Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple

[Mike Williams]

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!

Hey Mr. Carrol,

Pleasure to meet ya.

Yes it is the first time we have spoken. Please forgive the shortness of my reply. I have been over the rifle scope condition so many times, and explained it countless times.

I do agree that you make some interesting points on Oswalds whereabouts and this is something I would be interested in reading more about, anything you have to offer I would gladly read.

[Mike Williams]

Pat says

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

Frazier says:

In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us:

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

http://www.jfkballistics.com/rifleconditionscopepage1.html

Thats about as close as I can get to spelling it out for ya Pat.

[David Josephs]

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.

No worries buddy.... but you've got your work cut out...

You've touched on a few things but not the most important.... Talk to me about what Oswald needs to do, as a qualified marksman, to get from the lunchroom at 12:15 to shooting 3 shots in whatever time you want to give him with a properly sighted, reassembled rifle - unless you can claim that an improperly sighted rifle would make no difference in his ability.

I want to be sure Mike that we are addressing the same issue.... and I don't mean to be flip but you wrote:

Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards.

A truer statement was never uttered. I contend one of the ONLY times that rifle was fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64.

Certainly not 11-22-63... at least not for accuracy -

I look forward to your reply...

Hope the BDay came off well and you're feeling better

DJ

[Mike Williams]

David,

Oh man the party was incredible. We had about 16 kids and 3 adults on the laser tag field. It is one of the most fun things we have done for the Sons birthday. The adults were divided up 2 on each team, with about 8 kids on a team. The little buggers bushwhacked me LOL. They, in an incredibly well execute squad maneuver, sent a kid out as bait, when I chased that kid down, they were waiting for me and tore me a new one lol. It was great fun!

A truer statement was never uttered. I contend one of the ONLY times that rifle was fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64.

Certainly not 11-22-63... at least not for accuracy -

Yanno you have to think. If you want to kill someone a head shot is only logical. If this is the case Oswald scored 1 for 3. Not remarkable.

As far as the impossibility that Oswald was on the 6th floor, I have never really read all that much on this proposed theory. Be glad to if you can recommend something. I actually think at one time you did tell me of an article on this, but well......I slept since then lol.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

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.

Something else springs to mind Pat. Can you show me in any of your examples when a reasonably accurate recreation was done? Love to see those findings.

Mike

[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.

Of course, we have no conclusive evidence regarding the condition of the rifle. But the evidence is as I've said. Either the DPD lied about not firing the rifle before handing it over to the FBI, or Frazier was wrong about the scope needing five or six shots to settle after an adjustment. Which is it?

Lattimer and others have confirmed that when one fires this rifle with this scope 1) shims are needed and 2) a number of shots must be fired before the scope will settle in. So, the evidence suggests that the rifle found in the depository was not defective, it just sucked. So your pretending that the rifle was fine on 11-22 and that the FBI somehow musta messed it up, is just that, pretend.

Well, pretend all you want, but you shouldn't go around acting as though your relative experience with rifles gives you the right to invent your own facts.

The fact is that ALL the evidence suggests the scope would have been more a hindrance than a help. The HSCA's ballistics people knew this. And that's why they proposed the shooter used the iron sites.

Now I know the recent trend among single-assassin theorists is to claim the HSCA was wrong about just about everything, and that the Warren Commission got it right to begin with, but this is one instance where the HSCA obviously got it right.

And oh, by the way, it is YOU who needs to learn to read.

Here is Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe these tests?

Mr. FRAZIER - A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.

The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.

Mr. EISENBERG - A silhouette of a man?

Mr. FRAZIER - A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.

Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.

Mr. EISENBERG - These targets were made by you or in your presence?

Mr. FRAZIER - These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.

(NOTE: THESE ARE THE EXHIBITS ON MY SLIDE)

And in case that's a little too clear to be clear...

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.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

Mike...

start with this thread.. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336

If you want to discuss timing let's stay in that thread... I am still interested in the ballastics and sniper positions, extra shots, etc... from this one...

But you're probably going to have to reread my looong post or print it... There's a bunch there and you input would be valuable and appreciated.

Please remember this is not about his doing it or not... I am willing to conclude that IF Oswald was up there and the rifle was in decent working order and the scope assisted him in the process he might have actually hit someone... still does not explain the ENTRY WOUND to the front of the neck. Read about FBI agent Elmer Moore... "Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy"

The early sessions of the WC had to deal with this wound in the front... acknowledge there was no thru and thru shot from the back as described by an autopsy report that is most curious as to origin... they talk about needing to see ORIGNIAL AUTOPSY NOTES (you know the ones Humes burned - another act of an innocent government right?)

And no one has addressed the original question and their tangents... Mike... head back to page one and address some of these concerns please.. this thread is NOT about whether it could be done but what appears to have happened and how it is explained by the WCR and 2why it is eaither correct or not.

On last note about the shots... The hand written notes that are the only evidence of the Z film being at NPIC that weekend includes a time line at the end of Z frames, Shots in frames from the Life pictoral and "Other frames with shots" - (NOTE these notes are at MAry Ferrell's but the printout I have has the address truncated... could someone post a link to these notes?)

All together there are 6-8 shots at varying times along the film.. frames 190, 206, 224, 242, 265, 312 all come to mind but I do not have the sheet infront of me.... Just like Homer said. But I have to agree with Costells here... how does Horne not follow up on this testimony? "6-8 shots but the SS agent there said there were only three....."

After reviewing Horne once again... along with these NPIC notes.... I am thinking that the 2 different sets of boards were both designed to show 3 shot scenarios to 2 different sets of people with only the smallest of overlap... but that's another discussion for another time...

Peace

DJ

[Mike Williams]

Of course, we have no conclusive evidence regarding the condition of the rifle. But the evidence is as I've said. Either the DPD lied about not firing the rifle before handing it over to the FBI, or Frazier was wrong about the scope needing five or six shots to settle after an adjustment. Which is it?

Lattimer and others have confirmed that when one fires this rifle with this scope 1) shims are needed and 2) a number of shots must be fired before the scope will settle in. So, the evidence suggests that the rifle found in the depository was not defective, it just sucked. So your pretending that the rifle was fine on 11-22 and that the FBI somehow musta messed it up, is just that, pretend.

Well, pretend all you want, but you shouldn't go around acting as though your relative experience with rifles gives you the right to invent your own facts

Pat,

Come on you are better than that.

The point of fact is that Frazier says the scope was loose, and there is no way to tell the actual condition during the assassination. That is a pretty final statement, and it shows beyond any doubt that the old CT rhetoric about the scope being misaligned is yet another misrepresentation by the CT.

As for my ability to read, I can tell you that Frazier states that the 15 yard targets were fired for speed, not accuracy, and that the 100 yard targets on 3/16/64 were the first attempts to sight in the scope. It is during this test that he makes the discovery that the scope needs some shots to settle. As I have also told you before, this is not an uncommon even in any cheap scope.

Most scopes on the lower end today act the same way.

Of course Lattimer would confirm that, he is firing the same rifle as the FBI did on 3/16/64, which of course still does not give you any evidence that the rifle fired poorly on 11/22/63. You are clearly grasping at straws here.

My experience with a rifle does not in fact give me any right to create facts, what it does do is help me to understand the facts that are presented clearly. I wish there were more people who had an intricate understanding of firearms studying the case.

The fact is that ALL the evidence suggests the scope would have been more a hindrance than a help. The HSCA's ballistics people knew this. And that's why they proposed the shooter used the iron sites.

Now I know the recent trend among single-assassin theorists is to claim the HSCA was wrong about just about everything, and that the Warren Commission got it right to begin with, but this is one instance where the HSCA obviously got it right.

Bull Jewels. They both had some right and some wrong. There is NOTHING in the evidence that proves the scope would have been a hindrance, and nothing that shows that the scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination.

The one hindrance I can see is that the scope had a limited field of view, making it difficult to track a moving target. Other than that, there is no obvious indications of issues with the scope.

And oh, by the way, it is YOU who needs to learn to read.

Here is Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe these tests?

Mr. FRAZIER - A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.

The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.

Mr. EISENBERG - A silhouette of a man?

Mr. FRAZIER - A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.

Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.

Mr. EISENBERG - These targets were made by you or in your presence?

Mr. FRAZIER - These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.

How very selective of you. To find a general statement about the tests, and not include a statement related directly to the 15 and 25 yard tests. I guess you missed this little gem.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?

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.

This is the actual target which I fired.

And in case that's a little too clear to be clear...

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.

Of course you don't really know the meaning of accuracy under rapid fire conditions do you?

As Frazier tells us Accuracy was a secondary concern. Nothing more.

These tests were on 11/27/63, and there is not one mention from Frazier about having issues with the scope....I wonder why?

Can you figure that out?

[Mike Williams]

Mike...

start with this thread.. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336

If you want to discuss timing let's stay in that thread... I am still interested in the ballastics and sniper positions, extra shots, etc... from this one...

But you're probably going to have to reread my looong post or print it... There's a bunch there and you input would be valuable and appreciated.

Please remember this is not about his doing it or not... I am willing to conclude that IF Oswald was up there and the rifle was in decent working order and the scope assisted him in the process he might have actually hit someone... still does not explain the ENTRY WOUND to the front of the neck. Read about FBI agent Elmer Moore... "Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy"

The early sessions of the WC had to deal with this wound in the front... acknowledge there was no thru and thru shot from the back as described by an autopsy report that is most curious as to origin... they talk about needing to see ORIGNIAL AUTOPSY NOTES (you know the ones Humes burned - another act of an innocent government right?)

And no one has addressed the original question and their tangents... Mike... head back to page one and address some of these concerns please.. this thread is NOT about whether it could be done but what appears to have happened and how it is explained by the WCR and 2why it is eaither correct or not.

On last note about the shots... The hand written notes that are the only evidence of the Z film being at NPIC that weekend includes a time line at the end of Z frames, Shots in frames from the Life pictoral and "Other frames with shots" - (NOTE these notes are at MAry Ferrell's but the printout I have has the address truncated... could someone post a link to these notes?)

All together there are 6-8 shots at varying times along the film.. frames 190, 206, 224, 242, 265, 312 all come to mind but I do not have the sheet infront of me.... Just like Homer said. But I have to agree with Costells here... how does Horne not follow up on this testimony? "6-8 shots but the SS agent there said there were only three....."

After reviewing Horne once again... along with these NPIC notes.... I am thinking that the 2 different sets of boards were both designed to show 3 shot scenarios to 2 different sets of people with only the smallest of overlap... but that's another discussion for another time...

Peace

DJ

David,

I will read the posted link, and reread page one and try to get caught up with ya. I should have considerable time tonight to work through some of this. Thanks for your patience.

Mike

[David Josephs]

All good things in all good time...

- Jerry G... Run for the Roses

[Pat Speer]

Of course, we have no conclusive evidence regarding the condition of the rifle. But the evidence is as I've said. Either the DPD lied about not firing the rifle before handing it over to the FBI, or Frazier was wrong about the scope needing five or six shots to settle after an adjustment. Which is it?

Lattimer and others have confirmed that when one fires this rifle with this scope 1) shims are needed and 2) a number of shots must be fired before the scope will settle in. So, the evidence suggests that the rifle found in the depository was not defective, it just sucked. So your pretending that the rifle was fine on 11-22 and that the FBI somehow musta messed it up, is just that, pretend.

Well, pretend all you want, but you shouldn't go around acting as though your relative experience with rifles gives you the right to invent your own facts

Pat,

Come on you are better than that.

The point of fact is that Frazier says the scope was loose, and there is no way to tell the actual condition during the assassination. That is a pretty final statement, and it shows beyond any doubt that the old CT rhetoric about the scope being misaligned is yet another misrepresentation by the CT.

As for my ability to read, I can tell you that Frazier states that the 15 yard targets were fired for speed, not accuracy, and that the 100 yard targets on 3/16/64 were the first attempts to sight in the scope. It is during this test that he makes the discovery that the scope needs some shots to settle. As I have also told you before, this is not an uncommon even in any cheap scope.

Most scopes on the lower end today act the same way.

Of course Lattimer would confirm that, he is firing the same rifle as the FBI did on 3/16/64, which of course still does not give you any evidence that the rifle fired poorly on 11/22/63. You are clearly grasping at straws here.

My experience with a rifle does not in fact give me any right to create facts, what it does do is help me to understand the facts that are presented clearly. I wish there were more people who had an intricate understanding of firearms studying the case.

The fact is that ALL the evidence suggests the scope would have been more a hindrance than a help. The HSCA's ballistics people knew this. And that's why they proposed the shooter used the iron sites.

Now I know the recent trend among single-assassin theorists is to claim the HSCA was wrong about just about everything, and that the Warren Commission got it right to begin with, but this is one instance where the HSCA obviously got it right.

Bull Jewels. They both had some right and some wrong. There is NOTHING in the evidence that proves the scope would have been a hindrance, and nothing that shows that the scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination.

The one hindrance I can see is that the scope had a limited field of view, making it difficult to track a moving target. Other than that, there is no obvious indications of issues with the scope.

And oh, by the way, it is YOU who needs to learn to read.

Here is Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe these tests?

Mr. FRAZIER - A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.

The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.

Mr. EISENBERG - A silhouette of a man?

Mr. FRAZIER - A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.

Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.

Mr. EISENBERG - These targets were made by you or in your presence?

Mr. FRAZIER - These are actually copies of the actual targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do on the actual targets.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I request permission to introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits 548 and 549.

How very selective of you. To find a general statement about the tests, and not include a statement related directly to the 15 and 25 yard tests. I guess you missed this little gem.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the second series of tests?

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.

This is the actual target which I fired.

And in case that's a little too clear to be clear...

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.

Of course you don't really know the meaning of accuracy under rapid fire conditions do you?

As Frazier tells us Accuracy was a secondary concern. Nothing more.

These tests were on 11/27/63, and there is not one mention from Frazier about having issues with the scope....I wonder why?

Can you figure that out?

You have no evidence anyone removed the scope or fired the rifle before it was fired by Frazier, but insist you have the right to pretend someone did, so you can pretend the rifle was in top condition on 11-22, and only got knocked out of whack afterwards.

You continue to claim the rifle was not fired for accuracy on 11-27, when Frazier says it was and when the RESULTS of the tests--with all three shots by all three shooters landing within a small area--PROVES it was. (If you choose to pretend this was just a coincidence, please admit as much so I can get a good laugh.)

You are 100% wrong. Can't you figure this out?

P.S.

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

Hmmm... Mike, what do you think Frazier meant by "however"? What do you think he is saying? Because it's crystal clear to me (and everyone else I've spoken to on this) he is saying he suspected the rifle's firing high and to the right was not caused by a recent adjustment of the scope. He'd later discovered, after all, that 5 or 6 shots were needed to stabilize the crosshair after an adjustment.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Mike Williams]

You have no evidence anyone removed the scope or fired the rifle before it was fired by Frazier, but insist you have the right to pretend someone did, so you can pretend the rifle was in top condition on 11-22, and only got knocked out of whack afterwards.

Really?

What does this mean to you?

Frazier says:

In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us:

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

It tells me that the first time Frazier sees this rifle, ever, in the history of mankind, the scope was loose, and that it had been taken off for fingerprinting.

He also tells it all:

actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

For those who lack comprehension, Frazier is telling us clear as day, that the condition of the rifle when abandon is unknown.

You continue to claim the rifle was not fired for accuracy on 11-27, when Frazier says it was and when the RESULTS of the tests--with all three shots by all three shooters landing within a small area--PROVES it was. (If you choose to pretend this was just a coincidence, please admit as much so I can get a good laugh.)

Now I have something for you to laugh at. Yourself.

Frazier tells us the weapon was fired primarily for speed, with accuracy second.

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.

And yet, they did fire rather accurately. This lends credibility to the fact that the scope could well have been in perfect working order during the assassination! You discredit your own case. However of course being the great guy I am, I do let you off the hook, considering Fraziers comments about the scope being lose.

You are 100% wrong. Can't you figure this out?

No I cant figure that out. Your contention that the scope was misaligned during the assassination is nothing short of hogwash.

P.S.

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

So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy.

Hmmm... Mike, what do you think Frazier meant by "however"? What do you think he is saying? Because it's crystal clear to me (and everyone else I've spoken to on this) he is saying he suspected the rifle's firing high and to the right was not caused by a recent adjustment of the scope. He'd later discovered, after all, that 5 or 6 shots were needed to stabilize the crosshair after an adjustment.

As is the case in almost any low end scope you purchase, this is not an indication of a defect in this particular scope. What exactly do you mean by however?

This is irrelevant, and I am sure you are going to ask WHY?

Because upon receiving the rifle the first time, the scope was loose, why was it loose? Because someone removed it looking for fingerprints. So what did Frazier do?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

Ah so now you want to talk about the rifle tests at Quantico on 3/16/64! Outstanding!

This is the very first mention of the misaligned scope! A full 4 months and several thousand miles after 1230 on 11/22/63!

I have no issue in agreeing the scope was misaligned at this time. You have a much larger issue in explaining:

In WCH3, page 411 Frazier tells us:

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Now tell me, how do you propose to prove the scope was misaligned during the assassination, based on this glaring statement?

[David Josephs]

C'mon Mike....

You gonna waste time arguing POST ASSASSINATION descriptions of the weapon?

Your post earlier was right to the point... HOW TO ALIGN A RIFLE SCOPE requires at least 3 shots in a controlled environment with a 4th to confirm the adjustments.

Please tell me when you believe Oswald did this with THAT rifle so that YOU would be confident as a sharpshooter that after disassembly, transportation within an unlined, unpadded paper sack... and re-assembled... those little adjustments stayed since as you post:

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

So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy.

So if I understand correctly.. you DO NOT BELIEVE that this "high and to the right" was the condition of the scope during the assassination... yet the scope was "fairly well stablized at the time".

Oswald carried the disassembled rifle to work with the scope already aligned, assembles the rifle... scope is still aligned...

fires the rifle 3 times and leaves it.... the DPD now have it in their possession and within 48 hours after the assassination the scope is working perfectly - only high and to the right...

The scope DOES NOT CHANGE ALIGNMENT during Oswald's journey with it YET

the scope CHANGES ALIGNMENT in the 48 hours between discovery and testing. (you claim the condition of the scope at the time of the shots is unknowable - I agree - yet as I keep eluding to Mike... some things have to happen in a certain order for Oswald to pull this off alone... Using a properly sighted scope HAS to be one of them, no?)

I would have to agree that "high and to the right" does seem to take into account the wind blowing from the shooter's right to left, so whoever left the rifle was at least thinking of that.... or am I making an assumption about scope alignment related to wind?

Explain again how/when Oswald makes adjustments to the scope on the day of the assassination with the wind blowing as it was... or who he knew ahead of time that the wind would be out of the south east... so he could align properly...

and when again was that 4th shot, the test shot confirming the scope was still as he wanted?

DJ

You and Pat can argue all day about this and that test AFTER THE FACT.

Did Oswald use a scope when he was certified marksman in the Marines?

Describe the difference between what Oswald shot in the Marines and the MC found that day.

Does a shooter of any quality use a scope when potentially required to fire in rapid succession on a moving target form that distance?

and finally, talking about what OSWALD did when you have not proven he could have even have gotten there in time is moot.

Get him there first Mike - then talk to me about his scope, his skills and what he needed to do in order for his shooting to be effective.

thanks

[Mike Williams]

C'mon Mike....

You gonna waste time arguing POST ASSASSINATION descriptions of the weapon?

David,

Its more than a post assassination description of the weapon, it is a common myth that the CT side would like to use to show one more facet of how impossible this was.

Your post earlier was right to the point... HOW TO ALIGN A RIFLE SCOPE requires at least 3 shots in a controlled environment with a 4th to confirm the adjustments.

Please tell me when you believe Oswald did this with THAT rifle so that YOU would be confident as a sharpshooter that after disassembly, transportation within an unlined, unpadded paper sack... and re-assembled... those little adjustments stayed since as you post:

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

So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy.

So if I understand correctly.. you DO NOT BELIEVE that this "high and to the right" was the condition of the scope during the assassination... yet the scope was "fairly well stablized at the time".

You understand correctly. My whole point is that no one can ever know the condition of the rifle at the time of the assassination, because the scope had been removed during the fingerprinting process, as Frazier tells us.

Remember when you asked me sometime ago, if disassembling the rifle would compromise the integrity of the scopes accuracy? I told you no not as long as the scope had not been taken off the rifle. In this case, the scope had been removed, as it was loose when Frazier first received it on 11/23/67.

Oswald simply taking the barrel from the stock would not compromise the scopes integrity, so long as some care were taken in carrying it.

Oswald carried the disassembled rifle to work with the scope already aligned, assembles the rifle... scope is still aligned...

fires the rifle 3 times and leaves it.... the DPD now have it in their possession and within 48 hours after the assassination the scope is working perfectly - only high and to the right...

The scope DOES NOT CHANGE ALIGNMENT during Oswald's journey with it YET

the scope CHANGES ALIGNMENT in the 48 hours between discovery and testing. (you claim the condition of the scope at the time of the shots is unknowable - I agree - yet as I keep eluding to Mike... some things have to happen in a certain order for Oswald to pull this off alone... Using a properly sighted scope HAS to be one of them, no?)

Here is the thing David, we do not know if Oswald carried the scope to work properly aligned, thats really in fact my whole point. We do not know the condition. Now the reason the scope was somewhat stable, is because no one had made any elevation and windage adjustments with the knobs. This is what causes the instability. However someone did dismount the entire scope from the rifle. Once this was done, all hope of knowing the assassination alignment was lost. See what I am getting at here?

I would have to agree that "high and to the right" does seem to take into account the wind blowing from the shooter's right to left, so whoever left the rifle was at least thinking of that.... or am I making an assumption about scope alignment related to wind?

If you were talking about shooting a significant distance, I would be in complete agreement with ya on this one. However in only 88 yards windage and elevation would play a very small factor.

Explain again how/when Oswald makes adjustments to the scope on the day of the assassination with the wind blowing as it was... or who he knew ahead of time that the wind would be out of the south east... so he could align properly...and when again was that 4th shot, the test shot confirming the scope was still as he wanted?

IF and note I said IF Oswald had zeroed the scope at some point and time, and then did not remove the scope from the barrel, there would be no reason to believe the alignment were bad. There would be no need to sight on scene.

DJ

You and Pat can argue all day about this and that test AFTER THE FACT.

Exactly, those tests are after the fact.

Did Oswald use a scope when he was certified marksman in the Marines?

Describe the difference between what Oswald shot in the Marines and the MC found that day.

Does a shooter of any quality use a scope when potentially required to fire in rapid succession on a moving target form that distance?

Oswald would have fired with iron sights in the Marines. Generally speaking a scope is an aid. If you shoot well with irons you will make a marked improvement with a scope.

Well the M1 weighs about 10 lbs, and the MC about 8. Not to different.

The M1 has a two stage trigger, with a trigger pull of 3lbs. The M1 has a two stage trigger with a final pull of about 4lbs. They are very similar in the trigger feel.

The M1 has iron sights with a battle zero of 200 yards, as does the MC.

The major difference is that the MC is a bolt action, and operating the action requires enough movement so as to have to reacquire the target after each shot.

The M1 is a semi auto, however has sufficient recoil as to have the sights come off the target as well.

The only real epic difference, is rate of fire. The M1 can send more lead down range faster.

In all reality the M1 and the Carcano are similar in many ways.

and finally, talking about what OSWALD did when you have not proven he could have even have gotten there in time is moot.

Get him there first Mike - then talk to me about his scope, his skills and what he needed to do in order for his shooting to be effective.

Could you not have told me that BEFORE i typed all that stuff above!

I hear ya buddy, and will be the first to confess I do need to do some research in this area.

If you would like to make and discuss points one at a time, and walk me through your thinking, I would be very glad to tag along.

thanks

My pleasure David. I really enjoy discussing the case with you.

Mike

[David Josephs]

Thanks Lee....

read thru some of the Bledsoe thread - at least the civil parts - and too was excellent. It becomes more and more apparent Oswald was not in many of the places he is claimed to have been...

Reading from Crenshaw's work about Specter I am always blown away by that hypethetical question about the SBT.

"...Assuming that the bullet went back to front and exited the throat... would you consider a wound described as such a wound of exit?"

Tom, as we have seen, has gone running when asked to discuss the xrays and photos he uses as "Proof"

that and any explanation as to why a FMJ behaves differently than designed...

or how a single shot to the top of the head leads to cerebellum and floor of the skull injuries...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17282&view=findpost&p=220202