Who is the most historically significant SNIPER?

[sandwarrior]

This is one of the best posts that I have read in a long time. Kudos!

I would have to say it is an outstanding post as well. However, note that it is predicated on the "Oswald acted alone" theory. Which in my mind is not true. Again though, as the post by foxtrot whiskey says, the man (or men) who pulled the trigger do give significance beyond most any reasonable measure as to effect on the planet Earth. In that regard, even if it were multiple shooters, they still were more significant for any one feat.

Personally, I see the "body of work" being more important than one lucky placement.

Something to consider. Czolgosz' assassination of McKinley ensured the continued "American Worldwide Expansionist" movement. So in that regard Oswald was not alone as affecting the Free World. Mckinley did lead us into the Spanish American War, but he was not the progressive expansionist that Roosevelt was. Good or bad, according to ones thinking, that is historical fact. Booth's assassination of Lincoln has, of each of the three, the most lasting effect on how this nation is still coming to grips and not healed over the Civil War. Even though the latter two were accomplished by handgun, the premise is the same as what a sniper would do while pursuing a high value target. Use of intel to find and gain position on a target. In a lot of ways, they hold the same significance as LHO's assassination of Kennedy.

As we have seen, for a good marksman the shots from the Book Depository were very achievable. To others, it was not an easily repeatable feat. Given that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT considered to be an expert by the Marine Corps, I would think that would more of a knock on him. As a "significant sniper" would be one who could master his weapon. None of the three assassins were masters really of the weapon they chose. In the LHO case, it would have been even more a matter of luck. To my way of thinking this relegates the Lee Harvey nomination to more of an assassination than a true case of a capable sniper. Significant, yes. But, nothing more than an assassin because top level skills were not at play.

 

[Foxtrot Whisky]

Hate to open a can of worms here, but Oswald was a patsy. Jesse Ventura, who was a Navy Seal and trained sniper, recreated the shot(s) to within an inch of tolerance for distance, height and angle of the shots taken. He attempted the 3 shot feat multiple times with the same model weapon and same ammo allegedly used by Oswald. The trick to what Oswald supposedly did was make those 3 shots with a bolt action rifle in about 4 seconds. Ventura couldn't come within 2-3 seconds of even getting the shots off, never mind hitting what Oswald was supposed to have hit. Others have also tried it sitting at a bench shooting flat at a target from the same distance and none have been able to recreate. Oswald's military record stated that he qualified as a Marksman in the Marine Corps. Not an expert. Draw your own conclusions, but there were others there in Dallas on that fateful day that killed Kennedy and injured Connolly.

Mac

Mac,

Let me lead by saying I hold the iron-willed men of the teams or any of the spec ops community virtually irrefutable in their knowledge, I make a special case for Mr. George Janos (Aka Jessie Ventura). Let me say that while he may have "only" been UDT, many a SEAL has said he's a team guy, so lets not question if he is only this or only that.

I find that tin foil hat wearing wind bag marginally more credible than the guy selling hotdogs on the corner, that had a friend that knew a guy that was roommates with the guy that shot UBL. I believe that guys would sell us the value of pink laced drag bags if it somehow got his mug on television or made him a buck. I guess what I'm saying is I place little value in his powers of deduction. I guess it takes all kinds.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

I would have to say it is an outstanding post as well. However, note that it is predicated on the "Oswalt acted alone" theory. Which in my mind is not true. Again though, as the post by foxtrot whiskey says, the man (or men) who pulled the trigger do give significance beyond most any reasonable measure as to effect on the planet Earth. In that regard, even if it were multiple shooters, they still were more significant for any one feat.

Personally, I see the "body of work" being more important than one lucky placement.

Something to consider. Czolgosz' assassination of McKinley ensured the continued "American Worldwide Expansionist" movement. So in that regard Oswalt was not alone as affecting the Free World. Mckinley did lead us into the Spanish American War, but he was not the progressive expansionist that Roosevelt was. Good or bad, according to ones thinking, that is historical fact. Booth's assassination of Lincoln has, of each of the three, the most lasting effect on how this nation is still coming to grips and not healed over the Civil War. Even though the latter two were accomplished by handgun, the premise is the same as what a sniper would do while pursuing a high value target. Use of intel to find and gain position on a target. In a lot of ways, they hold the same significance as LHO's assassination of Kennedy.

As we have seen, for a good marksman the shots from the Book Depository were very achievable. To others, it was not an easily repeatable feat. Given that Lee Harvey Oswalt was NOT considered to be an expert by the Marine Corps, I would think that would more of a knock on him. As a "significant sniper" would be one who could master his weapon. None of the three assassins were masters really of the weapon they chose. In the LHO case, it would have been even more a matter of luck. To my way of thinking this relegates the Lee Harvey nomination to more of an assassination than a true case of a capable sniper. Significant, yes. But, nothing more than an assassin because top level skills were not at play.

Sandwarrior... an excellent post on your part as well and this is definitely an interesting thread.

I'll post this thought simply as opinion, because the JFK conspiracy theories are practically an industry, but they are also fascinating and I admit they fascinate me in kind of a train wreck way. I admit to watching/reading way too much on the subject, even though I should know better. In terms of who to believe... I have some challenges believing, for example, the magic bullet theory and, though it's been "proved" that the shot is possible based on angles and the positions of clothing, etc... Yet I still have my doubts about it and the 'perfect bullet' found on the stretcher, etc. Yes, the shot was short-range and I have actually been in Dealey Plaza and looked at all the angles... it's not a long distance. But it still seems to me that there are some missing pieces to the equation.

However... I am hard-pressed to believe that a conspiracy of that magnitude could have been kept under-wraps, ever. This is where I just can't get my head around the idea that it was a team and Oliver Stone loses me pretty early on in JFK. Even with the concept of burying the shooters outside Terlingua and still having the shovel... just too far-fetched for someone who thinks that conspiracy theories generally don't fly because someone -- SOMEONE is going to leak either before or after the event. And you can't kill everyone... because someone is still going to know. As the old saying goes, the only that three people will keep a secret is if two of them are dead.

Probably, we'll never know... and that's what makes it so much fun. In fact, I would be almost disappointed if it were 'solved' 100 percent. Because contemplating the event simply makes it more interesting.

And SW... excellent thoughts about McKinley!!! Sometime read The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley (author of Flags of our Fathers and Flyboys). Fascinating look at the early expansionist movement and the ramifications of Mahan's theories of seapower. Again, great thread!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[madmikes262]

If in fact Oswald did shoot.Still a coward however.

 

[sandwarrior]

Sirhrmechanic,

Thank for the kind and snobby words (love the avatar, ...I voted for ya btw, ) It's one of those things that when KsThomas brought his name out and reason, I thought, yeah if you take it that way there is no beating it. But, I knew that opened another door for thought. It just took some time to get it in my mind and how to say it. The other presidential assassins pretty much did the same thing. In the case of Mckinley, it was probably as big as anything of the day because, that was American expansionism out into the world. The Spanish-American War, the beginning of the Panama Canal, the United Fruit Company's involvement in South/Central America and the Carribean. World economics were ramping up by more than a few notches. Czolgosz motive was political. In the case of Guiteau, he was not so much politically motivated, even though he felt he should have gotten a post for writing a speech, as delusional for thinking he should have gotten a post for that act. A speech that wasn't even asked to be written by the President.

Regarding my first post from this point of view, I wasn't intending to open/close the single/multiple shooter theories in the JFK assassination. Only to state that to "more highly skilled" marksmen, in each of the positions were doable shots. If the only position was that of Oswald (sorry I said Oswalt earlier, corrected now) in the book depository, then it more qualifies as a 'sniper' shot. However, it's been shown on film being done by very good shooters while Oswald was not considered to be that good. Luck would have had to have played into his hands to have accomplished this. My point being is that more luck has played into each of the hands of people who have assassinated Presidents of the United States, and in general less skill. Skill being a prerequisite I believe of being a sniper. This is kind of what plagued me in fully supporting Oswald. But, when I back up and see the other assassinations and attempts, then it becomes clearer. Skill was not so much a part of it. Planning the attempts was a major part, which is inclusive of what the subject is here. However, without all the pieces that make up what we would consider a 'sniper', I think he qualifies less than those who have presented a better 'body of work'.

Foxtrot Whiskey,

As far as Fmr. Gov. Jesse Ventura goes, I know he's a blowhard. But, he's also lived and done the things he said he was a part of. I'm not a "Jesse's the greatest," kind of guy. He has many faults and they were well exposed in the Media. But, he also fought pretty hard to beat back the rolling tide of state gov't entities in Minnesota who always felt they had a right to as much state funding as they wished. It was getting atrocious and he put a stop to a lot of it. When he was UDT, it was UDT/Seals. And, FWIW, UDT ain't no cakewalk. I'm saying just give him a fair shake. The Minnesota media never did because he beat the 'status quo'.

As far as his conspiracy theory goes, he went too far in too many directions and there are holes in HIS version, i.e., questions there were answers to that he left his audience hanging on. IMO, when you present a case, you must stick strictly to the facts you know, or unknowns that exist. And, you must state them all. When you venture into the fudging of lines regarding a fact, all credibility is lost. In order to get your story heard you must maintain total credibility. Being wrong on even one fact gets YOU blown out of the water. He did that in his version of this case. Again, though, my previous post is not about one or multiple shooters. It's about that it happened and the skill level surrounding what we know.

 

[sandwarrior]

Not trying to post back to back to get myself heard here, but one name I haven't seen that also deserves to be here is Maj./Col(?) Pritchett(sp) of the British Army. While many mentioned here have racked up impressive numbers or as some see it, a single significant feat. Or, gone on to establish a lasting training curriculum. Pritchett was really the first man to be able to establish a known program for training military snipers. It did not last, but his information was borrowed heavily from by other programs when they began to get off the ground. The lessons learned were at least documented well enough so that twenty years later, when his books got dusted off you had a strong starting point.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Not trying to post back to back to get myself heard here, but one name I haven't seen that also deserves to be here is Maj./Col(?) Pritchett(sp) of the British Army. While many mentioned here have racked up impressive numbers or as some see it, a single significant feat. Or, gone on to establish a lasting training curriculum. Pritchett was really the first man to be able to establish a known program for training military snipers. It did not last, but his information was borrowed heavily from by other programs when they began to get off the ground. The lessons learned were at least documented well enough so that twenty years later, when his books got dusted off you had a strong starting point.

I have Hesketh Pritchett's book "Sniping in France" a WW1 classic along with A Rifleman Went to War and The EmmaGees. Yes, he ranks as well.

The real 'parents' of modern sniping came from WW1. Lessons were re-learned in WW2 and Vietnam, but the modern sniper was born in the mud of France and Belgium. That doesn't necessarily make any of the WW1 guys the 'most historically significant.' It does mean that they can't be ignored.

Cheers and great addition, SW.

Sirhr

 

[Va_Gentleman]

Gentelmen; As Americans we must consider Tim Murphy as our most historicaly significant sniper. During the revolutionary war, at the battle of Saratoga, Mr. Murphy Shot British general Simon Frasier at the then unherd of distance of 400 yards. Please remember flintlock and primitive open sights.

Yours truly Capnkwig

B-breath
R-relax
A-aim
S-squeeze

^^^^^^ This in terms of Historically significant.. That shot allowed us to take the field in a key battle after Frasier was rallying the British. Dude was also in a Tree, with a flintlock and open sights. The man who gave the order?? Benedict Arnold told General Morgan that Frasier was worth a regiment of soldiers.

 

[mosin46]

great thread. i guess the question is what is the definition of a sniper and what is historically significant. in my view the most significant "sniper shot" was in dallas in '63.
whether oswald or a (french?) guy really did the shot is and will be tossed around a long time. i don't think the significance of that shot/shots can be disputed. a lot of guys are calling the most skilled snipers the most significant. in NO way disparaging his record,i think he is the "greatest" sniper,simo did a bunch of his damage with a suomi,if i get his story right.

 

[Dogcityrollers]

I think the unknown sniper who assassinated the archduke of Austria - Franz Ferdinand on the 28 June 1914. This one shot led to the start of world war 1.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Dog City...Good thought, but Ferdinand's assassin was not a sniper... and not an unknown.

Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian anarchist named Gavrilo Princip. After the attempt to blow the Archduke up with a bomb failed, the Archduke's chauffeur got lost trying to find a hospital. He pulled over to look at a map and a very dejected Princip, who figured he and his partner had failed, seized the opportunity to try again, leapt onto the car's running board and shot the Archduke with a revolver.

No sniping at all that day, but good thought!

Of note, there were several attempted (and successful) assassinations of royal or public figures by would-be assassins who jumped on the running boards of their cars. For a number of years, members of the European Royal Families ordered their cars without running boards, spawning an interesting trend in coachbuilding and design of cars which used things like "Pontoon" fenders and "Roman Helmet" fenders which eliminated running boards. HRH Michael, Duke of Kent, was among the proponents of this design and, hey, what was trendy with the royals became trendy with the commoners shortly thereafter.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[forrestgump01]

I would say hathcock , not because of how many he killed , but who he killed and the shots he made to kill them .

 

[Rundownfid]

The idea of who is most significant is interesting for its whys as much as its whos. for example, if we want to pick who has the most kills, then Mr Typhoid is a storng contender. If looking for a single shooter who effected history, the guy that whacked Arch Duke Ferdinand sure started one hell of a mess, but he was hardly a sniper. If having unusual body parts is a valid criteion, then I vote for Vaginas, always a favorite with me. Good topic.

 

[migrapilot]

I have to throw out an honorable mention to my high school running buddy. Sgt Byron Hancock. I believe that he had the longest shot in Iraq until 2005.

"From the information we have, our chief scout sniper has the longest confirmed kill in Iraq so far," said Capt. Shayne McGinty, weapons platoon commander for "Bravo" Co. "In Fallujah there were some bad guys firing mortars at us and he took them out from more than 1,000 yards."

During the battle for the war-torn city, 1/23 Marine scout snipers demonstrated with patience, fearless initiative and wits that well-trained Marines could be some of the deadliest weapons in the world.

"You really don't have a threat here until it presents itself," said Sgt. Herbert B. Hancock, chief scout sniper, 1/23, and a 35-year-old police officer from Bryan, Texas, whose specialized training and skill helped save the lives of his fellow Marines during the battle. "In Fallujah we really didn't have that problem because it seemed like everybody was shooting at us. If they fired at us we just dropped them."

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Migra:

Not sure he qualifies for most significant in history... but he sure earned his spurs and ranks at top of the food chain as far as most of us are concerned! I believe I have heard his name before... and no doubt he is a tier-one member of a very exclusive and professional community!

Thanks for posting... and since I see that's your first post... and a most worthy one... welcome aboard! Look forward to hearing more from you.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[HD-Ghost]

What about the guy on "the grassy knoll"? He got his shot in, and got away unidentified. Wasn't the shovel comment in the movie "Shooter"?