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.

No one is saying an M91 Carcano was found in the TSBD. What I am saying is, after the rifle was identified as a Carcano, a hurried search was likely made for info on Carcano rifles. As the M91 long rifle was the main infantry weapon, and more of them were made than any other model of Carcano, the specs for it were what they probably found first.

This source should be seen as suspect, not only because they were way off with the muzzle velocity of an M91, but because they stated, as you pointed out, the calibre as being between .270" and .280", much larger than the Carcano calibre of .256".

I hate to say it but, the coincidence of the M91 Carcano and the Japanese Type "I" rifles both having identical barrel and overall lengths has started everyone on a wild goose chase that I do not believe will lead anywhere. Remember, the rifle was also identified early on as a Lee Enfield .303.

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?

No one is saying an M91 Carcano was found in the TSBD. What I am saying is, after the rifle was identified as a Carcano, a hurried search was likely made for info on Carcano rifles. As the M91 long rifle was the main infantry weapon, and more of them were made than any other model of Carcano, the specs for it were what they probably found first.

This source should be seen as suspect, not only because they were way off with the muzzle velocity of an M91, but because they stated, as you pointed out, the calibre as being between .270" and .280", much larger than the Carcano calibre of .256".

I hate to say it but, the coincidence of the M91 Carcano and the Japanese Type "I" rifles both having identical barrel and overall lengths has started everyone on a wild goose chase that I do not believe will lead anywhere. Remember, the rifle was also identified early on as a Lee Enfield .303.

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.

Ian

These specifications are readily available on any Carcano web site.

C2766 was an M91/38 Carcano short rifle. We were comparing the Japanese Type "I" rifle to an M91 Carcano long rifle.

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!!!...

Robert,

http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/VZuGmnxT/file.html

I tend to pay closer attention to the information, anytime specific physical features are mentioned by the authorities.

chris

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).

Is it established with certainty that Klein's mounted a scope on the rifle alleged to be the murder weapon?

Just a question.

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?

Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI was considered a firearms expert. He gathered most of the ballistics evidence in the JFK assassination and presented his findings in evidence to the Warren Commission. However, a careful examination of his work and evidenvce reveals a plethora of errors.

One such error is revealed in the excerpt from his testimony below, and this error will explain why the bullet shown in the evidence photo and known as CE 399 could never have been fired from Oswald's rifle, or any other 6.5mm Carcano.

"Mr. EISENBERG - Well, no; not at this time.

Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?

Mr. FRAZIER - That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm."

This is a popular misconception in the shooting world regarding .25 calibre and 6.5mm calibre rifles. Mr. Frazier is 100% wrong in his belief.

The bore diameter of a .25 calibre rifle is .250"; the bore diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .256".

The groove diameter (also bullet diameter) of a .25 calibre rifle is .257"; the groove and bullet diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .264" (.268" in a Carcano).

The confusion between the two calibres stems from the bore diameter of the 6.5mm and the groove diameter of the .25 calibre both being .257".

This misconception plagued Frazier throughout his investigation and shows up again in his testimony about the Walker bullet.

"Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.

The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.

The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch."

As I pointed out in another thread, adding the measurements from the Walker bullet of a land impression (.070" or 1.778 mm) and a groove impression (.130" or 3.302 mm) and multiplying by 4 to determine circumference, and then dividing by pi (3.1416) to obtain diameter, does not produce .267".

(.070 + .130) x 4 = .800 divided by 3.1416 = .255"

Amazingly, this is almost exactly the diameter of a .25 calibre bullet.

The REAL specs for the lands and grooves of a 6.5mm Carcano rifle are lands = .085" (2.159 mm) and grooves = .125" (3.175 mm). With these specs, let's try Frazier's formula again.

(.085 + .125) x 4 = .840 divided by 3.1416 = .267" (the correct diameter for a Carcano bullet)

With this in mind, let us look at CE 399 again:

A much larger and clearer version of this photo can be seen here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5764&d=1394312818

We now know the width of the Carcano land to be .085" or 2.159 mm. Even a rough measurement of the above land impression shows it to be well under 2 mm and actually close to the measurement Frazier obtained from the Walker bullet of .070" or 1.778 mm.

There is no doubt now that the CE 399 in the photo above was not fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, nor any other 6.5mm calibre rifle.

The theory I have, and it is rapidly becoming the ONLY possibility, is that Frazier and his assistants honestly believed the bullets from a .25 calibre rifle and a 6.5mm calibre rifle were the same diameter of bullet and would, therefore, be interchangeable as evidence. If the bullet presented as the Walker bullet (Edwin Walker swore it was a substitute) and CE 399 were both plants, it seems highly probable that the FBI used a more common .25 calibre rifle to produce their substitutes.

There are a number of other things wrong with CE 399, and I will produce them in the next few posts.

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.

James,

But it's not just Connally's right shoulder that hunches up at Z225. His left shoulder rises slightly too. How can there be any doubt of it? I think the frames you used are too small and not zoomed in enough to show the very quick rise then fall of both of Connally's shoulders.

You really think this apparent shoulder movement is ALL just shadows or some other photo anomaly? Come now....

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

Ian,

No shadow from Connally's body could possibly be falling onto Jackie in the Zapruder Film. The shadows in Dealey Plaza were falling toward the NORTH, not the SOUTH. We can easily see that in the Altgens picture. Any shadow being cast by John Connally would have fallen in JFK's direction, not Jackie's....

...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.

Ian,

And do you think it's also just a coincidence that Mr. Connally's necktie starts to do a dance and starts RISING and curling up at the exact same instant we see the so-called "shadow" being cast on Jackie? (His "twisting" in his seat caused the necktie to do its dance too, is that correct?)

And what about Connally's facial expressions at this exact same instant too? His mouth opens at exactly Z225. It looks to me like he's grimacing. And that grimace starts at precisely the same instant we see his shoulders flinch and his necktie rise and curl up.

Conspiracy theorists like to say that I am the one in denial when discussing the JFK case. I think I can turn the tables on the CTers in this particular discussion. Because it takes a large amount of "SBT denial" to dismiss all of these things we happening to Governor Connally from Z-frames 222 to 225:

Shoulders hunch up (flinch).

Right shoulder is pushed very slightly downward and forward.

Mouth opens.

Distressed look on face.

Suit coat bulges outward (aka: the lapel flip).

Necktie rises.

And then when we go up one more frame--to frame number 226--we see Connally's right arm start to rise (at the exact same instant when President Kennedy's arms begin to rise as well). And it was, indeed, Mr. Connally's right arm (wrist) that was struck by a bullet in Dealey Plaza.

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.

Here's a question for you, Bob....

What do you see here? Why is John Connally flinching his shoulders here? And what is causing the look we're seeing on his face? This clip ends at Z225....

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???