didn't the warren report indicate the rifle was not sighted in?? The carcano is junk..better for batting rocks then shooting.
JFK was shot at a distance of under 300 feet. If you have a solid rifle and ammo (and as others have already pointed out the Carcano and its ammo is) hitting someone at that distance, even for an average to above average shot, should not be that difficult.
You could still hit something at that range with a decent .22LR setup much less the more powerful 6.5mm round the Carcano uses.
i think most bottom dollar bolt action rifles would be accurate enough. the design itself is fairly reliable. the timing of the shots is questionable though, it is hard to operate that bolt reacquire the target and take a second shot and have that shot count. not impossible, but takes some practice. i'd say oswald or whoever the shooter was had some luck on his side.
IGBT said:didn't the warren report indicate the rifle was not sighted in?? The carcano is junk..better for batting rocks then shooting.
Sure, you would have heard that, too. so would I. Sound delay, echo--oftentimes sounds come to you not from where they are occurring, and this happens daily.
Physics wins.
You would understand this, if you left the basement once in a while.
The rear shot is not any more difficult than the front shot, both were pretty much straight line for decent period of time. Also, shooting at him from the front someone may have seen a glint from the scope. Not too mention that the set up in the room may have been easier to take the shot once he had passed.
Actually, it was November, the leaves would have already started to drop, if not already dropped, he would have had a pretty clear shot. My brother went there and checked it out, he said it would be an easy shot. There's also the fact that 50 years ago the tree was probably a bit smaller.
Relative to Oswald's position, either coming at him, or moving away he was not really moving.
Wiki - "The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:
1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[61] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[62] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[63] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."
2) The rifle couldn't be perfectly "sighted-in" using the scope (i.e., thereby eliminating the above overshoot completely) without installing two metal shims (small metal plates), which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[64] Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963."
Wiki - "During his Marine Corps service in December 1956, Oswald scored a rating of sharpshooter (twice achieving 48 and 49 out of 50 shots during rapid fire at a stationary target 200 yards [183 m] away using a standard issue M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle), although in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and said he was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot".[57]"
Basically you are just parroting the same wrong information that people have been incorrectly parroting for decades. Once reality and actual facts are applied to the assassination, it becomes much less of a mystery, and the conspiracies just shrivel up ...now if they would just die like they should.
Leaves were on the tree, November in Texas isn't the same as the Northeast. There is a picture by the FBI that shows the tree with leaves on it.
I think the thing that gets people all wound up about the so-called "magic bullet" is that inevitably people end up looking at it completely in reverse.It is not pristine and it could have - given ideal conditions - provided the wounds suffered by Kennedy and Connally and deposited bits of itself in Connally.
If we keep digging for the truth, never giving up no matter how many times we've convinced ourselves that we have peeled the onion we will learn that we all shot Kennedy. Even those of us who weren't born yet. The Kennedy assassination was a manifestation of original sin as we all stood together, arm against arm, spread from the book repository to the grassy knoll to shoot Kennedy. Sin and self-loathing springing forth from each of us, coming together as if a single bullet, to kill Kennedy.
It is amazing how certain people bend of backwards to worship every lying bastard that came together to cover this up. The breadth and depth of the coverup itself directly implicates several prominent figures. But none of that matters because people lack discernment. They actually pat themselves on the back thinking that they've looked at the evidence and made a rational decision. But they've done no such thing. These people are ready to be anally probed for 14 hours and they will do it with a smile. Anything to worship their controllers. Oswald was a patsy. Just like the underwear bomber was a patsy. Just like the guy who killed Oswald was a patsy. Just like the 19 hijackers on 9/11. They do it over and over again, because it works. They use patsies to generate revenue, massive amounts of revenue. The sheer amount of money that is made off all these killings is unmeasurably high. The masses of dumbed down unthinking regurgitating morons lap it up and ask for more.
On the JFK thing, consider this....
Keeping it real simple and not getting into magic bullets or the mob or Castro, here is my problem with what and why it happened...
First off, simply, why was the top down in the first place?
And second off, who(m) made that decision about the top being left off?
Who drew up the motorcade route?
The top was off because it had stopped raining. Just like it was in every motorcade before that. It was standard practice. JFK wanted to be visible. Here he is in Ireland:
And here he is in Hawaii:
You're looking at from a 2013 viewpoint, not a 1963 viewpoint. In 1963 it was NOT unusual. Now we know better.
With all the theories, the sound analysis, the bullet trajectory analysis, film analysis, body autopsy, etc etc, I have never heard one explanation as to why the top of the car was down in the first place and whom was in charge of that decision?
Answer that, and you just might be onto something.
I don't care about all the detailed analysis, they prove nothing one way or the other, but the decision maker? There might be your smoking gun.
The decision maker to leave JFK so vulnerable that day was ......... JFK!!! He wanted visibility. He even wanted LESS protection from Secret Service after he got complaints in Manhattan about tying up traffic.
Who was this person? Who had the final say so as to the top being up or down? Who planned out the motorcade route? What was the background of this decision maker? Could he/she have had ties to a shady past? Could they have been bought off? Paid?
If you never had the route laid out as it was, and never had the top off, no assignation.
That is what I question. Keeping it simple, asking why, how and by whom were these basic decisions made in the first place?
I mean, an open top thru downtown Dallas passing below high rise buildings, and a route turn where the motorcade came to nearly a complete stop, and just below that open window in a building where no security staff were observing nor had the building been checked out before hand?
Seems a little off the norm, to say the least.
Again, out of the norm in 2013. Not in 1963.
That event was a tragedy, but if not during the motorcade route, then when?
In the parking lot of the Trade Mart? In the Trade Mart hall ways? Trade Mart entry way?
The Trade Mart kitchen?
And whom else had possibly been waiting for their chance at a clean shot before that successful fatal shot?
Waiting, but missing their opportunity?
I seriously doubt Kennedy was meant to return home back to Washington alive after that trip. One way or another, they were out to get him.
Someone knew. They, the Kennedy's probably suspected.
That is why Jackie stated, and this is another real clue never addressed, Jackie own words were, "I want them to see what they have done".
She knew. He suspected.
Jackie didnt KNOW anything.Unless you mean to imply that she knew he'd be killed that day? I'd say that's far less believable than the fact that Oswald got "lucky".