Robert Prudhomme

I hope I have made it quite clear this rifle was incapable of making the shots the Warren Commission attributed to it. I will be glad to answer any questions you have.

It seems apparent you [bob P.] think these bullets were all fired in a .25 caliber rifle, and that the FBI and Army shooters pretended these bullets had been fired in the rifle found in the building.

And Robert Prudhomme, therefore, also has no choice but to believe one of the following two things....

1.) The "real killer" shot JFK with a .25 caliber weapon, even though a large part of the "plot" was to frame a patsy named Oswald who owned a 6.5mm. Carcano weapon.

or...

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't being "set up" as a patsy IN ADVANCE of the assassination.

I'm quite confident that either option above is very unpalatable to a prolific rewriter of history (and the facts) like Robert Prudhomme.

David Von Pein is going to attempt to confuse everything you read as much as humanly possible, as per the requirements of his position. For that reason, I will not be responding to any of his posts in this thread, and I encourage readers of this thread to do the same.

His group becomes extremely defensive whenever the discussion involves anything to do with the SBT, and for good reason.

Jon

The "06" in .30-06 comes from when the rifle cartridge was introduced. This cartridge was introduced in 1906 to the United States Army.

The next problem with CE 399 also involves the land impression left by the riflings of the rifle that fired CE 399, seen again below:

A much larger and clearer version of this photo can be seen here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5764&d=1394312818

My search for specs regarding Carcano rifles led me to the Italian Firearms Forum of a gun collectors website, where a collector with access to Italian military specs was able to answer almost all of my questions. He is the chap who supplied me with the correct Carcano lands and grooves measurements I used in the last post.

It turns out that the rate of twist for the riflings in Carcano I have been using over the years are not quite accurate, and most have been rounded off to the closest whole number.

For those interested, the rifling specs are as follows:

Lands and grooves widths: All Carcanos (6.5mm but not 7.35mm) Lands = .085" (2.159 mm) Grooves = .125" (3.175 mm)

Riflings:

M91/38 6.5mm short rifle (LHO) = Standard twist rifling, rate of twist 1:8.47
M38 7.35mm short rifle = Standard twist rifling, rate of twist 1:9.45
All carbines (pre- and post-1938, except M38 carbines) = Progressive twist rifling, rate of twist 1:15.3 - 1:7.48
(this does not include carbines such as the M91/24 made from cut down long rifles)
All M91 long rifles (except M91/41) = Progressive twist rifling, rate of twist 1:22.79 - 1:7.94

I had arrived at a figure for the rate of twist of the riflings in the rifle that fired CE 399 but, now that I look at my methods, I am not happy with them and I will be doing it again.

If there are any members with experience in graphics who want to have a go at determining the rate of twist on the land impression seen on CE 399, I am more than happy to accept assistance. If the rate of twist seen on CE 399 can be accurately determined, it will be further proof of whether or not CE 399 was fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, or any other 6.5mm rifle.

Pat

It is not clear what the FBI actually did. What is clear, and I'm sure you are going to waste a great deal of energy denying this, is that Frazier did not understand that a 6.5mm bullet and a .25 calibre bullet are not the same thing. Further, the photos of CE 399, along with their scales, clearly show this bullet was not a 6.5mm bullet, even though it had the same general appearance as a 6.5mm bullet.

Robert,

Questions: [1] How is bore diameter measured? [2] How is groove diameter (bullet diameter) measured?

Hi Jon

If you go back to the 1st post, you will see I have just posted a diagram showing the interior of a rifle barrel. Made by the riflings, the "lands" are the raised portions, and the bore diameter is the measurement between the tops of two opposing lands. The "grooves" are the riflings cut into the barrel, and the groove diameter, plus the diameter of the bullet, is measured from the bottom of one groove to the bottom of an opposing groove.

These terms came about in the evolution of a rifled barrel. The barrel first has a hole "bored" from end to end, and the diameter of this hole becomes the "bore" or "calibre" of the rifle. Rifling grooves are cut next, and their depth, combined with the bore, becomes the groove diameter.

For example. a .30-06 is a .30 calibre rifle, meaning the measurement from land to land top is .300". The rifling grooves of a .30-06 are each .004" deep. Therefore, .300" + .004" + .004" = .308", the diameter of a .30 calibre bullet.

Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI was considered a firearms expert. He gathered most of the ballistics evidence in the JFK assassination and presented his findings in evidence to the Warren Commission. However, a careful examination of his work and evidenvce reveals a plethora of errors.

One such error is revealed in the excerpt from his testimony below, and this error will explain why the bullet shown in the evidence photo and known as CE 399 could never have been fired from Oswald's rifle, or any other 6.5mm Carcano.

"Mr. EISENBERG - Well, no; not at this time.
Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm."

This is a popular misconception in the shooting world regarding .25 calibre and 6.5mm calibre rifles. Mr. Frazier is 100% wrong in his belief.

The bore diameter of a .25 calibre rifle is .250"; the bore diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .256".

The groove diameter (also bullet diameter) of a .25 calibre rifle is .257"; the groove and bullet diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .264" (.268" in a Carcano).

The confusion between the two calibres stems from the bore diameter of the 6.5mm and the groove diameter of the .25 calibre both being .257".

This misconception plagued Frazier throughout his investigation and shows up again in his testimony about the Walker bullet.

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.
The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.
The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch."

As I pointed out in another thread, adding the measurements from the Walker bullet of a land impression (.070" or 1.778 mm) and a groove impression (.130" or 3.302 mm) and multiplying by 4 to determine circumference, and then dividing by pi (3.1416) to obtain diameter, does not produce .267".

(.070 + .130) x 4 = .800 divided by 3.1416 = .255"

Amazingly, this is almost exactly the diameter of a .25 calibre bullet.

The REAL specs for the lands and grooves of a 6.5mm Carcano rifle are lands = .085" (2.159 mm) and grooves = .125" (3.175 mm). With these specs, let's try Frazier's formula again.

(.085 + .125) x 4 = .840 divided by 3.1416 = .267" (the correct diameter for a Carcano bullet)

With this in mind, let us look at CE 399 again:

A much larger and clearer version of this photo can be seen here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5764&d=1394312818

We now know the width of the Carcano land to be .085" or 2.159 mm. Even a rough measurement of the above land impression shows it to be well under 2 mm and actually close to the measurement Frazier obtained from the Walker bullet of .070" or 1.778 mm.

There is no doubt now that the CE 399 in the photo above was not fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, nor any other 6.5mm calibre rifle.

The theory I have, and it is rapidly becoming the ONLY possibility, is that Frazier and his assistants honestly believed the bullets from a .25 calibre rifle and a 6.5mm calibre rifle were the same diameter of bullet and would, therefore, be interchangeable as evidence. If the bullet presented as the Walker bullet (Edwin Walker swore it was a substitute) and CE 399 were both plants, it seems highly probable that the FBI used a more common .25 calibre rifle to produce their substitutes.

There are a number of other things wrong with CE 399, and I will produce them in the next few posts.

Hi Pamela

My question was for those people who believe a bullet went through the windshield.

Once again, how do we know which direction a bullet went through the windshield, if a bullet did indeed go through the windshield?

Here are two views of a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle with scopes mounted of the same make and in the same fashion as C2766:

Although it is possible to use the open sights seen in the upper photo, it is extremely awkward and requires the shooter's forehead to be practically in contact with the scope. The scope mount is very distracting to a shooter trying to concentrate on the front and rear sight. Also, look at the bottom photo and you can see how far back the scope projects.

Next, the bolt handle, although curved, must be turned up to a vertical position before the bolt can be pulled back. As can be seen, this would place the hand operating the bolt in close proximity with the scope. During rapid firing, the scope is almost sure to get in the way.

The solution is simple; if the scope is totally useless, why not spend one minute undoing the two screws attaching the scope mount and simply remove scope and mount?

Look at this pretty face, lined up to make a shot with open sights. Would you want the butt end of a scope projecting towards it, as she gets in close to make a shot?

Another example:

Hi Dave

Thanks for finding the other report. As usual, it hardly surprises me that the WC had two reports describing the Walker bullet as steel jacketed, yet still went ahead with the copper jacketed bullet, CE 573, as the genuine Walker bullet.

I wonder if it was assumed the bullet was from a .30-06 rifle, as a great deal of steel jacketed ammo was made for the M1 Garand (.30-06) during WW II? Other than that, there was not a lot of steel jacketed ammo available in North America at that time, aside from surplus Italian ammo for the 6.5mm Carcano.

How do we know which direction the bullet went through the windshield, if it did indeed go through the windshield?

Jon

I have no idea who wrote this page, all I know is it is something that came out of the HSCA proceedings. It was posted by a commenter on the JFKfacts.org website.

Thank you, gentlemen. There was a lot of painstaking work that went into uncovering Mr. Frazier's "work", and I appreciate the compliments.

However, I must say my internal BS meter registered a 9.7/10 the very second I read Frazier's claim the rifle was shooting so high at 15 yards AND 100 yards. The outright clumsiness of much of the FBI's "evidence" in this case has always puzzled me, although it seems to have done the job for the last fifty-one years, or so.

P.S.

I got more!

The Summary Offense Report, filed by the DPD detectives that investigated the shooting at the Walker residence, states that the bullet fired at Walker was of unknown calibre and steel jacketed.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=333529

The page below is from a report by the HSCA, and states the Walker bullet was a steel jacketed bullet , .30 calibre, and fired from a .30-06 rifle.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=78338

I would like to know how investigators for the HSCA came to the conclusion the Walker bullet was a steel jacketed .30-06 bullet.

Robert

Given this line of thinking, don't you think a well trained sniper could have taken JFK out with one shot?

When I posted this material on another forum, I was asked at what point a bullet impacting a target 22-32 inches high at 100 yards would come back down to the line of sight. Here are the figures.

Here are the results of zeroing the rifle at 4 yards. This time, we have chosen 100 yard intervals and taken our maximum range out to 1000 yards.

As can be seen, the bullet comes back down to the line of sight, and is impacting the point of aim again at somewhere just under 600 yards.

Here are the same parameters, only this time zeroed at 5.5 yards;

Next we will calculate for a rifle impacting 2.5 inches and 5 inches high at 100 yards. By trial and error, we find this rifle will hit 2.5 inches high at 100 yards if zeroed at 167 yards.

However, we now find that the bullet is .38 inches below the line of sight at 15 yards, not the 2.5 - 4 inches above the line of sight claimed by Frazier.

Frazier is not telling the truth.

If we zero the rifle at 220 yards, we now find the bullet impacting 5 inches high at 100 yards:

Now we find, with the rifle zeroed at 220 yards, the bullet to be .01 inch below the line of sight at 15 yards, not the 2.5 - 4 inches above the line of sight claimed by Frazier.

Frazier is not telling the truth.

Just going over this, I realized the way I presented one of these things might be a little confusing. When I stated the rifle would be zeroed or sighted in for 4 or 5.5 yards, this was not actually true, as this distance from the muzzle is actually where the crossover point of the bullet is. Looking at the diagram on the 1st page, you can see the bullet is ascending and crosses the line of sight here.

It would be more proper to give the down range point where the bullet crosses the line of sight the 2nd time, as it descends. Looking at the tables above, we can see the bullet that crosses the line of sight at 4 yards would be zeroed to be accurate at just under 600 yards. For the bullet crossing the line of sight at 5.5 yards, it would be sighted in at just under 500 yards.

Sorry about that. I had to end the last post at the bottom of that table, as I could not find a way to type past it.

Anyways, our figures for the 4 yard zero and 4" high impact at 15 yards now give us a figure, at 100 yards, of 32.22", meaning this rifle would shoot 32.22" high of the point of aim at 100 yards.


I'm afraid Mr. Frazier has some explaining to do, as his testimony states that the rifle only shot 2.5 - 5 inches high of the point of aim at 100 yards and not the 22 - 32.22 inches high the ballistics calculator shows.

I had at first attempted to employ algebra in determining how much above the point of aim at 100 yards the bullets would be impacting but, as Jon pointed out, algebra does not account for the ballistic coefficient of a bullet. Instead, I chose a more professional method and decided to employ a handy ballistics calculator found at this site http://www.handloads.com/calc/ . I entered all the relevant data concerning the Carcano and its ammunition. Muzzle velocity, as testified by Frazier, 2165 fps, bullet weight = 162 grains, ballistic coefficient (from another calculator) = .322 and sight height (centreline of scope distance above centreline of bore) as determined by my friend Drew Phipp from DPF = 1.5".

In order to have a bullet impact a target at 15 yards and have that impact 2.5 inches high of the "point of aim" or line of sight (as claimed by Frazier) it was necessary, on this calculator, to zero the rifle at 5.5 yards. In other words, if the rifle was hitting 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, it would be dead on at 5.5 yards; the point at where the line of sight and the bullet path cross.

This diagram shows what I mean.


Notice that the bullet path crosses the line of sight just out from the muzzle, and again at the target.

The results I found with a target zero of 5.5 yards are shown below. Note that, at 0 yards, the figure in all calculations is -1.5", due to the fact that our barrel centreline is 1.5 inches below the scope centreline. The bullet will always, in this rifle, begin its journey 1.5 inches below the line of sight.

Unfortunately, when I attempted to c/p the chart printed out by the ballistics calculator it came out as a jumble of numbers, instead of the nice table seen at that site. Because of this, I have omitted about half of the chart, and kept the important figures pertaining to our topic. The most important numbers to us are the first three columns on the left, and they are, left to right, Range (in yards), Muzzle Velocity (in feet per second) and Impact (measured in inches either below the line of sight, in negative numbers, or above the line of sight)

Looking at the range and impact columns, we can see the impact figure of -.14" at 5 yards. This is correct, as the rifle scope is zeroed at 5.5 yards, and the bullet is about to cross the line of sight at 5.5 yards. Further down, we can see, at 15 yards, the bullet is now 2.54" above the line of sight; precisely where Frazier claimed one of the FBI shooters was hitting a 15 yard target.

Now it gets interesting. If we scroll down to 100 yards, we find the rifle zeroed at 5.5 yards, and impacting 2.54" high at 15 yards, is impacting a 100 yard target 22 inches above the point of aim.

However, if we look again at Frazier's testimony, we find that Frazier's three shots at a 15 yard target impacted 4 inches high of the point of aim. Let's see how that changes things on the trajectory. In order to have a bullet impacting the target 4.08" high at 15 yards, it was necessary to zero the scope at 4 yards. The results are shown below:

bal.calc.ad.html

The outrageous thing in Mr. Frazier's testimony is that he tells us he and two colleagues each fired three shots, with the assassination rifle, at different targets at 15 yards, and each of these shots hit the 15 yard targets 2.5 - 4 inches high of the point of aim.

He then further outrages any thinking person with even the slightest experience with shooting rifles by telling the WC that he and his two colleagues then each fired three shots, with the same rifle, at targets set up at 100 yards (after shooting at targets at 25 yards), and all bullets struck their 100 yard targets 2.5 - 5 inches high of the point of aim.

What Mr. Frazier has testified to here is physically impossible, and I will show you exactly why that is true. If there is any truth to Frazier's testimony about the rifle shooting 2.5 - 4 inches high at 15 yards, C2766 is disqualified as being the assassination weapon; at least as far as shooting with the scope is concerned. I will explain all of this, as well.

Robert, maybe this is nit picking, but my only problem is this: At Z-189 there appears to be a clear line of sight from the corner of the picket fence to the President. Immediately before Z-189, however, it appears that the crowd on Elm Street, the Stemmons sign, and Umbrella Man would possibly block a shooter’s view of the limo.

Maybe Robert Prudhomme could weigh in on this, but it seems to me that a shooter would need time, maybe three seconds or something, to acquire his target before taking his shot. So it seems prudent to not only ask what a shooter at the corner of the picket fence would be seeing at Z-189, but what a shooter would be seeing, or not seeing, before Z-189.

You wrote: “Tom also of interest maybe the Stemmons Freeway sign effectively blocks from view the corner of the concrete wall from the SSA in the Queen Mary, they may not have been able to see the shooter. It also might have deflected what ever sound the weapon did make.”

Good point.

Tom

Hi Tom

To be fair, some guys can get shots off very fast, especially if they are using a peep sight or open sight, instead of a scope. I have hunted with "quick draw" guys like this who seem to be able to knock a deer down within a second or two of spotting it. It's a little scary, actually, and I usually walk behind these guys when going through the Bush.

The shooter would have already known the spot where he was going to take his shot, plus the distance to this spot and, despite the Stemmons sign blocking his sight for a moment, would have been tracking JFK as he came down Elm St.

Personally, I don't believe JFK was shot in the throat at z189. I think it was closer to z223 myself, but that's just my opinion. This would give the shooter behind the stockade fence (or Black Dog Man, take your pick) all kinds of time to aim at JFK.

That's right, Jon. You put it in slightly different terms than shooters do but, it comes out the same in the end. Basically, the side mounted scope, on the left side of the receiver, was looking to the left, and the barrel was looking to the right. The further out from the rifle, the bigger the spread between line of sight and path of bullet becomes. As I said, there may have also been other things wrong with the rifle, but this seems to be the main problem.

If this was the way the scope was adjusted when Oswald brought it to the TSBD, it is a clear indication he did not know much about sighting in a rifle scope.

However, as the man said, "You aint seen nuthin' yet!"

Up next, SA Robert A. Frazier does the impossible!

Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician present at JFK's autopsy, testified to the ARRB that the x-rays of JFK's neck in evidence are not the ones he recalled seeing that night, and that the ones he saw showed many small metal fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

Coincidentally, or not, the nerves going to the arms leave the vertebral column, on their way to the arms, in the vicinity of C3/C4. Is it not possible the arm raising/fist clenching at the throat we see JFK doing in the Z film is a reaction to the short circuiting of these nerves by bullet fragments?

Charles Brehm and his son were very close eyewitnesses to the assassination. This is an excerpt from his interview with the FBI:

"BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight."

Jon

Close, but not quite.

Let us say the scope is mounted offset by 1 inch to the left of the receiver, as is close to the way the scope is mounted on C2766. This places the line of sight 1 inch to the left of the centre of the barrel, as well as the path of the bullet.

If a target was placed a few inches out from the end of the barrel (muzzle) and the shooter aimed at the bullseye, the bullet is likely to impact the target 1 inch to the right of the bullseye.

If the same rifle is aimed at a target at 100 yards, and the bullet impacts the target again 1 inch to the right of the bullseye, this tells us the barrel and scope, although separated laterally by 1 inch, are perfectly parallel to each other, and the rifle will continue to impact bullets 1 inch to the right of the point of aim, out to infinity.

This is an option for sighting in a side mounted rifle scope, simply to align the scope parallel with the barrel. All the shooter needs to know is the distance from the centre of the scope to the centre of the barrel, and to aim this much to the left for each shot, regardless of the range he is shooting at.

But, judging from the results Frazier obtained, that is not how the scope on C2766 was sighted in at all. At 15 yards, the bullets are impacting 1 inch to the right of the point of aim. At 25 yards, they seem to be landing 1-2 inches to the right of the point of aim. At 100 yards, the bullets are impacting the target 3-4 inches to the right of the point of aim.

Do you see a progression here? What is happening is, the line of sight of the scope and the path of the bullet are on diverging courses, and the further out you go, the greater the spread will be. At 200 yards, this rifle would likely be impacting the target almost 8 inches to the right of the point of aim.

This is not a sign that Oswald was particularly knowledgeable about sighting in a scope, although I will give him a break here, as it is far more difficult to sight in a side mounted scope than a scope mounted in the typical fashion, above the receiver.

The normal method of sighting in a side mounted scope is either the "parallel" lines method I discussed above, or the method of having the line of sight and the path of the bullet on converging courses, and having the two cross each other some distance out from the rifle. Typically, a hunter with a rifle with a side mounted scope will sight this rifle in to be accurate, both vertical and horizontal, at 100 yards. If line of sight and bullet path are 1 inch apart at the rifle, they will be 1/2 inch apart at 50 yards and will cross each other's paths at 100 yards. Up to this point, the bullet is impacting to the right of the point of aim. Once the two paths cross, the bullet will begin impacting to the left of the target. At 200 yards, the bullet should impact 1 inch to the left of the point of aim on the target, and so on. This is the best method if a shooter is only shooting out to 200 yards, but for shooters making really long shots, the parallel method makes for one less calculation on a long shot and, as I said, the shooter merely needs to aim to the left of the target an amount equal to the distance between the centre of the barrel and the centre of the scope. It should be noted that the shooter is not restricted to have the paths cross at 100 yards, and can sight this crossing point in for any distance he chooses.

It should be noted that Frazier stated the main thing they were testing here was speed, and not accuracy, and that it is possible the spread of the bullets on the target can be accounted for by careless aiming. However this is not a fair assumption, as it must be remembered that the first shot of each test would already be in the chamber, and would not be a hurried shot. As the following shots seem to land in a fairly good group (if one can call a 3.5x5 inch circle at 100 yards a good group) these tests would seem to be a good indication of where the bullets were impacting the targets.

However, the large group this rifle was firing at 100 yards could be indicative of several other things. The WCC cartridges were loaded with 6.5mm bullets that were .264" in diameter. This is the diameter of 6.5mm bullets for the majority of 6.5mm rifles on the planet but, the 6.5mm Carcano is special. It has deeper rifling grooves and requires a bullet .268" in diameter in order to maximize accuracy. Much of the poor reputation the Carcano has received, over the years, has been due to shooters firing cartridges loaded with the smaller .264" bullets.

If the bullets fired at each target progressively impacted higher and more to the right with each shot, it is indicative of an entirely different problem. The Carcano had a wooden stock and, like many rifles, the barrel was designed to "float" in the stock. This means that stock and barrel touched each other at the breech (chamber), where they are fastened together, but for the rest of the length of the barrel there is a tiny gap between stock and barrel, with the barrel in the trough made in the stock.

Parts of the Southern States, especially Louisiana, can be very humid, and a rifle stock may be exposed to extremes of humidity, depending how and where the rifle is stored. If the wood of the stock is not properly sealed, it could absorb moisture and, when it dries out, the stock may warp, depending on the grain of the wood. I have had this happen to a couple of rifles, and this is one of the reasons rifle stocks made from synthetics have become so popular.

You may wonder how a warped stock could affect bullet impact on a target. Simply put, if the stock did warp and, in this case, the stock was pressing against the lower left portion of the barrel, the barrel is flexible enough that this pressure would cause the first bullet to go high and to the right. Also, the first shot would heat the barrel up and cause it to expand, ever so slightly. This would make the second shot go even higher and further to the right, and the heat it gave to the barrel would affect the third shot further. Etc, etc, etc. The only solution is to remove the barrel, find the high spot on the stock, sand it down, seal the wood and re-mount the barrel.

The other option is that C2766 was simply an old worn out rifle that was not that great a rifle, even on the day it was made, and that its barrel was worn out from many thousands of shots fired through it, and badly eroded from years of neglect and poor storage in a humid climate.