Tom Neal

So how does this discussion of Bush and Kerry have ANY bearing on the JFK assassination?

Relevance?

Mark,

You are correct. My bad.

Tom

Chris, thanks for telling Tom how to do that.

Hey Ken. I knew what the inference was and I understood Tom was frustrated. I've been on this forum since shortly after it's inception but I haven't been tempted to block anyone's comments yet. I want to hear everyones opinion, right, left, wrong, crazy and certifiable. I just won't sit with my back to the door.

Chris,

Sorry to get you involved in this. I never dreamed anyone would be so small as to give you grief over answering my question... I SHOULD have known better.

Yesterday, I felt the same way about listening that you do...today, I can't be bothered with someone who only transmits, but will not receive...

Tom

on the left hand side menu there will be an "ignore" preferences tab.

just enter a user name in the box, select the content you want to ignore and voila!

Chris,

Of all your posts that I've read, and all of your extremely helpful replies - in THIS post we have the WINNER!

THANK YOU, SIR!

Tom

Normally, I try to read all the posts here. You never know when you will learn something from someone, no matter how clueless they may appear to be, or which side they are on...

So much for that. I'm tired of reading an interesting thread only to encounter posts from an individual who doesn't consider it necessary to actually READ a post prior to making his standard ignorant comments, and never apologizes for this error when it is pointed out to him.

I've been online since the 80's, and have never had to ask this question: Can anyone tell me how to block ALL posts from an individual on this site?

TIA,

Tom

I do not claim to be an expert on the details of Bush's service, but I do know he completed flight training and was a fighter pilot of a type plane that they stopped using in Vietnam during the period that he was training in it. You very well know that the record is clear that he volunteered for service in Viet Nam and since members of his unit were being regularly assigned there (provided they had fulfilled flight time reqmts, etc) that there was a liklihood that when he met the qualifications he would be assigned there also. during his training, his type aircraft was no longer being sent to Viet nam. He served almost a full 6 year enlistment.

Every claim you make above about Bush is DEAD wrong. I have refuted your every claim. You obviously know NOTHING about this subject, yet you repeat ALL this horse manure that you "KNOW" is "RIGHT", and you accuse me of BEATING A DEAD HORSE?

You haven't refuted anything, are you having an illusion? The papers that were 'fake but accurate' that cost Danny his job can't be used as verification for your story.

Mr. Drew,

As usual, you don't even READ the posts you respond to, so it is POINTLESS to continue this OT. Rest assured I will never again waste my time replying to anything you post. You will NO DOUBT take this as a victory...

Enjoy life inside your BUBBLE...

I find it refreshing to find at last that rare person who will defend George W. Bush, our ex-president who cannot travel to Europe because he faces being arrested as a war criminal there. All Europe's doors today are open to Kerry, who was defeated for the presidency in 2004 by the lies spread by Corsi and his fellow smear artists laboring in behalf of Bush. Since leaving the White House, George W. Bush's foreign travels have taken him to Africa (enough said) and his internal travels have taken him to New Orleans, where he recently attempted to rewrite history on the 10th anniversary of Katrina by showing at last some compassion for its victims, who were ignored and shunned by his administration in their greatest hour of need and assistance.

Perfectly said, Douglas!

Thank You,

Tom

I find it strange you are still repeating the story that got Dan Rather fired from one of the highest profile jobs in the country, along with his partner in crime.

I find it strange that someone who hangs out on THIS forum doesn't realize Rather was fired by the PTB, for telling the truth about W.

You ever wonder why the Air National Guard would let a cocaine addict fly a fighter jet?

They didn't let him - they grounded him. He had so much difficulty landing his F-102, he was given a check ride which he failed. He was put back in trainer aircraft and was only allowed to fly with an instructor - that made him a student, again. He was then grounded when he refused to take the annual flight physical. I wonder why he refused?

Tom

"I find it strange that someone who hangs out on THIS forum doesn't realize Rather was fired by the PTB, for telling the truth about W" Whoa.....do I hear some sour grapes? You'll have to let me in on what/who PTB is, guess I haven't hung around here enough to know that.

I see no reason for your voluntarily choosing to beat a dead horse. You know, I know and the rest of the civilized world knows that the Star of the Universe, Dan "lying" Rather thought he could get Bush defeated by passing out a huge lie. He thought his 'stature' would win him votes. He gambled, he lost. He's now a footnote in history while GWB is an ex US President. I'm not a liberal so I have no sympathy for the lying lame Main Stream Media of which Dan was a darling. I'm pretty sure you can not provide any links to any verified factual data for the 'extravagant' lies you are attempting to pass off. I think that door of history has been opened and closed and the lefties lost.

I do not claim to be an expert on the details of Bush's service, but I do know he completed flight training and was a fighter pilot of a type plane that they stopped using in Vietnam during the period that he was training in it. You very well know that the record is clear that he volunteered for service in Viet Nam and since members of his unit were being regularly assigned there (provided they had fulfilled flight time reqmts, etc) that there was a liklihood that when he met the qualifications he would be assigned there also. during his training, his type aircraft was no longer being sent to Viet nam. He served almost a full 6 year enlistment.

Every claim you make above about Bush is DEAD wrong. I have refuted your every claim. You obviously know NOTHING about this subject, yet you repeat ALL this horse manure that you "KNOW" is "RIGHT", and you accuse me of BEATING A DEAD HORSE?

Tom

I will point out that 'when the truth' got all shook out, that Dan Rather and Mapes were out of a job and GW Bush was re'elected president.

Please provide a link from a non-conservative site that proves the above.

G W Bush served 6 years and was a qualified fighter pilot that volunteered for duty in Viet Nam.

1. GW Bush was NEVER a Qualified Fighter pilot. He qualified to solo the F-102 for a BRIEF time. He was GROUNDED before he received ANY combat training, such as gunnery, etc. etc. which is to say that he wasn't "Qualified" to DO anything with his aircraft, except to burn fuel...

2. Bush did NOT serve for 6 years. Following his grounding, he was assigned a desk job to complete his MANDATORY time, but instead went AWOL.

3. He did NOT volunteer to serve "overseas" -- this precludes service in Vietnam. See his TANG papers for confirmation.

I will not say anything negative about anyone's military service that served honorably

Please define "honorably" for me.

Received an honorable discharge and did nothing to bring dishonor to his country.

Kenneth,

Please provide the Honorable Discharge papers of "W", whom you revere so highly...

Tom

You do know that Bush requested duty in Vietnam several times. Right? So Kerry had the silver spoon, did I get that right?

At NO time did Bush request duty in Vietnam. There is a box on the TANG form that asks if you are willing to serve "Overseas" - Bush checked "No."

Tom

I find it strange you are still repeating the story that got Dan Rather fired from one of the highest profile jobs in the country, along with his partner in crime.

I find it strange that someone who hangs out on THIS forum doesn't realize Rather was fired by the PTB, for telling the truth about W.

You ever wonder why the Air National Guard would let a cocaine addict fly a fighter jet?

They didn't let him - they grounded him. He had so much difficulty landing his F-102, he was given a check ride which he failed. He was put back in trainer aircraft and was only allowed to fly with an instructor - that made him a student, again. He was then grounded when he refused to take the annual flight physical. I wonder why he refused?

Tom

Yes, he put his life on the line. But details here matter. Kerry served only six months in Viet Nam. As to which I say, he was fortunate. He was awarded more than one Purple Heart, as I understand. Which I say is laudable, although there seems to have been some disagreement as to the nature of one of his wounds.

John,

Are you saying Bush was BETTER than Kerry because of their military records? If so, Bush did NOT volunteer to go to Vietnam (the box for serving overseas was NOT checked), he served NO time in Vietnam, and was awarded NO Purple Hearts.

Tom

DELETED DOUBLE POST

In Barry Krusch's video, on one of the hulls are the letters "DA" followed by an angled line that IMHO is a "Y". If true, and JC Day is consistent in how he initials evidence, he has scratched "DAY" in upper case letters.

Tom

while it appears there might be something scratched on it, it's not clear who's mark it might be. a J is not consistent with DAY.

Kenneth,

If you re-read my post, I stated "JC Day" (see above) as the Lieutenant's name. i.e. John Carl Day.

If that is a "J" and IF it was made by JC Day, I can't imagine why he would only use his first initial "J", especially as he went by his middle name Carl. A single initial is unlikely to be considered an acceptable evidence mark. Since there ARE some vertical and horizontal lines to the left of the "J", it seems likely that at least one letter is/was located to the left of the "J." It seems more likely the first initial is illegible, and the "J" represents someone's last name.

To my eye, the "J" is too distinct to be dismissed as random scratches.

Tom

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11941&search=carcano#relPageId=30&tab=page

Lt. Day says he initialed the clip. Where are his initials located on the clip in the archives?

Great find, Chris!

Here's a Hi-Res of one side of the clip depicted in CE-575:

Inside the blue rectangle, on the RH side, do I see an upper case letter "J"? On the left there is a straight vertical line as well as some other lines...

In Barry Krusch's video, on one of the hulls are the letters "DA" followed by an angled line that IMHO is a "Y". If true, and JC Day is consistent in how he initials evidence, he has scratched "DAY" in upper case letters.

Tom

There was one researcher who did a very good, very detailed report on the chain of custody of all the ammo (and the fragments) and if my memory serves me correctly, claimed that one unspent Carcano round found it's way to Capt. Fritz's desk drawer and lived there for an extended period of time. I'll have to dig to find it and I'll link it here if I do.

Thanks, Chris. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have. IIRC, it is alleged that Fritz kept one of the hulls found in the "sniper's nest" in his desk drawer. I've never found much of a trail for the live round.

Maybe unrelated but in a broader sense maybe not:

I've seen this clip before. My reaction in watching it is the same now as it was the first time I watched it. At least two of the hulls at NARA are NOT the ones allegedly found on the 6th floor. With this photographic evidence obtained by Barry Krusch, how can this fact be refuted by anyone?

Tom

or

4. There were two live rounds in the rifle and therefore the clip was functioning as it should and was still inside the rifle. When both rounds were removed the clip was then re-inserted to keep it together with the rifle on it's trip to DPD.

Chris,

Would there have been any reason to keep a 2nd live round a secret?

Tom

Though the Day "note" is interesting my only trepidation with it is that the body of the document is typed, yet the date of "11-22-63" and Day's notes concerning the date and place of manufacture of the weapon are handwritten. You will also note that there are not stenographic notations on this document anywhere to indicate who or whom associated with the DPD actually constructed the note. I can also further indicate that I have rough notes constructed by a member of the FBI lab in which it is indicated that at some point in time, presumably while in the possession of the FBI Lab, this same clip went "missing." And while I am strictly going from memory, because I am currently no where near my research materials, I do not believe Robert Frazier during his testimony session regarding this specific weapon made any mention of this specific clip being with the rifle at the VFW Building during the Frazier testimony session.

Hello Gary,

I posted the statement with Carl Day's signature on it because I have the same doubts you stated above.

Below is a snip from this note. Hand-written above the last line is a word that is essentially illegible. Apparently, Day is providing the name of an additional witness to the picking up of the bullets by "Det. Sims."

Possibly, it says (Det. Robert Lee) "Studebaker". Per the snip below, he was called to the TSBD along with Lt. Day.

I can also further indicate that I have rough notes constructed by a member of the FBI lab in which it is indicated that at some point in time, presumably while in the possession of the FBI Lab, this same clip went "missing."

If you are able to post these notes, I would VERY much like to see them. TIA!

And while I am strictly going from memory, because I am currently no where near my research materials, I do not believe Robert Frazier during his testimony session regarding this specific weapon made any mention of this specific clip being with the rifle at the VFW Building during the Frazier testimony session.

I agree, but I'll have to look that up to be certain.

Gary,

In the same post (#40) as the note/statement signed by Day, I posted a jpg of CE-575. Note that it says "Clip for Mannlicher-Carcano."

In your experience with Commission Documents, would you agree that from the wording of this text, this could be ANY clip for an MC to show what the clip looks like, rather than indicating that this is THE Clip from the alleged assassination rifle?

Thanks for any thoughts,

Tom

As I indicated, though some members here may be familiar with these Allen photo's there probably are many who have not seen them. They do give the best view of the clip in the rifle as it is being transported from the TSBD by Day.

Thanks to James & Gary for posting these definitive photos.

I had seen some of these Allen photos, but not the ones you have posted. There is now no doubt in my mind that the/a partially exposed clip was in the rifle during Carl Day's trip from the TSBD to the DPD.

Whether this clip was actually in the rifle as it was first discovered by Day and thereafter handled by Fritz is hard to determine, at least from the Alyea film clips.

My understanding is that Fritz opened the bolt, and the live round fell out onto the floor. If true, then the live round was already chambered. When the last round in the clip is chambered, the clip should drop out. In the video posted by Chris, sometimes the clip falls out, sometimes it does not. If the clip dropped out when the 'shooter' chambered the final round, it should have been on the floor of the "sniper's nest." If that were true, then someone would have mentioned it.

At no time in the Alyea film do I see any part of the clip extending below the magazine. This indicates that the clip was either inside the rifle and therefore out of sight, or there was no clip in the rifle. If the mechanism functioned as it was designed, the clip should NOT be inside the rifle at this time. But the clip doesn't always eject, so either of this scenarios could be true.

During the handling of the rifle, dusting for prints, Carl Day walking down stairs or riding the elevator, it's possible the clip jarred loose, and partially ejected. After reaching the DPD station, Carl day is shown holding the rifle up for the press to see. Unquestionably, there is no clip visible. He has removed his jacket, and left it somewhere, so some time has elapsed between his arrival and the showing of the rifle. Did he only notice the partially ejected clip after reaching the station? He could have pushed the clip back into the rifle, or removed it at this point for safe-keeping. If so, considering the many questions asked regarding the clip, he certainly would have mentioned that it had been inside the rifle until he removed it at the station. Due to his silence on the matter, it seems unlikely that he removed the clip upon reaching the DPD station.

OTOH, someone could have arrived with a clip, and it was inserted in the rifle for Day to carry in public. If they went to this much trouble to show the clip on the street, you'd think that they would have left it sticking out of the rifle when it was displayed at the police station.

IMHO, BOTH scenarios are difficult to believe...

Tom

Here's a blow up of the end of that scope. What does it look like to you?

Chris,

I see a pronounced difference in color between the barrel of the scope and the eyepiece in your photo.

Below is the Carl Day scope photo on the left, and the CE scope photo on the right:

The size of the two eyepieces are a perfect match.

No matter how much I brighten or darken the CE scope with Photoshop, the shade of gray of the barrel and that of the eyepiece are identical. However, the identical process with the Carl Day scope on the left produces gray levels that are far apart. Also, the highlights on the Carl Day scope's eyepiece do not appear on the barrel to the same degree. Could they be composed of different materials?

Tom

another possible anomaly:

Look at the scope in the Alyea film and then compare it to this:

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides04053.jpg

I see what appears to be a rubber eye protector on the scope in the image above - I don't see it at all in the Alyea film.

For a quicker comparison, this is a smaller version of the photo posted by Chris:

This is a frame from the Alyea clip also posted by Chris. It is superimposed on top of the above photo for comparison:

Above photo, resized to depict scopes at equal size, with Alyea frame on the right:

Due to the color difference (gray, not black), the scope on the left appears to have the rubber eyepiece (or dust cap?) that Chris mentions. However, the scope on the right, from the Alyea clip appears to be a bright, shiny, (knurled?) cylinder that would be rotated to focus the scope, IF it has that feature. This portion of the scope is a bright silver throughout the Alyea clip with a dark ring at the very end of the scope.

Tom

As I had pointed out before, the bolt, as observed in the Alyea clip posted earlier, seems to be pulled to the rear about an inch. This is indicated by the distance from the back of the bolt to the rear of the scope above it and by the bolt handle which is resting a little to the rear of the stock cutout that would allow it to lie flat. In the video the bolt handle protrudes outward. One inch to the rear it cannot lie flat against the stock therefore the bolt is neither fully closed nor secure.

Maybe someone tried to load a "single round" without a clip and it jammed it just like experienced Carcano experts suggest it should?

Chris,

Excellent observation, and analysis!

Fritz examined the hulls from the floor, and then to recreate the original scene, he tossed them back onto the floor, presumably in the same general location. After opening the bolt and the live round falling out, I have to wonder if Fritz tried to do the same thing with the live round. In an attempt to put things back the way they were before his meddling, he re-inserted the bullet into the rifle, and as expected, the bolt wouldn't completely close.

Tom

The still you posted was from press video taken inside the DPD.

Chris,

Agreed.

So, the clip was not protruding while inside the TSBD, but was protruding when Day exited the building, and arriving at DPD, the clip was once again missing. I presume that Day showed off the rifle as soon as he arrived at the DPD?

Tom

At the 1:59 mark of the Alyea film clip I posted, Day is dusting the rifle for prints and holding the bottom of the rifle facing the camera. I see a hole and no clip.

Maybe there was something shoved into that hole later. I don't know.

Chris,

At no time in the video do I see even a hint of a clip projecting from the rifle. At about 1:00 into the video, Day is poking his index finger at the bottom of the rifle. He may be pointing at something initially, but then he seems to be doing something more than that. Fritz may be doing something, also. If they were further back on the rifle, closer to the trigger, I might suspect they were removing or attempting to remove the clip through the bottom of the magazine.

The removal of the rifle from the boxes, and Day handing it to Fritz occurs twice in the video. Once with a large glare spot, and later without the glare. A re-enactment? Or two films taken at the same time? In the video someone takes film of a camera filming the bullets on the floor, so there are at least two cameras present.

The picture below is from a different video than the one you posted. I don't know where or when this video was taken, but there certainly isn't any clip protruding from the bottom of the rifle.

This background doesn't look the TSBD to me, in fact I believe it's the Dallas Police Station, and if the video was taken elsewhere, then where is the clip that was visible when Day exited the TSBD?

Tom

Here's a frame from the video of Carl Day carrying the rifle from the TSBD:

Surprisingly to me, the same projection appears where the clip should eject after the last round is chambered.

Tom