FBI Firearms Expert Robert A Frazier

[claviger]

Testimony Of Robert A. Frazier
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/marsh/jfk-conspiracy/frazier_r1.html - 205k -
similar pagesIndex of the Warren Commission Hearings. Testimony Of
Robert A. Frazier ... Robert A. Frazier, Special Agent, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, assigned to the ...


John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/ - 139k - similar pagesMay
7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert A.
Testimony, Vol.


DVP's JFK ARCHIVES: ROBERT FRAZIER
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/robert-frazier.html - 183k -
similar pagesBelow are some highlights taken from Robert Frazier's
Warren Commission testimony. (Frazier's complete testimony can be
found at the three links at the top of ...
Alphabetical list of witness testimony - The Kennedy Assassination ...
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm - 125k - similar pagesSome of
this testimony is linked to other sites, so you will need ...


Warren Commission Report Chapter 3
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html
- 137k - similar pagesTwo of these experts testified before the
Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special agent of the FBI
assigned to the FBI ...


[TEXT] craig zirbel and the warren commission shooting tests
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zirbel.txt - 59k - similar pagesBelow
Zirbel, we have included the Warren Commission testimony that he
is .... Now, the WC testimony of FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier,
taken from ...


testimony of Robert Frazier - JFK Online
http://www.jfk-online.com/rfraziershaw.html - 37k - similar pagesJFK:
Clay Shaw trial testimony of Robert Frazier, expert witness in regard
to ... or consultant to the Warren Commission in an effort to
reconstruct the testimony of ...

[claviger]

John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/ - 139k - similar pagesMay
7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
A.
Testimony, Vol.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php

Page 394

Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
Mr. Frazier.
The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic
bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this
uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a
Mauser for that reason.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
Mr. Frazier.
The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it
had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use
the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is this weapon--
The Chairman.
I didn't get that last.
Mr. Frazier.
It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.


Page 395

Mr. Eisenberg.
So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the
last user?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; it is impossible.

- - -

Mr. Mccloy.
Received it in Washington?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. Frazier.
We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in
the laboratory.
It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again
to the laboratory--the second time on November 27th, and has been
either in the laboratory's possession or the Commission's possession
since then.
Mr. Mccloy.
When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed
signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn,
and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. Mccloy.
Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. Frazier.
I did not examine it for that.
Mr. Mccloy.
Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since
it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an
indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is
allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel.
Mr. Mccloy.
Thank you.


Page 400

Mr. Eisenberg.
Is the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano with which we are dealing an
accurate type of ammunition as opposed to other types of military
ammunition--as compared, I should say, with other types of military
ammunition?
Mr. Frazier.
I would say it is also accurate. As other types of ammunition the 6.5
millimeter cartridge or bullet is a very accurate bullet, and
ammunition of this type as manufactured in the United States would
give fairly reasonable accuracy. Other military cartridges may or may
not give accurate results. But the cartridge inherently is an accurate
cartridge.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is this type of cartridge readily available for purchase?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; it is. Information we have indicates that 2 million rounds of
this ammunition was reimported into this country and placed on sale.


Page 402

Mr. Frazier.
A series of three tests were made. When we first received the rifle,
there was not an opportunity to test it at long range, so we tested it
at short range. After we had obtained sample bullets and cartridge
cases from it, we fired accuracy and speed tests with it. Three
examiners did the firing, all three being present at the same time.
The first tests were made at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette
target.


Page 406

Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be
able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do
you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. Frazier.
No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a
rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in
the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the
scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed
November 27th?
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.
But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the
defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was,
introduced?
Mr. Frazier.
As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say
when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is.
It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.


Page 407

Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could
you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the
shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from
taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the
bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have---
an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right
corner.
Mr. Eisenberg.
If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye pattern,
what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken, to
improve your score?
Mr. Frazier.
I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the
bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or
adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the
hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series of
four targets were shot by you?
Mr. Frazier.
I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition
had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this weapon--
materially shorten the time in which three shots could be accurately
fired?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that is,
a dry-run practice?
Mr. Frazier.
That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon,
where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the
bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the
bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots
could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was
utilized?
Mr. Frazier.
That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or
which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of
time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle
without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I
doubt that you could accomplish that.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how do
you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving
target?
Mr. Frazier.
It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened the
time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving
target.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you give an amount?
Mr. Frazier.
Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was
moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at
right angles.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with
the weapon?
Mr. Frazier.
Oh, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. Frazier.
I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a 3-
inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred
yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6
inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg.
That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing
this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Mr. Eisenberg.
I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning
the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on
November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions
in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots
from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the
easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School
Book Depository Building,

[claviger]

John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/ - 139k - similar pagesMay
7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
A.
Testimony, Vol.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php

Page 410

Representative Boggs.
Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle
three times within the space or period of time that has been given to
the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
Mr. Frazier.
Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance
with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber
loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8
seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in
that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily
be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not
stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.
Representative Boggs.
You were firing at a simulated target?
Mr. Frazier.
These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are
those which we actually fired.
Representative Boggs.
My questions are really a followup of the Chairman's question.
These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you
practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the
time of the assassination?
Mr. Frazier.
The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining whether we could
fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time, and specifically
to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6 seconds.
Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been
furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished
with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent
knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the
accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from
rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited
time.


Page 411

Representative Boggs.
Were there other tests conducted to determine the accuracy of the
weapon and so on?
Mr. Frazier.
No sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by the FBI.
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

- - - - - -

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.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of
the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built
into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion....


Page 412

Mr. Frazier.
....that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit
adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
Representative Boggs.
One other question, then.
It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to
compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. Frazier.
Oh yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the
front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in
the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
Representative Boggs.
So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon,
anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an
adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. Frazier.
If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either
under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting
rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted
in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this
envelope.
Representative Boggs.
But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. Eisenberg.
For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the
Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier,
if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted- in with the use of a target
at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away
or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes,
will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is
further or closer away than the sighting-in target?


Page 413

Mr. Eisenberg.
So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175
feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the
sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the
trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
Mr. Frazier.
That is correct, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition
it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you
consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime
such as the assassination?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes sir, I would.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you explain that?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if
it would shoot accurately.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And did you find this shot accurately?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes sir.
Representative Boggs.
Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots
from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to
Governor Connally?
Mr. Frazier.
No sir, I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving
target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.
Representative Boggs.
You are not answering that as an expert.
Mr. Frazier.
From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at
175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with, a
telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your
target.
Representative Boggs.
Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert
marksman to accomplish this objective?
Mr. Frazier.
I would say no, you certainly would not.
Representative Boggs.
And a. man is a relatively large target, is he not?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes sir, I would say you would have to be very familiar with the
weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this--hit this target at those
ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight.
I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a
telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the
target and that is all that is necessary.


Page 414

Mr. Eisenberg.
How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the
average military rifle?
Mr. Frazier.
Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it
has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet
weight.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?
Mr. Frazier.
Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling
weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
Mr. Frazier.
For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, be cause the
recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does
not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as
a or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one
of the other military-type weapons available.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing
power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have
named?
Mr. Frazier.
No sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How much difference is there?
Mr. Frazier.
The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would
have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very
adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a
military--it is an established military weapon.
Representative Boggs.
This is a military weapon, is it not?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes sir.
Mr. Mccloy.
That is designed to kill a human being.
Representative Boggs.
Exactly.


Page 426

Mr. Eisenberg.
When you made your selection among cartridge cases to select the items
which would be used as test cases for comparison purposes, were the
items you rejected much different from those you selected?
Mr. Frazier.
No. The marks were generally the same on all of them. Those we used in
this comparison were two tests which we fired on November 23d and used
them in our tests-made our examination, our identification.
Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of
those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test
purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of
the other tests that were made.



Page 437

Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets
fired in the various tests made with this rifle?
Mr. Frazier.
Approximately 60 rounds.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano
ammunition?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Did you have any misfires?
Mr. Frazier.
No sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Did you find the ammunition dependable?
Mr. Frazier.
Very dependable.

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 11:14 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay

> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
> A.
> Testimony, Vol.
>
> http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>
> Page 394
>
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
> Mr. Frazier.
> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic
> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this
> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a
> Mauser for that reason.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
> Mr. Frazier.
> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it
> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use
> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

Thank you for backing me up. As I said Frazier said the weapon was
"worn and corroded".

> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Is this weapon--
> The Chairman.
> I didn't get that last.
> Mr. Frazier.
> It showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Is this weapon used when it is sold into the United States?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes, it is a surplus type of weapon.
>

Yep. Probably WW2, IMO.

Odd that Frazier claims not to know what the trouble was. The scope
was mounted badly and had to be shimmed by the FBI gunsmith. See
Simmons' (FBI) testimony. They got the rifle the night of the 22nd,
and probably began looking the rifle over the next day. The shimming
was done soon after. I think they did some of their testing before
the 27th, since it was stated that they did some sample runs first.
That's probably when they found out about the scope being off.
Simmons didn't mention any 'scrape' on the scope and it was HIS people
that did the testing, not Frazier. Frazier received a report from
Simmons and his people.

> Page 407
>
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could
> you have compensated for this defect?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the
> shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different from
> taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of the
> bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would have---
> an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high right
> corner.

Yep. Meaning the scope was off. They had to send it to the
gunsmith for shimming. See Simmons' testimony.

Of course, this was after the bolt had been worked by testers
previously. See Simmons' testimony as to the sticking bolt which
would increase the time for the first shooter, if that was from the
6th floor of the TSBD.

> Mr. Eisenberg.
> That is in the 4.6-second time?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing
> this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions concerning
> the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin on
> November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions
> in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots
> from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the
> easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School
> Book Depository Building,

=============================
OK, now that that is over, let's look at a few comments from Ronald
Simmons of the FBI.

Mr. Eisenberg. Was it reported to you by the persons who ran the
machine-rest tests whether they had any difficulties with sighting the
weapon?
Mr. Simmons. Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the
telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron
sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two
shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted
an elevation. The azimuth correction could have been made without the
addition of the shim, but it would have meant that we would have used
all of the adjustment possible, and the shim was a more..."

Hmm. The scope was not functional and they had to have a gunsmith
fix it by using shims. (that comes later). This says that the rifle
couldn't be aimed properly using the scope, meaning that if there was
a shooter in the TSBD, he couldn't have used that weapon to aim at JFK
without trying to adjust to the error in the scope.. Of course, there
is the possibility that he used the iron sights, but I tend to think
that wasn't the case in the midst of shooting at the president, we
have to face it...the rifle couldn't be aimed as per the FBI testers.
But there's more from Simmons:

"Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, I find there are three shims here. You
mentioned two. Would three be consistent with what you were told?
Mr. Simmons. I was told two. These were put in by a gunsmith in one of
our machine shops-- rather a machinist in one of our machine shops."

Oops! Simmons lets the cat out of the bag. The rifle went to a
gunsmith first before shooting to fix the scope. He tried to change
it from gunsmith to machinist, but it was too late. A gunsmith had a
hold of the rifle before testing and made some adjustments. What else
might he have done, seeing things that needed fixing? More on this
later.
---
"Mr. Eisenberg. Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly
skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot in the
range of 1.2-mil aiming error?
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.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would do what? You mean would improve the accuracy?
Mr. Simmons. Yes. In our experiments, the pressure to open the bolt
was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas
with greater proficiency this might not have occurred."

Oops again. Simmons has said that "considerable experience with
this weapon" would be required to shoot the rifle for the purpose
intended. But he also let out that it took an 'amount of effort' to
work the bolt. He pointed out that the difficult bolt was making the
aiming difficult too. Now bolts in wartime have to work easily or
there will be dead soldiers. Frazier earlier said the bolt worked
smoothly, but he must have been talking about after the testers worked
the bolt so much. What condition was this thing in when the testers
got it? Let's see what else Simmons will inadvertently let out:
---
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."

While not firing it while unloaded, they were still having trouble
just working the bolt. Simmons let it out that working the bolt was
hard enough to mess up their aim, meaning the target would have to be
reacquired. A shooter that had the rifle before the testers would
surely have trouble working the bolt, and losing sight of the target
(if the scope had been working) would take more time. Let's go on:

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.
There was also a comment made about the trigger pull which is
different as far as these firers are concerned. It is in effect a two-
stage operation where the first--in the first stage the trigger is
relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually
fire the weapon."

This rifle is turning out to be a dog! They each worked the bolt
for 2-3 minutes practicing. But they were afraid it would break the
firing pin, so they didn't work the trigger. It must have gone to the
gunsmith first, as noted above. Either way, the testers each had 2-3
minutes to work the bolt, so that would help to free it up after the
gunsmith.

All in all, the 'wear and corrosion' that Frazier mentioned seems
to have been much worse than he let on, but Simmons helped us there by
letting so many cats out of the bag. The rifle was not in good
condition so they tried to work the bolt to free it up. If it wasn't
free when they got it, presumably right after the shooter in the TSBD,
then that shooter didn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside it.
The gunsmith had to fix the scope so they could aim it, and after that
they worked it 2-3 minutes each to free it up and to familiarize with
it. Something that Oswald never did as far as we know. His
experience was with semi-automatic rifles, not bolt action.

Either way, the Mannlicher-Carcano wasn't in any condition to be
fired by anyone that day, nor the next at the FBI testers. The list
of problems were: a) the scope was found on the rifle yet the scope
needed work by a gunsmith before the testers could fire it
successfully b) the bolt was so stiff (probably from lack of use for
years) that they had to work it for minutes each for the testers to
test fire it c) the trigger was 2-stage, which they found an extra
difficulty in working with the weapon.


Yep, when you go through Simmons' FBI testimony, you get a more
realistic picture. His people got the rifle before anyone else, right
after the murder. I would venture to say that Oswald did nothing to
take care of this rifle, just the same as he was with his rifle in the
Marines. His buddy Nelson Delgado testified that Oswald was often
getting 'gigged' for a dirty rifle. The condition of the bolt being
so sticky and the rifle being "worn and corroded" suggests the rifle
was still in the ancient cosmoline it was packed in after WW2. And
corrosion in the barrel means it had rusted at some point in its
history.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 11:14 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay

> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
> A.
> Testimony, Vol.
>
> http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>
> Page 410
>
> Representative Boggs.
> Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle
> three times within the space or period of time that has been given to
> the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
> Mr. Frazier.
> Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance
> with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber
> loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8
> seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in
> that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily
> be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not
> stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.
> Representative Boggs.

Of course we have the testimony of Ronald Simmons that the rifle
was not working smoothly and the bolt was sticking. Frazier fired it
after all the testers had worked the bolt over and over, it probably
worked much more smoothly than it worked for anyone in the 6th floor
of the TSBD. And then remember the gunsmith got a hold of it at
first...did he put any oil on it? Seems natural he would, given the
condition of it.

Of course, Frazier is giving the answers wanted. The rifle came in
to the FBI with scope not function properly and the action not
working smoothly, both of which would make aiming a nightmare and
trying to do any speed shooting was out. See Simmons testimony in
previous post.

> 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
>
> - - - - - -
>
> 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.

He said "apparently" meaning he didn't know if the scope was
removed. Oddly, the people that got the rifle first, the Simmons
group, didn't note the "loose mount" on the scope. And by the time
Frazier may have seen the weapon, it had been through testing with 3
testers, and had been to the gunsmith who had shimmed up the scope.
The gunsmith certainly would have tightened the scope down when done
with his shimming, wouldn't you think?

> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of
> the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built
> into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion....
>

Klein's did a lousy job of mounting the scope. One of the reasons
for the shimming the gunsmith did. This wasn't a rifle that anyone
would care too much about. At $19.00 it was at the bottom of the
barrel.

LOL! Frazier tried to cover up that the rifle went to the gunsmith,
but the lawyer knew that it has been to him, and put it back right
again so as not to get dinged later.

> Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier,
> if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted- in with the use of a target
> at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away
> or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes,
> will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is
> further or closer away than the sighting-in target?
>

None of which mattered if the shooter had to guess at where in the
scope he had to aim at, and shoot at a moving target which was moving
obliquely, he wasn't likely to hit anything.

> Page 413
>
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175
> feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the
> sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the
> trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
> Mr. Frazier.
> That is correct, yes.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition
> it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you
> consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime
> such as the assassination?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes sir, I would.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Can you explain that?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if
> it would shoot accurately.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> And did you find this shot accurately?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes sir.

After all the shimming and the working of the bolt it might work for
Frazier, but not for any shooter that had the gun before the FBI got
it.

> Representative Boggs.
> Would you consider the shots difficult shots--talking about the shots
> from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to
> Governor Connally?
> Mr. Frazier.
> No sir, I would not under the circumstances--a relatively slow-moving
> target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.

A scope that didn't work properly, and the shot was said to be
almost impossible by two experienced snipers.

> Representative Boggs.
> You are not answering that as an expert.
> Mr. Frazier.
> From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at
> 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with, a
> telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your
> target.

IF the scope has been sighted in.

Thereby gaining some test bullets for planting here and there to
frame Oswald.

> Later on we fired accuracy tests and speed tests and retained some of
> those cartridge cases, but they were not necessarily retained for test
> purposes, for identification of the weapon, but merely as a result of
> the other tests that were made.
>
> Page 437
>
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Mr. Frazier, can you give an estimate of the total number of bullets
> fired in the various tests made with this rifle?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Approximately 60 rounds.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> And were all of these rounds 6.5 mm. Western Mannlicher-Carcano
> ammunition?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Yes sir.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Did you have any misfires?
> Mr. Frazier.
> No sir.
> Mr. Eisenberg.
> Did you find the ammunition dependable?
> Mr. Frazier.
> Very dependable.

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

So once again we deliberately leave out the testimony of Ronald
Simmons, whose people got the rifle first after the murder, and whose
experiences with the rifle tell the tale of the condition it was in
when it would have been used in the TSBD 6th floor. Se that testimony
in the previous post.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 30, 11:14=A0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http://www=

Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly capable of
hitting JFK? And once again you don't know if the scope was defective
when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. You also don't know that he
was even using the scope. You are barking up the wrong tree here. As far
as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Oswald used
was incapable of making the shots that day.

You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might be
attracted to your theory. But it don't wash.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/30/2013 11:14 PM, claviger wrote:
> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...
> http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/ - 139k - similar pagesMay
> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
> A.
> Testimony, Vol.
>
> http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>
> Page 410
>
> Representative Boggs.
> Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty about firing this rifle
> three times within the space or period of time that has been given to
> the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
> Mr. Frazier.
> Well, let me say this, I fired the rifle three times, in accordance
> with that system of timing it from the first shot with the chamber
> loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6 seconds, 4.8
> seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little over 6, or in
> that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could very easily
> be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of just not
> stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.

So what? That was not the actual timing of the shots on 11/22/63. You can
prove any points you want by making up phony tests. Like shooting at one
stationary target instead of having to track a moving target or not even
aiming. Or by shooting at a wall of plywood and then cutting out the one
section hit and painting a bullseye over the bullet holes.

That's the WC defender way.

[Sandy McCroskey]

His sentence right before that: "It was, I would say, in fair condition."

/sandy

[mainframetech]

On May 31, 11:17 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any person, if
all factors were right. Frazier hasn't said anything exceptional.
Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and over
for him. Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons testimony
to the WC about the condition when they got it first? As to the
defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with the
scope, not it being mishandled. The scope was out of alignment from a
bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted the
scope for the buyer. No one really cared about these old war surplus
guns anyway. At $19. it wasn't a bargain.

With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that would
stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can be
very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired
from the 6th floor. And iron sights aren't set for that distance, nor
are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.

We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
with the rifle either. But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. He didn't need the clip and
ammo. Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
and clip. And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! Why not a
full clip?

> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might be
> attracted to your theory.  But it don't wash.
>
> Bill Clarke

I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and
shotguns and pistols. Do you make guesses with no information
often? Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony? It's easy
to find. Of course, it's factual, and might not support your theory
that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Simmons was not FBI. He worked for the Army. His group received the rifle
in March AFTER the FBI had tested it repeatedly.

The first round of FBI tests revealed that the rifle fired consistently
high and to the right when using the scope.

The second round of FBI tests revealed that it was still slightly
inaccurate--even after it had been sighted in.

It also revealed that it took a number of shots to stabilize the scope
after an adjustment--which, since the first round of shots were
consistently high and to the right, suggested that the scope alignment as
first tested was the scope alignment at the time of the shooting.

The rifle was then handed off to the Army, which was unable to reproduce
the shots attributed to Oswald, even after adding shims to bring the scope
into alignment.

The bit about someone in Dallas removing the shims is something Frazier
made up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is true.

[Anthony Marsh]

Which accounts for only one bullet on target out of three shots.

> We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip

What kind of information? A sales slip?
We have the fact of the clip itself and the bullets themselves. We don't
have to prove where Oswald bought them.

> with the rifle either. But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
> Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. He didn't need the clip and

He bought it to kill Walker.

> ammo. Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
> bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
> Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
> and clip. And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! Why not a
> full clip?

4 rounds? Don't be silly. The WCC ammo is sold in boxes of 20 rounds.
Who is going to sell 5 rounds?

[Bill Clarke]

In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 31, 11:17=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 30, 11:14=3DA0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http://=
>www=3D

>> >.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay
>> >> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
>> >> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
>> >> A.
>> >> Testimony, Vol.
>>
>> >>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>>
>> >> Page 394
>>
>> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
>> >> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
>> >> Mr. Frazier.
>> >> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic
>> >> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this
>> >> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a
>> >> Mauser for that reason.
>> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
>> >> Mr. Frazier.
>> >> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it
>> >> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use
>> >> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
>> >> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
>> >> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
>>

>> > =A0 Thank you for backing me up. =A0As I said Frazier said the weapon w=

>as
>> >"worn and corroded".
>>
>> Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly capable of

>> hitting JFK? =A0And once again you don't know if the scope was defective
>> when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. =A0You also don't know that =
>he
>> was even using the scope. =A0You are barking up the wrong tree here. =A0A=

>s far
>> as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Oswald used
>> was incapable of making the shots that day.
>>
> There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any person, if
>all factors were right. Frazier hasn't said anything exceptional.
>Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
>gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and over
>for him. Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons testimony
>to the WC about the condition when they got it first? As to the
>defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with the
>scope, not it being mishandled. The scope was out of alignment from a
>bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted the
>scope for the buyer. No one really cared about these old war surplus
>guns anyway. At $19. it wasn't a bargain.

Yes, the mount was weak and should have had more than two screws attaching
it to the rifle. The scope had ran out of vertical adjustment. This can
occur if the scope receives a sharp blow by being dropped. If you know
what you are doing you can fix this without using shims. I'd say it was a
hell of a bargain. Less than $20 bucks to kill the president of the
United States.

> With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that would
>stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can be
>very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired
>from the 6th floor. And iron sights aren't set for that distance, nor
>are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.

No, you certainly can not be very sure that the MC didn't hit anything.
Had you done time in the military you would understand 'battle or combat
zero" and you would understand how the open sights could have been
accurately used. Marsh fails to understand it and I have no hope you
will. But the open sights could have been used.

> We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
>with the rifle either. But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
>Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. He didn't need the clip and
>ammo. Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
>bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
>Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
>and clip. And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! Why not a
>full clip?

We've covered this before. It is 1963, a cash purchase not requiring any
record to be kept at the store. Now run that down and see how near
impossible it would be. Why not buy a box of twenty? That is the way
they were sold, a box of twenty.

>> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might be

>> attracted to your theory. =A0But it don't wash.

>>
>> Bill Clarke
> I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and
>shotguns and pistols. Do you make guesses with no information
>often?

Sorry. I guess your lack of understanding rifles threw me off.

Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony? It's easy
>to find. Of course, it's factual, and might not support your theory
>that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.

Yes, I've read it. You've read it too hard. You seem to think it would
be a two man job just to work the bolt on the MC. I don't believe that is
what Simmons meant.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Which is why Oswald missed Walker in April and why 2 out of the 3 shots
from the sniper's nest missed the President.

> The second round of FBI tests revealed that it was still slightly
> inaccurate--even after it had been sighted in.
>
> It also revealed that it took a number of shots to stabilize the scope
> after an adjustment--which, since the first round of shots were
> consistently high and to the right, suggested that the scope alignment as
> first tested was the scope alignment at the time of the shooting.
>
> The rifle was then handed off to the Army, which was unable to reproduce
> the shots attributed to Oswald, even after adding shims to bring the scope
> into alignment.
>

Maybe falsely attributed to Oswald. Even McAdams was able to get one hit
out of three at a stationary target.

[Herbert Blenner]

> made up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is true.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frazier found that the scope as received needed no adjustment to hit
without leading the moving target.

Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier - 3H, 411
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the
elevation crosshair was defective at the time of the assassination, in
the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this
defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which
needed to be given to the target?
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. As to how that would affect the lead - the gun,
when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first
targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation,
relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary
for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike
your intended target, because the object during the flight of the
bullet would move a certain distance. 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.

End of quotation.

Herbert

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 5:06 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

OK, I can accept part of that. I would venture that he was in
effect doing work for the FBI by taking on the project. But I find
that statement odd, given that Simmons and his people had to send the
rifle out to the gunsmith for shimming and what else we don't know,
and that they found the bolt sticky like an old war surplus rifle from
WW2. Frazier didn't let on about any of that stuff. It was all real
easy to fire and test and he mentioned none of the problems that
Simmons testified to. Makes me think that Simmons got the rifle
first, or Frazier lied as to the condition of the rifle. If they had
tested the rifle "repeatedly", then why did Simmons' people have
trouble with a sticky bolt? Someone's fibbing here it seems to me.

> The first round of FBI tests revealed that the rifle fired consistently
> high and to the right when using the scope.
>

Had the scope been shimmed up by that time?

> The second round of FBI tests revealed that it was still slightly
> inaccurate--even after it had been sighted in.
>

Now that's interesting! I've fired a lot of rifles and pistols, but
haven't come across that situation. You sight in the scope and then
it's "inaccurate". How would a TSBD shooter hit anything with that
kind of problem?

> It also revealed that it took a number of shots to stabilize the scope
> after an adjustment--which, since the first round of shots were
> consistently high and to the right, suggested that the scope alignment as
> first tested was the scope alignment at the time of the shooting.
>
> The rifle was then handed off to the Army, which was unable to reproduce
> the shots attributed to Oswald, even after adding shims to bring the scope
> into alignment.
>

So your information was that Simmons got the rifle after the FBI?
Stranger still. After all the easy shooting that Frazier related in
his testimony, including accuracy (!) Suddenly Simmons people have
trouble with the scope and the bolt is sticky which would slow down
any 'speed' shooting. Bad enough that they send the rifle to the
gunsmith! Very odd to my mind. Unless Frazier lied his head off.

> The bit about someone in Dallas removing the shims is something Frazier
> made up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is true.

So Frazier lied. He was responsible for the chain of custody of
the bullets and fragments too that got so mixed up.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The cheap rifle revealed the conspiracy. When it kept missing and jammed
that caused the grassy knoll shooter to finally take the insurance shot.

[mainframetech]

I don't see how it accounts for any hits at all. And no one has
proved that any bullets from the MC rifle hit anyone. I know that
will freak out some people, but there is evidence that the bullets and
fragments from the MC rifle that were supposedly brought to the FBI
have a bad chains of custody and the CE399 'magic' bullet was actually
2 bullets for a period of time while in the care of the FBI:
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

> >     We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
>
> What kind of information? A sales slip?
> We have the fact of the clip itself and the bullets themselves. We don't
> have to prove where Oswald bought them.
>
> > with the rifle either.  But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
> > Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone.  He didn't need the clip and
>
> He bought it to kill Walker.
>

Naah.

> > ammo.  Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
> > bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
> > Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
> > and clip.  And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo!  Why not a
> > full clip?
>
> 4 rounds? Don't be silly. The WCC ammo is sold in boxes of 20 rounds.
> Who is going to sell 5 rounds?
>

Thank you. So where did Oswald hide the extra ammo and clip until
time to use them? Would he just throw them away because he only
wanted to use 4 bullets? Wouldn't some gun shop remember that someone
bought a clip and ammunition for the less common MC rifle when the
story went public to the world? Yet no one came forth and no shop was
found that handled the sale. So where did the clip and ammo come
from? Just another oddity with this case.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 11:31 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

So you believe that the gunsmith that was given the rifle to fix
didn't know enough to fix it without shimming it? And doesn't
shimming the scope suggest also the possibility that the scope was
mounted badly rather than being mistreated? There should have been 2
screws holding the scope, but they only drilled and tapped 2 holes.
Klein's was saving money on time and materials. An indication
suggesting the scope problem was Klein's fault.

> >   With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that would
> >stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can be
> >very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired
> >from the 6th floor.  And iron sights aren't set for that distance, nor
> >are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.
>
> No, you certainly can not be very sure that the MC didn't hit anything.
> Had you done time in the military you would understand 'battle or combat
> zero" and you would understand how the open sights could have been
> accurately used.  Marsh fails to understand it and I have no hope you
> will.  But the open sights could have been used.
>

As usual you make comments while not knowing what you're talking
about. I was in the military and qualified as Marksman with M-1 and .
45 1911 automatic. Yes, the open sights could be used, as I said, but
also as I said, you have to put up with the distraction of the scope
being in your face, and of course, the sticky bolt disallowing any
'speed' shooting.

> >   We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
> >with the rifle either.  But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
> >Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone.  He didn't need the clip and
> >ammo.  Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
> >bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
> >Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
> >and clip.  And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo!  Why not a
> >full clip?
>
> We've covered this before.  It is 1963, a cash purchase not requiring any
> record to be kept at the store.  Now run that down and see how near
> impossible it would be.  Why not buy a box of twenty?  That is the way
> they were sold, a box of twenty.
>

try and read what's written here. At that time the MC rifle was not
on everyone's Christmas list. A sale of a clip and ammo for it should
be turned up in a day or two by phone calls to all the gun shops in
Dallas. As well the TV news shows should have announced the rifle
type and the seller of the ammo and clip would run down to the local
police station and tell all.

> >> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might be
> >> attracted to your theory. =A0But it don't wash.
>
> >> Bill Clarke

> > I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and
> >shotguns and pistols.   Do you make guesses with no information
> >often?
>
> Sorry.  I guess your lack of understanding rifles threw me off.
>
>  Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony?  It's easy
>
> >to find.  Of course, it's factual, and might not support your theory
> >that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.
>
> Yes, I've read it.  You've read it too hard.  You seem to think it would
> be a two man job just to work the bolt on the MC.  I don't believe that is
> what Simmons meant.
>
> Bill Clarke

Simmons meant what he said. The sticky bolt would slow down any
'speed' shooting'; which was required in this case. Obviously your
exaggeration of 2 people to work the bolt is ridiculous.


Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 11:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

OK, that leaves us with a strange situation. Simmons' people said
the rifle needed the scope fixed by the gunsmith and sent it in. They
also said the bolt was sticky and interfered with shooting fast. Why
should the bolt be sticky if Frazier and his people has done their
shooting with no problem? And why would their accuracy tests need the
shims when Frazier people fired on accuracy tests with also no
problem? Somebody is lying or we aren't getting the straight dope.

> > The first round of FBI tests revealed that the rifle fired consistently
> > high and to the right when using the scope.
>

And Frazier ran 'accuracy' tests?

> Which is why Oswald missed Walker in April and why 2 out of the 3 shots
> from the sniper's nest missed the President.
>

Or all shots that came out of the MC rifle hit no one. It didn't
matter, sine they just needed for the MC to fire into Dealey Plaza.
The other shooters would see to the job getting done.

> > The second round of FBI tests revealed that it was still slightly
> > inaccurate--even after it had been sighted in.
>

Yep.

> > It also revealed that it took a number of shots to stabilize the scope
> > after an adjustment--which, since the first round of shots were
> > consistently high and to the right, suggested that the scope alignment as
> > first tested was the scope alignment at the time of the shooting.
>

And shooting at an obliquely moving target with a tree in the way
too.

> > The rifle was then handed off to the Army, which was unable to reproduce
> > the shots attributed to Oswald, even after adding shims to bring the scope
> > into alignment.
>

Yep. Odd. After all that expert shooting by Frazier's people,
Simmons people couldn't get as much out of the MC rifle, and had to
have it go to the gunsmith, and each tester had to work the bolt and
practice with it for 2-3 minutes before shooting. Something's wrong
here. Could it be that Frazier lied to the commission? He was
involved in other problems too.

.
> Maybe falsely attributed to Oswald. Even McAdams was able to get one hit
> out of three at a stationary target.
>
> > The bit about someone in Dallas removing the shims is something Frazier
> > made up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is true.

Chris

[mainframetech]

And all this information would be used by Oswald or a shooter on the
6th floor? And compensating with guesswork while firing at a
obliquely moving target? He'd be lucky he hit the street, much less
the limo.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51aa...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

GROAN!

Bill Clarke

[Herbert Blenner]

I posted testimony of Frazier. So which part of the following sentence did
you fail to understand. I quote Frazier.

“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.”

Frankly, Chris, I think that you have been reading too much Marsh
lately.

Herbert

[mainframetech]

Now Herbert, that's a low blow...:)

I fin d it odd that one person says that Simmons and his group got the
MC rifle AFTER Frazier, yet they found all kinds of problems with it.
They had to send it to the gunsmith to shim the scope, and the testers has
to all work the sticky bolt for a few minutes before shooting. Simmons
also said that as they received the rifle, due to the sticky bolt it could
not handle any fast shooting. Yet Frazier's testimony showed NO problems
even with accuracy tests. Someone is lying.

Chris

[cmikes]

The 'insurance shot' that by according to your vaunted HSCA hit nothing
and no one in Dealy Plaza. So the highly trained assassin couldn't even
hit the limo or anything else in Dealy Plaza, but the nobody ex-Marine
firing a crappy rifle could hit 1 shot dead on with another near miss.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. The insurance shot hit JFK's head.

[Anthony Marsh]

He used one on Walker. He probably used 15 for target practice. That
left him with just the 4 rounds on 11/22/63.

> bought a clip and ammunition for the less common MC rifle when the
> story went public to the world? Yet no one came forth and no shop was
> found that handled the sale. So where did the clip and ammo come
> from? Just another oddity with this case.

No need to prove where he bought them. Neither did they prove where he
bought the strap.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 2, 7:21 pm, cmikes <cmi...@ma.rr.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:58:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/1/2013 11:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>

> > > In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

In the long run, I think you will find that the evidence says that
whoever was in the TSBD SE corner of the 6th floor using an MC rifle,
hit nothing, and one of the shooters, probably the one at the GK, got
in the kill shot. With the number of hits on people in the limo, hits
on the limo itself, and hits on people and the grounds of Dealey
Plaza, there were obviously more than one shooter.

There was no need for an 'insurance shot', since all shooters took
their shots. That was the best insurance.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 2, 11:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/2/2013 7:21 PM, cmikes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:58:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2013 11:31 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>

> >>> In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

See above, no 'insurance shot' needed.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I don't think the strap is so unique that it could be tracked down.
It might be from some belt he had. But the ammunition and clip should
have been tracked down, since it was easy to do, the MC rifle and ammo not
being that common. Why would Oswald throw away or hide the extra ammo, IF
he bought more than 4 cartridges? He didn't really hide the rifle, just
put it away. So no need to hide the ammo. So where is it? If successful
with his measly 4 bullets, he might want to move on to another politician.
Of course, Marina said that Oswald liked JFK. The clip and 4 bullets
doesn't make a lot of sense.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > The 'insurance shot' that by according to your vaunted HSCA hit nothing
> > and no one in Dealy Plaza.  So the highly trained assassin couldn't even
> > hit the limo or anything else in Dealy Plaza, but the nobody ex-Marine
> > firing a crappy rifle could hit 1 shot dead on with another near miss.
>
> Not true. The insurance shot hit JFK's head.

Your make believe sniper on the knoll missed the make believe insurance
shot based on the make believe acoustic evidence. That's what being a CT
is all about, make believe nonsense. A left-wing true believer shot
President Kennedy because he was picking on Cuba. No amount of pretend
"evidence" and wishful thinking will change that reality.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <c78caf18-8d32-45cf...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Jun 1, 11:31=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>> >On May 31, 11:17=3DA0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >On May 30, 11:14=3D3DA0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> >> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http=
>://=3D
>> >www=3D3D

>> >> >.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay
>> >> >> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
>> >> >> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
>> >> >> A.
>> >> >> Testimony, Vol.
>>
>> >> >>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>>
>> >> >> Page 394
>>
>> >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> >> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
>> >> >> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
>> >> >> Mr. Frazier.

>> >> >> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the ba=
>sic
>> >> >> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since th=
>is
>> >> >> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as =

>a
>> >> >> Mauser for that reason.
>> >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> >> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
>> >> >> Mr. Frazier.

>> >> >> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if =

>it
>> >> >> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use

>> >> >> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, =
>in
>> >> >> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In oth=

>er
>> >> >> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 Thank you for backing me up. =3DA0As I said Frazier said the w=
>eapon w=3D

>> >as
>> >> >"worn and corroded".
>>
>> >> Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly capable of

>> >> hitting JFK? =3DA0And once again you don't know if the scope was defec=
>tive
>> >> when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. =3DA0You also don't know =
>that =3D
>> >he
>> >> was even using the scope. =3DA0You are barking up the wrong tree here.=
> =3DA0A=3D
>> >s far
>> >> as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Oswald us=

>ed
>> >> was incapable of making the shots that day.
>>

>> > =A0 There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any person, if
>> >all factors were right. =A0Frazier hasn't said anything exceptional.

>> >Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
>> >gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and over

>> >for him. =A0Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons testimony
>> >to the WC about the condition when they got it first? =A0 As to the

>> >defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with the

>> >scope, not it being mishandled. =A0The scope was out of alignment from a

>> >bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted the

>> >scope for the buyer. =A0No one really cared about these old war surplus
>> >guns anyway. =A0At $19. it wasn't a bargain.
>>
>> Yes, the mount was weak and should have had more than two screws attachin=
>g
>> it to the rifle. =A0The scope had ran out of vertical adjustment. =A0This=
> can
>> occur if the scope receives a sharp blow by being dropped. =A0If you know
>> what you are doing you can fix this without using shims. =A0I'd say it wa=
>s a
>> hell of a bargain. =A0Less than $20 bucks to kill the president of the

>> United States.
>>
> So you believe that the gunsmith that was given the rifle to fix
>didn't know enough to fix it without shimming it? And doesn't
>shimming the scope suggest also the possibility that the scope was
>mounted badly rather than being mistreated? There should have been 2
>screws holding the scope, but they only drilled and tapped 2 holes.
>Klein's was saving money on time and materials. An indication
>suggesting the scope problem was Klein's fault.
>

>> > =A0 With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that would

>> >stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can be
>> >very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired

>> >from the 6th floor. =A0And iron sights aren't set for that distance, nor

>> >are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.
>>
>> No, you certainly can not be very sure that the MC didn't hit anything.
>> Had you done time in the military you would understand 'battle or combat
>> zero" and you would understand how the open sights could have been

>> accurately used. =A0Marsh fails to understand it and I have no hope you
>> will. =A0But the open sights could have been used.

>>
> As usual you make comments while not knowing what you're talking
>about. I was in the military and qualified as Marksman with M-1 and .
>45 1911 automatic. Yes, the open sights could be used, as I said, but
>also as I said, you have to put up with the distraction of the scope
>being in your face, and of course, the sticky bolt disallowing any
>'speed' shooting.

So Mr. Marksman with the M-1, that would put you at least 54 years old.
Are you that old? Older? Qualifying with the .45 is also interesting.
Just what did you do in the military?

The rub here is your statement, "And iron sights aren't set for that
distance", which suggest they couldn't be used. If you had military
training you would have know better than that. Or were you simply trying
to beef up your whacky ideal that Oswald's MC couldn't have been used?


>> > =A0 We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
>> >with the rifle either. =A0But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
>> >Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. =A0He didn't need the clip and
>> >ammo. =A0Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald

>> >bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
>> >Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition

>> >and clip. =A0And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! =A0Why not =
>a
>> >full clip?
>>
>> We've covered this before. =A0It is 1963, a cash purchase not requiring a=
>ny
>> record to be kept at the store. =A0Now run that down and see how near
>> impossible it would be. =A0Why not buy a box of twenty? =A0That is the wa=

>y
>> they were sold, a box of twenty.
>>
> try and read what's written here. At that time the MC rifle was not
>on everyone's Christmas list. A sale of a clip and ammo for it should
>be turned up in a day or two by phone calls to all the gun shops in
>Dallas. As well the TV news shows should have announced the rifle
>type and the seller of the ammo and clip would run down to the local
>police station and tell all.

While we are speculating on what would have happened we can speculate that
the seller didn't particularly like JFK and was glad to see him go. He
would probably keep quite.


>> >> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might b=
>e
>> >> attracted to your theory. =3DA0But it don't wash.

>>
>> >> Bill Clarke
>
>> > I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and

>> >shotguns and pistols. =A0 Do you make guesses with no information
>> >often?
>>
>> Sorry. =A0I guess your lack of understanding rifles threw me off.
>>
>> =A0Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony? =A0It's easy
>>
>> >to find. =A0Of course, it's factual, and might not support your theory

>> >that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.
>>

>> Yes, I've read it. =A0You've read it too hard. =A0You seem to think it wo=
>uld
>> be a two man job just to work the bolt on the MC. =A0I don't believe that=

> is
>> what Simmons meant.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
> Simmons meant what he said. The sticky bolt would slow down any
>'speed' shooting'; which was required in this case. Obviously your
>exaggeration of 2 people to work the bolt is ridiculous.

Sorry you missed my biting satire. Of course two people to work the bolt
is ridiculous but so is you theory that the MC couldn't have done the job.
As far as I know Simmons is the only one to report this "sticky bolt".
From reading others experience with the MC it might be that the bolt was a
bit hard to operate and took a strong arm to operate rapidly. Oswald's
brother said Oswald was strong in his forearms.

Bill Clarke

[John Fiorentino]

I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
to be mentioned.......

Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
the weapon.

2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.

3. The time starts from the first shot that is fired, so effectively
Oswald had approx 8-9 seconds to fire TWO shots.

4. NOT this 3 shots in 5.6 seconds crap as flung around by many conspiracy
authors.

5. And I will say also NOT the less than 1.6 seconds between the first and
second shot as FABRICATED by Blakey's HSCA.

John F.



"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:koi7m...@drn.newsguy.com...

[mainframetech]

Odd that you think the HSCA was wrong in saying that a shooter was
on the GK based on their audio evidence, and that they also thought
that the murder was probably a conspiracy.

As to the GK shooter missing, it appears that fellow hit his target
and did the best job of them all. I would think that if anyone used
the MC rifle from the 6th floor, that they hit nothing, given the
condition of the rifle. Being a good shot wouldn't help that much
with that rifle.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 3, 5:14 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <c78caf18-8d32-45cf-805f-a36c77801...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

I'm older than 54, how about you? I did Search and rescue.

> The rub here is your statement, "And iron sights aren't set for that
> distance", which suggest they couldn't be used.  If you had military
> training you would have know better than that.  Or were you simply trying
> to beef up your whacky ideal that Oswald's MC couldn't have been used?
>
>

I was quoting a 'gun nut' name of Marsh. And I don't say that the MC
wasn't used, but that the odds seem very low. Trying to use iron sights
with the scope staring you in the face is possible, but not that easy, and
while the iron sights may not be set for the distance, they would surely
hit near to where you'd like to hit at that range. Trouble is that the
sticky bolt would make the rapid fire next to impossible based on the
testimony of Ronald Simmons.

>
>
> >> > =A0 We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
> >> >with the rifle either. =A0But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
> >> >Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. =A0He didn't need the clip and
> >> >ammo. =A0Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
> >> >bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
> >> >Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
> >> >and clip. =A0And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! =A0Why not =
> >a
> >> >full clip?
>
> >> We've covered this before. =A0It is 1963, a cash purchase not requiring a=
> >ny
> >> record to be kept at the store. =A0Now run that down and see how near
> >> impossible it would be. =A0Why not buy a box of twenty? =A0That is the wa=
> >y
> >> they were sold, a box of twenty.
>
> >  try and read what's written here.  At that time the MC rifle was not
> >on everyone's Christmas list.  A sale of a clip and ammo for it should
> >be turned up in a day or two by phone calls to all the gun shops in
> >Dallas.  As well the TV news shows should have announced the rifle
> >type and the seller of the ammo and clip would run down to the local
> >police station and tell all.
>
> While we are speculating on what would have happened we can speculate that
> the seller didn't particularly like JFK and was glad to see him go.  He
> would probably keep quite.
>

Or he loved JFK as did many of the public. So there's no hiding there.
Would he want to take the chance that it would somehow be traced to his
shop and he would be in hot water, whether he hated JFK or not?

Bill, There has to be a point where biting satire gives in to reality.
'Might be' this and 'might be' that won't do the trick. Actually, if you
go through Simmons' testimony, you find that Simmons didn't do any
shooting, but his people did the testing. He spoke as if they as a group
reported to him that the bolt was sticky and ruined their aim. As well,
you can keep backing up and saying things like 'maybe he used iron
sights', or maybe he was strong in the arms and could handle the sticky
bolt, or maybe this and that.

That rifle had one purpose...to frame Oswald, who wasn't even near the
6th floor window in the first place. All that was necessary was that
bullets from some rifle be fired in the general direction of the limo from
the TSBD. The rest would taken care of by other conspirators, and not an
army of them either.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. The two acoustical scientists who analyzed that shot said it hit.

[BT George]

Well I often hear person of the CT persuasion talk about Oswald's bad
marksmanship by citing his missing General Walker or talking about how the
scope would have prevented an accurate shot. I also think it is fair to
say that most CT arguments are based on generous amounts of speculation.
Well I would like to do a little LN-oriented speculating on the possible
interaction of these two phenomenon.

Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by
some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63. OK. Fair enough.
Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted in
his miss with General Walker. Since many CT's (if they believe he ever
owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, why
would he know about the problem until this moment? Indeed, its tendancy
to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account for
the bullet striking the window frame.

Now to build on the above speculation, we can assume that LHO realized
that when you have a target sighted between the crosshairs and then miss,
the most likely reason is a scope misalignment of some kind. Now alerted
to the problem he could take alternate action in the future:

1) If he did practice with some live rounds afterward as many LNs believe
likely, he might have had sufficient practice to be confident he knew how
to compensate in the future.

2) If he didn't fire any live rounds (but only dry fired) then perhaps the
scope misalignment explains some other things about the most likely LN
assassinatin scenario. Even without such practice, if he indeed did have
Edwin Walker lined up in those cross hairs on his earlier miss, then Lee
had to have known that a scope issue was a likely explanation. Enter the
1st missed shot at or around Z160 that most LNers now believe happened.

If indeed scope mounting problems accounted for the Walker miss and LHO
now had JFK lined up in those same crosshairs, what is the likely outcome
if he has had no prior live practice to confirm and compensate for said
misalignment? You got, he's probably going to miss as most LNers assert
he did do. Moreover, he would now have any prior suspicions he had about
the scope confirmed. With the extra split second to realize what the
problem must with now two apparently "high" misses he would now be in a
MUCH better position to adjust on the fly.

Such adjustment could have taken the form of his instintively lowering his
aim and to achieve a "near" head hit around Z223-224 (I note the wound was
slightly to the right of JFK's neck/upper back--the other tendancy of the
misaligned scope.) and then finally make a better adjusment for the
gruesome head hit at Z313. (Again noting that the entry was slightly to
the right of the midline of JFK's head.) Alternatively, he may simply
have adjusted on the fly to use the iron sites.

A generous amount of speculation? You betcha! However, I would assert
the above speculative scenario is more reasonable than most CT-oriented
theories I've heard over time.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your sentence makes no sense. It took several years for someone to
figure out where the strap came from. It is in Lattimer's book.
Again, no need to prove where he bought them.

> It might be from some belt he had. But the ammunition and clip should

No, it wasn't. Lattimer proved that it was the shoulder strap for an Air
Force holster.

> have been tracked down, since it was easy to do, the MC rifle and ammo not

Finding places which sell the ammo and clip was not difficult. Finding
any store owner who would admit to selling them to Oswald was impossible.

> being that common. Why would Oswald throw away or hide the extra ammo, IF
> he bought more than 4 cartridges? He didn't really hide the rifle, just

Stop asking the same stupid question 100 times. I already told you that
he would need 15 rounds for practice shooting.

> put it away. So no need to hide the ammo. So where is it? If successful
> with his measly 4 bullets, he might want to move on to another politician.

Ridiculous. You think killing Kennedy was just a practice round or a
stepping stone?

> Of course, Marina said that Oswald liked JFK. The clip and 4 bullets
> doesn't make a lot of sense.
>

Irrelevant if Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy.
So you think Oswald would buy only 5 rounds to shoot at Walker?
Were is he going to buy only 5 rounds? Get real or prove something for once.

[Anthony Marsh]

More silliness. Where did the hole in the back come from? How did
Connally get hit in the back?

>

[John Fiorentino]

Give us a citation on that Anthony.

There was NO indication from W&A that the knoll "shot" hit anything.

First of course because there were no shots on the tape.

It's bad enough the taxpayers had to pay for a fraud.

Don't make unsubstantiated claims.

Give it up, will ya?

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51ad1ef6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of us do not blame Oswald, but the rifle. The rifle shoots high at
close distances.
The scope was set at Klein's for 200 yards and the distance from the
fence to Walker's desk was 120 feet.

> Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
> the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by
> some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63. OK. Fair enough.
> Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted in
> his miss with General Walker. Since many CT's (if they believe he ever

No, you can't assume it was defective that early.

> owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, why
> would he know about the problem until this moment? Indeed, its tendancy
> to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account for
> the bullet striking the window frame.
>

Oswald's experience in the Marines was with the M-1 which has a very
flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high trajectory.

> Now to build on the above speculation, we can assume that LHO realized
> that when you have a target sighted between the crosshairs and then miss,
> the most likely reason is a scope misalignment of some kind. Now alerted
> to the problem he could take alternate action in the future:
>
> 1) If he did practice with some live rounds afterward as many LNs believe
> likely, he might have had sufficient practice to be confident he knew how
> to compensate in the future.
>

He had no experience in zeroing in scope and no place to do it.

> 2) If he didn't fire any live rounds (but only dry fired) then perhaps the
> scope misalignment explains some other things about the most likely LN
> assassinatin scenario. Even without such practice, if he indeed did have
> Edwin Walker lined up in those cross hairs on his earlier miss, then Lee
> had to have known that a scope issue was a likely explanation. Enter the
> 1st missed shot at or around Z160 that most LNers now believe happened.
>

Some of the WC defenders think that the known problem with the scope
forced Oswald to switch to using the iron sights, which have their own
problems.

> If indeed scope mounting problems accounted for the Walker miss and LHO
> now had JFK lined up in those same crosshairs, what is the likely outcome
> if he has had no prior live practice to confirm and compensate for said
> misalignment? You got, he's probably going to miss as most LNers assert
> he did do. Moreover, he would now have any prior suspicions he had about
> the scope confirmed. With the extra split second to realize what the
> problem must with now two apparently "high" misses he would now be in a
> MUCH better position to adjust on the fly.
>
> Such adjustment could have taken the form of his instintively lowering his
> aim and to achieve a "near" head hit around Z223-224 (I note the wound was
> slightly to the right of JFK's neck/upper back--the other tendancy of the
> misaligned scope.) and then finally make a better adjusment for the
> gruesome head hit at Z313. (Again noting that the entry was slightly to
> the right of the midline of JFK's head.) Alternatively, he may simply
> have adjusted on the fly to use the iron sites.
>

Some WC defenders think that Oswald always planned to use the iron
sights for a daytime shot.

> A generous amount of speculation? You betcha! However, I would assert
> the above speculative scenario is more reasonable than most CT-oriented
> theories I've heard over time.
>

Silly.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Failure Analysis team found it distracting, but not difficult.
The problem is reacquiring the target.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2013 8:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also
> need to be mentioned.......
>
> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
> the weapon.
>

Silly. Oswald had no clue about rifles. In the Marine he used an M-1
which has a very flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high curved
trajectory. Oswald did not understand that.

> 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
> Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.

> \

You are still clueless. The acoustical evidence shows 8.35 seconds
between the first shot and the last shot. Even the WC said:

If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds
(necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the
shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the
three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed
and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased.

> 3. The time starts from the first shot that is fired, so effectively
> Oswald had approx 8-9 seconds to fire TWO shots.
>

No, you mean reload twice.

> 4. NOT this 3 shots in 5.6 seconds crap as flung around by many
> conspiracy authors.
>

Oh, you man conspiracy kooks like the WC?

As previously indicated, the time span between the shot entering the
back of the President's neck and the bullet which shattered his skull
was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.

> 5. And I will say also NOT the less than 1.6 seconds between the first
> and second shot as FABRICATED by Blakey's HSCA.
>

You're such an expert that I bet you could fire two shots in less than a
second. How was the kook in the desert able to fire 7 shots in 6 seconds?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2013 9:40 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Give us a citation on that Anthony.
>

The Washington Post, Friday December 22, 1978:

It seemed to have stopped in the presidential limousine

> There was NO indication from W&A that the knoll "shot" hit anything.
>

They didn't say it stopped in midair all by itself. If you have bullets
that can do that please contact DARPA.

> First of course because there were no shots on the tape.
>
> It's bad enough the taxpayers had to pay for a fraud.
>
> Don't make unsubstantiated claims.
>

You probably missed the 752 times I have posted the documents because
you have a short attention span.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p8+.jpg

[John Fiorentino]

You quote the Warren Report, but you can't read and comprehend.

You're a funny guy.

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:51ad4871$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Sandy McCroskey]

No, they did not.
Well, surely the bullet hit *something*, somewhere.
But I do think you mean to imply that they said it hit JFK, and that's
just not true, not by a long shot.

The (anonymous) sources merely said, according to the Boston Herald
article by conspiracy believer George Lardner, that this (fictitious) shot
would have landed in or *near* the *limousine*.

That's a big difference.
And these are unnamed sources, and not the official report.
.
From *your* site:
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/BH12_22_78p2.jpg
<quote on>

"It seemed to have stopped in the Presidential limousine," one source
[sic] said. Another source [sic] said it would be more accurate to say
that it landed "in the area of the Presidential limousine, plus or minus
10 feet."

"Plus or minus 10 feet"...!

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/3/13 10:23 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 9:40 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Give us a citation on that Anthony.
>>
>
> The Washington Post, Friday December 22, 1978:
>
> It seemed to have stopped in the presidential limousine
>

Yes, that's what it says "one source" said.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg

But show us where it says it hit JFK.
Isn't that what you were implying?

And:
"Another source said it would be more accurate"----
got it?
--"to say that it apparently landed 'in the area of the presidential

limousine, plus or minus 10 feet."

That's right.
"Plus or minus 10 feet."

(And since we're talking about a nonexistent shot, in the first place,
this is all rather silly.)
/sm

[claviger]

BT,

Very good analysis. One more possibility. As far as we know this was
LHO's first attempt at a moving target. He had to be nervous and
squeezing hard on the trigger, which was a two step type. If he squeezed
too hard he breaks his lead, meaning his point of aim stopped while the
target kept moving. In this case the target moved into the actual bullet
trajectory, high and to the right. The defective scope offset the hard
pull mistake. Had the scope been functional with crosshairs and
trajectory in line, LHO could have missed JFK on all three shots. The
scary part is he might have hit Nellie or Jackie.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51ad4164$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

The M-1 Garand shooting a 152 grain FMJ , B.C. 0.398 at 2,800 fps and
sighted in for a 200 yard zero has a +1.9 inch over the line of sight at
midrange. At 25 yards it is -0.2 under the line of sight. At 50 yards it
is +0.8 over the line of sight.

The Mannlicher Carcano Oswald used had an average velocity of 2,165 fps
firing a 160 grain bullet with a B.C. of 0.275 and sighted in for 200
yards. At midrange it was 4.2 inches over line of sight, at 25 yards it
was 0.7 inches above line of sight and at 50 yards it was 2.4 over the
line of sight.

At 25 yards this is a difference of 0.9 inches.
At 50 yards this is a difference of 1.6 inches.
At midrange (100 yards) this a difference of 2.3 inches.

Now for god?s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches
and once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and
often repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

>Oswald's experience in the Marines was with the M-1 which has a very
>flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high trajectory.
>
>> Now to build on the above speculation, we can assume that LHO realized
>> that when you have a target sighted between the crosshairs and then miss,
>> the most likely reason is a scope misalignment of some kind. Now alerted
>> to the problem he could take alternate action in the future:
>>
>> 1) If he did practice with some live rounds afterward as many LNs believe
>> likely, he might have had sufficient practice to be confident he knew how
>> to compensate in the future.
>>
>
>He had no experience in zeroing in scope and no place to do it.

For crying out loud Marsh, it isn't rocket science. And since you didn't
have him under 24/7 observation you don't what he did and where he might
have done it.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51ad4871$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 6/3/2013 8:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also
>> need to be mentioned.......
>>
>> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
>> the weapon.
>>
>
>
>Silly. Oswald had no clue about rifles. In the Marine he used an M-1
>which has a very flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high curved
>trajectory. Oswald did not understand that.

Speaking of silly;

The M-1 Garand shooting a 152 grain FMJ , B.C. 0.398 at 2,800 fps and sighted in
for a 200 yard zero has a +1.9 inch over the line of sight at midrange. At 25
yards it is -0.2 under the line of sight. At 50 yards it is +0.8 over the line
of sight.

The Mannlicher Carcano Oswald used had an average velocity of 2,165 fps firing a
160 grain bullet with a B.C. of 0.275 and sighted in for 200 yards. At midrange
it was 4.2 inches over line of sight, at 25 yards it was 0.7 inches above line
of sight and at 50 yards it was 2.4 over the line of sight.

At 25 yards this is a difference of 0.9 inches.
At 50 yards this is a difference of 1.6 inches.
At midrange (100 yards) this a difference of 2.3 inches.

Now for god’s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches and

once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and often
repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <7f8d6809-a220-40e5...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On Jun 3, 5:14=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c78caf18-8d32-45cf-805f-a36c77801...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 1, 11:31=3DA0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegrou=

>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>

>> >> >On May 31, 11:17=3D3DA0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrot=
>e:
>> >> >> In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >> >On May 30, 11:14=3D3D3DA0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>> >> >> >> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...h=
>ttp=3D
>> >://=3D3D
>> >> >www=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay

>> >> >> >> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Alle=
>n,
>> >> >> >> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Rob=

>ert
>> >> >> >> A.
>> >> >> >> Testimony, Vol.
>>
>> >> >> >>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>>
>> >> >> >> Page 394
>>
>> >> >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> >> >> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
>> >> >> >> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
>> >> >> >> Mr. Frazier.

>> >> >> >> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the=
> ba=3D
>> >sic
>> >> >> >> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since=
> th=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> >> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to =
>as =3D

>> >a
>> >> >> >> Mauser for that reason.
>> >> >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>> >> >> >> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
>> >> >> >> Mr. Frazier.

>> >> >> >> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as =
>if =3D
>> >it
>> >> >> >> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much =
>use
>> >> >> >> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got i=
>t, =3D
>> >in
>> >> >> >> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In =
>oth=3D

>> >er
>> >> >> >> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 Thank you for backing me up. =3D3DA0As I said Frazier sai=
>d the w=3D
>> >eapon w=3D3D

>> >> >as
>> >> >> >"worn and corroded".
>>

>> >> >> Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly capable=
> of
>> >> >> hitting JFK? =3D3DA0And once again you don't know if the scope was =
>defec=3D
>> >tive
>> >> >> when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. =3D3DA0You also don't =
>know =3D
>> >that =3D3D
>> >> >he
>> >> >> was even using the scope. =3D3DA0You are barking up the wrong tree =
>here.=3D
>> > =3D3DA0A=3D3D
>> >> >s far
>> >> >> as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Oswald=
> us=3D

>> >ed
>> >> >> was incapable of making the shots that day.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any person, =
>if
>> >> >all factors were right. =3DA0Frazier hasn't said anything exceptional=

>.
>> >> >Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
>> >> >gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and over

>> >> >for him. =3DA0Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons testi=
>mony
>> >> >to the WC about the condition when they got it first? =3DA0 As to the

>> >> >defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with the

>> >> >scope, not it being mishandled. =3DA0The scope was out of alignment f=

>rom a
>> >> >bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted the

>> >> >scope for the buyer. =3DA0No one really cared about these old war sur=
>plus
>> >> >guns anyway. =3DA0At $19. it wasn't a bargain.
>>
>> >> Yes, the mount was weak and should have had more than two screws attac=
>hin=3D
>> >g
>> >> it to the rifle. =3DA0The scope had ran out of vertical adjustment. =
>=3DA0This=3D
>> > can
>> >> occur if the scope receives a sharp blow by being dropped. =3DA0If you=
> know
>> >> what you are doing you can fix this without using shims. =3DA0I'd say =
>it wa=3D
>> >s a
>> >> hell of a bargain. =3DA0Less than $20 bucks to kill the president of t=
>he
>> >> United States.
>>
>> > =A0So you believe that the gunsmith that was given the rifle to fix
>> >didn't know enough to fix it without shimming it? =A0And doesn't

>> >shimming the scope suggest also the possibility that the scope was

>> >mounted badly rather than being mistreated? =A0There should have been 2

>> >screws holding the scope, but they only drilled and tapped 2 holes.

>> >Klein's was saving money on time and materials. =A0An indication

>> >suggesting the scope problem was Klein's fault.
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that =
>would
>> >> >stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can b=

>e
>> >> >very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired

>> >> >from the 6th floor. =3DA0And iron sights aren't set for that distance=

>, nor
>> >> >are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.
>>

>> >> No, you certainly can not be very sure that the MC didn't hit anything=
>.
>> >> Had you done time in the military you would understand 'battle or comb=

>at
>> >> zero" and you would understand how the open sights could have been

>> >> accurately used. =3DA0Marsh fails to understand it and I have no hope =
>you
>> >> will. =3DA0But the open sights could have been used.
>>
>> > =A0 As usual you make comments while not knowing what you're talking
>> >about. =A0I was in the military and qualified as Marksman with M-1 and .
>> >45 1911 automatic. =A0Yes, the open sights could be used, as I said, but

>> >also as I said, you have to put up with the distraction of the scope
>> >being in your face, and of course, the sticky bolt disallowing any
>> >'speed' shooting.
>>
>> So Mr. Marksman with the M-1, that would put you at least 54 years old.

>> Are you that old? =A0Older? =A0Qualifying with the .45 is also interestin=

>g.
>> Just what did you do in the military?
>>
> I'm older than 54, how about you? I did Search and rescue.

Yeah, I'm a hell of a lot older than 54. I consider anyone 54 to be a young
whippersnapper. I did search and destroy.

>> The rub here is your statement, "And iron sights aren't set for that

>> distance", which suggest they couldn't be used. =A0If you had military
>> training you would have know better than that. =A0Or were you simply tryi=

>ng
>> to beef up your whacky ideal that Oswald's MC couldn't have been used?
>>
>>
>
> I was quoting a 'gun nut' name of Marsh. And I don't say that the MC
>wasn't used, but that the odds seem very low. Trying to use iron sights
>with the scope staring you in the face is possible, but not that easy, and
>while the iron sights may not be set for the distance, they would surely
>hit near to where you'd like to hit at that range. Trouble is that the
>sticky bolt would make the rapid fire next to impossible based on the
>testimony of Ronald Simmons.

Heh! Marsh isn't a gun nut. He is just a....never mind. I probably need to
review this sticky bolt thing. I don't remember others complaining so much
about it but my memory isn't what it used to be.



>> >> > =3DA0 We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a =
>clip
>> >> >with the rifle either. =3DA0But then, he bought the rifle to impress =
>the
>> >> >Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. =3DA0He didn't need the clip =
>and
>> >> >ammo. =3DA0Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove O=

>swald
>> >> >bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in

>> >> >Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunitio=
>n
>> >> >and clip. =3DA0And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! =3DA0W=
>hy not =3D
>> >a
>> >> >full clip?
>>
>> >> We've covered this before. =3DA0It is 1963, a cash purchase not requir=
>ing a=3D
>> >ny
>> >> record to be kept at the store. =3DA0Now run that down and see how nea=
>r
>> >> impossible it would be. =3DA0Why not buy a box of twenty? =3DA0That is=
> the wa=3D

>> >y
>> >> they were sold, a box of twenty.
>>

>> > =A0try and read what's written here. =A0At that time the MC rifle was n=
>ot
>> >on everyone's Christmas list. =A0A sale of a clip and ammo for it should

>> >be turned up in a day or two by phone calls to all the gun shops in

>> >Dallas. =A0As well the TV news shows should have announced the rifle

>> >type and the seller of the ammo and clip would run down to the local
>> >police station and tell all.
>>

>> While we are speculating on what would have happened we can speculate tha=
>t
>> the seller didn't particularly like JFK and was glad to see him go. =A0He

>> would probably keep quite.
>>
>
> Or he loved JFK as did many of the public. So there's no hiding there.
>Would he want to take the chance that it would somehow be traced to his
>shop and he would be in hot water, whether he hated JFK or not?
>
>>
>>

>> >> >> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you migh=
>t b=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> attracted to your theory. =3D3DA0But it don't wash.

>>
>> >> >> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >> > I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and

>> >> >shotguns and pistols. =3DA0 Do you make guesses with no information
>> >> >often?
>>
>> >> Sorry. =3DA0I guess your lack of understanding rifles threw me off.
>>
>> >> =3DA0Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony? =3DA0It's eas=
>y
>>
>> >> >to find. =3DA0Of course, it's factual, and might not support your the=

>ory
>> >> >that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.
>>

>> >> Yes, I've read it. =3DA0You've read it too hard. =3DA0You seem to thin=
>k it wo=3D
>> >uld
>> >> be a two man job just to work the bolt on the MC. =3DA0I don't believe=
> that=3D

>> > is
>> >> what Simmons meant.
>>
>> >> Bill Clarke
>>

>> > =A0Simmons meant what he said. =A0The sticky =A0bolt would slow down an=
>y
>> >'speed' shooting'; =A0which was required in this case. =A0Obviously your

>> >exaggeration of 2 people to work the bolt is ridiculous.
>>

>> Sorry you missed my biting satire. =A0Of course two people to work the bo=
>lt
>> is ridiculous but so is you theory that the MC couldn't have done the job=

>.
>> As far as I know Simmons is the only one to report this "sticky bolt".

>> From reading others experience with the MC it might be that the bolt was =
>a
>> bit hard to operate and took a strong arm to operate rapidly. =A0Oswald's

>> brother said Oswald was strong in his forearms.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Bill, There has to be a point where biting satire gives in to reality.
>'Might be' this and 'might be' that won't do the trick. Actually, if you
>go through Simmons' testimony, you find that Simmons didn't do any
>shooting, but his people did the testing. He spoke as if they as a group
>reported to him that the bolt was sticky and ruined their aim. As well,
>you can keep backing up and saying things like 'maybe he used iron
>sights', or maybe he was strong in the arms and could handle the sticky
>bolt, or maybe this and that.
>
> That rifle had one purpose...to frame Oswald, who wasn't even near the
>6th floor window in the first place. All that was necessary was that
>bullets from some rifle be fired in the general direction of the limo from
>the TSBD. The rest would taken care of by other conspirators, and not an
>army of them either.
>
>Chris

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Even if I think it is wrong.

Bill Clarke

[mainframetech]

Whoa! Oswald's level of marksmanship was testified to by his
marine buddy, Nelson Delgado, who said he got 'Maggie's Drawers'
often, which means he missed the whole target. His lousy skill wasn't
speculation.

> Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
> the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by
> some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63.  OK.  Fair enough.
> Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted in
> his miss with General Walker.  Since many CT's (if they believe he ever
> owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, why
> would he know about the problem until this moment?  Indeed, its tendancy
> to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account for
> the bullet striking the window frame.
>

Whoops! Who agreed that the shot at Walker was made by Oswald? It
may have been useful to his purpose of being acceptable to the
revolutionaries, but a guy informing to an agency kills a senior
conservative? Naah. It was useful to Walker too. The story of the
church parking lot may have applied:
http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/witness.htm

> Now to build on the above speculation, we can assume that LHO realized
> that when you have a target sighted between the crosshairs and then miss,
> the most likely reason is a scope misalignment of some kind.  Now alerted
> to the problem he could take alternate action in the future:
>

Of course you're also speculating that he practiced at least once,
and that after finding that he missed, had a way of knowing how to
adjust the scope, which he hadn't used in the marines. He hasn't used
a bolt action rifle before either.

> 1) If he did practice with some live rounds afterward as many LNs believe
> likely, he might have had sufficient practice to be confident he knew how
> to compensate in the future.
>

'Might' this and 'might' that. Compensating by guesswork isn't
easy. His scope was a simple crosshairs, not a graduated sniper scope
like this:
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/58358/58358,1265022913,1/stock-vector-illustration-of-a-hunting-sight-with-target-lines-and-guide-to-aim-45703711.jpg

When you have the graduations marked, you can determine how many
'notches' to right or left, high or low in your aiming to compensate
for a faulty scope. Without it, you're guessing...not too easy.

> 2) If he didn't fire any live rounds (but only dry fired) then perhaps the
> scope misalignment explains some other things about the most likely LN
> assassinatin scenario.  Even without such practice, if he indeed did have
> Edwin Walker lined up in those cross hairs on his earlier miss, then Lee
> had to have known that a scope issue was a likely explanation.  Enter the
> 1st missed shot at or around Z160 that most LNers now believe happened.
>

Why do you assume Oswald was that knowledgeable that a miss (which
he often experienced in the marines) would tell him that the scope was
off, and exactly how to compensate for it? Simply knowing "he had a
scope issue" doesn't tell him if he's shooting high, low, left, right,
and by how much for later compensation. The fix the gunsmith made to
the scope was to shim up one part of the mount. The odds are tiny
that the scope problem was other than a badly mounted scope, and
Klein's put the scope on.

> If indeed scope mounting problems accounted for the Walker miss and LHO
> now had JFK lined up in those same crosshairs, what is the likely outcome
> if he has had no prior live practice to confirm and compensate for said
> misalignment?  You got, he's probably going to miss as most LNers assert
> he did do.  Moreover, he would now have any prior suspicions he had about
> the scope confirmed.  With the extra split second to realize what the
> problem must with now two apparently "high" misses he would now be in a
> MUCH better position to adjust on the fly.
>

So now he needs only a 'split second' to figure where his bullet hit
and do the calculation for how much guesswork to use looking into his
scope, and is such a fine marksman that he guesses right on 2
successful shots. Naah.

> Such adjustment could have taken the form of his instintively lowering his
> aim and to achieve a "near" head hit around Z223-224 (I note the wound was
> slightly to the right of JFK's neck/upper back--the other tendancy of the
> misaligned scope.) and then finally make a better adjusment for the
> gruesome head hit at Z313.  (Again noting that the entry was slightly to
> the right of the midline of JFK's head.)  Alternatively, he may simply
> have adjusted on the fly to use the iron sites.
>

Now he's using his instinct and not his mental abilities to judge
the place in his scope to apply guesswork to hit the target. And the
capability to "on-the-fly" change to a new mode of shooting, while
the scope is still mounted, getting in the way. Doable, but some
difficulty. And we shouldn't forget the double pull trigger! You
pulled it back easily to a point that stopped the trigger, then pulled
harder and it fired. Very irritating when trying to fire rapidly.

> A generous amount of speculation?  You betcha!  However, I would assert
> the above speculative scenario is more reasonable than most CT-oriented
> theories I've heard over time.

Then you haven't heard the wacky theories put out by the WC.
First there was the 'lone nut' theory, then the Single Bullet theory.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 3, 8:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
> to be mentioned.......
>
> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
> the weapon.
>

If he never used it, and never practiced with it, how would he be
familiar with it?

> 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
> Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.
>

The sticky bolt, double trigger pull and the badly misaligned scope
might take away those seconds.

> 3. The time starts from the first shot that is fired, so effectively
> Oswald had approx 8-9 seconds to fire TWO shots.
>
> 4. NOT this 3 shots in 5.6 seconds crap as flung around by many conspiracy
> authors.
>
> 5. And I will say also NOT the less than 1.6 seconds between the first and
> second shot as FABRICATED by Blakey's HSCA.
>
> John F.
>

> "Bill Clarke" <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:koi7m...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
> > <c78caf18-8d32-45cf-805f-a36c77801...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

[mainframetech]

You think he bought the sling? Now let's look at it from an
objective point of view. Since there is no proof that Oswald bought
or acquired the clip and ammo, it leaves open the possibility that a
conspirator had to buy or acquire them so that they could make it
appear that the MC rifle did the job and Oswald was guilty. If there
were no shells or clip it wouldn't take long for folks to catch on
that the rifle didn't do the deed.

> > It might be from some belt he had.  But the ammunition and clip should
>
> No, it wasn't. Lattimer proved that it was the shoulder strap for an Air
> Force holster.
>
> > have been tracked down, since it was easy to do, the MC rifle and ammo not
>
> Finding places which sell the ammo and clip was not difficult. Finding
> any store owner who would admit to selling them to Oswald was impossible.
>

And you intuited that how? They might be glad of the notoriety, or
the free advertising, since they would have done nothing wrong by
making the sale. Klein's wasn't hurt by selling the rifle.

> > being that common.  Why would Oswald throw away or hide the extra ammo, IF
> > he bought more than 4 cartridges?  He didn't really hide the rifle, just
>
> Stop asking the same stupid question 100 times. I already told you that
> he would need 15 rounds for practice shooting.
>

So you know that he even bothered to mess with the rifle after
getting his picture taken with it? You know that he practiced with
it and did nothing with the faulty scope before shooting at Walker and
JFK? When he encountered the sticky bolt, why didn't he remedy the
situation, he knew how to clean a rifle, even if he has no experience
firing a bolt action or sighting in a scope?

> > put it away. So no need to hide the ammo.  So where is it?  If successful
> > with his measly 4 bullets, he might want to move on to another politician.
>
> Ridiculous. You think killing Kennedy was just a practice round or a
> stepping stone?
>

Nope. I think Oswald wasn't anywhere near the the 6th floor when
the shots were fired, and someone else was pushing a 12 to 15 inch
'black pipe' out the window.

> > Of course, Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.  The clip and 4 bullets
> > doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Irrelevant if Oswald did not shoot at Kennedy.
> So you think Oswald would buy only 5 rounds to shoot at Walker?
> Were is he going to buy only 5 rounds? Get real or prove something for once.
>

I don't think Oswald bought the clip and ammo. I think that was
supplied by a conspirator who had access to as many gun parts as he
wanted. Simple.

[mainframetech]

You have to be kidding. You think Klein's bothered to set the scope
after mounting it badly? They were dumping a consignment of WW2 (or
older) war surplus rifles in terrible condition.

[mainframetech]

The silliness is in your limited view of things. Since, as I've said
many times, there were many shooters and many bullets flying around DP
that day. Most of them aimed at JFK. How do you suppose they got hit?

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <b42cfdc8-da00-46a8...@n13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

>
>On Jun 3, 8:22=A0pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:03:54 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>> > On Jun 1, 11:52=A0pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>
>> > > On Jun 1, 5:06=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:39:53 AM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
>>

>> > > > > On May 31, 11:17=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.goo=
>glegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > > > > mainframetech says...
>>
>> > > > > > >On May 30, 11:14=3DA0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission =
>...http://www=3D

>>
>> > > > > > >.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay
>>

>> > > > > > >> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... =
>Allen,
>>
>> > > > > > >> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier,=

> Robert
>>
>> > > > > > >> A.
>>
>> > > > > > >> Testimony, Vol.
>>
>> > > > > > >>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>>
>> > > > > > >> Page 394
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>>

>> > > > > > >> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-=

>made
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mr. Frazier.
>>

>> > > > > > >> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and=
> the basic
>>
>> > > > > > >> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And s=
>ince this
>>
>> > > > > > >> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred=

> to as a
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mauser for that reason.
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>>
>> > > > > > >> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
>>
>> > > > > > >> Mr. Frazier.
>>

>> > > > > > >> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth,=
> as if it
>>
>> > > > > > >> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how m=
>uch use
>>
>> > > > > > >> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first g=
>ot it, in
>>
>> > > > > > >> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition.=

> In other
>>
>> > > > > > >> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
>>

>> > > > > > > =A0 Thank you for backing me up. =A0As I said Frazier said th=

>e weapon was
>>
>> > > > > > >"worn and corroded".
>>

>> > > > > > Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly cap=
>able of
>>
>> > > > > > hitting JFK? =A0And once again you don't know if the scope was =
>defective
>>
>> > > > > > when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. =A0You also don't =
>know that he
>>
>> > > > > > was even using the scope. =A0You are barking up the wrong tree =
>here. =A0As far
>>
>> > > > > > as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Os=

>wald used
>>
>> > > > > > was incapable of making the shots that day.
>>

>> > > > > =A0 =A0There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any pers=
>on, if
>>
>> > > > > all factors were right. =A0Frazier hasn't said anything exception=

>al.
>>
>> > > > > Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
>>

>> > > > > gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and ov=
>er
>>
>> > > > > for him. =A0Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons tes=
>timony
>>
>> > > > > to the WC about the condition when they got it first? =A0 As to t=
>he
>>
>> > > > > defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with=
> the
>>
>> > > > > scope, not it being mishandled. =A0The scope was out of alignment=
> from a
>>
>> > > > > bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted=
> the
>>
>> > > > > scope for the buyer. =A0No one really cared about these old war s=
>urplus
>>
>> > > > > guns anyway. =A0At $19. it wasn't a bargain.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 =A0With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt t=
>hat would
>>
>> > > > > stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we c=
>an be
>>
>> > > > > very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fi=
>red
>>
>> > > > > from the 6th floor. =A0And iron sights aren't set for that distan=

>ce, nor
>>
>> > > > > are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.
>>

>> > > > > =A0 =A0We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition o=
>r a clip
>>
>> > > > > with the rifle either. =A0But then, he bought the rifle to impres=
>s the
>>
>> > > > > Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone. =A0He didn't need the cli=
>p and
>>
>> > > > > ammo. =A0Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove=
> Oswald
>>
>> > > > > bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops i=
>n
>>
>> > > > > Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammun=
>ition
>>
>> > > > > and clip. =A0And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo! =A0W=

>hy not a
>>
>> > > > > full clip?
>>

>> > > > > > You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you =
>might be
>>
>> > > > > > attracted to your theory. =A0But it don't wash.
>>
>> > > > > > Bill Clarke
>>
>> > > > > =A0I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and
>>
>> > > > > shotguns and pistols. =A0 Do you make guesses with no information
>>
>> > > > > often? =A0Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony? =A0=
>It's easy
>>
>> > > > > to find. =A0Of course, it's factual, and might not support your t=
>heory
>>
>> > > > > that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed=
>.
>>
>> > > > > Chris
>>
>> > > > Simmons was not FBI. He worked for the Army. His group received the=

> rifle
>>
>> > > > in March AFTER the FBI had tested it repeatedly.
>>

>> > > > The first round of FBI tests revealed that the rifle fired consiste=

>ntly
>>
>> > > > high and to the right when using the scope.
>>
>> > > > The second round of FBI tests revealed that it was still slightly
>>
>> > > > inaccurate--even after it had been sighted in.
>>

>> > > > It also revealed that it took a number of shots to stabilize the sc=

>ope
>>
>> > > > after an adjustment--which, since the first round of shots were
>>

>> > > > consistently high and to the right, suggested that the scope alignm=

>ent as
>>
>> > > > first tested was the scope alignment at the time of the shooting.
>>

>> > > > The rifle was then handed off to the Army, which was unable to repr=
>oduce
>>
>> > > > the shots attributed to Oswald, even after adding shims to bring th=
>e scope
>>
>> > > > into alignment.
>>
>> > > > The bit about someone in Dallas removing the shims is something Fra=
>zier
>>
>> > > > made up. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is tru=

>e.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > Frazier found that the scope as received needed no adjustment to hit
>>
>> > > without leading the moving target.
>>
>> > > Source: Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier - 3H, 411
>>
>> > > Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the
>>

>> > > elevation crosshair was defective at the time of the assassination, i=

>n
>>
>> > > the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this
>>
>> > > defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which
>>
>> > > needed to be given to the target?
>>
>> > > 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. As to how that would affect the lead - the gun,
>>
>> > > when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first
>>
>> > > targets, shot high and slightly to the right.
>>
>> > > If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation,
>>

>> > > relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessar=

>y
>>
>> > > for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike
>>
>> > > your intended target, because the object during the flight of the
>>

>> > > bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs ar=
>e
>>
>> > > 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.
>>
>> > > End of quotation.
>>
>> > > Herbert
>>

>> > =A0 And all this information would be used by Oswald or a shooter on th=
>e
>>
>> > 6th floor? =A0And compensating with guesswork while firing at a
>>
>> > obliquely moving target? =A0He'd be lucky he hit the street, much less

>>
>> > the limo.
>>
>> Well I often hear person of the CT persuasion talk about Oswald's bad

>> marksmanship by citing his missing General Walker or talking about how th=
>e
>> scope would have prevented an accurate shot. =A0I also think it is fair t=

>o
>> say that most CT arguments are based on generous amounts of speculation.
>> Well I would like to do a little LN-oriented speculating on the possible
>> interaction of these two phenomenon.
>>
> Whoa! Oswald's level of marksmanship was testified to by his
>marine buddy, Nelson Delgado, who said he got 'Maggie's Drawers'
>often, which means he missed the whole target. His lousy skill wasn't
>speculation.

Dr. John Lattimir owns Oswald's Marine score cards. Here is what he has
to say;

"It must be remembered that his Marine Corps rifle record, which indicated
only modest scores, only a few points above the minimum requirement for
sharpshooter, included firing the rifle in the standing position with
nothing on which to rest the heavy gun. This so-called offhand position
is much more difficult than the sitting position, where the gun can be
rested by supporting the arms on the seated person's legs, much as Oswald
did at Dallas".

"His (Oswald) sitting position scores in the Marine Corps were excellent,
just as they were at Dallas."

>> Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
>> the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by

>> some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63. =A0OK. =A0Fair en=
>ough.
>> Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted i=
>n
>> his miss with General Walker. =A0Since many CT's (if they believe he ever
>> owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, wh=
>y
>> would he know about the problem until this moment? =A0Indeed, its tendanc=
>y
>> to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account fo=

>r
>> the bullet striking the window frame.
>>
> Whoops! Who agreed that the shot at Walker was made by Oswald?

Dr. Lattimer again.

"Neutron activation test made by consultants for the U.S. House of
Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 showed by
analysis that it matched Oswald's other Carcano bullets."

There seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence tying Oswald to
the Carcano and a good deal of evidence tying the Carcano to the bullets
that hit Kennedy and the Governor and fired at Walker. How much more do
yu need?

Bill Clarke

[BT George]

Agreed. Nerves alone, no doubt, contributed to the misses. Also, as you
and the WC testimony indicates, the scope defect (if it existed at all
pre-assassination) would have likely been an overall benefit given the
other factors involved in the Kennedy assassination.

[BT George]

Perhaps. But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

Once again you can't answer my questions.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't know that they mounted it badly. It could have been in perfect
condition when they shipped it.

[Anthony Marsh]

False logic. Just because we can't prove where he bought something does
not mean that we can claim he never bought it. How about the shirt he was
wearing that day? Prove where he bought it and how much he paid for it? By
your logic if you can't that means he wasn't wearing a shirt that day.

>>> It might be from some belt he had. But the ammunition and clip should
>>
>> No, it wasn't. Lattimer proved that it was the shoulder strap for an Air
>> Force holster.
>>
>>> have been tracked down, since it was easy to do, the MC rifle and ammo not
>>
>> Finding places which sell the ammo and clip was not difficult. Finding
>> any store owner who would admit to selling them to Oswald was impossible.
>>
> And you intuited that how? They might be glad of the notoriety, or
> the free advertising, since they would have done nothing wrong by
> making the sale. Klein's wasn't hurt by selling the rifle.
>

Mason wouldn't admit to selling the ammo to Oswald. There weren't
hundreds of other sources.
Rifles don't kill people, bullets kill people.

>>> being that common. Why would Oswald throw away or hide the extra ammo, IF
>>> he bought more than 4 cartridges? He didn't really hide the rifle, just
>>
>> Stop asking the same stupid question 100 times. I already told you that
>> he would need 15 rounds for practice shooting.
>>
> So you know that he even bothered to mess with the rifle after
> getting his picture taken with it? You know that he practiced with
> it and did nothing with the faulty scope before shooting at Walker and
> JFK? When he encountered the sticky bolt, why didn't he remedy the

He did dry practicing and probably some live practicing.
He didn't know anything about scopes.

> situation, he knew how to clean a rifle, even if he has no experience
> firing a bolt action or sighting in a scope?
>
>>> put it away. So no need to hide the ammo. So where is it? If successful
>>> with his measly 4 bullets, he might want to move on to another politician.
>>
>> Ridiculous. You think killing Kennedy was just a practice round or a
>> stepping stone?
>>
> Nope. I think Oswald wasn't anywhere near the the 6th floor when
> the shots were fired, and someone else was pushing a 12 to 15 inch
> 'black pipe' out the window.
>

So you think it was just a pipe and not a rifle?
The acoustical evidence proves that Oswald's rifle was fired three times
from the sniper's nest.

[BT George]

That is Bill Clarke's post not mine. However, I do not think the old
"Maggie's Drawers'" cannard is true and the fact that LHO did qualify as a
Marine "Sharpshooter" (regardless of his later lower "Marksman" showing)
demonstrates to any person approaching the subject objectively, that
Oswald shooting ablitity was not inherently bad. You cannot take someone's
worse performance and arbitrarily decide that is there innate ability when
you have contraty evidence that they are capable of better.

>
> > Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
>
> > the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by
>
> > some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63.  OK.  Fair enough.
>
> > Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted in
>
> > his miss with General Walker.  Since many CT's (if they believe he ever
>
> > owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, why
>
> > would he know about the problem until this moment?  Indeed, its tendancy
>
> > to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account for
>
> > the bullet striking the window frame.
>
> >
>
> Whoops! Who agreed that the shot at Walker was made by Oswald? It
>
> may have been useful to his purpose of being acceptable to the
>
> revolutionaries, but a guy informing to an agency kills a senior
>
> conservative? Naah. It was useful to Walker too. The story of the
>
> church parking lot may have applied:
>
> http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/witness.htm
>
>

Some of your CT brethren do agree that Oswald took a shot at Walker and I
have heard them use his miss as further proof he couldn't hit the broad
side of a barn. Though nerves and simple failure to see the window frame
(I recall reading somewhere that Walker suggested the shooter probably
didn't see it.) could explain the miss, I offer the above speculative
scenario as yet another possible explanation.

>
> > Now to build on the above speculation, we can assume that LHO realized
>
> > that when you have a target sighted between the crosshairs and then miss,
>
> > the most likely reason is a scope misalignment of some kind.  Now alerted
>
> > to the problem he could take alternate action in the future:
>
> >
>
> Of course you're also speculating that he practiced at least once,
>
> and that after finding that he missed, had a way of knowing how to
>
> adjust the scope, which he hadn't used in the marines. He hasn't used
>
> a bolt action rifle before either.
>
>
>
> > 1) If he did practice with some live rounds afterward as many LNs believe
>
> > likely, he might have had sufficient practice to be confident he knew how
>
> > to compensate in the future.
>
> >
>
> 'Might' this and 'might' that. Compensating by guesswork isn't
>
> easy. His scope was a simple crosshairs, not a graduated sniper scope
>
> like this:
>
> http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/58358/58358,1265022913,1/stock-vector-illustration-of-a-hunting-sight-with-target-lines-and-guide-to-aim-45703711.jpg
>
>
>
> When you have the graduations marked, you can determine how many
>
> 'notches' to right or left, high or low in your aiming to compensate
>
> for a faulty scope. Without it, you're guessing...not too easy.
>

> It doesn't have to be easy to be possible. And "might" this and "might" that is the stuff most CT beliefs are made of, so how can anyone begrudge a little LN-oriented speculation from time-to-time?

>
> > 2) If he didn't fire any live rounds (but only dry fired) then perhaps the
>
> > scope misalignment explains some other things about the most likely LN
>
> > assassinatin scenario.  Even without such practice, if he indeed did have
>
> > Edwin Walker lined up in those cross hairs on his earlier miss, then Lee
>
> > had to have known that a scope issue was a likely explanation.  Enter the
>
> > 1st missed shot at or around Z160 that most LNers now believe happened.
>
> >
>
> Why do you assume Oswald was that knowledgeable that a miss (which
>
> he often experienced in the marines) would tell him that the scope was
>
> off, and exactly how to compensate for it? Simply knowing "he had a
>
> scope issue" doesn't tell him if he's shooting high, low, left, right,
>
> and by how much for later compensation. The fix the gunsmith made to
>
> the scope was to shim up one part of the mount. The odds are tiny
>
> that the scope problem was other than a badly mounted scope, and
>
> Klein's put the scope on.
>
>
>

As I understand it, the part of the window frame Oswald hit was above the
level of Walker's head. How clairvoyant would Oswald have had to be to
notice that is what happened once the bullet struck the frame?

Likewise, unless you somehow believe Oswald drilled the pavement to the
right of the Limo (i.e. he fired way too low despite the scope's tendancy
to cause high shots) then any such miss had to be high and Oswald almost
certainly would have realized it too. Why? Because it should have been
obvious to him that no one was struck and he would have almost certainly
have heard (if not actually seen) the richochet that such a nearby
pavement miss would have generated.

Also, once one realized his misses are high it should take no special
expertise to know you had better try aiming lower than "on target" per the
scope or that you had better give the iron sites a try.

>

> > If indeed scope mounting problems accounted for the Walker miss and LHO
>
> > now had JFK lined up in those same crosshairs, what is the likely outcome
>
> > if he has had no prior live practice to confirm and compensate for said
>
> > misalignment?  You got, he's probably going to miss as most LNers assert
>
> > he did do.  Moreover, he would now have any prior suspicions he had about
>
> > the scope confirmed.  With the extra split second to realize what the
>
> > problem must with now two apparently "high" misses he would now be in a
>
> > MUCH better position to adjust on the fly.
>
> >
>
> So now he needs only a 'split second' to figure where his bullet hit
>
> and do the calculation for how much guesswork to use looking into his
>
> scope, and is such a fine marksman that he guesses right on 2
>
> successful shots. Naah.
>

I have heard that there is some indication that Oswald shot better in
rapid fire than he did when taking his sweet time to aim. In fact, some
people have better instincts than they do skills. Having missed with his
first "prepared" shot he was forced to adjust on the fly and it is
possible this actually made him a better shooter when it counted most.

At any rate, don't discount the fact that he could have just plain gotten
lucky on 11-22-63. When I was a kid I had a BB gun that I couldn't hit
the broad side of barn with, but one day I just raised it up without
really even aiming and managed to pick off a small lizard from a lawn
chair leg from several paces away. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than
good.

> > Such adjustment could have taken the form of his instintively lowering his
>
> > aim and to achieve a "near" head hit around Z223-224 (I note the wound was
>
> > slightly to the right of JFK's neck/upper back--the other tendancy of the
>
> > misaligned scope.) and then finally make a better adjusment for the
>
> > gruesome head hit at Z313.  (Again noting that the entry was slightly to
>
> > the right of the midline of JFK's head.)  Alternatively, he may simply
>
> > have adjusted on the fly to use the iron sites.
>
> >
>
> Now he's using his instinct and not his mental abilities to judge
>
> the place in his scope to apply guesswork to hit the target. And the
>
> capability to "on-the-fly" change to a new mode of shooting, while
>
> the scope is still mounted, getting in the way. Doable, but some
>
> difficulty. And we shouldn't forget the double pull trigger! You
>
> pulled it back easily to a point that stopped the trigger, then pulled
>
> harder and it fired. Very irritating when trying to fire rapidly.
>

> See comments above.

>
> > A generous amount of speculation?  You betcha!  However, I would assert
>
> > the above speculative scenario is more reasonable than most CT-oriented
>
> > theories I've heard over time.
>
>
>
> Then you haven't heard the wacky theories put out by the WC.
>
> First there was the 'lone nut' theory, then the Single Bullet theory.
>
>

And then there were multi-gunman Patsy Plots that somehow hoped to be
framed LHO as a lone gunman, gunmen hiding in sewers, "deadly" umbrellas,
an army of Oswald imposters roaming the countryside, limo drivers turned
assassin, signifcant alterations to JFK's body within the (perhaps) 5-15
minutes it was unguarded on the way to Bethesda from Parkland,
"synchronized" shots from the back and front to JFK's head, assassins
hiding in "artificial" trees etc., etc., etc. ...Do you really wanna keep
strolling down that path?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2013 9:49 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <51ad4871$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 6/3/2013 8:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also
>>> need to be mentioned.......
>>>
>>> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
>>> the weapon.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Silly. Oswald had no clue about rifles. In the Marine he used an M-1
>> which has a very flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high curved
>> trajectory. Oswald did not understand that.
>
>
> Speaking of silly;
>
> The M-1 Garand shooting a 152 grain FMJ , B.C. 0.398 at 2,800 fps and sighted in
> for a 200 yard zero has a +1.9 inch over the line of sight at midrange. At 25
> yards it is -0.2 under the line of sight. At 50 yards it is +0.8 over the line
> of sight.
>
> The Mannlicher Carcano Oswald used had an average velocity of 2,165 fps firing a
> 160 grain bullet with a B.C. of 0.275 and sighted in for 200 yards. At midrange
> it was 4.2 inches over line of sight, at 25 yards it was 0.7 inches above line
> of sight and at 50 yards it was 2.4 over the line of sight.
>
> At 25 yards this is a difference of 0.9 inches.
> At 50 yards this is a difference of 1.6 inches.
> At midrange (100 yards) this a difference of 2.3 inches.
>

Show us how you got your numbers. You said 200 yards. That means using the
scope. The iron sights are set for 200 meters. So you are comparing a
rifle with a reputation for a very flat trajectory using the iron sights
to a rifle with a reputation for a very high curved trajectory using the
scope.

> Now for god?s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches and

> once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and often
> repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!
>

So if you miss the bullseye by 2.3" that is insignificant? A miss by 2.3"
can be the difference between life and death. When a SWAT sniper is
shooting the gun out of a criminal's hand, is the 2.3" miss insignificant?
When the SEALS are shooing through a tiny portal is a 2.3" inch miss
insignificant?

[mainframetech]

On Jun 4, 4:31 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <b42cfdc8-da00-46a8-9e5f-bd08db7b5...@n13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

I have no idea who wanted Oswald to pass the course and wanted him to
score well, but his second go was worse than the first, and I think the
word of his buddy will trump any scorecard that can be messed with.
Here's the buddy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

> >> Let's suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, the CT assertion that
> >> the scope mount from Klien's was the issue and not damage caused later by
> >> some action of Lee Oswald either on or before 11-22-63. =A0OK. =A0Fair en=
> >ough.
> >> Then it is equally fair to assume that this scope misalignment resulted i=
> >n
> >> his miss with General Walker. =A0Since many CT's (if they believe he ever
> >> owned the MC) assume Lee Oswald rarely if ever ever practiced with it, wh=
> >y
> >> would he know about the problem until this moment? =A0Indeed, its tendanc=
> >y
> >> to cause a high shot (as well as to the right) could very well account fo=
> >r
> >> the bullet striking the window frame.
>
> >  Whoops!  Who agreed that the shot at Walker was made by Oswald?
>
> Dr. Lattimer again.
>
> "Neutron activation test made by consultants for the U.S. House of
> Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 showed by
> analysis that it matched Oswald's other Carcano bullets."
>
> There seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence tying Oswald to
> the Carcano and a good deal of evidence tying the Carcano to the bullets
> that hit Kennedy and the Governor and fired at Walker.  How much more do
> yu need?
>
> Bill Clarke

Apparently you're not familiar with newer information on the NAA test.
Guinn's work and his testimony were found to be incorrect. Two fellows
named Randich and Grant did some work that changed things radically, and
now the FBI decided they would no longer use the NAA test, since the
results weren't dependable. Here's some info on it, including the
breakdown of Guinn's testimony:

http://www.ctka.net/death_of_naa.html

Note that I have no problem with tying Oswald to the MC rifle. I just
don't think he was the one firing it at Walker or out of a window on the
6th floor at the limo. And now that the NAA test has been dealt with, we
can get on with finding the real killers...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2013 11:41 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 6/3/13 10:23 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 9:40 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Give us a citation on that Anthony.
>>>
>>
>> The Washington Post, Friday December 22, 1978:
>>
>> It seemed to have stopped in the presidential limousine
>>
>
> Yes, that's what it says "one source" said.
>

One source? Actually two people, W&A.
Who else would even know. They had the data.

> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg
>
> But show us where it says it hit JFK.

Phony challenge. I didn't claim that they said it hit JFK.
When you lose an argument always change the claim.

> Isn't that what you were implying?

Who, me?

>
> And:
> "Another source said it would be more accurate"----
> got it?
> --"to say that it apparently landed 'in the area of the presidential
> limousine, plus or minus 10 feet."
>

Mathematically conservative. Show me what was plus or minus 10 to stop a
bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2013 11:35 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 6/3/13 8:18 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 5:13 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> Anthony,
>>>
>>>>> The 'insurance shot' that by according to your vaunted HSCA hit
>>>>> nothing
>>>>> and no one in Dealy Plaza. So the highly trained assassin couldn't
>>>>> even
>>>>> hit the limo or anything else in Dealy Plaza, but the nobody ex-Marine
>>>>> firing a crappy rifle could hit 1 shot dead on with another near miss.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. The insurance shot hit JFK's head.
>>>
>>> Your make believe sniper on the knoll missed the make believe insurance
>>> shot based on the make believe acoustic evidence. That's what being
>>> a CT
>>> is all about, make believe nonsense. A left-wing true believer shot
>>> President Kennedy because he was picking on Cuba. No amount of pretend
>>> "evidence" and wishful thinking will change that reality.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The two acoustical scientists who analyzed that shot said it hit.
>>
>>
>
> No, they did not.
> Well, surely the bullet hit *something*, somewhere.

So you caved already and admitted that the grassy knoll shot was real and
stopped in the limo. Now we are getting somewhere and I hope the cover-up
fires you for caving. Now SHOW me what it hit to make the bullet stop.

> But I do think you mean to imply that they said it hit JFK, and that's
> just not true, not by a long shot.
>

I stated as a fact that the bullet hit JFK's forehead. You issued another
one of your phony challenges and said that I couldn't prove that anyone
said the bullet stopped. So I quoted and uploaded an article that you knew
nothing about because you are not in the news business.

> The (anonymous) sources merely said, according to the Boston Herald
> article by conspiracy believer George Lardner, that this (fictitious)
> shot would have landed in or *near* the *limousine*.
>

The Boston Herald got the story from the Washington Post. Because you are
not in the news business you try to shoot the messenger and libel George
Lardner by calling him a conspiracy believer. Typical sleazy underhanded
tactics of the WC defenders and the CIA.

The anonymous sources are Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy who were hired
by the HSCA to analyze the grassy knoll shot. They were the only ones who
had that data.

> That's a big difference.
> And these are unnamed sources, and not the official report.
> .

This was after they had submitted their study and the HSCA was shutting
down.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2013 11:34 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> You quote the Warren Report, but you can't read and comprehend.
>

Try reading it some time.

[claviger]

On Jun 4, 8:54 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Well I often hear person of the CT persuasion talk about Oswald's bad
> > marksmanship by citing his missing General Walker or talking about how the
> > scope would have prevented an accurate shot.  I also think it is fair to
> > say that most CT arguments are based on generous amounts of speculation.
> > Well I would like to do a little LN-oriented speculating on the possible
> > interaction of these two phenomenon.
>
>    Whoa!  Oswald's level of marksmanship was testified to by his
> marine buddy, Nelson Delgado, who said he got 'Maggie's Drawers'
> often, which means he missed the whole target.  His lousy skill wasn't
> speculation.

Yes it was. Delgado only knew LHO at his last duty station. By then LHO
had already earned a Sharpshooter badge with a score of 212 in 1956 and by
1959 was disgruntled with the Marine Corp after a couple of disciplinary
actions by court martial. LHO had a short-timer's attitude and was
working on an early out. He eventually received a 45 day early discharge
based on a bogus hardship claim. As for shooting ability Delgado
insinuates he was a much better shooter than LHO. In the "Quals" taken at
El Toro in 1959 Delgado scored 192 beating "Ozzie" by only 1 point.

Delgado and LHO became friends because they both admired Castro and the
Cuban revolution. They talked about joining Castro's army and helping to
overthrow other governments in the Caribbean supported by US foreign
policy. This all sounded like an exciting adventure to them at the time.
LHO was also learning Spanish during his stay at El Toro. Of the two would
be revolutionaries, only LHO put his thoughts into action by assassinating
the most high profile capitalist leader in the world who was exerting
political pressure on the Castro revolutionary government. While Delgado
eventually lost interest, LHO was obviously dead serious about his
revolutionary fervor.

[claviger]

On Jun 4, 8:56 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 8:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
> > to be mentioned.......
>
> > Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
> > the weapon.
>
>    If he never used it, and never practiced with it, how would he be
> familiar with it?

His wife testified he practiced with the rifle at the house in NO and the
apartment in Dallas so often it became annoying. He also took it to a
place on the Trinity River bottoms for live firing practice. Witnesses at
a local firing range swore it was LHO they saw and he was a good shot.
Of the original 20 rounds in the box of cartridges LHO only had 4 left the
day he murdered President Kennedy.

> > 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
> > Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.
>
>   The sticky bolt, double trigger pull and the badly misaligned scope
> might take away those seconds.

The first ballistics expert to examine the rifle said:

"The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times."

So all the dry firing practice by LHO that bothered Marina so much had the
desired effect, a smoother bolt action. After firing the rifle 60 times
the FBI turned it over to the US Army experts to evaluate. The double
trigger pull might cause an amateur sniper to lose lead on a moving
target, but the scope defect actually compensated for this mistake. On
his worst Qual LHO still scored Marksman. That is enough ability to hit a
slow moving target at close range, with or without a scope.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's why there was another guy there to protect his flank. Snipers are
often sent out in teams of two, the shooter and the spotter. Bowers saw
two men behind the fence.

So what if there were spectators in front of him? What are they going to
do, jump the fence and tackle him? You are living in a fantasy world.
There were three guys less than 10 feet away from the sniper's nest and
they didn't do anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, was compatible with. Lattimer was not a scientist.

> There seems to me that there is a good deal of evidence tying Oswald to
> the Carcano and a good deal of evidence tying the Carcano to the bullets
> that hit Kennedy and the Governor and fired at Walker. How much more do
> yu need?
>

There should be if they wanted to frame him. Why do you think Dreyfus
was picked as the patsy rather than a priest? Or Barboza rather than the
mayor?
Oswald was a known Castro supporter, not some Sunday school teacher.

> Bill Clarke
>

[claviger]

BT,

> Perhaps.  But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
> debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
> have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
> position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
> feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.

You make a very good point about the GK. Only a fool or a drunk would
choose this open position to fire at the motorcade. Lee Bowers saw no
people behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Neither did Marilyn
Sitzman. Not one verified witness on the GK claimed a shot came from up
there.

Only goofy Gordon Arnold claims two shots were fired from behind his
position and the sniper came out of hiding to steal his camera after
shooting the President of the United States. No witness saw this
confrontation nor heard any shots from where Arnold claimed. This self
proclaimed "witness" can't even prove he was in Dealey Plaza that day.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/4/13 10:45 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/3/2013 11:41 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 6/3/13 10:23 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 6/3/2013 9:40 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> Give us a citation on that Anthony.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Washington Post, Friday December 22, 1978:
>>>
>>> It seemed to have stopped in the presidential limousine
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's what it says "one source" said.
>>
>
> One source? Actually two people, W&A.

The reporter didn't say it was them. I was quoting the reporter's words,
verbaim. "One source."
And then there was another source who offered a "more accurate" judgment.

> Who else would even know. They had the data.
>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg
>>
>> But show us where it says it hit JFK.
>
> Phony challenge. I didn't claim that they said it hit JFK.
> When you lose an argument always change the claim.
>

What a funny dance you do, Marsh. A really funky chicken! Why don't you
stand by your own words for a change?

Earlier in this thread, John F. said, "Your make believe sniper on the

knoll missed the make believe insurance shot based on the make believe

acoustic evidence...."

And you replied: "Wrong. The two acoustical scientists who analyzed that
shot said it hit."

So you were tried to use what the "two acoustical scientists who analyzed
that shot said" to bolster your claim that a shot from the grassy knoll
shot was the "insurance shot" that *didn't* miss.

Later, again to John F., you paraphrased what the scientists said--or at
least were reported by some anonymous sources to be about to say--as
merely that the bullet hit "in the...limousine." (Though you still didn't
mention the "more accurate" estimation of ten feet in either direction.)
But this doesn't support your earlier claim that the "insurance shot" was
the one that killed JFK.

So now will you admit that?

>> Isn't that what you were implying?
>
> Who, me?
>

Hilarious!

>>
>> And:
>> "Another source said it would be more accurate"----
>> got it?
>> --"to say that it apparently landed 'in the area of the presidential
>> limousine, plus or minus 10 feet."
>>
>
> Mathematically conservative. Show me what was plus or minus 10 to stop a
> bullet.
>

Irrelevant.
Something would have eventually stopped it. The issue was the supposed
bullet's possible trajectories.


/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Now, I meant only that a hypothetical bullet would have hypothetically
landed somewhere and hit something. Sorry if my wording confused you.

> Now we are getting somewhere and I hope the
> cover-up fires you for caving. Now SHOW me what it hit to make the
> bullet stop.
>
>> But I do think you mean to imply that they said it hit JFK, and that's
>> just not true, not by a long shot.
>>
>
> I stated as a fact that the bullet hit JFK's forehead.

Yes, but that the last thing that will make something true, you merely
stating it as a fact.

> You issued
> another one of your phony challenges and said that I couldn't prove that
> anyone said the bullet stopped.

Nonsense.
I said, and am saying, that you are misrepresenting what these
*anonymous* sources speaking about W&A's findings said. They did not say
that that bullet hit JFK in the forehead or anywhere else, they said
that it would have landed in or *within ten feet* of the limousine.
Big difference.

> So I quoted and uploaded an article that
> you knew nothing about because you are not in the news business.

Excuse me?
I'm more involved in the journo biz than you will ever be.
(The CIA set me up well. Just kidding!)

We spoke about that Lardner report before, you know.

>
>> The (anonymous) sources merely said, according to the Boston Herald
>> article by conspiracy believer George Lardner, that this (fictitious)
>> shot would have landed in or *near* the *limousine*.
>>
>
>
> The Boston Herald got the story from the Washington Post.

Yes, and I linked to that too. From your site, thanks!

> Because you
> are not in the news business you try to shoot the messenger and libel
> George Lardner by calling him a conspiracy believer. Typical sleazy
> underhanded tactics of the WC defenders and the CIA.
>

I think it's always useful background to know the reporter's slant on
any topic.
That's just journalistic due diligence.

> The anonymous sources are Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy who were
> hired by the HSCA to analyze the grassy knoll shot. They were the only
> ones who had that data.
>

Did George Lardner tell you that?
There's no way for you to know who the anonymous sources were, and no
reason to think they kept their data or the gist of their findings top
secret.
But so what if it was W&A.
They still didn't say *anything* like what you claim.

Within ten feet of the limousine is *not* smack-dab in the president's
forehead.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2013 11:16 PM, claviger wrote:
> BT,
>
>> Perhaps. But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
>> debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
>> have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
>> position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
>> feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.
>
> You make a very good point about the GK. Only a fool or a drunk would
> choose this open position to fire at the motorcade. Lee Bowers saw no
> people behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Neither did Marilyn
> Sitzman. Not one verified witness on the GK claimed a shot came from up
> there.
>

Like in the middle of St. Peter's Square?
Mary Woodward said it would be the perfect location for a sniper.
Considering that one saw him shooting I would call it successful.
You know nothing about assassinations.

> Only goofy Gordon Arnold claims two shots were fired from behind his
> position and the sniper came out of hiding to steal his camera after
> shooting the President of the United States. No witness saw this
> confrontation nor heard any shots from where Arnold claimed. This self
> proclaimed "witness" can't even prove he was in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
>

Arnold was never there. Why would you bring him up?

>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2013 10:49 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:56 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 8:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
>>> to be mentioned.......
>>
>>> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
>>> the weapon.
>>
>> If he never used it, and never practiced with it, how would he be
>> familiar with it?
>
> His wife testified he practiced with the rifle at the house in NO and the
> apartment in Dallas so often it became annoying. He also took it to a
> place on the Trinity River bottoms for live firing practice. Witnesses at
> a local firing range swore it was LHO they saw and he was a good shot.
> Of the original 20 rounds in the box of cartridges LHO only had 4 left the
> day he murdered President Kennedy.
>

You were ok until you mentioned that phony Sports Drome story.

>>> 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
>>> Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.
>>
>> The sticky bolt, double trigger pull and the badly misaligned scope
>> might take away those seconds.
>
> The first ballistics expert to examine the rifle said:
>
> "The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times."
>
> So all the dry firing practice by LHO that bothered Marina so much had the
> desired effect, a smoother bolt action. After firing the rifle 60 times
> the FBI turned it over to the US Army experts to evaluate. The double
> trigger pull might cause an amateur sniper to lose lead on a moving
> target, but the scope defect actually compensated for this mistake. On
> his worst Qual LHO still scored Marksman. That is enough ability to hit a
> slow moving target at close range, with or without a scope.
>

The Marines did not train on moving targets. Apples and oranges.

>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51ae61f8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 6/4/2013 9:49 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <51ad4871$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 6/3/2013 8:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also
>>>> need to be mentioned.......
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
>>>> the weapon.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Silly. Oswald had no clue about rifles. In the Marine he used an M-1
>>> which has a very flat trajectory. The Carcano has a very high curved
>>> trajectory. Oswald did not understand that.
>>
>>
>> Speaking of silly;
>>
>> The M-1 Garand shooting a 152 grain FMJ , B.C. 0.398 at 2,800 fps and
>> sighted in for a 200 yard zero has a +1.9 inch over the line of sight at
>> midrange. At 25 yards it is -0.2 under the line of sight. At 50 yards it
>> is +0.8 over the line of sight.
>>
>> The Mannlicher Carcano Oswald used had an average velocity of 2,165 fps
>> firing a 160 grain bullet with a B.C. of 0.275 and sighted in for 200
>> yards. At midrange it was 4.2 inches over line of sight, at 25 yards it was
>> 0.7 inches above line of sight and at 50 yards it was 2.4 over the line of
>> sight.

>> At 25 yards this is a difference of 0.9 inches.
>> At 50 yards this is a difference of 1.6 inches.
>> At midrange (100 yards) this a difference of 2.3 inches.
>>
>
>Show us how you got your numbers.

Sorry Marsh. I thought when you saw the reference to the Hornady
Ballistics Calculator you could make the connection. All the data needed
is listed above. You can even use the metric system if you prefer.

> You said 200 yards. That means using the scope.

Not if you have had military training and understand combat zero. You
haven't and you don't.

> The iron sights are set for 200 meters. So you are comparing a
>rifle with a reputation for a very flat trajectory using the iron sights
>to a rifle with a reputation for a very high curved trajectory using the
>scope.

You really don't understand this do you? In the calculator I could plug
in a 200 yard zero for both rifles. So what you have just said is so much
crap, as usual. Gees Marsh, the calculator doesn't even let you plug in
if a scope or iron sights were used. You know why? It doesn't make a
damn when both have a 200 yard zero.

You missed the point. Again. What I pointed out Marsh is that the
Carcano does NOT have a very high curved trajectory. It only gives us 2.3
inches at mid-range to one of the flattest shooting rounds made. Not
great but certainly not a "very high curved trajectory". You would have
us believe that the Carcano shoots a sloppy trajectory as shown in
Whelan's article but that crap has left the building.

>> Now for god?s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches
>> and once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and
>> often repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!
>>
>
>So if you miss the bullseye by 2.3" that is insignificant? A miss by 2.3"
>can be the difference between life and death. When a SWAT sniper is
>shooting the gun out of a criminal's hand, is the 2.3" miss insignificant?
>When the SEALS are shooing through a tiny portal is a 2.3" inch miss
>insignificant?
>
>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

Nice try Marsh but we were not discussing accuracy. We were discussing
trajectory and while 2.3 inches is of some significant in this case it is
insignificant to say the Carcano has a, "very high curved trajectory" as
you've claimed for so long.

As for accuracy you are now comparing apples to oranges. If a sniper or
SEAL was 2.3 inches off that would be very bad. But they have cutting
edge rifles and optics with high grade ammo and they practice a LOT. No
doubt you could cover their 3 shot group with a dime.

On the other hand if you are shooting a worn and ragged old surplus rifle
with poor sights and it shoots a 6 inch group to begin with then 2.3
inches doesn't mean so much. About as good as can be hoped for.

Bill Clarke

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > His wife testified he practiced with the rifle at the house in NO and the
> > apartment in Dallas so often it became annoying.  He also took it to a
> > place on the Trinity River bottoms for live firing practice. Witnesses at
> > a local firing range swore it was LHO they saw and he was a good shot.
> > Of the original 20 rounds in the box of cartridges LHO only had 4 left the
> > day he murdered President Kennedy.
>
> You were ok until you mentioned that phony Sports Drome story.

Why do you think it phony? The witnesses were convinced it was LHO.
Do you think the LHO lookalike was who they saw? Evidently people
doing business with Ruby mistook Craford for LHO.

> > So all the dry firing practice by LHO that bothered Marina so much had the
> > desired effect, a smoother bolt action.  After firing the rifle 60 times
> > the FBI turned it over to the US Army experts to evaluate.  The double
> > trigger pull might cause an amateur sniper to lose lead on a moving
> > target, but the scope defect actually compensated for this mistake.  On
> > his worst Qual LHO still scored Marksman.  That is enough ability to hit a
> > slow moving target at close range, with or without a scope.
>
> The Marines did not train on moving targets. Apples and oranges.

So Marines can't hit moving targets?

[Anthony Marsh]

I have used it several times. I know well that you have to plug the
numbers into and you make up phony numbers.

>
>> You said 200 yards. That means using the scope.
>
> Not if you have had military training and understand combat zero. You
> haven't and you don't.
>
>> The iron sights are set for 200 meters. So you are comparing a
>> rifle with a reputation for a very flat trajectory using the iron sights
>> to a rifle with a reputation for a very high curved trajectory using the
>> scope.
>
> You really don't understand this do you? In the calculator I could plug
> in a 200 yard zero for both rifles. So what you have just said is so much
> crap, as usual. Gees Marsh, the calculator doesn't even let you plug in
> if a scope or iron sights were used. You know why? It doesn't make a
> damn when both have a 200 yard zero.
>

It certainly does have a variable of height of sight over barrel. That's
how you come up with negative elevations at short distances.

> You missed the point. Again. What I pointed out Marsh is that the
> Carcano does NOT have a very high curved trajectory. It only gives us 2.3
> inches at mid-range to one of the flattest shooting rounds made. Not
> great but certainly not a "very high curved trajectory". You would have
> us believe that the Carcano shoots a sloppy trajectory as shown in
> Whelan's article but that crap has left the building.
>

I'd rather listen to Dave Emary who is the real expert on the Carcano.

>
>>> Now for god?s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches
>>> and once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and
>>> often repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!
>>>
>>
>> So if you miss the bullseye by 2.3" that is insignificant? A miss by 2.3"
>> can be the difference between life and death. When a SWAT sniper is
>> shooting the gun out of a criminal's hand, is the 2.3" miss insignificant?
>> When the SEALS are shooing through a tiny portal is a 2.3" inch miss
>> insignificant?
>>
>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>
> Nice try Marsh but we were not discussing accuracy. We were discussing
> trajectory and while 2.3 inches is of some significant in this case it is
> insignificant to say the Carcano has a, "very high curved trajectory" as
> you've claimed for so long.
>

The calculator shows it has a very high curved trajectory.

> As for accuracy you are now comparing apples to oranges. If a sniper or
> SEAL was 2.3 inches off that would be very bad. But they have cutting
> edge rifles and optics with high grade ammo and they practice a LOT. No
> doubt you could cover their 3 shot group with a dime.
>

Nice dodge. I presented a hypothetical. IF their shots were 2.3 inches
high would that be significant? You are good at avoiding questions.

> On the other hand if you are shooting a worn and ragged old surplus rifle
> with poor sights and it shoots a 6 inch group to begin with then 2.3
> inches doesn't mean so much. About as good as can be hoped for.
>

Are you claiming that anyone shot a 6 inch group with Oswald's rifle?
At what distance? 2 feet?

> Bill Clarke
>

[claviger]

On Jun 4, 11:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 11:16 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > BT,
>
> >> Perhaps.  But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
> >> debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
> >> have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
> >> position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
> >> feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.
>
> > You make a very good point about the GK.  Only a fool or a drunk would
> > choose this open position to fire at the motorcade.  Lee Bowers saw no
> > people behind the fence at the time of the shooting.  Neither did Marilyn
> > Sitzman.  Not one verified witness on the GK claimed a shot came from up
> > there.
>
> Like in the middle of St. Peter's Square?
> Mary Woodward said it would be the perfect location for a sniper.
> Considering that one saw him shooting I would call it successful.
> You know nothing about assassinations.

Is Mary Woodward an expert on snipers? It would be a good place for a
crazy person to shoot the President, but not a pro who wants to make a
clean getaway. The only possible sniper story that makes any sense is
where a sniper crawled up the large storm drain from the Trinity
River, lifted the heavy metal cover, loosened a board by removing the
bottom nails so it swiveled left and right, fired a shot with only his
head and shoulders above ground, then dropped down and pulled the
cover back over in place, casually walked away in the large storm pipe
and kept to the bottom banks of the river. Bowers and Sitzman could
not see this kind of activity and the sound would come from the
direction of Bowers' first impression. Only problem is this location
doesn't fit your theory. The trajectory is probably too flat to clear
the windshield.

> > Only goofy Gordon Arnold claims two shots were fired from behind his
> > position and the sniper came out of hiding to steal his camera after
> > shooting the President of the United States.  No witness saw this
> > confrontation nor heard any shots from where Arnold claimed.  This self
> > proclaimed "witness" can't even prove he was in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
> Arnold was never there. Why would you bring him up?

Good point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Read for comprehension. Oswald was not trained on moving targets.
Snipers are.

[mainframetech]

Which ones are you complaining about this time? If you mean the
questions of how did JFK and Connally get shot in the back, I answered
those in an earlier post. There were a lot of bullets flying around
DP that day and some of them hit the 2 fellows. Simple. I don't
subscribe to the wacky WC 'single bullet' theory.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Think about it. You've used scopes...If the gunsmith had to shim
up one of the 2 mounting points, then the scope was mounted wrong. I
can't think of something that could happen to the scope while being
shipped that would make it necessary to shim up one mount, can you?
If the scope had been bent in shipping, it wouldn't be fixed by
shimming.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 4, 10:47 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:54 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well I often hear person of the CT persuasion talk about Oswald's bad
> > > marksmanship by citing his missing General Walker or talking about how the
> > > scope would have prevented an accurate shot.  I also think it is fair to
> > > say that most CT arguments are based on generous amounts of speculation.
> > > Well I would like to do a little LN-oriented speculating on the possible
> > > interaction of these two phenomenon.
>
> >    Whoa!  Oswald's level of marksmanship was testified to by his
> > marine buddy, Nelson Delgado, who said he got 'Maggie's Drawers'
> > often, which means he missed the whole target.  His lousy skill wasn't
> > speculation.
>
> Yes it was.  Delgado only knew LHO at his last duty station.  By then LHO
> had already earned a Sharpshooter badge with a score of 212 in 1956 and by
> 1959 was disgruntled with the Marine Corp after a couple of disciplinary
> actions by court martial.  LHO had a short-timer's attitude and was
> working on an early out.  He eventually received a 45 day early discharge
> based on a bogus hardship claim.  As for shooting ability Delgado
> insinuates he was a much better shooter than LHO.  In the "Quals" taken at
> El Toro in 1959 Delgado scored 192 beating "Ozzie" by only 1 point.
>

So they both scored badly. That's only 'Marksman' I believe, the
qualification that Oswald left the marines with.

> Delgado and LHO became friends because they both admired Castro and the
> Cuban revolution.  They talked about joining Castro's army and helping to
> overthrow other governments in the Caribbean supported by US foreign
> policy.  This all sounded like an exciting adventure to them at the time.
> LHO was also learning Spanish during his stay at El Toro. Of the two would
> be revolutionaries, only LHO put his thoughts into action by assassinating
> the most high profile capitalist leader in the world who was exerting
> political pressure on the Castro revolutionary government.  While Delgado
> eventually lost interest, LHO was obviously dead serious about his
> revolutionary fervor.

Or he had agency masters that wanted him to be taken in by the
revolutionaries.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 4, 10:49 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:56 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 3, 8:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
> > > to be mentioned.......
>
> > > Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
> > > the weapon.
>
> >    If he never used it, and never practiced with it, how would he be
> > familiar with it?
>
> His wife testified he practiced with the rifle at the house in NO and the
> apartment in Dallas so often it became annoying.  He also took it to a
> place on the Trinity River bottoms for live firing practice. Witnesses at
> a local firing range swore it was LHO they saw and he was a good shot.
> Of the original 20 rounds in the box of cartridges LHO only had 4 left the
> day he murdered President Kennedy.
>

Marina lied all over the place. How do you tell whether she was
lying, just saying what they needed for her to say? And back then she
alluded to the tale that Oswald liked JFK, and she has said the same
more recently as well.

The firing range story was pure baloney. It didn't match Oswald at
all. Here's the story:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt

1. The place mounted a scope onto an unspecified rifle. This
couldn't be the MC rifle, which had a scope, and that work would
cost. Oswald wasn't made of money.
2. Why didn't Oswald use the new scope and rifle? Otherwise why
bother to have the work done?
3. There is no proof of who had the work done, since there was
only a tag undated with the name Oswald on it in the handwriting of
the worker.
4. All of Oswald's transactions with weapons were done under an
assumed name. Why not this one?
5. The owner and worker where the work was done feel sure they
never worked on a rifle like the MC.
6. There are many more re3asons the story is not trustworthy, but
read the story at the link for them.

Nowhere have they found any proof of Oswald buying any cartridges
for the MC.

> > > 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
> > > Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.
>
> >   The sticky bolt, double trigger pull and the badly misaligned scope
> > might take away those seconds.
>
> The first ballistics expert to examine the rifle said:
>
> "The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times."
>

Yes, very strange. If that was Frazier, he was a main person in
the whole process of the murder. If Simmons and his people got the
weapon AFTER Frazier's people, they found it needed to go to the
gunsmith to be shimmed, and that the bolt was sticky and ruined their
aim, and that it had a double pull trigger, where you pulled it easily
until it stopped, then pulled it past the hard spot and it fired.
These things slowed the firing down. And yet with all these thins
amiss, Frazier says they ran all kinds of tests, including accuracy
tests. Makes you wonder if Frazier lied. After he was in charge of
the bullet evidence when the chains of custody got all screwed up, and
for a while there were 2 CE399 'magic' bullets at the same time!
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

> So all the dry firing practice by LHO that bothered Marina so much had the
> desired effect, a smoother bolt action.  After firing the rifle 60 times
> the FBI turned it over to the US Army experts to evaluate.  The double
> trigger pull might cause an amateur sniper to lose lead on a moving
> target, but the scope defect actually compensated for this mistake.  On
> his worst Qual LHO still scored Marksman.  That is enough ability to hit a
> slow moving target at close range, with or without a scope.

Not if we listen to 2 professional snipers that said it was an
impossible shot, and they had both tried to duplicate it. A bad
scope, a sticky bolt, a double pull trigger, a target moving in an
oblique direction. Not easy. It's easy to talk about the distance,
which would be easier for a shooter, without all the other
considerations. Much better from the Grassy Knoll with a good rifle.

And this vaunted smoother bolt action didn't show itself when
Simmons and company tested the rifle. Odd. And trying to make the
scope defect into a benefit is asking an awful lot...:)


Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 4, 11:16 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BT,
>
> > Perhaps.  But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
> > debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
> > have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
> > position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
> > feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.
>
> You make a very good point about the GK.  Only a fool or a drunk would
> choose this open position to fire at the motorcade.  Lee Bowers saw no
> people behind the fence at the time of the shooting.  Neither did Marilyn
> Sitzman.  Not one verified witness on the GK claimed a shot came from up
> there.
>

As it turns out, the shooter at the picket fence had a buddy that
helped keep people away if needed with a phony Secret Service ID. And
they were seen by Ed Hoffman. When Hoffman went to the FBI, they told
him to shut up about his experience, and he did for a few years. As
well, a friend of Lee Bowers had a chilling story to tell about what
Bowers really saw and was convinced to shut up about it. As to
'blasting away', they fired 1-2 shots only and got out of there.

> Only goofy Gordon Arnold claims two shots were fired from behind his
> position and the sniper came out of hiding to steal his camera after
> shooting the President of the United States.  No witness saw this
> confrontation nor heard any shots from where Arnold claimed.  This self
> proclaimed "witness" can't even prove he was in Dealey Plaza that day.

Naturally anyone that has witnessed anything that might go against
the wacky WC theories must be called 'goofy' or run sown some way. I
was under the impression that Arnold did NOT say that the assassin
came out to talk to him. That it was a guy with CIA ID. His story
was looked at by some investigators and they decided that Arnold was
telling the truth and they found corroboration. They are on the video
after Arnold tells his story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_XZYWb4E6o

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2013 11:29 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 11:16 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> BT,
>>
>>>> Perhaps. But not as silly IMPO as continued belief in the (twice)
>>>> debunked dicatabelt recording and in a GK shooter who would have had to
>>>> have been insane to have stood there behing the picket fence with his rear
>>>> position totally exposed and with his rifle blasting away within a few
>>>> feet of Zapruder, Arnold, and other potential witnesses.
>>
>>> You make a very good point about the GK. Only a fool or a drunk would
>>> choose this open position to fire at the motorcade. Lee Bowers saw no
>>> people behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Neither did Marilyn
>>> Sitzman. Not one verified witness on the GK claimed a shot came from up
>>> there.
>>
>> Like in the middle of St. Peter's Square?
>> Mary Woodward said it would be the perfect location for a sniper.
>> Considering that one saw him shooting I would call it successful.
>> You know nothing about assassinations.
>
> Is Mary Woodward an expert on snipers? It would be a good place for a
> crazy person to shoot the President, but not a pro who wants to make a

She didn't say it was a pro. You didn't prove it was a prove. Like all
WC defenders when you lose an argument you change the claim.

> clean getaway. The only possible sniper story that makes any sense is

The grassy knoll shooter made a clean getaway by flashing genuine SS
identication. He was confronted within seconds of the shooting by a cop
who had his gun drawn on him, just like Oswald.

> where a sniper crawled up the large storm drain from the Trinity
> River, lifted the heavy metal cover, loosened a board by removing the
> bottom nails so it swiveled left and right, fired a shot with only his
> head and shoulders above ground, then dropped down and pulled the

You'll fall for any conspiracy theory. How about the invisible aliens?

> cover back over in place, casually walked away in the large storm pipe
> and kept to the bottom banks of the river. Bowers and Sitzman could
> not see this kind of activity and the sound would come from the
> direction of Bowers' first impression. Only problem is this location
> doesn't fit your theory. The trajectory is probably too flat to clear
> the windshield.
>

My theory? I debunked the Jack Brazil theory 30 years ago. So did Bob
Cutler.

[Anthony Marsh]

McAdams is allowing you to attack me by making false claims about what I
said.
I never said the W&A said the bullet hit JFK in the forehead. I asked
you what the bullet hit to stop it in the limo and you were not man
enough to answer that question. Dodger.

>
>> So I quoted and uploaded an article that
>> you knew nothing about because you are not in the news business.
>
> Excuse me?
> I'm more involved in the journo biz than you will ever be.
> (The CIA set me up well. Just kidding!)
>
> We spoke about that Lardner report before, you know.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> The (anonymous) sources merely said, according to the Boston Herald
>>> article by conspiracy believer George Lardner, that this (fictitious)
>>> shot would have landed in or *near* the *limousine*.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Boston Herald got the story from the Washington Post.
>
> Yes, and I linked to that too. From your site, thanks!
>
>
>> Because you
>> are not in the news business you try to shoot the messenger and libel
>> George Lardner by calling him a conspiracy believer. Typical sleazy
>> underhanded tactics of the WC defenders and the CIA.
>>
>
> I think it's always useful background to know the reporter's slant on
> any topic.
> That's just journalistic due diligence.
>

Yes, that's why I want to warn people about your pro-government bias.

>
>> The anonymous sources are Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy who were
>> hired by the HSCA to analyze the grassy knoll shot. They were the only
>> ones who had that data.
>>
>
> Did George Lardner tell you that?

It names them right in the article. You can't read. All you can do is
attack.

> There's no way for you to know who the anonymous sources were, and no
> reason to think they kept their data or the gist of their findings top
> secret.

Yes, there is, but that is not up for discussion here. The article
speaks for itself.


And yes their data is still being withheld.

> But so what if it was W&A.
> They still didn't say *anything* like what you claim.
>

More false charges.

> Within ten feet of the limousine is *not* smack-dab in the president's
> forehead.
>

Second chance. SHOW me that the bullet hit to stop it.

> /sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe being buried in the ground after missing Walker.

[Anthony Marsh]

More evasion.
Show me where the shots were fired from which hit Kennedy and Connally
in the backs.

[BT George]

Of course they didn't "do" "anything" INCLUDING seeing the killer who was
on a different floor of the TSBD. Your GK assassin might have been safe
from unarmed citizens trying to apprehend him, but he sure as heck would
have been easier to spot out in the open with only a picket fence and
maybe some branches/leaves to partially obscure him on one side. And
then, of course, he has to leave that scene into the wide open
railyard/overpass/parking lot behind him. Comparing the seclusion from
view of this alleged shooter with that enjoyed by the TSBD shooter (LHO)
in his 6th floor purch, is not far removed from comparing someone dressed
in full winter gear to someone attempting to cover up with a loin cloth
and few leaves and branches!

[Sandy McCroskey]

Come on, Anthony. *Your* theory is that there was an "insurance shooter"
on the knoll. In fact, it seems to me that *you* would name one "Frank
Bender" as that shooter. He wasn't a professional? In any case, the
argument by far most CTs will make is that Oswald couldn't make the shot,
so it must have been done by somebody who wouldn't miss.

And surely, if there was a conspiracy, that implies that more deliberation
was given to the deed and that assuring a clean getaway would have been a
prominent consideration. Hence, no foolhardy shooting from an exposed
position.

>> clean getaway. The only possible sniper story that makes any sense is
>
> The grassy knoll shooter made a clean getaway by flashing genuine SS
> identication. He was confronted within seconds of the shooting by a cop
> who had his gun drawn on him, just like Oswald.
>

Anecdotes, tales. If someone did flash ID, how the hell do you know it
was "genuine"?

But it wouldn't have mattered what anybody flashed, if someone saw them
shoot the president. On the grassy knoll, there was a high chance
someone would have.

/sandy

[Sandy McCroskey]

Come on, Anthony. *Your* theory is that there was an "insurance shooter"
on the knoll. In fact, it seems to me that *you* would name one "Frank
Bender" as that shooter. He wasn't a professional? In any case, the
argument by far most CTs will make is that Oswald couldn't make the
shot, so it must have been done by somebody who wouldn't miss.

And surely, if there was a conspiracy, that implies that more
deliberation was given to the deed and that assuring a clean getaway
would have been a prominent consideration. Hence, no foolhardy shooting
from an exposed position.

>> clean getaway. The only possible sniper story that makes any sense is
>
> The grassy knoll shooter made a clean getaway by flashing genuine SS
> identication. He was confronted within seconds of the shooting by a cop
> who had his gun drawn on him, just like Oswald.
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51aec6c5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

That is what you said last time we got to this point but when I asked for
specifics you were unable to furnish them. You simply left the
discussion. Man Up this time and tell me exactly what is phony about the
numbers I used. They are listed above. I'll be waiting.

What you have done here is accuse me of being dishonest. You should know
all about that.

>>> You said 200 yards. That means using the scope.
>>
>> Not if you have had military training and understand combat zero. You
>> haven't and you don't.
>>
>>> The iron sights are set for 200 meters. So you are comparing a
>>> rifle with a reputation for a very flat trajectory using the iron sights
>>> to a rifle with a reputation for a very high curved trajectory using the
>>> scope.
>>
>> You really don't understand this do you? In the calculator I could plug
>> in a 200 yard zero for both rifles. So what you have just said is so much
>> crap, as usual. Gees Marsh, the calculator doesn't even let you plug in
>> if a scope or iron sights were used. You know why? It doesn't make a
>> damn when both have a 200 yard zero.
>>
>
>It certainly does have a variable of height of sight over barrel. That's
>how you come up with negative elevations at short distances.

So after about 25 yards it doesn't mean a damn thing.

>> You missed the point. Again. What I pointed out Marsh is that the
>> Carcano does NOT have a very high curved trajectory. It only gives us 2.3
>> inches at mid-range to one of the flattest shooting rounds made. Not
>> great but certainly not a "very high curved trajectory". You would have
>> us believe that the Carcano shoots a sloppy trajectory as shown in
>> Whelan's article but that crap has left the building.
>>
>
>I'd rather listen to Dave Emary who is the real expert on the Carcano.

I read his article. I don't recall him repeating your nonsense about
this,"very high curved trajectory". Do you have anything showing that he
said this? I don't think so.

>>>> Now for god?s sake take you a ruler and measure 0.9 and 1.6 and 2.3 inches
>>>> and once and for all see how hilariously insignificant your long held and
>>>> often repeated theory about this is. Insignificant!
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if you miss the bullseye by 2.3" that is insignificant? A miss by 2.3"
>>> can be the difference between life and death. When a SWAT sniper is
>>> shooting the gun out of a criminal's hand, is the 2.3" miss insignificant?
>>> When the SEALS are shooing through a tiny portal is a 2.3" inch miss
>>> insignificant?
>>>
>>>> http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator
>>
>> Nice try Marsh but we were not discussing accuracy. We were discussing
>> trajectory and while 2.3 inches is of some significant in this case it is
>> insignificant to say the Carcano has a, "very high curved trajectory" as
>> you've claimed for so long.
>>
>
>The calculator shows it has a very high curved trajectory.

It does not. The fact that you can't understand the evidence has been
evident for decades now.

>> As for accuracy you are now comparing apples to oranges. If a sniper or
>> SEAL was 2.3 inches off that would be very bad. But they have cutting
>> edge rifles and optics with high grade ammo and they practice a LOT. No
>> doubt you could cover their 3 shot group with a dime.
>>
>
>Nice dodge. I presented a hypothetical. IF their shots were 2.3 inches
>high would that be significant? You are good at avoiding questions.

Can you not read? What the hell do you think, "If a sniper or
SEAL was 2.3 inches off that would be very bad" means?

>> On the other hand if you are shooting a worn and ragged old surplus rifle
>> with poor sights and it shoots a 6 inch group to begin with then 2.3
>> inches doesn't mean so much. About as good as can be hoped for.
>>
>
>Are you claiming that anyone shot a 6 inch group with Oswald's rifle?
>At what distance? 2 feet?

I guess now you'll tell me he shot a 10 foot group at 100 yards.

Are you going to show my numbers are "phony" are will you run again?

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 10:49 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:56 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 8:06 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:> I agree with Bill on this and think there are a few things that also need
> > > > to be mentioned.......
>
> > > > Firstly, Oswald was the person most familiar with the idiosyncrasies of
> > > > the weapon.
>
> > >    If he never used it, and never practiced with it, how would he be
> > > familiar with it?
>
> > His wife testified he practiced with the rifle at the house in NO and the
> > apartment in Dallas so often it became annoying.  He also took it to a
> > place on the Trinity River bottoms for live firing practice. Witnesses at
> > a local firing range swore it was LHO they saw and he was a good shot.
> > Of the original 20 rounds in the box of cartridges LHO only had 4 left the
> > day he murdered President Kennedy.
>
>    Marina lied all over the place.  How do you tell whether she was
> lying, just saying what they needed for her to say?

They "needed" her to say what she knew.

> And back then she
> alluded to the tale that Oswald liked JFK, and she has said the same
> more recently as well.

Do you know the context? When he expressed this?

>    The firing range story was pure baloney.  It didn't match Oswald at
> all.  Here's the story:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
>
>    1.  The place mounted a scope onto an unspecified rifle.  This
> couldn't be the MC rifle, which had a scope, and that work would
> cost.  Oswald wasn't made of money.
>    2.  Why didn't Oswald use the new scope and rifle?  Otherwise why
> bother to have the work done?
>    3.  There is no proof of who had the work done, since there was
> only a tag undated with the name Oswald on it in the handwriting of
> the worker.
>    4.  All of Oswald's transactions with weapons were done under an
> assumed name.  Why not this one?
>    5.  The owner and worker where the work was done feel sure they
> never worked on a rifle like the MC.
>    6.  There are many more re3asons the story is not trustworthy, but
> read the story at the link for them.
>
>    Nowhere have they found any proof of Oswald buying any cartridges
> for the MC.

There was one found in his rifle.

> > > > 2. He probably had much more time than most CT's are willing to admit.
> > > > Probably on the order of 8-9 seconds.
>
> > >   The sticky bolt, double trigger pull and the badly misaligned scope
> > > might take away those seconds.
>
> > The first ballistics expert to examine the rifle said:
>
> > "The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times."
>
>    Yes, very strange.  If that was Frazier, he was a main person in
> the whole process of the murder.  If Simmons and his people got the
> weapon AFTER Frazier's people, they found it needed to go to the
> gunsmith to be shimmed, and that the bolt was sticky and ruined their
> aim, and that it had a double pull trigger, where you pulled it easily
> until it stopped, then pulled it past the hard spot and it fired.
> These things slowed the firing down.  And yet with all these thins
> amiss, Frazier says they ran all kinds of tests, including  accuracy
> tests.  Makes you wonder if Frazier lied.

Typical conspiracy hobbyist. Uses a witness in support of a silly idea,
when he finds out the witness said things detrimental to his silly idea he
doesn`t think to question his silly idea, so he questions the integrity of
the witness (the same witness he was relying on heavily earlier to support
his silly idea).

>  After he was in charge of
> the bullet evidence when the chains of custody got all screwed up, and

> for a while there were 2 CE399 'magic' bullets at the same time!http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htmhttp://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

>
> > So all the dry firing practice by LHO that bothered Marina so much had the
> > desired effect, a smoother bolt action.  After firing the rifle 60 times
> > the FBI turned it over to the US Army experts to evaluate.  The double
> > trigger pull might cause an amateur sniper to lose lead on a moving
> > target, but the scope defect actually compensated for this mistake.  On
> > his worst Qual LHO still scored Marksman.  That is enough ability to hit a
> > slow moving target at close range, with or without a scope.
>
>   Not if we listen to 2 professional snipers that said it was an
> impossible shot, and they had both tried to duplicate it.

You don`t have two snipers saying this.

> A bad
> scope, a sticky bolt, a double pull trigger, a target moving in an
> oblique direction.  Not easy.

Hunters make harder shots every day. Probably every minute of every
day.

> It's easy to talk about the distance,
> which would be easier for a shooter, without all the other
> considerations.  Much better from the Grassy Knoll with a good rifle.

No evidence for this.

[Bud]

On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 4, 10:47 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:54 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well I often hear person of the CT persuasion talk about Oswald's bad
> > > > marksmanship by citing his missing General Walker or talking about how the
> > > > scope would have prevented an accurate shot.  I also think it is fair to
> > > > say that most CT arguments are based on generous amounts of speculation.
> > > > Well I would like to do a little LN-oriented speculating on the possible
> > > > interaction of these two phenomenon.
>
> > >    Whoa!  Oswald's level of marksmanship was testified to by his
> > > marine buddy, Nelson Delgado, who said he got 'Maggie's Drawers'
> > > often, which means he missed the whole target.  His lousy skill wasn't
> > > speculation.
>
> > Yes it was.  Delgado only knew LHO at his last duty station.  By then LHO
> > had already earned a Sharpshooter badge with a score of 212 in 1956 and by
> > 1959 was disgruntled with the Marine Corp after a couple of disciplinary
> > actions by court martial.  LHO had a short-timer's attitude and was
> > working on an early out.  He eventually received a 45 day early discharge
> > based on a bogus hardship claim.  As for shooting ability Delgado
> > insinuates he was a much better shooter than LHO.  In the "Quals" taken at
> > El Toro in 1959 Delgado scored 192 beating "Ozzie" by only 1 point.
>
>   So they both scored badly.

Not to hear Delgado tell it.

>  That's only 'Marksman' I believe, the
> qualification that Oswald left the marines with.

That doesn`t establish he could not have shot better had he wanted
to. It only establishes the least he could shoot, not the best.

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:03:43 AM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:31 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <09e33612-cf23-44d8-a014-580b8598b...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > mainframetech says...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >On May 31, 11:17=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > >> In article <1127860e-05fb-4d0d-9950-c490a6afd...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>
> > >com>,
>
> > >> mainframetech says...
>
> >
>
> > >> >On May 30, 11:14=3DA0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission ...http://=
>
> > >www=3D

>
> > >> >.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/- 139k - similar pagesMay
>
> > >> >> 7, 2005 ... Warren Commission Hearings: Testimony Index ... Allen,
>
> > >> >> Warren Reynolds, Testimony, Vol. 11, Page 434 ..... Frazier, Robert
>
> > >> >> A.
>
> > >> >> Testimony, Vol.
>
> >
>
> > >> >>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/index.php
>
> >
>
> > >> >> Page 394
>
> >
>
> > >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>
> > >> >> Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made
>
> > >> >> Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
>
> > >> >> Mr. Frazier.
>
> > >> >> The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic
>
> > >> >> bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this
>
> > >> >> uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a
>
> > >> >> Mauser for that reason.
>
> > >> >> Mr. Eisenberg.
>
> > >> >> Does this weapon show--how much use does this weapon show?
>
> > >> >> Mr. Frazier.
>
> > >> >> The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it
>
> > >> >> had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use
>
> > >> >> the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in
>
> > >> >> excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other
>
> > >> >> words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
>
> >
>

> > >> > =A0 Thank you for backing me up. =A0As I said Frazier said the weapon w=

>
> > >as
>
> > >> >"worn and corroded".
>
> >
>
> > >> Did you miss the part where he said the rifle was certainly capable of
>

> > >> hitting JFK? =A0And once again you don't know if the scope was defective
>
> > >> when Oswald was using it that day in Dallas. =A0You also don't know that =
>
> > >he
>
> > >> was even using the scope. =A0You are barking up the wrong tree here. =A0A=

>
> > >s far
>
> > >> as I know, no one knowledgeable of rifles has claimed the MC Oswald used
>
> > >> was incapable of making the shots that day.
>
> >
>
> > >   There is no doubt that ANY gun could hit and kill any person, if
>
> > >all factors were right.  Frazier hasn't said anything exceptional.
>
> > >Remember, he got the rifle after the Simmons group, who had the
>
> > >gunsmith fix it, and then they worked the sticky bolt over and over
>
> > >for him.  Have you bothered to look over the Ronald Simmons testimony
>
> > >to the WC about the condition when they got it first?   As to the
>
> > >defective scope, as it turns out the mounts were the problem with the
>
> > >scope, not it being mishandled.  The scope was out of alignment from a
>
> > >bad mounting, probably done in haste by Klein's when they mounted the
>
> > >scope for the buyer.  No one really cared about these old war surplus
>
> > >guns anyway.  At $19. it wasn't a bargain.
>
> >
>

> > Yes, the mount was weak and should have had more than two screws attaching
>
> > it to the rifle.  The scope had ran out of vertical adjustment.  This can
>
> > occur if the scope receives a sharp blow by being dropped.  If you know
>
> > what you are doing you can fix this without using shims.  I'd say it was a
>
> > hell of a bargain.  Less than $20 bucks to kill the president of the
>
> > United States.
>
> >
>

> So you believe that the gunsmith that was given the rifle to fix
>
> didn't know enough to fix it without shimming it? And doesn't
>
> shimming the scope suggest also the possibility that the scope was
>
> mounted badly rather than being mistreated? There should have been 2
>
> screws holding the scope, but they only drilled and tapped 2 holes.
>
> Klein's was saving money on time and materials. An indication
>
> suggesting the scope problem was Klein's fault.

>
>
>
> > >   With a scope that was not functioning, and a sticky bolt that would
>
> > >stop any effort at 'speed' shooting (see Simmons testimony), we can be
>
> > >very sure that the MC rifle didn't hit anything if it was even fired
>
> > >from the 6th floor.  And iron sights aren't set for that distance, nor
>
> > >are they as easy to use with the scope distracting the shooter.
>
> >
>

> > No, you certainly can not be very sure that the MC didn't hit anything.
>
> > Had you done time in the military you would understand 'battle or combat
>
> > zero" and you would understand how the open sights could have been
>
> > accurately used.  Marsh fails to understand it and I have no hope you
>
> > will.  But the open sights could have been used.
>
> >
>
> As usual you make comments while not knowing what you're talking
>
> about. I was in the military and qualified as Marksman with M-1 and .
>
> 45 1911 automatic. Yes, the open sights could be used, as I said, but
>
> also as I said, you have to put up with the distraction of the scope
>
> being in your face, and of course, the sticky bolt disallowing any
>
> 'speed' shooting.

>
>
>
> > >   We have NO information that Oswald bought any ammunition or a clip
>
> > >with the rifle either.  But then, he bought the rifle to impress the
>
> > >Cuban revolutionaries, not kill anyone.  He didn't need the clip and
>
> > >ammo.  Funny, they could find all the info they needed to prove Oswald
>
> > >bought the rifle, but when it came to canvassing some gun shops in
>
> > >Dallas, none of them turned up a sale of this oddball rifle ammunition
>
> > >and clip.  And particularly selling only 4 rounds of ammo!  Why not a
>
> > >full clip?
>
> >
>

> > We've covered this before.  It is 1963, a cash purchase not requiring any
>
> > record to be kept at the store.  Now run that down and see how near
>
> > impossible it would be.  Why not buy a box of twenty?  That is the way
>
> > they were sold, a box of twenty.
>
> >
>
> try and read what's written here. At that time the MC rifle was not
>
> on everyone's Christmas list. A sale of a clip and ammo for it should
>
> be turned up in a day or two by phone calls to all the gun shops in
>
> Dallas. As well the TV news shows should have announced the rifle
>
> type and the seller of the ammo and clip would run down to the local
>
> police station and tell all.

>
>
>
>
>
> > >> You don't seem to be familiar with rifles so I can see how you might be
>

> > >> attracted to your theory. =A0But it don't wash.

>
> >
>
> > >> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> > > I've owned a rifle and fired a number of different rifles and
>
> > >shotguns and pistols.   Do you make guesses with no information
>
> > >often?
>
> >
>

> > Sorry.  I guess your lack of understanding rifles threw me off.

>
> >
>
> >  Have you bothered to read the Simmons WC testimony?  It's easy
>
> >
>
> > >to find.  Of course, it's factual, and might not support your theory
>
> > >that Frazier covered all the bases and nothing further was needed.
>
> >
>

> > Yes, I've read it.  You've read it too hard.  You seem to think it would
>
> > be a two man job just to work the bolt on the MC.  I don't believe that is
>
> > what Simmons meant.
>
> >
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> Simmons meant what he said. The sticky bolt would slow down any
>
> 'speed' shooting'; which was required in this case. Obviously your
>
> exaggeration of 2 people to work the bolt is ridiculous.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris


***Frasier fired the rifle 3 times in 4.6 seconds, indicating he did not
have a problem speed shooting.

***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Monday, June 3, 2013 2:09:15 PM UTC-7, mainframetech wrote:

> On Jun 2, 7:21 pm, cmikes <cmi...@ma.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:58:02 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>

> > > The cheap rifle revealed the conspiracy. When it kept missing and jammed
>
> >
>
> > > that caused the grassy knoll shooter to finally take the insurance shot.
>
> >
>
> > The 'insurance shot' that by according to your vaunted HSCA hit nothing
>
> > and no one in Dealy Plaza.  So the highly trained assassin couldn't even
>
> > hit the limo or anything else in Dealy Plaza, but the nobody ex-Marine
>
> > firing a crappy rifle could hit 1 shot dead on with another near miss.
>
>
>
> In the long run, I think you will find that the evidence says that
>
> whoever was in the TSBD SE corner of the 6th floor using an MC rifle,
>
> hit nothing, and one of the shooters, probably the one at the GK, got
>
> in the kill shot. With the number of hits on people in the limo, hits
>
> on the limo itself, and hits on people and the grounds of Dealey
>
> Plaza, there were obviously more than one shooter.
>
>
>
> There was no need for an 'insurance shot', since all shooters took
>
> their shots. That was the best insurance.
>
>
>
> Chris

***After 50 years it is already the long run and no one has proven anyone
other than Oswald shot JFK.

Three Seals took aim at three hijackers in a bobbing life boat and nailed
all three. It does not take a team of shooters to shoot one man.

***Ron Judge

[Sandy McCroskey]

Bullshit, and incoherent nonsense too!

Anybody can follow the thread and see that John Fiorentino said that "Your

make believe sniper on the knoll missed the make believe insurance shot"

and that you replied, "Wrong. The two acoustical scientists who analyzed

that shot said it hit."

It doesn't make any sense to ask me to tell you what the bullet hit to
stop it in the limo, when even your anonymous source says the supposed
(though nonexistent) bullet could have gone ten feet on either side of the
limo.

I don't even believe the bullet existed. Why should I have to tell you
what it hit. *You* said it was the bullet that blew out Kennedy's brains!

>>
>>> So I quoted and uploaded an article that
>>> you knew nothing about because you are not in the news business.
>>
>> Excuse me?
>> I'm more involved in the journo biz than you will ever be.
>> (The CIA set me up well. Just kidding!)
>>
>> We spoke about that Lardner report before, you know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The (anonymous) sources merely said, according to the Boston Herald
>>>> article by conspiracy believer George Lardner, that this (fictitious)
>>>> shot would have landed in or *near* the *limousine*.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Boston Herald got the story from the Washington Post.
>>
>> Yes, and I linked to that too. From your site, thanks!
>>
>>
>>> Because you
>>> are not in the news business you try to shoot the messenger and libel
>>> George Lardner by calling him a conspiracy believer. Typical sleazy
>>> underhanded tactics of the WC defenders and the CIA.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's always useful background to know the reporter's slant on
>> any topic.
>> That's just journalistic due diligence.
>>
>
> Yes, that's why I want to warn people about your pro-government bias.
>

I have no pro-government bias. I'm further to the left, politically,
than you will ever be or ever dreamed of being.

>>
>>> The anonymous sources are Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy who were
>>> hired by the HSCA to analyze the grassy knoll shot. They were the only
>>> ones who had that data.
>>>
>>
>> Did George Lardner tell you that?
>
> It names them right in the article. You can't read. All you can do is
> attack.
>

Not at all. For what you quote, the article merely cites "sources." So
Lardner couldn't keep straight whether he was talking to W or to A and he
had to fudge it that way? How silly can you get?

>> There's no way for you to know who the anonymous sources were, and no
>> reason to think they kept their data or the gist of their findings top
>> secret.
>
> Yes, there is, but that is not up for discussion here. The article
> speaks for itself.
>

And it doesn't come close to saying what you want it to say.

>
> And yes their data is still being withheld.
>

Out of shame?

>> But so what if it was W&A.
>> They still didn't say *anything* like what you claim.
>>
> More false charges.
>

Anybody who can read can determine that my statement is accurate.

>> Within ten feet of the limousine is *not* smack-dab in the president's
>> forehead.
>>
>
> Second chance. SHOW me that the bullet hit to stop it.
>

What????
You're not making any sense.
I don't believe the bullet even existed, remember?


/sandy

[claviger]

Chris,

> There were a lot of bullets flying around DP that day and
> some of them hit the 2 fellows.  Simple.  I don't subscribe
> to the wacky WC 'single bullet' theory.
>
> Chris

Experienced hunters know there is nothing wacky about a single bullet
penetrating two live targets standing side-by-side. They know to let one
animal step away before firing a shot. The reason being even a soft-nose
hunting bullet can penetrate all the way through a mature animal the size
of a mule deer, whitetail, pronghorn, etc. If a soft- nose bullet can do
it, even more so a FMJ military projectile. Not one hunter or police
officer I know has any problem understanding the SBT and why it happened.
This bullet has been used to bring down big game in Africa and the Inuit
of Alaska like it for hunting marine mammals as well, because of deep
penetration inside larger animals. Dr Lattimer experimented with firing
the 6.5 FMJ Carcano into a wood targets.

Dr. John K Lattimer
_____________________________________________________________

This bullet {a 6.5mm Carcano missile like CE399} can penetrate four feet
of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side by side and come out
looking completely undeformed. On the other hand, if it is fired into the
thick bone of the back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet
will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many
different sizes.
_____________________________________________________________

The terminal ballistics of two penetrating wounds on the President are
not surprising based on scientific field testing of the rugged 6.5 FMJ
Carcano military bullet.