JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on October 01, 2025, 06:35:59 AM
-
I came across this new thread at the Ed Forum;
"What is the best and most concise evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed?"
And our very own number one conspiracy Kook's very first example was the following, which I must admit I had never heard of, and upon careful consideration makes zero sense.
"-- The photographic evidence that proves that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD did not have the markings that are on CE 139 (i.e., the rifle that was later entered into evidence as the alleged murder weapon)."
Michael Griffith
Anyway let's see if his latest allegation has any merit.
First of all, the HSCA determined that because of the random size and shape of the gouge on the forestock of Oswald's rifle was also seen in a backyard photo, then they were the exact same rifle.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/3e/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
Secondly, the rifle discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace also showed this same random gouge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/430vvC7t/Day-rifle-TSBD-DPD.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzS1B2XC/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Thirdly, out of the photos of Lt. Day carrying the rifle from the Depository I couldn't find a photo of the rifle showing the gouge side. So I looked for a high resolution photo of the strap side and then looked for similarities.
1. The random nick along the top edge about a centimetre from the end matches in size, shape and location.
2. The upper portion of the butt end of the rifle in Day's TSBD photo shows a long dark gouge which matches the specular highlights in the official evidence photo.
3. There are multiple little nicks and scratches which can be seen in the same places in both images.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ls5BZ4XM/Day-rifle-carry-from-TSBD-official-evidence.gif)
Since the above GIF loses a little definition in the process of becoming an animation, here are JPEGs of the originals.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QGrWjqF/Osw-ald-s-rifle-in-evidence.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zhbVXY1/Day-with-rifle-outside-TSBD-2.jpg)
Conclusion.
I see no reason for Day's weapon swap and from examining the photographic evidence I am satisfied that the same rifle discovered on the 6th floor remained the same rifle through to the rifle as seen as Official Evidence.
BTW, if Griffith can provide better evidence and a reasonable explanation for the rifle swap then I'm willing to listen but until then, his latest conspiracy theory is yet another, go nowhere pile of conspiracy BS!
JohnM
-
Good work, John. You have reminded me of my own past lunacy. In 2020, I did a massive thread at the Ed Forum, replete with photos, about the rifle SLING. I must've been extremely bored.
"Oswald's rifle sling - an exercise in factoid-busting"
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26500-oswalds-rifle-sling-an-exercise-in-factoid-busting/#comment-419320
It caused Jim DiEugenio to declare me a troll, so it must've been pretty good. (Actually, it went nowhere and was rightly characterized as "boring" and myself rightly characterized as a "condescending jerk," which I suppose is one step up from troll.)
(I don't know if anyone remembers this, but DiEugenio used to announce that he had put people, including me, on Ignore. He then could not resist responding and would come up with absolutely hilarious excuses as to how he had accidentally seen the posts to which he was responding - his poodle stepped on the keyboard and erased all previous settings, etc. If you don't take DiEugenio seriously and learn to accept him for the kind of sad buffoon he is, he's really quite humorous.)
-
I came across this new thread at the Ed Forum;
"What is the best and most concise evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed?"
And our very own number one conspiracy Kook's very first example was the following, which I must admit I had never heard of, and upon careful consideration makes zero sense.
"-- The photographic evidence that proves that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD did not have the markings that are on CE 139 (i.e., the rifle that was later entered into evidence as the alleged murder weapon)."
Michael Griffith
Anyway let's see if his latest allegation has any merit.
First of all, the HSCA determined that because of the random size and shape of the gouge on the forestock of Oswald's rifle was also seen in a backyard photo, then they were the exact same rifle.
Secondly, the rifle discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace also showed this same random gouge.
Thirdly, out of the photos of Lt. Day carrying the rifle from the Depository I couldn't find a photo of the rifle showing the gouge side. So I looked for a high resolution photo of the strap side and then looked for similarities.
1. The random nick along the top edge about a centimetre from the end matches in size, shape and location.
2. The upper portion of the butt end of the rifle in Day's TSBD photo shows a long dark gouge which matches the specular highlights in the official evidence photo.
3. There are multiple little nicks and scratches which can be seen in the same places in both images.
Since the above GIF loses a little definition in the process of becoming an animation, here are JPEGs of the originals.
Conclusion.
I see no reason for Day's weapon swap and from examining the photographic evidence I am satisfied that the same rifle discovered on the 6th floor remained the same rifle through to the rifle as seen as Official Evidence.
BTW, if Griffith can provide better evidence and a reasonable explanation for the rifle swap then I'm willing to listen but until then, his latest conspiracy theory is yet another, go nowhere pile of conspiracy BS!
JohnM
More of your uninformed, erroneous material. Do you have any idea how many Mauser-like rifles have the strap attachments embedded on the side? By the way, the rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered had the strap attachments on the bottom, not on the side. The photo of the rifle in the catalog shows this.
Anyway, David Josephs has proved conclusively, definitively with photographic evidence that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD has none of the markings on the rifle that was later entered into evidence (CE 139):
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
I recommend two other articles by Josephs related to the alleged murder weapon:
Rifle Money Order Timeline
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rifle-money-order-timeline
An analytical timeline which demonstrates the difficulties with the Warren Commission's story about Oswald's alleged purchase of the Mannlicher-Carcano.
The Klein's Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle
More evidence against the official story about Oswald's alleged purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
-
It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence that links Oswald - and Oswald alone - to this particular rifle than exists. That evidence derives from a variety of different sources. It can't all be faked. No other person has any connection to this particular rifle. Anyone who suggests doubt about Oswald's ownership and possession of this rifle in the months leading up to the assassination can't be taken seriously. Absent a time machine, it's hard to understand what evidence would convince them of this fact if the existing body of evidence is deemed lacking.
-
It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence that links Oswald - and Oswald alone - to this particular rifle than exists. That evidence derives from a variety of different sources. It can't all be faked. No other person has any connection to this particular rifle. Anyone who suggests doubt about Oswald's ownership and possession of this rifle in the months leading up to the assassination can't be taken seriously. Absent a time machine, it's hard to understand what evidence would convince them of this fact if the existing body of evidence is deemed lacking.
This statement is decades behind the information curve. This statement would have been defensible from the 1960s to the mid-1970s, but it is inexcusably wrong now to be coming from anyone who says they're a serious student of the case. Are you aware that even DPD Chief Jesse Curry later admitted that they didn't have any solid evidence that put Oswald in the sniper's nest with a rifle in his hand? When you take a closer look at the evidence against Oswald, every single time you find gaping holes, contradictions, and fraud.
Did you read David Josephs' article on the Lt. Day Carcano? He proves with enlargements of the high-quality photo of Day carrying the rifle out of the building that the Day rifle had none--not one--of the markings that are found on CE 139.
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
I recommend two other articles by Josephs related to the alleged murder weapon:
Rifle Money Order Timeline
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rifle-money-order-timeline
An analytical timeline which demonstrates the difficulties with the Warren Commission's story about Oswald's alleged purchase of the Mannlicher-Carcano.
The Klein's Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle
More evidence against the official story about Oswald's alleged purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
-
John - Good to have you back over here. I need you to get in touch with me. I have found something that has Never been kicked around previously. It's not a shooter or rifle or anything along those dramatic lines. But what I have found is "image" based and would either rise or fall under your intense scrutiny. And I do welcome that acid test. I'm sending you a PM containing a general description of what I have found.
Let me know either way
Respectfully,
Royell Storing
-
John - Good to have you back over here. I need you to get in touch with me. I have found something that has Never been kicked around previously. It's not a shooter or rifle or anything along those dramatic lines. But what I have found is "image" based and would either rise or fall under your intense scrutiny. And I do welcome that acid test. I'm sending you a PM containing a general description of what I have found.
Let me know either way
Respectfully,
Royell Storing
Would this be the same "image-based acid test" you sucked me into and then dropped the subject when my initial response was less than enthusiastic, or was that a different image-based acid-test? At least in my opinion, this effort to find bombshells in old photos and films is the ultimate Rorschach test.
-
Good work, John. You have reminded me of my own past lunacy. In 2020, I did a massive thread at the Ed Forum, replete with photos, about the rifle SLING. I must've been extremely bored.
"Oswald's rifle sling - an exercise in factoid-busting"
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26500-oswalds-rifle-sling-an-exercise-in-factoid-busting/#comment-419320
It caused Jim DiEugenio to declare me a troll, so it must've been pretty good. (Actually, it went nowhere and was rightly characterized as "boring" and myself rightly characterized as a "condescending jerk," which I suppose is one step up from troll.)
(I don't know if anyone remembers this, but DiEugenio used to announce that he had put people, including me, on Ignore. He then could not resist responding and would come up with absolutely hilarious excuses as to how he had accidentally seen the posts to which he was responding - his poodle stepped on the keyboard and erased all previous settings, etc. If you don't take DiEugenio seriously and learn to accept him for the kind of sad buffoon he is, he's really quite humorous.)
Your piece over at the Ed Forum was very informative and interesting, also what was interesting was how you lost your name and became a "Guest"/Troll, and the replies are hilarious, "well you may have proved that but how about this"??
It's also fascinating how Pat Speer and even Griffith who challenge some well established conspiracy nonsense suddenly become paid agents of the CIA, what's especially funny is that these two subscribe to the exact same belief that Oswald didn't pull the trigger but if you question even a sliver of what the majority believe then you're not on their team. LOL!
As I've said in the past, what's even more interesting than this case which I find rewarding on many levels like examining photos, film and a unique slice of time in our history, is interacting and studying somewhat intelligent people who will believe absolutely anything that supports their conspiracy belief and it doesn't matter if some conspiracy evidence doesn't make sense or fit a logical narrative, they blindly persist in their irrational belief and I guess that they hopefully believe that one day they will crack this case and can finally find peace.
JohnM
-
More of your uninformed, erroneous material. Do you have any idea how many Mauser-like rifles have the strap attachments embedded on the side? By the way, the rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered had the strap attachments on the bottom, not on the side. The photo of the rifle in the catalog shows this.
Anyway, David Josephs has proved conclusively, definitively with photographic evidence that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD has none of the markings on the rifle that was later entered into evidence (CE 139):
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
I recommend two other articles by Josephs related to the alleged murder weapon:
Rifle Money Order Timeline
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rifle-money-order-timeline
An analytical timeline which demonstrates the difficulties with the Warren Commission's story about Oswald's alleged purchase of the Mannlicher-Carcano.
The Klein's Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle
More evidence against the official story about Oswald's alleged purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
More of your uninformed, erroneous material.
From what perspective, yours?
I'm adequately informed that Oswald's rifle with his prints and matching shirt fibres was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and as I demonstrated, Alyea's film conclusively shows Oswald's actual rifle C2766 being extracted from it's hiding spot.
I also showed that unique scratches, a gouge and other anomalies were consistent between the Day rifle outside the TSBD and the rifle in evidence.
Now Griffith listen carefully and I'll ask again, it's been established beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, so why on Earth would they substitute this rifle and carry out a different rifle and then later in the halls of Justice resubstitute this rifle with the rifle discovered on the 6th floor? How does this fit a logical narrative and how does this further your conspiracy?
Stage 1. Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzS1B2XC/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Stage 2. A "mysterious" rifle a short time later being taken from the Depository
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBWdk1Jj/gettyimages-576877866-2048x2048.jpg)
Stage 3. Oswald's rifle being shown to the press.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1A8AAOSwQ6Fc~7LO/s-l1600.webp)
How does a different rifle at Stage 2 fit your conspiracy narrative?
BTW the above example exemplifies this conspiracy, the conspirators were brilliant at stages 1 and 3 but total Keystone Cops at stage 2! Hahaha!
JohnM
-
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.
-
From what perspective, yours?
I'm adequately informed that Oswald's rifle with his prints and matching shirt fibres was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace and as I demonstrated, Alyea's film conclusively shows Oswald's actual rifle C2766 being extracted from it's hiding spot.
I also showed that unique scratches, a gouge and other anomalies were consistent between the Day rifle outside the TSBD and the rifle in evidence.
Now Griffith listen carefully and I'll ask again, it's been established beyond all doubt that Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, so why on Earth would they substitute this rifle and carry out a different rifle and then later in the halls of Justice resubstitute this rifle with the rifle discovered on the 6th floor? How does this fit a logical narrative and how does this further your conspiracy?
Stage 1. Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzS1B2XC/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Stage 2. A "mysterious" rifle a short time later being taken from the Depository
(https://i.postimg.cc/zBWdk1Jj/gettyimages-576877866-2048x2048.jpg)
Stage 3. Oswald's rifle being shown to the press.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1A8AAOSwQ6Fc~7LO/s-l1600.webp)
How does a different rifle at Stage 2 fit your conspiracy narrative?
JohnM
Sorry John, but David Josephs has proved conclusively, definitively with photographic evidence that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD has none of the markings on the rifle that was later entered into evidence (CE 139):
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
(https://i.imgur.com/7WpYye2.gif)
You remember Josephs, right? He used to share his wisdom with us here on this forum. Since he left, we are no longer treated with such insights as the following:
There is no evidence Kleins ever had C2766 to ship in March in the first place other than a list of 100 rifles for which not a single other rifle has EVER been found - only C2766. - David Josephs
The Stub, from which the PMO[Klein's money order] is discovered and at one time was attached - is the very thing that gives the PMO any initial credibility. To then claim not to have this item breaks the chain of evidence. The PMO then requires other forms of authentication. When that cannot occur due to conflicting evidence, that item cannot be authenticated or regarded as "real evidence". It's worthless. - David Josephs
The home address in Alexandria, Virginia of Robert H. Jackson, the purported finder of the PMO at the National Archives and Records Service, Federal Records Center "does not exist", and thus it's unlikely that Jackson ever existed.-- Paraphrasing David Josephs.
-
More of your uninformed, erroneous material. Do you have any idea how many Mauser-like rifles have the strap attachments embedded on the side? By the way, the rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered had the strap attachments on the bottom, not on the side. The photo of the rifle in the catalog shows this.
Anyway, David Josephs has proved conclusively, definitively with photographic evidence that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD has none of the markings on the rifle that was later entered into evidence (CE 139):
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
I recommend two other articles by Josephs related to the alleged murder weapon:
Rifle Money Order Timeline
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rifle-money-order-timeline
An analytical timeline which demonstrates the difficulties with the Warren Commission's story about Oswald's alleged purchase of the Mannlicher-Carcano.
The Klein's Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle
More evidence against the official story about Oswald's alleged purchase of a rifle from Klein's.
Michael, you really need to find a new hobby.
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
What a load of crap. It is not wise to put any value on something Rodger Craig stated.
Mauser only made 4000 of these rifles in 1933-34 and they were made for the Buenos Arias Provincial Police force exclusively. They were never sold in the US until 2006. They are an expensive collector's rifle.
GUNBOARDS Forum
John Wall
3,455 posts · Joined 2007
#4 · Apr 20, 2011 (Edited)
The Argentine rifles are described in Jon Speed's book "The Mauser Archive" on page 447. The Argentine police purchased a total of 4,000 MOD.1933 rifles in the 1937-1938 fiscal year. 2,000 rifles were carbines with 55 cm (21.5" barrel) and 2,000 short rifles with 60 c, (23.5") barrels.
It arrived in the USA about 5-6 years ago when JLD Enterprises imported about 300 Buenos Aires Provincial Police carbines.
-
Sorry John, but David Josephs has proved conclusively, definitively with photographic evidence that the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the TSBD has none of the markings on the rifle that was later entered into evidence (CE 139):
The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
(https://i.imgur.com/7WpYye2.gif)
You remember Josephs, right? He used to share his wisdom with us here on this forum. Since he left, we are no longer treated with such insights as the following:
There is no evidence Kleins ever had C2766 to ship in March in the first place other than a list of 100 rifles for which not a single other rifle has EVER been found - only C2766. - David Josephs
The Stub, from which the PMO[Klein's money order] is discovered and at one time was attached - is the very thing that gives the PMO any initial credibility. To then claim not to have this item breaks the chain of evidence. The PMO then requires other forms of authentication. When that cannot occur due to conflicting evidence, that item cannot be authenticated or regarded as "real evidence". It's worthless. - David Josephs
The home address in Alexandria, Virginia of Robert H. Jackson, the purported finder of the PMO at the National Archives and Records Service, Federal Records Center "does not exist", and thus it's unlikely that Jackson ever existed.-- Paraphrasing David Josephs.
Hey Tim, yeah I remember debating Josephs and after he had endless troubles defending his "ideas", he went for greener pastures where as long as you toe the line, everyone kisses each others ass!
And your examples made me laugh, it's reminds me of DiEugenio who claims that because no one at the post office remembers an 8 month old transaction then obviously Oswald never received the rifle! You can't make this $hit up!
I had a look at Josephs "The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle" PDF and wow what a load of garbage.
1. Josephs alludes to the fact that because a 7.65 Mauser was "identified" that the rifle taken from the Depository was a Mauser but the photographic evidence is solid that the rifle was identical to Oswald's Carcano.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k54Y8jXS/osw-ald-rifle-c2766-Lt-Day-and-official-evidence.jpg)
1a. A 7.65 Mauser while similar is different when directly compared and understandably in the darkness of the 6th floor a misidentification is excusable and I wasn't there but I doubt that the murder weapon was handed to each officer so they could closely examine it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0FpfPVV/osw-ald-Carcano-VS-7-65-Mauser.jpg)
2. Josephs comparisons rely on images which have been heavily processed, for instance the following comparison comes from the primary source that Josephs links to and his extremely contrasted inverted misrepresentation is clear to see. The official image from the WC in extreme closeup can be barely seen and the 6.5 is not even visible hence Josephs compositing a 6.5 from another source and even with this overlay the 6 is virtually invisible. Also worth considering that there is probably some fingerprint dust on the rifle which would further obscure any detail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HncC2YYW/Josephs-cal-6-5-BS.gif)
JohnM
-
Hey Tim, yeah I remember debating Josephs and after he had endless troubles defending his "ideas", he went for greener pastures where as long as you toe the line, everyone kisses each others ass!
And your examples made me laugh, it's reminds me of DiEugenio who claims that because no one at the post office remembers an 8 month old transaction then obviously Oswald never received the rifle! You can't make this $&^% up!
I had a look at Josephs "The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle" PDF and wow what a load of garbage.
Phew. As I've already proved, your research is the "load of garbage." Your shoddy, gaffe-filled research can't hold a candle to David Josephs' superb scholarship.
1. Josephs alludes to the fact that because a 7.65 Mauser was "identified" that the rifle taken from the Depository was a Mauser but the photographic evidence is solid that the rifle was identical to Oswald's Carcano.
1a. A 7.65 Mauser while similar is different when directly compared and understandably in the darkness of the 6th floor a misidentification is excusable and I wasn't there but I doubt that the murder weapon was handed to each officer so they could closely examine it.
2. Josephs comparisons rely on images which have been heavily processed, for instance the following comparison comes from the primary source that Josephs links to and his extremely contrasted inverted misrepresentation is clear to see. The official image from the WC in extreme closeup can be barely seen and the 6.5 is not even visible hence Josephs compositing a 6.5 from another source and even with this overlay the 6 is virtually invisible. Also worth considering that there is probably some fingerprint dust on the rifle which would further obscure any detail.
JohnM
You either cannot see or are knowingly trying to mislead people. You don't lay a finger on Josephs' evidence. You don't even deal with the self-evident photographic proof that the "CAL" and "Made Italy" markings are not on the rifle that Day is carrying out the building. You deceptively focus on the 6.5 and ignore the fact that "CAL" and "Made Italy" are not on the Day rifle.
The idea that fingerprint powder would have made all those markings invisible is laughable.
Here is a prime example of how you guys just refuse to face facts, even when the facts are undeniable and self-evident.
I encourage everyone to read David Josephs' article for themselves:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mauser-the-carcano-and-the-lt-day-rifle
-
Apparently, Josephs and Griffiths have very limited knowledge of German firearms. First, that is not the barrel where the Mauser stamp is placed. That is the receiver. Second these 1933 model rifles with a Mauser stamp were a limited production for the Argentine Police and that was all, and they were not available in the US until 2005-06. LHO nor anyone else could not have possessed one in 1963.
Josephs: “In the cropped statement from his supplemental report above BOONE tries to make it sound as if he left the film and did not remain at the Sheriff’s office for all these other activities when in reality it appears as if the finding of the rifle waited around for BOONE to arrive. But that gets ahead of ourselves. The following graphic shows the Mauser stamp and “7.65” on the barrel facing the same direction with the Carcano sans scope above it. The name Roger CRAIG does not appear in either man’s signed account. It’s hard to fathom Lt. DAY identifying this rifle as 6.5mm & Made in Italy based on its “markings”, given how clear the “MAUSER” and “7.65” are…”
Total fabricated nonsense.
Whoever this Josephs individual is he royally messed it up and apparently has sucked M Griffith in with him as far as claiming the rifle had Mauser stamped on the barrel let alone it really was stamped on the receiver.
You could not purchase a model 1933 rifle with Mauser stamped on the receiver in the US until 2005-06. LHO could not have purchased a model 1933 Mauser stamped rifle because they weren’t available for sale. Only 4000 were ever made and shipped to the Buenos Arias Provincial Police Force where they remained until 2005-06. The 1891 and 1909 Argentine rifles using a 7.65x53 Mauser cartridge were manufactured by the German manufacturers' DWM or Lowe Berlin not by Mauser. They in general are referred to as Argentine Mausers because of the cartridge they are chambered in not by the manufacturer.
In addition, the Modell 1933 standard model Mauser was chambered in the 7.92 x57 cartridge not the 7.65 x 53 cartridge.
-
David Josephs is one of the most rabid True Believers in HARVEY AND LEE. He's practically on the H&L payroll.
How would a Mauser mesh with the HARVEY AND LEE narrative? The theory is that HARVEY was framed and that (I quote) "The rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD was an Italian made Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766," https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html.
As far as I can tell, the supposed Mauser is never even mentioned by Armstrong. The only mention is Malcolm Howard Price reporting a "Mauser-type" rifle at the Sports Drome Gun Range. The Mauser is also never mentioned in the massive, 100+ page "Evidence for Harvey and Lee" thread at the Ed Forum.
How would a Mauser in the TSBD advance the HARVEY AND LEE narrative?
Did David Josephs do all this work on the Mauser to advance some alternative theory? Is his motto "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)?
Or is this just another example of "We just want evidence of a conspiracy, regardless of whether it makes any sense in the context of our pet theory?"
For that matter, what the heck IS the conspiracy theory that a Mauser in the TSBD would advance?
-
Griffith over the years has proven one thing: he’s the new Jim Fetzer. These raging debates with Griffith will get you no place. “Six shots” Joseph is no different.
-
There has been some absolutely absurd nonsensical conspiracy theories but this has gotta be in the top ten!
Swapping out the rifle from the time it was found till it was taken from the building then swapped back when it was shown to the Press later that day goes nowhere and makes zero sense.
Anyway let's summarize.
Lt. Day confirms that he retained possession of Oswald's rifle from the moment it was found till he got back to Police headquarters.
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Lt. Day first to hold C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzS1B2XC/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film.jpg)
Lt. Day carrying C2766 from the Depository.
(https://www.nydailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/migration/2013/11/17/3TOBPHEYS3RC3V4FMUSIGDBQPM.jpg?w=620)
The rifle being carried from the building is definitely the same make and model as Oswald's Carcano(C2766).
(https://i.postimg.cc/k54Y8jXS/osw-ald-rifle-c2766-Lt-Day-and-official-evidence.jpg)
C2766 being displayed by Lt. Day to the Press at the DPD.
(https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/an4EZ7B_460s.jpg)
The evidence in the OP showing the many similarities in random scratches, scrapes and gouges on the rifle Lt. Day takes from the Depository and the rifle in evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ls5BZ4XM/Day-rifle-carry-from-TSBD-official-evidence.gif)
Josephs extremely dishonest graphical enhancement of the "CAL 6.5" decal on the rifle to enhance a barely legible "CAL 6.5" on the rifle in evidence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HncC2YYW/Josephs-cal-6-5-BS.gif)
BTW notice that Griffith keeps running from my question of WHY?, why on Earth would Day or anyone else for that matter feel the need to substitute a rifle that was photographed and filmed in situ on the 6th floor, with another rifle of the exact same make and model and then resubstitute it for the same rifle originally found on the 6th floor?
Where does this go?
How does this "deception" tie into the conspiracy?
Well Griffith, waiting......??
JohnM
-
I agree.
I am a reluctant CT'er, but the whole Mauser-switch to M-C, switch to another M-C story line strains credulity.
At some point, the CT'ers began to challenge all evidence and every WC story line. That is good, and what a defense counsel should do.
But some evidence was real and some WC story lines hold water. Even more so for the HSCA.
I go so far to say that if you have a CT, it must accept HSCA findings as reasonably solid.
-
Hey Tim, yeah I remember debating Josephs and after he had endless troubles defending his "ideas", he went for greener pastures where as long as you toe the line, everyone kisses each others ass!
And your examples made me laugh, it's reminds me of DiEugenio who claims that because no one at the post office remembers an 8 month old transaction then obviously Oswald never received the rifle! You can't make this $hit up!
I had a look at Josephs "The Mauser, the Carcano, and the Lt. Day Rifle" PDF and wow what a load of garbage.
1. Josephs alludes to the fact that because a 7.65 Mauser was "identified" that the rifle taken from the Depository was a Mauser but the photographic evidence is solid that the rifle was identical to Oswald's Carcano.
(https://i.postimg.cc/k54Y8jXS/osw-ald-rifle-c2766-Lt-Day-and-official-evidence.jpg)
1a. A 7.65 Mauser while similar is different when directly compared and understandably in the darkness of the 6th floor a misidentification is excusable and I wasn't there but I doubt that the murder weapon was handed to each officer so they could closely examine it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0FpfPVV/osw-ald-Carcano-VS-7-65-Mauser.jpg)
2. Josephs comparisons rely on images which have been heavily processed, for instance the following comparison comes from the primary source that Josephs links to and his extremely contrasted inverted misrepresentation is clear to see. The official image from the WC in extreme closeup can be barely seen and the 6.5 is not even visible hence Josephs compositing a 6.5 from another source and even with this overlay the 6 is virtually invisible. Also worth considering that there is probably some fingerprint dust on the rifle which would further obscure any detail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HncC2YYW/Josephs-cal-6-5-BS.gif)
JohnM
DiEugenio eh? He blocked me not long after this exchange.
(https://i.imgur.com/FQ5Td8F.png)
They say that he's a top expert on all things to do with the JFK assassination. :D
-
At some point, the CT'ers began to challenge all evidence and every WC story line. That is good, and what a defense counsel should do.
But a defense counsel doesn't have to prove anything. He doesn't have to have a coherent theory as to what occurred. He just has to sling the sh*t, wacky and inconsistent as it may be, and hope some tiny piece resonates with at least one juror.
I'm still trying to get my mind around what sort of conspiracy would have left a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-
LP--
You are correct, that a defense counsel has one job, and that is to get his/her client off.
Unfortunately, some elements of the CT community have adopted the same standard. This has some benefits; some of the WC evidence was shaky, and witness statements are all over the board.
This "defend LHO at all costs" attitude has also led to a lot of false premises, such as the M-C was a worthless rifle (carbine) and LHO was a bad shot.
At 70 yards, the M-C was a good enough rifle, and LHO was an excellent shot (by civilian standards) in 1956, and still pretty good in 1961. Whether he practiced in 1963, no one seems to know.
Add on: The horrible Kirk assassination, and the whisker-close miss on Trump (Butler) show even an unpracticed amateur with a rifle can be lethal, and at way more than 70 yards.
Who knows if LHO was the TSBD6 sniper, or if a confederate was, and LHO was only a lookout.
I suspect a second gunsel, possibly in the Dal-Tex building or TSBD6.
With the latest JFK document releases underway...it still looks like the JFKA mystery won't get solved. Harvey had an FAA credential? What does that mean? That means Angleton had JFK waxed?
-
But a defense counsel doesn't have to prove anything. He doesn't have to have a coherent theory as to what occurred. He just has to sling the sh*t, wacky and inconsistent as it may be, and hope some tiny piece resonates with at least one juror.
I'm still trying to get my mind around what sort of conspiracy would have left a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Not sure if the above is in reference to the JFK Assassination or an episode of "Matlock" (1986-1992)
-
Griffith over the years has proven one thing: he’s the new Jim Fetzer. These raging debates with Griffith will get you no place. “Six shots” Joseph is no different.
In other words, you can't deal with the visible, self-evident fact that the markings on CE 139 are not on the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the building, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.
I agree that debates in this forum usually "get you no place"--because you guys are 10-20 years behind the information curve and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence and disclosures that destroyed your version of the shooting decades ago. You guys act like we're still in the 1970s and 1980s.
There has been some absolutely absurd nonsensical conspiracy theories but this has gotta be in the top ten!
Uh-huh. Have you figured out that 2.11 mm minus 1.96 mm is not "far in excess of 1 mm" yet? I refer to your stunning blunder about the gate-bolt-to-screen parallax measurements for backyard rifle photos 133-A and 133-B. (And I see in your last reply in that thread that you still refuse to admit that the HSCA photographic experts acknowledged that the distances between background objects in the photos is "very small.")
Swapping out the rifle from the time it was found till it was taken from the building then swapped back when it was shown to the Press later that day goes nowhere and makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense if you unchain your mind from the lone-gunman myth. They simply needed to swap the rifle brought out of the building with the rifle that was allegedly ordered from Klein's and seen in the backyard rifle photos. They would have had to do that in order to make the alleged mail-order rifle the alleged murder weapon.
I notice you still can't come up with a rational explanation for why the markings on CE 139 (which you keep calling C2766) are clearly not on the rifle that Lt. Day carried out of the building. They're just not there. The picture of Lt. Day carrying the rifle is a high-resolution photo, so we can zoom in and see those parts of the rifle where the markings should be if the rifle is CE 139, and we can see that the markings are not there. Sorry, they're just not there.
Anyway let's summarize.
Lt. Day confirms that he retained possession of Oswald's rifle from the moment it was found till he got back to Police headquarters.
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Oh, well! That settles it then! Lt. Day said so, so it must be so! Never mind the mountain of problems with Lt. Day's credibility. Lt. Day claimed he lifted a palmprint from CE 139's barrel but incredibly failed to take a single photo of the print, in violation of standard procedure, and then refused to sign a sworn affidavit attesting that he lifted the print when the WC asked him to do so.
Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted on the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view
The rifle being carried from the building is definitely the same make and model as Oswald's Carcano(C2766).
No, it is not, and it is not the rifle that was ordered from Klein's. Anyone with two eyes can look at the Klein's catalog and see that the rifle that "Hidell" ordered had the strap hooks on the bottom, but CE 139 has no hooks on the bottom but has them embedded in the side.
The evidence in the OP showing the many similarities in random scratches, scrapes and gouges on the rifle Lt. Day takes from the Depository and the rifle in evidence.
Those ambiguous "similarities" do not explain the absence of the "CAL" and "Made Italy" markings on the Day rifle.
Josephs extremely dishonest graphical enhancement of the "CAL 6.5" decal on the rifle to enhance a barely legible "CAL 6.5" on the rifle in evidence.
There is nothing the least bit dishonest about David Josephs' enlargements of the high-quality photo of Lt. Day carrying a rifle and of CE 139. You just don't like them because you can't explain why the "CAL" and "Made Italy" stamps are not on Lt. Day's rifle.
BTW notice that Griffith keeps running from my question of WHY?, why on Earth would Day or anyone else for that matter feel the need to substitute a rifle that was photographed and filmed in situ on the 6th floor, with another rifle of the exact same make and model and then resubstitute it for the same rifle originally found on the 6th floor? Where does this go? How does this "deception" tie into the conspiracy? Well Griffith, waiting......?? JohnM
Just curious: Who is "Well Griffith"? You see, people with adequate education know that you need to put a comma after an interjection that precedes someone's name. If I were to say the same thing to you, I would say, "Well, Mytton."
I usually would never nit-pick someone's writing errors, but since you guys posture as though anyone who rejects your minority viewpoint is uneducated and fringe, I decided to make an exception. You guys keep forgetting that you are the ones who are in the decided minority on the JFK case, and that polls have consistently found that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your version of the shooting.
I've already explained why they would have replaced the TSBD rifle with CE 139. They were confident they could get away with it, and they did for decades. There were no clear close-up photos taken of the rifle in the building, and the Alyea footage is grainy and was taken in poor lighting.
BTW, there are two other differences between the Day rifle and CE 139 (the alleged murder weapon):
One, the scope looks different. This is obvious at first glance and become more obvious when you look more carefully.
Two, 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, unlike the flange on Day's rifle, and the distance from the flange to the sight is different on the rifles.
Rather than hide behind theoretical objections because you summarily reject the possibility of evidence tampering, you need to address the visible fact that the two rifles are clearly not the same weapon.
-
A lot of detail in the DP images is washed out by sunlight, but this mark (near the edge of a less exposed area) seems a fairy good match to the NARA images.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2QnvCRp/ce139-day-comparison.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydZWLjm7/ce139-day-comparison-2.png)
-
MU-
In the excellent images you have provided...it appears the slots in the two screws are not aligned in the same way. Especially the bottom screw. Not sure what this means, if anything.
-
Robert Frazier testified about finding a significant scrape on the rear of the scope:
Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Has anyone found that scrape in any photos of the rifle? If so, is there a photo that was taken earlier than that photo that indicates that the scrape wasn’t there at that point in time? I am trying find any evidence that might indicate when that scrape on the scope happened. Can it be determined from any of the photos if the scrape was it there (or not there) when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD?
I think that a definitive answer to this question might help with the question asked in the title of this thread. And also help with answering the question of what condition the scope might have been on 11/22/63.
Thanks!