The Bullet

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

Edited August 2, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

Edited August 2, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-3

Edited August 2, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-4

The old xerox copies of the HSCA photo are not that clear. These photos should be available on the internet somewhere.

If not, then I will make an attempt to find the originals received from the NA.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-4

The old xerox copies of the HSCA photo are not that clear. These photos should be available on the internet somewhere.

If not, then I will make an attempt to find the originals received from the NA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-5

At the time these were written, the JFK records act had not been passed.

Therefore, it was unknown as to exactly when that portion of the copper jacket to the bullet which normally covers the bullet base had been removed.

After release of records due to the JFK Records act, a photograph of the base of this bullet labeled FBI/NA was released which demonstrated that at the time the bullet was placed into the National Archives and photographed, that the portion of the copper jacket which partially covers the lead core at the base of the bullet was in fact present.

Therefore, at some period between when this bullet was placed into the National Archives, and it's removal for photographing by the HSCA, a portion of the copper jacket which normally covers the base of the bullet was removed by persons unknown.

Here is the FBI photo of the bullet base and how the base of the bullet looked when the HSCA took possession of the bullet.

Edited August 2, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-4

The old xerox copies of the HSCA photo are not that clear. These photos should be available on the internet somewhere.

If not, then I will make an attempt to find the originals received from the NA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The attached drawing was made to demonstrate how the copper jacket of the bullet extends over the base of the bullet by 1mm around the entire circumference of the bullet.

This also demonstrates how this portion of the copper jacket is now missing from the base of CE#399, leaving the entire lead core of the bullet exposed at the bullet base.

When I can find it, I will post the photo of the base of the bullet as it was when turned over to the National Archives by the FBI, and a comparison of this photo with the HSCA photo clearly demonstrates the difference.

[Jack White]

Which CE 399 are you talking about? SIX groove WC version

or FOUR groove HSCA version?

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Which CE 399 are you talking about? SIX groove WC version

or FOUR groove HSCA version?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first indicator that someone was again seeing things which were not there should have come with the research which would have a difficult time establishing that such an item as a 6-groove Carcano barrell was ever produced.

This alone would serve to indicate to most that what you and your others claim to be rifling marks, just may not be that at all.

Of course, painting nice little red lines on it certainly helps make the un-informed tend to think that perhaps there is validity in this claim.

Which of course, not unlike the backyard photos, there is none.

As a result of test firing of bullets, I am in possession of numerous bullets which have markings which for all practical purposes are almost identical to that of the one and only CE#399.

And, rest assured, these bullets were also fired from a 4-groove barrell.

So, perhaps you and the others will cease to attempt to solve this issue by looking at pictures and thereafter go out and get your own rifles and Carcano ammunition and conduct your own ballistic testing.

Then, and only then will you have something that is not imagined from staring at photo's too long.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Which CE 399 are you talking about? SIX groove WC version

or FOUR groove HSCA version?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first indicator that someone was again seeing things which were not there should have come with the research which would have a difficult time establishing that such an item as a 6-groove Carcano barrell was ever produced.

This alone would serve to indicate to most that what you and your others claim to be rifling marks, just may not be that at all.

Of course, painting nice little red lines on it certainly helps make the un-informed tend to think that perhaps there is validity in this claim.

Which of course, not unlike the backyard photos, there is none.

As a result of test firing of bullets, I am in possession of numerous bullets which have markings which for all practical purposes are almost identical to that of the one and only CE#399.

And, rest assured, these bullets were also fired from a 4-groove barrell.

So, perhaps you and the others will cease to attempt to solve this issue by looking at pictures and thereafter go out and get your own rifles and Carcano ammunition and conduct your own ballistic testing.

Then, and only then will you have something that is not imagined from staring at photo's too long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps if you study this photograph long enough, it just may tell you some of the history behind CE#399.

Especially since they have much in common..

Edited August 2, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-3

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-4

The old xerox copies of the HSCA photo are not that clear. These photos should be available on the internet somewhere.

If not, then I will make an attempt to find the originals received from the NA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The attached drawing was made to demonstrate how the copper jacket of the bullet extends over the base of the bullet by 1mm around the entire circumference of the bullet.

This also demonstrates how this portion of the copper jacket is now missing from the base of CE#399, leaving the entire lead core of the bullet exposed at the bullet base.

When I can find it, I will post the photo of the base of the bullet as it was when turned over to the National Archives by the FBI, and a comparison of this photo with the HSCA photo clearly demonstrates the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally!

The FBI/NA and the condition later when the HSCA went to examine the bullet.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Jack White]

The attached photos were taken by Harold Weisberg at the National

Archives before the counterfeit bullet was substituted. Half of the

circumference seems to show SIX distinct areas of rifling, therefore

unseen are six more. All experts who have seen these photos say

it was fired in a barrel with six grooves. The four-groove MC rifle

could not produce six evenly spaced grooves, according to experts

such as John Ritchson, master gunsmith. He is a forum member and

will perhaps comment on your allegations.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The attached photos were taken by Harold Weisberg at the National

Archives before the counterfeit bullet was substituted. Half of the

circumference seems to show SIX distinct areas of rifling, therefore

unseen are six more. All experts who have seen these photos say

it was fired in a barrel with six grooves. The four-groove MC rifle

could not produce six evenly spaced grooves, according to experts

such as John Ritchson, master gunsmith. He is a forum member and

will perhaps comment on your allegations.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless incorrect, I believe that the allegation is related to the usage of "substituted" and "counterfeit", as if it were a matter of proven fact.

Which, it is not!

In fact, for the most part it is little better than some of the "hearsay" testimony as admitted during the WC testimony dealing with many issues.

As regards your "expert" witness, when I desire the testimony of experts, I seek those who have both the credentials, schooling, experience, and capability to independently evaluate and resolve problems in their specific area of expertise.

Under most circumstances, the term "Firearms and Toolmark Examiner" comes to mind when discussing ballistics evidence as these are the the persons who are truely qualified in these fields.

So, if your expert can provide his documentation which demonstrates this certification, along with his membership in the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners, then perhaps I would be somewhat impressed.

Obviously, it does not take even a smart person or a Firearms and Toolmark Examiner to know that a 4-groove rifle can not create more than four rifling grooves in a given bullet.

However, one should ask, exactly where are all of these multitudes of rifling grooves in the bottom two intact bullet photographs?

Also,, based upon the unsupported claims in regards to CE# 399, which are based entirely on the "Amazing Kresgin" method of problem resolution, it is doubtful that any such qualifications and certifications will be forthcoming from your experts.

Until then, I will continue to rely on those with the demonstrated credentials for independent and impartial evaluation of evidence.

Tom

P.S. Last time I checked, Mr. Looney was on the "Member of the Year" nominating committee for the AFTE.

I could not seem to find any of your author/experts listed anywhere there.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet-Continued

Having been somwhat distracted by the mythological 6-groove bullet claim, perhaps, there are those who have interest in facts.

Therefore, presentation of facts and knowledge as relates to CE#399 will continue.

In the event anyone would wish to see a "debunking" of the 6-groove bullet claim, then after ending this topic, I will address it.

Although it is normally left to Dr. McAdams to "debunk", in a few and rare instances I have also become involved in the issue.

As with the case of the mythological "cartridge casing conspiracy".

Dr. McAdams, although most certainly qualified in many areas, does not appear to have the required expertise or direct connections to experts in this type field.

As with the "cartridge casing conspiracy" the 6-groove conspiracy actually requires little expertise other than a common understanding of weapons and ballistic information.

Mere common sense can fully explain this terrible "enigma".

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet--7

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Bullet--7

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullet-8

It is quite the shame that with all of these quasi-experts in the fields of ballistics, etc; that none of them have ever taken the time to explain the loss of weight to a bullet from merely having been fired.

Not to mention the trouble and expense of obtaining virtually identical rifles and ammunition with which to conduct and present this testing.

But then again, "doubting Thomas", rest assured, is going to evaluate the facts and evidence for himself.

Far more likely to not be confused and mis-guided when evaluation of the facts is done in this manner.

Besides being the proper method of conducting research.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis