Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Most Important Error the FBI told the Warren Commission about the Rifle

Recommended Posts

Sorry about that. I had to end the last post at the bottom of that table, as I could not find a way to type past it.

Anyways, our figures for the 4 yard zero and 4" high impact at 15 yards now give us a figure, at 100 yards, of 32.22", meaning this rifle would shoot 32.22" high of the point of aim at 100 yards.

I'm afraid Mr. Frazier has some explaining to do, as his testimony states that the rifle only shot 2.5 - 5 inches high of the point of aim at 100 yards and not the 22 - 32.22 inches high the ballistics calculator shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I posted this material on another forum, I was asked at what point a bullet impacting a target 22-32 inches high at 100 yards would come back down to the line of sight. Here are the figures.

Here are the results of zeroing the rifle at 4 yards. This time, we have chosen 100 yard intervals and taken our maximum range out to 1000 yards.

0 2165 -1.5
100 1920 32.22
200 1698 56.43
300 1498 68.49
400 1325 64.96
500 1184 41.61
600 1082 -6.43
700 1009 -83.9
800 954 -195.11
900 910 -343.88
1000 872 -533.7

As can be seen, the bullet comes back down to the line of sight, and is impacting the point of aim again at somewhere just under 600 yards.

Here are the same parameters, only this time zeroed at 5.5 yards;

0 2165 -1.5
100 1920 22
200 1698 35.98
300 1498 37.82
400 1325 24.08
500 1184 -9.49
600 1082 -67.76
700 1009 -155.45
800 954 -276.88
900 910 -435.87
1000 872 -635.92
This time, the bullet comes down to the line of sight at just under 500 yards.

Next we will calculate for a rifle impacting 2.5 inches and 5 inches high at 100 yards. By trial and error, we find this rifle will hit 2.5 inches high at 100 yards if zeroed at 167 yards.

0 2165 -1.5
15 2123 -0.38
30 2087 0.57
45 2050 1.33
60 2014 1.91
75 1979 2.3
90 1943 2.49
105 1909 2.46
120 1874 2.23
135 1840 1.77
150 1807 1.08
165 1774 0.14
180 1741 -1.04
195 1709 -2.48
210 1677 -4.18

However, we now find that the bullet is .38 inches below the line of sight at 15 yards, not the 2.5 - 4 inches above the line of sight claimed by Frazier.

Frazier is not telling the truth.

If we zero the rifle at 220 yards, we now find the bullet impacting 5 inches high at 100 yards:

0 2165 -1.5
15 2123 -0.01
30 2087 1.31
45 2050 2.45
60 2014 3.41
75 1979 4.17
90 1943 4.73
105 1909 5.08
120 1874 5.22
135 1840 5.13
150 1807 4.81
165 1774 4.25
180 1741 3.45
195 1709 2.38
210 1677 1.05
225 1646 -0.57
240 1616 -2.47
255 1585 -4.68

Now we find, with the rifle zeroed at 220 yards, the bullet to be .01 inch below the line of sight at 15 yards, not the 2.5 - 4 inches above the line of sight claimed by Frazier.

Frazier is not telling the truth.

Just going over this, I realized the way I presented one of these things might be a little confusing. When I stated the rifle would be zeroed or sighted in for 4 or 5.5 yards, this was not actually true, as this distance from the muzzle is actually where the crossover point of the bullet is. Looking at the diagram on the 1st page, you can see the bullet is ascending and crosses the line of sight here.

It would be more proper to give the down range point where the bullet crosses the line of sight the 2nd time, as it descends. Looking at the tables above, we can see the bullet that crosses the line of sight at 4 yards would be zeroed to be accurate at just under 600 yards. For the bullet crossing the line of sight at 5.5 yards, it would be sighted in at just under 500 yards.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, gentlemen. There was a lot of painstaking work that went into uncovering Mr. Frazier's "work", and I appreciate the compliments.

However, I must say my internal BS meter registered a 9.7/10 the very second I read Frazier's claim the rifle was shooting so high at 15 yards AND 100 yards. The outright clumsiness of much of the FBI's "evidence" in this case has always puzzled me, although it seems to have done the job for the last fifty-one years, or so.


I got more! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see...

Mr. Frasier is FBI

FBI did more to hide the facts of the assassination than any other entity

FBI created more evidence than it authenticated

Can anyone offer a nugget of FBI evidence that incriminates Oswald where the FBI did NOT lie?

I have yet to discover one.

Great job Robert... as we continue to approach the evidence as it represents the conspiracy and not the assassination these revelations should become more and more commonplace while hopefully becoming more and more part of our collective knowledge of the conspiracy in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The favorite Lone Nut argument is that Oswald would have made the first shot with the scope and the next two shots with the open sights. There are serious problems with this argument and, under close scrutiny, the argument does not stand up to any serious critiquing.

To begin with, we have just proven that the Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor will, if impacting a target at 15 yards 2.5 - 4 inches high, impact a target at 100 yards 22 - 32 inches high of the point of aim. No one, even someone with Marine training, can compensate this much when shooting at a moving target. Even at 88 yards, the distance of the head shot, the rifle is shooting 20 - 29 inches high. This is further compounded by the fact the shot was downhill. Shooting downhill will make the bullet go even higher. I do not believe the scope could have been used to make any of the shots.

Suffice it to say, the scope on C2766 was so badly mounted and out of adjustment, bullets would have been impacting a target 22 - 32 inches high at 100 yards, if we are to believe Frazier's testimony. The question we must now ask ourselves is, why was the scope still on the rifle when it was found on the 6th floor? If Oswald practiced with this rifle, as claimed by the Warren Commission, he would have immediately become aware of the fact that the scope was beyond useless and, unless re-mounted by a gunsmith, could not be used to shoot this rifle.

Why did Oswald simply not remove the scope and scope mount and use the open sights to practice, long before he even thought about bringing the rifle to the TSBD? The scope mount is held onto the rifle by two tiny slotted screws. One minute with a flat bladed screwdriver would have removed the scope and mount, giving Oswald complete unencumbered access to the open sights. It is true that it is possible to use open sights on a rifle with a side mounted scope. However, and I can say this from personal experience, it is extremely awkward to do so, and the first instinct to surface, when attempting this, is to simply remove the stupid scope. I simply refuse to believe Oswald would have left the scope on the rifle if he had every intention of using open sights to assassinate JFK.

The next argument the Lone Nuts use is that Oswald banged the scope on his way across the 6th floor and knocked it out of adjustment. It is true that rough handling has the potential to put scopes out of adjustment, but in amounts of an inch or two at 100 yards. For a rifle to go from shooting fairly accurately to being 32 inches high at 100 yards, simply from rough handling, is impossible. There simply is not that much adjustment available in a rifle scope. Oswald would have to hit the scope hard enough to actually bend the tube at some point, and this would have made it impossible for anyone in the FBI to have even used this scope; despite the addition of shims and any subsequent adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two views of a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle with scopes mounted of the same make and in the same fashion as C2766:



Although it is possible to use the open sights seen in the upper photo, it is extremely awkward and requires the shooter's forehead to be practically in contact with the scope. The scope mount is very distracting to a shooter trying to concentrate on the front and rear sight. Also, look at the bottom photo and you can see how far back the scope projects.

Next, the bolt handle, although curved, must be turned up to a vertical position before the bolt can be pulled back. As can be seen, this would place the hand operating the bolt in close proximity with the scope. During rapid firing, the scope is almost sure to get in the way.

The solution is simple; if the scope is totally useless, why not spend one minute undoing the two screws attaching the scope mount and simply remove scope and mount?


Look at this pretty face, lined up to make a shot with open sights. Would you want the butt end of a scope projecting towards it, as she gets in close to make a shot?

Another example:


Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I have made it quite clear this rifle was incapable of making the shots the Warren Commission attributed to it. I will be glad to answer any questions you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frazier puzzles me. He tells an un-truth about the bullet's trajectory. Yet he appears to tell the truth when he testifies to the Warren Commission that he didn't swab the rifle barrel to determine whether the rifle had been fired recently because the barrel was so corroded.

Was Frazier an overblown incompetent? A skilled xxxx?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the question on my mind, too, Jon. And, if he was lying in part of his testimony, the lies are so clumsy and obvious, I've sometimes thought he wanted someone like me to follow the trail of bread crumbs he left.

The testimony Frazier gave about the state of C2766's barrel has been used by many over the years in an attempt to prove that C2766's barrel was so rusted when examined by Frazier on the 23rd, there is no way a bullet could have passed through the barrel on the 22nd, as it would have removed all of the rust.

I do not subscribe to this theory at all, and I believe Frazier was indicating the interior of C2766's barrel was badly eroded, yet it was impossible to tell when this erosion took place, as there was no rust on the inside of the barrel when he examined it. His unfortunate analogy about one bullet going through the barrel being able to remove all of a lifetime of accumulated rust only reinforces their theory. What he meant by this was, the corrosion in the barrel could have all taken place in the Second World War when this rifle was carried by a soldier, and the barrel could have been cleaned after this period and the rifle properly stored, and no more corrosion would take place. However, the barrel would still show the effects of this initial corrosion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious if either of you have read Gerry McKnight's book on the Warren Commission, he delves into issues with Frazier's testimony and other issues of the FBI's presentations...including the WC taking

expert testimony on issues from agents who were not experts in that particular area. If not it might be helpful. When Gary gets his book out I understand he will be adding significantly to that area as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


In post #26, you refer to this portion of Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY - Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER - I did not examine it for that.
Mr. McCLOY - Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
Mr. McCLOY - Thank you.

Would there have been, or likely have been, "metal fouling" as McCloy calls it in the barrel if the rifle had been fired three times recently (like the day before)?

When Frazier uses the word "corrosion" does he use it to mean rust?

It appears to me the answer to both questions is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jon

1) Yes, there could be metal fouling from three bullets being fired the day before. However, if the rifle barrel had not been cleaned in a couple of years, there would also be metal fouling in the barrel from all of the shots fired in those two years.

2) Frazier is referring to rust when he uses the word "corrosion". However, most people do not understand his analogy about one bullet removing an accumulation of rust. Notice that he says the interior surface of the barrel was "roughened from corrosion OR wear". What he is telling McCloy is that, when presented with a worn barrel, it is difficult to determine if that wear was from rust or from having many thousands of bullets fired through it. As he stated, the barrel could be badly rusted, but one or two bullets fired through it will remove that rust. Once the rust is gone, you cannot tell if the damage the rust did to the barrel was from rust or a large number of bullets passing through it.

This is, of course, only Frazier's opinion on the matter. I have found that barrels allowed to rust will have a "pitting" on the inside of the barrel not typically seen on properly cleaned and stored rifle barrels with a large number of rounds fired through them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...