Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 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. I would not expect "non-shooters" to fully understand the importance of how one holds their weapon in achievement of shooting accuracy. However, in this internet age, there is no excuse for one not researching their subject matter. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/simmons.htm 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accogli Claudio Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) NO one about to kill anyone would use such a horrible rifle....an assassin would use a real rifle for sharpshooting, not an old WW1 nothing and, further, they'd not buy it mail order [implicating themselves]...in TX they could have bought it annonymously over the counter..... Lastly, several phony weapons were found and all others but the horrible self-incriminating pre-prescribed by sabot bullets MC made to disappear....poof...magic.....watch this hand...as the other is doing the dirty deed. Hi, don't think it is correct: If someone wanted to use more than 1 gun in the killing, a WWII rifle would be useful to cover the ballistic traces, and different bullets from different guns could be analysed as coming just from 1 weapon. To the topic: the Italian Army confirmed it is not possible in Dealey Plaza there was only one shooter. They arrived to this conclusion due to the results of the ballistic firing tests in Terni reported, but manly due to the comparison with the Zapruder film. If Zapruder was not in Dealey, the case was closed by the Warren. and so, the problem LHO was a poor shooter or not is something not planned, like it was not planned the presence of a camera that day, in that place. Edited October 17, 2007 by Accogli Claudio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Charles/Peter, It's pointless to debate with Tom. He is addicted to producing extremely lengthy and confusing posts that leave the reader baffled. The early critics established beyond any doubt that Oswald was "a rather poor shot," in the government's own words to Mark Lane. It's just as obvious that the weapon allegedly used was defective and would not have been picked by any conspirator or any lone nut. These are just a few of the many reasons I now believe, like Vincent Salandria, that the conspirators purposefully established a childishly transparent coverup that would be easily exposed. Why they did that is something I can't figure out, although the smiple answer would be that they were simply bragging and shouting out "Yeah, we did it! So what?" I have tried a few times to pin Tom Purvis down about exactly what it is he believes. I have been unsuccessful in doing that. From what little I understand of his many long and rambling posts, he somehow thinks that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter and that all shots were fired from there, with the Mannlicher-Carcano. However, he also believes that the Warren Commission engaged in a coverup and the Zapruder film was altered. Because he is different from an LNer, he has always interested me. However, he is just incapable of clearly and succinctly explaining himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Charles/Peter,It's pointless to debate with Tom. He is addicted to producing extremely lengthy and confusing posts that leave the reader baffled. The early critics established beyond any doubt that Oswald It's pointless to debate with Tom.was "a rather poor shot," in the government's own words to Mark Lane. It's just as obvious that the weapon allegedly used was defective and would not have been picked by any conspirator or any lone nut. These are just a few of the many reasons I now believe, like Vincent Salandria, that the conspirators purposefully established a childishly transparent coverup that would be easily exposed. Why they did that is something I can't figure out, although the smiple answer would be that they were simply bragging and shouting out "Yeah, we did it! So what?" I have tried a few times to pin Tom Purvis down about exactly what it is he believes. I have been unsuccessful in doing that. From what little I understand of his many long and rambling posts, he somehow thinks that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter and that all shots were fired from there, with the Mannlicher-Carcano. However, he also believes that the Warren Commission engaged in a coverup and the Zapruder film was altered. Because he is different from an LNer, he has always interested me. However, he is just incapable of clearly and succinctly explaining himself. It's just as obvious that the weapon allegedly used was defective and would not have been picked by any conspirator or any lone nut. Which statement clearly demonstrates why you remain confused! It's pointless to debate with Tom. he somehow thinks that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter and that all shots were fired from there, Which demonstrates a misconception! Tom did not come here to "debate", as of yet I have even found anyone who has adequately reviewed the evidence sufficiently to debate with. Tom preferences to give forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts! Those who understand accept this, or at least take the time to research same for themselves, Fine! Those who do not and wish to wander in the rabbit hole maze, Fine! confusing posts that leave the reader baffled Unfortunately, the great majority here were highly "baffled" long before I came along. A researcher would quite possibly find it prudent to resolve exactly what it is that I speak of. The remainder here would not, and have not learned to accept what is fact, even when openly placed before their eyes. I have tried a few times to pin Tom Purvis down about exactly what it is he believes. It has been stated multiple times! Yet, you appear to be confused by these facts as well as all other facts as well. he somehow thinks that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter and that all shots were fired from there, Actually! He "thinks" that it is irrelevant as to exactly what he thinks. About all that matters is what the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts support. Which, appear to be to confusing for you, as well as many others, to grasp. he is just incapable of clearly and succinctly explaining himself Do not confuse your inability to understand, with some perceived inability on my part to explain. In event that you knew much of anything about the facts, then just perhaps you, as well as many others, would not be wandering around lost in the forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;qpid=122590 Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum. Who stands with me in his defense? Charles Drago ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you quite obviously have completely failed in your JFK Forum "Boycott", please accept my invitation to at least boycott anything which I post. Better yet, why don't you and Jack start your own forum. Does "Fools-R-Us" sound like something which is appealing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 An interesting pattern is developing. Len Colby is calling for -- should I write "demanding"? -- the removal of Peter Lemkin from this forum. And now Colonel Kurtz is suggesting that it's time for my separation from the service. I can't represent Peter's posture, but I know that I have not endeavored to silence anyone who posts here. Nor shall I do so. Is the cordite-like scent of collusion in the air? Why am I suddenly put in mind of John Kennedy Toole? Or is this simply a joint audition for "Fear Factor"? Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...c3957522066dff5 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0343b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0344a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0345a.htm Note: 12--"5's & 6- "4"'s certainly looks like a "shooter" to me! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0346a.htm 46 out of possible 50----aka 92 out of possible 100-----aka 92nd percentile rating. Anthony! Since "higher math" appears to be above you, perhaps the pictures will help. P.S. Add the total for the actual day of Rangefire Qualification, and one comes to a total score of 417, not the "handwirtten" score of 412/mm which has been forged into LHO's Service Record. 417 = 3 points below that score necessary to qualify as EXPERT (420), and this with having completely "blown" one firing station. P.P.S. Exactly what about application for Albert Schweitzer College in March 1959, when the purported requalification firing record of 191 occurred in May 1959. Do you think LHO gave a RA about anything related to the USMC when he was already working towards an "Early Out" based on a quite fraudulent 'Hardship" discharge? Exactlly what portion of "Don't give a Rat's A** " was it that you also failed to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accogli Claudio Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) Dear Mr. Purvis, I follow your posts and generally I find lot of interesting things to look better, and sometimes things I ear for the first time. But on this point, I recommend you to comparate ballistic tests on Carcano during the years (only two professional snipers did the job in about 60 attempts/Warren-Fbi,Cbs,Hsca tests, and it is still NOT clear if they aimed with the telescopic sight or not). and more... if LHO was a "great shooter", and this is not true, he had practice with M1 and not with Carcano. And, M1 used under the Army did not have a telescopic sight mounted. Practise in Urss? LHO said they used to drink vodka instead of hunting.... And (once more), the question could be "inverted": if LHO was a great shooter, why did he choose and buy so an "hostile" weapon -considered a "good second weapon" for any hunter in Us market adverts since 1958... My opinion? 1 carcano into the Tsbd, 1 carcano on the Grassy Knoll: the idea any weapon is unique due to the barrel is a wrong opinion of Mr. Frazier.... if you put some new barrel on same guns.. they are really similar.. it is the time and the use of them that makes the difference. Edited October 18, 2007 by Accogli Claudio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Dear Mr. Purvis, I follow your posts and generally I find lot of interesting things to look better, and sometimes things I ear for the first time.But on this point, I recommend you to comparate ballistic tests on Carcano during the years (only two professional snipers did the job in about 60 attempts/Warren-Fbi,Cbs,Hsca tests, and it is still NOT clear if they aimed with the telescopic sight or not). and more... if LHO was a "great shooter", and this is not true, he had practice with M1 and not with Carcano. And, M1 used under the Army did not have a telescopic sight mounted. Practise in Urss? LHO said they used to drink vodka instead of hunting.... And (once more), the question could be "inverted": if LHO was a great shooter, why did he choose and buy so an "hostile" weapon -considered a "good second weapon" for any hunter in Us market adverts since 1958... My opinion? 1 carcano into the Tsbd, 1 carcano on the Grassy Knoll: the idea any weapon is unique due to the barrel is a wrong opinion of Mr. Frazier.... if you put some new barrel on same guns.. they are really similar.. it is the time and the use of them that makes the difference. 1. Have you ever taken a test/examination in which there were "trick questions"? "Stuffing" three accurate shots into a 5.6 to 5.9 second shooting scenario, utilizing the Carcano, is without doubt a feat of marksmanship. Fortunately, LHO did not have to do this, as this time frame only constituted that elapsed time between the first shot and the second shot. Now! Take that information to all of the "Experts" which you wish, and thereafter see if they would like to perhaps at least "modify" their answer. 2. In event that you have neither read, nor understood that posting in regards to "High & to the Right". LHO habitually shot LOW & to the LEFT! Therefore, any weapon which he zero'ed/sighted for himself, would virtually always fire High & to the Right when an individual who had true rifle marksmanship training fired the weapon utilizing LHO's sighting arrangement. 3. The link to that witness testimony who observed LHO at the Sports Drone Rifle Range on December 16, 1963, conducting "rapid fire" shooting and getting 8 or 9 out of ten shots into the bullseye, was provided. Actually, if LHO could shoot this well, he did not even need the practice which he took on this day. Do your research and stop believeing those who claim that he did no practice. 4. The only "unique" thing that FBI Agent Frazier can and did state with absolute assurance was that CE399 as well as a portion of the recovered fragmented shot/bullet, was fired from the weapon recovered from the sixth floor window, to the exclusion of ALL other weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accogli Claudio Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) 1. Yes, i read the ''Experts". The Fbi, as you already know, said it was possible to reload and fire the weapon in such a short time, but only in a teoretic manner (they did not aim and shot to a moving target, or to a static one). Tests conducted by the 3 rifleman were "not resolutive". The Hsca Panel arrived to similar conclusion but: they could not comparize the C2766 tests (incompatibility with 1964 results). They used the gun - the Experts of 1978 - without aiming with the telescopic sight and - if I remeber well - without using the ammo magazine (and it makes a great difference, as you know). 2. Have to study this, interesting fact. Only doubt is that to allign such a weapon you need to fire at least 12 shots in a poligon... somewhere there could be the trace of this "allignment" work. 3. I have read that testimoniances, they do not convince me more than the Marines report about LHO ability to shoot (poor shooter). The story of the vodka, anyway, was reported by LHO brother, nor LHO himself. 4. I am sorry, you are wrong. Also If you find in the Warren report that the "unicity all over the the world" of the gun C2766 was proved by the italian intelligence army - Sifar - this is not true. It is evident they made a "sinthesys" error putting togheter the words of mr. Frazier and the "so-called" secret documentation of Sifar. Read the full Frazier testimony to the Warren: he assumed the responsability to say the gun C2766 was unique due to his experience (the correlation letters -numbers of the serial code). And we know this is false, Carcanos did not have letter AND numbers, sometimes numbers ONLY. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=401 thnx for answer anyway Edited October 18, 2007 by Accogli Claudio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) 3. The link to that witness testimony who observed LHO at the Sports Drone Rifle Range on December 16, 1963, conducting "rapid fire" shooting and getting 8 or 9 out of ten shots into the bullseye, was provided.Actually, if LHO could shoot this well, he did not even need the practice which he took on this day. Do your research and stop believeing (sic) those who claim that he did no practice. Now! That was perhaps Oswald's most amazing feat of marksmanship. Edited October 18, 2007 by Michael Hogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 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://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...72396e30f0a6dcc Actually! One does not require a great amount of marksmanship skill or "luck" to accomplish: 1. A hit at an approximate slope distance range of 60 to 61 yards. (184 feet) 2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later, a second hit a an approximate slope distance range of 80 to 81 yards. (242 feet) aka/Z313 headshot. However! 3. The "SnapShot" which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and which also impacted the rear of the neck/head of JFK, was most probably as much luck as it was skill as the limited time lapse for this shot virtually eliminates any possibility that the scope on the rifle was utilized. Which shot by the way was only approximately 98 yards/294-feet slope distance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 19, 2007 Author Share Posted October 19, 2007 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://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...72396e30f0a6dcc Actually! One does not require a great amount of marksmanship skill or "luck" to accomplish: 1. A hit at an approximate slope distance range of 60 to 61 yards. (184 feet) 2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later, a second hit a an approximate slope distance range of 80 to 81 yards. (242 feet) aka/Z313 headshot. However! 3. The "SnapShot" which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and which also impacted the rear of the neck/head of JFK, was most probably as much luck as it was skill as the limited time lapse for this shot virtually eliminates any possibility that the scope on the rifle was utilized. Which shot by the way was only approximately 98 yards/294-feet slope distance! P.S.----For Mr. Von Pein! That "Snap Shot" down in front of James Altgens position is the shot in which the bullet passed through JFK's coat at the edge of the collar, just prior to striking JFK in the back of the head/neck at the lower edge of the hairline. Were you ever going to post that information relative to how you "Know" that the second bullet entrance hole through the coat of JFK (the one up at the edge of the collar) was not a bullet hole??????? I for one would certainly like to know exactly who it was that relayed that information to you, as each and every FBI Agent of the Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI Lab has personally denied to me that it represents where any "comparison sample" was taken. But, just perhaps JFK was so poor that he went around wearing a coat which had holes in it which coincidentally aligned perfectly with the bullet entrance wound into the scalp at the edge of the hairline at the base of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 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://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...72396e30f0a6dcc Actually! One does not require a great amount of marksmanship skill or "luck" to accomplish: 1. A hit at an approximate slope distance range of 60 to 61 yards. (184 feet) 2. 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later, a second hit a an approximate slope distance range of 80 to 81 yards. (242 feet) aka/Z313 headshot. However! 3. The "SnapShot" which occurred down in front of James Altgens, and which also impacted the rear of the neck/head of JFK, was most probably as much luck as it was skill as the limited time lapse for this shot virtually eliminates any possibility that the scope on the rifle was utilized. Which shot by the way was only approximately 98 yards/294-feet slope distance! P.S.----For Mr. Von Pein! That "Snap Shot" down in front of James Altgens position is the shot in which the bullet passed through JFK's coat at the edge of the collar, just prior to striking JFK in the back of the head/neck at the lower edge of the hairline. Were you ever going to post that information relative to how you "Know" that the second bullet entrance hole through the coat of JFK (the one up at the edge of the collar) was not a bullet hole??????? I for one would certainly like to know exactly who it was that relayed that information to you, as each and every FBI Agent of the Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI Lab has personally denied to me that it represents where any "comparison sample" was taken. But, just perhaps JFK was so poor that he went around wearing a coat which had holes in it which coincidentally aligned perfectly with the bullet entrance wound into the scalp at the edge of the hairline at the base of the head. That "Snap Shot" down in front of James Altgens position is the shot in which the bullet passed through JFK's coat at the edge of the collar, just prior to striking JFK in the back of the head/neck at the lower edge of the hairline. http://yarchive.net/gun/courses/gunsite_rifle1.html There were nine students in our rifle class and two instructors. Our lead instructor's real job is a sniper instructor for the DOE in New Mexico. The assistant is a recently retired California law enforcement type who specialized in training and working with tactical entry teams. Of the nine students we had two MDs, 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. We had an interesting mix of rifles in the class. There were 6 "Scout" rifles; 5 were chambered in .308 Winchester and one was chambered in .35 Whelen. Half of the Scouts (all .308s) were built on the Sako action the other half were built on the full range of Winchester model 70 actions: post '64 & the new classic in .308 and a very nice pre '64 on the Whelen. There were two conventional model 70s in the new classic action, one chambered in .308 and the other in .243. I had the only self loading rifle in the class, a Springfield M1A with the short brush model barrel chambered in 7.62x51 NATO. 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. We also worked on normal A zone hits from 50 meters with the same time limit and start position. Five snap shots for score from 25 & 50 Meters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I reckon that we had best get some of these housewives and "computer types" to demonstrate exactly how difficult IT IS NOT, to get off a rapid shot with a bolt action rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now