Robert Prudhomme

Let me begin by saying, from my observations, that no element of the JFK assassination is dealt with to a lesser depth than the 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano Model 91/38 short rifle Oswald purportedly used to assassinate JFK. The capabilities (or lack of) of 6.5 Carcano rifles, in general, are usually referred to fleetingly in anecdotal fashion and range from "worst rifle ever...couldn't hit a barn from the inside..." to "it's a tack driver....my Uncle Joe gets one inch groups at 200 yards" and, of course, everything in between. But what if the 6.5 Carcano (its more proper name) was all of these things? Let me explain.

The 6.5 Carcano rifle was developed for the Italian infantry around the new 6.5 x 52 mm cartridge in 1891. It was named the Model 1891 long rifle, and was typical of the long unwieldy infantry weapons of an age not far removed from battling with spears and lances; hence the length of the rifle and equally long bayonet. However, the long rifle also had a long barrel (just under 31") and the Model 1891, produced until 1938, was such an accurate weapon that it is still used in competitions to this day.

Another feature contributing to the accuracy of the long rifle is something known as "gain" or "progressive" twist rifling. Rather than the barrel having a standard number of rifling twists per ten inches from chamber to muzzle, all 6.5 Carcanos up until 1938 had riflings that began at a gentle 1:19 at the chamber and gradually tightened to a 1:8 twist at the muzzle. Although very complicated to machine, this type of rifling was supposedly easy on barrels and made for a very accurate weapon.

Yet another feature contributing to accuracy was the long narrow 6.5 bullet fired from this weapon. With a muzzle velocity of 2400 fps, this long 162 grain roundnosed bullet stabilised very nicely and performed very well, although the round nose and flat base gave this bullet a very low ballistic coefficient not aided by its relatively low velocity and large mass.

At this point, it should be pointed out that, although Italy started out with an excellent weapon, economics, poor wartime planning and, likely the most predominant of all factors, politics, all played a part in contributing to the bad reputation received by the 6.5 Carcano. No sooner had the M1891 been introduced than it was decided to be produced in a cavalry carbine in 1893 called the M1893 Cavalry Carbine. Its barrel was just over 17" in length. Remember the progressive twist rifling of the M1891? These carbines were produced by shortening M1891 long rifle barrels and, of course, the part of the barrel with the tightest riflings (the muzzle) was cut off; leaving the carbine barrel with a maximum rifling of possibly 1:13 which was totally inadequate. Try to imagine what the resulting lack of spin would do to the performance and stability of the 6.5 mm bullet in flight.

The M1891 Cavalry Carbine was produced, along with other carbines, right up until 1938. Of the other three main carbine models, namely the Model 1891 TS (Special Troops), the M1891/24 and the M1891/28, all except possibly the M1891/28 were made by cutting the barrels of M1891 long rifles from 31" to just over 17". As the M1891/28 was an entirely new carbine, it may be possible that new barrels were made for it with closer attention paid to the riflings.

For another example of desperation and compromise in the manufacture of 6.5 Carcanos, we have to go to World War One. The Italians had grossly underestimated how quickly modern warfare churned up men and machines and, at a point somewhere in 1915, it became apparent they were unable to keep up production of the M1891 6.5 mm long rifle to match losses in the field. In desperation, they retrieved their stocks of obselete 10.35 x 47 mm Vetterli Vitali Model 1870/87 rifles. In one of the most bizarre modifications on record, the large 10.35 mm bores of these rifles were drilled out and a liner tube of 6.5 mm calibre inserted into the barrel and silver soldered. The Vetterli magazine was replaced with one to hold the 6.5 Carcano cartridges and, strangest of all, the end of the Vetterli bolt was cut off and a stub for 6.5 Carcano silver soldered onto it! One has to wonder what the final tally of Italians vs. Austrians killed by this weapon was in the end. It was redesignated as the Model 1870/87/15 and, though produced in great numbers, it was kept away from frontline troops and mainly issued to support units, for obvious reasons.

For reasons that had nothing to do with the accuracy of the M1891 long rifle, and which I will go into on a separate thread on the 6.5 mm cartridge itself, the Italians decided, in 1938, to replace the M1891 long rifle with a lighter and easier to handle "short rifle" designated the M1938 or M38 for short. With a barrel length of just over 22", it was quite distinct from the 6.5 Carcano carbines with barrels of just over 17".

A totally new rifle, it also had a newly designed cartridge; the 7.35 x 51 mm. Though not greatly different in length than the 162 grain 6.5 mm bullet, this new bullet weighed only 130 grains. This was due to the spire point on the 7.35, as opposed to the roundnosed 6.5, plus a new development in warfare; mainly the desire to have a bullet topple on impact and cause great grievous wounds. The spire point helped; its pointed tip easily deflected when hitting a bone at an angle. Also, with a spire point, the greatest mass of a long bullet is at its rear and inertia tends to make the back end want to pass the front end on impact. This was further enhanced by replacing the dense lead at the tip of the bullet with aluminum; thus creating an even greater difference in mass from base to tip. The aluminum was covered, of course, by the full metal jacket of the bullet. The aluminum also helped to account for the 32 grain difference in bullet weights.

As the bolt, receiver and magazine of the 7.35 Carcano was still the same as the 6.5 Carcano, the original plan had been to cut short worn out M1891 long rifle barrels, from 31" to 22", and re-bore them for 7.35 mm. Instead of progressive twist rifling, the 7.35 was to have standard rifling of 1:10 from chamber to muzzle. However, poor planning plagued the Italians again, and they soon found themselves at war again with severe shortages; this time being 7.35 mm cartridges. To add insult to injury, they had vast stores of 6.5 cartridges left over from WWI and their African campaigns in the 1920's. One has to wonder about the quality of this aged ammunition but, as they say, beggars can't be choosers.

The Italians took the next obvious step by maintaining production of the M38 short rifle but dropping the 7.35 mm round and going back to the 6.5 mm round. The M38 short rifle was re-designated the M91/38 short rifle 6.5 mm calibre. No record has ever been found that the 1:10 rifling for the 7.35 mm round was ever changed to a more appropriate rifling for the 6.5 mm round of 1:8 or 1:7. Worse, the shorter barrel, designed for the 130 grain bullet, was now being asked to propel a 162 grain bullet designed for the backpressures of a 31" barrel. It is small wonder that muzzle velocities for the 6.5 mm Carcano M91/38 are often given as low as 2000 fps. The lower muzzle velocity further handicapped the rifle's performance as the roundnosed bullet had a lower ballistic co-efficient than the spire pointed bullet and this became more obvious at lower velocities and longer ranges.

Further attributes to the inaccuracy of 6.5 Carcanos (all models) can be traced to the primers used in the standard Italian issue "SMI" (Societa Metallurgica Italiana) 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges. They did not always provide a tight seal and moisture was known to have detrimental effects on the smokeless powder inside the cartridges. Also, the chemicals used in the primers were very corrosive and, in the aged ammunition used by Italy during WWII, primers pierced by firing pins were not uncommon; causing blowbacks in the Carcano chambers. As dealers in surplus Italian arms are quick to point out, surplus Italian 6.5 mm ammunition is highly suspect, for these reasons, and most are quick to advise against firing surplus Italian ammunition.

We have established that the Italians had an aptitude for poor management, compromise and desperation when it came to the manufacture of small arms. I will end this post here, then, and continue with conjectures of what may have transpired between 1938 and Italy's surrender in 1943 in another post tomorrow.

Good night.

Mr. Speer

Confusion reigns supreme again. Would we be referring to the small entrance wound adjacent to the external occipital protruberance, as reported by Dr. Humes in 1963, or the small entrance wound in the cowlick area, deduced by a panel of experts for the HSCA?

I think I understand what you are saying, though. In essence, what you are saying is, I believe, how can such a small entrance wound equate to so much damage to a bullet? Also, I believe you are questioning the HSCA drawing depicting a massive defect exiting the top of the skull and what appears to be an almost intact bullet exiting in the area of the right frontal bone. Please correct me if I am mistaken here.

You are correct to question the conclusions of the Warren Commission and the HSCA. However, from my perspective, the size of the entrance wound in this case does not really tell us very much, other than the fact the bullet that entered JFK's head was not tumbling but, rather, went straight in. The size of the entrance wound, in FMJ, soft tipped or hollow point bullets, will tell you nothing about whether that bullet emerges relatively intact on the other side of the skull through a small exit wound or comes apart completely and blows off the other side of the head. I have seen a deer shot in the head with a soft tipped bullet fired from a .25-06 rifle that left a 3" diameter exit wound, yet the 1/4" entrance wound was almost impossible to find. That being said, a full metal jacket bullet, especially a 6.5 mm Carcano with a thicker than normal jacket, should not have broken into pieces inside of JFK's head.

Robert, Larry Sturdivan's book The JFK Myths includes a chart based upon Olivier's testing of the wound ballistics of 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.

This shows that a bullet traveling point first and striking bone will deform at around 1700 fps or higher, and that a bullet traveling sideways through soft tissue will deform at around 2000 fps or higher.

In other words, bullets striking bone point first receive more resistance than bullets traveling sideways through soft tissue, and the bullet passing through Kennedy's head was traveling too slow to first deform within the brain, and must have started its deformation upon the bone.

Mr. Speer

I'm really at a loss here to understand what you are trying to say. I think the point you are attempting to make is that the bullet striking JFK's skull began its deformation on contact with the skull bone, am I correct?

I have already stated that a bullet contacting skull bone will deform. However, as the human skull is not that thick and the bullet was supposedly a full metal jacket bullet, the amount of deformation would have been minimal and the entrance wound would have been, one would expect, a neat little hole about the diameter of an intact bullet; much like the one in JFK's right temple.

Making a comparison between bullets striking bone point first and bullets travelling sideways through soft tissue is like comparing apples to oranges.

Mr. Speer

After studying the photo of the back of the head purportedly struck with hunting ammunition, another possibility occurred to me that might account for the unusual amount of surface damage.

Did the source of this photo indicate at what range the bullet was fired? If the range was point blank, and it was a type of frangible or unjacketed bullet, we may be looking at damage partially inflicted by the muzzle blast of the firearm.

Whatever it is, I have never, in my hunting experience, seen anything like this.

Mr. Speer

With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

Let me see if I'm getting this right. You're saying that hunting ammunition does not deform upon impact with a skull? Because everything I've ever read on wound ballistics indicates that it's designed to deform upon impact.

P.S. Dr. Olivier told the Warren Commission the fatal bullet deformed and broke up upon impact. This is most interesting because the size of the entrance wound does not reflect the entrance of a deformed bullet. And no, I don't believe for a second what's been pushed elsewhere--that a bullet breaking up upon impact will enter the skull intact and break into pieces as it traverses the skull. This explanation not only fails to pass a simple smell test, but ignores the simple fact that the bullet breaks up BECAUSE it is deformed, and not the reverse. And that it would deform at the point of greatest resistance...UPON impact with the skull. And that a deformed bullet will not create an entrance hole smaller than the width of the bullet.

The slide below features a photograph of a human head struck on the back by hunting ammunition. The entrance wound of this hunting ammunition bears no resemblance to the supposed "cowlick" entry.

.

Mr. Speer

Of course, hunting ammunition will deform when it comes in contact with a skull bone. The question is, how much will it deform and how thick is the skull bone. Hunting ammunition (soft tipped bullets) are designed to give a certain amount of penetration before any real expansion begins to take place. Therefore, in a creature such as a deer or a man, with relatively thin skull material, the entrance wound will not appear to be much bigger than the bullet itself; while the exit wound will be far bigger. On the other hand, in a creature such as an elephant, with skull bone almost a foot thick at the brow ridge, we might see something totally different. Would the soft tipped bullet go partway through the thick bone and break up inside, leaving a small entrance wound on the surface of the elephant? Having never shot an elephant in the head before, I cannot say.

It must also be remembered there is a world of difference between copper jacketed* soft tipped ammunition and unjacketed lead ammunition. The horrendous autopsy photo beside the JFK back of head photo may very well have been an unjacketed hollow point bullet with a spire point. Not only would there be no jacket to contain the rapid expansion allowed by the hollow point, the spire point might cause the bullet to tumble on impact, further exaggerating the effect. It is unfortunate that, in the research community, certain people are so intent on "winning" that they will throw in red herrings such as this.

I experimented for a while years ago by handloading 110 grain copper jacketed hollow point hunting bullets into cartridges for a .308 hunting rifle I owned. The idea was to shoot the deer in the head (spoiling less meat) and have the bullets expand so rapidly in the deer's skull, death would be almost instantaneous. The plan worked beyond anything I had hoped for but, the results were so obscene, I eventully quit using them. In every case, though, the entrance wound was no bigger than the bullet itself, while the exit wounds were huge. And, contrary to popular belief, the exit wound from a hollow point bullet is not always on the opposite side of the head from the entrance wound. A shot in the side of a deer's head can blow the top of the skull off.

Dr. Olivier should have been tarred and feathered and hung for treason for what he told the Warren Commission. A 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have deformed and broken up on impact without leaving quite a mess at the entrance site, though the likelihood of it breaking up at all is minute. And, you are quite right in saying this bullet could not then enter the skull cavity and break up into pieces there.

It is important to understand what takes place when a bullet enters the skull. Years ago, when bulk oil was still shipped in five gallon steel cans, we would use these empty cans for target practice. A favorite trick was to fill one of these cans with water, put the cap back on it and not tell the guy shooting at it that it was filled with water. When hit with a soft tipped bullet, there would be a tiny hole where the bullet entered but the can would literally explode, often leaving a rupture the entire length of the can. Of course, it was hydraulic pressure created when the expanding bullet attempted to traverse the water in the can that took the can apart. If the lid was left off of the can, the can would not explode. Think of the skull of a living creature as that sealed can full of water. A soft tipped bullet will penetrate the relatively brittle bone with only a small degree of expansion. As it contacts the incompressible fluid and brain matter it meets resistance, further expanding the bullet and creating a pressure wave ahead of it. In comparison, the FMJ bullet will suffer very little expansion and create a smaller pressure wave, while the hollow point bullet will expand enormously inside the skull (likely breaking up) and create a much larger pressure wave than the soft tipped bullet.

So, you see, it is incorrect to say that the point of entry is where the greatest resistance is met. The greatest resistance is met INSIDE the skull when the expanding bullet tries to compress the incompressible liquid and brain matter. A bullet fired into an open tank of water is a clear demonstration of this.

It is this pressure wave that creates the enormous exit wounds. Like any pressure vessel, the skull will eventually rupture at its weakest point to relieve this pressure. However, and I can attest to this from personal experience, once there is a large exit wound in the skull, another bullet fired into that same skull will produce no explosive results at all, for the simple fact that the "pressure vessel" is now compromised and there is nothing to contain the pressure wave.

* (the jacketing material is not really copper but a type of brass known as "gilders metal")

Give it up.

Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.

Here, it's just Lamson.

You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.

Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.

So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.

You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Mr. Knight

The real question is, why are these antics tolerated on this site? Surely, there must be numerous infractions of the rules by now.

Give it up.

Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx.

Here, it's just Lamson.

You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge.

Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers.

So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits.

You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Mr. Knight

You are quite right in this matter. I had intended to end discussion with him early in this thread when he first began responding with inane remarks but, temptation reared its ugly head and I succumbed.

I actually have endured Mr. Lamson's tirades before, on the JFK Assassination Forum. He is not so noticeable there, as the forum is rife with characters almost identical in manner to him. Of course, all of them are "experts" as well, or have good "friends" who are experts.

Your ex special forces "friend", if he exists at all outside of your imagination, should have the qualifications to tell you that a round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, ESPECIALLY a thick jacketed 6.5 mm Carcano bullet, would have been incapable of breaking up in the manner witnessed in z313 of the Zapruder film.

Anyone that bases his research on YouTube videos is a definite believer in junk science.

Mr. Speer

Further to the unlikelihood of only one out of four bullets being altered by Oswald, it must be remembered that damaged or crudely altered bullets are inherently inaccurate, due to the destabilizing and unbalancing effect such damage or alteration has on the in flight characteristics of such a bullet. Also, the amount of accidental "damage" required to put a full metal jacket on par with a hollow point bullet, given the thicker than average jacket of the 6.5 Carcano FMJ bullet, is extremely hard to conceive and would only make sense in the mind of a Lone Nut.

Mr. Speer

With all due respect, my experience in hunting has shown me that both soft tipped and hollow point bullets will often make entry wounds no bigger than full metal jacket bullets, ie. no bigger than the actual diameter of the bullet. This is only altered if the bullet begins to tumble, for whatever reason, prior to hitting the target.

What makes it unlikely that Oswald would have altered the tip of the bullet that struck JFK's head is the fact that we know two of the four bullets allegedly in Oswald's possession that day, CE 399 and the unfired cartridge, were not altered. If going for a head shot on the first shot, wouldn't it make sense to alter ALL of the bullets? I believe this is a desperate attempt by a Lone Nut to distract us from the basic reality that a head shot from a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet could not have produced the explosive results seen in z313.

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.

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?

Mr. Murr

I had not considered this at all. In what fashion do you think the cartridge might have been compromised?

"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"

The above statement, by Posner, does not refer specifically to the 6.5 Carcano; although the rifle it refers to, the 6.5x54 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, shoots an almost identical long, roundnosed bullet at about the same muzzle velocity as the 6.5 Carcano. The 6.5 M-S and the 6.5 Carcano cartridges are almost indistinguishable visually and ballistically.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/65x54MS_zpsca76ef3d.jpg

6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer (left)

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/untitled-13_zpscd8557b9.png

6.5x52 Carcano (left)

From Wikipedia:

"Among professional elephant hunters of the 19th and 20th centuries, Walter Dalrymple Maitland "Karamojo" Bell, who shot more than 1,500 elephants[1] in the period 1895-1930, had a very high regard for the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer, using it for approximately 300 of these kills."

What the Wikipedia author and Gerald Posner conveniently neglect to mention is just WHY an elephant hunter would elect to use a medium velocity, smaller calibre rifle, such as the 6.5 M-S or the 6.5 Carcano, to bring down an animal as large as an elephant, when there are so many higher velocity, larger calibre rifles available. They also neglect to mention that full metal jacket bullets were used to kill these elephants, as opposed to the soft point bullets normally used in hunting. There is a perfectly good reason for this, and you will be quite surprised once it is explained to you. Also, once you understand the reason for the selection of a lower speed, full metal jacket bullet of 6.5 mm calibre for killing elephants, you will understand what a monstrous fraud has been inflicted on the public by the conspirators in the JFK assassination. Suffice it to say, at this point, that the fatal head shot at frame z313 in the Zapruder film could NOT have been the result of a wound from a 6.5 Carcano full metal jacket bullet.

At this point, it is important that we all understand terms such as "rifle bore" "rifle calibre" "riflings" "lands and grooves" and "bullet diameter". Study the following drawing of the interior of a rifle barrel for a few seconds:

When a barrel is made for a rifle, the first step is to drill or "bore" a hole lengthwise inside the barrel. The diameter of this hole (just under .256" in a 6.5mm barrel) becomes known as the "calibre" or "bore" of the rifle. Hence, 6.5 mm = approximately .256". However, the diameter of the bullet is larger than this bore. Using special cutting tools, the machinist next cuts spiral grooves the entire inside length of the barrel, establishing the rifling grooves and leaving distinct "lands" between the grooves. The distance from the top of one land to the top of an opposing land is, once again, the calibre of the rifle.

It can be plainly seen that the bullet used in a rifle must be equal in diameter to the "groove diameter" of the barrel (the distance from the bottom of one groove to the bottom of an opposing groove in a barrel with four riflings). Herein lies one of the reasons for the selection of the 6.5 M-S and the 6.5 Carcano as effective elephant guns.

Not all armsmakers agree on the depth to cut rifling grooves. The vast majority of 6.5/.256 calibre rifles shoot a bullet .264" in diameter. There are two and only two exceptions to this. The makers of the 6.5 M-S made their rifling grooves deeper and chose a bullet .266" in diameter. The 6.5 Carcano is unique in that its designers chose to cut the rifling grooves so deep, it shoots a bullet that is a whopping .268" in diameter. As the Carcano riflings will still cut grooves in the copper bullet jacket to the depth of the rifle bore, it goes without saying that a 6.5 Carcano should cut much deeper rifling grooves in a bullet than other 6.5/.256 rifles. Looking at Warren Commission photos of CE 399 (the so called "magic bullet"), this would not appear to be the case. I would dearly love to get my hands on CE 399 and take my micrometer to it for five minutes.

As the whole point of making a full metal jacket military bullet is to make the jacket strong enough to prevent the jacket from coming apart and making horrible wounds in the person on the receiving end of it, it stands to reason the jacket walls on the sides of the bullet have to be a minimum thickness to maintain the integrity of the jacket. If not, the rifling marks cut in the jacket would remove enough metal from the jacket to weaken it and cause it to come apart on impact. So, it therefore stands to reason that, with a bore of .256" and a bullet diameter of .268", the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet (and the 6.5 M-S) must have jacket walls thicker than other 6.5/.256 bullets, which is actually the case.

Now, patient reader, it is time to tie all of these things together and explain how they relate to killing elephants.

The problem with shooting large game, such as elephants, has always been the penetrating capabilities of the bullets used. Elephants have remarkably thick skulls. The trick to killing them is to have a bullet that is like a "flying drill" that will penetrate the thick skull bone, without breaking up, in order to reach the elephant's brain intact and inflict damage upon it.

The 6.5 M-S and Carcano full metal jacket bullets are ideal candidates for this task. If their muzzle velocity was much higher than the roughly 2200 feet/second of both, more energy would be imparted to the bullets and they could break apart or tumble on impact with bone. Both bullets are very long, compared to their diameter, and have great inherent stability because of this. Both have round noses which allow the bullet to "punch" its way through bone, rather than tumbling on impact as a pointed bullet might. Both bullets have a relatively high mass for their calibre (160-162 grains), contributing to the inertia of the bullet during penetration. And, lastly, I pointed out that both the 6.5 M-S and Carcano bullets have thicker than normal jacket walls, making for a very strong bullet jacket that greatly resists deformation and breakup when travelling through dense material such as bone. As discussed in previous threads, the 6.5 Carcano was dubbed the "humanitarian rifle" by Italian troops, as it didn't seem capable of killing people. As can be seen, the 6.5 Carcano bullet's ability to go through a person intact, without breaking apart or tumbling and tearing up vital organs, certainly earned it this name. The only good thing about the 6.5 Carcano, as observed by Italian troops, is that it was possible to shoot more than one person with the same bullet.

By now, the more alert amongst you should be asking the obvious question: If these bullets were capable of penetrating elephant skull bones, or 48" of pine lumber (as the WC apologists constantly tell us), without deformation or breaking up, how is it that a 6.5 mm Carcano full metal jacket bullet entered the rear of JFK's skull and broke apart into many pieces? The simple answer is: It didn't.

There are rather gruesome videos, from the Second World War, of soldiers executed by firing squads equipped with 6.5 Carcano rifles. Many of these soldiers were shot in the head, some from the front and some from the back, and it is interesting to note that, from almost point blank range, the dramatic explosive results seen in the Zapruder film at z313 are never seen or duplicated.

Apparently the owners do not subscribe to the lone nut theory, nor to any conspiracy implicating their boy Lee.

Smart ladies, IMHO.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22464613/dallas-house-where-oswald-lived-to-go-up-for-sale

Hall, a seventh-grader when Kennedy was assassinated, can remember Oswald breaking up a fight between her brothers in the front yard of the house.

"He separated them and sat them down on the porch and sat between them and said, 'I want to tell you something and I want you to listen to me. You are brothers and you have to look out for each other, you have to love and never do anything that would harm another human being,'" Hall said.

Mr. Carroll

Could that possibly be the infamous lone nut preaching brotherly love and good will toward men?

.

Mr. MacRae

As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film?

Poor bobby, you are SO technically inept.

Ever heard of slow speed playback? Frame by frame playback?

You seem to (wrongly) assume the film had to be viewed at a single playback speed. (And what playback speed would that be bobby?)

Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. Neither do you.

But one thing is abundantly clear, you simply don't have a clue how REALITY works.

You should have quite MANY posts ago.

Mr. Lamson

I don't suppose you could verify for us that Mr. Rather was awarded the privilege of viewing the Zapruder film at anything other than normal speed?

Even if Mr. Rather watched the Zapruder film in frame by frame stop action, it is inconceivable that he would have been able to discern the small forward action of JFK's head in the single frame, z312. This motion was only discerned years after the assassination, when technology was developed to allow enhancement of the Zapruder film for analytical purposes. And, small and brief as the forward movement was, it is inconceivable that Mr. Rather would have described it as a "violent forward motion".

That being said, we are still left with the question you CANNOT or WILL NOT answer; how was Mr. Rather able to see the forward motion of JFK's head in z312, if that entire forward motion of JFK's head took place in just one frame of the Zapruder film?

The bold-faced statement above is incorrect. All it took Professor Feynman was a ruler and a copy of the WC volume showing the Z-film frames.

He noted to Lifton the head moves forward after the bullet strikes. All this was covered in Lifton's tome, Best Evidence.

It took the development of no technology that wasn't available in 1963.

In 1967, Josiah Thompson put a nice little chart in an appendix to his book, Six Seconds in Dallas, graphically showing the movement of the head relative to fixed points in the limo. Again, this took only some push pins and a ruler, according to Thompson.

I fail to see what technology you are speaking of. Could you elaborate? It's not a ruler or push-pins, I don't think.

Hank

Mr. Sienzant

Well, that certainly solves the mystery of when the forward head movement was first discovered. I had assumed it had occurred much later and required enhancement of the Zapruder film with more modern technology.

That being said, it still does not help us solve the mystery of how Dan Rather was able to see a forward head movement of JFK in the Zapruder film in November of 1963.

Mr. Lamson

Do you totally discount the testimonies of:

a) Amos Lee Euins ?

Howard Leslie Brennan ?

c) Buell Wesley Frazier ?

d) George deMorenschildt ?

e) James Earl Jarman ?

f) William Eugene Newman ?

g) Gayle Newman ?

h) Harold Norman ?

i) Linnie Mae Randle ?

j) Bonnie Ray Williams ?

k) Abraham Zapruder ????

Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:

"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."

This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.

By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

I assume this viewing Bob Huffaker is describing took place after Mr. Rather's radio and TV broadcasts that Mr. Speer posted for us? Or did it take place before then?

And a "blockbuster revelation" in Mr. Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview?? Good God, man, don't keep us in suspense here! Share it with us!

The Zapruder film viewing Bob Huffaker describes would have taken place on Monday before all of Rather's broadcasts. Rather didn't see the Zapruder film one time. He saw it over and over again for the better part of an hour, according to Bob, with Rather taking notes and then referring to his own typewritten copy of them for his CBS reports.

The 50th Anniversary expanded edition of Bob's book is coming out on October 7. It'll be interesting to see if he has more to say about this subject.

As for Rather's "Archive" interview, I hope to get back to you later today on that. Thanks for your patience.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

This would certainly explain the depth and detail Mr. Rather conveys about the Zapruder film. It also makes me wonder how Mr. Rather's description of JFK's head moving violently forward can be explained away as a "mistake". Mr. Rather clearly was watching a different film than the one we have seen.

As to your revelation, I am waiting with bated breath for you to post it.

Looming over all of this is the story told by KRLD's Bob Huffaker in the book he co-authored with fellow reporters Bill Mercer, George Phenix and Wes Wise, "When the News Went Live." I interviewed Bob after the book came out in 2004, and he did not back off the following statement:

"Dan brought a 16 mm print of the film to our newsroom a few days after the assassination, and he and I took it into the projection room. Dan had to view it and feed a report about it to Walter Cronkite's evening news. I ran the soundless film over and over again for the better part of an hour while Dan took notes. . . As I ran the now-famous film time after time, Dan and I talked about what it's fuzzy sequence revealed. . . Dan went to a typewriter, then into our television studio, where he reported our conclusions for CBS. Like the rest of us, he read directly from the copy he wrote. . ."

This contradicts Rather's version in all respects. But the story doesn't end there.

By the way, thanks to Craig for posting the video of Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview. There's a blockbuster revelation in there that no one has picked up on so far.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

I assume this viewing Bob Huffaker is describing took place after Mr. Rather's radio and TV broadcasts that Mr. Speer posted for us? Or did it take place before then?

And a "blockbuster revelation" in Mr. Rather's "Archive of American Television" interview?? Good God, man, don't keep us in suspense here! Share it with us!

I'm too tired to really think about it, but it seems pretty clear that Robert and Craig have crossed a line.

1. Members should not post gossip about other members a la "I talked to someone and they said you stink" blah blah blah.

and

2. Members should not attack other members. Claiming another member is "warped", "kooky," and living in a "fantasy land," does little to illuminate the issues being discussed.

Might I suggest you both clean up your behavior (and posts) before you end up on moderation?

P.S. Craig is wrong. Dan Rather has admitted that at first glance he'd mistakenly thought the fatal shot toppled Kennedy forward, and not backward. He did not view the film 1 frame at a time. He was not talking about 1 frame. He made a mistake, and misled people.

But he was not alone. The newspapers and airwaves were filled with such mistakes. Some of them were in fact the same mistakes. This raises the possibility, then, that some source was providing members of the media with misinformation.

From patspeer.com, chapter1:

Meanwhile, in radio and TV land, a whole new reign of error was beginning. CBS newsman Dan Rather, after viewing the home movie of the assassination taken by Abraham Zapruder, rushed back to the studio to describe the film for CBS News' radio and television audience. His description was to have many unfortunate consequences. (This first transcript was published by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain.)

Dan Rather (Radio Take 1): "Well, let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion picture we have just seen. The President's automobile which was preceded by only one other car containing Secret Service Agents...the President's open black Lincoln automobile made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in Dallas onto Elm Street, this was right on the fringe area of the downtown area. This left turn was made right below the window from which the shot was fired...as the car made the turn, completed the turn--went below the window from which this shot was fired...went on past the building--keep in mind the window was on the sixth floor...it got about 35 yards from the base of the building...that is if you had dropped a plumb line from the window to the sidewalk to...the President's car was around 35 yards from that spot...President Kennedy had just put his right hand up to the side of his right eye. It appeared that he was perhaps brushing back his hair or rubbing his eyebrow. Mrs. Kennedy was not looking in his direction. In front of them in the jump seat of the Lincoln...were Governor and Mrs. Connally. The Governor, as was the President, was on the side of the car of the building in which the assassin was located. Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally were on the opposite side. Two Secret Service men on the front seat...At almost the instant the President put his hand up to his eyebrow...on the right side of his face, with Mrs. Kennedy looking away, the President lurched forward just a bit. Uh, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie but you had to be looking very closely in order to see it. Mrs. Kennedy did not appear to be aware that he was hit but Governor Connally in the seat just in front of the President, seemingly heard the shot...or sensed that something was wrong...Governor Connally, whose coat button was open, turned in such a way to extend his right hand out towards the President and the Governor seemed to have a look on his face that might say "What is it? What happened?" And as he turned he exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned...at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor. He was wounded once with a chest shot, this we now know...Uh, the Governor fell back in his seat...Mrs. Connally immediately fell over the Governor. Uh, I say fell, she threw herself over the Governor and at that instant the second shot the third shot total but the second shot hit President Kennedy and there was no doubt there, his head...went forward with considerable violence."

(Note: Rather's description here is quite controversial. As Kennedy's head actually goes slightly forward, and then back and to the left with considerable violence, many see his saying that Kennedy went forward with considerable violence as a deliberate lie designed to sell the American people that the fatal shot came from behind. If it is true that Rather was trying to sell the American people the single-assassin scenario, however, it back-fired, as he also claimed the film showed Connally being hit well after Kennedy had first been hit, which is in conflict with the single-bullet theory so central to the single-assassin conclusion.)

Rather then described the aftermath of the shooting: "Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately her mouth wide open...The President slumped over against Mrs. Kennedy almost toppling her over as she was standing...Mrs. Kennedy then threw herself out of the back seat of the car onto the trunk of the car almost on all fours...stretched out over the trunk of the car...There was a Secret Service man standing on the back bumper. It would appear that Mrs. Kennedy was either trying to get herself out of what she knew instinctively was danger or perhaps was trying to grab the Secret Service man and pull him into the back seat of the car for help. At any rate Mrs. Kennedy was prone, uh face down on the back of the car on the trunk...The Secret Service man leaned over put his hands on her shoulders and shoved her back into the car. He seemed to be in danger of perhaps rolling or falling off the back. A Secret Service man in the front seat of the car uh was already on the telephone perhaps he had been on the phone all along it was not clear and the car sped away."

Rather then answered a few questions from his fellow newsmen Richard Hotelett and Hughes Rudd. When asked if the limo ever stopped, he replied "The car never stopped, it never paused." When asked the length of the film, he replied "Well, the complete scene that I just described to you covers exactly 20 seconds--that is from the time the car made the turn until the car disappeared onto an underpass." When asked if the President was hit twice, he then added: "It was very clear that the President was hit twice. He was hit, Governor Connally was hit and the Gov...uh the President was hit again." When asked the length of the shooting sequence itself, he then offered: "No more than five seconds and I...am inclined to think slightly less than that perhaps."

(Note: when all is said and done, this was perhaps Rather's biggest mistake. By assuming that the fatal head shot was the third shot, and timing the shooting sequence from the first hit to the final hit, without accepting that there could have been a miss--without studying the eyewitness testimony, moreover, to see that there very likely was a miss--Rather thoroughly misled the public.)

Rather was then rushed onto television to describe the film to Walter Cronkite during CBS News' ongoing coverage of the assassination and aftermath. (Transcript as posted by Paul Rigby on the Education Forum, 11-15-12)

Dan Rather (TV Take 1): "We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination and the shooting of Texas Governor John Connally. Here is what the motion picture shows. The automobile, the black Lincoln convertible, with the top down - carrying, in the front seat, two secret service agents; in the middle, or jump seat, the Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy – made a turn off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street. This was a left turn and was made right in front of the building from which the assassin’s bullet was fired. After making the turn, and going about 35 yards from the corner of the building – six stories up in which the assassin had a window open – and keep in mind here that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are seated on, both on the same side of the car, on the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally are on the side of the car away from the assassin. About 35 yards from the base of the building, President Kennedy, in the film, put his hand up to the right side of his face, the side facing the assassin. He seemingly wanted to brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. Mrs. Kennedy at this moment was looking away, or looking straight ahead. She was not looking at her husband. At that moment, when the President had his right hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurched just a bit forward. It was obvious that the shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was not looking at him, nor did she appear to know at that instant that her husband had been hit. Governor Connally, in the seat immediately in front of the President, apparently either heard the shot or sensed that something was wrong because, Governor Connally, with his coat open, his button was undone, turned in this manner (turns back to his right with right arm extended), his hand outstretched, back toward the President; and the Governor had a look on his face that would indicate he perhaps was saying “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or “Can I help?” or something. But as Governor Connally was turned this way, his white shirt front exposed well to the view of the assassin, the Governor was obviously hit by a bullet, and he fell over to the side. Governor Connally’s wife, immediately, seemingly instantaneously, placed herself over her husband in a protective position, it appeared; and as Governor Connally fell back, President Kennedy was still leaned over. At that moment another bullet obviously hit the head of the President. The President’s head went forward, violently, in this manner (gestures). Mrs. Kennedy, at that instant, seemed to be looking right-square at her husband. She stood up. The President slumped over to the side and, I believe, brushed against Mrs. Kennedy’s dress. Mrs. Kennedy immediately turned and flung herself on the trunk of the automobile, face-down on the trunk, almost on all-fours. The First Lady appeared to be either frantically trying to get the secret service man who was riding on the bumper of the car - the single secret service man riding on that bumper - to come into the car or to tell him what had happened; or perhaps, from the picture, it appeared she might have been trying to get out of the car some way. The car never stopped. The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand. The car…its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass. Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds. Not much more than that, if any. That is the scene shown in about twenty seconds of film that the FBI has in its possession. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who was in a very advantageous position, and who had his camera trained on the President’s car from the time it made the turn in front of the assassin until it disappeared on its way to the hospital. This is Dan Rather in Dallas."

A short time later, he once again described the film to Cronkite. (Transcript as posted by Paul Rigby on the Education Forum, 11-15-12).

Dan Rather (TV Take 2): "We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments immediately preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination. The motion picture shows the limousine carrying: in the front seat, two secret service men; in the middle, or jump seat, Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy; a single secret service man standing on the back bumper; the top of the black Lincoln convertible down. The car made a turn, a left turn, off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street, on the fringe of Dallas’ down-town area; that turn made directly below the sixth floor window from which the assassin’s bullets came. After the left turn was completed, the automobile, with only one car in front of it - a secret service car immediately in front – the President’s car proceeded about 35 yards from the base of the building in which the assassin was. President Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated on the same side of the open car, the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally on the side of the car opposite the assassin. President Kennedy is clearly shown to put his right hand up to the side of his face as if to either brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. Mrs. Kennedy at that instant is looking away, and is not looking at the President. At almost that instant, when the President has his hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurches forward something in this manner (gestures): The first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy appeared not to notice. Governor Connally, in the seat right in front of the President – by the way, the Governor had his suit coat open, his suit was not buttoned – perhaps either heard the shot or somehow he knew something was wrong because the picture shows just after that first shot hit the President, the Governor turned in something this manner, with his right arm stretched back toward the President, as if to say “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or say something. It exposed the entire white front shirt of the Governor to the full view of the assassin’s window; and as the Governor was in this position, and President Kennedy behind him was slumped slightly over, a shot clearly hit the front of Governor Connally; and the Governor fell back over towards his wife. Mrs. Connally immediately put herself over her husband in a protective position, and as she did so, in the back seat, this time with Mrs. Kennedy’s eyes apparently right on her husband, the second shot – the third shot in all – the second shot hit the President’s head. His head went forward, in a violent motion, pushing it down like this (leans forward, lowering his head as he does so). Mrs. Kennedy was on her feet immediately. The President fell over in this direction (leans to his left). It appeared his head probably brushed or hit against Mrs. Kennedy’s legs. The First Lady almost immediately tried to crawl on – did crawl on - to the trunk of the car, face-down, her whole body almost was on that trunk, in something of an all-fours position. She appeared to be either trying to desperately get the attention of the secret service man on the back bumper, or perhaps she was stretching out toward him to grab him to try get him in. Perhaps even trying to get herself out of the car. The car was moving all the time, the car never stopped. The secret service man on the back bumper leaned way over and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy’s shoulders – she appeared to be in some danger of falling or rolling off that trunk lid. He pushed her back into the back seat of the car. In the front seat, a secret service man with a phone in his hand. The car speeded up and sped away. It never stopped, the car never paused. That’s what the film of the assassination showed. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who had placed himself in an advantageous position: eight millimeter color film. This is Dan Rather in Dallas."

And that wasn't the last of it. Several hours later (one source claims at 8:26 EST) Rather described the film to Cronkite for a third and final time, and compounded his mistakes. (Transcript as published by Richard Trask in Pictures of the Pain.)

Dan Rather (TV Take 3): "The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. The films show President Kennedy's open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting. About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to, to put his right hand, up to the side of his head to, either brush back his hair or cover up his eyebrow. President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car, as the building from which the shot came. Mrs. Kennedy was by his side. In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally, and Governor Connally, Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the president. And in the front seat, two Secret Service men. Just as the president put that right hand up to the side of his head, he, you could see him, lurch forward. The first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction, apparently didn't see, or sense the first shot, or didn't hear it. But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sensed that something was wrong. The Governor's coat was open. He, he reached back in this fashion, back as if to, to offer aid or ask the president something. At that moment, a shot clearly hit the governor, in the front, and he fell back in his seat. Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position. In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot, the third total shot, hit the president's head. He, his head can be seen to move violently forward. And, Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately, the president leaned over her way. It appeared that he might have brushed her legs. Mrs. Kennedy then, literally went to the top of the trunk, of the Lincoln car, p-put practically her whole body on the trunk. It, it appeared she might have been on all fours, there, reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side. Uh, the Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to, push her back into the car. She was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off. And when we described this before, there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy being on the trunk of the car. Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to, to get the Secret Service man's attention perhaps to help pull him into the car. The car never stopped, it never paused. In the front seat, a Secret Service man was, was on the telephone. The car picked up speed, and disappeared beneath an underpass. This is Dan Rather in Dallas."

(Note: in this, his fourth and final description of the Zapruder film, Rather repeated his inaccurate claim Kennedy's head went forward in response to the fatal head shot, but retreated from his speculation Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the back of the limo while instinctively running from danger. In his 1977 book, The Camera Never Blinks, in which he acknowledged his mistake about the movement of Kennedy's head, but mistakenly claimed that he viewed the film on Saturday the 23rd, Rather did shed some light on something of interest: the reasons for his retreat. He admitted that "an editor" in New York told him to "leave out the part about her trying to flee." And that he did.)

But Rather was not the only one making false assumptions and compromises. An 11-25 AP Dispatch (found in the 11-26 Milwaukee Journal) proves that Rather was not even the only one claiming Kennedy's head jerked forward upon impact long before anyone could possibly have concluded it had indeed jerked slightly forward. It read:

"Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera.

Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin.

Life magazine reportedly purchased still picture rights to the material for about $40,000.

This is what the film by Abe Zapruder is reported to show:

First the presidential limousine is coming toward the camera. As it comes abreast of the photographer, Mr. Kennedy is hit by the first bullet, apparently in the neck. He turns toward his wife Jacqueline, seated at his left, and she quickly begins to put her hands around his head.

At the same time, Texas Gov. John Connally, riding directly in front of the president, turns around to see what has happened.

Then Mr. Kennedy is hit on the upper right side of the back of his head with violent force. His head goes forward and then snaps back, and he slumps down on the seat.

At this time, Gov. Connolly is wounded and he drops forward on his seat.

Mrs. Kennedy then jumps up and crawls across the back deck of the limousine, apparently seeking the aid of a secret service man who has been trotting behind the slowly moving vehicle. He jumps onto the car and shoves Mrs. Kennedy back into the seat. Then he orders the driver to speed to the hospital where the president died.

The elapsed time from the moment when Mr. Kennedy is first struck until the car disappears in an underpass is about five seconds."

An 11-26 article by John Herbers, published in the 11-27 New York Times, moreover, repeats this same mistake. Herbers writes:

"The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.

A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests. (Note: this line is found in online versions of this article, but is not in a clipping of the article found in the Weisberg Archives. Perhaps it was only added for evening editions of the paper.)

A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.

The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck. The President turned toward Mrs. Kennedy as she began to put her hands around his head.

Connally Turns Around

At the same time, Governor Connally, riding in front of the President, turned round to see what had happened. Then the President was struck on the head. His head went forward, then snapped back, as he slumped in his seat. At that time, Governor Connally was wounded.

The elapsed time from the moment Mr. Kennedy was first struck until the car disappeared in an underpass was five seconds.”

Now this is interesting. Note that the AP article and the New York Times article make the same mistakes and repeat the same non-fact facts (which I have highlighted). Note that they both claim Connally was wounded by the third shot, for example. This suggests that the AP writer and Herbers were either sharing information or being fed some of the same questionable facts from an outside source, most probably the FBI. Well, then, was their main mistake--that Kennedy's head went forward--something told them by the FBI, and, if so, should we then assume Dan Rather was also told to say this? I mean, really, is it just a coincidence that CBS News, the Associated Press, and The New York Times, in short order, all incorrectly reported that the Zapruder film showed Kennedy's head going forward? That's pretty hard to believe.

Which brings us to UPI's article on the film. Here it is, as found in the 11-26 Philadelphia Daily News (4 star edition).

The headline on the front page reads: “Man Who Came to See JFK Makes Tragic Movie”. Beneath this, there is the following explanation: “These dramatic pictures are from an 8mm ‘home movie’ reel, shot by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder who went to see President Kennedy ride through cheering throngs in Texas city. His camera recorded one of the most tragic moments in American history. Story page 3“. Beneath this, are four frames from a home movie of the assassination.

On page 3, the following story is presented:

Movie Film Shows Murder of President

Dallas (UPI)

An amateur photographer shot an 8-MM movie film that clearly shows, step-by-step, the assassination of President Kennedy.

The film was made by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas dress manufacturer. He is selling rights to the film privately. It has been seen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and representatives of the news media.

It is seven feet long, 35 seconds in colour, a bit jumpy but clear.

It opens as the Kennedy motorcade rounds the corner from Houston Street and turns into Elm Street.

Then it picks up the President’s car and follows it down toward the underpass. Suddenly, in the film, Kennedy is seen to jerk. It is the first shot.

Mrs. Kennedy turns, puts her arms around him. A second later, the second shot. The President’s head becomes a blur on the film, lunged forward and up. The second bullet has torn into the back of his head.

He rolls towards Mrs. Kennedy and disappears from sight. Mrs. Kennedy lurches onto the flat trunk deck of the Presidential car as a Secret Service man races to their aid. She is on her hands and knees. She reaches for him. He leaps up on the bumper. She pulls him up on the bumper or he pushes her back as the film ends.

Other films show the car never stopped, but raced to the Parkland Memorial Hospital with Mrs. Kennedy cradling the President.

Well, hell. This article was clearly not written by someone using the information provided the other writers. The film here is reported to be 35 seconds long, not 15. There is no mention of Connally at all, let alone a claim he was hit by the third shot. And yet the ONE mistake the three articles have in common is the same mistake the AP and Times article had in common with Dan Rather's earlier description of the film--the strange claim Kennedy's head went forward in response to the head shot... Hmmm...

And there's something even stranger about this article. The next day's San Francisco Chronicle re-printed three of the frames found on the front page of the Philadelphia paper, and similarly specified, in a caption beneath the second frame, "In this photo from the 8mm movie strip taken by the amateur photographer, Abe Zapruder, motorcycle police are seen rushing to the car after the shots." Well, this was actually misleading on two counts. For one, neither of the two motorcycle police in the frame are rushing to the car; one of them, in fact, is slamming on his brakes. For two, all the frames presented in the article were taken from the south side of Elm Street, with the grassy knoll in the background. Zapruder's film, of course, was taken from the north side. Yes, incredibly, the film frames featured in both the 11-26 Philadelphia Daily News and 11-27 San Francisco Chronicle articles on the Zapruder film were not actually taken from Zapruder's film, but from the film of another eyewitness, Marie Muchmore. Her film had been purchased by UPI on the 25th, and shown on WNEW-TV on the 26th. The sale and broadcast of her film had even been the subject of a UPI article found in some papers, such as The Valley Independent, on the 26th, and others, such as The Eugene Register-Guardian, on the 27th.

And yet no one in the government seemed to notice. Incredibly, neither Mrs. Muchmore nor UPI thought it their duty to share her film with the Secret Service or FBI. This was especially ironic, or disturbing, take your pick, given that UPI's article specified that Zapruder had made his film available to the authorities. In any event, Mrs. Muchmore's and UPI's deceptiveness regarding her film enabled it to pass under the government's apparently defective radar for a lot longer than one might think possible. It would be, amazingly, nearly three months before those investigating the assassination of President Kennedy even learned of its existence.

Mr. Speer

My apologies. I tend to get a little carried away when dealing with Mr. Lamson. I will not let it happen again.

Now, getting back to Dan Rather, I believe we are faced with a paradox here.

On one hand, we can assume that Mr. Rather, being in the field of information gathering, is a trained observer and, though he only viewed the Zapruder film one time, was able to observe and retain many details. While many of us can barely recall what we had for breakfast, some trained individuals can walk into a room of twenty people, for five minutes, and go out of the room and write down what each person looked like, how they were dressed, their placement in that room and whether they were sitting or standing.

On the other hand, it can be argued that Mr. Rather simply was supplying far too many details for someone who saw an unenhanced, unstabilized film once. The forward motion of JFK's head was one such example. It simply would not have been possible for Mr. Rather to have seen that motion, simply because it took place in one frame and our eyes cannot discern something as quick as that. I also do not believe Mr. Rather was "mistaken", as he claimed many years later.

This leaves us with two possibilities, Mr. Rather either really did see JFK's head moving forward (thus telling us the Z film was altered), or Mr. Rather was caught up in the "let's blame Oswald" movement and was embellishing his observations, possibly with encouragement from the FBI.

Mr. Rather tells us a number of times that the film recorded the limousine making the turn from Houston onto Elm. He also tells us in great detail how JFK was brushing his hair back with his right hand at the moment of the first shot. Once again, is Mr. Rather "mistaken" or was he watching a Z film we have never seen.

The Single Bullet Theory was not concocted by Arlen Specter until Spring of 1964, long after Mr. Rather viewed the Zapruder film just following the assassination. To say a mistake was made when Mr. Rather described John Connally being shot while turned back with his jacket open and white shirt exposed by a separate bullet than the one that struck JFK in the back (another thing not seen in the Z film) does not take into consideration the fact this is what was believed for many months after the assassination was that JFK and Connally were struck with separate bullets. Once again, did Mr. Rather actually observe all these things in one viewing, proving alteration, or was he merely embellishing with the encouragement of the FBI?

Mr. Lamson

Yes, they do. In fact, from the people I spoke with, it seems to be unanimous. They said quite a number of other things, as well, but I'm afraid it's not fit for posting here.

Now, the reality of the situation is this. Dan Rather could not possibly have seen the forward motion of JFK's head in frame z312 of the present version of the Zapruder film, even if he was viewing still frames of it or stop action of the film. Despite your attempt at taking Mr. Rather's words out of context, there is not even a hint that he did anything but watch the film at regular speed. "It all went by fairly quickly...." (Dan Rather's words) does not tell me he was watching the film in slow motion.

The REALITY of the situation is that Mr. Rather reported something he could not possibly have seen. The REALITY of the situation is, the ONLY way Mr. Rather could have seen a forward head movement at z312 is if the original, unaltered version of this film showed the forward head movement for a much greater number of frames.

Mr. Lamson

Mr. Rather's actual unparaphrased words were, "They turned the projector on and there it was, the whole assassination; you know, frame by frame by frame. IT ALL WENT BY FAIRLY QUICKLY, BUT IT WAS ALL THERE." (capitals added by me for emphasis)

I sincerely hope, Mr. Lamson, that you were not attempting to deceive the members of this forum into believing that Mr. Rather was allowed to do a frame by frame stop action analysis of the Zapruder film, when his actual words tell us something entirely different.

That being said, the question remains, how was Mr. Rather able to discern the forward motion of JFK's head in frame z312 of the Zapruder film, when that forward motion only took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of that film?

If you are unable to answer the question, please just admit this to the forum and stop wasting everyone's time.

I just posted what he said bobby, and quite frankly your continued attempts here are simply silly. BTW, what exactly is FAIRLY QUICKLY? 22 seconds? 60 seconds, 2 mins? 5 mins? And despite your best attempt to warp the words it is not clear if it was stop action, slo-mo or real time projection bobby.

See the problem when what you rely on are WORDS bobby?

I don't care what he said, how he said it or WHY he said it. I direct you to this from another post of mine. Not that I expect you to be able to actually read and comprehend.

And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine.

The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter.

You keep looking worse and worse with every post.

Mr. Lamson

On the contrary, you did not post what Mr. Rather said. You paraphrased his words in what appears to be a rather shoddy and dishonest attempt to have the members of this forum believe Mr. Rather said something he did not.

How dare you accuse me of warping words, sir. It is the consensus of most forum members I have spoken with that it would be best for all if you were to be banned from this forum for what appear to be deliberate attempts to misquote for the purpose of deception.

If Mr. Rather "got it correct" about JFK's head moving forward during only one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film, z312, just how did he come by this information? Was he psychic? Was it just a lucky guess?

So you don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather.

Maybe Dan can help you. This is what he said fourteen years after the assassination. . .

"The lawyer laid out the ground rules for us. . . You went in, looked at the film one time, took no notes, came out and gave him your bid. . . I stepped into the room, did not even sit down, looked at the film one time, hooked it out of there and fled back to the station."

Dan "hooked it out of there" so fast that he never even made a bid. He was more concerned at the time with getting his description of the film on TV. "Then, and only then, would we get into the bidding," he said.

That should be clear enough for most reasonable people. The picture he's painting here is a quick, one-time only showing of a 22 second film, first for Dan, after which Dan was supposed to have made a bid. Then it would be the next viewer's turn. And the next. No cruel, sick slow-mo of a grizzly head shot. Regular speed was bad enough. Just show the film. One time for each viewer. Twenty-two seconds. Get the bid. In and out. Dan Rather's version of Saturday morning.

All the other evidence, however, paints a completely different picture. Which happened on Monday.

And yet in his oral account on Youtube he tells and I paraphrase , There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME.

And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine.

The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter.

Mr. Lamson

" There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME."

If you have paraphrased this sentence, would you be so kind as to print the entire text and cite your source for this quote from Dan Rather?

YOUTUBE...try a google

4:22

Mr. Lamson

Mr. Rather's actual unparaphrased words were, "They turned the projector on and there it was, the whole assassination; you know, frame by frame by frame. IT ALL WENT BY FAIRLY QUICKLY, BUT IT WAS ALL THERE." (capitals added by me for emphasis)

I sincerely hope, Mr. Lamson, that you were not attempting to deceive the members of this forum into believing that Mr. Rather was allowed to do a frame by frame stop action analysis of the Zapruder film, when his actual words tell us something entirely different.

That being said, the question remains, how was Mr. Rather able to discern the forward motion of JFK's head in frame z312 of the Zapruder film, when that forward motion only took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of that film?

If you are unable to answer the question, please just admit this to the forum and stop wasting everyone's time.