Doch :)Nemon schrieb:Zitat von nowaynoway schrieb:
Aber das steht doch hier auch
Nein?
...aus dem Text den du verlinkt hast:
Nimmst du zur Kenntnis, was ich eben geschrieben habe?
Von einem falsch montierten Scope ist nun mal gar keine Rede, jedenfalls nicht bei den drei FBI-Testschützen. Ich lese da aber heute nicht mehr weiter. Vielleicht findest du ja was.
Although all of the shots were a few inches high and of the right of the target, this was because of a defect in the scope…Der Defekt ist beschrieben und "a few inches" bei einer Streuung von 2-5 inches ist genau das, was in dem Spiegel Artikel steht.
Wir waren auf einer sachlichen Ebene.noway schrieb:Der Bericht wird dann "schön" geschrieben, dass man ja nur die Zeit für die 3 Schüsse nachstellen wollte.
Am Schluss heißt es dann: "Ja, mit der Waffe kann man so ein Attenat durchführen - wenn's auch nicht der Hit ist"
Mano - was sollen sie den anderes schreiben im WC-Bericht?
"Leider hat keiner das Ziel getroffen..."
Da steht doch "defect". Auch interessant:
Intriguingly, the HSCA came to agree that Oswald's use of the scope was unlikely. Their Firearms Panel concluded "that an individual could attain better accuracy using the iron sights than the scope under the circumstances involved in Dealey Plaza." In his testimony, the panel's spokesman, Monty Lutz, explained why. First he questioned the accuracy of the scope. He claimed "The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made. The scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope." Then he questioned if the scope would be of help even under optimal conditions. He explained: "This scope, I will apply the principle to it. We are dealing with a four-power or a magnification of 4. The field of view is 18, meaning an 18-foot circle at 100 yards. So it is a 4 x 18 scope, a relatively small circle to locate your target in when you are firing and recovering from the recoil in successive shots. So to align your target to get a sighting position, by placing the stock into the shoulder, the head has to be adjusted or moved slightly to the left to align the way that the scope is mounted on the left-hand side and get into position to fire. The scope itself is also designed so that the crosshair, the reticles, do not remain in the exact center position. When you adjust windage or elevation those crosshairs move, so that you are not looking dead center in the object itself. A more natural and easier form or position to fire is to put the rifle against the shoulder, the cheek on the stock, and look right down the center, straight ahead from where you are now positioned, and align the iron sights, the fixed iron sights that are presently on the rifle." He then testified that, for him, using the iron sights would be "considerably easier" than using the scope. None of his colleagues on the panel disagreed.http://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15
While the panel's conclusion was no doubt influenced by the fact they'd found the rifle could also be fired more rapidly when using the iron sights, and the HSCA was anxious to conclude the rifle had been fired more rapidly than previously believed possible, there were almost certainly other factors influencing their decision. Perhaps one of these factors was that, as acknowledged in the 1969 testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier--the first man to test the weapon--one had to lift one's eye away from the scope between shots in order "To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking (one) in the face as it came to the rear." Perhaps another of these factors was that, when first tested by Frazier on 11-27-1963, the rifle, when fired using the scope, fired 4 inches high and one to the right at only 15 yards. Assuming this was the condition of the rifle as found in the depository, this meant that the sniper, in order to lead the President and hit him in the head while he was moving away and to the right, would have to have fired behind the President, and aimed for low on his back, or perhaps even at the trunk of his limousine. This would have been quite a trick. Perhaps the HSCA Firearms Panel, unlike the Warren Commission, which concluded that the use of the apparently misaligned scope had been a "substantial aid" in the shooting, saw the unlikelihood of Oswald pulling off such a trick.
Unfortunately for them, however, the only man known to rapid fire the assassination rifle while using the iron sights, a Mr. Miller, the best shooter in the Army's 1964 tests, only attempted one run using these sights... On this run, Mr. Miller not only missed the head and neck silhouette of his third and final target, he missed the target completely.
Perhaps the HSCA Firearms Panel, unlike the Warren Commission, which concluded that the use of the apparently misaligned scope had been a "substantial aid" in the shooting, saw the unlikelihood of Oswald pulling off such a trick.
Naja, wie du schreibst:
After Frazier, Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Department of the Army, testifies, and things only get worse. He states that Oswald’s rifle was as accurate as the current standard issue rifle of the U.S. Army, the M-14, but acknowledges that his three test shooters “could not sight the weapon in using the telescope and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation.” He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing.Sie schossen auf stationäre Ziele, hatten mehrere Versuche- und konnten im Vorfeld üben, sich also mit dem Abzug und dem Bolzen vertraut machen:
When asked what preparation these shooters were allowed to undertake, before attempting these shots, Simmons then relates: "They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."...
This last point is supported by the Army's tests of Oswald's rifle in March, 1964. The three Master rifleman chosen to test the rifle, after being allowed as much time as needed for the first shot, missed the second shot 4 of 6 times, even though they were aiming at a stationary target, and their target was approximately 3 times as large as the approximately 7 inch circle within which Oswald had purportedly placed two shots. The sudden switch from waiting to turning and rapid-firing at a target was apparently a difficult one, made even more difficult by the use of a scope.Zum Bolzen und Triggermechanismus:
And it's actually worse than that. Far worse. These expert shooters were firing at stationary targets. Even the slightest bit of movement of a target while a shooter is aiming and firing can negatively affect the accuracy of his shooting. When asked if these expert shooters made any comments as they fired Oswald's rifle, Simmons replies: "Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round. There was also comment made about the trigger pull which is different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon."http://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15
Hmm...we can only wonder then if this two stage jerky trigger pull would negatively affect the performance of the rifle when firing upon moving targets.
Actually, we can do more than that. When one reads the available literature, one finds it does just that.The Rifle Book, by Jack O'Connor (1950) tells us "No man ever learns to become a good rifleshot unless he develops his co-ordination to the point where he can let his shot off at the exact instant he wishes. This is as true of shooting running game as it is on the target range. The best trigger is one with a light, crisp pull. It can be a double-stage military pull or a single-stage spotting pull, but it must be crisp. If the last stage is draggy, rough, or creepy, no one can use it...If the motion that lets the trigger off is anything but a gentle squeeze, it will disturb the aim and the shot will not go where it is supposed to go."
It seems clear, moreover, that Simmons knew there was a problem for the proposition Oswald fired all the shots with the weapon in question, what with its misaligned scope, stiff bolt-action, and jerky two-stage trigger. In concluding his appraisal of the difficulty of the shooting, Simmons affirms that "in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes." (Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3H441-451)
Anscheinend waren es mehr als 5 inches:
Der Defekt ist beschrieben und "a few inches" bei einer Streuung von 2-5 inches ist genau das, was in dem Spiegel Artikel steht.
Im Prinzip hat keiner was getroffen.
Particularly in that Simmons knew full well his test shooters did not fire nearly as well as claimed...http://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15
When one looks at the targets his men fired upon, Commission Exhibits 582-584, it's startlingly clear Simmons' definition of a hit is not what any reasonable person would consider a hit. Oswald was purported to have hit Kennedy once in the base of the neck and once in the head in 6 seconds or less. The targets the Army shooters fired upon were not only stationary targets, they were far larger than the small area on Kennedy hit by the sniper...twice. While one might claim the shooters were merely interested in hitting the targets, and not specific points on the targets, one cannot reasonably claim they would deliberately not hit this target in as central a location as possible. Thus, a re-examination of the Army's targets, counting as hits only those hits landing between the extended sides of the neck on the target, indicates that the Army's shooters hit the first shot 6 of 7 times, the second shot 3 of 7 times, and the third shot but 2 of 7 times, with both hits landing on the back.
When one looks even closer, and considers that the Army's shooters would also be trying to hit the center of the target vertically, and compares their hits between the neck lines on the targets to the purported location of the hits on Kennedy, it gets even worse. (Simmons, in fact, testified that he'd assumed the shooters were firing at the intersection of lines at the center of the target.) Only one or two of the hits on the first target, when the shooters had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, landed as close to the center of the target as the two hits purportedly rapid-fired by Oswald. Even worse (yes, even worse), NOT ONE of the 14 shots rapid fired on the last two targets landed anywhere near as close the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.
Also ich bin mit Waffen quasi aufgewachsen, aber warum ein sich näherndes Ziel schwerer zu treffen sein sollte, als ein sich entfernendes erschließt sich mir nicht.
Wenn wir uns mal die Situation in der Elm Street anschauen, muss man ganz klar sagen: Keine große Aufgabe. Die Entfernung der Limo war sehr gering, die Geschwindigkeit ebenso.
Dazu reicht es mit einem stationärem Ziel zu üben. Wenn eine Waffe "nach rechts zieht", dann tut sie das immer gleich. der Schütze muss dann ein wenig links neben das eigentliche Ziel zielen. Immer in derselben Weise, das ändert sich nicht, wenn sich das Ziel bewegt.
Es gab auch Tests mit einem beweglichen Ziel, wo die Tester getroffen haben.
Für den Schützen am Graßhügel ja, für den war die Entfernung gering.Groucho schrieb:Wenn wir uns mal die Situation in der Elm Street anschauen, muss man ganz klar sagen: Keine große Aufgabe. Die Entfernung der Limo war sehr gering, die Geschwindigkeit ebenso.
Du scheinst aber den Artikel auch nicht so richtig gelesen zu haben.
Das ist Unsinn.
Zitat von EdgarHEdgarH schrieb:
Man hätte gerade bei solch schlechter Zieleigenschaft genau das mehrfach üben müssen: schießen auf ein sich entfernendes Ziel, um die Abweichungen zu erkennen, damit man diese dann korrigieren ä kann.
Dazu reicht es mit einem stationärem Ziel zu üben. Wenn eine Waffe "nach rechts zieht", dann tut sie das immer gleich. der Schütze muss dann ein wenig links neben das eigentliche Ziel zielen. Immer in derselben Weise, das ändert sich nicht, wenn sich das Ziel bewegt.
Mit denselben Silhouetten, mit Caracanos im besseren Zustand...
Die Art, wie OTler die Schussexperimente darstellen, ist Unsinn.
Das ist Unsinn.
Hast du nicht mal behauptet, dass das Abbremsen es einem Schützen erschwert hätte, zu treffen?
war das nicht andersrum?
-----------------------------
daraus folgt:
Waren die hier diskutierten Schussexperimente deiner Meinung nach eine akkurate Wiedergabe der Verhältnisse?delta.m schrieb:daraus folgt:
1) LHO hat nicht geschossen.
Er war ein "schlechter" Schütze und war nicht so dumm, mit einem noch "schlechteren" Gewehr ein Attentat zu begehen ...
2) Es war dumm, LHO so ein "schlechtes" Gewehr unterzuschieben,
da er damit (als Sündenbock) niemals treffen konnte ...
3) ;)
Ah, richtig.
Aus einem älteren Beitrag:
But let the test results speak for themselves…http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3c%3Athewhitewash
1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds)
2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.
3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds)
4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where shots went in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts.
5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds)
6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds)
7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds)
8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds)
9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.
10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.
11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.
12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds)
Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to hit the target twice in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times.
In fact, it's even worse. Not counting Crossman, an acknowledged rifle expert, those purportedly of Oswald's skill level landed but 25 hits TOTAL, in their 20 successful attempts at getting off 3 shots. In other words, they hit 25 out of 60 shots--far worse on average than Oswald's purported 2 out of 3.
Beitrag von Africanus (Seite 1.071)Africanus schrieb am 08.09.2017:Zweimal Oswalds Ergebnis übertroffen, da in kürzerer Zeit.
Ergebnis: Sechs von Zwölf Schützen erreichten Oswalds Ergebnis, also 50%.
Von 43 Versuchen gelang es zehnmal Oswalds Ergbebnis zu erreichen, also 23,25%.
Eine Quote von 23,25% ist nun nicht gerade "sehr unwahrscheinlich", sie ist allerdings weit davon entfernt "unwahrscheinlicher als ein Sechser in Lotto" zu sein, wie es @Foxyterry behauptet hat.
For two, the CBS shooters, unlike the man firing Oswald's rifle in Dealey Plaza, who was firing cold, were given NINE practice shots before making their attempts. For three, the target upon which these men fired, unlike the limousine in Dealey Plaza, moved at a constant speed away from the shooter, and at a constant angle.http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3c%3Athewhitewash
This, then, suggests that, even IF Oswald was a well-practiced shooter, and even IF his rifle were in optimal condition, and even IF he had been provided NINE practice shots, the odds of his hitting the small area he supposedly hit from the sniper's nest on any given shot were less than 1 in 6, and of his hitting this area 2 of 3 times something like 1 in 16.Fazit:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3c%3Athewhitewash
Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: “There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.449. “The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.”: ibid., p.451.
http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests#fn05_003
There is no pat answer to the question of how fast Oswald’s rifle could be fired. In the first place, we did not test his own rifle. It seemed reasonable to say that an expert could fire that rifle in five seconds. It seems equally reasonable to say that Oswald under normal circumstances would take longer. But the circumstances were not normal. He was shooting at a president. So our answer is: probably fast enough.
Mit JFK starb auch sein Rückzugsplan für Vietnam:behind_eyes schrieb:Erinnern wir uns kurz, das heute der Jahrestag von Präsident Kennedys Ermordung ist ***
Danke für diese, gerade in diesem Thread, wichtigen Worte. Ich wünschte, du wärst schon länger hier im Thread.Cpt.Germanica schrieb:Erinnern wir uns kurz und erweisen uns durch eine gepflegte Diskussionskultur dieser Tragödie pietätvoll würdig.
Lieber nicht, ich stelle doch bzgl. Oswald mitunter kritische Fragen. 😉
1. Reconstruction ended up as a failure for the liberated slaves of the South. And due to several odd and adverse Supreme Court decisions afterwards, the Reconstruction laws and amendments were neutralized. (Part 1, section 1)https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/the-kennedys-and-civil-rights-how-the-msm-continues-to-distort-history-part-1
2. From 1876 to 1932, no president did anything to alleviate what had occurred in the South thanks to the rise of the Redeemer movement. In fact, some of them clearly sided with that movement. (Part 1, section 2)
3. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, respectively, passed the FEPC law and integrated the military under pressure from the prominent civil rights leader Philip Randolph. But they were constricted from doing much else by the southern bloc in Congress and the threat of a filibuster. (Part 1, section 3)
4. Charles Hamilton Houston began the modern civil rights movement by initiating a systematic challenge to the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v Ferguson. This ended in the epochal Brown v Board decision. (Part 1, section 3)
5. Because of the Brown decision, Dwight Eisenhower had an opportunity to move in a major way on the issue, since he won two resounding victories in 1952 and 1956. For political purposes, he and Richard Nixon largely avoided the issue. (Part 1, section 3)
6. Senator John Kennedy was not enthralled by southern interests on the race issue. This is shown by his 1956 public statement of support for Truman’s civil rights bill; his speech declaring his support for the Brown decision in 1957; his vote for Title III of the civil rights bill, also in 1957, and his reference to the issue in several speeches in the 1960 campaign. (Part 2, section 1)
7. Senator Kennedy addressed the issue during the 1960 campaign several times, accentuating its moral dimension. He spent several moments criticizing the Eisenhower administration on their performance during his second debate with Richard Nixon. (Go to the 13:45 mark here)
8. President Kennedy did not delay in addressing the problem once he got into office. In fact, he got to work on it his first day, originating an affirmative action program that would eventually spread across the entire expanse of the federal government. (Part 2, section 3)
9. It was not possible to pass an omnibus civil rights bill in 1961. The evidence in support of that conclusion is overwhelming. (Part 2, section 1)
10. It was also not possible to alter the filibuster rules in 1961. The Democrats had tried to do this prior to Kennedy, and they tried to do it several times after Kennedy’s death. It was not achieved until 1975. (See pages 6 and 7 of this paper)
11. Attorney General Robert Kennedy took on school desegregation within weeks of entering office and did things in that regard in New Orleans and Prince Edward County, Virginia that Eisenhower had never done. (Part 3, section 1)
12. The Kennedys worked closely with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to ensure voting rights, integrate colleges and enforce the Brown decision. Again, this had not been done prior to 1961. (Part 3, sections 2 & 5)
13. JFK extended fair hiring practices to contracting companies who did work for the federal government and private colleges which got research grants from Washington. This helped integrate business and higher education in the South. (Part 3, section 3)
14. The Kennedy administration did more to advance civil rights in three years than the prior 18 did in nearly a century. This is simply a matter of record. (See the chart at the end of Part 3.)
15. Kennedy tried to get a civil rights bill on voting rights in 1962 but he could not defeat the filibuster. (Part 3, section 3)
16. In February of 1963, Kennedy announced he had gone as far as he could through executive orders and the judiciary, and that he was submitting an omnibus civil rights bill to Congress. (Part 3, section 6)
17. The implications of the encounter between RFK and James Baldwin in May of 1963 have been wildly distorted and pulled out of context. The discussion Kennedy wanted to have with those attending that meeting concerned what he had been working on with David Hackett: ways to approach racism and discrimination in the north. Baldwin and Jerome Smith hijacked the agenda and thereby wasted a golden opportunity. The danger of an eruption of inner-city violence, which Kennedy predicted and wished to talk about, was confirmed 27 months later with the Watts riots. (Part 2, section 3; Part 3, section 4; Part 4, section 2)
18. Due to Fred Shuttlesworth’s highly publicized demonstrations in Birmingham, JFK’s confrontation with George Wallace in Tuscaloosa, and his televised speech on the subject, the February 1963 bill was redrawn and strengthened. It eventually passed in 1964 due to the efforts of RFK, Hubert Humphrey and Thomas Kuchel, not LBJ. This eliminated Jim Crow. (Part 3, sections 5 & 6)
19. John Kennedy was working on an attack on poverty before his civil rights bill was sent to Congress. This effort had begun in 1961 with the research of David Hackett on the issues of poverty and delinquency. (Part 4, sections 1 & 2)
20. LBJ appropriated that program as his own, and retired Hackett. He started it up before the research was completed. It ended up being taken over by interests who did not center it on the people it was designed for. The mishandling of this program, it could be argued, exacerbated the issue, and, as Bobby Kennedy predicted, America descended into a nightmare of riots and killings for four straight summers, 1965-68. (Part 4, section 5)
21. Republican strategists Kevin Phillips and Pat Buchanan advised candidates on how to use this violence to manipulate white backlash and break up the Democratic Party coalition. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did so, and this strategy, which has been used ever since, has risen to new heights under Donald Trump. (Part 4, section 5)
