Robert Prudhomme

From the perspective we are viewing the steps, would we be able to see that much of Baker's leg, if he were going up the stairs? I hate to say it but, it still looks as if he is running right past the stairs.

I would love to see that, Thomas.

Yes, Glenn, Mr. DVP is quite the artful dodger, isn't he. He writes these great long posts with absolutely no content to them. A thousand word post by DVP can be boiled down to nothing more than "Trust and believe the FBI, the SS, the Warren Commission and the HSCA. They are your friends."

That's okay, I've had about enough of the verbal diarrhea from DVP. The question is, "How did the Magic Bullet get through JFK's neck without hitting any vertebrae?" and I am going to put DVP's tail through the wringer until he admits it could not have happened. Either that, or I will make him want to leave this forum. I don't really care which happens first.

DVP

How did the bullet get through JFK's neck without striking any vertebrae?

An old film but worth seeing again:

Glenn, you should bear in mind that much has changed in 50 years, trees have grown, etc. I noticed the trees were much different back in the 90's than they were back in the 60's the first time I was there. So you can't rely on the view from the 6th floor as being very similar. One thing you also can't get the feel for is that you can't just stand at that window and get that view. The camera appears to be about 3 feet above floor level, a position that would not have been possible in 63 because of the upper half of the window. Actually firing a rifle from the spot necessary based on window opening at the time, shooter would have to be sitting or lying on the floor and sighting with his left eye. Basically an impossible shot. You can't see any of the obstructions within the room itself.

Why do you believe the shooter would have to be sighting with his let eye?

From my POV, it looks like Baker is going to run right past the steps.

DVP

I am still waiting for you to explain how the bullet made its way through JFK's neck without hitting any vertebrae.

Pat

I do not think PM could be Sarah Stanton, as Pauline Saunders places her at the east end of the entrance, and PM is at the west end of the entrance.

"Pauline Saunders: (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H672) “At approximately 12:20 PM on November 22, 1963, I left the lunchroom on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the presidential motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository about 12:30 PM. I took up a position at the top of the front steps of the Depository building facing Elm Street. To the best of my recollection, I was standing on the top step at the east end of the entrance. I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others. Mrs. Stanton is likewise an employee of the Texas School Book Depository. To the best of my recollection I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time on November 22, 1963, and although I knew him by sight as an employee of the building I did not know him by name and had never spoken to him at any time. I do not recall seeing any strangers in the Texas School Book Depository Building at any time on the morning of November 22, 1963. After the motorcade car carrying President John F. Kennedy passed, I remained a moment on the steps, then walked out to the concrete island in front of the Depository Building to see what had happened. I remained there a moment and then returned to the Depository Building through the main entrance. I then walked to the second floor where I usually worked.” "

This excerpt is from a post you made on this Forum on March 2, 2012.

Please share this film with us, Raymond, if you claim to have film of Baker entering the TSBD. Put your money where your mouth is.

It most assuredly was, Thomas.

Everything that happened on the steps just after the shots were fired arouses suspicion. Although everyone assumes Baker ran up the steps of the TSBD, simply because we are all sheep and this is what the Warren Commission told us to believe, the Couch film only shows Baker running toward the stairs, and neither it or any other film shows him going up the stairs. No witness on the stairs, including Buell Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina, could recall a motorcycle cop in a white helmet going past him.

The only two witnesses who claim to have seen Baker going into the TSBD are Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley, who claimed to be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension when they looked back to see Truly and Baker enter the TSBD. Their testimonies are highly suspect as their first day statements say nothing about going down Elm St. Also, according to their WC testimonies, they remained on the steps for 3-4 minutes and did not leave the steps until a Ms. Gloria Calvary came running up to the steps from way down on Elm St. where the shots had been fired. As Baker had supposedly parked his motorcycle and been running to the TSBD within seconds of the final shot, how could Shelley and Lovelady be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension at this time? They should have been still on the steps for another two minutes after Baker's arrival.

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.

This is not a sign that Oswald was particularly knowledgeable about sighting in a scope, although I will give him a break here, Robert, I just started reading on this thread, because you recommended it. But I have a problem. The very first comment should have stated that this information is all hypothetical. The simplest way I can demonstrate that is with your sentence I quoted in bold. All this information is not a sign of anything regarding LHO because there is little or no doubt that LHO ever even saw that rifle. No evidence has ever been presented that he had any knowledge at all of that rifle. He never 'sighted' it in. So from that point, this information is in the format that "IF LHO HAD FIRED THE RIFLE ON 11/22/63 FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST, THIS IS SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES HE WOULD HAVE ENCOUNTERED". Once everyone understand's that it is all hypothetical and didn't happen, but 'could be true', then it might be easier to read.

Good point, Ken. Thanks for pointing that out.

With all respect, the thread is almost two years old and maybe with the exception of a day or two, it's always been on the first page here anyway. What else is there to talk about? A lot of people think it looks a lot like Oswald; I don't think it's that striking of a resemblance, but it could be him. It's just too blurry to tell for sure, and I'm not sure we will ever have a remedy for that. From my understanding, even with future technology, you can't create something out of nothing, i.e. you can't extrapolate pixels that aren't there, but I could be wrong.

My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?

"My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?"

The fact is that nobody said they saw ANYONE there. Even BWF who is looking right at him! Clearly someone was there. If not Oswald I throw the question back to you. How come nobody mentions this guy?

Of course, if it is Oswald then the whole conspiracy comes crashing down.

Consequently no one reports seeing Oswald. And anyway he is stood right at the back against a wall at the exact moment the President is driving past who would have seen him?

Right on, Bernie. BWF never saw Oswald, never saw anyone standing in the corner and never saw a policeman in a white motorcycle helmet go by him on the way into the TSBD when, in all likelihood, Baker probably just about ran him over on his way in.

Did Frazier see ANYTHING????

Starting to get under your skin, is he?

"Check out the testimony of the FBI firearms guys---Frazier, Cunningham, and Killion (plus Nicol from Illinois). They all confirm the shells were fired in and ejected from Rifle C2766."

I just love it when DVP starts referring to the FBI "experts" above. The one I love lampooning the most is FBI SA Robert A. Frazier, the so called firearms expert who tested C2766 and testified to the WC about what he found. What amazed me the most is that in 50 years, virtually no one apart from myself read his testimony and spotted the glaring errors in his work. This guy, believe me, was either totally inept at his job, or lying through his teeth.

Ken & Glenn, just for you guys, I have resurrected an old thread of mine to the first page. It is titled "The most Important Error the FBI told the Warren Commission about the Rifle". Read it, enjoy it and, should you have any questions, by all means, don't be afraid to ask. And remember, everything I am using in that thread is the FBI's evidence to the WC. Nothing more fun than feeding their own garbage back to them.

bump

Sorry, you cannot prove when the cartridges were fired from C2766.

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here.

But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?

If you can put the third shell casing in C2766, can you prove what day it was fired on? Anyone can fire a bullet somewhere else and leave the shell casing on the 6th floor as "evidence". Prove it was fired on 22/11/63.

Spin, spin, spin. What a funny little man you are. The response "I work in that building" could just as easily have been to a question such as "What were you doing in the TSBD?".

You see, Dave, once again we have to rely on something the Lame Nuts think is some form of real evidence. That something is called assumption, and it is about as far from real evidence as you can get.

"Did you shoot the President?"..."I work in that building." There's no connection there at all, Dave.

P.S.

Where I grew up, standing in the vestibule is considered to be still in the building.

Obviously, he does not know the difference. I can see DVP as part of a lynch mob.

"Well, he shore looks guilty! String him up!"

We have no idea exactly what Oswald said. All we have are Fritz's notes, written several days after the assassination.

Are you for real, Bob?

I just posted a video in my last post in which Oswald says the exact words I quoted in text form above. Are you not aware of the words Oswald said to the live TV audience just PRIOR to uttering his famous "I'm just a patsy" lie?

In the short space of just 27 seconds in this video, Oswald tells numerous provable lies. And we don't need a single note from Captain Fritz to confirm those lies either. But one thing he told the truth about here, of course, is when he admits to being inside the building at the time the President was shot....

Ever occur to you that he was not answering the question, "Did you shoot the President?" and was, instead, answering another reporter?

I mean, c'mon Dave, if someone asked you if you shot the President, would you reply with "I work in that building"? What kind of an answer is that?

And if the first two are not connected, it's quite likely that Oswald was not referring to the shooting of the President when he responded to "Were you in the building at the time?"

Just because the microphone we are listening to picked up the question about shooting the President, does not mean Oswald heard and responded to it.

I think Sean Murphy would be the man for that job. When this thread was really rolling, he had me waiting with bated breath for each new post he posted.

Come back, Sean, we miss you!

My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?

Exactly, Brian. Not even Oswald himself said he was on the front steps at 12:30. In fact, Oswald himself destroys the "Prayer Man" theory. And, of course, all veteran CTers know about this statement coming out of the mouth of Lee Oswald himself, but they'll just look the other way and ignore it....

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

~~~~~~~~~~~

I've actually argued with some CTers who are so desperate to put Oswald in the TSBD doorway that they argue that when Oswald admitted to being IN THE BUILDING at the time of the shooting, they'll go to the absurd extreme of suggesting that the doorway area of the TSBD doesn't qualify as being OUTSIDE the building; it still should be considered INSIDE the building. Therefore, Oswald wasn't lying when he said what he said about being INSIDE at 12:30. Funny, isn't it?

As a parallel, does anybody in the world consider themselves to be INSIDE their house when they're sitting on their their front porch?

We have no idea exactly what Oswald said. All we have are Fritz's notes, written several days after the assassination.

With all respect, the thread is almost two years old and maybe with the exception of a day or two, it's always been on the first page here anyway. What else is there to talk about? A lot of people think it looks a lot like Oswald; I don't think it's that striking of a resemblance, but it could be him. It's just too blurry to tell for sure, and I'm not sure we will ever have a remedy for that. From my understanding, even with future technology, you can't create something out of nothing, i.e. you can't extrapolate pixels that aren't there, but I could be wrong.

My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?

A cop in a white motorcycle helmet supposedly ran up the steps of the TSBD, and no one, including Frazier, recalls that either. Yet everyone seems to accept that Baker entered the front of the TSBD.