The "seamingly" obvious

[David S. Brownlee]

Well actually...I still believe I'm right - but as a new guy it isn't worth it.

you tell me how a jacketed bullet goes through 2-3 inches of tree and stays intact and changes direction and still can hit concrete and throw up shrapnel that would........ooops, I'm not arguing anymore...sorry.

+++++++++++++++++

not applicable to my argument - but interesting:

"Simply put, no bullet has ever done the same amount of damage attributed to CE 399 and emerged in the same condition as CE 399. In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399, and bullets that were fired into animal chests emerged clearly more damaged than CE 399. The 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Cyril Wecht likewise contradicted the single-bullet theory. In this test a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and penetrated deep into the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399."

Edited November 12, 2006 by David S. Brownlee

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David -

What's really needed are cadavers as per Wecht. Fire as many rounds as you want from any distance - let's look at the result.

We had someone here who attempted to demonstrate the damage to the skull of a deer - I don't remember his name off hand - he consistently got a relatively small entry wound and a blowout the size of a golfball. If we are talking about dumdums [as almost immediately suggested in newspapers, etc.] - and mind you, I don't know what I am talking about - then we aren't in the Oswald ballfield anymore anyway.

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing. I bought a copy of the Warren Report [not all volumes], which had been shot by an MC - I think the 'artist' picked the page with Kennedy's photograph on purpose - the bullethole was through his forehead - anyway, included were samples of a 6.5mm round, and the samples of the round that passed through the book. I think I still have them someplace. The shot fired through the book were mere shreds of metal. I'm sure what Tom is talking about is feasible - in terms of paper towels and water. I don't know about blowing large holes in people's heads - or the impact that skin and bone makes on a round. Ignorant thus far.

Anyway - since you are a 'Newbie' - Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

My 2 cents. Welcome aboard in any case.

I wouldn't mind putting some of the stuff Camper had to say in his book up here on the MC. Maybe we could hash through it. I'll volunteer to transcribe - some interesting stuff.

- lee

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing.

Lee;

Although I was raised "shooting", as well as having received considerably more additional training than most with some of these older military weapons, I had ZERO experience with the Carcano.

Therefore, the only acceptable means of research was to do as you say.

And anyone who doubts the capabilities of the Carcano, can read all day long on the pro's & con's, and until such time as they acquire a decent weapon and decent ammo and test it for themselves, they are still going on what other say.

Were I to get out one of the old 36-inch long "Carbines" which were in fact a cut-down of the old long rifle, and thereafter fire ONLY it, then I would probably think that one could not hit the barn with them.

The "progressive" gain of the rifling means that the round has not achieved it's full spin/twist to maintain stability in flight with these cut-down versions, and the weapons were only cut down after the barrel wear was about worn out anyway.

So, even gained knowledge can be erroneous unless one researchs the entire realm and aspects of the Carcano and has an understanding of why some of these old guns are virtually worthless for shooting, while some of the better 91/38"s such as was utilized in the assassination, are extremely accurate.

The U.S. Army testing demonstrated an accuracy on the equivilant of the current U.S. Military weapon (M-14) which was pretty damned accurate.

Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

Best advice would be: Believe nothing said or claimed by ANYONE! If you want the facts and truth, find them for yourself.

Certainly, reading is a part of research, and if one reads enough, even the "holes" begin to become quite obvious.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Anyone with even a smurf size/smidget of understanding of the physical forces necessary to stretch the copper jacket of such a bullet, backwards in a completely uniform and equal amount, would know that this bullet passed through a substance of considerable mass and density.

And, in that regards, one does not even have to take into consideration the slight flattening to the bullet nose, caused by impact to the tree limb, as well as the circular striations in the copper jacket at the nose of the bullet, where the spinning impact with the bark of the tree created these circular anomalies to the bullet.

With all that in mind, might I recommend that you go back and attempt to study, as well as duplicate the evidence, prior to attempting to explain what WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds do, and do not do, upon impact with many things.

Nice talk...have you ever even seen a spent bullet? I have. Slight "flattening my arse" the jacket/casing would have come totally apart. Did you pay attention to the Washington DC sniper case? The reason for the terrible damage to the victims was due to the fragmentation of the jacketed bullets as they passed through flesh - yes flesh - not a 2" piece of wood - flesh. This is documented. Fragmentation.

You can write all you want - but this is pretty simple. If a jacketed bullet comes apart going through flesh - it will be totally shredded going through solid wood. Simple physics my man.

and as far as the Smurf comment GFYS...(from one VFW member to another - if you are one).

1. In the deep south, rifles above .22 caliber were forbidden until some point after I left this area. And even then, hunting with rifles was only allowed with "Black Powder" type guns which fired lead balls/slugs/etc.

Reason being that rifles were referred to as "Brush Cutters" and with the number of hunters in the woods, it was fully known that the copper jacketed rounds would travel a considerable distance through the woods, penetrating limbs and small brush, and thereafter still possibly strike other hunters.

So, us "ole" country boys were raised with that knowledge long before others began to even write about it.

2. American Rifleman, long ago published an excellent article on bullet deflection due to encountering limbs , brush, and even small trees.

And, although I have a full copy of the article, it is somewhere "lost" in with much of the other research info on much of this subject.

Nevertheless, "Master" marksmen fired a variety of ammo through wooden pegs, glancing off wooden pegs, etc; etc; etc; in order to demonstrate what most have long known.

One can take a quality weapon and structural sound round, and completely fire it through a small tree/brush/limb, and still achieve a hit on the target with a completely intact round.

Just as one can achieve a complete miss under similar circumstances.

Nevertheless, impact does not normally cause the round to fragment.

3. If someone would expend the time to conduct the research, they would find that virtually ALL witnesses stated that JFK was observed reacting to the first shot fired. In fact, it is found in the notes of one of the SS Agents, (which was written enroute back to Bethesda prior to any knowledge of the back wound in JFK) that he observed the first round strike JFK in the back.

Therefore, attempting to associate the first shot, (which is the only shot in which the limbs of the live oak tree in front of the TSDB came into play,) with what is still a speculative "curb strike/shot that missed", rates up there with Posner's continued obfuscation of what is the factual evidence.

4. From all initial reports, the "curb strike" did not even chip or remove any of the concrete from the curb, and in fact contained only what appeared to be a "smear".

Therefore, it is in fact a "hypothetical" curb strike, as all that is known is that Tague received a minor scratch to his cheek by some flying object. Concrete or lead?????????????????????????????

The piece of concrete with the "curb strike" was not removed and tested by the FBI until long after the WC had completed their findings and expended the multiple pages of circular reasoning in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And, since this wonderful piece of evidence had been ignored until this time, yet the WC had written it up as potentially associated with "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and being fully aware of the FBI's previous activities and survey/re-enactment in which there was NO SHOT THAT MISSED, then the curb strike takes on additional indications that perhaps it is another "red herring", which I for one have wasted little time fishing for.

Lastly, for all of the "Doubting Thomas's" out there who may have missed the slide show long ago, here again is:

PE399 (Purvis Exhibit 399)

Which happens to be a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet, fired from a 1940 Model 91/38 Carcano short rifle, and which was fired directly through a one-inch thick live oak limb, captured in a drum of water, and thereafter compared with CE399.

Might I recommend that one do it for themselves! That way, they know exactly who and what to believe.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Anyone with even a smurf size/smidget of understanding of the physical forces necessary to stretch the copper jacket of such a bullet, backwards in a completely uniform and equal amount, would know that this bullet passed through a substance of considerable mass and density.

And, in that regards, one does not even have to take into consideration the slight flattening to the bullet nose, caused by impact to the tree limb, as well as the circular striations in the copper jacket at the nose of the bullet, where the spinning impact with the bark of the tree created these circular anomalies to the bullet.

With all that in mind, might I recommend that you go back and attempt to study, as well as duplicate the evidence, prior to attempting to explain what WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds do, and do not do, upon impact with many things.

Nice talk...have you ever even seen a spent bullet? I have. Slight "flattening my arse" the jacket/casing would have come totally apart. Did you pay attention to the Washington DC sniper case? The reason for the terrible damage to the victims was due to the fragmentation of the jacketed bullets as they passed through flesh - yes flesh - not a 2" piece of wood - flesh. This is documented. Fragmentation.

You can write all you want - but this is pretty simple. If a jacketed bullet comes apart going through flesh - it will be totally shredded going through solid wood. Simple physics my man.

and as far as the Smurf comment GFYS...(from one VFW member to another - if you are one).

1. In the deep south, rifles above .22 caliber were forbidden until some point after I left this area. And even then, hunting with rifles was only allowed with "Black Powder" type guns which fired lead balls/slugs/etc.

Reason being that rifles were referred to as "Brush Cutters" and with the number of hunters in the woods, it was fully known that the copper jacketed rounds would travel a considerable distance through the woods, penetrating limbs and small brush, and thereafter still possibly strike other hunters.

So, us "ole" country boys were raised with that knowledge long before others began to even write about it.

2. American Rifleman, long ago published an excellent article on bullet deflection due to encountering limbs , brush, and even small trees.

And, although I have a full copy of the article, it is somewhere "lost" in with much of the other research info on much of this subject.

Nevertheless, "Master" marksmen fired a variety of ammo through wooden pegs, glancing off wooden pegs, etc; etc; etc; in order to demonstrate what most have long known.

One can take a quality weapon and structural sound round, and completely fire it through a small tree/brush/limb, and still achieve a hit on the target with a completely intact round.

Just as one can achieve a complete miss under similar circumstances.

Nevertheless, impact does not normally cause the round to fragment.

3. If someone would expend the time to conduct the research, they would find that virtually ALL witnesses stated that JFK was observed reacting to the first shot fired. In fact, it is found in the notes of one of the SS Agents, (which was written enroute back to Bethesda prior to any knowledge of the back wound in JFK) that he observed the first round strike JFK in the back.

Therefore, attempting to associate the first shot, (which is the only shot in which the limbs of the live oak tree in front of the TSDB came into play,) with what is still a speculative "curb strike/shot that missed", rates up there with Posner's continued obfuscation of what is the factual evidence.

4. From all initial reports, the "curb strike" did not even chip or remove any of the concrete from the curb, and in fact contained only what appeared to be a "smear".

Therefore, it is in fact a "hypothetical" curb strike, as all that is known is that Tague received a minor scratch to his cheek by some flying object. Concrete or lead?????????????????????????????

The piece of concrete with the "curb strike" was not removed and tested by the FBI until long after the WC had completed their findings and expended the multiple pages of circular reasoning in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And, since this wonderful piece of evidence had been ignored until this time, yet the WC had written it up as potentially associated with "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and being fully aware of the FBI's previous activities and survey/re-enactment in which there was NO SHOT THAT MISSED, then the curb strike takes on additional indications that perhaps it is another "red herring", which I for one have wasted little time fishing for.

Lastly, for all of the "Doubting Thomas's" out there who may have missed the slide show long ago, here again is:

PE399 (Purvis Exhibit 399)

Which happens to be a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet, fired from a 1940 Model 91/38 Carcano short rifle, and which was fired directly through a one-inch thick live oak limb, captured in a drum of water, and thereafter compared with CE399.

Might I recommend that one do it for themselves! That way, they know exactly who and what to believe.

Probably another "Double Post". Andy must be at it again, attempting to suppress the facts!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Well actually...I still believe I'm right - but as a new guy it isn't worth it.

you tell me how a jacketed bullet goes through 2-3 inches of tree and stays intact and changes direction and still can hit concrete and throw up shrapnel that would........ooops, I'm not arguing anymore...sorry.

+++++++++++++++++

not applicable to my argument - but interesting:

"Simply put, no bullet has ever done the same amount of damage attributed to CE 399 and emerged in the same condition as CE 399. In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399, and bullets that were fired into animal chests emerged clearly more damaged than CE 399. The 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Cyril Wecht likewise contradicted the single-bullet theory. In this test a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and penetrated deep into the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399."

Dr. Cyril Wecht likewise contradicted the single-bullet theory

Actually, this is what Dr. Wecht had to say on the subject:

Which he of course still adhered to in our written as well as telephone conversations.

And of which I personally have no problems, as I normally only argue with those who demonstrate a lack of knowledge of their subject matter, and Dr. Wecht's statement is quite factual and truthful.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Well actually...I still believe I'm right - but as a new guy it isn't worth it.

you tell me how a jacketed bullet goes through 2-3 inches of tree and stays intact and changes direction and still can hit concrete and throw up shrapnel that would........ooops, I'm not arguing anymore...sorry.

+++++++++++++++++

not applicable to my argument - but interesting:

"Simply put, no bullet has ever done the same amount of damage attributed to CE 399 and emerged in the same condition as CE 399. In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399, and bullets that were fired into animal chests emerged clearly more damaged than CE 399. The 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Cyril Wecht likewise contradicted the single-bullet theory. In this test a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and penetrated deep into the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399."

In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399,

I certainly hope that no one believed that!

In event any of the new persons here missed it, here again, for the last time, is the information relative to the anomalies of CE399, as well as how the bullet obtained these anomalies.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Well actually...I still believe I'm right - but as a new guy it isn't worth it.

you tell me how a jacketed bullet goes through 2-3 inches of tree and stays intact and changes direction and still can hit concrete and throw up shrapnel that would........ooops, I'm not arguing anymore...sorry.

+++++++++++++++++

not applicable to my argument - but interesting:

"Simply put, no bullet has ever done the same amount of damage attributed to CE 399 and emerged in the same condition as CE 399. In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399, and bullets that were fired into animal chests emerged clearly more damaged than CE 399. The 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Cyril Wecht likewise contradicted the single-bullet theory. In this test a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and penetrated deep into the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399."

In the commission's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding suffered more visible damage than CE 399,

I certainly hope that no one believed that!

In event any of the new persons here missed it, here again, for the last time, is the information relative to the anomalies of CE399, as well as how the bullet obtained these anomalies.

"I could do what you have already done, but the results would be the same"

James R. Looney

Firearms & Toolmark Examiner

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation

Member: AFTE

Graduate: FBI Academy, Firearms & Ballistics

[Chuck Robbins]

David -

What's really needed are cadavers as per Wecht. Fire as many rounds as you want from any distance - let's look at the result.

We had someone here who attempted to demonstrate the damage to the skull of a deer - I don't remember his name off hand - he consistently got a relatively small entry wound and a blowout the size of a golfball. If we are talking about dumdums [as almost immediately suggested in newspapers, etc.] - and mind you, I don't know what I am talking about - then we aren't in the Oswald ballfield anymore anyway.

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing. I bought a copy of the Warren Report [not all volumes], which had been shot by an MC - I think the 'artist' picked the page with Kennedy's photograph on purpose - the bullethole was through his forehead - anyway, included were samples of a 6.5mm round, and the samples of the round that passed through the book. I think I still have them someplace. The shot fired through the book were mere shreds of metal. I'm sure what Tom is talking about is feasible - in terms of paper towels and water. I don't know about blowing large holes in people's heads - or the impact that skin and bone makes on a round. Ignorant thus far.

Anyway - since you are a 'Newbie' - Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

My 2 cents. Welcome aboard in any case.

I wouldn't mind putting some of the stuff Camper had to say in his book up here on the MC. Maybe we could hash through it. I'll volunteer to transcribe - some interesting stuff.

- lee

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing.

Lee;

Although I was raised "shooting", as well as having received considerably more additional training than most with some of these older military weapons, I had ZERO experience with the Carcano.

Therefore, the only acceptable means of research was to do as you say.

And anyone who doubts the capabilities of the Carcano, can read all day long on the pro's & con's, and until such time as they acquire a decent weapon and decent ammo and test it for themselves, they are still going on what other say.

Were I to get out one of the old 36-inch long "Carbines" which were in fact a cut-down of the old long rifle, and thereafter fire ONLY it, then I would probably think that one could not hit the barn with them.

The "progressive" gain of the rifling means that the round has not achieved it's full spin/twist to maintain stability in flight with these cut-down versions, and the weapons were only cut down after the barrel wear was about worn out anyway.

So, even gained knowledge can be erroneous unless one researchs the entire realm and aspects of the Carcano and has an understanding of why some of these old guns are virtually worthless for shooting, while some of the better 91/38"s such as was utilized in the assassination, are extremely accurate.

The U.S. Army testing demonstrated an accuracy on the equivilant of the current U.S. Military weapon (M-14) which was pretty damned accurate.

Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

Best advice would be: Believe nothing said or claimed by ANYONE! If you want the facts and truth, find them for yourself.

Certainly, reading is a part of research, and if one reads enough, even the "holes" begin to become quite obvious.

The m-14 is quite adequate for destroying human beings. I have two photos which show the damage this

weapon is capable of inflicting upon skulls. These were proudly sent home by our boys in Iraq.

Two victims. One who has half of his head blown off (brains everywhere) with pretty much only flaps of

skin left, and the other, whose whole head had exploded...gone from the jawbone up.

If the MC is anywhere near this weapons' capability...JFK was done long before he reached the hospital.

[Chuck Robbins]

Hmmmm....

Perhaps a spot further to the north on the same floor?

Hey, Chuck. There are so many variables in such a "game of inches" that I just wanted to get some kind of rough idea of whether it was in the ballpark. Looks in the ballpark to me. If the car were further "up the hill," toward the Dal-Tex, or if the cone location should be a little closer to the railway overpass, or...

I'm sure you see what I mean.

I didn't save the cone/car configuration. If I get some time to put them back in and play around again I'll see what's what, but there are still question marks in that model about the plaza elevations, so at this stage of its existence it just is not a tool to use for calibrated exactness.

Even allowing for fudge factors, though, it still looks in the ballpark to me.

Ashton

Thank you for taking the time to add your work. You are absolutely correct that it is close enough to

support there being a shot from this window. Much more likely than a missed shot from the TSBD. IMHO

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hmmmm....

Perhaps a spot further to the north on the same floor?

Hey, Chuck. There are so many variables in such a "game of inches" that I just wanted to get some kind of rough idea of whether it was in the ballpark. Looks in the ballpark to me. If the car were further "up the hill," toward the Dal-Tex, or if the cone location should be a little closer to the railway overpass, or...

I'm sure you see what I mean.

I didn't save the cone/car configuration. If I get some time to put them back in and play around again I'll see what's what, but there are still question marks in that model about the plaza elevations, so at this stage of its existence it just is not a tool to use for calibrated exactness.

Even allowing for fudge factors, though, it still looks in the ballpark to me.

Ashton

Thank you for taking the time to add your work. You are absolutely correct that it is close enough to

support there being a shot from this window. Much more likely than a missed shot from the TSBD. IMHO

Much more likely than a missed shot from the TSBD.

Since the WC is also the agency which gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", I for one am most unlikely to believe this, just as I did not believe much else that they had to say in regards to the shot sequence and other aspects of the evidence.

And, at anytime that the WC went to elaborate lengths to talk in circles about any subject matter, one had best take a full examination of this as they are about to tell another of their lies.

There was no SHOT THAT MISSED!--------Three shots/Three hits.

Exactly why would anyone begin to believe that a shot missed????? Because the WC told us that one did?

Please forgive me, but I most assuredly am not that dumb.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hmmmm....

Perhaps a spot further to the north on the same floor?

Hey, Chuck. There are so many variables in such a "game of inches" that I just wanted to get some kind of rough idea of whether it was in the ballpark. Looks in the ballpark to me. If the car were further "up the hill," toward the Dal-Tex, or if the cone location should be a little closer to the railway overpass, or...

I'm sure you see what I mean.

I didn't save the cone/car configuration. If I get some time to put them back in and play around again I'll see what's what, but there are still question marks in that model about the plaza elevations, so at this stage of its existence it just is not a tool to use for calibrated exactness.

Even allowing for fudge factors, though, it still looks in the ballpark to me.

Ashton

Thank you for taking the time to add your work. You are absolutely correct that it is close enough to

support there being a shot from this window. Much more likely than a missed shot from the TSBD. IMHO

Much more likely than a missed shot from the TSBD.

Since the WC is also the agency which gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", I for one am most unlikely to believe this, just as I did not believe much else that they had to say in regards to the shot sequence and other aspects of the evidence.

And, at anytime that the WC went to elaborate lengths to talk in circles about any subject matter, one had best take a full examination of this as they are about to tell another of their lies.

There was no SHOT THAT MISSED!--------Three shots/Three hits.

Exactly why would anyone begin to believe that a shot missed????? Because the WC told us that one did?

Please forgive me, but I most assuredly am not that dumb.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

4. From all initial reports, the "curb strike" did not even chip or remove any of the concrete from the curb, and in fact contained only what appeared to be a "smear".

Therefore, it is in fact a "hypothetical" curb strike, as all that is known is that Tague received a minor scratch to his cheek by some flying object. Concrete or lead?????????????????????????????

The piece of concrete with the "curb strike" was not removed and tested by the FBI until long after the WC had completed their findings and expended the multiple pages of circular reasoning in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And, since this wonderful piece of evidence had been ignored until this time, yet the WC had written it up as potentially associated with "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", and being fully aware of the FBI's previous activities and survey/re-enactment in which there was NO SHOT THAT MISSED, then the curb strike takes on additional indications that perhaps it is another "red herring", which I for one have wasted little time fishing for.

And here they are (MPI images) removing the piece of curb with a jackhammer, then dumping the piece in the trunk of a car.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Mark Valenti

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David -

What's really needed are cadavers as per Wecht. Fire as many rounds as you want from any distance - let's look at the result.

We had someone here who attempted to demonstrate the damage to the skull of a deer - I don't remember his name off hand - he consistently got a relatively small entry wound and a blowout the size of a golfball. If we are talking about dumdums [as almost immediately suggested in newspapers, etc.] - and mind you, I don't know what I am talking about - then we aren't in the Oswald ballfield anymore anyway.

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing. I bought a copy of the Warren Report [not all volumes], which had been shot by an MC - I think the 'artist' picked the page with Kennedy's photograph on purpose - the bullethole was through his forehead - anyway, included were samples of a 6.5mm round, and the samples of the round that passed through the book. I think I still have them someplace. The shot fired through the book were mere shreds of metal. I'm sure what Tom is talking about is feasible - in terms of paper towels and water. I don't know about blowing large holes in people's heads - or the impact that skin and bone makes on a round. Ignorant thus far.

Anyway - since you are a 'Newbie' - Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

My 2 cents. Welcome aboard in any case.

I wouldn't mind putting some of the stuff Camper had to say in his book up here on the MC. Maybe we could hash through it. I'll volunteer to transcribe - some interesting stuff.

- lee

I myself - like Tom - think about buying an MC just to fool around and do some test firing.

Lee;

Although I was raised "shooting", as well as having received considerably more additional training than most with some of these older military weapons, I had ZERO experience with the Carcano.

Therefore, the only acceptable means of research was to do as you say.

And anyone who doubts the capabilities of the Carcano, can read all day long on the pro's & con's, and until such time as they acquire a decent weapon and decent ammo and test it for themselves, they are still going on what other say.

Were I to get out one of the old 36-inch long "Carbines" which were in fact a cut-down of the old long rifle, and thereafter fire ONLY it, then I would probably think that one could not hit the barn with them.

The "progressive" gain of the rifling means that the round has not achieved it's full spin/twist to maintain stability in flight with these cut-down versions, and the weapons were only cut down after the barrel wear was about worn out anyway.

So, even gained knowledge can be erroneous unless one researchs the entire realm and aspects of the Carcano and has an understanding of why some of these old guns are virtually worthless for shooting, while some of the better 91/38"s such as was utilized in the assassination, are extremely accurate.

The U.S. Army testing demonstrated an accuracy on the equivilant of the current U.S. Military weapon (M-14) which was pretty damned accurate.

Tom has a lot to offer relative to experience and research and I would say he has a lot of value to add.

Best advice would be: Believe nothing said or claimed by ANYONE! If you want the facts and truth, find them for yourself.

Certainly, reading is a part of research, and if one reads enough, even the "holes" begin to become quite obvious.

The m-14 is quite adequate for destroying human beings. I have two photos which show the damage this

weapon is capable of inflicting upon skulls. These were proudly sent home by our boys in Iraq.

Two victims. One who has half of his head blown off (brains everywhere) with pretty much only flaps of

skin left, and the other, whose whole head had exploded...gone from the jawbone up.

If the MC is anywhere near this weapons' capability...JFK was done long before he reached the hospital.

The conflict here is quite simple!

The WC claims that a single bullet went through the neck of JFK, (fracturing and fragmenting the right transverse process of a vertebrae----found out later), passed through the chest of JBC, fracturing and blowing out 5 inches of the fifth rib, exited to pass through the wrist of JBC, completely fracturing the fracturing the wrist bone, and then lodged in JBC's leg.

And, this projectile, they claim, was CE399, which has only minimal distortion.

YET!

A single projectile struck JFK in the rear of the head and the bullet thereafter tore all to pieces, creating massive damage to the brain and skull.

These two conclusions are somewhat like the "extreme right" and the "extreme left" of the scale, and would be about like the odds of getting a Royal Flush in two consecutive hands of draw poker.

And although CE399 most assuredly never created any injuries to JBC, there is also a completely logical reasoning as to why the bullet which struck JFK in the head at Z313 fragmented in the manner that it did.

Which leaves us with having to draw to only one Royal Flush.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

What should be "seemingly obvious" to anyone who even pretends to know anything about bullets, would be the intentional removal of the base of the copper jacket to CE399, as well as the absolute and ultimate necessity to alter this evidence in order to attempt to prevent anyone from ever observing the anomaly of the copper jacket at the bullet base and thereafter questioning exactly what did this bullet penetrate that exerted so much external force on the copper jacket that it forced the copper jacket backwards (stretched it) towards the base of the bullet.

[Chuck Robbins]

What should be "seemingly obvious" to anyone who even pretends to know anything about bullets, would be the intentional removal of the base of the copper jacket to CE399, as well as the absolute and ultimate necessity to alter this evidence in order to attempt to prevent anyone from ever observing the anomaly of the copper jacket at the bullet base and thereafter questioning exactly what did this bullet penetrate that exerted so much external force on the copper jacket that it forced the copper jacket backwards (stretched it) towards the base of the bullet.

Personally, I have no reason to believe that ce399 was fired from the MC that day.

The bullet was not recovered from within anyone's body.

How frequently do bullets fall out of wounds? 1 in a million maybe?

Generally, surgeons cut away tissue while searching for and removing bullets.

It is incredible, in my way of thinking, that ce399 was ever entered into evidence. Talk about wasting time!?

The scenario..."This bullet was found on a stretcher, I'm not sure whose stretcher it was, in a hallway, in the

hospital. It must have come from the Presidents' back, uh..no...wait a sec...maybe it was from the

Gov.'s leg? Well anyway...it was used in the assassination, right?!?"