Robert Prudhomme

**YAWN**

BTW, Pat, you never did get around to telling us where you figured the head shot(s) came from.

"And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the right."

Would "all of our shots" include the shots at 15 yards and the shots at 100 yards, Pat?

As usual, you did not answer my question from two posts back. Just for you, as you may have trouble seeing or have genuine comprehension deficits, I will repeat it.

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

WOULD YOU SHOW US WHERE FRAZIER TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE ANY ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE SCOPE BETWEEN THE TEST SHOTS AT 15 YARDS, AND THE TEST SHOTS AT 100 YARDS, PAT SPEER??

Hello Richard

As I related in the other thread, I helped a friend sight in a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action rifle that had a side mounted scope on the left side of the receiver, similar to the Carcano. Sighting in a side mounted scope is very difficult and we went through a lot of cartridges getting this one onto a bullseye at 100 yards.

During this exercise, I tried several shots using the Model 94 open sights. When using open sights, I like to get up close and personal to the back end of the receiver because it helps me to focus rear sight, front sight and target together. I found, with the rear end of the scope sticking out, I could not get anywhere near to what I found a comfortable shooting position. I also found it very uncomfortable and distracting to have the scope poking me in the forehead as I tried to look at the open sights.

If Oswald did any practice shooting with this rifle at all, the deficiencies of the scope would have made themselves apparent very quickly. If he knew this scope was junk, why did he not remove the scope prior to the assassination (or bringing it from Irving) and just go with the open sights? All three shots were at less than 100 yards; ideal range for using open sights.

Would you show us where Frazier testified that there were any adjustments made to the scope between the test shots at 15 yards, and the test shots at 100 yards, Pat?

If you read the thread I referred to on the other forum, you'll see that this scope that required 5 or 6 shots to "settle in" after an adjustment was made to it is a piece of fiction created by Frazier for the benefit of the sheep on the Warren Commission. I have never seen a scope that needed 5 or 6 shots to "settle in" after adjustments were made to it. I have consulted with several gunsmiths about this and they all find Frazier's explanation rather humourous, and are quite surprised that the public actually fell for it.

If you read the thread on the other forum, you will have seen how I explained the real reason for the shots Frazier fired at 100 yards "walking away" to the right and high of the bullseye. It has more to do with a defective rifle than a defective scope.

You might want to check out the thread I started; "The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5mm Carcano". In this thread, I do a critical analysis of the inadequacies of the scope mounted on LHO's alleged rifle. Towards the end, I also look at the test firings of this rifle by FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier and the testimony he gave to the WC regarding the accuracy of this rifle. I then debunk Frazier's testimony by showing the impossibility of his test results.

Dave

There was a very rare "exploding" bullet issued to Italian troops only during the First World War that was known as an "observation" bullet.

Massed volley firing at great distances (1000 yards plus) was still a common military tactic in the First World War. This explained the rear sights of many WWI infantry rifles that could be elevated to shoot great distances. For example, the British .303 Enfields of WWI had an adjustable rear sight with an extreme setting of 1700 yards (one mile!) The idea was that if a massed volley of bullets was fired at an extreme distance at a large group of people, a percentage of the bullets had a good chance of finding a target.

The trick was knowing the range to the target(s), in order to elevate your rear sight to the proper setting. The "observation" bullet was a round nosed hollow point bullet, and inside this bullet was a firing pin, detonator and explosive charge. The firing pin was set off by impact with something hard, and when the bullet hit the ground near your 1000+ yard target, the ensuing small explosion would mark your point of impact and tell you how much to adjust your rear sight by.

These "observation" rounds were never intended to be used to damage targets. The amount of explosive material it is possible to fit inside a 6.5 mm bullet is rather small but, on the other hand, once inside someone's skull, could contribute significantly to the damaging effect of the bullet.

From the Wikipedia article "John F. Kennedy assassination rifle":

"FBI tests

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:

1)FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that." From 15 yards (14 m.), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2.5 inches high and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime. At 100 yards (91 m.), the test shots landed 2.5 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle."

Sounds impressive, doesn't it, especially if you do not know that much about shooting.

Straight away, I have no idea what a "3 to 5 inch" circle is, and I'll bet Frazier doesn't, either. Groupings of bullets on a target are usually defined by the diameter of a circle, not an oval, such as Frazier's first reference to a circular group "about the size of a dime". Perhaps Frazier thinks a 5 inch group simply makes the Carcano sound inaccurate. I know that if I had a rifle that shot 5 inch groups or "3 to 5 inch" groups at 100 yards, I would not call it an accurate rifle; rather, I would be taking it to a gunsmith to find out what is wrong with it. A good quality, well maintained bolt action rifle should have no problem putting three shots inside a 1-inch circle at 100 yards. More later regarding what I believe the defect was with the Carcano.

As is obvious by looking at one, a rifle scope is a tube that is mounted above the barrel of a rifle (another tube), usually 1.5-3 inches higher than the barrel. The view through the scope to the target is a straight line, and is called the Line of Sight. As the bullet is affected by gravity as soon as it leaves the muzzle, it cannot follow a straight line to the target but must be delivered in a curving parabolic trajectory that, for most of its journey to the target, is higher than the Line of Sight. This curved path is called the Bullet Trajectory.

As the barrel is lower than the scope and is angled upwards to "lob" the bullet in a parabola to the target, the bullet will cross the Line of Sight shortly after leaving the muzzle of the barrel; usually at a distance of 10-15 yards. If the rifle and scope are zeroed to hit a target at 100 yards, the bullet will cross the line of sight at 10-15 yards, on the ascending leg of the parabola, and cross the line of sight again at 100 yards, on the descending leg of the parabola. In other words, the rifle is accurate at two ranges, 10-15 yards and 100 yards.

With this in mind, let us examine Frazier's claim of the Carcano being 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, and 2.5 to 5 inches high at 100 yards. See anything wrong with these claims? I think they are lies, and I will tell you why.

If 10-15 yards is the range at which the bullet trajectory crosses the line of sight, it goes without saying that a scope should be adjusted to hit a bullseye centre at this range. In fact, this is the range gunsmiths will use to "bore sight" a rifle scope. Watch this excellent brief video about boresighting a rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgB9J9Bt_Rs

It is clear, after watching this video, that if the Carcano had been placed in this gun vise, the crosshairs of the scope would have been looking 2.5 inches below the bullseye, with the rifle bore lined up on the bullseye. I must point out that a 2.5 inch difference between bore and scope at 15 yards is a VERY large difference. As they say, being a tiny bit out up close equates to being a LOT out far away.

If the bullet hits high at 15 yards, it should be a simple exercise in algebra to determine how high it should hit at 100 yards. Remember, as well, that if the barrel is elevated high enough, the descending leg of the parabola may not begin until well after 100 or 200 yards, giving us almost a straight line from muzzle to where the bullet hits at 100 yards.

15 yards = 540 inches

100 yards = 3600 inches

2.5 is to 540, what "x" is to 3600 or, 3600 x 2.5 over 540 = "x" = 16.67

I do not know if the enormity of what I have shown is apparent to all of you, so I will try to explain. If the rifle shoots 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, the barrel is so drastically elevated, the bullet will land 16.67 inches high of the point of aim at 100 yards, NOT the 2.5 to 5 inches claimed by Frazier.

Frazier (and the FBI) have either told a monstrous lie to the WC, or Frazier was not the expert he claimed to be.

David

You asked what kind of bullet would leave such a trail of microscopic particles. Look at this page, and then go to their "Products" section, and then the "Technology" section.

http://drtammo.com/

Andric, are you now a spokesperson for Pat Speer?

I do not think it unreasonable to ask Pat to state his beliefs on the origin of the head shot(s) here on this forum.

Will Pat Speer ever tell us where he thought the fatal head shot originated from?

Thank you Richard. While I point out many deficiencies and weaknesses in the scope, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the section dealing with FBI SA Robert Frazier's testimony to the WC regarding the test firings he did with the 6.5mm Carcano found on the 6th floor.

The results he gives the WC for test shots at 15 yards and at 100 yards are completely impossible. If anyone desires, I can give a brief summary of my research here.

It also amazes me that when the DPD found "the gun" they immediately stopped looking for other assassins in Dealey Plaza.

I have begun a thread under this title on the Reopen Kennedy Case Forum and, rather than copy and paste three pages to post it here, I thought it better to just post a link to the thread on the other forum.

I believe this material to be well worth reading, as I believe I have clearly demonstrated the inadequacies of this scope and the difficulties it would present to a shooter, even one attempting to use the open sights.

I also deal with the FBI's Special Agent Robert Frazier (firearms expert), who test fired the 6.5mm Carcano found on the 6th floor and presented his findings in testimony to the WC. In this analysis, I discuss the data he presented, and ask whether he simply made "mistakes" or whether he presented impossible test results.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t578-the-side-mounted-scope-on-the-65-carcano#6386

"And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap."

Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you?

I understand now, Pat, that your theory is that a bullet struck the right side of JFK's head, and this was a tangential strike that caused great damage on the surface of JFK's skull.

In twenty-five words or less, where do you believe this bullet originated from?

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t615-parkland-trauma-room-one-reunion

I have no doubt that certain people will tell us the memories of these old doctors are completely shot. Funny how these people find the memories of some octogenarians reliable and others not.

P.S. I am still unable to copy/paste or quote other members. Odd that this is the only site on the Net that I have this problem. The link above was laboriously typed out by hand.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..............................................................................................................................

Why not just read the first book yourself and find out?

Amen, Cliff.

This may be true, Pat, but where did the overwhelming majority of the Bethesda witnesses place the large wound in JFK's head, once the HSCA was no longer able to suppress their interviews?

I hope Sean Murphy's absence from this forum is due to him doing some heavy duty research into Prayer Man. I truly miss reading his posts.

The HSCA, in the 1970's, conducted interviews with all of the autopsy witnesses at Bethesda, yet never released the contents of the interviews. Rather, the HSCA chose to lie to the public by saying all of those interviewed felt the autopsy photos gave an accurate portrayal of JFK's head wounds. It was not until the ARRB released the contents of these interviews that it was discovered the witnesses did not think the photos accurate at all.

And now you are quoting the HSCA to us when speaking about JFK's head wounds, Pat. Haven't you heard the news? The HSCA was exposed as frauds.

You're flogging a dead horse here, Pat.

LOL Tommy, you have a knack for pointing out very obvious things that most of us miss. Good observation!

Pat, this has nothing to do with whether or not I believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone or not. There is no way I can prove or disprove the origin of the Harper fragment.

For you to ask me to do such a thing is merely a ploy on your part to distract attention away from the very difficult questions I have posed of you and Andric.

Dr. Kemp Clark's WC testimony clearly states the large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head to be in the occipital region of JFK's head. Contrary to what you say, I have provided medical definitions of "occipital region" that define it as an area of the head underlying the occipital bone. Dr. Clark, in later statements, describes the wound as being in the "occipital-parietal" region of JFK's head. Given the size of the wound described, this still places the wound, if it involves the occipital bone, well away from the top of the head.

Despite which of Dr. Clark's descriptions of the location of the large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head is the most accurate, they have one thing in common; they are not visible in the official back of the head autopsy photo. Care to explain this discrepancy to us?

The Newmans would have had a good look at JFK's head for, at the most, two seconds, before he was in Jackie's lap and the limo was too far away for the Newmans to see JFK.

Is Andric seriously expecting us to believe that people who were unprepared for this encounter and totally without medical training can give us an accurate account of JFK's head wounds?

If the Newmans had claimed they saw a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, Andric would have dismissed them as totally unreliable, just as Pat Speer only finds the memories of octogenarians reliable when they happen to support his theories.