More Perjury by FBI Agent Robert Frazier?

[Drew Phipps]

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.

[Drew Phipps]

I got an answer at least to one of my questions. Frazier testified as a defense witness in Louisiana v. Clay Shaw. During his testimony he said that the 15 yard target was a "silohuette" (sp?) target. I recall these being a man-shaped dark shadow with rings. None of that appears on the pictures of the targets used by the FBI as evidence in the Warren commission. (see CE 548, CE 549).

He also testified that the 25 yard target was a "round spot on the back of a paper target". (See CE 550) Why was it neccessary to turn the target over and draw a bullseye on the back when there would have been a perfectly good one on the front?

The only explanation was that Frazier was forced to turn the targets over and draw a bullseye or aiming point closer to the bullet holes, or else admit that the gun was wildly inaccurate at even 15 or 25 yards.

As a last note, Frazier testified that the scope mounted on the gun was loose and wobbly when he received it (7:00 AM Nov. 23, 1963) and he had to tighten the scope's screws in order use the sight at all.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I got an answer at least to one of my questions. Frazier testified as a defense witness in Louisiana v. Clay Shaw. During his testimony he said that the 15 yard target was a "silohuette" (sp?) target. I recall these being a man-shaped dark shadow with rings. None of that appears on the pictures of the targets used by the FBI as evidence in the Warren commission. (see CE 548, CE 549).

He also testified that the 25 yard target was a "round spot on the back of a paper target". (See CE 550) Why was it neccessary to turn the target over and draw a bullseye on the back when there would have been a perfectly good one on the front?

The only explanation was that Frazier was forced to turn the targets over and draw a bullseye or aiming point closer to the bullet holes, or else admit that the gun was wildly inaccurate at even 15 or 25 yards.

As a last note, Frazier testified that the scope mounted on the gun was loose and wobbly when he received it (7:00 AM Nov. 23, 1963) and he had to tighten the scope's screws in order use the sight at all.

I must admit, I've never looked at any of the testimony from the Clay Shaw trial. However, just from the testimony you've revealed that Frazier gave at that trial, it would seem to be a good time to start. Are there any websites that carry the transcripts, in particular Robert Frazier's testimony?

P.S. Very interesting that Frazier testified the scope was loose and wobbly in its mounts, and it was necessary to tighten the screws. If these were the screws holding the scope to the scope mount, this adds a whole new dimension to this matter. A loose scope is able to turn in the mounts, and turning it as little as 5° either direction will throw off a previously sighted in scope. This problem becomes even more pronounced on a side mounted scope. The question is, was the scope loose when the rifle was on the 6th floor or did someone at the DPD disassemble the rifle in a search for clues?

[Drew Phipps]

the first place i saw it was jfk-online.com iirc. There were several more sites that had it. I was looking for images of State's Exhibit 18 (a Carcano 91/38) in that case, to make a visual comparison. Alas, the image doesnt seem to be available. Maybe its time for a road trip to NOLA?

As far as the scope, Frazier testified that he knew nothing of the condition of the scope before it arrived. As far as I know, no one else has mentioned it either. I also don't recall Frazier mentioning it in the Warren Commision hearings. Obviously the fact was of little value to the Warren folks.

[Bob Prudhomme]

"Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, the -- with reference to the rifle which was examined by you, and the live ammunition that was turned over to you, that is, one round of live ammunition, could you tell me, as an expert, what would be the approximate speed of the projectile of that live round of ammunition if fired from the rifle you examined?
A: The velocity at the muzzle would be in the neighborhood of 1,965 feet per second. This velocity can vary as much as 50 feet per second, I would say closer to 40 feet per second, in either direction from this average. However, I tested ammunition similar to this, made by the same company, and it did average 1,965 feet per second at the muzzle.
Q: Now, to what extent would this peed diminish over a distance, say, of 265 feet?
A: A rule-of-thumb estimate would give you a decrease in velocity of 265, that is, it reduces approximately one foot per second in velocity for each foot traveled.
Q: So that at the end of 265 feet, it would be going approximately how fast?
A: The actual figures which I have calculated on that I do not have with me, but generally speaking it would be traveling 1,800 feet per second."

I don't know how well you did in Math in school, Drew, but I get 1700 fps, not 1800 fps. And weren't those bullets travelling 2165 fps in 1964? I guess the ammunition was just getting old.

[Drew Phipps]

The 1900 fps velocity (2165-265) was important back in 1964 because that was considered (medically) within the very small range of velocities at which the magic bullet could work its magic and remain pristine. I rather suspect Frazier took his muzzle velocity figures from a doctor and not from any field work. There was one author/doctor who wrote a book with all these velocities, and the tumbling, and the pristine bullet. Although I dont remember his name, I remember that his velocity figures kept changing (downwards) as time went on and the science got better.

It is interesting that Frazier remembers a different set of field test results and still gets the math wrong. We already know from Frazier's WC testimony that he just wasn't very good at math, at least not on the witness stand. Frazier might have been a great shot, but probably just had his numbers fed or read to him for his testimony. Later in his testimony, he corrects the velocity of the bullet back to 2165.

[Bob Prudhomme]

The 1900 fps velocity (2165-265) was important back in 1964 because that was considered (medically) within the very small range of velocities at which the magic bullet could work its magic and remain pristine. I rather suspect Frazier took his muzzle velocity figures from a doctor and not from any field work. There was one author/doctor who wrote a book with all these velocities, and the tumbling, and the pristine bullet. Although I dont remember his name, I remember that his velocity figures kept changing (downwards) as time went on and the science got better.

It is interesting that Frazier remembers a different set of field test results and still gets the math wrong. We already know from Frazier's WC testimony that he just wasn't very good at math, at least not on the witness stand. Frazier might have been a great shot, but probably just had his numbers fed or read to him for his testimony. Later in his testimony, he corrects the velocity of the bullet back to 2165.

Here is the gem of which you speak:

"Oser: From your tests, will you tell us what was the speed you found this particular rifle to shoot? I think you said something around 1,975 feet per second was the average.
Frazier: If I said that I was in error. Our tests averaged 2,165 feet per second."

Someone forget his lines?

[Drew Phipps]

Immediately before this "correction" there has been a short break and Frazier has been told by the judge not to talk to anyone except the two lawyers handling the trial and Frazier's own government lawyer, an Assistant US attorney, whose name I don't recall but its in the transcript.

[David Josephs]

Here are the break-up effects on a FMJ bullet at different speeds... (a bullet very similar to the Audrey Bell bullet and the bullet described by those who came in contact with the Parkland bullet.

FMJ #1 - thru and thru jacket-shirt-torso-jacket-shirt-torso-ribs-skin-wristbone-skin-leg.... WHOLE & PRISTINE
FMJ #2 - micro particles

2139 fps or less and we get no fragments
This FMJ bullet needed to hit at over 3000fps.... and STILL does not create micro fragments


Nor is there an entry point at the starting point of these micro-particles.

He was shot from the front, in the right temple, with ammunition that completely fragmented.

CE399 was given to Todd by Rowley to bring to Frazier at the FBI lab. All other bullets (ie the one lodged behind JFK's right ear as described by Belmont to Tolson in his memo DURING THE AUTOPSY on the night of 11/22. (bottom))

Who in the Morgue would be calling Belmont (Sibert/O'Neil) to let him know about this other bullet?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5989[/ATTACH]


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5990[/ATTACH]



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5991[/ATTACH]

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bump