No Lead Necessary

[Herbert Blenner]

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. [b]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.[b] 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.

The Warren Commission Report included this game-changing information and added the following comment. "Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired."

In this case the commission stated the correct conclusion for the wrong reason. The "miss to the right" would have been reduced, if not eliminated, primarily because the limousine was moving away from the sniper's nest somewhat to the right of directly behind the target.

[Bob Prudhomme]

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. [b]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.[b] 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.

The Warren Commission Report included this game-changing information and added the following comment. "Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired."

In this case the commission stated the correct conclusion for the wrong reason. The "miss to the right" would have been reduced, if not eliminated, primarily because the limousine was moving away from the sniper's nest somewhat to the right of directly behind the target.

Hi Herbert

More nonsense from the FBI.

SA Frazier also testified that he shot a 3" x 5" group at 100 yards with this rifle, shooting 5" to the right. If Frazier considered a rifle shooting 5" to the right at 100 yards as shooting "slightly to the right", how far to the right does the rifle have to shoot before he thinks it is way off?

There are three other things that are wrong with Frazier's story.

First, the sniper would be shooting downhill from the 6th story. Bullets fired downhill OR uphill will always hit high of their intended target. This, added to the rifle already shooting high, would mean the bullet would be hitting WAY high of the sniper's aim, and make a mockery of Frazier's theory.

Second, the road might make a slight curve to the right, but not enough to make the sniper's target to be moving laterally to the right. See photo below:
















The red circle indicates the position of the limo at the time of the head shot.

There is so little movement to the right, a rifle shooting 5 inches to the right would likely miss JFK by 5 inches. This is further compounded by LHO being right handed. Right handed shooters, shooting while under stress, tend to miss to the right of a target, just as left handed shooters tend to miss to the left. The reason fir this is that, while under stress (shooting a President) a person's system puts out adrenaline. Instead of gently squeezing a rifle trigger, people tend to "pull" on a trigger, and this motion pulls the rifle toward the direction of the hand on the trigger and throws the rifle off target. We see this all the time deer hunting, especially at the beginning of the season, when the more exciteable types of hunters get "buck fever".

Third, Frazier testified to the WC that Oswald's rifle shot 2.5" high at 15 yards on level ground, and 2.5" high at 100 yards on level ground. This is impossible. I calculated that LHO's rifle, shooting 2.5" high at 15 yards, would be shooting at least 16.6" high of its intended target at 100 yards.

Frazier was either a complete imbecile or lied to the WC.

[Herbert Blenner]

Frazier explicitly stated that the scope when received in his laboratory was adjusted to hit without leading the moving target. Perhaps this is the reason why they then preceded to screw around with the scope adjustments to produce misleading sighting errors.

Second, the curvature of the road did not cause to moving target to move from left of right in the scope's of field view. Instead a straight road would produce this observed effect since the target was moving away from the shooter.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Frazier explicitly stated that the scope when received in his laboratory was adjusted to hit without leading the moving target. Perhaps this is the reason why they then preceded to screw around with the scope adjustments to produce misleading sighting errors.

Second, the curvature of the road did not cause to moving target to move from left of right in the scope's of field view. Instead a straight road would produce this observed effect since the target was moving away from the shooter.

Frazier explicitly stated a lot of things. Unfortunately for him, when you put all of these things next to each other, he contradicts himself on a regular basis.

P.S. No one purposely adjusts a scope so that it will hit without leading the target. The scope shot high and to the right for several reasons; chief among them being it was adjusted as far as it would go and was still off target.

[Herbert Blenner]

Frazier explicitly stated that the scope when received in his laboratory was adjusted to hit without leading the moving target. Perhaps this is the reason why they then preceded to screw around with the scope adjustments to produce misleading sighting errors.

Second, the curvature of the road did not cause to moving target to move from left of right in the scope's of field view. Instead a straight road would produce this observed effect since the target was moving away from the shooter.

Frazier explicitly stated a lot of things. Unfortunately for him, when you put all of these things next to each other, he contradicts himself on a regular basis.

P.S. No one purposely adjusts a scope so that it will hit without leading the target. The scope shot high and to the right for several reasons; chief among them being it was adjusted as far as it would go and was still off target.

I noted that you fail to distinguish a stationary target that showed the rifle shot high and to the right from a moving target whose motion made leading the target unnecessary.

Your reading of Frazier as confused does not diminish his lucid statement. Period. He found and reported evidence that strongly suggested that the shooter had foreknowledge of the speed and direction of the limousine at a particular portion of Elm Street.

Now are you going to argue that a FBI agent made up this evidence of conspiracy and the WC did nothing to prevent publication of this shocking claim?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Frazier explicitly stated that the scope when received in his laboratory was adjusted to hit without leading the moving target. Perhaps this is the reason why they then preceded to screw around with the scope adjustments to produce misleading sighting errors.

Second, the curvature of the road did not cause to moving target to move from left of right in the scope's of field view. Instead a straight road would produce this observed effect since the target was moving away from the shooter.

Frazier explicitly stated a lot of things. Unfortunately for him, when you put all of these things next to each other, he contradicts himself on a regular basis.

P.S. No one purposely adjusts a scope so that it will hit without leading the target. The scope shot high and to the right for several reasons; chief among them being it was adjusted as far as it would go and was still off target.

I noted that you fail to distinguish a stationary target that showed the rifle shot high and to the right from a moving target whose motion made leading the target unnecessary.

Your reading of Frazier as confused does not diminish his lucid statement. Period. He found and reported evidence that strongly suggested that the shooter had foreknowledge of the speed and direction of the limousine at a particular portion of Elm Street.

Now are you going to argue that a FBI agent made up this evidence of conspiracy and the WC did nothing to prevent publication of this shocking claim?

Herbert, this discussion ends here. I refuse to discuss a topic with someone as lost as you are, and I have for years been highly suspect of your motives.