Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Jim Fetzer has offered his response to the claims of that 

ProtectAus about Oswald being a great marksman. 

Ralph,

I served as a Series Commander at the US Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego from 
June 1964 to June 1965 and supervised recruit training and marksmanship at the same range 
(Edson Range, Camp Pendleton) where Oswald took his training.

What we are dealing with here is a nice example of special pleading (by citing only the evidence
favorable to your side and ignoring the rest) with a failure to separate authentic evidence from fabricated. 
Here are a few key points, where I am not attempting to cover them all:

(1) Marksmanship is measured on a 250 point scale, with five combinations of positions and distances.
From 190 to 209 qualifies as "Marksman"; from 210 to 219 as "Sharpshooter"; and from 220 to 250 as 
"Expert".

(2) In 1957, Oswald fired 212, under close supervision, which is typically the time at which mediocre shots
turn in their best performances. In 1958, he did not go to the range to qualify, indicating to me he was on 
a special assignment. In 1959, he barely qualified with a 191, probably a gift by those running the targets.

(3) That he dropped 21 points in three years indicates that he was not highly competent with a rifle.
Marksmanship is a highly practice-dependent activity, where we have no evidence that he practiced at 
all between his departure from the Marine Corps and Dallas. There is no telling how bad a shot he might 
have been by then.

(4) The weapon, an obscure World War II Italian carbine, was known as "The Humanitarian Rifle" for
never harming anyone on purpose. The one that was claimed to have been used by Oswald had an 
especially difficult action and a two-stage trigger. Experts refused to even test fire it until it was rebuilt.

(5) Gunny Carlos Hathcock, the best sniper in the Marine Corps, attempted to replicate the shooting
attributed to Oswald without success and reasonably concluded that if he, the best shot in the USMC, 
could not have done it, then Oswald, who was a mediocre shot, most certainly could not have done it.

(6) The paper trail was manufactured, where he could have bought a far superior weapon at any corner store 
in Dallas without showing any ID.  And Chauncey Marvin Holt explained to me that the Alek Hidell ID was 
created the CIA at the Los Angeles Stamp and Stationery Store.

(7) The Backyard photos were faked by pasting Lee's face on someone else's body, where Jim Marrs and
I believe it was Officer Roscoe White who stood in for him. We gave an extensive refutation of their 
authenticity in "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald",  jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

 http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

(8) Since Lee was captured standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the shooting in a
famous photograph by James "Ike" Altgens (kown as "the Altgens6"), he not only cannot have been
 "the lone gunman" but cannot have even been one of the shooters. 

(9) JFK was hit at least four times: once in the back (from behind); once in the throat (from in front); and
at least twice in the head, once from behind and once from the right-front. Which means that even if Lee
had been one of the shooters, he could not have fired all of the shots.

(10) I have identified six of the shooters, three with ties to the CIA, Oswald not among them, their
names, backgrounds, locations and the shots they took and the effects they attained, "Six JFK Shooters
 Named, Three with Ties to the CIA, Oswald not among them", jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Paul Goody, who owned the mortuary where Lee's body was taken, was very upset that, after local
authorities visited the body, he had to clean the ink off of Oswald's hand. Every serious student of the 
assassination knows what I have explained here. None of this is secret.

The objective of this mini-proof of Lee's guilt, therefore, is to deceive those who are largely ignorant of the
evidence in this case. This guy is a con man of an all-too-familiar variety, where they appear to be boundless 
in the domain of JFK research, even including as much as 90% of the JFK community.

Jim Fetzer