Gary Murr

Hi Lee:

Nice to see you posting again and I look forward to your overview on Sean's work in this area. It is a subject matter that never ceases to intrigue and one that I have been interested in for a long time.

Gary

You are welcome, Mark; and there really is much more to this subject matter than I had ever realized when I started this investigative venture almost eight years ago. Hopefully I can get "Forgotten" out by the end of the year. Unfortunately a medical issue sidetracked me for almost two months and my ability to continue to write and pursue this to the end will be hampered over the next several months. Nonetheless the project is 95% completed. One other little tidbit, again in an effort to advance the record of historical accuracy, the CIA were never the original "contractor" of this specific order for 4 million rounds of 6.5mm MC ammunition. Whether they later absconded with the ammunition is another matter altogether and one that I am currently trying to track down. Regardless of my efforts there are, I fear, going to be holes to fill and further leads to follow and I am already in the process of accumulating data and sketching the outline for "Forgotten II."

Gary

Bob...

Thought you might find this interesting and maybe help us less informed about guns and ammo people if this means anything ...

Seems the only two places in the Dallas-Irving area to get 6.5mm MC ammo was one of 2 places including Masens Gun shop.

The report below states that the ammo provided by Masen matched the cartridges found on the 6th floor... yet they were loaded with soft point ammo, not FMJ ammo.

Any significance to this?

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11176&relPageId=4

The reason Mr. Masen had a box of WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridges loaded with soft point hunting bullets is very simple. Some of Mr. Masen's customers owned Carcanos and the only ammo available would have been Italian SMI full metal jacket or WCC full metal jacket bullets. As FMJ bullets are universally banned from hunting (due to their resistance to expand in a wound), this meant these owners were restricted to target shooting with their Carcanos. Using a bullet puller, Mr. Masen would extract the FMJ bullet, and seat a soft point hunting bullet into the neck of the cartridge.

However, this presents an interesting problem, and the reason I wished to speak with Mr. Masen. WC supporters have long maintained the WCC cartridges were made exactly to Italian specs, including the bullets loaded into the cartridges being the required .268 inch diameter. As I have stated before, the Carcano, with its uniquely deep rifling grooves, had to shoot a bullet .268 inch in diameter in order to be accurate, while the vast majority of other 6.5mm rifles shot a bullet .264 inch in diameter.Therefore, if Mr. Masen pulled .268 inch FMJ bullets from the WCC cartridges, he would have had to replace them with .264 inch SP bullets, as there would not have been .268 inch SP bullets available in 1963.

Of course, the .264 inch bullets would have been a sloppy fit in a .268 inch neck. Was he required to resize the cartridge necks in a die? Or were the WCC cartridges loaded with .264 inch bullets, and no resizing was required?

Hello Bob:

While I personally feel that the last thing in the world many fellow researchers would accuse me of being would be a "WC supporter," I can assure you that the 6.5mm MC bullets manufactured by the WCC were "made exactly to Italian specs" and are not .264 inches in diameter. On the other hand they also are not specifically and precisely .268 inches in diameter - but they are close, in truth less than one-one thousandth of an inch shy of .268 inches and there is a specific reason as to why. I might indicate to you that I own 60 rounds of the 6.5mm WCC MC ammunition and I have measured everyone of them with a digital micrometer and more than once. The average diameter of the bullets I possess is .2678 inches. The question becomes, therefore, which "Italian specs" did the WCC utilize in producing their version of the 6.5mm MC bullet? The answer to this question, and many more, will be in my forthcoming work, "Forgotten." Nonetheless and for the purposes of both this thread and historical accuracy as to the true diameter of the WCC ammunition in question, a brief preview is offered herein.

As you are well aware, 6.5mm carcano ammunition had been manufactured by Italian concerns since the 1890's. When the WCC entered into contract DA-23-196-ORD-27 to produce some 4 million rounds of 6.5mm MC ammunition they did so fully realizing that they had never produced, in their past, ammunition of this specific nature. They were initially supplied a series of "certified drawings" of Italian lineage from the OSAAC - the Ordnance Small Arms Ammunition Center - drawings which though detailed and accurate were not particularly legible, in areas, and contained written data that was [understandably] in Italian only. C. E. Becker, WCC employee and at the time of this contractual agreement the Head of the WCC Government Sales Department, wrote the St. Louis Ordnance District in an effort to obtain better/clearer copies of these same Italian drawings. He was informed that copies of the drawings he requested were not on file at the headquarters of the St. Louis Ordnance District and that the drawings already in the possession of the WCC, obtained from the OSAAC, "were made from the same original as those previously supplied you. Therefore, they will not be more legible." In total the WCC received 12 certified Italian drawings covering all aspects of not only the "bullet' component of 6.5mm MC ammunition but also drawings detailing specifics of the cartridge, test barrels, primers, forged carbon steel test barrels, etc. The specific bullet drawing that Western used to generate their 6.5mm MC bullet is drawing number E93b05/2 prepared under the auspices of the D.S.S.T.A.M., an acronym that stands for Direzione Superiore del Servizio Tecnico di Armi e Munizioni - Headquarters Arms and Munitions Technical Services. This bullet drawing had been constructed on April 4, 1940, by Italian ballistician G. B. Liarosini. This drawing is very specific and it clearly indicates that the finished "diameter" of this bullet is to be 6.8mm, which converts to 0.267717 inches. I have put the word "diameter" in quotations intentionally. As you know, a bullet's diameter is not uniform but rather shows a gradual increase in the "size" of the diameter beginning at the shank portion of the bullet where the ogive curvature ends. In the case of the 6.5mm MC bullet manufactured by the WCC the diameter increases exponentially beginning at 0.258 inches at the beginning of the shank in increments of roughly .002 inches up to the cylindrical "uniform" middle of the bullet where it becomes 0.267 inches.

I also was able to find documentation that supports what I originally stated in my first response in this thread regarding Masen pulling the WCC bullets and substituting SP "hunting" bullet. The FBI interviewed John Thomas Masen on March 26, 1964 at which time "he advised he used a Herter's Bullet Puller in changing these bullets." The bullets he did not "pull" he "sold...with a military load."[FBI 105-82555-3108, p. 10] And in answer to another question you posed elsewhere in this thread, as far as I have been able to ascertain, Masen never sold individual MC clips.

Gary

It is only my opinion, David, and I will offer a "Reader's Digest" version as it is an extremely complex subject matter. In essence, and again IMO, I have concluded that Redlich et al were well aware of what they would find when they arrived in Dealey Plaza for the staff controlled reconstruction, May 24th. Actually, the reconstruction effort was originally scheduled for a week earlier, May 17th, but was postponed a week. The main reason for this was that once Rankin had given the commission staff his blessing for the reconstruction, something that he was probably always going to do, he had labored under the assumption that the FBI, on behalf of the commission, still possessed Zapruder's camera and thus it could be used in DP. Unfortunately, this was not the case so the FBI were contacted and asked to re-acquire the camera for reconstruction use purposes. Again, IMO the staff counsel most interested in "selling" the Commission group of seven the SBT intended to use the reconstruction to elaborate on the fallacies of the FBI/SS reconstruction efforts already on the record. In essence it was to a certain extent a redundant charade foisted off onto the Commission, most of whom were more than willing to accept it. What they had to assure was "physically possible" was the SBT, a theoretical concept of linearity that focused on the linear "truth" of the SBT - i.e. Kennedy and Connally "line-up", no whole bullet found in the limo, a bullet of [questionable] lineage found at Parkland, miserably tortured by Specter into being found, in turn, on Connally's stretcher, thus voila, it works! Of course the hypothesis requiring "substantiation" of the underlying conclusion that Oswald was guilty is the SBT and nothing else. In summary then, and again only my opinion, the staff controlled reconstruction undertaken in DP over that May 24th weekend was utilized for, at minimum, two purposes: [1] undercut the reconstruction conclusions reached by the FBI and SS - in particular make sure potentially valid points of "late" impact plotted by the FBI/SS were "moved" and, [2] the only solution viable is/was to be the SBT. I further feel that Melvin Eisenberg and others had already worked out the distances to be used once the reconstruction was underway and had done so well in advance of the actual reconstruction effort.

Again, FWIW

Actually David this sentence you have taken from the lengthy Redlich-to-Rankin letter/memorandum of April 27, 1964 relates to a singular issue - a plea by a select coterie of Warren Commission lawyers, namely Redlich, Specter, Belin, and Eisenberg, to hold their own assassination reconstruction in Dealey Plaza. And why? Because "the facts which we now have in our possession" are the results of the "separate reports" - read reconstructions - already completed, and on more than one occasion, by members of the FBI and the SS. And what was it about these same reconstructions that this group of lawyers felt was so "totally incorrect" and in turn leading to "a completely misleading picture"? The fact that both members of the FBI and the SS involved in these same reconstructions felt that only three shots were fired and that all three shots "hit" their mark. Of course belief in this three-shot-three-hit scenario runs anathema to the single bullet theory, something that the Commission lawyers just cannot accept as being "true." Not only that, but these same reconstructions also disagree [a] among themselves - the SS and the FBI - as to where these three impacts occur, and these same impact points chosen also disagree with the eventual Commission lawyers impact point reconstruct of a three shot scenario. That, in essence, is what another current lengthy thread under discussion here on the Forum involving Chris, Bob Prudhomme, and others is really all about - an attempt to first understand the impacts chosen by members of the FBI and SS in their reconstructions and why these same points were chosen. Acceptance of any FBI or SS reconstructions generated prior to the construct of the Commission lawyer staff "official" version as represented by the SBT was akin to taking poison. In truth, the SBT was not the brainchild of Arlen Specter; rather, it was generated by Norman Redlich, though both Specter and Belin would turn out to be the most vocal proponents in defense of this, the indefensible. My study of the surviving record would seem to indicate that the bulk of what was to eventually transpire in Dealey Plaza over the weekend of May 24, 1964, the Commission staff generated and controlled reconstruction - was actually put together over the weekend of March 16, 1964 and the driving force behind this was Melvin Eisenberg. I would also agree to disagree with your blanket statement that "none of the SS/FBI/CIA evidence is worth...xxxx" as it relates to the assassination and that the WC lawyers in turn knew this to be true. I actually think that there were many in the employ of the FBI and the SS who never accepted or believed in the SBT, as there were countless others, including John Connally and many learned individuals involved in all things medical and the assassination event who also did not believe in the SBT and never would. These opinions were of course rejected by lawyers on the Commission staff, hell-bent on pursuing and eventually selling their version of the history of November 22, 1963. FWIW

Gary

Hi Tommy:

While I assume one could not completely rule out your hypothetical thought of marking a piece of evidence with the tip of a "common pocket knife or jack-knife", I believe in this instance one would be hard-pressed to do so accurately, particularly on this, the surface of a metal-jacketed military style round of ammunition. The implement of choice in marking evidence of this nature [as well as other types of evidence] utilized by members of the FBI Lab, and for that matter individuals such as Lt. J. C. Day and members of the DPD - Crime Unit, was a diamond point pencil. If you view good high resolution images of C1/CE399 you can see the initials of FBI Lab employees Robert Frazier, ["RF"], Charles Killion ["CK"], and Cortland Cunningham ["JH"], all of which are etched near the "front"/rounded end of the bullet. This surface obviously is not flat and presents its own set of difficulties when one attempts to mark one's initials on this somewhat smooth/rounded surface. And regardless of what one may read, or have read elsewhere, there are no other initials on the surface of C1/CE399, in particular those of Elmer Todd.

Gary

Tom Neal:

From your post #8 herein and in answer to the questions you posed of me.

One has to assume that Elmer Todd, not a member of the main FBI Lab in Washington, would not have had an implement in his possession with which to mark his "initials" on the bullet at the time it was theoretically given to him by SS Chief, James Rowley. If this assumption on my part is true, then Todd would have had to have put his initials on this bullet at some point in time after acquisition of this bullet and after acquiring the implement necessary to etch his initials into the surface of the bullet, one would assume after arriving at the FBI Lab with this same bullet. However, as stated previously, Todd's initials are not onC1/CE399, while the initials of others in the employ of the FBI Lab who did examine the exhibit in question - i.e. Robert Frazier et al - are on this same bullet/exhibit. My conclusion from all of this would be that Todd received a bullet from Rowley, took it to the FBI Lab in Washington, but never put his initials on this same bullet. There are those who will contend that Todd did mark the bullet in question and with the passage of time his initials have somehow disappeared - a theoretical nuance that is ridiculous to the extreme. As far as substitution of a bullet in an effort to buttress/further frame an emerging case being built against the alleged accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, when would this substitution have taken place, and where? And when would this same bullet have been fired from "Oswald's" rifle? Not only fired, but distorted/flattened along the axis as it approaches the base of the bullet. Just asking...

Gary Murr

And of course, David, there is the last statement attributed to Elmer Todd in CE 2011 - that he, and he alone among those identified in this particular report/CE was able to identify C1 [399] as the bullet he received from Rowley based, it is further stated, upon "initials marked" on this same piece of ballistics evidence. As John Hunt long ago showed, and I personally can confirm, having handled CE 399, Elmer Todd's initials are not on C1. I might also indicate to you that my extensive research on the true history of WCC 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition clearly indicates that the CIA were not responsible for initially "ordering" any of this ammunition from Western, a "speculation" initiated by FBI Lab Night Shift Supervisor, Jay Cochran, a speculation, in turn, that as far as I have been able to ascertain has absolutely no basis in fact.

The difference in the Tippit murder being, Ian, that in that instance the shell casings found at the scene were of two different manufacturer's - Remington/Peters [2] and Western/WCC [2]. In the instance of the potential in this thread, applicable to 6.5mm WCC MC ammunition we are talking about a singular manufacturer only - the Western Cartridge Company - with two "different" bullets - SP and "regular" as loaded by Western in 1954.

David:

No real significance here unless, of course, one could "prove" that the assassin purchased 6.5mm WCC MC ammo from Masen and used it in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. While this type of SP bullet could have produced fragmentation after-effects as witnessed on the JFK autopsy skull/head x-rays, if one believes that this SP bullet/ammunition was used in the commission of this crime, and CE399 was a part of this same crime, one would have to account for an assassin [or assassin's?] utilizing multiple yet "different" types of 6.5mm WCC MC bullets. What this document and others produced by the FBI lab on this specific issue indicates is that Masen pulled some of the bullets originally affixed to the cartridge during their manufacture by Western and replaced them with SP - soft-point "hunting" type bullets. In fact, one of the documents generated by the FBI even speculates as to what type of instrument Masen used in removing the original bullets that he did when he acquired his lots of ammo. And Western did not load any of the 4 million plus rounds of 6.5mm MC ammo that they produced with SP bullets.

Gary Murr

Agreed, Bob.

No; I believe what myself and others were doing was comparing the Graves data to C2766. Can you tell me where in the TSBD, or elsewhere, the M91 Carcano long rifle was found?

Thanks, Chris; I actually found the article, or reference to it, in numerous newspapers published on November 24th, 1963. What I was interested in ascertaining was just when Graves was alleged to have made this statement with its very specific "measurements". Fourteen of the newspapers I have found have this article as a separate news piece with headings such as ""Italian Made Rifle Used" and "Weapon Popular With Sportsmen Killed Kennedy." In every instance where these Graves quotes are the body of the smaller article, the story is merely attributed, not unexpectedly, to "UPI." However two of the articles begin with slightly different opening sentences, both of which identify just when Graves was alleged to have given out this information, to wit: - "The rifle used by the assassin to murder President Kennedy was an out-moded Italian made 6.5 Carcano, popular now among sportsmen, a Dallas police officer said Saturday." This same Dallas police officer is then identified in these articles as "Homicide Inspector L. C. Graves." Obviously the measurements given by Graves to the press on Saturday regarding the "out-moded Italian made 6.5 Carcano" rifle/weapon are wrong, not attributable to C2766 as pointed out elsewhere in this thread. So too the caliber of bullet this same longer Carcano is said to have utilized and its velocity - ".270-.280 ammunition at speeds of 2,500 - 2,800 feet per second" are no where near the specs for 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company or for that matter 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by a variety of Italian concerns.

I would also like to make comment that you appear to be on the right track in associating the Graves measurements for "his" weapon with the specifications of the little known Italian manufactured Japanese weapon. I actually have photographs of the Japanese representatives at the Terni plant in 1938, which I acquired during my research for the forthcoming work, "Forgotten."

FWIW

Gary

Hi Chris:

A quick question for you, if I may; what is the date on the newspaper article you linked herein containing the Graves comments?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Though I am agreement with some of what Bill Simpich outlines in his Chapter 6 - "The Set Up and the Cover Up", it must be pointed out that he is incorrect in stating, as he does under the subheading "The humanitarian weapon," that CE's 510 and 716 "do not show three shells on the sixth floor - they show two shells and one live round." An examination of first generation HD prints generated from the negatives that produced the poorly reproduced images present in the CE's in question do show three spent cartridge cases and only three spent cartridge cases on the floor in the area of the alleged snipers nest; there is no "live round" present in these images. FWIW

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49459/?q=texas%20school%20book%20depository

click on "Extra Large" size - 1500 x 1885

Gary

In my opinion, Robert, I don't believe that Olin representatives were "acting out of concern for customer confidentiality." If anything, and again to use your wording it is a "stretch" and only speculation on my part, some and I stress some Olin employees may have been acting out of "concerns" for Olin's reputation rather than anything to do with the customer who placed the order in the first instance - and I must reiterate that as far as I have been able to ascertain this customer was not the CIA. There is little question, based upon my acquisition and study of 100+ pages of internal Western/Olin correspondence, including memorandum, that deals specifically and only with the issue of this 6.5mm ammunition, writings by employees who truly were "in the know," that the revelation that the ammunition found and assumed to have been responsible for the death of a President had been manufactured by Western caused more than a little consternation. It is rather interesting to see the responses from Olin representatives in the late 1960's and even into the 1970's to those who wrote them asking for information about this ammunition; there is a discernible difference between those handled as "conspiracy" theorists and others from the opposite side of the assassination fence, so to speak. However, in the main answers given by those at Olin who had been involved with the production of this ammunition from its very inception were truthful - some people just got "better" answers than others. Olin employees such as Botts and Gebelein were most definitely not "in the know" regarding the true history of this ammunition and there is no indication among the documentation that I have acquired to indicate that they made any effort to discover the details of this same process. On the other hand individuals such as A. S. Hill and W. H. Bellemore were very much "in the know" and as they indicated in correspondence with a private researcher in the mid 1980's, statements issued by Bott's et al that indicated a 1944 dating for this ammunition were incorrect. I can assure you that there were absolutely no orders procured or asked of Olin/Western during WW II that required the production of 6.5mm carcano ammunition. On the other hand, and as a matter of potential interest to you, the WW I contract files of Western indicate that between November 23, 1914 and October 3, 1915, Western received no fewer than seven contract requests for the production of 6.5mm ammunition, three of which were specifically designated as required for use in "6.5mm Italian Model 91/95 rifles and for machine guns."

You are welcome, Robert - as well as exactly right.

Larry, Robert, Monk, et. al.

As it turns out, this subject matter was/is complex beyond any original concept I had when I decided to follow the old Penn Jones Jr. edict and "study the hell" out of what was known and not known about this particular ammunition. As I indicated previously, this search has gone on for over eight years and while not completely "solved," I have uncovered a wealth of information that is new.

Starting with Larry's input at post # 28, this thread; as you know, Larry, based at least in part upon writings I sent you that you were gracious enough to incorporate/mention into your great book, Shadow Warfare, Sam Cummings and Interarmco/Interarms were on my list of multiple potential "suspects" when it came to the end users of the 6.5mm WCC ammunition. However, and I must apologize for I cannot now remember precisely what materials I sent you, after spending considerable time studying some 14,000+ pages of documentation that related to PBFORTUNE and PBSUCCESS, as well as being fortunate enough to come across a former Interarms office employee who took it upon himself to rescue the bulk of the Cummings records from destruction after Sam's death, an individual who unashamedly identifies himself as the only true "archivist" of the records of Interarmco, I now know that Cummings/Interarmco/Interarms never possessed any 6.5mm WCC ammunition - not one single round. Again based upon my study of the records it is apparent that while Cummings may have coveted this particular ammunition he was wise enough to realize that the direct acquisition of these same rounds of ammunition by him and his company would have opened the doorway of potential federal prosecution and thus avoided becoming involved. He did, as I point out in my forthcoming work, attempt to back door the successful "owners" of this reacquisition of 6.5mm WCC ammo - the International Firearms Company of Montreal - through the planting of information with both the Office of Munitions Control and the Secret Service, but was unsuccessful in what he was really attempting to attain - the elimination of a major North American competitor. But that is a lengthy story unto itself.

Robert - re your post # 27. I am, of course, very familiar with the comments of Mr. Botts as well as the letter from H. J Gebelein to Lane associate, Stewart Galanor. Therefore in answer to the three propositions you put forth I can and will state the following:

1.] Neither Lane nor Meagher "lied." Rather, they were both lied to by representatives of the Olin corporation. Statements issued by both of the sources quoted by Lane and Meagher are unquestionably false and the ammunition in question was not "made against Government contracts completed in 1944."

2.] The infamous December 2, 1963 memorandum "from" Jevons "to" FBI lab boss, Ivan Conrad - a document that was actually constructed as I have repeatedly indicated by SA Jay Cochran - can best be described as "deceptive." Does it contain outright lies? Yes - for example, the "two page copy of the records of Western..." are no such thing. In addition, these same "records" also do not indicate any involvement with the U. S. Marine Corps, let alone any element of the CIA. As with most artfully constructed FBI memorandum, one has to examine it very carefully. In doing so you will note that it is Cochran, the author of the memo, who indicates that the concept of some form of mutual deception on the part of the Marines and the CIA "for concealment purposes" is speculation - and that is all it is - speculation. Who was the original author of this speculative rumor is something that continues to elude me. There is absolutely no doubt that members of the FBI lab involved in this entire affair, and in particular just what this "unique" ammunition was or represented, had to have discussed this issue among themselves. I also know to an absolute certainty that other members of this same FBI lab knew more about this ammunition than was ever revealed to the WC. If this same information, in turn, was passed along to Frazier, Cochran, etc or was given the "deep six" as suggested by the individual who passed this information along to lab hierarchy, is something that I do not know.

3.] In essence I have answered this option in part 1.] herein.

I do believe you are on the right "track" in your thought process here, Robert. Indeed, the way I approached the formidable question of who would want this ammunition in 1954 was to make a list of potential end-users, including as I have indicated Sam Cummings and Interarmco [for monetary gain] and then accumulate all I could on each potential suspect. Albania was/is on my list, as are numerous other countries and entities, including the American military and the CIA. Unfortunately you will have to wait for my answer to this endeavor. I will, however, reveal the following. Though the ammunition in question was eventually manufactured and shipped in 1954, under contract DA-23-196-ORD-27, the original contract had called for the completion of the order no later than December 31, 1952. As it was phrased on the "Continuation Sheet" of the invitation to bid on the contract, a document that bears order number ORD-23-196-52-9, "Early delivery will be a factor in making the award if all other conditions of the bid, expect price, are equal." As it turns out, Western were the successful bidder on this contract and were notified of their success by way of a "Copy of Notice of Award," dated June 27, 1952, at which time the "official" contract number DA-23-196-ORD-27 was affixed to the successful Western bid. The contract was to eventually undergo five "Contract Modifications" before the eventual production of the four million rounds of ammunition. Just how and why it took Western two years to complete the task is a large part of the story I am currently attempting to finish.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Hello Brad:

I thank you for your response and am glad to see your continued interest in the Ed Forum. One of the positive offshoots of those who have chosen to keep this forum alive - and we all owe a great debt of thanks to James, Kathy, Pat, et al for sticking with this endeavor - is to see the arrival of "hobbyists" such as yourself and many others who have chosen to help keep the subject matter of November 22, 1963 alive - not only that but to contribute in whatever way to a further understanding of what is involved in educating oneself on this same topic. It is not my intent to hijack this thread from its original theme - that of the extremely slippery Dan Rather and his "history" with the Zapruder film - and so the comments I offer hereafter regarding 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the WCC are included merely as information on what I hope will be available to all in 2015.

I have spent the last eight years researching and accumulating all manners of documentation on basically one item - this same 6.5mm ammunition and in particular its true history from "birth" to the discovery of components of this same family of four million plus on the sixth floor of the TSBD on that Friday afternoon in November of 1963. To that end I have collected in excess of 200,000 pages of information on this subject matter - some of it directly related, some of it peripheral but absolutely necessary to the chronological history of this same ammunition. This same long and winding road has led me to numerous archival holdings many of which I have personally visited, five here in my native Canada [Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg], four different branches of NARA in the United States, including New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. In addition I have corresponded and acquired documents from archives in England, France, Germany, and Italy. I have also corresponded with individuals who worked for and at the East Alton plant of the Western Cartridge Company, individuals who were at this location at the time this ammunition was manufactured and though many are of advancing age, that does not deter from either their first hand accounts and in two instances absolutely vital collections of primary resource materials that they have kept all of these years, documents which I now possess and have used extensively in my forthcoming book on this subject matter. To be sure there are still missing pieces to this puzzle, but it is my opinion that what I have discovered is of interest and will dissolve many of the myths that have circulated regarding this ammunition since the discovery of the memorandum of speculation generated by FBI Lab night shift supervisor, Jay Cochran, on December 2, 1963. Not surprisingly two of the most important players in this entire affair have been the least cooperative with me - the Olin Corporation, who still controls what is left of the Western Cartridge Company, and the surviving members of the Sucher family who continue to run Century Arms International. If one does not know the historical background of both of these entities one cannot fully understand the history of the 6.5mm WCC ammunition. On the other side of the coin I have been pleasantly surprised with the cooperation I have received from numerous branches of the American military, in particular current archivists and historians associated with and working in the Ordnance Department and the Joint Munitions Command. But I fear I ramble on. To a large extent I agree with fellow researcher, Larry Hancock, when he indicates that at times forums are an "insufficient" vehicle of explanation, without having the time and space to lay out background information. And like Larry I have spent a great deal of time and hours of study in an effort to piece this puzzle all together.

In closing I thank you for the link to the work of John Armstrong, an article I am familiar with. Suffice to say I have a great deal to add to this area of John's work, in particular what I have discovered about the FBI and their contact with Louis Feldsott, a minor but important "player" if you will in the history of WCC 6.5mm ammunition - and I also am very familiar with the "other" carcano, bearing serial number 2766 - after all it and this ammunition made their way back onto the North American continent as a result of efforts undertaken by the historical precursor of Century Arms International - the International Firearms Company of Montreal.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Hello Brad:

I thank you for the link to jfkfacts.org regarding the ongoing discussion at that site regarding the ammunition alleged to have been used in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 - and don't worry, I am sure that Bob Prudhomme can handle any "heat" thrown his way! As Bob and others who have known me for quite some time can attest, I am not now nor have never pretended to be a ballistics "expert," whatever that terminology entails. However, I can assure you that I am an "expert" - there is that word again - on the true history of the 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition physically manufactured in 1954 - and only in 1954 - by the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois. And I mean no disrespect to Greg Burnham, an articulate researcher, when I state that most if not all of what he indicates in this thread, post # 20, is inaccurate, with the only accurate statement being that it is true that the U. S. Marine Corps did not possess in 1954, nor at any time prior to that year or thereafter, a weapon or weapons that could fire this specific and rather unique family of 6.5mm ammunition.

Gary Murr

Brad Milch @ Post # 16:

"...I was quite startled to learn that the 'Oswald weapon' fired bullets manufactured in the 1950's under contract for the CIA."

This statement is not true.

Gary Murr

Don -

No apologies necessary. I am fairly certain that I would fall into your categorization of one of those "who have studied this subject for decades" and as anyone who knows me well realizes, I am not a "lone nutter" by any definition one would wish to apply. There is no question that John Hunt has done some excellent research work and until such time as he sees fit to release, in total, what he has accumulated on this subject matter, if he ever makes that decision, we are only left with what he "publishes" for our consumption. Whether it is "right" or "wrong" is left up to the individual to decide. I did not intend to hi-jack this thread and I do believe somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of pages that I have accumulated since 1966 I believe I have some material that relates to the construction of the "dummy" pictured in the photographs John displayed in this article. Of course, I am not the neatest of researchers when it comes to cataloging this same collection, something I keep promising myself will be my retirement project! I appreciate your comments, as I do those of Cliff and others and suffice to say I know as well as anyone that evidence was corrupted. That being the truth of the matter, the job before us then becomes the search for what we can trust and most importantly, at least from my perspective, to do so with an eye toward historical accuracy, at the very least.

No - what I am challenging is the conceptual nuance that a bullet - and I assume you are of the belief that a bullet of some sort entered the throat of JFK - that this same bullet some how magically disappeared, has or left apparently no visible point of "exit." And since I am not the individual proposing that "the posterior wound was high" I feel no reason to defend this position. Indeed, I don't believe I indicated anywhere within this thread that I need defend even John Hunt's position, in particular his "money quote". What I am curious about, however, is just where you think the bullet that entered JFK's throat went - and please feel free to "defend" your answer to this question with research and documentation. I would really be intrigued to see what this bullet looks like.

I preface my response to this thread, and in particular to the comments offered by those who have chosen to do so, by indicating that though I have known and exchanged materials with John Hunt for close to a decade he does not need me to defend any of his work - it stands on its own merits. Having said this I must admit that I am surprised at the responses offered by those who obviously cannot comprehend what is involved when one attempts true research. I fail to see, after repeated readings of this essay, where John Hunt presented any of us with either "nonsense" or "propaganda." And to further indicate that John "is not a researcher to be taken seriously", or is an individual who threatens the cocoon of Camelot is truly nonsense. Far too often this forum, like many others, is flooded with garbage that makes a mockery of the word "research", more often than not threads started by individuals who don't have the first clue about research beyond the ability to type the word "Google" into their computers - once they figure out how to turn them on! And if you truly want a sentence that epitomizes the concept of nonsense, start with this one: "Therefore, the throat wound was an entrance with no exit." On the other hand, as James Gordon indicated, the essay is a fascinating read even if it does make some individuals uncomfortable.

Thank you for this, Ernie; as some one who has filed FOIA requests in your country, and been down the same road here in my native Canada with the Library and Archives, Canada, Access to Information, Privacy and Document Delivery Services Division as well as the RCMP and CSIS, I find your listing most impressive, as is your current posted collection through Internet Archives. I look forward to reading through these latest additions.

Gary