Robert Prudhomme

traveler?

My son, a child of the Computer Age, looked at the BYP for about 30 seconds and pronounced, "Photoshopped!".

You might have been able to fool the kids 50 years ago but, this bunch nowadays are too sharp too fall for the old tricks.

How does it feel to be on an obsolete, losing team, Dave?

Face it, Dave, the picture is a phoney. No one can re-create the impossible angle LHO is standing at, especially if the fence is put on the level.

Can't do it, right?

"Those photo fakers were sure a bunch of screw-ups, weren't they?"

First sensible thing I've ever heard come out of that mouth. Well said, Davey!

Instead of your usual drivel, Dave, explain to us how LHO's thumb can be in such an impossible position.

Can't do it, right? I thought so.

Most importantly though, Dave, your recreation photo, despite possibly being re-touched, comes nowhere close to reproducing the bizarre thumb seen in the BYP.

"Well, Bob, shouldn't that tell you something right there?

Or do you now want to say that the CBS/Schiller re-creation photo is a fake too?"

I seriously doubt the people behind the cover up are not above supplying a re-touched photo to CBS/Schiller. Of course there is a possibility this photo is faked! Everything else in this case has been a lie, why would one more re-touched photo matter.

No, Dave, I want to see a video of you holding a rifle with your thumb sticking out a mile before I believe anything you post.

While we are at it, Dave, let's compare a couple of other things. Your recreation photo has made something else glaringly apparent.

I see the man in your photo has attempted to imitate LHO's severe lean to the right, with no success. LHO's entire body leans to the right, as if his feet were cemented to the earth and an 80 mph wind was blowing on his left side. Your man, on the other hand, is keeping his legs vertical, and is doing a bizarre kind of hunch/lean to the right, bending at the hips.

As I said, if I couldn't do any better than this, I think I would stay at home, Dave.

Now, just as I was comprehending this oddity, I noticed something else. Look at the fence behind your man, Dave, then look at the fence behind LHO. The fence in your photo is almost level, yet the fence behind LHO is higher on our left than on the right, meaning the camera was tilted slightly in the BYP. If the fence was level in the BYP, LHO would be leaning so far to his right he would fall over.

Anyone want a good laugh, try this at home. Print a large copy of LHO in the BYP, and turn it so the fence is level, Using the fence as square, re-trim the tops and side of your page, and you'll have a reproduction of what the BYP originally looked like.

What about this re-creation photo? Looks like that just might be a thumb being wrapped pretty far around the gun barrel here too. And, btw, this is the re-creation photo that proves the conspiracy theorists are all wet when it comes to the alleged "fake shadows" seen in the backyard photos of Oswald. The shadows seen in this re-creation picture are identical to the shadows Oswald was casting when he posed for the backyard pics in 1963....

Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

DVP

Give me a second here to get my laughter under control.

Really!!!???? Is that your recreation photo? That is the most pathetic attempt I have ever seen! Didn't you receive better training than that?

Okay, let's make a comparison between the two men. In LHO's photo, all four fingers are not only completely visible, they are almost straight as well. We can clearly see the third knuckle of each finger. His four fingers are straight but bent at the third knuckle; otherwise, we would see the back of his hand in this photo. This is a very difficult position to hold the hand in, and I suggest everyone attempt holding their fingers straight, and bending the base joint of their fingers at 90°.

However, it is the index finger we are most interested in. With your straight fingers bent at a 90° angle with the rest of your hand, look at where your thumb is. On my hand, the index finger is protruding almost an inch further than my thumb, and that is with nothing in my hand! If I were holding a rifle, it would put the end of my thumb even further back.

In your "recreation photo", the man's fingers are bent in a much more natural fashion, with both second and third knuckles bent, and this places the join between thumb and hand much further around the rifle. Also, we can only see the tip of his thumb in this photo, unlike the BYP where we can see way beyond the first knuckle of the thumb. In the BYP, the thumb and middle finger are almost touching; in your photo, there is a large gap between them, indicating the thumb is well behind the rifle.

However, a careful look at your photo indicates that even the thumb in this photo is unnaturally long and, try as I might, I cannot reproduce this pose myself. Where did you find this photo, Dave?

If we look at the enlarged version, which DVP has been so gracious to provide us with, there is something very unnatural about the left hand, holding the rifle. Comparing the left hand with the right hand, we can see the entire length of the four fingers of the left hand. Looking at your own hand, you can see the thumb begins quite far back on the hand, and even when laid along the fore finger, does not even extend to the second knuckle of the fore finger.

In the photograph, you can see the thumb of the left hand in an impossible position on the opposite side of the rifle from where the thumb joins to the hand. The left thumb in this photo would have to be about 8 inches long to do what we are seeing.

Was LHO a circus freak, as well?

P.S.

Perhaps DVP would be so good as to take a "selfie" of himself, holding a rifle, and recreate this impossible positioning of fingers and thumb.

Now wait a second, Bob. Isn't the most popular theory for the "fake backyard photos" the one that has a REAL PERSON standing in the Neely backyard holding a rifle and that only the HEAD of Oswald was pasted onto this "other person's" body?

So, if that's the theory, the Oswald stand-in would still have a THUMB on his left hand too. So the "stand-in" would be the "freak" with the weird thumb.

Just HOW MANY things can you guys come up with that "don't quite look right" in the BY pictures? Is there any limit?

So, Bob, I guess you think that NOBODY was really standing in the Neely backyard at all, is that right? And pretty much everything except the background was added into the picture artificially? Including the freakish left thumb that apparently belonged to NO flesh-and-blood person? Is that correct?

And don't forget the alleged "impossible" leaning posture being exhibited by the "person" (or the drawn-in person) in the picture too.

And the stubby fingers on the "person's" right hand too. Don't forget that. (Plus the "impossible" shadows.)

And the cropped chin.

Did I leave anything out?

Keep looking at the pic below. I'm sure before the end of the day, you can add a dozen more things that you see in the photo that are "impossible".

And keep ignoring Marina whatever you do. She has always said she took the backyard pictures. But she was probably just dreaming the whole thing. Right, Bob?

Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

Smoke and mirrors, Dave, and then distraction. You have been well trained for your job.

If you believe the freakish left hand holding the rifle with the impossibly long thumb is real, put your money where your big mouth is and re-create this photo.

We all know it can't be done. Know why they did such a sloppy job faking this photo? Simple, no one in 1963 ever thought every home would have a computer capable of analyzing things such as this.

Bruce,

I'm not convinced that the object that CTers are referring to as a "sling mount" in the backyard photograph is really part of the rifle at all. It looks to me (especially in the super-big version below) that the "sling mount" might be something in the background behind Oswald....

Extra large version -----> Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

BTW, Bruce, that "JFK Research" site is not mine.

There is one thing that gives this photo away as being faked more than anything else.

If we look at the enlarged version, which DVP has been so gracious to provide us with, there is something very unnatural about the left hand, holding the rifle. Comparing the left hand with the right hand, we can see the entire length of the four fingers of the left hand. Looking at your own hand, you can see the thumb begins quite far back on the hand, and even when laid along the fore finger, does not even extend to the second knuckle of the fore finger.

In the photograph, you can see the thumb of the left hand in an impossible position on the opposite side of the rifle from where the thumb joins to the hand. The left thumb in this photo would have to be about 8 inches long to do what we are seeing.

Was LHO a circus freak, as well?

P.S.

Perhaps DVP would be so good as to take a "selfie" of himself, holding a rifle, and recreate this impossible positioning of fingers and thumb.

Dave??

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

Also I don't think Black Dog Man is far enough left for a left-to-right trajectory.

JFK's sharp head turn to the right a second or so before the throat shot may have given BDM a near straight on shot, slightly left-to-right.

Contrary to popular belief, the trachea (windpipe) does not travel to the left or right as the head rotates let or night; at least, not below the Adams's apple. You can demonstrate this on yourself by placing your hand on your chest, with your fingers touching your trachea below the Adam's apple, and turning your head.

Unfortunately, this means that a shot from Black Dog Man cannot account for a wound following a track from the right side of JFK's trachea to the right transverse process of T1, unless JFK's entire body was turned to the right, which I do not believe it was.

Isn't it normal to turn your body when you look to the side?

P.S.

WC apologists have made the same argument, only in reverse, to explain a bullet making the right to left trajectory from JFK's back wound to his throat wound, yet still being aligned with Connally's right armpit, and it doesn't work for them, either.

Not really. It definitely looks like JFK only turned his head to the right. His shoulders appear to still be aligned with the back of the seat.

Besides, look at where BDM is. JFK would have to have his shoulders turned at least 45° to the right to have the right side of his trachea lined up with the right transverse process of his T1 vertebra, relative to BDM's position as a shooter. As James Gordon and I have demonstrated, when discrediting the SBT, this same trajectory from back to front describes a right to left angle in excess of 26°, as measured from a line running lengthwise through the centre of the limo.

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

Also I don't think Black Dog Man is far enough left for a left-to-right trajectory.

JFK's sharp head turn to the right a second or so before the throat shot may have given BDM a near straight on shot, slightly left-to-right.

Contrary to popular belief, the trachea (windpipe) does not travel to the left or right as the head rotates let or night; at least, not below the Adams's apple. You can demonstrate this on yourself by placing your hand on your chest, with your fingers touching your trachea below the Adam's apple, and turning your head.

Unfortunately, this means that a shot from Black Dog Man cannot account for a wound following a track from the right side of JFK's trachea to the right transverse process of T1, unless JFK's entire body was turned to the right, which I do not believe it was.

P.S.

WC apologists have made the same argument, only in reverse, to explain a bullet making the right to left trajectory from JFK's back wound to his throat wound, yet still being aligned with Connally's right armpit, and it doesn't work for them, either.

Did it take four years for Benavides' memory to kick in?

Continually referring to outdated and debunked government investigations and conclusions as if they are the tablets from Sinai...

You're funny, David. Only in the world of JFK CTers could someone consider the huge pile of evidence against Oswald as being "outdated and debunked". I wonder how the facts and the physical evidence suddenly becomes "outdated". And none of that evidence has been "debunked", despite the CTer efforts to capsize the LN ship.

Nothing has come along to supplant the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police on 11/22/63 and by the Warren Commission in 1964. Certainly nothing you CTers believe happened can replace the hard evidence put forth by the DPD and the WC. That's not even a close call. You don't have a single piece of physical evidence to back up your claim of conspiracy. Not one. And you never did. And you never will. Because no such evidence exists. Nor did it ever exist.

To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that.

In short -- LNers possess all the physical evidence. CTers have Prayer Man, Umbrella Man, and their overactive imaginations.

That's the way it's always been and always will be. Because Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LNers don't even need the Warren Commission to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD already did that on Day 1.

Translation = I have no logical rebuttal for your arguments, Mr. Josephs, but I hope if I make enough noise, it will distract the less enlightened of the readers from the content of your arguments, and what else really matters?

How many of you have seen Stanley Kubrick's classic "Dr. Strangelove"?

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

Robert is is interesting that you state that the rifle in the BYP and TSBD are identical but then state that forward sling mount is different on the two rifles. Maybe the word identical means something different to you than I think the recognized defintion means. Doesn't identical mean 'no different', not well only one thing is different? I think it would be hard to locate a gunsmith that had robbed a part from one Carcano to put on this rifle just to make it identical to the TSBD rifle. How would he have known which ring to change to match the photo? I think it is pretty well accepted that the rifles are different rifles and for the most part, only nutters tend to maintain the fiction that they are the same rifle.

You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle.

I did offer the opinion, though, that it would be a bit dumb for the conspirators not to plant the same rifle that was used in the back yard photos.

"You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle."

Well, you got me there Robert. I was reading what you were saying as 'the byp rifle and the TSBD rifle were the same rifle', not that you were saying they were the same model of rifle. I even went back and looked and couldn't find an obvious place where you said the models were the same. But now we're in agreement that the rifles were both MC's of the same model,but not the 'same' MC rifle. And by TSBD MC rifle I'm referring to the one that turned up after they had taken the Mauser away from the SBD and produced the MC that later became the one they have tried to claim was mailed to a PO Box in Dallas. Maybe they had bought several of the rifles just in case they had to use a different scenario. Accept my apology for interpreting you incorrectly.

No sweat, I do it all the time.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.

Thanks.

GARY MACK SAID:

I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

Wow, that post is so full of 'if's' 'ands' and 'butts' that I'm surprised you have one left to sit on. Gary Mack said: "Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was." Really? No one would be interested in finding out if there might have been more than one weapon with the same serial number? or something else?

Most Carcanos were manufactured at the Terni and Brescia Arsenals, with oter manufacturers, such as Gardone Val Trompia, Beretta, Roma, Armaguerra Cremona, etc. manufacturing varying amounts of Carcanos over the years. While each rifle received a serial number that was stamped on the base of the barrel, the name of the arsenal was also stamped on the base of the barrel. Therefore, two rifles might end up with the same serial number, such as C2766, but while the one we are concerned with also bears the stamp of "TERNI", I can guarantee you another Carcano bearing C2766 would bear the stamp of a different arsenal.

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

Robert is is interesting that you state that the rifle in the BYP and TSBD are identical but then state that forward sling mount is different on the two rifles. Maybe the word identical means something different to you than I think the recognized defintion means. Doesn't identical mean 'no different', not well only one thing is different? I think it would be hard to locate a gunsmith that had robbed a part from one Carcano to put on this rifle just to make it identical to the TSBD rifle. How would he have known which ring to change to match the photo? I think it is pretty well accepted that the rifles are different rifles and for the most part, only nutters tend to maintain the fiction that they are the same rifle.

You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle.

I did offer the opinion, though, that it would be a bit dumb for the conspirators not to plant the same rifle that was used in the back yard photos.

Well, this is all speculation, of course, thanks to the first-rate investigation of the crime. And it still doesn't tell us who did it.

The flechette scenario leads to Persons of Interest -- the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD, especially individuals described by flechette developer Charles Senseney as an Air Force colonel and an Army colonel who were conducting CIA ops with military cover.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Agreed, Cliff. Establishing the existence of any type of exotic projectile in this assassination beyond a home made hollow point bullet, such as the flechettes you speak of or the highly complex (and unheard of in 1963) frangible bullets I speak of, automatically eliminates 99.999999% of the population as suspects, and points directly at agencies of the US Government with access to high tech weaponry.

I agree Robert. If I were the planner, I would not plan for a shot through the windshield, but somebody must have known something we don't and thought it was a worthwhile effort. Maybe the type projectile had been tested as firing through a windshield.

And Ron, exactly right. We don't know who did it. Don't know what kinds of projectile hit him, don't know what kind or type of weapon fired it or from where it was fired. Other than that?

Of course, we also don't know which direction the bullet went through the windshield, either.

"And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63."

Kenneth, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but, there is only one group of Mausers chambered for the 7.65mm cartridge, and they are universally known as Argentine Mausers. No one had to mention the word "Argentine", as soon as they said 7.65mm, the only thing it could be was an Argentine Mauser.

Very good Robert, except I didn't say that they said 7.65 Mauser. Only "mauser" yes, I realize that later versions of Roger Craig being asked, he did say 7.65, but not back in 1963. From what I recall, I don't remember anyone discussing back in 63, how many classes of Mauser there were. I know that I had heard of German Mausers since back in WWII and never have equated Mauser's with Argentina. If you want to give us all a history lesson on Mauser's, tell us what the Mauser's used by the German's during WWII were. I guess I don't see how me saying that I never heard anyone say Argentine Mauser implies that it really was one since someone thought it was a 7.65. but recall, I never heard them say 7.65 either. But I see you're at least in agreement that the rifle they were looking at was identified as a Mauser.

My only problem with all this discussion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination of JFK. We don't know any details at all about what weapon was fired, by who, or where from. But discussion about a rifle that we know absolutely had no part in it is completely a smoke screen by the Nutters.

Germany made a 7.92mm Mauser for its troops during WW II. The original 7mm Mauser was discontinued prior to the commencement of WW I.

As the 7.65mm Mauser was not nearly as well known as the 8(7.92)mm Mauser, what led Weitzman to ID this rifle as a 7.65mm?

"BY MR. GUNN: Q: Before we went off the record, you were describing the casket that you saw in the morgue at Bethesda.

I’d like to show you some photographs, and ask you whether the casket that you see in the photographs is the same one that you saw - or the same general type, we’ll say, as the one that you saw in the morgue?

A: Yes.This is, generalIy.

Q: That’s what it looked like?

A: Yeah.

Mr. Gunn: What I'd like to do is mark this as Exhibit No. 204.

[ARRB Exhibit No. 204 marked PI for identification.]

THE WITNESS: But you got to remember something.There was more than one casket that night.

BY MR. GUNN:

Q: When you say there was more than one casket, what do you mean?

A: There was a casket brought in the back by a black Cadillac ambulance. Plus, there was a casket that Jacqueline Kennedy had in her entourage, too."

From the October 28, 1997 interview of Jerrol F. Custer by the ARRB. Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy, and he took all of the x-rays of JFK's corpse.

I highly recommend this ARRB interview, found here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

and no, the rifles are not the same

Dave

Do you see the metal forestock cap just below the number 3 in the upper photo, and the two fasteners holding it to the forestock? If you look closely, you can see the same two fasteners in the lower photo. The M91/38 short rifle was the only Carcano to use this unique cap with the two fasteners.

Another feature unique to the M91/38, seen in both rifles above, is the wooden top piece of the stock, located just ahead of the rear sight. As seen in the photos above, this piece stops several inches short of the forward end of the forestock. This feature is completely absent on every other model of Carcano.

This site will show what I am referring to:

http://candrsenal.com/terminology-a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-carcano-rifle-models/

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

David, you're making MY point.

The rifle in the BYP is not the same as the rifle found in the TSBD. Back to square one!

Hi Bruce

I, too, believe the back yard photos to be fakes, and I also believe the HSCA, for the most part, to be part of the ongoing coverup.

That being said, however, I can guarantee you that both the rifle in the BYP's and the rifle found on the 6th floor can both be easily identified as Carcano M91/38 short rifles. There are many distinguishing features, unique to the short rifle, that can be used to identify both rifles.

Think of it this way. If you were going to plant evidence in the form of photographs, plus evidence in the form of a rifle at the assassination site, would it not make sense to use the same rifle in both places or, at the very least, the same model of rifles?