Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple

[David Josephs]

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?

Mike, Mike.... why oh why do you keep sidestepping the real issue...

Plain and Simple: The scope on the rifle recovered from the TSBD is of no consequence....

Getting that rifle into Oswald's possession, getting the rifle to the TSBD, getting that rifle - assembled - to the 6th floor SE corner, getting Oswald to the 6th floor SE corner window, addressing the 3 men seen with rifles on the 6th floor at 12:15, .... are you seeing my point?

I can claim Oswald shot JFK with a Sherman Tank from that window - are we going to spend days back and forth about his ability to aim and fire a Sherman Tank ??? No, we're first going to have to prove that Oswald and the Tank are somehow connected, and somehow made it's way to the 6th floor. Same with that rifle

As I've said repeatedly... proving the condition of the weapon is pointless... there is no real way to know...

but let me suggest this... at some point during the 22nd Ruth Paine, or even that night before when she turns out the light, disposes of the rifle in the blanket if there ever was one... because lo and behold, it was never a 6.5mm MC. The HIDELL rifle from Kleins, delivered incorrectly with no record of Oswlad ever picking it up and now no real proof the MO used to pay for it was ever cashed, is found where it was... in the TSBD.

No one fired it, no clip falls out when the last round is ejected, as it is supposed to

No clip is seen in the bottom of the rifle in the Alyea film

A clip magically appears later in Day's possession

The verdict, within hours is that Oswald, acting as Hidell bought, paid for and used this rifle in a spontaneous action that kills JFK.

We don't want to know where he was at the time

We don't want to know that a rfile addressed to Hidell could not be delivered to Oswald's PO Box

We don't want to know that the bag that supposed held the rifle was seen by and described as too small for such an action by the only person who saw it

We don't want to know that other men looking like Oswald and bringing attention to themselves in a sinister manner

We don't want to know that Oswald is impersonated in Mexico

We don't want to know he did NOT get on that bus

We don't want to hear from Roger Craig - that's for dam sure!

We dont' want to believe the 60 witnesses who heard and saw atleast a shot from a place other than the TSBD

We really won't want to know about the men with rifles on the 6th floor at 12:15

We don''t want to know about the people leaving the back of the TSBD right after the assasination and driving away

We don't want to know about missed shots, extra wounds, shots from the front, a shallow back wound and everyone from Parkland to Bethesda, from Jackie to Hill (what were they 1 foot from JFK?) describing the hole in the back of his head and the bullet entrance at the right temple

So Mike.... whether the scope was properly aligned and whether Frazier did accuracy test is a complete waste of time and THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT... bury the CT in minutia... and it continue to work to this day... we can't help it... we love minutia, we can hang our hats on it.

Until you read Unspeakable and about 10 of the other essays and articles suggested we are going to be stuck talking technicalities regarding an impossibility - Oswald never shot that rifle. 3 teams of much more experienced assassins killed JFK for any one a 100 reasons... accomplish all those things I list above and THEN we can talk scopes.

So I will ask again... if a shot from the right front is an exploding bullet, how does it blow a hole in the BACK of JFK's head?

My gut feeling is it didn't... another head shot did.

DJ

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.....

[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,

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.....

It's not for anyone to prove the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination. That's where the evidence leads. It's up to you to prove the misalignment of the scope occurred after the shooting.

And you have no evidence in support of this beyond Frazier's GUT FEELING or guess that shims were removed in Dallas.

Well, two days after Frazier testified, Lt. Day testified. Now, get this, he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately. He did, however, volunteer that he never got a chance to inspect the area of the rifle by the scope.

When one follows his testimony, moreover, and reads other interviews with Day, it's clear as...Day... that he would like us to believe that when he was working on the rifle, he 1) dusted the rifle, and photographed the trigger guard prints, 2) spotted part of a print on the underside of the barrel peaking out from beneath the wooden stock, 3) removed the barrel from the stock, and dusted the area around this print, 4) lifted this print, and prepared to photograph it, 5) was told not to proceed any further, 6) put the barrel back in the stock. Per his testimony, he NEVER got any further.

Now, if you choose to believe he removed the scope and lost shims, that is up to you. But if you do, you should acknowledge that 1) Lt. Day, through whom most all the evidence against Oswald flowed, was both incompetent and deceptive about the processing of the rifle, and 2) the Warren Commission deliberately avoided the question of whether or not shims were removed.

And oh yeah, by the way, while Oswald ordered the rifle with a scope, the scope was not sighted-in before delivery, and this scope/rifle combination could not fire accurately without shims. There is, furthermore, no evidence Oswald ever had the rifle sighted-in.

So...there's no evidence the shims Frazier claimed were removed in Dallas ever actually existed.

[Pat Speer]

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.

Ha. Craig, look again. I gave you a chance to come clean, and you once again spewed nonsense. Allen moved between the two photos. To Monty's right. As a result his shadow is no longer on Monty and is instead on the man on the left side of the photo (who I suspect is Lt. Day). His shadow, moreover, is much higher on the body of this man than it was on Monty in the earlier photo. Because this man is much closer to him.

So...yes or no. Is this man in front of the bag or not?

[Mike Williams]

It's not for anyone to prove the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination. That's where the evidence leads. It's up to you to prove the misalignment of the scope occurred after the shooting.

Wow talk about a bold claim on your part!

And how exactly does the evidence lead there, when there is no evidence what so ever to indicate the condition at the time of the assassination? My whole point, is that there is no way to tell when the misalignment occurred. In as much as the Buffs, such as yourself, would like to prove that the scope was misaligned during the event, there is no evidence to support that from a ballistic standpoint.

And you have no evidence in support of this beyond Frazier's GUT FEELING or guess that shims were removed in Dallas.

Um....What shims in Dallas? Frazier testified that it was apparent the scope was removed, I am not aware of him ever making a comment about shims being in the rifle before then. He does tell us that on 3/16/64, it required shims to be sighted correctly. How do we know that it required shims during the assassination? We don't, simply because it was not tested before it was disassembled and fingerprinted, just as Frazier tells us.

Well, two days after Frazier testified, Lt. Day testified. Now, get this, he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately. He did, however, volunteer that he never got a chance to inspect the area of the rifle by the scope.

Now this is an interesting statement, and may be a severe indication of tunnel logic. Tunnel logic exists when someone is so locked into a thought or idea, that they see no other logic or reason.

So let me ask you.

How do you know that Day did not process the scope, and scope area prior to removing the stock?

Generally an examination of evidence, and this applies to fingerprinting as well, should be done from top to bottom, then outside to inside. This is to avoid ruining anything in an attempt to get to something else.

Another indication of tunnel thinking can be found in your comment that"he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately."

How do you know that the scope required shims to fire accurately at that point in time? How do you know that there were shims in the rifle during the assassination?

Is it possible that the idea of a misaligned scope is so ingrained in your thinking that you just do not examine other aspects and possibilities?

When one follows his testimony, moreover, and reads other interviews with Day, it's clear as...Day... that he would like us to believe that when he was working on the rifle, he 1) dusted the rifle, and photographed the trigger guard prints, 2) spotted part of a print on the underside of the barrel peaking out from beneath the wooden stock, 3) removed the barrel from the stock, and dusted the area around this print, 4) lifted this print, and prepared to photograph it, 5) was told not to proceed any further, 6) put the barrel back in the stock. Per his testimony, he NEVER got any further.

Again, how do you know he did not follow the procedure and examine the top first, before he was told to stop?

Now, if you choose to believe he removed the scope and lost shims, that is up to you. But if you do, you should acknowledge that 1) Lt. Day, through whom most all the evidence against Oswald flowed, was both incompetent and deceptive about the processing of the rifle, and 2) the Warren Commission deliberately avoided the question of whether or not shims were removed.

I have to tell you, I find that a person involved with the rifle, Frazier, said it is apparent that the scope was removed for printing. That is very compelling.

Moreover, can you offer any supporting evidence, testimony will do, that indicates Day did NOT remove the scope? Earlier on, you told us that he said that, however, your misinterpretation of the testimony in regard to the top and bottom of the barrel, is glaring.

And oh yeah, by the way, while Oswald ordered the rifle with a scope, the scope was not sighted-in before delivery, and this scope/rifle combination could not fire accurately without shims. There is, furthermore, no evidence Oswald ever had the rifle sighted-in.

So...there's no evidence the shims Frazier claimed were removed in Dallas ever actually existed.

Again, how do you know this particular rifle could not fire accurately without shims? Can you support this claim? How do you know it ever had shims before 3/16/64? Can you support that claim?

I would be interest to hear what gives you the impression that the scope and rifle would not have been at least bore sighted before delivery? You do know this is a common practice when mounting a scope. This was a cheap rifle, granted, and to keep costs down it is possible they would skirt this step. I would just like to see the supporting documentation, no offense, but really your ability to understand the evidence about the rifle has been a bit contaminated by your ingrained belief that it had been misaligned all along.

I really want you to know that I mean no disrespect in saying that Pat. I do not agree with you, but I do follow your line of thought. Few Ct's have your tenacious and methodical approach. Hell truth be told, many Ln's lack your tenacity as well.

We have an old saying.

An inch at the muzzle is a mile at the target.

[Craig Lamson]

Ha. Craig, look again. I gave you a chance to come clean, and you once again spewed nonsense. Allen moved between the two photos. To Monty's right. As a result his shadow is no longer on Monty and is instead on the man on the left side of the photo (who I suspect is Lt. Day). His shadow, moreover, is much higher on the body of this man than it was on Monty in the earlier photo. Because this man is much closer to him.

So...yes or no. Is this man in front of the bag or not?

Come clean? Now thats the funniest thing you have ever said and hypocritical too given all of your failures you have refused to admit.

Here was your FIRST claim:(speaking of Allen 2)

Speer sez:

"In THIS photo, the shadow of Allen's head is at the same position on Montgomery's leg."

Then Speer sez the opposite:

"As a result his shadow (Allen) is no longer on Monty and is instead on the man on the left side of the photo"

Can you tell the truth Pat?

You simply DON'T have the first clue do you Pat? Like I said before...ducks in a barrel.

So you say that Allen has moved left and his shadow now falls on Day? Ok, lets see if the actual shadows FIT your claim. First lets look at Monty. Can we see any of his body shadow on the ground? OF COURSE NOT! That means his body and and axis of the angle of view of the camera are in a direct line with the angle of the sun. Thats called ZERO PHASE ANGLE Pat. Beyond your ken I know but the truth is ALL of this is beyond your ken.

So what ELS can tell us that the shadow of Allen is falling on Monty and not Day? EASY! We can see the shadow of Day's body on the ground! SInce this shadow is showing on left of Day as seen form the camera, this means the photogrpaher is TO THE LEFT of the angle of the sun.

What does all of that mean? First and foremost, it means that ONCE AGAIN PAt Speer has showcased his decided lack of knowlege about the photographic process.

His statement that we the shadow seen falling on Day is the photographer Allen is false.

Poof, you are TOAST once again Pat.

So now its still your turn...Is the head in front of, equal too or behind the bag in Allen 2? And what visual clues have you used to make this decision?

Here's YOUR chance to come clean Pat.

[Pat Speer]

It's not for anyone to prove the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination. That's where the evidence leads. It's up to you to prove the misalignment of the scope occurred after the shooting.

Wow talk about a bold claim on your part!

And how exactly does the evidence lead there, when there is no evidence what so ever to indicate the condition at the time of the assassination? My whole point, is that there is no way to tell when the misalignment occurred. In as much as the Buffs, such as yourself, would like to prove that the scope was misaligned during the event, there is no evidence to support that from a ballistic standpoint.

And you have no evidence in support of this beyond Frazier's GUT FEELING or guess that shims were removed in Dallas.

Um....What shims in Dallas? Frazier testified that it was apparent the scope was removed, I am not aware of him ever making a comment about shims being in the rifle before then. He does tell us that on 3/16/64, it required shims to be sighted correctly. How do we know that it required shims during the assassination? We don't, simply because it was not tested before it was disassembled and fingerprinted, just as Frazier tells us.

Well, two days after Frazier testified, Lt. Day testified. Now, get this, he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately. He did, however, volunteer that he never got a chance to inspect the area of the rifle by the scope.

Now this is an interesting statement, and may be a severe indication of tunnel logic. Tunnel logic exists when someone is so locked into a thought or idea, that they see no other logic or reason.

So let me ask you.

How do you know that Day did not process the scope, and scope area prior to removing the stock?

Generally an examination of evidence, and this applies to fingerprinting as well, should be done from top to bottom, then outside to inside. This is to avoid ruining anything in an attempt to get to something else.

Another indication of tunnel thinking can be found in your comment that"he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately."

How do you know that the scope required shims to fire accurately at that point in time? How do you know that there were shims in the rifle during the assassination?

Is it possible that the idea of a misaligned scope is so ingrained in your thinking that you just do not examine other aspects and possibilities?

When one follows his testimony, moreover, and reads other interviews with Day, it's clear as...Day... that he would like us to believe that when he was working on the rifle, he 1) dusted the rifle, and photographed the trigger guard prints, 2) spotted part of a print on the underside of the barrel peaking out from beneath the wooden stock, 3) removed the barrel from the stock, and dusted the area around this print, 4) lifted this print, and prepared to photograph it, 5) was told not to proceed any further, 6) put the barrel back in the stock. Per his testimony, he NEVER got any further.

Again, how do you know he did not follow the procedure and examine the top first, before he was told to stop?

Now, if you choose to believe he removed the scope and lost shims, that is up to you. But if you do, you should acknowledge that 1) Lt. Day, through whom most all the evidence against Oswald flowed, was both incompetent and deceptive about the processing of the rifle, and 2) the Warren Commission deliberately avoided the question of whether or not shims were removed.

I have to tell you, I find that a person involved with the rifle, Frazier, said it is apparent that the scope was removed for printing. That is very compelling.

Moreover, can you offer any supporting evidence, testimony will do, that indicates Day did NOT remove the scope? Earlier on, you told us that he said that, however, your misinterpretation of the testimony in regard to the top and bottom of the barrel, is glaring.

And oh yeah, by the way, while Oswald ordered the rifle with a scope, the scope was not sighted-in before delivery, and this scope/rifle combination could not fire accurately without shims. There is, furthermore, no evidence Oswald ever had the rifle sighted-in.

So...there's no evidence the shims Frazier claimed were removed in Dallas ever actually existed.

Again, how do you know this particular rifle could not fire accurately without shims? Can you support this claim? How do you know it ever had shims before 3/16/64? Can you support that claim?

I would be interest to hear what gives you the impression that the scope and rifle would not have been at least bore sighted before delivery? You do know this is a common practice when mounting a scope. This was a cheap rifle, granted, and to keep costs down it is possible they would skirt this step. I would just like to see the supporting documentation, no offense, but really your ability to understand the evidence about the rifle has been a bit contaminated by your ingrained belief that it had been misaligned all along.

I really want you to know that I mean no disrespect in saying that Pat. I do not agree with you, but I do follow your line of thought. Few Ct's have your tenacious and methodical approach. Hell truth be told, many Ln's lack your tenacity as well.

We have an old saying.

An inch at the muzzle is a mile at the target.

Mike, Frazier testified that he thought we could not tell the nature of the scope during the shooting because screws were loose and this led him to believe the scope had been removed. He also says that in March 64 they sighted the rifle in as well as they could, and found it still fired high and to the right. He said as well that this was not because the scope had been damaged, but because the way the scope had been mounted. Ronald Simmons testified afterward, and confirmed that the Army found it had to add shims to the scope mount to bring it into alignment. Dr. John Lattimer would later admit that he bought four rifles like the one in question equipped with the scope in question, and all had to be fitted with shims to bring the scope into alignment. The evidence is that this cheap scope, when fitted to this rifle, just does not align without shims.

While some, including myself, thought Frazier's comments about the screws meant that he thought the looseness of the screws caused the misalignment of the scope when first tested, this doesn't make a lot of sense when one realizes these were mount screws, meant to hold the scope onto the rifle, and not to be used for adjustment, and that the scope had separate adjustment screws. Sure enough, Frazier later discussed the rifle and scope in more detail in a book defending the FBI Crime Lab, Hard Evidence, 1995, and clarified (at least for me) what he meant when he claimed the misalignment of the scope was related to the loose screws. Here he explained: "The scope of the rifle had been taken off by the Dallas police to search for latents, and when we got it, it was loose; we had to tighten the screws down. I think there were shims under the scope when it was used and the Dallas police lost them when they took it off."

When one takes into account that William Waldman later testified on behalf of Klein's that the rifle had not been sighted in at Klein's, it follows that in order for the scope to have been aligned on 11-22-63 1) Oswald would have to have sighted-in the scope or paid someone to sight it in, and add shims, for which there is no evidence, 2) Day would have to have removed the scope, for which there is not only no evidence, there is strong counter-evidence in that Day claimed while working on the rifle on 11-22 he'd focused his energies on the trigger guard prints and barrel print that were readily evident, and was not able to fully process the rifle, 3) that Day had removed and lost the shims, for which there is no evidence.

The FBI knew that this is where the evidence led. They knew the evidence suggested that the scope was misaligned on 11-22. Which is why Frazier made up that crap about the misalignment of the scope AFTER they'd sighted it in was an advantage to the shooter...

And is why they just pretended the misalignment of the scope when first tested was irrelevant, as some screws were loose, and someone in Dallas must have lost some shims... (Not that they'd ever bother to investigate such a thing...)

[Pat Speer]

Ha. Craig, look again. I gave you a chance to come clean, and you once again spewed nonsense. Allen moved between the two photos. To Monty's right. As a result his shadow is no longer on Monty and is instead on the man on the left side of the photo (who I suspect is Lt. Day). His shadow, moreover, is much higher on the body of this man than it was on Monty in the earlier photo. Because this man is much closer to him.

So...yes or no. Is this man in front of the bag or not?

Come clean? Now thats the funniest thing you have ever said and hypocritical too given all of your failures you have refused to admit.

Here was your FIRST claim:(speaking of Allen 2)

Speer sez:

"In THIS photo, the shadow of Allen's head is at the same position on Montgomery's leg."

Then Speer sez the opposite:

"As a result his shadow (Allen) is no longer on Monty and is instead on the man on the left side of the photo"

Can you tell the truth Pat?

You simply DON'T have the first clue do you Pat? Like I said before...ducks in a barrel.

So you say that Allen has moved left and his shadow now falls on Day? Ok, lets see if the actual shadows FIT your claim. First lets look at Monty. Can we see any of his body shadow on the ground? OF COURSE NOT! That means his body and and axis of the angle of view of the camera are in a direct line with the angle of the sun. Thats called ZERO PHASE ANGLE Pat. Beyond your ken I know but the truth is ALL of this is beyond your ken.

So what ELS can tell us that the shadow of Allen is falling on Monty and not Day? EASY! We can see the shadow of Day's body on the ground! SInce this shadow is showing on left of Day as seen form the camera, this means the photogrpaher is TO THE LEFT of the angle of the sun.

What does all of that mean? First and foremost, it means that ONCE AGAIN PAt Speer has showcased his decided lack of knowlege about the photographic process.

His statement that we the shadow seen falling on Day is the photographer Allen is false.

Poof, you are TOAST once again Pat.

So now its still your turn...Is the head in front of, equal too or behind the bag in Allen 2? And what visual clues have you used to make this decision?

Here's YOUR chance to come clean Pat.

Well, you're right about something for a change. My first assessment was correct. Allen's shadow is still on Monty. Your gif file, flashing back and forth, convinced me Allen had stepped to his left between shots, when a more reasoned analysis while looking at the photos themselves leads me to suspect he stepped slightly forward and to his right.

His stepping forward and to his right is, of course, much more problematic for you in that you already claimed he was what 5 feet from Montgomery? Is he still five feet from Montgomery? More than five feet? Do tell.

As far as the man on the left of the photo, to me it's obvious he's closer to the camera than the bag. I suspect it's obvious to you as well. If not, then why not admit that he is, in your analysis, further from the camera than the bag?

Your refusal to say as much says to me that you know he's closer to the camera than the bag, and are afraid to commit yourself to something that you know will sink your analysis in the eyes of anyone with...eyes.

[Craig Lamson]

Well, you're right about something for a change. My first assessment was correct. Allen's shadow is still on Monty. Your gif file, flashing back and forth, convinced me Allen had stepped to his left between shots, when a more reasoned analysis while looking at the photos themselves leads me to suspect he stepped slightly forward and to his right.

His stepping forward and to his right is, of course, much more problematic for you in that you already claimed he was what 5 feet from Montgomery? Is he still five feet from Montgomery? More than five feet? Do tell.

As far as the man on the left of the photo, to me it's obvious he's closer to the camera than the bag. I suspect it's obvious to you as well. If not, then why not admit that he is, in your analysis, further from the camera than the bag?

Your refusal to say as much says to me that you know he's closer to the camera than the bag, and are afraid to commit yourself to something that you know will sink your analysis in the eyes of anyone with...eyes.

How far is Monty? Slightly closer than the near 6ish feet he was in Allen 1, You see its NOT a problem at all IF you have the first clue about how any of this works. YOU don't and tha'ts the real problem here. BTW you have ANY idea how high the camera was in Allen 2?

Now as to head-leaner, PLEASE tell us how you have concluded he is closer to the camera tan the bag? What VISUAL CLUES givs you this impression? Show us ANYTHING other that your proven visual impairment. Show EVERYONE with eyes how you reached your conclusion.

I have my distance figure well plotted? Do you?

Let me remind you of the first rule of holes...and your hole is a mile deep...STOP DIGGING!

[David Butler]

I don't think Day is closer to the camera than the end of the bag but then the bag appears to be pointing at something like a 45 degree angle towards the camera lens. I would say he is about level with Montgomery's hand that is holding whatever it is that is keeping the bag upright....

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

[b]"I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds."[/b]

Actually! It was much closer to 9-seconds.

Tom

[Pat Speer]

I don't think Day is closer to the camera than the end of the bag but then the bag appears to be pointing at something like a 45 degree angle towards the camera lens. I would say he is about level with Montgomery's hand that is holding whatever it is that is keeping the bag upright....

To me it seems obvious that the man's head is significantly larger than Montgomery's. and that he is therefore significantly closer to the camera than Montgomery. Not inches. Feet. It also seems clear he is leaning a bit to his right, and looking at something in the distance. This leads me to believe he is in front of the bag. In your analysis, he is looking between Monty and the bag, correct? Are there any clues you can identify that make you think as much?

[Pat Speer]

Well, you're right about something for a change. My first assessment was correct. Allen's shadow is still on Monty. Your gif file, flashing back and forth, convinced me Allen had stepped to his left between shots, when a more reasoned analysis while looking at the photos themselves leads me to suspect he stepped slightly forward and to his right.

His stepping forward and to his right is, of course, much more problematic for you in that you already claimed he was what 5 feet from Montgomery? Is he still five feet from Montgomery? More than five feet? Do tell.

As far as the man on the left of the photo, to me it's obvious he's closer to the camera than the bag. I suspect it's obvious to you as well. If not, then why not admit that he is, in your analysis, further from the camera than the bag?

Your refusal to say as much says to me that you know he's closer to the camera than the bag, and are afraid to commit yourself to something that you know will sink your analysis in the eyes of anyone with...eyes.

How far is Monty? Slightly closer than the near 6ish feet he was in Allen 1, You see its NOT a problem at all IF you have the first clue about how any of this works. YOU don't and tha'ts the real problem here. BTW you have ANY idea how high the camera was in Allen 2?

Now as to head-leaner, PLEASE tell us how you have concluded he is closer to the camera tan the bag? What VISUAL CLUES givs you this impression? Show us ANYTHING other that your proven visual impairment. Show EVERYONE with eyes how you reached your conclusion.

I have my distance figure well plotted? Do you?

Let me remind you of the first rule of holes...and your hole is a mile deep...STOP DIGGING!

So you acknowledge Monty's closer in this one. Good. And the leaner is closer than Monty, by just how much exactly? Do tell.

[David Butler]

He is looking between Monty and the bag....I think perhaps at the reporter who is visible in the other photo and his notepad is still in the frame on this one who is presumably asking questions.

As I think the bag is at an angle pointing towards the photographer are we talking about the end of the bag closest to the camera here ? I would say Day is perhaps a foot closer than Monty in this one...I might stretch to two foot if I was being generous :-)

I don't think Day is closer to the camera than the end of the bag but then the bag appears to be pointing at something like a 45 degree angle towards the camera lens. I would say he is about level with Montgomery's hand that is holding whatever it is that is keeping the bag upright....

To me it seems obvious that the man's head is significantly larger than Montgomery's. and that he is therefore significantly closer to the camera than Montgomery. Not inches. Feet. It also seems clear he is leaning a bit to his right, and looking at something in the distance. This leads me to believe he is in front of the bag. In your analysis, he is looking between Monty and the bag, correct? Are there any clues you can identify that make you think as much?

[Craig Lamson]

Well, you're right about something for a change. My first assessment was correct. Allen's shadow is still on Monty. Your gif file, flashing back and forth, convinced me Allen had stepped to his left between shots, when a more reasoned analysis while looking at the photos themselves leads me to suspect he stepped slightly forward and to his right.

His stepping forward and to his right is, of course, much more problematic for you in that you already claimed he was what 5 feet from Montgomery? Is he still five feet from Montgomery? More than five feet? Do tell.

As far as the man on the left of the photo, to me it's obvious he's closer to the camera than the bag. I suspect it's obvious to you as well. If not, then why not admit that he is, in your analysis, further from the camera than the bag?

Your refusal to say as much says to me that you know he's closer to the camera than the bag, and are afraid to commit yourself to something that you know will sink your analysis in the eyes of anyone with...eyes.

How far is Monty? Slightly closer than the near 6ish feet he was in Allen 1, You see its NOT a problem at all IF you have the first clue about how any of this works. YOU don't and tha'ts the real problem here. BTW you have ANY idea how high the camera was in Allen 2?

Now as to head-leaner, PLEASE tell us how you have concluded he is closer to the camera tan the bag? What VISUAL CLUES givs you this impression? Show us ANYTHING other that your proven visual impairment. Show EVERYONE with eyes how you reached your conclusion.

I have my distance figure well plotted? Do you?

Let me remind you of the first rule of holes...and your hole is a mile deep...STOP DIGGING!

So you acknowledge Monty's closer in this one. Good. And the leaner is closer than Monty, by just how much exactly? Do tell.

inches...

Now for the the questions still unanswered BY YOU...Ever gonna answer or will you just continue to blow smoke up everyones wahzoo?

[Craig Lamson]

To me it seems obvious that the man's head is significantly larger than Montgomery's. and that he is therefore significantly closer to the camera than Montgomery. Not inches. Feet. It also seems clear he is leaning a bit to his right, and looking at something in the distance. This leads me to believe he is in front of the bag. In your analysis, he is looking between Monty and the bag, correct? Are there any clues you can identify that make you think as much?

Where are those visual clues YOU were asked about Speer?

All I see is more smoke billowing from your keyboard