose that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged feat, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor "sniper's nest," and were firing at stationary target boards?
 

And what level did you attain?

I qualified at all three levels: marksman, sharpshooter, and expert.

[Bill Chapman]

How silly can you get?  I guess if you want to define "marksman" as someone whose best day at the range was to barely qualify in the second of three categories, using a semi-automatic rifle against ground-level pop-up targets, after hours of practice--then, yeah, you can call him a "marksman."

Why do you suppose that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were unable to even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged feat, even though they were firing from only 30 feet up, were not firing in the cramped conditions of the sixth-floor "sniper's nest," and were firing at stationary target boards?
 
I qualified at all three levels: marksman, sharpshooter, and expert.

It would be cool if you could provide proof of those claims. In the meantime, have you ever had a day while shooting when you felt you were 'in-the-zone' so to speak? A kind of detachment, almost dreamlike. And have you ever 'peopled' (as opposed 'papered')?

[Joe Elliott]

There are hundreds of problems with the lone-gunman theory. Here are just three of them:

1. The marksmanship feat alleged by the lone-gunman theory was far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, to perform.

False. A Marine recruit is trained to hit a human size target at 200, 300- and 500-yards using iron sights. The furthest shot at Dealey Plaza was 88 yards.

-- Oswald’s Marine rifle scores show that, at best, he was a mediocre marksman, and keep in mind he made those scores using a semi-automatic rifle (no manual bolt to work) and while firing at stationary, ground-level targets, after hours of practice.

False. In his 1956 shooting tests he qualified with a rating of Sharpshooter. Most recruits only qualify as Marksman. Oswald did better than more than half the recruits who qualify as Marines. In the 1959 shooting tests, he barely qualified to be a Marine, but one still has to be a good shot, at 200, 300 and 500 yards, to do that.

Oswald was so proud of his shooting that he sent U. S. Marine Rifle Score Book home to his mother for safekeeping. Why would he do that if his shooting was terrible?

-- Most of Oswald’s fellow Marines who were asked about his shooting skills said he was a poor shot.

How do we know they were Marines who knew and remembered him? Did they remember him? Were they being trained in his same small group? Were they ever Marine recruits?

Do they have a motive to lie about this? Would their names be remembered at all if they answered “I don’t remember how well he shot”, or “I trained at the same time, but I don’t remember him being in our group” or “I was two months ahead of him”? Their only chance to have their own name remembered is to say they knew him, they remembered him and yes, he was a bad shot.

Even someone who was a real Marine, who really did know him, who really did remember him, has a motive to lie.  The U. S. Marine Score Book has no motive to lie. And if it is a forgery, why was it sent to his mother at all? In 1956, did the conspirators already know they needed to frame Oswald as an assassin with a rifle? If so, why not frame some Marine who could shoot straight. There is no shortage of candidates.

-- Members of Oswald’s gun club in Minsk, Russia, said he was a poor shot.

False. He was a careless shot. He fired a quick shot the general direction of another member, because the rabbit was also in that general direction. The fact he missed the rabbit made no difference.

-- David Ferrie said Oswald was a terrible shot.

Did David Ferrie know Oswald, outside of a Civil Air Patrol meeting in 1955? Was there any rifle shooting going on at this meeting?

-- One of the most renowned snipers in U.S. Marine Corps history, Carlos Hathcock, tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged shooting feat but failed to do so. After repeatedly trying and failing to duplicate Oswald’s supposed performance, Hathcock said he did not believe the WC’s shooting scenario.

False. We not have Carlos Hathcock saying that Oswald could not have made those shots. Instead, we have Craig Roberts claiming that Carlos Hathcock said that Oswald could not have made those shots.

If Robert’s story is true, how did Hathcock know what sort of scenario to test? The timing of the shots? The angles of the shots relative to the movement of the limousine? The speed of the limousine for each shot?

Did he have a copy of the Zapruder film? Did he also have still images of the Zapruder film? I would want all of this to come up with estimates.

Did Carlos Hathcock assume a steady speed of 20 mph? Did he use the wrong angles, where the target was moving at right angles and not almost directly away from the shooter?

And if Craig Roberts is telling the truth, why hasn’t any of the known associates of Carlos Hathcock stepped forward and say, yes, I remember Hathcock carrying out these tests at Quantico. And these are the angles used. And these are the speeds used.

-- The Warren Commission (WC) hired three Master-rated riflemen to attempt to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. They used the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly used. They missed the head and neck area of the target board silhouettes 18 out of 18 times when they used the scope, and 2 out of 3 times when they used the iron sights. In other words, they missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times.  Several of their misses were far apart on the boards. Some of their shots missed the silhouettes entirely.

True. Stop the presses.

But, military riflemen, firing at a target, just want to hit somewhere in the target, the silhouette of a head, neck and upper torso. Any hit anywhere in these three areas is considered a hit. They don’t get extra credit for hitting the head. So, I imagine they might aim at the ‘fat’ part of the target, the torso?

So, what instructions were they given? Were they told to ignore what they have been taught in the past, to not aim at the ‘fat’ part of the target but at the head?

In contrast, Oswald was, I assume, trying to maximize the odds of a kill. He might have been aiming at the head area for all three shots, which could easily result in one hit on the head and one on the neck.

It is revealing that these experienced, Master-rated riflemen shot so poorly even though they were allowed to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though two of them took longer than 6 seconds to fire, even though they were only firing from 30 feet up, and even though they were shooting at stationary--yes, stationary--target boards. Oswald would have been firing from 60 feet up and at a moving target.

The most likely scenario is that the three shots were fired over a span of 8.8 seconds, at z153, z222 and z312. The Warren Commission never said the three shots must have been fired within a 6 second span, only that they may have been fired within a 6 second span, or possibility a longer span of time.

2. The paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek proves he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

But the FBI tested C2766 rifle and WCC ammunition, firing 3 shots rapidly, tested the hands and cheek of the shooter with the paraffin test, and came up negative, just like they did with the paraffin test for Oswald’s cheek.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

. . .

-- The internal memos make it all the more revealing, and damning, that the WC falsely claimed that “expert testimony” said the paraffin test was “unreliable” (WCR, p. 180). The WC staffers who wrote the report may not have known about the Oak Ridge reenactments, but we know the FBI was aware of them (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 259-260).

But if the paraffin test is reliable, why had most major city police departments drop making the tests by 1963? Why isn’t the paraffin test used today by the police to see if anyone has recently fired a gun?

3. The lone-gunman theory requires the single-bullet theory (SBT). If the SBT is wrong, then at least four shots were fired at JFK and at least two gunmen were involved. The SBT is one of the most ridiculous, dubious theories ever put forth in a criminal investigation.

-- We now know from a number of released documents that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. We also know that even the second version of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. The autopsy report that was submitted to the WC was written after Oswald was killed and after the government knew there would be no trial and thus no defense examination of the autopsy materials and no cross-examination of the autopsy doctors. Then and only then did the autopsy doctors claim that the throat wound was the back wound’s exit point.

The neither the back wound nor the throat wound had any exit point? It was just a coincidence that they are on opposite sides of the neck? And the holes in the clothes, both back and throat, indicate a shot from the back.

-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.

False. The clothes are used to make the definitive judgement. And the clothes shot the shot came from the back. And how could the shot come from the front without passing through the windshield? Who would be crazy enough to try a shot through the windshield without worrying about the shot being deflected? How could such a shot not go on to strike the back of the limousine or the Secret Service car just a few feet behind?