• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More than one gunman?

Sounds like a gone-out-to-lunch and short a can or two in his 6-pack CTer, manufacturing "fact" or just repeating old discarded "theories" of extreme government involvement.
Eminently ignorable.
 
I Ratant said:
Sounds like a gone-out-to-lunch and short a can or two in his 6-pack CTer, manufacturing "fact" or just repeating old discarded "theories" of extreme government involvement.
Eminently ignorable.
Click to expand...

but Mr Stockwell was the highest ranking cia case officer to go public.

He wrote in search of enemies and the praetorian guard.
 
A highly placed individual in any situation is not immune to illogic and fantasy.
He mentions eight shots that hit.
There's a total of 9 wounds on the two men.
4 on JFK, and 5 on the governor.
The wounds on JFK's back and rear of the head are entrance wounds.
The two in the front are exit wounds. The bullet exiting the head hit the windshield.
The bullet exiting his neck hit the governor.
The governor has an entrance wound in the back, an exit wound in the chest, an entrance wound in the wrist, an exit wound in the wrist, and an entrance wound in the thigh.
Two bullets did all that!
For there to have been 6 more, where would they have entered/exited/remained in place?
To make the leap of nonsense to a total government coverup is the only solution that could explain where those other bullets went (and came from).
 
I think it is funny that there are all these claims that 15 or whatever assasins shot Kennedy. Why would the conspirators need more then one gunman?

I am reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on JFK, Reclaiming History, right now. I give it two thumbs up.
 
I was once convinced of a second gunman because I had shot with a scope and knew the difficulty acquiring a target through one. When I learned that the iron sights on Oswald's rifle were still intact and not obscured by the scope bits, I realized he noticed he shot wild with the first round (through the scope) and adapted by shifting to the method he'd trained with (through the iron sights) with more success, considering how they were EASY shots and completely inappropriate for using a scope.

I still haven't been sold on the Magic Bullet, but I'm working on it. :D
 
dropzone said:
I was once convinced of a second gunman because I had shot with a scope and knew the difficulty acquiring a target through one. When I learned that the iron sights on Oswald's rifle were still intact and not obscured by the scope bits, I realized he noticed he shot wild with the first round (through the scope) and adapted by shifting to the method he'd trained with (through the iron sights) with more success, considering how they were EASY shots and completely inappropriate for using a scope.

I still haven't been sold on the Magic Bullet, but I'm working on it. :D
Click to expand...
.
I found the fixed sights much easier to use than the scope, which needed to be offset from the normal position to permit inserting the clip into the rifle.
A center-mounted scope would force the shooter to reload after every shot.
 

Attachments

  • CarcanoSights.jpg
    CarcanoSights.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 5
  • CarcanoLoading.jpg
    CarcanoLoading.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 4
That's what I realized. Blew the hell out of my reasoning, especially considering what an easy shot it was, but thanks for helping others understand my point.

OTOH, there's nothing like sitting at your desk and looking at the Zapruder film frame by frame to get you odd looks.
 
dropzone said:
I was once convinced of a second gunman because I had shot with a scope and knew the difficulty acquiring a target through one. When I learned that the iron sights on Oswald's rifle were still intact and not obscured by the scope bits, I realized he noticed he shot wild with the first round (through the scope) and adapted by shifting to the method he'd trained with (through the iron sights) with more success, considering how they were EASY shots and completely inappropriate for using a scope.

I still haven't been sold on the Magic Bullet, but I'm working on it. :D
Click to expand...

It works if you remember that Connally was actually sitting lower than Kennedy. The path of the bullet makes better sense.
 
"Reclaiming History" is great and the McAdams site is the go-to place on the net.

As for all these shooters, please, I implore you, use your heads. Dealey Plaza is s small area...much smaller than it looks in pictures. To believe that there was all these gunman is just flat crazy. Really, it stretches credulity that were two. Think about it. For one, the more shooters there are, the more likely it is somebody (or everybody) is going to notice at least one shooter. Second, if you're going to assassinate the president (assuming it was a conspiracy, which it wasn't), you hire the best shots you can find in order to make it quick and clean, yes? If you do that, and it makes no sense not to, then you don't need to hire another shooter(s), nor could you as it becomes much, much easier for the whole thing to unravel.
 
I Ratant said:
.
I found the fixed sights much easier to use than the scope, which needed to be offset from the normal position to permit inserting the clip into the rifle.
A center-mounted scope would force the shooter to reload after every shot.
Click to expand...

I have a 6.5 mm Carcano much like the one Oswald used. I used a modified Weaver #1 mount and a 4x scope. The scope is offset to the left and rotated in the rings 90 degrees to facilitate loading a full clip. While I can reacquire a sight picture faster using the open sights, the ones on my rifle are zeroed for over 200 yards. After a bit of practice (<20 rounds) I was able to rapidly reacquire a sight picture through the scope and hit a man sized 100 yard target 3 times in about 6 seconds. The stock is narrow enough that the slight offcentering of the scope does not matter when shooting left or right handed. I think Oswald may have been using the scope when he shot JFK.

Ranb
 
The scope that was on the Oswald rifle was intended for .22 rifles.
The recoil of the 6.5mm Carcano disturbs the poorly installed cross-hairs, after only a few shots.
Mine became useless after about 5 shots. Howard Donahue reported the same fragility with the several he has.
Oswald is said to have practised with the rifle. And he did shoot at the General with it.
When the Oswald rifle was tested by the FBI using the scope, it was found to be misaligned with the bore.
The fixed sights OTOH are intended to permit the shooter to hit a man-sized target at 300 meters, by aiming at the target's belt buckle. The trajectory of the round is such that the bullet will strike above the buckle, and below the chin at any range below 300 meters.
Aiming at the center of mass at 180 feet then is practically a sure-hit with the fixed sights.
 
Last edited:
I tend to dismiss everything a CTer says about anything else, just to save time and memory cells for useful information, feeling that a lack of ability to ferret out facts in the CT event probably infects the rest of any pronouncements from that source.
There's more than sufficient information available for anyone taking more than a cursory scan of the information available to decide the Warren Commission got it right, if they did make some blunders in their analysis, the end product is irrefutable, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lone Nut.
 
Was it the scope that became misaligned or the scope mount? From what I have read the mount was a fragile peice of sheet metal. I have never seen one up close because when they were still selling on Ebay, they cost more ($125 and up) than my Carcano was worth.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
After a bit of practice (<20 rounds) I was able to rapidly reacquire a sight picture through the scope and hit a man sized 100 yard target 3 times in about 6 seconds.
Click to expand...
You are a better shooter than I am. My case is one of the few CT cases in which the CTer's incompetence SUPPORTS the official explanation. :D
 
Ranb said:
Was it the scope that became misaligned or the scope mount? From what I have read the mount was a fragile peice of sheet metal. I have never seen one up close because when they were still selling on Ebay, they cost more ($125 and up) than my Carcano was worth.

Ranb
Click to expand...
.
The crosshairs -in- the scope itself get knocked around by the recoil.
There's something about the FBI test shooters needing to shim the scope/mount in some unexplained manner to get the scope boresighted with the rifle, but that may be just an overzealous desire to get the scope useable.
It isn't really needed for the short ranges in Dealey Plaza.
I got mine at Redding Arms? in Culver City, for maybe $15 in 1994. I'd gone there to get a real clip for the Carcano, mine came without one and the local gunstores didn't carry any. I'd bent one up out of sheet brass which appeared to work OK, but Redding said they had the factory issue clips.
I saw the scope on an 1891 Mauser they had for sale, and asked "How much for just the scope?", and they pointed to the boxes and boxes of them they had on display. :)
I had a local gunsmith mount it on the Carcano, offset as shown. There's nothing really "shimmable" on the mount itself.
I picked up some genuine Italian Army issue ammunition in both 6.5mm and the later 7.35mm, at a gunshow not long ago. Still in the (disintegrating) cardboard shipping boxes, 3 clips to the box.
 

Attachments

  • jrAMMO1.jpg
    jrAMMO1.jpg
    144.3 KB · Views: 3
dropzone said:
You are a better shooter than I am. My case is one of the few CT cases in which the CTer's incompetence SUPPORTS the official explanation. :D
Click to expand...

I have years of experience shooting. Shooting a bolt action rifle quickly is mostly a matter of getting your eye in back of the scope quickly then slapping the trigger as soon as the crosshairs line up. It is not about accurate shooting of the kind that all Marines learn in boot camp.

Ranb
 
I Ratant said:
I picked up some genuine Italian Army issue ammunition in both 6.5mm and the later 7.35mm, at a gunshow not long ago. Still in the (disintegrating) cardboard shipping boxes, 3 clips to the box.
Click to expand...

As far as I know Oswald used Winchester Western ammo shooting a 162 grain round nose bullet. It was supposed to be better than the Italian stuff even though it used a .264" bullet instead of the proper .269". I have no evidence to back up this though.

My carcano has a bore that is black and pitted and measures out at .269" The 160 grain RN I use in it clock at only 1800 fps instead of the expected 2200 fps, probably due to excessive wear of the bore. I upped the powder charge to get 200 fps for plinking. Despite all this it will group 4" at 100 yards. Not good, but good enough for short range shots.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom