LHO's Markmanship Ability

[Thomas H. Purvis]

High & to the Right: (finally)

Anyone familiar with the Carcano found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as well as the testing of this weapon afterwards by the FBI & the Weapons Evaluation Branch, would be aware of the scope mounting alignment problems as well as the fact that FBI Agent Robert Frazier and his group of individuals who tested the weapon, found that when sighting through the scope, the weapon consistently fired "High & too the Right".

There have been many who have jumped onto this wagon and made attempt to explain that this proves that the weapon could not be utilized as it was not even sighted properlyl.

Obviously, these persons have little experience in shooting, as well as virtually everything from golf to pool shooting, to not understand the difference in individual grasping, holding of tools, etc;.

First, the Cacano:

The Model 91/38 Carcano is a "fixed sight" weapon in which there is absolutely no means and/or method to correct for either true "windage" variables or, any other shooting variable.

The weapon is "machine" sighted in at the factory, and the only means by which an individual can consistantly hit the bullseye of the target is to either take up a shooting posture which contains the same exactly perfect alignment as the machine with which the weapon was sighted, or esle "adjust" the shooting to the point where one knows that he must shoot at some "offset" sighting point in order to actually hit the bullseye.

The M1-Garand is also "factory sighted", however, it's rear sight has the ability for left and/or right movement, as well as up or down movement.

These adjustments are incorporated into the weapon as US forces long ago learned that no two persons hold the weapon exactly the same, in the same position, etc; etc; due to a variety of physical as well as natural aspects.

Thus, it would be extremely time consuming in attempting to train each and every member of the US Armed Forces in the shooting proceedures for "perfection" shooting in which, not unlike in golf and/or pool shooting, all things must be in perfection.

Of course, the key element in the 4-alignment sighting of the weapon (eye-rear sight-front sight-target) is of course the placement of the sighting eye. It's proximity to centerline of the actual rifle barrell, and perfect centerline over the center of the stock.

Also, the elevation of the eye becomes a key element in this sighting arrangement.

So, knowing the time consuming process of attempting to correct already bad shooting posture habits on the part of those who entered the USMC/US Forces already shooting weapons, as well as not having the time to go through all of the repetative drills necessary in order to get the recruit/shooter to placing his handgrip; check spot weld; and eye--to-sight alignment in some "perfect" alignment which a machine can achieve, US Forces merely taught the basics of what was comfortable to the shooter, and allowed the shooter to compensate for whatever error in eye--over sights---to target alignment error occurs, through the usage of the windage and elevation adjustments which were a part of the weapon.

In that regards, LHO consistently fired to the "Left" of center of target due to his own particular sighting error.

In order to correct for this sighting error, LHO's standard (or ZERO if one will) for the 200 yard target was consistently (1R), being one adjustment click to the right on the rear sight adjustment.

1-click adjusted the bullet impact alignment by 1-inch at 100 yards, 2-inches at 200 yards, and so on.

It is also noted that LHO frequently fired a "ZERO" of 2R (2 clicks right) on the 300 yard targets, which would ultimately demonstrate that through his "Battlesight ZERO" factory sight setting, he was aiming at the target center, yet bullet impact was some 3 to 6 inches left of bullseye.

Therefore, were one to be a thoroughly qualified shooter who had been fully trained in the accurate grip and sighting alignment for weapons firing, and were they to pick up a weapon which had been fired and adjusted to LHO's specific sighting alignment, then in all probability, a trained shooter would consistantly hit "RIGHT" of target center in firing this weapon.

HIGH

Not unlike the left/right sighting alignment, the elevation of the eye in the shooting alignment is a key factor.

With the fixed sights of the Carcano, one would have to place their eye at the exact perfect elevation as was the elevation of the factory machine, in event that they expected to have the same elevation impact for the bullet at the 300 yard factory sighting point of the Carcano.

The Garand also comes with "Factory" sighting alignments. In fact, the Garand had a "slide" in which the rear sight could be immediately raised to the factory sighting elevations for the 100 yard/200 yard/250 yard/& 300 yard elevation variance due to bullet trajectory.

In addition, the rear sight also had an individual adjustment for "fine tuning" of this elevation to compensate for the shooter's specific sight picture.

In that regards, LHO's ZERO elevation for the 200 yard target was a (+6) additional clicks, which meant that LHO consistantly, due to his specific sighting picture alignment, fired some 12-inches low on a 200 yard target (which would equate to approximately 6-inches low on a 100 yard target).

In Summary:

LHO consistantly, utilizing "Battlesight ZERO"/aka factory ZERO rifle settings, fired and struck the target at a point which at 100 yards range would have placed impact point of the bullet to the left and below the actual bullseye.

In the USMC, is "windage" & "elevation" adjustments of the rear sight of the M1-Garand were utilized to compensate for this shooter "error" in sighting alignment, and with this capability, LHO managed to do quite well.

The Model 91/38 has a FIXED "Battlesight ZERO" setting, with absolutely no means for adjustment for specific shooter error in sighting picture.

Based upon his USMC firing record, had LHO fired the Carcano utilizing only the fixed sights on the weapon, then his bullet impacts should have been consistently some 4 to 6 inches low, as well as some 2 to 3 inches left of actual target.

Had LHO placed a scope onto the weapon in which he now had the ability to adjust for this sight alignment error on his part, he could have easily utilized the crosshairs of the sight to compensate for this variable, just as he did with the adjustable rear sight of the M1-Garand.

However, were a well trained shooter to pick up this same weapon and thereafter shoot it, utilizing the scope sighting alignment which had been adjusted to compensate for LHO's sighting alignment, then in all probability, the weapon would have consistently fired "HIGH & To the RIGHT" for a well trained shooter.

Based on LHO's lack of proper sighting alignment techniques, he would have had great difficulty in making repetatively accurate shots with the Carcano utilizing the fixed sights.

The Scope gave him the room for compensation for the shooter "variable" which he needed.

And, because the parallel axis through the scope was already "left of center" of the rifle barrell, and LHO consistantly fired 'Left of Center" even with his best sighting alignment, then the vertical crosshairs of the scope would have had to have been run far to the right hand side of the scope picture in order for LHO to have be able to correct for the left-of-center scope alignment and his left-of-center shooting pattern.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?

Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

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.

Mr. EISENBERG - And that target has all six holes in it?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.

Mr. McCLOY - That will be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.

That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets we fired here.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.

Mr. McCLOY - They may be admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.

The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.

Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.

These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.

And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.

Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?

Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.

Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir

Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds,The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.

Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.

On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots,

The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The above testing, from all indications, was fired when the rifle was first received by the FBI, and with the scope crosshairs "as received".

It is additionally noted that this first firing of the rifle was done within the FBI Firing Range, which limited the actual shooting distances. Thusly, this, the first shooting testing was done at a distance of 15 yards and was a somewhat "familiarization shooting with the weapon.

Even though only at a distance of 15 yards, the accuracy of the shot groupings demonstrate the weapon accuracy.

As important is the fact that of three relatively expert marksmen (Frazier/Cunningham/Killion) each person's shot grouping was "High and to the Right", which clearly demonstrates that the scope had been adjusted to target alignment for an individual who, by the nature of his shooting posture, consistently fired "Low and to the Left". As did LHO!

Cunningham & Fraizer's 15-yard target:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0135b.htm

Killion's 15-yard target:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0136a.htm

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Based upon his USMC firing record, had LHO fired the Carcano utilizing only the fixed sights on the weapon, then his bullet impacts should have been consistently some 4 to 6 inches low, as well as some 2 to 3 inches left of actual target.

Does that mean we can eliminate Blakey's scenario, in which the HSCA decided that LHO could have fired the shots attributed to him USING THE IRON SIGHTS?

Is that because the rear V sight on the Carcano in question could not be adjusted?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Based upon his USMC firing record, had LHO fired the Carcano utilizing only the fixed sights on the weapon, then his bullet impacts should have been consistently some 4 to 6 inches low, as well as some 2 to 3 inches left of actual target.

Does that mean we can eliminate Blakey's scenario, in which the HSCA decided that LHO could have fired the shots attributed to him USING THE IRON SIGHTS?

Is that because the rear V sight on the Carcano in question could not be adjusted?

Based on purely the circumstantial evidence, it would appear that:

1. First shot----Scope used----almost miss for same reason as Walker shot. Shot enters JFK's back.

2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later (more than twice that time in which the FBI & others found it necessary to operate the bolt, re-acquire the target utilizing the scope, & refire the weapon) the second shot to the top of the head of JFK.

3. Less than 2.3 seconds thereafter, the third/last/final head shot down in front of James Altgens.*

*This last shot appears to be more in line with what is referred to as a "snap shot",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_shot

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://yarchive.net/gun/courses/gunsite_rifle1.html

"We also worked on "snap shots". A snap shot is a "upper A zone" hit (that's a

head shot to those of you who are not politically correct) from 25 meters,

starting from the ready position, in 1.5 seconds or less. "

There were nine students in our rifle class and two instructors.

two SWAT team sniper specialists from Southern

California, two attorneys, a salesman, a housewife and one computer type -

yours truly. It broke out to two women and seven men.

All of the Scout rifles had the Burris 2.5x forward mounted scope on them.

After an equipment check we started by zeroing the rifles at 25 meters. For

general rifle, Gunsite recommends a 200 meter zero. For "standard" .308 or

7.62 NATO loads a 25 meter zero should be equal to a 200 meter zero. Believe

me, if you don't have access to a good spotting scope this is the fast way of

setting a base zero; much less walking back and forth. This gives a very

effective zone of engagement out to 250 meters

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This third/last/final shot, (the SnapShot) is what accounts for the rapidity/closeness/ (flurry) of the final two shots fired, and in all probability the scope was not utilized for this shot as the expended time between the second shot to the head at Z313 (utilizing the scope) and this shot would have necessitated that LHO be capable of firing the rifle within a time frame that only the best EXPERTS could achieve.

**

**Although LHO is stated to have sat on the porch in New Orleans and practiced working the bolt action of the rifle, to have completed the entire cycle and re-acquired the target within the short elapsed time frame between shot#2 and shot#3, utilizing the scope, would have been an extreme feat of accomplishment. Thus, to a relative high degree of probability, the third shot was the "Iron Sight" shot, and was most likely as much of a "lucky shot" as it was one of great skill.

Finally, an answer: It is most unlikely that LHO could have achieved the entire shooting scenario of Dealy Plaza with what was a "fixed sight" weapon.

His natural shooting posture demonstrated that, when firing a weapon which had a "Battlesight Zero" setting, that his bullet impact at 100 yards was consistantly in the realm of 6-inches low, and from 1 to 2 inches left of target center.

Therefore, with a "fixed sight" weapon (without a scope) such as the Model 91/38 Carcano, LHO would have had to "estimate" some aiming point which would have been at the base of the left side of the neck, in order to achieve a head hit.

Added into this would be the forward momentum of the vehicle, which would have added to these difficulties due to potential target lead, and the shots would have been extremely difficult for anyone who had a shooting posture such as LHO's.

Without the scope, LHO would have had no way to adjust for his particular "shooter variable", and would have thus been left with a weapon in which he could not accurately "ZERO" the rifle to his specific sighting alignment.

Now!

Since the scope was actually mounted some 2-inches above the centerline of the rifle barrell, and LHO naturally fired "low", then the elevation crosshair (the horizontal one) would have had to have been run down virtually as far as it could go for short range (100 yard) shooting. This was due to the actual elevation/height of the scope above the rifle barrell, as well as to compensate for the natural variable of LHO to shoot low.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

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.

Mr. EISENBERG - Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stabilization of the crosshairs occurs ONLY after the rifle has been fired several times. Thus, if the crosshairs were stabilized when the FBI received the weapon, then the weapon had been sighted in and "Zeroed" to the position at which the crosshairs were in when the weapon was received.

Which relatively well established that this weapon was "sighted/zeroed" to the shooting posture of someone who consistently, for whatever reason, fired low & slightly to the left of center of aiming target.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Frazier - 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.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: At least not for someone who has a relatively correct aiming & shooting posture!

Which does not exclude someone who consistently fired "low & to the right" and thereafter had to utilize the scope in order to correct for this shooter variable, as well as incorporate into this ZERO the compensation necessary for a line-of-sight which now was some 2-inches above centerline of the rifle barrel.

Clear as mud now?

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mark;

I have little doubt that many are under the assumption that we merely made up the "left-eye-dominant" scenario.

http://yarchive.net/gun/eye_dominance.html

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Based upon his USMC firing record, had LHO fired the Carcano utilizing only the fixed sights on the weapon, then his bullet impacts should have been consistently some 4 to 6 inches low, as well as some 2 to 3 inches left of actual target.

Does that mean we can eliminate Blakey's scenario, in which the HSCA decided that LHO could have fired the shots attributed to him USING THE IRON SIGHTS?

Is that because the rear V sight on the Carcano in question could not be adjusted?

Based on purely the circumstantial evidence, it would appear that:

1. First shot----Scope used----almost miss for same reason as Walker shot. Shot enters JFK's back.

2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later (more than twice that time in which the FBI & others found it necessary to operate the bolt, re-acquire the target utilizing the scope, & refire the weapon) the second shot to the top of the head of JFK.

3. Less than 2.3 seconds thereafter, the third/last/final head shot down in front of James Altgens.*

*This last shot appears to be more in line with what is referred to as a "snap shot",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_shot

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://yarchive.net/gun/courses/gunsite_rifle1.html

"We also worked on "snap shots". A snap shot is a "upper A zone" hit (that's a

head shot to those of you who are not politically correct) from 25 meters,

starting from the ready position, in 1.5 seconds or less. "

There were nine students in our rifle class and two instructors.

two SWAT team sniper specialists from Southern

California, two attorneys, a salesman, a housewife and one computer type -

yours truly. It broke out to two women and seven men.

All of the Scout rifles had the Burris 2.5x forward mounted scope on them.

After an equipment check we started by zeroing the rifles at 25 meters. For

general rifle, Gunsite recommends a 200 meter zero. For "standard" .308 or

7.62 NATO loads a 25 meter zero should be equal to a 200 meter zero. Believe

me, if you don't have access to a good spotting scope this is the fast way of

setting a base zero; much less walking back and forth. This gives a very

effective zone of engagement out to 250 meters

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This third/last/final shot, (the SnapShot) is what accounts for the rapidity/closeness/ (flurry) of the final two shots fired, and in all probability the scope was not utilized for this shot as the expended time between the second shot to the head at Z313 (utilizing the scope) and this shot would have necessitated that LHO be capable of firing the rifle within a time frame that only the best EXPERTS could achieve.

**

**Although LHO is stated to have sat on the porch in New Orleans and practiced working the bolt action of the rifle, to have completed the entire cycle and re-acquired the target within the short elapsed time frame between shot#2 and shot#3, utilizing the scope, would have been an extreme feat of accomplishment. Thus, to a relative high degree of probability, the third shot was the "Iron Sight" shot, and was most likely as much of a "lucky shot" as it was one of great skill.

Finally, an answer: It is most unlikely that LHO could have achieved the entire shooting scenario of Dealy Plaza with what was a "fixed sight" weapon.

His natural shooting posture demonstrated that, when firing a weapon which had a "Battlesight Zero" setting, that his bullet impact at 100 yards was consistantly in the realm of 6-inches low, and from 1 to 2 inches left of target center.

Therefore, with a "fixed sight" weapon (without a scope) such as the Model 91/38 Carcano, LHO would have had to "estimate" some aiming point which would have been at the base of the left side of the neck, in order to achieve a head hit.

Added into this would be the forward momentum of the vehicle, which would have added to these difficulties due to potential target lead, and the shots would have been extremely difficult for anyone who had a shooting posture such as LHO's.

Without the scope, LHO would have had no way to adjust for his particular "shooter variable", and would have thus been left with a weapon in which he could not accurately "ZERO" the rifle to his specific sighting alignment.

Now!

Since the scope was actually mounted some 2-inches above the centerline of the rifle barrell, and LHO naturally fired "low", then the elevation crosshair (the horizontal one) would have had to have been run down virtually as far as it could go for short range (100 yard) shooting. This was due to the actual elevation/height of the scope above the rifle barrell, as well as to compensate for the natural variable of LHO to shoot low.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

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.

Mr. EISENBERG - Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that they stayed, remained stabilized?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they did.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stabilization of the crosshairs occurs ONLY after the rifle has been fired several times. Thus, if the crosshairs were stabilized when the FBI received the weapon, then the weapon had been sighted in and "Zeroed" to the position at which the crosshairs were in when the weapon was received.

Which relatively well established that this weapon was "sighted/zeroed" to the shooting posture of someone who consistently, for whatever reason, fired low & slightly to the left of center of aiming target.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Frazier - 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.

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: At least not for someone who has a relatively correct aiming & shooting posture!

Which does not exclude someone who consistently fired "low & to the right" and thereafter had to utilize the scope in order to correct for this shooter variable, as well as incorporate into this ZERO the compensation necessary for a line-of-sight which now was some 2-inches above centerline of the rifle barrel.

Clear as mud now?

Tom

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. How did he do with the iron sight on the third target?

Mr. SIMMONS. On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt, many were under the impression that I also merely made this up as well in regards to the actual "posture"/sighting alignment that each individual shooter assumes.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Therefore, with a "fixed sight" weapon (without a scope) such as the Model 91/38 Carcano, LHO would have had to "estimate" some aiming point which would have been at the base of the left side of the neck, in order to achieve a head hit.

Which is in error! And which one gets when attempting to type and think at the same time.

Had LHO, with a fixed sight weapon such as the Carcano, or the M1-Garand, with the "Battlesight Zero" setting, and no corrections for LHO's shooting pattern, aimed at the center of the back of the head of JFK, then bullet impact would have been expected to be in the vicinity of the base of the left side of the neck.

Had LHO utilized this fixed sight weapon to acquire a head shot hit, then he would have had to have aimed the weapon at an estimated point which was some 4 to 6 inches higher than the head of JFK, as well as being slightly to the right side of center of the head.

With his/LHO's "low & to the left" shooting pattern, an aiming point which was "high & to the right" side of the head, would have placed bullet impact in the center of the rear of the head due to shooter variable in sighting.

[Christopher Hall]

Therefore, with a "fixed sight" weapon (without a scope) such as the Model 91/38 Carcano, LHO would have had to "estimate" some aiming point which would have been at the base of the left side of the neck, in order to achieve a head hit.

Which is in error! And which one gets when attempting to type and think at the same time.

Had LHO, with a fixed sight weapon such as the Carcano, or the M1-Garand, with the "Battlesight Zero" setting, and no corrections for LHO's shooting pattern, aimed at the center of the back of the head of JFK, then bullet impact would have been expected to be in the vicinity of the base of the left side of the neck.

Had LHO utilized this fixed sight weapon to acquire a head shot hit, then he would have had to have aimed the weapon at an estimated point which was some 4 to 6 inches higher than the head of JFK, as well as being slightly to the right side of center of the head.

With his/LHO's "low & to the left" shooting pattern, an aiming point which was "high & to the right" side of the head, would have placed bullet impact in the center of the rear of the head due to shooter variable in sighting.

I agree that a shooter who is familiar with a specific fixed sight weapon can learn to compensate for any variance between his or her own hold, vision and aim and those of the machine or shooter who set the fixed sights.

I frequently have to do that with fixed sight handguns, and I can essentially get the knack of aim and shot placement for a specific fixed sight gun by engaging in a lot of practice.

The problem is exacerbated, of course, with a target which is moving, at an angle, away from the shooter.

Left eye dominance, on the other hand, is analogous to a Biblical plague which afflicts right handed long gun shooters.

I don't know whether LHO was left eye dominant and right handed, but perhaps he shot long guns from a left handed stance if that was, in fact, the case.

I certainly haven't yet learned to shoot rifles and shotguns left handed, although it is on my long term to do list.

I believe that a lot of this discussion is academic, though, because I don't believe that LHO was the lone gunman, if, indeed, he was a shooter at all.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

LHO Rangefire Qualification @ USMC Firing Stations:

Yardage--Slow Fire--------Rapid Fire----------Position------LHO Score-------%tile Rating

200--------------X-----------------------------------Standing-----39 of 50*------------ 78 (80)

200--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting

200----------------------------------X---------------Sitting--------48 of 50--------------96

---------------------------------------------------------------

300--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting

----------------------------------------------------------------------37 of 50**-----------74

300--------------X-----------------------------------Kneeling

300----------------------------------X------Prone------------------46 of 50-------------92

500--------------X---------------------- Prone**---------------46 of 50 ------92

-------------------------------------------------------------Total: 216 of 250

Correct Score should have been 217 out of a possible 250 points when the 1-point error in addition for the 200-yard Standing/Offhand shooting station is added to the Total.

Scoring of 160 to 211 qualifies as MARKSMAN

Scoring of 212 to 219 qualifies as SHARPSHOOTER

Score of 220 and above qualifies as EXPERT

LHO’s Military Record indicates that he fired 212 out of a possible 250 points, which had it been correct, would have qualified him as a SHARPSHOOTER.

Yet, his record demonstrates that he was erroneously awarded the lower qualification rating of MARKSMAN.

And, his actual Rangefire Qualification Records indicate that he fired a total score of 217 out of a possible 250 points, which placed him only 3 points below the qualification standard for the EXPERT rating.

================================================================

* If one correctly adds the scoring for this firing station, the score totals 40 points out of a possible 50.

**During actual rangefire qualification, the 300 yard slow-fire sitting & the 300 yard kneeling position were combined into a single station at which the participant fired 5 rounds at each position.

In addition, during this firing station (& only this station) the cross-winds had gone from a previous Zero mph to a reported 5mph. These winds were coming from almost directly left, to right as one looks down the line of fire. During the course of attempting to fire, LHO went through 5 separate windage adjustments on his sights in attempt to get his shot grouping from right-of-center to center of target.

Since his windage adjustments corrections appear to have been mostly a “trial & error” method of correction, and the Drill/Range Instructors are forbidden from giving any advice and/or assistance during actual rangefire qualification for record, it would appear that LHO’s failure to do well at this station is due more to a lack of understanding on the correct formula application method necessary to correct for crosswinds, than it is as a result of poor marksmanship.

Therefore, one must look at exactly who’s responsibility was it to insure that the Recruit fully understand the mathematical computation formula necessary for cross-wind correction.

***Although the 500 yard slow-fire station is defined as being fired from the “prone” position, and LHO on the day prior to actual qualification fired a score of 44 out of a possible 50 when firing from this position, his actual rangefire for qualification appears to state that he fired from the “sitting” position when he fired for record the following day.

All recruits were required to keep their own “Scoring”.

Thusly, LHO is responsible for the errors which exist between what his specific records indicate that he shot, and the added totals for each station as well as apparently for the error of his total score.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Major Anderson, I now show you a letter which I have marked for the purpose of this deposition as Anderson Exhibit No. 1, and ask you for the record to tell us what is the date of that letter, first of all?

Major ANDERSON - 8 January 1964.

(Major Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SPECTER - To whom is the letter addressed?

Major ANDERSON - Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER - And by whom was the letter written?

Major ANDERSON - The signature shows it was from A. G. Folsom, Jr., lieutenant colonel, U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity heretofore to examine that letter?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER - And whom does that letter concern itself with?

Major ANDERSON - The letter concerns a Mr. Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER - Lee Harvey Oswald?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter contain with it the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had while in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON - It so indicates; yes.

Mr. SPECTER - What is the procedure of the Marine Corps in retaining such information on men who were in the Corps and had marksmanship training?

Major ANDERSON - Any time a man goes through any type of live firing, the type of firing, the number of rounds he has fired, the course he has fired is supposed to be and supposedly is entered in his record book in the spaces provided for his training?

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?

Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.

Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates that he is firing the gun.

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON - It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.

Mr. SPECTER - By "fam" firing, what does that mean?

Major ANDERSON - This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.

Mr. SPECTER - And on what date was the A course registered?

Major ANDERSON - 21 December 1956.

Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used?

Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was his final qualification there?

Major ANDERSON - 212.

Mr. SPECTER - And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?

Major ANDERSON - That should have been a sharpshooter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0017b.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I keep telling you that one had best watch the "slight/sleight-of-hand" which Specter & Company was quite good at.

And, his actual Rangefire Qualification Records indicate that he fired a total score of 217 out of a possible 250 points, which placed him only 3 points below the qualification standard for the EXPERT rating.

Now! LHO may have been responsible for keeping his own scoreing on the rifle range, but those who entered it into the permanent Service Record, did not go by what the individual stated.

Elsewise, everyone would have fired EXPERT!

Now! Were I a highly suspicious individual, I would question exactly why LHO's rangefire record was entered into evidence through a letter, when his actual USMC records were available.

Secondly, had I also had some limited training in "Questioned Documents" examination (which by the way I have), then I would also pay close attention to the actual military record of LHO and specifically that portion related to his initial rangefire qualification.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0340a.htm

As there happens to be several things about this entry which "smell"!

Now! Exactly why would anyone wish to "decrease" a perfectly good score of 217 (3 points from EXPERT) total, down to a score of only 212 (2 points above SHARPSHOOTER), and then call the person the lowest qualification of record (Marksman).

"Red Flag on Playing Field"!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

LHO Rangefire Qualification @ USMC Firing Stations:

Yardage--Slow Fire--------Rapid Fire----------Position------LHO Score-------%tile Rating

200--------------X-----------------------------------Standing-----39 of 50*------------ 78 (80)

200--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting

200----------------------------------X---------------Sitting--------48 of 50--------------96

---------------------------------------------------------------

300--------------X-----------------------------------Sitting

----------------------------------------------------------------------37 of 50**-----------74

300--------------X-----------------------------------Kneeling

300----------------------------------X------Prone------------------46 of 50-------------92

500--------------X---------------------- Prone**---------------46 of 50 ------92

-------------------------------------------------------------Total: 216 of 250

Correct Score should have been 217 out of a possible 250 points when the 1-point error in addition for the 200-yard Standing/Offhand shooting station is added to the Total.

Scoring of 160 to 211 qualifies as MARKSMAN

Scoring of 212 to 219 qualifies as SHARPSHOOTER

Score of 220 and above qualifies as EXPERT

LHO’s Military Record indicates that he fired 212 out of a possible 250 points, which had it been correct, would have qualified him as a SHARPSHOOTER.

Yet, his record demonstrates that he was erroneously awarded the lower qualification rating of MARKSMAN.

And, his actual Rangefire Qualification Records indicate that he fired a total score of 217 out of a possible 250 points, which placed him only 3 points below the qualification standard for the EXPERT rating.

================================================================

* If one correctly adds the scoring for this firing station, the score totals 40 points out of a possible 50.

**During actual rangefire qualification, the 300 yard slow-fire sitting & the 300 yard kneeling position were combined into a single station at which the participant fired 5 rounds at each position.

In addition, during this firing station (& only this station) the cross-winds had gone from a previous Zero mph to a reported 5mph. These winds were coming from almost directly left, to right as one looks down the line of fire. During the course of attempting to fire, LHO went through 5 separate windage adjustments on his sights in attempt to get his shot grouping from right-of-center to center of target.

Since his windage adjustments corrections appear to have been mostly a “trial & error” method of correction, and the Drill/Range Instructors are forbidden from giving any advice and/or assistance during actual rangefire qualification for record, it would appear that LHO’s failure to do well at this station is due more to a lack of understanding on the correct formula application method necessary to correct for crosswinds, than it is as a result of poor marksmanship.

Therefore, one must look at exactly who’s responsibility was it to insure that the Recruit fully understand the mathematical computation formula necessary for cross-wind correction.

***Although the 500 yard slow-fire station is defined as being fired from the “prone” position, and LHO on the day prior to actual qualification fired a score of 44 out of a possible 50 when firing from this position, his actual rangefire for qualification appears to state that he fired from the “sitting” position when he fired for record the following day.

All recruits were required to keep their own “Scoring”.

Thusly, LHO is responsible for the errors which exist between what his specific records indicate that he shot, and the added totals for each station as well as apparently for the error of his total score.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Mr. SPECTER - Major Anderson, I now show you a letter which I have marked for the purpose of this deposition as Anderson Exhibit No. 1, and ask you for the record to tell us what is the date of that letter, first of all?

Major ANDERSON - 8 January 1964.

(Major Anderson Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)

Mr. SPECTER - To whom is the letter addressed?

Major ANDERSON - Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel, President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Mr. SPECTER - And by whom was the letter written?

Major ANDERSON - The signature shows it was from A. G. Folsom, Jr., lieutenant colonel, U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had an opportunity heretofore to examine that letter?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER - And whom does that letter concern itself with?

Major ANDERSON - The letter concerns a Mr. Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER - Lee Harvey Oswald?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter contain with it the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had while in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON - It so indicates; yes.

Mr. SPECTER - What is the procedure of the Marine Corps in retaining such information on men who were in the Corps and had marksmanship training?

Major ANDERSON - Any time a man goes through any type of live firing, the type of firing, the number of rounds he has fired, the course he has fired is supposed to be and supposedly is entered in his record book in the spaces provided for his training?

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by live firing, sir?

Major ANDERSON - By live firing I mean any time a live round of ammunition is actually placed in the gun and it is fired.

Mr. SPECTER - Is that distinguished from some other type of firing, or heavy firing?

Major ANDERSON - Yes; it is distinguished from what we call dry firing in that no ammunition is used whatsoever. A man just simulates that he is firing the gun.

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON - It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.

Mr. SPECTER - By "fam" firing, what does that mean?

Major ANDERSON - This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.

Mr. SPECTER - And on what date was the A course registered?

Major ANDERSON - 21 December 1956.

Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used?

Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was his final qualification there?

Major ANDERSON - 212.

Mr. SPECTER - And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?

Major ANDERSON - That should have been a sharpshooter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0017b.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I keep telling you that one had best watch the "slight/sleight-of-hand" which Specter & Company was quite good at.

And, his actual Rangefire Qualification Records indicate that he fired a total score of 217 out of a possible 250 points, which placed him only 3 points below the qualification standard for the EXPERT rating.

Now! LHO may have been responsible for keeping his own scoreing on the rifle range, but those who entered it into the permanent Service Record, did not go by what the individual stated.

Elsewise, everyone would have fired EXPERT!

Now! Were I a highly suspicious individual, I would question exactly why LHO's rangefire record was entered into evidence through a letter, when his actual USMC records were available.

Secondly, had I also had some limited training in "Questioned Documents" examination (which by the way I have), then I would also pay close attention to the actual military record of LHO and specifically that portion related to his initial rangefire qualification.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol19_0340a.htm

As there happens to be several things about this entry which "smell"!

Now! Exactly why would anyone wish to "decrease" a perfectly good score of 217 (3 points from EXPERT) total, down to a score of only 212 (2 points above SHARPSHOOTER), and then call the person the lowest qualification of record (Marksman).

"Red Flag on Playing Field"!

MISTAKE!

One can "make" LHO a "MARKSMAN"/MM on paperwork all day long, but they had best know that virtually any USMC veteran is going to hang onto his Marksmanship Qualification Badge.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/26/2689-009.gif

And, LHO had a "SHARPSHOOTER" badge!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.

Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.

136

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - Taking 393 at the start, Doctor Humes, will you describe for the record what hole, if any, is observable in the back of that garment which would be at or about the spot you have described as being the point of entry on the President's back or lower neck.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - Major Anderson, I now show you a letter which I have marked for the purpose of this deposition as Anderson Exhibit No. 1, and ask you for the record to tell us what is the date of that letter, first of all?

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter contain with it the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had while in the Marine Corps?

Major ANDERSON - It so indicates; yes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Montagnards of South Vietnam demonstrated the ease with which one can actually track a "snake"!.

Provided of course that one knows exactly what to look for.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...bd16e720901181d

"Oswald had trouble hitting the farther range target"

Actually!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0341b.htm

LHO, on the 500 yard slow-fire range, scored 46 out of a possible 50 points. (92nd percentile)

Whereas it required only the 88th percentile overall average for qualification for EXPERT.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0346a.htm

On the 300- yard rapid fire range, he also scored 46 out of a possible 50 points.

Again demonstrating his marksmanship ability.

However!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0340a.htm

During the 300-yard slow fire exercise, the winds had increased to a purported 5mph, coming almost directly from left to right.

Which in turn affected/carried bullet impact farther to the right.

LHO began shooting with a windage of:------------2R

After one shot, he changed this to only:-----------1R (moved sighting back to left to compensate for wind)

Then he again changed the windage to:-------------0 (moved sighting further back to left to compensate)

Then he again changed the windage to:-----------1L (moved sighting further back to left to compensate)

Then he again changed the windage to:-----------2L (moved sighting further back to left to compensate)

Thus! LHO was, through trial & error, attempting to correct his shooting accuracy during actual rangefire qualification.

Final Score: 37 out of possible 50 = 74th percentile

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0332b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0334a.htm

According to the "Windage" formula, 1.5 clicks to the left should have corrected for the purported 5mph crosswind.

(3 X 5 = 15/10 = 1.5 clicks).

However, LHO ultimately moved his sighting by 4-clicks to the left (+2R initially to -2L final), and yet, was still impacting fully right of target.

Based on the actual shot pattern grouping, this is more in line with an incorrect reported wind speed, than what would appear to be shooter error.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0340a.htm

This is re-inforced by his previous day's practice in which he finally acquired the "ZERO" setting of 2R, and thereafter placed shots# 8, 9, & 10 within the "5"/"4" & "4" target circles.

It would appear that all of these purported "shooters", as well as many others, have been far too busy chasing mythological beings and have thusly not had time to deal with the FACTS of LHO's excellent marksmanship abililty.

Of course, one must understand something before they can explain it to others!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...c680?hl=en&

FACT:

>

> > 1. The Model 91/38 6.5mm Carcano which was recovered from the sixth floor

> > of the TSDB was bench-tested and found to be as accurate a weapon as the

> > US Military issue rifle, the M-14.

>

> No.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Representative BOGGS - There is no reason to believe that this weapon is not accurate, is there?

Mr. FRAZIER - It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that.

Representative BOGGS - That was the point I was trying to establish.

Mr. FRAZIER - This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the weapon will, even under rapid- fire conditions, group closely--that is, one shot with the next.

For most grade schoolers, that is not too difficult to understand!

> And the scope could not be adjusted.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet.

The operative wording being: "enough tolerance"!

Mr. EISENBERG - Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center the windage crosshair to sight-in the windage crosshair?

Mr. FRAZIER - We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it was.

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair could not be centered in, sighted-in?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.

Mr. EISENBERG - So that--and if that had been done, then you would not have this problem of dispersion to the right?

Mr. FRAZIER - That's true.

If, and when you begin to understand all this, then you just may know something about sighting and shooting.

And the mid-range trajectory height

> of the M-C is much higher.

And, although I have not dug out my old ballistics books, is still, and will remain irrelevant.

Since, that is why one "ZERO'S" and sights in a rifle.

> > 2. The 6.5 mm ammunition which was fired was manufactured by a US firm, as

> > well as being manufactured to a US Miltary Ordnance Specification, which

> > meant that it was as accurate and/or as reliable as any ammunition

> > produced for US issue weapons.

>

> Not exactly. It was manufactured to the old Italian Army specifications

> for that model M-C.

First off, it was manufactured to a Department of the US Army Ordnance Standard.

Which you also apparantly know nothing about, as this defines the entire realm of quality to which the manufacture of this ammunition must comply, which happens to be the exact same standard as applied to small arms ammunition manufactured for the United States Army.

> It was reliable and accurate when the rifle is properly adjusted.

Last time that I checked, the reliability of ammunition had no bearing on the reliability of the weapon in which it was fired.

And, if by "adjusted", you refer to the ZERO/sighting of the rifle, then this too has no bearing on anything, as the weapon accuracy is based on how "tight" of a shot pattern grouping the weapon will fire, when coupled with quality/reliable ammunition, such as was the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo.

> > 3. The "Shooting Time" was in fact in fact considerably longer than the "7

> > seconds of which you have been informed. Elapsed time between first shot

> > to second shot was approximately 5.6 to 5.9 elapsed seconds. In event that

> > Mr. Hathcock can not make this shot on a decreasing speed moving target,

> > at a range of only 89 yards, then he had best go back to the firing range.

> > Not to mention going back and actually reading and comprehending the

> > factual evidence which will demonstrate that there were only two shots

> > fired up to the Z313 impact.

>

> That's just plain silly. You have JFK wounded and then Connally wounded

> long before Z-313.

Rather to be "silly" than to have a total incomprehension of the facts.

An elapsed time of 5.6 to 5.9 seconds between the first and the second shot has absolutely no bearing on exactly who was impacted by these shots.

Of course, for one who does not understand the difference between survey stationing 4+65.3/aka the headshot at Z313/aka the second shot impact point, and survey stationing 4+96 (5+00 minus 4-feet), where the impact of the third/last/final shot occurred, this is fully understandable.

> > 6. And although unlikely that you will accept "my" opinion, the first

> > military rifle to which I was acquainted with was the M1-Garand, and I am

> > quite familiar with it. I am also quite familiar with the Model 91/38

> > Carcano, since I own one and have fired it as well.

>

> And you still can't figure out what its midrange trajectory height is.

And you must have just learned it for yourself, since you like to expouse it so much.

Now, if you could only continue to study up and understand that this happens to be exactly why the sights on the Garand have multiple "automatic" settings, as well as the ability to "fine-tune" that setting, as well as the fact that when one sights in/ZERO's his weapon to a given range then he has absolutely no need to even known anything about mid-range trajectory arch, as it is compensated for when he sights in the weapon.

Along with all of the other variables.

Of course, one who would be quite ignorant of the facts, would also not know that the "midrange trajectory" for one specific bullet, is not the same for a different type or even weight bullet which is fired through exactly the same weapon at the exact same ranges.

In fact, even when utilizing the exact same "Match Ammo", the "midrange trajectory" changes considerably as the rifle barrel becomes heated from prior shots.

And, just in event you were not aware of it, leave a round in chamber for 5 to 10 seconds longer, and it's midrange trajectory, as well as overall range will increase due merely to powder temperature increase and more efficiant powder burning and release of explosive gas.

So, I for one am quite obviously highly impressed with your grasp of facts and knowledge as regards "midrange trajectory".

> The M-C is a piece of junk.

Personally, I believe that I will stick with the opinions of those who have demonstrated actual knowledge of the weapon.

Which happens to include myself.

> > Now, if it were that I were having to shoot at targets which ran in the

> > 500 yard to 1,000 yard range, I personally would always chose the Garand.

> > At targets of 100 yards to 200 yards range, a good Carcano would always be

> > my preference.

>

> And at 50 yards you'd always miss.

>

You, it would appear, are confusing your own shooting ability with mine.

Exactly where was it that you posted your experience with the Garand and the Carcano?

Are not you the same Anthony Marsh who repeatedly stated that one can not load a Carcano with 7 rounds of ammunition?

Which also clearly demonstrates exactly how little you know of this weapon!

How many seconds was it that I told you that it took Barbara to learn to do this?

> > "and the practice he had in 1963 was"

Well, I actually do not know exactly how much he had! However, whatever amount it was, then it must have been more than sufficient.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0145-001.gif

November 16, 1963: 8 to 10 rounds and all of them within the "bullseye" except one, appears to be pretty good practice to me.

Especially when the witness statements also indicate that the shooting was done under a "rapid fire" condition.

[Antti Hynonen]

Thomas H. Purvis

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Oct 8 2007, 02:02 PM IP: 64.12.117.196 | Post #108 |

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 2913

Joined: 17-June 05

Member No.: 3092

Warn: (0%)

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?

Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.

Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir

Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds,The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.

Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.

On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots,

The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The above testing, from all indications, was fired when the rifle was first received by the FBI, and with the scope crosshairs "as received".

It is additionally noted that this first firing of the rifle was done within the FBI Firing Range, which limited the actual shooting distances. Thusly, this, the first shooting testing was done at a distance of 15 yards and was a somewhat "familiarization shooting with the weapon.

Even though only at a distance of 15 yards, the accuracy of the shot groupings demonstrate the weapon accuracy.

As important is the fact that of three relatively expert marksmen (Frazier/Cunningham/Killion) each person's shot grouping was "High and to the Right", which clearly demonstrates that the scope had been adjusted to target alignment for an individual who, by the nature of his shooting posture, consistently fired "Low and to the Left". As did LHO!

Cunningham & Fraizer's 15-yard target:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0135b.htm

Killion's 15-yard target:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0136a.htm

--------------------

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4085

Ok, if the three agents test fired the Oswald Carcano for accuracy and noticed that it hit, on average roughly 4 inches high, and one inch to the right of the target at a distance of 15 yards, then:

Scaling the above scenario to the actual shooting scenario, if the 1st shot was fired from a distance of say 60 yards, it would have hit roughly 16 inches high and 4 inches to the right from the target. At 100 yards it would have hit about 27 inches high and seven inches to the right.

Hmmm.... no wonder the spectators at Dealey were ducking.

[Charles Drago]

It would appear that all of these purported "shooters", as well as many others, have been far too busy chasing mythological beings and have thusly not had time to deal with the FACTS of LHO's excellent marksmanship abililty.

Of course, one must understand something before they can explain it to others!

As I've noted elsewhere: This is all so Hannibal Lecter-esque I could just faint!

We're sooo ambitious, aren't we? Do you know what we look like to Mr. Purvis? With our expensive computers and cheap rationales?

We look like rubes! Well-spoken, hustling rubes, with a little information.

Good public education has given us length of concentration, but we're not more than one generation from poor dolts, aren"t we? And this gullibility we've tried so desperately to shed -- pure liberalism. What did our parents do? Did they protest the Viet Nam War? Did they stink of the Lamb?

We know how quickly the conspiracy theorists found us. All those late-night research sessions in poorly lit libraries, while we could only dream of solving the case. Solving anything, getting all the way to the C ... I ... A.

At least when Hannibal promised to go away, he did.

Charles Drago

Edited October 15, 2007 by Charles Drago