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 Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3½-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 4½ 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 2½ 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, consisting 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 3½-inch circle.
Mr.McCloy. The first one is not exactly 5 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 point?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself—that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Mr.Eisenberg. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the telescopic sight?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the point you are making.
Let me mark that.
This diagram was prepared by you?
Mr.Frazier. Yes; it was.
Mr.Eisenberg. Andillustrates——
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 sideof 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 5½ 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 5½ 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 heightplus——
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?
RepresentativeBoggs. 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 rifleand 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 ratherthan——
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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. Have any tests—have there been any simulated tests in the building in Texas?
Mr.Frazier. I don't know, sir.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. You were firing at a simulated target?
Mr.Frazier. These targets previously introduced, or copies of the targets, are those which we actually fired.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, turningto——
RepresentativeBoggs. Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
Mr.Eisenberg. Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashionthat it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
RepresentativeBoggs. One other question, then.
It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
RepresentativeBoggs. So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr.Frazier. If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
RepresentativeBoggs. But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr.Eisenberg. For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Now, turning to another possible source of error in aim, Mr. Frazier, if a rifle such as Exhibit 139 is sighted-in with the use of a target at a given distance, and it is aimed at a target which is further away or closer than the target which was used for sighting-in purposes, will any error be introduced by reason of the fact that the target is further or closer away than the sighting-in target?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, it will, because the bullet in leaving the muzzle follows a curved path rather than a straight path, and in order to hit a specific target at a specific range, it is necessary for the bullet to travel up and drop down to the target, rather than have the bore pointed right at the target at the time of discharge.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you calculate the amount of error which would be introduced by a specific projectile?
Mr.Frazier. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you made such calculations?
Mr.Frazier. I have taken calculations for similar weight and velocity bullets from ballistics tables, which bullets approximate the velocity of the 6.5 mm. bullet and the weight of that bullet as fired from 139.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are these results affected by the rifle which is employed, or do they depend upon the missile?
Mr.Frazier. They depend upon the weight and shape of the missile and the velocity, but not upon the weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you give us the results of these calculations?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet—that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet—at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.
If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight—that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.
It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high.
RepresentativeBoggs. Is this a stationary target?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, this is shooting from a rest at a stationary target.
RepresentativeBoggs. This is just anormal——
Mr.Frazier. This is just the trajectory of the bullet.
RepresentativeBoggs. I understand.
Mr.Frazier. Ascalculated——
Mr.McCloy. Putting it another way, what would be the drop of the bullet at a hundred yards if you aim point-blank straight at that target?
Mr.Frazier. Assuming no sighting or anything, the bullet would drop about 1.2 inches from the line of the bore at 100 yards.
RepresentativeBoggs. 1.2 inches?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
RepresentativeBoggs. But now the telescopic sight at a hundred yards would correct that?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir. Actually, you would sight so that the muzzle is tipped up slightly with reference to the sight.
Mr.Eisenberg. The error would be introduced if you shot at a target which is closer or further away than the sighting-in target; is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, that's right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you characterize these errors as material?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir; I would not—unless you began shooting at distances well beyond your sighting-in point—then the amount of variation increases very rapidly.
Mr.Eisenberg. What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit 139?
Mr.Frazier. It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that if the shots involved in the assassination were fired at 175 feet and 265 feet respectively, they would be shorter than the sighting-in distance and therefore not materially affected by the trajectory characteristics, is that correct?
Mr.Frazier. That is correct, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139, and the ammunition it employs, and based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the assassination?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; I would.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain that?
Mr.Frazier. Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a good choice if it would shoot accurately.
Mr.Eisenberg. And did you find this shot accurately?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
RepresentativeBoggs. Would you consider the shots difficult shots—talking about the shots from the sixth-floor window to the head of the President and to Governor Connally?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir; I would not under the circumstances—a relatively slow-moving target, and very short distance, and a telescopic sight.
RepresentativeBoggs. You are not answering that as an expert.
Mr.Frazier. From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than a hundred yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
RepresentativeBoggs. Putting my question another way, you would not have to be an expert marksman to accomplish this objective?
Mr.Frazier. I would say no, you certainly would not.
RepresentativeBoggs. And a man is a relatively large target, is he not?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly, and do this—hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.
Mr.Eisenberg. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr.Frazier. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?
Mr.Frazier. Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would that make it a better choice than a more powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
Mr.Frazier. For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better choice, because the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-powered rifle, such as a .30/06 or a .270 Winchester, or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. How much difference is there?
Mr.Frazier. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military—it is an established military weapon.
RepresentativeBoggs. This is a military weapon, is it not?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.McCloy. That is designed to kill a human being.
RepresentativeBoggs. Exactly.
Mr.Eisenberg. Unless there are further questions on the weapon, I am going to move into the area of the identification of the cartridge cases and the bullets.
Mr.McCloy. I may say I have to leave at twelve o'clock for a twelve-fifteen appointment. I will be back this afternoon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, returning to the cartridge cases which were marked earlier into evidence as Commission Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, and which, as I stated earlier for the record, had been found next to the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, can you tell us when you received those cartridge cases?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; I received the first of the exhibits, 543 and 544, on November 23, 1963. They were delivered to me by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas FBI Office.
And the other one I received on November 27, 1963, which was delivered by Special Agents Vincent Drain and Warren De Brueys of the Dallas Office.
Mr.Eisenberg. After receiving these cartridge cases, did you clean them up or in any way prepare them for examination?
Mr.Frazier. Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?
Mr.Frazier. It seals the primer area against moisture.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were there any other changes made in the preparation of the cartridge cases?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. You have examined the cartridge cases previously. Are they in the same condition now that they were when you received them in the laboratory except for the cleaning of the lacquer?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; they are.
Mr.Eisenberg. After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you make the examinations?
Mr.Frazier. On the dates I mentioned, that is, November 23, 1963, and November 27, 1963.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Frazier. I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you describe the examination which you conducted to reach these conclusions?
Mr.Frazier. The first step was to fire test cartridge cases in this rifle to pick up the microscopic marks which are left on all cartridge cases fired in this weapon by the face of the bolt. Then those test cartridge cases were mounted on a comparison microscope, on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the comparison microscope was mounted one of the three submitted cartridge cases, so that you could magnify the surfaces of the test and the evidence and compare the marks left on the cartridge cases by the bolt face and the firing pin of the rifle.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy left the hearing room.)
Mr.Eisenberg. I now hand you two cartridge cases, and ask you whether you can identify these cartridge cases?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; these are the two cartridge cases we fired for test purposes in Exhibit 139.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do they have your mark on them?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, they do.
Mr.Eisenberg. Commissioner Boggs, may I introduce these as 557?
RepresentativeBoggs. They may be admitted.
(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 557 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. These were the only two cartridge cases fired as tests in Exhibit 139—as tests for the purpose of identification of the cartridge cases which you examined before, 543, 544, and 545?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; these two were used in those tests. There were many other cartridge cases fired, but not for that purpose.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you explain how you are able to come to a conclusion that a cartridge case was fired in a particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir; during the manufacture of a weapon, there are certain things done to the mechanism of it, which are by machine or by filing, by grinding, which form the parts of the weapon into their final shape. These machining and grinding and filing operations will mark the metal with very fine scratches or turning marks and grinding marks in such a way that there will be developed on the surface of the metal a characteristic pattern. This pattern, because it is made by these accidental machine-type operations, will be characteristic of that particular weapon, and will not be reproduced on separate weapons. It may be a combination of marks that—the face of the bolt may be milled, then it may be in part filed to smooth off the corners, and then, as a final operation, it may be polished, or otherwise adjusted during the hand fitting operation, so that it does have its particular pattern of microscopic marks.
The bolt face of the 139 rifle I have photographed and enlarged in this photograph to show the types of marks I was referring to.
Mr.Eisenberg. You took this photograph yourself, and it is a photograph of the bolt face of the 139 rifle?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this introduced as 558?
RepresentativeBoggs. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 558, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. What is the magnification of this bolt-face photograph?
Mr.Frazier. Approximately 11 diameters.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you slip out the bolt of the rifle so we could see how it compares, and show us the part of the bolt which is photographed?
Mr.Frazier. Orienting the photograph with the writing at the bottom, orients the bolt also, as it comes out of the rifle—with the slot shown as a groove on thebottom of the bolt. Then the extractor on the bolt, is the area shown at the left side of the photograph, as you view it—the actual bolt face itself is inset into the bolt below the surface of the extractor, and a supporting shoulder around it, and in the center, of course, is the firing-pin hole and the firing pin.
The marks produced during manufacture are the marks seen on the bolt face; filing marks, machining marks of the various types, even forging marks or casting marks if the bolt happens to be forged or cast. And then variations which occur in these marks during the life of the weapon are very important in identification, because many of the machining marks can be flattened out, can be changed, by merely a grain of sand between the face of the cartridge case and the bolt at the time a shot is fired, which will itself scratch and dent the bolt face. So the bolt face will pick up a characteristic pattern of marks which are peculiar to it.
The same is true of extractors and ejectors. They are in turn machined and will have a pattern of marks or scratches on their surfaces which will mark cartridge cases in the same manner each time.
The comparison we made was of the marks appearing in this photograph, 558, in fairly close proximity to the firing pin hole, since that is the area that the primer in the head of the cartridge case comes in contact with.
The primer in a cartridge case normally takes marks more readily than the surrounding brass portion of the cartridge case, which is a considerably harder metal and is not impressed with these marks as readily.
The three cartridge cases, 553, 554, and 555, werecompared——
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that 543, 544, and 545?
Mr.Frazier. I am sorry—yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.
RepresentativeBoggs. Who manufactured these cartridges?
Mr.Frazier. Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill.
RepresentativeBoggs. They manufacture cartridges and bullets for all manner of rifles?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, they do.
RepresentativeBoggs. This is not—this rifle is not common in the United States, is it?
Mr.Frazier. It is fairly common now, but at the time it was manufactured or used primarily it was not. It was imported into this country as surplus military equipment, and has been advertised quite widely.
RepresentativeBoggs. These three cartridge—these three shells that you had were the same as the live ones that were found there, were they not?
Mr.Frazier. There was one live cartridge found. They are identical.
RepresentativeBoggs. And the live one was manufactured alsoby——
Mr.Frazier. Yes, the Western Cartridge Co. It bears the head stamp "WCO" and "6.5. mm."
RepresentativeBoggs. These are not difficult to obtain? You can buy them anywhere?
Mr.Frazier. Well, you can buy them from mail-order houses primarily, or a few gun shops that have accumulated a supply by ordering them. The information we have is that two million rounds were imported into the United States in one lot, one shipment—and they have been transmitted over the country and are for sale by several different surplus gun shops—used guns—mail-order houses and places of that nature—and gunsmiths, and firearms shops sell this ammunition.
RepresentativeBoggs. Go ahead.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, what is the basis of the statement you made earlier that no two bolt faces would be the same?
Mr.Frazier. Because the marks which are placed on any bolt face are accidental in nature. That is, they are not placed there intentionally in the first place. They are residual to some machining operation, such as a milling machine, in which each cutter of the milling tool cuts away a portion of the metal; then the next tooth comes along and cuts away a little more, and so on, until the final surface bears the combination of the various teeth of the milling cutter. In following that operation, then, the surface is additionally scratched—until you have numerous—we call them microscopic characteristics, a characteristic being a mark which is peculiar to a certain place on the bolt face, and of a certain shape, it is of a certain size, it has a certain contour, it may be just a little dimple in the metal, or a spot of rust at one time on the face of the bolt, or have occurred from some accidental means such as dropping the bolt, or repeated use having flattened or smoothed off the surface of the metal.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why doesn't a series of the same machines, or repeated use of the same machines, cause the same results, apart from future accidental markings?
Mr.Frazier. In some instances a certain type of cutter will duplicate a certain pattern of marks. In general you will find for a milling cutter a circular mark. And you may find the same pattern of circles. But that milling cutter does not actually cut the steel; it tears it out, it chips it out, and the surface of the metal then is rough—even though the circle is there, the circle is not a smooth circle, but it is a result of tearing out the metal, and you will have a very rough surface. When magnified sufficiently, you can detect the difference even between two similarly milled surfaces because of the minor variations in the cutting operation.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you had occasion to examine such similarly-milled surfaces?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes; many times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you go into detail on that?
Mr.Frazier. Well, part of my work in the laboratory is dealing with tool-marks of all types, from drills, mills, files, cutting instruments, and so on. And when you are dealing with filing marks or milling marks and so on, it is sometimes possible to identify a particular mill as having made a certain mark on the basis of the grinding marks on that particular mill. But such as a case like this, where the cutting marks have now been altered through use of the weapon and corrosion, or in wear or in filing, some of the original marks are removed, and other marks are in their place, until eventually you reach a condition where that bolt face will be entirely different from any other bolt face. It is a matter actually—when you get down to the basis of it, it is a matter of a mathematical impossibility in the realm of human experience for any two things to ever be exactly alike.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is because the original markings will not be exactly alike, and then you have added accidental markings on top of the original ones?
Mr.Frazier. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Returning for a moment to the original markings, as I understand it, you have worked with the tools themselves and the impressions the tools themselves leave, as opposed to a tooled surface, such as this.
Mr.Frazier. I have worked with both. In other words, in comparing tool-marks, you examine not only the tool, but the marks they produce.
Mr.Eisenberg. And in working with these tools, as I understand your testimony, you have found that the markings which a tool leaves, which the same tool leaves, will be distinctive.
Mr.Frazier. That is true, yes. When it is a scrape or an impression from its surface, or something of that nature, it can be very readily identified. But if it is a drill or something of that nature, where you have a tearing operation, then it is not readily identified, but it occasionally can be identified.
Mr.Eisenberg. Well, how many such examinations do you think you have made?
Mr.Frazier. Thousands of them.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you noticed whether the marks left by a given tool—that you have examined—change over the course of the use of the tool?
Mr.Frazier. Yes, they change very rapidly when a tool is used to cut a hard object.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "very rapidly"?
Mr.Frazier. Well, for instance, when using a pry bar, for example, one insertion of a pry bar into the hard insulation of a safe, with pressure applied to it can change the entire blade of the tool to the extent that you could not identify a succession of marks, because of the abrasion by the insulation. But that same tool, used to mark a soft steel or brass or copper, could make mark after mark without changing, or only a small portion of it may change with each impression. Or it may gradually change over a period of time.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, is the metal in the bolt face a hard metal or a soft metal?
Mr.Frazier. I would say it was hardmetal——
Mr.Eisenberg.Well——
Mr.Frazier. With reference to copper or other softer metals—it is a steel. I could not say how hard it actually is.
Mr.Eisenberg. What will the effect of the metal used in the bolt face be upon the tool which is used to finish it off, cut it and finish it off?
Mr.Frazier. The tool will gradually wear out.
Mr.Eisenberg. Well, will the tool leave different marks on the end of the bolt face from one bolt to the very next bolt face?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes; that very often happens. The tool is worn out or the small cuttings get underneath the edge, between the tool, and nick the edge of the tool, so that the tool will gradually change over a period of time. The cutting edge—the amount of change depends upon the amount of wear, the heat involved, and the hardness of the metal—the relative hardness of the metal.
Mr.Eisenberg. Will that particular change be noticed invariably in two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr.Frazier. No, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. So what is the genesis of the difference in the two consecutive bolt faces as they come from the manufacturer?
Mr.Frazier. The change, as I said, depends on the bolt you are using. It does not always take place, because some bolts are made of a very soft metal, and they will not necessarily change a machining tool to that extent.
Mr.Eisenberg. But the markings, you said, would be different on two consecutive bolt faces?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And if the tool is not changed, what is the origin of the difference between the markings?
Mr.Frazier. There are other accidental markings placed there during the machining operation.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you describe that?
Mr.Frazier. For instance, as the blade of a milling machine travels around a surface, it takes off actually a dust—it is not actually a piece of metal—it scrapes a little steel off in the form of a dust—or a very fine powder or chip—that tooth leaves a certain pattern of marks—that edge. That milling cutter may have a dozen of these edges on its surface, and each one takes a little more. Gradually you wear the metal down, you tear it out actually until you are at the proper depth. Those little pieces of metal, as they are traveling around, can also scratch the face of the bolt—unless they are washed away. So that you may have accidental marks from that source, just in the machining operation.
Now, there are two types of marks produced in a cutting operation. One, from the nicks along the cutting edge of the tool, which are produced by a circular operating tool—which produce very fine scratches in a circular pattern. Each time the tool goes around, it erases those marks that were there before. And when the tool is finally lifted out, you have a series of marks which go around the surface which has been machined, and you will find that that pattern of marks, as this tool goes around, will change. In one area, it will be one set of marks—and as you visually examine the surface of the metal, these veryfine marks will extend for a short distance, then disappear, and a new mark of a new type will begin and extend for a short distance. The entire surface, then, will have a—be composed of a series of circles, but the individual marks seen in the microscope will not be circular, will not form complete circles around the face of the bolt.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you had occasion to examine two consecutive bolt faces from a factory?
Mr.Frazier. Oh, yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what did you find on that examination?
Mr.Frazier. There would be no similarity in the individual microscopic characteristics between the two bolt faces.
Mr.Eisenberg. There actually was none?
Mr.Frazier. No, there was none.
Mr.Eisenberg. In the bolt face with which we are dealing, Exhibit 139, can you say from inspection whether the markings on that bolt face are predominantly the accidental markings introduced subsequent to manufacture, or the markings of the manufacture?
Mr.Frazier. I would say that these were filing marks for the most part which were made during manufacture, some of which have been obliterated and changed through use—possibly corrosion.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Frazier, taking Exhibit 543, did you prepare a photograph of thisexhibit——
Mr.Frazier. Yes, sir.