Robert Harris and the CE399 Tom Foolery!

[Bernice Moore]

I HAVE NO IDEA IF ANY OF THESE WILL BE OF ANY HELP, BUT HERE ARE A FEW......FWTAW FIRST 6.5 COMPARED TO 7.35MM J.W... SHELL..THE LAST PHOTO IS THE W/C COMPARISON OF BULLETS LEFT TO RIGHT......399, THROUGH COTTON, THROUGH A GOATS RIB, THROUGH A CADAVER WRIST....LAST HSCA E 294

BULLET COMPARISON'S AND DR.CYRIL WECHT'S INFORMATION ,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=45739

Edited June 6, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Mike Williams]

Counterpunch from Jimmy D

Mr. Williams:

1. Your argument about the weight of CE 399 is a cheap diversion. I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland. Understand?

2. I personally have no respect for anyone who channels Von Pein for any reason on any issue. And using DVP to point out an error by Harris, while ignoring everything else he mentions in his video--which I then detailed--is typical cheap DVP trolling. Which everyone has had more than enough of. Except maybe you.

But alas, you are the guy who says there is no evidence for a front shot also. Hmm. How about the altered testimony of Sam Holland, the avulsed hole in the back of JFK's skull, the witnesses Doug Horne names in Vol. 2 who saw a hole in JFK's temple, Jackie Kennedy jumping on the back of the car to retrieve her husband's skull bones, Hargis' testimony (pre Gary mack MK Ultra) about getting hit with blood and tissue so hard it felt like a bullet, and--oh yes-- the Zapruder film's violent rearward action of JFK's body?

In light of that "non-evidence" you are a natural soul-brother of Davey Boy. Time wasters like you are one reason I lurk.

Jim D

Then Jim should have no issue coming on this forum and debating me outright on the frontal head shot. I would love to see that.

So how about it.

Time to put up or shut up.

[Mike Williams]

Bill,....What is the issue here?

Mike, you are the issue for using the forum to attack Robert Harris and to announce your attack in the head of the thread. Who is Tom Foolery? He's in the headline next to Robert Harris and CE399? And then you point out that he got one thing wrong in his film and you call it a fabrication. It is only a fabrication if he knew it was wrong ahead of time and I don't think he did, and since he's now been corrected, we all know it is Fritz's

initials upside down.

Evidence is not about Bob Harris or David Von Pein, its about the envelope, who had possession of the envelop, and what's in it. Now if we can weigh a postage stamp, why can't we weigh a few bullet fragments - all four of them, or both of them, and what happened to the whole bullet? That was different than CE399 wasn't it? And what did Nurse Bell tell the HSCA and ARRB about it?

And someone is misrepresenting you - David Von Pein - he's the one misrepresenting the truth in this case and he should not even be mentioned in any serious research, especially in regards to any ballistics that you want to be considered at all. The bottom line is the evidence, and not those who misrepresent it - like Von Pein. I don't know Robert Harris, but anybody who can sturr the displeasure of DVP is a friend of mine.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I would say the same thing to someone I could not hold my own with. I have an idea, why dont you debate DVP there Bill? Im sure it would be very informative lol

[David Josephs]

Mikey -

Reading thru this thread all we find is you once again copy/pasting someone elses words, thoughts conclusions with not a single one of your own..

my mistake, you do tell us how much a stamp weighs.

You DONT address the issue of CE399 being a complete fabrication and only defer to the person you stole from - DVP...

Mike Williams

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 769

Joined: 31-October 07

From DVP,

DVP said exactly:"You can't prove any initials were "erased". You just want to believe that. And even if something was erased, you can't prove that such action was conspiratorial in nature. Can you, Bob?" --- DVP; 05/19/10

So lets see.

In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over!

Hilariously stupid error in my book

You can insult real well, you can condemn others using what yet a third person wrote... but when it comes to posting something from your own little mind the best you have is "stupid error" and more quotes from your mentor DVP.

How about YOU debating with Bill - bring SOMETHING to the table beyond "DVP said...."

are you not able to formulate your own opinions and back them with your own research and your own illustrations and your own conclusions?

As you so eloquently posted

Time to put up or SHUT UP... or maybe you can have DVP write you a note - say you have a doctor's appointment or your dog ate your homework

[Mike Williams]

Mikey -

Reading thru this thread all we find is you once again copy/pasting someone elses words, thoughts conclusions with not a single one of your own..

my mistake, you do tell us how much a stamp weighs.

You DONT address the issue of CE399 being a complete fabrication and only defer to the person you stole from - DVP...

Mike Williams

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 769

Joined: 31-October 07

From DVP,

DVP said exactly:"You can't prove any initials were "erased". You just want to believe that. And even if something was erased, you can't prove that such action was conspiratorial in nature. Can you, Bob?" --- DVP; 05/19/10

So lets see.

In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over!

Hilariously stupid error in my book

You can insult real well, you can condemn others using what yet a third person wrote... but when it comes to posting something from your own little mind the best you have is "stupid error" and more quotes from your mentor DVP.

How about YOU debating with Bill - bring SOMETHING to the table beyond "DVP said...."

are you not able to formulate your own opinions and back them with your own research and your own illustrations and your own conclusions?

As you so eloquently posted

Time to put up or SHUT UP... or maybe you can have DVP write you a note - say you have a doctor's appointment or your dog ate your homework

Really? You dont say? You obviously have never read anything I have done in making your moronic assumptions, why am I not surprised?

[Mike Williams]

Mikey -

Reading thru this thread all we find is you once again copy/pasting someone elses words, thoughts conclusions with not a single one of your own..

my mistake, you do tell us how much a stamp weighs.

You DONT address the issue of CE399 being a complete fabrication and only defer to the person you stole from - DVP...

Mike Williams

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 769

Joined: 31-October 07

From DVP,

DVP said exactly:"You can't prove any initials were "erased". You just want to believe that. And even if something was erased, you can't prove that such action was conspiratorial in nature. Can you, Bob?" --- DVP; 05/19/10

So lets see.

In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over!

Hilariously stupid error in my book

You can insult real well, you can condemn others using what yet a third person wrote... but when it comes to posting something from your own little mind the best you have is "stupid error" and more quotes from your mentor DVP.

How about YOU debating with Bill - bring SOMETHING to the table beyond "DVP said...."

are you not able to formulate your own opinions and back them with your own research and your own illustrations and your own conclusions?

As you so eloquently posted

Time to put up or SHUT UP... or maybe you can have DVP write you a note - say you have a doctor's appointment or your dog ate your homework

Speaking of parroting, your replies to me in the other thread are far from original. Do you ever do any of your own work, or do you just gobble up what others feed you?

[William Kelly]

Bill,....What is the issue here?

Mike, you are the issue for using the forum to attack Robert Harris and to announce your attack in the head of the thread. Who is Tom Foolery? He's in the headline next to Robert Harris and CE399? And then you point out that he got one thing wrong in his film and you call it a fabrication. It is only a fabrication if he knew it was wrong ahead of time and I don't think he did, and since he's now been corrected, we all know it is Fritz's

initials upside down.

Evidence is not about Bob Harris or David Von Pein, its about the envelope, who had possession of the envelop, and what's in it. Now if we can weigh a postage stamp, why can't we weigh a few bullet fragments - all four of them, or both of them, and what happened to the whole bullet? That was different than CE399 wasn't it? And what did Nurse Bell tell the HSCA and ARRB about it?

And someone is misrepresenting you - David Von Pein - he's the one misrepresenting the truth in this case and he should not even be mentioned in any serious research, especially in regards to any ballistics that you want to be considered at all. The bottom line is the evidence, and not those who misrepresent it - like Von Pein. I don't know Robert Harris, but anybody who can sturr the displeasure of DVP is a friend of mine.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I would say the same thing to someone I could not hold my own with. I have an idea, why dont you debate DVP there Bill? Im sure it would be very informative lol

Mike, you're good with guns and ballistics, but not so good when you try to put the guns in Oswald's hands, as your bias slips in.

As for debating DVP, there's nothing to debate. He would have to continually check with his hero's bible Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which he tells us was originaly going to be called Final Verdict, but they can't seem to put the final nail in Oswald's coffin.

It's easy to follow the planted evidence that frames Oswald The Patsy, but as soon as you latch on to it, you're distracted long enough to let the real assassins slip away.

DVP would never come here to join in the debate for the same reasons Dale Myers and the rest of those YoYos won't, because they would be exposed for what they are.

Just read his gushing review of Bugliosi:

http://blogs.myspace.com/davidvp1961

DVP makes a nice summary for those who can't take the time to read the whole thing, but in the course of chasing Ozzie the Rabbit into the Maze, Bugliosi falls back on Capt. Fritz, the man on the scene - and like all suit and tie prosecutors, the Bug must rely on the cops to make his case. And they do. And read the Bug saying how great the Dallas PD were, especially Capt. Fritz, in putting the case against Oswald together so quickly. Ah yes, Captain Fritz. Fritz the Cat on the trail of Ozzie the Rabbit, right off the bat.

And DVP wonders how Conspiracy Theorists can imagine Capt. Fritz as part of any conspiracy, by golly, that's rediculious.

All Fritz has to do is go up to the Sixth Floor at about 1 PM, and within fifteen minutes he has the three shells in hand, the rifle by the strap, and Oswald's name is given to him by Truly, so what else does he need to go on? He then heads back to his office, after stopping by to pay his respects to his old good buddy Sheriff Wild Bill Decker, and by the time gets to homicide there's Oswald sitting right there in a chair waiting for him. And then the White House calls and says "You have your man."

Yea, whose calling the shots here?

The investigation is over.

We're going to debate DVP, Bugliosi and Myers et al by solving the crime and exposing the conspiracy before their 10 part TV show comes out, and that will end the debates once and for all.

The Final Verdict is not yet in.

BK

[Mike Williams]

Bill,....What is the issue here?

Mike, you are the issue for using the forum to attack Robert Harris and to announce your attack in the head of the thread. Who is Tom Foolery? He's in the headline next to Robert Harris and CE399? And then you point out that he got one thing wrong in his film and you call it a fabrication. It is only a fabrication if he knew it was wrong ahead of time and I don't think he did, and since he's now been corrected, we all know it is Fritz's

initials upside down.

Evidence is not about Bob Harris or David Von Pein, its about the envelope, who had possession of the envelop, and what's in it. Now if we can weigh a postage stamp, why can't we weigh a few bullet fragments - all four of them, or both of them, and what happened to the whole bullet? That was different than CE399 wasn't it? And what did Nurse Bell tell the HSCA and ARRB about it?

And someone is misrepresenting you - David Von Pein - he's the one misrepresenting the truth in this case and he should not even be mentioned in any serious research, especially in regards to any ballistics that you want to be considered at all. The bottom line is the evidence, and not those who misrepresent it - like Von Pein. I don't know Robert Harris, but anybody who can sturr the displeasure of DVP is a friend of mine.

Bill Kelly

Bill,

I would say the same thing to someone I could not hold my own with. I have an idea, why dont you debate DVP there Bill? Im sure it would be very informative lol

Mike, you're good with guns and ballistics, but not so good when you try to put the guns in Oswald's hands, as your bias slips in.

As for debating DVP, there's nothing to debate. He would have to continually check with his hero's bible Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which he tells us was originaly going to be called Final Verdict, but they can't seem to put the final nail in Oswald's coffin.

It's easy to follow the planted evidence that frames Oswald The Patsy, but as soon as you latch on to it, you're distracted long enough to let the real assassins slip away.

DVP would never come here to join in the debate for the same reasons Dale Myers and the rest of those YoYos won't, because they would be exposed for what they are.

Just read his gushing review of Bugliosi:

http://blogs.myspace.com/davidvp1961

DVP makes a nice summary for those who can't take the time to read the whole thing, but in the course of chasing Ozzie the Rabbit into the Maze, Bugliosi falls back on Capt. Fritz, the man on the scene - and like all suit and tie prosecutors, the Bug must rely on the cops to make his case. And they do. And read the Bug saying how great the Dallas PD were, especially Capt. Fritz, in putting the case against Oswald together so quickly. Ah yes, Captain Fritz. Fritz the Cat on the trail of Ozzie the Rabbit, right off the bat.

And DVP wonders how Conspiracy Theorists can imagine Capt. Fritz as part of any conspiracy, by golly, that's rediculious.

All Fritz has to do is go up to the Sixth Floor at about 1 PM, and within fifteen minutes he has the three shells in hand, the rifle by the strap, and Oswald's name is given to him by Truly, so what else does he need to go on? He then heads back to his office, after stopping by to pay his respects to his old good buddy Sheriff Wild Bill Decker, and by the time gets to homicide there's Oswald sitting right there in a chair waiting for him. And then the White House calls and says "You have your man."

Yea, whose calling the shots here?

The investigation is over.

We're going to debate DVP, Bugliosi and Myers et al by solving the crime and exposing the conspiracy before their 10 part TV show comes out, and that will end the debates once and for all.

The Final Verdict is not yet in.

BK

I appreciate you mentioning my work. I do put much into it.

The point of my initial post was to share a good laugh, nothing more. The only reason I quoted DVP, beside the fact that I like the guy, is because he was the one who found Harris moronic blunder. I would have loved to have found that.

I really dont understand why the CT side has such an issue with DVP, except that he makes most look like fools. I dont agree with him on many issues, but for the most part he is a hell of a good resource. I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all.

Now were one to dig into Harris video, I am sure more blunders would be found. Frankly Bob bores me. His theories are so ridiculous, that they are just a bump above James Files.

By the way Bill, glad ya like the ballistics stuff, I got a whopper coming up for you on the scope. Turns out it was not defective at the time of the shooting and was in fact sighted in rather well!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

By the way Bill, glad ya like the ballistics stuff, I got a whopper coming up for you on the scope. Turns out it was not defective at the time of the shooting and was in fact sighted in rather well!

Mike

When did the person who used it on the Sixth Floor have a chance to sight the scope Mike? Given the timeframes we have?

Lee

Oh and P.S.

Mike Williams: "I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all."

That would include me. A bit insulting. Don't you think?

Lee,

That's rather odd. I myself would not have placed you into that group. While I do know you think the man was innocent, I have not as yet read anything that was ridiculous nor outlandish from you, in an attempt to make the point. This is what I mean when I say the "Oswald innocent at all cost" faction.

I am unsure what you mean by "chance to sight in the scope". It could have been done long in advance. There was no need, near as I can tell, for Oswald to have removed the scope from the rifle. As long as he did not remove it, then the scope/barrel relationship would remain intact.

Mike

[William Kelly]

By the way Bill, glad ya like the ballistics stuff, I got a whopper coming up for you on the scope. Turns out it was not defective at the time of the shooting and was in fact sighted in rather well!

Mike

When did the person who used it on the Sixth Floor have a chance to sight the scope Mike? Given the timeframes we have?

Lee

Oh and P.S.

Mike Williams: "I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all."

That would include me. A bit insulting. Don't you think?

Lee,

That's rather odd. I myself would not have placed you into that group. While I do know you think the man was innocent, I have not as yet read anything that was ridiculous nor outlandish from you, in an attempt to make the point. This is what I mean when I say the "Oswald innocent at all cost" faction.

I am unsure what you mean by "chance to sight in the scope". It could have been done long in advance. There was no need, near as I can tell, for Oswald to have removed the scope from the rifle. As long as he did not remove it, then the scope/barrel relationship would remain intact.

Mike

Yea Mike, Oswald is guilty as hell, guilty of being framed as the Fall Guy and Patsy. How can he be a little bit guilty of anything? If he's guilty of buying the guns, then why isn't Joe Cody the Cop guilty of buying Ruby's gun that was used to kill Oswald?

And if the scope was sighted, don't you have to shoot the gun to test to see if the scope is sighted and see how much it is off? When was that done?

BK

[Mike Williams]

By the way Bill, glad ya like the ballistics stuff, I got a whopper coming up for you on the scope. Turns out it was not defective at the time of the shooting and was in fact sighted in rather well!

Mike

When did the person who used it on the Sixth Floor have a chance to sight the scope Mike? Given the timeframes we have?

Lee

Oh and P.S.

Mike Williams: "I have far more respect for that than I do the "Oswald is innocent at all cost" crowd, who lack any credible common sense at all."

That would include me. A bit insulting. Don't you think?

Lee,

That's rather odd. I myself would not have placed you into that group. While I do know you think the man was innocent, I have not as yet read anything that was ridiculous nor outlandish from you, in an attempt to make the point. This is what I mean when I say the "Oswald innocent at all cost" faction.

I am unsure what you mean by "chance to sight in the scope". It could have been done long in advance. There was no need, near as I can tell, for Oswald to have removed the scope from the rifle. As long as he did not remove it, then the scope/barrel relationship would remain intact.

Mike

Mike,

I don't understand your definition "...at all costs" then? If he's guilty then he's guilty and if he's innocent then he's innocent.

I don't just feel that he's innocent, I KNOW that he innocent and I'll fight that corner "...at all costs."

The rifle; if "whoever" sighted the scope prior to placing it in the non-existent "brown bag", that would have been too small for the damn thing even if it did exist according to BWL's testimony, are you saying that on the back seat of Frazier's old truck there was no chance that it would have moved slightly? I'm sure the suspension on the piece of junk that Frazier drove was about as good as its engine.

Lee

Lee,

I have no doubt you would defend what you believe. But would you do so at the cost of common sense and your own integrity? Of course not. I have read some of the most outlandish trash from many who have, and do. I do not place you in that crowd.

Back to the scope.

How can you be "sure" of the suspension? What do you base this on? Frazier had a car, best I recall, not a truck.

At any rate. If this were the case and the scope had been misaligned at the time of the assassination, then how did the FBI manage to shoot groups like this only 5 days later? How did they manage to do so with an average time of 6 seconds for 3 shooters?

[Mike Williams]

Lee,

I have no doubt you would defend what you believe. But would you do so at the cost of common sense and your own integrity? Of course not. I have read some of the most outlandish trash from many who have, and do. I do not place you in that crowd.

Back to the scope.

How can you be "sure" of the suspension? What do you base this on? Frazier had a car, best I recall, not a truck.

At any rate. If this were the case and the scope had been misaligned at the time of the assassination, then how did the FBI manage to shoot groups like this only 5 days later? How did they manage to do so with an average time of 6 seconds for 3 shooters?

Maybe they realigned the scope?

As far as the suspension is concerned - I'm making an assumption - I'm not a firearms expert Mike, nowhere near being one, but I was posing a hypothetical. If you were going to a range with a MC rifle would you sight the scope before you went and then leave it on the back seat of a car (in a brown paper bag) and expect it to fire perfectly on its first shot? Or would there be a likelihood, however small, that the scope may have to be readjusted and realigned?

For the record, I have no problems with the FBI timings, but I'd be more impressed (and interested) if they'd have been shooting at a moving target from the actual sixth floor window for their tests...

Lee,

Actually they were firing the rifle to test if for accuracy "as is". It shot remarkably well. I do not think at this point they were trying to recreate the event.

I appreciate your honesty about the assumption, I wish more were as forthright as you are.

My military rifle and scope rode in my hummer for days , and I had little concern for its accuracy. However, I also was very careful to make sure it was secure and unharmed.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Lee,

I have no doubt you would defend what you believe. But would you do so at the cost of common sense and your own integrity? Of course not. I have read some of the most outlandish trash from many who have, and do. I do not place you in that crowd.

Back to the scope.

How can you be "sure" of the suspension? What do you base this on? Frazier had a car, best I recall, not a truck.

At any rate. If this were the case and the scope had been misaligned at the time of the assassination, then how did the FBI manage to shoot groups like this only 5 days later? How did they manage to do so with an average time of 6 seconds for 3 shooters?

Maybe they realigned the scope?

As far as the suspension is concerned - I'm making an assumption - I'm not a firearms expert Mike, nowhere near being one, but I was posing a hypothetical. If you were going to a range with a MC rifle would you sight the scope before you went and then leave it on the back seat of a car (in a brown paper bag) and expect it to fire perfectly on its first shot? Or would there be a likelihood, however small, that the scope may have to be readjusted and realigned?

For the record, I have no problems with the FBI timings, but I'd be more impressed (and interested) if they'd have been shooting at a moving target from the actual sixth floor window for their tests...

Lee,

Actually they were firing the rifle to test if for accuracy "as is". It shot remarkably well. I do not think at this point they were trying to recreate the event.

I appreciate your honesty about the assumption, I wish more were as forthright as you are.

My military rifle and scope rode in my hummer for days , and I had little concern for its accuracy. However, I also was very careful to make sure it was secure and unharmed.

Mike

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

Lee,

I am going to PM you a link to an article I am working on but have not published yet. You can get the jist of the scope info there. I appreciate you taking me at my word, but its all in Fraziers testimony in WCH3. Its a bit elusive to read in the testimony, but I think I lay it out fairly well in the article. Check your PM box.

Mike

[Pat Speer]

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

FYI, Lee, regarding the scope. From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

On 3-31-64, the testimony of two weapons experts casts grave doubt on the theory that Oswald fired all the shots. Under questioning by Melvin Eisenberg, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testifies that on 11-27-63 he and two other ballistics examiners fired the rifle found in the depository in order to judge both the speed at which three shots could be fired, and the accuracy of those shots. He relates that, when firing on targets but 15 yards away, agent “Killion fired in 9 seconds… (agent) Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds”. He testifies further that, after moving to a 25 yard range, he attempted to fire the rifle as rapidly as possible, and was able to fire three times in 4.6 seconds, and then 4.8 seconds. He then relates that on March 16, 1964, after adjusting the rifle to make it fire as accurately as possible while using the scope, he fired on outdoor targets at 100 yards, and was able to fire three shots in 5.9. 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds, respectively. When asked by counsel Eisenberg if firing at a moving target would have lengthened these times, he states “It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.” When asked how long this would take, he answers “Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving.” When asked if increased familiarity with the rifle would have helped him shorten his time, he replies “Oh yes” but then talks about how it would improve his accuracy. He eventually answers the question in the negative by replying “4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.”

(The date of this last test is intriguing. Let's recall that a January 9, 1964 column by Allen and Scott reported that the FBI had been asked to conduct more tests on the speed at which the rifle could be fired. Well, here are the tests, only two months later... Hmmm... This gives us something to think about. Let's reflect...should these March tests have proved that Oswald could not have acted alone, would Hoover have even allowed this information be given to the Commission? Would he have risked criticism that he'd dragged his feet while Oswald's accomplices escaped? One can only assume "No". Then what follows is that Hoover and the FBI knew that no matter what these tests showed, they were not to be used to suggest that more than one shooter was involved.)

But if Frazier's testimony raises questions about Oswald's ability to fire all the shots, and the FBI's honesty about this ability, it raises even more questions about the accuracy of the weapon purportedly used by Oswald. Frazier tells the Commission that the first six shots fired by the FBI on 11-27 hit 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards. He says the next three hit 2 1/2 inches high and 1 to the right at 15 yards. He then discusses the next six shots fired with the weapon, fired from 25 yards in an effort to fire the rifle as rapidly and accurately as possible. He claims "The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point...The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high..." A close look at the target used for these six shots, and a comparison of this target with the targets created from 15 yards, is most revealing, however. It shows that Frazier was way off, and that the shots he claimed landed 4 to 5 inches high in fact landed 6 to 8 inches high, and 2 1/2 to 5 inches to the right of the aiming point. This confirms that the shots from 15 yards were not an anomaly, and that the scope was, in fact, considerably misaligned.

So misaligned, apparently, that the FBI and Warren Commission felt the need to cover up. At one point, undoubtedly to downplay that the rifle was so woefully inaccurate, Frazier claims that "apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned." Well, this is disingenuous on two fronts. One is that the scope, while being removed from the rifle in Dallas and Washington, was never taken off the barrel, with which it was aligned. Two is that Frazier himself suspected that NOTHING had happened to the rifle to knock it out of alignment. Later in his testimony, Frazier admits that when the FBI subsequently tried to sight-in the rifle and make it fire as accurately as possible, he found that the scope was defective, and that it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope after an adjustment, and that this still wasn't enough, as the rifle still fired 4-5 inches high and to the right at 100 yards. He then admitted "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." Well, there it is. Frazier had thereby admitted that there was reason to believe that the rifle had been misaligned when fired on the 22nd. While he'd fired two comparison bullets on the 23rd, he later found it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope. It follows then that the rifle on 11-22 before the shooting was as misaligned as it was on the 27th, when Frazier tested its accuracy. (On May 20, 1964, William Waldman testified before the Commission as a representative of Klein's Sporting Goods, the company that sold Oswald the rifle. He testified that the scope had been installed at Kleins's but that it was not sighted in by Klein's. This raises the question of whether the scope had EVER been sighted in prior to the FBI's attempt to sight it in on March 16, 1964.)

The significance of this misalignment becomes clear later in the testimony. Counsel Melvin Eisenberg asks Frazier a series of questions about the sniper's having to lead his target, in order to hit his target. He gives some specifics, telling Frazier: "I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds. Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope."

Well, this is interesting. Eisenberg is telling Frazier that, in the opinion of the Commission, the limousine traveled but 90 feet between the first and third shots. This is in keeping with the findings of Secret Service Agent Howlett on 11-27, but is a total refutation of the FBI's later claim the limousine traveled 140 feet between the shots. Perhaps Eisenberg, then, is telling Frazier to play ball, or else the Commission will expose the FBI's scandalous deception regarding the distance the limo traveled.

If so, it worked. Well, sort of... Frazier at first testifies that the proper lead for the target at 175 feet would be 6 to 8 inches. But there's a problem with this. Frazier can't leave well enough alone. Dissatisfied with Eisenberg's asking him to disregard the misalignment of the scope in making his calculation, he offers: "the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."

Uhhh,,,there's a problem with this. It's nonsense! If the rifle was firing 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards, as suggested by Frazier's own testimony, then it follows that it would fire 24 inches high and 6 inches to the right at 90 yards, the approximate location of Kennedy at the time of the head shot. If the proper lead for this shot was 6.1inches, as Frazier later specified, it follows that, in order to hit Kennedy in the head at frame 313 of the Zapruder film, the sniper would have to 1) know that the rifle was firing significantly high, and 2) aim almost 18 inches LOW, at the middle of Kennedy's back.

But there's a problem with this as well. The middle of Kennedy's back was obscured by the backseat of the limo. That's right. If one assumes that the rifle as fired on 11-22 was in the same condition it was on 11-27, one has to acknowledge that the sniper hitting Kennedy in the head was actually aiming at the backseat of the limo. This is counter-intuitive.

And it's actually understating the case. It is believed that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was sighted-in to strike targets at 200 meters. At 200 meters gravity will have taken effect and the bullet will no longer be flying in a straight path. As a result, the bullet of a rifle sighted in at 200 meters will start out low, gradually lift above its line of sight, and then slowly drop back to the line of sight, and hopefully the center of its target, at 200 meters. Frazier testified that a bullet sighted in such a manner at 200 yards would land about a half-inch high at 100 feet, two inches high at 200 feet, and three inches high at 300 feet. This suggests that a bullet fired from 265 feet, a la the fatal bullet if fired from the sniper's nest, would land about 2 1/2 inches high.

And Frazier was probably understating the case. Ballistics calculators (such as those found online at Hornady ammunition website) and charts (such as those found in the book American Ammunition and Ballistics) suggest that the bullet fired in Oswald's rifle would actually have been around 5 inches above the line of sight at 265 feet.

And even this is understating the case. If one accepts Frazier's testimony regarding the inaccuracy of the weapon on 11-27 and the stabilizing effect of shots on the scope, and then considers that the fatal bullet was heading on a downward path, and not be subject to the usual amount of gravity, it seems likely that the fatal bullet supposedly fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano on 11-22-63 would have landed even greater than 23 inches higher than aimed (29 inches minus the 6 inches or so traveled by the limousine between the moment the rifle was fired and the moment the bullet struck) and that the only way for the sniper to have hit Kennedy in the head was for him to have aimed at the trunk of the car.

The confusion related to leading a moving target by firing below or behind the target becomes even more confusing when we consider Frazier's next statement. He added "I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right." Uhhh... he said the rifle shot but an inch to the right at 15 yards...which translates to 6 inches to the right at 90 yards. Although Frazier has supplied the Warren Commission with no information regarding the left-right lead necessary to hit the target, photos taken from the sniper's nest suggest that the left-right lead would be about the same as the vertical lead. This would be about 6 inches.This suggests that, while the rifle was firing high and to the right, the sniper would need to make a large adjustment for the former--an adjustment which Frazier denies--but no adjustment at all for the latter--which Frazier also denies.

Something is just askew with Frazier's testimony. First, he under-reports how badly the rifle performed during his 11-27 tests of the rifle from 25 yards. Then he under-reports the adjustment needed to overcome the misalignment of the rifle, and actually suggests this misalignment was an advantage to the sniper. What is he doing? Is he deliberately trying to conceal that such a large adjustment for the rifle's shooting high would have been necessary? If so, then why did he turn around and make it sound like the rifle's shooting right was the bigger problem? Is he simultaneously trying to conceal that the limo was not heading straight away from the sniper, but moving left to right? Or is he just following orders to the best of his ability?

We suspect the latter. On 3-26-64, J. Edgar Hoover sent J. Lee Rankin a letter discussing the accuracy of the rifle. This letter was published as Commission Exhibit 2724. Most of the information contained in this letter was repeated in Frazier's testimony. But not all of it. While Frazier let it slip that the condition of the scope had probably not changed between 11-22 and 11-26, Hoover would have no part of it. He wrote "It is pointed out that the grouping of the shots in the targets shows an inherent capability of great accuracy under rapid fire conditions. No other significance whatever can be attached to these tests since there is no way of determining whether the present condition of the telescopic sight is the same as at the time of the assassination. It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could not be properly aligned with the target since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment before reaching accurate alignment." (Now here comes the spin.) "The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in favor of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for "leading" a moving target in aiming the rifle."

Well, I'll be. Hoover said that the present error in alignment--which would mean the alignment demonstrated on 3-16 AFTER the scope had been sighted in as accurately as possible--would be an advantage, and Frazier testified that the misalignment of the rifle as received by the laboratory would be an advantage. There's a huge difference. And Hoover, for once, was right. The misalignment of the scope on 11-26, when Frazier first tested the accuracy of the rifle, was in no way an advantage. It is of no help at all to a sniper to have to aim at a car trunk to hit a man in the head. But the slight misalignment of the rifle on 3-16, after it was sighted in, would be a slight advantage to someone tracking an object moving left to right and away, provided the person is aware of this misalignment. This leads us to suspect that Frazier was given specific orders on how to testify, and screwed them up.

This gives us plenty to think about. IF the rifle was severely misaligned on 11-22, as suggested by Frazier's testimony, then either the shooter was a marginally talented shooter, like Oswald, who was just firing in the President's general direction and got "lucky", or he was an expert marksman well acquainted with Oswald's rifle, and well aware of its tendency to fire high and to the right, and talented enough to compensate for this tendency. (Testimony of

[Mike Williams]

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

FYI, Lee, regarding the scope. From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

On 3-31-64, the testimony of two weapons experts casts grave doubt on the theory that Oswald fired all the shots. Under questioning by Melvin Eisenberg, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testifies that on 11-27-63 he and two other ballistics examiners fired the rifle found in the depository in order to judge both the speed at which three shots could be fired, and the accuracy of those shots. He relates that, when firing on targets but 15 yards away, agent “Killion fired in 9 seconds… (agent) Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds”. He testifies further that, after moving to a 25 yard range, he attempted to fire the rifle as rapidly as possible, and was able to fire three times in 4.6 seconds, and then 4.8 seconds. He then relates that on March 16, 1964, after adjusting the rifle to make it fire as accurately as possible while using the scope, he fired on outdoor targets at 100 yards, and was able to fire three shots in 5.9. 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds, respectively. When asked by counsel Eisenberg if firing at a moving target would have lengthened these times, he states “It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.” When asked how long this would take, he answers “Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving.” When asked if increased familiarity with the rifle would have helped him shorten his time, he replies “Oh yes” but then talks about how it would improve his accuracy. He eventually answers the question in the negative by replying “4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.”

(The date of this last test is intriguing. Let's recall that a January 9, 1964 column by Allen and Scott reported that the FBI had been asked to conduct more tests on the speed at which the rifle could be fired. Well, here are the tests, only two months later... Hmmm... This gives us something to think about. Let's reflect...should these March tests have proved that Oswald could not have acted alone, would Hoover have even allowed this information be given to the Commission? Would he have risked criticism that he'd dragged his feet while Oswald's accomplices escaped? One can only assume "No". Then what follows is that Hoover and the FBI knew that no matter what these tests showed, they were not to be used to suggest that more than one shooter was involved.)

But if Frazier's testimony raises questions about Oswald's ability to fire all the shots, and the FBI's honesty about this ability, it raises even more questions about the accuracy of the weapon purportedly used by Oswald. Frazier tells the Commission that the first six shots fired by the FBI on 11-27 hit 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards. He says the next three hit 2 1/2 inches high and 1 to the right at 15 yards. He then discusses the next six shots fired with the weapon, fired from 25 yards in an effort to fire the rifle as rapidly and accurately as possible. He claims "The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point...The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high..." A close look at the target used for these six shots, and a comparison of this target with the targets created from 15 yards, is most revealing, however. It shows that Frazier was way off, and that the shots he claimed landed 4 to 5 inches high in fact landed 6 to 8 inches high, and 2 1/2 to 5 inches to the right of the aiming point. This confirms that the shots from 15 yards were not an anomaly, and that the scope was, in fact, considerably misaligned.

So misaligned, apparently, that the FBI and Warren Commission felt the need to cover up. At one point, undoubtedly to downplay that the rifle was so woefully inaccurate, Frazier claims that "apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned." Well, this is disingenuous on two fronts. One is that the scope, while being removed from the rifle in Dallas and Washington, was never taken off the barrel, with which it was aligned. Two is that Frazier himself suspected that NOTHING had happened to the rifle to knock it out of alignment. Later in his testimony, Frazier admits that when the FBI subsequently tried to sight-in the rifle and make it fire as accurately as possible, he found that the scope was defective, and that it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope after an adjustment, and that this still wasn't enough, as the rifle still fired 4-5 inches high and to the right at 100 yards. He then admitted "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." Well, there it is. Frazier had thereby admitted that there was reason to believe that the rifle had been misaligned when fired on the 22nd. While he'd fired two comparison bullets on the 23rd, he later found it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope. It follows then that the rifle on 11-22 before the shooting was as misaligned as it was on the 27th, when Frazier tested its accuracy. (On May 20, 1964, William Waldman testified before the Commission as a representative of Klein's Sporting Goods, the company that sold Oswald the rifle. He testified that the scope had been installed at Kleins's but that it was not sighted in by Klein's. This raises the question of whether the scope had EVER been sighted in prior to the FBI's attempt to sight it in on March 16, 1964.)

The significance of this misalignment becomes clear later in the testimony. Counsel Melvin Eisenberg asks Frazier a series of questions about the sniper's having to lead his target, in order to hit his target. He gives some specifics, telling Frazier: "I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds. Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope."

Well, this is interesting. Eisenberg is telling Frazier that, in the opinion of the Commission, the limousine traveled but 90 feet between the first and third shots. This is in keeping with the findings of Secret Service Agent Howlett on 11-27, but is a total refutation of the FBI's later claim the limousine traveled 140 feet between the shots. Perhaps Eisenberg, then, is telling Frazier to play ball, or else the Commission will expose the FBI's scandalous deception regarding the distance the limo traveled.

If so, it worked. Well, sort of... Frazier at first testifies that the proper lead for the target at 175 feet would be 6 to 8 inches. But there's a problem with this. Frazier can't leave well enough alone. Dissatisfied with Eisenberg's asking him to disregard the misalignment of the scope in making his calculation, he offers: "the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."

Uhhh,,,there's a problem with this. It's nonsense! If the rifle was firing 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards, as suggested by Frazier's own testimony, then it follows that it would fire 24 inches high and 6 inches to the right at 90 yards, the approximate location of Kennedy at the time of the head shot. If the proper lead for this shot was 6.1inches, as Frazier later specified, it follows that, in order to hit Kennedy in the head at frame 313 of the Zapruder film, the sniper would have to 1) know that the rifle was firing significantly high, and 2) aim almost 18 inches LOW, at the middle of Kennedy's back.

But there's a problem with this as well. The middle of Kennedy's back was obscured by the backseat of the limo. That's right. If one assumes that the rifle as fired on 11-22 was in the same condition it was on 11-27, one has to acknowledge that the sniper hitting Kennedy in the head was actually aiming at the backseat of the limo. This is counter-intuitive.

And it's actually understating the case. It is believed that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was sighted-in to strike targets at 200 meters. At 200 meters gravity will have taken effect and the bullet will no longer be flying in a straight path. As a result, the bullet of a rifle sighted in at 200 meters will start out low, gradually lift above its line of sight, and then slowly drop back to the line of sight, and hopefully the center of its target, at 200 meters. Frazier testified that a bullet sighted in such a manner at 200 yards would land about a half-inch high at 100 feet, two inches high at 200 feet, and three inches high at 300 feet. This suggests that a bullet fired from 265 feet, a la the fatal bullet if fired from the sniper's nest, would land about 2 1/2 inches high.

And Frazier was probably understating the case. Ballistics calculators (such as those found online at Hornady ammunition website) and charts (such as those found in the book American Ammunition and Ballistics) suggest that the bullet fired in Oswald's rifle would actually have been around 5 inches above the line of sight at 265 feet.

And even this is understating the case. If one accepts Frazier's testimony regarding the inaccuracy of the weapon on 11-27 and the stabilizing effect of shots on the scope, and then considers that the fatal bullet was heading on a downward path, and not be subject to the usual amount of gravity, it seems likely that the fatal bullet supposedly fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano on 11-22-63 would have landed even greater than 23 inches higher than aimed (29 inches minus the 6 inches or so traveled by the limousine between the moment the rifle was fired and the moment the bullet struck) and that the only way for the sniper to have hit Kennedy in the head was for him to have aimed at the trunk of the car.

The confusion related to leading a moving target by firing below or behind the target becomes even more confusing when we consider Frazier's next statement. He added "I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right." Uhhh... he said the rifle shot but an inch to the right at 15 yards...which translates to 6 inches to the right at 90 yards. Although Frazier has supplied the Warren Commission with no information regarding the left-right lead necessary to hit the target, photos taken from the sniper's nest suggest that the left-right lead would be about the same as the vertical lead. This would be about 6 inches.This suggests that, while the rifle was firing high and to the right, the sniper would need to make a large adjustment for the former--an adjustment which Frazier denies--but no adjustment at all for the latter--which Frazier also denies.

Something is just askew with Frazier's testimony. First, he under-reports how badly the rifle performed during his 11-27 tests of the rifle from 25 yards. Then he under-reports the adjustment needed to overcome the misalignment of the rifle, and actually suggests this misalignment was an advantage to the sniper. What is he doing? Is he deliberately trying to conceal that such a large adjustment for the rifle's shooting high would have been necessary? If so, then why did he turn around and make it sound like the rifle's shooting right was the bigger problem? Is he simultaneously trying to conceal that the limo was not heading straight away from the sniper, but moving left to right? Or is he just following orders to the best of his ability?

We suspect the latter. On 3-26-64, J. Edgar Hoover sent J. Lee Rankin a letter discussing the accuracy of the rifle. This letter was published as Commission Exhibit 2724. Most of the information contained in this letter was repeated in Frazier's testimony. But not all of it. While Frazier let it slip that the condition of the scope had probably not changed between 11-22 and 11-26, Hoover would have no part of it. He wrote "It is pointed out that the grouping of the shots in the targets shows an inherent capability of great accuracy under rapid fire conditions. No other significance whatever can be attached to these tests since there is no way of determining whether the present condition of the telescopic sight is the same as at the time of the assassination. It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could not be properly aligned with the target since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment before reaching accurate alignment." (Now here comes the spin.) "The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in favor of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for "leading" a moving target in aiming the rifle."

Well, I'll be. Hoover said that the present error in alignment--which would mean the alignment demonstrated on 3-16 AFTER the scope had been sighted in as accurately as possible--would be an advantage, and Frazier testified that the misalignment of the rifle as received by the laboratory would be an advantage. There's a huge difference. And Hoover, for once, was right. The misalignment of the scope on 11-26, when Frazier first tested the accuracy of the rifle, was in no way an advantage. It is of no help at all to a sniper to have to aim at a car trunk to hit a man in the head. But the slight misalignment of the rifle on 3-16, after it was sighted in, would be a slight advantage to someone tracking an object moving left to right and away, provided the person is aware of this misalignment. This leads us to suspect that Frazier was given specific orders on how to testify, and screwed them up.

This gives us plenty to think about. IF the rifle was severely misaligned on 11-22, as suggested by Frazier's testimony, then either the shooter was a marginally talented shooter, like Oswald, who was just firing in the President's general direction and got "lucky", or he was an expert marksman well acquainted with Oswald's rifle, and well aware of its tendency to fire high and to the right, and talented enough to compensate for this tendency. (Testimony of

Pat,

Incorrect.

In testing the rifle at 25 yards on 11/27 Frazier specifically says he was firing for speed and accuracy secondary. He was not trying to fire as fast AND accurately as possible as you said. Further, if you look at the ballistics table for the Carcano, you would see that the 15 yard target should be 4 inches high, if the weapon was sighted for 400 yards. The six shots fired were all interlocking save one which was very close to being interlocking. Frazier also tells us that the first time they had an issue with the instability of the rifle was 3/16/64. The firings on 11/27 prove the scope was quite stable as we can see in this target.

The claim that the rifle was severely misaligned is false in as much as 11/27 goes. However by 3/16/64 it not only was loose, but was misaligned.

There is the Table for the 6.5mm Carcano. Note that at 100 yards it shoots 17" high. This means at 50 it would be 8.5 high and at 25 it would be 4.25 high, and roughly 4 high at 15 yards. Exactly what the tests on 11/27 show.

Also note the tight pattern in the target above, clearly showing that there was no misalignment and instability of the scope on 11/27/63.

Further more at 100 yards the scope would shoot about 17" high and 3 inches right. Care to guess how far the head of JFK moves in the time it takes the bullet to travel from the muzzle to him? Let put it this way, if a shooter were to hole the scope right on the President, with no lead, he would have hit him right in the head!

Additionally Frazier fires his 25 yard groups in 4.8 and 4.6 seconds, and he still held them in a 2" circle!

The long held beliefs that the rifle was junk and the scope misaligned are nothing more than CT misinformation.

Mike