Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Oswald SWITCH rifle shoulder straps?


Recommended Posts

Wandering thru the TX History archives I find this nice large version of one of the Backyard photos.

I do not remember ever reading that Oswald switched out the shoulder strap.

These two straps are nowhere NEAR the same.

Craig Lamson, Mike Williams, T. Purvis, DVP.... please explain.

You'll need to click the image a few time to get to full size.

The strap in the BY photo is basically a piece of rope and is attached to the underside of the rifle. The thick leather strap with wide shoulder pad is connected to the side sling mount.

How again are these the same rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wandering thru the TX History archives I find this nice large version of one of the Backyard photos.

I do not remember ever reading that Oswald switched out the shoulder strap.

These two straps are nowhere NEAR the same.

Craig Lamson, Mike Williams, T. Purvis, DVP.... please explain.

You'll need to click the image a few time to get to full size.

The strap in the BY photo is basically a piece of rope and is attached to the underside of the rifle. The thick leather strap with wide shoulder pad is connected to the side sling mount.

How again are these the same rifle?

I have tried to call attention to the rifle strap without success, but I have learned that the strap that was on the rifle when found on the SIxth Floor of the TSBD is a US Air Force pistol holster strap.

Any more information on it would be greatly appreciated.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to be on the same path with you BK.... maybe we can get some comments from the LNers??

Maybe you could post the link to your earlier attempts - or were they met with silence from the DVP crowd?

The one in the backyard photo looks homemade from some rope.... even looks tied in a knot at the barrel end.

I assume you've determined that Oswald never bought a strap or owned an Air Force pistol holder?

Is this HUGE??? Jim?

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to be on the same path with you BK.... maybe we can get some comments from the LNers??

Maybe you could post the link to your earlier attempts - or were they met with silence from the DVP crowd?

The one in the backyard photo looks homemade from some rope.... even looks tied in a knot at the barrel end.

I assume you've determined that Oswald never bought a strap or owned an Air Force pistol holder?

Is this HUGE??? Jim?

DJ

David,

Why do you have to bring the Lone Nutters and DVP into it?

I mean, the strap is what it is, and if indeed it is a USAF pistol holster strap, what does that mean?

I no longer think or care what Lone Nutters think and care about unless they interfere with my research.

The strap is important to me because I think that if the rifle was used in the assassination, then perhaps the ammo came from the same source as the strap,

and if we can identify the source of the strap, we can possibly identify the source of the ammo.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough BK....

There are no photos of course showing the rifle between the time of the backyard photo and the assassination yet there were witnesses at the shooting range as well as when "a" rifle had a scope mounted on it.

Maybe a description of the strap from one of them? my next order of biz.

Found this...

https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=513&idcategory=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree on this.

It is not the same strap.

Very interesting.

If you believe as I do that Oswald never picked up that rifle, then the plotters screwed up.

Makes the BYP and their "verification" even more dubious.

These are the things that I complained that Farid never brought into the equation. And they supercede any kind of technical analysis.

Again, WHY? If it's a different strap shown at DIFFERNT times its means it was changed, which of course only means it got changed.

What's to explain, other than it got changed.

Farid studied certain technical aspects and found them correct. You cannot REFUTE his work. Your speculation about what may or may not have happened OR WHY supercedes NOTHING...as usual.

You still can't prove the backyard photos to be fakes, and that destroys your "speculations". I don't care WHO you are, THATS funny!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree on this.

It is not the same strap.

Very interesting.

If you believe as I do that Oswald never picked up that rifle, then the plotters screwed up.

Makes the BYP and their "verification" even more dubious.

These are the things that I complained that Farid never brought into the equation. And they supercede any kind of technical analysis.

Again, WHY? If its a different strap shown at DIFFRENT times its means it was changed, which of course only menas it got changed.

Whats to explain, other than it got changed.

Farid studied certain technical aspects and found them correct. You cannot REFUTE his work. Your speculation about what may or may not have happened OR WHY supercedes NOTHING...as usual.

You stil can't porve the backyard photos to be fakes, and that destroys your "speculations". I don't care WHO you are, THATS funny!

Gary Mack also thinks this is funny.

Ha-Ha...you guys are a riot! Let's see, from BY photo day to assassination day was roughly eight months. Sometime in between Oswald decided, "Eh, I don't like this ratty old strap after all and the one that Klein's sent me isn't much better. I'll ride the bus to the Army-Navy store and see what they have. Maybe they'll have some extra bullets I can buy. Might as well, since they don't write down my name or anything else when I buy bullets."

Gary

Apparently Gary is under the impression that Oswald bought the strap and the bullets at an Army-Navy store, where he buys his straps and bullets, but nobody remembers either of them.

You know there are dozens, litterally dozens of gaps in the official story - how Oswald picked up the weapons from the Post Office when he was supposed to be working at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval and has all of his hours there accounted for down to the minute, and didn't leave the premesis, and no one at the Post Office recalls handing him the rifle or pistol over the counter when he picked it up; where he obtained the ammo and the US AF shoulder holster strap, how he got to the Walker shooting scene with the rifle on a bus without anyone seeing him, and how he got the rifle from Dallas to New Orleans and back again without the Paines knowing it was in their car and Michael Paine packed and unpacked the car each time; and how Oswald got the rifle ino the TSBD without anyone seeing him and how he got it to the Sixth Floor without anyone seeing him, and how he put it togteher when he was supposed to be working, and how he constructed the Sniper's Nest when there was a half dozen other workers laying the floor twenty yards away. And how did Oswald get to the Second floor in a minute and a half and not pass three other people who were in the way, and who was that guy in the Sniper's Window three to five minutes after the last shot moving boxes around? And how did he leave the scene without anybody seeing him and avoid the photographers and TV film crews outside? And how did he get to the Tippit murder scene in time, and what did he do in the 25 minutes between the Tippit shooting and when he was seen by the Shoe Store clerk? And who were those IBM guys in the Shoe Store at the time and what did they see? And I could go on and on, but if any one of those questions can be answered, then that would help solve the mysteries of the assassination, and I admire those who try to answer them, and am learning to despise those who laugh at those who try.

While Gary Mack and others say that "we'll never know," they have just resigned themselves to the idea that the lone, deranged, wife beating loser who couldn't hold a job, somehow killed the President in such a way that they will never understand. Oswald is the one laughing or smerking at Lameson, Duke, Duncan and Gary Mack, not the other way around.

Whatever he was, if he did kill JFK alone, Oswald did it in such a way that the Warren Commission and Gary Mack couldn't figure it out and have stopped trying.

I think it can still be determined where the ammo came from, where the rifle strap came from, how Oswald did what he is accused of doing or how he was framed, and I think that both the assassination and the Tippit murder can be solved to a legal and moral certainty.

And those who laugh at those who try are unintentionally inspirational. Thanks for the chuckles.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify for the Mack/Lamson crowd:

First, if Farid was going to show what kind of careful researcher he was, he would have gathered all the photos of the rifle to make sure there were no differences. That is a very important step that any scholar interested in facts and the truth would have done. Just to anticipate this kind of point from arising. At the very least by anticipating it, it would show the guy was honest and careful and did his homework i.e. that he did not have an agenda.

Farid carefully stated his intentions and followed through on them. His work is still unimpeached, regardless of your bluster. All you have left to try(without any luck) is character assissination. Just shows how truly afraid of Farids work ( and the BY photos being real) you really are. Quite illuminating.

To give a comparative example: when the ARRB gave the autopsy materials to Henry Lee for an evaluation and opinion, he said he could give no probative report for two reasons: 1.) there was too much important stuff missing, and 2.) What was left was just too low quality.

Try to stay on point, Jim.

Farid never traced either 1.) the provenance of the rifle 2.) the provenance of the camera 3) the provenance of the pictures. Unlike Lee, he was just in a hurry to smack down the critical community for an anniversary. So none of this mattered. Which is why his analysis is worthless.

Strawman, and a poor one. What is worthless is your insistance his work is worthless. You simply can't refute it. And why you reek of fear.

Second, if that evidentiary record does matter to you, then the question becomes: did Oswald ever have that particular rifle? To me, the record says he did not. So whoever put together the BYP's slipped up on this particular detail.

Farids work was quite specifc in scope. Either you can refute the findings or you can't. Clearly you can't, which is why you posit so many strawmen, to worthlessly try and knock down. Why not actually refute the specfics of Farids work? Oh yes, you simply can't. And it scares the heck out of you. It destroys the speculation in which you are so heavily invested. Which is way you make such silly claims such as this:

"These are the things that I complained that Farid never brought into the equation. And they supercede any kind of technical analysis."

Incredible that it has taken so long to find that out.

BTW, the idea that Oswald would change the strap is quite dubious in light of the evidence that says he never had this rifle. But further, anyone who studies Oswald would know that the last thing he was was a rifle afficionado. (Unless, of course, one is as ignorant of the literature as Duncan M. is and therefore thinks he was running around in advance attracting attention to himself at rifle ranges.)

There is no proof he did NOT own the gun, only a big, steaming pile-o-speculation. There is no proof the by photos are fakes. None of the countless attempts to prove said have withstood inspection (in fact most are simply childish.) Authentic BY phots scares the heck out of Jimmy D. And there is nothing he can do that can change it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Lammy, we have been through all this before.

Yes we have and every time you show the world you have no intellectual honesty…

You ignored it then and you ignore it now. And I am not going to repeat it all over again. You are who you are. And no amount of proof or evidence will ever change that.

I’ve not ignored a thing. I investigate claims of photographic manipulation. I deal in LONG ESTABLISHED photographic fact. Actually the one who ignores photographic fact is Jim D. Which he must because it destroys his long held speculations in which he is fully vested. Actually dealing directly with these facts destroys you. You simply can’t refute them. Which is why you continue to build strawmen.

It makes not a bit of difference to you if the evidence says Oswald never picked up that rifle. Or that the rifle in evidence does not even match the model on the order form.

Is that what the evidence says? Really? Or is it a Jim D construct? Why its just Jim D SPECULATION…of course. And in Jim D’s world speculation carries more weight than fact.

And your dismissal of the Henry Lee comparison gives the whole game away on your part. You actually have the chutzpah to write that bringing him in is straying off point and that this is a strawman.

It IS a strawman. We know you can’t refute Farids work. Strawmen are they only arrows you have left in your quiver. Too bad they are all missing the points and fletchings.

The Lee comparison hits too close to home for you and Farid I guess.

No you have it backwards. Farids work hits too close to home for YOU.

Henry Lee is the icon of professionalism in the field of forensic crime scene law and investigation. He has the highest professional standards in the field and this is why his name is gold if you can get him as a witness. He will not testify in a case unless he is convinced of the validity of the evidence he is to examine. Therefore he would not venture an opinion on the JFK case for the reasons I stated above.

How many strawmen can Jim construct in a single post, let us count….

The comparison between him and Farid is stark. (The comparison between him and your professional ethics on this case is night and day.)

Really? I see you still can’t refute Farid OR me now can you? LOL!

Farid went ahead and did one of the most unprofessional studies I can imagine.

Actually his work was highly professional. And you still can’t refute it.

He did not do background research at all into the evidence he was presented with--none, zilch.

You really don’t have a clue what research he did prior to doing his lighting study, now do you Jim? Besides, his work was highly focused, and the area of investigation very narrow. Not a thing wrong with his methods…and you still can’t refute the results.

So, for instance, if the strap was different than the rifle in evidence, that made no difference to Farid.

Strawman. His work revolved around lighting and shadows.

If the camera in evidence was not found during the crime scene investigation, and was later surfaced by a suspicious character nine days later, that is fine with Farid.

Strawman. His work revolved around lighting and shadows.

If Marina Oswald allegedly shot the picture, yet does not know how to operate that camera, that is fine with Farid.

It’s a fixed focus, fixed lens and fixed f-stop camera. You simply aim and push the button. So simple even a traineed monkey, or Jim D can do it. Besides … Strawman. His work revolved around lighting and shadows.

If Marina identified the two two consumer cameras originally found, and the Imperial Reflex was not one of them, that is fine with Farid.

Strawman. His work revolved around lighting and shadows.

If the border and resolution of one photo was completely different than the one he looked at, hey so what?

Strawman. His work revolved around lighting and shadows.

If he used technology that was not in existence at the time, rather than natural light--hey that is OK to.

I love this one. Jim parroting things he has zero clue about! And to think he considers this a defense is mind blowing! So Jim, since you have now made this silly claim, why not tell us why high end 3D modeling software gets the physics if light and shadow wrong, and why using natural light is how this test should have been done. And while you are at it, why not tell how to test a multitude of body-head-light positions when the light source is constantly moving. You response will surely be illuminating.

As long as Farid got this done in time for the anniversary. After all he is into the government for three million over ten years.

Good for him…TIMING is everything. Who cares WHERE he gets his money. The work stands UNLESS you can refute it. Can you REFUTE it Jim?

And for you to dismiss this last is just so off the wall and irresponsible that it makes you an object of derision. The idea that so called experts will taper their results for money is so well established and obvious that its silly to argue it. Especially in a a politically charged case like this.

Yet another strawman Jim. Will you EVER stop? He has offered up scientific evidence based on established fact. Either you can refute the work or you can’t. Youcan’t bang the facts, so instead you simply bang the table. The personality and contacts really mean nothing in the face of the actual work. You can’t refute the work so instead you resort to personal attacks.

REFUTE THE WORK JIM!!!!

But after your farce with Pat Speer and those silly yardstick images and the fabricated living room simulation, hey, nothing surprises me coming from you. You simply have no professional ethics on this case.

Why you don't is another matter.

That’s LOL funny Jim. I’m really sorry for you , and Pat Speer. You can’t understand something as simple as photographic perspective. Or maybe you can but instead are just being intellectually dishonest. Not that it matters. You, like Pat simply can’t refute the established photographic facts I demonstrated …unimpeachabally…in my discussion with Pat. It was proven…again unimpeachabally…that Pat’s work was based on a faulty methodology and that all the work that flowed from this was rendered useless and false. Pat is either not man enough to admit his error or is simply ignorant in this regard. Either is fine with me, BECAUSE IT WAS HIS WORK THAT WAS PROVEN WRONG.

Now you claim I have no professional ethics yet, like Pat you can’t show WHY my work (or Farid’s for that matter)is wrong. That’s understandable because you are ignorant of the processes involved and all you have left is personal attack.

I’ve no dog in this hunt. I don’t give a dang about who killed JFK. I have no vested personal interested to try and defend…like you do. It’s all pure sport and the JFK ct ‘photo analysts’ are, as a whole, a massivily ignorant and target rich environment. And that of course is why you fear me so much.

So we are back to where we started. PROVE THE WORK WRONG. All the rest is just fearful desperation on your part…because YOU CAN’T PROVE THE WORK WRONG.

And that speaks volumes about who you REALLY are.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know there are dozens, litterally dozens of gaps in the official story -

Welcome to REAL LIFE Bill.....

First off:

1. The "strap issue", not unlike most other issues, has far more lives than any cat as it has been "beat to death" here, there, and most everywhere.

2. Anyone who has bothered to read the testimonies of FBI Agent Robert Frazier is fully aware of the difference in the "strap" as seen in the backyard photo's and as found on the weapon.

3. Anyone who has bothered to read the research works of Dr. Charles Lattimer is fully aware of the fact that he fully identified exactly what the leather strap was actually constructed from. (shoulder strap from a U.S. Military issue shoulder holster pistol) As issued to literally thousands of U.S. Military Pilots.

4. As most may (or may not) recall, I long ago posted the HSCA testimony of Adrian Alba in which he testified that he assisted LHO in manufacture of the leather strap sling, by allowing LHO to utilize his rivet installing machine.

Now, (assuming the same weapon) the rifle had a rope sling in Dallas.

LHO approached Adrian Alba (according to his HSCA testimony) about help in taking the pistol shoulder strap and riveting it together to make a rifle sling.

Which leaves one with absolutely no means by which to verify where the leather sling was acquired.

And lastly!

Myself as well as many others have located the exact same shoulder holster at old military surplus stores and have created the identical leather sling.

(actually, I have located and purchased two of the shoulder holsters/complete with leather strap)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Craig Lamson's last post, anyone who has read that other thread will know he is ignoring the many critiques of his work made by me, Speer and at least one other person.

So when he shouts, "refute the work" and "strawman' this is nothing but boilerplate.

Critiques are WORTHLESS unless you can PROVE your points...and thats what is COMPLETELY missing in your so called crits. This is estiblished and proven photographic principle, and your handwaving is simply bs. You can't refute the work because you don't have the first understanding of how this stuff works.

So again..REFUTE the work, and use some actual PROOF this time.

The work STILL stands unimpeached and will stay that way. You (nor anyone) can refute it. And THATS what scares you so.

Refute the work Jim, or is it just too hard for you?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

In a thread four years ago, this same mystery was also addressed.

Interesting post, David. I notice in a photo that there was an air-conditioner in a lower window opening. That's a possible hideyhole.

Did he pick up the revolver or drop off the holster?

The holster was found there. Did he have it when stopped by Baker? How can one know. Did Ruby indeed give it to him? Anyway, by this time it seems Lee didn't think of hiding from his landlady an evidence of having a gun. And what about the find of a second snub nose thirty eight caliber Smith and Wesson in a paper bag. I understand this was a few blocks away and a day later. But still, it's another curious thing. Does it all hang together in some way or are parts just conincidences? Lots of speculation inducing elements. ...the time the holster came into Oswalds possession and where from and where he kept it?

OK, I don't doubt this is correct Tom. I wonder who this researcher was and whether he/she found out more? I can see on the WC photo of the holster that there is an oval stamp in the leather. It's not clear enough to see any more detail. Presumably one will find the letters US there.

Somewhere, packed away among much of the other stuff, I have the source of the information as well as the exact information relative to the stamping on the holster.

This is how I knew what to look for when I went on my quest for the same sling strap as LHO has on the Carcano in the backyard photo's.

Just another of those tidbits of information, yet it still does not give us much to go on other than that we know that LHO came up with this surplus holster w/shoulder strap which he made into a sling, as well as a Carcano clip and some extremely reliable ammunition.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know there are dozens, litterally dozens of gaps in the official story -

Welcome to REAL LIFE Bill.....

First off:

1. The "strap issue", not unlike most other issues, has far more lives than any cat as it has been "beat to death" here, there, and most everywhere.

2. Anyone who has bothered to read the testimonies of FBI Agent Robert Frazier is fully aware of the difference in the "strap" as seen in the backyard photo's and as found on the weapon.

3. Anyone who has bothered to read the research works of Dr. Charles Lattimer is fully aware of the fact that he fully identified exactly what the leather strap was actually constructed from. (shoulder strap from a U.S. Military issue shoulder holster pistol) As issued to literally thousands of U.S. Military Pilots.

4. As most may (or may not) recall, I long ago posted the HSCA testimony of Adrian Alba in which he testified that he assisted LHO in manufacture of the leather strap sling, by allowing LHO to utilize his rivet installing machine.

Now, (assuming the same weapon) the rifle had a rope sling in Dallas.

LHO approached Adrian Alba (according to his HSCA testimony) about help in taking the pistol shoulder strap and riveting it together to make a rifle sling.

Which leaves one with absolutely no means by which to verify where the leather sling was acquired.

And lastly!

Myself as well as many others have located the exact same shoulder holster at old military surplus stores and have created the identical leather sling.

(actually, I have located and purchased two of the shoulder holsters/complete with leather strap)

Thanks for reminding us about this Tom,

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13354&st=60

As it has been speculated that Osawld obtained the strap was obtained at a Dallas Army-Navy surplus store, which is still possible, there is that New Orleans connection and Alba is certainly a key witness.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...