My question to you turbolium is this: Oswald is supposed to be at work, remember? What was he doing running around Dallas with a gun if he's supposed to be at work? Oh yeah, deep cover CIA guy, right. Well if Oswald was a CIA assasin he sure sucked at it. He didn't even have a car to drive away in

I provided a link to a document, and posted text from it, that proves Oswald did in fact work for the CIA. So why are you trying to imply sarcastically that he never did? Or are you claiming the document is a fake? If not, at least admit it.

And yes, according to the same document, he "sucked" at his work for the CIA, at least it suggests as much when the author of the memo, John McCone (CIA Director) writes.. At the time of the Dallas action, the Oswald subject was only seldom in our employ; after the Soviet assignment, we found him to be unreliable and emotionally unstable.

Full document linked below...

http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com/

Like I said, it's like Turbonium's whole argument: A complete farce.

Like Oswald working for the CIA?

You claim that the autopsy "was a complete farce", and then turn around and use the "findings" in the autopsy to support your position. Don't you realize that this is rather sloppy thinking and makes a rather sloppy argument?

First of all, you've taken "the autopsy was a complete farce" to assert that I meant "each and every single point of the autopsy was incorrect" - which is patently absurd. You could take that to any length, from assuming I meant everything from the name of the deceased, to the time of death, to the date of the autopsy as recorded on the report is false.

I said the autopsy was a complete farce to describe the overall quality of the procedure. Specifically, in the method it was conducted, Dr. Humes' burning of his notes, poor quality subject photographs, and several inconsistencies and errors. I have no argument with the correct date, subject name, or time of autopsy as recorded in the report! One of the few consistent findings was in fact that no exit point was found for the back wound.

Now, I'd like to ask Spitfire a couple of questions...

1. Do you dispute the autopsy finding no exit point for the back wound?

2. If so, what evidence can you provide to support that opinion?

Radio stations that had news departments had police radio receivers in their newsrooms, and the stations were putting out every major breaking story that day as soon as they heard the transmissions over the police scanners. People all over town were listening to these commercial radio broadcasts, and the newsmen were passing along new police information as soon as they heard it over their police radios.

This is incorrect, and also has long been illegal. It is prohibited through federal and state laws. Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, since revised but retaining this law, addressed the issue. Interception of certain private, or non-public electronic communications (such as police scanners) is permitted, but not public disclosure of private, non-public electronic communications (such as police scanners).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

Radio stations have long made employees aware of these laws, with the strict rule... Do not report information obtained from police scanners. Certainly, the station can dispatch a news team to the scene, in an effort to get the first "breaking news" ahead of other media outlets. But that is quite different, and even then police on the scene may require no public reporting if safety or other issues warrant it.

The reasons for not making immediate public announcements of police radio communications are obvious - it can compromise the police in their efforts, aid the perpetrator(s), and cause chaos or panic among the general public. It can also cause other problems - since the information is not confirmed to be correct until police arrive at the scene to verify it. False or inaccurate reports called in to the police are common occurrences - someone may report a murder, a call will be dispatched over the police radio, and upon arrival the officers will find it was only a minor injury; or it could be just a house party full of loud, drunk kids, reported by an irritated neighbor who figured that would get a quick response. Reporting a murder over the air that never happened would not only be illegal, it would also be likely to make the station look quite foolish and incompetent.

If you care to dispute this, please provide evidence that the Dallas radio stations at the time were actually reporting, over the air, incidents such as this, immediately after intercepting police radio communications via monitoring scanners.

Red Herring.

But you claim that the autopsy evidence was unreliable, then you rely on it.

If they lied about some things, why not all things? You're taking fruit from a tree you claim was poisonous. That is patently absurd.

Yet your innuendo is that the reason it was a farce because of something that was rather deliberate. You are mainly suggesting that "poor quality" meant that they intended it to be poor quality. Thus, if anything consistent comes out of it, according to your own innuendo and argument, it's just a lie that was agreed on.

Once more, I advise you to really stand back and look at your argument.

The onus is on you to prove your own claim. You're trying to shift the burden of proof; doesn't work that way.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

I'm preparing a detailed response to Turbonium's answers to my questions, but it's going to take me a while. However, I do want to jump in on this as it's part of an ongoing discussion. Yes, turbonium, the memo is almost certainly fake. First of all, "confidential" was the lowest security clearance in use at the time, but the memo characterizes the information as being of a "highly sensitive nature." If this were truly the case, it would have been classified "top secret" or "eyes only." "Confidential" information is routinely declassified after a certain time period--this memo should have shown up a long time ago. Second, we have the repeated awkward construction "the Oswald subject," in an apparent attempt to mimic officialese. Third, it is obvious that the last page, which includes McCone's signature, was lifted from an authentic memo, as it contains only two generic paragraphs [edit: "sentences," not paragraphs] that don't have any obvious connection to the rest of the memo, and have an inappropriate "routine" tone. Fourth, the memo states that the information should be given to the Warren Commission only if specifically requested. But the Commission did request all information about Oswald's possible involvement with the CIA, and McCone even testified about it, so why wasn't this information provided? Fifth, this memo was supposedly given to a conspiracist by a "mysterious FBI agent" many years ago--no copy could be found in the Treasury Department archives, and the document number (which in any case is a Secret Service and not a CIA document number) is connected to an altogether different document. Finally, even leading conspiracists such as Jim Marrs doubt the memo's authenticity.

I'll have more on this later, but for now, I suggest you read the posts related to the memo on the page you linked above--as usual, you evidently didn't bother to do any checking and just uncritically accepted something that initially appears to call into question the "official version" of events.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'll incorporate the answer to this in my detailed response. It will probably take me several days or even a week, though, as I'm rather busy with work and school at the moment, but I'll try to have it ASAP.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

turbonium, I reread the autopsy report, and I'm confused about what you're asking here, and why you're asking it.

Are you claiming that because it was converted into an incision, the autopsy pathologists couldn't literally "find" it? Are you claiming that the report states that there was no exit wound (clearly incorrect)? Or are you claiming something else altogether? Please clarify your point.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

the memo is almost certainly fake

I'm going to go out on a limb here because type comparasion is not something I am an expert in, especially from seriously poor scans. However, my inital and then more considered observations of the three pages would be that page three is almost certainly produced on a different typewritter that the other two. The boldness, width and shape of the fonts are slightly different, more noticably in some letters than others (the main ones being the d, c, o, f, and b.) Adding to that the slight differences in letter shapes, and the slightly raised position of the "L" on the "CONFIDENTIAL" stamp on the first pages when compared to the last, and I'm pretty sure that the last page has indeed just been attached to the previous ones, but is not part of an original and complete document. There is a rather obvious spelling mistake on the first page as well, but not having viewed a huge number of offical documents I can't say if this is significant or not. Anyways, that's my 2c.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Yup, fake. I don't think Oswald ever worked for the CIA and from what I understand the CIA and FBI don't share assets either.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Not true. I worked for two TV stations in 1963 and we had radio receivers in our newsrooms tuned to the local police frequencies. We often put out descriptions of suspects, info about bank robberies, shootings, etc. that we got right from the radios. The local radio stations did the same thing in their news shows and special news reports.

Good work, Turbonium--the law linked above is not the Communications Act of 1934--rather, it is an entirely different law, which was first passed in 1968. This is indicated in the notes, which you evidently didn't bother to read.

Here is the correct code section, 47 U.S.C. §605 (note that some sections of the original Act have been renumbered due to amendments and deletions). Note the words "interstate and foreign" in the first paragraph--this act does not apply to purely intra-state communications, which the Federal Government (theoretically) lacks the power to regulate. And I was unable to find any relevant laws in the Texas state code, using keyword searches for "police & radio" and "law enforcement & radio" on findlaw.com (which, by the way, I highly recommend for legal research). The FCC currently has the power to interpret §605 (see here); how much the Commission used that power in 1963 is unclear to me at the moment.

Actually, according to the FCC fact sheet I linked above, this would be illegal, technically, because the station would be deriving a benefit from the interception. Whether the Commission would actually sanction any news organization for this is another matter.


Possibly all of the radio and TV stations with scanners had policies about not reporting information over the air, for the very good reasons that you listed--however, those policies (or laws and regulations, if such actually existed at the time) could simply have been forgotten or ignored in the heat of the moment. Also, some or all of the news organizations in question could have decided to make an exception due to extraordinary circumstances. A report coming in from a police unit would have been considered much more likely to have been accurate than a report coming from the dispatcher, which, as you observed, could well have been prompted by a crank call. Bearing this in mind, and also bearing in mind that a news director might well have reasoned (correctly) that the police would want the information about the murder and the suspect's description to be broadcast as quickly as possible, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that such a report could have been broadcast, laws, regulations, and policies against doing so notwithstanding.

In any case, the mere existence of laws or policies generally prohibiting the reporting of information obtained from a police scanner does not prove that no such reporting occurred at the time. [edited to add: any more than laws against murder in Texas in 1963 prove that the murders of JFK, Officer Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald did not take place.]

Unnecessary, as I have demonstrated above. The burden of proof is now on you to show that such laws, regulations, or policies were in force in Dallas in 1963, and even then, as I have demonstrated, your so doing would not constitute positive proof that no such broadcast was made.

One final point--why are you even arguing over this? I've shown that it was perfectly possible, even without police scanners, that the report of the shooting and Oswald's description could have been broadcast within 15 minutes. Even if you win this argument, you've gained nothing, as you would still have to refute my assertions about a telephone call from police headquarters to the radio station, and, frankly, I don't see how you can do that.

[edit: typo]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I worked in TV news in those days, and I’m telling you what happened and what we reporters and cameramen did with the police radio information.

I used the term “scanners”, but what we actually had in 1963 were radios that had crystals that were tuned to police radio channels. They didn’t actually scan multiple channels as scanners do today.

In New Orleans where I worked at the time, the police radio dispatcher would occasionally say that the following transmitted information was not to be mentioned by the news media. That was fairly rare, and I figured it had something to do with some undercover investigations.

We often would sit by the police radio in the newsroom, waiting for something to happen, then if we heard of a big robbery, car wreck, or fire, we would jump in our news cars and take off. Our regular news broadcasts were only 15 minutes long in those days, and we rarely broke into regular network programs for local news bulletins, except during extremely big events, such as hurricanes and nearby tornados. But if we had had a presidential assassination in our town, we would have done like the Dallas stations did and gone on the air full time on 11/22, broadcasting every bit of information we could get, including information directly from the police radios.

News reporters in Dallas were getting the descriptions of the shooter in Dealey Plaza from the eyewitnesses within a few minutes after the assassination. This is well known to professional JFK researchers. The Dallas police radio transmissions of that time are available on CDs today.

The first police radio transmission about the shots coming from the Book Depository went out at about 12:34:41

The first police field unit transmission about the description of the Dealey Plaza – Book Depository shooter went out over police radio Channel 2 at about 12:44:11. Here’s the transcript:

“The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 foot 10, 165, and carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of a Winchester.”

Starting at about 12:44:48, the following transmission went out over both Dallas police radio channels at the same time, spoken by the Channel 2 dispatcher:

“Attention all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, slender build, height 5 feet 10 inches, weight 165 pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, about 30, slender build, 5 feet 10 inches tall, 165 pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time or information. 12:45, KKB364 Dallas.”

That transmission ended at about 12:45:30

This description was immediately put out by several Dallas commercial radio stations. Not long after Tippit was shot, the TV and radio news, including the networks, reported that a policeman had been shot in Dallas and the police were looking for the shooter. This was on network TV before Oswald was arrested, and I remember hearing it on NBC network radio before Oswald was arrested.

...and if the radio and TV stations hadn't reported the description, we can be sure the CTs would find that highly suspicious.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

More on some of the other issues later, but for now, I'd like to address the autopsy and the back wound...

Are you claiming that because it was converted into an incision, the autopsy pathologists couldn't literally "find" it? Are you claiming that the report states that there was no exit wound (clearly incorrect)? Or are you claiming something else altogether? Please clarify your point.

I'll be happy to clarify my point. The report relies entirely on unfounded presumptions - for an alleged exit point and an alleged bullet path

As the report states...

The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax....The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region.

So they are making presumptions about these two wounds. The throat wound was described at Parkland as an entry wound. The autopsists only saw the wound after it had been enlarged, and should have deferred to the Parkland doctors for an accurate description of the wound prior to any surgical procedures on it. But they presume it was an exit wound, without knowing its original size and condition. Inexcusable mistake.

Regarding the actual probe of the back wound, the autopsy report only stated that The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. They do not mention that none of the many probes of the back wound found an exit point - neither at the throat, nor anywhere else.

The summary from the autopsy report, which you posted earlier to support your position, reads in part...

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck.

Sounds very much like they are certain in the above summary regarding the bullet path. But based on the autopsy findings and witnesses, it's completely unfounded. As the report said earlier, "the missile path...cannot be easily proved." The fact is that there was no exit point found, as the autopsists demonstrated, and as all of the witnesses stated. Dr. Robert Karnei and Navy medical technicians James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor all stated that the back wound was probed repeatedly, and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit.

Whether they presumed it or not, just because they found it hard to prove, don't automatically mean they were wrong in their conclusions. You seem to be saying that because they couldn't be 100% sure about things, that they were wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence that they actually were wrong, you just want to cast doubt on their conclusions to try and win by default. That's a classic CT ploy and it dioesn't float about here. If you want to show why they were wrong and the bullet didn't pass through him then fine, show your evidence for it, but merely pointing out that they were entirely sure isn't good enough to prove diddly.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The CTs often skip around, changing subjects, hoping they will find some subject that no one is familiar with on the particular message board they are posting on.

In the early 1990s the AMA had many doctors examine the forensics of the case, and the AMA came to the conclusion that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet from behind and that Kennedy was also hit by a separate head shot from behind. They published several articles about this in JAMA and they had a major medical conference in Chicago about it.

That about sums it up for me.

Though the funny part is, that's what leads me to learning the most about the whole thing... funny, neh?

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

Whether they presumed it or not, just because they found it hard to prove, don't automatically mean they were wrong in their conclusions. You seem to be saying that because they couldn't be 100% sure about things, that they were wrong, but you haven't provided any evidence that they actually were wrong, you just want to cast doubt on their conclusions to try and win by default. That's a classic CT ploy and it dioesn't float about here. If you want to show why they were wrong and the bullet didn't pass through him then fine, show your evidence for it, but merely pointing out that they were entirely sure isn't good enough to prove diddly.

No, the conclusion they make is diametrically opposed to the actual findings of the autopsy. They only stated in the report that a bullet path was "difficult to prove", when in fact they clearly demonstrated that there was no exit point for the back wound. The evidence for that is overwhelmingly clear - they probed the wound several times, and all those present agreed that the wound was very shallow. The ARRB helped clarify this fact in an interview with one of the Navy medical technicians who witnessed the autopsy, James Jenkins...

Mr . Jenkins recalls Humes trying to probe the wound with his finger which enabled him to reach the end of the wound...He said Humes could probe the bottom of the wound with his little finger and said that the metal probe went in 2 - 4 inches. He said it was quite a "...fact of controversy..." that the doctors "... couldn't prove the bullet came into the cavity."

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...t/pdf/md65.pdf (pgs. 9, 13 of pdf file)

This does more than "cast doubt on their conclusions" - it clearly shows that the back wound did not have an exit point at the throat, nor did it even have an exit point whatsoever.

If there was no exit wound then was the bullet recovered? It must have still been in the body. I thought the 'magic bullet' was one that passed through Kennedy and into the other guy's wrist.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

In which case, where's the bullet?
And, in addition, what sort of bullet would have caused such a small wound without apparently hitting anything else?

I opened a discussion on another board about JFK and laid out a simple ground rule that we would attempt to deal with it one topic at a time. I'll give the guy I'm debating some credit in sticking with it, though as it's a public forum there was no way of stopping anyone else going off at a tangent. It did point out, to me anyway (his view is never going to change), what a ridiculously convoluted plot was required to fit this blokes view of what happened.

I did get him to admit that the "magic" bullet was possible, after posting a report on a kid who got 5 wounds from a single pistol shot. He just stuck with the idea it was so unlikely that he wouldn't believe it.

Argument from Incredulity. "I can't believe it, so it didn't happen"

How the CTs love that.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

That could be part of it.
I suspect (not necessarily as part of the discussion I'm having elsewhere) that it's more to do with "if this part is wrong, a large chunk of the theory I have invested time and effort in is bunk".

While I'm here, anyone know what sort of rifles were available by mail order in 1963 that were "better" than the Carcanno?

I asked my dad about this and he bought am M-1 Garand from Cline's (same place Oswald got his) in 1961. He paid $79 for the rifle and 600 rounds. By nearly any measure, the Garand was a better rifle. It's only real limitation was the requirement of using the 8 round clip. It was an internal clip and the rifle could not be used without it. After the 8th round was fired, the clip was ejected out the top of the rifle.

Until the Gun Control act of 1968, I think any person was free to buy a gun through any catalog. After 68, people were were required to go though a licenced dealer.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Regarding shooting more than one person with a single bullet, this has often been done during the execution of prisoners during wars, when the people doing the executions were low on ammunition. It happened during the Mexican revolution, and it happened during WW II. Such a scene is in the film “Schindler’s List”, with three prisoners at a time being lined up, one in front of the other, and being killed with one rifle bullet that goes through all three of them.

I have a copy of the same advertisement in the same issue of the American Rifleman that Oswald ordered his rifle out of. That particular offer was the lowest priced used military rifle in that issue of the magazine. Oswald was cheap.

I have several Carcanos. They are excellent rifles.

The problem with the Carcano bullet design was that it was an old design. It was a long hard bullet that was designed to travel long distances without tumbling. The old WW I theory was that if a soldier could shoot a long distance and hit the enemy, that would keep the soldier out of danger. But the problem was, the bullet was designed for not tumbling up to 1500 meters or more, and no average soldier could hit anything at 1500 meters. That’s almost a mile. So during WW II most of the rifle combat was at a much closer range, and since the Carcano bullet was designed not to explode or tumble, it would go right through the enemy, causing little damage if it didn’t hit any bone. Modern bullets are designed to tumble quickly or explode or expand when they hit targets at short distances. That does more damage.

Oswald’s Carcano bullet went through the two men, made the seven in and out wounds, because of the design of the long hard bullet. Had it been a modern shorter hollow point bullet, it would have probably exploded in Kennedy’s back and ever exited his throat, or it would have blown out a large hole in his throat but never entered Connally.

Er, while I respect your military knowledge and don't really want to nitpick, I'm curious: wouldn't tumblers be mainly a choice, not the norm? I mean, I'm pretty sure that you can buy solid metal rounds made for armor penetration; and I'm not sure, but I think FMJ rounds don't tumble. I mean, don't you have to specifically buy "tumblers"? I'm pretty sure the average round doesn't tumble much...

*I'm just confused*

"Exploded" is a nice word, but I think "expanded" is the correct term here; HP rounds aren't made to ignite as EX rounds are. HP rounds, I believe, are also illegal to use in rifles, aren't they? Or at least, by the military. I know that it's legal for police to use them in their pistols, as they're great for not accidentally hitting innocents (--Glaser rounds are also used)

HP rounds are also very bad for armor (as well as bodily) penetration...

Anyways, just a nitpick.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

The Carcano bullet was obsolete, and at the time of WW 1 was outmoded by the Balle D of France, and all the other countries that copied it. The main problem with the type of bullet found in the Carcano is; the bullet tends to remain at the angle of fire, without regard to trajectory...This is a problem at 1500 to 2000 meters, but at the range LHO was firing, this would make no, or very little difference in terminal impact, with all that weight fore and aft of the center of gravity the result of contact with a media denser than air is that the bullet would "drill" rather than tumble like the closely coupled boat tail, spire point bullets of other countries....The center of pressure and the center of mass are almost co-located in the modern bullet, not so in the pre 1905 Carcano design.....

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"

Lol, I’m just old. I’m thinking back in the ‘60s – ‘80s. I’m not familiar with the very latest military type bullets. I think there have been some laws in certain states and maybe some court rulings in recent years that might keep bullets from “exploding” too much. By “exploding” I just mean they expand and sometimes fly into many small pieces that do a lot of damage, but they don’t have an explosive charge inside them. I think there are some international agreements about this too, in an attempt to keep the most exploding types of bullets out of war zones. Also there is a need for armor piercing types of bullets, and these should not explode or expand as soon as they hit armor.

Regarding the old Carcano bullet (long, hard, not designed to expand or explode), I’m comparing it to a lot of the police bullets I saw back in the ‘60s through the ‘80s that the cops told me were designed either to expand or explode. And during the Vietnam war some military guys told me that their bullets were designed to tumble and expand when they hit something.

In fact, the old Italian Carcano bullets (1940s) and the WCC Carcano bullets (from the 1950s) had a tendency not to expand or explode, but the later Norma Carcano bullets (which were later designed for hunters using old Carcano rifles) had a plastic tip and hollow point so they would expand and explode and do more damage to a target.

The Soviet Pistole Patron Obrazhets 1974g/AKA 5.45x39.5mm AK 74; is designed to tumble upon striking any media denser than air....They do this by having an air space in front of the steel or antimony core of the bullet, this causes the projectile to tumble inside the "target". The Winchester Western 6,5mm Carcano Ammo that LHO used was made to function in the original manner of the Italian Ammo of the same model, the difference being that the US made ammo uses a lead core and a gilding metal jacket, the Italian uses a mild steel jacket, nickle plated, with an antimony core (usually)...In any case, the projectile used in this cartridge would not "explode", but its impact might cause that effect simply by energy transferance...

Dale in Ala

__________________
"Ad astra per aspera"