Gary Murr

Hello Robert: I thank you for taking the time to construct a thoughtful response to my posting. And while it is not my intent to debate the semantics of just what Dr. Gregory stated in the quote you posted - which is from Gregory's testimony session of April 21, 1964 - he did make a somewhat similar statement almost a month earlier on March 23, 1964, during his deposition session with the same Arlen Specter. At that time he phrased his description of the "wrist" wound in this manner: MR. SPECTER. What did you observe with respect to the wound of his wrist? DR. GREGORY. I didn't see the wound of his wrist until after the chest operation had been completed, because his arm was covered by the operation drapes, the surgical drapes for the chest procedure. MR. SPECTER. And when you did have the opportunity to observe the wound of the wrist, what then did you see? DR. GREGORY. I observed the wound on the dorsal aspect of his wrist, which was about 2 cm in length, ragged, somewhat irregular, and lay about an inch and a half or two inches above the wrist joint. It was a little to the radial side of the wrist area. There was a second wound in the wrist on the volar surface, about a centimeter and a half proximal to the distal flexion crease and this wound was a transverse laceration no more than a centimeter in length and did not gape. MR SPECTER. When you say on the dorsal aspect, what is that? DR. GREGORY. In lay terms thats equivalent to the back of the hand. MR. SPECTER. And the volar is equivalent to what? DR. GREGORY. The palm surface of the hand. [4H97-98] I find it interesting that in describing the "wrist" wound of entrance Dr. Gregory while indicating this entrance point was on the dorsal aspect [not dorsal surface] of the wrist the doctor also indicates that this same entrance aperture was a "little to the radial side of the wrist area." Again, we can argue semantics all we want, but my interpretation of this deposition description is an attempt on Dr. Gregory's part to indicate to Specter that the entrance wound was not directly on the dorsal aspect/"back of the hand" -his afformentioned "lay terms" - but rather lay a little on/to the side of the fractured right radius, as Gregory drew it on his post-op note sheet. This description by Dr. Gregory mirrors what the doctor wrote on the same sheet of his handwritten post-op notes, which were constructed in point form and I list them below as he wrote them, complete with the doctors abbreviations etc.: Op note: - Open, comminuted fracture of the R radius - distal 1/4 due to missile wound. - wound of entry 2 cm x .5 cm, oblique, radial, side - wound of exit 0.5 cm - mid line, 2 cm proximal to flexion crease of wrist And I agree wholeheartedly with you when you indicate that irrespective of interpretation, John Connally's wrist wound "does not bode well for Specter's SBT." It never did, and it never will. And of course this little discussion is but the tip of the colloquial iceberg when it comes to the wounding of John Connally. FWIW Gary Murr

Gentlemen: If I may interject here ever so briefly, in an effort to help everyone involved in this thread [and to a large extent in a previous thread that dealt with CE 399 and its impact on the right radius of John Connally], I am hopefully attaching two images which indicate the actual point of impact of the missile which caused the fracture to the distal fourth ["bottom" end] of John Connally's right radius, and one should be clear on this point - the fracture was on the Governor's radius, not his "wrist" as is most commonly and inaccurately stated. One is a sketch I had prepared by a medical student onto which I have place a red dot indicating the point of impact; the other is an enlargement from the first page of the original, handwritten post-op notes prepared by Dr. Charles Gregory less than two hours after he completed his operating procedures. Part of Dr. Gregory's rational for constructing this diagram was to indicate what he meant by leaving a portion of the radial wound site "open" - i.e. not sutured closed. This was done in the event that Dr. Gregory had missed impact debris, irrespective of its makeup, debris in turn that might have caused infection. Please note where Dr. Gregory drew this impact aperture - on the lateral side of the end of the radius. Dr. Gregory was right-handed and thus when he drew this diagram he did so while using his left arm as a "model" that is why we, the viewer, are looking at a sketch that shows the "left" radius. I discussed this issue with Dr. Shaw and he indicated to me that this was indeed true. If you read Dr. Gregory's testimony before the WC you will note that he also drew this same impact point for those members of the Commission present during his April 21, 1964 testimony session. And again, because Dr. Gregory was right handed, he drew this impact point for the Commission on his left radius, a point again confirmed for me by Dr. Shaw. The main point here is that whatever struck the end of John Connally's right radius did not impact on the "top" or back/middle of the end of the right radius. Rather it struck this same radius along its lateral, right side, slightly toward the top of the radius but not on the top of the radius. When you look at the PMH pre-op X-ray of this radial wound, an image that was taken facing the palmar surface of the right arm and hand, you will note that this same lateral impact has caused the fracture to be dispersed laterally toward the end of the right ulna. And finally when you compare the Connally pre-op X-rays of this wound site, both lateral and palm-facing, to those "comparative" X-rays generated during the Edgewood Arsenal tests of attempted duplication, you will note just how severe the disruption of bone and tissue is in the Edgewood images versus those of the PMH images. FWIW Gary Murr

Is Ms. Standridge still alive? Hello Robert: No, unfortunately Standridge died in October of 2004 in Richland Hills, Texas, a "suburb" of Fort Worth, at the ripe old age of 90. I attempted to open a dialogue with the aging Standridge in the late 1990's with no success, which of course was her prerogative. Gary

Bjorn, Larry, et al. While I agree with the assessment that Price exhibited due diligence in asking those involved with the treatment afforded not only Kennedy and John Connally but also the mortally wounded Oswald when he was brought to Parkland on Sunday to commit their efforts to the written page, I do know that not everyone present and theoretically "involved" in these same efforts of care presented Price with a written account of their roles, regardless of how minor it may have been. Whether or not the historical record suffers to any great extent because of this is difficult to assess. In support of what Larry has already indicated, I personally contacted and interviewed both junior interns and nurses aides and students who were present at Parkland on that day regarding what, if anything, their role may have been, these overtures on my part initiated in conjunction with my work on the wounding of John Connally. In the main most observations were just that, observations of bystanders close to the event, though there was one exception of potentially great importance. However, what I have found interesting is that in examining the Price record, both as submitted to the Warren Commission and as originally gathered by the Secret Service, one glaring omission stands out. Nurse Jeanette Standridge was very involved with the initial care and treatment afforded John Connally. However, when one searches this Price record for her account all you will find is her written report of what she was involved in on November 24th regarding the admission and care attempts to save Oswald's life; there appears to be no surviving written record prepared by Ms. Standridge indicating just what she was involved in during the care afforded John Connally, this even though there are numerous indications from others who present their accounts of PMH maneuverings on November 22nd that mention Standridge. And while it is true that Standridge was eventually deposed by Arlen Specter, there remains no handwritten/typed account prepared by Standridge of just what she did on November 22nd. If nothing else she was and remains an important link in the chain of possession for the clothing of John Connally, not to mention certain personal items that were found in the Connally clothing itself. FWIW Gary Murr

Hi Larry: If memory serves me correctly, and this is strictly from memory for I am away from home at the moment, the official Edgewood Arsenal ballistics report, CRDLR 3264, was not issued until March of 1965, though the testing procedures that resulted in the eventual report were completed at the end of October, 1964. The tests were begun in April of 1964 and though some of the individuals involved in these tests testified before the Commission in May [?] of 1964, the written report was still some 11 months away. However, it is apparent that Dr. Olivier in particular was working from and with a set of notes when he testified before the Commission. These notes in turn were designated with the nomenclature MN-1811. I looked for these in a trip to NARA in 2000 but with no luck. Whether they were ever turned over to the Archives for preservation is not known, at least by me. FWIW Gary Murr

Thank you, Robert: I will be releasing further information on pricing structures for this volume, hopefully within the next month. I am also endeavouring to make it available in an "electronic" format for those who may wish to purchase it that way. Gary Murr

I apologize to Forum members for this re-post. If the moderators could remove the initial post and replace it with this one that would be great. A WORD format copy of the book cover was inadvertently posted; I have replaced it with the proper j-peg. Thanks, Gary Murr At this point in time fifty three years ago then Senator John F. Kennedy was in the process of running one of the most stunning and exhausting Presidential election campaigns in American history. Records of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum and those of the American Presidency Project indicate that in a matter of months in the early fall of 1960 the young Senator Kennedy travelled in excess of 40,000 miles, visiting every state of the Union on at least one occasion in an effort to rally as many potential voters to his side as was humanly possible. In October of 1960 alone Kennedy visited 22 different states in thirty-one days and delivered some 235 speeches and remarks over this same time span. October 2, 1960 had been a particularly gruelling day, one that began at the St Paul Hotel in St. Paul, Minnesota and ended some fourteen hours later at the Chase Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri. Undaunted Kennedy arose early on the morning of October 3, 1960 and on an overcast and cool autumn day that was laden with the impending threat of rain he and his entourage drove the roughly 22 miles from St. Louis to the historic town square of Alton, Illinois, site of the last of the famous Senatorial Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Wearing a light grey raincoat Senator Kennedy delivered a short but rousing speech to an enthusiastic but damp crowd that had gathered in Lincoln-Douglas Square. While security was a part of all candidates retinue, it obviously was not the pressing public concern it was to become roughly three years hence. Little did he know that while he referenced the wisdom of the speech Lincoln had given on the Alton site some one hundred and two years earlier young Senator Kennedy stood less than four miles from another site, the sprawling small arms manufacturing plant of the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois. As history would have it there are those who believe that Kennedy and a specifically select group of offspring created by the Western Cartridge Company would meet again just over three years later during a bright sunny noon hour motorcade in Dallas, Texas, with devastating consequences. But is this true? “Forgotten” is the story of a rather unique brand of 6.5mm ammunition said by many to have been responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy. Manufactured in the formative years of the Cold War by the Western Cartridge Company, “Forgotten” seeks to unravel the shroud of mystery that surrounds to date the history of this ammunition, riddled as it is with misconceptions and untruths. “Forgotten” will be available for purchase on October 3, 2013. Gary Murr

How can it be Bill Stinson? The man is dressed like a doctor. Was Stinson suddenly called upon to put on doctors' garb and treat Governor Connally? ~shrug~ Bill Stinson was in and out of OR # 5 on multiple occasions during the thoracic operational procedures conducted by Dr. Shaw and others. I interviewed Stinson and exchanged correspondence with him in the 1990's on this specific issue and others that related to the wounding of John Connally. And yes, he was required to put on the standard operating garb, including mask, as well as "scrub in" before allowed access to OR # 5. Gary Murr

Hello Robert: My, my, we are an impatient lot, aren't we. Unfortunately I am still gainfully employed and thus and in particular at this time of the year I must of necessity budget my time accordingly. When this is coupled with trying to complete simultaneously four different manuscripts one is left with little time for debate. Nonetheless, and realizing fully that it was I who started this portion of your thread, I will answer herein one of the two issues I raised in my initial response to you; the other will be forthcoming over the next day or two as I ready a release memo on a forthcoming major work. Understandably if one is to manufacture a quantity of small arms ammunition for use in a weapon or weapons it would make sense to ensure that this ammunition in turn is "serviceable," quaint terminology applied to 6.5mm WCC by the Chief of Ordnance, Materials Division [ORDTS] of the U. S. Army on February 16, 1954. To that end, and before the manufacture of some 4,000,000 million rounds of this same 6.5mm WCC ammunition was undertaken, a "Pilot Lot A" of some 2000 rounds bearing ammunition "Lot 6000" was manufactured by the WCC of East Alton, Illinois, on January 14, 1954. Approximately one month later, on the aforementioned February 16, 1954, 50 rounds of this Pilot Lot A 6.5mm WCC ammunition were subjected to two test procedures at the St. Louis Ordnance District plant of the Western Cartridge Company. Forty [40] rounds were subjected to velocity and pressure testing at 76 feet; a further ten [10] rounds were given an accuracy test at 600 yards. I possess copies of all of these test results and others that this Pilot Lot A of this ammunition were subject to some three days later at a different facility, in this instance the Development and Proof Services Division of the Small Arms and Aircraft Weapons Branch at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I am hopefully attaching two images from the velocity and pressure testing of February 16, 1954; the upper portion of page one of the results as well as an enlargement of the upper right corner of this same document. If I have done this correctly you will note a number of things of interest and importance. Among the data entered on this form is that this same 6.5mm WCC ammunition has been loaded with Western Ball Powder # 48516 and this charge weighs 44.4 grs. The case holding the charge and the bullet is constructed of "brass", the "Amm. Lot" number is 6000, the caliber is 6.5mm, the bullet weight is 1.61 grs., the M'F'R' - manufacturer - is W.C.C. and this ammunition bears "Headstamp WCC 54." As I said, I hope I have been able to upload these images and you find them of interest. This is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as the history of this ammunition is concerned. I have to admit that as I have studied and accumulated research materials on this subject matter over the past seven years I continue to be intrigued by the uniqueness of the entire project. However, if all goes well there is much, much more to reveal in the near future. As far as clarification/expansion on the issue of the small white cardboard containers manufactured to hold precisely 20 rounds of this ammunition at a time, I again will revisit this for you shortly. For now suffice to reveal that the manufacture of these containers began late in 1953 and was completed in 1954. I have acquired several boxes of all four lots of this ammunition over the years and can tell you this much. All of the boxes bearing lot numbers 6000 and 6001 that I have were manufactured in 1953, though I know to a certainty that the boxes were not "loaded" until 1954; and all of the boxes I have bearing lot numbers 6002 and 6003 were manufactured by this same concern in 1954. Gary Murr

Mr. Murr Sorry for not responding to your question sooner. It is an excellent question, and I am glad someone has the insight to ask it. Though my knowledge of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company is limited, I will answer your question as best I can and share with you my theories on that ammunition. I know of no way to make a Lone Nut froth at the mouth and blow smoke out his ears quicker than to question the Warren Commission's conclusions on the manufacture date of the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company. Officially, four lots of one million rounds per lot were made in 1954 for the United States Marine Corps, although no branch of the American armed forces was equipped with a weapon capable of shooting this round. Of course, there is a lovely cloak and dagger story to go along with this, shrouded in mystery, telling us the CIA was the actual recipient of this ammunition, and it was spirited away to some civil war on the far side of the planet. As the story goes, it was never actually used in that conflict, and, miraculously, found its way back into the USA to be sold as surplus ammunition. In Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book "Accessories After the Fact", is the following excerpt from a letter she received in response to her inquiries about the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition: "On March 23, 1964, Mr. R.W. Botts, District Manager, Winchester-Western Division, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Braniff Building, advised [that] the Western Cartridge Company, a division of Olin Industries, East Alton, Illinois, manufactured a quantity of 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the Italian Government during World War II. At the end of the war the Italian Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type ammunition, was sold to United States gun brokers and dealers and subsequently was distributed by direct sales to wholesalers, retailers, and individual purchasers." In Mark Lane's book "Rush to Judgement", another response from the same company to Lane associate Stewart Galanor regarding the manufacture of 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition by the WCC is quoted on page 411: "Any previous production on this cartridge was made against government contracts which were completed in 1944." Lone Nuts are quick to point out that "1944" in the letter to Mr. Galanor is a typo and should read "1954" but, in light of the "during World War Two" quoted in the letter to Ms. Meagher, this is, at best, a very weak argument. Of course, the obvious question is why would the American government be manufacturing 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges for a country allied with Nazi Germany during WWII. The simple fact of the matter is, when the southern part of Italy capitulated to Allied forces in 1943, and Mussolini was removed from power, German forces were still occupying the majority of Italy and were seen by the Italians as an oppressive occupying force. The disbanded Italian military was very quick to join forces with Allied troops, either as partisans or under direct command of Allied commanders. Official estimates tell us that, at one point, Italian fighting men made up one eighth of Allied combat troops in Italy. Of course, the majority of them would still be carrying their 6.5 mm Carcano rifles, and keeping them supplied with 6.5 mm ammunition would have been a real logistical concern for Allied commanders. Before we go further, it should be noted that I have been unable to uncover any evidence that the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition made pre-1944 actually ever made it into the hands of Italian troops or even into the hands of the new Italian government. It may have been manufactured as an insurance policy against the possibility of the war in italy lasting into 1946 or beyond. If it never left the USA, could it have sat in storage until 1954 and become part of the lot of four million rounds "manufactured" for the CIA? If the WCC 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, packed twenty rounds to a carton, had ever been delivered to the Italians, it may have been one of the major logistical errors of WWII; ranking right up there with pitting Sherman tanks against German Panzer and Tiger tanks. Similar to the M1 Garand, the 6.5 mm Carcano does not have a true magazine. Rather, six rounds are pre-loaded, at the factory, into an "en bloc" charger clip that, when inserted into the magazine box, becomes an integral part of the Carcano loading mechanism. Without this clip, the 6.5 mm Carcano cannot even be operated as a single shot rifle, unless one is patient enough to insert each round fired into the slot in the front of the bolt, prior to camming that round into the chamber. After the last round is chambered, this clip falls out the bottom of the magazine box, and is left on the battlefield as refuse. The Italian 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, made by SMI in Italy, came bagged in lots of eighteen rounds, loaded six to a clip in three clips. The WCC ammunition, made without these clips, would have required Italian troops to recycle used clips and, as they were designed for only one time use, it would not take long for them to be stressed to the point of being non-functional and a resulting shortage of clips would have ensued. It is this kind of oversight by the Dept. of Defense that makes one wonder just how knowledgeable they were about the 6.5 mm Carcano, prior to ordering ammunition for it from the WCC. Outside of its en bloc charger clip, there is another unusual feature that makes the 6.5 mm Carcano a unique rifle. While all 6.5 mm calibre rifles share the same bore diameter (6.5 mm or .256"), the diameter of the bullet fired by these rifles is, of course, larger at .264". This corresponds to the groove (riflings) diameter of these rifles and, in the majority of 6.5mm/.256" calibre rifles, this diameter is .264". The only two exceptions to this are the 6.5x54 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, firing a bullet .266" in diameter, and the 6.5x52 mm Carcano, firing a bullet .268" in diameter. The 6.5 mm Carcano rifle will fire a cartridge loaded with a bullet .264" in diameter but the loss in accuracy is very noticeable. After the introduction of surplus 6.5 mm Carcano rifles onto the American market in the 1950's, this problem plagued the shooting public for decades, as makers of sporting ammunition consistently loaded cartridges with the popular .264" diameter bullet, not realizing the particular needs of the 6.5 mm Carcano rifle. It was not that many years ago that the Norma company solved this problem by being the first to load cartridges for the 6.5 mm Carcano with bullets .268" in diameter. Needless to say, much of the bad reputation the Carcano rifles received stemmed from ammunition loaded with the wrong bullets. That being said, it is time to ask some serious questions about the 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition manufactured by the WCC. The debate over the manufacture date will likely rage on for another fifty years, and the matter is not aided by the fact that neither the WCC cartridges or the cartridge cartons they were packed in have a manufacture date on them. While most, if not all, military cartridges have a date or date code stamped on their bases, these cartridges bear only "WCC" and "6.5 mm". If these cartridges were made prior to 1944, what diameter of bullet were they loaded with? The only place on the planet making 6.5 mm bullets that were .268" in diameter was Italy and, if the DoD was making cartridges for the Italians, this surely tells us there was a shortage of bullets in Italy at that time. In other words, the WCC would not have been able to have purchased .268" diameter bullets from Italy. Therefore, the WCC would have been required to do one of two things; design all new bullet moulds in .268" diameter to supply what amounted to a handful of cartridges to Italian partisans, or obtain a supply of the more common .264" diameter bullets and load the cartridges with these. There is a very good chance, considering the ammunition was supplied without clips, that the DoD and the WCC were completely unaware of the Carcano's special needs and merely assumed the .264" bullet was the correct bullet. Even if they had been aware of the need for the .268" bullet, it must be remembered the USA was in the middle of a demanding war and was having more than enough problems supplying its own troops with ammunition. In the interests of economy, would anyone really have cared if the Italians ended up with cartridges loaded with slightly narrow bullets? As I said, the 6.5 mm Carcano will shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, albeit with a great loss in accuracy. However, a man presents a 2' x 5.5' target and, while it might not be possible to make head shots with a .264" bullet, a shot aimed at the mid-section is likely to hit a man somewhere on his body and take him out of the fight. To fully understand what I am getting at here, look at the two photos below. The first is a WC evidence photo of CE 399, the infamous "Magic Bullet", and the second is a .268" bullet handloaded for an "M38" Carcano carbine. This is a slight error on "Dr. Bill's" part, as the M38 was the 7.35 mm calibre Carcano. He most definitely was using an M91/38 Carcano carbine and can be forgiven this minor transgression, as it is a common mistake. http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCA2OK25Q_zps0d085ae9.jpg http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/6d26bdbf0c_md-1_zpsbda004de.jpeg The rifling marks on the .268" "Cruise Missile" appear to be deeper than the rifling marks on CE 399 (made by the Western Cartridge Company). Hello Robert: I thank you for your response to my original question concerning 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company and please, my name is Gary - Mr. Murr was my father. I have read your posting over carefully, in particular the portions that pertain directly to my original question, and would like to make the following comments. Let me preface what I herein write by indicating to you that those who know me I believe would refer to me as anything but a LN. And while I am sure that many here on this forum have found what you have written to be of interest, nonetheless I feel there are a few points that must be clarified concerning this particular subject matter. "Officially" there were six lots of this ammunition manufactured, not four, though the sum total of the "official" count is, as you have indicated, four million and all four million in turn comprise the four official lot numbers associated with this same ammunition. However, there is fragmentary documentation to indicate that more than four million rounds were actually produced by Western. What is true is that all of the official 6.5mm ammunition, as well as that unofficially produced and not "counted" was manufactured in 1954 and only in 1954. At least 2,000 rounds of this ammunition does bear a different headstamp than that normally associated with this ammunition, the familiar WCC 6.5mm, this 2,000 round lot actually having the headstamp WCC 54 on its base. There is likewise no documentation to support the contention that any of this ammunition was manufactured specifically by the Western Cartridge Company for the United States Marine Corps. This particular historical "fact" is actually the creation of the FBI, specifically SA Jay Cochran and is included in the somewhat infamous Conrad to Jevons memorandum constructed by Cochran under the date of December 2, 1963. In this same memorandum it is stated that the Springfield [Field] Office of the FBI had "obtained" from Western "copies of that Corporations records pertaining to the manufacture of this ammunition" but if this did happen just where this documentation went is unknown. What was purportedly identified as a "two-page copy" of these same complete records of manufacture on the part of Western of this ammunition, records in turn theoretically acquired by the Springfield Field Office of the FBI, does not represent in any way, shape or form the actual corporate record forms utilized in transactions by the Western Cartridge Company during the time frame in question. To their credit the FBI in the person of Jay Cochran did indicate that they were dealing in "speculation" when indicating that this order had been placed by the CIA with Western behind the cover of the USMC for purposes as yet to be determined but speculation is all that this was and is - to this very day. And in another burst of honesty the Bureau did further indicate that this ammunition could not be fired in any weapon utilized by the USMC, something that is undoubtedly true and as you rightly indicated in your post not only could it not be used in any weapon used by the Marines it could not be used or "fit" in any weapon utilized by any branch of the American military in the early years of the Cold War and indeed beyond. As far as I have been able to ascertain, after extensive study of government contracts issued to Western during the time frame from 1939 to 1945, the Western Cartridge Company never manufactured 6.5mm ammunition of this specific variety at all let alone in any quantity for the Italian Government in 1944 or at any point in time prior to 1944. The Western Cartridge Company did manufacture a number of different types of small arms ammunition for "Allies" during World War II, including the Chinese, but there is nothing that I have discovered to substantiate the claim that they did so for the Italian Government. The 6.5mm ammunition in question was manufactured as a result of a "government contract" but this contract was between Western and the United States Army [DA] not the Italian Government. I do agree wholeheartedly with you when you indicate that it is time to ask some serious questions concerning this ammunition and its manufacture by the WCC, in particular why and for whom this ammunition was specifically manufactured. But I do disagree with the contention that debate will continue as to the date of manufacture of this same ammunition. The small white cartons in which this ammunition was packed, 20 rounds at a time, does contain the date of manufacture of these same cartons. And when one discovers that these same cartons were a one-time order from a small packaging concern in Missouri, the door swings even further open for more questions of concern. In closing I found your posting informative and I hope members of this Forum appreciate the effort undertaken by you in not only supplying me with your answer, thought, and theories on this ammunition but in also taking the time to examine and explain the various nuances of 6.5mm ammunition, such as .264" vs .268" et al. for all Forum members. Gary Murr

I thank you for your informative reply, Robert; much appreciated. Though it is perhaps slightly off-topic, as an individual who obviously possesses expertise in matters ballistic, what is your opinion of the 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company? Gary Murr

Mr. Knight I see you have posted a link to a long-winded article by Thomas H. Purvis. Mr. Purvis is an interesting character. He seems to present himself as a conspiracy theorist but, in all the vast voluminous articles I have read by him, I have never quite deciphered just where or what he believes the conspiracy to be. Perhaps, it is just a lack of comprehension skills on my part, although I do notice he manages to interject several times that the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 is an accurate rifle and that JFK was killed as a result of three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you read my posts carefully, it will be plain that I am going places with the Carcano that Mr. Purvis does not go. Mr. Purvis has also posted several misconceptions regarding the Carcano, and I shall be glad to reveal them, if you are at all interested. Hello Robert: I, for one, would be very interested in your revelations regarding Tom Purvis' misconceptions regarding "the Carcano" and I hope you will enlighten us further. Gary Murr

Hello Robert: Just a quick question in conjunction with this informative post; did you consider the possibility that the 6.5mm WCC ammunition theoretically used in the assassination was compromised before it was loaded and fired and this compromised condition led, in turn, to the deformation/break-up noted and discovered after the event? Gary Murr

Karl: Can you indicate to me the moment in time along Elm Street where John Connally had his right hand on his left leg/thigh in the position indicated in the image you posted? Your image shows someone with their left hand on their left leg/thigh. This will not work for John Connally. Gary Murr

Hi Ray: I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me? Thanks, Gary Murr

No problem, James. I will look up the images when I get home later today or tomorrow and send them along to you. I also have a series of diagrams of the tree you are questioning re: the trimming and other foliage areas in Dealey Plaza that you might find useful. These sketches were made by SA'S Roy Rose, Paul Arey, and Brent Hughes, from Inspector Leo Gauthier's Exhibits Division of the FBI Lab, on December 4, 5, 6, 1963 in conjunction with their eventual construction of the FBI Dealey Plaza models. What you may find interesting is that these same sketches contain measurements of this tree - i.e. height, width, branch spreads etc - and of a lot of other trees and shrubs that they incorporated in their scale model. I was a little surprised to see that DVP did not know who Robert West was... Gary

James: Though the question has already been answered, I will add my two cents worth. DVP and others are correct - the black and white image you posted in your original message was taken on May 24, 1964. However, it was not taken by nor is it part of the Malcolm E. Barker collection. Rather this image was one of many taken by a "stringer" photographer hired by Holland McCombs to cover the event on behalf of TIME/LIFE. I have a contact sheet containing 24 black and white images taken by this individual [i am sorry I am at work right now and do not have the gentleman's name and I cannot recall it from memory but can post it if anyone is interested] as well as 7 or 8 enlargements from this same contact sheet. As a matter of interest, the large individual wearing the Stetson style cowboy hat in these various images is Dallas County Surveyor, Robert West. In the image you posted, James, you can see Arlen Specter beginning to cross Elm Street in front of the Queen Mary. In addition, if you look carefully at these images, including those from the 6th Floor Museum's Barker collection, you can spot, among others, Paul Hardin, who worked the "chains" for Robert West, Arlen Specter, Inspector James Malley of the FBI, and SS SA J. J. Howlett and SS Inspector Thomas Kelley, as well as Lyndal Shaneyfelt, all of whom, plus others, were in Dealey Plaza over this weekend. FWIW Gary Murr

I would like to take this opportunity to thank James Gordon for his unsolicited words concerning my forthcoming trilogy on the wounding of John Connally. I fear he is being far too kind and I am sure that there are those in the research community that will find my work not to their liking. That is, of course, your prerogative. I hope to be able to post here on this forum, and elsewhere, further details on this writing, and another that nears completion, including details of release dates and availability very shortly. Gary Murr

Jim DiEugenio, on February 21: "Thanks for that Gary. If I recall, weren't these guys there for like 48 hours total?" Hi Jim: You are basically correct. The decision for some Commission members to visit Dealey Plaza had been bandied about for quite some time, beginning very early as a topic of brief discussion in some of their closed door executive sessions of late December 1963 and early in 1964. I go into this in great detail in my forthcoming work, but regarding this specific trip; the plan had originally called for McCloy, J. Lee Rankin and SS Inspector and Warren Commission liason, Thomas Kelley, to arrive in Dallas together on Thursday, May 7, 1964, landing at Love Field, at 6:45 p.m., CST on board Braniff flight #9 out of Washington, D.C. In a memorandum dated May 5, 1964, SS Chief James J. Rowley also indicated to SS SAIC of the Dallas FO,. Forrest Sorrels, the possibility that Commission members Allen Dulles and John Sherman Cooper might also travel with the aforementioned threesome but as it turns out this was not the case. In truth the Braniff flight to Dallas was taken by Cooper, McCloy, and Thomas Kelley. They were, in turn, accompanied on this flight by FBI Inspector James Malley and Warren Commission staff member, David Belin, who was chosen to take the place of Commission General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin. I feel that surviving documentation clearly indicates that there were specific reasons why Belin was chosen to replace Rankin, but I won't get into that here at this moment in time. Allen Dulles threw a slight monkey-wrench into Belin's pre-planned itinerary for the weekend of May 8 - 9 because he did not arrive in Dallas until the following day, Friday, May 8, getting into Love Field at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon. As surviving WBAP film footage clearly indicates, this entourage was accompanied by a number of other individuals during their various weekend trips to a variety of places. Included in this group with Belin et al were members of the Dallas Police Department, DA Henry Wade's office and most importantly SS SA James J. Howlett. Again, the intent is not to be vague herein, but I go into all of this in great detail in the first chapter of the second volume of my Connally trilogy. This group drove the entire length of the November 22nd motorcade, visited the site of the Tippit slaying, the Texas Theatre, the Texas School Book Depository, the police department basement/garage area, the Oswald's Neely Street apartment, etc. etc. over a roughly two day span. On Friday evening, May 8, at approximately 7:30 p.m. all parties were invited to a dinner at the Chapparal Club in the Southland Center adjacent to the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel. Their host for the evening was Dean Storey accompanied by a number of "civic leaders" from the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The three Commission members did attend this dinner, but Belin, Kelley and Malley declined and remained in their respective hotel rooms. Of the individuals involved in this particular trip to Dallas, all had returned to Washington by Monday, May 10, 1964 - with the exception of John McCloy. According to memoranda constructed by David Belin and Thomas Kelley, after the various members had walked the grounds of Dealey Plaza on the morning of May 9, 1964, an event that was captured on film footage shot by a cameraman from WBAP TV, John McCloy excused himself early, leaving Dallas by private jet at approximately 11:00 a.m., with his destination being Mexico. And finally, you are correct in your assessment of the importance of Gerald McKnight's writing on the theoretical stenographer's record of the Commission's closed door executive session of September, 1964, wherein Richard Russell's thoughts on the single bullet theory were to be put on the record. I actually was at NARA II in March of 1999 when Harold Weisberg asked me to find this document and copy it for him. I did so and upon bringing it to Harold at his home in Frederick, Maryland, I met Gerald McKnight. I believe that David Wrone may also have been present at that time, though I am not 100% sure of this at this time. I can, however, still recall the look on Harold's face when he saw what I had copied. In essence it was documented proof of something that he and Gerald had apparently been suspicious of for quite some time. FWIW Gary Murr

To Robert Morrow et al: A minor correction to my previous post detailing the date of the Dulles Dealey Plaza interview. Gary Mack was kind enough to point out that I had mis-identified the TV affiliate who filmed this Dulles interview; it was the NBC affiliate, WBAP, not WFAA who was responsible for this piece of film. I thank Gary for showing me the error of my ways!!

In answer to the question posed by Robert Morrow: The Allen Dulles interview comments were spoken and taped in Dealey Plaza by the local WFAA TV station on Saturday, May 8, 1964. I have an entire chapter on this particular weekend visit by a select group of Warren Commission members in Volume 2 of my three volume trilogy on the wounding of Governor John Connally. Volume's 1 and 2 are complete and are currently at the printer, and all three volumes will be available to interested parties later this year. FWIW Gary Murr

Hi Dean: The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84. I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that. Gary Murr

Dean, What kind of film was the FBI using? Todd Todd, Dean, et al: I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box. The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part). FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..." Gary Murr Gary Amazing reply! Thank you so much for all the info! Would you be abel to scan and post Shaneyfelt's notes? I would love to see those Now we know the clip from Youtube are the films we are looking for, if we could get them and make a transfer with the sprocket area it would be a HUGE step in research of Full Flush Left and other items Dean no, it's not amazing Gary Murr is on his game... so, let's see here: 11/22/63 in-camera DP-Zapruder film shot; 02/64 (late) WCR en-group viewed the Z-film; 05/64 Shaneyfelt and tribe shot re-enactment films.. when were the Z-frames numbered by Shaneyfelt again? Hello David: As I have indicated before, the Z frame numbering system created and thereafter applied by Lyndal Shanefelt was done on January 29 - 30, 1964, as a result of a direct request from Norman Redlich of the WC staff; this occurred after the third in a series of long Z film "analysis" sessions conducted with members of the FBI (Shaneyfelt and Rose), the WC staff, including on most occasions Specter, Redlich, Eisenberg and Belin, and the SS members Thomas Kelley and J. J. Howlett. Gary Murr

Dean, What kind of film was the FBI using? Todd Todd, Dean, et al: I first saw the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore reenactment films, shot with each of the three individuals original camera's, in March of 1999 during a research trip to NARA II. The films are actually a part of the massive FBI Bulky file 62-109060, in this instance serial # 4199. This is a very large serial subsection of the 62-109060 file and the films in question are actually in box number 102A, Folder # 4. Also included with this material are notes made on strips of paper, approximately 9" long by 3" wide, notes written by Lyndal Shaneyfelt that are affixed to the various film boxes that contain the small 8mm plastic spools of exposed film. To answer one of your questions posed to Dean, Todd; the film used by the FBI in the May 24, 1964 Zapruder camera reenactment is Kodachrome Movie Film with a small label bearing the # 9 affixed to the back of the familiar and traditional yellow, black and red Kodak company box. The surviving Shaneyfelt constructed notes that are a part of this folder are also interesting and do help to provide a few further details. On May 23, 1964, the day prior to the actual reconstruction event, a roll of Kodak Kodachrome 8mm film was exposed in both the Nix and Muchmore cameras "on site in Dallas 5/23/64 during preliminary tests before reenactment on 5/24/64." This film was, in turn, taken by Lyndal Shaneyfelt.(62-109060-4193, Box 102A, Folder 4; film box containing reel labeled "15") On the day of the reconstruction, May 24, 1964, the Nix camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site 5/24/64 by SA R. E. Triplett" with a further Shaneyfelt notation that there was "no 2nd run." On the same date the Muchmore camera 8mm reconstruction film was "shot on site by SA C. Ray Hall 5/24/64" with the same further Shaneyfelt notation as that which accompanies the surviving Nix film reconstruction notes - "no 2nd run." These two films are labeled, in turn, "16A reenactment thru Nix" and "17A reenactment thru Muchmore". The Zapruder reenactment film, item # 9, is listed as "Exposed in Zapruder camera on site in Dallas 5/24/64 by SA L. H. Shaneyfelt, with stills and moving." And unlike the Nix and Muchmore exposures, Shaneyfelt actually did "2 runs" of the assassination reenactment through the Zapruder film, one it would appear with the "zoom" feature on the Zapruder camera activated; the other without, though I could be wrong about this. I made photocopies of all of these notes, as well as photocopies of the actual film reels and their accompanying Kodak boxes, during my 1999 visit to NARA II. I also acquired, that same year, a copy of the reenactment films and it is identical to the YouTube copy link provided by Dean. (Not being a film expert, I am at a loss to explain the "cool" blue tint that appears to be self-evident on the film when one watches it; one could assume that this jhad something to do with the original development, but that would only be an assumption on my part). FWIW, and in closing, in actuality the WC staff controlled reconstruction was originally set to take place on the previous weekend, May 17, 1964, but was delayed one week. Part of this delay was caused by an assumption on the part of WC Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, that the FBI still possessed the camera of Abraham Zapruder. This was not the case, the camera by this time (May of 1964) now in the hands of the Bell and Howell people, stored in their archives room at the head office of Bell and Howell in Chicago, Illinois. The FBI did pick the camera up on May 12, 1964, used it in Dallas over the weekend of May 23, 1964, and returned it to Bell and Howell, Chicago, via SA Dennis Shanahan, on June 23, 1964. And again, FWIW, during the week of November 28, 1966 (yes, 1966) the Bell and Howell company had the camera removed from the archives storage facility and taken to their engineering lab in Lincolnwood, Illinois, where the camera was tested by their staff at which time the average film speed - fps - was found to be 18.2 fps, or within 1/10th of a second of the FBI results of 1963-1964. Lawrence Howe, then Vice President and Secretary of Bell and Howell, did admit that this testing was conducted directly "because of many news stories published from time to time espousing various new theories concerning the Dallas tragedy..." Gary Murr

Murray 2-4 (3 of the first 4 pictures he took) were overexposed, his camera jammed and his shutter was open Im not sure if your trying to suggest that I dont know the photographic evidence, or if you are trying to point me in the wrong direction Why dont you post the Murray pictures you want me to look at, I have already looked at all the Murrary pictures I have in POTP and SSID and ones I have dowloaded All of the Murrary pictures that show the pyracantha bush I have looked at in detail (including the last Dealey Plaza picture he took which shows the pyracantha bush) If these are the pictures you are talking about then post them so we can debate what we see Dean, Murray 2-4 was most certainly NOT “overexposed”. When I reference “Murray 2-4” I'm not talking about Murray frames 2 through 4 as you seem to think. I’m talking about Murray roll 2, frame 4 – Murray 2-4. Let me explain. In his May 1970 Computers and Automation article pioneering JFK assassination photo-researcher Richard Sprague established the standard method that has been used ever since for referring to the JFK assassination still photographs. In that article a photographer’s still photographs are identified and referred to by their frame sequence number. The first frame on a roll of film is referred to as 1, the second as 2, the third as 3, and so on and so forth. However, and this is where you are quite obviously confused, where multiple rolls of film are involved (as with Murray, Altgens, Allen, etc.) a numeric prefix is used for each roll. Thus, the 4th frame on Murray’s 2nd roll of film becomes Murray 2-4, i.e. roll 2, frame 4. You’ll note Trask uses this numbering system when referencing Murray’s photos (POP, page 496, paragraph 5 and page 512, notes 5, 6, 9, 11, 13).* That said, you should have already known which photograph Murray 2-4 was as I posted that very photograph here and identified it as Murray 2-4 several posts back. You even replied to that post! Your confusion over exactly what photo Murray 2-4 actually is raises an interesting question. Shortly after I posted Murray 2-4 and identified it as such I asked you to “Take out your copy of Murray 2-4 and tell me, yes or no, if you see the branches sticking up or not.” You replied with an unequivocal “No”, which naturally led me to believe that you had actually looked at Murray 2-4. But since it’s now obvious that you don’t even know what Murray 2-4 is and in fact seemed to think it was one of Murray’s imageless frames**, I’m left wondering exactly what photograph you were even looking at when you replied to me and said “no” you didn’t see the branches sticking up. It sure couldn’t have been the photo I was talking about because you thought that was an imageless frame! So what photo was it? And to make matters worse, after that you then looked at the photo Jerry Logan has posted here and stated “That does show a more untrimmed bush then other pictures”! Guess what! That was Murray 2-4! Is this your idea of having a good grasp on the photographic evidence? It sounds to me more like a bad version of the Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First” routine! Lastly, Murray 2-4 does not appear in Trask’s POP as you claimed it did to Jerry Logan (“Nice blow up…As you know that Murray picture in POTP is pretty small “). Rather it appears in Trask’s That Day In Dallas, page 85 of the hardbound edition.*** And you’re the guy who claimed he going to “put the photographic beat down on” me? Who’s going to help you with that - Moe, Larry or Curly? Todd *Trask talks about Murray 2-4 at the bottom of POP page 495, without actually identifying it as Murray 2-4. ** The blank, overexposed frames in roll 1 were Murray 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4, not 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 as you think . 1-3 is actually the very first good Murray exposure and can be seen on page 493 of POP. (Other blank frames were 2-1 and 2-2, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.) *** Murray 2-4 also appears in Shaw and Harris’s Cover-Ups on page 15, and Penn Jones’ Forgive My Grief on page 185. Todd is way off base in saying Sprague's method of photo ID is universal. I HAVE NEVER USED IT even though I have all the copies of Computers and Automation and often refer to them. I know of NO RESEARCHERS who use this ID system. I have always referred to the film exposure number and photographer, like WILLIS 5. I have no idea what Sprague called it. If others use this system, fine. But other researchers should not be faulted for not having a copy of Computers and Automation. Sprague was not even aware of many later photo finds, such as Bronson. Jack Thank you Jack Dean, Would you like a copy of Sprague’s May 1970 list – I think you’d find it most helpful and interesting. I've got a copy made all ready to go - all I need is your mailing address. Todd Actually Todd, If Dean would do some research, he could find it himself; the link below will lead him to it; save yourself the postage. Gary Murr http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1