10-05-2014, 05:57 PM
I have taken the liberty of examining some more of the Warren Commission's Exhibits and come up with more evidence of fakery and perjury on the part of the FBI's ballistics work in the JFK matter. I looked at the targets that were offered, using Frazier as a sponsoring witness, as the results of the tests conducted by himself and 2 other FBI agents. The exhibits are numbered 548 thru 554, and are available for download from any internet site that hosts JFK material, but I will attach the photos I used to the bottom of this post.
I also used a freely available pixel-counting digital software package to make my measurements. The way you use it is, you find an object in the picture with a known length, measure it, and then the software can use that as a yardstick to measure other objects in the picture. You can use any software to duplicate my results. One flaw that I noticed in the software, was in measuring very short diagonal lines, the software didn't seem to take into account the Pythagorean equation, in that it seemed to think that a 2 or 3 pixel diagonal line was the same length as a 2 or 3 pixel horizontal or vertical line. In digitized pictures, it's a rectangular array of rectangular pixels, so measuring short diagonals might be an issue. In the below work, I used vertical and horizontal measurements when possible. Also, horizontal or vertical pixel counting as a form of measurement contains a measurement error of two pixels (one on each end) as you cannot be sure how much of each "end pixel" is actually filled by the object in the picture. One last thing, where there is a third dimension in a photograph, you have to account for foreshortening, where objects closer to the camera look bigger; luckily, these photos are of flat two-dimensional paper or cardboard, and so that isn't a factor.
The tests were supposedly done in three parts, one batch at 15 yards, one batch at 25 yards, and 1 batch at 100 yards. If you have been following Bob Prudhomme's work on the actual in-flight "ballistics" (what happens to the bullet after it leaves the barrel and starts falling to the ground) reported by the FBI, you will know that there is another very good reason to suspect that the FBI wasn't truthfully reporting the accuracy of the weapon that it tested. I am not going to pretend that I believe that the FBI was actually testing a rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, or even that the tested weapon was actually a MC 91/38, but for the sake of brevity and clarity, I'm not going to argue the point in this thread.
The first thing I noticed about these exhibits is that the FBI used a different target for each range tested. The 15 yards target looks like some hand-drawn country road with an arrow pointing to the "aiming spot." The 25 yards tests were at a target with a crude handmade black circle in the middle. The 100 yards targets were with a black square in the middle. At least one of those black squares is visibly deformed. You have to wonder why the pre-eminent ballistics crime lab in the country didn't use pre-printed targets with bull's eyes and concentric circles for measuring accuracy, which have been cheaply and widely available for at least my entire lifetime. I believe the answer will become evident as we walk thru these exhibits. I had also noticed that Frazier in his testimony had been rather vague about distances as measured on the targets, as opposed to other bits of his expert testimony where he uses very precise, and yet incorrect (yay Bob!) measurements.
Since none of these targets came with a printed scale on them, I've had to make two very important assumptions. I assume that FBI actually used the WCC ammo and slug for the MC 91/38, that it claimed to have used, in the test. As per Bob, we know that slug is 6.7 mm or .264 inches in diameter. I have also assumed that a .264 slug leaves a .264 hole in a paper target. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) For future reference, Italian mil spec ammo is slightly larger at 6.8 mm or .268 inches in diameter.
With these assumptions in mind, I measured the actual horizontal and vertical distances in pixels of each bullet hole in the target. (Some targets had 6 holes, some had 3.) I then averaged all the measurements on each target, since each was a separate photo, and set that number of pixels to be equal to .264 inches. That gives me a digital "yardstick" to measure the distances in the pictures of the targets. I measured the actual distance and the angle of each shot. I used trig to determine vertical and horizontal numbers from that, to compare with Frazier's testimony. My ordering of the shots is clockwise from 12:00 to 3:00, since all of the holes were in that quarter section.
When Frazier gave a range for measurements, i.e. 1-2" or 4-5" I have arbitrarily picked the midpoint of that range. His measurements are (apparently) to the arbitrary center of a circle near (presumably) the bullet holes.
CE 548 (15 yards) 6 shots 10 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.90" high, 1.28" right
2. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.12" high, 1.11" right
3. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 5.04" high, 1.36" right
4. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.53" high, 1.35" right
5. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.49" high, 1.48" right
6. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.84" high, 1.71" right
AVG: actual = 4.65" high, 1.38" right
CE 549 (15 yards) 3 shots 11 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.98" high, 1.56" right
2. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.62" high, 1.56" right
3. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.60" high, 1.81" right
AVG: actual = 2.73" high, 1.64" right
CE 550 (25 yards) 6 shots 13 pixels per .264"
(1. Frazier = 1" high, actual = 1.94" high, 2.8" right)
(Outlier - Since Frazier mentioned it separately, so will I)
2. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 7.02" high, 2.38" right
3. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 3.29" high, 1.36" right
4. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 5.94" high, 2.56" right
5. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 6.53" high, 3.73" right
6. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 7.02" high, 4.31" right
AVG: actual = 4.90" high, 2.87" right
CE 551 (100 yards) 3 shots 11 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 5.89" high, 3.23" right
2. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 6.03" high, 3.51" right
3. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 6.75" high, 6.66" right
AVG: actual = 6.22" high, 4.47" right
CE 552 (100 yards) 3 shots 12 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 6.19" high, 3.78" right
2. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 3.34" high, 2.28" right
3. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 6.50" high, 5.73" right
AVG: actual = 5.34" high, 3.93" right
CE 553 (100 yards) 3 shots 17 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 3.47" high, 0.23" right
2. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 4.78" high, 3.72" right
3. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 2.00" high, 2.25" right
AVG: actual = 3.41" high, 2.07" right
CE 554 (100 yards) 3 shots 12 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 4.74" high, 2.78" right
2. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 6.21" high, 6.19" right
3. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 3.59" high, 5.32" right
AVG: actual = 4.85" high, 4.76" right
So my conclusions from all this are that (with the exception of CE554) the FBI deliberately and while "under oath," misreported the weapon as far more accurate than it actually tested. I'm still not at all certain that we can take the FBI at their word on whether these photos have been staged, or repaired, to make the gun look more accurate, but it is obvious that Frazier has significantly under-reported his measurements, leaving the gun looking more accurate than it really was.
NOTE: If the FBI used .257 caliber bullets (since they think that .257 is the same as .264 or .268) to make these holes, then the actual measurements would wind up about 95% of the ones reported above, but that still doesn't make them right, and adds another layer of deception to the lab work. If they were firing the .268 mil spec bullets the errors in reporting are even greater.
I also used a freely available pixel-counting digital software package to make my measurements. The way you use it is, you find an object in the picture with a known length, measure it, and then the software can use that as a yardstick to measure other objects in the picture. You can use any software to duplicate my results. One flaw that I noticed in the software, was in measuring very short diagonal lines, the software didn't seem to take into account the Pythagorean equation, in that it seemed to think that a 2 or 3 pixel diagonal line was the same length as a 2 or 3 pixel horizontal or vertical line. In digitized pictures, it's a rectangular array of rectangular pixels, so measuring short diagonals might be an issue. In the below work, I used vertical and horizontal measurements when possible. Also, horizontal or vertical pixel counting as a form of measurement contains a measurement error of two pixels (one on each end) as you cannot be sure how much of each "end pixel" is actually filled by the object in the picture. One last thing, where there is a third dimension in a photograph, you have to account for foreshortening, where objects closer to the camera look bigger; luckily, these photos are of flat two-dimensional paper or cardboard, and so that isn't a factor.
The tests were supposedly done in three parts, one batch at 15 yards, one batch at 25 yards, and 1 batch at 100 yards. If you have been following Bob Prudhomme's work on the actual in-flight "ballistics" (what happens to the bullet after it leaves the barrel and starts falling to the ground) reported by the FBI, you will know that there is another very good reason to suspect that the FBI wasn't truthfully reporting the accuracy of the weapon that it tested. I am not going to pretend that I believe that the FBI was actually testing a rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, or even that the tested weapon was actually a MC 91/38, but for the sake of brevity and clarity, I'm not going to argue the point in this thread.
The first thing I noticed about these exhibits is that the FBI used a different target for each range tested. The 15 yards target looks like some hand-drawn country road with an arrow pointing to the "aiming spot." The 25 yards tests were at a target with a crude handmade black circle in the middle. The 100 yards targets were with a black square in the middle. At least one of those black squares is visibly deformed. You have to wonder why the pre-eminent ballistics crime lab in the country didn't use pre-printed targets with bull's eyes and concentric circles for measuring accuracy, which have been cheaply and widely available for at least my entire lifetime. I believe the answer will become evident as we walk thru these exhibits. I had also noticed that Frazier in his testimony had been rather vague about distances as measured on the targets, as opposed to other bits of his expert testimony where he uses very precise, and yet incorrect (yay Bob!) measurements.
Since none of these targets came with a printed scale on them, I've had to make two very important assumptions. I assume that FBI actually used the WCC ammo and slug for the MC 91/38, that it claimed to have used, in the test. As per Bob, we know that slug is 6.7 mm or .264 inches in diameter. I have also assumed that a .264 slug leaves a .264 hole in a paper target. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) For future reference, Italian mil spec ammo is slightly larger at 6.8 mm or .268 inches in diameter.
With these assumptions in mind, I measured the actual horizontal and vertical distances in pixels of each bullet hole in the target. (Some targets had 6 holes, some had 3.) I then averaged all the measurements on each target, since each was a separate photo, and set that number of pixels to be equal to .264 inches. That gives me a digital "yardstick" to measure the distances in the pictures of the targets. I measured the actual distance and the angle of each shot. I used trig to determine vertical and horizontal numbers from that, to compare with Frazier's testimony. My ordering of the shots is clockwise from 12:00 to 3:00, since all of the holes were in that quarter section.
When Frazier gave a range for measurements, i.e. 1-2" or 4-5" I have arbitrarily picked the midpoint of that range. His measurements are (apparently) to the arbitrary center of a circle near (presumably) the bullet holes.
CE 548 (15 yards) 6 shots 10 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.90" high, 1.28" right
2. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.12" high, 1.11" right
3. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 5.04" high, 1.36" right
4. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.53" high, 1.35" right
5. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.49" high, 1.48" right
6. Frazier = 4" high, 1" right actual = 4.84" high, 1.71" right
AVG: actual = 4.65" high, 1.38" right
CE 549 (15 yards) 3 shots 11 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.98" high, 1.56" right
2. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.62" high, 1.56" right
3. Frazier = 2.5" high, 1" right actual = 2.60" high, 1.81" right
AVG: actual = 2.73" high, 1.64" right
CE 550 (25 yards) 6 shots 13 pixels per .264"
(1. Frazier = 1" high, actual = 1.94" high, 2.8" right)
(Outlier - Since Frazier mentioned it separately, so will I)
2. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 7.02" high, 2.38" right
3. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 3.29" high, 1.36" right
4. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 5.94" high, 2.56" right
5. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 6.53" high, 3.73" right
6. Frazier = 4.5" high, 1.5" right actual = 7.02" high, 4.31" right
AVG: actual = 4.90" high, 2.87" right
CE 551 (100 yards) 3 shots 11 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 5.89" high, 3.23" right
2. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 6.03" high, 3.51" right
3. Frazier = 5" high, unk. right actual = 6.75" high, 6.66" right
AVG: actual = 6.22" high, 4.47" right
CE 552 (100 yards) 3 shots 12 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 6.19" high, 3.78" right
2. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 3.34" high, 2.28" right
3. Frazier = 4" high, 3.5" right actual = 6.50" high, 5.73" right
AVG: actual = 5.34" high, 3.93" right
CE 553 (100 yards) 3 shots 17 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 3.47" high, 0.23" right
2. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 4.78" high, 3.72" right
3. Frazier = 2.5" high, 2" right actual = 2.00" high, 2.25" right
AVG: actual = 3.41" high, 2.07" right
CE 554 (100 yards) 3 shots 12 pixels per .264"
1. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 4.74" high, 2.78" right
2. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 6.21" high, 6.19" right
3. Frazier = 5" high, 5" right actual = 3.59" high, 5.32" right
AVG: actual = 4.85" high, 4.76" right
So my conclusions from all this are that (with the exception of CE554) the FBI deliberately and while "under oath," misreported the weapon as far more accurate than it actually tested. I'm still not at all certain that we can take the FBI at their word on whether these photos have been staged, or repaired, to make the gun look more accurate, but it is obvious that Frazier has significantly under-reported his measurements, leaving the gun looking more accurate than it really was.
NOTE: If the FBI used .257 caliber bullets (since they think that .257 is the same as .264 or .268) to make these holes, then the actual measurements would wind up about 95% of the ones reported above, but that still doesn't make them right, and adds another layer of deception to the lab work. If they were firing the .268 mil spec bullets the errors in reporting are even greater.
