The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

[Pat Speer]

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate?

It's not my theory, it's David's. I feel quite certain that the first shot did not miss. Most LNs hold either that Oswald got buck fever on the first shot and missed the limo entirely, or that the first shot hit the tree. I pointed out that the WC's re-enactment proved that Kennedy was not hidden behind the tree at frame 160, when most LNs claim the first shot was fired. David offered that perhaps Oswald tried to use the scope on the first shot, and that that was why he hit the tree. He then offered that Oswald used the iron sights for the next two shots, and had better success. (He actually has some support for this. The HSCA's experts rejected the FBI's testimony on the scope and decided that Oswald would have used the iron sights during the shooting.)

My point was that his explanation for a first shot miss makes more sense than the usual LN claim Oswald missed the entire limo due to zeal, or because he hit a tree which was still several feet in front of Kennedy.

[Glenn Nall]

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Kenneth Drew]

I know you two fellows know it,,but LHO didn't know anything about the scope. He had never, and still hasn't, ever seen it. But your information about the scope is interesting.

[David Von Pein]

I feel quite certain that the first shot did not miss.

Related discussion.....

GREG JAYNES SAID:

Did you read that article David Reitzes posted about witness accounts? If you hang your hat on Connally's account, it may contrast with those ideas which could at least undermine the idea of it being the best evidence.

I understand David Reitzes lines up with your ideas as do pretty much all the lone nutters and I'm the only one saying "Wait a minute, what about this?"

Assuming for the sake of argument we can discount Connally's recollection and chronology, looking at what's left of the evidence, this would work too.

1st shot 224

89 frames

4.86 seconds elapse

2nd shot 313

94 frames

4.97 seconds elapse

3rd shot 407

Either way, there was plenty of time. I just arbitrarily used 407. A late missed shot could obviously have come sooner than that.

I'm not trying to convince anyone this is what happened, only that it remains a possibility. In your opinion, the evidence for the early miss is best. IMO the evidence seems mighty weak if you discount Connally's account. And a rational argument can be made that his account could be wrong.

[...]

I have no doubt that Connally was absolutely certain about his account. It's just that of the hundreds of people in the Zapruder film, no one else visibly reacts to the sound of a rifle shot as is prescribed to Connally by the early miss scenario.

At the very least, the Secret Service guys should show some sign as they are on the alert for this very thing. As Glenn pointed out, in the Altgens picture they have definitely reacted to the sound of a shot, a shot which there is no question happened.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

John Connally's account of the shooting has the benefit of having the extra element of HIS BEING HIT by one of the bullets to help guide him through his account. And Mr. Connally was always certain the first sound he heard was a GUNSHOT--not a backfire or a firecracker. He took it to be a GUNSHOT. And he was NOT hit by that gunshot.

Now, wouldn't it be truly incredible if the sound Connally said he took immediately to be a RIFLE SHOT turned out to be something else, and then--just seconds later--an ACTUAL gunshot/bullet hit him in the back?

What are the odds?

CHRIS EDDY SAID:

I think the only argument against that, David, is the reported numerous motorcycle backfires.

I'm playing devil's advocate, I sit firmly in the circa frame 160 missed shot camp.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

True, Chris. But, again, Governor Connally said he immediately thought it was an ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT VIA RIFLE FIRE -- and coming from "OVER MY RIGHT SHOULDER". It all fits perfectly with a missed shot being fired BEFORE the "SBT" shot.

The odds that Connally would have thought a backfire (over his "right shoulder") was an assassination attempt--and then have an ACTUAL assassination attempt commence (from over his "right shoulder") two or three seconds later are odds that I think even Greg Jaynes would admit are mighty low indeed.

[...]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How can anyone possibly think Connally was wrong about not being hit by Shot #1, a shot he clearly heard and immediately thought was a rifle shot? JBC's testimony in this regard is not debatable, IMO.

STEVE ROE SAID:

So where it gets murky is JBC saying he was hit by a separate shot. However, he admits he didn't see JFK when he turned and looked over his right shoulder. So he probably assumed JFK was already hit by the first bullet. And this would be reasonable because you never figure two people being hit by the same bullet. Then we are left with him saying he was hit as he was turning back to his left.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If JBC never saw JFK, he is the WORST possible witness to rely on with respect to when JFK was hit. Again---that's not debatable either. He got the anti-SBT stuff from Nellie.

And watch Connally's 1967 [CBS] interview---he says the SBT is, indeed, a possibility (despite his wife's adamant opposition to it).

GLENN WHEATCROFT SAID:

That's the thing. Immediately after [Zapruder frame] 160 he never looks over his right shoulder. He just looks to the right quickly, his head stays there momentarily and that's it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Glenn, that's THE ONLY "right turn" that JBC can possibly be referring to with respect to the shot he HEARD but was NOT HIT BY. What other right turn fits that scenario? It can't be his drastic right turn in his seat way AFTER Z230. We know he's been HIT by then. But JBC says he turned to look into the back seat well BEFORE that time. So the Z164 right turn is the only one remaining for that to be.

STEVE ROE SAID:

Thanks David, your logic is solid. I never gave JBC's testimony much in depth thought. Now it's clear.

GLENN WHEATCROFT SAID:

David, there's a bit of contradiction here. You say it has to be the missed shot F160 because it was only shot he heard but was not hit by, and that he knew he had been hit by the second shot F224.

But he REACTS like someone [who] doesn't know they've been hit at F224. Ok, the cheeks puff, the lapel flips out, but that bullet absolutely tore right through him - nearly killed him - and he calmly turns and looks into the back seat to see if JFK is hurt.

His physical collapse to a wound of that magnitude is DELAYED for over 4 seconds. So that means, at least initially, he didn't know he had been hit.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I disagree, Glenn, with your analysis regarding John Connally's movements after he was shot at circa Z224. I don't think he is "calmly" turning to look into the back seat. I think he's in the process of reacting to the bullet that has just struck him, and he's also in the process of uttering the statement he said he made after he was hit -- "My God, they're going to kill us all."

Are you actually suggesting that Connally has NOT been hit by a bullet when we see all the things happening to JBC between Z224 and around Z230 -- i.e., shoulders hunching, mouth opens, face gets kind of distorted, lapel flips up, hat flies up in the air?

For a good look at all of the individual things happening to Governor Connally during those frames (Z224-Z230), GO HERE.

DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Here's an alternative thought on the "slumped" remark made by John Connally in his bedside interview ---

I'm wondering if Connally could be referring to seeing JFK "slump" after Connally himself was hit, which is when JBC turns completely around in his seat.

It's true, however, that JBC always said in later interviews (and to the Warren Commission) that he never saw JFK at ANY time after the shooting started, but we can see in the Zapruder Film that Connally is practically staring right at Kennedy after JBC turns around in his seat. And Kennedy is certainly "slumping" at that moment.

So, in reality, there definitely IS a point in the Z-Film when John Connally could certainly have physically SEEN Kennedy in a "slumped" position. That theory doesn't fit with the timing as told by JBC in his bedside interview, however, where he claims that JFK had slumped PRIOR to the time JBC himself had been hit.

I'm also wondering if the pain-killers and other medications that JBC was on at the time of his bedside interview might have clouded and/or distorted his recollections at that time while he was in his hospital bed.

~shrug~

It's food for thought anyway.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-900.html

Edited June 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

But I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. How did he know the shot had missed?

[Glenn Nall]

It all fits perfectly with a missed shot being fired BEFORE the "SBT" shot.

And it fits just as perfectly to the first shot hit K and the 2nd shot (or another shot) hit C in a "non-SBT" scenario.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

But I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. How did he know the shot had missed?

I've shot lots of things with rifles, none of them alive - I can almost always tell when i hit my target (it invariably moves). I'd imagine it would be QUITE hard NOT to know if you hit a human being. I think he would know if he missed because of that. It wasn't a paper target at 100 yards --- i'm just thinking this from my experience.

[Kenneth Drew]

"hit the tree" ... ? what have I missed? first I've heard of any tree getting hit (i saw where some filmmakers 'proved' a shot from 6th floor hit the green (now) street light right outside the window by finding a bullet hole in it - did ya'll see that...?)

what's the evidence of a tree getting shot?

i agree, tho, that that theory is less nuts the most nutters' theories.

But I saw a question above that hasn't been answered. How did he know the shot had missed?

I've shot lots of things with rifles, none of them alive - I can almost always tell when i hit my target (it invariably moves). I'd imagine it would be QUITE hard NOT to know if you hit a human being. I think he would know if he missed because of that. It wasn't a paper target at 100 yards --- i'm just thinking this from my experience.

Sounds reasonable, assuming you could see where it did hit, but from what I read above sounds as if he couldn't see anything through the scope and supposedly JFK went out of sight at the same time amongst the tree leaves, etc, etc, so knowing that he had missed seems to be in question.

I realize all this talk is a distraction from the real topic, because it is totally a 'what if' scenario. LHO never fired any shots, that's how he would know if he missed or not.

[Glenn Nall]

i LIKE that idea. easy to know if you've missed something with a rifle if you haven't fired one.

check.

[Greg Burnham]

ITEM:

1) The Carcano clip holds 6 rounds. It is ejected following the firing of the last round. You can't put a partially loaded clip into a Carcano. It must be a full clip (with all 6 rounds). So where did the other 3 rounds go? Surely an assassin would have arrived on scene with a full clip.

[The fully loaded clip is inserted and it "clicks" against a lock. There's a very strong follower made of steel with a very strong spring. If you tried to insert it with a clip that wasn't full the follower would push those rounds to the top so you can't get the clip to go all the way in and "lock" into place.]

ITEM:

2) While it is true that you might be able to hit a stationary target with a shot fired from a Carcano utilizing a scope, a few caveats are in order. You might be able to use a scope for a stationary target, but not a moving target. Here's why: To successfully use the scope you would need to acquire a stationary target in the crosshairs with your eye close to the end of the scope. If your eye isn't close to the end of the scope you can't see the target well enough to acquire it. These scopes (allegedly from Klein's) were not equipped with rubber padding on the end. Once the (stationary) target is acquired you would then need to move your eye and head back away from the end of the scope before taking the shot. This would require the use of a tripod to insure accuracy. Keep in mind, the target would have been acquired with the eye very close to the end of the scope. I guarantee you that anyone in such a scenario who acquired a target using a scope (on a Carcano) and fired a shot before moving their eye away from the end of the scope, didn't fire a second shot because they wouldn't have been able to see out of that eye! The first shot would have left them with a black eye or worse. [Even the FBI demonstrations with the weapon and scope show the agent's eye way back from the end of the scope. But from there he couldn't have seen anything.]

Obviously, JFK was not a stationary target. So this introduces a very significant complication. The moving target would be acquired with your eye very close to the end of the scope. The shot would necessarily be fired with the eye in that position (close to the end of the scope) else the target would be lost.

ITEM:

3) Unlike those on a Springfield, Mouser or M1 Garand rifle, the iron sights on the Carcano are fixed. Nor does the Carcano have a barleycorn-type front sight. This is no small problem. You can't adjust for windage and other factors. Even after zeroing in the sights for the specific task at hand, if they aren't perfectly dialed in (and how could they be?), there's nothing you can do about it. That is to say, they are not adjustable sights. If and when you discover how far "off" they are all you can do is smack them with a hammer a few times and keep your fingers crossed. In polite lingo such sights are "unreliable for precision shooting." In layman's parlance, they are crap.

[Glenn Nall]

i think this MCarcano was a bolt-action...? clip...? what clip?

OH. never mind. i was thinking auto... silly me.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Greg Burnham]

i think this MCarcano was a bolt-action...? clip...? what clip?

It is a bolt action rifle (with a fixed magazine). The "clip" for a Carcano is an en bloc type. The cartridges and the en bloc clip are both inserted (as a unit) into the magazine on the rifle. The en bloc was invented by Ferdinand Mannlicher and James Lee (separately).

[David Von Pein]

All of the stuff in Greg Burnham's Post #175 becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy theorists (aka denialists) when we realize this fact....

Regardless of whether Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a so-called piece of "crap" or not, the fact remains that that exact C2766 rifle, "to the exclusion", put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63. And that fact is proven via the front-seat bullet fragments seen in CE567 & 569.

And there are a variety of reasons to know that CE567 & 569 are fragments from the HEAD SHOT. So, "crap" or not, Rifle No. C2766 was GOOD ENOUGH to put a bullet into John Kennedy's head.

And when we sensibly talk about CE399, which most CTers can never do, then we're up to TWO verified "C2766" bullets being pumped into Kennedy's car on November 22nd.

Edited June 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

ITEM:

1) The Carcano clip holds 6 rounds. It is ejected following the firing of the last round. You can't put a partially loaded clip into a Carcano. It must be a full clip (with all 6 rounds). So where did the other 3 rounds go? Surely an assassin would have arrived on scene with a full clip.

[The fully loaded clip is inserted and it "clicks" against a lock. There's a very strong follower made of steel with a very strong spring. If you tried to insert it with a clip that wasn't full the follower would push those rounds to the top so you can't get the clip to go all the way in and "lock" into place.]

ITEM:

2) While it is true that you might be able to hit a stationary target with a shot fired from a Carcano utilizing a scope, a few caveats are in order. You might be able to use a scope for a stationary target, but not a moving target. Here's why: To successfully use the scope you would need to acquire a stationary target in the crosshairs with your eye close to the end of the scope. If your eye isn't close to the end of the scope you can't see the target well enough to acquire it. These scopes (allegedly from Klein's) were not equipped with rubber padding on the end. Once the (stationary) target is acquired you would then need to move your eye and head back away from the end of the scope before taking the shot. This would require the use of a tripod to insure accuracy. Keep in mind, the target would have been acquired with the eye very close to the end of the scope. I guarantee you that anyone in such a scenario who acquired a target using a scope (on a Carcano) and fired a shot before moving their eye away from the end of the scope, didn't fire a second shot because they wouldn't have been able to see out of that eye! The first shot would have left them with a black eye or worse. [Even the FBI demonstrations with the weapon and scope show the agent's eye way back from the end of the scope. But from there he couldn't have seen anything.]

Obviously, JFK was not a stationary target. So this introduces a very significant complication. The moving target would be acquired with your eye very close to the end of the scope. The shot would necessarily be fired with the eye in that position (close to the end of the scope) else the target would be lost.

ITEM:

3) Unlike those on a Springfield, Mouser or M1 Garand rifle, the iron sights on the Carcano are fixed. Nor does the Carcano have a barleycorn-type front sight. This is no small problem. You can't adjust for windage and other factors. Even after zeroing in the sights for the specific task at hand, if they aren't perfectly dialed in (and how could they be?), there's nothing you can do about it. That is to say, they are not adjustable sights. If and when you discover how far "off" they are all you can do is smack them with a hammer a few times and keep your fingers crossed. In polite lingo such sights are "unreliable for precision shooting." In layman's parlance, they are crap.

The clip wasn't initially found at the scene, was it? That meant manual loading of each round.

[Kenneth Drew]

All of the stuff in Greg Burnham's Post #175 becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy denialists when we realize this fact....

Regardless of whether Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a so-called piece of "crap" or not, the fact remains that that exact C2766 rifle, "to the exclusion", put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63. And that fact is proven via the front-seat bullet fragments seen in CE567 & 569.

And there are a variety of reasons to know that CE567 & 569 are fragments from the HEAD SHOT. So, "crap" or not, Rifle No. C2766 was GOOD ENOUGH to put a bullet into John Kennedy's head.

And when we sensibly talk about CE399, which most CTers can never do, then we're up to TWO verified "C2766" bullets being pumped into Kennedy's car on November 22nd.

All of the stuff in Greg Burnham's Post #175 becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy denialists when we As is anything written about that rifle ever firing a shot anywhere. We all know there is nothing to link any of the bullets fired on 11/22 to that rifle. There is no way to 'prove' that a 'minute' bullet fragment was fired from a specific rifle. Cut your losses DVP.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Kenneth Drew