The origins of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets

Mannlicher Carcano, JFK, rifle

Where did the bullets come from?

An intriguing tidbit from a faithful reader about the bullet that allegedly killed President Kennedy.

“Recently, I was reading the post CSI JFK: The Chain of Custody for “the magic bullet.” Bob Prudhomme posted a reference to “frangible range bullet for the Mannlicher-Carcano.” I didn’t know what that meant. I had to look it up. In doing so, I stumbled across a Web site about the ammunition (not the rifle).
Scroll down to the heading- “Non-Italian Military Rounds.”
It says:
 “Winchester Repeating Arms, of the U.S., manufactured 6.5×52 Carcano under a CIA [contract] during the early 50’s [emphasis added]. The intended use is not certain, but varies from being supplemental production for the Italian Military, use during the Greek Civil War, anti-communist efforts in Albania, etc. These rounds found their way into the surplus market in the early 1960’s. The rounds supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate John F. Kennedy were from this production.”

295 comments

  1. David Regan says:

    Interesting to note that with the three shells found on the sixth floor and one live round chambered in the rifle, are we to believe Oswald felt confident that four bullets would be sufficient in securing his place in history? No ammunition was found at Ruth Paine’s or his boarding house.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      You raise an excellent point, Dave.

      Now, since the JFKfacts site has a severe scarcity of participants from the LN side, possibly motivated to their historical thinning trend (?) I will provide a response, on their behalf.

      Years ago I raise a related issue in the JFK newsgroup:

      “How on earth did Lee -who did not have a car or drive- with $7 in his pocket, plan (*) to get to Cuba?”

      Professor McAdams replied:

      “He probably did not expect to survive at the TSBD”

      FWIW: The esteemed host of the JFK NG decided to ban me -for reasons only known to himself- some time later. The ban remains on effect today.

      (*) A very meticulous travel planner.

      • David Regan says:

        Good point, Ramon. Larry King touches on this from meeting with Jim Garrison, who found a witness hired as a pilot to fly Oswald out of Dallas. This never made the press or the Clay Shaw trial.

      • JH 777 says:

        “How on earth did Lee -who did not have a car or drive- with $7 in his pocket, plan (*) to get to Cuba?”

        ———————————————————-

        Well the answer to that is simple. He did not have a plan to go to Cuba.

        He was lucky to get to the Dallas Theatre. If the TSB
        had been sealed of immediately after the shooting he would not have escaped it. And JD Tippit would not have been shot.

      • Regfsmith says:

        I’ve recently been banned from a site that shows Penn & Tellers ridiculous jet-effect demonstration of the JFK shooting using a stupid melon sitting unsecured on a stand (as if that represents the real situation of a head attached to a body!). Anyway, the host, Neal Scroggs, a coward and Lone Nutter of the highest calibre, banned me, when I started raising points that he knew he could not answer…such as the mystery of Rose Cheramie’s foreknowledge, Ruby’s clear insinuation that folks ‘in high places’ put him in the position he’s in’…E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession, etc.. The host Scroggs censors and ridicules the conspiracy side. So much for freedom of speech! The guy has a fascist streak a mile wide. Here’s the link to that website:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk&google_comment_id=z122yjibhuafyja3s22wwz2ymsj2i1fb104
        For those of you whose critical thinking and logic informs you there was indeed a conspiracy, please feel free to post on that site and see how long it takes for your pro-conspiracy position to be ridiculed and if you raise Rose Cheramie, Jack Ruby, E. Howard Hunt, Joseph Milteer’s secretly recorded description of how JFK would be assassinated etc…you’ll probably be deleted. Test it out please. I hate the ignorant spreading their BS to those unsure of the reality in the JFK assassination.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Nor was the FBI able to find the place from which Oswald had obtained the ammunition. They checked every possible source in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. And of course, Oswald would also have to have obtained totally different bullets for his handgun.

      From what I’ve read over the years, you bought ammo in boxes of 20 or 24 cartridges (the amount depending on the manufacturer). Since the gun that killed Tippet were of two different brands(both Colt and Remington IIRC), Oswald would have had to have 3 different batches of ammo for the two weapons. That means that he would logically have had to purchase 3 boxes, containing anywhere from 60 to 72 rounds.

      • BrotherBruce says:

        The impossibility of locating ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano is just one hole in the lone gunman story concocted by LBJ’s Warren Commission.

        • BrotherBruce says:

          I hit the post button before addressing the handgun comment. It’s clear that Oswald isn’t Tippitt’s killer. Murder wasn’t Oswald’s MO. The witnesses were strong armed into picking Oswald out of a line up which Lee was dragged into kicking,complaining and wearing a nasty, stretched out undershirt. The other members of the lineup were conservatively dressed, calm, cool and collected. Cops stood with the witnesses and made it clear who they wanted them to implicate. Lee Oswald, after serving with the US Marines, working with the Office of Naval Intelligence and doing his patriotic best for the Country he loved – was used as a patsy by his handlers. Shameful.

          • JH 777 says:

            ” It’s clear that Oswald isn’t Tippitt’s killer. ”
            __________________________________________

            ” There is a huge amount of evidence implicating Lee Oswald as the individual that
            shot J.D Tippit. Any individual with even a modicom of logical and reasonable judgement would undoubetly arrive at the same conclusion.”

          • Regfsmith says:

            Those are indeed the facts, BrotherBruce. Oswald was smart and quickly ascertained that he was set up to be the fall guy; ‘I’m just a patsy’. If he had not been murdered by Ruby, I have no doubt he would have been exonerated for any of a hundred reasons. Those who read the existing assassination literature thoroughly, know there WAS a conspiracy. Those who dont, woefully remain ignorant of details that can only point to a conspiracy. I dont know how Gerry Spence could have lost the mock trial to that self-aggrandizing twit, Bugliosi! I could have done a better job raising points that are indisputable which point to conspiracy!

        • Trey says:

          Please explain how ammunition that was being sold on the open market was “impossible” to find ?

          The rifle was ordered in March – Arrived march 25 the Walker shooting was on Apr 10, which assuming Oswald did not order the ammunition from some unknown vendor before picking up the rifle he had 15 Full days to buy it locally in The Metroplex.

          For those that have never purchased ammunition in Texas there is not now nor then any registry of purchase requirement .

          • Trey,

            The “origin” of ammunition for the Mannlicher Carcano is not the most important question to be addressed here. Rather the critical question here is what was the destiny of the bullets said to be fired from this rifle.
            Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the chains of custody for these bullets, shells and casings are not proven to exist.
            The so-called “Magic Bullet” [CE399] in particular is proven to be a plant by virtue of the fact that an entirely different bullet was found at Parkland than is now the official exhibit #399.
            Further, even the evidence that Oswald ever ordered the rifle at all is in question.
            \\][//

    • JH 777 says:

      “Interesting to note that with the three shells found on the sixth floor and one live round chambered in the rifle, are we to believe Oswald felt confident that four bullets would be sufficient in securing his place in history? No ammunition was found at Ruth Paine’s or his boarding house.”

      ——————————————————————

      “It only takes one bullet to kill. Four is more than enough.”

      • David Regan says:

        Show me proof where or when Oswald acquired ammunition. His prints were not found on the shells or the clip.

        • Robert Burns says:

          Show me proof where or when Oswald acquired ammunition. His prints were not found on the shells or the clip.
          __________________________________________________
          And the fact that the first people on the scene found a different rifle. Why were the empty shells lined up in a neat row?
          Why didn’t the “shooter” take them with him instead of taking time to line them up on the floor.

          • David Regan says:

            Good point, Robert. Like why take the time of dumping pistol shells at the scene of the Tippit shooting?

            Or in the MLK case, the convenient bundle of evidence left near the scene by James Earl Ray.

          • trey says:

            Lets see

            3 cases lined up in a row… by definition if it was only 2 they HAVE TO BE IN A ROW so now we only have 1 that needs be in rough proximity to being in line with 2 others, as a rifle tends to eject its brass in about the same place when worked at the same speed this should not be very surprising.

        • Trey says:

          Latent prints are nearer an art than a science. And in 1963 it would have been more so.

          That no identifiable print is on the cartridges does not mean there were no prints, just that there were none with enough to make a match, to the exemplar prints. This is NOT uncommon.

          A cylinder is not a great source for latent prints so the spent cases were never going to be a great source.

          • “Latent prints are nearer an art than a science. And in 1963 it would have been more so.”~Trey

            We are not talking about “prints” on the shells and hulls, a chain of custody is determined by marking the shells by the officers in that chain of custody. That is where the “evidence” breaks down.
            \\][//

          • Trey says:

            to W.Whitten

            ‘Show me proof where or when Oswald acquired ammunition. His prints were not found on the shells or the clip.” david rogen above

      • “It only takes one bullet to kill. Four is more than enough.” ~JH 777

        Lol … this is only true if one of the bullets hits the target in a mortal spot.
        \\][//

        • JH 777 says:

          Three shots were fired. ONE BULLET KILLED JFK. One bullet to someones head as in this case it took one bullet to kill JFK. A mortal wound. Oswald had ONLY FOUR BULLETS in his carcano. Four bullets in his possession. Would you be satified if the clip was full.? It was not. This assassination was a happen stance of history. Very little planning went into it.
          He used what ever ammo he had at the time. He only fired ONE shot at Edwin Walker. Three shots were fired. The third struck JFK in the head.

          • David Regan says:

            Again, I ask for your proof that Oswald shot at Walker or that he purchased the ammunition. The WC tried to prove this point, but failed. His prints were not found on the shells or rifle clip, you don’t find this troubling?

          • JH 777, I have to second David Regan’s comment here. You keep parroting Warren Commission assertions without any detail to substantiate that their findings are legitimate.
            On another thread here to you specifically, I posted strong evidence to suggest that LHO did not even order the rifle in question, let alone take shots at anyone.
            You can ignore all of this evidence offered here and keep falling back on the discredited WCReport, but it is unlikely to convince anyone other than other WC defenders.
            \\][//

          • Regfsmith says:

            To JH 777:
            This was certainly NOT a happenstance of History! That POV is woefully misinformed, guy. Explain Rose Cheramie’s foreknowledge of the assassination? Did Oswald perhaps know her and let her in on the assassination?! Of course not. So explain how she knew? Her case is well-documented by authorities in Louisiana. Also, explain Ruby’s own comments that people ‘high up’ put him in the position he’s in (and so would)…not let the true facts about what happened come above board to the world! Explain Watergate burgler, E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession about the ‘Big Event’ in which he was a ‘benchwarmer’, and Joseph Milteer’s pre-assassination description, secretly recorded by FBI informant Willy Somerset, of how JFK was to be killed. There’s even a photo of a guy in Dealey plaza that looks exactly like Milteer! All of this is easily Googled and makes it rather tough for you to dismiss the obvious conclusion that there was a conspiracy. Therefore, much of this ammunition speculation is pointless. Once you understand that a conspiracy existed, then the the source of the ammunition is mute and unlikely related to LHO the self-proclaimed ‘patsy’.

      • Jonathan says:

        As the Second Amendment crowd likes to say: Guns don’t kill people. People do.

        The issue is whether it’s reasonable to take just four rounds to an assassination attempt. One might argue Oswald was not reasonable. But then one can say the same for the AQ guys who killed 12 or however many persons in Paris. They certainly took more than four rounds each.

        What’s unreasonable is to imagine someone having the skills and willingness to pull off the JFL assassination single-handedly who doesn’t have a solid game plan for doing so. Who acts so carelessly and imprecisely.

        • Trey says:

          Given that the shooter (oswald) did not really want to be caught at the scene, a single load of the rifle is about all he could expect to use. The modern military calls it shoot and scoot.

          Since hypothetical seems to rule this site..

          Why would he have brought 20 rounds (that is what is in a box of western ammo) to what was supposed to be a 1 shot attack ?

          To be most correct 18 would have been more likely as the Carcano uses a 6 round packet/en bloc clip.

          • ed connor says:

            Why did LHO leave his handgun back at his rooming house? If he knew he was going to shoot the president, and didn’t plan to remain at the scene, wouldn’t he want his handgun available for his escape?
            He found it helpful when confronted by Off. Tippet. He was willing to shoot a police officer. So why not carry the handgun to work that morning?

          • ragnar says:

            oswald cab ride cost $.95
            he gave the cabbie a dollar and told him to keep the change
            that’s the kind of man he was!

    • Trey says:

      The need for more than 1 load (6 rounds in packet/enbloc) of the rifle is made meaningless by the fact his intent was a quick shoot and scoot not a prolonged battle.

      Even as deranged as Oswald was he knew that there would be very limited time to engage JFK with the rifle, given that why would he not have
      only brought 1 packet/en block ?

      As for no ammunition found at boarding house. Assuming oswald wanted to be proficient with the weapon it is quite possible and reasonable that he used all but his last En block of ammunition practicing.

      • “Even as deranged as Oswald was”~Trey

        And you are an expert in psychology now?

        Is it “deranged” to be on the first floor eating lunch while the assassination was actually taken place? To be confronted there with a coke in his hand by Truly and an armed policeman less that 60 seconds after the alleged rifle fire from the 6th floor?

        Perhaps Oswald was “crazy’ for handling boxes daily during his work, leaving fingerprints all over those cartons. Too much of a “lunatic” to think that far ahead?
        So crazy in fact that in his psychotic delusions he was able to “dissapear” the traces of gunpowder on his cheek from firing a rifle!?

        That is indeed a very special form of “crazy” almost as magical as the Magic Bullet. Wouldn’t you say?
        \\][//

        • Trey says:

          Did is statements and actions over his life seem normal to you ? you know joining the US Marines and the CPUSA – lived in Moscow, Protesting for Communist Cuba in Texas.. etc. etc. (if you believe he did as your arguments seem a bit divorced from logic and reason at times maybe you don’t think any of that happened.)

          To ed connor.

          If LHO thought to escape in the crowd having victory model .38 on his person IF stopped by police would make him VERY suspect.

          • ed connor says:

            Shooting the president would make him “very suspect,” wouldn’t it?
            If you are going to the trouble of sneaking a hunting rifle into your workplace, and you don’t plan to stay at the scene or do a “suicide by cop,” why not carry the S&W 38? He did go back to the rooming house to get it, remember?

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Oswald never joined the CPUSA. He never became a member of any Marxist organization. His alleged FPCC membership (not a strictly Marxist organization BTW) was bogus, the only member of a “chapter” that the main office of the FPCC didn’t want him to organize. His behavior is perfectly consistent with that of an agent provocateur, which is what I and many other people who post here suspect that he was, among other things.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Fearfaxer, Someone was directing his FPCC activities. Phillips (not onsite, from afar), Joannidies, Banister, Ferrie, Shaw?
            All together at times?
            FREETHEFILES.

        • Photon says:

          But Oswald drank Dr. Pepper, not Coke.

          • Photon, he was holding a bottle of soda, the BRAND is not this issue, it is a straw man, which seems your specialty.
            . . .
            “Did is statements and actions over his life seem normal to you ? you know joining the US Marines and the CPUSA – lived in Moscow, Protesting for Communist Cuba in Texas.. etc. etc.”~Trey

            His statements and actions actually seem to indicate those of an Intelligence Agent, more than those of a ‘nut’. The plausibility of Oswald being ONI on lone to FBI has been explored, and is pretty convincing. Especially the reactions of the WC Committee meeting of January 22, 1964, wherein Dulles and Boggs were so freaked out they demanded that the minutes of that meeting be destroyed.
            Luckily the person taking the minutes saved a copy, which was eventually found and published publicly.
            \\][//

          • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

            By drinking Dr. Pepper, how did he know the timing of the presidential motorcade, if even the guest invited to lunch at Trade Mart were expecting it at noon? When did Oswald actually make then the sniper-nest?

          • Photon says:

            Willy, it certainly is an issue as you have made a fundamental error regurgitated frequently by CT adherents.Neither Baker nor Truly saw Oswald holding a Coke. Both of their Warren testimonies state that Oswald had nothing in his hands.
            The Coke story was promulgated by Mrs. Robert Reid, who encountered Oswald about two minutes after the assassination- after the Truly interaction. She saw him on the second floor with a full bottle of Coke. The Coke machine was on the second floor. Why did Oswald pick up a full bottle of Coke AFTER running into Truly and Baker? Why wasn’t he drinking any? Why did he use a soda machine on the second floor when his favorite brand was in a machine on the first floor? Where he was supposedly eating lunch during the shooting-when he would have had something to drink?

          • bogman says:

            Strange thing about the “nut” designation. It was used by at least three parties who were enemies of JFK and could’ve knowledge of the plot BEFORE the assassination:

            Carlos Marcello
            Joseph Milteer
            Anti-Castroite “Leopoldo” to Sylvia Odio referring to Oswald specifically (“Leon Oswald”)

          • JohnR says:

            Here in Texas “coke” is just a generic term for all soda pop. Just in case you don’t believe me, here’s a map.

            http://twentytwowords.com/map-of-the-u-s-showing-what-people-call-sodapopcoke/

          • JohnR says:

            Photon: “when he would have something to drink.” I’m not exactly sure the point you’re trying to make, but I will concede your statements are accurate…for the most part.
            It’s true that Ms. Reid stated that she saw Oswald with a coke about two minutes after the shooting. It’s true that this COULD have been the start of a “myth.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/marysdb.html?id=7944&search=Marion%20baker%20with%20a%20coke%20in%20his%20hand
            It’s true that Marion Baker never testified that he saw Oswald with a coke in his hand. He even went so far as to cross out the reference in a handwritten affidavit prepared by an FBI agent.
            http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/MarrionBaker9-23-64AffidavitAsSeenI.png.html
            It’s revealing, though, that you omitted the fact that Oswald told Capt. Fritz that he had a coke when confronted by Ofc. Baker. This is also the earliest source.
            http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html In my opinion, this is just another lame attempt by the LN crowd to paint Oswald as a liar. The entire question about the coke is practically immaterial. The important detail about the encounter is Oswald’s demeanor. You don’t seem to understand very well the after effects of adrenaline.

          • JohnR says:

            Can anyone make out what else officer baker scratched out in the affidavit? I can’t.

            http://s217.photobucket.com/user/David_Von_Pein/media/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/MarrionBaker9-23-64AffidavitAsSeenI.png.html

            Thanks. I wonder if it’s important?

  2. Lisa Pease says:

    Indeed they did. See this document, where the FBI traced the bullets to batched that was likely ordered by CIA. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=692546

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Lisa

      How magnanimous of the CIA to leave a trail behind them that a blind man could follow.

      Just what part of the planet would 4 million 6.5mm Carcano cartridges be going in 1954?

      • Bill Pierce says:

        Bob: One could speculate forever about CIA/military contingency planning. In the 1954 time frame the US was extremely worried about Soviet expansion in Europe and elsewhere. It is entirely feasible that planners were considering the possibility of having to arm rebel or guerrilla groups in Europe for open-ended conflicts.

        Or perhaps the large order was a way of maintaining and enlarging the CIA’s (or Pentagon’s) budget. Maybe the order was, in a sense, a ‘bonus’ for a defense contractor. Maybe someone in the supply chain got a nice kickback. Perhaps propping up the Mannlicher-Carcano market was of benefit to a ‘CIA-friendly’ European industrialist or government. Who knows?

        IMO, in the JFK case, none of the MC bullets or fragments can be trusted. [But it is interesting that most of the rabbit holes lead to the CIA and FBI!]

        Incidentally, I don’t see any difference between the military and CIA.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Bill Pierce

          Sorry, can’t see any merits in your arguments at all. The Italians left large quantities of 6.5mm Carcano rifles in only two countries; Italy and Greece. Following WWII, Italy discontinued production of the Carcano and, by the early 50’s, had completely adopted the American M1 Garand as an infantry weapon. While adversaries in the Greek Civil War had gained access to stocks of confiscated Carcanos, following the expulsion of the Germans, this took place ten years before the muthical manufacture date of the WCC cartridges in 1954. The civil war had wound down by the late 40’s, and was over in 1949; five years before the WCC cartridges were manufactured.

          Your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, and I see it as mere static.

          Once again, for the US government to produce 4 million rounds of an obsolete cartridge in 1954 would require the recipient to have a reasonable quantity of Carcano rifles to shoot them in. Who was this recipient?

  3. anonymous says:

    The Nova Cold Case lone nutter docudrama shows again how “Eagerly Media Still Regurgitates government Claims”.

    It looked at the majic of the Carcano bullet, but they did not mention it was manufactured under a CIA contract.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/01/north-koreasony-story-shows-eager-u-s-media-still-regurgitate-government-claims/

  4. Neil says:

    Where did Lee Oswald get his ammo for the Carcano?

    That’s a question that I haven’t been able to find an answer to…

    • David Regan says:

      I don’t believe it’s ever been established, Neil. This piece raises many issues with Oswald’s alleged ordering and/or obtaining of the rifle and pistol: http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.ca/2009/11/who-bought-guns.html

    • BrotherBruce says:

      Another question might be: Why would Oswald purchase a rifle via mail order, using his standard, easily traceable alias, when he could have bought a much better rifle, cheaper and anonymously at any one of hundreds of Dallas gun stores?

      • Trey says:

        Cheaper ? Not likely. $20 for a center fire rifle was about as cheap as possible.

        The Klien Add always attributed to American rifleman.. but also in http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1963issues/G0263.pdf

        One wonders had oswald ordered the .303 No III MK I Enfield ($14.95)from Hunters lodge how many of these same CT theorists would be saying that the enfield could not have made the shot (guessing about 100%)

        Easily traceable- by what definition ? This was the age of 3×5 cards not computer data bases.

        Why would it have been more anonymous at a local gun store ? He would have been seen by a clerk, possible asked to show ID and the back trace of the rifle from ATF would have ended with a store, a receipt and a witness. How would that have been less traceable than mail order ?

        • Fearfaxer says:

          Because, contra your claim, they didn’t ask for IDs. You’d have had to jump through more hoops to get a license for your dog.

          • Trey says:

            so you have the store policy for every vendor of firearms in the Dallas / Ft.Worth metroplex for 1963 ?

            Impressive.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Nobody knows. The FBI interviewed every place you could buy ammo in the Dallas area. No one remembered selling Oswald any ammo at all. And remember he had 3 types, one for the rifle, plus he had both Colt and Remington bullets in the revolver. That means he would have to have purchased three boxes of three different types of bullets, and ammo was sold in lots of 20 or two dozen rounds per box. No spare ammo was ever discovered at the Paine residence, or his Oak Cliff rooming house.

  5. BrotherBruce says:

    It might also be worthwhile mentioning that Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano didn’t have a clip nor was a clip for the rifle ever located. Without a clip, the Mannlicher would have had to be loaded one shell at a time. This would have made it impossible for anyone shooting a Mannlicher to have fired more than one round in the time allotted to a sniper using that rifle. The Mannlicher located on the 6th floor of the Book Depository hadn’t been fired in at least a week. It had a thin coating or corrosion inside the barrel that would have been “wiped completely away’ if a shell had passed through it. The evidence proving that Oswald hadn’t fired a rifle on 11//22/63 is overwhelming as is the evidence that he wasn’t on the 6th floor of the Book Depository when Kennedy was shot.

    • JH 777 says:

      Originally posted by BrotherBruce.

      QUOTE “It might also be worthwhile mentioning that Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano didn’t have a clip nor was a clip for the rifle ever located.” QUOTE

      A clip was recovered from the Mannlicher-Carcano on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd 1963.

      WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY OF LT J. C. DAY :
      http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm

      Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
      Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: “4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design.”
      Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
      Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, “6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy.” That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
      Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
      Mr. DAY. “When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped ‘SMI, 9 x 2.'”<<<<<<<<<<<

      A REPORT DATED 11/22/1963 AND SIGNED BY LT J. C. DAY :
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/dpd-1242.gif

      COMMISSION EXHIBIT 575-Clip for Mannlicher-Carcano
      NOTE : SMI 952
      https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/1e/Photo_naraevid_CE575-5.jpg

      This explains why the clip was not found in the Snipers Nest.
      WC TESTIMONY OF FIREARMS PANEL: MONTY C. LUTZ, DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE, JOHN S. BATES, JR., AND ANDREW M. NEWQUIST
      http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm

      Mr. EDGAR. The cartridge clip was removed from CE-139 by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963 at the crime laboratory for the police department. Shouldn't a clip automatically fall out once the last cartridge has fed into the chamber?
      Mr. LUTZ. This rifle is designed to incorporate that feature so that the last cartridge is stripped out of the clip, then that allows the clip itself to fall or to drop from the opening that you see in the bottom of the box magazine. However, in many cases, and in this particular case, where we functioned the rifle, fed cartridges through it, we found this clip to stay in the rifle after the last round had been stripped and fed into the chamber. Because the lips or the edges of the clip many times will open up, they will spring against the walls on the inside of the box magazine and it will hang up in that area, and even though it is supposed to drop out, many times it will hang up in the box area.
      Mr. EDGAR. So that in this case, while it is normal for the clip to fall automatically, because of that particular problem with the clip, it remains in the rifle?
      Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir, many times it will.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        If the cartridge clip was removed from the rifle by Lt. Day, at the DPD crime laboratory, why was it not entered into evidence by the DPD?

        Why was the first reference ever made to a clip, for the 6th floor rifle, found much later in the WCR?

        Experiments have also been done with the clip for this rifle that show that, once the clip is spread to the point it is hanging up on the interior walls of the magazine, and not falling out when the last cartridge is chambered, it will no longer function as a clip and allow cartridges to be chambered.

        • BrotherBruce says:

          Bob, Great points. Thanks for backing up the evidence that the Mannlicher had no clip – making it impossible for more than one shot to have been fired by that “planted” rifle. You might be interested in reading the entire testimony as provided by JH777’s link. At the time of that testimony there was a major debate and discrepancy regarding the claims of 3 Dallas Policemen who found a Mauser rifle on the 6th floor of the Book Depository immediately after the assassination. The “experts” in the testimony provided by JH777 continually try and convince the panel that a Mauser and a Mannlicher are virtually indistinguishable and that the Dallas cops made an innocent mistake in claiming that they’d found a Mauser; Despite the fact that these Policemen had all read the word Mauser on the rifle they’d found. That Mauser has disappeared by the way. Just like the Mannlicher’s clip – which made absolutely no markings on it’s rifle and was never entered into evidence. It’s quite clear that Oswald was indeed a Patsy and that the Mannlicher was just a cheap, planted rifle – Without a clip!

          • Trey says:

            thank you for a LOL moment.

            “the Mannlicher Carcano with high powered microscopes admitted that there had NEVER BEEN A CLIP IN THE RIFLE. ”

            So the 1940 production War Surplus rifle had never been loaded.. by ANYONE.

            I am a milsurp collector and unissued unfired surplus rifles are darn rare and always have been.

      • BrotherBruce says:

        Again, there is no clip.
        I urge all who are interested in this subject to follow the link provided by JH777 and read the “expert’s” ENTIRE testimony.
        The experts state that no clip was found in the sniper’s nest but that there was a clip stuck inside of the Mannlicher. One can’t have it both ways. There is no clip. Here’s a bit more of the testimony – taken out of context. PLEASE read the entire text by following JH77′s links.
        Mr. EDGAR. Did anyone on the panel fire with the clip in?
        Mr. LUTZ. I do not believe so; no, sir.
        Mr. EDGAR. What was the reason for that?
        Mr. LUTZ. There were no particular markings that we were able to identify as having come from the clip, nor were we checking for time firing or sequential firing in any way in that respect.
        Mr. EDGAR. Let me ask you some questions about the scope itself.
        Mr. LUTZ. This scope, I will apply the principle to it. We are dealing with a four-power or a magnification of 4. The field of view is 18, meaning an 18-foot circle at 100 yards. So it is a 4 x 18 scope, a relatively small circle to locate your target in when you are firing and recovering from the recoil in successive shots. So to aline your target to get a sighting position, by placing the stock into the shoulder, the head has to be adjusted or moved slightly to the left to aline the way that the scope is mounted on the left-hand side and get into position to fire.
        The scope itself is also designed so that the crosshair, the reticles, do not remain in the exact center position. When you adjust windage or elevation those crosshairs move, so that you are not looking dead center in the object itself.
        Thank you for both reinforcing my contention that no clip was ever found and has never been introduced into evidence and also that the Mannlicher’s scope was worthless. If you read all of the testimony you’ll learn how the “planted” Mannlicher was defective in several ways, had a worthless scope, couldn’t be cocked, aimed and fired rapidly without malfunctioning and other “evidence” which would have guaranteed Oswald and acquittal if he’d been allowed to live and stand trial. Just like “lies, damn lies and statistics” one can prove almost any point by taking quotes out of context. JH77 has provided an absolute classic example.
        Pete, This is under 500 words.

        • Jean Davison says:

          A clip was found, BrotherBruce. It can be seen sticking out of the rifle in this photo of Day removing it from the TSBD:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif

          Possibly Day didn’t list the clip as a separate item because he considered it an integral part of the rifle.

          The clip appears in the WC Exhibits:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=139084

          The HSCA found that the clip would hang up in Oswald’s rifle after the last round was chambered instead of falling out as it was supposed to:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39375

          I think Sylvia Meagher started this nonsense about the clip almost 50 years ago. Isn’t it time to pull the plug on this one?

          • BrotherBruce says:

            Jean, That’s pretty funny. Thanks, I needed a lift. Somebody drew a red arrow and the the word clip with a line pointing at a shadow underneath a rifle. It’s like a RoadRunner cartoon with an arrow pointing at a box that says “cold drinks” or “dynamite” or “rocket fuel” something like that. That’s a good one. Fortunately, we all know that there was no clip because the experts, who examined the Mannlicher Carcano with high powered microscopes admitted that there had NEVER BEEN A CLIP IN THE RIFLE. A metal clip, when slid against wood or metal would have made some kind of a mark. There was nothing. Nothing Jean. Read the expert testimony again. Your picture is a grotesque joke. Someone has written Clip on a picture in red and pointed to a shadow and you’re offering this as evidence that it’s a Mannlicher Carcano with a clip. Stop the presses. We’ve broken the case! After 51 years Jean has found the Mannlicher Carcano’s clip. Re-read the experts testimony which states that no clip was ever inserted in the rifle. Then ask yourself why no clip was ever entered into evidence. Then take another look at the picture you submitted. Sorry sweetie – but thanks again for the laugh.

          • BrotherBruce says:

            I urge everyone interested in this subject to please take a look at the offered post. It’s quite amusing.

          • Jean Davison says:

            What’s amusing about it, BrotherBruce? Specifics, please.

          • Gosh Jean, I think it’s pretty funny too! But then you ask for “specifics”, when it is obvious and presented right here in this very comment line that he gave a very specific argument.
            Perhaps you could be more specific by attempting to counter his argument about the experts who examined the rifle…(?)
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            BrotherBruce,

            From the same HSCA testimony you quoted:

            Mr. EDGAR…. Shouldn’t a clip automatically fall out once the last cartridge has fed into the chamber?

            Mr. LUTZ. This rifle is designed to incorporate that feature so that the last cartridge is stripped out of the clip, then that allows the clip itself to fall or to drop from the opening that you see in the bottom of the box magazine. However, in many cases, and in this particular case, where we functioned the rifle, fed cartridges through it, we found this clip to stay in the rifle after the last round had been stripped and fed into the chamber.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=45886

            Here’s a second photo that’s not a “shadow”:

            http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?p=35720

            Lutz didn’t say the clip had “never been in the rifle” or that there were “no markings,” he said there were “no *particular* markings that we were able to identify as having come from the clip.”

            Planting a rifle that couldn’t have done the deed? Now, that’s amusing.

          • David Regan says:

            BrotherBruce, our LN friends expect us to believe extremely absurd ‘evidence’ time and again. Check out WC – Studebaker Exhibit F, showing a dotted outline of where the paper sack was allegedly found: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Studebaker_Ex_F.pdf

            The DPD failed to photograph the bag in the crime scene or document any fingerprints for that matter, not to mention establish who supposedly found the bag in the ‘snipers nest’.

            Jean, do you have an explanation for there being no prints on the shell casings or rifle clip either? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13461

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Jean, do you have an explanation for there being no prints on the shell casings or rifle clip either?”

            Yes, I do. But first, before you change the subject, do you have an explanation for the long bag brought out of the TSBD that day?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, I said this before and you keep skipping the issue. As the prosecution, the burden of proof is on you to show Oswald brough WC Exhibit 142 into the building that day. So far, you have shown no evidence to prove this. If you are confident that evidence would have shown this beyond reasonable doubt, I welcome you to share such evidence.

            Defense counsel would not be obligated to prove where this bag came from, just to prove the obvious holes in your case.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            Conspiracy sources think that finding no prints on an object is suspicious based on “that’s how it looks to me,” but there’s nothing unusual about it, according to the expert opinion online.

            You speak of the “prosecution” and “defense” as though this is a trial where the object is to exonerate the defendant. Oswald’s Dream Team has been making the very same arguments seen here since the 1960s and they still have no alternate explanation for the evidence. It’s like they’ve been saying “the glove don’t fit” for 50 years but never explain the cuts on OJ’s hand or the blood in his car.

            The only scenario explaining the evidence is still the Warren Commission’s: Oswald’s palm print is on the bag because he brought the rifle to work and Frazier/Randle were mistaken about the length.

            What’s the alternative? Maybe someone would like to argue that it was just a coincidence that Oswald went to Irving the day before and carried a package to work cupped in his right palm on the very same day a longer bag turned up with his right palm print on the bottom. Coincidence, anyone?

          • David Regan says:

            Right Jean, the old adage for you WC apologists is as obsolete as it’s conclusions. The only 2 witnesses to see the suspect carrying the sack are ‘mistaken’, like all the other dissenting witnesses in this case.

            Suffice it to say we are never going to agree on this and you still haven’t proven your case or addressed the many legitimate links I’ve posted earlier.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, who picked up the rifle at the Dallas post box?

          • David Regan says:

            Also Jean, still awaiting your response from our lenghty ‘paper sack’ thread.

            My last post was January 16, 2015 at 1:09 pm. It should be easy enought to address each link with witness testimony

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, where did Oswald acquire the bullets?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I don’t know where they dug these “experts” up from but, a 4×18 scope does NOT mean you will see an 18 foot diameter circle at 100 yards through this scope.

          The “4” in 4×18 means the scope will magnify what you are viewing through it 4 times. The “18” does not tell you the size of the field of view of this scope. The “18” is a measurement, in millimeters, of the diameter of the objective (forward) lens of this scope.

          There is no way this toy scope, designed to be mounted on a youth’s .22 calibre rifle and fired at typical ranges of 25 yards, will have an 18 foot diameter field of view at 100 yards. You’d be lucky to have a 2 foot field of view, and it is beyond me how anyone could believe a shooter could acquire a moving target with this scope.

          • Photon says:

            Quite right- the aperture of the objective lens is the second number, the first number is the magnification. The aperture is significant for how much light the scope is able to pick up. However, you seem to forget that one of the most important sniper shots of the Civil War was the shooting of Union General Reynolds at Gettysburg,killed by a sniper equipped with a rifle that had a 2x or 3x power scope of even less complexity than the one Oswald used. At a much greater distance.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          BrotherBruce

          If you would like to read some very different material on the Carcano scope, go to the Deep Politics Forum, JFK Assassination Debate. There is a rather long thread I started over there titled “The Side Mounted Scope on the 6.5 Carcano”. I bring up quite a dew interesting points I don’t believe anyone has ever discussed before.

    • That’s the sad thing in this whole story-The FBI/Warren Commission put Oswald on the 6th floor firing at JFK, when they really didn’t have full, confident proof of that.

  6. bogman says:

    So Oswald’s hanging around CIA assets in NO, playing spy games in MC, and now he’s firing CIA bullets?! WTH!?

  7. Ronnie Wayne says:

    As cia employes Morales, Phillips and Joanides would have had access to these cia procured bullets. FREETHEFILES and let’s see if there is any reference to them. Probably not, as JFK was not shot with a Carcano from the TSBD, IMHO.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Ronnie

      That’s the catch, though. What if JFK was shot with a Carcano, but not the one found on the 6th floor? There are some very accurate models of Carcanos, such as the last model ever produced; the M91/41 long rifle. Coincidentally (or not), it and the M91/38 short rifle found on the 6th floor both have standard twist riflings, and both rifles have the same rate of twist for riflings; at 1:8.47. Unless analyzed under a microscope, it would be impossible to tell which of these rifles a spent bullet had been fired from.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Thank you Sir. This is useful and interesting information.
        If the cia dealt in ammo to this extent for guns nobody in the U.S. Military had any of it meant they were supplying it to foreign militant’s for cheap guns on the international market they also probably supplied.
        imho
        This violated their charter.

        BTW, could the more modern Carcano’s have been fitted for silencers for the Knoll Shots? I’ve come to believe the shot’s from the depository were a distraction.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Hi Ronnie

          Any weapon can be fitted for a silencer (suppressor). It must be remembered, though, that the Carcano had muzzle velocities ranging from 2000-2400 fps (depending on the model) and that the speed of sound is roughly 1035 fps, making the Carcano bullet supersonic. For this reason, it is possible to suppress and totally silence the muzzle blast of a rifle but, nothing can be done to eliminate the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

          This is why I find the Altgens 6 photo so fascinating. It was supposedly taken at the same time as frame z255 of the Zapruder film. According to the official story, Oswald has fired two shots by this point, the earliest shot 3 seconds before this photo was taken.

          The muzzle blast of a rifle is very loud, and even louder if you are ahead of the muzzle. Startle reactions are inevitable, if bystanders are not prepared for a shot and, as these reactions are almost instantaneous, all of the bystanders in Altgens 6 should have been displaying startled expressions, instead of smiling and waving at JFK as he went by. A suppressed bullet, OTOH, would have produced a “crack” that would only have been startling to those in the immediate vicinity of the path of the bullet.

          The only people showing any reaction at all in this photo, outside of JFK, are the two SS agents riding on the outside starboard side of the follow up car behind the limo, both of whom can be seen looking behind the limo. Is it possible a suppressed shot from the lower floors of the Dal-Tex Building has just given both of them a haircut on its way to JFK, and they are both trying to figure out what just happened?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I’ve wondered about the Dal-Tex building for years. I read something in the late 80’s or early 90’s, I think it was one of the MOB did it books about coming in and going out through the loading dock. From a a cleaning closet with a window overlooking JFK from behind.
            Then came the Altegens photo of the open window with ??? in it behind the fire escape.
            Years ago I stood under it and though what a spot for an elevated deer stand if you were hunting on Elm St.
            Today you can walk in the TSBD owned apologist souvenir shop there and buy a bottle of water with the TSBD on it and look out the window a floor below where some think a shot might have been fired.
            So, Bob, a frangible bullet fired into JFK’s back around the 3rd thoracic vertebrae would have destroyed several chest cavity organs, whose x rays we’ve never seen.
            Then again President Ford said it was a neck wound.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Then you throw in Braden’s arrest there … suspicious to say the least.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I may have this confused with the Files story but thought I read about it years before him. Can anyone help here?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I know it’s speculation or worse a theory. But the fire cracker sounds heard by more than one witness, might they have been “silenced” shots? Just the bang of the sound barrier breaking but not he boom.

          • Trey says:

            On the issue of suppressors.

            Most suppressed weapons often tend to shoot subsonic loads.

            of course the recorded sounds of the shot tend to make the suppressed argument some what meaningless.

  8. Bob Prudhomme says:

    It is unfortunate that the web site referred to in the article above makes no mention of the 6.5mm Carcano M37 frangible range bullet. I am a little surprised at this, as the author of this site seems to be very knowledgeable about other Carcano bullets.

    There is an Italian site that showed cutaway diagrams of all the Carcano bullets ever made, found here:

    http://www.munizioni.eu/munizioni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:palle&catid=18:tipi

    I have been cutting and pasting from this site until just recently, when a very odd thing happened. Each of the photos on this page was replaced with a small box with an “x” on it. The same has happened at every forum I posted bullet photos from this page to, until there is no longer one of these photos anywhere. I would be interested if anyone could go to this page and see if anything more than I can see is visible.

    • John Rowell says:

      I’m curious, Bob, do you think a Carcano frangible range bullet was used in the assassination? Has anyone ever done any tests?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi John

        As far as I know, I am the first person to consider the possibility of modifying the 6.5mm Carcano M37 frangible range bullet (outside of JFK’s killers) by drilling a small hollow point into the solid pellet within the nose of this bullet. No one has ever tested this idea, as far as I know, but studying the results of the modern frangible rifle bullets produced by Dynamic Research Technologies, I have no doubt as to the lethality of such an experiment.

        The M37 Carcano frangible range bullet was very strange, and was developed in the 1920’s to allow Carcano rifles to be fired safely at indoor ranges, some of which were up to 300 metres long. the bullet jacket was copper alloy and closed at the base, unlike an FMJ bullet. The jacket was made in two pieces which bisected the jacket about 1/3 of the way back from the nose. The bottom was filled with a small amount of sand, followed by lead powder, which filled the bottom jacket section. The nose section contained a small metal pellet made from either lead or maillechort. The two jacket sections were joined, with a small overlap, and, I believe, soldered together; making one solid bullet. A small opening was left in the centre of the nose but, and this is very important, it did NOT penetrate the nose to make a hollow point.

        As the bullet weighed less than a standard 162 grain bullet, the gunpowder load was reduced accordingly, until the muzzle velocity of this bullet matched that of a standard Carcano bullet.

        The whole point of making this bullet, and the reason it was safe indoors, is that these bullets would disintegrate into a harmless cloud of sand and lead powder if they struck anything a bullet would normally ricochet off of. No attempt was made at these indoor ranges, so I am told, to place any bullet absorbent material behind targets but, rather, there were only bare concrete walls for the bullets to hit.

        The main difference between these “safe” range bullets and modern lethal frangible bullets is that the modern version has a hollow point in its nose that the M37 was lacking. The modern version still possesses the advantage of turning into a cloud of harmless lead-free metal powder when they strike a hard surface like concrete or steel, and, for this reason, are becoming popular with law enforcement agencies in urban settings. And this aside from the fact they may be the deadliest bullets ever created.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Now, it just occurred to me that some of you may not understand the mechanics of how a hollow point bullet functions as it is travelling through soft tissue, and it is essential to grasp this concept before one can fully appreciate a hollow point frangible bullet.

          Contrary to what many believe, a hollow point rifle bullet can pass through skull bone and leave a neat tiny entrance hole no bigger than what be made by an FMJ or soft point bullet. However, once inside the skull, the hollow nose of the bullet fills with fluid and semi-fluid brain matter and, due to the high velocity of the bullet, an enormous hydraulic pressure begins to build up inside the hollow point. As lead is soft, this pressure will open up the point like a flower petal and, in many cases (often depending on bullet design), shred the bullet right down to the base and separate it into many fragments. The results are absolutely devastating.

          Now, suppose that, instead of a solid lead core inside of a hollow point’s copper alloy jacket, you made a solid metal core by compressing a metal powder with hydraulics into the core for the bullet. This is the basics of a modern frangible bullet. The same mechanics apply as with the solid core bullet, only, this time, the hydraulic pressure is being applied against the compressed metal core. Within 2 inches of the entry point, this pressure is enough to turn the compressed core back into powder, and the bullet disintegrates into a 4 inch diameter cloud of metal dust. As this cloud of metal dust comes to an almost immediate halt, ALL of its energy is transferred to surrounding tissue, and the resulting shock delivers damage that is far more devastating than even the hollow point bullet can deliver.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            I should also add that the M37 Carcano frangible range bullet was being manufactured as late as 1953, and possibly right into the 1960’s. Although 6.5mm Carcano rifle production ended at the end of WWII, Italian shooting teams were still using Carcano rifles in international competitions right into the 1960’s. As far as I know, they were shooting match versions, equipped with double triggers, of the last Carcano production model; the M91/41 long rifle.

        • Photon says:

          Do you have any documented proof that this “deadly round” has ever been fired into human tissue?
          Do you have any physical evidence that the mentioned round could even penetrate a spherical object with the density of a skull filled with vascular bone marrow covered by periosteum,scalp and hair, let alone create a wound comparable to what was seen at JFK’s autopsy?
          As it has been shown that the FMJ as fired from the Carcano can cause a similar wound on human skulls I fail to see the point of implicating a frangible bullet which you have yet to prove could even penetrate the skull.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Sorry, Photon, you’re in way over your head on this one, and should stick to pretending to be a doctor.

            Hollow point frangible rifle bullet jackets are constructed in an identical fashion as regular hollow point rifle bullet jackets, and both types of bullets, as I stated, rely on the same mechanical principle to make them do what they do in a wound. The hollow point frangible bullets have been used on head shots on game with skulls as thick as, or thicker, than human skulls, and these bullets have absolutely NO problem penetrating these skulls. And, contrary to what many think, they will leave only a tiny entrance wound doing so.

            I personally experimented with handloading hollow point bullets for a .308 deer rifle, and it was my experience these bullets had no trouble penetrating deer skulls.

            I have always been doubtful of the government sponsored experiments that attempt to prove that full metal jacket bullets will completely break up in a head wound, and I think the only way they could achieve these results is to rig the tests, and modify the FMJ bullets in some way. I have made countless head shots with ordinary soft tipped hunting bullets, and have NEVER seen the dramatic explosive results depicted at z313 in the Z film.

            FMJ bullets are universally banned for use in hunting game, for the simple fact they do not expand and do not cause sufficient damage in a wound to cause the death of the game animal. Period.

          • John Rowell says:

            No, Photon, we don’t have the results of any tests. You might have been able to glean that answer from my question to Bob: “Has anyone ever done any tests?” An additional clue was provided by his answer : “No one has ever tested this idea, as far as I know…” We are wondering. We are speculating. Do you know what those words mean? I shouldn’t speak for Bob, but I am “implicating” the frangible bullet because the behavior matches the wounds: A penetration of the skull, a wound track of a few inches, then rapid expansion. In the tests I’ve read and seen, no one has duplicated the wound characteristics of the head wound using a FMJ. Mr. Oliver was only able to do it ONCE out of ten tests. I think that’s what Bob is getting at, and I think he might be onto something.

          • Photon says:

            ” I am ‘implicating’ the frangible bullet because the behavior matches the wounds .”
            But you just admitted that you ( and Bob) have no evidence that this type of round has ever been fired into human tissue, so how could you possibly know what the characteristics of the wound would be at all, let alone how the behavior would “match the wounds”. The frangible 6.5 mm rounds available in 1963 were not hollow point rounds, so comparing their ballistic characteristics to conventional hollow points is ridiculous.In addition, the Carcano frangible rounds had a significant reduction in the amount of powder compared to the FMJ round; you still have presented absolutely no evidence that the round was even capable of penetrating the skull of a living human being. Comparing a .308 hollow point’s ballistic characteristics to a 6.5 mm frangible round is not logical as they are entirely two different rounds.
            Multiple recreations of JFK’s head wounds from Lattimer to the History Channel have conclusively proved that the Carcano 6.5 mm FMJ round was entirely capable of producing the JFK head wound as it appeared at autopsy. Using a hollow point or Silvertip expanding round would have almost certainly caused extensive disruption of the calvaria and would have produced destruction of the head much greater than what was seen at autopsy or even in the Zapruder film, essentially a decapitation.

          • John Rowell says:

            Crossing swords with the legendary Photon is even more fun than I thought. If my answer to you reads condescendingly, please understand that it is exactly my intent. I shall proceed as if speaking to a small child. Has it ever occured to you that each and every one of the tests that you cited was undertaken due to the fact that the “head shot bullet” did not act in a manner consistent with FMJ rounds? In fact, it acted in a manner inconsistent with another round allegedly fired from the same weapon 2-3 seconds prior. In the tests that were conducted, it was demonstrated that a FMJ round would fragment, but only in a small percentage of instances. But, they don’t tell us why. Nor do they provide us with the means to determine whether or not the bullets that did fragment caused the wounds that allegedly simulated the head wounds. Perhaps you are satisfied with these results. I am not.

            Regardless of the origin of the head shot, assuming only one shot, (sorry, Bob,) this fact remains: The bullet entered the calvaria, or skullcap, penetrated a few inches, then rapidly expanded, resulting in numerous fragments in and around a large and fatal wound. It is also a fact that a FMJ round would not be expected to behave in this manner. It is also a fact that a high-velocity exploding round would have resulted in near decapitation. So my question for some time has been thus: What about a low-velocity exploding round? Does such a thing even exist? Thanks to Bob, we now have an answer, YES. A 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano frangible range bullet. Was it contemporary to the assassination? YES. Has anyone ever conducted a test by firing this round into a human skull or it’s equivalent? Alas, NO. Rest yourself assured, had I the means to do so, I would conduct just such a test. I SUSPECT the results would resemble the headshot wound. Believe it or not, I’ll even concede that it is possible that I am wrong, and that I have in fact unfairly implicated the 6.5 Mannilcher Carcano frangible range bullet in this heinous crime. If that proves to be the case, I would hope that it accepts my heartfelt apology. We’ll never know without a test.

          • Photon says:

            You made several assumptions that are not true. There is no evidence that the bullet that caused the head wound “rapidly expanded”; the characteristic of the head wound argue against any type of expanding round,as stated above. As you stated, tests have shown that a FMJ can fragment somewhat when it hits a spherical hard object, eg. a skull. So how is the head wound incomparable with a FMJ?
            You have no evidence that the 6.5 mm frangible round was a low velocity round. Because it wasn’t ; despite the reduced powder load the frangible round’s velocity was not much different than that of the standard FMJ round.
            When you say ” a FNJ round would not be expected to behave in this manner ” you need to post a source. No two bullet wounds are exactly alike; test firings of the 6.5 mm on human skulls have repeated demonstrated that FMJ rounds will cause similar wounds to that seen in the case of JFK, These results are ” good enough”- it is impossible to exactly duplicate JFK’s wounds down to the exact number of fragments or the exact dimensions of the wound.
            Your perception of what a round can or cannot do to human tissue is flawed. I have seen multiple gunshot wounds that certainly did not conform to what a bullet ” should have done” ; to claim that a bullet can’t do this or that reveals an ignorance of the sometimes unusual and often unpredictable effects of rounds on human tissue.
            The fact that you cannot prove that this frangible round could even penetrate the human skull should put this issue to rest. The whole exercise seems to be an attempt to create a narrative claiming that the FMJ round could not cause the JFK head wound, when documented ballistic evidence most certainly proves that it could. To the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that the available frangible round could produce ANY of the wounds found in JFK or Connolly. The fragments found in the limo were from a FMJ round.

          • John Rowell says:

            Please address my central point: If not to explain an apparent anomaly, why do the test at all?

        • Robert Burns says:

          As far as I know, I am the first person to consider the possibility of modifying the 6.5mm Carcano M37 frangible range bullet (outside of JFK’s killers) by drilling a small hollow point into the solid pellet within the nose of this bullet. No one has ever tested this idea, as far as I know, but studying the results of the modern frangible rifle bullets produced by Dynamic Research Technologies, I have no doubt as to the lethality of such an experiment.

          This reminds me of something Chauncey Holt said about bringing documents and ammo to Dallas. He mentions that some of the ammo is like blanks. I wonder if it was modified and he just thought it was blanks.

  9. Bob Prudhomme says:

    There were only two countries that had any sizeable number of 6.5mm Carcano rifles in the 1940’s; Italy and Greece.

    Following the armistice signed by Italy and the Allies in October, 1943, many thousands of Italian soldiers fought on the side of the Allies to drive German forces from Italy. These soldiers were still carrying their 6.5mm Carcano rifles, and there is proof the 4 million Western Cartridge Co. cartridges were manufactured for this group.

    Another myth, and a partial compromise, put out by disinformation groups, is that the WCC ammo was made in 1949, and made to supply anti-Communist partisans in the Greek Civil War. Greece came by great stocks of Carcano rifles during the joint Italian/German occupation of Greece. Following the Italian/Allied armistice in 1943, Italian troops leaving Greece were disarmed by German troops, often at gun point, as Germany knew they would be facing these same troops as partisans, once they were repatriated to Italy.

    The comical part about the myth of the WCC bullets manufactured in 1949, is that the Greek Civil War ENDED in 1949. Why would anyone make 4 million rounds for a war that was almost wrapped up?

    A more likely manufacture date is pre-1944. When Greece was occupied by Germany, many partisan groups came into existence, although their politics were quite polarized between those supporting a monarchy and those promoting Communism. This did not escape the eyes of American and British intelligence, and it was painfully obvious that, following the eventual expulsion of the Germans, Greece would be pitched into a full scale civil war for control of the country. Plans to support anti-Communist forces were being drawn up as early as 1943, and possibly earlier.

    To anyone who believes the WCC cartridges were made in 1954, I challenge them to name a country that possessed 6.5mm Carcano rifles, in any quantity, that had a particular need for 4 million cartridges in 1954.

    • John Rowell says:

      I couldn’t begin to adequately meet your challenge. I’ll take a guess, though. Wikipedia lists Persia as one of the users of the Carcano. Maybe the Shah had a need, after he was installed by the CIA in 1953. More importantly, why do you write that 1954 is a myth? The FBI memo clearly states, not once but twice, that attached is a copy of a contract dated 1954. Or am I reading it wrong?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Do you not find it a little odd the FBI were able to catch the CIA (and the USMC) with their pants down? Do you not also find it a bit odd that this matter made its way into an FBI report, and that you and I are actually able to read this report?

        I smell a plant.

        • John Rowell says:

          Not really, Bob. The memo looks real to me. If it was a plant, I doubt it would have stayed hidden until the ’90’s. In the end, the memo proves nothing. When I wrote the original e-mail to the editors, I just thought it was interesting. We don’t know if the FBI agent writing the memo is right in his speculation that the bullets were manufactured for the CIA. It just looks that way. As to your question about the likelihood of the FBI “catching the CIA with their pants down,” maybe in the early days of the CIA, they weren’t as good at covering their tracks as they are now.

    • Trey says:

      “s that the Greek Civil War ENDED in 1949. Why would anyone make 4 million rounds for a war that was almost wrapped up?”

      Wonderful case of post facto knowledge you have there. In 1948 when the order would have been placed it would not have been known that the war would end in 49.

      Under your theory, why did the US keep makeing .30 M2 rounds in Aug of 45, the war would be over in Sept.

    • John Rowell says:

      Mr. Prudhomme, how long does it take for rust to form inside a rifle barrel? Assume 50% humidity, and work up and down from there. I’m trying to make sense of the test firing of the Carcano by the FBI on Nov 23rd, 1963. If the tester was NOT referring to rust in the barrel, what else could he been describing?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi John

        Good question. I assume you are referring to the testimony given to the WC by the FBI’s SA Robert A. Frazier. I know that the majority of people believe Frazier states, in this testimony, that there was rust inside of the Carcano’s barrel on 23/11/63. However, if you read his testimony carefully, you will see that he never actually says he found rust inside the barrel; only that the barrel was quite pitted and eroded. This pitting and eroding could have taken place in the Second World War.

        That being said, different grades of steel will rust at different rates, depending on what is added to the alloy. Climate plays a big part, too, as well as any corrosive elements in the air. I live near the beach in a temperate rain forest, where the humidity is typically 80-90%. I have gone clam digging at the beach and left a brand new shovel lying in the sand. In as little as half an hour, the shovel will have a fine coating of rust on it. Of course, the salt helps, just as acid rain will help. On the other extreme, rifle barrels are made from a very good grade of steel. The inside of a barrel, if not cleaned, will have a fine coating of lead and copper on it. It will also have a build up of a thing called gunshot residue. While some think this may prevent moisture from attacking your barrel while the rifle is in storage, it doesn’t. There is nothing better than a completely cleaned barrel with a light coating of gun oil.

        Given that the rifle was stored in an office in Dallas, and Dallas enjoys a fairly arid climate, I do not think the rifle could build up a layer of rust overnight.

  10. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    The Warren Commission got at least a wrong weapon, a wrong bullet, and a wrong case.
    1. The firearm ordered by A. Hidell to Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago was a 36-inch, 5.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano carbine; the one occupied by Dallas Police at TSBD is a 40.2 inch, 7.5 pound Mannlicher Carcano short rifle with scope. Klein’s Sporting Goods did not sale the short rifle, but the carbine with scope. A $21.45 money order was mailed from Dallas on March 12, 1963, and deposited in Chicago by Klein’s Sporting Goods the next day. By 1963 USPS standards, it’s simply impossible.
    2. Otis P. Wright does not appear in the WCR, although he was the personnel officer at Parkland Hospital who handed to the Secret Service a bullet found by employee Darrell Tomlinson. Wright stated it was “a lead-colored, sharp-nosed, hunting round,” while the bullet in evidence (CE 399) is a copper-coated, round-nosed, military jacketed one, which passed through both JFK and Governor Connally, caused seven wounds and broke two bones, but exited almost intact. The first draft of the WCR said JFK was hit in the back. Gerard Ford changed it to a bullet hitting Kennedy in the neck for facilitating that CE 399 exits the JFK throat and follows the remarkable path through Connally’s body.
    3. Three shells were found in the “sniper’s nest” at TSBD on November 22, 1963. One of them (CE 543) could not have been fired that day. Three sets of marks reveal it had been loaded and extracted three times before. Forensic analysis certified only empty cases exhibit its indentation characteristics.

  11. Does this confirm involvement in the assassination by the CIA and/or (Italian)Mafia? Sounds like it.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Paul:] “Does this confirm involvement in the assassination by the CIA and/or (Italian)Mafia?”

      ==========================

      Paul:

      The Sicilians provided big help to the allies in WWII. That is how many of them ended up with American visas/passports and the CIA-Cosa Nostra alliance was born.

      The nationality of the rifle is another story. In short, if they had to do it all over again, the plotters would definitely say:

      – “Step number one: Get a better freaking rifle!!”

      They were too cheap when it came to weapon selection. The better models in the catalog were too expensive for a dirt poor Lee. They had to make it believable.

      Anthony Marsh (the star of the JFK Usenet Forum, owned by prof. McAdams), a veritable encyclopedia, always said that the 6th. floor rifle jammed -one bullet was unspent- thus forcing the frontal, shooter of last resort, to be enabled.

      Think about it: If they had only splurged for a slightly better model, they could have gotten away with it!

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Anthony Marsh is full of baloney. The unspent round was found in the chamber of the rifle. How does that equate to the rifle being “jammed”?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Bob Prudhomme January 4, 2015 at 2:31 pm

          “Anthony Marsh is full of baloney.”

          And I think that pretty well nails this question.

          But Ramon didn’t present Marsh’s theory accurately. Marsh claims he knows the Carcano jammed because one of the fired cases found on the floor has a bent case lip. In the world of Marsh the only thing that can cause this bent case lip is a jammed rifle.

          As with so much of what Mr. Marsh says, this is not true. Several people, including myself, have furnished evidence that this isn’t true but to no positive influence on the thinking of Mr. Marsh.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            CE 543 is one of the most interesting things I have looked at in this case. I personally do not believe the dent in the neck of this empty casing can determine whether or not a bullet was fired from it on 22/11/63, as there are no close up photos of it at the time of its discovery; at least not as far as I know of, anyways. The only photo I know of this casing is the one taken by the FBI, and there were a lot of opportunities for this casing to have been dented before they got hold of it.

            I have tried every trick I know of to imitate the dent in the side of the casing neck on CE543. I’ve dropped empty casings of every calibre on pavement, wood, stone and cement, I’ve thrown it against a similar selection of walls and I’ve tried chambering empty casings in sporting and military rifles; all to no avail. The best I’ve been able to do is jam a casing in the entry to the chamber as I try to re-chamber it. It produced a dent, but not like what is seen in CE 543. The dent I produced actually curled the lip of the neck over, while the dent on CE 543 appears to be from a force applied to the side of the neck.

            Oh well, some mysteries just have to remain unsolved.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Well Bob, maybe James Files bit it before he dropped it.
            I don’t believe such but who knows, it could become a theory.

  12. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Has anybody been able to determine, with some degree of accuracy, the date when the meeting between Lee and Phillips/Bishop ran longer than anticipated and/or Antonio Veciana arrived too early, thus catching them in the act? In flagrante delicto, so to speak?

    Calendarwise, are we talking about:

    – “Pack your bags, you are going to Mexico” (or to NOLA?)

    – “You need to order a rifle under the name of your alter ego”

    – “These are your bullets”

    – “You and 2 other guys are going to pay a visit to some Cuban sisters”

    – “We need to give a good scare to that bastard that you hate so much, Edwin Walker”

    The backyard photos seem to be a de Mohrenschildt deal. Lee even dedicated them to the Baron.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      In this video (minute 18:30″), the HSCA investigators (specifically my new hero, Gaeton Fonzi) say that the date was 2 months before the assassination, or around September 22.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5-GbaBYK8

      That would be after the fight with Dr. Carlos Bringuier (choreographed by Guy Banister, monitored by Joannides The Greek) and a few days before the trip to Mexico City.

      Sigh… Where is a calendar detailing Lee’s movements when one needs one?

  13. BrotherBruce says:

    Perhaps someone should take a picture of the Book Depository; write Lee Harvey Oswald on it, in red, and draw an arrow to the 6th floor Sniper’s Window. I think a lot of people might be convinced – especially if the window was dark and shadowy. They can’t write anything on a picture unless it’s true – Right? I’m still laughing about the “RoadRunner cartoon style” clip photo. Is that rifle even a Mannlicher. If you read the expert’s testimony IN FULL, you learn that the experts claim a Mannlicher and Mauser are indistinguishable – What kind of rifle is the one in Jean’s picture? You know, the one with the helpful labeling written on it. Gawd, that’s funny.
    Another reason to read the full text is that you’ll learn that the Presidential limo’s windshield was removed. The Secret Service wasn’t shy about tampering with evidence were they? Parkland employees claimed that the original windshield had a front-entering bullet hole in it. Do you believe how blatant the conspirators were about hiding, tampering, obfuscating, lying – not to mention strong arming, and intimidating. For anyone who hasn’t done it yet; Please follow Jean Davidson’s 1/04/15 posted link to the photo of a shadow that’s been labeled “clip” in red. It’s, literally, more fun than a barrel full of baby chimps. Every day I learn more about just how ham-handed and amateurish these investigators were. Oswald wasn’t the only patsy. LBJ and his cohorts made patsies of us all.

    • I would like to just interject a question here. In the opinion of our resident bullet experts, is there really enough metallic material shown in the head X-ray to posit a frangible bullet? Wouldn’t any high powered bullet shed some material in such an impact?

      The X-rays show minute specks, sort of a “galaxy” in the image. This seems to indicate a through and through hit with a high-speed projectile. According to the most modern ballistics literature I can find, the wound to JFK’s head is caused not by a frangible bullet coming apart (exploding inside the skull) but is in the over-pressures created in the gelatinous brain material caused by instant evacuation due to a supersonic wave. In other words an implosion, fracturing the skull like a over-boiled eggshell

      Sherry Fiester claims that her forensic examination proves a single bullet entering the temporal-parietal area slightly forward of and just above the right ear. This projectile passed through the right hemisphere only and exited at a point at the base of the skull, some three inches to the left of the right occipital-protuberance
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        Perhaps you would care to tell us what kind of bullet transited JFK’s brain, managed to shed a “galaxy” of minute particles of metal on its way through, yet remained intact enough to exit the other side.

        While you’re at it, perhaps your “most modern” ballistics literature can tell us what part of this bullet these minute particles of metal were shed from.

        • Bob Prudhomme, the key to my question is the term, “minute particles of metal”.

          I cannot say what type of bullet, you seem to be the bullet expert here, that is why I asked, hoping for you to answer. Now, saying that, are you a forensic pathologist familiar with how much metal would shed from a full metal jacketed bullet?

          “Over 1000 fps real expansion starts to occur and by 1200 fps the nose is turned over to form a mushroom shape. An interesting artefact of impacts around 1000 fps is the tendency of the copper jacket to be shed from the lead. The jacket stops in the subcutaneous tissue and the bullet will continue to penetrate. This accounts for fragments of copper (with rifling marks) commonly seen as surgical specimens. At velocities approaching 1500 fps the bullet is transformed into a rounded ball of lead and copper. The above results are uniformly valid only in artificial media (such as ordnance gelatin) but correlate with human tissue.”
          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNLAB.html
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Will

            Sorry for responding so harshly. You asked a legitimate question, and deserve an attempt at a legitimate answer.

            Well, as a full metal jacket bullet is mostly encased in a reasonably hard copper alloy jacket, it is not really a good candidate for shedding minute particles of metal. To be fair, an FMJ bullet can shed lead particles and still remain intact. It’s a bit confusing but I will do my best to explain it.

            The structure of the majority of modern FMJ bullets is directly derived from a meeting of the world’s great nations, in 1899, called the Hague Peace Conference. As odd as it may sound, the aim of this meeting was to remove the “inhumaneness” from war. It is a little ironic, as they concentrated mostly on rifle bullets, and totally ignored such nice toys as grenades, flamethrowers and artillery shells. Oh well. The British received the main thrust of all criticism, as they had recently brought dum dum bullets on the scene, as well as their Mk. IV and V .303 bullets, which ere actual hollow point bullets. As these bullets left horrendous wounds in their victims, it was mutually decided, for humanitarian purposes, to limit combatants to FMJ bullets that would wound a soldier, remove him from the fight, but not kill or permanently maim him. Oh, such lofty ideals!

            Anyways, it was soon discovered that when an FMJ bullet struck a bone, it would often flatten or deform, and actually make the space inside of the copper alloy jacket smaller. As the lead in the core is quite malleable, it will behave almost like a liquid under pressure. If the bullet was flattened or deformed too much, internal pressures would rise to the point the copper jacket would rupture. Once the jacket ruptures, the FMJ bullet would behave like any other fragmenting bullet and completely come apart, inflicting a horrible wound.

            This is what the WC would like us to believe inside of JFK’s skull but, unfortunately for them, they forgot to mention one small feature incorporated into a WCC 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet and, for that matter, the majority of FMJ bullets on the planet.

            A full metal jacket bullet is not fully jacketed in copper alloy. If you look at the base of a 6.5mm FMJ bullet, you will see there is a 4.5 mm diameter opening in the base, through which the lead core can be seen. This opening acts as a sort of “pressure relief valve”. As the bullet deforms and flattens, and the space inside of the jacket gets smaller, lead is extruded out the base of the bullet, like toothpaste being squeezed out of a tube. This prevents pressure levels inside the bullet jacket from reaching critical levels, and stops the bullet and jacket from coming apart.

            We are constantly told by WC supporters that the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is capable of penetrating 48 inches of pine lumber, without deformation, and Gerald Posner even tells us, in his book “Case Closed”, that 6.5mm FMJ bullets were used in Africa for hunting elephants, as this projectile was capable of penetrating the thick skull of an elephant, and reaching the brain intact, without deformation. In comparison, the skull of a man is much thinner, and should not deform an FMJ bullet entering it very much at all. A tiny bit of lead might be shed out the base in the vicinity of the entrance wound, but there is nothing to account for the distribution of metal particles seen throughout the entire skull.

  14. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John Rowell
    January 4, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    No, Photon, we don’t have the results of any tests. You might have been able to glean that answer from my question to Bob: “Has anyone ever done any tests?” An additional clue was provided by his answer : “No one has ever tested this idea, as far as I know…” We are wondering. We are speculating. Do you know what those words mean? I shouldn’t speak for Bob, but I am “implicating” the frangible bullet because the behavior matches the wounds: A penetration of the skull, a wound track of a few inches, then rapid expansion. In the tests I’ve read and seen, no one has duplicated the wound characteristics of the head wound using a FMJ. Mr. Oliver was only able to do it ONCE out of ten tests. I think that’s what Bob is getting at, and I think he might be onto something.

    ——————————————————————-

    Yes, John, that pretty much sums up what I am getting at. As I said, I’ve shot deer with hollow point rifle bullets, and have seldom seen results quite as dramatic as what occurred in the head shot at z313.

    Of course, there are other possibilities that could be considered, if one was so inclined.

    At one forum, the idea of a mercury filled bullet seems to be pretty popular. Once again, it would likely also have to be a hollow point nose to make this bullet function and open up. I have never seen one of these, and do not even know id such a thing exists, but I understand the principle behind it, and believe it possible to make such a thing.

    Another idea I have considered is an exploding bullet. Such a thing was actually made for the Italian forces in the First World War, although it was never intended to be used as a weapon. Its use was intended as part of something known as long range volley firing. If a target area (ie. a large group of soldiers) is identified at a range of, say, 1000+ metres, an attempt can be made by another large group of soldiers to fire a volley of a few hundred bullets into that target area, in the hopes that some of the bullets will find their mark. This is why our Canadian rifles from WWI had rear sights adjustable out to 1700 yards.

    The only trick to this volley firing was finding the range to elevate your rear sights to, in order to make the large volley land in the right place. The explosive bullet was used, one at a time, to find the range by trial and error. The advantage of an exploding bullet is the explosion it made would be visible through a scope at over 1000 yards. In essence, an early range finder. However, whether or not one of these would be capable of penetrating a skull, before detonating, or would simply explode on the surface of the skull, is another question. I suppose one could include a delay fuse in the detonator of a few milliseconds duration to allow for sufficient penetration.

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 5, 2015 at 6:43 am
    Quite right- the aperture of the objective lens is the second number, the first number is the magnification. The aperture is significant for how much light the scope is able to pick up. However, you seem to forget that one of the most important sniper shots of the Civil War was the shooting of Union General Reynolds at Gettysburg,killed by a sniper equipped with a rifle that had a 2x or 3x power scope of even less complexity than the one Oswald used. At a much greater distance.

    ————————————————————-

    As usual, you miss the entire point of what someone is posting. Did I not advise you to stick to pretending to be a doctor?

    The 4x magnification of the scope mounted on the rifle found on the 6th floor is not the problem. I hunted for years with a rifle equipped with a 4x scope.

    The problem with this 4×18 toy scope is, as I said, the extremely tiny field of view one has looking through this scope. Acquiring a moving target through a scope is difficult enough, acquiring a target through a toy scope intended for use on a .22 rifle at ranges up to 25 yards is almost impossible, as looking through this scope at a range of 100 yards will only show you a view a few feet wide.

    Oswald would have very quickly learned the inadequacies of this scope, if he practiced with this rifle as much as some claim he did. For those people who claim he made the shots with the open sights (a very awkward thing to do with the scope on the rifle), why did he not simply remove this useless scope, prior to bringing the rifle to work with him? Two minutes with a flat bladed screwdriver would have been sufficient.

    P.S.

    Your comment about the 2x or 3x scope is interesting. It would have been to Oswald’s advantage to have had a 2x or 3x scope, as the field of view would have increased with the lower magnification.

    • Photon says:

      I am not sure what the field of view was with an 1860 2-3x scope with English optics , even considering the decreased magnification. Japanese optics (even in cheap scopes) were orders of magnitude better than that seen in 1860 England, even to the point of field of view. You continue to miss the point of what Oswald saw of a target moving away from him toward the Triple Overpass -a target with no lateral translation that only became smaller. He didn’t have to re-acquire the target with each shot, he didn’t even have to move the rifle once it was on the box rest-probably the reason why he didn’t shoot JFK as the limo approached the TSBD.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        I can tell you have never done much shooting, if any at all. Do you really believe that if you were at a range, lined up your target through the scope and fired a shot, that your scope would still be lined up on the target?? What a fantasy world you live in!!

        The SLIGHTEST movement of a rifle, or a target, will throw a scope off the target, and it is necessary to re-acquire the target each time you shoot. This is difficult enough with a scope designed to be on a high powered rifle, as the field of view seen through the aperture is reasonably wide, but becomes almost impossible with a toy scope such as the Ordnance Optics 4×18.

        JFK’s limo would have to move no more than a few feet for JFK to be completely out of the field of view of this scope, it is that small. A scope of this quality, designed for .22 calibre rifles or pellet guns, can be purchased for under $10 at Walmart.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Found this on a website dealing with hobbyists reproducing the Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor:

          “slam-fire

          Okay guys, here’s the complete story (as best I know) on the Ordnance Optics Scopes.

          When Ordnance Optics went out of business, we (Martin B. Retting, Inc.) bought their remaining inventory of 4x scopes. From what I hear…it was a pretty big lot and the scopes were such poor quality that Jim Thompson (who was the mgr. at the time and responsible for the purchase) never heard the end of it.

          For while the scopes were sold on the floor for use with .22 rifles, I think they were under $10.00 in the late 70’s. I remember buying one as a kid for my 10/22.

          Their more infamous role came when one of the scopes that we sold Kline’s ended up on a certain Carcano.

          Here are the fact as I know them to be:

          a) there was only one lot of scopes sold off buy Ordnance Optics….but there were to slight variations within it. The one on Oswald’s rifle had a knurled ocular lens bell housing. The remaining scopes have smooth ocular bell housings. Otherwise the markings are the same.

          b) there is only one type of mount, both the 3 hole and 4 hole started out the same. some mounts were ground to fit 95 mausers (in order to clear the bolt stop). the carcano should have had a four hole mount, with no need for grinding…but Kline’s had both styles and simply installed the wrong one.

          c) the best photo of the rifle, for reference of the scope and mount, appears in the November, 1983 issue of Life Magazine. A photographer was allowed access to the Oswald rifle…the resulting photos show much more detail than the Warren commission pics.

          d) the scopes themselves are horrible….very poor optically….very frail crosshairs! In addition, the crosshairs are not self centering, so depending on the rifle, the sight picture may be a little annoying. The mounts are also prone to bending. If I had to vote, I go along with the school of thought that argues that Oswald either used the iron sights or simply pointed the rifle by looking over the scope.

          that being said, I have a few left…the price is $250.00 with mounts, plus $20.00 if you want Keith (the guy who as a kid, ground them originally) to grind the mount like the 95 mount. the actual availability issue isn’t the scopes, it’s the mounts….. which will run out before the scopes.

          I used to advertise them occasionally, with a brief history and a certificate of authenticity, but I got tired of all of the hate mail that I would get… never ceases to amaze me how mean supposedly “enlightened” liberals can be if you’re what they consider “politically incorrect”

          anyhow…. if anyone ever has any question, you can call me at the shop. 310-***-****….ask for Alex”

        • Photon says:

          Please go to YouTube and view the presentation of “. 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 6 shots in 5.1 seconds ” posted by mag30th.
          It would seem to render your claim inoperable, unless you can prove that this film is faked, too.

          • Photon says:

            All hits on a 10×36 inch target at 120 yards.
            Duplicated at a firing range exactly as you claimed was impossible to do.
            With a 4x scope with essentially the same field of view as Oswald’s scope.
            Have YOU done much shooting at a range?

          • David Regan says:

            Oswald ‘had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets’ | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/AAYRD2k

            What I would like know is if these marksmen from recreations over the years are given nitrate tests or the weapons checked for prints?

  16. BrotherBruce says:

    Jean, I hope you’ll forgive me for the sarcasm that I unfairly included in my response to your initial post of the “Clip” photo. I do admit that I found the picture amusing but to point that out in so crude a manner was mean and less than chivalrous. I’m sorry.
    I looked at the most recent photo you sent and it is indeed a much clearer picture of a man holding a rifle with an arrow pointing to something which has been labeled “Clip”. Do you know if that is indeed “Oswald’s Mannlicher? Were you aware that several Dallas Police detectives testified that they found the Mannlicher on the 5th floor? But 3 Dallas Patrolmen testified to finding a rifle clearly marked “Mauser” on the 6th floor? Also, after examining your latest link, I scrolled down a bit from there and found this dialogue re. the Mannlicher Carcano rifle: It can be found by clicking on your link.

    “Plainly visible, in the magazine, is the en bloc charger clip, holding five cartridges with the sixth cartridge in the chamber. If you look under the bottom cartridge, you can see the “elevator bar”, spring loaded and hinged at the front of the magazine, and positioned under the bottom cartridge in the clip. As each cartridge is chambered, this elevator bar lifts the remaining cartridges up so the next one can be chambered by the bolt”.
    “Unknown to most people is the fact that this elevator bar is the only thing holding the cartridges and clip in the magazine. Once the last cartridge is chambered, the clip falls to the ground out the bottom of the magazine, as the elevator bar is narrower than the clip and is isolated inside the clip. The ONLY time the clip will not fall out is when a re-used clip becomes spread and hangs up on the sides of the magazine. However, tests have shown that, once a clip becomes this deformed, it no longer functions effectively as a charger clip and the cartridges will jam instead of chambering.”
    “In other words, if Oswald effectively chambered four cartridges into this rifle on 11/22/63, the pictures of the Carcano with the clip hanging out of the magazine are a physical impossibility. What is more likely is that a defective clip was inserted into the bottom of the magazine at some point in the Texas School Book Depository.
    “I see the clip managed to fall out at some point during the trip to the Dallas Police Department.”

    Jean, If you look at the photo of the man holding (what appears to be “Oswald’s Mannlicher” at the top of this heading – it does indeed appear that the “Clip” has gone missing. As you know, a Mannlicher clip was never entered into evidence. A clip is essential if the rifle was to have been fired 3 times in less than 10 seconds. Even with a clip and functioning perfectly – this would have been a huge stretch. Without a clip – it would have been impossible. I submit that the the conspirators did indeed “plant” a rifle incapable of being able to perform as required.
    I’ve concluded that Lyndon Johnson used his governmental position and his personal and Constitutional power to recruit various elements of the CIA, Secret Service, Chiefs of Staff and Hoover to help him and his Texas cohorts carry out and cover up the assassination of his predecessor.
    I’m a pragmatist and have gone through many stages of deliberation and very extensive research before reaching this conclusion. I do remain open minded but I’ve progressed to the point where I’m willing to lay it all on the line regarding my feelings about this shameful episode of American history. Notwithstanding my conclusions, I maintain the utmost respect for all other opinions and sincerely regret getting off on the wrong foot with you. Bruce

    • leslie sharp says:

      BrotherBruce,
      Have you come across film footage that indicates there was an actual reenactment of the discovery of the rifle?

      • BrotherBruce says:

        I don’t recall seeing that footage. Was it a reenactment designed to deceive or what is something designed for a historical documentary? The conspirators seem to have done a particularly haphazard job in all aspects of acquisition, inspection and placement of the “murder weapon”. As a consequence of this failure to properly carryout that aspect of their plans, it seems that they created many additional problems for themselves in attempting to cover up their initial mistakes. I’d love to see the footage. Do have any additional information? Thanks Leslie.

        • leslie sharp says:

          BrotherBruce, my apologies for bringing this to your attention without being able to provide a link to the film footage in question. I’ve been looking for it for months to no avail. I spotted it on a youtube site several years ago and stupidly failed to download it to file; to date I’ve not been able to find it again. I introduced the issue on this site early last year and met a considerable challenge in particular from one Jean Davison who suggested I was imagining things or words to that effect. I’m quite certain there is a film that recorded the re-enactment of the discovery of the rifle for the benefit of the press and perhaps posterity; it is distinct from the original Alyea film. What is stunning to realize as one watches the film is the blatant contamination of the crime scene. For what purpose is pure conjecture.

          • BrotherBruce says:

            Leslie, That’s alright, at least I now know to be on the lookout for footage in question. In the meantime; Checkout the link that David Regan posted on January 5. It exculpates the Mannlicher Carcano from involvement in the shooting of JFK. Regan has dropped a little treasure in our laps and deserves a hearty thank you. David – Thanks for the link. It answers a lot of questions!

          • jeffc says:

            In the Tom Alyea footage – the presumed documentary record – the “discovery” of the rifle is filmed two distinct times. For whatever reason, Lt Day reached down into the boxes, lifted up the rifle and handed it to Captain Fritz… and then they apparently put the rifle back between the boxes and performed the same actions – Day reaching for the rifle, lifting it and passing it to Fritz – a second time. Very odd.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Jeff C, is there a link showing this somewhere? Very odd indeed?

          • jeffc says:

            Tom Alyea’s footage is collected in a video Robert Groden put together called “JFK: The Case For Conspiracy” . The two distinct shots showing the “discovery” of the rifle can be seen in the 50 Reasons Sniper’s Nest episode at 5:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qOFqDdhpo

            More on Tom Alyea and the oddities of the 6th floor can be found here: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/

          • leslie sharp says:

            jeffc, it’s good to see that others recognize there was a video suggesting there was a reenactment of the discovery of a rifle. I’m disheartened it is buried in the format that resembles Jack Horkheimer and the “Star Hustler,” (with all due respect to Orsanic for his efforts, I think he does a disservice to presentation of quite serious issues by overdramatizing them).

            At least the reenactment has been introduced into the study of the immediate aftermath of the assassination, and that reenactment indicates serious contamination of the crime scene not to mention irresponsible action on the part of law enforcement. If they anticipated a trial, why would they risk this; perhaps they didn’t anticipate a trial.

            This still is not the footage I viewed months ago, not in its fullness. The images I saw including the taller of the two men (Fritz) reaching to take the rifle from the man in the white short sleeved shirt but it is from a different angle … Fritz is in left profile, and the lighting is completely different. I didn’t know if it was natural light or if stage lights had been installed for the reenactment. If the former, then it was very early afternoon, but if it was the latter it could have been toward the end of the day. I presume the rifle was removed within hours so I lean to natural light … or perhaps both.

    • Jean Davison says:

      BrotherBruce,

      “Do you know if that is indeed “Oswald’s Mannlicher?”

      Yes. The HSCA found distinguishing marks/nicks on the rifle in evidence that matched those seen in photos:

      https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=38833

      “Were you aware that several Dallas Police detectives testified that they found the Mannlicher on the 5th floor?”

      No, please name them.

      “But 3 Dallas Patrolmen testified to finding a rifle clearly marked “Mauser” on the 6th floor?”

      The only person who ever claimed to see “Mauser” marked on the rifle, so far as I know, was Sheriff’s Deputy Roger Craig, who said this years later. Weitzman called it a Mauser in his first report, but testified that he’d made an honest mistake. The two rifles look a lot alike and the Mauser was much more common in those days.

      “Also, after examining your latest link, I scrolled down a bit from there and found this dialogue re. the Mannlicher Carcano rifle: It can be found by clicking on your link….”

      You’re quoting something posted on the JFK forum that had the photo of Day I linked to. That’s the poster’s opinion about what should theoretically happen. The HSCA had Oswald’s rifle and said they cycled bullets through it and the clip did not fall out. Who to believe? Let me think….

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        The 7.65x53mm Argentine Mauser carbine does bear some resemblance to the 6.5x52mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle, mostly in that both have a protruding box magazine, but the two rifles are far from being indistinguishable.

        I grew up around the same kind of good ol’ boys that I am sure were the predominance on the DPD and the Dallas County Sheriff’s Dept. Know what the first thing these guys would do, after opening the bolt to ensure the rifle is safe? Invariably, they would look at the side of the receiver, or the top of the chamber, to determine the make, model and calibre of the rifle. And not as part of any investigation, but just plain old curiosity. It is basic instinct, and I’ve done it myself many times.

      • David Regan says:

        Actually Jean, there were more witnesses to the Mauser found on the sixth floor:

        Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman, a man considered to have been more familiar than most with firearms, signed an affidavit on the 23rd stating that the rifle was a “7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it.” He also stated the rifle looked like a 7.65 Mauser in a statement to the FBI on the 24th

        Deputy Sheriff E.L. Boone, who was with Weitzman when the weapon was retrieved on the sixth floor, testified in two written reports that the gun was a 7.65 Mauser.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141275
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1136&relPageId=526

        Deputy Sheriff E.L. Boone, told the Warren Commission that he thought he heard Captain Will Fritz refer to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=303

        Reporter Tom Alyea, one of the first non-officers to reach the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination, says that Deputy Eugene Boone found a 7.65 Mauser bolt action rifle
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WQr4y1j4Gw

        District Attorney Henry Wade, on one occasion, told the press that the murder rifle had been a Mauser.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=73659
        http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-5.html

        On November 25th a CIA report specifically identified the gun as a Mauser: “The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser”
        http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html#N_65_l

      • David Regan says:

        Jean, who picked up the rifle at the post office box in Dallas?

      • Hi Jean, I was curious about whether you have become aware of this information after writing your book on Oswald:

        “On 11th December, 1962, a CIA memo written by Donald Jameson (declassified in August, 1993) reported: “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around… Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told.”

        After the assassination of John F. Kennedy Johnson wrote an article for the Boston Globe where she described Lee Harvey Oswald as a classic example of an “embittered psychological loner”. She added: “I soon came to feel that this boy was of the stuff of which fanatics are made.”

        Source –Donald Jameson, Chief SR/CA, memo, marked top secret (11th December, 1962)
        . . .
        You do know what a “creation of a legend” is in Intelligence parlance I assume. It is the same sort of Intel Op that created the Osama bin Laden boogeyman prior to the events of 9/11.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          Willy,

          I don’t remember if I read that prior to 1983 or not. Certainly the memo’s writer was trying to influence Johnson to write what he wanted, but you aren’t getting the whole story from whatever source you’re using for the Jameson quote.

          I haven’t been able to find the original document online but I found this part leading up to your quote:

          “She said she was going to write a series of articles for the REPORTER including one on [Yevtushenko] and that she thought she must write only the truth, without defining exactly what that was to me.

          5. Despite her statements in the paragraph above,[all the foregoing was omitted and your source picks up here…] I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want…..”

          http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/pmcmil1.htm

          So your source left out “she thought she must write only the truth,” which is pretty telling, imo. Every other quote of this that I could bring up on Google made the same omission. I don’t know exactly what else was in the document because I don’t have an unedited copy.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Stephen, You clearly have not studied records of how the media machine worked in tandem with US intelligence during the Cold War. Why do you think that arrangement would have been dismantled at the time of the assassination? Maybe you can identify specifically what aspect of the term “arranged” bothers you?

          With credit due Willy Whitten for identifying the following which he has posted on “the origins of the …Carcano” thread on this site, this is further evidence the cover up was ‘arranged.’ Stage one was the creation of a legend for Oswald: (this data should serve as a guidepost to the timeline of the plot.)

          “On 11th December, 1962, a CIA memo written by Donald Jameson (declassified in August, 1993) reported: “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around… Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told.”

          After the assassination of John F. Kennedy Johnson wrote an article for the Boston Globe where she described Lee Harvey Oswald as a classic example of an “embittered psychological loner”. She added: “I soon came to feel that this boy was of the stuff of which fanatics are made.”

          Source –Donald Jameson, Chief SR/CA, memo, marked top secret (11th December, 1962)

    • David Regan says:

      My pleasure, BrotherBruce. Gerry Patrick Hemming has a unique and interesting perspective on this case!

  17. David Regan says:

    Gerry Patrick Hemming on the Carcano rifle.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiJRqr6TdkY&sns=tw via @youtube

  18. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Ronnie Wayne
    January 7, 2015 at 12:56 am
    I know it’s speculation or worse a theory. But the fire cracker sounds heard by more than one witness, might they have been “silenced” shots? Just the bang of the sound barrier breaking but not he boom.

    __________________________________________________________________

    Precisely, Ronnie. The “crack” of a supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier is nowhere near as loud as the muzzle blast of a rifle. If there was indeed a rifle shot at z190 of the Zapruder film, this would explain the complete lack of startled reactions on the faces of the bystanders in the Altgens 6 photo, and also explain why the two Secret Service agents standing on the starboard side of the follow up car are looking behind the car. My guess is a bullet from a suppressed rifle, located on one of the lower floors of the Dal-Tex Building has just missed their ears by a foot or two on its way to JFK’s back. At that distance, it would be quite startling to them, but not so to bystanders standing 35 feet away on the sidewalk.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I should add that the Altgens 6 photo was taken at frame z255 of the Zapruder film, and the shot at z190 would have been three seconds before it was taken; more than ample time for startle reactions from a rifle’s muzzle blast.

  19. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Would a frangible bullet in the back have had the effect of stopping a finger probe into the wound at 1-2″

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      No, the fact that a man’s finger is three times the diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet would have had the effect of stopping a finger probe into the wound. A frangible bullet would have made the same size wound going in, and then opened up to a much larger wound cavity after 2 inches in.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Hmmm. Interesting. If it opened up a much larger wound 2″ into the chest cavity, coming from the third thoracic vertebrate it could have damaged the lungs, heart and stomach among other organs? Thus insuring death if other shots missed?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Yes, I believe the back wound at least caused severe damage to the top of JFK’s right lung. Several surgeons at Parkland Hospital observed JFK’s trachea to be deviated slightly to the left. This is an unmistakeable sign of a condition known as a “tension pneumothorax”, in which air pressure builds up in the space between the damaged lung and the pleural lining in the chest wall surrounding that lung.

          If not relieved, this respiratory emergency can be fatal within a few minutes, as the built up pressure is exerted upon, and impairs the function of, other organs and blood vessels in the chest.

          The accepted method to relieve a tension pneumothorax is to insert a tube or large bore needle in the space between the 2nd and 3rd rib, on the side of the chest with the air buildup. While many Parkland surgeons described chest tubes to water drainage being inserted on both sides of JFK’s chest, many only described a chest tube inserted into the right side of his chest.

          The evidence is quite evident; JFK had a bullet that entered the top of his right lung but did not exit the front of his lung. A bullet that would behave in this fashion would almost have to be, at the very least, a soft tipped hunting bullet, although my experience tells me this type of bullet would, in spite of expanding, have a good chance of exiting out the front of JFK’s chest. Judging by the explosive head shot, I would say the bullets being used that day were at least hollow points, and probably a frangible hollow point, at that.

          • Photon says:

            JFK did not have a tension pneumothorax; he had no pneumothorax at all.
            It would have been impossible for JFK to have had a tension pneumothorax-anybody with any background in medicine can see how this was impossible; you don’t need West’s Pulmonary Physiology to figure it out.
            The fact is that at autopsy JFK had no evidence that the parietal or the visceral pleura on either lung were violated. The pleura was intact.Even the chest tube placed in Dallas DIDN’T penetrate the pleura-rendering it nothing but a subcutaneous tunnel totally ineffective of resolving a pneumothorax.
            What that means is that the Parkland physicians couldn’t complete a routine procedure successfully that I am sure that they had done multiple times. Coupled with the excessively large tracheostomy incision by Perry it becomes apparent that the stress of the moment was affecting their judgement and their skills.As they spent less than 20 minutes on resuscitative efforts the superficial nature of their observations and perceptions of the wounds becomes obvious. Also obvious is the complete folly of depending on those rushed and emotionally clouded perceptions over the measured and precise observations obtained during a necropsy.
            Who identified tracheal deviation? How? Usually it is noted radiographiically. Who took the chest x-ray at Parkland to identify the deviated trachea?

        • Photon says:

          Well, Bob has been claiming on other sites that this frangible bullet broke up, crossed the brain, went through the foramen magnum like a precision munition and exited at the throat wound.
          All from a round that he cannot even prove could punch through a living human skull.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Sigh. Two separate shots being discussed here.

            What is so difficult to understand about a frangible bullet that has the ability to penetrate the skull bone yet, through the mechanics of its hollow point nose, completely disintegrates into small fragments 2 inches or less into the brain? Go to this website and you can buy a box of them, if you like. The website explains how these things work.

            http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

            One of these bullets travelling through a lung would also completely break up.

          • Photon says:

            Of course neither DRT nor the bullets described existed in 1963, nor the technology needed to produce the bullets. So what is your point-why not implicate depleted Uranium bullets? They were available far earlier than the frangible rounds that you are obsessed with. The DRT rounds were ” gimmick” rounds with little success in the commercial market.And there is no evidence that they were superior in any way to standard hunting rounds that are less expensive, more predictable in ballistic effects and devoid of the destructive effect and metallic contamination of harvested meat.

  20. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 8, 2015 at 8:16 am
    All hits on a 10×36 inch target at 120 yards.
    Duplicated at a firing range exactly as you claimed was impossible to do.
    With a 4x scope with essentially the same field of view as Oswald’s scope.
    Have YOU done much shooting at a range?
    ——————————————————————–

    Awfully decent of that target to be sitting still on level ground for him, wouldn’t you say? THAT is the difference between this and the shot from the 6th floor.

    • Photon says:

      That is not what you claimed. You stated that rapid fire accurate shots were impossible using a scope – even at a firing range. As there was no lateral translation of JFK’s limo visible from Oswald’s perch on the Sixth Floor the only difference in the target was that it was getting smaller- the rifle did not have to moved.
      That characteristic was probably why Oswald didn’t fire prior to the left turn. Obviously he had scouted out the planned motorcade route in front of the TSBD and noticed that once the limo started down toward the triple underpass he would not have to move the rifle at all.
      A perfect firing solution.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Nonsense. You do not appreciate how little movement it takes, especially with this toy scope, to cause a target to be lost out of the field of view. Just a slight movement of the tip of the barrel would be enough.

        Remember, Oswald would not be on street level, looking at the target moving away from him. He was six storeys up, looking DOWN at the target.

        Look at the two photos below. The first was actually photographed through the scope of Oswald’s rifle.

        http://www.kbrhorse.net/sigpics2/jfk06.jpg
        https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRlt3dJ72GBdn66NpxQoA5ooBW6V5He3ZSNzCZrMl5jVT31CCv

        Looking at the first reenactment photo, taken with the “limo” just under the 6th floor window, clearly demonstrates just how small the field of view of this scope is.

        The second photo, taken well down Elm St., clearly shows that the shooter would be looking down at his target. If you were to lock the rifle in at this point, and not move it, the limo would only have to move ahead a foot or two to cause a miss.

        Quite simply put, you are dead wrong about a shooter on the 6th floor not having to track and lead this target, and this toy .22 scope is woefully inadequate for that job.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          After thought to above. As I stated, the limo would only have to move ahead a couple of feet for the crosshairs to be looking at the trunk of the limo instead of JFK.

          If the limo was moving at 12 mph, Oswald would have been tracking a target moving out of his field of view at 17.6 feet per second.

          If the scope had a field of view of 14 feet at 88 yards (and I believe this is being generous), and JFK was centred in the crosshairs, JFK would only be 7 feet from being completely out of the field of view. Even given the fact that JFK was moving away from him, it would still be possible for the entire limo to be out of the field of view in only one second.

          • Photon says:

            Didn’t seem to be a problem with the CBS recreation in 1967.
            You seem to make assumptions that have already been disproved with photographic evidence. Just because you can’t keep a scope lined up doesn’t mean that others can’t-as is obvious from the filmed recreations already available on the Internet .
            As stated previously, the scope was “good enough” if it was used. If Oswald used the iron sights as he did in the USMC and achieved a Sharpshooter rating this entire line of argument would be totally irrelevant. The CBS shooters did use the scope, however.

          • Chris Newton says:

            Thanks Bob for pointing out that fact. Combined with the difficulty of hitting a target that is simultaneously moving downward, away and presumably left to right (or right to left) this feat is epic. Any idea why a dedicated assassin would plan his “hit” without a full clip of ammo?

            Photon: The CBS test target was moving on a straight rail without depression. None of the shooters matched the time/target hits and none were interviewed about wether there was any difficulty in keeping the target in the scope view. So what do you mean there wasn’t a problem? Was that you on the tower?

  21. BrotherBruce says:

    There are just too many questions, inconsistencies and leaps of faith required – to accept the notion that a 6th floor sniper passed up the perfect opportunity to shoot his quarry, when the limo came to a virtual halt, directly below him, while awkwardly maneuvering through a 120 degree turn. Then, after the limo has proceeded another 250 feet down Elm St., it pauses again in front of a fence-topped knoll; We’re asked to ignore police testimony that shots were fired from behind that fence; Dis-regard testimony from witnesses on the knoll that bullets were whizzing over their heads; And accept that this is when Oswald chooses to raise his (perhaps clip-less) rifle – and in a manic display of superhuman speed and accuracy – blow the President’s head backwards, towards Oswald himself – who then disappears from the window, invisibly transports himself to the 2nd floor, buys a soda and (without a word in his own defense) convinces a wild and frantic, gun waving policeman that he had no involvement in whatever it is the officer is babbling about. Quite the feat; And that just scratches the surface of Lee’s amazing accomplishments that day.

  22. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I would say the rifle in Alyea is an M91/38 Carcano. Can you prove the Alyea film was taken when it was claimed to have been taken?

    Day seems to be looking the rifle over pretty hard, from all angles. Figure Day was illiterate, and couldn’t read the words “MADE ITALY CAL. 6.5”?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Day didn’t announce the make of the rifle until later on, so I don’t know what he read on it or when. He didn’t it a Mauser at any time, to my knowledge.

      Alyea threw reels of film out the window so that many scenes were shown on local TV that afternoon. On YouTube you can see Roger Craig describing what we see on the Alyea — Day lifting up the rifle that was found by Boone in the northwest corner and handing it to Fritz, with Craig and Weitzman in the background –except that the rifle is clearly a Carcano, not a Mauser as Craig later claimed.

      The photos of Day carrying the rifle outside the TSBD also show a Carcano, so why does anyone still think the weapon found was a Mauser? Beats me.

      • “The photos of Day carrying the rifle outside the TSBD also show a Carcano, so why does anyone still think the weapon found was a Mauser? Beats me.”~Jean Davison

        Because the two weapons are so similar in appearance! Officer Boon is still convinced that the FBI switched the Carcano for the Mauser that he was party to discovery of.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04azA5NFoo
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        You actually think, with Boone and Weitzman standing a few inches away from him, that Day didn’t look the rifle all over, as he is seen doing, and casually read off the make, model and calibre for all around him to hear?

        • I am not speculating Bob. I am merely offering Boone’s testimony.
          To tell you the bottom line truth for me, I don’t think that Oswald shot Kennedy with any type of rifle. I think he was in the lunch room drinking a Coke as the encounter with the officer a short time later would seem to prove.
          So speculation on the Mauser/Carcano issue is a slim side issue to me.
          \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          Bob,

          I don’t see Day reading off anything, do you? Yes, Craig and Weitzman are visible nearby, and that’s telling because Craig describes this event on YouTube just as we see it unfold on the film, *except* for his claim that it was a Mauser. The film proves him wrong.

          Is anyone arguing that the Alyea film and photos of Day carrying the rifle outside the TSBD are fakes? If not, how can one argue that the rifle found was a Mauser when that’s not what the pictures show?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, we return to the issue of the reenactment of the discovery of the rifle. You will note that this thread contains a link to indicate that just such an incident took place (ref. jeffc). Unfortunately, the Osanic piece does not include the full footage I’m quite certain I viewed online some months ago, but it is enough evidence to support the fact that there was a reenactment. That reenactment provided so many opportunities it boggles the mind – an exchange of rifles, a corruption of the placement of the shells, the boxes – and begs the question, why a reenactment in the first place? Why would skilled law enforcement officers take the risk of being charged with having contaminated the site? Did they not anticipate capturing the persons responsible, charging them and confronting them at trial? Or did they anticipate a trial at all?

      • David Regan says:

        Jean, you took it upon yourself to play prosecutor when you published ‘Oswald’s Game’ in 1983 and have remained a staunch defender of the Warren Commission since.

        As such, are you willing to share your thoughts with us on the following quotes?

        “The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated.” –Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, 1969

        “Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” –Hale Boggs, Warren Commission member

        “There is still a real possibility that Oswald was on his way to meet an accomplice at the time of the Tippit murder. I led the Dallas investigation of that aspect of the case and was never satisfied on the point.” –Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, 1977

        “We have not been told the truth about Oswald.” –Senator Richard Russell, former Warren Commission member, 1970

        “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?” Allen Dulles in concluding a discussion on rumors that Oswald was a paid FBI agent, Warren Commission executive session, January 27, 1964

        “The fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.” Senator Richard Schweiker stated on national television in 1976

        “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.” — FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on call to President Johnson, 11/23/63

        “Intelligence-gathering activities…have a special and secret character…These activities have their own rules and methods of concealment which seek to mislead and obscure.” –President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

        “He checked with J. Walton Moore about Oswald.” –Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, 1977

        “Anti-Castro activists and organizations…acquired the means, motive and opportunity to assassinate the President.” –Staff report to the HSCA, 1979

        “My view is that there was, in fact, a relationship between the Cuban connection and the assassination…that more than one person was involved.” –Senator Richard Schweiker, following Senate Intelligence Committee probe, 1976

        “The fact that Oswald was a member of this organization…the Fair Play for Cuba Committee…is a fact that can be viewed from many different ways.” –Wesley Liebeler, Warren Commission lawyer assigned to Cuban aspects of the assassination

        “In the months leading up to the assassination, I think Oswald got in over his head. He was no longer quite sure who he was working for, or why. Somebody was using him, and they knew exactly how and why.” –Staff investigator, HSCA 1979

        “Oswald’s visit to Mexico City in September-October 1963 remains one of the most vexing sub-plots to the assassination story.” –ARRB Final Report, 1998

        “The pattern of contacts did show that individuals who had the motive to kill the President also had knowledge of a man who could be used to get access to Oswald in the custody of the Dallas police.” –HSCA Report, 1979

        • Rick G. says:

          David Regan
          I believe in Jean may have been buried under that avalanche of what is essentially a refutation of the LN school of thought. Well done!

        • Jean Davison says:

          David,

          If there’s any actual evidence in the quotes you listed, please point it out. What I see there is mostly personal opinion, not evidence.

          • David Regan says:

            Personal opinions of individuals much closer to the events than any of us, Jean. There are others I could add who could not be labeled ‘conspiracy theorists’.

          • leslie sharp says:

            http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch13.htm

            “The biggest impediment to all-source analysis- to a greater likelihood of connecting the dots is the human or systemic resistance to sharing information.”

            or in this instance, Jean’s resistance to considering new revelations that discredit the accusation that Oswald was a lone assassin.

          • David Regan says:

            Imagine the implications if the following points had been public knowledge in 1964. 9 Things You May Not Know About the Warren Commission @history http://fw.to/mlRuq7

  23. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “Over 1000 fps real expansion starts to occur and by 1200 fps the nose is turned over to form a mushroom shape. An interesting artefact of impacts around 1000 fps is the tendency of the copper jacket to be shed from the lead. The jacket stops in the subcutaneous tissue and the bullet will continue to penetrate. This accounts for fragments of copper (with rifling marks) commonly seen as surgical specimens. At velocities approaching 1500 fps the bullet is transformed into a rounded ball of lead and copper. The above results are uniformly valid only in artificial media (such as ordnance gelatin) but correlate with human tissue.”

    Hi Will

    The description above would apply well to a hollow point bullet. Many game animals are shot with soft tipped bullets from rifles with muzzle velocities approaching 3000 fps, and the bullets retrieved from these animals, while mushroomed, are definitely still in one piece, with the jacket still attached to the lead core. Do you know what type of bullet this quote was describing?

    • Hi Bob,

      From what I understood the passage was applied to full jacketed bullets of any sort.
      Maybe you can read the page and see if the issue pertains to a specific bullet type. I thought it spoke to FMJ generally.
      http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNLAB.html
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        If you read the paragraph before this, I think you will see they are discussing a semi-wad cutter hollow point pistol bullet. This is confirmed, I believe, by the bullet velocities of 800-1500 fps they refer to, as rifle bullet velocities mostly tend to be 2000 fps and higher.

        “Expansion of a semi-wadcutter hollowpoint bullet increases the frontal area and blunts the shape. The degree to which this happens depends upon the texture of the tissue impacted, the velocity at impact, and the softness of the bullet (usually quite constant). With the exceptions of lung and bone, tissue densities are relatively constant. Velocity is the most important factor.”

        A “wadcutter” pistol bullet is basically a flat nosed bullet with no taper at all going to its nose. The “semi-wadcutter” bullet has a slight taper at the nose, but still retains a flat nose end. The wadcutter is not any special kind of bullet, and was designed mainly for target shooting, as its sharp square edges on its nose make very neat holes in paper targets. However, adding a hollow point to a semi-wadcutter bullet increases the lethality tremendously, and would cause this bullet to open rapidly travelling through flesh. I would expect this kind of bullet to perform as described, but certainly not a full metal jacket bullet.

        • Thank you for your further input Bob. I appreciate it.
          I am still interested in finding more out however…
          I am still not convinced a full metal jacket round would not leave minute particles of the jacket as it passed through a skull.
          I will investigate this subject further.
          Again thank you!
          \\][//

  24. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 10, 2015 at 6:11 am
    Didn’t seem to be a problem with the CBS recreation in 1967.
    You seem to make assumptions that have already been disproved with photographic evidence. Just because you can’t keep a scope lined up doesn’t mean that others can’t-as is obvious from the filmed recreations already available on the Internet .
    As stated previously, the scope was “good enough” if it was used. If Oswald used the iron sights as he did in the USMC and achieved a Sharpshooter rating this entire line of argument would be totally irrelevant. The CBS shooters did use the scope, however.

    —————————————————————–

    Trained sharpshooters in 1967. All experts with scoped rifles.

    Refresh my memory. Did Oswald receive sniper training in the USMC? After he bought the Carcano, did he practice shooting at moving targets from six storeys up?

    • David Regan says:

      Oswald tested twice in the USMC – see following for details. There is no evidence LHO improved his grading of marksmanship (lowest in the USMC) since last tested in May 1959; which his alleged missing of Edwin Walker would tend to support. http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2013/11/jfk-how-good-of-a-shot-was-oswald.html

    • Photon says:

      Did Charles Whitman have ” sniper training”?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Charles Whitman’s victims weren’t riding in an open limo moving at 17.6 feet per second away from him either.

        • Photon says:

          No, but many were moving targets at ranges far greater than Oswald’s target.
          Whitman tmade many more difficult shots than Oswald did despite being under fire. He had the same rifle training that Oswald did-and the same Sharpshooter badge.
          But he was never ” sniper trained”. .

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Apples and oranges. It is actually sad to watch LN’s, such as yourself, continuing to flog the dead horse of “Oswald did it”.

            All of Charles Whitman’s targets were on foot, not in a limo travelling 17.6 feet per second. Ever stop to think, on the longer shots, that Whitman waited for his victims to pause in their walking?

            Charles Whitman’s shooting abilities as a shooter have been noted by military authorities as somewhat phenomenal, even for someone with Marine training. A couple of his shots were at ranges of 1500 feet, shooting from a platform 231 feet above ground level; roughly four times as high as the 6th floor of the TSBD. I’m willing to bet Whitman didn’t do this kind of shooting through a toy scope intended for a .22 rifle or pellet gun, and especially a scope that required shimming of its mounts by the FBI to even get it to hit a target.

          • Photon says:

            I’m not. He had the standard Marine rifleman training-as did Oswald. That training was sufficient to complete an attack much more complex than the JFK shooting. He also had an identical Sharpshooter qualification.
            If you claim that Oswald had neither the training nor the skills to execute the JFK assassination the Whitman shooting proves you wrong.

  25. Ronnie Wayne says:

    The bullets availability in the Dallas area was checked by the FBI.
    Only 3 were used, only 4 were found (if the stretcher bullet was a separate one). No box of them or more on O or at his residence. Where did they come from? The cia had some.

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 11, 2015 at 8:15 pm
    JFK did not have a tension pneumothorax; he had no pneumothorax at all.
    It would have been impossible for JFK to have had a tension pneumothorax-anybody with any background in medicine can see how this was impossible; you don’t need West’s Pulmonary Physiology to figure it out.
    The fact is that at autopsy JFK had no evidence that the parietal or the visceral pleura on either lung were violated. The pleura was intact.Even the chest tube placed in Dallas DIDN’T penetrate the pleura-rendering it nothing but a subcutaneous tunnel totally ineffective of resolving a pneumothorax.
    What that means is that the Parkland physicians couldn’t complete a routine procedure successfully that I am sure that they had done multiple times. Coupled with the excessively large tracheostomy incision by Perry it becomes apparent that the stress of the moment was affecting their judgement and their skills.As they spent less than 20 minutes on resuscitative efforts the superficial nature of their observations and perceptions of the wounds becomes obvious. Also obvious is the complete folly of depending on those rushed and emotionally clouded perceptions over the measured and precise observations obtained during a necropsy.
    Who identified tracheal deviation? How? Usually it is noted radiographiically. Who took the chest x-ray at Parkland to identify the deviated trachea?

    ————————————————————————-

    Complete nonsense, as usual, “Dr.” Photon. A deviated trachea is obvious to the naked eye, as the trachea protrudes from the throat. First responders are taught to observe a deviated trachea as one of the signs of a tension pneumothorax.

    The Bethesda autopsy report is a lie, plain and simple. The x-ray technician at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK’s chest organs were removed prior to him being allowed to x-ray the chest, and while he and others were excluded from the autopsy theatre.

    • Photon says:

      ” The trachea protrudes from the throat .” Bob, how can you possibly say that when you cannot even see the trachea without dissecting it out? Even with a laryngoscope you can’t see it ; you can’t even see past the cords without difficulty.
      I’m still waiting for the Parkland testimony that the trachea was definitely deviated. The reports that I have seen were hardly definitive and certainly do not support your claim that JFK had a pneumothorax.
      If you have to claim that the autopsy report regarding the thorax is a ” lie, plain and simple” you should re-evaluate your belief that JFK had a pneumothorax. No medical witness at Parkland or Bethesda has stated that there was a pneumothorax.
      JFK could not have arrived at Parkland with a tension pneumothorax even if he had suffered the chest wound that you claim he had. After he suffered the neck wound he never took another breath. He had bilateral phrenic nerve paralysis and was functionally a quad secondary to spinal shock. He may have had some finger control, but the forearm contracture is consistant with the described path through the neck.
      While it may be an optical illusion, I believe that at Zapruder frame 257 Kennedy begins to point with his left index finger toward the exact point of exit of the throat wound; the finger appears to be pointing at least through frame 263 when sunlight makes it difficult to make out. As he could not breathe or speak and had upper arm paralysis it was the only way to show his wife that he had been hit-and where.
      I have not seen anybody else comment on this apparent pointing, but it is confirmation to me that JFK was not breathing.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon
        January 12, 2015 at 5:38 pm
        ” The trachea protrudes from the throat .” Bob, how can you possibly say that when you cannot even see the trachea without dissecting it out? Even with a laryngoscope you can’t see it ; you can’t even see past the cords without difficulty.
        I’m still waiting for the Parkland testimony that the trachea was definitely deviated. The reports that I have seen were hardly definitive and certainly do not support your claim that JFK had a pneumothorax.
        If you have to claim that the autopsy report regarding the thorax is a ” lie, plain and simple” you should re-evaluate your belief that JFK had a pneumothorax. No medical witness at Parkland or Bethesda has stated that there was a pneumothorax.
        JFK could not have arrived at Parkland with a tension pneumothorax even if he had suffered the chest wound that you claim he had. After he suffered the neck wound he never took another breath. He had bilateral phrenic nerve paralysis and was functionally a quad secondary to spinal shock. He may have had some finger control, but the forearm contracture is consistant with the described path through the neck.
        While it may be an optical illusion, I believe that at Zapruder frame 257 Kennedy begins to point with his left index finger toward the exact point of exit of the throat wound; the finger appears to be pointing at least through frame 263 when sunlight makes it difficult to make out. As he could not breathe or speak and had upper arm paralysis it was the only way to show his wife that he had been hit-and where.
        I have not seen anybody else comment on this apparent pointing, but it is confirmation to me that JFK was not breathing.

        ————————————————————-

        Let me see now. You’re saying he was paralyzed (I’m presuming you believe a bullet grazed the right transverse process of T1 and did this LOL), and was a quadriplegic, but, somehow, he was able to raise his hands to his throat, and “point” at his neck wound.

        Tell me, how would a bullet grazing the outside tip of the right transverse process cause bi-lateral nerve damage? If he was a quad, how was he able to raise his hands up to his throat? How was he able to “point” at his throat wound?

        Do you really believe anyone with any medical understanding is fooled by the things you post here, or are you just counting on being believed by those who don’t know any better?

        • Photon says:

          Acute spinal injuries do not always result in immediate flaccid paralysis.Involuntary arm and forearm muscular contraction can be a result of severe cord shock, which is what happened as demonstrated by the transverse process fracture? It involves the interaction of abnormal nerve impulses and pathological reflexes seen with cord trauma. Decerebrate rigidity is a similar mechanism that can be seen-not paralysis per se but occurring in a ” functional quad”. Kennedy would have certainly collapsed to either side after the neck shot but his back brace kept him upright.
          You would need a neurologist to explain why JFK might have finger movement ; in essence the nerve cells that control finger movement are at a different level than those associated with arm and forearm movement and could conceivably still be active. Even Christopher Reeve had some preserved finger movement.
          Now where is the evidence of a pneumothorax beyond the phantom deviated trachea? How do you identify the trachea without dissecting it out or getting a radiograph?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Let me guess, you figured all of this out by reading the autopsy report, right?

            You are so full of it.

          • Photon says:

            No, from evaluating published reports from board-certified neurologists who have reviewed the physical findings of the case.
            I am considering your comment of being” full of it” a compliment .I try to put out as much information as possible in the hope that people can use that information to reach a conclusion based on the facts , not factoids or false statements. The fact that you have to resort to claiming that the autopsy physicians ” lied” about the absence of a pneumothorax should be illustrative of weak your position is. I don’t recall any great controversy about the gross findings in the thorax following the Y incision. The most fascinating finding in my mind was the failure of the docs in Dallas to complete a successful chest tube placement. What could possibly be gained by lying about a simple fact that had no bearing whatsoever on JFK’s prognosis or treatment nor has been an issue of controversy in the conspiracy community?

          • Mike Chesser says:

            This Thorburn position story is a classic case of pseudoscience. Please read this article: http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm.
            Thorburn was describing the position of a patient in rigor mortis, and I cannot see how this is relevant to President Kennedy’s injury.
            The physician who wrote the article in JAMA about this matter was a urologist, not a neurologist. The article by Milam, and interviews with neurologists Schlesinger and Merritt, show that they actually had no input into the article. Quite interesting.
            As a neurologist and former Naval medical officer, I am more interested in the comments by the Parkland neurosurgeon, who clearly saw cerebellar tissue in the gaping posterior head wound. This is supported by the comments of Bethesda hospital corpsmen and the FBI agents present at the autopsy.

          • Mike Chesser says:

            Let me clarify – the Parkland neurosurgeon and other medical personnel saw cerebellar tissue and a posterior head wound. I don’t know if the Bethesda personnel saw cerebellar tissue, but the corpsmen, x-ray technicians, and FBI agents saw a large posterior (occipital) head wound.
            How do you square this with the official autopsy report? You can’t.

          • Photon says:

            Mike please explain how a patient in “rigor mortis” can assume any position. Those patients tend to be identified by another term- ” dead”.
            Hanging around too many Orthopods-reverse osmosis?
            Seriously, how as a trained and I assume board-certified neurologist can you use a retired High School history teacher as a source for the medical evidence in this case? While JFK certainly did not have the case history of Thorburn’s 19th century patient you must admit that his posturing is entirely consistent with a low cervical cord injury and brachial plexus stimulation. Whether that posture should be called a “Thorburn position” or not it does resemble to a degree the posture seen in Thorburn’s patient, although with a different obvious etiology and history.Lattimer’s characterization of JFK having a neurological reaction to the neck shot is what is important here ; prior to his report there was no real attempt to address JFK’s reaction to the neck shot-many thought that he was clutching at his throat or reacting to the wound’s pain, not understanding the significance of the cervical trauma nor knowing that the shock wave caused enough tissue pressure to fracture a transverse process and involved damage to the cord.
            You realize that Kemp Clarke walked back his cerebellar tissue comment after learning of the autopsy report-even at the time of his Nov. 22 press conference he stated that he had made only a superficial examination of the head wound and that definitive evaluation of the wound would have to wait for the post-mortem examination.

          • David Regan says:

            In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Dr. Robert McClelland described the wound as “the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.” When asked if he had seen any other wound on the back of the head, he replied that he hadn’t.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=43
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md264/html/md264_0001.htm
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=45

            Dr. Malcolm Perry, the first doctor to attend to Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital, wrote in his admission notes on the 22nd that, “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted” and stated on the 23rd that, “The entire occipital parietal (right rear) section of the brain had been destroyed.”
            http://youtu.be/sLbDuO-Lot0
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=32

            Dr. Paul Peters told the Warren Commission that, “in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. ” When asked if he had noticed any holes below the occiput he responded that he had not. When questioned by the Assassination Records Review Board, Peters said, “You could look directly into the cranial vault and see cerebral injury to the cerebral cortex and I thought at the time to the cerebellum. So I know the hole was big enough to look into. I estimated it at seven centimeters [2¾ inches] at that time.”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_-UNrieN4U
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13881
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=68402

            Dr. William Kemp Clark reported that much of Kennedy’s right posterior skull, at brief examination, appeared gone. In his Warren Commision testifimony he said that he “examined the wound in the back of the president’s head” and in his summary report he described “a large wound in the occipito-parietal region” with “considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue”
            http://www.jfklancer.com/3Patients.html
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271b.htm
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13830

            In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Dr. Gene Akin described “the back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=13875

            In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Dr. Ronald Jones said that Kennedy “had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head.” When asked for more detail he added that there “appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35&relPageId=63

            Doris Nelson, a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital, told the Boston Globe’s Ben Bradlee, Jr. that she got a very good look at the President’s head; “When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head” adding that “there was no hair back there. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher.”
            High Treason I, Robert Groden and Harry Livingstone p. 454

        • Mike Chesser says:

          Photon:
          “Seriously, how as a trained and I assume board-certified neurologist can you use a retired High School history teacher as a source for the medical evidence in this case?”
          Yes, I’m board certified. I also worked my way through part of med school as a morgue assistant, assisting in autopsies. I’ve seen more rigor mortis positions than I care to remember. As for a retired high school teacher writing the article, he was spot on. The truth is the truth – you can’t obviate the truth by attacking the messenger. You’re a paramedic, right? I have great respect for paramedics and navy corpsmen. I’ve seen corpsmen who could suture as well as any surgeon. And I’ve had high school and college instructors who were equal to anyone intellectually. The truth is not partial to credentials.

          Photon:
          “You realize that Kemp Clarke walked back his cerebellar tissue comment after learning of the autopsy report-even at the time of his Nov. 22 press conference he stated that he had made only a superficial examination of the head wound and that definitive evaluation of the wound would have to wait for the post-mortem examination.”

          I’m sure that you know that Kemp Clark was not the only person describing visible cerebellum in the wound.
          I don’t doubt that he was under outside pressure to change his statement.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            How do you account for Dr. Robert Crenshaw?

          • Photon says:

            How sure are you that anybody at Parkland saw any cerebellar tissue to begin with? If it was macerated, commingled with blood,dura, cerebral tissue outside of anatomical context( eg. on surgical drapes,the gurney,etc.) how can you be sure that they could identify it? How often had any of these physicians ( aside from Clarke) actually seen cerebellar tissue aside from gross anatomy lab or from Neurobiology examination of fixed brains?
            I am still not clear why you bring up Rigor Mortis to describe positioning of neurologically injured living patients.Isn’t Rigor secondary to biochemical alterations of tissue following cell death in muscle , not a post mortem neurological reaction?
            I agree with you that IDC can be very capable and of great help to a GMO. However, the chance of a corpsman getting significantly involved in the autopsy of the century was nil. As the principal autopsy pathologists moved the body themselves it seems unlikely that the various claims of the ancillary enlisted personnel present made years later were entirely accurate , particularly if contradicted by the testimony of the actual participants who did the autopsy.
            Do you believe all of the claims of your Workman’s Comp patients?

          • Mike Chesser says:

            To Photon: I presumed you were talking about the Thorburn position when you mentioned board certified neurologists commenting on the case. Maybe I was wrong – who were you referring to? I stated that the Thorburn position, based upon the position of a patient in rigor mortis, had no relevance in this discussion, and I’m glad that you agree.

            Regarding multiple medical personnel confusing cerebellar tissue with macerated supratentorial cortical tissue, I cannot disagree more. Cerebellar folia have such a distinctive, unforgettable appearance, that I can’t imagine medical personnel confusing the two.

            Yes, I admit that I believe the statements of the Bethesda medical personnel before I believe the pathologists involved. Those pathologists were a disgrace to their profession. I think they were more worried about losing their military pension that they were about doing an honest evaluation. If you haven’t read William Matson Law’s book………. never mind, who am I kidding?

          • “Yes, I admit that I believe the statements of the Bethesda medical personnel before I believe the pathologists involved.”~Mike Chesser

            I have read William Matson Law’s book as well, And I agree with you Mike. I also happen to accept Sibert and O’ Donnell’s report [s]; especially taking into account their amendment later in the autopsy when the portion of skull bone arrived, and they describe how the “surgery to the head” statement was an early error based on cursory inspection when the head was first unwrapped.

            I would note that there is still conflicting stories among the personnel. I think Jerrol Custer pointing out the ‘head rest’ holding up Kennedy’s head during X-rays being shot, gives much credence to the impossibility of a large occipital wound at the base of the skull. I think that the occipital-parietal wound described at both Parkland and by the Bethesda group are correct. The definition of “back of the head” being vague, the correct anatomical terms are essential.

            The entry wound at the right parietal just above and forward of the ear, creating a trough through the occipital-parietal of fragmented skull, is my take on the head shot. I do not buy the cartoon blowout seen in the so-called “McClelland drawing” I think the intervening years have created a ‘consensus bias’ in the memories for many of the witnesses.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            The most fascinating thing that I got from Law’s book was the comment of Jerrol Custer stating that there was no posterior head wound ( quoted by Willy Whitten on this site January 5).Custer reiterated what I posted months ago -that the gestalt of seeing JFK supine would lead observers to describe tha superior head wound that Custer saw as “posterior”. This could account for the perceptions of the Parkland doctors that JFK had a posterior wound, as it is obvious that aside from Bill Midgett no Parkland MD even saw the posterior of JFK’s head as they never turned him over and never saw the EOP.
            The Thorburn position has nothing to do with Rigor Mortis- it was described as a position assumed by a living patient suffering a specific spinal injury. Rigor Mortis is a post-mortem condition seen several hours after death. I know that this sounds unbelievable, but do you even know what the Thorburn position is?
            As I have posted the Parkland observations were rushed, inaccurate and in the context of evaluating a VIP who would have been considered DOA if he had been any other patient.If we evaluate the time line and the physician testimony JFK was in the ER for a maximum of 22 minutes before the official time of death. We know for a fact that resuscitative efforts were terminated prior to the Last Rites and that the 1:00PM time of death was at least in part assigned to accommodate those Rites. Therefore, it is logical to assume that resuscitative efforts ceased at least 18 minutes after JFK reached the treatment room, perhaps even earlier based on Jenkins testimony. I believe that total resuscitative time was probably 15-17 minutes total.
            During that time an experienced trauma surgeon made an unusually large but entirely functional tracheostomy incision , obviously reacting to the stress of the situation. Surgical residents attempted a routine procedure of chest tube placement , but failed to even enter the pleural space-again almost certainly due to the rushed and unique circumstances of having a dead patient who happened to be the President-a President generally assumed to be young,healthy and the most vigorous Chief Executive since Teddy Roosevelt .By definition they did an incomplete exam, never turning him over, completely missing a potentially fatal wound. And yet you accept the Parkland observations over those of an autopsy done by board certified pathologists, autopsy results reviewed and confirmed by some of the most reputable forensic pathologists in the U.S., including the forensic pathologist in Dallas who would have done the autopsy if the body had not been moved to D.C.?
            Have you ever been to Bethesda? Do you know anything about the Pathology department that would lead you to believe that the physicians involved would conspire to commit felonies, enter into a conspiracy and risk never being able to practice medicine again?
            When you do Workman’s Comp evaluations do you feel pressured to come to a predetermined outcome? That seems to be your perception of the JFK autopsy. I would suspect that you would never compromise your medical judgement under pressure-why assume that other physicians with excellent reputations outside of the military would?

          • Now to address Photon’s comment of January 16, 2015 at 5:22 am…

            I will begin with the opening lines to my essay, ‘THE ZAPRUDER FILM: An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination’:

            The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces is that all the while it was thought that the results of such faking proved a rear shot, or attempted to. However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.~Willy Whitten – November 2014
            . . . . .
            The central point made in that opening statement is that this evidence from 50 plus years ago, proves via the most current, up to date forensic science that the wounds described and documented by photography and X-ray are in fact definitive proof of a single shot to the front of the head. And a single shot to the throat from the same frontward trajectory.

            So what Photon inadvertently argues for is a shot to the front. Ironically those who still argue against this evidence, are arguing against what is proof of a frontal shot beyond reasonable doubt. This evidence obviously exonerates the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald of the crime, and implicates an organized conspiracy to kill the President.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, what is your proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a shot came from the front? You don’t have a single forensic pathologist who is familiar with the case who agrees with your interpretation -even Wecht does not agree with your scenario. Unless you can document some expertise in forensic pathology your speculation has no basis in fact.
            Have you found any evidence to back up Sherry Fiester’s certification claims?

          • “Have you found any evidence to back up Sherry Fiester’s certification claims?”~Photon

            Yes I have, and you have seen that by now and have made no reply. I also included the forensic science references in that same thread.

            Maintaining that modern forensic science proves the shot to the head was from the front beyond reasonable doubt is not my mere opinion, it is scientific fact.
            \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          Of course, Photon. The old arguement that any witnesses in this case are either mistaken or lying. You do realize there were witnesses at Bethesda that corroborate observations of many Parkland witnesses? (who had more experience with gunshot wounds)

          • JH 777 says:

            “However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.~Willy Whitten – November 2014 ”
            _____________________________________________

            “The forensic, ballistic and physical evidence does not in any way prove that a shot was fired from the front.”

            “All the evidence supports a shot fired from the rear only.(Head shot) That is beyond doubt.”

            “You may disagree, but you are completely wrong.
            Entitled to your opinion of course. And with all due respect.”

            “But opinions and erroneous conclusions such as yours which are derived from misinterpretation of the available facts only serve to put a doubt in the mind of the layman but not in those of us who have the intelligence to arrive at the correct conclusions which the available evidence CLEARLY shows. And that is, ALL THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM BEHIND JFK FROM THE SOUTH EAST CORNER WINDOW OF THE SIXTH FLOOR OF THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY on Friday November 22nd 1963.

            Thank you.

            ~JH 777~
            _________________________________________________

          • JH 777,

            You do not even know what the modern forensics I am speaking to, you simply chatty cathy the Warren Commission again!

            “When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”

            Movement into the force: Once the bullet enters the skull, if the design of the projectile limits penetration by distortion or fragmentation, the bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in the transfer of kinetic energy demonstrated by the instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation. The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011;l Radford, 2009). (page 245)~Fiester
            http://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Again I ask Willy:
            What experience do you have, what level of education have you completed, what degree of training in medicine do you have to compare with the nationally recognized forensic pathologists that have completely refuted your conclusions?
            As I recall around 30 of the foremost forensic pathologists of the time reviewed the autopsy results,radiographs,films, etc. for various investigations including the HSCA. All except one completely agreed with the findings of the Bethesda team that JFK was hit by only two shots, both from behind.Even the the sole dissenter stated that JFK had a head shot from the rear.
            So why should anybody accept your conclusions over real experts with thousands of autopsies between them? Why should anybody accept your faulty interpretations of textbooks using terminology that you do not understand ? Why should anybody accept the recollections ( made years later unsupported by any physical evidence) of peripheral figures at Bethesda who have never been proven to have had any real close contact with the body except briefly, if at all? Witnesses whose level of expertise has been ginned up by Conspiracy advocates with false claims including a claim made out of whole cloth for one witness being a graduate student in Pathology in a program that didn’t even exist?
            Willy, do you have a degree?

          • “Again I ask Willy:
            What experience do you have, what level of education have you completed, what degree of training in medicine do you have to compare with the nationally recognized forensic pathologists that have completely refuted your conclusions?”~Photon

            They are not MY conclusions Photons. I simply understand the conclusions of modern forensics.

            It doesn’t matter a whit what level of education I have Photon. And whatever level you claim for yourself is unverifiable and useless as you are an anonymous poster who could be any sort of impersonator.

            The conclusions drawn are as put to you too many times for you to keep pretending you haven’t seen them. I merely refer you back to the thread where you first confronted Fiester.
            I am not going to re-post that again.

            We are in the 21st century now herr doktor, not the 60’s, the 70’s nor event the 90’s. Science marches on, if you wish to remain behind with last century’s thinking, you are welcome to it.
            \\][//

  27. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 11, 2015 at 8:25 pm
    Of course neither DRT nor the bullets described existed in 1963, nor the technology needed to produce the bullets. So what is your point-why not implicate depleted Uranium bullets? They were available far earlier than the frangible rounds that you are obsessed with. The DRT rounds were ” gimmick” rounds with little success in the commercial market.And there is no evidence that they were superior in any way to standard hunting rounds that are less expensive, more predictable in ballistic effects and devoid of the destructive effect and metallic contamination of harvested meat.

    ——————————————————————–

    Wrong again, as usual. The frangible range bullets I speak of were being made for the Carcano in the 1930’s; well before depleted uranium rounds were even thought of. If you understood the construction of one of these Carcano bullets, you would see it would only require slight modification of one of these bullets (ie. the drilling of a small hollow point) to convert it into a lethal bullet. SOMETHING had to account for the complete disintegration of the head shot bullet into minute particles, and it certainly was not a full metal jacket bullet.

    DRT frangible bullets are quite successful, are not a “gimmick” and are currently still being marketed. They are quite predictable ballistically; they simply go into a skull or soft flesh, and do not come out; wreaking severe damage in anything they go through. They have tremendously more stopping power than soft tipped hunting bullets, and as far as damaging meat goes, I would use them the same way I have used hollow point bullets, I simply go for head shots.

    • Photon says:

      But you have never actually fired any DRT rounds , have you?
      Nowhere has there been published any proof that ” their tremendous stopping power” is in any way superior to conventional rounds.Can you give a single example of any police force or security organization purchasing any of these rounds or authorizing their use? The term ” gimmick round” comes from several online hunting and Police blogs-there is no evidence that the company is having any great commercial success marketing a round that in general behaves like a conventional hollow point at a much greater cost.
      The powdered metal core of the DRT round is NOT the same as the frangible Carcano rounds available in 1963. The technology used to make these 21st century rounds was not available at the time of the JFK assassination, so using them as an example of a frangible round seems pointless-as pointless as claiming that a depleted Uranium round could have been used.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        You get your material from blogs, yet you criticize me for quoting a Wikipedia article with full citations?

        • Photon says:

          I don’t equate colloquial sporting websites with individual experiences using ammunition with formal claims of medical expertise. Wikipedia is a nice general source for information without being a serious reference source.
          Quote from a standard textbook of anatomy, physiology or physical diagnosis and I could take your statements more seriously.As there is no standard textbook describing the characteristics DRT rounds or the claims of the company that manufactures them I have to rely on the only unbiased sources available for that information- the consumers that use them.
          Which apparently does not include you.

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 12, 2015 at 4:57 pm
    I’m not. He had the standard Marine rifleman training-as did Oswald. That training was sufficient to complete an attack much more complex than the JFK shooting. He also had an identical Sharpshooter qualification.
    If you claim that Oswald had neither the training nor the skills to execute the JFK assassination the Whitman shooting proves you wrong.

    ———————————————————————-

    He might have had the training but, his skills are in serious doubt, as no one seems to be able to establish if he practiced or not.

    The rifle, especially the scope, were definitely not up to the task.

    • Photon says:

      Repeated recreations done by the Warren Commission, the HSCA, CBS, the History Channel and multiple private investigators have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Carcano found in the TSBD was entirely capable of producing all of the wounds found in JFK and Connolly. To claim otherwise is to ignore published data and 50 years of demonstrated confirmation that the Carcano not only could cause the wounds seen in the two victims, but that the rifle in question DID cause the wounds.There is absolutely no evidence for any other weapon being responsible for the wounds.
      Oswald skills are in doubt only by the uninformed and those unwilling to accept documented USMC records that Oswald was awarded the Sharpshooter badge, an award that confirms that Oswald’s marksmanship was excellent; his skills were superior to the average American sportsman.
      Again, your ignorance of USMC rifleman skills renders your assumptions faulty.

  29. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Wikipedia:

    “Tracheal deviation is a clinical sign that results from unequal intrathoracic pressure within the chest cavity. It is most commonly associated with traumatic pneumothorax, but can be caused by a number of both acute and chronic health issues, such as pneumonectomy, atelectasis, pleural effusion, pleural fibrosis, or some cancers (tumors within the bronchi, lung, or pleural cavity) and certain lymphomas associated with the mediastinal lymph nodes.

    In most adults and children, the trachea can be seen and felt directly in the middle of the anterior (front side) neck behind the jugular notch of the manubrium and superior to this point as it extends towards the larynx. However, when tracheal deviation is present, the trachea will be displaced in the direction of less pressure. Meaning, that if one side of the chest cavity has an increase in pressure (such as in the case of a pneumothorax) the trachea will shift towards the opposing side.”

    • Photon says:

      You use Wikipedia as a source?
      Palpating the neck might give you an indication of deviation, but it isn’t as clear as you seem to think it is.
      Again, which physician made a diagnosis of a pneumothorax? How about a name?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        “Photon
        January 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm
        You use Wikipedia as a source?
        Palpating the neck might give you an indication of deviation, but it isn’t as clear as you seem to think it is.
        Again, which physician made a diagnosis of a pneumothorax? How about a name?

        ————————————————————-

        From the WC testimony of Dr. M.T. Jenkins:

        “About this time Drs. Kemp Clark and Paul Peters came in, and Dr. Peters because of the appearance of the right chest, the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax, put in a closed chest drainage chest tube. Because I felt no peripheral pulse and was not aware of any pulse, I reported this to Dr. Clark and he started closed chest cardiac massage.”

        ….obvious PHYSICAL characteristics of a PNEUMOTHORAX….

        Didn’t even have to take an x-ray to spot the pneumothorax. I guess he is just a better doctor than you, eh, “Dr.” Photon?

        • Photon says:

          From the same source:
          Dr JENKINS” … I don’t know whether this is right or not,but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area,right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.”
          Mr SPECTER:” The autopsy report discloses no such development .” Later:
          Dr JENKINS. ” … And later the first day I had thought that because of his pneumothorax, that his wound must have gone-that the bullet must have traversed the pleura, must have gotten into his lung cavity, I mean and from what you say now,I know it did not go that way.I thought it did.”
          There was no pneumothorax. Because it was reported that at endotracheal intubation blood was seen it was assumed that JFK had a tracheal laceration. If the ET tube balloon was inflated above the level of the laceration positive pressure ventilation through the tube would lead to an iatrogenic pneumothorax-obviously that is what Jenkins assumed was happening, not that JFK came into the ER with ” the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax” – a perception that Dr Jenkins admitted was in error.
          As Paul Harvey would say “and that is the rest of the story.”

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Sorry, “Dr.” Photon, you can twist this one all you like but, Jenkins most definitely said “obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax”. This could only mean he observed the signs of a pneumothorax, NOT the later story everyone followed, of chest tubes being inserted to prevent the development of a tension pneumothorax from positive pressure ventilation.

            And, on the subject of chest tubes, take note that Jenkins testified that “a” closed chest drainage tube (“a” = one, uno, single, etc.) was inserted into the right chest.

            How do we know the SINGLE closed chest drainage tube was inserted into the right chest?

            “….because of the appearance of the right chest….”

            It is shameful to read how Specter instructed and led his witnesses. He would have been kicked out of a regular trial.

          • Photon says:

            Talk about twisting. Jenkins admitted his perceptions were in error, that his initial belief that JFK had a pneumothorax could not be possible.
            You have never seen a chest tube,have you?
            Perhaps you can enlighten us on the device you hook it up to today.

  30. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From “Medscape”:

    “Tension pneumothorax
    Signs and symptoms of tension pneumothorax are usually more impressive than those seen with a simple pneumothorax, and clinical interpretation of these is crucial for diagnosing and treating the condition. Tension pneumothorax is classically characterized by hypotension and hypoxia. On examination, breath sounds are absent on the affected hemothorax and the trachea deviates away from the affected side. The thorax may also be hyperresonant; jugular venous distention and tachycardia may be present. If on mechanical ventilation, the airway pressure alarms are triggered.”

    ….and the TRACHEA DEVIATES away from the AFFECTED side….

    Guess you just didn’t go to the right school, eh? I learned this when I became a paramedic.

  31. Jonathan says:

    It appears to me that “Photon” is the name of multiple persons here.

    In this thread, “Photon” appears to me to be a commenter who is good at online research. “Photon” also appears to be a commenter who is able and willing to challenge an M.D.

    I detect and have detected multiple persons using the “Photon” name.

    If I’m correct in this assessment, I have to ask, why does JFK Facts allow multiple persons to post here under one name.

    • Photon says:

      It doesn’t take multiple persons to debunk obvious falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations.
      If you want to really find the truth you have to realize that the path you end up on may not be the one that you wanted to take.

  32. Bill says:

    The Robert Hughes Film clearly shows that a figure can be seen moving from a standing position to a lower position just as the Limo passes beneath his window. Why not shoot? Well…how about the obvious?? How about RISKING TAKING AIM and thereby exposing yourself to the SS before a first (and presumable only) headshot as the car came toward the corner.

    Nope…Oswald/Shooter let the car pass and everyone’s attention as well. He was spotted by the newsman shooting at JFK (last shot) who just missed getting his camera up to it. I can’t recall his name now…other can.

    Also….in the film by Elsie Dorman…at the time of the shot she had begun to put her camera away…but caught the first shots reaction by a man who was just walking away from the corner as JFK passed. He can be seen jerking his head upward toward the window.

    Creating mythology about JFK isn’t getting it done folks.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Nonsense. Do you actually mean to tell us that a shooter on the 6th floor is going to be worried about giving his position away by taking a shot while JFK is on Main St.? And just what would the SS have done if they had spotted him? He could have gotten two very easy shots off before the SS would have even begun to react, and, even then, their response would have been limited.

      Do you really think he was worried about giving his position away? He was, after all, shooting a high powered rifle from an open window, almost directly across the street from a police station. The place would have literally crawling with law enforcement officers, most of them out watching JFK go by.

      • Photon says:

        I thought that you claimed that Oswald couldn’t get off fast shots with the M -C.
        Of course, Oswald had to react exactly as you think he should have.He could not possibly have thought that an easy shot while JFK was moving away was preferable to exposing himself and possibly being shot or missing his target.
        Again, Oswald had a perfect shooting solution after waiting for the turn. His success confirms that .

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          JFK would have been coming directly at him on Houston St., with two incredible opportunities for a sniper; the very slow speed it would be travelling as it came onto Houston, and the very slow speed it would be travelling in preparation for turning onto Elm St. In comparison, once the limo was on Elm St., it was going downhill, on its way to the Stemmons Freeway, and hidden from view until the limo was past the TSBD. Cintrary to what you state, it was also not going directly away from the perspectieve of the SE corner of the 6th floor, and Oswald would have to lead his target (if you dispute this, read the testimony of FBI SA Robert A. Frazier). Past the Stemmons sign, the crowd had thinned to almost nothing.

          How could Oswald know that the limo wouldn’t be doing 30 mph on Elm St., once he had an open shot?

          Sorry, any serious analysis of this matter would have a lone sniper taking the easy shot on Main St. One shot, aimed right at the centre of his chest, has got to hit something vital. Should the shot go high, either due to the target moving toward him or from the steep angle of the shot, and the bullet either goes into his neck, taking out his spinal cord, or into his skull.

        • “Again, Oswald had a perfect shooting solution after waiting for the turn. His success confirms that.” ~Photon

          A classic example of circular reasoning Herr Doktor.
          \\][//

  33. JH 777 says:

    “Nope…Oswald/Shooter let the car pass and everyone’s attention as well. He was spotted by the newsman shooting at JFK (last shot) who just missed getting his camera up to it. I can’t recall his name now…other can.”

    —————————————————————–

    That individuals name was Bob Jackson.

    Bob Jackson Saw Oswald’s Rifle in the Window.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9anAfGft6U

    Also note how sure he is that THREE SHOTS were fired.

    • “Bob Jackson Saw Oswald’s Rifle in the Window.”

      Correction Jackson saw A RIFLE in the window. He did not see a figure. just the stock and the barrel.

      \\][//

      • JH 777 says:

        “Bob Jackson Saw Oswald’s Rifle in the Window.”

        “Correction Jackson saw A RIFLE in the window. He did not see a figure. just the stock and the barrel.”

        _________________________________________________________

        Rebuttal. Yes he only saw a rifle in the window. That rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and bearing the serial number C2766 TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS. Lee Harvey Oswald was the individual
        firing this rifle to the exclusion af all other individuals. So yes emphatically without question. “Bob Jackson Saw Oswald’s Rifle in the Window.”

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Great rebuttal, JH 777. All you need now is some actual evidence to back it up.

        • “So yes emphatically without question. “Bob Jackson Saw Oswald’s Rifle in the Window.”~JH 777

          Without question? There are many question JH, particularly to the reliability of the Warren Commission. An argument from authority claiming that it is “without question” is without question a faulty argument.
          Anomalies that will not go away are the paraffin tests on Oswald that only show chemicals that could be interpreted as coming from the boxes he handled all day on his hands – and NO residue whatsoever on his face.
          Chief Curry himself stated there was no conclusive evidence putting that rifle in Oswald’s hands that day.
          Even the “fact” that Oswald actually bought and owned that rifle are in question.
          Ruth Paine and her husband are viable suspects in setting Oswald up, thus their testimony is in question.
          Marina was sequestered and fearful of deportation and was clearly being coerced by the authorities to implicate her deceased husband – and she in fact retracted much of that incriminating evidence later when she was safely away from such coercive influences.
          These factors put your “without question” remark in the hallway as supposition without real merit.
          \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Not only was Marina pressured by authorities, she was virtually in the control of private interests including Time/Life and the Dallas political machine / the Angus Wynne enterprise in the hours and days following the assassination. How did Dallas law enforcement, DA Henry Wade and Mayor Cabell rationalize that the circumstances of a star witness in every sense of the term was out of their control; would they not have been aware of the potential for influence – financial, emotional, psychological?

            If they were comfortable that private citizens would protect Marina and her children, why didn’t Ruth Paine intervene?

            It appears that public officials who knew better allowed only certain private citizens to sequester Marina on private commercial property at a critical moment in the investigation.

          • David Regan says:

            During the Orleans Parish Grand Jury investigation conducted by Jim Garrison, Marina Oswald was asked why she cut off contact with Ruth Paine and she responded, “I was advised by Secret Service not to be connected with her, seems like she was… not connected… she was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away.”
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/garr/grandjury/Porter/html/Porter_0036a.htm

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “…[Ruth Paine] was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there…”

            Sorry, but this is quoted-out-of-context misinformation from your conspiracy sources.

            Go to the next page in your link where Marina asks, “what is CIA?” and mentions the ACLU. She confused one with the other. Ruth and the ACLU did “write letters” to inquire about Marina’s situation under Secret Service protection.

          • leslie sharp says:

            David, as confusing as Marina’s statements were I think it’s clear she was outside her skill set so to speak.

            Salient issues are: how informed were Ruth and Michael Paine in the events leading to 11.22.63, and why didn’t Ruth demand that she be granted custody of Marina and the children the afternoon of 11.22.63?

            Why did the DPD, the mayor and the DA turn Marina over to private citizens aka Dick Stolley followed by the Wynne family enterprise, and if responsible authorities were willing to do so why didn’t they turn her over to the Paines assuming that early on they had every confidence that the Paines were innocent bystanders? And if authorities determined that the Paines played no role in the assassination, how did they reach that conclusion within hours of the assassination?

            The Wynne law firm may have argued that elements within their social/political/professional circle knew Marina and Lee and therefore would have had Marina’s best interests at heart, but if so, would that not have drawn the attention of authorities to the Wynne law firm and their friends individually?

            How did Dick Stolley of Time Life convince the authorities that he was qualified let alone merited the responsibility to assure a safe haven for Marina the evening of 11.22?

            These details are lost in the mists of time yet hold the keys to the 24 hour period which was essential to the first stage of a successful cover up and during which time Lee Oswald was buried in the popular mindset as the lone assassin.

          • David Regan says:

            Agreed Leslie. Small coincidence that Paine’s sister worked for the CIA and between herself and De Mohrenschildt, they helped secure employment for Oswald at Jagger-Chiles Stovall and the TSBD.

            According to a CIA document, obtained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, J. Walton Moore was an agent of the CIA’s Domestic Contacts Division in Dallas who had debriefed de Mohrenschildt several times following de Mohrenschildt’s travels abroad, starting in 1957.
            http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0029b.htm

            Although J. Walton Moore claimed in a 1977 memorandum that he had only met with George de Mohrenschildt twice, the House Select Committee on Assassinations found evidence of more meetings.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=84&relPageId=58

            In a manuscript found in George De Mohrenschildt’s possession upon his death, De Mohrenschildt wrote: “I went to see Mr. J. Walton Moore to his office, in the same building I used to have my own office, Reserve Loan Life Building on Ervay Street, and asked him point blank. ‘I met this young ex-marine, Lee Harvey Oswald, is it safe to associate with him?’. And Mr. Moore’s answer was: ‘He is OK. He is just a harmless lunatic.'”
            http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy-chapter17

        • “We don’t have any … No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry

          MAIL ORDER RIFLE.
          “According to the Warren Commission Lee HARVEY Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall during the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the downtown post office, purchased a postal money order, and then mailed his order for the rifle to Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago before returning to work. But the letter was postmarked 10:30 am, and company time records show that Oswald never left his job. He worked continuously from 8:00 am through 12:15 pm on 9 different printing jobs.
          The Warren Commission never pointed out that the envelope, time stamped 10:30 am, was not mailed from the downtown post office where the money order was purchased. It was stamped and mailed in “zone 12,” which was several miles west of the downtown post office and across the Trinity River. In order for this letter to have reached Chicago the following day, it would have to have been picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am, delivered to the Industrial Station post office in zone 7, and then sorted and bagged into an airmail pouch. And the airmail pouch would have to have been delivered by another mail carrier to Love field and then placed aboard an aircraft prior to it’s 12 o’clock noon departure.
          If we are to believe the Warren Commission, then we believe that Oswald skipped work for an undetermined period of time on the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the post office, purchased a postal money order, traveled several miles across the Trinity River in order to mail the letter, and then returned to his job unnoticed. And then, if we believe the Warren Commission, this letter was picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am in zone 12, delivered to the post office in zone 7, sorted and placed into an airmail pouch, transported to the Love Field Airport, and loaded aboard the last flight to Chicago before the plane departed at noon. This money order was allegedly received by Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago the following morning, was included with over a thousand other mail orders from around the country, and then deposited into Klein’s bank account. If this sounds a little far-fetched, believe me, it gets better….”~John Armstrong
          http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html
          \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Bob Jackson must have had incredible peripheral vision, as film footage shows him looking nowhere near the 6th floor window.

  34. David Regan says:

    Exactly how does Jackson’s testimony prove anything, other than seeing 8-10″ of a rifle barrel? He offered no description of a man holding the rifle – he even mentions not being able to see hands holding it. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jackson.htm

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon

    “Dr JENKINS. ” … And later the first day I had thought that because of his pneumothorax, that his wound must have gone-that the bullet must have traversed the pleura, must have gotten into his lung cavity, I mean and from what you say now,I know it did not go that way.I thought it did.””

    ——————————————————————-

    Take careful note that Jenkins testifies with the words “….because of his pmeumothorax….”. Jenkins speaks of a tension pneumothorax as already existing, meaning that he simply observed enough signs and symptoms to bring him to a diagnosis of this condition. Obviously, other surgeons had come to the same diagnosis, as they inserted a chest tube to drainage into his right lung.

    Specter has a great way of gathering info to arrive at the truth, he simply tells his witnesses what is true and what is not true.

    Wouldn’t a real lawyer want to investigate a surgeon’s claim there was a bullet hole in JFK’s left temple, or the same surgeon’s claim that JFK was shot in the right lung and suffered a tension pneumothorax?

    Surely, we all agree the autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent, and possibly missed these wounds. After all, didn’t they get the location of the entrance wound in JFK’s skull wrong by 4 inches?

    • “Surely, we all agree the autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent, and possibly missed these wounds. After all, didn’t they get the location of the entrance wound in JFK’s skull wrong by 4 inches?”

      I certainly agree that the doctors performing the autopsy were incompetent, and would further offer that they were clearly being directed by superior officers as to which procedures they could perform. They were compromised both by inexperience and the political motives beyond medical considerations.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy Whitten
        January 16, 2015 at 10:48 am
        “Surely, we all agree the autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent, and possibly missed these wounds. After all, didn’t they get the location of the entrance wound in JFK’s skull wrong by 4 inches?”

        I certainly agree that the doctors performing the autopsy were incompetent, and would further offer that they were clearly being directed by superior officers as to which procedures they could perform. They were compromised both by inexperience and the political motives beyond medical considerations.

        ——————————————————-

        I hope you appreciate the obvious sarcasm of my comment and that, in locating the bullet entrance on the skull, they were not incompetent at all. They merely neglected to mention JFK was shot twice in the head, and that while there was an entrance wound in the back of the skull, there was also a large exit wound.

        The sarcasm was aimed at the HSCA medical panel, who moved the rear entrance wound 4 inches higher on the back of JFK’s skull, to better explain why the bullet did not exit through JFK’s mouth.

        • “They merely neglected to mention JFK was shot twice in the head, and that while there was an entrance wound in the back of the skull, there was also a large exit wound.”~Bob Prudhomme

          I am sorry but we disagree on this point. I am convinced there was only one shot to Kennedy’s head that came from the front. This shot originated from the area at the end of Dealey Plaza near the Triple Underpass, not from the picket fence near the pavilion.
          I would also hazard the notion that the bullet was actually a sabot, and not a full sized bullet.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            A saboted bullet, eh? Would you care to mention the calibre and model of the cartridge the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet (I’m assuming this is what you mean) was loaded into and fired from?

          • “Would you care to mention the calibre and model of the cartridge the saboted 6.5mm Carcano bullet (I’m assuming this is what you mean) was loaded into and fired from?”~Bob Prudhomme

            No I do not mean it to have any relation to either a Carcano bullet, nor a Carcano rifle.

            I am speaking to the shots from the front, coming from near the Tripple Underpass. The rifle would be one of choice of the professional assassin firing it. An extremely accurate fine tuned high powered weapon.
            \\][//

        • When the bullet exits the muzzle of a high powered/ long range rifle, it generally travels at a rate of two or more times the speed of sound (the speed of sound is approximately 343m/s, or 1125fps, in standard atmospheric conditions), and so bullet speed (in these cases) is therefore considered supersonic.

          “[1]If the shot is powerful enough, from high velocity rifles for example, there is a combination of the initial impact and an ‘explosive’ effect which can do substantial damage through forcing the brain to the side of the skull and fracturing from the inside out.”

          [2]There is one rare effect, called the Krönlein shot, where a high powered shot messily opens the skull but neatly ejects the whole brain on the ground.
          [Wound ballistics of the Krönlein shot: Article in German]
          Pankratz H, Fischer H.
          Abstract
          The “Krönlein” shot (evisceration of the brain) is a very rare injury of the skull caused by a high-velocity bullet. The requirement for this type of low-range shot wound is a broad opening of the skull with laceration of the dura mater. In the past, several cases of this particular injury have been reported and all led to immediate death.

          http://mindhacks.com/2012/06/09/a-shot-to-the-head/

          I would posit that the Kennedy head wound displays both [1] and a partial [2] as this would appear to me what the results are as per autopsy photos and X-rays of the skull.
          \\][//

      • Mike Chesser says:

        They were probably competent, at least at some time in their career, but their performance on the autopsy was pitiful. I suspect willful negligence.
        At that time in their careers, they were primarily administrators, and their primary loyalty was to the system. It’s the same with civilian hospital physician administrators.
        After reading Law’s book, and Pierre Finck’s ARRB testimony, I suspect he was the pathologist most responsible for the cover-up. In his testimony he was evasive and guarded. His background is most interesting.

  36. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    January 16, 2015 at 4:04 am
    Talk about twisting. Jenkins admitted his perceptions were in error, that his initial belief that JFK had a pneumothorax could not be possible.
    You have never seen a chest tube,have you?
    Perhaps you can enlighten us on the device you hook it up to today.

    ———————————————————————-

    Jenkins seemed to be quite convinced that his diagnosis of a projectile entering the pleural space was correct. However, faced with the results of the “autopsy”, what could he possibly do but give in to the indomitable Arlen Specter, and concede he may possibly have been wrong? He had not surgically opened JFK’s chest, nor had he x-rayed it, and here he was, faced with autopsy results from a government he likely trusted far more than any of us today are inclined to do. How could he argue the point?

    What has to be understood is just how refined the diagnostic skills of the Parkland surgeons actually were. Without even knowing of the bullet entrance wound in JFK’s back, they were able, simply from the presenting signs, to diagnose a tension pneumothorax in JFK’s right lung.

    Although I have never inserted a chest tube, I have, on our ambulance, transferred patients with chest tubes inserted. Considering the seriousness of the condition, a doctor has always accompanied the patient on these transfers. The tube is connected to an underwater seal that allows air to escape, but not return, and, as I recall, it has always been the doctor’s instruction that we keep the underwater seal lower than the patient, to prevent siphoning back into the pleural cavity of fluids. As I did not actually set up the device, I can’t tell you that much about it, other than that I understand the principle of placing a drain tube underwater, to prevent air being drawn back into the pleural space.

    What I am more familiar with, on our ambulance, is a type of dressing known as the Asherman Chest Seal. When a patient has a penetrating wound of the chest, he will inevitably have a sucking chest wound, or “open” pneumothorax. This condition is dangerous, as it will not allow his lungs to fill, and it must be sealed. However, should the lung be compromised as well, simply sealing the wound will allow air from the lung to enter the pleural cavity; inducing a tension pneumothorax there. To seal the chest AND allow air pressure in the pleural cavity to escape (basically the same principle as an underwater drain) the Asherman Chest Seal (or ACS) is applied over the wound on the chest. It has a rubber tube protruding from it, with a flattened end. Internal air pressure can escape, by forcing this flattened end open but, once the pressure is relieved, the flattened end closes and prevents any air returning through the tube.
    http://www.remotemedical.com/Asherman-Chest-Seal

  37. Photon says:

    It is called a Pleur-evac.
    Please post one quote from any of the Parkland doctors stating unambiguously that JFK had a tension pneumothorax.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I already did. Need I post Jenkins testimony again?

      • Photon says:

        And Jenkins stated that his perception was erroneous and could not be possible. So his statement that there was a left temporal wound ( a wound not seen by anybody else) must be accepted as an unambiguous fact? Every initial statement made by Dr. Jenkins is the Gospel truth no matter what other facts are documented, no matter what Dr. Jenkins said after learning about the case beyond his rushed, 18 minute superficial and inaccurate exam?
        Bob,you claim to be an expert in the aspects of the Carcano rifle, yet you have never fired one,have you?
        You claim to be an expert in frangible Carcano rounds,yet you have never fired one nor seen any results of them being fired.
        You have posted an entire thread addressing the effects of DRT rounds without ever firing them or personally seeing their effects-aside from viewing company websites and unverified blogs.
        You claim to know what the ballistic effects of the available frangible Carcano rounds in 1963 were, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that those rounds would even penetrate the skull of a living human.
        You claim that JFK had a tension pneumothorax despite the total absence of any evidence either in Parkland or at Bethesda that he did; even if he did have a pneumothorax exactly what would that mean? You do realize that you can drop a lung simply by attempting to put in an IJ or subclavian catheter using a needle,don’t you?
        Why can’t you accept the findings of real experts in human gunshot wounds that the 6.5 mm FMJ round was certainly capable of causing the JFK head wound and producing the effects seen at autopsy? You have never seen a human bullet wound have you? It also seems evident that you have never fired a FMJ round. So what is your basis for claiming expertise in the characteristics of FMJ rounds and their effects on human tissue?
        Why did you claim that it was impossible to rapidly fire a scoped Carcano rifle accurately even at a range when I referenced a video showing an individual doing precisely that at twice the time interval that Oswald had?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          What do you make of the 1/4″ diameter wound in JFK’s right temple, observed by mortician Thomas Robinson? He certainly was not being rushed while he was preparing JFK’s body.

          As far as I know, no one else observed this wound. Do you think Robinson was lying in his HSCA interview?

          How many witnesses have to be mistaken or lying to make the WC fantasy operable?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            BTW, nice attempt at discrediting me.

            When you run out of logical arguments, I guess character assassination is all you have left.

            It worked for the WC! 🙂

          • Photon says:

            Is it character assassination to point out inconsistencies in your story?
            The fact that you can’t answer the questions is at least important as the questions themselves.
            How can you possibly know the specifics of how the Carcano performs as a weapon without having fired one yourself?

          • Photon, how can you possibly drive a Mazda if all you have driven are Fords?
            \\][//

  38. Ronnie Wayne says:

    JFK was hit in the back at the 3rd thoracic vertebrate per the autopsy photograph, diagram, and coat and shirt. I.E. a fact, in spite of Ford’s move it to the lower neck or shoulder. If this shot hit where intended it did not exit the front of his chest whether shot from the TSBD or Dal-Tex building. It most certainly did not exit his adams apple from either angle. With a frangible or at the least hollow point bullet it would have damaged vital organs. Most probably, from the above discussion, a lung. As it were, it would have provided a backup death shot if the head shot(s?) missed.

  39. Bob Prudhomme says:

    The photographer Bob Jackson was riding in a convertible in the motorcade, about eight cars back from the limousine. Sitting next to him, oth atop the back seat, was WFAA-TV cameraman Malcolm Couch, equipped with a movie camera. As they completed the turn from Main onto Houston, Couch testified they heard the first shot. Just before they reached the corner of Elm and Houston, Couch testified they heard two more shots, then Jackson shouts for everyone to look up at the upper floors of the TSBD, as Jackson had spotted a rifle. Couch testified he looked up in time to see a rifle barrel being withdrawn into a 6th or 7th floor window. Amazingly, below is the link to the footage he began shooting a second later, in which Baker can be seen running into the TSBD:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OYN8VLf_04
    Does anyone else find it odd that a news cameraman does not have his camera focused on the window a rifle has just been spotted in?

    Another thing I had not noticed before is that their convertible, plus the one ahead of them, remains motionless the entire time he is filming, and both cars only start moving again once Couch pans back to the car ahead of them.

    Is this proof the motorcade came to a halt?

    Either the men in the back of the convertible ahead of them were stone deaf, or Jackson couldn’t yell very loud, as none of them seem particularly interested in the 6th floor, either.

    If I had heard shots fired at the resident, and had seen a gunman on the 6th floor, I would have yelled so loud that people two blocks away would know about it.

  40. Ronnie Wayne says:

    As we have digressed from the bullets to the shot’s, how about the throat shot? Another Carcano frangible, or maybe a 22 magnum hollowpoint?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Ronnie

      Let’s use our imaginations here for a second, and try thinking outside of the box.

      At the base of the human skull is a rather large opening called the “foramen magnum”, through which the brain connects to the spinal cord. his is also the junction between the skull and cervical vertebra C1. C1 does not actually contact the skull at this point but, rather, is suspended downward a small distance by connective tissues, leaving a large enough gap between C1 and the skull for a small projectile to pass through.

      When frangible bullets are spoken of, it must be remembered this is a general term that encompasses many different configurations of many different materials. For example, the modern ones I mentioned, made by DRT, had a compressed metal powder core and a hollow point in the bullet’s jacket. Many other things have been tried with varying degrees of success. One attempt involved gluing small BB’s together to make the core of the bullet inside of a bullet
      jacket. On impact, and following penetration through a skull bone, the glue was brittle enough to shatter, allowing complete disintegration of the bullet core back into the BB’s it was made from.

      If we think of the throat wound as an exit wound from a very small round projectile, we can paint an entirely different picture of this scenario. If we give Humes the benefit of the doubt, and agree that one of the bullets that entered JFK’s skull had its entrance point just to the right of JFK’s external occiptal protuberance (lower right rear of skull), we would have a frangible bullet travelling through brain matter at a downward angle almost directly toward the foramen magnum opening. If the frangible bullet disintegrated just to the rear of this opening, is it conceivable a tiny fragment or BB could have passed through the connective tissue, between C1 and the skull, and exited his throat?

      I know everyone will waste no time telling me JFK was seen “clutching” his throat but, the truth of the matter is, JFK only had his hands raised to this area, and was NOT clutching his throat.

      If JFK was indeed shot in the top of the right lung, by a frangible bullet that likely destroyed a great deal of his capacity to breathe, the arm raising gesture we see in the Zapruder film may be the signs of a man in extreme respiratory distress; unable to breathe adequately and feeling he is being asphyxiated.

      Not everything is what it appears to be.

      • Photon says:

        Bob, if ” tiny fragment or BB” passed through the foramen magnum you wouldn’t need to implicate any lung damage as a reason why JFK couldn’t breathe.
        Nor would you see evidence of being asphyxiated ,nor signs of extreme respiratory distress.
        I challenge you to explain this fact and why JFK’s reactions after the neck wound prove that it was impossible for any fragment to have passéd through the foramen magnum.
        When you hear hoof beats , don’t think of zebras.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Did several of the doctors at Parkland not observe agonal breathing present in JFK? While agonal breathing is not true and effective respiration, would it not be indicative of JFK having enough brain matter left to possibly have been breathing for part of the ride to Parkland Hospital?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I guess this is in the box but I think the throat wound was one of entrance. Based on the overwhelming testimony of the Doctors and Nurses at Parkland with daily experience in gunshot wounds, and, what I see on the Z-film. It may or may not be altered. I’ve not studied every frame in detail from end to end on a big screen.
        I’ve watched the enhanced version in slow motion multiple times. It’s been a while but the first reaction I remember is him sitting UP and reaching for his throat, clenching his hands into fists. Virtually as this happens he ha a stunned look on his face and rocks slightly forward. Then the head shot, still pretty much back and to the left.
        The simple or in the box version to me is, shot in the throat from the front. Shot in the back from the back. Shot in the head from his right front.
        If this is not too unreasonable of a scenario, could all of the bullets have been frangible? Seems reasonable for a back and throat shot that were never probed and there were no exit wounds.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          The throat wound as an entrance wound is definitely a possibility, and I am by no means married to the theory of a fragment passing through the foramen magnum and out the throat. I simply put it out there for discussion purposes.

          In regards to the throat wound being an entrance wound, the best source I have seen so far is the x-ray technician present ay Bethesda during the autopsy, Jerrol Custer. He gave a deposition to the ARRB, and what he told them seriously contradicts what was presented in the autopsy findings.

          One of the things claimed by Custer is that the x-ray of JFK’s neck is not the one he recalls seeing, and that the one he recalls showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

          Of course, the fragmentation of a bullet in such a short distance, the lack of an exit wound and the presence of tiny fragments immediately grabbed my attention, as these would be telltale signs a frangible bullet would leave behind. However, as there is not a great deal of tissue in the neck, forward of the vertebral column, I am puzzled how such instantaneous and complete fragmentation could be contained without completely blowing the neck apart. Perhaps, as you say, it was a much smaller calibre bullet, but this has always puzzled me about the throat wound.

          I have always felt JFK raising his arms and clenching his fists near his throat could be indicative of damage to the nerves that go to the arms, as these originate in the vicinity of C3/C4.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I’ve thought raising his toward a throat wound was a natural reaction. I’ve never been wounded but it would seem natural with the pain and shock to grab at it.
            The neck muscles are pretty tough. The neck is what 4-5″ thick? If a frangible bullet goes in 1-2″ then expands/disintegrates would it make an exit wound?
            In regard to my speculation about a lower caliber 22, do they make frangible 22’s?
            Last, I’ve read some on the medical “evidence” from Bethesda but question it in general. One of the remaining x-ray’s is supposed to show a trail of particles from the front to rear. Might this be the result of a frangible bullet?

  41. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Bill:

    “Also….in the film by Elsie Dorman…at the time of the shot she had begun to put her camera away…but caught the first shots reaction by a man who was just walking away from the corner as JFK passed. He can be seen jerking his head upward toward the window.”

    There was a distinct possibility the first shot came from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building, and was from a rifle equipped with a suppressor (silencer). This device would have completely eliminated the muzzle of this rifle but, if the bullet was travelling faster than the speed of sound, it would have made a definite “crack” as it travelled through the air and broke the sound barrier. As this sound would be very localized, and would diminish as you got any distance from it, this may explain why the man moving away from the corner reacted, yet none of the other bystanders did. The same type of reaction may be seen in the Altgens 6 photo, in that the two SS agents on the right side of the car are looking about in an attempt to identify what they have just heard. It is very likely a suppressed bullet has just missed their heads.

    “Looking up” in reaction to a sound does not automatically place a shooter on the 6th floor.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I meant to type “completely eliminated the muzzle blast of this rifle” but forgot to type the word “blast”. It would be nice to have an edit feature on this forum, as I make so many typoes.

  42. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Ronnie Wayne
    January 21, 2015 at 9:43 pm
    I’ve thought raising his toward a throat wound was a natural reaction. I’ve never been wounded but it would seem natural with the pain and shock to grab at it.
    The neck muscles are pretty tough. The neck is what 4-5″ thick? If a frangible bullet goes in 1-2″ then expands/disintegrates would it make an exit wound?
    In regard to my speculation about a lower caliber 22, do they make frangible 22′s?
    Last, I’ve read some on the medical “evidence” from Bethesda but question it in general. One of the remaining x-ray’s is supposed to show a trail of particles from the front to rear. Might this be the result of a frangible bullet?

    ——————————————————————–

    Hi Ronnie

    Good question about the neck. the tissue there is mostly strap muscle, too. Not sure what the result would be. I do know that this bullet would be passing through a number of large blood vessels that include a couple of jugular veins and a carotid artery, the main supply of blood to the brain. If there had been a lot of damage in the neck, we should expect to see a correspondingly equal amount of blood from z223 on, as its release would have been instantaneous. Yet, Nellie Connally claimed she saw no blood on JFK’s shirt. As I said, whatever they pulled off with the throat shot was a good trick, as it still has us guessing 51 years later.

    As to .22 calibre frangible bullets, that is another good question. They are made for pistols, I know. I’ll check it out tomorrow.

    The x-ray of JFK’s skull shows a trail of minute particles inside the skull. Yes, I believe this to be evidence of a frangible bullet. Lead is malleable, not brittle, and while a fragmenting bullet might break up into many pieces, it will not shatter into dust.

  43. Jim Martin says:

    I think the best explanation of the 2nd gunman is that a SService agent in the back seat picked up a cocked, loaded .223 when he heard the 1st shot hit the pavement and when the limo stopped abruptly the the .223 discharged hitting JFK in the back of the head.

    This accounts for the 2nd smaller caliber bullet wound and explains the 2nd gunman.

  44. Steve Toyne says:

    According to those that knew him, Oswald loved his kids, if nothing else.
    Why then, would he kill a president, knowing there was every chance of getting caught, and never see his kids again?

  45. Robert Paul says:

    Paying $20 for a rifle in 1963 is the same as paying $154 today. That’s not pocket change for an unemployed man with little or no source of income.

    Much like the 100+ dollars he left in Marina’s teacup (equal to $750+ today) and the $8 per week room rent ($60 today), LHO seemed to have an unusual amount of discretionary money. Where did it come from? This question has always baffled me. I’d seriously welcome any answers or comments from the WC community.

  46. Jordan says:

    Here is further information about not only the rifle and ammo, but the handgun that allegedly belonged to Oswald as well.

    http://jfklancer.com/carcano_twin.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more