MARTIN HAY SAID:
David, your defence of Bugliosi is both predictable and laughable. I'll make it as simple as I can for you:
Bugliosi said, "way back in 1964, one 'Specialist Miller' of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's time."
That, David, was a LIE (for reasons already stated).
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Once again (for the reading-impaired).....Vince Bugliosi didn't "lie" with respect to the post-1963 "duplications" of Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting performance. Bugliosi lays out all the information (with proper citations) that the reader needs to know, including the Warren Commission-bashing fact that the WC tests were performed from a 30-foot-high tower, instead of the proper height of about 60 feet.
And if Bugliosi's critics would take note of everything relating to this issue that appears in "Reclaiming History", they would have also found the following passage, which prefaces Vincent's remarks concerning "Specialist Miller":
"Conspiracy theorists and critics of the Warren Commission allege, as we've all heard them do a hundred times, that no one, not even a professional shooter, has ever been able to duplicate what Oswald did on the day of the assassination, that is, get off three rounds at three separate distances with the accuracy the Warren Commission says Oswald had (two out of three hits) in the limited amount of time he had.
[...]
On page 446 of [Warren Commission] volume 3 we learn that way back in 1964, one "Specialist Miller" of the U.S. Army, using Oswald's own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, not only duplicated what Oswald did, but improved on Oswald's time.
In fact, many marksmen, including the firearms expert from Wisconsin [Monty Lutz] whom I used at the [1986] London trial ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], have done better than Oswald did."
[Later in Vince Bugliosi's book we find this....]
"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 Bugliosi; Pages xxviii and 495 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
A key sentence above is:
"That is, get off three rounds at three separate distances with the accuracy the Warren Commission says Oswald had (two out of three hits) in the limited amount of time he had." -- VB
Bugliosi, in the above sentence, is defining what he means by "duplicating" Oswald's shooting performance.
If you now want to argue that Vince is dead wrong in his definition of "duplicating" Oswald's performance, go ahead. But that quoted passage I just cited above (whether you think it's right or wrong) is still going to be in Mr. Bugliosi's book.
Hence, Vincent Bugliosi is not "lying" to the readers of his book concerning this "duplication" topic.
In addition, allow me to add this:
Mr. Bugliosi also does not ignore the fact that the rifle tests performed by "Specialist Miller" (and two other riflemen) were done with only stationary targets, rather than a moving target which Oswald was shooting at in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Let's take a look at Bugliosi's forthright honesty in this "stationary target" regard:
"In 1964 the Warren Commission had three expert riflemen fire Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at stationary targets (head and shoulder silhouettes) located at distances of 175, 240, and 265 feet, the distances of 175 and 265 feet corresponding to the distances from the [Book Depository's] sniper's nest window to the presidential limousine at [Zapruder] frames 210 and 313, respectively.
The fact that the targets were stationary does not quite warrant the criticism the Commission has gotten from critics like [Robert] Groden, since the critical point in trying to simulate what Oswald did was to compel the riflemen to move the muzzle between shots. And since the targets were SEPARATED from each other, the riflemen would have to move their muzzles in the same way they would have if the target were moving as Oswald's target was.
Even given this, however, it would seem to be easier to fire at stationary rather than at moving targets, although as we have seen, the 3.9-degree declination of Elm Street made it less difficult.*
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that none of the riflemen had any practice with Oswald's rifle except to operate the bolt for about "two or three minutes" [3 H 447, WC Testimony of Ronald Simmons], and did not have any practice with the trigger at all because of concern "about breaking the firing pin" [3 H 447, WC Testimony of Ronald Simmons]." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 494-495 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
* Vince is not quite correct when he says that there was a "3.9-degree declination of Elm Street". The declination of Elm was actually 3.15 degrees (or
3 degrees, 9 minutes). In a mistake that was made by even the FBI's own Lyndal Shaneyfelt while testifying in front of the Warren Commission [at 5 H 160], Mr. Bugliosi misinterpreted the angular measurement of 3° 9’ to be 3.9 degrees, when in reality, nine minutes of angular measurement is only 9/60th of one degree (or 0.15 degree, not 0.9 of a degree).
Plus, doesn't Vince get ANY bonus points from the conspiracy-happy kooks for placing these words in his book, which he probably wouldn't have put in his book if he was a rotten, good-for-nothing liar and cover-up artist, right?:
"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 [in the TSBD]. .... Why not construct a tower as high as the sixth-floor window from which to fire?" -- VB
David Von Pein
May 16, 2009
January 4, 2014
