Jump to content
The Education Forum

The rifle of TSBD and the rifle CE139 and their scopes had different lengths


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Are there any testimonies, comments or remarks from the period of the assassination supporting the rifle substitution?

Andrej,

Here's a link to an essay with photos of some of the issues with the rifles and there is a lot of discussion here just search for "carcano" and you should find them.

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20150315051600/http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To at least point to the problem of the view angle, I am posting one more example. It is a windmill wheel. The left panel, the wheel is shown flat in an ideal front view. All leaves are of equal lengths as one would expect. The right panel shows the same wheel viewed from a different angle, as if the observer were viewing from a vantage point located at the top-right, similar to the photograph in which Officer Day carried the rifle on Elm Street, holding it by the strap. The leaves, although physically identical in their lengths, appear to be very different in the right compared to the left panel.

This example illustrates the problem (3) in my previous post. I hope this helps. 

 

                                    A front view.                                                                             A view from top-right.

windmill.jpg?w=768&h=402

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej,

I already posted yesterday the original photo, please look at the attached PDF file here enclosed, I’m posting it again. TSBD Weapon.pdf

As you can see, Day is handling the rifle just a little bent, for no more than 10° to the right, and for no more than 5°-10° ahead.

This little displacement can only  change the size of rifle in the photo for no more than 1.5% =  1 (length of rifle when viewed at 90°) – sin 80° ( 0.985) = 0.015

Therefore that photo allows a quite precise evaluation of sizes, and comparison with CE139 rifle

So, the great discrepancies between the dimensions of 2 rifles  that also the website “JFK-lecomplot” had analyzed  

 http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/8/ )

are definitely proving that the 2 rifles were different

You mentioned just the Mannlicher-Carcano, but the original model that was found in TSBD by 4 Police officers was a 7.65 MAUSER, which is very similar to the Mannlicher Carcano, and  Seymour Weitzman even wrote an affidavit testifying he handled a 7.65 MAUSER, NOT a Mannlicher -Carcano

http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy190/JFKassassination/SeymourWeitzmanaffidavit.jpg

You’re asking now why  they replaced the original Mauser with the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Simply because in the evening of Nov. 22 FBI’s Director J. Edgar Hoover issued his guidelines and orders to his agents, stating that the case was closed,  Oswald was to be the “lonely assassin” of President Kennedy, and any conflicting evidence was to be ignored.

Oswald bought (although this point is not so clear too!) a Mannlicher-Carcano through a mail order, and so that MC (CE139) became the “official” weapon of the murder of President Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alberto:

how do you know that the axis of the rifle deviated from the vertical plane (perpendicular to the ground)  by no more than 10 degrees? I would say that the rifle is inclined at an angle between 20 and 30 degrees (front-to-back), and it is also displaced to the left. Have you measured the azimuth and elevation of the TSBD rifle?

Further, it is not only the inclination of the rifle but also the view angle which can alter the proportions of the rifle. Please see my windmill example. In the original photograph, the rifle was not shot at the same view angle as the other one (Commission Exhibit), it was shot from a relative right and top vantage point. The view angle and the inclination of the rifle (and the distance and the focal length effects) interact, and it is therefore difficult to say how the proportions of the rifle would change if it is photographed in a real life situation on street compared to the photograph taken in the laboratory settings.

I was mentioning Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in Daltex building in response to George's post. Would you please explain the reasons for changing the rifle carried by Day (obviously brought down from the sixth floor) with another Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, without even ensuring that the lengths of the two rifles matched? Are there any types of Mannlicher-Carcano rifles which would differ in their lengths by 8 cm, which would explain the length difference in the rifle found on the sixth floor and the one stored in the National Archives? Any photographs of rifles coming from different production lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next illustrations may shed some light on the two rifles problem.

The figure below shows the scanned picture of the Mannlicher-Carcano found on the sixth floor. It was scanned from the book "Killing of A President" by Robert Groden. The panel below shows my 3D model of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle made based on the photograph above. The bolt is open in this picture, and so it is in my model.

groden_mode.jpg?w=768&h=477

 

You may agree that the model matches the template photograph in all man features quite well.

 

The next two pictures show Officer Carl Day carrying the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor. The model of Mannlicher-Carcano shown in the figure above has been reoriented carefully to match the rifle held by Carl Day. The two pictures differ only in the strenght of overlaying.

day_62.jpg?w=768&h=1006

day_82.jpg?w=768&h=1006

I hope that these pictures have cleared the issue as to whether the rifle carried by Carl Day was the same as the one stored in the National Archives. Naturally, one can argue that the gun shown in Groden's book was also different from the one in the National Archives.

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is a yard not a yard?  See these two pictures of a yardstick.  The top picture was taken with a focal length of 35mm.  The bottom picture was taken with a focal length of 300 mm.  Why don't the inches in the middle line up?  Are the yardsticks two different lengths?  No, it's the same yardstick.

yardsticks.thumb.jpg.35171fe1d5ab0d7751f6759a7d4c076f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej:

Sorry, but in my modest opinion you are in error in several points:

1) You cannot show me your drawings, pretending to compare them to original PHOTOS. It makes sense to compare a photo to another photo, it makes much less sense and it is a lot questionable  to compare  drawings that you made with photos.

2) Your drawing of windmill "view from top-right", for instance  is totally wrong. The top blade of windmill remains front-view, whereas the one next to it is turned for almost 45°! How can it happen?

Look this photo for instance water-wheel-angles-sur-langlin-vienne-fr

The blades of the water mill, as you can see, even in a side/lateral view , do not appear at all as yours!

 So, you can draw as you want trying to persuade that your drawings are the same as a real perspective but that makes no sense, drawings are drawings and photos are photos . Why don't you compare PHOTOS WITH PHOTOS, as correctly done by the website "JFK-lecomplot"?

3) I realize you are disregarding a fundamental point: the photo of Day carrying the TSBD rifle is a FOREGROUND PHOTO! Moreover, Day is trying to keep the rifle in a VERTICAL POSITION, just a little tilted for no more than 10°,  so it is sufficient to FLIP the rifle and at the end you get around  100% of the original lengths.

4) Why are you showing the photo of MC by Robert Groden? Why don't you show me the official photo from the Metropolitan Police Department of Wash. n° 542, as "JFK-lecomplot" website did? Moreover, why are you showing a photo where the bolt is open, thereby confusing perceptions and lengths?

Sorry, but after the embarrassing  "3-D  re-enactment/cartoon"  of the magic bullet trajectory, by Dale Myers,  where President Kennedy is displayed as hunchbacked as a 120 year old man, (or as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame") and his jacket his kept as lifted as Mount Everest, in order to match the trajectory and the holes of the " magic bullet" to his back to the wounds of Governor Connally, I put no trust in "computer animations", "3-D re-enactments" and similar stuff, ah ah ah!

5) You did not answer my fundamental  objection: why should I believe that 4 expert and professional Police officers of DPD at first on Nov. 22 1963, at 1:22 p.m. ALL identified a 7.65 MAUSER, and then in a couple of day suddenly that rifle became a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano? None of your drawings can persuade me (and million of people!) that the original rifle was not a 7.65 MAUSER!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

5) You did not answer my fundamental  objection: why should I believe that 4 expert and professional Police officers of DPD at first on Nov. 22 1963, at 1:22 p.m. ALL identified a 7.65 MAUSER, and then in a couple of day suddenly that rifle became a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano? None of your drawings can persuade me (and million of people!) that the original rifle was not a 7.65 MAUSER!

Alberto... how about taking a breath and a step back - k?

The people you are talking with here are not new to the rodeo...  we've been down these roads a number of times.  Each time we get directed back to this kind of discussion we find ourselves with someone who will simply not learn what they don't want to know.

There are a number of reasons "7.65 Mauser" was not only uttered up on the 6th floor but placed in 2 signed affidavits - Boone and Weitzman - both signed by 11/23.

At the same time DAY tells us that 6.5mm and "Made in Italy" are clearly seen when the rifle is examined.  Here they are on CE139.  Riva* in Italy was contracted to remove these markings from the rifles...  https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf   

*Riva was contracted by Adams Consolidated/Crescent Firearms (Louis Feldsott owner) to prepare rifles for export which according to the contract included: renovating/repairing defective weapons and removing the serial numbers and other markings to be replaced with “Made in Italy”.  Bill MacDowal's "The Great Carcano Swindle" addresses this a bit more deeply since whether this was done or not to all the rifles including C2766 is unknown and unprovable

59024acada37c_Riflemarkings-CAL-.5andscratchedinMadeItaly.thumb.jpg.f7b00dece8413f4fc2d0f3ce2181f0e7.jpg

 

 

So what WOULD persuade you that the evidence related to a 7,65mm Mauser and the connection to C2766 were made up on the spot?

How about the fact Craig did not say MAUSER until 1968?  It is Weitzman and Boone - both related to Decker's Sheriff Dept - who make the statement and sign the affidavits.  Weitzman knew rifles yet despite the CE139 rifle clearly showing the 6.5 and Made in Italy he still holds fast to the MAUSER story - Why?

(NOTE: You'll also find that Boone and Weitzman's statements are EXACTLY the same... as if rehearsed.)

Because no clip was found on the 6th floor...  Without a clip that falls out when the last bullet is chambered, the bullets were either manually loaded after each shot, or there was no clip.  No Clip = MAUSER.  So a Clip was found.  So CE139 was "found".

 

 

Here is a composite comparing CE139 with the rifle DAY leaves the TSBD carrying..  While "Made in Italy" and "6.5mm" are not seen, neither is "MAUSER" or "7.65mm" and for good reason... a scope mounted on a Masuer would cover the "MAUSER" stamp...  A rifle w/o a scope was mentioned by Brennan when he claims he sees 80% of the rifle and no scope...  but DAY's rifle has a scope...  so seeing MAUSER would not be possible...

While I still think that the TSBD rifle and CE139 are not the same, I do believe they were all Carcanos acquired via the CIA with CIA ammo...

If you would simply address some of these concerns maybe we'd better understand you POV.  We AGREE - there was more than one rifle but none of what you've offered supports it was a Mauser other than those 2 affidavits and Craig's word 5 years later.  The scope mount on a MC is farther forward than the MAUSER.. If the DAY rifle is a MAUSER we'd see the stamp under the front portion of the rifle under the scope where my white arrows are pointing at the bottom of this image...

Why don't we see MAUSER there?

 

   

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej

The plotters sold the story that there was only one shooter and

1) the shooter fired from the sixth floor southeast window

2) the shooter used a Mannlicker Carcano

3) the rifle found on the sixth floor was the rifle used in the assassination

4) the shooter fired only three shots

In reality there were multiple shooters who together with the sixth floor shooter fired multiple rounds.

One of the shooters was located in the Del Tex Building. The Dal Tex shooter has the easiest shot. He is the closest to the motorcade as the motorcade turns from Houston onto Elm. He aims for JFK's head and if he shoots JFK in the head ballgame over. The Dal Tex shooter is so well hidden that no one sees him. The sixth floor shooter makes himself noticeable then fires off two more shots. Therefore we have one shooter and he is shooting from the sixth floor TSBD and he fired three shots, the first of which hit JFK in the head. 

If the bullet that hits JFK in the head fragments no problem. The bullet is very difficult to trace back to the rifle. But if the bullet is deformed and stays relatively in tact, the bullet may be traced back to the rifle. To cover this contingency the Dal Tex shooter must use the Carcano CE 139.

However the plans of mice and men often run astray and in this case it's more of the same. CE 139 misfires and JFK is hit in the back instead of the head. The sixth floor shooter carries out his part, makes himself noticeable and fires three shots. And the other two shooters hiding in the overhanging branches of the trees on the grassy knoll must fire because they realize JFK has not been hit in the head.

The bullet that hit JFK in the back is in good shape. It is recovered from the stretcher on which hospital personnel carried JFK into the hospital. It will be taken to the FBI lab later and determined to have been fired by CE 139. But there remains one little problem. The Carcano planted on the sixth floor TSBD was not fired. So the FBI takes the rifle found on the sixth floor and says it wants to check for prints and switches CE 139, which has been taken from the Dal Tex shooter by the plotters and given to the FBI, for the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor.

The plotters knew the Dal Tex shooter failed. They had to ''eliminate'' his shot since JFK's back shot was not part of the plan. They did this by selling the story that the first shot, the shot from the Dal Tex building, was a motorcycle backfire and the wound in JFK's back was due to the ridiculous SBT. 

The plotters knew on the day of the assassination what to look for on the Zapruder film. So eventhough it was difficult to see what happened viewing the film (the film was black and white and not very clear) the plotters knew the number of shooters, their locations and the number of shots fired. They knew JFK had been hit in the back and in the throat by different shooters, and not by the shooter on the sixth floor TSBD. They were good at covering most of the bases, but they did not cover all of them. There is good reason why most americans do not believe the official government story on the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

How about the fact Craig did not say MAUSER until 1968?


David,

Huh? Craig did not say it was a Mauser till 1968? I thought it was common knowledge that he identified the gun early on as a Mauser.

Even in your article, "The Mauser, the Carcano & the Lt. Day Rifle," you wrote, "One of them, DPD Detective Roger CRAIG - a decorated officer, saw “7.65” and “MAUSER” stamped on the barrel both facing the same direction – an extremely specific identification."

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Please explain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the crucial evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. As a conspiracy theory researcher, I posit that it has been planted on the sixth floor and maybe never used to shoot at the President. I do not know if there were shots from Daltex, and if they would be fired from another Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. 

The one thing I dispute here is that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor (and there might have been also a Mauser rifle there) was not the same we see Carl Day carrying on Elm Street, and not the same which has been displayed to Warren Commission and is now in the National Archives.  

The apparent differences between the rifle carried by Carl Day and the rifles we see in various  official pictures are only due to the fact that each photograph of the same rifle was taken from a different view angle and having the rifle orientated slightly differently.

The picture below shows the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in Commission Exhibits 139 and 1303. It is the same rifle, however, it is has been photographed on different occasions. A rifle is typically placed on a white blanket on the floor, and the photographer leans over the rifle and takes a snap. One can take the picture of the rifle even without leaning over it. Thus, the photographs of the same rifle will offer different proportions and locations of the scope if the photographs are equalised relative to the length of the rifle.

Please see here how the rifles in CE 139 and CE 1303 differ in apparent  locations of the scope and even of the trigger. However, it is one and the same rifle.  Or would someone assume that the rifle CE139 has been substituted with a different rifle in CE1303?  I have also added the rifle scanned from Killing of  A President for comparison.

 

three_wcs1.jpg?w=742

 

The conspiracy theory researchers have a special duty to differentiate accurately what evidence is valid and what not, and to protect the valid evidence else the case will be destroyed. A serious and painstaking work should be done first to explain inconsistencies such as this by natural causes and only admit falsification if doubts continue in spite of all attempts to explain anomalies by natural causes. This is the reason I stepped in into this thread.

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


David,

Huh? Craig did not say it was a Mauser till 1968? I thought it was common knowledge that he identified the gun early on as a Mauser.

Even in your article, "The Mauser, the Carcano & the Lt. Day Rifle," you wrote, "One of them, DPD Detective Roger CRAIG - a decorated officer, saw “7.65” and “MAUSER” stamped on the barrel both facing the same direction – an extremely specific identification."

You appear to be contradicting yourself. Please explain.

 

First off, thanks for reading the article

I don't state in the article when CRAIG makes that claim... Now that I look again - my bad, Craig states this years later in his memoir  https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html When They Kill a President. Not in 1968 for the LA Free Press.

 

Point was - the MAUSER story has more than just one possibility...  As I mentioned it could have been 1) to cover for no Clip being present, 2) there really was a MASUER yet claimed to be on the roof and not the 6th floor, 3) the rifle was on the 5th floor as Ellsworth claims while a MAUSER is on the 6th and is swapped out.

Sandy - the Argentine Mauser - if scoped - would not show the Mauser stamp nor would there be a clip.  Do you think this is the MAUSER?

 

 

I guess the initial question required is "Do you believe any shots were fired from the SE 6th floor window"?
 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The apparent differences between the rifle carried by Carl Day and the rifles we see in various  official pictures are only due to the fact that each photograph of the same rifle was taken from a different view angle and having the rifle orientated slightly differently.

While I agree that is responsible for many of the identification conflicts... there are markings on the CE139 rifle as I post below, which coincides with what RIVA was told to do...

remove the serial # markings and put "Made in Italy" on them.   Here is CE139 showing these marks plus the CAL 6.5 stamp.

 

59024acada37c_Riflemarkings-CAL-.5andscratchedinMadeItaly.thumb.jpg.f7b00dece8413f4fc2d0f3ce2181f0e7.jpg

 

 

When we look at the DAY rifle, we'd expect to see these same markings in the same places...  except they're not there.  Furthermore the scope's endpiece does not seem to match, there is no "CAL 6.5" and no "Made in Italy, Crown or 1940"

This rifle Day carries is not the same as CE139.

 

59037724269d7_Allen-DayandrifleVERYlargeandclear-noMAUSERorMCmarkingsv3-croppednumbered.thumb.jpg.e50493618f2cbdafbc0562597bf1e7aa.jpg

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...