The rifle of TSBD and the rifle CE139 and their scopes had different lengths

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Sandy - the Argentine Mauser - if scoped - would not show the Mauser stamp nor would there be a clip.  Do you think this is the MAUSER?

David,

Thanks for clarifying that.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the testimony and evidence regarding the gun. I do know, of course, that the Carcano had a scope.

Was the alleged Mauser reported to have had a scope?

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Joseph:

I have tried to analyse Day's rifle to spot the details you mentioned. I did not find any markings, however, the markings mentioned in your post  would overlap with the burned out parts of the metal, (particularly "CAL 6.5")  and the the middle part of the spot between two burned out columns which should contain "6" of "AL" is not a uniform grey, but it is just too blurry to determine whether there is or not a meaningful symbol there. 

Anyway, I am copying the relevant part of the original CE541. The details on that rifle are not really conspicuous in the unprocessed picture and might also get unrecorded in a photograph if the rifle CE139 would be photographed under the same conditions as "Day's" rifle was. 

 

Officer Day marked the rifle found on the sixth floor. It should be possible to find out by a visual inspection of the rifle itself if his scribble is where he said he has put it:

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963. 
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Actually, one of the panels in CE541 shows what could be "DAY" on a rifle, however, I am not sure.

If Day's name is on the rifle stored in the National Archives, it would be hard to accept that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle carried by Day was not the same as the one in the National Archives. Besides that it would be a criminal offence to alter evidence, such manipulation does not give any good sense. The rifle was planted in advance of the shooting with the purpose to be found on the sixth floor, and to trace it to Oswald. Why would someone place an identical copy of Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor just to replace it later with C2766? 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[George Sawtelle]

Andrej

I've tried to explain why the switch of rifles but you don't understand or maybe you don't believe JFK was shot in his back as the limo made the turn from Houston onto Elm.

There is evidence which proves JFK was shot in the back the wound about 6 inches below his shoulder.

1) wound in the back (the wound is not related to the SBT) which did not traverse JFK's body. The bullet wound was only 1 1/2 - 2 inches deep

2) blur analysis Zapruder jiggled his camera at Z - 156, which means a loud noise startled him immediately after the limo made the turn

3) acoustics analysis indicates a gun/rifle shot near the point where the limo turns onto Elm. This shot registers only four echoes, which means it was not as loud as a rifle shot but it was loud enough to startle Zapruder. The shot was probably a misfire.

4) a bullet was found on JFK's stretcher at Parkland Hospital 

The plotters thought the Dal Tex sniper couldn't miss. The man who fired the shot was probably a hitman with experience killing people. He was located relatively close to the motorcade as it turned onto Elm. But eventhough they thought he couldn't miss they had two snipers waiting to shoot JFK in case he did miss JFK's head. This gives you an idea of the mentality of the planner. He left nothing to chance, he covered all contingencies and you witness that type of mentality as you study the plot.

If the shooting had followed the plan, JFK is shot in the head and the sixth floor sniper fires off two rounds. The sixth floor sniper makes himself visible while the Dal Tex sniper is well hidden and no one sees him. Law enforcement says three shots were fired from the sixth floor TSBD.

Immediately after the assassination I don't believe the DPD had time to do any tests on the Mannlicher Carcano found in the TSBD sixth floor. The FBI requested the DPD to allow the Mannlicher Carcano to be sent to the FBI lab for a check of prints. At the time the FBI didn't check the lead bullet analysis since the FBI had not collected all the rounds fired at the president. BTW, the FBI lab replied that no prints of value had been found on the Mannlicher Carcano.

And now I come to the key point that indicates the Mannlicher Carcano found on the sixth floor is not CE 139. The bullet found on the JFK's  stretcher was determined by the FBI to have been fired using CE - 139. The sniper on the sixth floor could not have fired the round that hit JFK in the back. Located between the sixth floor sniper and the limo as the limo made the turn onto Elm was an oak tree. The sniper could not see JFK. Also JFK's back was turned away from the sixth floor sniper at that point. Only the sniper in the Dal Tex building could have hit Kennedy in the back. And thus he had to have used CE 139.

But if you only have the Mannlicher Carcano that was found on the sixth floor and you start running tests you'll quickly come to the conclusion that the rifle found on the sixth floor was not used in the assassination. And that is the reason the switch was made.

[Andrej Stancak]

George:

thanks for your explanation. I read it, understood, but do not find enough conclusive evidence for your theory. Your theory assumes that the bullet causing the back wound was the same found  on a stretcher in Parkland. I thought that this magic bullet has not been fired during the assassination at all. Although the back wound theoretically could be caused by a bullet arriving from Daltex, it is more likely that the bullet fired from Daltex was not the same as the one found on a stretcher.

The angle of the back wound has been probed during the autopsy, to my knowledge, and it was a shallow wound of 1-2 inches and had an angle of 45-60 degrees. As it was  that shallow, could it be fired from a high-powered  rifle? The angle: authors Shaw and Harris in their book "Cover-up..." place the shooter of this shot to the west corner of the Depository roof. Just to point out that the locations of the shooters vary in different theories.

We agree that there were multiple shooters, but who knows for sure which shot came from which direction? 

Could you please explain how Day's signature occurred on the rifle which is in the National Archives?  I assume that the signature is there if Belin and Day were looking at it during Day's testimony, however, I myself did not check the rifle itself.

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[George Sawtelle]

Andrej

Thanks for your reply. Now I understand where you and I defer.

Lets assume that most high powered rifles have a muzzle velocity of about 2200 ft/sec. I think you would agree that the Carcano had a muzzle velocity the same as a high powered rifle. Let's further assume that the ammunition was homemade and was not packed properly. As a result the bullet misfired and did not achieve muzzle velocity. If a shooter is about 200 ft from JFK and aims for his head but the bullet drops and hits Kennedy in the back 6 inches below his shoulder one could safely assume that a bullet that dropped 8 - 10 inches within 200 ft did not reach muzzle velocity. It was well below muzzle velocity as it left the rifle barrel.

We also assume that the sound of the shot was somewhat attenuated. It was not as loud as a normal rifle shot. And that is the reason why BBN the acoustics experts said they only detected 4 echoes, way below the normal 11 echoes characteristic for Dealey Plaza.

Thus taking into account the low muzzle velocity and the sound attenuation we indeed have a misfire. And the misfire would account for the bullet only entering Kennedy's back 2 inches.

A man by the name of Thompson found a bullet on Kennedy's stretcher. No bullet was found on Connally's stretcher. No bullet fell out of Connally's body while he was being attended in the hospital. A doctor at Parkland had said that the bullet that caused the injuries to Connally had lodged in his left calf. No one planted a bullet simply because no one knew the extent of the injuries to Kennedy or Connally. It was much too early to know. Some people believe that a bullet was planted by how could anyone be so dumb as to plant a bullet not knowing the extent of the injuries. But if someone is that dumb and does plant a bullet he'll plant a bullet that is deformed, not a bullet that appears to be pristine.

So the pristine bullet was the bullet found on Kennedy's stretcher. Now if I told you that the pristine bullet accounted for the back and throat injuries to Kennedy and all the injuries to Connally would you believe me. Or would you believe me if I said the pristine bullet caused the injury to Kennedy's back.

Now in regard to Day's signature, is there a date near Day's signature. All signatures or initials must be accompanied by a date. If no date then the signature or initial is suspect. If no date, the signature could have been placed on the butt after the fact by anyone. It's just common sense that a date is necessary.

Edited April 30, 2017 by George Sawtelle

[Andrej Stancak]

George:

your theory uses several "ifs". If just one "if" falls out, the whole construction would crumble. It will be interesting to see if your theory fares better with other members of this forum.

As per the date on the rifle, I do not think that the date 22/11/1963 was on the rifle and do not know whether the date was actually needed for maintaining the chain of posession. However, even the date could have been faked if you once admit that Officer Day had scribbled his name on a different rifle and on a different occassion and not whilst investigating it on the sixth floor.

 

 

 

[Ray Mitcham]

George, where did you get the idea that the bullet found was from Kennedy's stretcher?

[George Sawtelle]

Ray

I thought I made that clear in the post above.

[George Sawtelle]

Andrej

Yes I use the word ''if'' but I come to a definite conclusion. You have a choice ... either the pristine bullet injured both Kennedy and Connally or it injured Kennedy only. You avoided the question but choose to throw up a smokescreen by saying I used too many ''if's''. 

One can fake a date but not a signature? If the date is faked the signature could be faked also.

[Michael Clark]

3 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Andrej

Yes I use the word ''if'' but I come to a definite conclusion. You have a choice ... either the pristine bullet injured both Kennedy and Connally or it injured Kennedy only. You avoided the question but choose to throw up a smokescreen by saying I used too many ''if's''. 

One can fake a date but not a signature? If the date is faked the signature could be faked also.

George, there are more choices than you offer. Namely, while the world believed that the DPD was in possession of a Mauser, a Manlicher was flown to DC, where it was fired into a water tank, the bullet recovered, and both flown back to Dallas. CE399 was then enterered into evidence as the stretcher bullet. This would explain why the SS agents could not identify the 6.5mm MC bullet as the bullet recovered at Parkland.

I am not saying that this happened, I just saying that your either/or proposal is missing one or many "or"s.

Cheers,

Michael

[David Josephs]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:39 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Joseph:

I have tried to analyse Day's rifle to spot the details you mentioned. I did not find any markings, however, the markings mentioned in your post  would overlap with the burned out parts of the metal, (particularly "CAL 6.5")  and the the middle part of the spot between two burned out columns which should contain "6" of "AL" is not a uniform grey, but it is just too blurry to determine whether there is or not a meaningful symbol there. 

Anyway, I am copying the relevant part of the original CE541. The details on that rifle are not really conspicuous in the unprocessed picture and might also get unrecorded in a photograph if the rifle CE139 would be photographed under the same conditions as "Day's" rifle was. 

 

Officer Day marked the rifle found on the sixth floor. It should be possible to find out by a visual inspection of the rifle itself if his scribble is where he said he has put it:

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963. 
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

Actually, one of the panels in CE541 shows what could be "DAY" on a rifle, however, I am not sure.

If Day's name is on the rifle stored in the National Archives, it would be hard to accept that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle carried by Day was not the same as the one in the National Archives. Besides that it would be a criminal offence to alter evidence, such manipulation does not give any good sense. The rifle was planted in advance of the shooting with the purpose to be found on the sixth floor, and to trace it to Oswald. Why would someone place an identical copy of Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor just to replace it later with C2766? 

 

 

 

Have you been able to determine when Day initialed this rifle's wooden butt?

I've reread Day's entire testimony...  he tells of disassembling the rifle's wooden parts...  he later discusses his initials on the hulls placed at 10pm

Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put any such initials, on the hull itself?
Mr. DAY. At about 10 o'clock when I noticed it back in the identification bureau in this envelope.

So while initials on the evidence are important in authentication... when those initials appear and how they are related to the items at the scene of the "crime" also plays in authentication of evidence.

DAY brings "A" rifle to his office... DAY says ODUM takes him

Mr. McCLOY. There was never any doubt in your mind what the rifle was from the minute you saw it?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; It was stamped right on there, 6.5, and when en route to the office with Mr. Odum, the FBI agent who drove me in, he radioed it in, he radioed in what it was to the FBI over the air.

 

Yet another FBI agent tells a different story..  Nat Pinkston claims to have been on hand when the rifle was found, and then is the one who relates it to Kleins...  Just an old man inserting himself into history or another rifle story leading to the same Holmes conclusion...?  Looks like another BS FBI created report to me...

With regards to the images and their enhancements...  The rifle in DAY's hands at the TSBD does not have the markings it should have where it should have them to my eye and analysis....

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by David Josephs

[George Sawtelle]

Michael

IOWS, the bullet was planted. It wasn't planted on the stretcher, but it's basically the same thing.

Here again why would anyone plant a bullet without knowing the extent of the injuries to either man.

I believe the plotters knew the significance of the find when they learned the bullet had been recovered from Kennedy's stretcher. They went into overdrive to descredit the find and thus we have a mountain of testimony regarding the authenticity of the bullet.

The plotters decided it was more expedient to exchange rifles than exchange bullets, not knowing how to deform the bullet without knowing the injuries to either man.

[Ray Mitcham]

3 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Ray

I thought I made that clear in the post above.

No, you didn't. Where did you get the information that the bullet was found on JFK's stretcher?

[Andrej Stancak]

David:

I am not sure that you should be able to spot the markings shown in CE541, taken from a close-up view, on the same rifle photographed from a distance and with the sun reflections on it. Failure to identify the markings may be a natural result of low resolution, digitisation, lack of tack sharpness (motions of the rifle and the camera) and maybe other factors which I may not be even aware of. However, my doubts about the necessity of seeing the marks on Day's rifle may not be your doubts.

Day's signature on the rifle and on spent hulls are two different things. Thanks to Barry Krush's book (Impossible ...) and his YouTube video, it is quite clear that the spent cartridges were tampered with. However, there is not such indication for the rifle. The number of hulls needed to match the number of shots, and there should be evidence that the hulls came from one specific Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. I will search for more evidence as to when exactly did Lt. Day initialised the rifle.

In the meantime, what would be your explanation for having a different Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor and in the Dallas Police Department later that evening? I just miss the point. The plotters wanted to trace the rifle found on the sixth floor to Hiddel/Oswald and would therefore not confuse things by first planting a wrong Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on the sixth floor which actually could not be traced to Oswald. 

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

I have checked Larry Sneed's book:  "No More Silence" (1998) which contains Carl Day's memories of the assassination weekend. Unfortunately, the information about the exact moment at which he had initialised the rifle cannot be found in his account. However, Day did address the possibility that the rifle found on the sixth floor was different to the one submitted to the Warren Commission:

"Rumors were flying at that time. One had it that the rifle was deliberately placed there to implicate Oswald. I don't see how it could have been planted in the short time length there after the shooting (*). I do know that the gun that was delivered to the FBI and was at the Warren Commission was the same gun that I picked up on the sixth floor. It had my markings on it and was in my possession from the time I picked it up until I released it to Vince Drain. There's no question whatsoever that it's the same gun".

(*) Well, the rifle was brought to the sixth floor before the shooting. Day wrongly assumed it would have to be planted to the sixth floor only after the shooting which makes no good sense.