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....

The Wise Men (although written from the Ivy League POV, the details and writing is wonderful if interested in this time period.  Highly recommended for those who wish to see into the world of the SPONSORS...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00768DB2S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 

chronicle the activities of six gifted friends Dean Acheson, Charles E. Bohlen, W. Averell Harriman, George Kennan, Robert Lovett, and John J. McCloywho were instrumental in developing U.S. diplomacy from the 1930s to the Vietnam War. 

Quote

The apparent differences between the rifle carried by Carl Day and the rifles we see in various  official pictures are only due to the fact that each photograph of the same rifle was taken from a different view angle and having the rifle orientated slightly differently.

While I agree that is responsible for many of the identification conflicts... there are markings on the CE139 rifle as I post below, which coincides with what RIVA was told to do...

remove the serial # markings and put "Made in Italy" on them.   Here is CE139 showing these marks plus the CAL 6.5 stamp.

When we look at the DAY rifle, we'd expect to see these same markings in the same places...  except they're not there.  Furthermore the scope's endpiece does not seem to match, there is no "CAL 6.5" and no "Made in Italy, Crown or 1940"

This rifle Day carries is not the same as CE139.

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Huh? Craig did not say it was a Mauser till 1968? I thought it was common knowledge that he identified the gun early on as a Mauser.

Even in your article, "The Mauser, the Carcano & the Lt. Day Rifle," you wrote, "One of them, DPD Detective Roger CRAIG - a decorated officer, saw “7.65” and “MAUSER” stamped on the barrel both facing the same direction – an extremely specific identification."

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Please explain.

 

First off, thanks for reading the article

I don't state in the article when CRAIG makes that claim... Now that I look again - my bad, Craig states this years later in his memoir  https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html When They Kill a President. Not in 1968 for the LA Free Press.

Point was - the MAUSER story has more than just one possibility...  As I mentioned it could have been 1) to cover for no Clip being present, 2) there really was a MASUER yet claimed to be on the roof and not the 6th floor, 3) the rifle was on the 5th floor as Ellsworth claims while a MAUSER is on the 6th and is swapped out.

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?

I guess the initial question required is "Do you believe any shots were fired from the SE 6th floor window"?
 

Quote

5) You did not answer my fundamental  objection: why should I believe that 4 expert and professional Police officers of DPD at first on Nov. 22 1963, at 1:22 p.m. ALL identified a 7.65 MAUSER, and then in a couple of day suddenly that rifle became a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano? None of your drawings can persuade me (and million of people!) that the original rifle was not a 7.65 MAUSER!

Alberto... how about taking a breath and a step back - k?

The people you are talking with here are not new to the rodeo...  we've been down these roads a number of times.  Each time we get directed back to this kind of discussion we find ourselves with someone who will simply not learn what they don't want to know.

There are a number of reasons "7.65 Mauser" was not only uttered up on the 6th floor but placed in 2 signed affidavits - Boone and Weitzman - both signed by 11/23.

At the same time DAY tells us that 6.5mm and "Made in Italy" are clearly seen when the rifle is examined.  Here they are on CE139.  Riva* in Italy was contracted to remove these markings from the rifles...  https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf   

*Riva was contracted by Adams Consolidated/Crescent Firearms (Louis Feldsott owner) to prepare rifles for export which according to the contract included: renovating/repairing defective weapons and removing the serial numbers and other markings to be replaced with “Made in Italy”.  Bill MacDowal's "The Great Carcano Swindle" addresses this a bit more deeply since whether this was done or not to all the rifles including C2766 is unknown and unprovable

So what WOULD persuade you that the evidence related to a 7,65mm Mauser and the connection to C2766 were made up on the spot?

How about the fact Craig did not say MAUSER until 1968?  It is Weitzman and Boone - both related to Decker's Sheriff Dept - who make the statement and sign the affidavits.  Weitzman knew rifles yet despite the CE139 rifle clearly showing the 6.5 and Made in Italy he still holds fast to the MAUSER story - Why?

(NOTE: You'll also find that Boone and Weitzman's statements are EXACTLY the same... as if rehearsed.)

Because no clip was found on the 6th floor...  Without a clip that falls out when the last bullet is chambered, the bullets were either manually loaded after each shot, or there was no clip.  No Clip = MAUSER.  So a Clip was found.  So CE139 was "found".

Here is a composite comparing CE139 with the rifle DAY leaves the TSBD carrying..  While "Made in Italy" and "6.5mm" are not seen, neither is "MAUSER" or "7.65mm" and for good reason... a scope mounted on a Masuer would cover the "MAUSER" stamp...  A rifle w/o a scope was mentioned by Brennan when he claims he sees 80% of the rifle and no scope...  but DAY's rifle has a scope...  so seeing MAUSER would not be possible...

While I still think that the TSBD rifle and CE139 are not the same, I do believe they were all Carcanos acquired via the CIA with CIA ammo...

If you would simply address some of these concerns maybe we'd better understand you POV.  We AGREE - there was more than one rifle but none of what you've offered supports it was a Mauser other than those 2 affidavits and Craig's word 5 years later.  The scope mount on a MC is farther forward than the MAUSER.. If the DAY rifle is a MAUSER we'd see the stamp under the front portion of the rifle under the scope where my white arrows are pointing at the bottom of this image...

Why don't we see MAUSER there?

On 4/26/2017 at 5:32 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Michael Walton writes:

Some readers will recall the crazy mathematics thread ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/ ), in which Chris poured out pages and pages of cryptic equations with only hints as to their significance. Here we go again: a new series of cryptic equations, with only hints as to their significance. I'm sure Chris could explain his argument fully in coherent English sentences if he wanted to. The problem is that doing so would make it obvious to everyone that his claim is very flimsy indeed.

With the current thread, as with the crazy mathematics thread, the clue is in the mention of Commission Exhibit 884, the FBI's interpretation of the limousine's position on Elm Street when the various shots were fired. There is a contradiction between, on the one hand, what we see in the Zapruder and Towner films, and, on the other hand, some of the locations given in CE 884. If the figures in CE 884 are correct, it is difficult to see how the extant films can be authentic. Alternatively, of course, if the figures in CE 884 are not correct, they give us no good reason to conclude that the films are not authentic. Chris's assumption (unstated, wisely) seems to be that the FBI must have based its figures on the genuine, original and unaltered Zapruder film. His unstated conclusion seems to be that the Zapruder and Towner films that now exist are altered versions of the originals.

Pat Speer pointed out the problem with this interpretation last October in a post that, unsurprisingly, no film-alteration enthusiast has yet responded to ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18205-forwarned/&page=4 ):

There is a perfectly good common-sense explanation for the contradiction between the films and the FBI's documentation: the FBI's figures are wrong. And there is a perfectly good common-sense explanation for the FBI's figures being wrong: the Bureau fiddled the figures in an attempt to make the lone-gunman nonsense look plausible. If the figures in CE 884 have been fiddled, all of the mathematical equations that refer to those figures are worthless; they demonstrate nothing. The equations give us no good reason to suppose that the films are inauthentic.

Michael also writes:

It's curious that those who promote film-alteration theories almost never explain what the conspirators would have hoped to achieve by altering films and photographs. That's hardly surprising because, especially with the Zapruder film, there isn't even much agreement about exactly which alterations were made.

People seem to be attracted to film-alteration theories not because the theories explain anything worthwhile about the assassination, but simply because the theories supply an extra conspiracy to believe in. It's one thing to accept the evidence that a conspiracy of some sort was responsible for the assassination of JFK and the framing of Oswald. But if you're naturally attracted to conspiracies as an explanation for events, how much more exciting it must be to believe that the Bad Guys also magically altered half a dozen or more home movies and photographs, and that they magically shot Governor Connally from behind despite firing bullets only from in front, and that they magically whisked JFK's body away from Air Force One without anyone noticing, and that they magically impersonated Oswald and his mother for over a decade for no obvious reason. The larger and more elaborate the conspiracy that's being proposed, the more attractive it becomes to some people. To rational people, on the other hand, the larger and more elaborate the conspiracy that's being proposed, the less credible it becomes in principle.

 

Continues to amaze me that intelligent people cannot be more open to work which they do not understand as opposed to this kind of response which piles ignorance on top of a complete lack of curiosity.

Pat Speer is a wonderful researcher and presenter...  yet not everything is "gospel" simply because he has a chapter on it.  In the link you offer Pat addresses my post with an offered conclusion which is simply not correct.

Quote

I discuss this in detail on my website, David. The first survey had the third shot head shot within a few feet of where the head shot is shown on the Z-film. The SS and FBI then did new surveys in which they suddenly claimed the head shot was well down the street from this location. This stretched out the shooting sequence and gave Oswald more time to fire the shots. The SS and FBI, apparently, never dreamed the WC would double-check their work. The WC, however, tried to resolve the issue, and called a series of meetings in which the SS and FBI watched the Z-film with them, and argued for their scenarios. This led to the realization the SS and FBI were blowing smoke, and thus, more re-enactments.

This comes from the first series of surveys for which only a small handful of people have the original notes WEST wrote during these surveys.  The headshot - we all agree - is shown on z313 of the film.  The following, CE585, was inadvertently left in the evidence and shows that the original surveys.  Add back WEST's notes and we find that before the last survey z313 was shot #2.  

The "more re-enactments" mentioned by Pat was the final surveys where CE884 was created.  it places the last shot at z313 and simply removes the final WCD298 shot.

WCD298 has z313 as shot #2 and a linear distance for shot #3 which is well past both z313 and 294 feet from the window.  In fact none of the information offered in Pat's illustration at that link correctly places the conclusion of the surveys as being the same... far from it in fact.

Here is the WEST original survey for the FBI in Feb 1964.  A shot (#3 for our purposes) is identified at 4+96...  4 feet from 5+00.  IOW every single survey prior to the Eisenberg instigated one in April/May 1964 does NOT match the final round of information or the zfilm.

Elevation of 418.35 is farther UP Elm than 416.83.  This shows the Frazier diagram's elevations and distances to the shots - 3 of them, all hitting someone according to every report up until May 1964.  416.83 is the elevation for a spot 40 feet past z313.  

And all of this is hidden within the MATH Shaneyfelt and Frazier used to create CE884 from a previous version of CE884.

Pat Speer's conclusion does not stand up to the evidence.  HE is wrong about what the surveys showed... until James Tague comes in and "The Shot That Missed" is born.

At the very least Jeremy, you could ask a question about what you dont comprehend rather than disparage it without any real research.  The MATH THREAD shed light onto the FBI's position related to the Zfilm like no other.  That you personally don't understand it, or Michael for that matter doesn't make it wrong or impossible... that would only apply to the both of you in this topic...  What we see on film MUST be represented within the physics of the natural world.  Physics is explained thru MATH.  IF the Math doesn't work, the physical reality or authentication of what is shown is not possible.

In case you forgot, JFK was killed under a conspiracy to cover-up the facts about how and who did it.  JFK was shot from the front, possibly multiple times.  The film showed this and would support a Castro Conspiracy if need be.  Alvarado was Philips' asset in Mexico telling the bogus Oswald stories tying him to Cubans.  That all ended within days in favor of Oswald the Lon Nut shooter.  And instead of using the film, the FBI and WEST used still images and re-created the limo's movements...

When you learn that Shaneyfelt moved the limo path south and why (also in the MATH THREAD) maybe you'd give those who see things in a different light a break.  

Condemning what you don't understand before even trying seems as anti-academic as it gets...

On 4/23/2017 at 7:05 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

One serious question. Does anybody believe the cover story that the SS arranged for a decoy ambulance from Andrews to Bethesda in case somebody tried to intercept it. Really? The body of the slain president surrounded by numerous SS, and military personnel, and they were worried that somebody would try to intercept? The real  reason for a decoy ambulance was for nefarious reasons.

Yes... real reason was that JFK was being helicoptered to Bethesda...  the "decoy" was only known to be such by those involved with the conspiracy.  Lipsey is neck deep in it.

As for Karl - that he uses Ebersole as his "go to" witness is a real joke.   If he took even a second to read thru anything about Ebersole, he'd know how cooperative he was in the same vein as Humes and Boswell.  Ebersole claims he retook ALL the SS photos on instruction from the SS...  Ebersole, like Humes, was a tool that evening.

If I have to decide between the work of Karl and that of Lifton on this topic, sorry Karl... you're not even in the ballpark.

Sir...

Taking two different photos and sizing them to match does not mean they match...  it means you've sized photos to match.

Without knowing the focal length and lenses involved the measurements are simply not accurate.

While I do agree with the conclusion which has been offered here in the past - that CE139, the BYP and the TSBD rifle were not the same...

Just not for the reasoning you've offered.  Photo can tell us if something is there or not...  only certain photos can be compared for size within the photos themselves.

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:35 PM, Alberto Miatello said:

 

@ Tom + Michael + Micah + David

No, no, those are 2 different SCOPES of 2 different rifles. and it is NOT the bolt handle of course. (the bolt handle of the Mannlicher is not on top of the scope, it is below to the right on the rifle see here https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/3f/f0/953ff0fda51ba6081fa234b9f0899d59.jpg

Please, look carefully here again :https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif

As you can see , the Mannlicher Carcano has also 2 METALLIC GASKETS ,  LESS THAN 1 INCH LONG, and just 5 cm. DISTANT  each other,  wrapping the scope and forming 2 LITTLE RECTANGULAR PROTRUSIONS, 2 LITTLE BARS emerging on top of the scope  for a  few millimeters.

NONE  of those very close  metallic gaskets is visible here, look carefully http://s27.postimg.org/cxphfolsz/image.jpg .There is just ONE GASKET (7-8 cm. far from  the lens opposite to that of sight).

In addition, if you magnify this image , you can see also that the scope of that rifle is more LIFTED, it is linked  to the rifle through rigid  JOINTS/SHAFTS. On the contrary the scope of the Mannlicher-Carcano is EMBEDDED , it runs sliding on side/lateral bars for scrolling .

My suggestion is to take this image, save it in your file of images, and then magnify it on your pc - as I've done - you can clearly see that the rifle the officer is handling is different for 3 remarkable items:

1) There is a little rigid  SHAFT  (and a round/spherical item "pommel"  on top of the shaft)   about 10 cm. distant from the lens of sight

2) In the Mannlicher Carcano  there are 2 METALLIC GASKETS wrapping the scope, very close each other (around 5-6 cm., a couple of inches) , forming 2 LITTLE RECTANGULAR BARS/PROTRUSIONS in the points where the gaskets  join, and clearly visible on top of the scope, On the contrary, in the rifle of Nov. 22 you can see only ONE metallic gasket

3) The scope of the rifle of the 6th floor (of Nov. 22 1:22 p.m.) was a bit more lifted and linked to the rifle through RIGID JOINTS/LITTLE SHAFTS. On the contrary the scope of the Carcano is EMBEDDED, it runs by sliding, scrolling on side bars.

Again, my suggestion is to MAGNIFY this photo https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif and watch it very carefully taking your time, keeping the close view of the scope of the Mannlicher     https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/bbdd330271.gif   near to you, so that  to compare them.

The more you watch them, the more you find the differences!

Those were different scopes (of different rifles)

Hi

Alberto

 

 

 

 

Hi there Alberto,

While I do believe that the rifle in evidence - CE139 - is not the same rifle with which Day leaves the TSBD... https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf is the paper I did which illustrates this... I do not see the differences in the scope you discuss...

With regards to the photos you post...  I see the pommels and the bumps right where I expect them for a scoped MC - It's the rifle itself that's the problem..  

I my paper I found a photo which shows the location of the rifle's markings yet the markings for "Made in Italy" and "Cal 6.5" are not there.

I'd like you to consider an explanation I learned about that makes a lot of sense...  The MAUSER designation comes from the fact there was no CLIP found on the 6th floor where it should have been, by the 6th floor window when the shooter loaded the last round.  Since it was not, nor was it near the rifle, (in fact we have no idea how the clip gets into the rifle in some of the Day photos) the assumption from these gun savvy men was a Mauser which uses a Stripper CLip as opposed to a clip that stays in the rifle.

A quick explanation was arrived at due to the lack of a clip...  The MASUER fit the bill...  In my paper linked above I also show how the MAUSER stamp would be covered by a scoped rifle... Craig wouldn't be able to see the MAUSER or 7.65mm if the rifle was scoped.

Add also that Craig let loose about the DPD sniper on the County records bldg and his sighting of Oswald and "associates" in the car leaving the TSBD and we can see how he was targeted.

It would help a bit if you could open the image in any graphics program and point to what you are saying...  If I didn't do that above

DJ

5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

And is there a place to find these FBI reports that Brown cited

I have not looked thru all the folders and files...   but here's a push I hope to be in the right direction

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1661  

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MLK/mlk.html

Cheers

DJ

The Pommel is one one side of the scope with the other pommel on top...

The images you posted show the top pommel but not the side one since you are only showing the side without the strap attachments... (top image)

The side with the slots for the strap has it...

Or did I misunderstand what you posted?

DJ

awww, tommy got his feelings hurt   

Your "Bollocks" be about the only thing you have a handle on here...  

So, I'll keep trying to dumb it down for you....   Y'know so you can read along and keep up with the rest of us...  

I'm sorry tommy...

Felde knew Harvey
Bullock knew Lee
The FBI covered it up...

Simple enough even for you now... 

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 4:14 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Ah. I think I understand now! You don't go into detail, perhaps wisely, but you seem to be claiming that the mastoidectomy bone defect on the body in Oswald's grave, as reported by a group of medical specialists, is evidence that "the intelligence community" had had an unnecessary mastoidectomy performed on the imaginary impostor, 'Harvey', by an imaginary surgeon in an imaginary hospital, as part of a hugely elaborate scheme in the remote hope that when the imaginary boy grew up he would turn out to resemble another six-year-old boy, who happened to have a mother with the same name as the imaginary boy. Well, I suppose the bone defect could be interpreted that way. We can't rule that out.

Do you suppose it's possible to address the topic without all the sarcasm?

What did or did not happen is well beyond your ability to parse Jeremy... unless you're an ex-spy with experience in the craft....
You or anyone else being incredulous about the possibilities does not make them any less likely or possible.

We have a rich history of conspiracy, futile attempts at spycraft, successful attempts at spycraft and all the spycraft for which we are not aware.  That you cannot fathom something being done, when the available evidence supports the conclusion, only shows me you'd rather stick with circular arguments than consider something outside your comfort zone.

Your acceptance or understanding of the magnitude of the information is not something I give a rats xxx about Jeremy.  Just like those who prefer to argue that Oswald did what he was accused of, no amount of discussion will crack that nut nor open your eyes enough to explore the evidence.

But please don't insult our collective intelligence with posts that sound like poor versions of Tommy's famous "wit"  as you butcher the realities of our intelligence history and wax philosophical over data and analysis that remains out of your reach.

Read the book, do the work, then come talk to me...  right now you're like one of those blind men feeling an elephant and calling it a tree.  Until the blinders come off and you attempt to look at an entire picture your conclusions will remain half-assed...

Finally, if you're interested in those who spent time with LEE in the Marines I'd suggest you look into Richard Bullock...  a man who was with LEE and compare his evidence with Allen Felde's.  In fact Felde's statement comes right after the Marine's detailed chronology for Oswald...  The stories don't match and then the FBI goes and finds the wrong Felde... 

First thing Dave - that spool is sitting in the bottom half of a canister... since you were able to spot a piece of film that wasn't maybe you'd see the canister ridges outside the spool.

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But, David, we know that Klein's was selling Carcano rifles to customers well PRIOR to the time when Oswald purchased his Carcano from Klein's. Waldman Exhibit No. 1 proves that fact.

Ok, now you're off the reservation here buddy...  Waldman 1 is the Kleins order.  Nothing on that order suggests that Kleins received rifles prior to Feb 22...  Rupp did not take rifles out until August 1962... so if Kleins was sent rifles from Crescent... where's the evidence?

If Kleins sold a C20-T750, a 36" carbine, prior to Feb 22, 1963...  What did they ship the customer?

 
From where did they get the 91/38 TS rifles to ship these orders? - (remember the 91TS originally ordered has the adjustable sights just like the coupon description...  yet another swap a customer may not want.)

Where is the June 1962 shipment of FC rifles the FBI repeatedly mentions... or the one from March?
(btw, "M91/38" does not refer to a specific rifle...  there are M91/38 TS's, FC's and Cav. 

Finally, we don't care about ANY RIFLE Dave...  just the C20-T750 advertised from the summer of 1962 thru Feb 1963.  IF they got a shipment of TS rifles elsewhere, there is no evidence for such.

So yes Dave, it matters since C2766 is attached to a story which does not work.  A journey that cannot be traced with evidence showing the receipt of at least 2 other rifle orders from Kleins for which we have no evidence other than the FBI's mentioning it and contradicting the idea that Kleins ever had "C2766" other than from a June shipment that Rupp's activity renders impossible.

Dave, for evidence to work it needs to work outside the small circle of self corroborating evidence.  It represents a Standard Operational Procedure for ALL RIFLES.  If there is no other example to support a singular instance, that instance must be verified.  

Since we never see another of the VC=Serial# sheets for something other than those 100 rifles, never see another order for a C20-T750 which is shipped a FC rifle in its stead, never see an order for a FC rifle from April 1963 thru Nov 1963 despite it being advertised now as a 40" 7lb weapon, now with a REAR OPEN SIGHT (91/38 Fucile Corto)  

Were any of these coupons ever sent in for an order?  If so... which of the remaining 99 rifles was shipped?

So who stole the film from the Archives Dave...

and why?

And to Chris' point... the FBI and the WC introduced items into evidence in the most peculiar ways...  CE882, 883, 884 are great examples.

I still find it quite amazing that in all these years we've NEVER heard about a Kleins Carcano with any one of the other 99 serial numbers.  You'd think that would have been quite a find... and would prove they existed.

As it now stands, 1 rifle does not prove a shipment while the FBI's own evidence contradicts their conclusion

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

Just took a look - that's not photographic comparison Tracy.  

You can't take a ratio of distance in a 3D image and claim the ratio holds... that's not how photos work.

The 1956 Marine photo is an optical illusion

Thanks Jeremy...  your incredulity over the situation does not change history.

Since you can't seem to figure out what I am actually suggesting....  Let's see if this helps

There was a conspiracy and cover-up to kill JFK and then to silence any real investigation.  They got away with it.
The evidence which we are all left with is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle with pieces from a variety of images all mixed in...
If you choose not to accept the totality of the evidence as opposed to cherry-picking something for which you have some input - fine.  Bring what you have.

That the spycraft of the times eludes you and leaves you cursing that which you can't fully understand - also fine and extremely obvious to all who read it.

When you've taken the time to do the work to learn about that which you seem so desperate to attack, maybe we can have an actual conversation.  I simply cannot suffer any more of the fools who think they have the answer to one or two issues while glossing over 50 or 100 others.

There are those who need to invoke the Armstrong name in order to get any attention to sell a book or two... otherwise no one would notice.
There are those who are so confused by spycraft that anything they don't see as logical and explainable as wrong.  Maybe read one of Hancock's books... Nexus is a good place to start.  Better yet any of a bunch of books on the origins of spycraft.

I see that you have no real sense of how archaic the times were in 1963...    There was no way to piece this together back then so creating duplicity was much easier to hide.

At the age of 17/18 Lee had not yet grown into himself...  Same with Harvey for whom we have no marine entry data.

As expected, when he leaves the Marines, the records show he is now 5'11" and 150 lbs.  The Marine training and time will do that to a man... agreed?

What I simply want to know is how a 5'11" man shrinks down to 5'9" or less between the ages of 21 and 24.
How a man goes from 150lbs and growing, to 135 lbs soaking wet 3 years later
How a brother who grew up with the boy Lee, can be so accurate when telling Lee from some other person in photo after photo...  the Bronx photo is taken 2 years after the 5'4" 115lb boy enters 7th grade in NYC and moved in with Ed Pic.  Of course that boy does not look like Lee Oswald... it's not.  The boy in the Bronx photo is barely 4'10" and no where near 115lbs.

Boys don't shrink as they grow and pass thru puberty...

Add now all the evidence separating Lee the Marine and his friends with Harvey the Marine and his... and the fact they don't overlap.

The argument against has to deal with 100's of items of evidence which all has to be either a mistake, coincidence or wrongly interpreted for it to be rebutted.

When dealing with 1 item, your arguments have some merit...  but a couple of rebuttals does not a theory destroy...

You should have had a career in the FBI !!

J Edgar would have loved you...   plot?  what plot - the one where FBI agent DOLAN takes the microfilm & provides a copy... or the one where agents leave the film with Waldman in his safe...

IDK Dave...  that you think it's film is amusing enough...

That you don't understand the entire case is about the details and minutia is your problem, not mine.

Why Tracy?, so to those with less initiative would think the film was in there...

A bigger version...  This is either the empty spool, or the outside of the canister...  

There is no film there to be made out...

As I said, Armstrong was at the Archives and saw the empty canister.

Now you can see thru metal Dave?

We have a canister... that's it.  FBI #D-77.  Whether there is film in there or not isn't anything you can know Dave....  but nice try.

Notice the order #'s written on the box?  Too bad we don't have that film so we can see what's on those other orders...

Tracy... why didn't Rose make note of it and the bullet scar just above the elbow on the back side in his diagram if they were there?

Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation?
Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy?  Give your penchant for coincidence I'd think this was an easy one to see.

I still would be interested to know if he read the book, checked the notebooks and/or seen the CD-ROM...

Why doesn't HARVEY have the elbow scar and mastoid scar noted when scars as small as 3/4" x 3/8" are noted....?