Thomas H. Purvis

I had own one for 13 years and it was set up just like Oswald's There was times when i cycled the round into the chamber i would get stuck like jammed in and not fully go into the chamber. out of those 13 years i have had hit 2 targets in 5.6 seconds. But had no pressure on me at the time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What would appear to be a true researcher!

Now, delete the word "alledgely", as the three shots in approximately 5.6 seconds is BS.

Factually, there were only two shots in this elapsed time.

Shot#3 did not occur until approximately 1.9 seconds AFTER the Z313/Shot#2 headshot.

And, due to the short elapsed time, this had to be what is referred to as a "Snap Shot" in which one throws the rifle up, and utilizing it's fixed iron sights, shoots.

Which shot, by the way also struck JFK in the head.

Tom

And the correct answer would be that when one has a "rabid" dog that in fact has no teeth, one gets rid of the dog anyway.

P.S. "Rip" Robertson worked for the CIA during the Korean War, in which he was assigned ALL responsibility for landing of

boatloads of Korean "guerilla" fighters into North Korea.

He. Robertson, had held a similar position in the South China sea, prior to his transfer to "JACK" Command in South Korea.

South/North Korea has one of the highest rising tides of any place in the world. In order to land seacraft, one must know all about the beach gradient as well as to whether one may have to bog through several feet of mud.

As the holder of his position, Robertson would have fully known the "beach gradient" at the Bay of Pigs, long prior to any attempted amphibious landing.

From the Spartacus article on David Atlee Phillips:

"David Atlee Phillips died of cancer on 7th July, 1988. He left behind an unpublished manuscript. The novel is about a CIA officer who lived in Mexico City. In the novel the character states: 'I was one of those officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald... We gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba... I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro.'"

The former leader of Alpha 66, Antonio Veciana, has recently stated that the "Maurice Bishop" who was his controller for a couple of years, and with whom he once met in the presence of Oswald during the summer of 1963, was indeed CIA officer David Atlee Phillips.

Veciana has stated that he arrived for the meeting with "Bishop" about fifteen minutes early and that Oswald was already there, apparently finishing up his meeting with "Bishop."

Veciana has stated that the purpose for his meeting with "Bishop" in Dallas that late summer day was to further the goal of assassinating Fidel Castro, and that that was Oswald's reason for being there, too.

Question:

Was the CIA (or perhaps just Phillips and friends) really planning on having Oswald get to Cuba somehow and shoot Castro with a high powered rifle from a tall building, or did they just want Oswald to believe that?

Tommy

PS How does one go about finding and reading an "unpublished manuscript"?

Think "Capitalistic" free enterprise!

Tom

Personally, I would seriously doubt that it took more than 10-minutes for those who have received the information, to have reviewed and now fully comprehend exactly why the "cowlick" bullet entry peformed in the manner in which it did.

These photos from pages 505 and 507 of ‘Commission Document 87 - Secret Service report of 08 Jan 1964 re: Oswald’ show the point of impact of the first, second and third shot as determined by Secret Service, probably from viewing their copy of Zapruder’s authentical film (not the Zapruder film).

First and second shot: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a0/Photo_wcd87_0505.jpg

Third shot: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/1a/Photo_wcd87_0507.jpg

Bjørn Gjerde

The re-enactment photograps are in fact from the Time/Life assassination re-enactment of November, 1963.

And, although the shot#1 and shot#3 positions are relatively accurate, the #2 position represents the location back up Elm St. to which the FBI made attempt at "moving" this impact location in order to correlate with JBC's actions & position.

The survey plat for this little attempt at "sleight-of-hand" is in my possession along with the survey notes that Mr. Robert West completed for this maniipulation of the facts.

For reasons (which have been fully explained to others), the FBI never presented this attempt at manipulation of the facts, and were it not for Mr. Robert West having provided me with the survey plat, survey notes, as well as having explained what actually transpired, this little event would have been lost in the other confusion surrounding the subject.

Tom Purvis

Quote from Tom Purvis:

"To a relatively high degree of probability, the "dent" as well as the additional scrape marks along the cartridge case which are claimed to have been created by the "follower", are in fact the result of a Short Stroke.

In a Short Stroke, the bolt is not brought back sufficiently for the ejector release to activate, and the empty casing is not ejectecd, and thus when one goes forward with the bolt, they are in fact driving the empty casing forward towards the chamber again.

However, the bullet nose of the next round in the magazine housing has risen, and thus the empty casing is actually driven forward over the casing rim of the next live round below it which has risen at a slight angle. This action can force the empty casing to incur additional scrape marks from the casing rim below it.

This action causes the empty casing to literally "scrape" over the casing of the live round below it, giving it scrape marks somewhat similar to that created by the follower, and when the forward nose of the casing comes to the beginning of the chamber area, it encounters the bullet nose of the live round below it.

Which, in virtually every single instance, will dent the lip of the empty casing, provided that the bolt is actually operated with a rapid as well as sufficient force.

Which, by the way, may have some bearing on exactly why there was some 5.6 to 5.9 seconds delay between the first shot and the second shot.

Had the FBI/aka Robert Frazier given evidence of a "Short Stroke" in the shooting sequence, then most likely there is absolutely no "shooter" who would have considered that three shots were made within the WC's fairy tale less than 6-second shooting scenario.

Hope that helps some.

Tom"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but, utter nonsense as usual, Tom.

As the bolt is drawn back, holding the rim of the spent shell in the bullet extractor, the face of the bolt is actually riding on the next live cartridge in the magazine below. The face of the bolt is much greater in diameter than the rim of the spent cartridge. The bolt keeps the next live cartridge in place in the magazine and does not allow it to rise up UNTIL the bolt is fully retracted. The spent cartridge will be ejected well before the bolt is fully retracted.

To say that the spent cartridge can come in contact with the next live cartridge in the magazine shows either lack of knowledge of bolt action rifles OR a deliberate intent to mislead.

Or, on the other hand, it may serve to demonstrate that I am in possession of multiple Carcano rifles (and ammunition), and just may have actually researched the subject matter.

Tom

P.S. It is personally quite irrelevant to me as to whether yourself and others accept, believe, and/or understand the mechanics of the bolt-action operation of the Carcano.

I'm beginning to think I'm seeing a pattern in some of the posts here. Maybe I'm just imagining it, maybe I'm not. But it seems that whenever an interesting thread begins to develop some momentum, certain other posters will come along with their pet theory [they apparently only have one, it seems] and tell us why none of this newly-discovered evidence would EVER matter.

One who does this quite often is the biggest fan of the Warren Emission [er, COmission] to ever come down the pike. The other is convinced that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination. But it seems that sometimes these types will grasp at the most tenuous connection to their pet theory--except, in their minds, they have the facts, NOT a theory, and anything else is fantasy--and turn a thread upside down and backwards to "tie" the information in the thread to their pet theory.

Sometimes. it would be refreshing if these folks would just let the threads and RELATED discussions develop, and let the rest of us determine whether we believe the piece of evidence that precipitated the thread in the first place fits with the information we already know.

I'm not particularly hung up on ANY single theory; I consider myself a student of the assassination, not an expert. But I already know of many obfuscations and outright lies involved in the WC report, so I don't believe their conclusions. As for the LBJ stuff...a lot of the accusers were/are as shady as LBJ, so how much of the uncorroborated portion of their stories are we to believe?

It just seems that some folks, both on the LN side AND on the CT side, are working hard to brush any newly-discovered facts aside..."Move along, folks; nothing to see here." Kinda sounds like the initial cover-up to me. If the new discoveries are significant, it will eventually become obvious...and if they're not, that will also eventually become obvious. I believe that, if your particular theory is right, any new factual discoveries will only strengthen it; and if your theory is wrong, new discoveries may poke holes in your boat.

Mark,

You are quite incorrect!

By most standards, and especially these "talk show" standards, you are in fact an "EXPERT" on the simple facts of the assassination.

Tom

P.S. Might I recommend the Professor McAdams & Josiah Thompson work on the upcoming NOVA TV specials.

Considering that John McAdams is now also a member of the "EXPERT" community and "Tink" Thompson is a partial Expert (CE399 only), the combination of the two just may provide something worthwhile.

When John Gotti is running a non-investigation into one of his mob hits, the ballistics and forensic tests don't mean that much. Ditto when Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and the LBJ- manipulated Dallas police are running a non-investigation into the death of John Kennedy, it is a huge mistake to not understand that the forensic record is corrupted. The same applies to the LBJ-appointed & CIA Allen Dulles controlled and manipulated Warren Commission.

That means a fingerprint is not a fingerprint, a bullet is not a bullet, an x-ray is not an x-ray, a photo is not a photo. An interview is often a corrupted interview, coached witnesses, altered testimony, etc. Real evidence is destroyed. Real evidence is ignored. Phony non evidence is introduced into the evidentiary record.

PBS is dialing in with a lone nutter special this fall: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/08/novas-cold-case-jfk-featuring-exclusive-ballistics-and-forensics-tests-to-premiere-november-13-on-pbs/196388/

The hilarious John McAdams, probably one of the most lowly respected persons in all of JFK research, is being touted as one of their star experts.

Nova's 'Cold Case JFK' Featuring Exclusive Ballistics and Forensics Tests to Premiere November 13 on PBS

Categories: Network TV Press Releases

Written By Sara Bibel

August 8th, 2013

via press release:

FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, NOVA ASKS: COULD MODERN SCIENCE AND INVESTIGATORS DO BETTER?

COLD CASE JFK

Premieres Wednesday, November 13 at 9PM/8c on PBS

www.pbs.org/nova

www.facebook.com/novaonline

Twitter: @novapbs

[bOSTON] -- The 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy has fueled dark rumors of conspiracies for decades. Now, 50 years later, what can modern science tell us about the shooting in Dallas—and the investigations that followed? NOVA and a team of foremost experts employ exclusive tests and sophisticated new technology to reconstruct and review the evidence in COLD CASE JFK, premiering on Wednesday, November 13 at 9PM/8c on PBS (check local listings).

COLD CASE JFK is part of a series of specials airing in November on PBS to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s death. This collection provides viewers with a comprehensive slate of programs that deliver fresh, unbiased perspectives on a defining historical moment of the 20th century. This programming is part of an ongoing collaboration among PBS documentary, science, news and public affairs programs to bring audiences trustworthy, factual content tied to relevant national conversations.

In COLD CASE JFK, NOVA follows a unique group of experts trying to unravel the lingering mysteries of the Kennedy assassination. What should have been a homicide investigator’s best-case scenario—a crime that occurred in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses—instead became a forensics nightmare in a case plagued by a mishandled crime scene, a controversial autopsy, and a Prime Suspect gunned down while in police custody.

NOVA combines cutting edge technology and contemporary scientific techniques with archival footage and expert interviews to recreate the crime and the Warren Commission’s investigation--examining the shooting, the assassination scene, the medical information and wounds, and the evidence found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

The film features several exclusive elements: For the first time since the original investigation by the FBI laboratory, forensic scientists trained and experienced in both firearms identification and shooting scene reconstruction review and evaluate the ballistics evidence in the JFK assassination. These experts apply new technology, not available until recently, to this historic crime.

Forensic innovations featured in Cold Case JFK include:

• Test-firing the exact model of rifle and ammunition used by Lee Harvey Oswald

• High-speed videography to understand how these particular bullets behave in flight and in human tissue

• Multiple wound ballistics and tissue stimulants to test the Warren Commission’s controversial “magic bullet” theory

• New ballistic Doppler radar, not yet available in major crime labs

• Measuring the sounds of Carcano gunshots and supersonic bullets at various distances--useful for analyzing “ear witness” testimony

• Contemporary 3-D laser scans to recreate and analyze the physical crime scene and possible bullet trajectories, including “the grassy knoll”

• Virtual autopsy of JFK’s body

To execute the forensic tests, NOVA calls on several leading experts—including father and son firearms experts Lucien and Michael Haag; private investigator Josiah Thompson; medical examiner and forensic neuropathologist Peter Cummings; laser scanning specialist Tony Grissim; legendary newsman, Jim Lehrer, and historian and leading JFK assassination expert, John McAdams.

The most controversial aspect of the Warren Report is the “single bullet theory,” which says that one shot wounded both President John Kennedy and Governor John Connally, causing seven separate wounds in the two men. The bullet which the Warren Commission claimed did all this damage was discovered on a gurney at Parkland Hospital, looking virtually pristine, leading critics to deride it as “the magic bullet.” Yet the single bullet theory is essential to the Warren conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

To test the single bullet theory, the film travels to a shooting range in New Mexico where criminalists Lucien and Michael Haag, experts in firearms and ballistics, reconstruct the shooting. The Doppler radar used by the father and son duo is a technology so new and unique that even the FBI and BATF forensic laboratories do not yet possess it. The Haags are convinced that the only hope of understanding what really happened in the assassination lies in reexamining the physical evidence: the weapon, the bullets and the wounds. They have studied Oswald’s rifle and discovered that both the gun and the ammunition it uses have some extremely unusual properties-–documented with high-speed video and shooting tests--which may shed new light on the controversial single bullet theory.

The Haags also pursue the question of whether there was a second shooter who fired from the grassy knoll, as the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded. Working with laser scanning expert Tony Grissim, they use state-of-the-art 3D laser scanning to build a three-dimensional virtual model of Dealey Plaza.

With this model, accurate to the millimeter, they can evaluate any and all possible trajectories and determine what shooting positions were – or were not – possible.

Renowned JFK assassination expert and professor John McAdams weighs in on the findings of the original Warren Commission, the deficiencies of the medical and autopsy evidence, and the lack of understanding on the part of the Kennedy camp on the need for a forensic autopsy at the time.

Veteran investigator Josiah Thompson also studies the most famous “eye witness” account of that day: the 8mm Zapruder film—perhaps the best known “home movie” in history--which captures the shooting and wounds sustained by both the president and the Texas governor as their motorcade rides through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a defining moment in our nation’s history and one that continues to perplex us. It was also the murder of a man. A half-century later, the shooting remains controversial to a majority of the public that doubts the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In Cold Case JFK, NOVA shows viewers the importance of re-examining the evidence of prior eras using the technology and tools of today to try to unlock the secrets of the past and yield important new insights.

###

Now in its 40th season, NOVA is the most-watched prime time science series on American television, reaching an average of five million viewers weekly. The series remains committed to producing in-depth science programming in the form of hour-long (and occasionally longer) documentaries, from the latest breakthroughs in technology to the deepest mysteries of the natural world. NOVA airs Wednesdays at 9pm ET/PT on WGBH Boston and most PBS stations. The Director of the WGBH Science Unit and Senior Executive Producer of NOVA is Paula S. Apsell.

National Corporate Funding for NOVA is provided by The Boeing Company. Funding for NOVA is provided by David H. Koch Fund For Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and public television viewers.

Thanks, Robert, for posting this. How uninspiring. It sounds like a rehash of the Discovery Channel's programs. They actually think McAdams is an expert on the medical evidence. Sickening.

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

They actually think McAdams is an expert on the medical evidence. Sickening.

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

Coming from someone who does not even recognize a "reverse image" of an autopsy photograph, this statement does not pass any test of credibility.

Tom Purvis

P.S. Since Professor McAdams is in receipt of the full contingent of 80+ newspaper publishings which deal with all three shots of the assassination, and since "Tink" Thompson is in possession of the 30+ publishings which deal ONLY with CE399, how it came to exist, and the wounds that it is responsible for, this just may be an attempt at presentation of some relatively new factual information.

Which, is considerably more than one can usually expect to see here.

It was this very Esquire article, coming on the heels of the LIFE issue headlined, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," which kindled my interest in the investigation of the JFK assassination...along with a lingering feeling that there was just something inherently wrong with the conclusions of the Warren Commission report.

It is assumed that you now know just exactly what it was that was "inherently wrong"

Tom

This looks like a sequel to the bullet lead fiasco, in which the courts ruled that bullet lead comparisons a la Vincent Guinn are unscientific and inadmissible.

Offhand I can't recall that hair analysis was used to pin the rap on Oz, but the topic looks

interesting, and the Innocence Project is a worthy cause, so I hope its OK to post it here;

(Washington, DC – July 18, 2013) Today the Innocence Project, the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and its partners announced a groundbreaking and historic agreement with the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review more than 2,000 criminal cases in which the FBI conducted microscopic hair analysis of crime scene evidence. The agencies agreed to undertake the review after three men who had served lengthy prison sentences were exonerated by DNA testing in cases in which three different FBI hair examiners provided testimony which exceeded the limits of science and contributed to their wrongful convictions. The review will focus on specific cases in which FBI Laboratory reports and testimony included statements that were scientifically invalid.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Innocence_Project_and_NACDL_Announce_Historic_Partnership_with_the_FBI_and_Department_of_Justice_on_Microscopic_Hair_Analysis_Cases.php

FBI Agent Paul Strombaugh, who was declared a "Hair & Fibers" Expert Witness provided the "link" between LHO and the blanket in which the Carcano rifle was reportedly stored in the Payne Garage.

Strombaught later, after retirement, made a livlihood by giving "EXPERT WITNESS" testimonies, yet he had never received training at any educational institute in these subjects. And, his FBI credentials gave him the weight (to juries) to merely make up crime scene scenarios and present them, even though his entire career with the FBI was devoted to being a laboratory technician.

He was known as a "Hoover's Man", who pretty much went along with the flow.

Thankfully, DNA has now gotten rid of those such as Paul Strombaugh.

Tom

JG was on the right track and a true American Defender.

Special Forces = Disinformation

It is not my problem if you are confused by simple facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

The Garrison Investigation:

Smoke; mirrors; & Land Sharks!

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

Tom: Could you please elaborate on this. Who created the smoke screen?

First off, history needs to be corrected in that Lee Harvey Oswald was of Louisiana (& Primarily New Orleans) descent.

As most persons are aware, one does not s**t in their own back yard, and Dallas, TX with it's radical right element was certainly a good location in which to assassinate a President of the US and ultimately have the deed blamed on Dallas and it's right-wing politics.

The "power structure" within New Orleans lies not with those who are currently in what is some temporary political position.

It lies with those who possess the capability to place these persons in the various political positions.

Therefore, Jim Garrison, not unlike any other political figure in New Orleans, did what he was instructed to do or else he suffered the consequences.

Now, if one could only resolve exactly who, within the deep south city of New Orleans, LA, would have reason to replace JFK.

Hint: It would be those who, for whatever reason, had the means and reasons to end Fidel Castro's control of Cuba.

Just perhaps someone whom United Fruit entrusted to their most confidential tasks.

(just more of my riddles, I am certain of)

Poor bobby.

First I'm not ct or ln. At least try and get ONE thing correct.

Second. Your expectations are really quite meaningless.

You don't know and most likely never will. Welcome to reality

The possibility exists for a modified or even damaged bullet.

Actually! It is an extremely high probability!

Purvis

That doesn't mean they conspired to kill Kennedy and blame it on Oswald, however. That part of Garrison's case was incredibly weak.

But that was Garrison's ENTIRE CASE, and it relied ENTIRELY on the ridiculous, uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo.

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".

Tom

P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.

Many of which can be found on this forum.

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

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.

I am going to try to answer these questions but I would like it understood that a lot of what I am going to say is assumption and, without access to vast stocks of M91/38 short rifles, impossible to prove. That being said, let us continue.

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

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.

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

In 1941, the Italian government produced the Model 91/41 "Long" rifle. In which, by the way, the progressive gain twist of the rifling was deleted.

Therefore, there would be absolutely no trouble in taking one of these rifle barrels and cutting it down in order to produce a Model 91/38 (6.5mm) Short rifle.

In addition, virtually any of the old Long Rifles that were produced in the 6.5mm could have, and were undoubtedly converted to the newer 7.35mm versions of the weapons.

Just in event our new Expert is unaware, when one takes any rifle barrel that is in 6.5mm calliber and thereafter bores the weapon to a 7.35mm caliber, they have effectively removed ALL indications of any rifle markings and now in fact have a "smooth bore" weapon.

Thereafter, with the correct and proper machining equipment, new rifleing marks can be milled into the weapon.

This is the case for many of the 7.35mm versions of this Model 38, which were later changeg/adapted to fit the German cartridge.

Several of these weapons have been found to exist with what appears to be a "German Re-Work" stamp, which would indicate that the change in the rifle bore and chamber was in fact done by a German armament firm.

So! Were I to find one of these weapons, and known absolultely nothing regarding the Carcano and it's multitudes of modifications, then I would most probably assume that I was in possession of a "GERMAN MAUSER".

P.S.

A "Mil-dispersion test" merely demonstrates the ability of a weapon to fire a consistently accurate pattern.

An NRA "Master", who has a quality scope as well as "match" ammo, that is climatelly controlled in it's temperature, most certainlly should outshoot (for accuracy) any factory test which utilizes "run-of-the-mill" ammo.

Surely, as a proclaimed "shooter" you are familiar with Match Ammo????????

At 12:30 P.M., Nov. 22, 1963, JFK was supposedly struck in the back of the head with a bullet fired from six stories up in the Texas School Book Depository, at a range of approximately 88 yards. The bullet was fired from a 6.5x52 mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle and was a full metal jacket bullet with an extraordinarily thick jacket about 1 mm thick, typical of 6.5 mm Carcano bullets.

What happened to that 6.5 mm Carcano bullet is so unusual, experts to this day can neither recreate it or explain it. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the walls of the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer FMJ bullets are so thick, they were used for head shots to elephants as the strong bullets resisted deformation and breakup while travelling through the thick elephant skull bones.

So, what happened? Why didn't the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet stay together, travel through JFK's head and exit his face, as one would expect this bullet to do?

Mr. Craig Lamson has tried to suggest that, out of four 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges (made by the Western Cartridge Co., USA) in Oswald's possession that day, one bullet had its nose drilled or scored deeply enough, prior to being fired, to make it into a fragmenting hollow point bullet. As luck would have it, according to Mr. Lamson, this just happened to be the bullet that made contact with JFK's head with such explosive results.

While it is highly unlikely that Oswald would only doctor the nose of one out of four bullets in this fashion, there is something else drastically wrong with this theory. It is something that has bothered me for years and it is now time to share with you what I believe actually occurred.

Below are links to two Warren Commission evidence photos, that of CE 567 and CE 569. According to investigators, these were the only two bullet fragments of any size or note found in the limousine.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1_zps089fc93d.jpg

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2_zps7a247a7c.jpg

CE 567 is presumably the nose sction of the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet that struck the rear of JFK's head, while CE 569 is the jacket base of the same bullet. Both were supposedly found in the front of the limousine, following the assassination. Noticeably absent are the lead and bullet jacket from that section of the bullet between CE 567 and CE 569.

Though badly deformed and split, the nose of the bullet (CE 567) was still in one piece. This fact alone tells me that the bullet that struck JFK in the head was not modified into being a fragmenting bullet in the normal fashion by drilling or slicing into the copper jacket of the nose until the lead core is exposed. If it had been altered in such a fashion, it would never have been found in one piece, as portrayed by CE 567, but would have been in many pieces; all quite small.

So, if the bullet that struck JFK's head was a fragmenting bullet (and I see no other possibility) and CE 567 precludes the alteration of its nose to make it a fragmenting bullet, how did it fragment? I'm delighted that you asked.

Pictured below is a rare 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge manufactured for the Italian military called a "multi-shot" cartridge. While I do not believe this type of round, which actually contained lead shot within a hollow jacket, was the type that struck JFK, I believe the method used to cause the jacket of this bullet to come apart was also used to facilitate the breaking up of the round that struck JFK's head. Little seems to be known about the multi-shot cartridge, and one can only assume it to be a response to complaints from Italian soldiers about the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet's inability to seriously wound the people shot by it. Instead of making the "through and through" wound typical of 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullets, this thing would have made a horrendous wound typical of a shotgun wound, only worse. Not only would there be a spreading pattern of lead shot travelling through the victim, there would also be irregularly shaped bits of bullet jacket tearing things up, as well. It could only be worse if the nose of this "bullet" was capable of penetrating skull bone prior to the separation of the jacket. Note that records do not show that the Western Cartridge Company ever manufactured a 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge with a bullet resembling the multi-shot round.

Figure 5: Bottom is the “multi shot” round showing the cuts made on the projectile to facilitate it coming apart

The one funny looking projectile (with cuts on the side of the projectile) turned out to be a “multi shot” round. According to the Carcano website, the projectile actually is hollow and contains lead shot and it is not uncommon to run across these in surplus ammo.

Looking at the above photo, we can see that the "cuts" or scoring in the jacket wall do not begin until a point that is roughly 25% of the distance from the nose, leaving the nose intact. Although not visible, we can assume the scoring ends at about the point where the bullet enters the neck of the cartridge. I make this assumption for two reasons. 1) Scoring anything beyond what we see scored would be pointless, as the bullet jacket has been weakened more than enough (about 50% of the length of the jacket) to facilitate breaking up of the bullet 2) Scoring the bullet right to the base may weaken the jacket severely and deform it to the point it will not fly true to the target.

Looking again at CE 567 and CE 569, we have to ask the question; would a 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet, deeply scored on four sides in the fashion of the "multi-shot" round, be capable of penetrating JFK's skull and coming apart inside the skull? With the location of the scores, would it leave the nose of such a bullet in one piece, as seen in CE 567, and the jacket base in another piece, as seen in CE 569, yet cause the total disintegration of everything between the nose and the base?

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

(Tom Purvis)

Indeed. Might I point out that I have seen hollow point bullets that have travelled through the brains of deer that were more intact than the full metal jacket bullet that travelled through the brain of JFK?

Which, should indicate to a prudent person, that the factual evidence requires an absolute examination.

Tom

P.S. Asking the questions is relatively simple, it is conducting the research to answer these questions that certainly gives "fits" to many.

At 12:30 P.M., Nov. 22, 1963, JFK was supposedly struck in the back of the head with a bullet fired from six stories up in the Texas School Book Depository, at a range of approximately 88 yards. The bullet was fired from a 6.5x52 mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle and was a full metal jacket bullet with an extraordinarily thick jacket about 1 mm thick, typical of 6.5 mm Carcano bullets.

What happened to that 6.5 mm Carcano bullet is so unusual, experts to this day can neither recreate it or explain it. As I pointed out in a previous thread, the walls of the 6.5 mm Carcano and the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer FMJ bullets are so thick, they were used for head shots to elephants as the strong bullets resisted deformation and breakup while travelling through the thick elephant skull bones.

So, what happened? Why didn't the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet stay together, travel through JFK's head and exit his face, as one would expect this bullet to do?

Mr. Craig Lamson has tried to suggest that, out of four 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges (made by the Western Cartridge Co., USA) in Oswald's possession that day, one bullet had its nose drilled or scored deeply enough, prior to being fired, to make it into a fragmenting hollow point bullet. As luck would have it, according to Mr. Lamson, this just happened to be the bullet that made contact with JFK's head with such explosive results.

While it is highly unlikely that Oswald would only doctor the nose of one out of four bullets in this fashion, there is something else drastically wrong with this theory. It is something that has bothered me for years and it is now time to share with you what I believe actually occurred.

Below are links to two Warren Commission evidence photos, that of CE 567 and CE 569. According to investigators, these were the only two bullet fragments of any size or note found in the limousine.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE567-1_zps089fc93d.jpg

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/Photo_naraevid_CE569-2_zps7a247a7c.jpg

CE 567 is presumably the nose sction of the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet that struck the rear of JFK's head, while CE 569 is the jacket base of the same bullet. Both were supposedly found in the front of the limousine, following the assassination. Noticeably absent are the lead and bullet jacket from that section of the bullet between CE 567 and CE 569.

Though badly deformed and split, the nose of the bullet (CE 567) was still in one piece. This fact alone tells me that the bullet that struck JFK in the head was not modified into being a fragmenting bullet in the normal fashion by drilling or slicing into the copper jacket of the nose until the lead core is exposed. If it had been altered in such a fashion, it would never have been found in one piece, as portrayed by CE 567, but would have been in many pieces; all quite small.

So, if the bullet that struck JFK's head was a fragmenting bullet (and I see no other possibility) and CE 567 precludes the alteration of its nose to make it a fragmenting bullet, how did it fragment? I'm delighted that you asked.

Pictured below is a rare 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge manufactured for the Italian military called a "multi-shot" cartridge. While I do not believe this type of round, which actually contained lead shot within a hollow jacket, was the type that struck JFK, I believe the method used to cause the jacket of this bullet to come apart was also used to facilitate the breaking up of the round that struck JFK's head. Little seems to be known about the multi-shot cartridge, and one can only assume it to be a response to complaints from Italian soldiers about the 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet's inability to seriously wound the people shot by it. Instead of making the "through and through" wound typical of 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullets, this thing would have made a horrendous wound typical of a shotgun wound, only worse. Not only would there be a spreading pattern of lead shot travelling through the victim, there would also be irregularly shaped bits of bullet jacket tearing things up, as well. It could only be worse if the nose of this "bullet" was capable of penetrating skull bone prior to the separation of the jacket. Note that records do not show that the Western Cartridge Company ever manufactured a 6.5 mm Carcano cartridge with a bullet resembling the multi-shot round.

Figure 5: Bottom is the “multi shot” round showing the cuts made on the projectile to facilitate it coming apart

The one funny looking projectile (with cuts on the side of the projectile) turned out to be a “multi shot” round. According to the Carcano website, the projectile actually is hollow and contains lead shot and it is not uncommon to run across these in surplus ammo.

Looking at the above photo, we can see that the "cuts" or scoring in the jacket wall do not begin until a point that is roughly 25% of the distance from the nose, leaving the nose intact. Although not visible, we can assume the scoring ends at about the point where the bullet enters the neck of the cartridge. I make this assumption for two reasons. 1) Scoring anything beyond what we see scored would be pointless, as the bullet jacket has been weakened more than enough (about 50% of the length of the jacket) to facilitate breaking up of the bullet 2) Scoring the bullet right to the base may weaken the jacket severely and deform it to the point it will not fly true to the target.

Looking again at CE 567 and CE 569, we have to ask the question; would a 6.5 mm Carcano FMJ bullet, deeply scored on four sides in the fashion of the "multi-shot" round, be capable of penetrating JFK's skull and coming apart inside the skull? With the location of the scores, would it leave the nose of such a bullet in one piece, as seen in CE 567, and the jacket base in another piece, as seen in CE 569, yet cause the total disintegration of everything between the nose and the base?

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

(Tom Purvis)

My problem is with those who repeatedly state as fact things that have no basis whatsoever in fact, and try to pass off this information as accepted truth. If a person who makes an occasional mistake admits that they have made a mistake, I don't consider that person to be a xxxx. I've made my share of honest mistakes, and I try to make sure that I correct them. Some folks make untrue statements SO often here, it begins to fall into a pattern...as if they're trying to slide something by the unsuspecting folks.

We are, after all, part of something called The Education Forum. If we cannot stick to the truth, exactly how accurate an "educational service" are we providing to those who come behind us? My position here is that you are entitled to manufacture your own theories as to how the JFK assassination came to occur; you are NOT entitled to manufacture your own facts. Those who attempt to do so should, by everything that is right in the universe, be called out for that; and those who repeatedly do so should be called exactly what they are.

Apparently, my position conflicts with that of Mr. Simkin. For that, I will never apologize. But it causes me sadness to know that what began as an educational resource is now a forum in which the value of truth becomes secondary to decorum.

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

Yes, but!--------Look at how much you have actually (re)-learned about the facts of the assassination.

Tom

Ever score the tip of a fmj Bob...

Mr. Lamson

Are you suggesting LHO purposely made a soft point or hollow point bullet by cutting the tip from a full metal jacket bullet?

I hardly think this could be the case, for a number of reasons.

First, the unfired cartridge in LHO's alleged carcano was intact and unmodified, as WC evidence photos will attest. Do you seriously think LHO knew exactly how many rounds he needed and only scored one (or two) of them? Why was CE 399 not scored?

Second, I have tried this before with surplus Lee Enfield .303 cartridges. It is impossible to make a straight and even cut, even if all one is doing is scoring the tip (and considering the thickness of the 6.5 Carcano jacket, this would have to be a VERY deep score). Although a hit at very close range is possible, accuracy at distances approaching 100 yards suffers accordingly.

Third, was not the intact jacket nose of the bullet that hit JFK's head supposedly found in the front of the limousine?

You are babbling bobby. Try a file next time.

Translated from bobbyspeak...

"I can't deny this so ill spew instead"

If the bullet that struck JFK's head was "filed", why was CE 399 and the unfired cartridge found in the 6.5 Carcano not "filed"? Do you seriously believe Oswald knew exactly which bullet was going to strike JFK's head and only "filed" that one?

And have you forgotten that the INTACT jacket nose of the bullet that struck JFK in the head was supposedly found in the front of the limo passenger compartment, completely "unfiled"?

If you do not wish to address these two points, this will be the last time I respond to you on this thread.

Please stop wasting everyone's time.

In the event that he has "forgotten" this information, it is to the best.---------Since it is not now nor has it ever been factually true.

The highly deformed (and split) lead core to the bullet nose was recovered, and this fragment contained a small extent of the remaining copper jacket (which was so insufficient that it could not be made as a "ballistic match" to the recovered 91/38 Short Rifle).

Which, along with your other misleading information, is no doubt sending more and more uninformed persons diving off down into the deep, dark, damp rabbit hole in the ground.

Andy Walker and I started the Education Forum in December 2003. The main objective was to create a place to discuss educational issues. At the time we were both involved in several educational projects, including the European Virtual School. If you look at the following thread you will see the biographies of our early members.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=530

A second objective of the forum was to enable people to engage in debate about the content of my Spartacus Educational website. This was important because my website contains information on controversial subjects. In fact, it was started in September 1997 to support the History National Curriculum (England and Wales). An important feature of this curriculum is to study the different interpretations of the past.

In those early months of the Forum we had some interesting discussions about educational issues and the content of my website. Although members strongly disagreed about some of these subjects all the members treated each other with respect and no one was banned nor did we need to have moderators.

In March 2004 I was asked if I would start a new section of the Forum on the subject of the JFK assassination. I had taught the subject in the classroom as an “interpretation” exercise since 1979 and had put some of this material on the website in 1998. At the time, there was very little material of the subject and was appearing near the top of search-engine inquiries (this was a time before Google).

I agreed to this request and the first posting took place a few days later on the subject of David Atlee Phillips. The main objective of this section was to bring together researchers into the assassination of JFK. As I said a few months later: “It is hoped that this forum will enable researchers to share information they have acquired about the case. In this way, the forum will become a major way of communicating information about the assassination to the wider community (we have a far larger number reading the forum than those posting information).”

In the early days of the JFK forum authors of books on the assassination, were willing to discuss their material on the subject. I was aware that people held strong opinions on the assassination but I had no idea of the level of hatred that people had for fellow researchers. The real problem was not between those who believed in the lone-gunman theory and those who were convinced it was a conspiracy. The real conflict was between those who believed in different conspiracy theories. Sometimes they agreed on the overall theory but disagreed passionately on some minor detail.

These discussions often resulted in members making abusive comments. The worst offenders were members who saw JFK as some Jesus Christ type figure who was killed because he was trying to save the world. Therefore, anyone who suggested that JFK was a flawed individual faced the prospect of venomous attack.

Several of the authors who had been attacked told me they were no longer willing to post on the Forum because of the abuse they received. At that time I considered closing down the JFK section of the forum. It was causing me more grief than it was worth. However, at the same time, the forum did contain good researchers who were always polite and argued their case in a logical manner. I therefore asked for volunteers to moderate the forum. It was a thankless task but some people did volunteer to do the job.

In November, 2004, I posted the new forum rules.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

It included (iv): “Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.”

Members often broke this rule and persistent offenders were warned about their behaviour. Some were put on moderation but it seemed to have little impact on their long-term behaviour. I have to confess that by this stage I was completely disillusioned with the JFK Forum and rarely read it and only occasionally posted items that I thought members might find interesting.

Occasionally I received emails from friends bring my attention to what some members were saying about me on the forum, other people’s forums and websites. Some of these unpleasant comments were about my so-called support of Peter Janney’s book, Mary’s Mosaic. It is true that I believe that the CIA were involved in the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer as can be seen on my page on her and the discussion that I started on 23rd March 2005.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3520

It seems my main sin was not that I was blaming the CIA for her death but because I was suggesting that JFK had affairs with women. I posted this attack on me by Jim DiEugenio here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11208

I even allowed Jim to join the Forum in June 2010 so he could continue his attacks on me. I am not complaining. I think these attacks say more about Jim than me. However, to my eternal shame, I did not protect Peter Janney enough when his book Mary’s Mosaic was published in 2012. What made it worse was one of his main tormentors was one of our moderators, Tom Scully.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19058

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19777

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19367

The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.

Last week I received an email from Hank Albarelli Jr. about a thread about his book, "A Secret Order"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a xxxx.

Hank argues:

The recent posts and actions of James DiEugenio and one Tom Scully are accomplishing nothing but the gross discrediting, and perhaps destruction, of the forum. These two fellows seem to be on some sort of pathological campaign to damage and discredit any forum member who may happen to disagree with them or that posts something they don't agree with.

Their destructive campaign against Peter Janney is a very good example. Their blatant attempt to coerce me into that campaign is yet another fine example of how devious and harmful these two individuals can be. (The fact that Scully lists himself as a site "moderator" is quite surprising to me.)

I noted you in my new book as a fine historian, and also highly praised the forum and several of its members, but I would hesitate to do that again given the actions of the above two fellows. I fear that they are making a mockery of the forum and are using it simply for their own devices. Quite sad to observe and experience.

I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.

For some of the completely ignorant and asinine theories that have surfaced here, as well as on virtually every other "talk show", there are many who should be ejected from the forum along with not even being allowed to post anything anywhere on the internet.

As one who has been the "target" of many, if your facts can not withstand scrutiny, then please be my guest and go elsewhere where your feelings will not suffer.

This forum, not unlike the JFK lancer forum, has provided a relative open discussion, even to myself, who just may be the only person who does not subscribe to the aspects of multiple assassinss; body snatchers; and much of the hype relative to supposedly planted evidence and/or alteration to much of this evidence.

Along with of course my presented information relative to the simple facts that the Carcao (Model 91/38) rifle utilized was a weapon of superior accuracy and that LHO was in fact an individual of relatively excellent rifle marksmanship.

Personally, I have met and corresponded with many who first came to this forum who also recognize the difference between the BS and the factual information.

It has therefore been an additional "EDUCATIONAL" experience, and I personally would hate to see this forum close it's doors as there have been many factual truths that were first revealed on the pages contaiined therein.

If you are of the opinion that the forum should ultimately close, might I recommend that it not do so until well after the the 50th anniversary of the assassination event.

Although there are many who will become lost as well as highly discouraged by the often "garbage" found here, one must often take the good with the bad in order to sort for themselves what actually has any factual truths.

Tom

P.S. For whatever it may or may not be worth, the JFK Assassination Forum as well as the John McAdams forum are also riddled with much of the same lack of factual research that one often finds here.

Mr. Purvis

I understand perfectly well the difference between a dispersion test done with a rifle in a fixed position on a bench and the ability of SA Frazier to shoot a rifle.

That is not what is at issue here.

What is at issue is Mr. Simmons claiming the 6.5 mm M91/38 Carcano found in the Sniper's Nest tested for roughly the same degree of dispersion as the 7.62 mm M-14; namely .29 mils.

However, the M-14, in the right hands, can shoot a 1" group at 100 yards, while SA Frazier was only able to shoot a 3-5" group at 100 yards with the Carcano.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, as Shakespeare would say.

Since you apparantly live in "never-never-land", a simple explanation may be in order.

1. A "mil-dispersion test" is fired with the weapon in an absolutely FIXED/vice position with the weapon sighted on the EXACT SAME location for each and every shot fired.

Thereafter, the amount of "dispersion" that is created by the weapon, can be physically measured.

2. The ability of an individual to fire a weapon at a target and thereafter observe the impact location of the bullet, and thereafter make any necessary adjustments to his "aiming point", merely demonstrates the accuracy with which an individual can fire an accurately firing weapon that has a proven low mil-dispersion ratio.

Please enlighten us more!

Tom Purvis

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

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.

In order to save on research time, let me again repeat: "Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule it merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

Tom Purvis

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.

P.S. Forgot to ask! Exactly how many of the various makes and models of the Carcano was it that you have???????

How many was it that you have test fired?????????

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

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

quote from Thomas H. Purvis*

Posted 26 August 2005 - 12:01 AM

Mr. Eisenberg: Can you give us your position, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. Simmons: I am the Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.

Mr. Eisenberg: And how long have you held this position?

Mr. Simmons: This position, about four years, and previous employment has been in these laboratories.

Mr. Eisenberg: How long have you been working, Mr. Simmons, in the area of evaluation of weapons?

Mr. Simmons: Since 1951, in various classes of weapons. Since 1957, however, I have had the responsibility for the laboratories on small arms.

Mr. Simmons: Most of our evaluations have been associated with military rifles.

Mr. Eisenberg: How long altogether have you spent in this area?

Mr. Simmons: Some experience beginning from about 1953. I have been continously concerned with this since 1957.

Mr. Eisenberg: But your specialty is in the evaluation of weapons systems, including military rifles, and you have been engaged in this for 13 years, as to all weapons systems, and since 1953 as to--

Mr. Simmons: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Simmons: Well, our examination of rifles is not the detailed engineering, design experiment which a gunsmith or a rifle expert as such would concern himself with. We are more concerned with establishing a framework by which we can put numbers to the performance of military rifles in tactical employment. And this means that for a specific--specific classes of weapons, we have had to establish, for example, round-to-round dispersion, the accuracy with which they can be employed and the wounding power of the projectiles.

Mr. Simmons: Yes, we fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in the test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.

Mr. Eisenberg: Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. Simmons: Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. Eisenberg: Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. Simmons: Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round-to-round dispersion is on the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCloy: Your are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. Simmons: The M-14.

____________________________________________________________________

WC Testimony of Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistic Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.

My personal "military rifle" experience began with the old M1-Garand and progressed through the M-14 and to the M-16, and rest assured, this experience has demonstrated that the Carcano M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifle is as accurate as any of these weapons at the shorter ranges of less than 300 meters.

Weapon accuracy as relates to the Carcano and the JFK assassination, is a "non-issue" for anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the assassination rifle."

__ end quote __

This exchange between Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Simmons was a well orchestrated ploy to lead the members of the Warren Commission away from the simple fact that Oswald's purported 6.5 mm M91/38 Carcano did not have even a fraction of the accuracy the standard issue 7.62 mm M-14 had. If Mr. Purvis is the expert in firearms he claims to be, he should be able to see through this propaganda, yet he supports it wholeheartedly.

Let us examine the above testimony. A "mil", or "milliradian", is equivalent to .0573 degree of a circle, and is a measurement used by the military for many years. If you have a circle that is 100 yards in radius and measure outwards from the centre, a 1 mil arc will be 3.6" of the outer circumference of that circle. Twenty rounds fired through the 6.5 mm short rifle gave a dispersion of .29 mils.

.29 mils x 3.6" = 1.04

In other words, if a rifle produced a result of .29 mils dispersion in a bench test, it should be shooting just over a 1" group at 100 yards. This is not an unreasonable expectation of an M-14, still used as a sniper weapon today. A good marksman, using a bench rest, should have no difficulty putting bullets into a 1.5" group at 100 yards.

However, let us look at the results obtained by FBI SA Robert A. Frazier:

From Wikipedia:

"1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."^[65] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2½ inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.^[66] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),^[67] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."

I'm not sure if everyone can decipher all of this but, the one essential piece of information presented here is "At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2½ to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle."

Mr. Purvis dares to compare the 6.5 mm M91/38 shooting a 3 to 5 inch group at 100 yards to an M-14 shooting a 1 to 1.5 inch group at 100 yards? Indeed!

The question remains, though, if the dispersion test was accurate, how can there be such a discrepancy (from 1" to 3-5") when it goes to actual bench rest shooting at 100 yards? The obvious answer is quite clear; Mr. Simmons does not tell us how far from the muzzle of the rifle the target for the dispersion test actually was. It could have been no more than 3 or 4 inches. Placing the target at this point would only measure that deviation created by the barrel (or improperly sized bullet) and would not take into account the effects of an unstable bullet over 100 yards. To obtain results of .29 mils, at this close distance, would make the barrel and bullet quite suspect, as the M-14 can obtain the same .29 mils at 100 yards (plus shoot a 1" group).

Personally,

Me thinks that someone does not understand the "bench test" which is merely a testing of the ability of the rifle to fie a close dispersion pattern, and which is determined with the weapon in an absolutely FIXED position, as compared with eactly how accurate FBI Agent Robert Frazier could fire the weapon from the shoulder fired position.

Tom Purvis

M1-Garand--------Mississippi Army National Guard

M-14 (expert rating)-----Enlisted/RA service, United States Army

M-16 (expert rating)-----Officer, United States Army Special Forces.

Personally, I would not believe anything that I had to say on the subject matter.

However, when Ronald Simmons and FBI Agent Frazier speaks, one just may want to pay atention to what they have to say regarding the weapon accuracy.

P