CT Marksmanship ........!
cdddraftsman
marksmanship , yet in 44 years of wailing a conspiracy only the elect can
see , they haven't been able to hit the broadside of the conspiracy barn
in all there wasted efforts .
Some simple questions drive the point home :
How many CTer's have actually tried to duplicate what they claim , by
buying a MC rifle and doing experiments that would prove their contentions
, like others have ? :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hnd7gj
How many CTer's are still in denial about how good a shot LHO actually
was ? : http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
How many CTer's were afraid that this might happen after years of saying
the Zapruder film was absolute evidence of a conspiracy and then had to
spin like a top and claim the Z-film was faked after esperimentations went
against them ? :
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=fu01ug&s=2
How many CTer's always showed a side view of CE-399 , when the end view
were the damage is most apparent was almost never shown ? What were they
afraid of , the truth ? : http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2wq4lzq&s=1
How many CTer's used the Newman couple as a witness to a grassy knoll
shooter , but when you look at photo's of them on the ground during the
shooting , they are sheilding their children away from the TSBD and have
them facing the grassy knoll ? :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4rb0681
How many CTer's are in denial even today about the weight of evidence that
has grown steadily against LHO since day one ? :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4fu7fhc&s=1
tl
burgundy
The KGB files on Oswald reflect he was a very poor shot and could not
hit a rabbit at all while hunting with friends. Check it out.
burgundy
According to the KGB files on Oswald, discussed on Nightline about 15
years ago, Oswald went with a hunting party for rabbits and hit
nothing. Other marines on tis site have sounded out about his scores
and the "exagerration" of his accuracy by others. Check it out.
Anthony Marsh
> Seems to me that CTer's get all twisted in a knott about LHO's
> marksmanship , yet in 44 years of wailing a conspiracy only the elect can
> see , they haven't been able to hit the broadside of the conspiracy barn
> in all there wasted efforts .
>
> Some simple questions drive the point home :
>
> How many CTer's have actually tried to duplicate what they claim , by
> buying a MC rifle and doing experiments that would prove their contentions
> , like others have ? :
>
You mean like moi? But of course you would just ignore them and reject
them so what's your point?
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hnd7gj
>
> How many CTer's are still in denial about how good a shot LHO actually
> was ? : http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
>
So good that he barely qualified?
> How many CTer's were afraid that this might happen after years of saying
> the Zapruder film was absolute evidence of a conspiracy and then had to
> spin like a top and claim the Z-film was faked after esperimentations went
> against them ? :
>
No experimentations have gone against conspiracy.
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=fu01ug&s=2
>
> How many CTer's always showed a side view of CE-399 , when the end view
> were the damage is most apparent was almost never shown ? What were they
> afraid of , the truth ? : http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=2wq4lzq&s=1
>
How many LNers have actually looked at the base of CE 399 in the very
first photo that was taken of it that night?
> How many CTer's used the Newman couple as a witness to a grassy knoll
> shooter , but when you look at photo's of them on the ground during the
> shooting , they are sheilding their children away from the TSBD and have
> them facing the grassy knoll ? :
>
No, they are not shielding the children with their bodies from the TSBD.
To do that they would need to be to the children's right.
> http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4rb0681
>
> How many CTer's are in denial even today about the weight of evidence that
> has grown steadily against LHO since day one ? :
>
How many LNers actually look at the evidence?
tomnln
Found on page 405 of Volume V.
"burgundy" <WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190947288.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
>
> The KGB files on Oswald reflect he was a very poor shot and could not
> hit a rabbit at all while hunting with friends. Check it out.
Your of course talking about video' The Secret KGB JFK Assassination
Files '(*) . I have the video and checked it out years ago . Other
studies done by experimentation tend to cast doubt on their
conclusions , to say the least .
(*) Second in a series , the first being ' The Secret KGB UFO Files
' , both hosted by Roger Moore and both worth seeing .
cdddraftsman
>
> According to the KGB files on Oswald, discussed on Nightline about 15
> years ago, Oswald went with a hunting party for rabbits and hit
> nothing. Other marines on tis site have sounded out about his scores
> and the "exagerration" of his accuracy by others. Check it out.
Sorry I don't buy that
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
LHO's official score book while in the Marine Corp, prove otherwise .
Iron sights at 200 yards , half the distance of Dealey Plaza
48 out of 50 and 49 out of 50 possible points
On two different occaisions prove that
when he was properly motivated
he was a excellent shot .
:-( tl )-:
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 28, 6:47 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> According to the KGB files on Oswald, discussed on Nightline about 15
>> years ago, Oswald went with a hunting party for rabbits and hit
>> nothing. Other marines on tis site have sounded out about his scores
>> and the "exagerration" of his accuracy by others. Check it out.
>
>
> Sorry I don't buy that
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
> LHO's official score book while in the Marine Corp, prove otherwise .
Oswald's official score was just barely passing.
> Iron sights at 200 yards , half the distance of Dealey Plaza
Iron sights on a semi-automatic which had sights that could be adjusted
and zeroed in and were. Apples and oranges. Half the distance of Dealey
Plaza? No shots were taken at 400 yards. I think you mean TWICE the
distance as in Dealey Plaza.
> 48 out of 50 and 49 out of 50 possible points
> On two different occaisions prove that
> when he was properly motivated
> he was a excellent shot .
> :-( tl )-:
>
Not at all. You are generalizing from the best results, not the average.
Anthony Marsh
> THAT was with a "Shotgun".
>
Couldn't even hit a rabbit at 10 yards with a shotgun!
tomnln
"Couldn't even hit a rabbit at 10 yards with a shotgun!"
Are those words found on page 405 in volume V?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GLmdnUXFFOn8qJ3a...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Marsh;
> "Couldn't even hit a rabbit at 10 yards with a shotgun!"
>
> Are those words found on page 405 in volume V?
>
>
I don't remember seeing it in quotation marks as you have it. The
sarcasm is mine.
Brokedad
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-2005
Thomas H. Purvis says:
.
"Truth" is what, as a society, we are lead to believe and accept.
"The World is Flat" was a recognized truth during certain periods of
history.
The Earth is the center of the Universe was another of these non-
factual "Truth's".
NOT the FACT! Merely the recognized truth.
As to the shots fired in Dealy Plaza, the factual reality is that the
shooting was not that good.
1. The first shot almost missed JFK, for reasons which are comparative
to the miss on Walker.
2. The second shot (aka Z313) was quite high, and had it been as much
as 1 & 1/2 inches higher, or had the Speed of the Presidential Limo
(which was progressively decreasing in speed at the time) been 1 to 2
miles per hour less than it was, then the second shot would have
completely missed and would have gone over the top of the head of JFK.
3. The third/last/final shot was what is normally referred to as a
"snap shot", and quite probably was as much luck that it ultimately
struck in the head, as being related to any great marksmanship skills.
At the time of impact of this last shot, JFK was leaned over and too
the side, however, more critically, the Presidential Limo had almost
stopped.
----------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS -The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow
pace
-----------------
And, if one thoroughly reviews the autopsy information, they will find
that the impact point of the bullet was in fact far down at the upper
base of the neck (below the back edge of the skull) at the edge of the
hairline.
It was only a "head hit" due to the anglular/position of JFK's body in
which the bullet travelled laterally (on a 12-degree downward angle)
to ultimately strike the skull of JFK.
In those contents and context, one must make a comparison of this
shooting ability with LHO's demonstrated ability during his Rangfire
Qualification in the USMC.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0341b.htm
The "500 yard Slowfire" firing station for Thursday's practice
demonstrtes as score of 44 out of a possible 50 points (.88
percentile) which is at the bottom range of what the USMC considers as
EXPERT in overall qualification.
The following day (Friday) during actual qualification firing, LHO
fired a 46 out of a possible 50 points, for a score which was in the
92nd percentile rating.
What clearly demonstrates the marksmanship ability of LHO is the
actual target size.
In the case of the 500 yard "Slow Fire" target, the inner circle has a
20-inch diameter.
Thus, on December 20, 1956, LHO placed 5 of 10 shots fired, inside a
20-inch diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
On December 21, 1956, LHO placed 6 of 10 shots fired inside a 20-inch
diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
_________________________________________________
The longest distance of any shot fired in Dealy Plaza was
approximately 98 yards.
_________________________________________________
Thereafter, when one takes into comparison the "Rapid Fire",
demonstrated shooting ability which LHO also demonstrated during his
initial rifle marksmanship training in the USMC, they will find that
LHO was quite accurate in this "speed-fire" ability as well.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0344a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0346a.htm
And, although the "Rapid Fire" target is somewhat larger in size (26-
inches wide at the base X 19-inches high for the black silhoutte are
for a "5 score), the demonstrated ability of LHO at the 200 yard
range as well as the 300 yard range, clearly shows that even under
rapid-fire conditions, he was a far above average shooter.
*For final Rangefire Qualification, LHO scored:
At the 300 yard rapid fire station, LHO scored a 46 out of a possible
50 points, for a percentile rating of .92
At the 200 yard rapid fire station, LHO scored a 48 out of a possible
50 points, for a percentile rating of .96
-----------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm
Testimony Of Maj. Eugene D. Anderson
Major ANDERSON - I am assistant head of the Marksmanship Branch,
Headquarters Marine Corps.
Major ANDERSON - I have been working in marksmanship training for
approximately 18 years. I am a distinguished rifle shot in the Marine
Corps, master rifle shot, National Rifle Association of America.
Major ANDERSON - I want to correct the record.
Mr. SPECTER - Proceed to do so.
Major ANDERSON - I am a master with the pistol in the National Rifle
Association. I am not classified with the rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And does your classification as a distinguished marksman
apply to the rifle?
Major ANDERSON - To the rifle, yes.
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.
Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship
capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you,
Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?
Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines
receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot,
somewhat better than or equal to-better than the average let us say.
As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive
training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.
-----------------
It would be hoped that the next time that someone attempts to continue
feeding the rumor that LHO was not entirely capable of accurately
firing a rifle at ranges of less than 100 yards, will be referred to
what the record actually demonstrates, as well as those truly
qualified "Shooters" such as Major Anderson and SGT. Zahm, who were in
fact true "Shooters".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zahm.htm
Sergeant ZAHM. I am the NCO in charge of the Marksmanship Training
Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training
Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the
record.
Sergeant ZAHM. Noncommissioned officer.
Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular
duty?
Sergeant ZAHM. Two years 4 months.
Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?
Sergeant ZAHM. I became engaged in competitive shooting in 1952, and I
became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches
from 1952
through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the
President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in
1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I
consider it a very easy shot.
Brokedad
>
> Mr. ALTGENS -The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow
> pace
> -----------------
>
> And, if one thoroughly reviews the autopsy information, they will find
> that the impact point of the bullet was in fact far down at the upper
> base of the neck (below the back edge of the skull) at the edge of the
> hairline.
>
> It was only a "head hit" due to the anglular/position of JFK's body in
> which the bullet travelled laterally (on a 12-degree downward angle)
> to ultimately strike the skull of JFK.
>
> In those contents and context, one must make a comparison of this
> shooting ability with LHO's demonstrated ability during his Rangfire
> Qualification in the USMC.
>
>
> The "500 yard Slowfire" firing station for Thursday's practice
> demonstrtes as score of 44 out of a possible 50 points (.88
> percentile) which is at the bottom range of what the USMC considers as
> EXPERT in overall qualification.
>
> The following day (Friday) during actual qualification firing, LHO
> fired a 46 out of a possible 50 points, for a score which was in the
> 92nd percentile rating.
>
> What clearly demonstrates the marksmanship ability of LHO is the
> actual target size.
>
> In the case of the 500 yard "Slow Fire" target, the inner circle has a
> 20-inch diameter.
>
> Thus, on December 20, 1956, LHO placed 5 of 10 shots fired, inside a
> 20-inch diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
>
> On December 21, 1956, LHO placed 6 of 10 shots fired inside a 20-inch
> diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> The longest distance of any shot fired in Dealy Plaza was
> approximately 98 yards.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Thereafter, when one takes into comparison the "Rapid Fire",
> demonstrated shooting ability which LHO also demonstrated during his
> initial rifle marksmanship training in the USMC, they will find that
> LHO was quite accurate in this "speed-fire" ability as well.
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
Thomas H. Purvis says:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8580&pid=121106&st=75&#entry121106entry121106
Post #82
"Perhaps you ought to consider some other evidence and testimony before
you draw your conclusions. Just a friendly thought."
And, perhaps you should make an attempt to evaluate and understand the
factual evidence before inserting your foot into your mouth on subjects
which your sum total of experience appears to be reading and believing
those who wish to sell you a book.
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.
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.
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.
4. Perhaps you should take the time and effort to read up on the firing,
as accomplished by both the FBI as well as the Weapons Evaluation Branch,
not to mention all of those persons associated with Massad Ayoob who
picked up the Carcano for the first time and thereafter managed to
accomplish a shooting feet which almost matched what you and others state
that LHO & Carlos Hathcock could not accomplish.
5. Perhaps you should also take a look at LHO's first time at bat with the
M-1 Garand, and you will see that immediately after having fired the
Garand and acquired his "windage & elevation" adjustments, he placed 3 out
of 3 shots fired within that 5-point scoring area of the target. Which by
the way, happens to be prior to his having acquired all of this fantastic
rangefire training on which you appear to have little if any faith.
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, for know-nothing novice's such as yourself, I will state absolutely,
that it is far easier to shoot accurately with the lighter and more
"shooter friendly" Carcano, than with the quite heavy and somewhat
cumbersome Garand.
The only problem being that the Carcano does not have the capability to
adjust for the injected "Shooter error" as does the Garand.
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.
5. Lastly, it is of course quite unfortunate that you "fell for" "THE SHOT
THAT MISSED", and wish to go around expousing on a subject matter of which
you apparantly have done little research (other than to read whatever
Carlos Hathcock (who was selling books) as well as multiple others (who
were also selling books) misrepresented. That, remains your problem! Not
mine!
P.S. "One-Shot/One-Kill" does not mean that one has the ability for rapid
fire accuracy. It merely means that one has the ability, under ideal
conditions, to accurately hit the target on a single shot made under those
perfect conditions of "Sniper" training. Which happen to encompass a wide
variety of techniques in which virtually none can be applied under
rapid-fire conditions.
"and the practice he had in 1963 was"
Try something new and unique! Read the witness testimony within the WC
which fully substantiates that LHO was clearly observed at the rifle range
in Dallas, shooting and/or setting/adjusting his sighting
Brokedad
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8580&pid=121251&st=75&#entry121251entry121251
Post #88
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.
Anthony Marsh
No.
And the scope could not be adjusted. And the mid-range trajectory height
of the M-C is much higher.
> 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.
It was reliable and accurate when the rifle is properly adjusted.
> 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.
> 4. Perhaps you should take the time and effort to read up on the firing,
> as accomplished by both the FBI as well as the Weapons Evaluation Branch,
> not to mention all of those persons associated with Massad Ayoob who
> picked up the Carcano for the first time and thereafter managed to
> accomplish a shooting feet which almost matched what you and others state
> that LHO & Carlos Hathcock could not accomplish.
>
> 5. Perhaps you should also take a look at LHO's first time at bat with the
> M-1 Garand, and you will see that immediately after having fired the
> Garand and acquired his "windage & elevation" adjustments, he placed 3 out
> of 3 shots fired within that 5-point scoring area of the target. Which by
> the way, happens to be prior to his having acquired all of this fantastic
> rangefire training on which you appear to have little if any faith.
>
And tell everyone again what Maggie's Drawers means.
> 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, for know-nothing novice's such as yourself, I will state absolutely,
> that it is far easier to shoot accurately with the lighter and more
> "shooter friendly" Carcano, than with the quite heavy and somewhat
> cumbersome Garand.
>
The M-C is a piece of junk.
> The only problem being that the Carcano does not have the capability to
> adjust for the injected "Shooter error" as does the Garand.
>
> 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.
> 5. Lastly, it is of course quite unfortunate that you "fell for" "THE SHOT
> THAT MISSED", and wish to go around expousing on a subject matter of which
> you apparantly have done little research (other than to read whatever
> Carlos Hathcock (who was selling books) as well as multiple others (who
> were also selling books) misrepresented. That, remains your problem! Not
> mine!
>
> P.S. "One-Shot/One-Kill" does not mean that one has the ability for rapid
> fire accuracy. It merely means that one has the ability, under ideal
> conditions, to accurately hit the target on a single shot made under those
> perfect conditions of "Sniper" training. Which happen to encompass a wide
> variety of techniques in which virtually none can be applied under
> rapid-fire conditions.
>
In fact most snipers use single shot bolt action rifles.
> "and the practice he had in 1963 was"
>
> Try something new and unique! Read the witness testimony within the WC
> which fully substantiates that LHO was clearly observed at the rifle range
> in Dallas, shooting and/or setting/adjusting his sighting
>
Do not rely on eyewitness statements.
>
burgundy
>From Howard Roffman's book "Presumed Innocent:"
QUOTE ON
Oswald's Rifle Capability
The lunchroom encounter was Oswald's alibi; it proved that he could
not have been at the sixth-floor window during the shots. The Warren
Commission falsely pronounced Oswald the assassin. In so doing, it
alleged that Oswald had the proficiency with his rifle to have fired
the assassination shots. Obviously, in light of the evidence that
proves Oswald innocent, his rifle capability has no legitimate bearing
on the question of his involvement in the shooting. In this chapter I
will examine the Commission's handling of the evidence related to
Oswald's rifle capability. It will be demonstrated that the Commission
consistently misrepresented the record in an effort to make feasible
the assertion that Oswald was the assassin.[1]
The first consideration germane to this topic is the nature of
the shots, assuming theoretically that all originated from the sixth-
floor window by a gunman using the Mannlicher-Carcano. For such a
rifleman, "the shots were at a slow-moving target proceeding on a
downgrade in virtually a straight line with the alignment of the
assassin's rifle, at a range of 177 to 266 feet" (R189). According to
the Commission, three shots were fired, the first and last strikes
occurring within a span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds; one shot allegedly
missed, although the Commission did not decide whether it was the
first, second, or third. While the current analysis ignores evidence
of more than three shots from more than one location, I can make only
a limited departure from reality in working under the Commission's
postulations. My analysis of the wounds proved beyond doubt that the
President and the Governor were wounded nonfatally by two separate
bullets. This demands, in line with the Commission's three-shot-
theory, that all shots hit in the car. The Zapruder film reveals that
the first two hits occurred within a very brief time, probably shorter
than the very minimum time needed to fire two successive shots with
the Carcano, 2.3 to 3 seconds. The fatal shot came about four seconds
after the one that wounded Connally.
The Report repeatedly characterizes the shots as "very easy" and
"easy." However, the experts who made these evaluations for the
Commission did not consider two essential factors that cannot be
excluded from any hypothesizing: 1) the President was a living, moving
target, and 2) the shots had to be fired in a very short period of
time. First quoted in the Report is FBI ballistics expert Frazier:
From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you
shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a
telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty hitting your
target. (R190)
Frazier testified at the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, where he
modified his previous Commission testimony. How would the added
consideration of a moving target affect his previous assessment?
it would be a relatively easy shot, slightly complicated, however, if
the target were moving at the time, it would make it a little more
difficult.[2]
The next "expert" quoted is Marine Sgt. James A. Zahm, who was
involved in marksmanship training in the Marine Corps:
Using the scope, rapidly working the bolt and using the scope to
relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that
target you identify and the crosshairs are in close relationship to
the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming
to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze.
(R190)
Zahm never used the C2766 Carcano; his comments related to four-power
scopes in general as aids in rapid shooting with a bolt-action rifle.
Another expert, Ronald Simmons, was directly involved in tests
employing the Carcano. Although this is not reflected in the Report,
he told the Commission that, contrary to Zahm's generalization of a
"minor move" necessary to relocate the target in the scope, such a
great amount of effort was needed to work the rifle bolt that the
weapon was actually moved completely off target (3H449). There is yet
another factor qualifying Zahm's evaluation. This was brought out
during Frazier's New Orleans testimony:
Mr. Oser: . . . when you shoot this rifle . . . can you tell us
whether or not in rebolting the gun you had to move your eye away from
the scope?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir, that was necessary.
Mr. Oser: Why was that necessary?
Mr. Frazier: To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking me
in the face as it came to the rear.[3]
At best, the Report drastically oversimplified the true nature
of the shots. It is true that shots fired at ranges under 100 yards
with a four-power scope are generally easy. However, the assassination
shots, in accordance with the Commission's lone-assassin theory, were
fired in rapid succession (indeed the first two would have occurred
within the minimum time needed to operate the bolt) and at a moving
target. The difficulty of such shots becomes apparent when it is
considered that operation of the bolt would have thrown the weapon off
target and caused the firer temporarily to move his eye from the
sight.
One is prompted to ask what caliber of shooter would be required
to commit the assassination alone as described above. Simulative tests
conducted by the Commission, while deficient, are quite illuminating.
The Commission's test firers were all rated as "Master" by the
National Rifle Association (NRA); they were experts whose daily
routines involved working with and shooting firearms (3H445). In the
tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feet
respectively from a 30-foot-high tower. Each shooter fired two series
of three shots, using the C2766 rifle. The men took 8.25, 6.75, and
4.60 seconds respectively for the first series and 7.00, 6.45, and
5.15 for the second (3H446). In the first series, each man hit his
first and third targets but missed the second. Results varied on the
next series, although in all cases but one, two targets were hit.
Thus, in only two cases were the Commission's experts able to fire
three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did. None
scored three hits, as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.
These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short
time span, if not impossible, would certainly have taxed the
proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4] In his testimony before
the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of shooter
necessary to have fired the assassination shots on the basis that only
two hits were achieved:
Mr. Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot within
the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [as was done by the experts]?
Mr. Simmons: Obviously, considerable experience would have to be
in one's background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also
considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of
effort required to work the bolt. (3H449)
Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required
that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon,
yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get
familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by
more than one firer. (3H450)
Here arises the crucial question: Was Lee Harvey Oswald a
"proficient man with this weapon," with "considerable experience" in
his background?
While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice
tested for his performance with a rifle. On a scale of expert-
sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored two points above the minimum for
sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only one point above
the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959) -- his last
recorded score. Colonel A. G. Folsom evaluated these scores for the
Commission:
The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the
instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified
at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the
Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable
amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified.
Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor
"shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good
"shot." (19H17-18)
There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either
inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his obviously
mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle. However, there is
other information independent of the scores to indicate that Oswald
was in fact not a good shot. In his testimony, Colonel Folsom examined
the Marine scorebook that Oswald himself had maintained, and
elaborated on his previous evaluation:
Mr. Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole
scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at
this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Col. Folsom: No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates . . .
that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two
points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for
qualification?
Col. Folsom: I would say so. (8H311)
Thus, according to Folsom, Oswald's best recorded score was the result
of having "a good day"; otherwise, Oswald "was not a particularly
outstanding shot."
Folsom was not alone in his evaluation of Oswald as other than a
good shot. The following is exerpted [sic] from the testimony of
Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald's closest associates in the Marines:
Mr. Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
Mr. Delgado: Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we
were on the same line together, the same time, but not firing at the
same position . . . and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big
joke, because he got a lot of "maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of
misses, but he didn't give a darn.
Mr. Liebeler: Missed the target completely?
Mr. Delgado: He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as
enthusiastic as the rest of us. (8H235)
The Report tried desperately to get around this unanimous body
of credible evidence. First Marine Corps Major Eugene Anderson (who
never had any association with Oswald) is quoted at length about how
bad weather, poor coaching, and an inferior weapon might have
accounted for Oswald's terrible performance in his second recorded
test (R191). Here the Commission scraped the bottom of the barrel,
offering this unsubstantiated, hypothetical excuse-making as apparent
fact. Weather bureau records, which the Commission did not bother to
check, show that perfect firing conditions existed at the time and
place Oswald last fired for qualification -- better conditions in
fact, than those prevailing during the assassination.[5] As for the
quality of the weapon fired in the test, it is probable that at its
worst it would have been far superior to the virtual piece of junk
Oswald allegedly owned and used in the assassination.[6] Perhaps
Anderson guessed correctly in suggesting that Oswald may have had a
poor instructor; yet, from the time of his departure from the Marines
in 1959 to the time of the assassination in 1963, Oswald had no
instructor.
For its final "evaluation," the Report again turned to Anderson
and Zahm. Each man is quoted as rating Oswald a good shot, somewhat
above average, as compared to other Marines, and an "excellent" shot
as compared to the average male civilian (R192). That the Commission
could even consider these evaluations is beyond comprehension.
Oswald's Marine scores and their official evaluation showed that he
did not possess even "a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons
firing." If this is better than average for our Marines, pity the
state of our national "defense"! The testimonies of Folsom and Delgado
-- people who had direct association with Oswald in the Marines -- are
not mentioned in the Report.
Thus, Oswald left the Marines in 1959 as a "rather poor shot."
If he is to be credited with a feat such as the assassination, it must
be demonstrated that he engaged in some activity between 1959 and 1963
that would have greatly developed his rifle capability and maintained
it until the time of the shooting. The Report barely touched on the
vital area of Oswald's rifle practice. In a brief two-paragraph
section entitled "Oswald's Rifle Practice Outside the Marines," the
Report painted a very sketchy picture, entirely inadequate in terms of
the nature of the issue (R192-93). In all, Oswald is associated with a
weapon eleven or twelve times, ending in May 1963.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j6OdnaUD6afya53a...@comcast.com...
Brokedad
>
> Mr. ALTGENS -The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow
> pace
> -----------------
>
> And, if one thoroughly reviews the autopsy information, they will find
> that the impact point of the bullet was in fact far down at the upper
> base of the neck (below the back edge of the skull) at the edge of the
> hairline.
>
> It was only a "head hit" due to the anglular/position of JFK's body in
> which the bullet travelled laterally (on a 12-degree downward angle)
> to ultimately strike the skull of JFK.
>
> In those contents and context, one must make a comparison of this
> shooting ability with LHO's demonstrated ability during his Rangfire
> Qualification in the USMC.
>
>
> The "500 yard Slowfire" firing station for Thursday's practice
> demonstrtes as score of 44 out of a possible 50 points (.88
> percentile) which is at the bottom range of what the USMC considers as
> EXPERT in overall qualification.
>
> The following day (Friday) during actual qualification firing, LHO
> fired a 46 out of a possible 50 points, for a score which was in the
> 92nd percentile rating.
>
> What clearly demonstrates the marksmanship ability of LHO is the
> actual target size.
>
> In the case of the 500 yard "Slow Fire" target, the inner circle has a
> 20-inch diameter.
>
> Thus, on December 20, 1956, LHO placed 5 of 10 shots fired, inside a
> 20-inch diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
>
> On December 21, 1956, LHO placed 6 of 10 shots fired inside a 20-inch
> diameter circle at a range of 500 yards.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> The longest distance of any shot fired in Dealy Plaza was
> approximately 98 yards.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Thereafter, when one takes into comparison the "Rapid Fire",
> demonstrated shooting ability which LHO also demonstrated during his
> initial rifle marksmanship training in the USMC, they will find that
> LHO was quite accurate in this "speed-fire" ability as well.
>
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol...
> Unit Armory at the Marksmanship Training Unit in the Weapons Training
> Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.
> Mr. SPECTER. When you say NCO, what do you mean by that for the
> record.
> Mr. SPECTER. How long have you been so occupied in that particular
> duty?
> Mr. SPECTER. What experience have you had if any in marksmanship?
> became a distinguished rifleman in 1953. I fired the national matches
> from 1952
>
> through to date about eight times. This is annually. I won the
> President's match in 1953 at the national matches and the Leech Cup in
> 1952, and the Marine Corps Cup in 1957. There are some others.
>
> consider it a very easy shot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is so simple in this "internet age" to determine exactly who is a
"BullShooter" and who is a "BullS**ter:
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/nat-trophy/tro-079.pdf
James A. Zahm: Leech Cup Winner--1952
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/nat-trophy/tro-081.pdf
James A. Zahm: Marine Corps Cup Winner--1958
1966-Wiesbaden-World Shooting Championships
Walter R. Walsh
Lawrence Enterkin
William Pullum
Marianne Driver
David R. Breeding
Emory F. Coleman
James A. Zahm
SGT Zahm, most certainly has the credentials for the "BullShooter"
option.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***If Oswald could have made 48 of 50 points, in a scored Marine Corps
test, at more than twice the distance of the head shot in Dealey Plaza, he
could have made the shots fired in Dealey Plaza. The limo was moving
faster at Z220 than it was at Z310. Aiming for JFK's head, Oswald could
have hit the upper back, instead, due to movement of the vehicle at that
time. Five seconds later, with Greer having markedly slowed the limo,
Oswald could have placed the sight on the head and hit it.
***Ron Judge
Brokedad
>
> > Post #82
>
> > "Perhaps you ought to consider some other evidence and testimony before
> > you draw your conclusions. Just a friendly thought."
>
> > And, perhaps you should make an attempt to evaluate and understand the
> > factual evidence before inserting your foot into your mouth on subjects
> > which your sum total of experience appears to be reading and believing
> > those who wish to sell you a book.
>
> > 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.
> And the scope could not be adjusted. And the mid-range trajectory height
> of the M-C is much higher.
>
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.
Anthony Marsh
Again, you ignore the fact that Oswald completely missed the target.
> faster at Z220 than it was at Z310. Aiming for JFK's head, Oswald could
> have hit the upper back, instead, due to movement of the vehicle at that
> time. Five seconds later, with Greer having markedly slowed the limo,
> Oswald could have placed the sight on the head and hit it.
>
Yes, any shooter in the TSBD could have made one hit out of three.
ANY.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, always high and to the right at close range.
>
> For most grade schoolers, that is not too difficult to understand!
>
Let's see how you understand the part of his testimony that you snipped
out.
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. Eisenberg.
And do you have the date? Mr. Frazier.
That also was on the 27th of November. Mr. Eisenberg.
Same date as the first tests? Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg.
And you performed one more test, I believe? 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.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
through 554, and received in evidence.)
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? Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. 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. In attempting
to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting
screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it
also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the
other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to
the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And
when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and
found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were
gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to
the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize
itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not
stabilize until we had fired five or six shots. Mr. Eisenberg.
Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic
sight? Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. Mr. Eisenberg.
I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the
point you are making.
Let me mark that.
This diagram was prepared by you? Mr. Frazier.
Yes; it was. Mr. Eisenberg.
And illustrated. Mr. Frazier.
Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook,
showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is mounted
in a telescope. Mr. Eisenberg.
This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the specific
scope on Exhibit 139? Mr. Frazier.
Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and
found it to be substantially the same as this diagram. Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555? Mr. McCloy.
It may be admitted. (The document referred to was marked Commission
Exhibit No. 555, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Frazier.
Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner in
which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the
right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer
part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it
representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the
crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand
portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up,
being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a
windage screw on the right-hand side of the scope tube circle which
adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows
diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which
causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was
shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in
merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then
fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this spring
to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided it would
not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as windage goes,
and in addition found that the elevation screw could not be adjusted
sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets down to the
sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and
fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the
right. Mr. Eisenberg.
As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that after
the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does not--is
not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should be, until
you have fired several shots? Mr. Frazier.
Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center
of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs
completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this spring
to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage screw to
strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than at 90
degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off center,
both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough to center
the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it several times,
which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as to maintain the
same position then for the next shots. Mr. Eisenberg.
And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair, you
did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct? Mr.
Frazier.
We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided
rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these
targets which we had fired.
>
>> 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.
>
Nonsense. Do you have a Mannlicher-Carcano yourself? If not you are
comparing apples to oranges.
> 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.
>
You mean that you don't understand the difference between a flat
trajectory and a curved trajectory.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg
> Since, that is why one "ZERO'S" and sights in a rifle.
>
Which Oswald did not do and could not do. Which Frazier did not do and
could not do.
>
>>> 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.
That contract specified compatibility with the Italian rounds.
> 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.
>
Of course the Winchester quality was much better than the SMI. I have
always said that.
>> 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.
>
Firing tight groups 5 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the point
of aim is not accuracy.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
More nonsense.
>
>>> 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.
I have been posting it for many years.
> 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
Apples and oranges. The Garand is not a Mannlicher-Carcano.
> 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.
No, it isn't. And Oswald never zeroed in his rifle.
> 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.
That is why fouling shots are allowed before competition.
> 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.
>
Not enough to make any difference.
> 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.
>
Nonsense.
>>> 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?
>
I don't have a Garand and it is not relevant.
> Are not you the same Anthony Marsh who repeatedly stated that one can
> not load a Carcano with 7 rounds of ammunition?
Never said that. I said it is not easy and can be dangerous to manually
load.
> 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.
>
Hearsay is not proof. But arguendo if that really was Oswald maybe he
was firing at a target 200 yards away with the scope, which was not yet
damaged. What was that bit about Oswald's rifle spitting out fire?
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***And Oswald could have hit Kennedy in the back with the first shot
and the head with the final shot, with the limo moving very slowly at
that time, even if he completely missed the target with one of his
shots.
***Ron Judge