Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Robert Prudhomme

How a Popular Misconception Gave Away a Lie by the FBI

Recommended Posts

Robert, I agree that there are problems with Frazier's testimony, as there is with most all of the expert testimony. I thought you were trying to tell us that CE 399 could not be fired from a 6.5 mm rifle, and was merely trying to point out that if that is the case, you should be able to tell us what kind of rifle it could be fired from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, this is what I was trying to tell you, Pat. As I pointed out, if the land impression on CE 399 in the photo is measured, and compared to the Metric scale in the photo, it is too narrow to be a land impression made by a Carcano M91/38 rifle barrel.

I honestly don't know what went on with CE 399 but, putting it all together, there is something strange here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Neal   

Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI was considered a firearms expert...However, a careful examination of his work and evidence reveals a plethora of errors.

One such error is revealed in the excerpt from his testimony below...

Hello Robert,

Considering SA Frazier's WC testimony in its entirety, it is my long-held belief that is not presenting the truth, and he knows it. He is simply delivering the Hoover-approved fiction that is required to "pin the tail" on LHO.

This is a well thought out and clear presentation of the facts regarding CE-399 and the alleged assassination weapon. I'm eager to hear more...

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an easy one:

Once again, from the testimony of SA Robert A. Frazier:

"Mr. FRAZIER - The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length--possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches."

While I believe Frazier actually obtained the figure of 6.65 mm by measuring (or guessing), he likely obtained the diameter of .267" (actually .2677") and the length of 1.185" from a text, as these are correct dimensions but do not match the above photo, as do his diameter and land impression width measurements.

It should be pointed out here that the diameter of 6.65 mm Frazier obtained is impossible for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet. Most 6.5mm rifles shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, while the Carcano shoots a bullet .268" (.2677" actually) in diameter. However, 6.65 mm works out to .2618" and, outside of one experimental Swiss cartridge made for NATO, there is not a rifle I know that shoots a bullet this diameter. It would be easy to forgive Frazier this mistake and blame it on the fact CE 399 was flattened but, Frazier not only had the unfired bullet found in the chamber of C2766 to measure, the FBI also purchased WCC 6.5mm ammo. How Frazier came up with a diameter of 6.65 mm is still a mystery.

If we convert the length measurement of 1.185" to Metric, we get a length of 30.099 mm or 30 mm. Measuring the length of the bullet in the photo, I get 28.5 mm.

Once again, not a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did a careful measurement on paper of the bullet designated in the photo as CE 399.

I drew a straight line parallel to the sides of the bullet and crossing the land impression in the vicinity of the cannelure. As the scale is rather large in this photo, I measured from the crossing of the land impression 12.7 mm (.5 inch) towards the nose of the bullet, and measured from the line to the land impression. I found it to be 1.4 mm, meaning that, in the length of 1 inch of the barrel, the bullet had been rotated 2.8 mm of its circumference.

Finding the distance the bullet in the photo travelled in the barrel to make one full spin should be as easy as finding the circumference of the bullet, in millimetres, and dividing by 2.8.

We know the Carcano 6.5mm bullet to be 6.8 mm in diameter and can multiply by pi (3.1416) to obtain circumference.

6.8 x 3.1416 = 21.36288 mm

21.36288 divided by 2.8 = 7.6296, meaning that the rifle the bullet was fired from had riflings with a rate of twist of 1:7.63. This means that, in 7.63", the bullet will make one complete spin.

Unfortunately for the FBI, the M91/38 6.5mm Carcano short rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD does not have a rate of twist of 1:7.63. Like all of the other 6.5mm short rifles made in 1940 (or most of them), it has a much slower rate of twist at 1:8.47.

The only thing close to this rifling are the Carcano long rifles and carbines with their progressive twist riflings. The long rifles had a final rate of twist of 1:7.94, while the final rate of twist for the carbines was 1:7.48.

There was definitely something fishy going on, and this proves beyond a doubt that the CE 399 seen in the photo was not fired from C2766, or any other 6.5mm Carcano short rifle.

Next: TWO CE 399's???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert Prudhomme said:

I did a careful measurement on paper of the bullet designated in the photo as CE 399.

I drew a straight line parallel to the sides of the bullet...

Nobody can simply draw lines on a picture of a bullet (or on any picture) and expect perfect, exacting information. It's impossible to extract three-dimensional measurements from a two-dimensional object without applying photogrammetry skills. But perhaps Bob P. doesn't realize this fact....

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

"I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008

-------------------

Did you apply photogrammetry to your detailed measurements of the CE399 photo(s), Robert? If not, your calculations are pretty much worthless.

But just ignore that fact about not being able to derive perfect data from two-dimensional objects, Bobby. It'll be better for your constant attacks on Robert Frazier if you do. And there will probably still be at least two or three misguided souls on the Internet who will be foolish enough to believe your crackpot ".25 caliber" theories. After all, never underestimate the type of crap the public will buy. Even David Lifton's book got up to #5 on the best-sellers list. So there's hope for your outlandish rantings too.

On 1/27/2015 at 1:33 AM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)

Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film.

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

Footnote/Addendum....

Pat Speer has very likely made the very same mistake of not applying photogrammetry when he attempts to prove that the paper bag Detective L.D. Montgomery is holding in the pictures below is not the same paper bag that appears in the National Archives today as Commission Exhibit No. 142.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing we know, we'll have Craig Lamson on here ranting about parallax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)

Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film.

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)

Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film.

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

No kidding, Dave? He went right to town on it with all the high tech equipment, did he? Is that how he made the following mistakes in his cartoon?

1. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet going straight through the neck, almost at midline. This course would have taken the MB through the cervical vertebrae. Yet, autopsy x-rays show pristine cervical vertebrae, requiring the MB to pass completely outside of the C7 vertebrae, yet still manage to tear up the right side of JFK's trachea. It is estimated the MB had to be travelling from right to left through JFK's neck at a minimum angle of 23° to accomplish this, yet Dale's cartoon shows the bullet going almost straight through.

2. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering John Connally's back and exiting his chest, implying a through and through wound that pierced Connally's right lung. According to the medical report, the MB did not penetrate Connally's right lung but, rather, stayed on the OUTSIDE of Connally's rib cage, following the outside of the 5th rib for 10 cm.

3. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering the palm side of Connally's wrist, and exiting the back side of his wrist. Once again, the medical report contradicts this and tells us the MB entered the back side of the wrist, and exited the palm or bottom side.

"Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model" ? I get more from watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

P.S.

Forgot to add that, while it is estimated the bullet would have had to travel through JFK's neck at a right to left angle of 23°, it was established, early in the investigation, that the angle from the 6th floor sniper's nest to JFK, measured from a line running lengthways down the limo, was established at 9°. How did Oswald put a bullet almost sideways through JFK's neck when he was behind him?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of Dale Myers' work is excellent (of course). But I certainly don't need Dale's computer model to demonstrate what the Zapruder Film has vividly shown since the day of the assassination---and that is one bullet going through the two victims at Z224.

If you, Bob P., can't see the SBT in action in the following Z-Film clips, it's not my fault. But I sure can see it. And so can most people who aren't visually impaired....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave

One question, and one question only. Answer this question to my satisfaction, and I will join the Lone Nuts.

Dale Myers' cartoon shows the Magic Bullet entering JFK's back very close to the spinal mid line, even though many reports place the back entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line. How did the bullet go straight through the neck, as Myers shows, without going through any vertebrae? If you'd like, I'll post a few medical diagrams to help you out.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dale Myers' cartoon shows the Magic Bullet entering JFK's back very close to the spinal mid line, even though many reports place the back entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line.

You don't think 1.5 or 2 inches is "very close to the spinal mid line"?

The JFK entry point in Myers' model looks fine to me....

Myers-Model.png

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×