Yes, but then again I've never seen a Deer sitting in the backseat of a 1961 Lincoln Continental 4-door convertible so It's hard to say. That might pooch the results a bit.
What are you talking about? Hunters have to make their first shot or they don't get a second. Snipers as well. What a crock of shyt
Parifin tests are extremely reliable. There are people serving life sentences and sentenced to death partially as a result of paraffin tests. You are the one who consistently denies evidence and lies to support your ridiculous position. You are nothing but a troll whose entire existence here is soley to prop up the weak stories concocted by murderers to cover up the disgusting plot to kill one of our great leaders.
Deer when shot...run. Someone sitting in the back of a car...not as easily. Besides...look at the documentary about the 1.5 mile sniper shot the Canadian got. Missed first shot... Taliban idjits didn't run. He got the target on the second shot.
None of what you claim makes sense. No hunter assumes a miss on the first shot. No sniper does either. The first shot is the one that matters. If Oswald was the shooter he had no way to know that the Secret Service would not be shooting back at him after the first shot. Sniper motto.."One Shot One Kill". So just stop with this lame crap
E Name one person in prison because a paraffin test determined their guilt. No they were not reliable in 1963 and still are not and I posted proof of that fact. Here it is again http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm That is evidence proving you wrong and you have no evidence to prove me wrong. It is you supporting lies and fairy tales to deny the truth of a murder of a below average president
Yes it does make sense and no one said anything about assumptions. The first shot being the one that matters does not alter the fact that it is the one most likely to miss. Snipers work extraordinarily hard to make that first shot the kill shot as i pointed out. The whole point of their training is to compensate for and over come the fact that the first shot is statistically the least accurate and most likely to miss. It is you posting lame crap and you clearly know nothing of firearms
Yes I have and that does not alter the fact that the first shot is the one most likely to miss and you simple are ignorant in the extreme about shooting and that is proven
That is a fallacy and proven so. If even one duplicates it then your claims and the claims of others that it was impossible or extremely unlikely is proven false. And you are deceitfully misrepresenting what was proven to you, many have done it and the proof is in your face
SO let's recap here. The claim is that the "first shot is the worst". Which goes against every tenet of hunting and what military snipers are taught. But to fit this incident it has to be treated like fact. Come on. You look foolish here.
Every bit of "proof" you showed (I assume you mean re-enactment videos) shows the opposite. Half the time the crappy rifle wouldn't fire and of the rest only two or three of the 20 or so actually scored two hits That's a huge fail
Great. Identify the video and then tell us how many of the experienced shooters actually got the rifle to function of of those how many scored at least two hits on a moving target
They are exposed to scrutiny and you failed to dismantle them. Once posted always posted and you are stating a bald faced lie abut dismantling them They destroyed your claims, and you failed to challenge them end of story
