Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 22, 2020 20:23:27 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.history.com/sites/2/2017/10/GettyImages-5768779141-E.jpeg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963, by firing his alleged 40” Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) at him and connecting on two shots out a total of three fired. As we have seen before in this series there is NO evidence showing LHO ever ordered, received or owned a 40” M-C to begin with, but let’s put that aside for the purpose of this post.
The purpose of this post is to look at the re-enactment tests that were done at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to see if they could match the claimed shooting prowess of LHO.
************************************************
The tests done at Aberdeen were NOT similar to the alleged shooting feat of LHO in anyway except that a M-C was used. When the three Master rated marksmen of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory tried to match LHO’s alleged shooting feat they had the advantage of shooting at a STATIONARY TARGET! The WC told us this in their Report (WCR) about the tests.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0109a.gif
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a TOWER at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240 and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette. Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired TWO series of three shots. (WCR, p. 193) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
Quote off
We see that the three master rated marksmen had the luxury of shooting at FIXED targets and had TWO chances instead of the one LHO would have had if he fired the shots as claimed. The tower was also considerably lower than the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and this also would have made it easier for them. The tower was only 30 feet high and since a story can vary from 10-12 feet we can see LHO would have been anywhere from 60 to 72 feet above Elm Street. Furthermore, they were allowed to take as much time as they wanted in order to fire their first shot. Again, LHO would NOT have had this luxury as his timetable would have been dictated by the limousine’s location. How do I know this? Well the WCR said so.
Quote on
The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot by several inches. The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and REQUIRED MOVEMENT in the basic FIRING POSITION of the marksmen. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
LHO would not have had the luxury of taking all the time he wanted so the WC said that was the first shot he missed in all likelihood (they never did determine if it was the first or second shot for sure). This sounds reasonable until you consider the problem with this claim. This would have meant LHO completely missed the very large limousine with his CLOSEST shot! How can we then expect him to hit something as small as the back of JFK and his head further away?
Here is what Michael Griffith wrote about this idea in his article, A Brief Look At Evidence Of Conspiracy In The JFK Assassination.
Quote on
The lone-gunman shooting scenario now requires that the supposed single assassin completely missed, not just Kennedy, but the entire huge presidential limousine with his first and closest shot. This is the only way to expand the alleged lone gunman's firing tie to over 8 seconds, since there is now wide agreement that a shot was fired before the limousine passed beneath the oak tree. I can't imagine how even a mediocre rifleman could have missed the entire limousine from less than 140 feet away and from 60 feet up. Even the WC labeled the first-shot-miss scenario an "improbability." The limousine would have presented a target that was over 120 square feet in size. Can anyone fathom completely missing a target that size from less than 140 feet away, especially on the first and closest shot? (Michael Griffith, A Brief Look At Evidence Of Conspiracy In The JFK Assassination, 2001)
michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/conspiracy.htm
Quote off
This is well said and exactly right. How can he so completely miss the huge limousine at such a close range, but then hit the upper back and head further away? Especially when he would have needed to adjust his firing position for the movement of the limousine? The WC tried to explain this away by saying if the shooter, obviously LHO in their minds, had fired the three shots within the 4.8 to 5.6 seconds then the shots were more evenly spaced, thus, “the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.” (Ibid.) The problem with this is ONLY one of the three marksmen managed to fire within the time range given and he was of course shooting at a stationary target (although in all fairness the limousine was almost stationary too during the shooting sequence).
What is funny too is that Ronald Simmons said dry firing could teach the shooter how to operate the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
But since the WC said the three master rated marksmen only had dry firing experience how do we explain them FAILING to duplicate what LHO supposedly did?
Quote on
None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Since LHO had NO practice with the alleged assassination weapon except for supposedly dry firing on his porch in New Orleans months before the question needs to be asked. Why would LHO do BETTER than master rated marksmen who were firing at stationary targets from 30 feet BELOW the level he would have been at with NO pressures similar to what LHO would have had to deal with? Does this make any sense to you?
Dry firing of course cannot duplicate the feel of pulling the trigger according to Simmons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.
This is exactly right as how can dry firing teach you about the recoil of the weapon? Since the WC could NOT show he ever practiced with the rifle, how can you show he would have been able to adjust for the recoil and still have been successful in his alleged attempt on JFK? You can’t obviously so I guess we are suppose to just take the WC’s word for it.
Now, we have to get into issues with the rifle itself. Here is what Simmons testified to about sighting the rifle and the issues they encountered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
IF the weapon could NOT be sighted using the scope, how in the world did LHO sight the rifle on November 22, 1963? The WC defenders claim he used the iron sights, but the “experts” did NOT bother with that and instead FIXED THE SCOPE BY ADDING SHIMS! If the experts had NO interest in using the iron sights why do the WC defenders think LHO would? Why NOT detach the telescopic sight too if you planned on not using it as it would be in the way I would think?
The tests did include one round of iron sights firing and here are the results described by Simmons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.
Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr. SIMMONS. 21.
One could ask why they even bothered to fire 18 rounds with telescopic sight when it was NOT in working condition when LHO would have had the rifle according to the WC, but let’s skip that for now. One expert marksmen, Miller, fired with the iron sights and in terms of the third shot (i.e. head shot) he COMPLETELY MISSED THE TARGET!
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Again, more excuses are given when LHO would NOT have the luxury of excuses IF he did what the WC claimed. This was an EXPERT rated marksmen and he COMPLETELY missed the target that was stationary, but we are to believe that LHO firing from DOUBLE the height and under extreme pressure (not to mention having a NON-working scope in his way) hit JFK in the back of the head on the third shot. Sure.
There was another problem with the rifle that the WC told us about in their report.
Quote on
They [the three marksmen] had not even pulled the trigger because of CONCERN about BREAKING THE FIRING PIN. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So in addition to the non-working scope that was in his way LHO would have had to worry about the firing pin BREAKING at any time! He had to be the greatest shooter of all-time, but he wasn’t so how do we account for all the things the WC claimed? Do we just chalk it up to luck or do we face the facts (and evidence given to us) and realize there is NO way in the world LHO did this shooting as the WC claimed? I choose the latter, but there is a small minority who want to believe the former.
[Note: In addition to the issues with the scope and firing pin LHO would have had other issues to deal with too. For starters, he was allegedly in a very cramped position in a window that had a pipe up against his left side that could have interfered with his movement. Next, he had a very large oak tree in the way for some time, the best time to shoot JFK once the limousine had turned onto Elm Street. Next, we have the issue of nineteen-year old ammunition. Despite what the WC, and its defenders, say, the ammunition was last manufactured in 1944. How reliable do you think ammunition that old is?
Finally, there is the issue of the clip. Without a clip the rifle is less stable and there is NO evidence showing a clip was found inside the rifle as claimed as it is NOT mentioned by anyone nor does it appear in any inventory log. There is also NO photograph of it UNTIL the rifle is being taken from the TSBD 30-50 minutes later on. The WC claimed it was NOT seen due to it being “jammed” inside the rifle, but when the rifle is taken out of the building we see it is HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE. How did that happen? Also, IF it did happen, why did NO one photograph it or list it on the inventory log? Finally, part of processing the rifle for prints, and we know Lieutenant Day did this in the TSBD, is to remove all ammunition and clips/magazines for safety reasons. So why did he NEVER see it to list it on the inventory log then IF it was inside the rifle like the WC said?]
Specialist Miller was the ONLY one of the three (Hendrix and Staley) to complete his two firing sequences in the time allotted to LHO (4.8 to 5.6 seconds) as he finished in 4.60 for the first series and 5.15 for the second series of shots. Hendrix finished in 8.25 and 7 seconds and Staley finished in 6.75 and 6.45 seconds respectively. Thus, it is important to view the results of Miller’s shots since he was the closest in time to what LHO allegedly did. Here is what Simmons testified to about his shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds. Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope, but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely…
Notice how the WC was interested in this part since Miller had completed his shooting sequences in the time allotted for LHO. I find it odd that they did not have results based on each person and then as a group as Simmons said. Anyway, we see that Miller hit the first target (170 feet) all three times (two with sight and one with iron sights); he hit the second target (240 feet) ONLY once (with iron sights); and that he hit the third target (265 feet) twice with the sight, but missed it COMPLETELY with the iron sights! Now, you may say he hit it twice with the sight, but as we saw earlier LHO would NOT have had the sight since it was NOT aligned and needed shims to be used so Miller’s complete miss with the iron sights is more apropos in this case. If a expert rated master marksmen could NOT hit a stationary target with the iron sights how in the world could a sub-sharpshooter (qualified with a non-bolt action rifle too) hit JFK’s small head while he was moving with the iron sights?
Simmons would enter into evidence three photographs regarding all these shots too. They would be marked as Commission Exhibit (CE) 582, 583, and 584. Here they are.
CE 582 & 583: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0144a.jpg
CE 584: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0144b.jpg
Here is the relevant testimony about these photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?
Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target…. The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target.
For some reason he never explained the photograph of the target for 584 (265 feet) for us. My feeling for this is that it does NOT show one hit to the head and that was supposed to be the head shot! In fact, the ONLY target that shows a head shot is the first one which was the closest and the one that Simmons said about, “All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target…”. So these tests showed without a doubt the claims made by the WC were full of baloney as experts couldn’t even match what was claimed of LHO and they had much better conditions and multiple attempts in which to try and do it.
LHO’s last shooting test in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) was in May of 1959 and he scored a 191 which was just one point over the minimum for a marksmen rating. While Marksman sounds impressive it is really not as the WC quoted Lieutenant-Colonel A.G. Folsom, head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, as saying that a low Marksman score was equivalent to being a “rather poor shot.” (WCR, p. 191)
Despite the claims of Major Eugene D. Anderson and Sergeant James A. Zahm, both of whom claimed LHO was a “good to excellent shot” (WCR, p. 192), we see LHO was NOT a good shot and that highly trained and highly skilled marksmen could NOT duplicate what the WC claimed LHO accomplished on November 22, 1963. They had much better conditions in which to do it too.
In the following years after this test other top snipers and marksmen would try and duplicate LHO’s alleged shooting prowess (CBS tests, Carlos Hathcock tests in Quantico, VA, and Mossad tests to name some), but NONE ever could so we have to reach the conclusion that LHO could NOT have done this either, thus, this means other shooters were involved in the assassination of JFK. Men who were much more qualified than LHO to pull this off successfully.
Once again, we see the evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Exhibits & Hearings actually shows us the OPPOSITE of what the WC claimed occurred, thus, their conclusion is incorrect and false. This means they are sunk again.
cdn.history.com/sites/2/2017/10/GettyImages-5768779141-E.jpeg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963, by firing his alleged 40” Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) at him and connecting on two shots out a total of three fired. As we have seen before in this series there is NO evidence showing LHO ever ordered, received or owned a 40” M-C to begin with, but let’s put that aside for the purpose of this post.
The purpose of this post is to look at the re-enactment tests that were done at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to see if they could match the claimed shooting prowess of LHO.
************************************************
The tests done at Aberdeen were NOT similar to the alleged shooting feat of LHO in anyway except that a M-C was used. When the three Master rated marksmen of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory tried to match LHO’s alleged shooting feat they had the advantage of shooting at a STATIONARY TARGET! The WC told us this in their Report (WCR) about the tests.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0109a.gif
In an effort to test the rifle under conditions which simulated those which prevailed during the assassination, the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory had expert riflemen fire the assassination weapon from a TOWER at three silhouette targets at distances of 175, 240 and 265 feet. The target at 265 feet was placed to the right of the 240-foot target which was in turn placed to the right of the closest silhouette. Using the assassination rifle mounted with the telescopic sight, three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired TWO series of three shots. (WCR, p. 193) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
Quote off
We see that the three master rated marksmen had the luxury of shooting at FIXED targets and had TWO chances instead of the one LHO would have had if he fired the shots as claimed. The tower was also considerably lower than the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and this also would have made it easier for them. The tower was only 30 feet high and since a story can vary from 10-12 feet we can see LHO would have been anywhere from 60 to 72 feet above Elm Street. Furthermore, they were allowed to take as much time as they wanted in order to fire their first shot. Again, LHO would NOT have had this luxury as his timetable would have been dictated by the limousine’s location. How do I know this? Well the WCR said so.
Quote on
The marksmen took as much time as they wanted for the first target and all hit the target. For the first four attempts, the firers missed the second shot by several inches. The angle from the first to the second shot was greater than from the second to the third shot and REQUIRED MOVEMENT in the basic FIRING POSITION of the marksmen. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
LHO would not have had the luxury of taking all the time he wanted so the WC said that was the first shot he missed in all likelihood (they never did determine if it was the first or second shot for sure). This sounds reasonable until you consider the problem with this claim. This would have meant LHO completely missed the very large limousine with his CLOSEST shot! How can we then expect him to hit something as small as the back of JFK and his head further away?
Here is what Michael Griffith wrote about this idea in his article, A Brief Look At Evidence Of Conspiracy In The JFK Assassination.
Quote on
The lone-gunman shooting scenario now requires that the supposed single assassin completely missed, not just Kennedy, but the entire huge presidential limousine with his first and closest shot. This is the only way to expand the alleged lone gunman's firing tie to over 8 seconds, since there is now wide agreement that a shot was fired before the limousine passed beneath the oak tree. I can't imagine how even a mediocre rifleman could have missed the entire limousine from less than 140 feet away and from 60 feet up. Even the WC labeled the first-shot-miss scenario an "improbability." The limousine would have presented a target that was over 120 square feet in size. Can anyone fathom completely missing a target that size from less than 140 feet away, especially on the first and closest shot? (Michael Griffith, A Brief Look At Evidence Of Conspiracy In The JFK Assassination, 2001)
michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/conspiracy.htm
Quote off
This is well said and exactly right. How can he so completely miss the huge limousine at such a close range, but then hit the upper back and head further away? Especially when he would have needed to adjust his firing position for the movement of the limousine? The WC tried to explain this away by saying if the shooter, obviously LHO in their minds, had fired the three shots within the 4.8 to 5.6 seconds then the shots were more evenly spaced, thus, “the assassin would not have incurred so sharp an angular movement.” (Ibid.) The problem with this is ONLY one of the three marksmen managed to fire within the time range given and he was of course shooting at a stationary target (although in all fairness the limousine was almost stationary too during the shooting sequence).
What is funny too is that Ronald Simmons said dry firing could teach the shooter how to operate the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
But since the WC said the three master rated marksmen only had dry firing experience how do we explain them FAILING to duplicate what LHO supposedly did?
Quote on
None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Since LHO had NO practice with the alleged assassination weapon except for supposedly dry firing on his porch in New Orleans months before the question needs to be asked. Why would LHO do BETTER than master rated marksmen who were firing at stationary targets from 30 feet BELOW the level he would have been at with NO pressures similar to what LHO would have had to deal with? Does this make any sense to you?
Dry firing of course cannot duplicate the feel of pulling the trigger according to Simmons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can familiarity with the trigger and with the bolt be acquired in dry practice?
Mr. SIMMONS. Familiarity with the bolt can, probably as well as during live firing. But familiarity with the trigger would best be achieved with some firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why is there this difference between familiarity with the bolt and familiarity with the trigger in dry firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. There tends to be a reaction between the firer and the weapon at the time the weapon is fired, due to the recoil impulse. And I do not believe the action of the bolt going home would sufficiently simulate the action of the recoil of the weapon.
This is exactly right as how can dry firing teach you about the recoil of the weapon? Since the WC could NOT show he ever practiced with the rifle, how can you show he would have been able to adjust for the recoil and still have been successful in his alleged attempt on JFK? You can’t obviously so I guess we are suppose to just take the WC’s word for it.
Now, we have to get into issues with the rifle itself. Here is what Simmons testified to about sighting the rifle and the issues they encountered.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more convenient means--not more convenient, but a more permanent means of correction.
IF the weapon could NOT be sighted using the scope, how in the world did LHO sight the rifle on November 22, 1963? The WC defenders claim he used the iron sights, but the “experts” did NOT bother with that and instead FIXED THE SCOPE BY ADDING SHIMS! If the experts had NO interest in using the iron sights why do the WC defenders think LHO would? Why NOT detach the telescopic sight too if you planned on not using it as it would be in the way I would think?
The tests did include one round of iron sights firing and here are the results described by Simmons.
Mr. EISENBERG. Each fired one or more series of three rounds?
Mr. SIMMONS. Each fired two series of three rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated the exercise using the iron sight--because we had no indication whether the telescope had been used.
Mr. EISENBERG. So the total number of rounds fired was what?
Mr. SIMMONS. 21.
One could ask why they even bothered to fire 18 rounds with telescopic sight when it was NOT in working condition when LHO would have had the rifle according to the WC, but let’s skip that for now. One expert marksmen, Miller, fired with the iron sights and in terms of the third shot (i.e. head shot) he COMPLETELY MISSED THE TARGET!
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.
Again, more excuses are given when LHO would NOT have the luxury of excuses IF he did what the WC claimed. This was an EXPERT rated marksmen and he COMPLETELY missed the target that was stationary, but we are to believe that LHO firing from DOUBLE the height and under extreme pressure (not to mention having a NON-working scope in his way) hit JFK in the back of the head on the third shot. Sure.
There was another problem with the rifle that the WC told us about in their report.
Quote on
They [the three marksmen] had not even pulled the trigger because of CONCERN about BREAKING THE FIRING PIN. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
So in addition to the non-working scope that was in his way LHO would have had to worry about the firing pin BREAKING at any time! He had to be the greatest shooter of all-time, but he wasn’t so how do we account for all the things the WC claimed? Do we just chalk it up to luck or do we face the facts (and evidence given to us) and realize there is NO way in the world LHO did this shooting as the WC claimed? I choose the latter, but there is a small minority who want to believe the former.
[Note: In addition to the issues with the scope and firing pin LHO would have had other issues to deal with too. For starters, he was allegedly in a very cramped position in a window that had a pipe up against his left side that could have interfered with his movement. Next, he had a very large oak tree in the way for some time, the best time to shoot JFK once the limousine had turned onto Elm Street. Next, we have the issue of nineteen-year old ammunition. Despite what the WC, and its defenders, say, the ammunition was last manufactured in 1944. How reliable do you think ammunition that old is?
Finally, there is the issue of the clip. Without a clip the rifle is less stable and there is NO evidence showing a clip was found inside the rifle as claimed as it is NOT mentioned by anyone nor does it appear in any inventory log. There is also NO photograph of it UNTIL the rifle is being taken from the TSBD 30-50 minutes later on. The WC claimed it was NOT seen due to it being “jammed” inside the rifle, but when the rifle is taken out of the building we see it is HANGING OUT OF THE RIFLE. How did that happen? Also, IF it did happen, why did NO one photograph it or list it on the inventory log? Finally, part of processing the rifle for prints, and we know Lieutenant Day did this in the TSBD, is to remove all ammunition and clips/magazines for safety reasons. So why did he NEVER see it to list it on the inventory log then IF it was inside the rifle like the WC said?]
Specialist Miller was the ONLY one of the three (Hendrix and Staley) to complete his two firing sequences in the time allotted to LHO (4.8 to 5.6 seconds) as he finished in 4.60 for the first series and 5.15 for the second series of shots. Hendrix finished in 8.25 and 7 seconds and Staley finished in 6.75 and 6.45 seconds respectively. Thus, it is important to view the results of Miller’s shots since he was the closest in time to what LHO allegedly did. Here is what Simmons testified to about his shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. For each rifleman?
Mr. SIMMONS. For each exercise. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds. Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the accuracy of Specialist Miller?
Mr. SIMMONS. I do not have his accuracy separated from the group.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to separate the accuracy out?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it is, by an additional calculation.
Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope, but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?
Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely…
Notice how the WC was interested in this part since Miller had completed his shooting sequences in the time allotted for LHO. I find it odd that they did not have results based on each person and then as a group as Simmons said. Anyway, we see that Miller hit the first target (170 feet) all three times (two with sight and one with iron sights); he hit the second target (240 feet) ONLY once (with iron sights); and that he hit the third target (265 feet) twice with the sight, but missed it COMPLETELY with the iron sights! Now, you may say he hit it twice with the sight, but as we saw earlier LHO would NOT have had the sight since it was NOT aligned and needed shims to be used so Miller’s complete miss with the iron sights is more apropos in this case. If a expert rated master marksmen could NOT hit a stationary target with the iron sights how in the world could a sub-sharpshooter (qualified with a non-bolt action rifle too) hit JFK’s small head while he was moving with the iron sights?
Simmons would enter into evidence three photographs regarding all these shots too. They would be marked as Commission Exhibit (CE) 582, 583, and 584. Here they are.
CE 582 & 583: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0144a.jpg
CE 584: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0144b.jpg
Here is the relevant testimony about these photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you bring with you targets or copies of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. I brought photos of the targets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take these photographs Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?
Mr. SIMMONS. These photographs were taken by the photographic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurements Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you verify these photographs as being accurate reproductions of the targets?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 582, 583 and 584?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the results of the tests you ran, by using these photographs?
Mr. SIMMONS. Exhibit 582 is the target which was emplaced at 175 feet. All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target…. The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target.
For some reason he never explained the photograph of the target for 584 (265 feet) for us. My feeling for this is that it does NOT show one hit to the head and that was supposed to be the head shot! In fact, the ONLY target that shows a head shot is the first one which was the closest and the one that Simmons said about, “All firers hit the first target, and this was to be expected, because they had as much time as they desired to aim at the first target…”. So these tests showed without a doubt the claims made by the WC were full of baloney as experts couldn’t even match what was claimed of LHO and they had much better conditions and multiple attempts in which to try and do it.
LHO’s last shooting test in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) was in May of 1959 and he scored a 191 which was just one point over the minimum for a marksmen rating. While Marksman sounds impressive it is really not as the WC quoted Lieutenant-Colonel A.G. Folsom, head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, as saying that a low Marksman score was equivalent to being a “rather poor shot.” (WCR, p. 191)
Despite the claims of Major Eugene D. Anderson and Sergeant James A. Zahm, both of whom claimed LHO was a “good to excellent shot” (WCR, p. 192), we see LHO was NOT a good shot and that highly trained and highly skilled marksmen could NOT duplicate what the WC claimed LHO accomplished on November 22, 1963. They had much better conditions in which to do it too.
In the following years after this test other top snipers and marksmen would try and duplicate LHO’s alleged shooting prowess (CBS tests, Carlos Hathcock tests in Quantico, VA, and Mossad tests to name some), but NONE ever could so we have to reach the conclusion that LHO could NOT have done this either, thus, this means other shooters were involved in the assassination of JFK. Men who were much more qualified than LHO to pull this off successfully.
Once again, we see the evidence in the twenty-six volumes of Exhibits & Hearings actually shows us the OPPOSITE of what the WC claimed occurred, thus, their conclusion is incorrect and false. This means they are sunk again.