Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)113. "Inaccurate", not true.
Three FBI firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three FBI experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds, and one of these agents, Robert A. Frazier, fired two series of three shots at 25 yards in 4.6 and 4.8 seconds.808 At 15 yards each man's shots landed within the size of a dime.809 The shots fired by Frazier at the range of 25 yards landed within an area of 2 inches and 5 inches respectively.810 Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches.811 Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye.812 They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it.813 Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired.
Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current military rifles.814 Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.815
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#accuracy
Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current military rifles.814 Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.815
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#accuracy
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
180 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK [View all]
alphafemale
Nov 2013
OP
Of course. That notion that there is such a thing as a military command called Southcom is a lie
eridani
Nov 2013
#125
And, of course, it has NOTHING to do with our government CONSISTENTLY lying to us, right?
Th1onein
Nov 2013
#162
Did I SAY that our government lies to us about EVERYTHING? Good example of twisting my words.
Th1onein
Nov 2013
#172
You use one of the UK's most notorious sensationalist tabloids as a source?
Art_from_Ark
Nov 2013
#15
Actually Oswald was witnessed firing the weapon out the window by several people
cpwm17
Nov 2013
#70
Witnesses did give a correct description of Oswald before the police located Oswald
cpwm17
Nov 2013
#101
he pulled the gun to try to shoot the officer that killed him in the theater. nt
alphafemale
Nov 2013
#180
I'm not sure how US government officials might benefit from the Loch Ness monster...
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#132
What's frustrating is belief that "do not always tell the truth" means "always lies with competence"
Bucky
Nov 2013
#138
I was talking about the truth eventually getting out, not people being willing dupes
Bucky
Nov 2013
#148
It was inevitable the truth was eventually going to get out about Iraq because there were no WMDs.
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#164
This!: More broadly, it's a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness...
Benton D Struckcheon
Nov 2013
#81
Most people have been intentionally harmed at some point in their lives, it's not that uncommon
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#165
yes, so did the three LATER congressional investigations, including the one in 1996
librechik
Nov 2013
#35
I recommend Lamar Waldron's new book, "The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination" n/t
librechik
Nov 2013
#73
I'd like to think we're all selective as to what we believe or don't believe.
nyquil_man
Nov 2013
#61
Well you could say that if someone gave opinions on 100 government studies.
former9thward
Nov 2013
#46
Not necessarily. It depends on their goals and how much institutional support they had
BlueStreak
Nov 2013
#170
Ironically, DU was founded on the wide belief that GWB stole the 2000 election...
pacalo
Nov 2013
#10
The Warren Commission knew they were expected to reach a pre-determined conclusion - no conspiracy.
JohnyCanuck
Nov 2013
#47
....who managed to fire multiple perfect shots in a short amount of time from long distance
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Nov 2013
#49
I am not seeing it with my own eyes in the photos of the Limo at Parkland.
The Midway Rebel
Nov 2013
#137
Because a single gunman scares them. That it was possible for a lone nut to kill the leader....
Logical
Nov 2013
#66
Not true. Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy (of losers, but still a conspiracy)
Bucky
Nov 2013
#140
Government Propaganda Is the Only Source That Supports Oswald As The Assassin
cantbeserious
Nov 2013
#80
You think there is anything to Oswald's ties to the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami?
B Calm
Nov 2013
#85
So, you are saying you are convinced of JFK CT because you get bullied on DU when you present CT?
The Midway Rebel
Nov 2013
#153
Shitbird is not a nickname for an individual, it's a term for someone insufficiently gung ho
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#166
I have an easy time believing it, because I'm surprised more assassinations haven't succeeded
Hippo_Tron
Nov 2013
#116
"The government also has a poor track record when it comes to keeping secrets that big."
solarhydrocan
Nov 2013
#122
There are so many conspiracy theories, they can't all be right...but they CAN all be wrong
brooklynite
Nov 2013
#119
Maybe it's because people are distrustful of the government's version of what happened on that day.
Wash. state Desk Jet
Nov 2013
#156
so you think the House Select Committee on Assassinations conclusions were wrong?
yurbud
Nov 2013
#179