Discussion:
3 Mannlicher-Carcano shots fired in less than 5.6 seconds
(too old to reply)
eric_r_carlson
2007-02-14 02:00:23 UTC
Permalink
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-15 03:48:26 UTC
Permalink
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.

Somewhere, I have videotape of that.

Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Andrew Mason
2007-02-15 17:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the
entire limo at 125 feet.

Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 04:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.

Chad
Andrew Mason
2007-02-16 05:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
Chad
A fair comparison? A deer torso has a total area of no more than 25 square
feet and moves quickly. The limo was 20 feet by 6 feet or about 120 square
feet and was moving at a constant speed in a fairly straight line. I'll
bet you wouldn't miss that limo once in 1000 aimed shots at 125 feet.

Anderw Mason
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 23:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
Chad
A fair comparison? A deer torso has a total area of no more than 25 square
feet and moves quickly. The limo was 20 feet by 6 feet or about 120 square
feet and was moving at a constant speed in a fairly straight line. I'll
bet you wouldn't miss that limo once in 1000 aimed shots at 125 feet.
Can I shoot through some trees?

Chad
Post by Andrew Mason
Anderw Mason
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-17 02:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
Chad
A fair comparison? A deer torso has a total area of no more than 25 square
feet and moves quickly. The limo was 20 feet by 6 feet or about 120 square
feet and was moving at a constant speed in a fairly straight line. I'll
bet you wouldn't miss that limo once in 1000 aimed shots at 125 feet.
Can I shoot through some trees?
Yes, it's not that hard. Remember Posner's Magic Twig theory.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Chad
Post by Andrew Mason
Anderw Mason
Andrew Mason
2007-02-17 06:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
Chad
A fair comparison? A deer torso has a total area of no more than 25 square
feet and moves quickly. The limo was 20 feet by 6 feet or about 120 square
feet and was moving at a constant speed in a fairly straight line. I'll
bet you wouldn't miss that limo once in 1000 aimed shots at 125 feet.
Can I shoot through some trees?
Why not do an experiment shooting at a target through a tree and see how
much deflection a tree branch will give to a bullet? The American Rifleman
study shows that the veering off course is due to bullet instability as it
passes through air not a sudden change in direction by impact with a
branch.

My guess it that you will still never miss the limo sized target through
the tree, but I'd like to see some actual evidence. If anyone can do it
right, you can.

Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-17 04:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Andrew Mason
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with
three hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the
entire limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at
20 yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
Chad
A fair comparison? A deer torso has a total area of no more than 25
square feet and moves quickly. The limo was 20 feet by 6 feet or about
120 square feet and was moving at a constant speed in a fairly straight
line. I'll bet you wouldn't miss that limo once in 1000 aimed shots at
125 feet.
And who says that any shot ever missed the limo?
Post by Andrew Mason
Anderw Mason
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-17 04:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
I bet you find it hard to understand how LHO could have missed the entire
limo at 125 feet.
Sure, just like I've found it hard to understand how I miss a deer at 20
yards, but hit it at 80 yards.
How can you keep missing the side of the barn?
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Chad
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-15 17:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Slowpoke!
Blakey fired two shots within 1.66 seconds. Maybe there is something
wrong with your Mannlicher-Carcano. Did you polish the bolt or is it all
rusty?
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 04:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Slowpoke!
Blakey fired two shots within 1.66 seconds. Maybe there is something wrong
with your Mannlicher-Carcano. Did you polish the bolt or is it all rusty?
Another worthless post, Tony.

Chad
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-15 17:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Your test is more honest than P & T.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
tomnln
2007-02-15 20:36:12 UTC
Permalink
NOT with CE-139
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Your test is more honest than P & T.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
tomnln
2007-02-15 18:18:22 UTC
Permalink
WITH CE 139?
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-15 18:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!

Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not been
wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in CE 142. I
did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did not contain any
or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE 574 when fired. I
was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets transited CE 393-5.

If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.

Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
tomnln
2007-02-15 22:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Thank You admitting that your test was NOT accurate.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!
Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not
been wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in CE
142. I did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did not
contain any or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE 574
when fired. I was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets
transited CE 393-5.
If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 04:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Thank You admitting that your test was NOT accurate.
Please show me where- in an OFiCIaL DoCuMEnt- it says you have to use CE
139. It doesn't.

Forensic recreations are done all the time without using the exact same
weapon.

Good luck getting the archives to let anyone conduct some tests with it.
It won't happen.

Thus, you can create a safety net to hide in by claiming that all the
tests need to be done with that gun- just like you hide behind selective
documents and close the door on almost every discussion that departs from
your preferred theory.

Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!
Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not
been wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in
CE 142. I did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did not
contain any or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE 574
when fired. I was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets
transited CE 393-5.
If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
tomnln
2007-02-16 05:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Using.....
A Different Rifle
In Different condition

Is a BOGUS TEST
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
Thank You admitting that your test was NOT accurate.
Please show me where- in an OFiCIaL DoCuMEnt- it says you have to use CE
139. It doesn't.
Forensic recreations are done all the time without using the exact same
weapon.
Good luck getting the archives to let anyone conduct some tests with it.
It won't happen.
Thus, you can create a safety net to hide in by claiming that all the
tests need to be done with that gun- just like you hide behind selective
documents and close the door on almost every discussion that departs from
your preferred theory.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!
Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not
been wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in
CE 142. I did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did not
contain any or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE 574
when fired. I was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets
transited CE 393-5.
If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with
three hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 23:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Only bogus if the results are billed apart from the reality.

Chad
Post by tomnln
Using.....
A Different Rifle
In Different condition
Is a BOGUS TEST
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
Thank You admitting that your test was NOT accurate.
Please show me where- in an OFiCIaL DoCuMEnt- it says you have to use CE
139. It doesn't.
Forensic recreations are done all the time without using the exact same
weapon.
Good luck getting the archives to let anyone conduct some tests with it.
It won't happen.
Thus, you can create a safety net to hide in by claiming that all the
tests need to be done with that gun- just like you hide behind selective
documents and close the door on almost every discussion that departs from
your preferred theory.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!
Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not
been wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in
CE 142. I did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did
not contain any or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE
574 when fired. I was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets
transited CE 393-5.
If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with
three hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-16 04:53:54 UTC
Permalink
I was wondering what he was talking about :-)
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by tomnln
WITH CE 139?
LOL!
Let me make this very clear. It was not with CE 139. The rifle had not been
wrapped in CE 140, nor did I pack it in Buell Frazier's vehicle in CE 142. I
did not fire CE 399 nor CE 543-545. The rounds I fired did not contain any
or all of CE 567 or CE 569 and they were not held in CE 574 when fired. I
was not wearing CE 150 or CE 162. None of the bullets transited CE 393-5.
If you think there is anything actually material in your point, then I
imagine that above is too.
Chad
Post by tomnln
Post by Chad Zimmerman
The first time I rapid fired, I fired 3 shots in 4.8 seconds with three
hits on a 14" paper target at 85 yards.
Somewhere, I have videotape of that.
Chad
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Sammy, G.
2007-02-15 04:04:25 UTC
Permalink
RIDICULOUS!

This is not AIMED at you Eric, rather Penn and Tellers "demonstration".
Even when entertaining the unlikely assumption that the iron sights we
used(LHO, or someone, apparently went to certain lengths to obtain and
mount a scope). P&T's "demonstration" leaves approximately 2.15 seconds
for reacquiring, THEN aiming at a small, moving target, for the second AND
third shots(1.05 seconds each). The video obviously allows no time for
reacquiring and aiming at the target. While there may be the slightest of
possibilities that this could be done, the WC and all the experts at their
disposal could NOT do it. Since that time I have seen and witnessed
various attempts to replicate this feat. All either failed, or were so
seriously flawed, that any claims to the contrary were obviously, and
undeniably RIDICULOUS!
Post by eric_r_carlson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
eric_r_carlson
2007-02-15 17:22:06 UTC
Permalink
I don't think it is ridiculous *at all.* They were simply showing how
fast it could be done, leaving the rest of the time for reacquiring.
I edited out the part where Penn says that Vincent Bugliosi claims
there was up to 8 seconds in which Oswald could have fired. I do not
know the reasoning for this, but perhaps someone can tell me why 5.6
or 6 seconds was agreed upon? Here is the full clip:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501
tomnln
2007-02-16 04:42:48 UTC
Permalink
The CE-139 took 3.2 seconds to recycle the bolt by an FBI Expert.

The target could not be seen from the 6th floor window prior toframe 210.
The last shot occored at frame 313. That's 103 frames. The film ran
through the camer at 18.3 frames per second.

THAT comes out to 5.6 Seconds.

Those are ALL Official Numbers.
Post by eric_r_carlson
I don't think it is ridiculous *at all.* They were simply showing how
fast it could be done, leaving the rest of the time for reacquiring.
I edited out the part where Penn says that Vincent Bugliosi claims
there was up to 8 seconds in which Oswald could have fired. I do not
know the reasoning for this, but perhaps someone can tell me why 5.6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501
r***@sbcglobal.net
2007-02-16 05:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by eric_r_carlson
I don't think it is ridiculous *at all.* They were simply showing how
fast it could be done, leaving the rest of the time for reacquiring.
I edited out the part where Penn says that Vincent Bugliosi claims
there was up to 8 seconds in which Oswald could have fired. I do not
know the reasoning for this, but perhaps someone can tell me why 5.6
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501
***5.6 seconds is from the time that JFK disappeared from view behind the
sign (at which time the WC considered him not to be wounded yet) to the
moment JFK was struck in the head. I would guess that 6 seconds "in
Dallas" would be a rounding up to the next whole second. 6 seconds has a
catchier ring than "5.6 seconds in Dallas".

I found it interesting that Penn refered to the 5.6 second group as
"nuts", considering the consensus of upwards of 8 seconds. I do not
consider myself a nut and believe i have more than adequately supported a
first shot hit at Circa Z224. As Zapruder said, he heard a report and saw
JFK slump over to his left. He said he heard another shot or 2 and saw
the right side of Kennedy's head explode.

***Ron Judge
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 04:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sammy, G.
RIDICULOUS!
This is not AIMED at you Eric, rather Penn and Tellers "demonstration".
Even when entertaining the unlikely assumption that the iron sights we
used(LHO, or someone, apparently went to certain lengths to obtain and
mount a scope).
It came with the scope. The scope is mounted with two holes drilled into
the gun. If you remove the scope and mounting bracket, the screws are too
long and prevent proper loading by impeding the bolt. Thus, simply having
the scope on it does not mean that it was used. In addition, the scope was
mounted offset to the left, allowing easy use of the iron sights. My rapid
fire experiment did not include the use of the scope and I find myself
more comfortable with the iron sights than the small scope.

P&T's "demonstration" leaves approximately 2.15 seconds
Post by Sammy, G.
for reacquiring, THEN aiming at a small, moving target, for the second AND
third shots(1.05 seconds each).
Not sure why you call a human a small target. A pop can at 100 yards is a
small target. 2-1/2 feet of a human target is not small at such a short
distance. In addition, the vehicle was moving less than 15mph.

Do you know how fast a deer runs?

The video obviously allows no time for
Post by Sammy, G.
reacquiring and aiming at the target. While there may be the slightest of
possibilities that this could be done, the WC and all the experts at their
disposal could NOT do it. Since that time I have seen and witnessed
various attempts to replicate this feat. All either failed, or were so
seriously flawed, that any claims to the contrary were obviously, and
undeniably RIDICULOUS!
You saw the Discovery Channel replication of this?

Chad
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-15 17:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!

They used iron sights, not a scope.

They are not aiming at anything.

It certainly is bull shit!

But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.

I would also do the same test and then some.

"eric_r_carlson" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-16 04:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
And your proof that Oswald used the scope is? None. He could've used
either. The iron sights remain open with that scope on the gun. It
might've been easier.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
They are not aiming at anything.
They were illustrating a point- that the gun can be fired rapidly.


Chad
tomnln
2007-02-16 05:13:12 UTC
Permalink
NOT CE-139
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
And your proof that Oswald used the scope is? None. He could've used
either. The iron sights remain open with that scope on the gun. It
might've been easier.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
They are not aiming at anything.
They were illustrating a point- that the gun can be fired rapidly.
Chad
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-16 20:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?

If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?

Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?

The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.

What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable alternative?

Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.

Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
And your proof that Oswald used the scope is? None. He could've used
either. The iron sights remain open with that scope on the gun. It
might've been easier.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
They are not aiming at anything.
They were illustrating a point- that the gun can be fired rapidly.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-17 02:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?
The scope is mounted on a bracket on the left side of the gun. It is
offset. The bolt is on the right side. The scope does not get in the way.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?
It came with a scope. The scopes came from a company in CA to Klein's.
Klein's assembled the scopes on the guns and shipped them out. The
mounting bracket has two screws. If the mount is taken off, there are two
holes in the side of the gun that need to be plugged. If the screws are
tighted all the way, then they impede the operation of the bolt.

LHO did not add the scope.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?
It is both efficient and effective.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.
What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable alternative?
I don't know if they did.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.
THE TEST WAS TO SEE HOW FAST THE GUN COULD BE RAPID FIRED WHILE AIMING AT
A STATIONARY TARGET. That's it. I'm fairly tired of people assuming
something that it was not.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
There is probably a slight difference, but not much. Target tracking is a
cortical process that requires very little time. I found it more difficult
to steady the gun at a stationary target than I do firing at running deer.
In addition, unlike Frazier, I wasn't using a gunrest either. I was on one
knee without any support for the gun.

Chad
Gerry Simone (H)
2007-02-18 01:47:31 UTC
Permalink
OK, thanks but see my replies below.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?
The scope is mounted on a bracket on the left side of the gun. It is
offset. The bolt is on the right side. The scope does not get in the way.
Ok, but if you aim either aim at a distant target with a scope or iron
sight, mustn't one lift their cheek from the stock in order to cock the bolt
for the next shot, thereby losing some time?
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?
It came with a scope. The scopes came from a company in CA to Klein's.
Klein's assembled the scopes on the guns and shipped them out. The
mounting bracket has two screws. If the mount is taken off, there are two
holes in the side of the gun that need to be plugged. If the screws are
tighted all the way, then they impede the operation of the bolt.
LHO did not add the scope.
Thank you!
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?
It is both efficient and effective.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.
What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable
alternative?
I don't know if they did.
Did they assume that LHO used the scope?
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.
THE TEST WAS TO SEE HOW FAST THE GUN COULD BE RAPID FIRED WHILE AIMING AT
A STATIONARY TARGET. That's it. I'm fairly tired of people assuming
something that it was not.
You're tired because you know better, but not P & T or their un-initiated
audience.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
There is probably a slight difference, but not much. Target tracking is a
cortical process that requires very little time. I found it more difficult
to steady the gun at a stationary target than I do firing at running deer.
In addition, unlike Frazier, I wasn't using a gunrest either. I was on one
knee without any support for the gun.
Still apples and oranges.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
2007-02-18 05:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (H)
OK, thanks but see my replies below.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?
The scope is mounted on a bracket on the left side of the gun. It is
offset. The bolt is on the right side. The scope does not get in the way.
Ok, but if you aim either aim at a distant target with a scope or iron
sight, mustn't one lift their cheek from the stock in order to cock the
bolt for the next shot, thereby losing some time?
Yes, but you're talking about maybe half a second. Like I said, I did it
without a bench rest and it took me 4.8 seconds to shoot 3 times. I had to
reacquire the target each time with the iron sights. I really don't think
a moving target would add much time.
Post by Gerry Simone (H)
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?
It came with a scope. The scopes came from a company in CA to Klein's.
Klein's assembled the scopes on the guns and shipped them out. The
mounting bracket has two screws. If the mount is taken off, there are two
holes in the side of the gun that need to be plugged. If the screws are
tighted all the way, then they impede the operation of the bolt.
LHO did not add the scope.
Thank you!
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?
It is both efficient and effective.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.
What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable alternative?
I don't know if they did.
Did they assume that LHO used the scope?
I think they did.
Post by Gerry Simone (H)
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.
THE TEST WAS TO SEE HOW FAST THE GUN COULD BE RAPID FIRED WHILE AIMING AT
A STATIONARY TARGET. That's it. I'm fairly tired of people assuming
something that it was not.
You're tired because you know better, but not P & T or their un-initiated
audience.
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
There is probably a slight difference, but not much. Target tracking is a
cortical process that requires very little time. I found it more
difficult to steady the gun at a stationary target than I do firing at
running deer. In addition, unlike Frazier, I wasn't using a gunrest
either. I was on one knee without any support for the gun.
Still apples and oranges.
So everyone says, but nobody proves...

Chad
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-17 04:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?
No, the scope does not get in the way much if at all.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?
Bigger view, more accurate view.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?
Some people use swingaway scopes for that very reason. Most troops don't
bother with anything so fancy.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.
What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable alternative?
Possible.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.
WC defenders invented apples and oranges.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
Blakey fired two shots within 1.66 seconds.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
And your proof that Oswald used the scope is? None. He could've used
either. The iron sights remain open with that scope on the gun. It
might've been easier.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
They are not aiming at anything.
They were illustrating a point- that the gun can be fired rapidly.
Chad
Gerry Simone (H)
2007-02-18 05:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Thank you very much!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if you can aim thru the iron sight, doesn't the scope slow things down
by getting in the way of using the iron sight and/or operating the bolt, or
are you further away from the scope by relying on the iron sight?
No, the scope does not get in the way much if at all.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If it's easier to operate that bolt with an iron sight vs. a scope, why
attach a scope?
Bigger view, more accurate view.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Is the use of the iron sight with the scope still on, an effective or
efficient alternative or option?
Some people use swingaway scopes for that very reason. Most troops don't
bother with anything so fancy.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The Warren Commission described how the scope was misaligned or defective.
What did they say about using the iron sights as a reasonable
alternative?
Possible.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Not aiming at a distant target is like comparing apples with oranges Chad.
WC defenders invented apples and oranges.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Of course it's faster. That's how Frazier reduced his experimental firing
time by shooting at a target 25 yards away. Again, that's apples and
oranges.
Blakey fired two shots within 1.66 seconds.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by Chad Zimmerman
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
And your proof that Oswald used the scope is? None. He could've used
either. The iron sights remain open with that scope on the gun. It
might've been easier.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
They are not aiming at anything.
They were illustrating a point- that the gun can be fired rapidly.
Chad
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-16 05:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
They are trying their best to curry favor with the ruling elite, in vain
hope of moving up from the OUTER PARTY to the INNER PARTY. They will be
tapped for the CFR next year. They've pulled the same stuff on other
shows to knock down all conspiracy talk.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I would also do the same test and then some.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-16 23:17:45 UTC
Permalink
What do you think of the argument about using the iron sights as a pure
option while the scope is still attached?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
They are trying their best to curry favor with the ruling elite, in vain
hope of moving up from the OUTER PARTY to the INNER PARTY. They will be
tapped for the CFR next year. They've pulled the same stuff on other
shows to knock down all conspiracy talk.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I would also do the same test and then some.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-17 02:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What do you think of the argument about using the iron sights as a pure
option while the scope is still attached?
I personally like the iron sights better, but that's just me. As for the
actual shots, I tend to think that Oswald used the scope for the shot at
Walker, and someone else unfamiliar with the rifle used the iron sights on
11/22/63. There was not much room for sighting through that narrowly
opened window. And the scope is slightly harder to acquire for fast
reloading.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
They are trying their best to curry favor with the ruling elite, in vain
hope of moving up from the OUTER PARTY to the INNER PARTY. They will be
tapped for the CFR next year. They've pulled the same stuff on other
shows to knock down all conspiracy talk.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I would also do the same test and then some.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
Gerry Simone (H)
2007-02-18 05:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Ah, you answered another key question...reloading before re-aiming with
the scope takes more time.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What do you think of the argument about using the iron sights as a pure
option while the scope is still attached?
I personally like the iron sights better, but that's just me. As for the
actual shots, I tend to think that Oswald used the scope for the shot at
Walker, and someone else unfamiliar with the rifle used the iron sights on
11/22/63. There was not much room for sighting through that narrowly
opened window. And the scope is slightly harder to acquire for fast
reloading.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
They are trying their best to curry favor with the ruling elite, in vain
hope of moving up from the OUTER PARTY to the INNER PARTY. They will be
tapped for the CFR next year. They've pulled the same stuff on other
shows to knock down all conspiracy talk.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I would also do the same test and then some.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4554384376223562153&q=penn+%26+teller+jfk&hl=en
r***@sbcglobal.net
2007-02-16 05:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
I would also do the same test and then some.
***Penn used an iron sight, as Oswald could have, if it was his choice.
The assumption is that Oswald used the scope, as it was on the rifle. The
scope was nothing more than an option. Frasier, of the FBI fired at a
stationary target at 25 yards and hit 3 times in 4.6 seconds, using the
scope, which makes the scope issue rather moot.

Oswald was of coarse, firing at a moving target at a greater distance, but
Frasier was able to re-aim at the target and rapid fire the rifle.

Penn of coarse, was pretending to quick aim, but with as fast as he was
firing the rifle, he could have lengthened his re-aim and still "fired" 3
shots in 5 seconds.

The basic point that Penn makes is that 3 shots in 5 seconds is doable.


***Ron Judge
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-02-16 23:12:18 UTC
Permalink
SEE BELOW.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
I would also do the same test and then some.
***Penn used an iron sight, as Oswald could have, if it was his choice.
The assumption is that Oswald used the scope, as it was on the rifle. The
scope was nothing more than an option. Frasier, of the FBI fired at a
stationary target at 25 yards and hit 3 times in 4.6 seconds, using the
scope, which makes the scope issue rather moot.
So it's purely optional to use the iron sight instead of the scope (iow, the
scope doesn't obstruct or slow the operation or iron sight aiming of the
MC)?

Frasier's firing at 25 yards vs. what LHO allegedly did is like comparing
apples to oranges.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Oswald was of coarse, firing at a moving target at a greater distance, but
Frasier was able to re-aim at the target and rapid fire the rifle.
Re-aim at 25 yards is much different - there's a bigger margin of error if
Frasier fired that fast from the distant Oswald did with a moving target.
They are not the same. End of story.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Penn of coarse, was pretending to quick aim, but with as fast as he was
firing the rifle, he could have lengthened his re-aim and still "fired" 3
shots in 5 seconds.
'Lengthen his re-aim?'...you mean fudge the results. He wasn't aiming at
anything and that makes a helluva difference in any experiment duplicating
what Oswald allegedly did.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
The basic point that Penn makes is that 3 shots in 5 seconds is doable.
Yeah but now how Oswald did it.

It's too bad he doesn't explain this in his experiment to the public at
large.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
***Ron Judge
r***@sbcglobal.net
2007-02-18 02:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
SEE BELOW.
SEE BELOW.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
I would also do the same test and then some.
***Penn used an iron sight, as Oswald could have, if it was his choice.
The assumption is that Oswald used the scope, as it was on the rifle. The
scope was nothing more than an option. Frasier, of the FBI fired at a
stationary target at 25 yards and hit 3 times in 4.6 seconds, using the
scope, which makes the scope issue rather moot.
So it's purely optional to use the iron sight instead of the scope (iow, the
scope doesn't obstruct or slow the operation or iron sight aiming of the
MC)?
***If the iron sight is not blocked by the scope, it is purely optional to
use the scope.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Frasier's firing at 25 yards vs. what LHO allegedly did is like comparing
apples to oranges.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Oswald was of coarse, firing at a moving target at a greater distance, but
Frasier was able to re-aim at the target and rapid fire the rifle.
Re-aim at 25 yards is much different - there's a bigger margin of error if
Frasier fired that fast from the distant Oswald did with a moving target.
They are not the same. End of story.
***I never said they were the same. That does not make it the end of
story. Donahue fired at a moving target and hit it 3 times in 4.8 seconds.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Penn of coarse, was pretending to quick aim, but with as fast as he was
firing the rifle, he could have lengthened his re-aim and still "fired" 3
shots in 5 seconds.
'Lengthen his re-aim?'...you mean fudge the results. He wasn't aiming at
anything and that makes a helluva difference in any experiment duplicating
what Oswald allegedly did.
***No, not fudge the results. Penn could have taken longer to aim than he
did in the demonstration and stll "fired" 3 shots in 5 seconds.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
The basic point that Penn makes is that 3 shots in 5 seconds is doable.
Yeah but now how Oswald did it.
It's too bad he doesn't explain this in his experiment to the public at
large.
***If the rifle can be fired 3 times, with aiming, in 4.8 seconds, that is
how Oswald would have done it three times between circa 223 and 312.

***Ron Judge
tomnln
2007-02-17 02:45:52 UTC
Permalink
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Penn & Teller are all smoke and mirrors!
They used iron sights, not a scope.
They are not aiming at anything.
It certainly is bull shit!
But I give them credit for attempting the obvious with a MC.
I would also do the same test and then some.
***Penn used an iron sight, as Oswald could have, if it was his choice.
The assumption is that Oswald used the scope, as it was on the rifle. The
scope was nothing more than an option. Frasier, of the FBI fired at a
stationary target at 25 yards and hit 3 times in 4.6 seconds, using the
scope, which makes the scope issue rather moot.
Oswald was of coarse, firing at a moving target at a greater distance, but
Frasier was able to re-aim at the target and rapid fire the rifle.
Penn of coarse, was pretending to quick aim, but with as fast as he was
firing the rifle, he could have lengthened his re-aim and still "fired" 3
shots in 5 seconds.
The basic point that Penn makes is that 3 shots in 5 seconds is doable.
***Ron Judge
r***@sbcglobal.net
2007-02-18 04:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
***WR page 194. Robert Frasier fired 2 groups of 3 shots at 25 yards in
4.6 and 4.8 seconds. One group landed in an area of 2 inches and the other
an area of 5 inches.

If the rifle was bolted down, it would seem that the shots should have
landed nearly on top of each other.

***Ron Judge
tomnln
2007-02-18 16:05:35 UTC
Permalink
You forgot to mention the "Inaccuracy" of CE-139.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
***WR page 194. Robert Frasier fired 2 groups of 3 shots at 25 yards in
4.6 and 4.8 seconds. One group landed in an area of 2 inches and the other
an area of 5 inches.
If the rifle was bolted down, it would seem that the shots should have
landed nearly on top of each other.
***Ron Judge
r***@sbcglobal.net
2007-02-19 00:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention the "Inaccuracy" of CE-139.
***What inaccuracy are you referring to? The scope? If the rifle was
bolted down, there would not have been a spacing of 3 inches and 5 inches
in the grouping. The scope may not have been properly aligned at the time
of the test firing, but as far as i am aware the rifle was ballisticly
sound.

Thus, if the rifle was bolted down and the crosshair aligned with the
center of the target, all the shots would have been X mm high and Ymm to
the right of center.
Post by tomnln
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
***WR page 194. Robert Frasier fired 2 groups of 3 shots at 25 yards in
4.6 and 4.8 seconds. One group landed in an area of 2 inches and the other
an area of 5 inches.
If the rifle was bolted down, it would seem that the shots should have
landed nearly on top of each other.
***Ron Judge- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Sammy, G.
2007-02-18 16:34:17 UTC
Permalink
I guess this is an excellent example of the differences between Lone Nutters
and CT's. I'm assuming, of course, that both groups know the difference
between aiming, and PRETENDING to aim. However, one group contemplates, and
deals with the obvious. The other PRETENDS they're unable!

Thanks

Sammy, G.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
***WR page 194. Robert Frasier fired 2 groups of 3 shots at 25 yards in
4.6 and 4.8 seconds. One group landed in an area of 2 inches and the other
an area of 5 inches.
If the rifle was bolted down, it would seem that the shots should have
landed nearly on top of each other.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
2007-02-19 05:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by tomnln
You forgot to mention that Frasier said the rifle was BOLTED DOWN.
***WR page 194. Robert Frasier fired 2 groups of 3 shots at 25 yards in
4.6 and 4.8 seconds. One group landed in an area of 2 inches and the other
an area of 5 inches.
What area? Not the bullseye. High and to the right. High and to the
right. High and to the right.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
If the rifle was bolted down, it would seem that the shots should have
landed nearly on top of each other.
That could be tested.
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
***Ron Judge
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...