FBI Frazier's Testimony
tomnln
a1e...@verizon.net
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/fbi_frazier.htm
I find the following two paragraphs highly significant.
"The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate
for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this
weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be
necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended
object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."
"I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would
tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right."
Frazier found that the alignment of the scope automatically
compensated for the vertical motion of the limousine at its given
speed. Since the limousine was to the left of the sniper and moving
away, its image in the scope moved toward the right. In other words
the scope canceled the lead in the vertical and reduced if not
canceled the lead in the horizontal direction. Further the curvature
of Elm Street practically ensures that the scope would have canceled
the leads in both directions for at least one location.
Perhaps these considerations explain why they removed the scope and
searched for concealed fingerprints.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
They did not remove the scope and search for concealed fingerprints.
That's just plain stupid.
Brokedad
That the scope crosshairs may have been "high" (as compared to center of
optical alignment) and that the weapon fired "high" for those from the FBI
lab who tested it, does not mean much of anything.
Due to the slightly different manner in which we all take up a "stock-
weld" position when firing a rifle, as well as a slightly different sight
picture as a result of this difference, could mean that at this setting,
whoever fired the weapon had this adjustment on the scope in order to
repetively hit dead center/bullseye.
Which also holds true for the cross-hair alignment.
The "fixed" sight of the carcano gave little room for adjustment due to
"shooter sighting"* error, as does our military weapons, (to include he
M-1 Garand).
A mounted scope gives the ability (for long range) to compensate for the
"sighting error" of the shooter on a "fixed sight" weapon.
If one will actually research the facts, they will find that even with the
M-1 Garand, LHO as a result of the manner in which he held the rifle as
well as took up a sight picture, fired at a point which was low. This
point was anywhere from one to two inches low at close ranges (100 to 200
yard ranges) and as much as five inches low at longer ranges of 500 yards.
So, basically, for each 100 yards of range, LHO naturally fired 1-inch
left of target center.
When the sight is adjusted to compensate for this, it basically adjusts
the sight so that anyone who held a perfectly correct sight picture and
correct spot-weld position, would generally always shoot "High" with a
weapon which LHO had zeroed to his specific sighting.
The exact same holds for the lateral/windage. LHO consistently fired to
the left and thus had to adjust his windage to compensate for this. Thus,
anyone who held the weapon correctly and took a correct sight picture,
would have always fired to the right of center.
All of which makes it appear as if the scope was adjusted virtually
exactly as LHO would have required it for accurate shooting.
Tom
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a08...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh wrote;
> They did not remove the scope and search for concealed fingerprints.
> That's just plain stupid.
>
>
I write;
WRONG Again Marsh;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/fbi_frazier.htm
Page 396
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
The evidence proves you wrong. Frazier testified that unnamed persons
took the scope off the rifle in searching for fingerprints.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0210a.htm
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion
on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I do not. And I think I must say here that this
mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the
scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for
fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in
when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way
when it was abandoned.
End of quotation.
Herbert
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your reply shows a failure to understand the difference between
zeroing a weapon for a stationary target and zeroing for a moving
target. I regret that my advanced age does not give me the time to
fill this gap in your knowledge.
For the benefit of those who comprehended my previous post, I add the
following information.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0214b.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning
what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target,
assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those
calculations now?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the
target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that
figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an
average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a
speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may
or may not be exactly accurate.
But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to
shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the
intended spot on the target At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or
6.1 inches.
I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer
distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther
away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in
which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop
in the amount of lead.
And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that
there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot
location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to
more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the
bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the
amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head,
above the point of the target?
Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting
distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting
over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4
feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that table also shows leads at other car speeds?
Mr. FRAZIER. This table I could calculate them--it only shows miles
per hour translated into feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. I mean, does it show various miles per hour?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it shows miles per hour in feet per second.
Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into detail at this time, may I have
permission to introduce this table into evidence?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. This will be Commission Exhibit 560.
(The item identified as Commission Exhibit No. 560 was received in
evidence.)
End of quotation.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0139a.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
"Apparently"? That is not proof of a fact.
You argue ridiculously.
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> > Representative BOGGS. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion
> > on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
> > Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I do not. And I think I must say here that this
> > mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the
> > scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for
> > fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in
> > when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way
> > when it was abandoned.
> > End of quotation.
>
> > Herbert
>
> "Apparently"? That is not proof of a fact.
>
> - Show quoted text -
You just do not get it Marsh. Without the previous removal of the
scope the evidence of a deliberate sighting of the scope to compensate
for the moving limousine becomes overwhelming strong. Can you spell
foreknowledge of the speed, direction and distance of the limousine
from the sniper's nest?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Yes, so what?
Your theory about the necessary removal of the scope is nonsense. It was
probably Lt. Day who removed the scope.
> Herbert
>
a1e...@verizon.net
Some people would say anything to divert attention from the finding
that no lead was necessary to compensate for the change in vertical
angle of the moving target.
Frazier said: "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would
actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you
aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory,
it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the
intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."
Well, Marsh, can you name one of those people?
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -