Was the Rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD the same as in evidence?

[Charles Collins]

Btw, I don't know how many are aware of this, but NARA in 2023 produced a set of 33 UHQ photos of CE 139 that is available for download (they are the ones numbered 13-45). Included are also 12 HQ photos from 2013.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134?objectPage=45

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Thank you very much Mark. That’s a very interesting scrape. It looks to me like the Alyea image is showing the same scrape.

A scrape here. A scratch there. Not two of them clear and exactly alike. Yet, you folks continue to ignore obvious differences between Lt. Day's rifle and CE 139. Let's review them:

One, CE 139 has the markings "CAL" and "Made Italy" on it, but we can see from enlargements of the high-resolution picture of Lt. Day carrying the rifle outside the TSBD that the rifle he's holding does not have these markings. They're just not there. 

Two, the scope on Lt. Day's rifle is clearly different from the scope on CE 139. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the scopes are the same?

Three, the flange behind the "Made Italy" stamp under the scope is not the same as the one on CE139. CE 139's flange has a noticeable ridge, but the flange on Lt. Day's rifle does not. Is anyone going to say they do not see the ridge on CE 139's flange, and the fact that the flange on the Day rifle has no such ridge?

Four, the distance from the flange to the sight is different on the rifles. Isn't this readily apparent to anyone with decent eyesight?

We can all see these things. They are plainly visible. The problem is that you folks won't allow yourselves to process these undeniable visible facts because you are ideologically and emotionally committed to the belief that there was no evidence tampering and hence no cover-up.

[Richard Smith]

I gather some CT'ers believe in fact a Mauser, likely the true murder weapon, was first found on TSBD6, and then a M-C was subbed in, but not CE 139.

That is to say Lt. Day carried another M-C from TSBD to the DPD HQ, and then CE 139 was subbed in for the ersatz M-C inside the DPD.

That stretches credulity. Besides all that, the M-C was serviceable rifle (or carbine) at 70 yards.

And imagine the unnecessary complexity and risk of this as part of some conspiracy plan.  They shot Oswald with one rifle, frame Oswald with another rifle, do the old switcharoo but only after allowing the original rifle to be filmed and photographed.  It is very silly.  Anyone who goes down that rabbit hole is not series about the evidence but exercising some subjective theory that comports to their desired narrative.

[Benjamin Cole]

Indeed.

OK---if, as some CT'ers say, the paperwork framing LHO was ginned up after the fact...why not gin up paperwork connecting LHO to the purported 7.65 Mauser? Why all the mumbo-jumbo about M-C's?

Why gin up paperwork connecting LHO to the M-C, then use another M-C as a fake in the TSBD?

After Lt. Day left the TSBD with the fake M-C...then what happened to the "real" Mauser? That means someone else knowingly participated in framing LHO, in addition to Lt. Day. They hid the Mauser and carried it out later. And that someone never talked about it either.

How many witting participants are there in the JFKAC and the immediate cover-up...before credulity is snapped?