[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.One is prompted to ask what caliber of shooter would be required to commit theassassination alone as described above.Simulative tests conducted by the Commission,while deficient, are quite illuminating.The Commission's test firers were all rated as "Master" by the National RifleAssociation (NRA); they were experts whose daily routines involved working with andshooting firearms (3H445).In the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feetrespectively from a 30-foot-high tower.Each shooter fired two series of three shots, usingthe C2766 rifle.The men took 8.25, 6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first seriesand 7.00, 6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446).In the first series, each man hit his first andthird targets but missed the second.Results varied on the next series, although in all caseshttp://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html (2 of 14) [9/16/2000 01:08:21] Chapter 9, Oswald's Rifle Capability, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976but one, two targets were hit.Thus, in only two cases were the Commission's experts able tofire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did.None scored three hits,as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short time span, if not impossible,would certainly have taxed the proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4] In his testimonybefore the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of shooter necessary tohave fired the assassination shots on the basis that only two hits were achieved:Mr.Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksmanunder those conditions would be able to shoot within the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [aswas done by the experts]?Mr.Simmons: Obviously, considerable experience would have to be in one's backgroundto do so.And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon,because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.(3H449)Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptionalshot.A proficient man with this weapon, yes.But I think with the opportunity to use theweapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by morethan one firer.(3H450)Here arises the crucial question: Was Lee Harvey Oswald a "proficient man with thisweapon," with "considerable experience" in his background?While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice tested for hisperformance with a rifle.On a scale of expert-sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored twopoints above the minimum for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only onepoint above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959) -- his lastrecorded score.Colonel A.G.Folsom evaluated these scores for the Commission:The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given toMarines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman.To becomequalified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with areasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified.Consequently,a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualificationindicates a fairly good "shot." (19H17-18)There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either inaccurately or unfairlyrecorded, thus accounting for his obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with arifle.However, there is other information independent of the scores to indicate that Oswaldwas in fact not a good shot.In his testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marinescorebook that Oswald himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:Mr.Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we couldfairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularlyoutstanding shot.Col.Folsom: No, no, he was not.His scorebook indicates.that he did well at one ortwo ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.Mr.Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?Col.Folsom: I would say so.(8H311)Thus, according to Folsom, Oswald's best recorded score was the result of having "a goodday"; otherwise, Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot."Folsom was not alone in his evaluation of Oswald as other than a good shot.Thefollowing is exerpted [sic] from the testimony of Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald's closestassociates in the Marines:http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html (3 of 14) [9/16/2000 01:08:21] Chapter 9, Oswald's Rifle Capability, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976Mr.Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?Mr.Delgado: Right; I was in the same line.By that I mean we were on the same linetogether, the same time, but not firing at the same position.and I remember seeing his.Itwas a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses,but he didn't give a darn.Mr.Liebeler: Missed the target completely?Mr.Delgado: He just qualified, that's it.He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us.(8H235)The Report tried desperately to get around this unanimous body of credible evidence.First Marine Corps Major Eugene Anderson (who never had any association with Oswald) isquoted at length about how bad weather, poor coaching, and an inferior weapon might haveaccounted for Oswald's terrible performance in his second recorded test (R191).Here theCommission scraped the bottom of the barrel, offering this unsubstantiated, hypotheticalexcuse-making as apparent fact.Weather bureau records, which the Commission did notbother to check, show that perfect firing conditions existed at the time and place Oswald lastfired for qualification -- better conditions in fact, than those prevailing during theassassination.[5] As for the quality of the weapon fired in the test, it is probable that at itsworst it would have been far superior to the virtual piece of junk Oswald allegedly ownedand used in the assassination.[6] Perhaps Anderson guessed correctly in suggesting thatOswald may have had a poor instructor; yet, from the time of his departure from the Marinesin 1959 to the time of the assassination in 1963, Oswald had no instructor.For its final "evaluation," the Report again turned to Anderson and Zahm.Each man isquoted as rating Oswald a good shot, somewhat above average, as compared to otherMarines, and an "excellent" shot as compared to the average male civilian (R192).That theCommission could even consider these evaluations is beyond comprehension.Oswald'sMarine scores and their official evaluation showed that he did not possess even "areasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing." If this is better than average for ourMarines, pity the state of our national "defense"! The testimonies of Folsom and Delgado --people who had direct association with Oswald in the Marines -- are not mentioned in theReport.Thus, Oswald left the Marines in 1959 as a "rather poor shot [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.One is prompted to ask what caliber of shooter would be required to commit theassassination alone as described above.Simulative tests conducted by the Commission,while deficient, are quite illuminating.The Commission's test firers were all rated as "Master" by the National RifleAssociation (NRA); they were experts whose daily routines involved working with andshooting firearms (3H445).In the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feetrespectively from a 30-foot-high tower.Each shooter fired two series of three shots, usingthe C2766 rifle.The men took 8.25, 6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first seriesand 7.00, 6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446).In the first series, each man hit his first andthird targets but missed the second.Results varied on the next series, although in all caseshttp://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html (2 of 14) [9/16/2000 01:08:21] Chapter 9, Oswald's Rifle Capability, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976but one, two targets were hit.Thus, in only two cases were the Commission's experts able tofire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did.None scored three hits,as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short time span, if not impossible,would certainly have taxed the proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4] In his testimonybefore the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of shooter necessary tohave fired the assassination shots on the basis that only two hits were achieved:Mr.Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksmanunder those conditions would be able to shoot within the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [aswas done by the experts]?Mr.Simmons: Obviously, considerable experience would have to be in one's backgroundto do so.And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon,because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt.(3H449)Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptionalshot.A proficient man with this weapon, yes.But I think with the opportunity to use theweapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by morethan one firer.(3H450)Here arises the crucial question: Was Lee Harvey Oswald a "proficient man with thisweapon," with "considerable experience" in his background?While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice tested for hisperformance with a rifle.On a scale of expert-sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored twopoints above the minimum for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only onepoint above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959) -- his lastrecorded score.Colonel A.G.Folsom evaluated these scores for the Commission:The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given toMarines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman.To becomequalified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with areasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified.Consequently,a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualificationindicates a fairly good "shot." (19H17-18)There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either inaccurately or unfairlyrecorded, thus accounting for his obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with arifle.However, there is other information independent of the scores to indicate that Oswaldwas in fact not a good shot.In his testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marinescorebook that Oswald himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:Mr.Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we couldfairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularlyoutstanding shot.Col.Folsom: No, no, he was not.His scorebook indicates.that he did well at one ortwo ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.Mr.Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?Col.Folsom: I would say so.(8H311)Thus, according to Folsom, Oswald's best recorded score was the result of having "a goodday"; otherwise, Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot."Folsom was not alone in his evaluation of Oswald as other than a good shot.Thefollowing is exerpted [sic] from the testimony of Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald's closestassociates in the Marines:http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html (3 of 14) [9/16/2000 01:08:21] Chapter 9, Oswald's Rifle Capability, "PRESUMED GUILTY", 1976Mr.Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?Mr.Delgado: Right; I was in the same line.By that I mean we were on the same linetogether, the same time, but not firing at the same position.and I remember seeing his.Itwas a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses,but he didn't give a darn.Mr.Liebeler: Missed the target completely?Mr.Delgado: He just qualified, that's it.He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us.(8H235)The Report tried desperately to get around this unanimous body of credible evidence.First Marine Corps Major Eugene Anderson (who never had any association with Oswald) isquoted at length about how bad weather, poor coaching, and an inferior weapon might haveaccounted for Oswald's terrible performance in his second recorded test (R191).Here theCommission scraped the bottom of the barrel, offering this unsubstantiated, hypotheticalexcuse-making as apparent fact.Weather bureau records, which the Commission did notbother to check, show that perfect firing conditions existed at the time and place Oswald lastfired for qualification -- better conditions in fact, than those prevailing during theassassination.[5] As for the quality of the weapon fired in the test, it is probable that at itsworst it would have been far superior to the virtual piece of junk Oswald allegedly ownedand used in the assassination.[6] Perhaps Anderson guessed correctly in suggesting thatOswald may have had a poor instructor; yet, from the time of his departure from the Marinesin 1959 to the time of the assassination in 1963, Oswald had no instructor.For its final "evaluation," the Report again turned to Anderson and Zahm.Each man isquoted as rating Oswald a good shot, somewhat above average, as compared to otherMarines, and an "excellent" shot as compared to the average male civilian (R192).That theCommission could even consider these evaluations is beyond comprehension.Oswald'sMarine scores and their official evaluation showed that he did not possess even "areasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing." If this is better than average for ourMarines, pity the state of our national "defense"! The testimonies of Folsom and Delgado --people who had direct association with Oswald in the Marines -- are not mentioned in theReport.Thus, Oswald left the Marines in 1959 as a "rather poor shot [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]