Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harris and the CE399 Tom Foolery!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

FYI, Lee, regarding the scope. From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

On 3-31-64, the testimony of two weapons experts casts grave doubt on the theory that Oswald fired all the shots. Under questioning by Melvin Eisenberg, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testifies that on 11-27-63 he and two other ballistics examiners fired the rifle found in the depository in order to judge both the speed at which three shots could be fired, and the accuracy of those shots. He relates that, when firing on targets but 15 yards away, agent "Killion fired in 9 seconds… (agent) Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds". He testifies further that, after moving to a 25 yard range, he attempted to fire the rifle as rapidly as possible, and was able to fire three times in 4.6 seconds, and then 4.8 seconds. He then relates that on March 16, 1964, after adjusting the rifle to make it fire as accurately as possible while using the scope, he fired on outdoor targets at 100 yards, and was able to fire three shots in 5.9. 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds, respectively. When asked by counsel Eisenberg if firing at a moving target would have lengthened these times, he states "It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target." When asked how long this would take, he answers "Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving." When asked if increased familiarity with the rifle would have helped him shorten his time, he replies "Oh yes" but then talks about how it would improve his accuracy. He eventually answers the question in the negative by replying "4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think."

(The date of this last test is intriguing. Let's recall that a January 9, 1964 column by Allen and Scott reported that the FBI had been asked to conduct more tests on the speed at which the rifle could be fired. Well, here are the tests, only two months later... Hmmm... This gives us something to think about. Let's reflect...should these March tests have proved that Oswald could not have acted alone, would Hoover have even allowed this information be given to the Commission? Would he have risked criticism that he'd dragged his feet while Oswald's accomplices escaped? One can only assume "No". Then what follows is that Hoover and the FBI knew that no matter what these tests showed, they were not to be used to suggest that more than one shooter was involved.)

But if Frazier's testimony raises questions about Oswald's ability to fire all the shots, and the FBI's honesty about this ability, it raises even more questions about the accuracy of the weapon purportedly used by Oswald. Frazier tells the Commission that the first six shots fired by the FBI on 11-27 hit 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards. He says the next three hit 2 1/2 inches high and 1 to the right at 15 yards. He then discusses the next six shots fired with the weapon, fired from 25 yards in an effort to fire the rifle as rapidly and accurately as possible. He claims "The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point...The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high..." A close look at the target used for these six shots, and a comparison of this target with the targets created from 15 yards, is most revealing, however. It shows that Frazier was way off, and that the shots he claimed landed 4 to 5 inches high in fact landed 6 to 8 inches high, and 2 1/2 to 5 inches to the right of the aiming point. This confirms that the shots from 15 yards were not an anomaly, and that the scope was, in fact, considerably misaligned.

So misaligned, apparently, that the FBI and Warren Commission felt the need to cover up. At one point, undoubtedly to downplay that the rifle was so woefully inaccurate, Frazier claims that "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." Well, this is disingenuous on two fronts. One is that the scope, while being removed from the rifle in Dallas and Washington, was never taken off the barrel, with which it was aligned. Two is that Frazier himself suspected that NOTHING had happened to the rifle to knock it out of alignment. Later in his testimony, Frazier admits that when the FBI subsequently tried to sight-in the rifle and make it fire as accurately as possible, he found that the scope was defective, and that it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope after an adjustment, and that this still wasn't enough, as the rifle still fired 4-5 inches high and to the right at 100 yards. He then admitted "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." Well, there it is. Frazier had thereby admitted that there was reason to believe that the rifle had been misaligned when fired on the 22nd. While he'd fired two comparison bullets on the 23rd, he later found it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope. It follows then that the rifle on 11-22 before the shooting was as misaligned as it was on the 27th, when Frazier tested its accuracy. (On May 20, 1964, William Waldman testified before the Commission as a representative of Klein's Sporting Goods, the company that sold Oswald the rifle. He testified that the scope had been installed at Kleins's but that it was not sighted in by Klein's. This raises the question of whether the scope had EVER been sighted in prior to the FBI's attempt to sight it in on March 16, 1964.)

The significance of this misalignment becomes clear later in the testimony. Counsel Melvin Eisenberg asks Frazier a series of questions about the sniper's having to lead his target, in order to hit his target. He gives some specifics, telling Frazier: "I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds. Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope."

Well, this is interesting. Eisenberg is telling Frazier that, in the opinion of the Commission, the limousine traveled but 90 feet between the first and third shots. This is in keeping with the findings of Secret Service Agent Howlett on 11-27, but is a total refutation of the FBI's later claim the limousine traveled 140 feet between the shots. Perhaps Eisenberg, then, is telling Frazier to play ball, or else the Commission will expose the FBI's scandalous deception regarding the distance the limo traveled.

If so, it worked. Well, sort of... Frazier at first testifies that the proper lead for the target at 175 feet would be 6 to 8 inches. But there's a problem with this. Frazier can't leave well enough alone. Dissatisfied with Eisenberg's asking him to disregard the misalignment of the scope in making his calculation, he offers: "the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."

Uhhh,,,there's a problem with this. It's nonsense! If the rifle was firing 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards, as suggested by Frazier's own testimony, then it follows that it would fire 24 inches high and 6 inches to the right at 90 yards, the approximate location of Kennedy at the time of the head shot. If the proper lead for this shot was 6.1inches, as Frazier later specified, it follows that, in order to hit Kennedy in the head at frame 313 of the Zapruder film, the sniper would have to 1) know that the rifle was firing significantly high, and 2) aim almost 18 inches LOW, at the middle of Kennedy's back.

But there's a problem with this as well. The middle of Kennedy's back was obscured by the backseat of the limo. That's right. If one assumes that the rifle as fired on 11-22 was in the same condition it was on 11-27, one has to acknowledge that the sniper hitting Kennedy in the head was actually aiming at the backseat of the limo. This is counter-intuitive.

And it's actually understating the case. It is believed that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was sighted-in to strike targets at 200 meters. At 200 meters gravity will have taken effect and the bullet will no longer be flying in a straight path. As a result, the bullet of a rifle sighted in at 200 meters will start out low, gradually lift above its line of sight, and then slowly drop back to the line of sight, and hopefully the center of its target, at 200 meters. Frazier testified that a bullet sighted in such a manner at 200 yards would land about a half-inch high at 100 feet, two inches high at 200 feet, and three inches high at 300 feet. This suggests that a bullet fired from 265 feet, a la the fatal bullet if fired from the sniper's nest, would land about 2 1/2 inches high.

And Frazier was probably understating the case. Ballistics calculators (such as those found online at Hornady ammunition website) and charts (such as those found in the book American Ammunition and Ballistics) suggest that the bullet fired in Oswald's rifle would actually have been around 5 inches above the line of sight at 265 feet.

And even this is understating the case. If one accepts Frazier's testimony regarding the inaccuracy of the weapon on 11-27 and the stabilizing effect of shots on the scope, and then considers that the fatal bullet was heading on a downward path, and not be subject to the usual amount of gravity, it seems likely that the fatal bullet supposedly fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano on 11-22-63 would have landed even greater than 23 inches higher than aimed (29 inches minus the 6 inches or so traveled by the limousine between the moment the rifle was fired and the moment the bullet struck) and that the only way for the sniper to have hit Kennedy in the head was for him to have aimed at the trunk of the car.

The confusion related to leading a moving target by firing below or behind the target becomes even more confusing when we consider Frazier's next statement. He added "I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right." Uhhh... he said the rifle shot but an inch to the right at 15 yards...which translates to 6 inches to the right at 90 yards. Although Frazier has supplied the Warren Commission with no information regarding the left-right lead necessary to hit the target, photos taken from the sniper's nest suggest that the left-right lead would be about the same as the vertical lead. This would be about 6 inches.This suggests that, while the rifle was firing high and to the right, the sniper would need to make a large adjustment for the former--an adjustment which Frazier denies--but no adjustment at all for the latter--which Frazier also denies.

Something is just askew with Frazier's testimony. First, he under-reports how badly the rifle performed during his 11-27 tests of the rifle from 25 yards. Then he under-reports the adjustment needed to overcome the misalignment of the rifle, and actually suggests this misalignment was an advantage to the sniper. What is he doing? Is he deliberately trying to conceal that such a large adjustment for the rifle's shooting high would have been necessary? If so, then why did he turn around and make it sound like the rifle's shooting right was the bigger problem? Is he simultaneously trying to conceal that the limo was not heading straight away from the sniper, but moving left to right? Or is he just following orders to the best of his ability?

We suspect the latter. On 3-26-64, J. Edgar Hoover sent J. Lee Rankin a letter discussing the accuracy of the rifle. This letter was published as Commission Exhibit 2724. Most of the information contained in this letter was repeated in Frazier's testimony. But not all of it. While Frazier let it slip that the condition of the scope had probably not changed between 11-22 and 11-26, Hoover would have no part of it. He wrote "It is pointed out that the grouping of the shots in the targets shows an inherent capability of great accuracy under rapid fire conditions. No other significance whatever can be attached to these tests since there is no way of determining whether the present condition of the telescopic sight is the same as at the time of the assassination. It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could not be properly aligned with the target since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment before reaching accurate alignment." (Now here comes the spin.) "The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in favor of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for "leading" a moving target in aiming the rifle."

Well, I'll be. Hoover said that the present error in alignment--which would mean the alignment demonstrated on 3-16 AFTER the scope had been sighted in as accurately as possible--would be an advantage, and Frazier testified that the misalignment of the rifle as received by the laboratory would be an advantage. There's a huge difference. And Hoover, for once, was right. The misalignment of the scope on 11-26, when Frazier first tested the accuracy of the rifle, was in no way an advantage. It is of no help at all to a sniper to have to aim at a car trunk to hit a man in the head. But the slight misalignment of the rifle on 3-16, after it was sighted in, would be a slight advantage to someone tracking an object moving left to right and away, provided the person is aware of this misalignment. This leads us to suspect that Frazier was given specific orders on how to testify, and screwed them up.

This gives us plenty to think about. IF the rifle was severely misaligned on 11-22, as suggested by Frazier's testimony, then either the shooter was a marginally talented shooter, like Oswald, who was just firing in the President's general direction and got "lucky", or he was an expert marksman well acquainted with Oswald's rifle, and well aware of its tendency to fire high and to the right, and talented enough to compensate for this tendency. (Testimony of

Pat,

Incorrect.

In testing the rifle at 25 yards on 11/27 Frazier specifically says he was firing for speed and accuracy secondary. He was not trying to fire as fast AND accurately as possible as you said. Further, if you look at the ballistics table for the Carcano, you would see that the 15 yard target should be 4 inches high, if the weapon was sighted for 400 yards. The six shots fired were all interlocking save one which was very close to being interlocking. Frazier also tells us that the first time they had an issue with the instability of the rifle was 3/16/64. The firings on 11/27 prove the scope was quite stable as we can see in this target.

ce548-1.jpg

The claim that the rifle was severely misaligned is false in as much as 11/27 goes. However by 3/16/64 it not only was loose, but was misaligned.

400zero.gif

There is the Table for the 6.5mm Carcano. Note that at 100 yards it shoots 17" high. This means at 50 it would be 8.5 high and at 25 it would be 4.25 high, and roughly 4 high at 15 yards. Exactly what the tests on 11/27 show.

Also note the tight pattern in the target above, clearly showing that there was no misalignment and instability of the scope on 11/27/63.

Further more at 100 yards the scope would shoot about 17" high and 3 inches right. Care to guess how far the head of JFK moves in the time it takes the bullet to travel from the muzzle to him? Let put it this way, if a shooter were to hole the scope right on the President, with no lead, he would have hit him right in the head!

Additionally Frazier fires his 25 yard groups in 4.8 and 4.6 seconds, and he still held them in a 2" circle!

The long held beliefs that the rifle was junk and the scope misaligned are nothing more than CT misinformation.

Mike

Regardless of what guns or scopes were used -

The only misinformation being propagated is that Oswald was the assassin and that he was a deranged lone nut case, when in fact even if Oswald was the lone Sixth Floor Sniper and the ballistics all figured in to the Single Bullet Theory, then it was most certainly not only a conspiracy but a covert intelligence operation because Oswald was not a deranged lone nut case but he fits the profile of a covert intelligence operative who was part of a network that was responsible for whatever you believe happned at Dealey Plaza.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Incorrect.

In testing the rifle at 25 yards on 11/27 Frazier specifically says he was firing for speed and accuracy secondary. He was not trying to fire as fast AND accurately as possible as you said. Further, if you look at the ballistics table for the Carcano, you would see that the 15 yard target should be 4 inches high, if the weapon was sighted for 400 yards. The six shots fired were all interlocking save one which was very close to being interlocking. Frazier also tells us that the first time they had an issue with the instability of the rifle was 3/16/64. The firings on 11/27 prove the scope was quite stable as we can see in this target.

ce548-1.jpg

The claim that the rifle was severely misaligned is false in as much as 11/27 goes. However by 3/16/64 it not only was loose, but was misaligned.

400zero.gif

There is the Table for the 6.5mm Carcano. Note that at 100 yards it shoots 17" high. This means at 50 it would be 8.5 high and at 25 it would be 4.25 high, and roughly 4 high at 15 yards. Exactly what the tests on 11/27 show.

Also note the tight pattern in the target above, clearly showing that there was no misalignment and instability of the scope on 11/27/63.

Further more at 100 yards the scope would shoot about 17" high and 3 inches right. Care to guess how far the head of JFK moves in the time it takes the bullet to travel from the muzzle to him? Let put it this way, if a shooter were to hole the scope right on the President, with no lead, he would have hit him right in the head!

Additionally Frazier fires his 25 yard groups in 4.8 and 4.6 seconds, and he still held them in a 2" circle!

The long held beliefs that the rifle was junk and the scope misaligned are nothing more than CT misinformation.

Mike

Mike, I think you're clutching at straws. First of all, that the rifle was misaligned on 11-22 comes from Frazier, not from me. His testimony is clear on this. It took five or six shots to stabilize the scope after it was re-aligned. It was stable when he first tested it. Therefore, (provided the DPD didn't fire it for their own amusement and then lie about it) it was stable when fired on 11-22. And misaligned.

As far as the rifle firing high...the chart you printed was for a rifle sighted in at 400 yards. The M/C rifle, from what I can gather, was sighted in at 200 meters. Where do you get that it was sighted-in at 400 yards? We can't just ASSUME the rifle was sighted-in at 400 yards, even though this might explain a thing or two, now can we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also this... From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

After Frazier, Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Department of the Army, testifies, and things only get worse. He states that Oswald’s rifle was as accurate as the current standard issue rifle of the U.S. Army, the M-14, but acknowledges that his three test shooters “could not sight the weapon in using the telescope and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation.” He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing.

Simmons also discusses a simulation of the shooting performed by these shooters. He relates that they made seven attempts to replicate the shooting by rapid firing on three stationary targets at the presumed distances of the shots in Dealey Plaza. Simmons details: "All firers hit the first target, which was emplaced at 175 feet...for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target...there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet..." He then gives the time it took for his shooters to fire these shots: "Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds. Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight..."

He then discusses Mr. Miller's shots in more detail: "Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target...On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette." When asked what preparation these shooters were allowed to undertake, before attempting these shots, Simmons then relates: "They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."

Simmons eventually concludes that "in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes." (Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3H441-451)

Curiously, there is no evidence that Oswald was proficient with his weapon. Prior to 11-22-63, the only time Oswald was believed to have fired his carbine at a living thing was back in April, 1963. And that purported shot, fired at a right-wing fanatic named General Walker as he sat at a desk in his home, missed. There is no record of Oswald firing his rifle in the months leading up to the assassination. The rumors of his practicing at various shooting ranges around Dallas were all discredited by the FBI. Furthermore, there were no rifle-cleaning supplies or even extra ammunition found among his possessions. Thus, when Simmons testifies that Oswald’s rifle was substandard and that only someone with a lot of experience with the rifle could compensate for its shortcomings, he is unwittingly arguing for Oswald's innocence. Particularly in that Simmons knew full well his test shooters did not fire nearly as well as claimed...

When one looks at the targets his men fired upon, Commission Exhibits 582-584, it's startlingly clear Simmons' definition of a hit is not what any reasonable person would consider a hit. Oswald was purported to have hit Kennedy once in the base of the neck and once in the head in 6 seconds or less. The targets the Army shooters fired upon were not only stationary targets, they were far larger than the small area on Kennedy hit by the sniper...twice. While one might claim the shooters were merely interested in hitting the targets, and not specific points on the targets, one cannot reasonably claim they would deliberately not hit this target in as central a location as possible. Thus, a re-examination of the Army's targets, counting as hits only those hits landing between the extended sides of the neck on the target, indicates that the Army's shooters hit the first shot 6 of 7 times, the second shot 3 of 7 times, and the third shot but 2 of 7 times, with both hits landing on the back.

When one looks even closer, and considers that the Army's shooters would also be trying to hit the center of the target vertically, and compares their hits between the neck lines on the targets to the purported location of the hits on Kennedy, it gets even worse. (Simmons, in fact, testified that he'd assumed the shooters were firing at the intersection of lines at the center of the target.) Only one or two of the hits on the first target, when the shooters had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, landed as close to the center of the target as the two hits purportedly rapid-fired by Oswald. Even worse (yes, even worse), NOT ONE of the 14 shots rapid fired on the last two targets landed anywhere near as close the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The Army shooters' failure to replicate the fatal head shot, even though the rifle had been re-aligned just for this purpose, and even though their target was quite stationary, is incredibly problematic for the Commission, and should force them to re-evaluate Oswald's presumed ability with a rifle. They must know the public will not buy that such fantastic shots with such a mediocre rifle were fired by a man who hadn't practiced in months, and was never very good to begin with. They must know that the only way they can maintain any credibility is to stand by the incredible, and insist that, no matter how difficult the shots, Oswald somehow just got "lucky". Or so one would assume..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Negative.

The 5-6 shots to realign it was after the shims in March of 64. Certainly not on 11/27/63.

The chart I posted represents a 400 yard zero. However if we break that down and see what elevations the rifle should have fired at 15 and 25 yards, we can develop a trajectory arc. With a 400 yard zero we should see a weapon fire 17" high. This means at 50 yards it would fire 8.5" high, and at 25 it would fire 4.2" high. This just happens to be the average of the rounds Frazier fired at 25 yards. The average elevation of all Frazier's rounds at 25 yards is 4.5" high. The average right for his shots at 25 yards, is 2.4" right. However this was under rapid fire conditions, and can vary a bit. Remember he tells us that accuracy was a back seat to speed in these tests.

In calculating Frazier's shots at 25 yards, I calculated each bullet hole is about .25", slightly smaller than the bullet, which is normal in cardboard/paper.

Here are the averages. The Blue group is series 1 and the Red is series 2.

ce550calibrated.jpg

The numbers for series one are:

1-1 5.8" High and 1.8" Right

1-2 4.1" High and 1.6" Right

1-3 5.5" High and 3" Right

Series one average elevation is 5.1"

Series one right average is 2.1"

Series two:

2-1 4.8" High and 2" Right

2-2 5.7" High and 4.2" Right

2-3 1.5" High and 2.1" Right

Average elevation is 4"

Average right is 2.7"

Overall elevation average is 4.5"

Overall right average is 2.4"

Frazier was correct in his calculations and numbers.

to be continued.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Now another issue to address is the instability of the rifle and scope. This did not exist on 11/27/63 when the rifle was tested. This is very clear by the groups that were shot at 15 yards.

This is a photo of 6 rounds fired on 11/27/63 by Cunningham and Frazier.

ce548-1.jpg

Here is Killions 11/27/63 target also very consistent.

ce549.jpg

There is no instability of the rifle on 11/27/63.

There was no sign of instability until March of '64.

Now a word about alignment.

If we look at the above 15 yard targets we notice that both targets have very tight shot groups. We also notice that the Frazier Cunningham target is a bit different than the Killion target. There is good reason for that. They shoot a different "zero". Or to be more precise Cunningham and Frazier shoot nearly the same zero, but this zero is not Killions zero.

When using a scope the way that we look through that scope, and mount the rifle becomes a critical part of how we sight the rifle in. We set it up, for ourselves. Each person mounts a rifle a bit differently and has a bit different sight picture.

Clearly Frazier and Cunningham are close, but Killion is not. Its obvious that Killion is not a poor shot, look at his group pattern, very consistent. However he shoots about 2" lower than Frazier and Cunningham. This is not because he is a poor shot, its because he shoots a different zero.

For anyone to say that there was an alignment issue on 11/27/63, is misleading. WE can say the set up was stable, based on the groups they shot. But there is no way we can say it was misaligned.

Now I note in your post above that you claim " He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing."

This is in reference to Simmons testimony about the shims, and is clearly false. There is no evidence what so ever that the scope was misaligned on 11/27. Now it is correct that this could not have been caused by a Dallas Policeman, because the damage did not exist when the rifle was in Dallas custody, it occured between 11/27 and 3/64. Also noted is that in 3/64 the FBI noted the scope was loose as well.

I also notice you tossed in the "fear of breaking the firing pin" line. Common fair with the CT crowd, but again, it is only an inexperienced person, unfamiliar with firearms that would make such an assumption. The reason is simple, as any competant gunsmith will tell you you NEVER dry fire a center fire rifle. Why? Because you risk breaking the firing pin. New, old, it does not matter this is a huge no no. It is also common knowledge among those that know firearms.

The recreation tests.

Can you offer me one example of a recreation that was done as it should have been? I have been unable to find one. Fact is Oswald missed the first 2 shots, clearly. It was only after the Limo slowed that he was able to connect properly. Was Oswald an expert rifleman. No. But then again he did not have to be. Hell he only connected properly one in three shots.

Howard Donahue was the only man I have heard of that accomplished the shooting event. However, there are two things and two things only to consider.

1) Does the shooter have a clear line of sight? Most every theory contends that yes he does.

2) Can the Carcano be fired 3 times in 6 seconds. Of course it can.

Ability on anyone's scale is pure speculation.

I am currently working on a series of articles that deal with many of these issues. If for no other purpose than to put all this garbage about how awful the Carcano was to rest.

There is much I have yet to learn about the assassination. However the firearms aspect is one I am very well versed in, and wish that many others were as well, so that they could at least evaluate the evidence properly. We are researching a shooting event after all.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Now another issue to address is the instability of the rifle and scope. This did not exist on 11/27/63 when the rifle was tested. This is very clear by the groups that were shot at 15 yards.

This is a photo of 6 rounds fired on 11/27/63 by Cunningham and Frazier.

ce548-1.jpg

Here is Killions 11/27/63 target also very consistent.

ce549.jpg

There is no instability of the rifle on 11/27/63.

There was no sign of instability until March of '64.

Now a word about alignment.

If we look at the above 15 yard targets we notice that both targets have very tight shot groups. We also notice that the Frazier Cunningham target is a bit different than the Killion target. There is good reason for that. They shoot a different "zero". Or to be more precise Cunningham and Frazier shoot nearly the same zero, but this zero is not Killions zero.

When using a scope the way that we look through that scope, and mount the rifle becomes a critical part of how we sight the rifle in. We set it up, for ourselves. Each person mounts a rifle a bit differently and has a bit different sight picture.

Clearly Frazier and Cunningham are close, but Killion is not. Its obvious that Killion is not a poor shot, look at his group pattern, very consistent. However he shoots about 2" lower than Frazier and Cunningham. This is not because he is a poor shot, its because he shoots a different zero.

For anyone to say that there was an alignment issue on 11/27/63, is misleading. WE can say the set up was stable, based on the groups they shot. But there is no way we can say it was misaligned.

Now I note in your post above that you claim " He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing."

This is in reference to Simmons testimony about the shims, and is clearly false. There is no evidence what so ever that the scope was misaligned on 11/27. Now it is correct that this could not have been caused by a Dallas Policeman, because the damage did not exist when the rifle was in Dallas custody, it occured between 11/27 and 3/64. Also noted is that in 3/64 the FBI noted the scope was loose as well.

I also notice you tossed in the "fear of breaking the firing pin" line. Common fair with the CT crowd, but again, it is only an inexperienced person, unfamiliar with firearms that would make such an assumption. The reason is simple, as any competant gunsmith will tell you you NEVER dry fire a center fire rifle. Why? Because you risk breaking the firing pin. New, old, it does not matter this is a huge no no. It is also common knowledge among those that know firearms.

The recreation tests.

Can you offer me one example of a recreation that was done as it should have been? I have been unable to find one. Fact is Oswald missed the first 2 shots, clearly. It was only after the Limo slowed that he was able to connect properly. Was Oswald an expert rifleman. No. But then again he did not have to be. Hell he only connected properly one in three shots.

Howard Donahue was the only man I have heard of that accomplished the shooting event. However, there are two things and two things only to consider.

1) Does the shooter have a clear line of sight? Most every theory contends that yes he does.

2) Can the Carcano be fired 3 times in 6 seconds. Of course it can.

Ability on anyone's scale is pure speculation.

I am currently working on a series of articles that deal with many of these issues. If for no other purpose than to put all this garbage about how awful the Carcano was to rest.

There is much I have yet to learn about the assassination. However the firearms aspect is one I am very well versed in, and wish that many others were as well, so that they could at least evaluate the evidence properly. We are researching a shooting event after all.

Mike

Mike, I can buy into the single-bullet theory if I have to, and that the MC was capable of doing what they said it did, and can believe everything you say about bullets and ballistics, but please don't refer to the Sixth Floor Sniper as Oswald, as you can't put Oswald in that window, he was certifiably and demonstratably somewhere else at the time, has a solid alibi, and wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who we know was a good marksman, had a pattern bald spot and stuck around the Sniper's Nest after popping off his shots.

When you say "Fact is Oswald missed the first two shots clearly" you are right, as he didn't take any shots at all, and when you ask, "Was Oswald an expert marksman?," you are right again since he was no rifleman at all but is properly designated and referred to as the Patsy or Fall Guy.

Now when you want to discuss what the Sixth Floor Sniper actually acomplished ballistically, you can also consider who he was and how he got away.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

For you, OK. I myself believe it was Oswald. I also believe, especially after reading portions of Brennan's book, that he was identified. However, You know me, and I generally like several forms of confirmation on things, and admittedly, I lack those multiple avenues in putting Oswald behind that rifle.

I have never understood the air tight alibi. However I do understand why someone would have thought he had a bald spot. I assume Greer and Kellerman were not afflicted with bald spots, but they sure look like they have one.

z313.jpg

How did he get away? By hiding in plain sight, talking to Baker, and then waltzing out of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Negative.

The 5-6 shots to realign it was after the shims in March of 64. Certainly not on 11/27/63.

The chart I posted represents a 400 yard zero. However if we break that down and see what elevations the rifle should have fired at 15 and 25 yards, we can develop a trajectory arc. With a 400 yard zero we should see a weapon fire 17" high. This means at 50 yards it would fire 8.5" high, and at 25 it would fire 4.2" high. This just happens to be the average of the rounds Frazier fired at 25 yards. The average elevation of all Frazier's rounds at 25 yards is 4.5" high. The average right for his shots at 25 yards, is 2.4" right. However this was under rapid fire conditions, and can vary a bit. Remember he tells us that accuracy was a back seat to speed in these tests.

In calculating Frazier's shots at 25 yards, I calculated each bullet hole is about .25", slightly smaller than the bullet, which is normal in cardboard/paper.

Here are the averages. The Blue group is series 1 and the Red is series 2.

ce550calibrated.jpg

The numbers for series one are:

1-1 5.8" High and 1.8" Right

1-2 4.1" High and 1.6" Right

1-3 5.5" High and 3" Right

Series one average elevation is 5.1"

Series one right average is 2.1"

Series two:

2-1 4.8" High and 2" Right

2-2 5.7" High and 4.2" Right

2-3 1.5" High and 2.1" Right

Average elevation is 4"

Average right is 2.7"

Overall elevation average is 4.5"

Overall right average is 2.4"

Frazier was correct in his calculations and numbers.

to be continued.....

Mike, I deal with all this on my website and show all the targets. I matched the bullet hole size on the targets fired from 15 yards and the one fired from 25 yards. This demonstrated that the shots fired from 25 yards were off target to the degree expected if the rifle was off 4 inches at 15 yards, as found in the first series of tests. In other words, the rifle was consistently high and to the right. Just as Frazier testified...

As far as your assertion that the scope "certainly" did not need 5-6 shots to re-align on 11-27, I suspect this is not based on any evidence, but is simply something you'd like to believe. Do you have evidence suggesting the rifle was damaged between the FBI's first tests in November and its subsequent tests in March? If so, when did this happen and who was responsible? You seem unable to acknowledge there were problems with the rifle. If the rifle and scope were fine, as you seem to think, how do you explain the Army's finding it necessary to add shims? Are you aware that others firing the scope/rifle combo also found that the two could not be brought into alignment without shims?

From patspeer.com, chapter 9:

# In 1969, Dr. John Lattimer gave a presentation to the New York Academy of Medicine on his own attempts to replicate Oswald's supposed feat. While claiming his tests showed that Oswald could have performed the shooting, he made some interesting observations which did not remotely support this conclusion. After discussing his acquisition of four rifles like Oswald's, fitting them with scopes like the one found on Oswald's rifle, and picking out the rifle which most closely resembled its overall condition, he admitted: "To align the sight perfectly, it was necessary to place thin metal wafers (shims) under the front ring of the mount of the telescope, just as had been found necessary with Oswald's rifle, in order to correct the faulty alignment of the telescope." Well, the shims added to Oswald's rifle were added after it was found in the depository, not before; this suggests that Oswald's rifle was inaccurate, at least when using the scope, and that this was an inherent defect of that rifle and scope combination, not a problem created afterward as presumed by so many single-assassin theorists.

# Lattimer continued: "It was found that with the sling binding the rifle tightly to the experimenter's arm, and by resting both forearms flat against the legs, above the knees (as was possible from Oswald's high perch), three cartridges could be worked through the action in six or seven seconds, still allowing a short period for aiming, before each simulated shot. If the interval between each shot was increased to five seconds (10 seconds total) aiming became quite easy." Lattimer failed to explain that he was firing at stationary targets, and that tracking or leading a moving target would be more difficult, and take more time. But I digress...

# Lattimer then said something quite interesting. He noted: "It was found necessary not only to push the bolt vigorously forward but to pull it vigorously back, each time, with more force than is usually required with bolt-action rifles. Facility with these motions was acquired with many, many workings of the action over a period of two weeks of both simulated and actual firing. It became obvious to us that the ability to fire this rapidly and dexterously required a prolonged period of practice." Lattimer goes on to speculate that Oswald's failed attempt on General Walker "might have persuaded him to sharpen his skill at rapid fire (as he did all too well) by further practice, before November 22..." Well, I'll be. Lattimer's belief Oswald fired the shots is related to his belief Oswald had extensive practice with his rifle...something both the FBI and Warren Commission specifically ruled out!

# Lattimer then drove this point home: "The prolonged period of practice and familiarization was found to be essential for the achievement of any kind of accuracy during rapid firing of this rifle. In general, we were surprised and interested to observe how effectively proficiency with this rifle could be acquired, if plenty of time was allowed." Well this suggests as well that a prolonged period of defamiliarization with this rifle would lead to a degeneration of one's skills, does it not? The Warren Commission found no evidence that Oswald had even touched, let alone fired, his rifle for at least six weeks prior to the shooting. They found no evidence he'd ever used it to fire on a moving target. They found no cleaning equipment or spare ammunition among his possessions. This should make us suspect that, if one man fired all the shots on Kennedy, he was either a much better shot than Oswald was presumed to have been in 1963, or had been practicing with Oswald's rifle for some time prior to 11-22.

P.S. You still haven't explained where you got that the rifle was zeroed in at 400 yards. Is this just your guess? If so, can you explain why a rifle used in an assassination attempt from a distance of less than 100 yards would be zeroed in for 400 yards, which would make shots fired at the head of the target sail significantly high?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Now another issue to address is the instability of the rifle and scope. This did not exist on 11/27/63 when the rifle was tested. This is very clear by the groups that were shot at 15 yards.

This is a photo of 6 rounds fired on 11/27/63 by Cunningham and Frazier.

ce548-1.jpg

Here is Killions 11/27/63 target also very consistent.

ce549.jpg

There is no instability of the rifle on 11/27/63.

There was no sign of instability until March of '64.

Now a word about alignment.

If we look at the above 15 yard targets we notice that both targets have very tight shot groups. We also notice that the Frazier Cunningham target is a bit different than the Killion target. There is good reason for that. They shoot a different "zero". Or to be more precise Cunningham and Frazier shoot nearly the same zero, but this zero is not Killions zero.

When using a scope the way that we look through that scope, and mount the rifle becomes a critical part of how we sight the rifle in. We set it up, for ourselves. Each person mounts a rifle a bit differently and has a bit different sight picture.

Clearly Frazier and Cunningham are close, but Killion is not. Its obvious that Killion is not a poor shot, look at his group pattern, very consistent. However he shoots about 2" lower than Frazier and Cunningham. This is not because he is a poor shot, its because he shoots a different zero.

For anyone to say that there was an alignment issue on 11/27/63, is misleading. WE can say the set up was stable, based on the groups they shot. But there is no way we can say it was misaligned.

Now I note in your post above that you claim " He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing."

This is in reference to Simmons testimony about the shims, and is clearly false. There is no evidence what so ever that the scope was misaligned on 11/27. Now it is correct that this could not have been caused by a Dallas Policeman, because the damage did not exist when the rifle was in Dallas custody, it occured between 11/27 and 3/64. Also noted is that in 3/64 the FBI noted the scope was loose as well.

I also notice you tossed in the "fear of breaking the firing pin" line. Common fair with the CT crowd, but again, it is only an inexperienced person, unfamiliar with firearms that would make such an assumption. The reason is simple, as any competant gunsmith will tell you you NEVER dry fire a center fire rifle. Why? Because you risk breaking the firing pin. New, old, it does not matter this is a huge no no. It is also common knowledge among those that know firearms.

The recreation tests.

Can you offer me one example of a recreation that was done as it should have been? I have been unable to find one. Fact is Oswald missed the first 2 shots, clearly. It was only after the Limo slowed that he was able to connect properly. Was Oswald an expert rifleman. No. But then again he did not have to be. Hell he only connected properly one in three shots.

Howard Donahue was the only man I have heard of that accomplished the shooting event. However, there are two things and two things only to consider.

1) Does the shooter have a clear line of sight? Most every theory contends that yes he does.

2) Can the Carcano be fired 3 times in 6 seconds. Of course it can.

Ability on anyone's scale is pure speculation.

I am currently working on a series of articles that deal with many of these issues. If for no other purpose than to put all this garbage about how awful the Carcano was to rest.

There is much I have yet to learn about the assassination. However the firearms aspect is one I am very well versed in, and wish that many others were as well, so that they could at least evaluate the evidence properly. We are researching a shooting event after all.

Mike

Sorry, I didn't read this before responding to your other post.

So...you are acknowledging that the damage done to the scope between November and March, requiring it to be fired 5-6 times before reaching alignment, is something for which you have no evidence. You don't want to believe the scope was damaged before 11-27, and so you conjure up an imaginary incident whereby the scope was damaged afterward, and then simply claim it happened. I must say I'm disappointed. This is a typical LN approach to the evidence. I suspect you've been spending too much time on the McAdams website, or reading Bugliosi. Next thing you know you'll be saying that the SBT must be true because...we all know Oswald did it and it's the only way he could have acted alone!

Beware the slippery slope, my friend.

As far as the targets, when you make the argument that Oswald really only hit one target, because he really only hit the head once, you shoot yourself in the foot. As shown by the Army's targets, NONE of the shots rapid-fired by the Army's shooters using Oswald's rifle hit as close to the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The CBS re-enactment had a similar problem. While they REPORTED that several of the shooters, including Donahue, re-created, or improved upon, Oswald's purported feat, they did not show us the bulk of the targets hit by these men. For all we know, many of the "hits" were to the shoulders or arms of the silhouettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that the film of the carcano being held aloft carried down a corridor on the day can help resolve this.

There is one frame that is overexposed as the camera films within the scopes projecting the light in the corridor to the camera. This frame and the preceding one and the one following may be enough to recreate the alignment as it was then. (fwiw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I deal with all this on my website and show all the targets. I matched the bullet hole size on the targets fired from 15 yards and the one fired from 25 yards. This demonstrated that the shots fired from 25 yards were off target to the degree expected if the rifle was off 4 inches at 15 yards, as found in the first series of tests. In other words, the rifle was consistently high and to the right. Just as Frazier testified...

Pat,

Of course the rifle should be high and right at 15 and 25 yards, unless of course it was zeroed for 15 and 25 yards. If the rifle was zeroed for any range further than that the bullets would be passing the target on the rise of the trajectory arch. So, having targets that show high and right at 15 and 25 yards is not an indication that the scope was misaligned.

www.jfkballistics.com/trajectoryexplained.html

As far as your assertion that the scope "certainly" did not need 5-6 shots to re-align on 11-27, I suspect this is not based on any evidence, but is simply something you'd like to believe. Do you have evidence suggesting the rifle was damaged between the FBI's first tests in November and its subsequent tests in March? If so, when did this happen and who was responsible? You seem unable to acknowledge there were problems with the rifle. If the rifle and scope were fine, as you seem to think, how do you explain the Army's finding it necessary to add shims? Are you aware that others firing the scope/rifle combo also found that the two could not be brought into alignment without shims?

The assertion that the rifle did not need 5-6 shots to realign is most certainly based on evidence. Look at the targets they shot.

ce548-1.jpg

ce549.jpg

Do you see those groups? That in itself shows that the rifle was very stable on 11/27. It also shows us that the target was hitting high by 4" roughly which is to be expected at such a short range, given the fact that trajectory creates an arc. You are right I am unable to acknowledge that there was an issue with the rifle on 11/27, because there were no issues that I have been able to find.

Obviously the Army found the need to add shims, because at some point after 11/27 the rifle was damaged. This is brutally clear. Who did it, and when is really beside the point, interesting, but beside the point. The evidence shows this to be the case. How else would you explain it?

P.S. You still haven't explained where you got that the rifle was zeroed in at 400 yards. Is this just your guess? If so, can you explain why a rifle used in an assassination attempt from a distance of less than 100 yards would be zeroed in for 400 yards, which would make shots fired at the head of the target sail significantly high?

I base the 400 yard zero on a common principle. Ballistic trajectory. If we have the defined weight, average velocity, and ballistic coefficient of a bullet we can determine the trajectory arc. The BC is a value based on the surface area and nose shape of the bullet. This number determines in numeric value how much drag a bullet would have. Once these values are known, they can be calculated, with a ballistic calculator, to determine the exact trajectory of a bullet.

Since we have targets at 15 and 25 yards, we can then determine how much of in increase in elevation we see between the two, this determines the projectiles angle of rise in the ballistic arch. We can match this with the ballistic tables and determine which of the tables shows this type of rise at and between 15 and 25 yards, and we then can know the zero of the weapon.

Now as to WHY someone would zero a weapon for 400 to shoot a target at less than 100. Simply, who knows? That would involve me trying to predict the thoughts of another, and enter into nothing more than pure speculation. Perhaps the thought to commit this crime was impulsive, and there was no time to go zero the weapon for a shorter range. Who really knows. But again it does not matter really. If the person shooting the weapon knew it was set up for 400, then they would know that they had to compensate for that in a shorter shot. Its not really that difficult to do.

In the Marines we do this all the time, and in fact we teach it. Imagine a guy on the battle field having to re-zero for every shot he takes! Of course they would not do that, what they do do is learn to fire at different ranges with one setting, and compensate for the increase/decrease in range.

So...you are acknowledging that the damage done to the scope between November and March, requiring it to be fired 5-6 times before reaching alignment, is something for which you have no evidence. You don't want to believe the scope was damaged before 11-27, and so you conjure up an imaginary incident whereby the scope was damaged afterward, and then simply claim it happened. I must say I'm disappointed. This is a typical LN approach to the evidence. I suspect you've been spending too much time on the McAdams website, or reading Bugliosi. Next thing you know you'll be saying that the SBT must be true because...we all know Oswald did it and it's the only way he could have acted alone!

No Pat there is plenty of evidence, if you really understand what you are looking at. I see no evidence of the scope being damaged before 11/27/63. I have conjured up nothing. You can find these very words in Fraziers testimony:

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.

So Frazier tells us that there were no issues with stabilization on 11/27/63, and that at that time he could not say when it had been introduced as an issue. This is significant in that if the condition had existed prior to 11/27 Frazier would have known that the condition existed prior to them having received the rifle. As for spending to much time on McAdams website, and reading to much Bugliosi, you are making a rather large assumption here. Fact is McAdams has much incorrect about the rifle as well, and Bugliosi is a bit dry for me. I have read some of his writing, but probably retained little.

I base my opinions on what is in the evidence, I certainly don't need anyone to explain that to me, as I know this stuff fairly well. However there are so many misconceptions about the ballistic evidence, and so many people that have made conclusions based on what they consider to be correct, that this is exactly what prompted me to pursue writing a series of articles that address the rifle and its condition point by point. I am nearly finished with the first article which addresses the misconception that the scope was misaligned, and in fact sent a sneak peak to Lee yesterday for a quick look over by him, as I felt he would benefit from that. There is also an article On my website called "trajectory explained" that addresses how a bullet flies and explains how sights effect this flight. Anyone interested in the ballistics should read that as well.

As far as the targets, when you make the argument that Oswald really only hit one target, because he really only hit the head once, you shoot yourself in the foot. As shown by the Army's targets, NONE of the shots rapid-fired by the Army's shooters using Oswald's rifle hit as close to the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The CBS re-enactment had a similar problem. While they REPORTED that several of the shooters, including Donahue, re-created, or improved upon, Oswald's purported feat, they did not show us the bulk of the targets hit by these men. For all we know, many of the "hits" were to the shoulders or arms of the silhouettes.

Again you are now talking about ability, which is speculation. I can however tell you one thing. If you and I headed to the range to fire one of my rifles, I can guarantee you would not be anywhere near as proficient with my rifle as you would one of your own, even if our abilities were exactly the same. There is much to be said for being familiar with your weapon! For one thing, those men were all shooting the same rifle, and not one of them re calibrated it for their own personal use! Remember me telling you about two people shooting a different "zero"? While the CT crowd likes to tel us that there is no evidence of Oswald practicing, I like to remind them that every second of his time is not accounted for, and that lack of evidence should never be considered evidence.

According to the CT crowd, and your post earlier, Oswald only ever fired at one other living target, Walker.

This gives him, in his possession 5 rounds of ammo. Not even one full clip. However 6.5mm ammunition was sold in 20 ct boxes, with no clips, and in 18 count packages with 3 clips and 6 rounds in each clip. So are we to think that Oswald found a gun shop that sold individual cartridges? I myself have never seen that. So what did he do with the other rounds, because as you pointed out, there is no extra rounds found? Additionally, I have to ask, would you have entered into this with only a partially loaded clip? I bet you would not, and I myself sure would not. This to me is yet another indication of the impulsive nature of the act. Perhaps he had no time to acquire more ammo, and perhaps this was a last minute decision, made the night before? All speculation of course, but as I like to call it logical speculation.

By the way, the King Mackerel are biting come on down!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I deal with all this on my website and show all the targets. I matched the bullet hole size on the targets fired from 15 yards and the one fired from 25 yards. This demonstrated that the shots fired from 25 yards were off target to the degree expected if the rifle was off 4 inches at 15 yards, as found in the first series of tests. In other words, the rifle was consistently high and to the right. Just as Frazier testified...

Pat,

Of course the rifle should be high and right at 15 and 25 yards, unless of course it was zeroed for 15 and 25 yards. If the rifle was zeroed for any range further than that the bullets would be passing the target on the rise of the trajectory arch. So, having targets that show high and right at 15 and 25 yards is not an indication that the scope was misaligned.

www.jfkballistics.com/trajectoryexplained.html

As far as your assertion that the scope "certainly" did not need 5-6 shots to re-align on 11-27, I suspect this is not based on any evidence, but is simply something you'd like to believe. Do you have evidence suggesting the rifle was damaged between the FBI's first tests in November and its subsequent tests in March? If so, when did this happen and who was responsible? You seem unable to acknowledge there were problems with the rifle. If the rifle and scope were fine, as you seem to think, how do you explain the Army's finding it necessary to add shims? Are you aware that others firing the scope/rifle combo also found that the two could not be brought into alignment without shims?

The assertion that the rifle did not need 5-6 shots to realign is most certainly based on evidence. Look at the targets they shot.

ce548-1.jpg

ce549.jpg

Do you see those groups? That in itself shows that the rifle was very stable on 11/27. It also shows us that the target was hitting high by 4" roughly which is to be expected at such a short range, given the fact that trajectory creates an arc. You are right I am unable to acknowledge that there was an issue with the rifle on 11/27, because there were no issues that I have been able to find.

Obviously the Army found the need to add shims, because at some point after 11/27 the rifle was damaged. This is brutally clear. Who did it, and when is really beside the point, interesting, but beside the point. The evidence shows this to be the case. How else would you explain it?

P.S. You still haven't explained where you got that the rifle was zeroed in at 400 yards. Is this just your guess? If so, can you explain why a rifle used in an assassination attempt from a distance of less than 100 yards would be zeroed in for 400 yards, which would make shots fired at the head of the target sail significantly high?

I base the 400 yard zero on a common principle. Ballistic trajectory. If we have the defined weight, average velocity, and ballistic coefficient of a bullet we can determine the trajectory arc. The BC is a value based on the surface area and nose shape of the bullet. This number determines in numeric value how much drag a bullet would have. Once these values are known, they can be calculated, with a ballistic calculator, to determine the exact trajectory of a bullet.

Since we have targets at 15 and 25 yards, we can then determine how much of in increase in elevation we see between the two, this determines the projectiles angle of rise in the ballistic arch. We can match this with the ballistic tables and determine which of the tables shows this type of rise at and between 15 and 25 yards, and we then can know the zero of the weapon.

Now as to WHY someone would zero a weapon for 400 to shoot a target at less than 100. Simply, who knows? That would involve me trying to predict the thoughts of another, and enter into nothing more than pure speculation. Perhaps the thought to commit this crime was impulsive, and there was no time to go zero the weapon for a shorter range. Who really knows. But again it does not matter really. If the person shooting the weapon knew it was set up for 400, then they would know that they had to compensate for that in a shorter shot. Its not really that difficult to do.

In the Marines we do this all the time, and in fact we teach it. Imagine a guy on the battle field having to re-zero for every shot he takes! Of course they would not do that, what they do do is learn to fire at different ranges with one setting, and compensate for the increase/decrease in range.

So...you are acknowledging that the damage done to the scope between November and March, requiring it to be fired 5-6 times before reaching alignment, is something for which you have no evidence. You don't want to believe the scope was damaged before 11-27, and so you conjure up an imaginary incident whereby the scope was damaged afterward, and then simply claim it happened. I must say I'm disappointed. This is a typical LN approach to the evidence. I suspect you've been spending too much time on the McAdams website, or reading Bugliosi. Next thing you know you'll be saying that the SBT must be true because...we all know Oswald did it and it's the only way he could have acted alone!

No Pat there is plenty of evidence, if you really understand what you are looking at. I see no evidence of the scope being damaged before 11/27/63. I have conjured up nothing. You can find these very words in Fraziers testimony:

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.

So Frazier tells us that there were no issues with stabilization on 11/27/63, and that at that time he could not say when it had been introduced as an issue. This is significant in that if the condition had existed prior to 11/27 Frazier would have known that the condition existed prior to them having received the rifle. As for spending to much time on McAdams website, and reading to much Bugliosi, you are making a rather large assumption here. Fact is McAdams has much incorrect about the rifle as well, and Bugliosi is a bit dry for me. I have read some of his writing, but probably retained little.

I base my opinions on what is in the evidence, I certainly don't need anyone to explain that to me, as I know this stuff fairly well. However there are so many misconceptions about the ballistic evidence, and so many people that have made conclusions based on what they consider to be correct, that this is exactly what prompted me to pursue writing a series of articles that address the rifle and its condition point by point. I am nearly finished with the first article which addresses the misconception that the scope was misaligned, and in fact sent a sneak peak to Lee yesterday for a quick look over by him, as I felt he would benefit from that. There is also an article On my website called "trajectory explained" that addresses how a bullet flies and explains how sights effect this flight. Anyone interested in the ballistics should read that as well.

As far as the targets, when you make the argument that Oswald really only hit one target, because he really only hit the head once, you shoot yourself in the foot. As shown by the Army's targets, NONE of the shots rapid-fired by the Army's shooters using Oswald's rifle hit as close to the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The CBS re-enactment had a similar problem. While they REPORTED that several of the shooters, including Donahue, re-created, or improved upon, Oswald's purported feat, they did not show us the bulk of the targets hit by these men. For all we know, many of the "hits" were to the shoulders or arms of the silhouettes.

Again you are now talking about ability, which is speculation. I can however tell you one thing. If you and I headed to the range to fire one of my rifles, I can guarantee you would not be anywhere near as proficient with my rifle as you would one of your own, even if our abilities were exactly the same. There is much to be said for being familiar with your weapon! For one thing, those men were all shooting the same rifle, and not one of them re calibrated it for their own personal use! Remember me telling you about two people shooting a different "zero"? While the CT crowd likes to tel us that there is no evidence of Oswald practicing, I like to remind them that every second of his time is not accounted for, and that lack of evidence should never be considered evidence.

According to the CT crowd, and your post earlier, Oswald only ever fired at one other living target, Walker.

This gives him, in his possession 5 rounds of ammo. Not even one full clip. However 6.5mm ammunition was sold in 20 ct boxes, with no clips, and in 18 count packages with 3 clips and 6 rounds in each clip. So are we to think that Oswald found a gun shop that sold individual cartridges? I myself have never seen that. So what did he do with the other rounds, because as you pointed out, there is no extra rounds found? Additionally, I have to ask, would you have entered into this with only a partially loaded clip? I bet you would not, and I myself sure would not. This to me is yet another indication of the impulsive nature of the act. Perhaps he had no time to acquire more ammo, and perhaps this was a last minute decision, made the night before? All speculation of course, but as I like to call it logical speculation.

By the way, the King Mackerel are biting come on down!

Mike

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards. It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed. I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

You keep pointing to the stability of the rifle in the early tests as evidence the problem with the scope did not exist at that time. That is precisely the point. It didn't exist because the rifle had not been re-adjusted, manually or accidentally, since it was last fired. This is what Frazier suggested, not me. But rather than accept his testimony that 1) the scope was seemingly misaligned during the shooting, 2) the FBI tried to align the scope, but found it impossible, and 3) Simmons' testimony that the Army also couldn't align the scope, and had to use shims, and 4) Lattimer's assertion that he bought four M/C rifles and scopes, and found that he also needed shims to align these rifles and scopes, you are choosing to pretend some accident occurred in which the scope got damaged...AFTER it came into the FBI's possession. You have no evidence for this accident. You simply choose to believe it occurred rather than what's suggested by the record--that the scope was not properly aligned with the rifle on 11-22.

If your articles on ballistics push such a thing they are seriously misleading their readers, IMO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards.

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help.

impactpoints-1.jpg

In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly.

Now the Carcano Chart.

400zero.gif

Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range).

This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range)

Those trajectories match.

It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed.

You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course.

I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...