Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

Todd W. Vaughan · May 20, 2010

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony
[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

This afternoon David Lifton and I got together in Berkeley and talked for several hours. It was very nice, very informative. One of the issues we talked about was the growing contamination of the evidence field. This is perhaps a too complex way of saying that what is taken for evidence in this case is being cheapened by the introduction of things that are demonstrably untrue.

This whole thread on the Judyth phenomenon is one example of this. It becomes pretty funny when Professor Fetzer pauses for a moment while browbeating us concerning Judyth and his own allegedly high IQ, to tangle with Mike Williams about a simple matter concerning terminology. Fetzer claims that when Dr. Humes speaks of a “high velocity” weapon he cannot be describing Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. This language quibble has been part of Fetzer’s claims for years. Unfortunately, it fails. Hence, in defending the factoids of Judyth, Fetzer offers another factoid that can be easily refuted. But it doesn’t stop there. In order to buttress his claim about Dr. Humes’ statement, Fetzer invokes the theory of some guy he anoints with the title of “expert,” John Richson. In the above quote posted by Fetzer, Richson claims that the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the Depository were stamped “Western” and “6.5 mm” on the cartridge base. According to Richson, this means that the rounds were “pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.” This means, says Richson, that none of these rounds could have been fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He also claims that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor, that “official evidence photographs by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.”

It was only driving back from Berkeley that I remembered this little excursion by Professor Fetzer as a glowing example of just what David Lifton and I had been talking about.... an amazing example of strewing around an ever expanding circle of non-facts. First, of course, is the ever expanding tale of Judyth and Lee’s love affair. But then Fetzer introduces the silly claim about Humes’s statement to belabor Mike Williams who challenged his Judyth infatuation. Then to buttress part of his belaboring of Williams he introduces these claims from his “expert,” Richson. Here the blizzard of misinformation becomes blinding. First, as Todd Vaughan (post #2794 this thread) has already posted, the term “Western” doesn’t appear on the base of the casings found on the 6th floor. What does appear is “WCC” — the correct marking for a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge. And the claim that two not three cartridge cases were found up there? Sorry, numerous witnesses both law enforcement and private stated that they saw three cartridge cases and DPD photos show three cartridge cases near the sniper’s nest. And what about those “official evidence photographs” that “show only two spent and one unspent” rounds? The photos referred to were taken at DPD on Friday night of the evidence items they released that night to the FBI. There were only two casings and the live round because DPD held back one casing and only released two cases and one live round to the FBI that night; the photos (as to be expected) show what was turned over to the FBI, not what was found). This whole claim was made by Noel Twyman years ago and taken apart as soon as his book appeared. So now, Fetzer brings it all back, and inserts it into a completely irrelevant thread. So we have a batch of non-facts (the obvious nonsense about the cartridge cases) used to buttress Fetzer’s nonsense about Humes’s statement that in turn is used to buttress the wholesale nonsense about Oswald’s supposed love affair with Judyth.

In a few short pages, Fetzer managed a trifecta of precisely the pernicious effect David Lifton and I were bemoaning. Congratulations Professor, you’re a champion!

Josiah Thompson

Great post and insight. Thanks.

May 20, 2010

JIM REPLIES TO JOSIAH THOMPSON FOR ANOTHER OF HIS VINTAGE ATTACKS

Josiah thinks he is onto something with the claim that John Ritchson, who was

a bona fide ballistics expert, is discredited by the use of the term "Western"

where "WCC" should have appeared. In his zeal to impeach Ritchson--where

his obvious target is to discredit me--he commits the kind of elementary error

that I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid. He violates what is known

as "the principle of charity" by ignoring several interpretations that render an

utterance or a text true whenever it is reasonable to do so, given the context.

The sentence that Tink is discussing reads as follows: "The only cartridges

produced by Western in the 6.5 mm caliber that would have possessed the

factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped on the cartridge

base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded

hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets." There are

3 interpretations of this sentence rendering it true rather than false, namely:

(I1) The word "WCC" should have appeared instead of "Western" in quotes,

yielding the unambiguously true sentence, "The only cartridges produced by

Western in the 6.5 mm caliber that would have possessed the factory logo

"WCC" with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped on the cartridge base would be

pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting

ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets."

(I2) The word "for" should have appeared before the word "Western" with

"Western" not in quotes: "The only cartridges produced by Western in the

6.5 mm caliber that would have possessed the factory logo for Western with

the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5

x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft

round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

(I3) "WCC", which was the factory logo for Western Cartridge Company, was

omitted from the sentence, which should have read as follows: "The only

cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm caliber that would have

possessed the factory logo “WCC" for Western with the caliber, “6.5 mm”

stamped on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–

Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-

jacketed bullets."

Having edited this article for publication, I seem to recall (but it has been a

while) adding the quotation marks myself where I should have realized that

the word "for" was inadvertently omitted from the text. So the correct text

should have been interpretation (I2). Is this significant? Well, editors can

make mistakes and this appears to have been one of mine. Is it serious?

Taken in context, the entire article makes it obvious that John Ritchson was

a bona fide expert in the field of ballistics. Given the alternatives that make

the sentence unambiguously true, this appears to be a rather trivial mistake.

He tosses in a few words about the evidence photographs published in Noel

Twyman's BLOODY TREASON, as though his few casual remarks override the

photographs themselves or the documents that have been altered to change

the numeral "2" to "3". Nor does he address the evidence photograph that

appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969), which includes

the blanket in which the Mannlicher-Carcano was allegedly wrapped and the

paper bag in which it was allegedly brought into the building with other items,

a photo which obviously was not taken the evening of the assassination but

which nevertheless shows two spent shell casings and one unspent cartridge.

These are two more indications that Tink only pretends to be a student of JFK.

Notice, in particular, his methodology. He has spent decades looking for tiny

errors like this on which to impale me and disparage my character. Decades,

literally! Notice, too, how eager he must have been to meet with David Lifton,

knowing that there might be an opportunity here to exploit the recent tension

in my relationship with David over issues related to this thread and others, too!

You are observing a sick mind at work, a man obsessed with his nemesis, me,

who is going to expend the rest of his life in meaningless attempts to tarnish

my reputation without realizing that they can do nothing to salvage his own.

THE BALLISTICS EVIDENCE / An Introduction

Introduction to the Ballistics Evidence

John Ritchson

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he presented an introduction to the physics underlying the science of bal-

listics, and explained in simple terms why the Warren Commission failed

in this area of its investigation. John Ritchson died just prior to the publica-

tion of this issue of Assassination Research.]

In the subject of ballistics with respect to firearms it is important to gain an

understanding of the forces and moments that affect the intrinsic behavior of

bullets from the moment they are discharged through their terminal impact.

The modern science of ballistics as first developed by Julian Hatcher is divided

into three principal areas: internal, which deals with the weapon and projectile

during the firing process; external, which deals with the projectile in flight; and

terminal, which deals with the processes involved at the point of Impact.

In this article, I will be dealing with those three principals in the light of show-

ing the reader, in a manner I hope can be easily understood, that most if not all

of the assertions made by the Warren Commission Report in this field are pat-

ently false.

The flowfield around a traveling bullet

Shadowgraphs have shown that the flowfield in the vicinity of a bullet most

generally consists of laminar and turbulent regions. The flowfield depends in

particular on the velocity at which the bullet moves, the shape of the bullet, and

the roughness of its surface, to mention just the most important factors. The

flowfield obviously changes tremendously, as the velocity drops below the speed

of sound, which is about 1115 ft/s (340 m/s) at standard atmosphere condi-

tions.

The mathematical equations, by means of which the flowfield parameters (for

example pressure and flowfield velocity at each location) could be determined

are well known to the physicist. However, with the help of powerful computers,

numeric solutions to these equations have been found up to now for very spe-

cific configurations only.

Because of these restrictions, ballisticians all over the world consider bullet mo-

tion in the atmosphere by disregarding the specific characteristics of the flow-

field and apply a simplified viewpoint: The flowfield is characterized by the

John Ritchson 2 Ballistics Introduction

forces and moments affecting the body. Generally those forces and moments

must be determined experimentally, and this is done by shooting experiments

and wind tunnel tests.

Generally, a body moving through the atmosphere is affected by a variety of

forces. Some of those forces are mass forces, which apply at the center of gravity

(CG) of the body and depend on the body mass and the mass distribution. A

second group of forces is called aerodynamic forces. These forces result from the

interaction of the flowfield with the bullet and depend on the shape and surface

roughness of the body. Some aerodynamic forces depend on either yaw or spin

or both. The following discussion will be restricted only to drag, lift and the

Magnus force.

Wind force and overturning moment

Now let us consider the most general case of a bullet having a yaw angle. By

saying so, the ballistician means that the direction of motion of the bullet’s CG

deviates from the direction into which the bullet’s axis of symmetry points. In-

numerable experimental observations have shown that an initial yaw angle is

principally unavoidable and is caused by perturbations like barrel vibrations

and muzzle blast disturbances.

For such a bullet, the pressure differences at the bullet’s surface result in a

force, which is called the wind force. The wind force seems to apply at the center

of pressure of the wind force (CPW), which, for spin-stabilized bullets, is located

in front of the CG. The location of the CPW is by no means stationary and shifts

as the flowfield changes.

It is possible to add two forces to the wind force, having the same magnitude as

the wind force but opposite directions. If one let those two forces attack at the

CG, these two forces obviously do not have any effect on the bullet as they mu-

tually neutralize.

There are two further forces that form a couple that is called the aerodynamic

moment of the wind force or, for short, the overturning moment MW. The over-

turning moment tries to rotate the bullet around an axis, which passes through

the CG and is perpendicular to the bullet’s axis of form.

To summarize: The wind force, which applies at the center of pressure, can be

substituted by a force of the same magnitude and direction plus a moment. The

force applies at the CG, the moment turns the bullet about an axis running

through the CG. This is a general rule of classical mechanics (see any elemen-

tary physics textbook) and applies for any force that attacks at a point different

from the CG of a rigid body.

One can proceed one step further and split the force, which applies at the CG,

into a force which is antiparallel to the direction of movement of the CG, plus a

force which is perpendicular to this direction. The first force is said to be the

John Ritchson 3 Ballistics Introduction

drag force FD, or simply drag; the other force is the lift force, FL, or lift for short.

Obviously, in the absence of a yaw angle, the wind force reduces to the drag.

So far, we have explained the forces, which compose the wind force and the

overturning moment, but we haven’t dealt with their effects.

Drag and lift apply at the CG and simply affect the motion of the CG. Of course,

the drag retards this motion. The effects of the lift force will be met later.

Obviously, the overturning moment tends to increase the yaw angle, and one

could expect that the bullet starts tumbling and become unstable. This indeed

can be observed when firing bullets from an unrifled barrel. However, at this

point, as we consider spinning projectiles, the gyroscopic effect comes into the

scene. This can be explained and derived from general rules of physics and can

be verified by applying mathematics. For the moment we simply believe what

can be observed: Due to the gyroscopic effect, the bullet’s longitudinal axis

moves aside into the direction of the overturning moment.

As the global outcome of the gyroscopic effect, the bullet’s axis of symmetry

thus would move on a cone’s surface, with the velocity vector indicating the axis

of the cone. This movement is often called precession. However, a more recent

nomenclature defines this motion as the slow mode oscillation.

To complicate things even more, the true motion of a spin-stabilized bullet is

much more complex. A fast oscillation superposes the slow oscillation. However,

we will return to this point later.

Magnus Force and Magnus Moment

Generally, the wind force is the dominant aerodynamic force. However, there

are numerous other smaller forces, but we will concentrate on the Magnus

force, which turns out to be very important for bullet stability.

If one imagines looking at a bullet from the rear, and supposes that the bullet

has right-handed twist, we must additionally assume the presence of an angle

of yaw in which the bullet’s longitudinal axis should be inclined to one side.

Due to this inclination, the flowfield velocity has a component perpendicular to

the bullet’s axis of symmetry, which we call nv . However, because of the bullet’s

spin, the flowfield turns out to become asymmetric. Molecules of the air stream

adhere to the bullet’s surface. Air stream velocity and the rotational velocity of

the body add at one point, A, and subtract at another, B. Thus one can observe

a lower flowfield velocity at A and a higher streaming velocity at B. However, ac-

cording to Bernoulli’s rule, a higher streaming velocity corresponds with a lower

pressure and a lower velocity with a higher pressure. Thus, there is a pressure

difference, which results in a downward directed force, which is said to be the

Magnus Force (MF) (Heinrich Gustav Magnus, 1802–1870, German physicist).

This explains why the Magnus force, as far as flying bullets are concerned, re-

quires spin as well as an angle of yaw, otherwise this force vanishes.

If one considers the whole surface of a bullet, one finds a total Magnus force,

which applies at its center of pressure (CPM). The center of pressure of the Mag-

nus force varies as a function of the flowfield structure and can be located be-

hind as well as in front of the CG. The magnitude of the Magnus force is con-

siderably smaller than the magnitude of the wind force. However, the associated

moment, the discussion of which follows, is of considerable importance for bul-

let stability.

You can repeat the steps that were followed after the discussion of the wind

force. Again, you can substitute the Magnus force applying at its CP by an

equivalent force, applying at the CG, plus a moment, which is said to be the

Magnus Moment (MM). This moment tends to turn the body about an axis per-

pendicular to its axis of symmetry.

However, the gyroscopic effect also applies for the Magnus force. Remember

that due to the gyroscopic effect, the bullet’s nose moves into the direction of

the associated moment. With respect to the conditions reflected in the associ-

ated moment, the Magnus force thus would have a stabilizing effect, as it tends

to decrease the yaw angle, because the bullet’s axis will be moved opposite to

the direction of the yaw angle.

A similar examination shows that the Magnus force has a destabilizing effect

and increases the yaw angle, if its center of pressure is located in front of the

CG. Later, this observation will become very important, as we will meet a dy-

namically unstable bullet, the instability of which is caused by this effect.

Two-arms model of yawing motion

We have now finished discussing the most important forces and aerodynamic

moments affecting a bullet’s motion, but so far we haven’t seen what the result-

ing movement looks like. For the moment we are not interested in the trajectory

itself (the translational movement of the body), but we want to concentrate on

the body’s rotation about the CG.

The yawing motion of a spin-stabilized bullet, resulting from the sum of all

aerodynamic moments, can be modeled as a superposition of a fast and a slow

mode oscillation, and can most easily be explained and understood by means of

a two-arms model.

Imagine looking at the bullet from the rear. Let the slow mode arm CG to A ro-

tate about the CG with the slow mode frequency. Consequently point A moves

on a circle around the center of gravity.

Let the fast mode arm A to T rotate about A with the fast mode frequency. Then

T moves on a circle around point A. T is the bullet’s tip and the connecting line

of CG and T is the bullet’s longitudinal axis.

This simple model adequately describes the yawing motion, if one additionally

considers that the fast mode frequency exceeds the slow mode frequency, and

the arm lengths of the slow mode and the fast mode are, for a stable bullet, con-

tinuously shortened.

Imagine looking at a bullet approaching an observer’s eyes. Then the bullet’s tip

moves on a spiral-like (also described as helical) path, while the CG remains at-

tached to the center of the circle. The bullet’s tip periodically returns back to

the tangent to the trajectory. If this occurs, the yaw angle becomes a minimum.

Internal ballistics

We will conclude with a short introduction to internal ballistics so that the

reader can perhaps gain an understanding as to just how poorly the WWII M38

Carcano performs, and how this relates to the JFK assassination.

When all firearms are discharged, their barrels vibrate in the same manner as

the tine of a tuning fork. These vibrations will cause the barrel to move consid-

erably and with violence. Accuracy is absolutely dependent upon the uniformity

of these vibrations and a fundamental requirement of a good gunsmith is the

ability to forge and work steel in such a manner as to maximize the barrel’s ca-

pability of ringing true with each and every shot.

Barrel vibrations are divided into two parts: fundamental and secondary vibra-

tions. With fundamental vibration the entire barrel vibrates as a single unit

from one fixed node (the point at which the barrel is calm) which is at the

breech where the barrel is fixed to the receiver. Secondary vibration is a series

of overtones in which the barrel is divided longitudinally into a number of vi-

brating sections each terminating in a node at the end of a particular section

nearest the breech.

Some of the things which, if not done just right, which will adversely effect the

true ring of a barrel are headspace, screws, crowning, throat, bore and bedding.

Bedding screws that are not perfectly true, improper bedding, and bolt lugs and

barrel bands that are not uniform, and (especially noteworthy) set-screws in the

receiver-ring which apply a point of force at a single node on the barrel-breech

can and will cause conflicting stresses when the rifle is fired, altering the barrel

vibrations to the point of irregularity, thus destroying any hope of uniform

downrange accuracy.

Many of these enumerated defects are known to be present in WWII M38 Car-

canos. Fundamental vibration is set in motion by the shock of discharge. The

breech end of the barrel, when it is properly melded to the receiver, remains

relatively calm and is the single node. The muzzle oscillates in a circular path

and can move in any direction through 360 degrees. The position of the muzzle

at the instant of bullet exit greatly influences the point of impact on the target.

When fundamental vibration is extreme and when the muzzle position (at the

instant of bullet exit) varies from shot to shot, all hope of down range accuracy

is lost.

Secondary vibration occurs at the same instant as, but independently of, fun-

damental vibration. In it are a series of nodes and overtones traveling along the

length of the barrel producing oscillations similar to that of a snapping whip.

Any factor, such as the condition of the firearm, heat of the barrel, powder

charge variation, support of the firearm, etc., which introduce small variations

in vibration will effect down range accuracy.

Almost every aspect of a rifle–cartridge combination will have some effect on

barrel vibration. A heavy load will set up a more violent vibration than a light

load. On the other hand, when the velocity is low (such as the light loaded Car-

cano), vibrations have more time to develop before the bullet leaves the muzzle.

Note carefully that the total disturbance from a light load, though less violent and

rapid, will be greater than that of a heavy load.

A properly sized bullet fits the barrel and forms a nearly perfect gas seal. Thus

expanding gas is trapped behind the bullet and is pushing equally in all direc-

tions. The force of the gas actually expands the barrel behind the bullet. Note

again that any change in this force not only creates a change in muzzle velocity

due to a change in friction, but also changes the barrel stresses which effects vi-

bration.

To give the reader a sense of the real-world impact of barrel vibration on a bul-

let’s terminal ballistic point of impact: Tests conducted by the US Army on the

venerable old M1903 Springfield Rifle (which is superior to any M38 Carcano by

several orders of magnitude), using standard military ammunition, the angular

movement of the muzzle due to vibration equal to more than 40 ft. at 1,000

yards. This is the reason why the M38 Carcano is generally considered to be a

very poor weapon.

Proper twist is an absolute requirement for bullet stability leading to down

range accuracy. Heavier (longer) bullets need a faster twist for in-flight stability,

and smaller lighter bullets require a slower twist. When the M38 Carcano was

first developed, it was chambered for a 7.35 mm cartridge which was the same

case as the 6.5 mm but with the neck expanded to accommodate the larger

7.35 mm bullet. The 7.35 mm barrel was cut for a 1 in 10" turn twist which was

suitable for this bullet. However—and here is the problem—some time around

the beginning of WWII, the Italians decided not to proceed with the retooling for

the 7.35 mm, and instead went back to the 6.5 mm bullet. Now, the original

6.5 mm barrels on the model 91 Carcanos were cut with a progressive or gain

twist starting with a 1 in 19" turn at the breech and ending with a 1 in 8" turn

twist at the muzzle. Such barrels are considered superior to a standard-cut bar-

rel (which may explain why the Italian National Shooting Team still uses the

M91s in competition match shooting), but when the M38 Carcanos were rebar-

reled to 6.5 mm, only a very few were rebarreled with a gain twist barrel—

probably only until the existing stock was used up—and the rest (composing

the vast majority of all M38 Carcanos ever made) were fitted with standard ri-

fled barrels, which unless the gun factories retooled their groove cutters to the

faster 1 in 7" turn twist, which is optimum for the 6.5mm bullet, would have

produced the slower 1 in 8.5" to a 1 in 10" turn twist. There is no evidence that

such retooling ever took place.

During wartime production, the gun factories were under extreme pressure to

produce the massive number of firearms required to prosecute the war. As a re-

sult the factory gunsmiths could not simply shut down production to perform

basic maintenance on their machines, resulting in a situation where the cutting

tools would become dull and start “hogging” the steel, producing a wide varia-

tion in bore diameters. Also, they were unable to properly finish their produc-

tion models, resulting in sloppy actions, poor bedding, crowning and improper

headspacing.

Such weapons, under the right circumstances, could be as dangerous to the

shooter as the target, resulting in cases of catastrophic breech failure in which

the weapon could and would literally blow up in the shooter’s face. It wasn’t un-

til the 1990s that Dave Emory, chief ballistican for Hornady Arms, was able to

produce a bullet that can be safely fired from a war-time production M38 Car-

cano—provided, of course, one can find one in fairly good shape. However, it is

still strongly recommended that anyone contemplating using a M38 Carcano to

have it checked out by a competent gunsmith before loading and firing it, as in

the event of a cartridge or primer rupture or a condition of excessive breech

pressure due to improper headspacing such a shooter will most definitely notice

the after-effects.

This problem with respect to the production of the rifle is just one more reason

why the M38 Carcano, with the possible exception of the Japanese Arisaka, is

considered by many in the trade to be the worst rifle ever made.

Equipped with this rifle, a shooter of the caliber of Lee Harvey Oswald on his

best day couldn’t have hit the water if he fired it off of a boat, much less accom-

plish what the Warren Commission said he did.

The cartridges

Some time ago, researcher Walt Cakebread sent the author a photo-

reproduction of Warren Commission Exhibit CE-738 taken at Dallas Police

Headquarters around 10:00–10:30 pm on 22 November 1963. Among the items

inventoried, allegedly connected to Lee Harvey Oswald, are two spent brass car-

tridges identified as Winchester/Western Cartridge Corporation 6.5 x 52 mm

Mannlicher Carcano cartridges, and one live round identified as an unfired

WCC 6.5 x 52 mm Mannlicher Carcano cartridge. These two items are the focus

of the following. (Measurements are made by Starrett precision instruments,

and a Dietzgen precision protractor, and will be in the English system.)

The unfired cartridge designated as Item 6 of Exhibit CE-738 and identified as a

WCC 6.5 mm MC Cartridge appears not to be as represented (“appears”, due to

the fact that in the blow-up the author worked from it is impossible to read the

make of the cartridge). However, the primer is clearly visible and is markedly

similar to the odd-sized Berdan primer that is characteristic of Italian GI Am-

munition, and is different in size than the American primers that would be used

in WCC ammunition. Also in evidence is a banded neck-crimp just above the

shoulder, that locks the neck into the bullet’s cannula which would not be pre-

sent in Winchester/Western ammunition.

Conclusion: The unfired cartridge represented as Item 6 of Exhibit CE-738 more

closely resembles an L.B.C. 936, 6.5 x 52 mm MC Italian GI cartridge, than it

does an American made WCC 6.5 x 52 mm MC Cartridge. (Note: Virtually all

American bullets are jacketed with Gilder’s Metal, which is an alloy of copper

and zinc, with a distinct brassy appearance. The color photos of the unfired car-

tridge shows a bullet that is distinctly silver in color, consistent with the cop-

per–nickel alloy used by European bullet makers, but not their American coun-

terparts.)

The MC Cartridge possesses a shoulder width of .160" and a shoulder bevel of

25 degrees. This is an extremely critical point as measurement of the spent

cases show a shoulder width of .186" and a shoulder bevel of 24 degrees, for a

difference of .026" in shoulder width and 1 degree of angle in the bevel.

Conclusion: The two spent cases much more closely resemble a 6.5 x 54 mm

Mannlicher–Schoenauer (MS) cartridge then they do a 6.5 x 52 mm MC car-

tridge, while one spent cartridge case, due to the presence of counter-bored

neck steps, would be of European design and make.

The distinction made in the above conclusion, if it holds up, is an important

one as the Austrian-designed MS rifle is prized for its smooth action, magazine

efficiency, chambering characteristics and accuracy, as opposed to the dismal

performance of the MC rifle. (Note: Many a custom Mauser is chambered for

this cartridge, which makes for an excellent medium-range deer rifle as well as

a sniper rifle.)

Finally, it must be pointed out that Western Cartridge Corporation manufac-

tured 6.5 x 52 mm Carcano cartridges under a military procurement contract

from the US Marine Corps so that all such munitions produced would have

possessed lot and batch numbers head-stamped on the cartridge bases as per

military protocol. The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-

ber that would have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber,

“6.5 mm” stamped on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm

Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-

nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

JOHN RITCHSON / The Rifle: Critique of the Simmons Testimony

[Editor’s note: John Ritchson enlisted in the US Army in 1969 and served

nearly two tours of duty as a Special Operations Scout before being medi-

cally discharged. He settled in Black Eagle, Montana and opened up the

Black Eagle Gunworks with his father Vernon, who had taught him gun-

smithing and ballistics as a young man. Since 1995 Ritchson used his ex-

pertise to examine the ballistics evidence of the JFK assassination. Here

he dissected and critiqued the Warren Commission testimony of Owen

Simmons, which the Commission relied on crucially in trying to argue that

Lee Harvey Oswald could have fired the shots that killed the President.

John Ritchson died just prior to the publication of this issue of Assassina-

tion Research.]

Among the interesting observations by John Ritchson concerned the two

spent shell casings and the single live round that were "found" at the site

of the alleged "assassin's lair" on the 6th floor of the book depository, namely:

The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber that would

have possessed the factory logo “Western” with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped

on the cartridge base would be pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer

factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.

So what we are dealing with here is two spent cartridges which cannot be

chambered in any Carcano rifle, and a live round that would not have been

made in America.

Simply put, this represents another rather large hole in the Warren Commission

Report, and not only tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin, but

provides prima facie evidence of evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.

It would later be claimed that there was a third spent cartridge that was found

at the same location at the same time, but official "evidence photographs" by

the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.

I recommend anyone who wants to appreciate what a genuine ballistics expert

can contribute to this case should read these articles by John Ritchson and then

compare them with what you are hearing from this "lone nutter", Mike Williams.

This afternoon David Lifton and I got together in Berkeley and talked for several hours. It was very nice, very informative. One of the issues we talked about was the growing contamination of the evidence field. This is perhaps a too complex way of saying that what is taken for evidence in this case is being cheapened by the introduction of things that are demonstrably untrue.

This whole thread on the Judyth phenomenon is one example of this. It becomes pretty funny when Professor Fetzer pauses for a moment while browbeating us concerning Judyth and his own allegedly high IQ, to tangle with Mike Williams about a simple matter concerning terminology. Fetzer claims that when Dr. Humes speaks of a “high velocity” weapon he cannot be describing Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. This language quibble has been part of Fetzer’s claims for years. Unfortunately, it fails. Hence, in defending the factoids of Judyth, Fetzer offers another factoid that can be easily refuted. But it doesn’t stop there. In order to buttress his claim about Dr. Humes’ statement, Fetzer invokes the theory of some guy he anoints with the title of “expert,” John Richson. In the above quote posted by Fetzer, Richson claims that the cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the Depository were stamped “Western” and “6.5 mm” on the cartridge base. According to Richson, this means that the rounds were “pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round-nosed semi-jacketed bullets.” This means, says Richson, that none of these rounds could have been fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He also claims that two, not three, cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor, that “official evidence photographs by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI show only two spent and one unspent.”

It was only driving back from Berkeley that I remembered this little excursion by Professor Fetzer as a glowing example of just what David Lifton and I had been talking about.... an amazing example of strewing around an ever expanding circle of non-facts. First, of course, is the ever expanding tale of Judyth and Lee’s love affair. But then Fetzer introduces the silly claim about Humes’s statement to belabor Mike Williams who challenged his Judyth infatuation. Then to buttress part of his belaboring of Williams he introduces these claims from his “expert,” Richson. Here the blizzard of misinformation becomes blinding. First, as Todd Vaughan (post #2794 this thread) has already posted, the term “Western” doesn’t appear on the base of the casings found on the 6th floor. What does appear is “WCC” — the correct marking for a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge. And the claim that two not three cartridge cases were found up there? Sorry, numerous witnesses both law enforcement and private stated that they saw three cartridge cases and DPD photos show three cartridge cases near the sniper’s nest. And what about those “official evidence photographs” that “show only two spent and one unspent” rounds? The photos referred to were taken at DPD on Friday night of the evidence items they released that night to the FBI. There were only two casings and the live round because DPD held back one casing and only released two cases and one live round to the FBI that night; the photos (as to be expected) show what was turned over to the FBI, not what was found). This whole claim was made by Noel Twyman years ago and taken apart as soon as his book appeared. So now, Fetzer brings it all back, and inserts it into a completely irrelevant thread. So we have a batch of non-facts (the obvious nonsense about the cartridge cases) used to buttress Fetzer’s nonsense about Humes’s statement that in turn is used to buttress the wholesale nonsense about Oswald’s supposed love affair with Judyth.

In a few short pages, Fetzer managed a trifecta of precisely the pernicious effect David Lifton and I were bemoaning. Congratulations Professor, you’re a champion!

Josiah Thompson

Todd W. Vaughan · May 20, 2010

Your expert wrote:

QUOTE ON