Robert Prudhomme

Sorry, Dave, you're ignoring my question. I really want to hear your answer on this, and I will hound you on this forever, if needs be.

Let's look at the still from Myers' cartoon you posted:

Does it look like the bullet is entering JFK's back 1.5-2 inches to the right of his spine? Hardly. Dale pretty much shows the bullet going through the spine. Not only that but, if the sniper's nest is 9° laterally separated from the midline of the limo, why does Myers show the path of the bullet almost parallel to the limo?

And, finally, how did the Magic Bullet go straight through JFK's neck, as shown by Myers, without hitting any cervical vertebrae?

Dave

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

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

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

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

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.

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

I wasn't saying that THIS particular scope and mount were a great set-up; I was saying that, on paper, a similar setup with a quality scope and mount would seem ideal for a left-eye-dominant, right-handed person.

Oh, of course, Mark. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

In comments I have read online, some are stating that a shooter in the TSBD 'sniper's nest' using the 'Oswald weapon' would have had to be aiming at the trunk of JFK's parade car & to the left of JFK in order to hit him with either of the back or head shots. Do you agree with that assessment?

BM

Brad,

http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/G54CKwHf/file.html

It appears the WC agreed with those comments too.

Amazing how the WC knew what aiming adjustment was necessary and at what location to begin with.

chris

Chris

I have been studying the reenactment photo you posted a link to, and trying to make sense of the testimony from Frazier you quoted beneath the photo.

The first thing I noticed is the piece of tape on the back of the JFK stand-in, signifying the entrance wound, seems to be very low if one considers this wound was supposedly at the level of C7/T1.

Second, it seems there is testimony here from Frazier I have not read before. They were very good at spreading one man's testimony all over the WCR, weren't they. Could you explain what he means by locating JFK's back wound by measuring from the top of the head down to the entrance wound, as shown in the autopsy figures? This is all new to me, as I thought Humes located the back wound as being 14 cm. down from the mastoid process, a bony skull protrusion just behind the ear. Any idea what Frazier is talking about?

Next, or best as I can follow Frazier, the limo must have been sitting still, and it seems they laid a ruler against the back wound location, and looked at this through a rifle scope, presumably C2766 and, also, presumably from the 6th floor? Now, this is where I lose Frazier. What is this 10 inch thing he speaks of that, when measured down from the entrance wound, ends up on the rear of the limo trunk?

God only knows what you have uncovered here, Chris, but I have a feeling we are onto something interesting here. Good find, buddy.

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

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

Ignore the man behind the curtain, folks.

In another thread long ago, it was suggested that the Carcano and scope MIGHT have been a great set-up for a shooter who was right-handed, but left-eye dominant. Haven't seen any photos of a right-hander trying to look through that scope with their left eye...but such a photo would tell us whether the concept is even feasible or not.

I guess it is possible it might help, if Oswald indeed was a left-eye dominant right-handed shooter. I personally don't believe there is any way a 4 x 18 scope for a .22 rimfire rifle could ever qualify for being part of a "great set-up".

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

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

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

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

6.8 x 3.1416 = 21.36288 mm

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an easy one:

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, not a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

It seems there was a persistent rumour in the beginning about an SS agent being killed, as this reporter is inquiring about. I wonder how that got started?

A similar scope to the 4 x 18 scope on C2766. Check out the price:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Tasco-Rimfire-4X15-Scope/16767721

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

No, I don't think this has ever actually been established, at least not to the satisfaction of most people, anyways. The scope and mount are, however, identical to the ones Klein's installed.

I remember reading an article about the employee at Klein's who was responsible for mounting scopes on Carcano carbines and rifles. I do not recall if he was an actual gunsmith or not but, he seemed well acquainted with the basics of boresighting a scope on a rifle, and with the attention to detail he spoke of in the article, I would be surprised if he let C2766 out of the shop in the condition it was presented to the FBI in.

Although I have stated this before, it is worth repeating that the 4x18 scope by Ordnance Optics was not a good quality long range scope you could mount on a high powered rifle and go hunting mountain sheep with. This scope was designed to go on a youth's pellet gun or .22 calibre rimfire rifle, and 25 yards would be a more reasonable range for it. In other words, it was a toy, and the same thing can be purchased today at Walmarts for about $12.

The most limiting feature of this scope, and the main reason I believe it would not have been used, is the extremely limited field of view one would see looking through this scope. Trying to acquire and track a moving target through this scope would be very difficult. Believe me, it is difficult enough with a real scope, even the wide angle scopes some companies offer. And do not believe the story the WC defenders tell us about once the target is acquired, it is a simple matter of firing the rifle three times, as the rifle stays on target. Nothing could be further from the truth. The target must be re-acquired for each shot.

Yes, it is awkward for them. Most left handed shooters I have seen will reach over top of the scope with their left hand to operate the bolt.

Not one person is looking upwards.

The SSA are not looking up they are scanning ground level and they are all looking in different areas.

This is long after supposedly two rifle shots should have been heard.

The limo has past, some of the bystanders start looking toward the VP car.

Think about this photo, the man who created this diorama has SSA exiting the VP follow-up car in A6 or Z-255, the problem with this is the VP car is still traveling at 10-12 mph and can be seen in the Bronson film 2 car lengths behind the QM, the VP car does not come to a halt until the QM stops at Z-313. This also means the person that created the diorama has the agent exiting the VP follow-up car while it is traveling at 10-12 mph. Can you see the problem of a rifle shot being heard before Z-313? There is no compelling evidence of a rifle shot prior to Z-313, even according to LBJ and all of the SSA assigned to him and specifically according to Altgens #6.

The model you posted clearly demonstrates just how ridiculous the SBT is, and thet John Connally would almost have to be sitting on his wife's lap, in order to be hit by a bullet passing through JFK's neck.

Hi Brad

I guess anything is possible, although I don't think Oswald was exactly raised in the hills and hunted squirrels for supper every night. Being able to sight down the side of a barrel and hit a moving target would take a phenomenal degree of skill. I've heard people brag about being able to do this, but have yet to see anyone do it.

Frazier conducted the firing tests of C2766 without the addition of shims to the mount. From Frazier's testimony, no adjustments were made to the scope between the shots at 15 yards, 25 yards and 100 yards. It was not until the rifle was tested by the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory on March 27, 1964 that the shims were added to the scope mount. Considering the style of mount used, and the fact this rifle seemed to be shooting to the right, I would imagine the shim was placed under the forward mounting screw of the base mount, in order to bring the scope to the left enough to allow for accurate windage adjustment. This clearly demonstrates a hurried careless mounting of the scope at Klein's. A good gunsmith would have checked out the scope installation with a bore sighter, and would have spotted this deficiency and corrected it.

It is a little strange to see Frazier, in his testimony, describe C2766 as "a very accurate rifle". It shot a 3" x 5" group at 100 yards. An accurate rifle should be able to shoot a 1" group at this range.

This whole "scope mounted for a left handed shooter" thing is a non-starter. The scope was mounted on the left side of the receiver, simply because it could not be mounted on top of the receiver or on the right side of it. I think I see what you are saying, though. You are picturing a left handed shooter, resting the barrel on the boxes (almost bench resting) with the rifle against his left shoulder, left hand on the trigger and the right hand staying on the bolt and operating it. It might work, although it might be just as easy to keep your right hand supporting the forestock, and bring it back each time to operate the bolt. Either way, I don't think it possible to alleviate the obvious disadvantage a left handed shooter has in operating a right handed bolt action rifle.

It is hard to say whether the left side mounted scope would offer more hindrance to a right or left handed shooter. The placement of the scope might make it marginally easier for a left handed shooter to see the open sights but, if he was operating the bolt with his left hand, as most lefties do on a right hand rifle, he would be forced to reach over top of the bolt to grasp the bolt handle.

I must admit, I am not privy to any scientific methods of determining if a rifle has been fired recently, though this does not mean there aren't any.

That being said, just sniffing the chamber or muzzle of a recently fired rifle will let a person, with a good nose, pick up a definite whiff of burnt gunpowder; something not nearly as detectable on a rifle not fired for a few months.

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

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

Hi Jon

1) Yes, there could be metal fouling from three bullets being fired the day before. However, if the rifle barrel had not been cleaned in a couple of years, there would also be metal fouling in the barrel from all of the shots fired in those two years.

2) Frazier is referring to rust when he uses the word "corrosion". However, most people do not understand his analogy about one bullet removing an accumulation of rust. Notice that he says the interior surface of the barrel was "roughened from corrosion OR wear". What he is telling McCloy is that, when presented with a worn barrel, it is difficult to determine if that wear was from rust or from having many thousands of bullets fired through it. As he stated, the barrel could be badly rusted, but one or two bullets fired through it will remove that rust. Once the rust is gone, you cannot tell if the damage the rust did to the barrel was from rust or a large number of bullets passing through it.

This is, of course, only Frazier's opinion on the matter. I have found that barrels allowed to rust will have a "pitting" on the inside of the barrel not typically seen on properly cleaned and stored rifle barrels with a large number of rounds fired through them.

I guess, with the rifle shooting 22-32" high at 100 yards, Oswald would not have had to lead JFK at all. Right, Frazier?

That is the question on my mind, too, Jon. And, if he was lying in part of his testimony, the lies are so clumsy and obvious, I've sometimes thought he wanted someone like me to follow the trail of bread crumbs he left.

The testimony Frazier gave about the state of C2766's barrel has been used by many over the years in an attempt to prove that C2766's barrel was so rusted when examined by Frazier on the 23rd, there is no way a bullet could have passed through the barrel on the 22nd, as it would have removed all of the rust.

I do not subscribe to this theory at all, and I believe Frazier was indicating the interior of C2766's barrel was badly eroded, yet it was impossible to tell when this erosion took place, as there was no rust on the inside of the barrel when he examined it. His unfortunate analogy about one bullet going through the barrel being able to remove all of a lifetime of accumulated rust only reinforces their theory. What he meant by this was, the corrosion in the barrel could have all taken place in the Second World War when this rifle was carried by a soldier, and the barrel could have been cleaned after this period and the rifle properly stored, and no more corrosion would take place. However, the barrel would still show the effects of this initial corrosion.

Pat

Let me put it this way. How be you just sit back and let me post what I have found about Frazier's work with CE 399, and we can discuss what it implies afterwards? It is like so many things in this case; it is quite apparent someone has pulled a fast one on us but, just what they did is not readily apparent.

BTW, what did you think about my post regarding Frazier's test firing results of C2766?

Pat

I will not follow you down this rabbit hole, and I will not publicly state the bullet in the photo is a .25 calibre bullet.

That being said, how do we account for Frazier's supposed measurements of the Walker bullet, which come nowhere close to any measurements found on a 6.5mm bullet fired from an M91/38 Carcano rifle?

Do you agree that proving the FBI lied about the Walker bullet is sufficient to show the FBI evidence in this case is suspect in its entirety?

Pat

How do you know the bullet portrayed as CE 399 in the FBI photos weighs 160 grains?