Challenge to Cyril Wecht

[Richard Smith]

You wouldn't know a false premise if it bit you in the arse. The false premise is that you assume the scope was in alignment during the shooting and wound up grossly misaligned once the FBI got hold of it. If the FBI said the scope required 3 shims to even hit the target you can't assume that the scope was ever aligned to fit your narrative. That's the false premise, dufus.

Otherwise, all you have is a lonely palm print on the barrel that allegedly matches Oswald, with much less certainty than the 14 point match of Malcolm Wallace's print found on a box on the 6th floor of the TSBD. But the FBI laughed it off, like you do, and simply responded with "Not a match".

You have nothing. There is zero evidence that Oswald shot that rifle and plenty of evidence that he didn't. No prints. Wonky scope. No gunshot residue. And there wasn't even a valid trajectory from the 6th floor, into JFK's back and out his throat. Sorry to back up my premises with facts. You should try it some time.

Pay attention.  Assume the fetal position and take your meds if it helps you focus. I don't assume anything.  You have repeatedly claimed that the scope was misaligned. You have no idea what condition the scope was in when Oswald fired the shots.  That is a false premise.  And EVEN if your premise was correct, Oswald could still have committed the crime without using the scope.  You have demonstrated absolutely nothing that would rebut the mountain of evidence that links him to this crime. 

[Jack Trojan]

Pay attention.  Assume the fetal position and take your meds if it helps you focus. I don't assume anything.  You have repeatedly claimed that the scope was misaligned. You have no idea what condition the scope was in when Oswald fired the shots.  That is a false premise.  And EVEN if your premise was correct, Oswald could still have committed the crime without using the scope.  You have demonstrated absolutely nothing that would rebut the mountain of evidence that links him to this crime. 

  Pay attention to your twisted logic? No thanks. How about I school you on logical fallacy instead. Your false premise is that there is a mountain of evidence that Oswald committed the crime when there is none. There is no evidence Oswald took any shots or that the shots came from the TSBD or that the MC was the murder weapon. Just the opposite. The evidence looks contrived and portrays Oswald as a patsy who never took a shot. That was his link to the crime, and you fell for it dufus! But you're not paying attention anymore, are you? Troll on.

[Joe Elliott]

When the FBI tried to duplicate the shots, they needed to add 3 shims to the scope to even hit the target. A sharpshooter would NEVER use a misaligned scope, especially if he planned to assassinate the POTUS.

So, the answer is no, it would not have been impossible to kill someone with that MC, however, hitting a moving target 2 of 3 times including a headshot at 88 yards, looking thru the wonky scope of a crap rifle is so improbable we should be able to rule it out, like Wecht does.

As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.

But this ignores the alternative. What about using the iron sights?

* The iron sights could have been used instead of the scope. The scope did not "block the view" or prevent the use of the iron sights.

*Oswald was trained in the Marines to use a rifle with iron sights. He never received any training using a scope. He was able to hit a human size targets at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards, using iron sights.

* While Marines are only trained with stationary targets (it appears to be impracticable to train thousands of recruits at once using moving targets) they have proven time and time again to be proficient at hitting moving targets in battle.

* The Marines at Guadalcanal used the M1903 Springfield rifle, with iron sights, with great effectiveness, even against moving targets, Japanese infantry charging at greater speeds than the limousine at Dealey Plaza.

[Joe Elliott]

With the hands flapping furiously and Borsch Belt/Barnum delivery, Wecht delivers showman-appeal to eager chumps who hang on his every word of conspiracy. Like Mantik and Ben Carson, he can function in a structured-environment like medicine that has oversight and underlings doing the precision work, but outside the facility, he's unleashed.

Such a lethal frontline rifle (with Czech-steel bolt-action) is "junk" (in cosmetic terms anyway) compared to the $2000 special-wood, special-engraving guns the One Percent use to shot quail.

Dr. Wecht is certainly not an effective, on camera, spokesman. To me, what stands out, is his breathlessness, his apparent struggle to control his excitement, when talking about the assassination.

Of course, this could be nothing more than his lack of talent as a public speaker. Still, I don't know of any major spokesmen, on either side (Pro CT or Pro LN) who is as bad as Dr. Wecht at making a good impression while talking about the assassination.

Can anyone come up with a better candidate at being a poor public speaker on this subject?

[John Iacoletti]

As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.

We also don't know that Oswald shot anybody.

But in your "could have been" narrative, why would Oswald have bothered having a scope on the rifle at all?

[Jack Trojan]

As usual, CTers focus on the misaligned scope. We don't know if the scope was misaligned. However, I think it almost certainly was misaligned.

But this ignores the alternative. What about using the iron sights?

* The iron sights could have been used instead of the scope. The scope did not "block the view" or prevent the use of the iron sights.

You obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters. A sharpshooter must practice regularly and Oswald would have practiced for such an important job. Did he ignore the scope and use the iron sights during practice? Of course not, Oswald would have sighted-in the scope during practice.

*Oswald was trained in the Marines to use a rifle with iron sights. He never received any training using a scope. He was able to hit a human size targets at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards, using iron sights.

Then why did Oswald leave the scope on the rifle if he wasn't going to use it? Don't claim that the scope would not have obstructed his view via the iron sights. How many sharpshooters would do this? None.

* While Marines are only trained with stationary targets (it appears to be impracticable to train thousands of recruits at once using moving targets) they have proven time and time again to be proficient at hitting moving targets in battle.

* The Marines at Guadalcanal used the M1903 Springfield rifle, with iron sights, with great effectiveness, even against moving targets, Japanese infantry charging at greater speeds than the limousine at Dealey Plaza.

Non sequitur/false equivalence

Conclusions:

* A sharpshooter would not have used a misaligned scope.
* A sharpshooter would not have kept the scope on the rifle if they did not intend to use it.
* A sharpshooter would have practiced with the rifle beforehand and sighted-in the scope.
* Oswald would have removed the scope from the rifle when he disassembled it and placed it into a paper bag if he did not intend to use it.
* Oswald did not even touch the rifle since there were no prints on it or gunshot residue on his face.
* Oswald could not have taken any shots because there wasn't a valid trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD into JFK's back and out his throat.
* The MC did not shoot magic bullets.

[Joe Elliott]

We also don't know that Oswald shot anybody.

But in your "could have been" narrative, why would Oswald have bothered having a scope on the rifle at all?

Answered before. When he ordered the rifle, he would not have known that the scope would not be aligned. He could still just use the iron sights. And may wish to keep the scope on because his rifle would look more like the rifle of an "expert" assassin. Just as he took a couple of minutes to change into a black sweater, to look more "dangerous", just enough time for Ruby to get there in time to shoot him.

[Joe Elliott]

You obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters. A sharpshooter must practice regularly and Oswald would have practiced for such an important job. Did he ignore the scope and use the iron sights during practice? Of course not, Oswald would have sighted-in the scope during practice.

Granted, going a few years without practice will degrade a shooters ability to fire accurately at 500 yards. But at ranges under 100 yards?

Question:

Where is the evidence that shooters who can hit a target at 200, 300 or 500 yards, if they go four years with just a little practice, won't be able to hit a target at under 100 yards?

If you cannot provide any, than you obviously don't know much about military sharpshooters.

Then why did Oswald leave the scope on the rifle if he wasn't going to use it? Don't claim that the scope would not have obstructed his view via the iron sights. How many sharpshooters would do this? None.

The rifle with the scope on looks more like a rifle of a "dangerous" assassin. That is a reason he might what to keep the scope on.

Also, the scope could be used to verify, from a distance, that JFK was in the limousine that just turned onto Houston Street. The scope doesn't have to be aligned to do that. He could, from that time forward, ignore the scope and use the iron sights for any aiming.

It is not true that Oswald has "No possible reason" for keeping the scope on, as you like to pretent.