Mr. FRAZIER. Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a
textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair
ring is mounted in a telescope.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of
the specific scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit
139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. FRAZIER. Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of
the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139,
showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing
indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a
crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the
crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand
portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up,
being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is
a windage screw on the right-hand side of the scope tube circle which
adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows
diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which
causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was
shifting in the telescope tube so that the gun could not be sighted-in
merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and
then fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing
this spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that
we decided it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon
inasfar as windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw
could not be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the
targets down to the sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and
fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to
the right.
Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, the construction of the scope is
such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the
scope does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as
it should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; that is true--when the crosshairs are largely out
of the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move
the crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which
causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for
this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the
ring rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this
screw being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is
not strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is
necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it
to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next
shots.
Mr. EISENBERG. And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the
crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is
that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER. We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and
decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would
use these targets which we had fired.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you
find that they stayed, remained stabilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they did.
Mr. EISENBERG. How long do you think the crosshairs would remain
stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER. They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes
you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it
should be--do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER. No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube
there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we
received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been
removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November
27th?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would practice without actually firing the weapon be
helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action
weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area
to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing
the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think
three shots could be fired accurately within 5-1/2 seconds if no rest
was utilized?
Mr. FRAZIER. That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary
or needed or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in
that length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or
4-inch circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a
support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100
yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a
moving target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have
lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass
over the moving target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give an amount?
Mr. FRAZIER. Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the
target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards
you or at right angles.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think you could shorten your time with further
practice with the weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. FRAZIER. I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with
approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle
could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice
with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area--4.6
is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am now going to ask you several hypothetical
questions concerning the factors which might have affected the aim
of the assassin on November 22d, and I would like you to make the
following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the
assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were
found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth
floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above
the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car
was apparently located when the shots were fired.
Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175
feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265
feet.
And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and
third shots was 5-1/2 seconds.
Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead
would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its
movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet
under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent
upon the direction in which the object was moving, primarily. If it is
moving away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet
which he would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less
lead in elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2
feet in a direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then
would be cut to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that
nature, due to the movement of the individual.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you
gave?
Mr. FRAZIER. I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you supply these to us, either in further
testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. I have one object here, a diagram which will illustrate
that lead, if you would like to use that. This is drawn to scale from
those figures which you quoted as building height, and distances of 175
feet and 265 feet.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these figures are approximations of the
figures believed to be involved in the assassination.
Will you supply the data at a later date?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; I can furnish that.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 556?
Mr. McCLOY. That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 556, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the lead in that diagram, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER. In Commission Exhibit 556, it shows a triangular diagram
with the vertical line on the left-hand side illustrating the height of
the building. The figures of a 60-foot building height plus----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is height of the muzzle above the ground?
Mr. FRAZIER. No--window sill--60-foot window sill height above the
ground, with an assumed 2-foot height in addition to accommodate the
height of the rifle above the possible--the possible height of the
rifle above the window sill.
The horizontal line extends outward from the building to a small
rectangular block, and then a sloping line illustrates a 5-foot slope
from the 175-foot point to the 265-foot point.
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr. FRAZIER. The time of flight of the bullet of approximately 8/100ths
of a second and, again, it was necessary to assume--the time of flight
of the bullet from the window to this first location of 175 feet is
approximately 8/100ths of a second, which means a 2-foot lead on the
target. That is, the target would move 2 feet in that interval of time,
thereby necessitating shooting slightly ahead of the target to hit your
aiming point. That has been diagrammatically illustrated by a 2-foot
distance laid off on this rectangular block here, and two lines, very
fine lines, drawn back towards the window area.
The right-hand side of Commission's 556 shows the same rectangular
block, again with two lines drawn to it, one illustrating the point of
aim and the other the amount of lead which would be necessary to strike
an object aimed at which was moving, according to the time of flight of
the projectile.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you calculated the speed of the car by translating
the figures on total time elapsed between first and third shots?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. The time--the speed of the moving object was
calculated on the basis of an assumed 5.5-second interval for a
distance of 90 feet, which figures out mathematically to be 11.3 miles
per hour.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said before that in order to give this 2-foot
lead, you would have to aim 2 inches--for a target going away from you,
you would have to aim 2 inches above the target, or in front of the
target.
Mr. FRAZIER. 2 feet in front of the target, which would interpolate
into a much lower actual elevation change.
Mr. EISENBERG. The elevation change would be 2 inches, is that it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, no. It would be on the order of 6 to 8 inches.
Mr. EISENBERG. 6 to 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your 2-inch figure?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't recall.
Mr. EISENBERG. But it is 6 to 8 inches in elevation?
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Using that telescopic lens, how would you aim that rifle to achieve
that distinction?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, it would be necessary to hold the crosshairs an
estimated distance off the target, of say, 6 inches over the intended
target, so what when the shot was fired the crosshairs should be
located about 6 inches over your target, and in the length of time
that the bullet was in the air and the length of time the object was
moving, the object would move into actually, the path of the bullet in
approximately 1/10th to 13/100ths of a second.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that if the target of the assassin was the center of
the President's head, and he wanted to give a correct lead, where would
he have aimed, if we eliminate the possibility of errors introduced by
other factors?
Mr. FRAZIER. He would aim from 4 to 6 inches--approximately 2 inches, I
would say, above the President's head, which would be actually 6 inches
above his aiming point at the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. How difficult is it to give this--a lead of this
size--to this type of target?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would not be difficult at all with a telescopic sight,
because your target is enlarged four times, and you can estimate very
quickly in a telescopic sight, inches or feet or lead of any desired
amount.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would it be substantially easier than it would be with
an open or peep sight?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. It would be much more difficult to do with the open
iron sights, the notched rear sight and the blade front sight, which is
on Exhibit 139.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have been able to calculate the precise amount
of lead which should be given, because you have been given figures. If
you had been in the assassin's position, and were attempting to give a
correct lead, what lead do you think you would have estimated as being
the necessary lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would have been a very small amount, in the
neighborhood of a 3-inch lead.
Mr. EISENBERG. As opposed to the 6 or 8 inches?
Mr. FRAZIER. As opposed to about 6 inches, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would the consequence of the mistake in assumption
as to lead be--that is, if you gave a 3-inch lead rather than the
correct lead?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be a difference of a 3-inch variation in the
point of impact on the target.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, if you had aimed at the center of the President's
head, and given a 3-inch lead, again eliminating other errors, where
would you have hit, if you hit accurately?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would be 3 inches below the center of his head--from
the top--it would be not the actual center from the back, but the
center would be located high. The bullet would strike at possibly the
base of the skull.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, suppose you had given no lead at all and aimed at
that target and aimed accurately. Where would the bullet have hit?
Mr. FRAZIER. It would hit the base of the neck--approximately 6 inches
below the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all,
if you had been in that position?
Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with
this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any
lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a
target of that size.
Mr. McCLOY. May I ask a question?
In your experimentation, in your firing of those shots that you have
testified to a little while back, when you fired the first shot, was
the shot in the chamber, or did you have to push it into the chamber by
use of the bolt?
Mr. FRAZIER. This was fired with a loaded chamber, and timed from the
time of this first shot until the last shot.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you shoot offhand or did you shoot with a rest?
Mr. FRAZIER. We shot with a rest, both the other individuals and
myself, on each occasion, with one arm resting on a bench or a table.
Mr. McCLOY. Were you prone, or were you standing up?
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, we were sitting, actually, sitting or kneeling, in
order to bring the arm down to the rest we were using.
Mr. McCLOY. One other question.
You keep referring to, and the questions kept referring to, "lead." By
"lead," in this instance, you would mean height above the aiming point
rather than----
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. To the right, let's say, of the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Because it was a going away shot?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. That is all.
Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question?
Where did you conduct these tests?
Mr. FRAZIER. The targets were fired both on the indoor range in the
FBI range here in Washington and the 100-yard tests were fired at the
Quantico, Va., FBI ranges.
Representative BOGGS. Have any tests--have there been any simulated
tests in the building in Texas?
Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know, sir.
Representative BOGGS. But the FBI has not conducted any?
Mr. FRAZIER. Not to my knowledge. There may have been measurements and
things of that nature taken, but I don't know.
Representative BOGGS. Now, in these tests, was there any difficulty
about firing this rifle three times within the space or period of time
that has been given to the Commission--5 seconds, I think.
Mr. FRAZIER. Well, let me say this. I fired the rifle three times,
in accordance with that system of timing it from the first shot with
the chamber loaded until the last shot occurred--three times in 4.6
seconds, 4.8 seconds, 5.6 seconds, 5.8, 5.9, and another one a little
over 6, or in that neighborhood. The tenth of a second variation could
very easily be as a result of the timing procedure used. A reflex of
just not stopping the stopwatch in a tenth of a second.
Representative BOGGS. You were firing at a simulated target?
Mr. FRAZIER. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the
targets, are those which we actually fired.
Representative BOGGS. My questions are really a followup of the
Chairman's question.
These practices--were you just practicing for time, or were you
practicing under conditions similar to those existing in Dallas at the
time of the assassination?
Mr. FRAZIER. The tests we ran were for the purposes of determining
whether we could fire this gun accurately in a limited amount of time,
and specifically to determine whether it could be fired accurately in 6
seconds.
Now, we assumed the 6 seconds empirically--that is, we had not been
furnished with any particular time interval. Later we were furnished
with a time interval of 5.5 seconds. However, I have no independent
knowledge--had no independent knowledge of the time interval or the
accuracy. But we merely fired it to demonstrate the results from
rapidly firing the weapon, reloading the gun and so on, in a limited
time.
Representative BOGGS. Were there other tests conducted to determine the
accuracy of the weapon and so on?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir--only the rapid-fire accuracy tests were fired by
the FBI.
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.
Representative BOGGS. That was the point I was trying to establish.
Mr. FRAZIER. This Exhibit 549 is a target fired, showing that the
weapon will, even under rapid-fire conditions, group closely--that is,
one shot with the next.
Representative BOGGS. How many shots in the weapon? Five?
Mr. McCLOY. The clip takes six itself. You can put a seventh in the
chamber. It could hold seven, in other words. But the clip is only a
six-shot clip.
Representative BOGGS. Was the weapon fully loaded at the time of the
assassination?
Mr. McCLOY. I don't know how many shells--three shells were picked up.
Mr. EISENBERG. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. McCLOY. Back on the record.
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.
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, on that last question, did you attempt to center
the windage crosshair, to sight-in the windage crosshair?
Mr. FRAZIER. We attempted to, and found that it was changing--the
elevation was changing the windage. So we merely left the windage as it
was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you say conclusively that the windage crosshair
could not be centered in, sighted-in?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir. I would say that the windage could have been
centered in the telescope to bring the windage to the aiming line.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that--and if that had been done, then you would not
have this problem of dispersion to the right?
Mr. FRAZIER. That's true.