USPS workers screwing things up i.e..LHO receiving c2766

[Walt Cakebread]

There is nothing "faulty" about the rifle.  The fact that it was "mail-order" is meaningless.  You can easily search You Tube and see examples of how lethal this rifle is and the damage that it can do to the human body.  Several recreations of the event using a similar rifle and ammo at the same distance and angle confirms that the damage done on 11.22 is entirely consistent with the results of the recreations.  CTers have conjured up a lot of smoke and mirrors about this rifle but it doesn't change the facts.

You can easily search You Tube and see examples of how lethal this rifle is and the damage that it can do to the human body.  Several recreations of the event using a similar rifle and ammo at the same distance and angle confirms that the damage done on 11.22 is entirely consistent with the results of the recreations.

BULL STUFF!....  "this rifle" is not THE rifle ...that was found where it had been CAREFULLY hidden BENEATH a pallet on which boxes of books were stacked.

A "similar" rifle...is NOT proof that the TSBD rifle would perform the same as someother rifle.  In the same vein, A person who is experienced and skilled with a M-1 Garand may not be able to hit a barn at a hundred yards with a carcano..... 

[Richard Smith]

You can easily search You Tube and see examples of how lethal this rifle is and the damage that it can do to the human body.  Several recreations of the event using a similar rifle and ammo at the same distance and angle confirms that the damage done on 11.22 is entirely consistent with the results of the recreations.

BULL STUFF!....  "this rifle" is not THE rifle ...that was found where it had been CAREFULLY hidden BENEATH a pallet on which boxes of books were stacked.

A "similar" rifle...is NOT proof that the TSBD rifle would perform the same as someother rifle.  In the same vein, A person who is experienced and skilled with a M-1 Garand may not be able to hit a barn at a hundred yards with a carcano.....

So the only the way to test this is to steal the actual rifle from the National Archives and fire it at someone?  LOL.  That is a nonsensical way to avoid acknowledging the obvious conclusion.  And the FBI did test the actual rifle.  The results can be simulated using the exact same model rifle and ammo as Oswald and firing it from the same distance and angle to measure the results.  Those tests have been performed and confirmed that the damage done to JFK and JC are consistent with the recreations.  It is a mathematical issue whose resolution does not require opinions or guesses.   

[Walt Cakebread]

So the only the way to test this is to steal the actual rifle from the National Archives and fire it at someone?  LOL.  That is a nonsensical way to avoid acknowledging the obvious conclusion.  And the FBI did test the actual rifle.  The results can be simulated using the exact same model rifle and ammo as Oswald and firing it from the same distance and angle to measure the results.  Those tests have been performed and confirmed that the damage done to JFK and JC are consistent with the recreations.  It is a mathematical issue whose resolution does not require opinions or guesses.

And the FBI did test the actual rifle.

Thank you for acknowledging that fact... ( Now I won't need to post the proof that you'd clamor for if I posted that)

Yes They did test the rifle before any shims were placed under the scope mount... And the bullets struck OVER FOUR INCHES from the aiming point at a mere 15 yards....  Since you may have trouble comprehending what this information means, Let me enlighten you...   4 inches off at 15 yards would put the bullets off target by TEN yards at a hundred yards....IOW JFK would have been in no danger and would have rode on to the Trade Center...  But Abraham Zapruder might have been in danger of being struck..... 

Of course this is a bit flippant and facetious, because it is based on the silly idea that Lee Oswald fired that rifle at JFK from the window of the TSBD.

[Richard Smith]

And the FBI did test the actual rifle.

Thank you for acknowledging that fact... ( Now I won't need to post the proof that you'd clamor for if I posted that)

Yes They did test the rifle before any shims were placed under the scope mount... And the bullets struck OVER FOUR INCHES from the aiming point at a mere 15 yards....  Since you may have trouble comprehending what this information means, Let me enlighten you...   4 inches off at 15 yards would put the bullets off target by TEN yards at a hundred yards....IOW JFK would have been in no danger and would have rode on to the Trade Center...  But Abraham Zapruder might have been in danger of being struck..... 

Of course this is a bit flippant and facetious, because it is based on the silly idea that Lee Oswald fired that rifle at JFK from the window of the TSBD.

First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.  Second, you don't know the condition of the scope at the time of the assassination.  Lastly, you don't know how much Oswald practiced with the rifle and could have made adjustments for any imperfections in the scope.  The FBI found the rifle highly accurate. 

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.
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.

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.


Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair 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.

[Walt Cakebread]

First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.  Second, you don't know the condition of the scope at the time of the assassination.  Lastly, you don't know how much Oswald practiced with the rifle and could have made adjustments for any imperfections in the scope.  The FBI found the rifle highly accurate. 

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.
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.

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.


Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair 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.

First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.

DUH!... It's clear that I need to remind you that the original reports released by the authorities, touted the deadly accuracy of the rifle because it was equipped with a scope.... 

You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... How many times have I stated that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the assassins ..He never fired that carcano a single time. ( nor did anybody else)    Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?

But IF ? any assassin had fired that Carcano he would have used the scope...AND any experience shooter would have made certain that the scope was zeroed...





Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

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

[Steve Howsley]

You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?

You have lost the plot. You lose control every time your opinions are challenged. Can't you disagree without resorting to abuse?

[Walt Cakebread]

You have lost the plot. You lose control every time your opinions are challenged. Can't you disagree without resorting to abuse?

Oh, I'm sorry Mr, How Sly  ...   You clearly have a limited mentality....  and a limited ability to reason rationally.

If you can't follow along with the dialog than perhaps you should discontinue posting, and review the evidence...

[Steve Howsley]

Oh, I'm sorry Mr, How Sly  ...   You clearly have a limited mentality....  and a limited ability to reason rationally.

If you can't follow along with the dialog than perhaps you should discontinue posting, and review the evidence...

If I'm Mr, How Sly can I refer to you as Walt Cokehead?