Eaglesham´s article doesn´t help

[George Sawtelle]

I don´t have permission to transfer Allen Eaglesham´s article so for those interested in an argument contrary to his interpretation refer to his article at manuscript.

What shouts out to me as bogus is the heavy black outline of the copy of Fig 7. The heavy black border hides part of a date and initials of the draftsman or engineer who entered the date in the upper right hand of the copy. The border is not made by the copier. Someone added the border after the copy was made.

I emailed Allen and asked him about the truncation of the date and initials and he brushed it off by saying the the truncation was of no consequence because the truncation was not germane to the subject matter of the article.

Everything on that drawing, which by the way is a contract drawing, is germane to everything else. This is a battle of dates and we have a serious problem if one of the dates and initials are missing.

There are about five or six more problems with the drawing I will get into later. Suffice to say that Fig 7 does not help us get at the truth. If this was a court of law and and a prosecutor presented Fig 7 as evidence it would be thrown out.

[Robin Unger]

If you wanted people to respond to your post, then you should have included a link to the Eaglesham article. ?

[James DiEugenio]

Or tell us what the subject of your disagreement is.

[George Sawtelle]

James - Apparently you think it´s okay to submit evidence that is not complete.

Let´s take it a step further.

Consider the date in the upper left hand corner of the circle (the bunter). Eaglesham says it reads 10/5/73. If one looks closely at the last number of the date, it´s not a 3, it is a zero. It reads 10/5/70. Contract drawings should not be left to interpretation. Dates should be written clearly.

My disagreement is that Eaglesham´s article does not rebut the James Files story.

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Gary Murr]

Robin/James:

I believe the article that Mr. Sawtelle is referring to is found at this link: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/ And though I don't quite know where Mr. Sawtelle is going with this topic, I disagree with his statement that the dating in the upper left hand corner of the bunter diagram - Figure 7 in this Eaglesham article, the "Superseded..." stamping - "reads 10/5/70". The dating year is most certainly "73" as it appears therein, not  "70" as Mr. Sawtelle believes; just compare this last digit to the more visible "0" in the month dating of "10".

Gary

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Gary.  

[George Sawtelle]

Gary - you say it´s a 3. I say it´s a zero.

That number is ¨cut¨ in half. The top half of the number is not visible. To make it a 3 one would have to use his/her imagination.

But my point is there should not be any debate. The number should be written clearly. If it´s a 3 a 3 should be written or typewritten where there is no doubt.  

I do not believe Remington would allow a drawing to be circulated with a date as such. It would be returned to the section which generated the drawing for correction.

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Ray Mitcham]

Sorry, George. If you compare the last number "3" with the "0" in "10/5/73" you will see that it is the bottom of  "3", not the bottom of "0"

Edited January 10, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[George Sawtelle]

Ray - Well that half number looks a lot like another number on the drawing it must be that number. Sorry that is not how it´s done.

Lets go a little further.

See Alternative Uses. Information on a drawing is never lined out. If information needs to be erased, a sepia is made and the information is erased. The change is noted on the sepia and the sepia becomes part of the original.

Changes to numbers on a drawing are not underlined. A change of a number is given a number that is encircled. The encircled number is placed in the record of alterations and the change is explained. Anyone can underline a number on a drawing.

What bugs me about this affair is that Eaglesham says the drawing in question was taken from a trash can. Since the drawing was superseded it must have been stored in an archive. It was retrieved from the archive, copied and then thrown in the trash can where is was picked up by a Remington employee and then given to someone not employed by Remington. This person then either mailed it to Eaglesham or paid a courier to take it to him. There could have been any number of people who had access to this drawing. Remington will never vouch for the drawing because it was obtained illegally. Therefore it´s not authentic and no one will claim responsibility for it. It´s as if it appeared from thin air. So the chain of custody is out the window, and therefore it´s not good evidence.

[Ray Mitcham]

From its shape, it can't be any other number than "3". Sorry if that doesn't fit your theory but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Ray.  I didn't think there was any question about it either. 

[David Andrews]

DELETE POST

Edited January 11, 2017 by David Andrews
Non-sequitur

[George Sawtelle]

I´ve been busy with other matters and haven´t had a chance to post. I will get to the root of the problem with Fig 7.

Fig 7, or drawing E1258-1, is a revision and a retrace of drawing E1259-1. According to the date given, the revision and retrace was done on 4-14-60 initialed by RMM. But there is no revision of drawing E1258-1 on Fig 7. The revisions were done at other times, i.e., SPEC WAS 16, 9-10-whatever, .1739 WAS .1742, 9-10-blocked out, and .015 WAS .040, 12-30-70.

So what was the change that caused E1259-1 to be revised and retraced to drawing E1258-1 in 4-14-60?

There is only one explanation. The changes that we see on the drawing were done on 4-14-60. Someone printed the dates and initials near the changes to make it appear that the changes were done on the dates printed. But they forgot to include a change for 4-14-60.

To repeat - ... the change to the dash between R and P was done on 4-14-60, not 12-12-70.

I do not believe Eaglesham added the initials and dates to the drawing. The fake changes were done by others. Eaglesham, like most of us, believed what was given on Fig 7.