Part 57

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. And illustrates----

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?