Mike Williams

Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you. Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined? A: Yes, sir, I did. Q: Where were these tests conducted? A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia. Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests. A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds. I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed. Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests? A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building. Amazing! You crack me up. You chose a testimony that is some 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS and 25 DAYS.....AFTER the first rifle tests, and find that to be conclusive? You are kidding me right? Clearly some time had gone by since the tests. How about if we look at what Frazier had to say about the tests, just 4 Months and 4 Days after they were conducted, Shall we? Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions. Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy. We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire. So you seem to be a bit confused as to what rapid fire accuracy means. Clearly, as you have proven time and again, your inexperience precedes you! SO you went and found a testimony more than 5 years after the fact, and still struggle to understand what Frazier is telling you. Impressive! So lets look at what Frazier does say here. He says the tests, and he is talking about all the tests, were conducted for accuracy and speed. True Some of these tests were conducted for rapid fire accuracy. This is not pin point precision shooting. It is as it implies, rapid fire. He also says the First tests were conducted for accuracy and maintaining a rapid rate of fire. Oh there is that word RAPID again! Accuracy under rapid fire conditions, what does this mean to you? Is it in fact pin point precision shooting? (spoiler: no its not) The only issue I have with Frazier here is that he says the tests were conducted for accuracy with speed secondary. This is a direct contradiction to his much earlier testimony. Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy. We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire. So what do you make of this Pat? What does your logical mind tell you is correct? Do you accept the testimony closest to the event, some 4 months after, of a misstatement made in testimony more than 5 years after the fact?

Mike, Jerry is playing games using a butchered version of Oswald's last interrogation. It is Homes' summarized to the nth degree with bits of Fritz and Bookhout stiched on. Holmes is actually a hero for revealing a part of the truth. From Holmes' interrogation report: "When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes. Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and he went downstairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that, he is one of our employees" whereupon the policemen had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building. I don't recall that anyone asked why he left or where or how he went. I presumed that this had been covered in an earlier questioning." Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up." He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him. You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me." Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of---- Mr. BELIN. Did he gesture with his hands, do you remember? Mr. HOLMES. He talked with his hands all the time. He was handcuffed, but he was quiet--well, he was not what you call a stoic phlegmatic person. He is very definite with his talk and his eyes and his head, and he goes like that, you see. Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say anything about seeing a man with a crewcut in front of the building as he was about to leave it? Do you remember anything about that? Mr. HOLMES. No. Mr. BELIN. You don't remember anything about that. Did he say anything about telling a man about going to a pay phone in the building? Mr. HOLMES. Policeman rushed--I take it back---I don't know whether he said a policeman or not--a man came rushing by and said, "Where's your telephone?" And the man showed him some kind of credential and I don't know that he identified the credential, so he might not have been a police officer, and said I am so and so, and shoved something at me which I didn't look at and said, "Where is the telephone?" And I said, "Right there," and just pointed in to the phone, and I went on out. Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say why he left the building? Mr. HOLMES. No; other than just said he talked about this commotion and went out to see what it was about. Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say how he got home, if he did get home? Mr. HOLMES. They didn't--we didn't go into that. I just assumed that they had covered all that. Nobody asked him about from the minute he walked out the door as to what happened to him, except somebody asked him about the shooting of Tippit, and he said, "I don't know what you are talking about." He said, "The only thing that I am in here for is because I popped a policeman in the nose in a theatre on Jefferson Avenue, which I readily admit I did, because I was protecting myself." Mr. BELIN. Because he was what? Mr. HOLMES. "Protecting myself." and later; this: Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola. Mr. BELIN. Anything else? Mr. HOLMES. Nothing more than what I have already told you on it. later still: Mr. BELIN. Now, Mr. Holmes, I wonder if you could try and think if there is anything else that you remember Oswald saying about where he was during the period prior or shortly prior to, and then at the time of the assassination? Mr. HOLMES. Nothing more than I have already said. If you want me to repeat that? Mr. BELIN. Go ahead and repeat it. Mr. HOLMES. See if I say it the same way? Mr. BELIN. Yes. Mr. HOLMES. He said when lunchtime came he was working in one of the upper floors with a Negro. The Negro said, "Come on and let's eat lunch together." Apparently both of them having a sack lunch. And he said, "You go ahead, send the elevator back up to me and I will come down just as soon as I am finished." And he didn't say what he was doing. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn't say whether he took the stairs down. He didn't say whether he took the elevator down. But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved. He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, "He is one of our men." And the policeman said, "Well, you step aside for a little bit." During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse. Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that "I work here," and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said. Sydney Morning Herald, Sunday, Nov 24, 1963 (Sydney time) Oswald was a true genius. He not only knew that two Black workers were on the first floor at the time he was describing, he also knew what police had told reporters and repeated this back to his interrogators as his version of events. That he was psychic surely makes more sense than any of it being true, no? He wasn't in the 2nd floor lunchroom, except to grab a coke and he was not seen on the second floor by Baker (sorry Bill). His cop encounter was EXACTLY as he told Holmes and as was reported by the Sydney Morning Herald (and no doubt other publications around the world). He was stopped at the entrance and had his details taken – just as everyone else did – except he was the first to go on that list and thus would end up first on Revill's list. This is the very reason Revill had such a memory lapse in naming the officer who gave him that (wrong address) on his list. If he identified the officer, it would make the whole case unravel because it doesn't get Oswald on that damn bus. There is one part of Holme's version of Oswald's alibi that is in error – but it is ( a ) irrelevant to his exit and ( b ) explicable. It is however, important in it's own right and should be dealt with separately – that issue revolves around where Oswald was when he had the conversation with the Black employee and what floor they were on. Say hello to Jerry for me. Thanks for the input guys Ill read this all over. Mike

David, the bag photographed outside the TSBD was not 8 inches wide, it was by my estimates over 10, and the split-open bag in the archives is not 20 inches wide, it's more like 17. The split open bag in the archives photos, furthermore, gives no indication of having been folded over more than once in the middle. The bags simply don't match, in size or appearance. http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/bag1.html Lamson had a field day with this.

Incorrect. I am not inventing anything. I simply said you are assuming there was no call, when yet again, we have no evidence either way. Yet another assumption on your part. I must admit, I would find it hard to believe there was no call. I mean after all Day was in charge of the rifle at the DPD, and Frazier at the FBI. Yet, again, there is no evidence either way. Now this is interesting. I would like for you to explain to me, just how one determines a "fresh print" from an "old print". To the best of my knowledge there is still no accurate method to date, let alone in 1963. So can you please show me anywhere in the above statement that refers to the TOP of the barrel, which is the area directly under the scope? Day is talking about the bottom of the barrel, the area normally covered by wood. He never makes any reference in the above statement to any part of the top of the barrel. Well then if this is the case, why does he never mention anything about the TOP of the barrel, which is the area you are talking about? He clearly is talking about the bottom of the barrel, under the scope, in the area covered by wood. You are making yet another assumption here. You are assuming that he had not already processed the area on the top of the barrel, under the scope. Further, he is telling us that he never got to process the area on the bottom of the barrel, under the scope. Day does not make one single reference to the top of the barrel in anything that you site. Clearly there is not one bit of evidence to support your claims in this statement of Days. Now I would like to ask you a question about fingerprint procedures. When printing an item, what is the starting point, and what is the ending point? Where does one begin, and end? The problem here Pat is you are making to many assumptions. Lack of evidence is never, and should never be considered evidence itself. You assume Day and Frazier never talked, based on what? No written documentation? So you are trying to fabricate evidence from the lack of evidence. You then further try to fabricate a statement,by me. making it seems as though I fabricated a phone call. Ridiculous. SO again I have to ask you to offer some evidence that Day said he never removed the scope. So far you have not offered anything of the sort, the only thing you have offered refers to the bottom of the rifle that has nothing to do with the scope. Mike

David, Thanks. This quote of Oswalds can be found in the Warren Report. Vol XI. So basically you are contending that these are not admissible, as they are not tape recorded, nor transcribed, basically making them hearsay? In essence questioning the validity of the statements. Mike

Thanks man, that means a lot coming from someone who would understand.

I do agree, it is good to be seen. I am sorry to hear that about your partner. I also know that feeling all to well. On my end, I was there, and could not do a damn thing to help. But that's mine to live with. Mike

Hey Mike, I think that you can time the telling of the co-worker to send the elevator back up at around noon, or when they went on lunch break, as Oswald was certainly talking to someone, and that someone recalled the conversation and when it happened in official reports. As far as going downstairs "after the commotion," I would think that the commotion was a cop pointing a gun at him on the 2nd floor and going down to the first floor afterwards. The sentences are just recounted backwards. At least that's one interpretation of it. Of course there would be less confusion if the interrogations were recorded or a secretary took notes, but we must rely on the notes of those who were there and their later reports of what was said. Who is Jerry Organ and what does he have to do with it again? Thanks, BK Hey Bill, Man its good to see you again! Jerry Organ is a poster from another board, who posted this Oswald quote in a thread on Duncans forum. To me it sounds like he is saying he met the Officer after coming down the stairs. He said he went down stairs after the commotion started, and then, he is saying once he started to see what happened (upon arriving downstairs) the officer "stepped up" and the super identified him. If the Officer pointing a gun at him had been the cause of his commotion, I think he would have at least told us that the officer pointed a gun at him, and not just said "stepped up". SO let me ask you Bill, are you in the group that believes he was in the lunch room at the time the shooting started? Im simply trying to get a handle on why some think this way. Anyhow, Good to see you again Bill, Hope you have been well! Mike

Something Oswald said during the Sunday Morning Interrogation: "'Yes, I can eat lunch with you,' I told my co-worker, 'but I can't go right now. You go and take the elevator, but send the elevator back up.' ... After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what happened. A police office and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building." (Interrogation, Sun. morn.) Quote compliments of Jerry Organ. If Oswald was in the lunch room during the shooting, then what did he mean when he said "After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what happened. A police office and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building." How could he be in the lunchroom, and yet, "go downstairs" after the "commotion"? Clearly he is talking about the Truly Baker encounter, but this is after he went downstairs. So if he was not in the lunch room during the shooting, as this seems to indicate, where was he? Mike

Greg, There is even one more you missed. He may well have not even known he was being shot at. How many times, in your Law Enforcement days did you hear someone say they never even heard the gun go off? Its simple Central Nervous System overload. It just shuts down. Ive experienced this and can tell you, at least from my point of view, it does happen. Im sure he knew something struck him, but heck, for all he knew it could have been a rock that had been thrown. You also make an excellent point on viewing the film even if you believe it is fake, it is the basis of the official story. Frankly I had not thought about that. I do not know if we could contribute his reactions based on his Position as President, after all he was a war veteran, and those grains run pretty deep. I know there are times I am still pretty jumpy around loud bangs and such. Just a thought. Glad to see you around Greg, we dont always see eye to eye, but is sure good to see you none the less. Mike

Ok I can address the rifle question, and will have to do some reading to reply to the others. I really see no issue with putting the rifle in the sack, so long as moderate care was given. The bullets I would think he already had in the rifle (hopefully not already loaded in the chamber). I will do some reading and take the others one at a time. Im far more intimidated with medical than I am the ballistic

One thing I can tell you. When you are getting shot at, you really dont give a damn about being reserved. If you believe the film is a fake, why waste time on it?

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer. If that's what you think Mike.... yet you too have not addressed the skull graphics I posted and asked you questions about. I realize you and Tom are not Xray technicians... neither am I. Please help us understand how First - the xray and photo overlay are in ANY WAY CONSISTENT with each other... and Second - please reconcile the images in the other graphic.. and yes, imo the BLACK CIRCLE we see over JFK's right eye is hiding the area in which he was shot... at least one of the shots. I look forward to it. DJ edit: and speaking of No Brainer... are you getting the idea why there had to be a substitute brain for the historical record? JFK's was blasted apart and never sectioned. But that's yet another strange occurance in the world of benign government interaction. David, I am uncertain exactly what it is that you wish me to reconcile. Those look to me to be perfectly consistent with a single shot to the back of the head. Now I admit that wound ballistics is not my expressed nitch, but I have seen quite a few of them. Probably more than most. I am unsure what you find to be inconsistent, can you be more specific? Mike

Not a chance. Who are you trying to kid. How do you know that he did not talk to Day? Did you find anything in the Day testimony to support your previous remark: Can you show me where Day said he did not remove the scope, can you show me that Frazier is making an assumption, and did not in fact talk to Day? I think these assumptions are ones you are making. Ah Yes I wondered when you were going to arrive at this tidbit. Once again showing you do not understand the evidence.Do you know which part of the rifle he is talking about? I assure you it is not the part that you think. You believe that Day is talking about the portion of the top of the barrel right under the scope, he most assuredly is not. He is talking about the BOTTOM of the barrel. As a visual aid, the blue area is the area you contend he is describing, the red arrow is the area he is actually describing. Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood Day found a partial print under the barrel, UNDER, ON THE BOTTOM, not on the top. This has nothing at all to do with the scope or its removal, and this is certainly no indication that Day did not remove the scope. Again, why would he remove the scope to dust the underside of the barrel? This has nothing whatsoever to do with scope removal, you simply just do not know which end of the rifle is up! SO I ask yet again. Do you have a quote from Day saying he did not remove the scope? You told me that he said such a thing, I really hope this was not your evidence. Mike

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer.

Pat, Frazier clearly tells us someone did remove the scope. 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. Frazier is not speculating, he even says that it is "apparent" that the scope was removed. I can find no reference in Day's testimony where he said he did not remove the scope. If you have that Pat let me know. That would be of interest to me. I do not see any indication of Day lying, I do not see any reference to the scope being removed, or not being removed. It simply appears in his testimony that this is not addressed. None of which helps us in the least. You would love to show the scope was misaligned, as would I if I were contending this was a sham. I would love to prove the scope was spot on, for obvious reasons. Bottom line here is that neither of us can prove what we wish, because there is no way of knowing the condition during the assassination.

Never blame the pencil for being a poor author.

David, Its more than a post assassination description of the weapon, it is a common myth that the CT side would like to use to show one more facet of how impossible this was. You understand correctly. My whole point is that no one can ever know the condition of the rifle at the time of the assassination, because the scope had been removed during the fingerprinting process, as Frazier tells us. Remember when you asked me sometime ago, if disassembling the rifle would compromise the integrity of the scopes accuracy? I told you no not as long as the scope had not been taken off the rifle. In this case, the scope had been removed, as it was loose when Frazier first received it on 11/23/67. Oswald simply taking the barrel from the stock would not compromise the scopes integrity, so long as some care were taken in carrying it. Here is the thing David, we do not know if Oswald carried the scope to work properly aligned, thats really in fact my whole point. We do not know the condition. Now the reason the scope was somewhat stable, is because no one had made any elevation and windage adjustments with the knobs. This is what causes the instability. However someone did dismount the entire scope from the rifle. Once this was done, all hope of knowing the assassination alignment was lost. See what I am getting at here? If you were talking about shooting a significant distance, I would be in complete agreement with ya on this one. However in only 88 yards windage and elevation would play a very small factor. IF and note I said IF Oswald had zeroed the scope at some point and time, and then did not remove the scope from the barrel, there would be no reason to believe the alignment were bad. There would be no need to sight on scene. Exactly, those tests are after the fact. Oswald would have fired with iron sights in the Marines. Generally speaking a scope is an aid. If you shoot well with irons you will make a marked improvement with a scope. Well the M1 weighs about 10 lbs, and the MC about 8. Not to different. The M1 has a two stage trigger, with a trigger pull of 3lbs. The M1 has a two stage trigger with a final pull of about 4lbs. They are very similar in the trigger feel. The M1 has iron sights with a battle zero of 200 yards, as does the MC. The major difference is that the MC is a bolt action, and operating the action requires enough movement so as to have to reacquire the target after each shot. The M1 is a semi auto, however has sufficient recoil as to have the sights come off the target as well. The only real epic difference, is rate of fire. The M1 can send more lead down range faster. In all reality the M1 and the Carcano are similar in many ways. Could you not have told me that BEFORE i typed all that stuff above! I hear ya buddy, and will be the first to confess I do need to do some research in this area. If you would like to make and discuss points one at a time, and walk me through your thinking, I would be very glad to tag along. My pleasure David. I really enjoy discussing the case with you. Mike

Really? What does this mean to you? Frazier says: In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us: 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. It tells me that the first time Frazier sees this rifle, ever, in the history of mankind, the scope was loose, and that it had been taken off for fingerprinting. He also tells it all: 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. For those who lack comprehension, Frazier is telling us clear as day, that the condition of the rifle when abandon is unknown. Now I have something for you to laugh at. Yourself. Frazier tells us the weapon was fired primarily for speed, with accuracy second. Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy. We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire. And yet, they did fire rather accurately. This lends credibility to the fact that the scope could well have been in perfect working order during the assassination! You discredit your own case. However of course being the great guy I am, I do let you off the hook, considering Fraziers comments about the scope being lose. No I cant figure that out. Your contention that the scope was misaligned during the assassination is nothing short of hogwash. P.S. So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy. As is the case in almost any low end scope you purchase, this is not an indication of a defect in this particular scope. What exactly do you mean by however? This is irrelevant, and I am sure you are going to ask WHY? Because upon receiving the rifle the first time, the scope was loose, why was it loose? Because someone removed it looking for fingerprints. So what did Frazier do? Ah so now you want to talk about the rifle tests at Quantico on 3/16/64! Outstanding! This is the very first mention of the misaligned scope! A full 4 months and several thousand miles after 1230 on 11/22/63! I have no issue in agreeing the scope was misaligned at this time. You have a much larger issue in explaining: In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us: 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. Now tell me, how do you propose to prove the scope was misaligned during the assassination, based on this glaring statement?

David, I will read the posted link, and reread page one and try to get caught up with ya. I should have considerable time tonight to work through some of this. Thanks for your patience. Mike

Pat, Come on you are better than that. The point of fact is that Frazier says the scope was loose, and there is no way to tell the actual condition during the assassination. That is a pretty final statement, and it shows beyond any doubt that the old CT rhetoric about the scope being misaligned is yet another misrepresentation by the CT. As for my ability to read, I can tell you that Frazier states that the 15 yard targets were fired for speed, not accuracy, and that the 100 yard targets on 3/16/64 were the first attempts to sight in the scope. It is during this test that he makes the discovery that the scope needs some shots to settle. As I have also told you before, this is not an uncommon even in any cheap scope. Most scopes on the lower end today act the same way. Of course Lattimer would confirm that, he is firing the same rifle as the FBI did on 3/16/64, which of course still does not give you any evidence that the rifle fired poorly on 11/22/63. You are clearly grasping at straws here. My experience with a rifle does not in fact give me any right to create facts, what it does do is help me to understand the facts that are presented clearly. I wish there were more people who had an intricate understanding of firearms studying the case. Bull Jewels. They both had some right and some wrong. There is NOTHING in the evidence that proves the scope would have been a hindrance, and nothing that shows that the scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination. The one hindrance I can see is that the scope had a limited field of view, making it difficult to track a moving target. Other than that, there is no obvious indications of issues with the scope. How very selective of you. To find a general statement about the tests, and not include a statement related directly to the 15 and 25 yard tests. I guess you missed this little gem. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests? Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy. We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire. This is the actual target which I fired. Of course you don't really know the meaning of accuracy under rapid fire conditions do you? As Frazier tells us Accuracy was a secondary concern. Nothing more. These tests were on 11/27/63, and there is not one mention from Frazier about having issues with the scope....I wonder why? Can you figure that out?

Something else springs to mind Pat. Can you show me in any of your examples when a reasonably accurate recreation was done? Love to see those findings. Mike

David, Oh man the party was incredible. We had about 16 kids and 3 adults on the laser tag field. It is one of the most fun things we have done for the Sons birthday. The adults were divided up 2 on each team, with about 8 kids on a team. The little buggers bushwhacked me LOL. They, in an incredibly well execute squad maneuver, sent a kid out as bait, when I chased that kid down, they were waiting for me and tore me a new one lol. It was great fun! Yanno you have to think. If you want to kill someone a head shot is only logical. If this is the case Oswald scored 1 for 3. Not remarkable. As far as the impossibility that Oswald was on the 6th floor, I have never really read all that much on this proposed theory. Be glad to if you can recommend something. I actually think at one time you did tell me of an article on this, but well......I slept since then lol. Mike

Pat says Frazier says: In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us: 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. http://www.jfkballistics.com/rifleconditionscopepage1.html Thats about as close as I can get to spelling it out for ya Pat.

Mr. Williams: I believe this is the first time we have met. Is that your best response to my post? I only mentioned the scope as an afterthought. What about the rest? You said BRING IT ON, and I DID! Hey Mr. Carrol, Pleasure to meet ya. Yes it is the first time we have spoken. Please forgive the shortness of my reply. I have been over the rifle scope condition so many times, and explained it countless times. I do agree that you make some interesting points on Oswalds whereabouts and this is something I would be interested in reading more about, anything you have to offer I would gladly read.