Robert Prudhomme

Oh look! The circus is in town!

The section of 6.5 Carcano bullet (or bullet jacket) from the middle of the bullet found in the x-ray of the skull is not all that hard to figure out. Look at this photo below:

The two cartridges on the right do not interest us. They are multi-ball "guard" loads, bullet jackets loaded with multiple balls stacked one atop each other. The slit in the sides of the jacket encourages the rifling to tear up the jacket and, as the bullet leaves the barrel, the jacket is discarded and the balls are like shot from a shotgun.

The three cartridges on the left are frangible range bullets. Note the two piece bullet jacket, joined together just back from the nose, and the very obvious and very deep cannelure on the centre of these three bullets, at the point the bullet meets the cartridge mouth.

Was the point to make it as unrecognizable as possible? Because if that was it, they succeeded.

I'm with Jim on this one. I need some visual aids because I can't make heads or tails of this. Could someone have cropped it for obfuscation purposes?

Oh, no, Chris, they would never do anything like that! >sarcasm off<

Two comments:

[1] The photo appears to show a shaved head. Did the autopsists shave JFK's head pretty completely?

[2] Humes told the W.C. that he found the rear skull entry only when a bone fragment brought into the autopsy room was fitted into the back of the skull, completing a circular defect, which had interior beveling.

Pat, what do you think of this Humes testimony? I've always regarded Humes as untrustworthy -- my biggest disappointment of the whole JFK matter.

Kennedy's head was not shaved. The photo shows the scalp reflected (peeled from the skull and folded back over) either to the left side of the head, if the skull is on its right side, or over the face, if the skull is on its back.

The doctors found the small entrance on the back of the head during the earliest stages of the autopsy, and photographed it through the hair. Humes testified that they were able to identify the large defect as an exit after studying the beveling on the large triangular fragment. The bit about using a large skull fragment to complete the entrance wound came from Dr. Boswell, much later. I believe he was simply confusing the story put out by the HSCA--that they'd matched up the exit beveling on the large fragment with a semi-circular beveled exit on the intact skull--and that he then transposed the HSCA's fabrication into a brand new story about the entrance. There is no record of the doctors' matching up any defect on a fragment with a defect on the intact skull in the original autopsy report, nor in their original testimony. It didn't happen, IMO.

As far as Humes, my take is that he mostly told the truth, but that he was manipulated into telling some fibs, about the brain and the back wound and then later about the head wound. This made him quite angry, IMO, not so much that he was forced to lie but that he was forced to take the heat for the lies pushed by others. It upset him to no end, IMO, that people like Baden made out that he was some stupid incompetent, who couldn't tell the top of the head from the bottom of the head.

But Humes couldn't fight back without blowing the whistle on the whole scam. So he mostly kept his silence.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that Humes examined the Harper Fragment and fit it into JFK's skull during the autopsy. According to an interview with Bill Harper, he went to Dealey Plaza the day AFTER the assassination, and found the fragment of human skull while looking for bullet fragments in the grass on the south side of Elm St. He took this 3 inch fragment to a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas who identified it as being from the rear part of a human skull in the upper occipital region. Bethesda would have received this fragment almost a day after the completion of the autopsy.

Considering that Clint Hill testified to seeing the back of JFK's head lying on the rear seat of the limo, I have to ask, how many fragments of JFK's skull went missing in Dealey Plaza that day?

You couldn't be more wrong, Robert. This thread is quite possibly the most dangerous thread ever started on this forum. If people come to agree that that's a bullet hole, then it's game, set, and pretty much match. It would mean that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and Clark Panel were wrong, and that those pushing the single-assassin theory under the belief it's backed up by the "experts" (which is pretty much everyone in academia and the media) has built their castle on quicksand. They would then be forced to embrace the original statements of the doctors, at which point the statements of the HSCA Pathology Panel--including that the brain photos absolutely rule out a bullet entering near the EOP's exiting from the top of the head--could be presented against that scenario.

In short, it would force a re-opening of the case among those currently hunkered down in the Oswald-did-it bunker.

But no, let's have none of that. Let's make snarky and ridiculously ill-informed comments about someone who's actually moved the case forward. Brilliant.

Pat

The most dangerous evidence to both the WC AND the HSCA was the testimony of doctors stating there was a large gaping wound in the occipital-parietal region of JFK's skull; a wound not shown in the back of head photo. This wound was corroborated by the suppressed testimony of Bethesda witnesses PLUS the evaluation by a pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas of the Harper Fragment as being occipital bone.

But, of course, ALL of these witnesses were high on LSD that day and suffering from the same hallucination, right, Pat?

While you lower the rear wound to the original EOP position, you still maintain a shot from the rear, and no shot from the front. This is a type of disinformation intended to make readers think a lone shot from the rear is a possibility, priming them for others such as DVP to come in and finish off the propaganda lessons.

Walks like an LN, talks like an LN.......

"So, if the sabot crimp is different, what does it look like? That seems fairly simple from what you've said.

So let's use these numbers. casing opening is 1 thousandth larger than the diameter of the cannelure of the bullet so that when it is crimped the casing is squeezed in 1/1000th. When the cartridge is fired, the back end of the bullet stretches the crimp back out to it's original diameter and the crimp 'vanishes'. Now let's do one for the 'sabot'. casing opening is 3/1000ths larger than the bullet cannelure . the casing is crimped in to seal it at the same 1/1000th cannelure. Then the bullet is fired, only 1/1000 of the crimp would be removed, leaving a 1/1000th crimped edge around the casing. That would certainly look different from a casing that had been entirely straightened out. And that's what it looks like. visualize that bullet just overhead there and remove the bullet but leave that crimp. That's what it would look like"

If that is what happened, they did not use a sabot. What you are describing is loading an undersized bullet into a cartridge and firing it, which would be a complete disaster as far as accuracy is concerned.

Remember what I told you? The sabot MUST be the same diameter as the bullet that would normally be fired from the larger rifle, or it will not be accurate. If there is not enough room between the smaller bullet and the inside of the barrel of the larger rifle for a sabot to fit, then you simply cannot use these two calibres to deliver a saboted bullet.

This is part of what I quoted:

The cartridge was a .30-30 hull found by an air-conditioning repair man (

as I recall) on the top of the COunty Records Building at the base of the

rampart overlooking Dealy Plaza. The cartridge was supposedly crimped in

a way that suggested a sabot round had been used in it. The seat of theI

cartridge was stamped, as I recall "Twin Cities Arsenal, 1954"

They went on to explain that they were saying that the theory was that the 399 had been fired from the larger casing so that the rifling marks on the 399 which were made by a carcano would not be removed, that kinda implies to me that they didn't want the rifling marks on the larger rifle to mess up the existing marks. So I think that they were, in fact, saying that it was deliberately 'an undersized bullet into a cartridge'.

Note that it was stated this way: "The cartridge was supposedly crimped in a way that suggested a sabot round " I'm guessing that they did not expect you to overlook the words, 'supposedlyl' and 'suggested'.

You said: Remember what I told you? The sabot MUST be the same diameter as the bullet that would normally be fired from the larger rifle, or it will not be accurate. Would that sentence be accurate if it were changed to: Remember what I told you? The sabot DOES NOT HAVE TO be the same diameter as the bullet that would normally be fired from the larger rifle, AS THE ACCURACY OF THE SHOT IS NOT IMPORTANT.

It seems as if you are making an argument of 'absolutes'. I read the whole story as a casing was found, it had peculiar crimping marks on it, someone guessed as to why it had those peculiar crimping marks and they came up with a 'theory'. I know of no one that has made a claim that they know for sure that 399 was fired as a sabot shot into the limo. In the first place, I've never seen any proof that 399 was ever even in the limo, so that was a guess also.

Okay, that's as far as I go on this. You are arguing things you don't have a clue about. Goodbye.

Linda spotted Victoria Adams??

"So, if the sabot crimp is different, what does it look like? That seems fairly simple from what you've said.

So let's use these numbers. casing opening is 1 thousandth larger than the diameter of the cannelure of the bullet so that when it is crimped the casing is squeezed in 1/1000th. When the cartridge is fired, the back end of the bullet stretches the crimp back out to it's original diameter and the crimp 'vanishes'. Now let's do one for the 'sabot'. casing opening is 3/1000ths larger than the bullet cannelure . the casing is crimped in to seal it at the same 1/1000th cannelure. Then the bullet is fired, only 1/1000 of the crimp would be removed, leaving a 1/1000th crimped edge around the casing. That would certainly look different from a casing that had been entirely straightened out. And that's what it looks like. visualize that bullet just overhead there and remove the bullet but leave that crimp. That's what it would look like"

If that is what happened, they did not use a sabot. What you are describing is loading an undersized bullet into a cartridge and firing it, which would be a complete disaster as far as accuracy is concerned.

Remember what I told you? The sabot MUST be the same diameter as the bullet that would normally be fired from the larger rifle, or it will not be accurate. If there is not enough room between the smaller bullet and the inside of the barrel of the larger rifle for a sabot to fit, then you simply cannot use these two calibres to deliver a saboted bullet.

Well I'm up to page 16 on the "Oswald was not PM" thread and so far it is all tending to confirm that Oswald is PM. So when does the debunking start?

(.....and what's up with that Lamson guy?)

Hi Vanessa

You have a stronger stomach than I do if you've made it to Page 16. I was starting to feel nauseous at about Page 3.

Craig Lamson? Sweet guy; wouldn't say poop if he had a mouthful.

For that matter, how many witnesses describe the cop seen sprinting down the Elm St. extension in the opposite direction from Baker? You're right, though. These guys covered their tracks quite well, and all we can do is speculate.

It's also strange no witness saw Baker entering the TSBD.

Pauline Sanders, in her 11/24 FBI Report, reported seeing Baker enter the bldg w/in 10 seconds of the shots. She was up on the east side of the landing:

"She said within a matter of 10 seconds a uniform police officer in a white helmet ran into the building but she did not observe him any further and could not state where he went in the building."

And interestingly, she goes on to say the next person she saw go in after Baker, was not Truly but O.V. Campbell!:

"Mrs. Sanders advised that Mr. Campbell, Office Manager, arrived shortly after the police officer entered the building, and she told him she believed the blasts came from the upper part of the bldg, however, he insisted the shots came from the embankment. She advised that she did not pursue the matter any further and she entered the bldg within 5 minutes of the blast. She said she did not observe Oswald in the lobby but the lobby was crowded with people at this time."

I remember making the observation in this thread a couple of weeks ago, that in Darnell, Campbell (the big guy) pivots and begins heading toward the steps before Truly does, and that it appears he may have even beat Truly up the steps behind Baker - had Darnell only filmed a bit longer, we would know for sure.

Recall that Campbell had a number of changing accounts about what he did, whom he saw, and where he went after the shots - and it was said by reporters that the only person who was more difficult to pin down for an interview than Buell Frazier was O.V. Campbell.

If Campbell DID go in first - before Truly, as Stanton seems to imply - then he would have definitely seen PM/LHO either in his "corner" by the door, or right inside the lobby - likely giving Baker directions. His being Johnny-on-the-spot and witnessing PM there could make for a very uncomfortable situation for Campbell, and could help account for his rapidly changing stories - changes he made to help distance himself from his early NY Herald Trib and DMN news accounts that he had seen Oswald in the 1st flr lobby storage closet AFTER the shots OR... as recounted in a correspondence, which I posted a couple of wks ago, between "S" and Harold Weisberg, that 1 of 2 noted journalists (he/she couldn't remember which one) SWORE to "S" that Campbell had seen LHO in the lobby storage closet just BEFORE the motorcade - NOT after! That account makes much more sense to me. Furthermore, it would vindicate Oswald entirely as a shooter - not "incriminate" him as suspiciously "hiding" after the fact, upon his exit). Here is the snip from that correspondence again:

The wisdom of 50 years ago! Bingo!:

"The story has reintrigued me based on Mrs. Arnold's deposition..."

Even those early news accounts, which to us, now seem to vindicate LHO, could have been seen early on as a way to incriminate him (as "hiding" suspiciously in the closet)....Remember, early on neither these guys, nor the public, nor early JFK researchers, had any idea that Darnell had captured the Baker sprint toward the front steps just seconds after the shots! They were operating in a different "time frame" than we are. So a story that LHO was seen in the lobby storage closet could have been used - in their eyes, at that early point in time - to incriminate him. So the story goes, he was stopped there by Baker - who even drew his gun on him (read: as he "fled" the bldg. and tried to "hide" in the closet on his way out the door!) - until Truly stepped in to say he was just an "employee".

The whole "story" about pulling a gun on a guy in the lobby storage closet by the front door immediately after the shots never rang true for me. I know Baker was considered to be pretty slow by fellow DPD officers, but really, how stupid would he have to be to think the shooter could be hiding by the front door?! No, I don't buy it. That narrative is a lie, just like the 2nd floor lunchroom, gun-in-stomach, story! They just moved the whole silly "gun-in-stomach" encounter up to the 2nd floor as it became increasingly apparent to the perps that they had to move LHO back closer to the 6th floor to be believed!

We have to remember to put ourselves in the mindset of someone knowing nothing on Nov 22, 1963 (or very shortly thereafter).

Hi Linda

Yes, I saw the FBI report on Ms. Sanders just a few weeks ago. It certainly would seem to place Baker sprinting up the stairs, just when he claims to have done but, there is one thing we should keep in mind when reading it.

While it is referred to as "her" FBI report of 24/11/63, there is a very good chance she never saw or signed this report, or even knew of its existence. It is a typical FBI report, written in the third person, not a real statement at all and, given the past experience with FBI "evidence" in this case, likely full of fabrications.

I also find it suspect due to its date (Nov. 24) and the fact it is the only piece of corroborating evidence that backs up Baker's and Truly's story. I know many will say Shelley and Lovelady agree with Baker's story but, if you look at their testimony, they claim to have remained on the steps 3-4 minutes, then had a brief conversation with Gloria Calvery and only then proceeded down the Elm St. extension where, 25 steps away from the TSBD steps, they looked back to see Truly and Baker ascending the steps.

Someone, or a whole lot of someones, is clearly not telling the truth here.

Bullet cannelures are found on most, but not all, bullets. The cannelure is the narrow band around the circumference of the bullet with the little vertical ridges. It is slightly narrower in diameter than the bullet, and many believe it helps lock the core of the bullet to the jacket.

Most bullets are seated into a cartridge until the cannelure is even with the mouth of the cartridge. The mouth of the cartridge is then crimped into the cannelure, as shown below.

Crimping the mouth of the cartridge into the narrower cannelure locks the bullet into position and keeps it from getting pushed further into the cartridge. Interestingly, the Italian military issue 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges were made with a shoulder inside the cartridge mouth at about the point the base of the bullet was seated. This accomplished the same purpose of keeping the bullet in place in the mouth.

However, when the bullet is fired, the larger diameter bullet base passes through this crimp, and stretches it back out to the diameter of the bullet.

This is why I would like to see what the crimp looks like for a saboted bullet, as the diameter of the sabot is always equal to the diameter of a bullet normally fired in the larger rifle.

This is why I would like to see what the crimp looks like Oh, I thought you were saying they wouldn't use a crimp to do that.

Why would you think that crimp would look any different from any other crimp holding a bullet into the casing?

I didn't think that. The person you quoted said the mouth of the casing was crimped in a way to suggest a saboted round had been fired from it. That being said, it only makes sense that he meant a sabot crimp looked different than a regular crimp.

So, if the sabot crimp is different, what does it look like?

Good catch, Greg. I read that report before and never made the connection. (of course, when I read it, certain words were not italicized )

Bullet cannelures are found on most, but not all, bullets. The cannelure is the narrow band around the circumference of the bullet with the little vertical ridges. It is slightly narrower in diameter than the bullet, and many believe it helps lock the core of the bullet to the jacket.

Most bullets are seated into a cartridge until the cannelure is even with the mouth of the cartridge. The mouth of the cartridge is then crimped into the cannelure, as shown below.

Crimping the mouth of the cartridge into the narrower cannelure locks the bullet into position and keeps it from getting pushed further into the cartridge. Interestingly, the Italian military issue 6.5 mm Carcano cartridges were made with a shoulder inside the cartridge mouth at about the point the base of the bullet was seated. This accomplished the same purpose of keeping the bullet in place in the mouth.

However, when the bullet is fired, the larger diameter bullet base passes through this crimp, and stretches it back out to the diameter of the bullet.

This is why I would like to see what the crimp looks like for a saboted bullet, as the diameter of the sabot is always equal to the diameter of a bullet normally fired in the larger rifle.

And by the way, the Carcano bullet is 6.8 mm in diameter while the .30 calibre 30-06 is 7.8 mm in diameter. HOWEVER, the bore diameter of the 30-06 is only 7.62 mm across the lands, and your sabot has to be smaller than this.

7.62 - 6.8 = .82 mm or .032 inch, meaning there is only 16/1000 inch clearance on either side of the Carcano bullet for the tops of the 30-06 lands

Okay, Kenneth, show me how a cartridge would be "crimped in such a way" that would indicate it had been loaded with a sabot.

The cartridge was a .30-30 hull found by an air-conditioning repair man (

as I recall) on the top of the COunty Records Building at the base of the

rampart overlooking Dealy Plaza. The cartridge was supposedly crimped in

a way that suggested a sabot round had been used in it. The seat of the

cartridge was stamped, as I recall "Twin Cities Arsenal, 1954"

See the sentence in bold in that paragraph. Seems as if a bullet is in a cartridge shell that it has to be sealed. Seems as if there is more than one way to accomplish that. One to use the plastic insert, the other to crimp the shell around the bullet. I suppose it depends on the difference in diameter.

Right, Kenneth, in other words, you and the other people that seem to know so much about sabots don't have a clue what "crimped in a way that suggested a sabot round had been used in it" means and none of you are capable of demonstrating it, either.

This is almost as comical as the scope on the Carcano being mounted for a left hand shooter.

While you're laughing at that, answer this. If you wanted to put a bullet into a cartridge and they did not make a plastic 'sabot' housing that fit a carcano to a 30 30, and the bullet diameter was almost exactly the same as the cartridge diameter, just a 1 thousandth or so difference, how would you seal it? The choice of an answer, according to you is that you can't use any type of crimping device. So what is your answer?

The real question is, why would you try to load that large a diameter of bullet into that cartridge? If you can't use a sabot, what is going to guide that smaller (by a thousandth or so) bullet through the riflings of the bigger rifle's barrel? Simply "crimp" it into place and hope for the best as it rattles back and forth down the barrel?

Okay, Kenneth, show me how a cartridge would be "crimped in such a way" that would indicate it had been loaded with a sabot.

The cartridge was a .30-30 hull found by an air-conditioning repair man (

as I recall) on the top of the COunty Records Building at the base of the

rampart overlooking Dealy Plaza. The cartridge was supposedly crimped in

a way that suggested a sabot round had been used in it. The seat of the

cartridge was stamped, as I recall "Twin Cities Arsenal, 1954"

See the sentence in bold in that paragraph. Seems as if a bullet is in a cartridge shell that it has to be sealed. Seems as if there is more than one way to accomplish that. One to use the plastic insert, the other to crimp the shell around the bullet. I suppose it depends on the difference in diameter.

Right, Kenneth, in other words, you and the other people that seem to know so much about sabots don't have a clue what "crimped in a way that suggested a sabot round had been used in it" means and none of you are capable of demonstrating it, either.

This is almost as comical as the scope on the Carcano being mounted for a left hand shooter.

Okay, Kenneth, show me how a cartridge would be "crimped in such a way" that would indicate it had been loaded with a sabot.

I know exactly what a sabot is, and I have used them, as well. I don't think you or a lot of other people on this forum that think you can sabot a 6.5mm Carcano bullet into a 30-06 cartridge quite understand the concept, though.

What on earth does "crimping around the bullet end" have to do with a sabot?

I have never used the Muzzle Elevation portion of that program, simply because knowing the muzzle elevation of a rifle has never been important to me. I believe you actually have to enter a value here.

In an effort to understand what the calculator is doing with the muzzle elev parameter; using a muzzle velocity of 300 fps to make the results of elevation changes more significant, I've tried incrementally raising the "muzzle elevation" parameter. As the elevation increases the impact occurs higher and higher above the target as I expected it would. Because the target is hit with the muzzle elev parameter set at zero, the gun must actually be elevated above horizontal, but there's no way to determine what elevation the calculator is actually using.

Although the elevation angle for a 2200 fps bullet at a range of 100 yards is very small, what I was hoping to do was set the muzzle elevation to hit the target at a specific range, then alter only the muzzle velocity until a -10.5" error is produced. This would provide the most accurate results, but the program doesn't appear to allow this. I'm going to email the website and hopefully contact the author. Since the calculator is determining the muzzle elevation required to hit the target, it should be a simple matter to display this number.

Robert, the calculations you have done are certainly accurate enough to prove that the "shallow back wound" was not created by an undercharged shot aimed at JFK's head. What I would like to do is to find or create a program that will utilize an adjustable muzzle elevation parameter and more importantly, a height differential parameter. This would allow the inclusion of the height of the "sniper's nest" into the results.

Following a depressed trajectory from the 6th floor, the bullet will have a shorter time of flight, and without elevation compensation will impact above the target. I doubt LHO would be aware of this factor and would not realize he would have to aim lower to hit his target. So, if LHO was the shooter, why didn't the "back shot" pass above JFK's head, rather than hit him in the back? This could be evidence that a professional shooter overcompensated for the downhill shot, and aimed too low.

It would be interesting to know how much elevation compensation would be required for a shot from the 6th floor.

Tom

Not as much as you might think. When shooting uphill OR downhill, the bullet will always go slightly higher than the point of aim. At 50 yards, this amount is a mere inch or so depending, of course, on the amount the shot is off of level.

Ollie

Look at these photos. Do you see a problem here?

Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano cartridge

.30-06 cartridge on left

I don't, if the conversation is whether the bullet from the carcano would fit into the 30 06 it appears it will.

Kenneth, do you know what a sabot is?

I got four pages into it and had this odd sense of deja moo, that strange feeling that you've heard this BS before somewhere.

As always, reading anything over there is a complete waste of time, as the LN's are in total denial, and always will be in total denial.

Yes, I am banned, Thomas. I told McRae, on several occasions, that his forum was a haven for disinfo agents.

April 1, 2015, aside from being a humourous date to begin a thread, is about two years after McRae claimed they had made "many enhancements" of PM and had engaged in "many discussions" about PM.

As I said, much hot air and deception.

I have never used the Muzzle Elevation portion of that program, simply because knowing the muzzle elevation of a rifle has never been important to me. I believe you actually have to enter a value here.

It is assumed that the muzzle will be elevated if you are sighting a rifle in at 100 yards; a tiny amount for 2200 fps and quite a bit more for 300 fps.