Ian Lloyd

Hi Chris, I am using Chrome - I'll try in IE. I've just noticed that it doesn't seem to happen on my Samsung tablet. I wonder if it's a "Chrome thing"? I've come across various issues when using Chrome.

60.7'

Mr. KELLEY. It was my understanding that Governor Connally was--6 foot 2, I guess. The Governor's stand-in, Mr. Doyle Williams, was 6 foot 4. So, in the re-enactment, the guy sitting in JBC's seat was 2" higher than JBC actually was? Were the same 2 people used in CE 903? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

On the login screen, there is only a tick box for "remember me" which is meant to save you entering your username each time. I can't see a "stay signed in" message/tick box.

Off topic, I know, but does anyone else have this issue?... When I sign out and close down, everything looks ok but when I come back onto the forum, I find that I'm already signed in?

I understand that a vernier calipers could have been used to measure the internal bore, but the point is that the WCR wording indicates to me that the outer diameter of the sulphur cast is what was measured with a micrometer.

Interesting stuff from Page 554 of the WCR: The rifle was identified as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian military rifle, Model 91/38. This identification was initially made by comparing the rifle with standard reference works and by the markings inscribed on the rifle. The caliber was independently determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the rifle's barrel which was measured with a micrometer. (The caliber of a weapon is the diameter of the interior of the barrel, measured between opposite lands. The caliber of American weapons is expressed in inches; thus a .30-caliber weapon has a barrel which is thirty one-hundredths or three-tenths of an inch in diameter. The caliber of continental European weapons is measured in millimeters. A 6.5-millimeter caliber weapon corresponds to an American .257-caliber weapon, that is, its barrel diameter is about one-fourth inch.) The identification was later confirmed by a communication from SIFAR, the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service. This communication also explained the markings on the rifle, as follows: "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin, and was inscribed at the request of the American importer prior to shipment; "TERNI" means that the rifle was manufactured and tested by the Terni Army Plant of Terni, Italy; the number "C2766" is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number; the numerals "1940" and "40" refer to the year of manufacture; and the other figures, numbers, and letters are principally inspector's, designer's, or manufacturer's marks. Are the measured dimensions of the sulfur cast available anywhere, I wonder? The caliber was independently determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the rifle's barrel which was measured with a micrometer. It is not clear here as to what was actually measured, the sulphur cast or the inside of the rifle barrel - I can't imagine being able to get a micrometer inside the rifle barrel, so I suspect the cast was measured. If that is the case, then there is a problem...

Hi Robert, Thanks for that - a few clarifications required and comments: 1. If the sulphur cast was found to be "..shrinking a tiny bit...", given the dimensions we are talking about measuring (thousandths of an inch), a "tiny bit" could actually turn out to be significant? 2. "...although it might be simpler to remove from the progressive twist barrel, as the rate of twist would be nowhere near as tight." I'm not sure about that - I think of it as a thread, if I'm trying to remove the cast through a thread that constantly changes, I suspect that the profile will become damaged since the profile further inside the barrel will never match the profile as it approaches the end of the barrel. 3. Yes, I've seen the photograph - I think it is too poor to really deduce anything from it. 4. If the outermost diameter of the sulphur cast is measured, that would effectively be the barrel "groove diameter"?

Hi Robert, When removing the cast, if it has set within a portion of the barrel that contains the rifling, would the cast have to be rotated as it's being removed to maintain the profile of the lands & grooves (akin to being threaded back out)? You say that it appears to have been cast at the muzzle end of the barrel - this would therefore include rifling along the entire length of the cast? If there is progressive/gain twist in this particular barrel, it seems to me that it would be difficult to remove maintaining the profile accurately intact. I notice that The WCR states that a micrometer was used to measure the caliber of the rifle which is between opposite lands. When a sulfur cast is made, it will be the equivalent of a photographic negative of the inside of the barrel so the caliber would have to be measured in the grooves of the cast?

Interesting stuff from Page 554 of the WCR: The rifle was identified as a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian military rifle, Model 91/38. This identification was initially made by comparing the rifle with standard reference works and by the markings inscribed on the rifle. The caliber was independently determined by chambering a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter cartridge in the rifle for fit, and by making a sulfur cast of the inside of the rifle's barrel which was measured with a micrometer. (The caliber of a weapon is the diameter of the interior of the barrel, measured between opposite lands. The caliber of American weapons is expressed in inches; thus a .30-caliber weapon has a barrel which is thirty one-hundredths or three-tenths of an inch in diameter. The caliber of continental European weapons is measured in millimeters. A 6.5-millimeter caliber weapon corresponds to an American .257-caliber weapon, that is, its barrel diameter is about one-fourth inch.) The identification was later confirmed by a communication from SIFAR, the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service. This communication also explained the markings on the rifle, as follows: "CAL. 6.5" refers to the rifle's caliber; "MADE ITALY" refers to its origin, and was inscribed at the request of the American importer prior to shipment; "TERNI" means that the rifle was manufactured and tested by the Terni Army Plant of Terni, Italy; the number "C2766" is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number; the numerals "1940" and "40" refer to the year of manufacture; and the other figures, numbers, and letters are principally inspector's, designer's, or manufacturer's marks. Are the measured dimensions of the sulfur cast available anywhere, I wonder?

I think that one of the most important omissions was the fact that the question was never asked by the WC, or anyone else involved in the "investigation", as to why there was a discrepancy in the length of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor (40.2") and the rifle advertised that Oswald purportedly purchased (36")? When Marguerite brought this up (via Mark Lane), the FBI did their usual hatchet job on her - essentially saying that she's a batty old woman who rambles on about all sorts of things and should be ignored - that was it, problem gone.

Robert, The point I was making was the same point that Chris was probably making: Robert, http://www6.zippysha...GmnxT/file.html I tend to pay closer attention to the information, anytime specific physical features are mentioned by the authorities. chris i.e. the overall length of the weapon stated by Graves is nowhere near the length of C2766 and Graves seems to give a very specific figure, not just an estimate or guess or approximation. Where did Graves get such an accurate figure from? Did he pluck it out of thin air? Guess?...

Wow Robert - you did some digging there to find that old post!!!...

Interesting for Graves to have come up with such an accurate figure as that, rather than something like "it's around 50" in length". Stating 50¾" seems to be a pretty specific, actual measured length (and obviously doesn't even come close to the C2766 length).

John, I have a vivid memory of reading that when the FBI ordered a number of "Oswald" rifles with scopes for testing purposes, Klein's called back to ask them "how" they wanted the scopes mounted. They replied, 'the same way you mounted the scope on the "Oswald rifle", of course. Klein's technician responded that although they do mount scopes, they had never mounted one on that type of rifle. As I recall, this fellow did all of Klein's scope mounting, and he was not an actual gunsmith. Unfortunately, I do not recall where I read this, but it was reported by someone who is well known in the JFK assasination community as a reliable source. If you'd like I can attempt to track down the source. Tom Hi Tom I recall reading the same thing. Unfortunately, it does not make a lot of sense, from the viewpoint of the scope installer at Klein's. The truth of the matter is this, all models of Carcano rifles, be they long rifles, short rifles, carbines, 6.5mm or 7.35mm, have the identical receivers, bolts and chambers on them, and fire the identical brass cartridge. In the case of the 7.35mm calibre short rifle, the neck of the cartridge is opened up for the wider bullet, and the case length trimmed back by 1 mm but, other than that, it is the same cartridge. If Klein's had installed scopes on carbines, they would mount in the exact same way on C2766, which was a short rifle. Hi Robert, As I replied to Malcolm in an earlier post, I have no idea why they would ask. I couldn't agree with you more that there is only one way to mount the scope. But: TO RE-QUOTE FROM MY REPLY TO MALCOLM: We don't know precisely what was said to Klein's when they placed the order, but (presuming Klein's actually did ask the Feds) they must have had some reason to request mounting instructions. I don't recall exactly when the scope was described as "mounted for a left-handed shooter," but I believe that was what the FBI inventory stated. If true, then they had thought that, or the Dallas PD did, from pretty much assassination day. Purely speculation on my part, but due to the above, suppose the Feds requested 91-38s with the scopes "mounted for a left-handed shooter?" This implies something different than the normal mounting, and the Tech may have thought, as I would, how do you mount THIS scope for a left-handed shooter? So he called to confirm what they wanted. Again, just speculation on my part, Tom Did someone get confused over the "left handed shooter"? i.e. The scope on C2766 had a mount that was affixed to the left hand side of the rifle and, as I understand it, the scope itself was offset to the left - did this cause some confusion and someone thought that, due to the way the scope was mounted, it was designed for a left handed shooter whereas, in reality, it was the only way to mount the scope on this type of weapon in order to allow the bolt to be operated properly?

Were any measurements made of the bore & groove diameters of the carcano? I know a mould of the inside of the barrel was made but I'm not sure if it was of sufficient quality for measuring such small dimensions as precisely as would be required for this exercise.

David, Both of JBC's shoulders are moving to some extent since JBC himself is clearly moving. Whether he is twisting or flinching is irrelevant to our discussion (argument?). As far as I can see, his left shoulder does move but not to the extent you originally implied, but it may appear as if it does because of an illusion created by a shadow cast onto Jackie's jacket. That's it. Merely an observation. It does not prove nor disprove either the SBT or a conspiracy.

David, It is possible - the car is moving, Nellie's moving, JBC's position wrt the camera is changing and may block the view of the shadow, assuming it's still there somewhere but, as I said, Nellie is also moving about within the car. In case you didn't know, when whatever object causes a shadow moves, it is likely the shadow will move as well. Governor Connally is flinching at Z225, Ian. The Z-Film proves it. And I think you just don't want to accept that reality. Nor does any other CTer in the world. He may well be flinching, I didn't say he wasn't or didn't; I am just discussing the supposed movement of his left shoulder as you described it, which I believe is in error and is an illusion caused by a shadow. It really is that simple Whether I am a "CTer" or not is a separate subject altogether and, clearly, what you accept as "reality" is not necessarily what I would accept, so please don't try to impose your ideas of "reality" on me. And I'm still convinced that the apparent raising of JBC's left shoulder by several inches between frames Z-224 and Z-225 is an illusion.

...take a look at the way the shadow from Jackie falls onto the back of the rear seat...

...and as the limo turns towards its left as it proceeds down the street, I would imagine it is eminently possible for a shadow to have been cast from Nellie's head onto Jackie's jacket.

David, Let's recap from my earlier post: I think that what you are seeing is not JBC's shoulder rising but is actually a shadow cast on to Jackie's jacket, probably by Nellie Connally's head, as the car moves forward and she herself moves. I think that JBC is just twisting in the seat.

David, I don't recall mentioning anything about JBC grimacing or any other facial expressions he may or may not have been making, nor do I recall mentioning any movement of his tie. I just made the point that it appears to me that what would appear to be his left shoulder rising may be an illusion caused by a shadow being cast on Jackie's jacket (and the more I study the frames, the more convinced I am becoming that it is actually the case). Where did all the rest come from? Am I to understand therefore that you do not think that a shadow is being cast on Jackie's jacket directly above (in terms of the image) JBC's shoulder? If not, then as far as I can tell, his shoulder seems to look severely deformed at that moment and has possibly "grown" by several inches within the time span of a frame of the film.

I think that what you are seeing is not JBC's shoulder rising but is actually a shadow cast on to Jackie's jacket, probably by Nellie Connally's head, as the car moves forward and she herself moves. I think that JBC is just twisting in the seat.

Robert, Regarding the tape on the trunk of the car - I have a vague memory that the car used in the re-enactment had a different ride height to the presidential limo - possibly +10". The tape may have been used to mark the point of impact if the actual limo were to have been used in the re-enactment (i.e. -10")? If so, it seems awfully low and surely shows that the car used in the re-enactment must in completely the wrong location? Also, if this is correct, then surely all the angles and positions are incorrect i.e. "limo" position and its angle due to the slope on Elm, angle of the rifle barrel from the 6th floor etc. (Would this also explain why the mark on "JFK" 's back is so low?) As I said, this is a vague memory and would need checking. Also, I agree with Brad that it is very dubious that the follow up car with SSAs on it was never included in the re-enactment.

Robert, I've always wondered about the description of how the bullet supposedly fell out of JFK's back - the explanation is that it came out during attempts at resuscitation but that doesn't make sense to me as he was lying on his back and his back was in contact with the gurney, surely preventing the bullet from exiting the wound???