Kenneth Drew

Your welcome Tom. The video also demonstrates that the clip falls when the last round is chambered. So, presumably a clip should have been found with the empty shells by the window? From my files: Carl Day leaving the TSBD with rifle. I do not have the name of the [news?] photographer. Signed statement from Carl Day. CE-575: Note that it says "Clip for Mannlicher-Carcano." If found inserted in the rifle, shouldn't it state this? From the text, this could be any clip for an MC to show what the clip looks like... Tom His note did say clip stamped SMI 952 and that is what is stamped on the clip displayed. Interesting

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. 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 Should have read this comment before I wrote mine just above, but seems as if they both make the same point. However I don't think it's likely that the clip could be shoved back up into the rifle from the bottom. Also as soon as the last round in the clip is chambered, the clip is free to fall out, it doesn't wait for the last round to be ejected. I guess Bob is going to have to tell us if it 'falls' out as it should or if it needs encouragement to 'fall' out.

If I recall correctly, and go back up to the video of them using the clip to hold 6 shots and 4 shots, in either case, when the last cartridge loads into the chamber the clips falls away. It doesn't stay in the rifle hanging out of the bottom. Check and see. Ok, I went back and checked, in the video in #2, the clip did not 'fall out' though he said it was supposed to, he 'pushed' it out. In #26, he did it twice, the first time he 'pulled' it out and then when he fired just 4, when the last one loaded the clip 'fell' out. So I guess that's 'inconclusive'. But I will say that he said it was supposed to 'fall out' so it appears if everything is working correctly that when 'just' walking around with an empty clip hanging out that the law of averages would say it should have fallen free. It seems strange that part of the time it's there and part of the time it isn't.

Take a good look at it, and tell me where you would add shims to correct an elevation problem. Probably on the other rifle. Ok, if I had to 'shim' this, where would I put the shim? see the two bottom screws? I would loosen either one or both of those and put a shim between the scope mount and the 'barrel' and then tighten the screw back down.

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: To my eye, 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. This portion of the scope is a bright silver throughout the clip with a dark ring at the very end of the scope. Tom No, you do not focus a scope by turning the eyepiece, at least not on that toy scope. Sorry to say it but, it is the same eyepiece on both scopes. If it is the 'same' eyepiece, why is one smooth and one knurled? How does that work?

Kinda makes you wonder how many rifles were in the TSBD that day, and how many of these were never there. Wonder why they don't display the Mauser that was recovered there also?

Hi Chris, I agree with you 100% regarding the clip. That photo is from my files and had the arrow on it when I found it. If I had added the arrow myself, I would have added a question mark after the word "clip." When the clip is inserted it doesn't project below the rifle. I don't know if the clip could partially eject and get hung up, or not. More importantly, to my eye anyway, I don't believe that projection should be in such deep shadow. To me it appears that the rectangular projection is actually part of the street/sidewalk shadow that appears prominently in this photo. I'd like to see a video or additional photos before or after this was taken. It also appears to me that this "clip" is not at the proper location on the rifle to actually BE a partially ejected clip. From the film you uploaded, you can see where the clip is ejected relative to the bolt and the trigger. Unfortunately, in the photo of Day carrying the rifle, the shoulder strap completely blocks the view of this area. Tom Why, why, why. are we talking about this. No one fired a shot from the sixth floor window that day. there was no Man licher Carcano rifle until later, there was a Mauser. There were no shots fired from the 6th floor window. Why are we talking about this? NO ONE FIRED A SHOT FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST. why are we talking about this?

Your welcome Tom. The video also demonstrates that the clip falls when the last round is chambered. So, presumably a clip should have been found with the empty shells by the window? Would the clip have been easier for the sniper to locate and pick up than the cases / shells? --Tommy Tommy, is there an assumption on your part that there was a sniper there? I've never seen any proof of that.

And, of course, there was also no proof that LHO ever owned a Manlicher-Carcano rifle, either.

Yup: http://www.ammo-one.com/65x52MMCAR.html at $24.95 per round a clip of the good stuff would cost approx. $150. No wonder the guy in the clip above was shooting something else. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. The tests were run to determine the muzzle velocity of this rifle, using this ammunition, at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1963, using two different lots of ammunition--Lot No. 6,000 and Lot No. 6,003. and... http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9891#relPageId=146 Thanks for that link Chris. However I see that it only says 'allegedly' the lot number. I don't see any way it is possible for them to assign the cartridge shells found in the snipers nest to a 'lot no.' with any certainty. (but don't blame me for being lazy, I really did go to your link.)

He's a collector perhaps? The ammo in the box is collectable and worth 5x or more what a normal round costs. He's firing the cheap stuff. He's not in a hurry. He's aiming a a stationary target. It seems like a normal firing sequence to me. That's pretty lazy. [edited to partially remove my snide reply to lazy commentator] I wasn't really lazy, I just didn't see the relevance of watching the video, the only thing it adds is that the box of ammo is not relevant and it shows a slow firing rate, which you say is normal, and I'll agree with that. But I did go and watch the video after you pointed that out, I don't mind if you make snide comments, they are useful at times. (see in my signature, my snide comments about DVP) The only comments DVP ever makes are snide.

6.5 seconds per shot without the longer time usually associated with using a scope. kinda slow.

Jim, ken, Did you guys listen to the video above? The shooter tells you those are not the bullets from the box No, didn't listen to video, but what is point of showing a lot no. on a box that is not related to the situation? To mislead, perhaps?

Note: the box displayed is ammo that is 3 lots (#6003) away from Oswald's purported ammo - lot #6000. Butttttt, it is a different type of bullet. CE399 is round nosed. These have a sharp point. Not the same thing at all....

And you think staying in a country where you have virtually no friends and cannot speak the language and where many people will hate you because you were the wife of the assassin of their beloved President is a more desirable situation than returning to the country of your birth? Apparently Marina DID find that latter scenario more desirable---but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Pure myth. Get back on topic now, Ken, before the EF mods beat the crap out of both of us. Get back on topic now, Ken, before the EF mods beat the crap out of both of us. I am on topic. If you read the series that this thread is about you would know that he commented quite a bit about Marina being swayed by the threat of being shipped out of the country if she didn't cooperate. That's what I'm discussing.

And you think staying in a country where you have virtually no friends and cannot speak the language and where many people will hate you because you were the wife of the assassin of their beloved President is a more desirable situation than returning to the country of your birth? Apparently Marina DID find that latter scenario more desirable---but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Pure myth. Get back on topic now, Ken, before the EF mods beat the crap out of both of us. where many people will hate you because you were the wife of the assassin of their beloved President I wouldn't think about her one way or the other. First, she's not the wife of the assassin. We don't know if the assassin had a wife. But I suspect she had already been here long enough to know that the standard of life was immensely superior to anything she could hope for in the Soviet Union.

Why not? Why would it have been so bad? She lived in Russia. She grew up there. She had family there. She undoubtedly had friends there too. In fact, I would have thought she would have been anxious to go home to the USSR after the assassination. She had very few friends in the USA. She could barely speak any English at all in late 1963. And she would also be looked at (by some people) as merely (and solely) "The wife of President Kennedy's assassin". Not an enviable position for Marina at all. So returning to Russia would not have been so terrible. Not in the least. I'm surprised she wasn't begging to go back there. So if you were to defect to Iran, you think you would be welcomed back with open arms? She had defected to the 'hated' USA. Her family might have welcomed her back but I doubt anyone else would. If you think it didn't matter to her, why did the threat of being sent back refresh her memory so vividly?

would be a fate worse than death. That wasn't the choice. The choice was to stay in the US or return to Soviet Union. You think returning to the Soviet Union as a defector would have been a good move?

As I said in 18 above, I read all of the series and added part 5 just above. He does have some good ideas on the origin of the photos and how the camera mysteriously appeared. I certainly will agree that when and if it is ever known who created the photos, and when they did so, it would cast a lot of light on 'who did it'. But that is no different from the situation with the Manlicher Carcano rifle. Once we know who it belonged to and how it was used to make the BYP, that will also go a long way toward knowing who killed JFK. We know that no shots were fired from the snipers nest but we know it was set up to look as if shots were fired from there. That was a distraction, and it worked. Just as the 'magic bullet' creation occurred. We still don't even know where CE 399 came from. So, Jim, the BYP's origin will certainly be helpful just as dozens of other creations will be helpful, but I don't expect we are going to get those answers any time soon.

Absolutely. It is solely a result of being told that her cooperation would have a bearing on whether she would be allowed to remain in the US. Under those conditions, what would you expect her to do?

Total hogwash

After reading the series, I have no problem with the opinion that Paine was involved in the creation of the BYP's as I have no idea who really did make them. I'm sure, in my own mind, that LHO had nothing to do with creating them nor did he even know they existed. At least I certainly have not see any evidence that he had any knowledge of their existence.

Don, I downloaded the Kindle sample for your book today. looking forward to trying it.

I can't accept that his rationale was to destroy her critical faculties in an effort to stop her from sleeping around. I wouldn't accept that either and it doesn't come close to what I said. I don't think that he ever said to himself that he was going to scramble her brains to keep her from being interested in boys. My comment is that he was concerned about her active interest in boys and him knowing that it was her brain condition, he was willing to try something to help the situation. But, my other comment was that I don't think that he used good sense to allow someone to stick a knife in her brain and randomly scramble her brain cells and hope that it would help. I am skeptical of all sources regarding negative information about the Kennedys, as I detail in my book. That's a good statement and applies in most cases anytime you are dealing with powerful people. But you should always remember that you don't have to believe that they only do good things either. I have no agenda toward the Kennedy's. They've all done fairly well in light of the publicity and tragedies the family has had. The thing that speaks very loudly to me is that once he moved her to Wisconsin for the final 25 years of his life, he never saw his daughter again. How do you interpret that, Don? Edit: I have heard many negative comments on the Rockefellers and the Roosevelts. I have no agenda to either bash or to honor the Kennedy's. They are what they are.

All that seems to translate to 1 original and 3 copies.