Was Oswald a Secret Sharpshooter? The “Poor Shot” Claim in the New JFK Files

When the National Archives released a new batch of JFK assassination files on March 18, 2025, one detail leapt out: a KGB defector claimed Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused of killing President John F. Kennedy, was a “poor shot.” This bombshell, buried in decades-old intelligence reports, clashes with the official narrative that Oswald was a skilled marksman capable of the deadly shots fired on November 22, 1963. But what if this “poor shot” label was a cover—a deliberate move to hide Oswald’s true abilities and obscure a larger conspiracy? As of March 22, 2025, let’s unpack this claim, explore the evidence, and see what it means for the lone gunman story.

The “Poor Shot” Revelation

The claim comes from Yuri Nosenko, a KGB defector who spoke to the CIA in 1965. In file 104-10227-10000, Nosenko recounts a fellow KGB officer, V.V. Krivoshey, observing Oswald during hunting trips in Minsk while Oswald lived in the USSR from 1959 to 1962. Krivoshey allegedly noted that Oswald was a “poor shot,” unable to hit anything. This portrayal starkly contradicts the Warren Commission’s depiction of Oswald as a sharpshooter, backed by his Marine Corps records, which rated him as both a sharpshooter and marksman 104-10227-10000. The Commission relied on this proficiency to argue that Oswald had the skill to fire the fatal shots from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas.

Adding weight to the official view, a 1993 ABC 20/20 segment by Gerald Posner, cited in file 104-10332-10009, used computer-enhanced analysis of the Zapruder film to show Oswald had over eight seconds to fire three shots—more than the previously estimated five seconds. Posner argued this timeline, paired with the “magic bullet” trajectory (a single bullet passing through Kennedy and Governor Connally without zigzagging), made the assassination feasible for a trained marksman like Oswald, acting alone out of a personal quest for significance.

So why would the KGB call Oswald a poor shot? And could it be a deliberate attempt to hide his true capabilities?

A Cover-Up to Hide the Truth?

The idea that Oswald’s “poor shot” label might be a cover hinges on the possibility of deception—either by the Soviets, U.S. intelligence, or a broader conspiracy. Let’s break it down.

First, the Soviets had every reason to distance themselves from Oswald after the assassination. With Cold War tensions still raw from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR feared being blamed for Kennedy’s death, which could have sparked a catastrophic U.S. retaliation. Portraying Oswald as an incompetent shooter could make it less likely that the KGB would be seen as having trained or used him. If he couldn’t shoot, why would they bother with him? This aligns with Nosenko’s broader claim that the KGB had “no operational interest” in Oswald and saw him as a problem, not an asset 104-10227-10000.

But Nosenko’s credibility is shaky. The CIA notes he was a mid-level officer, unlikely to have access to high-level operations, and his information isn’t deemed convincing. The “poor shot” claim also comes years after the assassination, in 1965, which feels oddly timed if it was meant to deflect immediate suspicion. If the Soviets wanted to cover up Oswald’s skills, they might have crafted a more robust narrative—why rely on a single, casual remark about hunting trips?

Another angle: could U.S. intelligence have pushed this “poor shot” story to bolster the lone gunman narrative? If Oswald was seen as a bumbling failure, it might quash conspiracy theories—after all, who would recruit a lousy shooter for a grand plot? Posner’s argument that Oswald acted alone out of a need for recognition fits this: a “loser in life” could still get lucky with a rifle 104-10332-10009. But this theory falls apart when you look at the evidence. The Warren Commission and Marine records proudly tout Oswald’s sharpshooter status. If the U.S. wanted to downplay his skills, they could have buried those records, not highlighted them. Plus, the claim originates with Nosenko, a Soviet source, not an American one.

The most intriguing possibility ties to a conspiracy. A 1970 Computers and Automation article, referenced in file 104-10433-10209, claims at least three or four gunmen fired six shots, none from the Depository window where Oswald was positioned. Using the Zapruder film, injury locations, and over 100 images, it argues Oswald was a “patsy,” just as he claimed in jail. If Oswald was actually a skilled marksman—perhaps trained by anti-Castro groups, rogue CIA elements, or even the Soviets despite their denials—calling him a poor shot could hide his role in a larger plot, making the lone gunman story easier to sell.

Evidence of Oswald’s True Skill

The evidence suggests Oswald was indeed a capable marksman, lending credence to the cover-up theory:

Marine Records: Oswald’s sharpshooter and marksman ratings in the Marines show he could hit targets consistently under controlled conditions 104-10227-10000. This isn’t hunting in the woods—it’s the kind of skill needed for the Depository shots.

Zapruder Analysis: Posner’s eight-second timeline and the “magic bullet” trajectory indicate the assassination was within the capabilities of a trained shooter like Oswald 104-10332-10009.

Hunting vs. Target Shooting: Nosenko’s “poor shot” claim is based on hunting trips, which demand different skills—tracking, quick reactions in uneven terrain—than static target shooting, where Oswald excelled. A bad day in the woods doesn’t mean he couldn’t shoot straight from a window.

Surprises That Fuel Suspicion

The files offer some jaw-dropping tidbits that make you wonder. The “poor shot” claim itself is a stunner—why would the KGB even note this if they had no interest in Oswald? It’s a specific detail that feels out of place, almost planted 104-10227-10000. Then there’s the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) analysis in file 104-10433-10209, which detects stress—possible deception—in testimony claiming Oswald’s rifle was found in the Depository, matching hulls were there, and a gunman was seen at the “Oswald window.” The author concludes Oswald might have been a “fall guy,” with Dallas police planting evidence to frame him. If Oswald was a good shot, this setup makes more sense: a skilled marksman could be part of a plot, then framed as the lone shooter to hide the real culprits.

Challenging the Lone Gunman Narrative

The official story hinges on Oswald’s marksmanship—he had to be good enough to act alone. The “poor shot” label threatens that, suggesting he couldn’t have done it, which might point to other shooters. But if Oswald was actually a good shot, as his records show, the “poor shot” claim could be a cover to mask a conspiracy. The Computers and Automation piece, with its multiple-gunmen theory, supports this: if Oswald was skilled, he might have been one of several shooters, then scapegoated to protect the others 104-10433-10209. The PSE findings add fuel, hinting at planted evidence and a Dallas cover-up, possibly with Washington’s blessing to keep things “tidy.”

A Hidden Marksman?

As of March 22, 2025, the “poor shot” claim in these new files opens a Pandora’s box. Oswald’s Marine records and the Zapruder analysis suggest he was a capable shooter, not the hapless hunter Nosenko describes. The Soviets might have downplayed his skills to dodge blame, but the timing and source of the claim raise doubts. More compelling is the conspiracy angle: if Oswald was a trained marksman, labeling him a poor shot could hide his role in a larger plot, making the lone gunman story stick. The PSE evidence of a setup and the multiple-gunmen theory keep this idea alive. The lone gunman narrative still stands—but these files make you wonder: was Oswald a secret sharpshooter, and who wanted to keep that quiet?