JFK: Oswald non potè sparare quei colpi?

JFK: Oswald non potè sparare quei colpi?

Leggo dall’Ansa del 29 giugno: «ROMA – Lee Harvey Oswald non poté uccidere Kennedy da solo: la conferma arriva dai test condotti nella fabbrica dove venne prodotta la presunta arma del delitto. Il fucile Carcano modello 91/38 matricola C2766 con il quale l’ex marine di 24 anni avrebbe assassinato il presidente Usa, esplodendo tre colpi in sette secondi – secondo la commissione Warren – vide infatti la luce nel 1940 in Italia, nella Regia fabbrica d’Armi di Terni. Grazie all’autorizzazione concessa dal Comando Logistico dell’Esercito italiano, l’Ansa ha potuto verificare a Terni che i fucili 91/38 hanno una velocità massima di tiro stimata in 5 secondi per colpo. Lo documenta un video in esclusiva su www.ansa.it, arricchito da immagini del circuito Aptn, dal filmato Zapruder e dalle foto Ansa. Nei test, condotti sotto la supervisione di ufficiali dell’Esercito, il tiratore ha impiegato 19 secondi per mettere a segno i tre colpi, contro i presunti sette secondi occorsi ad Oswald».

Lo speciale dell’Ansa è molto interessante e i video, anche se concisi, molto intriganti. Dove si sostiene che Oswald aveva bisogno di almeno 5 secondi per sparare ogni colpo (e dunque 19, contro i circa 7 necessari), si da per scontato che l’ottica montata sul suo fucile fosse ingombrante, come quella sistemata sul fucile di prova alla Fabbrica d’Armi di Terni, e che quindi rallentasse il caricamento. Inoltre, il tiratore nel filmato impiega alcuni secondi a prendere la mira ogni volta.

Tutto ciò, però, contrasta con le repliche di tiro fatte all’epoca con lo stesso fucile di Oswald dai tiratori dell’FBI. Tre cecchini spararono un centinaio di colpi con il modello C2766 di Oswald contro tre sagome poste a distanze diverse: in tutti i casi riuscirono a sparare e a ricaricare in tempi contenuti tra i 4,6 e gli 8,25 secondi. Dunque, fu dimostrato già allora che, con un fucile non simile ma con lo stesso trovato nel Deposito dei libri, e presumibilmente usato da Oswald, era possibile sparare quei tre colpi nella tempistica stabilita con l’aiuto del film di Zapruder.

Uno dei tiratori dell’FBI, Robert Frazer, ha effettuato quattro serie di spari con quel fucile e questi sono i suoi tempi: 5.9 secondi, 6.2 secondi, 5.6 secondi e 6.5 secondi. Forse, allora, i 19 secondi impiegati a Terni dipendono dal fatto che il fucile non era proprio lo stesso di Dallas? Difficile dirlo solo guardando un filmato. In ogni caso, per chi volesse approfondire la questione delle repliche di tiro dell’FBI allego sotto un estratto dal rapporto della Commissione Warren e dell’interrogatorio di Frazer e di Ronald Simmons, del Laboratorio di Balistica dell’esercito (scusate se è in inglese, ma non ho proprio il tempo di tradurlo).

Per chi invece vuole saperne di più sul fucile segnalo questa pagina dal sito (in italiano) dedicato all’assassinio di Kennedy. Qui, invece, si trova l’intera testimonianza di Frazier, dove si fa anche menzione del SIFAR, il servizio segreto militare italiano dell’epoca.

Poichè oggi si dice nel comunicato ANSA che: «negli archivi Usa l’unico accenno a indagini ufficiali del governo di Roma spunta in un documento del dicembre ’63. Il dispaccio di fonte Cia racconta che il ministro della Difesa in carica, Giulio Andreotti, aveva ordinato un rapporto sul Carcano di Dallas a un certo ‘Depatron Servicé . Il rapporto (del Depatron), sintetizzato nel dispaccio, sostiene cose in parte diverse da quelle poi scritte nel rapporto Warren».

Nella testimonianza a Frazier, l’unica volta che si cita il SIFAR si dice che i Servizi segreti italiani volevano che le informazioni fornite restassero segrete. E visto che la Commissione voleva evitare di inserire “segreti” nel proprio rapporto, ci si chiede se le informazioni dei Servizi italiani fossero davvero importanti da giustificare il segreto. Segue una discussione “off the record” (non registrata) e si passa ad altro, senza più citare il SIFAR o le indagini italiane.

Sarebbe interessante sapere che cosa si sono detti in quello scambio “off the record” e che cosa conteneva davvero il rapporto del SIFAR. Potrebbe anche darsi che il fatto che le informazioni in esso contenute e quelle poi usate dalla Commissione Warren differiscono dipende “solo” dal fatto che quel rapporto non fu utilizzato. Sarebbe quindi interessante potere esaminare il rapporto completo del SIFAR per capire se davvero non era importante o se è stato ignorato apposta, come si lascia intendere ora.

Dunque, che cosa concludere? Per ora non molto. Se non che lo strillo secondo cui Oswald “non poteva avere sparato da solo quei colpi”, appare non dimostrato. O, meglio, sembra invece dimostrato (anche se non dai test di Terni) che Oswald avrebbe potuto sparare quei colpi nei tempi previsti. Certo è che, a 44 anni di distanza, quel delitto continua a sollevare nuovi interrogativi e nuovi dubbi. Se ci saranno sviluppi, tornerò ad aggiornarvi.
Estratto dalla testimonianza di Robert Frazier:

Now, the WC testimony of FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier,
taken from 3H402-406.

<Quote on>-----------------------------------------------

	Mr. Eisenberg. Have you tested Commission Exhibit 139 to
determine its accuracy under rapid-fire conditions?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes; I have.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe these tests?

	Mr. Frazier. A series of three tests were made. When we
first received the rifle, there was not an opportunity to test it
at long range, so we tested it at short range. After we had
obtained sample bullets and cartridge cases from it, we fired
accuracy and speed tests with it. Three examiners did the firing,
all three being present at the same time. The first tests were made
at 15 yards, and shooting at a silhouette target.

	Mr. Eisenberg. A silhouette of a man?

	Mr. Frazier. A paper silhouette target of a man; yes.
	Possibly you may wish to mark these, to refer to them.

	Mr. Eisenberg. These targets were made by you or in your
presence?

	Mr. Frazier. These are actually copies of the actual
targets. I have the actual targets here, if you would rather use
those. However, the markings show better on the copies than they do
on the actual targets.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I request permission to
introduce the copies for the reasons given, as Commission Exhibits
548 and 549.

	Mr. McCloy. You have made these copies, Mr. Frazier?

	Mr. Frazier. Well, I had them made. They are actual xerox
copies of the original targets, which are black, and do not show
the markings placed around the holes.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record.

	(Discussion off the record.)

	Mr. McCloy. Back on the record.

	Mr. Frazier, you have the original targets that were used
in this experiment.

	Mr. McCloy. Were you one of the three that fired?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. McCloy. Can you identify your target as distinguished
from the other two?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. McCloy. Do you have the target that you fired?

	Mr. Frazier. I fired -- yes, I do. However, another
examiner also fired at this same target.

	Mr. McCloy. Have you made a copy of that -- or did you
cause a copy of that target to be made?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. McCloy. And you have that with you?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes; I do.

	Mr. McCloy. Have you marked it yet?

	Mr. Eisenberg. No. That would be 548.

	Mr. McCloy. Suppose you identify that copy.

	Mr. Eisenberg. This copy that you are presenting to us has
intials at the bottom "CC-R-CK"?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And the numbers and letters D-2 on the right
hand margin?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And that has been copied under your
supervision?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman?

	Mr. McCloy. That can be admitted as Commission Exhibit 548.

	(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 548
and received in evidence.)

	Mr. McCloy. Now, is Commission Exhibit 548 an accurate copy
of the target which you have -- that you fired, and which you
presented?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes; it is.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Now, you also have a copy here which has the
name on it Killion, and similar intitials, letters, and numbers to
the other target. Is this an accurate copy which you had prepared?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. That was the target fired by Charles
Killion in my presence.

	Mr. Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 549?

	Mr. McCloy. It may be admitted.

	(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No.
548, and received in evidence.)

	Mr. Eisenberg. This test was performed  at 15 yards, did
you say, Mr. Frazier?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to
determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not
being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to
determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And could you give us the names of the three
agents who participated?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes. sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt
Cunningham, and myself.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And the date?

	Mr. Frazier. November 27, 1963.

	Mr. Eisenberg. How many  shots did each agent fire?

	Mr. Frazier. Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three,
and I fired three.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have the times within which each
agent fired the three shots?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in
nine seconds, and they are shown -- the three shots are
interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.

	Cunningham fired three shots -- I know the approximate
number of seconds was seven.

	Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you at a later date confirm the exact
time?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And you will do that by letter to the
Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And your time, Mr. Frazier?

	Mr. Frazier. For this series, was six seconds, for my three
shots, which also were on the target at Mr. Cunningham fire, which
is Exhibit 548.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Could you characterize the dispersion of the
shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and
549?

	Mr. Frazier. The bullets landed approximately -- in
Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1
inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime,
interlocking in the paper all three shots.

	On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots.
These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of
each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch
to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired
were -- landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two or three of them
interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and
approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you describe the second series of tests?

	Mr. Frazier. The second test which was performed was two
series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired
both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an
effort to determiine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily,
with secondary purpose of accuracy.

	We did not attempt -- I did not attempt to maintain in that
test an accurate rate of fire.

	This is the actual target which I fired.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And that target has all six holes in it?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir -- two series of three holes, the
first three holes being marked with the No.1, and the second series
being marked No.2.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced
as 550.

	Mr. McCloy. That will be admitted.

	(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No.
550, and recieved in evidence.)

	Mr. Eisenberg. Could you describe for the record the
dispersion on the two series?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were
approximately -- from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to
the right of the aiming point and landed within a 2 inch circle.
These three shots were fired in 4.8 seconds. The second series of
shots landed -- one was about 1 inch high, and the other about 4 or
5 inches high, and the maximum spread was 5 inches.

	That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And do you have the date?

	Mr. Frazier. That also was on the 27th of November.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Same date as the first tests?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg.  And you performed one more test, I believe?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100
yards on the range at Quantico, VA., firing groups of three shots.
And I have the four targets we fired here.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as
551, 552, 553, through 554.

	Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

	(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits
Nos. 551, through 554, and received in evidence.)

	Mr. Eisenberg. Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?

	Mr. Frazier. I fired them.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you characterize the dispersion on each
of the four targets?

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir.

	On the Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed
approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2 inch circle, almost
on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other
targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, VA. These three
shots were fired in 5.9 seconds.

	The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552,
consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in
approximately a 4 1/2  to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3
or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point.

	Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired,
consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located
about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming
point.

	These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.

	And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consistion of three shots
fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high  and
5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2 inch
circle.

	Mr. McCloy. The first one is not exactly five inches to the
right, is it?

	Mr. Frazier. No, sir. The center of the circle in which
they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the
right.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your
opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high
and to the right of the aiming poiint.

	Mr. Frazier. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this
rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the
telescope sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to
the aiming point

[...]

	Mr. Eisenberg. Do you know when the defect of 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 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 preexisted 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.

<Quote off>--------------------------------------------------

Now, describing the most realistic of the Warren Commission's
shooting tests, is Ronald Simmons of the Army's Ballistics
Research Laboratory.  This testimony is taken from 3H444-447.

<Quote on>--------------------------------------------------

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test
run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with
this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a give
distance under rapid-fire conditions?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes; we did. We placed three
targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at
distances of 175 geet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these
distances are slant ranges from the window lege of a
tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers
in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within
as short a time interval as possible.

	I should make one comment here relative to the
angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce
these angles exactly from the map which we had been given
because the conditions in the field were a little awkward
for this. But the distance -- the angular distance from
the first target to the second was greater than from the
second to the third, which would tend to correspond
to a longer interval of time between the first and second
impact than between the second and third. The movement of
the rifle was greater from the first to the second target
than from the second to the third.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, were your marksmen
instructed to aim at the three targets in consecutive
order?

	Mr. Simmons. The marksmen were instructed to take
as much time as they desired at the first target, and
then to fire -- at the first target, being at 175 feet --
to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then
at the one at 265 feet.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you state where you derived
these distances?

	Mr. Simmons. These distances were the values
given on the survey map which were given to us.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Are you sure they were not the
values I gave to you myself?

	Mr. Simmons. I stand corrected. These are values
-- we were informed that the numbers on the survey map
were possibly in error. The distances are very close,
however.

	Mr. Eisenberg. For the record, the figures which
I gave Mr. Simmons are approximations and are not to be
taken as the Commission's conclusive determination of
what those distances are.

	Mr. Simmons. For our experiment, I do not see how
a difference of a few feet would make any difference.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Simmons, did you take
pictures or have pictures taken showing what that range
looked like?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes; I have copies of these pictures
here. I show you three pictures -- the first showing the
window from which the weapon was fired in our
experiments; the second showing the view of the three
targets from the window; and the third showing a riflemen
in position.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, did you take these
pictures yourself?

	Mr. Simmons. No; these pictures were taken by one
of the camera men from the development and proof
services.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Did you see the scenes represented
in these pictures?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Are these pictures accurate
reproductions of these scenes?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
the first, second, and third pictures described by Mr.
Simmons admitted as exhibits. That will be 579 for the
first, 580 for the second, and 581 for the third.

	Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

	(The photograghs referred to were marked
Commission Exhibits Nos. 579, 580, and 581 and received
in evidence.)

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, the targets were --
well, can you describe the targets for us?

	Mr. Simmons. The targets are standard
head-and-shoulders silhouettes, and they consist of
approximately 2 square feet in area.

	Mr. Eisenberg. How many marksmen were involved?

	Mr. Simmons. We used three riflemen.

	Mr. Eisenberg. And can you tell us what their
background was?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes. All three riflemaen are rated
as Master by the National Rifle Association. Two of them
are civilian gunners in the Small Arms Division of our
Development and Proof Services, and the third is
presently in the Army, and he has considerable background
as a rifleman, and also has a Master rating.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Each fired one or more series of
three rounds?

	Mr. Simmons. Each fired two series of three
rounds, using the telescopic sight. Then one of the firers repeated
the exercise using the iron sight -- because we had no indication
whether the telescope had been used.

	Mr. Eisenberg. So the total number of rounds
fired was what?

	Mr. Simmons. 21.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Did you bring with you targets or
copies of the targets?

	Mr. Simmons. I brought photos of the targets.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Did you take these photograghs,
Mr. Simmons, or have them taken under your supervision?

	Mr. Simmons. These photograghs were taken by the
photograghic laboratory in our Ballistic Measurement
Laboratory, which is one of the complex of laboratories
within the Ballistic Research Laboratory.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you verify these photograghs
as being accurate reproductions of the targets?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have these
admitted as 582, 583, and 584?

	Mr. McCloy. They may be admitted.

	(The photograghs referred to were marked
Commission Exhibits Nos. 582, 583, and 584 for
identifaction and received in evidence.)

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, could you discuss the
results of the tests you ran, by using these photograghs?

	Mr. Simmons. Exhibit 582 is the target which was
emplaced at 175 feet.  All firers hit the first target,
and this was to be expected, because they had as much
time as they desired to aim at the first target.

	As you can see from the picture, the accuracy of
the weapon is quite good.

	Mr. Eisenberg. That first target is what
distance?

	Mr. Simmons. 175 feet. And we had to make an
assumption here about the point of aim. It is quite
likely that in fact each man was aiming at a different
portion of the target -- there were no markings on the
target visible to the firer.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Did I understand you just told the
firers to aim at the target without referring to --

	Mr. Simmons. Yes.

	Mr. Eisenberg. There is an apparent crossline
running darkly through that photogragh.

	Mr. Simmons. These lines were drawn in
afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements
from the actual impact point.

	The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as
shown in Exhibit 583 -- we had rather an unusual
coincidence with respect to this target. This involved
the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that
the basic firing position of the man had to be changed.
And because they knew time was very important, they made
the movement very quickly. And for the first four
attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course,
we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the
test by pointing out that they had missed on the second
target, and there was a conscious effort made on the
additional rounds to hit the second target.

	On the third target, the angle through which the
weapon had to be moved to get to the third target from
the second was relatively small, and there were only two
rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet. One of
these rounds, by the way, was used in the sequence where
the iron sight was employed.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Simmons, when you said that
the firers had to make a large shift relatively in their
firing position, and were in a hurry, is this your
interpretation or is this based on discussions with them
subsequently?

	Mr. Simmons. This is based on discussions with
the firers after the experiment?

	Mr. Eisenberg. After these tests were finished,
did you make a determination of the amount of error --
average amount of error in the aim of these riflemen?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes. By assuming that all riflemen
had aimed at the intersection of the lines that we have
drawn on these pictures, we calculated the total aiming
-- the aiming error associated with the three riflemen --
this is one number to describe the accuracy of all three
riflemen. And against the first target the accuracy
observed was about .7 mils, in standard deviation.
	Against the second target, the accuracy was 1.4
mils. And against the third target, it was 1.2 mils.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Again could you convert those at a
hundred yards to inches?

	Mr. Simmons. 0.7 of a mil at 100 yards is
approximately 2 inches. 1.4 mils is approximately 4
inches. And 1.2 mils is approximately 3 1/2 inches.

	Mr. Eisenberg. In arriving at these figures, had
you discounted the round-to-round dispersion as
determined in the bench rest test?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes. We have subtracted out the
round-to-round dispersion.

	Mr. Eisenberg. But the actual accuracy of the
riflemen would have to include the round-to-round
dispersion, would it not?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes; it would.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Why did you then subtract the
round-to-round dispersion figure, or discount it?

	Mr. Simmons. We wanted to determine what the
aiming error itself was associated with the rifle.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Can you give us the times in which
the various riflemen used to fire the three shots in each
sequence?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes. And the numbers which I will
give you will be the average of two readings on stop
watches.

	Mr. Eisenberg. For each rifleman?

	Mr. Simmons. For each exercise.

	Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first
exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second
exercise was 7.0 seconds.

	Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4
seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.

	Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first
attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45
seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.

	Mr. Eisenberg. What was the accuracy of
Specialist Miller?

	Mr. Simmons. I do not have his accuracy separated
from the group.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Is is possible to separate the
accuracy out?

	Mr. Simmons. Yes; it is, by and additional
calculation.

	Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target
on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second
target on both attempts with the telescope, but he hit
the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced
all three rounds on the target, the first target.

	Mr. Eisenberg. How did he do with the iron sight
on the third target?

	Mr. Simmons. On the third target he missed the
boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It
appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller --
Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for
im, since his impacts on the first and second targets
were quite high, and against the third target we would
assume that the projectile went over the top of the
target, which extended only a few inches over the top of
the silhouette.

	Mr. Eisenberg. What position did the rifleman
fire from, Mr. Simmons?

	Mr. Simmons. The firers braced an elbow on the
window sill and used pretty much a standard sitting
position, using a stool.

	Mr. Eisenberg. How much practice had they had
with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

	Mr. Simmons. They had each attempted the exercise
without the use of ammuntion, and had worked the bolt as
they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger
during the exercise, however, because we were a little
concerned about breaking the firing pin.

	Mr. Eisenberg. Could you give us an estimate of
how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

	Mr. Simmons. They used no more than 2 or 3
minutes each.


11 Comments

  1. Vi segnalo che Diego Verdegiglio ha appena pubblicato sul sito una lunga inchiesta sulla vicenda. La potete leggere qui: http://www.massimopolidoro.com/indagini/chi-ha-sparato-davvero-a-jfk.html

    msm

Lascia un commento

*