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

[Robert Prudhomme]

In another thread long ago, it was suggested that the Carcano and scope MIGHT have been a great set-up for a shooter who was right-handed, but left-eye dominant. Haven't seen any photos of a right-hander trying to look through that scope with their left eye...but such a photo would tell us whether the concept is even feasible or not.

I guess it is possible it might help, if Oswald indeed was a left-eye dominant right-handed shooter. I personally don't believe there is any way a 4 x 18 scope for a .22 rimfire rifle could ever qualify for being part of a "great set-up".

[Mark Knight]

I wasn't saying that THIS particular scope and mount were a great set-up; I was saying that, on paper, a similar setup with a quality scope and mount would seem ideal for a left-eye-dominant, right-handed person.

[Robert Prudhomme]

In comments I have read online, some are stating that a shooter in the TSBD 'sniper's nest' using the 'Oswald weapon' would have had to be aiming at the trunk of JFK's parade car & to the left of JFK in order to hit him with either of the back or head shots. Do you agree with that assessment?

BM

Brad,

http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/G54CKwHf/file.html

It appears the WC agreed with those comments too.

Amazing how the WC knew what aiming adjustment was necessary and at what location to begin with.

chris

Chris

I have been studying the reenactment photo you posted a link to, and trying to make sense of the testimony from Frazier you quoted beneath the photo.

The first thing I noticed is the piece of tape on the back of the JFK stand-in, signifying the entrance wound, seems to be very low if one considers this wound was supposedly at the level of C7/T1.

Second, it seems there is testimony here from Frazier I have not read before. They were very good at spreading one man's testimony all over the WCR, weren't they. Could you explain what he means by locating JFK's back wound by measuring from the top of the head down to the entrance wound, as shown in the autopsy figures? This is all new to me, as I thought Humes located the back wound as being 14 cm. down from the mastoid process, a bony skull protrusion just behind the ear. Any idea what Frazier is talking about?

Next, or best as I can follow Frazier, the limo must have been sitting still, and it seems they laid a ruler against the back wound location, and looked at this through a rifle scope, presumably C2766 and, also, presumably from the 6th floor? Now, this is where I lose Frazier. What is this 10 inch thing he speaks of that, when measured down from the entrance wound, ends up on the rear of the limo trunk?

God only knows what you have uncovered here, Chris, but I have a feeling we are onto something interesting here. Good find, buddy.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

I wasn't saying that THIS particular scope and mount were a great set-up; I was saying that, on paper, a similar setup with a quality scope and mount would seem ideal for a left-eye-dominant, right-handed person.

Oh, of course, Mark. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

[Ian Lloyd]

Robert,

Regarding the tape on the trunk of the car - I have a vague memory that the car used in the re-enactment had a different ride height to the presidential limo - possibly +10". The tape may have been used to mark the point of impact if the actual limo were to have been used in the re-enactment (i.e. -10")? If so, it seems awfully low and surely shows that the car used in the re-enactment must in completely the wrong location? Also, if this is correct, then surely all the angles and positions are incorrect i.e. "limo" position and its angle due to the slope on Elm, angle of the rifle barrel from the 6th floor etc.

(Would this also explain why the mark on "JFK" 's back is so low?)

As I said, this is a vague memory and would need checking.

Also, I agree with Brad that it is very dubious that the follow up car with SSAs on it was never included in the re-enactment.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Ian Lloyd

[Chris Davidson]

In comments I have read online, some are stating that a shooter in the TSBD 'sniper's nest' using the 'Oswald weapon' would have had to be aiming at the trunk of JFK's parade car & to the left of JFK in order to hit him with either of the back or head shots. Do you agree with that assessment?

BM

Brad,

http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/G54CKwHf/file.html

It appears the WC agreed with those comments too.

Amazing how the WC knew what aiming adjustment was necessary and at what location to begin with.

chris

Chris

I have been studying the reenactment photo you posted a link to, and trying to make sense of the testimony from Frazier you quoted beneath the photo.

The first thing I noticed is the piece of tape on the back of the JFK stand-in, signifying the entrance wound, seems to be very low if one considers this wound was supposedly at the level of C7/T1.

Second, it seems there is testimony here from Frazier I have not read before. They were very good at spreading one man's testimony all over the WCR, weren't they. Could you explain what he means by locating JFK's back wound by measuring from the top of the head down to the entrance wound, as shown in the autopsy figures? This is all new to me, as I thought Humes located the back wound as being 14 cm. down from the mastoid process, a bony skull protrusion just behind the ear. Any idea what Frazier is talking about?

Next, or best as I can follow Frazier, the limo must have been sitting still, and it seems they laid a ruler against the back wound location, and looked at this through a rifle scope, presumably C2766 and, also, presumably from the 6th floor? Now, this is where I lose Frazier. What is this 10 inch thing he speaks of that, when measured down from the entrance wound, ends up on the rear of the limo trunk?

God only knows what you have uncovered here, Chris, but I have a feeling we are onto something interesting here. Good find, buddy.

Robert,

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film.

Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is Commission Exhibit No. 889.

(Commission Exhibit No. 889 was marked for identification.)

Mr. DULLES. Is that 10 inches difference due to the difference in the two cars?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. That is the President's--the car the President was in and the car you had to use for this particular test?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. On Exhibit No. 889, is the car in the same position on the "photograph through rifle scope" as it is on "photograph from reenactment"?

I didn't know JFK was shot in the head first, as that is what the "back" chalk mark is made to represent in terms of height.

The trunk tape would represent the "back" height.

All measurements from CE884 are to the "chalk mark"

chris

P.S. Does anyone really believe the adjustments were created, mainly because of the differences described via this testimony?

[Chris Davidson]

Robert,

I have supplied this before, but in case it's been forgotten.

The slope of Elm St determined to be 3degrees/8minutes = 3.13 degrees = 5.46% street grade. WC final plat May/1964

That slope equals a horizontal to vertical ratio of 18.3ft/1.

If I wanted to apply that ratio in terms of inches for (let's say) a 30ft distance(Z313-Z351 Altgens) it would look something like this:

30/18.3 = 1.639

1.639 x 12 inches = 19.67 inches.

chris

[Brad Milch]

Nothing will open a person's eyes faster to the con job pulled on the public in ambush re-enactments by the Secret Service, FBI, WC & HSCA than visiting Elm Street in Dealey Plaza, standing, squatting or sitting at the Z-313 street marker X & having a friend or two stand back closer to the TSBD 10 feet or so while looking at the lower portion of the 6th floor sniper's nest window. You won't be able to see it (your friends will block your view). For those who cannot get to the site in person, one can simply watch traffic on the museum's 24/7 online webcam & notice how a smaller vehicle literally 'disappears' when a taller vehicle tailgates it around the Z-313 spot on Elm Street.

I'd suggest trying the street experiment early on a Sunday morning when traffic is usually dead or extremely sporadic. Don't get yourself run over or ticketed!.

A billion words defending the official accounts of the ambush cannot vaporize what one can see with their own eyes. After experiencing this for myself in the early 1970's (before the area became commercialized with a profit motive), I realized the official story of the shooting death of President Kennedy is a farce. To put it simply, there is no line of sight from Z-313 back to the TSBD sniper's nest with the obstruction the SS follow-up car & agents standing on the right side running boards presented while tailgating the JFK parade car at that spot in the street.

It's obvious to me that those involved in the omission of the SS follow-up vehicle (with actor stand-ins) in the official reenactments were aware of the blockage problem at Z-313 & avoided addressing it by simply making the SS follow-up car & occupants disappear from the re-enactments; a total distortion of the history that occurred on Elm Street in Dallas.

BM

Edited January 27, 2015 by Brad Milch

[Tom Neal]

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

John,

I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith.

Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source.

Tom

[Malcolm Ward]

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

John,

I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith.

Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source.

Tom

Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm

[Robert Prudhomme]

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

John,

I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith.

Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source.

Tom

Hi Tom

I recall reading the same thing. Unfortunately, it does not make a lot of sense, from the viewpoint of the scope installer at Klein's.

The truth of the matter is this, all models of Carcano rifles, be they long rifles, short rifles, carbines, 6.5mm or 7.35mm, have the identical receivers, bolts and chambers on them, and fire the identical brass cartridge. In the case of the 7.35mm calibre short rifle, the neck of the cartridge is opened up for the wider bullet, and the case length trimmed back by 1 mm but, other than that, it is the same cartridge.

If Klein's had installed scopes on carbines, they would mount in the exact same way on C2766, which was a short rifle.

[Tom Neal]

The idea that LHO might have been a left-handed shooter comes up frequently. This is a photo from Robert Groden of 17 year old LHO at boot camp. As far as I've been able to determine, this is the only known photo of Lee firing a rifle:

Personally, I'm left-handed, but right-eye dominant. If I shoot left-handed, with the target perfectly aligned in the sights, I don't hit any part of a standard target when firing at a typical distance. Right-handed I do just fine.

I have two sons. The right-handed one is left-eye dominant, the left-handed one is right eye dominant. As an alternative to switching their brains, the righty shoots lefty, and the lefty shoots righty. Regarding eye dominance, regardless of hand preference, statistically speaking, the vast majority of us are right-eye dominant.

Left-handed friends of mine who were in the military at the same time as Ozzie, or later, were allowed to fire left-handed. They too could not hit the target, but no one attempted to switch them to firing right-handed. The concept of eye-dominance was not common knowledge back then. When I checked using the simple cover-one-eye method, every one of these lefties was 'right-eyed'. Because it had always bothered them, most went right out to the shooting range and reported that by firing right-handed, they now had no trouble hitting a target.

I believe Lee was right-handed, or he would be shooting left-handed in the above photo. He may well have been one of the rare left-eye dominant people, and that certainly would account for his poor marksmanship, but I don't believe that (as Robert P. said) was a factor in the scope mounting. There simply IS no other way to mount it.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

John,

I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith.

Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source.

Tom

Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?

Malcolm,

If you re-read the post, the FBI ordered Carcano 91/38 rifles and they wanted scopes mounted. The tech that mounts scopes for Kleins said they don't mount scopes on that rifle - meaning a 91-38. They do however, mount them on other models, such as the one in the advertisement that the WC decided Oswald had used to place his order.

As Robert says, they could only mount them one way - the same way they did on the OTHER rifles they sell. So why did they ask? We don't know precisely what was said to Klein's when they placed the order, but (presuming Klein's actually did ask the Feds) they must have had some reason to request mounting instructions. I don't recall exactly when the scope was described as "mounted for a left-handed shooter," but I believe that was what the FBI inventory stated. Purely speculation on my part, but suppose the Feds requested 91-38s with the scopes "mounted for a left-handed shooter?"

This implies something different than the normal mounting, and the Tech may have thought, as I would, how do you mount THIS scope for a left-handed shooter? So he called to confirm what they wanted.

Again, just speculation on my part,

Tom

[Chris Davidson]

Obviously, it was too logical to use the "sighted" rifle for the assassination.

chris

[Tom Neal]

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

John,

I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith.

Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source.

Tom

Hi Tom

I recall reading the same thing. Unfortunately, it does not make a lot of sense, from the viewpoint of the scope installer at Klein's.

The truth of the matter is this, all models of Carcano rifles, be they long rifles, short rifles, carbines, 6.5mm or 7.35mm, have the identical receivers, bolts and chambers on them, and fire the identical brass cartridge. In the case of the 7.35mm calibre short rifle, the neck of the cartridge is opened up for the wider bullet, and the case length trimmed back by 1 mm but, other than that, it is the same cartridge.

If Klein's had installed scopes on carbines, they would mount in the exact same way on C2766, which was a short rifle.

Hi Robert,

As I replied to Malcolm in an earlier post, I have no idea why they would ask. I couldn't agree with you more that there is only one way to mount the scope. But:

TO RE-QUOTE FROM MY REPLY TO MALCOLM: We don't know precisely what was said to Klein's when they placed the order, but (presuming Klein's actually did ask the Feds) they must have had some reason to request mounting instructions. I don't recall exactly when the scope was described as "mounted for a left-handed shooter," but I believe that was what the FBI inventory stated. If true, then they had thought that, or the Dallas PD did, from pretty much assassination day. Purely speculation on my part, but due to the above, suppose the Feds requested 91-38s with the scopes "mounted for a left-handed shooter?"

This implies something different than the normal mounting, and the Tech may have thought, as I would, how do you mount THIS scope for a left-handed shooter? So he called to confirm what they wanted.

Again, just speculation on my part,

Tom