Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple

[Mike Williams]

Guys,

I have not forgotten this thread, I have a hectic schedule the last few, and next few days.

David,

I promise you well thought out replies, but my boy turns 10 and today is the big party. My ballistics training and trajectory analysis is confined to the laser tag arena for today!

I have to show these runts whos boss LOL.

Hope you are well my friends, and I will address as soon as I am able!

Mike

[J. Raymond Carroll]

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts...

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence:

In order to get control rounds for use in ballistics comparison tests Special Agent Frazier test-fired two bullets from Oswald’s rifle (3:437). Although Frazier indicates only that he test-fired the rifle to get these rounds, it is standard ballistics practice to obtain such rounds by firing into a long tube of cotton waste. When we look at the two bullets so produced (Commission Exhibit 572; 17:258), we find they appear to be virtually identical with 399. Although the Commission appears not to have realized it, a test had been performed which indicated quite clearly that 399 was a plant, that its most likely source was the test-firing of Oswald’s gun into cotton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/

THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet.

Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder.

THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science.

SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence.

[Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted

The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it

Edited February 26, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mike Williams]

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts...

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence:

In order to get control rounds for use in ballistics comparison tests Special Agent Frazier test-fired two bullets from Oswald’s rifle (3:437). Although Frazier indicates only that he test-fired the rifle to get these rounds, it is standard ballistics practice to obtain such rounds by firing into a long tube of cotton waste. When we look at the two bullets so produced (Commission Exhibit 572; 17:258), we find they appear to be virtually identical with 399. Although the Commission appears not to have realized it, a test had been performed which indicated quite clearly that 399 was a plant, that its most likely source was the test-firing of Oswald’s gun into cotton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/

THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet.

Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder.

THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science.

SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence.

[Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted

The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it

Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh.

It is purely an ignorant statement.

There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination.

You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now.

[David Josephs]

Thanks Ray...

You do know that Tom alos believes CE399 a plant, or at least not the bullet that hit either man.. at least that's my understanding of his position.

Now if we can just get Tom to acknowledge the fact about the scope, the reassembly process and what I understand to be the process of re-sighting the scope.

Sighting-in a Rifle Scope

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/traditional-methods/rifle-scope4.htm

The process of aligning a scope­ is called sighting-in. It takes time and patience to sight-in a scope properly. But all that time and effort will pay off when you can fire at a target and have confidence that your shot will be true.

Tom - could you explain the difference between sighting a hunting rifle as opposed to the MC if there is one

http://www.chuckhawks.com/sight-in_rifle.htm

How to Sight-In a Hunting Rifle

By Chuck Hawks

After you have firmly mounted a scope on your rifle and focused it to your eye, bore sight the rifle. Use a bore collimator or do it the old fashioned way, but get it done before you fire the first shot from your rifle. See my article "How to Bore Sight A Rifle" for further details.

I am assuming a telescopic sight because this article is about sighting-in a hunting rifle and all game animals, small or large, deserve your best shot, which cannot be delivered with iron sights. In any case, the iron sights typically supplied with new factory made rifles are so crude that you would probably spend more money on ammunition attempting to sight them in than you would on an economical scope. If you are reading this article in hopes of learning how to hammer the factory rear sight to and fro in its dovetail slot to adjust for windage, you are going to be disappointed.

Once your scoped rifle has been bore sighted for 100 yards it is time to go to the rifle range, which should offer at least 25 yard and 100 yard (or 100 meter) firing positions. If your local range doesn't, find one that does or head for the hills with your portable shooting bench and measure the required ranges as accurately as possible.

Start at the 25 yard position. Put up a large paper target. I usually use an NRA 100 yard small bore rifle target, which has a large black bulls-eye. Get really comfortable on the shooting bench, so that none of your muscles are cramped or in tension. Bring a pillow or a folded-up blanket to sit on (as required) to get your head and shoulders at a comfortable height at the bench rest.

When you are seated and comfortable, position one or more sandbags on the table so that you can comfortably rest the forearm of your rifle (or the hand holding the forearm of your rifle) on them. If you don't have real sandbags, an 8-10 pound bag (or two) of kitty litter works well. (I duct tape the ends of "Jonny Cat" brand bags of kitty litter and they last for many trips to the range.) I cover the Jonny Cat bag(s) with an old blanket for comfort, and to protect them. A commercial rifle rest (I have heard that Outers makes a good one) is probably better than sandbags, but sandbags (or kitty litter) are cheaper. Never rest any part of a rifle, and particularly the barrel, on a hard surface. On recoil the rifle will jump away from a hard surface, giving you a false point of impact.

Because I will be holding the forearm of my rifle in my hand in the field, I do the same at the range. I rest my hand over the sandbag and grip the forearm of my rifle in my hand, just as I would in the field. Try to hold the rifle as firmly as you would in the field. Changing the way you hold a rifle will change its point of impact, so I try to hold my rifle at the range as much as possible as I will be holding it in the field.

Remember that you are sighting-in a hunting rifle. You could probably get somewhat smaller groups by minimizing all human contact with the rifle, especially by letting the sandbags or rifle rest entirely support the forearm. Small groups are desirable, but in this case getting the point of impact correct is even more important. You can always shoot for the smallest possible group size later.

Anyway, by now you should be in a steady position at the shooting bench with the rifle pointed at the 25 yard target. If you are using a variable power scope, set it to the highest practical power. In other words, the highest power that delivers a sharp, clear image. This may not be the maximum power. Many scopes look better slightly below their maximum magnification. For example, the view through a 3-9x scope may look better at 7x or 8x than it does at 9x.

Now load one round into the chamber and prepare to shoot. Put the crosshairs directly on the center of that big, black bull. Before you shoot, close your eyes for 10 seconds and then open them. Did the crosshair drift off the center of the target while your shooting eye was closed? If it did it means that your muscles are under tension trying to keep the rifle on target. Shift your position slightly until you can close your eyes and find that the rifle is still aimed directly at the point of aim when you open them. Now your muscles are properly relaxed and you are in a position to do your best shooting. Go through this little routine before you fire every shot.

Carefully fire one round. Call the shot. If the crosshair was on the center of the target when the gun fired, you don't need to shoot again. If it wasn't, mark that hole as a flyer and shoot again. Get a perfect surprise break.

Okay, examine the target and find the bullet hole. You can probably see it through your rifle scope, and certainly through your spotting scope. (You did bring a spotting scope, didn't you?) Even though you bore sighted your rifle the bullet hole is probably not going to be in the center of the target at 25 yards, but at least it should be somewhere on the paper. Measure (or at least accurately estimate) its distance from the "X" in the center of the bull. Let's say, for example, that single perfect shot hit 3 inches high and 2 inches to the left of the center of the target.

Adjust your scope the number of clicks or increments required to move the point of impact to the center of the target. For example, let's say the instructions that came with your scope advise that each click moves the point of impact 1/4 MOA, which is 1/4 inch at 100 yards. Fine, but since we are shooting at only 25 yards, we will need to multiply the number of clicks by 4.

To move the point of impact down the required 3" at 100 yards would require 12 clicks (four clicks per inch). At 25 yards, remember, we will have to multiply the number of clicks by 4, so turn the elevation adjustment in the down direction 48 clicks (12 x 4 = 48). It is a good idea to go a little past the new setting and then come back whenever adjusting a scope. I'd turn, say, 50 clicks and then come back 2 clicks for a total of 48 clicks down. This helps settle the adjustments of many scopes. I also tap the adjustment dials after setting them, for the same reason.

Now adjust the windage. You need to move the point of impact 2 inches to the right, which at 100 yards would require 8 clicks. At 25 yards that means 32 clicks (8 x 4 = 32). Turn the windage adjustment a total of 32 clicks to the right (usually marked "R" on most scopes).

Okay, now get back into that comfortable position and fire one more perfect shot at the 25 yard target. Ideally, if the scope's adjustments are accurate, it should hit inside the "10-ring" of a 100 yard small bore rifle target. If it does, your preliminary 25 yard sighting is close enough. No need to waste ammunition getting it perfect. You will do that at 100 yards.

If the second shot is not within an inch of the center of the target, you will have to adjust the scope again. By the third or fourth shot and adjustment of the scope the bullet should be landing inside of the 10-ring. If it isn't, something may be wrong. Check the scope mount screws for tightness. They must allow absolutely no movement of the scope under recoil.

Let's assume that your rifle is now hitting within an inch or less of the point of aim at 25 yards. Great, now it will at least be on the paper at 100 yards. Hopefully, it has only taken 2 or 3 shots to achieve this. The rifle's barrel is probably not too hot, your shoulder is still in good shape, and you haven't wasted a lot of ammunition.

Now put up a 100 yard target. You can use the 100 yard small bore rifle target, but I prefer the Outers "Score Keeper" target. It has a central bull's-eye and 4 smaller bulls, one in each corner (which I ignore). Best of all, it is overlaid with 1 inch grid lines, making it easy to see how far your bullet holes are from the point of aim using only your spotting scope--no need to measure. This saves a lot of steps when shooting at 100 yards.

Wait until your rifle barrel has cooled to the ambient temperature (keep it out of the sun), and then get back into your comfortable bench rest shooting position. Remember to close your eyes before you shoot to check for a perfect, tension free hold. This time you will fire 3 shots, slowly and very carefully, at the exact center of the 100 yard target. Take your time and make each shot a perfect surprise break. Call your shots and check each one through your spotting scope. That way, if you call a flyer, you will know which bullet hole to disregard. Re-shoot any flyers so that you have 3 good shots on the target.

Now estimate the center point of impact for the three bullet holes. If you have an accurate rifle and shot it well, they should be within about a 3 inch (or smaller) circle somewhere on the 100 yard target, so this should not be too difficult.

Now is the time to use what you learned by studying the "Expanded Rifle Trajectory Table" on the Tables, Charts and Lists Page. If you did your home work before leaving for the range you should know where you want your bullets to hit at 100 yards to take full advantage of your rifle's maximum point blank range (MPBR).

For many typical long range rifle calibers, such as the .243 Winchester with a 95 grain bullet, 6mm Remington with a 100 grain bullet, .25-06 with 100-125 grain bullets, .270 Winchester with 130-140 grain bullets, 7mm Magnum with 140-160 grain bullets, .300 Magnum with 165-180 grain bullets, or .338 Magnum with a 200 grain bullet, the rifle should be sighted to put the point of impact approximately 2.5 inches above the point of aim at 100 yards. In other words, you should aim exactly at the center of the bulls-eye and the bullets should land about 2.5 inches directly above the center of the bulls-eye. Get it? That maximizes the point blank range of your rifle, eliminating the need to hold over any big game animal from the muzzle out to a distance of about 300 yards (or more) with the cartridges and loads mentioned above. Check the Rifle Trajectory Table for the exact 100 yard point of impact and MPBR for your cartridge and load.

If you are sighting-in a medium range rifle like a .30-30 with 150-170 grain bullets, .300 Savage with 165-180 grain bullets, .30-06 with a 220 grain bullet, .32 Winchester Special with a 170 grain bullet, .338-57 O'Connor with 200-225 grain bullets, .35 Remington with a 200 grain bullet, .358 Winchester with a 200 grain bullet, .416 Rigby with a 400 grain bullet, .444 Marlin with 240-300 grain bullets, or .450 Marlin with a 350 grain bullet, you will want your bullets to hit about 3 inches high with a center hold at 100 yards. This will give you a MPBR of about 200-250 yards, depending on the individual caliber and load. Once again, you will aim at the center of the bull's eye, and adjust the actual point of the bullet's impact to be about 3 inches directly above your point of aim.

Let's say, for example, that your are sighting-in a .270 Winchester rifle using a load that drives a 130 grain bullet at a MV of 3100 fps, and your first 100 yard 3-shot group landed in a 2 inch circle centered 3.5 inches above the center of the target and 1.5 inches to the right. With that load you want the bullets to hit exactly 2.5" above the point of aim (the center of the bull's-eye) at 100 yards, so you need to move the point of impact 1 inch down and 1.5 inches to the left.

For serious sighting-in it is best to adjust the scope in only one direction at a time. Scope adjustments frequently interact with each other (they should not, but in the real world they may); so by changing only one at a time the effect is minimized. Move the elevation adjustment 4 clicks in the "down" direction. That should be 1 inch at 100 yards for the scope in our example.

Now shoot another careful 3-shot group, making sure that the barrel has time to cool between shots. Take your time and do it right. Did the center of the group move so that it is now 2.5 inches over the point of aim? If it did, good enough; if not, you will have to make another elevation adjustment and shoot another 3-shot group. This is where a good scope with precise adjustments really justifies its higher price.

Once the elevation is correct and the center of your group is the necessary 2.5" above the point of aim, go on to the windage adjustment. The rifle in our example is hitting 1.5 inches to the right, so we need to move the center of the group 1.5 inches, or 6 clicks, to the left. Go ahead and make the required adjustment. After the barrel has again cooled to the ambient temperature, fire three more careful shots, always holding on the exact center of the bull's-eye. If all went well, the rifle should now be putting its bullets 2.5 inches directly over the center of the bulls-eye, the point of aim.

If you have the extra ammunition, shoot a final 5-shot group to insure that everything is as it should be. Congratulations, your rifle is now correctly sighted-in.

If all went well you have probably used about a box of cartridges to sight-in your rifle. That's not too bad. I'd stop at the end of that first box and either shoot something else or call it a day and go have a cup of coffee. (Never drink coffee before a range session as it will increase the size of your groups, guaranteed.) You deserve it!

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.sightin.html

This method of rifle sight in is universal for any rifle type, sighting system, caliber and or cartridge. I will explain why at each step of the rifle sighting in process.

1. At exactly 50 yards put up a target that you can clearly see with your sight system.

a. For a air-rifle of reasonable power, 50 yards will most likely be the furthest maximum point blank range in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes.

b. For a rimfire rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the true zero point in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes.

c. For a muzzleloading rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the mid range rise in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes.

d. For a centerfire rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the point blank range in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes.

2. Now with your rifle properly rested on a rifle rest on top of a solid shooting bench, slowly and methodically fire three precise rounds.

3. Make an exact measurement from the center of your group to the center of your target make your windage adjustment accordingly, if you need to go left or right and you have windage adjustable scope bases, use the windage screws on the base, not the scope, rule of thumb for windage adjustment, if your bullet impact is to the left side of target loosen the right rear windage screw on the base and tighten the windage screw on the left rear side of the base.

4. Fire three more rounds to confirm your setting, if all is well and you have centered your group move on to step 5. If you are not satisfied with the accuracy of your ammunition at this point go no further until you have the ammunition you are happy with.

5. Depending on your rifle scope this is all you will be able to accurately do for this range outing, there are a lot of rifle scopes that do not like windage and elevation adjustments all at the same time. Any attempt to keep shooting with one of these scopes will only waste ammo and aggravate you to the point of despair.

6. Establishing a reference zero.

a. Low powered air-rifles and small .22 rimfires, at exactly 50 yards zero your rifle.

b. More powerful rimfires move out to exactly 75 yards and zero your rifle.

c. 30/30 trajectory class centerfire rifles and muzzleloading rifles move out to exactly 100 yards and zero your rifle.

d. High powered rifles move out to 100 yards and make sure your rifle is still center and a little high and then move on out to 200 yards and zero your rifle.

7. Trajectory plotting your rifle and ammunition combination for proper sight in.

Class a and b rifles take your target and move it closer to you, firing 3 shot groups in 10 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group.

Class c and d rifles take your target and move it closer to you, firing 3 shot groups in 25 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group.

a. Continue moving the target closer to you until one group of shots emerges as the highest, this is confirmed when the next target move closer to you the grouping is lower.

b. Congratulations riflemen at this point of the rifle sighting in procedure you have now established a true zero point and more importantly you have found the mid-range rise for your rifle, scope mounting, and ammunition selection.

c. Now measure the center of your highest group on your target to your zero point, this is your true mid-range rise.

d. Is this acceptable, or does it need to be adjusted for more or less rise.

d. part 1. If the mid-range rise is to much, class a & b rifles move your target 10 yards closer, class c & d rifles move your target 25 yards closer to you from your original zero yardage and re-zero your rifle. Then repeat step 7 of the rifle sight-in procedure again.

d. part 2. If the mid-range rise is not enough, class a & b rifles move your target 10 yards further, class c & d rifles move your target 25 yards further from your original zero yardage and re-zero your rifle. Then repeat step 7 of the rifle sight-in procedure again.

Note: Repeat this procedure till you have exactly what you want.

8. Establishing your rifles maximum point blank range.

Now that you have established your mid-range rise and your true zero, it's time for the final step in properly sighting in your rifle (M.P.B.R.).

Class a and b rifles take your target and move it from your true zero point further from you, firing 3 shot groups in 10 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group.

Class c and d rifles take your target and move it from your true zero point further from you, firing 3 shot groups in 25 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group.

a. Continue moving the target further from you until one group of shots emerges as the same distance low as your mid-range high.

Note: Example 2" high, 2" low.

b. Congratulations riflemen at this point of the rifle sighting in procedure you have now established a true zero point, you have found the mid-range rise and you have found your true maximum point blank range for your rifle, scope mounting, and ammunition selection.

Your Rifle Is Now Properly Sighted-In.

Okay Tom, your turn - are these people wrong? If thery're not... when did Oswald have the time to do this after reassembling his rifle?

Thanks

DJ

[David Josephs]

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts...

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence:

In order to get control rounds for use in ballistics comparison tests Special Agent Frazier test-fired two bullets from Oswald’s rifle (3:437). Although Frazier indicates only that he test-fired the rifle to get these rounds, it is standard ballistics practice to obtain such rounds by firing into a long tube of cotton waste. When we look at the two bullets so produced (Commission Exhibit 572; 17:258), we find they appear to be virtually identical with 399. Although the Commission appears not to have realized it, a test had been performed which indicated quite clearly that 399 was a plant, that its most likely source was the test-firing of Oswald’s gun into cotton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/

THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet.

Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder.

THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science.

SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence.

[Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted

The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it

Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh.

It is purely an ignorant statement.

There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination.

You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now.

Mike - not proving the condition of the scope and it's alignment isn't the point....

As a shooter yourself... if you dissassemble a rifle, reassemble it with the scope on it... would you feel confident that the scope you were looking thru was ready? Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that scope was aligned to Oswald the marksmans needs after the reassembly?

How would he know without firing a shot (please remember Mike that we have to take the word of the WCR... all he did was go to the garage, dissasseble the rifle, stuff in the bag Frasier sees and bring it to work... Hide it for the morning... and at the approriate time to be in position to fire the shots he as reassemblied the rifle and looks thru the scope for the first time that day - without firing a shot.)

I prefer we stay focused on what needed to happen for Oswald to have been the successful LN you claim.... instead of the condition of the scope alignment... which if you remember COULD NOT BE SIGHTED CORRECTLY WITHOUT SHIMS.... what would have to occur to allow Oswald to use the rifel and scope to its utmost efficiency...

I mean please remember... two out of three hits on a moving target... with perfect accuracy... are you saying he just got lucky and that luck was his plan - for we know he did not behave like a trained marksman in his preparation.

I want to understand Mike... as you know. A man dedicated to killing the president with a scoped rifle has to have his own plan to set in motion, no? If you can walk us thru this plan, and if it makes sense, I am more than willing to learn.

DJ

[Pat Speer]

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts...

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence:

In order to get control rounds for use in ballistics comparison tests Special Agent Frazier test-fired two bullets from Oswald’s rifle (3:437). Although Frazier indicates only that he test-fired the rifle to get these rounds, it is standard ballistics practice to obtain such rounds by firing into a long tube of cotton waste. When we look at the two bullets so produced (Commission Exhibit 572; 17:258), we find they appear to be virtually identical with 399. Although the Commission appears not to have realized it, a test had been performed which indicated quite clearly that 399 was a plant, that its most likely source was the test-firing of Oswald’s gun into cotton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/

THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet.

Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder.

THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science.

SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence.

[Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted

The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it

Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh.

It is purely an ignorant statement.

There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination.

You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now.

Oh please, Mike! We've been through this before, and your "There is no way to prove" line is gibberish!

It was the FBI's Frazier who said that the rifle, when first fired, fired high and to the right.

It was Frazier as well who said that it CONSISTENTLY fired high and to the right.

It was Frazier as well who said that, when they decided to sight-in the scope, they found it took five or six shots to get the rifle to fire consistently, and that they could not get it properly sighted-in, even at its maximum adjustment.

Thus, his testimony is that, as far as the FBI was concerned, the scope was misaligned at the time of the shooting (provided, of course, that the DPD did not LIE when they claimed they did not fire the rifle in Dallas).

Frazier's testimony, moreover, is backed up by the testimony of the Army's Simmons, who claimed the scope could not be sighted in properly without the use of shims.

Dr. John Lattimer, of all people, confirmed that this problem was not because the scope was defective, but because this particular scope and this particular rifle were a bad fit. As far back as the late sixties, he admitted that, when he bought a few M/C rifles and fitted them with scopes like the one on the assassination rifle, he needed shims to get them to fire accurately.

SO...the record is clear that, UNLESS someone in the DPD fired the rifle multiple times and then LIED about it, the scope was severely misaligned at the time of the shooting, and that, even if this happened, the rifle would still have been improperly sighted-in UNLESS someone in the DPD or FBI removed shims from the rifle and failed to tell anyone about it.

NOW... Do you have evidence anyone in the DPD fired the rifle on 11-22? NO?

Do you have evidence anyone removed shims? NO?

Well, then your "There is no way to prove" line, which relies on the incompetence and/or deception of the DPD to be true, without offering any evidence of such incompetence or deception, has no more weight to it than the worst of conspiracy theories.

"There is no way to prove," after all, that Jack Ruby wasn't escorted into the basement by Roy Vaughn in exchange for a box of donuts. But should we assume it as fact, and mock those who rely on what is indicated by the evidence (that Vaughn never saw Ruby) in favor of our own pet little theory?

The weight of the evidence is the scope was misaligned. If you can't develop or accept a single-assassin scenario in keeping with the weight of the evidence, then you should stop pretending you're following the evidence, and acknowledge instead that you're a single-assassin theorist, more interested in the conclusion Oswald acted alone than the possibility he did not.

There would be no shame in such an admission, IMO. There are certainly plenty of CTs who are more concerned with who other than Oswald killed Kennedy than in the possibility Oswald acted alone.

Rant of the day concluded...LOL

Edited February 26, 2011 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination.

Mr. Williams: I believe this is the first time we have met.

Is that your best response to my post?

I only mentioned the scope as an afterthought.

What about the rest?

You said BRING IT ON, and I DID!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

DUPLICATE

Edited February 27, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mike Williams]

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts...

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence:

In order to get control rounds for use in ballistics comparison tests Special Agent Frazier test-fired two bullets from Oswald’s rifle (3:437). Although Frazier indicates only that he test-fired the rifle to get these rounds, it is standard ballistics practice to obtain such rounds by firing into a long tube of cotton waste. When we look at the two bullets so produced (Commission Exhibit 572; 17:258), we find they appear to be virtually identical with 399. Although the Commission appears not to have realized it, a test had been performed which indicated quite clearly that 399 was a plant, that its most likely source was the test-firing of Oswald’s gun into cotton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/

THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet.

Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder.

THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science.

SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence.

[Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted

The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it

Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh.

It is purely an ignorant statement.

There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination.

You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now.

Mike - not proving the condition of the scope and it's alignment isn't the point....

As a shooter yourself... if you dissassemble a rifle, reassemble it with the scope on it... would you feel confident that the scope you were looking thru was ready? Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that scope was aligned to Oswald the marksmans needs after the reassembly?

How would he know without firing a shot (please remember Mike that we have to take the word of the WCR... all he did was go to the garage, dissasseble the rifle, stuff in the bag Frasier sees and bring it to work... Hide it for the morning... and at the approriate time to be in position to fire the shots he as reassemblied the rifle and looks thru the scope for the first time that day - without firing a shot.)

I prefer we stay focused on what needed to happen for Oswald to have been the successful LN you claim.... instead of the condition of the scope alignment... which if you remember COULD NOT BE SIGHTED CORRECTLY WITHOUT SHIMS.... what would have to occur to allow Oswald to use the rifel and scope to its utmost efficiency...

I mean please remember... two out of three hits on a moving target... with perfect accuracy... are you saying he just got lucky and that luck was his plan - for we know he did not behave like a trained marksman in his preparation.

I want to understand Mike... as you know. A man dedicated to killing the president with a scoped rifle has to have his own plan to set in motion, no? If you can walk us thru this plan, and if it makes sense, I am more than willing to learn.

DJ

David,

So long as Oswald did not remove the scope from the receiver, there should be no issue. He would not have had to remove the scope in order to sack the rifle.

Also, a rifle can be sighted at 100 yards with as few as 4 rounds fired.

Simply fire 3 well aimed rounds, and then adjust based on those measurements.

As an example

shot 1 is 1" high and 1" right

shot 2 is 1.5 high and 1" right

shot 3 is 2" high and 1" right

The average is 1.5" high and 1" right

Adjust the top elevation dial 6 clicks up

Adjust the windage dial 4 clicks left.

Fire 1 round to verify.

That's really all there is to it.

Thing is, I really am not so sure that Oswald cared about that scope at all. He was an efficient, competent, and confident iron sights shooter. He had managed to engage and hit targets out to 500 yards with open sights.

Frazier tells us that the scope was very loose the first time he received it. He believed someone had taken the scope off at the DPD.

One of the most difficult things I defend is the ease of these shots. I can not express enough just how easy these are.

If one is to look at it, the WC makes many mistakes in the ballistics.

They proclaim the easiest shot was the first ones, because the target was closest. This is pure rubbish, and shame on their experts for letting this go.

In the early stages the limo is moving primarily left to right, a passing shot, which is very difficult with a rifle. As the Limo moved further along, the target became nearly moving straight away. Much easier in spit of the slight increase in distance.

Many people will say that if they were so easy, how come few have duplicated them. Well this is an illusive answer. Most of the marksman hit 2 of 3, Oswald hit at least 2 of 3. Few Marksman got a hit on the head. Oswald did happen to, but of the marksman that did not, some were very close. The vast majority of marksman who have tried this actually fired as well as Oswald, and Howard Donahue(sp?) hit it right on the mark.

I can give you my thoughts and my plan, however I have to base it on just what I think Oswald was thinking.

I think this was a spontaneous decision on his part.

I believe this is why he only had 4 rounds of ammo, he simply did not have opportunity to purchase more.

Parts of his plan were brilliant. Waiting till he was firing at their backs, and not into their faces coming up Houston, as an example.

See Oswald was not stupid at all.

He left the pistol at home to actually buy time. I think that he figured he did not want to get caught with a weapon (pistol). He planned on hiding that rifle, and hauling butt. If he got stopped outside the TSBD he was unarmed, and appeared quite inert.

He figured by the time they located the missing employee and tied him to the rifle, he would have one hum dinger of a head start.

Just speculation on my part buddy, but heck really thats all any of us can do.

Oh yes

The shims

The very first time anyone even considers that the scope needs shims, is on 3/16/64 when Frazier tried to sight it in at 100 yards. Remember the 15 and 25 yard tests on 11/27/63 were actually quite good.

That rifle had traveled thousands of miles between 11/23/67 and 3/16/64

Mike

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mike Williams

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I believe this is why he only had 4 rounds of ammo, he simply did not have opportunity to purchase more.

Mike

BELIEF is so wonderful. Look at the Middle East.

[David Josephs]

Fair enough Mike,

but no issue re: the reassembly... once dialed in, the scope is rock solid... all $4 worth or whatever?

when did he do this ??

Simply fire 3 well aimed rounds, and then adjust based on those measurements.

As an example

shot 1 is 1" high and 1" right

shot 2 is 1.5 high and 1" right

shot 3 is 2" high and 1" right

The average is 1.5" high and 1" right

Adjust the top elevation dial 6 clicks up

Adjust the windage dial 4 clicks left.

Fire 1 round to verify.

That's really all there is to it.

A LOT of my post was not addresses buddy. alot.

how does he wait till 12:15 to first even think of going up there to decide which shot was the best?

did you even read the post about the bullet marks on the street?

the county records building...

I know I'm in it deeper than you at the moment so no worries...

but how exactly does he compensate for the wind in his scope realignment betweewn 12:15 and 12:30

without firing a shot?

edit: no question about the difficulty of the shot mike. but if oswald is in the lunchroom at 12:15 and 1-3 men are seen with rifles by MANY people on the 6th floor at the same time and we have photographic evidence of these people... what are we talking about?

Edited February 27, 2011 by David Josephs

[Michael Hogan]

....See Oswald was not stupid at all.

He left the pistol at home to actually buy time. I think that he figured he did not want to get caught with a weapon (pistol). He planned on hiding that rifle, and hauling butt. If he got stopped outside the TSBD he was unarmed, and appeared quite inert.

He figured by the time they located the missing employee and tied him to the rifle, he would have one hum dinger of a head start.

Just speculation on my part buddy, but heck really thats all any of us can do.

Oswald was not stupid at all. Left a weapon at the crime scene that could ultimately be traced to him.

Had no assurances the Secret Service and police wouldn't have the building sealed by the time he made it downstairs.

Paused to quench his thirst before hauling butt. Kept his cool in front of Officer Baker.

After getting his hum dinger of a head start, he kills a cop for no known reason.

After keeping his cool at the original crime scene, he acts so suspiciously that a shoe store salesman follows him.

Sneaks into the theatre without paying. He was saving the $13.79 to effect his escape after watching War is Hell.

While in custody gives protests of innocence worthy of an academy award in front of the news cameras.

Allows himself to be interrogated without the presence of an attorney and when shown a picture of him holding a rifle, denies it knowing all the while his wife took the photo.

Abandons his two daughters that by all accounts he loved very much.

Winds up dead a couple of days later.

Sure. Oswald was not stupid at all.

Just a spontaneous type of guy.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[David Josephs]

first big smile of the day MH... at some point it does become re dic less

Cmon mike - if he wanted to get away with it... he makes sure to use an immediately traceable weapon in a state where they are sold on street corners for cash.?

As the Guinness boys yell, "BRILLIANT !!"

[Pat Speer]

Mike: Many people will say that if they were so easy, how come few have duplicated them. Well this is an illusive answer. Most of the marksman hit 2 of 3, Oswald hit at least 2 of 3. Few Marksman got a hit on the head. Oswald did happen to, but of the marksman that did not, some were very close. The vast majority of marksman who have tried this actually fired as well as Oswald, and Howard Donahue(sp?) hit it right on the mark.

Pat: This is not remotely true.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

In 1967, CBS News, realizing the Warren Commission's error in not conducting these tests, conducted some tests of their own. While the shooters used by CBS were all well-practiced rifleman, their over-all skill level was roughly that of Oswald at his best. (Of course, Oswald hadn’t been at his best since his first years in the Marines, a half a dozen years before the assassination.)

There were still other problems with the test. For one, the rifle used by these shooters was in prime operating condition, and was in no need of the adjustments performed by those test-firing Oswald's rifle for the Warren Commission. For two, the CBS shooters, unlike the man firing Oswald's rifle in Dealey Plaza, who was firing cold, were given NINE practice shots before making their attempts. For three, the target upon which these men fired, unlike the limousine in Dealey Plaza, moved at a constant speed away from the shooter, and at a constant angle.

Now, all these problems should have worked to the advantage of CBS' shooters, and have led to their easily replicating the shots purported for Oswald... That is, if the shots have been indeed easily replicable...

But let the test results speak for themselves…

1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds)

2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds)

4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where shots went in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts.

5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds)

6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds)

7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds)

8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds)

9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds)

Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to hit the target twice in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times.

In fact, it's even worse. Not counting Crossman, an acknowledged rifle expert, those purportedly of Oswald's skill level landed but 25 hits TOTAL, in their 20 successful attempts at getting off 3 shots. In other words, they hit 25 out of 60 shots--far worse on average than Oswald's purported 2 out of 3.

But it's actually FAR WORSE than that. You see, CBS counted any strike on the FBI silhouettes used as targets--even those far down the back, or out on the shoulders--as a hit. This, in effect, tripled or quadrupled the size of the target for their shooters, in comparison to the small area on the back and head purportedly hit by Oswald. It seems clear then that, of the 60 shots total, and 25 hits, no more than 9 hit the target in the small central area purportedly hit by Oswald, not once but twice. This, then, suggests that, even IF Oswald was a well-practiced shooter, and even IF his rifle were in optimal condition, and even IF he had been provided NINE practice shots, the odds of his hitting the small area he supposedly hit from the sniper's nest on any given shot were less than 1 in 6, and of his hitting this area 2 of 3 times something like 1 in 16.

In other words, Oswald's purported feat was highly unlikely...

(This fact has not escaped the attention of those continuing to argue Oswald acted alone. In his mammoth tome Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi deceives his readers by arguing that, as Oswald was clearly aiming for Kennedy's head, he actually hit but one of three shots. This avoids, of course, that the vast majority of "hits" by the professional shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for the Warren Commission, and what one can only assume were the vast majority of "hits" by the amateur shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for CBS News in 1967, were torso hits even further from the center of the target as the hit on Kennedy's back.)

Mike: The very first time anyone even considers that the scope needs shims, is on 3/16/64 when Frazier tried to sight it in at 100 yards. Remember the 15 and 25 yard tests on 11/27/63 were actually quite good.

Pat: This is also untrue. The 15 yard tests were 4 inches high at 15 yards, which amounts to roughly 2 feet high at the distance of the head shot. This suggests that whoever shot Kennedy--if they in fact used that rifle--would have to have aimed at the trunk of the limo to hit him in the head.

[Mike Williams]

Pat,

You never learn.

The 15 yard and 25 yard targets were fired for speed, and not accuracy. Try actually reading Frazier.

Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards. Also in Fraziers testimony, and quite easy to comprehend.

In fact the 15 and 25 yard tests were very good for being fired in under 5 seconds. Again, these were fired for speed, and not accuracy.

Now who says that the shooting time was limited to 5.6 seconds? I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds. So then, how do your shooters compare to that? Quite well actually.

Pat,

I challenge you to find one piece of testimony that says that rifle was fired for accuracy before 3/16/64. Of course you can not. Within 72 hours of that rifle being found it had already been transported to Washington and back.

I am still waiting for you to offer just one single piece of conclusive evidence that the scope was defective at 1230 on 11/22/63.

So far you have not given one credible argument for said same.

DJ,

Man Im sorry I had a hectic day the last few. I will go back over your post and try to catch up.