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

[Michael T. Griffith]

It seems to me that you're expecting a lot from a photo taken of a moving object in a sunlit street. You may consider it hi-res, but when you zoom in, it's actually quite blurry, and since the markings are etched into the metal, light and angles would also need to be right for them to stand out.

But the "CAL" and "Made Italy" markings are in dark black letters. I can understand a small amount of doubt about the "Made Italy" marking, but CE 139's "CAL" marking is dark and obvious enough that it should show up on the enlargement of Lt. Day's rifle, but there's not the slightest trace of it in the enlargement.

I don't think the enlargement is "quite blurry." It looks fairly clear to me, certainly clear enough to see the dark and obvious "CAL" marking if it were there. The enlarged area where the "CAL" marking should appear has a lighter part and a darker part, yet there's no trace of the marking. If it had been there, at least part of it would be visible in that enlargement.

I don't think this is even a close call.

I strongly suspect that you're wrong about all this, but it might become clearer if you would simply show us (with images) the differences that you think you're seeing. Preferably without piggybacking too much on poor David Josephs. Thanks in advance.

Just look at the images in David Josephs' article. They speak for themselves. I find his article convincing. If you think he's wrong, you should provide some photos that contradict the ones in his article.

Are you saying you don't see the noticeable ridge on the flange behind CE 139's "Made Italy" stamp? Where is that ridge on the flange on the Lt. Day rifle? And what about the differences in the flange-to-sight distances between the two rifles? You don't see that? This can't be dismissed with an appeal to sunlight and angles.

Exactly.  Any conspiracy planned to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald would go like this.  They would use the same rifle that is linked to Oswald to assassinate JFK.

 

Here we go again with the conspiracy-would-have-been-perfect strawman argument. We could play this game all day with just about every conspiracy that has been exposed. History is full of examples of carefully planned criminal plots and military operations that overlooked important items, that did not go according to plan, and that failed to anticipate serious problems that arose.

That eliminates the risk and complexity involved in switching the rifles and recovering any bullets from the bodies fired from a different rifle.

This perfect-conspiracy strawman argument ignores a huge body of evidence regarding extra misses in Dealey Plaza, the finding of two extra bullets that were never entered into evidence, the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo (i.e., the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used), Weitzman's caliber-specific identification of a Mauser on the sixth floor, the documented finding of a 7.65 mm shell casing in Dealey Plaza (the ARRB found the FBI evidence envelope that contained the shell casing), substantial bullet fragments that were seen and described but never entered into evidence, etc., etc.

You seem to forget that for at least 75 crucial minutes, the plotters did not know where Oswald was. As soon as they realized that Oswald had escaped from the TSBD, they would logically and rationally have decided that the evidence they were going to use against Oswald, the Plan A evidence, would have to be ditched and that the evidence lined up for the back-up patsy, Plan B, would need to be used instead. Then, when they learned of Oswald's arrest, they would have decided that now they could use the Plan A evidence after all, which would have simply meant swapping out the rifles and the shells at the police station.

They also fire the shots from the same location used to frame Oswald (i.e. the 6th floor window).

No, they could always claim that the dozens of witnesses who heard shots from the grassy knoll were just hearing echoes, never mind that they also saw gunsmoke on the knoll, that gunsmoke on the knoll can be seen in frames of the Wiegman film, that a number of witnesses near/on the knoll smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder, and that several witnesses saw a man running from the picket fence on the knoll into the railyard behind the knoll.   

One or two of the shots were fired from the sixth-floor window, but other shots came from elsewhere.

They would also need to control Oswald's movements during the assassination.  That means ensuring that:  1) he shows up to work that day after taking an unexpected trip to the Paine residence; and 2) he was not in the presence of anyone who could give him an alibi such as doing the most likely thing by standing outside to watch the motorcade.

Not necessarily at all. They could have assumed that with Oswald shot dead right after the assassination, and with all the planted evidence made public, any witnesses who put him on a lower floor during the shooting could be waved away as "mistaken," which is exactly what they did anyway, even though Oswald wasn't shot until the day after the assassination. There is indeed strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald on the second floor at 12:15 or later (and, like so many other witnesses, she said the FBI summary of her interview misrepresented what she said). Bonnie Ray Williams told the WC that he didn't leave the sixth floor until around 12:20, and he denied that he told the FBI he left at 12:05. The motorcade was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza at 12:25 but was running five minutes late. Under the lone-gunman theory, Oswald would have had no way of knowing this.

Oswald told the police that he ate lunch in the domino room on the first floor (which was often used as a lunchroom by employees), and that he went upstairs to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke and had just finished getting the Coke from the soda machine when Officer Marrion Baker approached him and asked him to identify himself. Three witnesses, Eddie Piper, Bill Shelley, and Charles Givens, reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between 11:50 and 12:00 (19 H 499; 6 H 383; 7 H 390; CD 5). There is other evidence that supports Oswald's story, as Anthony Summers explains:

Under interrogation, Oswald insisted he had followed his workmates down to eat. He said he ate a snack in the first-floor lunchroom alone, but thought he remembered two black employees walking through the room while he was there. Oswald believed one of them was a colleague known as Junior, and said he would recognize the other man but could not recall his name. He said the second man was short.

There were two rooms in the Book Depository where workers had lunch, the “domino room” on the first floor and the lunchroom proper on the second floor. There was indeed a worker called Junior Jarman, and he spent his lunch break largely in the company of another black man called Harold Norman.

Norman, who was indeed short, said later he ate in the domino room between 12:00 and 12:15 p.m., and indeed thought “there was someone else in there” at the time, though he couldn’t remember who. At about 12:15, Jarman walked over to the domino room, and together the two black men left the building for a few minutes. Between 12:20 and 12:25—just before the assassination—they strolled through the first floor once more, on the way upstairs to watch the motorcade from a window.

If Oswald was not in fact on the first floor at some stage, it is noteworthy that he described two men—out of a staff of seventy-five—who actually were there. (Not in Your Lifetime,, pp. 90-91)

Wow, how about that, huh? Just a wildly lucky guess?

Bill Lovelady, Danny Arce, and Bonnie Ray Williams, like Oswald, had been working upstairs that morning. All three told the WC that Oswald was anxious for them to send the elevator back up to him when it was time for lunch, and one of them specified that Oswald said he would be coming downstairs. A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, 10 minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:20.

And then we have the fact that Victoria Adams and the two women who were with her were heading down the stairs about 20-30 seconds after the shooting and they neither saw nor heard Oswald on the stairs, as confirmed by the Martha Jo Stroud memo.

[Mark Ulrik]

But the "CAL" and "Made Italy" markings are in dark black letters. I can understand a small amount of doubt about the "Made Italy" marking, but CE 139's "CAL" marking is dark and obvious enough that it should show up on the enlargement of Lt. Day's rifle, but there's not the slightest trace of it in the enlargement.

I don't think the enlargement is "quite blurry." It looks fairly clear to me, certainly clear enough to see the dark and obvious "CAL" marking if it were there. The enlarged area where the "CAL" marking should appear has a lighter part and a darker part, yet there's no trace of the marking. If it had been there, at least part of it would be visible in that enlargement.

I don't think this is even a close call.

Just look at the images in David Josephs' article. They speak for themselves. I find his article convincing. If you think he's wrong, you should provide some photos that contradict the ones in his article.

Are you saying you don't see the noticeable ridge on the flange behind CE 139's "Made Italy" stamp? Where is that ridge on the flange on the Lt. Day rifle? And what about the differences in the flange-to-sight distances between the two rifles? You don't see that? This can't be dismissed with an appeal to sunlight and angles.

You need to look at the (unenhanced) images yourself and not rely blindly on David Josephs. There may be some amount of residue of what appears to be white paint, but those letters were almost certainly never painted black. The same goes for the "CAL.6,5" inscription.



I'd like to see you explain what you meant by the scope being "different". You haven't commented on the composite graphic that I posted earlier. I wonder why.

As for the ridge, I guess I found it, but why should we necessarily be able to see it in the blurry Allen photo? Ditto with the "CAL.6,5" inscription.

[Tommy Shanks]

You need to look at the (unenhanced) images yourself and not rely blindly on David Josephs.

Here here, Mark. Nobody should be relying on David Josephs for anything other than Donald Trump Fan Club talking points.

[Mark Ulrik]

Here here, Mark. Nobody should be relying on David Josephs for anything other than Donald Trump Fan Club talking points.

Perhaps Michael is beginning to see the light. He has stopped talking about how convincing we should all find Josephs' graphics.

[Mitch Todd]

You need to look at the (unenhanced) images yourself and not rely blindly on David Josephs. There may be some amount of residue of what appears to be white paint, but those letters were almost certainly never painted black. The same goes for the "CAL.6,5" inscription.

The letters, numbers, and crown are the same blued finish as the metal around it. When a seasoned photographer wants to take a photo of the markings on a weapon, they often will fill the engravings with talcum powder, tempera paint, white glue, or similar light colored material so that the engravings stand out. Otherwise, they don't photograph very well at all. It looks like the FBI did exactly that when they made the detail photographs of the markings on the rifle. Josephs used negative images on his composite, so the letters appear to be very black against a grey background. In reality, they are black letters on a black background.

[Benjamin Cole]

The letters, numbers, and crown are the same blued finish as the metal around it. When a seasoned photographer wants to take a photo of the markings on a weapon, they often will fill the engravings with talcum powder, tempera paint, white glue, or similar light colored material so that the engravings stand out. Otherwise, they don't photograph very well at all. It looks like the FBI did exactly that when they made the detail photographs of the markings on the rifle. Josephs used negative images on his composite, so the letters appear to be very black against a grey background. In reality, they are black letters on a black background.

MT--Thanks for clue-ing us in. I was wondering about some of the images.

The narrative that a 7.65 Mauser was found on TSBD6, and then replaced by an M-C rifle, which was photographed carried by Lt. Day to DPD, and then another M-C rifle was subbed in, and entered as evidence...stretches credulity.

This pointless falsification of evidence operation would have required several witting participants, all of whom kept their silence forever after.

If evidence was being falsified in the JFKA, why not say LHO ordered a Mauser 7.65 and be done with it?

[Mark Ulrik]

The letters, numbers, and crown are the same blued finish as the metal around it. When a seasoned photographer wants to take a photo of the markings on a weapon, they often will fill the engravings with talcum powder, tempera paint, white glue, or similar light colored material so that the engravings stand out. Otherwise, they don't photograph very well at all. It looks like the FBI did exactly that when they made the detail photographs of the markings on the rifle. Josephs used negative images on his composite, so the letters appear to be very black against a grey background. In reality, they are black letters on a black background.

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for Michael to double down on his "dark black" markings. I've always thought that some powdery white substance was used specifically for the FBI photos (CE 541), but what about the residue seen in the NARA images? I assumed it was original factory paint, but don't really know how plausible that is.

[John Mytton]

Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumination. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks.
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convincing evidence that it is the rifle.

JohnM