Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple

[Pat Speer]

Fair enough Mike... let's stay with the rifle in the sack...

I think we'd both have to agree that "sack" would have to be over 3 feet long to hold all the parts.

When you get the chance, read Frazier's testimony or anyone else who say Oswald that morning...

the sack they describe and the sack in evidence are not even close to the same....

and if you want to get into the paper bag you might want to check out some of the existing threads...

Quick sample... the Bag photographed outside the TSBD is about 8 inches wide and was folded over once and then a third or about 20" in total width... the paper at the stations where the bag was supposedly made is 24" wide.

No extra paper was found.... and the tape only comes out wet unless you take the machine apart...

the operator of that station NEVER leaves... eats lunch there....

IT's the chicken and the egg again... if the bag was not made by Oswald, assembled at the station or near by based on the tape... 1)how does he get it home 2)when does he put the rifle in it 3)the bag described in the back of Frasier's car is simply NOT the same... so again... I am okay if you say a half dozen or more metal and wooden pieces in an unpadded paper bag is "OK" for transport... problem is, like the timing, the bag, and rifle were never in contact with each other, Oswald never carried THAT bag, and there is no physical evidence the bag in evidence was ever on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

See Mike... one has to prove all the suppositions that bring us to a conclusion before acknowledging the conclusion even merits examination.

I'll agree to let the rifle arrive safely and the scope in perfect working order if you can get that rifle into that bag into Oswald's hands, onto the 6th floor and him getting there in time to use it... If you can't do those things, talking about whether the shots are easy or not iskinda worthless... right?

David, the bag photographed outside the TSBD was not 8 inches wide, it was by my estimates over 10, and the split-open bag in the archives is not 20 inches wide, it's more like 17. The split open bag in the archives photos, furthermore, gives no indication of having been folded over more than once in the middle. The bags simply don't match, in size or appearance.

http://www.craiglamson.com/misc/bag1.html

Lamson had a field day with this.

Ha. Dream on. Lamson holds that the bag in the Allen photo on the slide up above was distorted in appearance because it was leaning sharply to the camera and was less than 4 feet from the camera. This means the bag in the other Allen photo--where the bag is the same width and is bent over--was at most three feet away. There is an observer in this photo to the left of the bag. He is between the bag and the camera. Look at this photo, which is presented on the slide below, and ask yourself, "Is the man on the left side of the photo less than 3 feet from the camera and within arm's reach of the photographer?"

OF COURSE NOT!!!! Lamson is wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Pat Speer]

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.

Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you.

Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Where were these tests conducted?

A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia.

Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests.

A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds.

I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed.

Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests?

A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

[Craig Lamson]

OF COURSE NOT!!!! Lamson is wrong, wrong, wrong!

BULL! Speer is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There is NO PROBLEM with the size of the bag as seen outside the TSBD. It is 8.5 inches wide. Speer just used a "method" that is faulty to "measure". HIS method is in direct violation with well established and PROVEN photographic principles.

Despite Speers uninformed attempts at spin, this has been well proven.

But of course Speer can undertake the tests and provide the the graphics required to TRY and prove his position is correct. So far he has NOT done so.

We are all WAITING Pat...

Edited March 3, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[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.

Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you.

Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Where were these tests conducted?

A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia.

Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests.

A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds.

I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed.

Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests?

A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Amazing!

You crack me up.

You chose a testimony that is some 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS and 25 DAYS.....AFTER the first rifle tests, and find that to be conclusive? You are kidding me right?

Clearly some time had gone by since the tests.

How about if we look at what Frazier had to say about the tests, just 4 Months and 4 Days after they were conducted, Shall we?

Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So you seem to be a bit confused as to what rapid fire accuracy means. Clearly, as you have proven time and again, your inexperience precedes you!

SO you went and found a testimony more than 5 years after the fact, and still struggle to understand what Frazier is telling you. Impressive!

So lets look at what Frazier does say here.

He says the tests, and he is talking about all the tests, were conducted for accuracy and speed. True

Some of these tests were conducted for rapid fire accuracy. This is not pin point precision shooting. It is as it implies, rapid fire.

He also says the First tests were conducted for accuracy and maintaining a rapid rate of fire. Oh there is that word RAPID again!

Accuracy under rapid fire conditions, what does this mean to you? Is it in fact pin point precision shooting? (spoiler: no its not)

The only issue I have with Frazier here is that he says the tests were conducted for accuracy with speed secondary. This is a direct contradiction to his much earlier testimony.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So what do you make of this Pat? What does your logical mind tell you is correct?

Do you accept the testimony closest to the event, some 4 months after, of a misstatement made in testimony more than 5 years after the fact?

[Mike Williams]

OF COURSE NOT!!!! Lamson is wrong, wrong, wrong!

BULL! Speer is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There is NO PROBLEM with the size of the bag as seen outside the TSBD. It is 8.5 inches wide. Speer just used a "method" that is faulty to "measure". HIS method is in direct violation with well established and PROVEN photographic principles.

Despite Speers uninformed attempts at spin, this has been well proven.

But of course Speer can undertake the tests and provide the the graphics required to TRY and prove his position is correct. So far he has NOT done so.

We are all WAITING Pat...

Pat seems to be going through a lot of this lately LOL

[David Josephs]

Mike -

So what? So pictures of a bag outside the TSBD show an 8.5" width.

Craig, and now it seems you, are not addressing the issues.

A 2" long grocery sack was put in the back of Fazier's car - according to Frazier... if you look at Fritz' notes Oswald denies telling Frazier why he went home (Paine claims it was to patch up things with Marina)or anything about curtain rods... complete hearsay.

No one sees him bring it in other than Frazier- who says a 38" rifle part can be tucked under his armpit and extends down to his hand... Frazier could not see it from behind... and no one sees it from the front as he walks in...

No one photographs it where it lay, in the corner of the sniper's nest. Let's also remember that the TSBD was evacuated and searched leaving ample time to create this bag if need be....

No one knows what is inside the bag in the TSBD photos - what is holding this up? If you check the bag threads the policeman himself doesn't recall but says somehting was in there...

Mike -

a lot has to be proven before the bag Fazier testifies to becomes the bag in evidence - or should I say bagS.

With regards to the firing and condition of the rifle... 1) we do not know that rifle was fired that day, 2) when tested those who fired the rifle had residue on their cheeks.. Oswald none 3) the lip of one hull was bent while another was shown to have been struck twice. 4) no clip was ever found/photographed at the scene like the mystery bag, 5) Oswald has to have been at the window with a rifle in his hands for that rifle to be used as evidence - he wasn't, 6) is Craig Roberts wrong?

DJ

[Pat Speer]

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.

Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you.

Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Where were these tests conducted?

A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia.

Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests.

A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds.

I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed.

Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests?

A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Amazing!

You crack me up.

You chose a testimony that is some 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS and 25 DAYS.....AFTER the first rifle tests, and find that to be conclusive? You are kidding me right?

Clearly some time had gone by since the tests.

How about if we look at what Frazier had to say about the tests, just 4 Months and 4 Days after they were conducted, Shall we?

Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So you seem to be a bit confused as to what rapid fire accuracy means. Clearly, as you have proven time and again, your inexperience precedes you!

SO you went and found a testimony more than 5 years after the fact, and still struggle to understand what Frazier is telling you. Impressive!

So lets look at what Frazier does say here.

He says the tests, and he is talking about all the tests, were conducted for accuracy and speed. True

Some of these tests were conducted for rapid fire accuracy. This is not pin point precision shooting. It is as it implies, rapid fire.

He also says the First tests were conducted for accuracy and maintaining a rapid rate of fire. Oh there is that word RAPID again!

Accuracy under rapid fire conditions, what does this mean to you? Is it in fact pin point precision shooting? (spoiler: no its not)

The only issue I have with Frazier here is that he says the tests were conducted for accuracy with speed secondary. This is a direct contradiction to his much earlier testimony.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So what do you make of this Pat? What does your logical mind tell you is correct?

Do you accept the testimony closest to the event, some 4 months after, of a misstatement made in testimony more than 5 years after the fact?

The obvious answer is that it was as Frazier claimed--that the tests were performed to determine both speed and accuracy. The problem for you is that you claimed he didn't test for accuracy at all before March 64, when he claims he did...repeatedly. You were 100% wrong. And are apparently not ready to admit it.

As far as your claim rapid fire tests don't count--or whatever nonsense you're trying to spew--you keep ignoring that three top shooters fired three rounds apiece with the rifle at targets 15 yards away, and ALL nine shots impacted 2 1/2 or more inches high and an inch to the right, and that this tendency was corroborated by six more shots at 25 yards. That's 15 shots at close range, all landing substantially high and to the right. While you, apparently, think this was but a coincidence, that's awfully hard to believe. For even after the FBI fiddled with the screws, and made the scope as accurate as possible, the rifle still fired 4 inches high and an inch to the right at 100 yards. This tendency, moreover, was not a defect in the scope, which could have occurred subsequent to the assassination. It was inherent in the scope as mounted on the rifle, and could only be offset through the use of shims.

Is it any wonder then that Frazier later claimed that someone in the Dallas PD had removed the scope and lost the shims used in the shooting...

Apparently, he, as yourself, just could not accept that the scope was as useless as it was when first tested, and found it easier to invent events--such as the scope being removed and the shims being lost--than to follow the evidence where it leads...to the conclusion reached by the HSCA's experts--that the scope was not used.

[Pat Speer]

OF COURSE NOT!!!! Lamson is wrong, wrong, wrong!

BULL! Speer is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There is NO PROBLEM with the size of the bag as seen outside the TSBD. It is 8.5 inches wide. Speer just used a "method" that is faulty to "measure". HIS method is in direct violation with well established and PROVEN photographic principles.

Despite Speers uninformed attempts at spin, this has been well proven.

But of course Speer can undertake the tests and provide the the graphics required to TRY and prove his position is correct. So far he has NOT done so.

We are all WAITING Pat...

Pat seems to be going through a lot of this lately LOL

Mike, look back at the Most Definitely Not in the Bag slide. Look at the man at the left in the photo.

Is he in front of the bag, that is, closer to the camera than the bag?

If so, then how far from the camera would you say he is? 10 feet? 8 feet? 4 feet? 3 feet?

Could the photographer reach out and slap his face?

Because Lamson thinks he could. Don't you, Craig?

[Craig Lamson]

Mike, look back at the Most Definitely Not in the Bag slide. Look at the man at the left in the photo.

Is he in front of the bag, that is, closer to the camera than the bag?

If so, then how far from the camera would you say he is? 10 feet? 8 feet? 4 feet? 3 feet?

Could the photographer reach out and slap his face?

Because Lamson thinks he could. Don't you, Craig?

You see Mike, Pat needs to buy a clue. Heck he can't even remember WHICH photos we have been plotting and discussing. I've not made any statements about camera to subject distance in this photo other than to say its was NOT the 15 feet with a 50mm lens like he originally claimed. Compare his suggested distances and lens with the actual photo below and with his "simulation".

Of course Speer knows this. He is simply hoisting yet another silly strawmen here.

But hey Lets play along. How far AWAY is he from the camera Pat?

Let's look at the full frame of that image and then you can draw us a graph and tell us HOW FAR AWAY he is from the camera.

Should be very interesting. But I suspect all we will get from Speer is his usual uninformed handwaving.

Of course all of this is a smoke screen attempt by Speer to distract from the fact his "measurements" are completely bogus because of the totally incorrect method he used. He NEEDS to distract you from this because he can't perform any tests that can replicate his supposed measurement method.

It's an utter FAIL. And Speer is trying very hard to conceal this fact.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, and now it seems you, are not addressing the issues.

No, I'm addressing ALL the issues related to the bag that I'm interested in.

[Pat Speer]

Mike, look back at the Most Definitely Not in the Bag slide. Look at the man at the left in the photo.

Is he in front of the bag, that is, closer to the camera than the bag?

If so, then how far from the camera would you say he is? 10 feet? 8 feet? 4 feet? 3 feet?

Could the photographer reach out and slap his face?

Because Lamson thinks he could. Don't you, Craig?

You see Mike, Pat needs to buy a clue. Heck he can't even remember WHICH photos we have been plotting and discussing. I've not made any statements about camera to subject distance in this photo other than to say its was NOT the 15 feet with a 50mm lens like he originally claimed. Compare his suggested distances and lens with the actual photo below and with his "simulation".

Of course Speer knows this. He is simply hoisting yet another silly strawmen here.

But hey Lets play along. How far AWAY is he from the camera Pat?

Let's look at the full frame of that image and then you can draw us a graph and tell us HOW FAR AWAY he is from the camera.

Should be very interesting. But I suspect all we will get from Speer is his usual uninformed handwaving.

Of course all of this is a smoke screen attempt by Speer to distract from the fact his "measurements" are completely bogus because of the totally incorrect method he used. He NEEDS to distract you from this because he can't perform any tests that can replicate his supposed measurement method.

It's an utter FAIL. And Speer is trying very hard to conceal this fact.

Thanks, Craig. You came through in the expected fashion. OF COURSE, I know we've been playing footsie over the other Allen photo. You insist that the bag in the other Allen photo is about 44 inches from the plane of the camera. Which is why I brought up THIS Allen photo (which I mistakenly used to believe was a Beers photo)...

In THIS photo, which you call Allen 2, the width of the bag in comparison to Montgomery is the same as in the other photo. In THIS photo, the shadow of Allen's head is at the same position on Montgomery's leg.

This PROVES the photos were taken from the same distance away.

And YET...in THIS photo the bag folds forward of its previous location, putting it--by YOUR estimation--3 feet or so from the camera.

And YET...on the far left of this photo there is a man CLOSER to the camera than the bag...

This means that--in YOUR estimation--this man was at most 2 1/2 feet (an arm's reach) away from the camera.

Which is LUDICROUS! A human head 2 1/2 feet from the camera would most certainly appear to be far larger than Montgomery's head in the photo--which you admit is over 5 feet from the camera. It would, as we've discussed, be about twice as big.

Now look again, the head on the left side of the photo--which is almost certainly several feet closer to the camera than Montgomery's head--is only slightly larger.

Now why is that Craig?

How far away from the camera is the man's head? Can you reproduce THIS photo in your hallway? If so, please do...

Edited March 3, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

Craig, and now it seems you, are not addressing the issues.

No, I'm addressing ALL the issues related to the bag that I'm interested in.

Good thing you don't confuse yourself with little things like facts & evidence. Proving a picture of the planted bag was or was not the same as a picture of a fabricated bag will go a long way to help us understand the reality or not of the bag Oswald was SUPPOSEDLY carrying a disassembled rifle to work in....

Nothing like staying safe and secure in one's comfort zone... saves the trouble of learning anything, testing hypotheses, digging a little deeper and being wrong, humbled and admitting it from time to time.... the worst of all sins.

Thanks so much for your contribution to this thread Craig... it's value is obvious

[Craig Lamson]

Good thing you don't confuse yourself with little things like facts & evidence. Proving a picture of the planted bag was or was not the same as a picture of a fabricated bag will go a long way to help us understand the reality or not of the bag Oswald was SUPPOSEDLY carrying a disassembled rifle to work in....

Nothing like staying safe and secure in one's comfort zone... saves the trouble of learning anything, testing hypotheses, digging a little deeper and being wrong, humbled and admitting it from time to time.... the worst of all sins.

Thanks so much for your contribution to this thread Craig... it's value is obvious

No, I simply stick to the area of my expertise and don't go around waving my hands.

Maybe it YOU stuck to your area of expertise you might have more to offer. Maybe you can make us a lottery game.

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks, Craig. You came through in the expected fashion. OF COURSE, I know we've been playing footsie over the other Allen photo. You insist that the bag in the other Allen photo is about 44 inches from the plane of the camera. Which is why I brought up THIS Allen photo (which I mistakenly used to believe was a Beers photo)...

In THIS photo, which you call Allen 2, the width of the bag in comparison to Montgomery is the same as in the other photo. In THIS photo, the shadow of Allen's head is at the same position on Montgomery's leg.

This PROVES the photos were taken from the same distance away.

And YET...in THIS photo the bag folds forward of its previous location, putting it--by YOUR estimation--3 feet or so from the camera.

And YET...on the far left of this photo there is a man CLOSER to the camera than the bag...

This means that--in YOUR estimation--this man was at most 2 1/2 feet (an arm's reach) away from the camera.

Which is LUDICROUS! A human head 2 1/2 feet from the camera would most certainly appear to be far larger than Montgomery's head in the photo--which you admit is over 5 feet from the camera. It would, as we've discussed, be about twice as big.

Now look again, the head on the left side of the photo--which is almost certainly several feet closer to the camera than Montgomery's head--is only slightly larger.

Now why is that Craig?

How far away from the camera is the man's head? Can you reproduce THIS photo in your hallway? If so, please do...

Amazing. Dealing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Everytime you post yuu show more and more of your inability to understnad the simple priciples of photography. So lets chop you off at the knees...yet again.

Speer sez:

"the width of the bag in comparison to Montgomery is the same as in the other photo. In THIS photo, the shadow of Allen's head is at the same position on Montgomery's leg."

NOT EVEN CLOSE. Lets see now. There is a difference in the angle of subject to camera between the two photos. How have you calculated the effects of sizing based on this difference? That pesky perspective thing again. Oh thats right. You have not, You simply starting flapping your hands. Second the shadow fall at a DIFFERENT location on Monty. Strike one.

Speer sez:

This PROVES the photos were taken from the same distance away.

Wrong again....strike two.

Speer sez:

And YET...in THIS photo the bag folds forward of its previous location, putting it--by YOUR estimation--3 feet or so from the camera.

Given you have failed the first two points, and since this statement of yours is predicated on your failed points above. Stike three. BTW, plese show me where I estimated the distance from camera to bag for this photos. What? I never made that claim? Amazing. Pat makes up stuff from thin air again.

Speer sez:

This means that--in YOUR estimation--this man was at most 2 1/2 feet (an arm's reach) away from the camera.

Which is LUDICROUS! A human head 2 1/2 feet from the camera would most certainly appear to be far larger than Montgomery's head in the photo--which you admit is over 5 feet from the camera. It would, as we've discussed, be about twice as big.

Now look again, the head on the left side of the photo--which is almost certainly several feet closer to the camera than Montgomery's head--is only slightly larger.

Now why is that Craig?

No that would be YOUR estimation Pat, not mine. Besides you have no clue if the head is closer to the camera or not. The image gives you ZERO visual clues as the the distance from the camera to the head aside from SIZE. You don't havea cleu nor can oyu prove if the head is in front of the bag, the same distance as the bag or behind the bag. Why? Because the visual clues needed to make this detirmination are simple absent. Instead we get Speer making proclaimations based on nothing but his failed grasp of imaging. Flaling hands and zero proof...the Pat Speer way. Strike four. your are OVER AND OUT!

Finally Speer sez:

How far away from the camera is the man's head? Can you reproduce THIS photo in your hallway? If so, please do...

Better yet Pat, why don't YOU? Your track record here is miserable. You have yet to refute ANY of the work I've produced with a vaild argument or demonstration. Oh you try to spin your way out of your failures but those too have been utter failures. See the pattern her Speer? You have LOST. It's time for you to admit it.

Ducks in a barrel.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[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.

Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you.

Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Where were these tests conducted?

A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia.

Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests.

A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds.

I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed.

Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests?

A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building.

Amazing!

You crack me up.

You chose a testimony that is some 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS and 25 DAYS.....AFTER the first rifle tests, and find that to be conclusive? You are kidding me right?

Clearly some time had gone by since the tests.

How about if we look at what Frazier had to say about the tests, just 4 Months and 4 Days after they were conducted, Shall we?

Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So you seem to be a bit confused as to what rapid fire accuracy means. Clearly, as you have proven time and again, your inexperience precedes you!

SO you went and found a testimony more than 5 years after the fact, and still struggle to understand what Frazier is telling you. Impressive!

So lets look at what Frazier does say here.

He says the tests, and he is talking about all the tests, were conducted for accuracy and speed. True

Some of these tests were conducted for rapid fire accuracy. This is not pin point precision shooting. It is as it implies, rapid fire.

He also says the First tests were conducted for accuracy and maintaining a rapid rate of fire. Oh there is that word RAPID again!

Accuracy under rapid fire conditions, what does this mean to you? Is it in fact pin point precision shooting? (spoiler: no its not)

The only issue I have with Frazier here is that he says the tests were conducted for accuracy with speed secondary. This is a direct contradiction to his much earlier testimony.

Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.

We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.

So what do you make of this Pat? What does your logical mind tell you is correct?

Do you accept the testimony closest to the event, some 4 months after, of a misstatement made in testimony more than 5 years after the fact?

The obvious answer is that it was as Frazier claimed--that the tests were performed to determine both speed and accuracy. The problem for you is that you claimed he didn't test for accuracy at all before March 64, when he claims he did...repeatedly. You were 100% wrong. And are apparently not ready to admit it.

As far as your claim rapid fire tests don't count--or whatever nonsense you're trying to spew--you keep ignoring that three top shooters fired three rounds apiece with the rifle at targets 15 yards away, and ALL nine shots impacted 2 1/2 or more inches high and an inch to the right, and that this tendency was corroborated by six more shots at 25 yards. That's 15 shots at close range, all landing substantially high and to the right. While you, apparently, think this was but a coincidence, that's awfully hard to believe. For even after the FBI fiddled with the screws, and made the scope as accurate as possible, the rifle still fired 4 inches high and an inch to the right at 100 yards. This tendency, moreover, was not a defect in the scope, which could have occurred subsequent to the assassination. It was inherent in the scope as mounted on the rifle, and could only be offset through the use of shims.

Is it any wonder then that Frazier later claimed that someone in the Dallas PD had removed the scope and lost the shims used in the shooting...

Apparently, he, as yourself, just could not accept that the scope was as useless as it was when first tested, and found it easier to invent events--such as the scope being removed and the shims being lost--than to follow the evidence where it leads...to the conclusion reached by the HSCA's experts--that the scope was not used.

Pat,

You seem to be struggling with terminology.

Do you know the difference between firing for accuracy and firing for accuracy under rapid fire conditions?

Additionally there is nothing to be gained from the rifle tests, and why is that?

Because as Frazier clearly tells us someone removed that scope.

There is no two ways about that, and thus, the old CT drivel about a misaligned scope is hogwash purely because there is no way to prove that.

So again, I ask, Can you provide me with one shred of proof that the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination?

Frazier clearly tells us there is no way to know.

What do you say?

Ugh,

Now back to removing a virus on the work servers.......good lord.....