Robert Prudhomme

Mr. Von Pein You are not addressing Mr. Gallup's question. Does this mean that you are absolutely at a loss to explain what Drs. Humes and Boswell tell us about the entrance wound at the back of JFK's head and the bone fragment brought in, AFTER the "photos" were taken, that completed a hole in the skull in the region of the external occipital protruberance? If all you are going to do is to keep harping about the photos trumping all other evidence, including the testimony of the doctors performing the autopsy, please do us and yourself a favour by refraining from responding. You really are beginning to make yourself look silly.

Mr. Von Pein Have you put any thought into Mr. Gallup's question? I quote it below just to refresh your memory. Care to have a stab at answering it? _ quote from Daniel Gallup _ " David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first. David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first." If Mr. Gallup is not clear enough for your liking, we can always post the appropriate quotes from Drs. Humes and Boswell for you. Or, do you think they were lying?

Thought I'd best bump this. We are still waiting and hoping that Mr. Murr will share some more evidence on the 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges made by the Western Cartridge Company.

*in my best David Von Pein voice* "LIES ! LIES ! ALL LIES !!! WE HAVE THE BEST EVIDENCE !! DO YOU HEAR ME ??!! THE BEST EVIDENCE, MADE RIGHT HERE IN THE USA BY THE CLARK PANEL AND THE HSCA !!!!"

Mr. Von Pein And the entry hole Dr. Humes found just "slightly above the external occipital protruberance"? Or are you going to try to make the case that the cowlick, at the top of the skull, is "slightly above" the external occipital protruberance, located at the base of the skull. Don't you ever wish you had been given better materiel to work with?

Mr. Von Pein Would 100 millimetres be the same thing as four inches? Oh, and while you're here, there are a couple of questions you never answered, if you please.

Robert, according to the autopsy doctors, the entrance wound was low in the back of the head slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. If this shot came from the sixth floor, it would seemingly have exited his face, as you noted earlier. That might explain why fragments were found in the front of the limo, but the last time I checked, Kennedy had no hole in his face. if the kill shot hit the right temple and left the avulsive wound described by Perry, McClelland et al, in the rear of the head, the fragments 55 7 and 569 would not likely be found in the front of the limo, would they? I mean, what in the world blasted the orange-size hole in the back of Kennedy's head? A shot from the front would have meant the true bullet exited the rear with a third of his brain etc. My point: isn't the location of the fragments noted herein evidence that they really are just plants? Mr. Gallup Excellent points. It really matters which theory we happen to be describing at the moment. For the sake of argument, and to humour Mr. Von Pein, I was going along with the fantasy of the bullet entering the cowlick. This does not say that is the particular theory I believe. Myself, I am divided between a single bullet entering the right (or left) temple and exiting in the right occipito-parietal (right rear) portion of JFK's head and two bullets, one entering the right or left temple and one entering, as you said, slightly above and to the right of the EOP. Outside of Drs. Humes and Boswell at the autopsy, there is little to no early evidence, from either Parkland or Bethesda, of a massive avulsive wound in the right forward part of JFK's head, as seen in the Zapruder film. Where the bullet entering the EOP actually exited, if it did at all, is a mystery but, considering how low it entered and the downward angle it was travelling, we are correct in assuming a likely exit point for it would have been mid to lower face.

Hello Gary Very interesting document you have there. How did you come by it, if you don't mind my asking? As you say, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as evidence goes. I would very much like to see what else you have.

Mr. Murr??

Mr. Von Pein??

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 Hello Gary Thank you for responding to my post. The age of the WCC ammunition is an issue that has so little evidence supporting either view, I sometimes simply throw my hands in the air at the prospect of attempting to unravel it. There are many holes in the trail the FBI has left for us, chief among them the so called "copies" of production records from the WCC pertaining to the production of 6.5 mm ammunition which never quite materialized. However, you do bring up some interesting items that, if verified, would certainly sway my opinion towards the cartridges being manufactured in 1954. Unfortunately, this would mean Mark Lane (Steve Galanor) and Sylvia Meagher were either being untruthful or were relying on informants clearly not aware of the true facts. I would be very interested in seeing a photo of one of the cartridges in the 2,000 cartridge lot bearing the base stamp "WCC 54". How very odd that the calibre was not included, as is often the norm for military ammo. Do you have a photo of one of these rarities, or a link to a site bearing a photo? Also, I would be very interested in seeing documentation from the company that made the cartons for the WCC 6.5 mm ammunition in 1954. Would it be possible for you to provide a photo of the date stamp on one of these cartons, as well? It is also important to point out that, as the story goes, the WCC contract to make 6.5 mm ammunition was not with the Italian government (if one even existed in that period) but, rather, with the US Dept. of Defense. As I stated earlier, the ammunition may never have left North America, and might have been manufactured only as an insurance policy against a war in Italy that dragged on into 1946 or further. Even considering you are correct about the cartons being made in 1954, might the cartidges not have been re-packaged into newer cartons, possibly to help whatever clandestine organization (CIA) receiving these cartridges in 1954 to cover their tracks better? Their may very well have been references to the DoD on the original cartons that would have caused embarrassment to the American government, should they pop up on the wrong part of the planet. But, all of this aside, the manufacture date of this ammunition, while intriguing, is still not the most important issue here. SA Frazier (weapons expert from the FBI) testified to the WC that he shot a 5" group at a target set at 100 yards, using Oswald's M91/38 loaded with 6.5 mm WCC ammunition. Unless SA Frazier was a terrible shot, something made those bullets go so badly astray. Whether it was a worn out or damaged rifle or there was something wrong with the 6.5 mm WCC ammunition, we don't know. And we may never know, but that won't stop us from trying. Considering all of the other handicaps a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD would already be facing, adding in the fact that this M91/38 shot 5" groups at 100 yards tells me it was very unlikely Oswald shot JFK with this rifle. Gary Murr In your post you brought to light two startling revelations regarding the Western Cartridge Company made 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, made infamous when four of these cartridges were found in the 6th floor Sniper's Nest following the JFK assassination. Your revelations were that of the four million (?) cartridges made, 2,000 of these cartridges had "WCC 54" stamped on their bases, instead of the "WCC 6.5 mm" stamped on the other 3,998,000 cartridges, thereby establishing the manufacture of at least these 2,000 cartridges in 1954 and not prior to 1944. Also, while the date of manufacture of the cartridges is not stamped on the cartons anywhere, you tell us that the cartons were made in Missouri, and that the date 1954 was stamped somewhere on the cartons by this Missouri company. Surely, you must be able to appreciate the significance of these groundbreaking revelations. In fifty years of research, no other piece of evidence has come to light that would so accurately pinpoint the date of manufacture of this ammunition. While I by no means mean to pressure you, you must also be able to appreciate that it would be foolhardy to accept these revelations without documentation or proof of their existence. Would you be so kind as to verify your findings for us?

Mr. Von Pein How thick is the human skull at the back of it where JFK was struck by what Gerald Posner's expert referred to as a "flying drill" (6.5 mm bullet) ? "The 6.5 mm bullet, when fired, is like a flying drill," says Art Pence, a competitions firearms expert. Some game hunters use the 6.5 mm shell to bring down animals as large as elephants." ~~Gerald Posner~~ "Case Closed"

Mr. Von Pein Just as I thought, you are afraid to answer that question, and for very good reasons. The answer to that question would be devastating to the case you are trying to make for Drs. Lattimer and Olivier. When you wish to have a serious discussion, let me know.

Mr. Von Pein Here is a good question for you, and the answer you give will tell us if Drs. Lattimer and Olivier were charlatans employed by the government or not. The human skulls that Drs. Lattimer and Olivier fired 6.5 mm WCC Carcano bullets into, were they cadaver skulls with brain and fluid still in the skull cavity? Or were they empty human skulls?

I see this kind of thing requires great patience if one wishes answers.

Just ignore the man behind the curtain and try to concentrate on the evidence we are provided, good folks.

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?

Daniel, The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence: Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report) One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition). Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera. To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963? That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes." DSL 6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Mr. Lifton While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision. Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter? Forgive me for interjection an opinion, but what you have observed about the nature of the neck muscles would be a good motive for Perry to make the horizontal incision as small as possible, say, 2-3 cm, so as to minimize damage to the area. Mr. Gallup While only the skin and underlying cutaneous layers are cut with a scalpel during a tracheotomy and the long muscles are only pulled aside with forks to expose the trachea, the muscles would seem prone to accidental cutting in a horizontal or transverse cut, due to their close proximity to the cutaneous layer. It would seem only logical to cut vertically to avoid damaging the muscles accidentally. http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/imagesCA3GP4WY_zps02b6f4ee.jpg And, of course, you are correct in surmising that, if a horizontal incision is made, making it as short as possible would minimize the risk of damage to muscles in that area.

Daniel, The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence: Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report) One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition). Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera. To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963? That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes." DSL 6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Mr. Lifton While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision. Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter?

Fascinating round, that "multi-shot" round. I wonder if it penetrates and comes apart inside the target or if it breaks up on the surface?

Mr. DeFiore In your blog, a shot from the south knoll is mentioned a few times. This is a rarely explored theory and there seems to not be much research on it. Between Parkland and Bethesda, do you happen to know how many people saw or thought they saw a bullet entry wound in JFK's left temple?

Robert, FWIW (just guessing here), maybe it means the closest to dead center, i.e. the "best" shot, was 3 inches away from it, whereas the "worst" shot was 5 inches away from dead center. If so, then I suppose it could be said that all the shots were in a 2-inch wide ring (technically not a circle, but two circles sharing the same center) that started 3 inches from the center and extended out to 5 inches from the center. --Tommy . Mr. Graves It is a bit hard to explain but, the grouping of bullets does not have anything to do with the distance on the target those bullets are away from the bulls eye centre. A rifle's sights or scope can always be adjusted to bring the point of impact to the bulls eye, but grouping is a different matter altogether. A group of shots can be as far from the bulls eye on the target as you can get (even off the target onto the panel the target is pinned to) but, if they are all within a 1" circle, the rifle is accurate and the bullets are loaded with the correct type and weight of powder. Here is a link to a page that will explain the grouping measurement process: http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=1375&magid=95 Robert, Thank you. Yes, of course. Grouping. How silly of me. Well, hopefully Mr. Purvis can and will enlighten us as to what SA Frazier meant! --Tommy Mr. Graves I sincerely hope someone on this forum will enlighten us on this matter. If I had a rifle that shot 5" groups at 100 yards, I would use it as a fencepost in the tomato patch.

This is how Jim D. concluded what turned out be his final post-- Famous last words from Jim D. So no one will be surprised that I, for one, am glad that John Simkin has finally had enough of Jim B's nasty attitude. Mr. Carroll I find I must agree with you on this point. There are ways of dealing with an opponent in a debate that do not leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. My late father was fond of describing a smooth talking friend of his in the following manner, "He could tell someone to go to Hell, and actually have the fellow looking forward to the trip." That, to me, is the essence of a good debater.

Sorry, not enough time to get into the multi-shot round tonight. I'll try to find time tomorrow.

quote from Tom Fairlie: "Even the trolls occasionally post something worthwhile." Yes, Tom, you are correct. As the old saying goes, "Even a broken clock has a chance at being right twice a day."