MARTIN HAY SAID:
You did not even address the FACT that Bugliosi LIED in his handling of the "Miller duplication.".... Bugliosi LIED when he said that it had been "duplicated," that the proof was in the WC volumes and that the tests had been ignored by the critics - and LIE HE DID.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're talking utter nonsense. Vincent Bugliosi didn't "lie" at all. In fact, if you would bother to read (and cite) ALL of the pertinent information in Mr. Bugliosi's comprehensive book, "Reclaiming History", you would have found that Bugliosi was completely forthright, honest, and above board when dealing with the issue of "Specialist Miller's" shooting re-creation.
Vincent even openly berates the Warren Commission with respect to the far-from-perfect manner in which the Commission's shooting tests were conducted. So your assertion that Bugliosi "simply ignore[s]" this matter is a totally false assertion. Let's have a look (on Page 495 of the main text of Vince's book):
"The best rifleman [using CE139, Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle], one "Specialist Miller," got off three shots (using the telescopic sight) within 4.6 seconds on the first of two series of three shots, and within 5.15 seconds on his second series. Using the iron sights, he got off three rounds in 4.45 seconds. (The second and third riflemen [whose names were Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Staley*], using only the telescopic sight, took 6.75 and 6.45, and 8.25 and 7.00 seconds, respectively, for the two series.)
[...]
It should be added that in an example of investigative sloppiness, the three experts who test-fired [Oswald's rifle] for the Warren Commission did so from atop a thirty-foot tower, less than half the height of the sixth-floor window from Elm Street below. I have been told by firearms experts that this difference in elevation was inconsequential to the validity of the tests, but why not construct a tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to fire?" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE 495 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
* The names of the other two riflemen who participated in the Warren Commission tests (Hendrix and Staley) are names that are provided by Mr. Bugliosi on page #341 of the endnotes on the CD-ROM that is included with the book "Reclaiming History".
Also on page 341 (and 340) of the endnotes, we find the following Warren Commission-bashing remarks by Bugliosi (indicating, once more, Bugliosi's fairness and honesty, which is the kind of straight talk that can be found throughout Vincent's JFK book):
"In a perfect example among many, many others of Warren Commission assistant counsels having brilliant legal minds, but not having trial experience, which would tell them they have to establish time and place with all witnesses, Melvin Aron Eisenberg, the assistant counsel who handled the questioning on the test firing, after asking his witness, “Did you conduct a test” with the Carcano? and getting a “yes” answer, didn’t ask the automatic follow-up questions, “When” and “Where” did you conduct the tests?
Earlier, the witness, on his own, volunteered that rifle tests were conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Eisenberg didn’t ask where this was located, but it's in Aberdeen, Maryland, and we can assume that the tests with Oswald’s Carcano were also conducted there.
Although, as indicated, Eisenberg did not ask the witness, Ronald Simmons, when the tests were conducted, inasmuch as Simmons testified on March 31, 1964, we can assume that the tests had to have been conducted, of course, before that date, most likely sometime in February or March of 1964. It’s unlikely they took place in 1963, since not too much time was left in 1963, and also, these tests were conducted for the Warren Commission, and the first formal meeting of the Warren Commission staff didn’t take place until January 20, 1964.
We don’t even know the full names of the riflemen who participated in the tests, Eisenberg not asking Simmons who they were. But Simmons, on his own (the way exasperated Warren Commission researchers frequently get their information), volunteered that one was a “Mr. Hendrix,” the other a “Mr. Staley,” and the other a “Specialist Miller” (3 H 390, 442, 446). But one way or another, through their own in-depth questioning and more precise FBI reports, the Warren Commission elicited all the information about the case any reasonable person could ever hope for, and then some.
But while we’re on the subject, surprisingly, even the lawyers on the Commission staff who had trial experience, like Joe Ball and Albert Jenner, often found it difficult to ask the automatic preliminary questions of time and place (which sometimes have absolutely critical importance), and for the researcher the information frequently has to be secured from other sources.
For example, oftentimes the witness, without being asked, had the common sense to volunteer the information. An example as to time that can be multiplied many times over is that Joe Ball, in questioning Dallas police detective Guy Rose about his going out to the residence of Ruth Paine on the afternoon of the assassination, never asked Rose, “Approximately what time did you arrive at the Paine residence?” (7 H 227–230, WCT Guy F. Rose).
And Albert Jenner, questioning Mrs. Paine, also couldn’t find it within himself to ask her what time the detective arrived (3 H 78, WCT Ruth Hyde Paine). But Paine later volunteered, “It [when the police arrived] was now after school or this babysitter would not have been there, which brings us to 3:30 perhaps” (3 H 80). The researcher can also learn the approximate time was 3:30 p.m. from the report Detective Rose submitted with his two fellow officers (CE 2003, 24 H 292)." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGES 340-341 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
Now, Martin, what was it you were saying about Vincent Bugliosi being a "liar"?
MARTIN HAY SAID:
If you wanna talk about the CBS tests, here you go: The CBS reenactment was equally meaningless because they did not use Oswald's Carcano. It was Oswald's rifle that had an extremely difficult bolt that caused the shooter to move off target and an unusual two-stage trigger. This was why the rifle could not be fired twice in under 2.3 seconds.
All of the CBS shooters had multiple attempts when Oswald would, of course, have had only one. 7 of the 11 shooters failed to score at least two hits on any of their attempts. Of the 4 who did score two hits, none managed to do so on their first attempt and the best shooter (Donahue?) needed 3 attempts.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So what?
The main point is: LHO's so-called "impossible feat" was accomplished by multiple shooters in post-1963 tests, using Carcano rifles similar to Oswald's.
Which means: All conspiracists are 100% wrong when they continue to claim that Oswald's feat has never been duplicated or surpassed.
BTW, Oswald's very own rifle [Commission Exhibit 139] was a quite effective weapon, per Bob Frazier of the FBI [see 3 H 413]:
MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I would."
MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain that?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And did you find this shot accurately?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
HALE BOGGS -- "Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight."
Naturally, many conspiracy theorists think Robert Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was a liar. They almost have to think that, otherwise Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't such a "rickety-ass misaligned bolt-action relic of a rifle" [per Richard Belzer in his 2012 book, "Dead Wrong"] after all and Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, wasn't the "miracle" [Belzer] that many conspiracists think it was either.
But you, Martin Hay (and Richard Belzer too), should keep ignoring the dozens of pieces of evidence that convict sweet Lee Harvey. It's better for your fantasies if you ignore all of it (as usual).
David Von Pein
May 15, 2009
May 15, 2009
January 3, 2014
