Mike Williams

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help. In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly. Now the Carcano Chart. Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range). This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range) Those trajectories match. You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course. Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken. Okay. So we're stuck. You insist the scope was zeroed in at 400 yards without any evidence to support as much, beyond that you want this to be the truth. You also insist that the scope was damaged after 11-27, once again without any evidence, and in opposition to Frazier's testimony. You also keep evading that the FBI said the rifle could not be aligned without shims, that the Army confirmed this and added shims, and that Lattimer confirmed that this was a problem with the rifle/scope combination, and not unique to Oswald's rifle. You want to believe that the rifle was accurate on 11-22. Well I want to believe the shots came from the knoll. But the evidence tells me different. Whatever theory you're conjuring up that claims the scope was properly sighted-in and accurate on 11-22 should similarly be reconsidered. Let me draw your attention once again to Frazier's testimony: Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots. The problem was with the construction...NOT with the individual scope. Now watch how Eisenberg tries to get him to say the problem was with the individual scope, and that it had somehow been damaged. Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope? Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th? Mr. FRAZIER - 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. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY CLAIMING THE SCOPE HAD NOT RECENTLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO ITS BEING TESTED ON 11-27.) Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced? Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. (HE IS THEREBY ADMITTING THAT HE AT NO TIME NOTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE SCOPE WHICH HE COULD ASSOCIATE WITH ITS INABILITY TO BE PROPERLY SIGHTED-IN. AS STATED, LATTIMER CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RIFLE/SCOPE COMBINATION. SO WHY, AGAIN, ARE WE TO PRETEND THE SCOPE GOT DAMAGED SUBSEQUENT TO 11-27? BECAUSE IT FITS THE SINGLE-ASSASSIN THEORY?) He later clarifies his position. Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And 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. Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle. (HE THEREBY CLARIFIES THAT NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE IN DALLAS, THE SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ALIGNMENT.) There is also this: Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY REPEATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INHERENT IN THE SCOPE, AND NOT THAT THE SCOPE HAD BEEN DAMAGED.) As to how that would affect the lead--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. 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. (FRAZIER IS THEREBY TESTIFYING THAT THE CROSSHAIRS WERE SET HIGH AND THAT THE SCOPE WAS NOT IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS CONTRADICTS THE THEORY THAT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS, AND THAT THE BULLETS' LANDING HIGH WAS AS EXPECTED, AND COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERLY SET CROSSHAIRS.) And this: Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet. If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet. It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high. (NOTE THAT THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FRAZIER MENTIONS AS A DISTANCE FOR WHICH A RIFLE WOULD BE SIGHTED IN IS 600 FEET OR 200 YARDS--HALF THE DISTANCE NEEDED TO MAKE HIS SHOTS LANDING HIGH ON 11-27 FIT THE EXPECTED TRAJECTORY. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.) He confirms this later: Mr. EISENBERG - What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139? Mr. FRAZIER - It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards. (WHILE HE DOESN'T MENTION A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER SUGGESTS HE FELT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT NO MORE THAN 200 YARDS.) Pat, I do see a few things that I need to change in my examination, and thank you much for that. Let me put some thought into this and we can keep moving forward. I gotta tell you it's refreshing to talk to someone about this who actually ponders and does not just copy and paste epic sections of nonsense! I for one appreciate it! Mike

To drive by without noticing, it does not escape me that this is the exact same position you take with the evidence. Nice work.

And I agree with you. It SHOULD. But in very many areas of this case, it doesn't. CE399 and CE573 are in good, or should that be bad, company. Lee So in fact both of you claim that witness testimony should take a back seat to physical evidence, and then accept the testimony over the evidence. Impressive.....no.....really....

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot! The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized. I expected that level of reply to what I have written Mike. I'm not here to "prove" anything. Your government had the accountability to "prove" things and they failed miserably in 1963-64. Your own government then proved conspiracy in 1979 and requested the Justice Department investigate further. Do you not know this? As far as Brennan is concerned. Your witness lied. So he has zero credibility. Ignore him and what do you have? You have nothing but dodgy palm prints and dodgy gun adverts. I don't care if he was afraid that the "communists" were coming to get him. He lied. He had two opportunities to put this on record AFTER Oswald was dead and he didn't take them. He lied. Pure and simple. It's his words that I use. He said he was "relieved" when Oswald was dead, not me. If the shoe was on the other foot then you'd brush him aside the way you do Roger Craig. He attended a line-up but couldn't count to four. He attended a line-up with the Davis sisters and they don't remember him being there. His attendance at the line-up was added to the Davis card the way Marion Baker's identification of Oswald was added to the end of Marvin Johnson's report into the events of the day. You make assumptions about my beliefs in the case concerning shots from behind versus from the front and you can't deal with the inconsistencies I present. You're not suspicious of the police reaction to Brennan's claims? You have no answer for that level of ineptitude? You have no qualms that if Brennan's testimony is true that the police possibly let the killer go? You know the guy with the light clothing? Kinda like the guy that Baker accosted on the stairs of the third or fourth floor wearing a light brown jacket? You don't find it strange that Baker's testimony changed quite dramatically from his 22nd November affidavit? Good Lord!! I asked you a question about Oswald's FLASH being removed by the FBI in October 1963. You claim faulty sources. My source is FBI Agent James Hosty and released FBI and CIA files. You have NO ANSWERS. And you can go and consult with DVP all you want on this issue because he won't have any either. He may tell you to claim "faulty sources"...hey wait a minute. I really thought you were interested in debating the issues but then you come out with a garbage line that with CT viewpoints the "things wash out" when "scrutinised." You mean like DVP when he washes his undies? Here's some DVP "undie washing." FBI Agent Bob Barrett saw a wallet being "scrutinised" at the scene of the Tippit murder by Captain Westbrook. Westbrook asked Barrett if he knew Lee Oswald or Alex Hidell. Barrett said no. The wallet was caught on camera. Westbrook denied there was a wallet at the scene but because of the photographic evidence DVP knows he had to answer it. He claims it was Ted Callaway's. End of story. Unfortunately he ignores the fact that Ted Callaway said it wasn't. That certainly washed that one away, just like the brum brums in the aforementioned DVP underwear. That's the level of scrutiny your side of the argument can come up with? You love the minutea of the case because you can just keep pinging things backwards and forewards BUT the bigger issues and the bigger picture, such as the FLASH removal and Oswald being impersonated in Mexico, you have NO ANSWERS for. Over and out Lee All that comedy in so few words!

Martin, Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point. SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes. I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke. No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie. Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home. Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up... Lee, Again with the "lie" gimmick? Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"? Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged? Walker said it's NOT the bullet. Do you know more about that bullet than General Edwin Walker? If someone stole your car (let's say a BMW) and the police claim they've found it and drive up to your home in a Nissan would you believe they'd found your car? In answer to your last question. No. Just the stuff that was planted and forged... ...classic DVP and McAdams type of question though Mike. How about trying the "How many people where involved in this giant and all encompassing conspiracy?' next time? Keep ignoring the evidence though... Of course the errors in your analogy are glaring. If the police brought me a Nissan I would know it was not my car. However that bullet was not Walkers bullet.....so why should we give weight to his identification? It was Oswald's bullet, not Walkers. So typical of the CT crowd to put witness testimony above physical evidence. Did you not know that witness testimony is the LEAST reliable? No wonder there is so much confusion in figuring out a simple case for some folks.....

So I take it your answer is no, you can not support your assertions. How is it that I figured as much. Please don't waste my time copying and pasting someone else's work, especially after you accused me of being a parrot. What a hypocrite. You read that long winded waste of time and give me the short part that you think supports your "theories". By the way, I believe the Gov is mostly wrong, just goes to show how much you know about me and how quick you are to nibble up an assumption my little gold fish. Stop parroting and do some research. Ill be waiting.

Martin, Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point. SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes. I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke. No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie. Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home. Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up... Lee, Again with the "lie" gimmick? Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"? Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged?

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help. In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly. Now the Carcano Chart. Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range). This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range) Those trajectories match. You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course. Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Martin, Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point. SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes. I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot! The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized.

Pat, Of course the rifle should be high and right at 15 and 25 yards, unless of course it was zeroed for 15 and 25 yards. If the rifle was zeroed for any range further than that the bullets would be passing the target on the rise of the trajectory arch. So, having targets that show high and right at 15 and 25 yards is not an indication that the scope was misaligned. www.jfkballistics.com/trajectoryexplained.html The assertion that the rifle did not need 5-6 shots to realign is most certainly based on evidence. Look at the targets they shot. Do you see those groups? That in itself shows that the rifle was very stable on 11/27. It also shows us that the target was hitting high by 4" roughly which is to be expected at such a short range, given the fact that trajectory creates an arc. You are right I am unable to acknowledge that there was an issue with the rifle on 11/27, because there were no issues that I have been able to find. Obviously the Army found the need to add shims, because at some point after 11/27 the rifle was damaged. This is brutally clear. Who did it, and when is really beside the point, interesting, but beside the point. The evidence shows this to be the case. How else would you explain it? I base the 400 yard zero on a common principle. Ballistic trajectory. If we have the defined weight, average velocity, and ballistic coefficient of a bullet we can determine the trajectory arc. The BC is a value based on the surface area and nose shape of the bullet. This number determines in numeric value how much drag a bullet would have. Once these values are known, they can be calculated, with a ballistic calculator, to determine the exact trajectory of a bullet. Since we have targets at 15 and 25 yards, we can then determine how much of in increase in elevation we see between the two, this determines the projectiles angle of rise in the ballistic arch. We can match this with the ballistic tables and determine which of the tables shows this type of rise at and between 15 and 25 yards, and we then can know the zero of the weapon. Now as to WHY someone would zero a weapon for 400 to shoot a target at less than 100. Simply, who knows? That would involve me trying to predict the thoughts of another, and enter into nothing more than pure speculation. Perhaps the thought to commit this crime was impulsive, and there was no time to go zero the weapon for a shorter range. Who really knows. But again it does not matter really. If the person shooting the weapon knew it was set up for 400, then they would know that they had to compensate for that in a shorter shot. Its not really that difficult to do. In the Marines we do this all the time, and in fact we teach it. Imagine a guy on the battle field having to re-zero for every shot he takes! Of course they would not do that, what they do do is learn to fire at different ranges with one setting, and compensate for the increase/decrease in range. No Pat there is plenty of evidence, if you really understand what you are looking at. I see no evidence of the scope being damaged before 11/27/63. I have conjured up nothing. You can find these very words in Fraziers testimony: Mr. FRAZIER - 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. Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced? Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. So Frazier tells us that there were no issues with stabilization on 11/27/63, and that at that time he could not say when it had been introduced as an issue. This is significant in that if the condition had existed prior to 11/27 Frazier would have known that the condition existed prior to them having received the rifle. As for spending to much time on McAdams website, and reading to much Bugliosi, you are making a rather large assumption here. Fact is McAdams has much incorrect about the rifle as well, and Bugliosi is a bit dry for me. I have read some of his writing, but probably retained little. I base my opinions on what is in the evidence, I certainly don't need anyone to explain that to me, as I know this stuff fairly well. However there are so many misconceptions about the ballistic evidence, and so many people that have made conclusions based on what they consider to be correct, that this is exactly what prompted me to pursue writing a series of articles that address the rifle and its condition point by point. I am nearly finished with the first article which addresses the misconception that the scope was misaligned, and in fact sent a sneak peak to Lee yesterday for a quick look over by him, as I felt he would benefit from that. There is also an article On my website called "trajectory explained" that addresses how a bullet flies and explains how sights effect this flight. Anyone interested in the ballistics should read that as well. Again you are now talking about ability, which is speculation. I can however tell you one thing. If you and I headed to the range to fire one of my rifles, I can guarantee you would not be anywhere near as proficient with my rifle as you would one of your own, even if our abilities were exactly the same. There is much to be said for being familiar with your weapon! For one thing, those men were all shooting the same rifle, and not one of them re calibrated it for their own personal use! Remember me telling you about two people shooting a different "zero"? While the CT crowd likes to tel us that there is no evidence of Oswald practicing, I like to remind them that every second of his time is not accounted for, and that lack of evidence should never be considered evidence. According to the CT crowd, and your post earlier, Oswald only ever fired at one other living target, Walker. This gives him, in his possession 5 rounds of ammo. Not even one full clip. However 6.5mm ammunition was sold in 20 ct boxes, with no clips, and in 18 count packages with 3 clips and 6 rounds in each clip. So are we to think that Oswald found a gun shop that sold individual cartridges? I myself have never seen that. So what did he do with the other rounds, because as you pointed out, there is no extra rounds found? Additionally, I have to ask, would you have entered into this with only a partially loaded clip? I bet you would not, and I myself sure would not. This to me is yet another indication of the impulsive nature of the act. Perhaps he had no time to acquire more ammo, and perhaps this was a last minute decision, made the night before? All speculation of course, but as I like to call it logical speculation. By the way, the King Mackerel are biting come on down! Mike

Once one looks at and comprehends the ballistic evidence, one will stop wasting time with such foolishness as a knoll shooter. Of course it does keep the goldfish, who gobble up any flake thrown to them, occupied and out of the way of real research. Some people are so easily fooled. Well, some folks believe that Badge Man is there, and his shot missed. The jury is still out on the acoustical evidence. BTW, I would certainly appreciate it if all here could speak a little more civilly to one another. This is getting to be a little much. Kathy Kathy, For you Darlin, anything, I can even be nice to this Josephs person, as trying as he may be with all his bluster and no bolster. I will refrain from feeding the fish.

Bill, For you, OK. I myself believe it was Oswald. I also believe, especially after reading portions of Brennan's book, that he was identified. However, You know me, and I generally like several forms of confirmation on things, and admittedly, I lack those multiple avenues in putting Oswald behind that rifle. I have never understood the air tight alibi. However I do understand why someone would have thought he had a bald spot. I assume Greer and Kellerman were not afflicted with bald spots, but they sure look like they have one. How did he get away? By hiding in plain sight, talking to Baker, and then waltzing out of the building.

I decided out of the generosity in my heart, to not make you prove all your ridiculous claims, except one. The rifle. Please provide the evidence for your assertions that is was junk. Come on....out of all the flakes you spread, you should surely be able to back up just one.

Pat, Now another issue to address is the instability of the rifle and scope. This did not exist on 11/27/63 when the rifle was tested. This is very clear by the groups that were shot at 15 yards. This is a photo of 6 rounds fired on 11/27/63 by Cunningham and Frazier. Here is Killions 11/27/63 target also very consistent. There is no instability of the rifle on 11/27/63. There was no sign of instability until March of '64. Now a word about alignment. If we look at the above 15 yard targets we notice that both targets have very tight shot groups. We also notice that the Frazier Cunningham target is a bit different than the Killion target. There is good reason for that. They shoot a different "zero". Or to be more precise Cunningham and Frazier shoot nearly the same zero, but this zero is not Killions zero. When using a scope the way that we look through that scope, and mount the rifle becomes a critical part of how we sight the rifle in. We set it up, for ourselves. Each person mounts a rifle a bit differently and has a bit different sight picture. Clearly Frazier and Cunningham are close, but Killion is not. Its obvious that Killion is not a poor shot, look at his group pattern, very consistent. However he shoots about 2" lower than Frazier and Cunningham. This is not because he is a poor shot, its because he shoots a different zero. For anyone to say that there was an alignment issue on 11/27/63, is misleading. WE can say the set up was stable, based on the groups they shot. But there is no way we can say it was misaligned. Now I note in your post above that you claim " He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing." This is in reference to Simmons testimony about the shims, and is clearly false. There is no evidence what so ever that the scope was misaligned on 11/27. Now it is correct that this could not have been caused by a Dallas Policeman, because the damage did not exist when the rifle was in Dallas custody, it occured between 11/27 and 3/64. Also noted is that in 3/64 the FBI noted the scope was loose as well. I also notice you tossed in the "fear of breaking the firing pin" line. Common fair with the CT crowd, but again, it is only an inexperienced person, unfamiliar with firearms that would make such an assumption. The reason is simple, as any competant gunsmith will tell you you NEVER dry fire a center fire rifle. Why? Because you risk breaking the firing pin. New, old, it does not matter this is a huge no no. It is also common knowledge among those that know firearms. The recreation tests. Can you offer me one example of a recreation that was done as it should have been? I have been unable to find one. Fact is Oswald missed the first 2 shots, clearly. It was only after the Limo slowed that he was able to connect properly. Was Oswald an expert rifleman. No. But then again he did not have to be. Hell he only connected properly one in three shots. Howard Donahue was the only man I have heard of that accomplished the shooting event. However, there are two things and two things only to consider. 1) Does the shooter have a clear line of sight? Most every theory contends that yes he does. 2) Can the Carcano be fired 3 times in 6 seconds. Of course it can. Ability on anyone's scale is pure speculation. I am currently working on a series of articles that deal with many of these issues. If for no other purpose than to put all this garbage about how awful the Carcano was to rest. There is much I have yet to learn about the assassination. However the firearms aspect is one I am very well versed in, and wish that many others were as well, so that they could at least evaluate the evidence properly. We are researching a shooting event after all. Mike

Pat, Negative. The 5-6 shots to realign it was after the shims in March of 64. Certainly not on 11/27/63. The chart I posted represents a 400 yard zero. However if we break that down and see what elevations the rifle should have fired at 15 and 25 yards, we can develop a trajectory arc. With a 400 yard zero we should see a weapon fire 17" high. This means at 50 yards it would fire 8.5" high, and at 25 it would fire 4.2" high. This just happens to be the average of the rounds Frazier fired at 25 yards. The average elevation of all Frazier's rounds at 25 yards is 4.5" high. The average right for his shots at 25 yards, is 2.4" right. However this was under rapid fire conditions, and can vary a bit. Remember he tells us that accuracy was a back seat to speed in these tests. In calculating Frazier's shots at 25 yards, I calculated each bullet hole is about .25", slightly smaller than the bullet, which is normal in cardboard/paper. Here are the averages. The Blue group is series 1 and the Red is series 2. The numbers for series one are: 1-1 5.8" High and 1.8" Right 1-2 4.1" High and 1.6" Right 1-3 5.5" High and 3" Right Series one average elevation is 5.1" Series one right average is 2.1" Series two: 2-1 4.8" High and 2" Right 2-2 5.7" High and 4.2" Right 2-3 1.5" High and 2.1" Right Average elevation is 4" Average right is 2.7" Overall elevation average is 4.5" Overall right average is 2.4" Frazier was correct in his calculations and numbers. to be continued.....

I expected you to scamper off. I would to if I were in your position. Brennan clearly ID's Oswald in his book. Mishandling of statements, planted evidence forged material, you guys never cease to amaze me with your bluster, but when the chips are down you fold, just like you happened to just do. Your dismissed.

I also think there are some miscalculations made in examining the targets and saying Frazier fudged the numbers. More on this in a bit once I finish examining them. Hope you have been well Pat! Mike

Mike, I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended? In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever. There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following? On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he? Lee Lee, Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either. As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might. Let me ask you something while I am here. How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later? Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about. I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You. Mike Mike You can't be serious? You wouldn't remember one of, if not the most, important thing that has ever happened to you? There were four people in that line-up Mike. Not seven, not six and not eight. Four. You go into a room. The people walk in. They are assigned numbers. You look them up and down. One after the other. You take your time. You pick the guy out using those numbers. So if there are four, you would say either "number one", "number two", "number three", or "number four." It's not complicated. And four is an easy number to count to...for most people. It's also an easy number to remember...for most people. I can't, don't and will not believe Brennan's story, testimony or memory. I also find it incredibly suspicious that it was an FBI agent who conducted this line up (or so we are told.) And I wouldn't believe Forrest Sorrells if he told me I had five toes on each of my feet... The source for the removal of Oswald's FLASH is James P. Hosty's book "Assignment Oswald" p.166 and Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA' p.4. The FBI agent who removed the FLASH (Marvin Gheesling) was duly censured by Hoover. The Tippit shooting is complicated one and I suggest you get up to speed by reading the thread "The Attempted Planting of the Revolver on Oswald" - if you can prove to me a tamper proof chain of evidence on that revolver Mike, I'll buy you a brand new AK-47... Lee If you'll make is a new Wilson's combat CQB Ill read it lol! As for Brennan, I dont find it odd at all that he would not recall how many were in the line up. I think this is making a mountain from a mo hill. I certainly believe there was a line up, and in fact, believe much of what he had to say.

I've been interested in the events since I was 15 years old Mike. My Dad got me onto it when we had 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' aired for the first time in the U.K.. I got seriously into it, buying the books, hunting down old journals and the like when I was 18-19. I was obsessed with it till about the age of 25 and then kinda went onto other things. In my early 30's I picked the books and my notepads back up. For the last 3 years, outside of looking after my young daughters and being a husband, has been my number one interest and passion. Lee Oswald, the real man behind the one dimensional WC portrait, is what I'm truly interested in. I know this guy was innocent Mike. Set up by JJ Angleton and a combination of Texas moneymen and the Military. He was moved around a chessboard thinking he was a knight when he was, unfortunately, just a pawn. Lee Lee, Thanks for sharing that. I myself have been researching about 3 years only and much of that on other things. As you know I am mostly interested in the ballistics. As you might also know I own www.jfkballistics.com. If you are ever interested in writing an article on Oswald I would love to have it on my site. I post all kinds of things from all sides of the debate. Not just ballistics. All I ask is that if it has ballistics in it that it be accurate. So anyhow just thought I would offer. Mike I'll have a think about it Mike. I already have lots of things in my notes, part essays, part dramatisations of what I think happened, I've written 2/3's of a script...but I'll let you know in the next few weeks when I get some real time to organise my thoughts. I'll be back in Dallas in July (going to Houston to visit the in-laws and will be traveling up there for a few days) so will take some reflection time on the knoll to think what I may want to forward to you. Thanks for the offer Lee P.S. Thanks for sending me your article. I'll have a read through tonight... Lee you are most welcome. Just bear in mind it is not complete as yet. I have some polishing to do and am certainly not an author! Would love to have some of your work, just let me know. Mike

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

Mike, I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended? In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever. There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following? On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he? Lee Lee, Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either. As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might. Let me ask you something while I am here. How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later? Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about. I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You. Mike

Yawn.... Do you have any idea what the most common analogy is when talking to witnesses of a shooting? It sounded like a firecracker! No kidding huh? And why do you classify these as "street level" noises? Now I know this maybe a real shocker, but, the witnesses are standing at street level! Of course they may have sounded that way. Does not take much common sense to understand that, I hope I am not giving you to much credit. SO You once again make an assumption about a shot at street level, I sure hope your evidence of this will be forth coming. Apparently you have no ability to hold the testimony to the physical evidence and make an intelligent decision. What exactly was my "trolling argument"? The fact that I posted something that shows the inept way Harris does research? Is that what has your undies in a bunch? I did not have to trust his analysis, I could see it for myself! What is so difficult for you to understand? You really are a comical guy. Slap stick must be your forte, research obviously is not. Now quite beating around the bush and get me some evidence already. How hard can it be, given all the wild assumptions you have made, one would think you would be ready to support them. Or do you yap first and then pray for support later? Brennan's own words put Oswald in that window, as blind to that as you maybe. So please by all means let see your evidence. Your beating around the bush is getting boring.

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

See this is typical CT assumptions in action. I have known DVP, and been talking to him, for maybe, maybe 4 weeks. So you see, you make an errant assumption which seems to be your mainstay. It would be far easier to take you seriously if you researched more and assumed less. Ok so What relevance does your radio transmission have other than that they thought something happened there? This is more foolishness from you. I ask you for evidence and you give me a radio call. I bet you have not forgotten about me, but I am sure you will soon wish you could. So ill be waiting for your evidence when are you going to stop dodging and live up to your claims?