Fetzer takes ballistics 101!

[Greg Burnham]

Mike,

On a slightly different, but relevant note, in your opinion, how old is "too old" for ammunition? I know what the answer for me personally would be, and there are some variables that could extend or diminish the "safe shelf life" expectancy. But, in general terms, how long would you feel comfortable and confident to use 6.5 WCC ammo after its original date of manufacture?

[Mike Williams]

Mike,

On a slightly different, but relevant note, in your opinion, how old is "too old" for ammunition? I know what the answer for me personally would be, and there are some variables that could extend or diminish the "safe shelf life" expectancy. But, in general terms, how long would you feel comfortable and confident to use 6.5 WCC ammo after its original date of manufacture?

Greg,

This is very difficult to answer. It would depend on the conditions it was stored in. In an ideal environment it could be reliable for decades. In less than ideal conditions, it could be as small as a year or two. In wet conditions, less than a week.

Its really hard to determine as each presents its own case.

I recently read an article from a man who purchased some MC ammo from the 30's. Out of 200 rounds he had one misfire. I think that is crazy luck, but it proves the point you just never know.

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Thanks for this post. The purpose of "evidence photographs" is to photograph evidence.

It is extremely interesting to me that when simple, obvious proofs that Oswald was not

the "lone gunman"--such as the fact that the weapon only had a muzzle velocity of 2,000

fps and that only two spent shell casings and one unspent were found at the "assassin's

lair"--they launch a massive campaign against them, even appealing to highly distorted

definitions of "high velocity". Even Posner grants that the Mannlicher-Carcano had only

a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity and there have been plenty of weapons around that possess

much higher muzzle velocities, such as the M-1, the 30.30, the 30.06, and most others,

as the following table from http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm shows:

A useful standard is the M-1, which Patton described as the "Greatest battle implement

ever devised". The M1 Garand was produced until 1957 and was the standard issue of

the US Army and Marines during WWII and the Korean War. The M1 Garand's reputation

for accuracy, reliability and durability was built on the use of only superior grade materials

and workmanship and the "self-contained" design which exposes very few moving parts

to the elements. It's basic characteristics are: Action: Gas semi-auto Weight 9 lbs 8 oz,

Length 43.6 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750fps Max. range: 3,450 yds Max. Effective range

800-1,000 yds Magazine: 8 round, En Bloc, with its muzzle velocity of 2,750 fps. There

is no reasonable definition by which a 2,000 fps weapon would qualify as "high velocity".

Your points about some of the evidence--The photo of the two shells with the bullet was

taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos

were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This

is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough.

They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found

that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel,

the piece of wood removed from the window, etc.--do not alter the ballistic evidence.

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show

two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a

exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round

were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and

2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two

spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which

reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in

which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3". Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address

the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point

that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another

spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence"

about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make

their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by

taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where

the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward.

That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does

not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

Professor Fetzer,

Apparently you missed my entire point.

Let me re-word it and make it clearer for you.

Your “expert" claimed…

QUOTE ON

“The only cartridges produced by Western in the 6.5 mm cali-ber 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.”

QUOTE OFF

But what I am telling you is that your expert is wrong, that the “pre-WWII 6.5 x 54 mm Mannlicher–Schoenauer factory-loaded hunting ammunition with soft round- nosed semi-jacketed bullets.” ARE NOT THE ONLY cartridges that “possessed the factory logo for Western with the caliber, “6.5 mm” stamped on the cartridge base”, and that IN FACT the cartridges made by Western under the USMC contract are stamped “WCC 6.5mm”.

Your "expert" further claimed...

QUOTE ON

“Western Cartridge Corporation manufactured 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.”

QUOTE OFF

But the fact is that your expert is wrong again - lot and batch number information for the Western Cartridge Corporation US Marine Corps 6.5mm contract is instead printed on each box of 20 rounds.

Todd

Jim, Todd is right. while John Ritchson was a well-liked member of this forum, he made a number of claims unsupported by the evidence, and refuted by those who have actually purchased and handled M/C ammunition.

He is also right, unfortunately, about the shell claimed to have been an intact bullet. Better and clearer versions of the photo, like the one recently put online by the University of North Texas, show it to be a shell, not a bullet.

Now, for the good news. Josiah, in his attempt to correct your mistakes, made one of his own. The photo of the two shells with the bullet was taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough. They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard. But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel, the piece of wood removed from the window, etc...

If Oswald had lived, and been sentenced to life imprisonment, he would almost certainly have received a new trial years later due to questions about the chain of evidence and crime scene...

Hmmm... perhaps that's why he was killed... or at least why the DPD allowed him to be killed...

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

This is very difficult to answer. It would depend on the conditions it was stored in. In an ideal environment it could be reliable for decades. In less than ideal conditions, it could be as small as a year or two. In wet conditions, less than a week.

Its really hard to determine as each presents its own case.

I recently read an article from a man who purchased some MC ammo from the 30's. Out of 200 rounds he had one misfire. I think that is crazy luck, but it proves the point you just never know.

Mike

Agreed. However, here's why I asked. As far as I'm personally concerned--I would not use ammo that I hadn't stored myself or ammo that I didn't know "who or how" it had been stored. This would apply even more if the weapon make and model I chose (for a very important "assignment"--as opposed to target practice) had itself not been produced for nearly 20 years prior to my using it [Mannlicher Carcanos retired from Italian Army circa 1940 and all production was discontinued by 1945]. As I think you will agree, delitirious effects on elements of precision, as they negatively impact accuracy, tend to be cumulative and also tend to compound each other even further if more than one are present. So, the age and condition of the weapon are factors, as is the age and condition of the ammunition. The healthy physical appearance judged by the naked eye is not necessarily indicative of a reliable weapon or ammunition.

Since you tend to believe that LHO was the lone shooter, he apparently was capable of being quite thorough in his execution of his task and quite composed in the aftermath. 1) He pulled it off -- that alone is huge. (Not so much for the marksmanship, perhaps, as for the audacity and coolness under extreme pressure). 2) He escaped immediate death! No one returned fire let alone killed him on the spot in defense of the POTUS). 3) His escape from the immediate crime scene worked quite well--escape route was effective. 4) Upon arrest and interrogation he was calm and cool (after initial altercation) and never admitted guilt. And there's more, but I'll stop with that much for another reason...

It seems inconsistent to me that he would choose an MC for the job? Doesn't seem to jibe with his level of competence (which was quite high). He employed a weapon that was about 18-23 years old--now, he could have completely refurbished and/or cleaned it up for the task, but there is no record that he did. The scope has alignment problems that he didn't correct. Maybe he could "shoot round it" -- but even if true, why would such a thorough guy leave that glaring loose end? He even had a weird "sling" attached to it. Odd. As for the ammunition, it was traced back to Western Cartridge Company in Chicago. It was part of a batch of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) that was manufactured in 1954. It was ordered by the USMC, who had NO weapons in which it could be used. The FBI believed it was ordered (probably for CIA) by the USMC for "concealment" purposes. But, this was 9 year old ammo whose provenance and method of storage was unknown to Oswald as far as we can tell from the documentation.

Using that weapon, prticulrly with THAT ammo, just doesn't seem consistent with his "competent" behavior, IMHO.

[Mike Williams]

Pat,

Thanks for this post. The purpose of "evidence photographs" is to photograph evidence.

It is extremely interesting to me that when simple, obvious proofs that Oswald was not

the "lone gunman"--such as the fact that the weapon only had a muzzle velocity of 2,000

fps and that only two spent shell casings and one unspent were found at the "assassin's

lair"--they launch a massive campaign against them, even appealing to highly distorted

definitions of "high velocity". Even Posner grants that the Mannlicher-Carcano had only

a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity and there have been plenty of weapons around that possess

much higher muzzle velocities, such as the M-1, the 30.30, the 30.06, and most others,

as the following table from http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm shows:

A useful standard is the M-1, which Patton described as the "Greatest battle implement

ever devised". The M1 Garand was produced until 1957 and was the standard issue of

the US Army and Marines during WWII and the Korean War. The M1 Garand's reputation

for accuracy, reliability and durability was built on the use of only superior grade materials

and workmanship and the "self-contained" design which exposes very few moving parts

to the elements. It's basic characteristics are: Action: Gas semi-auto Weight 9 lbs 8 oz,

Length 43.6 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750fps Max. range: 3,450 yds Max. Effective range

800-1,000 yds Magazine: 8 round, En Bloc, with its muzzle velocity of 2,750 fps. There

is no reasonable definition by which a 2,000 fps weapon would qualify as "high velocity".

Your points about some of the evidence--The photo of the two shells with the bullet was

taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos

were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This

is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough.

They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found

that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel,

the piece of wood removed from the window, etc.--do not alter the ballistic evidence.

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show

two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a

exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round

were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and

2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two

spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which

reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in

which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3". Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address

the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point

that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another

spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence"

about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make

their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by

taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where

the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward.

That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does

not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

Jim,

Your inability to recognize given evidence is legendary.

While you have yet to define high velocity, you only speculate as to what it is, and then tell us what it can not be, based on proving your point.

You have been given two solid resources for the definition, and yet you continue to offer nothing in the way of evidence that proves those definitions are incorrect.

Additionally, we see the same behavior in dealing with the two casings issue. This myth has been dispatched years ago, the fact that you do not seem to have the mental capacity to absorb this comes as no real surprise to me.

What you are saying in effect is that only the fastest race car can be called fast, and all others can not be called fast because they are not as fast. How ridiculous.

The definition for high velocity is quite clear. I am sorry that it PROVES you wrong, however that is not my issue, its yours.

The integrity you have shown in facing these facts speaks volumes.

Mike

Edited May 20, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Mike Williams]

Agreed. However, here's why I asked. As far as I'm personally concerned--I would not use ammo that I hadn't stored myself or ammo that I didn't know "who or how" it had been stored. This would apply even more if the weapon make and model I chose (for a very important "assignment"--as opposed to target practice) had itself not been produced for nearly 20 years prior to my using it [Mannlicher Carcanos retired from Italian Army circa 1940 and all production was discontinued by 1945]. As I think you will agree, delitirious effects on elements of precision, as they negatively impact accuracy, tend to be cumulative and also tend to compound each other even further if more than one are present. So, the age and condition of the weapon are factors, as is the age and condition of the ammunition. The healthy physical appearance judged by the naked eye is not necessarily indicative of a reliable weapon or ammunition.

I agree completely. I would add that the ammunition is the key to accuracy here. If this had been my task, I would have hand loaded the day before and made sure every single aspect was perfect. But then again, had I undertaken this task it would have been a one shot event.

Since you tend to believe that LHO was the lone shooter, he apparently was capable of being quite thorough in his execution of his task and quite composed in the aftermath. 1) He pulled it off -- that alone is huge. (Not so much for the marksmanship, perhaps, as for the audacity and coolness under extreme pressure). 2) He escaped immediate death! No one returned fire let alone killed him on the spot in defense of the POTUS). 3) His escape from the immediate crime scene worked quite well--escape route was effective. 4) Upon arrest and interrogation he was calm and cool (after initial altercation) and never admitted guilt. And there's more, but I'll stop with that much for another reason...

I would only agree in part. Oswald got lucky. Hitting 1 of 3 is not excellent shooting by any means. Its sloppy. If he had missed that last shot, JFK may well have survived the day!

It seems inconsistent to me that he would choose an MC for the job? Doesn't seem to jibe with his level of competence (which was quite high). He employed a weapon that was about 18-23 years old--now, he could have completely refurbished and/or cleaned it up for the task, but there is no record that he did. The scope has alignment problems that he didn't correct. Maybe he could "shoot round it" -- but even if true, why would such a thorough guy leave that glaring loose end? He even had a weird "sling" attached to it. Odd. As for the ammunition, it was traced back to Western Cartridge Company in Chicago. It was part of a batch of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) that was manufactured in 1954. It was ordered by the USMC, who had NO weapons in which it could be used. The FBI believed it was ordered (probably for CIA) by the USMC for "concealment" purposes. But, this was 9 year old ammo whose provenance and method of storage was unknown to Oswald as far as we can tell from the documentation.

The MC is a quite capable weapon. I see no reason to believe it was unsuited. Furthermore, we have no evidence that shows us there were scope issues at the time of the assassination. The US military has been known to sell off surplus ammo after as little as 5 years. I have .223 ammunition right now that is 6 year old surplus. It would not be any real surprise to me to find that Oswald purchased some surplus ammo for this rifle. This would not be out of the question.

Using that weapon, particulrly with THAT ammo, just doesn't seem consistent with his "competent" behavior, IMHO.

But it does seem consistent with the event.

We have significant evidence that a short round was fired. We can see that it took him 3 shots to accomplish the task at relatively short range. We also know that rifle was somewhat equal to what he could afford, or would spend. (Oswald was a bit of a tightwad).

Furthermore, if Oswald had been part of a grand scheme, surely they could have and would have given him a much better weapon, ammunition, and get away plan!

To me the earmarks of the task are clear.

Mike

[John Dolva]

There sre three frames in a film of the rifle being carried down a corridor being held aloft by the person carrying it. One frame is overexposed because the camera fiming it happrned to come within the projected field of view of the scope which is pointing at a well illuminated area. The two frames either side of this frame and the overexposed frame may shed some light on the scope alignment in relation to the barrel before any body shimmied it.

[Mike Williams]

There sre three frames in a film of the rifle being carried down a corridor being held aloft by the person carrying it. One frame is overexposed because the camera fiming it happrned to come within the projected field of view of the scope which is pointing at a well illuminated area. The two frames either side of this frame and the overexposed frame may shed some light on the scope alignment in relation to the barrel before any body shimmied it.

John,

Unfortunately, it can't. We are talking about a matter of thousandths of an inch.

[John Dolva]

And very accurately measurable three frame sequence, which I suggest may be sufficiently indicative of barrel scope relationship within a satisfactory error margin.

[Mike Williams]

And very accurately measurable three frame sequence, which I suggest may be sufficiently indicative of barrel scope relationship within a satisfactory error margin.

John,

I do not think you can measure anything in a photo down to the .001 of an inch. The difference here would be minutes of angle, fractions of a degree.

I think it would be nearly impossible to measure and even less possible to verify.

Mike

[John Dolva]

Mike, I'm not disputing that you are right. However. since hearing of the scope misalignment I've sought any data regarding this, and this strikes me as getting something. Having had this thought for some years but not the mterial to work with, I cannot say how accurate such a study in fact would be. I'd like to see it attempted though.

[Mike Williams]

Mike, I'm not disputing that you are right. However. since hearing of the scope misalignment I've sought any data regarding this, and this strikes me as getting something. Having had this thought for some years but not the mterial to work with, I cannot say how accurate such a study in fact would be. I'd like to see it attempted though.

Give er a go John and lets see how it comes out. Id like to see that myself.

Mike

[John Dolva]

''not the mterial to work with'' + comp crash resulting in massive downgrade in resources there, can't even work on two large layers, so if it happens from me it won't be for some time. Anyway the idea is out there.

edit:typos

Edited May 20, 2010 by John Dolva

[Josiah Thompson]

My comments are in italics, bold:

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, [if you are referring to the photo of the live round and two casings on a desk (page 111), what I've said before applies: these are rounds sent to the FBI on Friday night. If you are referring to the crime scene photos that Twyman incorrectly claims show a live round and two cartridge cases at the crime scene, then you are just wrong. As demonstrated by the article from the MacAdams site, close-up photos show dramatically that what Twyman and you have claimed to be a live round is really a cartridge case. The crime scene photos then show three cartridge cases.]

where the photos are substantiated by a exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round were found), [Once again, Professor, thou speakest with a forked tongue. The document you reference is an evidence envelope with the notation: "2 negatives & 4 prints of each of two 8.5 bullet hulls & 1 'live' round of 6.5 ammunition -- from the rifle found on 6th floor of Texas School Book Depository, Dallas on 11-22-63." It does not say that 2 cases and 1 live round were found on the 6th Floor. Once again, the photos are there to memorialize the transfer of these materials to the FBI and prove nothing about what was found on the 6th floor.] on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and 2 spent rounds were found) [You carefully omit, Professor, what Twyman published on the very next page, page 113. On this next page, Twyman prints a later draft of the same page which has numerous changes in language including a change in the number of "6.5 spent rounds" from (2) to (3). It is obvious that these are earlier and later drafts since corrections are made and information added in the later draft. The correct draft is the later one where three "6.5 spend rounds" are mentioned.] , and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). [Now you are really over-the-top of dishonesty, Professor. This is the receipt by virtue of which FBI Agent Vincent Drain and FBI Agent Charles T Brown, Jr. picked up the live round and two cartridge cases from the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd. What do you think it meant when Studebaker and Day of DPD put their names in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Submitting Specimen?" What do you think it meant when the name of Special Agent Charles T. Brown, Jr. is found in the blank marked, "Signature of Person Receiving Specimen?" What did think it meant when this form contained a note signed by Lieutentant Day of DPD stating, "Vince Drain also present -- actually took possession of all evidence"?] Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing [This is so silly it requires no answer. The photos themselves show no attempt at "forgery." All they show is what they have always shown: three cartridge cases lying on the floor of the 6th floor sniper's nest.] and the changed "evidence sheet" in which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3." [see comments above. These are earlier and later drafts of the same report] Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969). [What do you want us to say about this?]

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. [see above.] That another spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence" about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward. [Whoa! Do you know nothing about fingerprints? Are you really suggesting that you make fingerprints on a rifle by putting ink on Oswald's dead hands and pressing a hand against the rifle. You know what you would get if you did this? Just a lot of ink on the rifle. By inking Oswald's hands they could press the fingers against a fingerprint card and obtain good prints. Your point is hilariously wrong.] That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research. [Photos are photos and arguments are arguments wherever found. Numerous folks worked on debunking this point years ago and it finally ended up on MacAdams' site. So what.]

Jim[/b]

When you take the trouble to drill down into what you are actually claiming, the portrait of you that emerges gets darker. We know that Vince Drain of the FBI picked up a live round and two cases from DPD on the evening of November 22nd. What on earth could make you see the receipt for the pickup as somehow showing that two (not three) cartridge cases were found on the 6th floor? Even the managing editor of the the National Enquirer wouldn't try to make that one fly. Again and again you prove exactly what Lifton and I were talking about.

Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Thanks for this post. The purpose of "evidence photographs" is to photograph evidence.

It is extremely interesting to me that when simple, obvious proofs that Oswald was not

the "lone gunman"--such as the fact that the weapon only had a muzzle velocity of 2,000

fps and that only two spent shell casings and one unspent were found at the "assassin's

lair"--they launch a massive campaign against them, even appealing to highly distorted

definitions of "high velocity". Even Posner grants that the Mannlicher-Carcano had only

a 2,000 fps muzzle velocity and there have been plenty of weapons around that possess

much higher muzzle velocities, such as the M-1, the 30.30, the 30.06, and most others,

as the following table from http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm shows:

A useful standard is the M-1, which Patton described as the "Greatest battle implement

ever devised". The M1 Garand was produced until 1957 and was the standard issue of

the US Army and Marines during WWII and the Korean War. The M1 Garand's reputation

for accuracy, reliability and durability was built on the use of only superior grade materials

and workmanship and the "self-contained" design which exposes very few moving parts

to the elements. It's basic characteristics are: Action: Gas semi-auto Weight 9 lbs 8 oz,

Length 43.6 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750fps Max. range: 3,450 yds Max. Effective range

800-1,000 yds Magazine: 8 round, En Bloc, with its muzzle velocity of 2,750 fps. There

is no reasonable definition by which a 2,000 fps weapon would qualify as "high velocity".

Your points about some of the evidence--The photo of the two shells with the bullet was

taken on 11-26, not 11-22. Aside from a few photos of the rifle...NO evidence photos

were taken by the DPD on 11-22, or, if they were taken, were placed into the files. This

is quite strange. They took numerous photos of the sixth floor, and were fairly thorough.

They took a number of photos of the rifle, and of the fingerprints on the trigger guard.

But they somehow failed to photograph the paper bag, the corner of the box they'd found

that supposedly held Oswald's palm print, the palm print supposedly on the rifle barrel,

the piece of wood removed from the window, etc.--do not alter the ballistic evidence.

The evidence photographs published in Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1997) show

two spent casings and one unspent cartridge, where the photos are substantiated by a

exhibits (documents) on page 110 (an FBI agent's note of two hulls and one "live" round

were found), on page 112 (the original Oswald "evidence sheet" showing one "live" and

2 spent rounds were found), and on page 116 (a DPD report dated 11-22-63 stating two

spent hulls were found on the 6th floor). Noel also publishes photos of the scene, which

reveal a crude forgery to add a third shell casing and the changed "evidence sheet" in

which the numeral "2" has been changed to "3". Nor does Vaughan or Thompson address

the evidence photograph that appears in Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE (1969).

I hope you have Noel's book, because he does a thorough job of documenting the point

that only two spent shell casings and one unspent "live" round were found. That another

spent casing would eventually "show up", of course, is par for the history of "evidence"

about the assassination, where the DPD and the FBI were doing what they could to make

their case against the alleged assassin, including creating a palm print on the weapon by

taking it to the funeral parlor and impressing his palm on the Mannlicher-Carcono, where

the funeral director complained about having to remove the ink from his hands afterward.

That these people would go so far as to cite from a notorious "lone-nutter" web site does

not overcome the weight of the evidence and only raises questions about their research.

Jim

Jim, since I suspect only two shots were fired from the sniper's nest, I've done a lot of reading and studying on the two shells/three shells issue. And the evidence strongly suggests there were three shells. Th earliest witnesses, such as Mooney, Fritz, and Alyea, claimed to see three shells. The photos taken by Day and Studebaker show three shells. Fritz claimed he held onto one of the shells for himself and did not forward it to D.C. (which only makes sense given he was supposed to be conducting an investigation.) That's why only two were written up, and two returned. The third shell was sent on later. The WC cleared this up (or helped put together a credible cover story) in 64.

(There are still some serious questions about the shells, however, which I hope to get into when I complete a still-brewing chapter for my website.)

As far as the fingerprints taken in the mortuary, the DPD acknowledges taking post-mortem fingerprints. Evidently, it's standard. The bit about taking the rifle to the mortuary, it seems, is nonsense.

As with the shells, however, there are still some problems. BIG ones. The palm print was never photographed on the weapon. The FBI failed to see it on the weapon. The WC--Liebeler to be specific--eventually asked "Well, uh, who's to say the palm print was ever on the weapon?' The FBI--Hoover, to be specific--responded by saying that the FBI had matched the imperfections on the rifle barrel to marks on the palm print lift, proving the lift came from the barrel. The FBI presented the WC with an exhibit showing this match.

Problem: the exhibit is entirely unclear and reveals no match.

Problem: the FBI's fingerprint expert--Latona--was not asked to testify to this match.

Problem: no one else in the FBI was asked to testify to this match.

Problem--the FBI's files on the case (from what I can tell), contains no crime lab report indicating the tests purportedly performed by Latona even took place.

In other words, it comes down to Hoover's word that the FBI found a match.

Problem: Hoover had told many untruths in his WC testimony. One of these untruths--where he claimed the FBI had no reason to suspect and flag Oswald as a possible threat, months after he'd secretly penalized 17 of his agents for failing to suspect and flag Oswald as a possible threat--can probably be considered perjury.

So, IMO, the question isn't if the palmprint was added later...it is if it was ever even there...

Edited May 20, 2010 by Pat Speer