Posted on 12/11/2001 2:43:05 PM PST by Bill Rice
....At the time Col. Prouty retired from the U.S. Air Force, in 1964, he was the liaison between the Secretary of Defence and the CIA Director, Allen Dulles. Prouty was in a unique position to perceive what was going on in the CIA and what pressures were on President Kennedy. On frequent occasions, Prouty would work out of the home of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles with the Dulles brothers on fast breaking world affairs. Allen Dulles was the CIA Director that John Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs fiasco who sat on the WARREN COMMISSION. All knowledgeable researchers place the Dulles brothers within the circle of the conspirators.
If we only knew then, what we do now, it would have been easy to identify the other conspirators. Lyndon Johnson lived across the street from J. Edger Hoover for 22 years in Washington D.C. Johnson was associated with Jack Ruby in Dallas. Hoover attended the meeting at the Clint Murcheson ranch, along with Richard Nixon and high ranking military, where the last minute details of the assassination were worked out. Richard Nixon first told the FBI he did not remember where he was when JFK was murdered. Then he said he was in Dallas but flew out an hour before the shooting. He lied. Executives at the PEPSICO meeting attended by Nixon related that not only was Nixon there when the shooting happened but Nixon was the only person who wanted to go on working after the shocking news of the President's death.
At the street level below these conspirators we find the CIA Bay of Pigs operatives Frank Sturgus, Jack Youngblood and E. Howard Hunt being photographed in the famous "tramp photos". These three suspects were arrested in a boxcar which was parked behind the grassy knoll picket fence over which the fatal shot was fired. These 3 assassins were released after 15 minutes by the FBI without being finger printed, photographed or identified and were last seen leaving Dallas in a police squad car. As a litmus test, any documentary which omits these photos is probably a fraud. These photos have never been shown by the mass media to the American public.
Try to pay attention. Kennedy was hit only twice.
He took one shot at Walker, through a window. I don't know how well he could see his target or what the distance was. On a day prior to the assassination when Nixon visited Dallas he left the house with his revolver and told Marina that he was going to see Nixon and would use it if he could. In this state of mind, willing to do these things, he sees in the paper one day that the President is going to be driving right by the place he happens to work. It didn't take much thought for him to decide what to do.
That rifle may have been old, but it was an Italian military rifle. They didn't use it because it couldn't shoot straight. It was known for its penetrating ability. There is no "magic bullet". That is yet another myth created by the early conspiracy mongers. The trajectory from the window to Kennedy to Connally is a straight line trajectory. No physical laws were broken.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
One of the best.
Your understanding of microdots is correct. If you look at the timestamp of *9:06* in your post, a completed microdot with the negative backing material removed is just about the size of the dots in the colon between the 9 and the six. The test contained therein is generally found in a near-square format, with one corner of the square at the top and an opposing one at the bottom. That was using fairly low-tech photographic technology circa 1966, probably not greatly different than what Oswald might have either developed on his own through his employer's facilities or having been so trained as a part of his military or intelligence background.
Of course, if you owned a Minox camera in a certain restricted serial number range, it wouldn't necessarily mean you were a spy either; but if the FBI were interested in covering up your possession of that equipment, it might be because that particular item was from a lot purchased by an American intelligence agency.
-archy-/-
Please cut and paste URL
If you have time, a photo of a camera like Oswalds is here. One has to open the camera by sliding it to view the serial #. The camera in the Archives is stuck in the closed position and they won't have it repaired, therefore the serial # can't be viewed. I wonder why. If it's not Oswald's camera, why is it in the Archives?
Also there is a photo of a sack being carried out of the TSBD. It's longer than 36 inches. It looks to be 12"X48". It's not the sack Oswald allegedly carried in. If you'll notice, it's being carried out by being held at the bottom by something unseen. Oswald's MC was carried out uncovered, so the MC rifle isn't in this bag. What is? Curtain rods? Another rifle; a Mauser? HHmmm.... The sack couldn't stand up like it does on its own; it would bend over. Why did the Dallas police have to utilize such a large evidence bag? I haven't the answers, just questions.
Recently he and some of his students were on the Today show, around the time of the anniversary of the assassination. Even the majority of his students believe in a conspiracy and they weren't alive at the time of the assassination. (OOpps, their grade point averages! :-)} His newsgroup is "moderated." If he doesn't like what you submit about the assassination, he won't post it.
Also one has to be wary of his "documentation" He tries to pass off a page out of "Who's Who" to substantiate the birthplace of Clay Shaw, instead of using a birth certificate or baptismal certificate. "Who's Who" *isn't* an official document.
If I can find info online about D.B. Thomas' recent report to JFK Lancer on the acoustics, I will attempt to engage you on that subject matter. Otherwise, I won't be able to. It's too technical for me. He did submit his work for peer review, whereas Ken Rahn and his work on the NAA will NOT. Why not? What's he afraid of?
Recently he and some of his students were on the Today show, around the time of the anniversary of the assassination. Even the majority of his students believe in a conspiracy and they weren't alive at the time of the assassination. (OOpps, their grade point averages! :-)} His newsgroup is "moderated." If he doesn't like what you submit about the assassination, he won't post it.
He is an LN advocate, as you put it. That shouldn't disqualify the information he presents any more than Groden should be disqualified simply because he believes in a conspiracy. McAdams does a great job of giving the other side and of explaining a lot of the issues raised by various conspiracy sources. I think that is incredibly valuable in a search for the truth.
The newsgroup is moderated. The moderation tries to keep it civil and keeps out junk. Posts are not deleted for their opinions. There are several moderators and some of them are conspiracy theorists. Both sides are represented there.
If I can find info online about D.B. Thomas' recent report to JFK Lancer on the acoustics, I will attempt to engage you on that subject matter. Otherwise, I won't be able to. It's too technical for me. He did submit his work for peer review, whereas Ken Rahn and his work on the NAA will NOT. Why not? What's he afraid of?
I have a page with links to the available acoustics resources, including Thomas' latest presentation to Lancer. It is at www.geocities.com/jfkdocs
The presentation is at the bottom.
The FBI's Fib about the Mannlicher Carcano
by Milicent Cranor
FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, testifying before the Warren Commission,
described the results of tests by FBI marksmen with Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano at 15, 25 and 100 yards. Their shots consistently landed close to each other, within an area "the size of a dime," but not close to the target, demonstrating the rifle's precision, but lack of accuracy due to the misalignment of the telescopic sight. (Accuracy and precision have separate meanings in ballistics.) Their results:
At 15 yards:
2.5 to 4 inches too high;
1 inch too far to the right
At 25 yards:
4 to 5 inches too high;
1 to 2 inches too far to the right
At 100 yards:
2.5 to 5 inches too high;
2 to 5 inches too far to the right
If the sight was 2.5 - 4 inches too high at 15 yards, how could it be a mere 2.5 to 5 inches too high at 100 yards?
Deviation is in direct proportion to the distance of the gun from the target. Earlier in his testimony, in a very different context, Frazier made an offhand remark that illustrates this principle: He said he fired three shots at 25 yards with "approximately a 3-inch spread...the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred yards." Twelve inches, not 5 inches?
Would bullet drop (effect of gravity) compensate for the rifle's poor vertical alignment at 100 yards? I got a precise answer from the editor of a leading ballistics publication who, because of the "sensitive" subject matter, wishes to remain anonymous. Using Barnes' Ballistics computer program, he determined that, at 120 yards, a 6.5mm, 160-grain bullet, muzzle velocity of 2,200 feet per second, would have dropped only 0.7 inches below "flat firing" level. (In a different context, Frazier claimed more bullet drop than my expert, 1.2 inches at 100 yards. Not enough to explain the results obtained.) So much for gravity explaining the disproportionately small degree of deviation at 100 yards.
I then posed another question for his computer: if the telescopic sight of the rifle places the same bullet 3 inches above the target at 25 yards, how far above the target would the bullet strike if the rifle was zeroed in at 100 yards? He came up with 14 inches. If the bullet is 4 inches off at 25 yards, it would be 18 inches off at 100 yards. (These figures are conservative; even at 15 yards, when firing for accuracy and not speed, two of the FBI marksmen were off by 4 inches.)
How did the FBI manage to fire "only" 5 inches too high at 100 yards (assuming they were telling the truth)? It is reasonable to conclude that, having become familiar with the gun by the time of the last series of tests, they compensated for the misalignment of the telescopic sight - and did not say so. Commissioner Eisenberg appears to have guessed it:
"Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could you have compensated for this defect?" "Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have the shots strike a predetermined point..."
Or, was it his point that Oswald compensated for the defect? Eisenberg also appears to have known, in advance, what might solve the problem, as acknowledged:
"[I]f the elevation crosshair was defective at the time of the assassination...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?"
Frazier answered, perhaps as predicted, that no lead would have been necessary: The misaligned scope "accomplished the lead" for him. Earlier, Frazier had testified that Oswald would have had to lead (aim ahead of the target because it would have moved by the time the bullet arrived) the target by 4 to 6 inches. (If Oswald were as good a shot as claimed, would he not have aimed ahead of the target, assuming he didn't know the sight was off?) The sight was well stabilized when received in Dallas, as shown by the shots landing so close together, but it was misaligned. Why? Frazier could not answer, but suggested it had been bumped, as evidenced by a "severe scrape on the scope tube" that occurred at some unknown time. And he said "It may be the that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted." (Wouldn't it be have been clear whether, if not when, the mount was bent?) Did the FBI or the Commission inquire if the scrape had been on the gun when found in the Depository? If the scrape was "severe," wouldn't it have been seen in Dallas? If not, the Commission could have claimed the gun was damaged in transit, and was fine at the time of the assassination. Was this basic, obvious question ever asked?
Frazier minized the problem, claiming it wasn't really defective, that "only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet," simple to fix by slipping a "shim" under the sight. But, the defect is apparently inherent with that brand, and was there before the hypothetical bump. When, for his experiments, John Lattimer bought four Carcanos-"a favorite among European riflemen"-and four telescopic sights identical to Oswald's, he found that all four needed shims, and hinted that Oswald had used one. No shim was ever found on or near Oswald's gun. We may never know the truth about that gun. But we do know the FBI told what amounts to a lie. When they made the statement that, at 100 yards, the rifle's aim was off by only 5 inches, they knew it would be understood to mean that the last series of tests was performed under the conditions of the first two tests, that is, without compensating for the misalignment of the sight. How would the public have responded to the information that, when firing the last shot, the bullet would have gone at least 14 inches above the point of aim on Kennedy's head? The gun seems to have been more of a threat to the pigeons above. How would the public have responded to the information that the FBI rigged the last test?
So, you also figure that the FBI's expert, Special Agent Frazier was lying, as were the Marines Sgt. Zahm and Colonel Folsom?
During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.
These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald.
Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. (3 WCH 390-430)
In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope:
Mr. LUTZ. This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would you in your opinion classify it as an accurate scope?
Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope.
(HSCA Vol 1, pg 449)
Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon.
Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO´s alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam , professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book Kill Zone , that even using his precise equipment loaded with match rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper´s window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way.
In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission was virtually impossible....
You'll find that among other material *here*
See also the info *here* and *here*.
-archy-/-
Uh, not really. The 7,35mm Italian service cartridge, used by the Finns during their 4-month *Winter War* with a million-point-five invading Russians during November 1939-February 1940 was thought to offer good penetration, as that loading utilized a bullet with a sharply pointed meplat, unlike the earlier round-nose 6,5 cartridge it replaced. The power level of the 6,5 Carcano can be better compared to that of the 7,62x39mm M43 ammunition of the AK47, or the lesser well-known Czech 7,62x45 service cartridge of the VZ52 and VZ58 Czech rifles. Indeed, many Carcani in this country have been rechambered to the lighter-recoiling AK 47 load, which is far more widely available than ammo for either of the Italian service cartridges. That's a pretty weak reed compared to most of the *full-power* service rifles of WWII, though the US .30 carbine is in the same velocity range [with a 110-grain bullet] and the loading of the German MP44 Sturmgewehr, the world's first true *assault rifle,* are in that general ballpark. BTW, some of the rifles themselves actually do pretty well in *anything goes* military rifle competition, though not in the formal US military style service rifle matches, which allow only US configuration service rifles. The Italian Alpini who competed in the Olympic biathlon event, the shooting portion of which was done with military service rifles until 1978 when the event was castrated into a .22 shooting gallery match also stuck with their national bolt-action right up to the end. But there's a trick there....
Interesting, though, that you disagree with Posner:
Posner: "It had a low kickback compared to other military rifles, which helped in rapid bolt-action firing." A more powerful bullet imparts greater recoil, a less powerful bullet, less recoil, for weapons which can chamber both. Less force, in general, produces less velocity, less penetration power, and often less accuracy. (More detailed discussions may be found in Fadala, Rifle Guide, pp. 38-41, for example, and Withers, Precision Handloading, pp. 135-145). The "low kickback" of the Mannlicher-Carcano thus indicates that it is a weapon of low penetrating power and probably of low accuracy. There is a great deal of direct and indirect evidence for these conclusions. Rice's Gun Data Book (1975), p. 89, for example, characterizes a cartridge that is manufactured for the Mannlicher-Carcano as follows:
6.5 Italian (Carcano). This cartridge, made by Norma in a 156 grain bullet, has the slowest muzzle velocity and weakest striking power of any of the 6.5 mm imports, so it is not as popular as its Japanese, German, or Swedish counterparts.
The ammunition that Oswald was alleged to have used had not been manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company since 1944, so it is not surprising that a gun data book published in 1975 does not include it. However, since the bullet picked up from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital is alleged to be of the same kind and weighed 158.6 grains, the properties of the Norma and Western cartridges are probably very similar. This inference is supported by the muzzle velocities that are recorded for the Norma bullet:
Cartridge = Carcano Wt. [Grains] = 156 Type= SP Velocity: Muzzle = 2000 100 yds = 1810 200 yds = 1640 SP means "soft point" as opposed to HP "hollow point", BP "bronze point", etc. (Rice, Gun Data Book, p. 118). The bullets that hit JFK are supposed to have been "copper jacketed". Since John Withers observes that "high velocity is a relative term without exact meaning" (Precision Handloading, p. 135), I looked for evidence indicating that "high velocity" and "medium velocity" had an essentially similar meaning around the time of the assassination. Leyson's New Guns Annual (1961), p. 19, describes a 170 grain, .30/30 bullet which still has a velocity of 1890 fps at 100 yards as a "heavier bullet of slower velocity" than the high velocity bullets he has discussed, such as the Silver Tip 180 grain bullet with a velocity of 2850 fps at 100 yards. Notice, especially, that this .30/30 bullet is traveling faster than the Carcano bullet at 100 yards, yet is still described as slower than high velocity. This strongly supports the description of the Mannlicher-Carcano as a medium to low velocity weapon in technical terms that have been constant since at least 1961....
A wonderful story appears in Bloomgarden's book about the rifle Oswald is alleged to have used by "a veteran of the Fifth Army campaign in Italy who fought alongside the partisans. When they fired their Mannlicher-Carcanos, the sound was 'much like a firecracker. I couldn't believe they were serious . . . I thought the bullets would poop out and drop harmlessly, no trajectory . . . it sounded like the Fourth of July" (quoted from The Gun by Model and Grodon, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy, p. 86). At least, it is a wonderful story until you recall that many of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza reported that the first shot sounded more like a firecracker than it did a rifle round and that the bullet that hit him in the back had shallow penetration.
So if you're Lee Harvey Oswald, the Lone Gunman who's just received your rifle from Milt Klein's Chicago gun shop financed with Kennedy Boston mob bank money, where in Dallas do you go to get ammunition for it, if you're going to go shoot former 24th Infantry Division Commander General Edwin Walker?
The Commission's test firers were all rated as "Master" by the National Rifle Association (NRA); they were experts whose daily routines involved working with and shooting firearms (3H445). In the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feet respectively from a 30-foot-high tower. Each shooter fired two series of three shots, using the C2766 rifle. The men took 8.25, 6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first series and 7.00, 6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446). In the first series, each man hit his first and third targets but missed the second. Results varied on the next series, although in all cases but one, two targets were hit. Thus, in only two cases were the Commission's experts able to fire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did. None scored three hits, as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.
First, the longest range was 265 feet, not 365.
Second, the last two sentences are a total misrepresentation of the truth. There is no 5.6 second time limit. This is what the Warren Report says at the begining of this section about these tests, "It will be recalled from the discussion in chapter III that the assassin in all probability hit two out of the three shots during the maximun time span of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds if the second shot missed, or, if either the first or third shots missed, the assassin fired the three shots during a minimum time span of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds."
The 5.6 second limitation was only if it was the second shot that missed. If the first shot is the missed shot, which it was, then he had 7.9 seconds to get off the next two shots. The author of that passage has to know this, but he tellingly cites only the 5.6 second limit. Why? Is he looking for the truth or is he trying to fool you? Think about it.
Also, the author says, "None scored three hits, as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22." This is not true. Oswald only got two hits out of three shots. Five of the six test cycles met these conditions. Again, the author has to know this. It is right there in the same section where he is picking out bits and pieces to quote from the WR. Why is he trying to mislead his readers?
These shooters did this without any opportunity to get used to or work with the rifle beforehand. They were only allowed to pick up the rifle and take their shots. Oswald on the other hand had lots of practice and knew the gun. His performance is easily reproducible, as an *accurate* reporting of the shooting tests shows.
That rifle may have been old, but it was an Italian military rifle. They didn't use it because it couldn't shoot straight. It was known for its penetrating ability.Uh, not really.....(followed by a whole lot of stuff that doesn't dispute the point)
Really. It will go through several feet of pine without deforming the bullet. It will easily go through two bodies when it doesn't hit any bone in the first one.
It would be better if you could try to make your points and not simply rely on posting long passages where we are expected to figure out what you mean.
You better cut and paste that. When I read that you claimed that a 30-30 180 grain bullet can go as fast as a .223, I knew you didn't know what you're talking about.
Groden has produced a wealth of information wrt his collection of photographs. However, we cannot rely on his 'expertise' as far as his interpretation of photographs. He has no formal education in photography.
Thanks for the Thomas link. Bookmarking thread for now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.