Mr. Specter. Suppose in focusing in through the four-power scope you do not get a completely circular view, but instead get a partial view with a corner of the view being blacked out because you don't have the scope in direct alinement, but you are still able to see a sufficient amount of daylight through the scope so that you can see where the crosshairs line up on target. Is it in sufficient alinement at that juncture to permit the marksman to shoot accurately?
Sergeant Zahm. Yes.
Mr. Specter. And how does that work out that the alinement is sufficient to permit an accurate shot, even though the marksman does not have a completely clear view through the entire circle of the scope?
Sergeant Zahm. Well, in the assembly of the telescope, the aiming reticle or crosshair is so placed in the scope that it is in the same plane as the focus of the lenses, and regardless of the position of the eye behind the scope, this makes no apparent or no real movement of the reticle on the target itself, so if the shooter can look through the scope and see the juncture of the crosshairs, and it is on his target, if he properly manipulates the trigger he will get a hit.
Mr. Specter. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. 1 to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?
Sergeant Zahm. Yes; I have.
Mr. Specter. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant Zahm. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
Mr. Specter. How much familiarity would a man with Oswald's qualifications, obtained in the Marine Corps, require in order to operate a rifle with a scope such as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope?
Sergeant Zahm. How much familiarity would he require?