1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Was Oswald the best rifleman in America ?

    From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 09:20:31 2023
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 10:38:15 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 11:29:45 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    How many times are you assclowns going to polish the same old turds. The only two
    recovered bullets from the shooting were proven to have been fired from the Carcano to
    the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That trumps any and all of your FUBAR
    figuring.

    It has been explained to you before. The fixed sights on the Carcano were zeroed for 200
    meters so it not only isn't surprising it would fire high at such short distances, it would be
    expected. I doubt seriously they would have used the scope at such short distances but
    if they did, the scope wouldn't have been set for such short distances either.

    One more example of a fool like Gil trying to substitute his layman's opinion for those of
    actual experts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Sep 15 11:36:53 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:20:31 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

    He was better than the rated EXPERTS >https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps.

    They give Sharpshooter medals to below par shooters?

    But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen...

    Some of these outshoot Oswald, getting hits on their first shots.

    he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 11:39:04 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:36:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
    "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

    Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
    that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
    get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

    It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
    where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 11:37:57 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:29:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:20:35?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    How many times are you assclowns going to polish the same old turds. The only two
    recovered bullets from the shooting were proven to have been fired from the Carcano to
    the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That trumps any and all of your FUBAR
    figuring.


    This is known as "Begging the Question." It's a common logical
    fallacy.


    It has been explained to you before.


    Nope. Never. And you cannot cite where you've credibly explained
    ANYTHING AT ALL.

    Your beliefs & opinions are yours only.


    The fixed sights on the Carcano were zeroed for 200
    meters so it not only isn't surprising it would fire high at such short distances


    Cite for your claim... let's examine it.


    it would be expected. I doubt seriously they would have used the
    scope at such short distances but if they did, the scope wouldn't
    have been set for such short distances either.


    So you don't believe the WC. Yet you're too dishonest to publicly say
    so. Why is your opinion better than the combined expertise and
    knowledge of the Warren Commission?

    You won't answer, of course.


    One more example of a fool like Gil trying to substitute his layman's opinion for those of
    actual experts.


    Cite these experts stating what you claim.

    But you won't... you're simply lying again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Sep 15 11:44:25 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:38:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:29:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
    <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:20:35?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    How many times are you assclowns going to polish the same old turds. The only two
    recovered bullets from the shooting were proven to have been fired from the Carcano to
    the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That trumps any and all of your FUBAR
    figuring.
    This is known as "Begging the Question." It's a common logical
    fallacy.

    Conspiracy addicts keep saying "the evidence, the evidence, the evidence" while ignoring the evidence.

    It has been explained to you before.
    Nope. Never. And you cannot cite where you've credibly explained
    ANYTHING AT ALL.

    By "credibly" Ben means to the satisfaction of conspiracy addicts.

    Your beliefs & opinions are yours only.

    Shared by rational people everywhere.

    The fixed sights on the Carcano were zeroed for 200
    meters so it not only isn't surprising it would fire high at such short distances
    Cite for your claim... let's examine it.

    You mean remove it?

    it would be expected. I doubt seriously they would have used the
    scope at such short distances but if they did, the scope wouldn't
    have been set for such short distances either.
    So you don't believe the WC.

    About what? You refuse to say.

    Yet you're too dishonest to publicly say
    so. Why is your opinion better than the combined expertise and
    knowledge of the Warren Commission?

    You won't answer, of course.

    You refuse to say what you are referring to.

    One more example of a fool like Gil trying to substitute his layman's opinion for those of
    actual experts.
    Cite these experts stating what you claim.

    You`ll only remove it.

    But you won't... you're simply lying again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 11:46:09 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:44:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
    "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

    Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
    that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
    get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

    It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
    where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 12:05:11 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    The following website shows the M38 Carcano rifle was zeroed for 200 meters. At 25 yards, it
    would fire considerably above the aim point.

    https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m38-ts-carcano-carbine-brilliant-or-rubbish/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 13:13:30 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:05:11 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:20:35?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    He was better than the rated EXPERTS
    https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

    The following website shows the M38 Carcano rifle was zeroed for 200 meters. At 25 yards, it
    would fire considerably above the aim point.

    https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m38-ts-carcano-carbine-brilliant-or-rubbish/

    This is what Corbutt is responding to:

    **************************************************************
    The fixed sights on the Carcano were zeroed for 200
    meters so it not only isn't surprising it would fire high at such short distances


    Cite for your claim... let's examine it. **************************************************************

    Sadly, he *STILL* couldn't support his claim... even though it was for
    the wrong rifle.

    Quite clearly, Corbutt is reading everything I post - I OWN HIM!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Sat Sep 16 04:27:30 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:13 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    The following website shows the M38 Carcano rifle was zeroed for 200 meters. At 25 yards, it
    would fire considerably above the aim point.

    https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m38-ts-carcano-carbine-brilliant-or-rubbish/

    Another dumbfuck post from our resident dumbfuck.

    200 meters = 218 yards.
    Kennedy was killed at 83 yards.
    He's referring to a test that doesn't include the murder weapon and with a scope set at a range that is not relevent to the facts in the case.

    What range was the C2766 rifle zeroed for ?
    How does this prove anything ?

    ROFLMAO

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Sat Sep 16 05:30:53 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.

    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Sat Sep 16 05:54:45 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:30:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.
    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s

    To qualify even at the lowest rating of marksman, you have to be able to hit targets at 200 yards
    and more. To qualify as a sharpshooter, you have to do even better. Killing Kennedy only required
    Oswald to hit a target 88 yards away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Sat Sep 16 05:54:55 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:30:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.
    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    "Sharpshooter" sounds like a designation the Marines would give to someone who could shoot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Bud on Sat Sep 16 10:23:32 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:30:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.
    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s
    Delgado is claiming Oswald would get 2-3 complete misses out of ten shots. If that is the case, how did Oswald even shoot his low score of 191? You get fifty shots, and even if you take the low number of two misses out of ten Oswald would completely
    miss 10 of those 50 shots. That gives Oswald 40 shots to shoot for a score of 191. My calculator tells me for Oswald to get 191 he needs to shoot on average 4.775 to get 191. See the problem? He completely misses 10 times, but shoots like an ace for the
    other forty.

    This is what Delgado told the WC...

    Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

    DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was 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.

    Q. Missed the target completely?

    DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)

    So Delagado doesn`t attribute the misses to a lack of skill, just a lack of caring. Just like with cleaning his weapon, it wasn`t that he couldn`t clean it, he just didn`t care.

    Oswald`s score books show he could shoot...

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    You can view the individual pages. Oswald could shoot when he wanted to.

    And once again, Oswald did not have to be a great shot to kill a man 88 yards away. Oswald
    was good enough and his rifle was good enough to get that done.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Sat Sep 16 10:15:56 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:30:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But
    yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior
    to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.
    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s

    Delgado is claiming Oswald would get 2-3 complete misses out of ten shots. If that is the case, how did Oswald even shoot his low score of 191? You get fifty shots, and even if you take the low number of two misses out of ten Oswald would completely
    miss 10 of those 50 shots. That gives Oswald 40 shots to shoot for a score of 191. My calculator tells me for Oswald to get 191 he needs to shoot on average 4.775 to get 191. See the problem? He completely misses 10 times, but shoots like an ace for the
    other forty.

    This is what Delgado told the WC...

    Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

    DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was 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.

    Q. Missed the target completely?

    DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)

    So Delagado doesn`t attribute the misses to a lack of skill, just a lack of caring. Just like with cleaning his weapon, it wasn`t that he couldn`t clean it, he just didn`t care.

    Oswald`s score books show he could shoot...

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    You can view the individual pages. Oswald could shoot when he wanted to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Sep 18 06:52:56 2023
    On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:23:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    And once again, Oswald did not have to be a great shot to kill a man 88 yards away. Oswald
    was good enough and his rifle was good enough to get that done.

    Too bad the three Master class marksmen couldn't support your wacky
    theory...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 18 06:52:56 2023
    On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 05:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
    "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

    Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
    that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
    get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

    It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
    where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 20 11:28:31 2023
    On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 11:27:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
    <hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:


    You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
    description of the *location* of the large head wound.

    Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
    paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

    You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

    Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

    Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hank Sienzant@21:1/5 to Bud on Wed Sep 20 11:27:29 2023
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
    On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:30:55 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:38:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    Not according to the USMC. He was below par for the Marine Corps. But yes, in comparison with three Master rated marksmen... he was superior to them. That is, if you believe the WCR.
    Oswald couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat....LOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkteMRrn2s
    Delgado is claiming Oswald would get 2-3 complete misses out of ten shots. If that is the case, how did Oswald even shoot his low score of 191? You get fifty shots, and even if you take the low number of two misses out of ten Oswald would completely
    miss 10 of those 50 shots. That gives Oswald 40 shots to shoot for a score of 191. My calculator tells me for Oswald to get 191 he needs to shoot on average 4.775 to get 191. See the problem? He completely misses 10 times, but shoots like an ace for the
    other forty.

    This is what Delgado told the WC...

    Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

    DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was 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.

    Q. Missed the target completely?

    DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)

    So Delagado doesn`t attribute the misses to a lack of skill, just a lack of caring. Just like with cleaning his weapon, it wasn`t that he couldn`t clean it, he just didn`t care.

    And it’s important to note that when Oswald knew Delgado, that was well after basic training, when Oswald was disillusioned with the USMC and at the period when Oswald was actively planning to defect to Russia. That’s why he didn't care about his
    shooting score,



    Oswald`s score books show he could shoot...

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/32986460417181-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book

    You can view the individual pages. Oswald could shoot when he wanted to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Wed Sep 20 12:33:08 2023
    On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 10:23:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
    <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

    And once again, Oswald did not have to be a great shot to kill a man 88 yards away. Oswald
    was good enough and his rifle was good enough to get that done.
    Too bad the three Master class marksmen couldn't support your wacky theory...

    Wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 20 12:36:45 2023
    On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:33:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
    "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

    Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
    that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
    get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

    It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
    where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 20 12:37:00 2023
    On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:33:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
    "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

    Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
    that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
    get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

    It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
    where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)