CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine

[Jim Hargrove]

Yes, but there were several cut-out photos, and who knows if one was actually used if that cut-out still exists. What is clear is that someone was messing with those backyard photos that Marina CLEARLY never took.

[Bob Prudhomme]

One more time then Bob...

1) There is not strap ring at the bottom of the rifle, it is on the side of C2766 and on the bottom of the BYP rifle - also notice the metal band itself is wider on the BYP
2/3) There is not metal cap nor metal parts under the barrell or at the end of the stock
4) There is no round metal anything next to the Strap ring on the NARA rifle.. wood does not give the impression it is metal

So Bob... how did the clip get back into the rifle as seen in the photos of DAY outside?




[ATTACH=CONFIG]5993[/ATTACH]



One last question... 133-C did not exist until 1976. How did they know to position Det Brown here in this pose EXACTLY replicating the pose discovered 13 years later?
Unless someone at DPD was aware of that other image...


Given that the order, the inventory, the shipment, the payment and the retreival of the rifle are all shown to be fraudulent... why would you think that rifle and the TSBD rifle are the same?
as if whoever it was carted this rifle around for months given the timing of the BYP to begin with.... and was able to get THAT RIFLE onto the 6th floor THAT DAY...


[ATTACH=CONFIG]5994[/ATTACH]

David

I will concede #1, as there is something unusual about the sling mount in the BYP's. However, you are wrong about 2,3 and 4. First, you can plainly see the two attaching screws on the nose cap of the BYP rifle. Second, what you understand to be metal on the top stock, next to the sling mount band in the BYP photo, is, indeed, wood. It is reflecting sunlight and only appears to be metal.

M91/38's and M38's were all manufactured with the same standard features, with no variations. For your differences in 2,3 and 4 to exist would require some of these models to be made with no metal forecap/bayonet mount on the end of the forestock and for the topstock to have a metal end on the section protruding past the sling mount ring. I can assure you that such an M38 or M91/38 does not exist.

There were, however, a small percentage of these short rifles with bottom mount sling rings. That being said, though, look at the BYP rifle in the above photo. The NARA rifle has been photographed side on to the photographer, while the rifle being held by "Oswald's" hand is turned more with the top of the rifle toward the photographer. At this angle of presentation, should we be able to see as much of the sling ring as we can see?

As for the rest of your questions, I don't understand why you are suddenly presenting me with them.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Here is another possibility. Look at this photo for a second.



Unless the photo has been altered, the sling clearly seems to be attached to the side sling mount on the butt of this rifle, while the other end of the sling could very well be attached to a bottom mount sling ring on the forestock. The sling also appears to be a rope. Can you imagine how uncomfortable it was to carry this weapon slung over your shoulder, with the combination of the thin rope sling and the two differently placed sling mounts?

If the BYP and the NARA rifles were the same, what likely happened is that, at the same time the rope was replaced with the wider sling seen on the NARA rifle, the bottom sling ring was replaced with a side sling ring. This by no means implies that this person was Oswald; it just portrays another possibility.

As I said before, records show that a small percentage of short rifles had bottom mount sling rings, though how they came to be that way is not so clear. It must be remembered that these rifles were imported as war surplus, and that the company preparing them for export was often not dealing with complete rifles, and had to rob parts off the worst rifles to make complete rifles of the better weapons. It would not be unheard of to rob a bottom sling mount from an M91 to replace a missing side sling mount on an M91/38.

[Albert Doyle]

1) There is not strap ring at the bottom of the rifle, it is on the side of C2766 and on the bottom of the BYP rifle - also notice the metal band itself is wider on the BYP

If you look at the large backyard photo in this thread the rope strap goes to the side on the barrel mount. David, if the backyard rifle is a bottom mount what physical arrangement would cause the rope to obviously veer off to the side on the barrel mount? Think about this. If the backyard rifle has a bottom mount on the barrel wouldn't the rope end at the ring on the bottom and obviously terminate there? Why does the rope sling obviously veer off to a barrel side mount position in the enlarged backyard photo?

2/3) There is not metal cap nor metal parts under the barrell or at the end of the stock

I looked at this and think there's a photo color problem. You're comparing a sharp color evidence photo with a fuzzy blown-up black and white photo. I believe the shiny metal parts seen in the color photo don't show up with the same contrast in the black and white photo. Bob's references could be there but you just don't see them because of this lack of contrast and color blending. Also, it is very important to note that Oswald is shown to have the top of the rifle rotated slightly towards the camera in the backyard photo. This varies the perspective on the rifle parts slightly and could partly account for some of the perceived differences.

4) There is no round metal anything next to the Strap ring on the NARA rifle.. wood does not give the impression it is metal

It could be that the rope sling seen in the backyard photos has a metal ring on the end for attachment to the barrel mount. In other words it's the sling's ring not the rifle's. What you could be calling the rifle's barrel mount ring might actually be the sling's mounting ring. Since the enlarged backyard photo inarguably shows the rope veering towards the side on the barrel mount there is reason to suggest the backyard rifle is actually a side mount rifle. Logic dictates that of the two mounts seen in the backyard photo the stock mount is provably a side mount as the photo definitely shows. Since sling mounts usually came in matching pairs this confirmed side mount would suggest a matching side mount on the barrel. If this is true then the bottom mount ring seen in the backyard photo could be an optical illusion caused by the sling's ring being attached to the barrel side mount via another ring or attachment that makes it dangle and appear to be a bottom mount. The fact the rope clearly veers towards the barrel side mount in the enlargement strongly suggests this.

[Drew Phipps]

"Usually" doesn't mean anything for this rifle. There are so many anomalies to it, I don't think its safe to assume anything is true that you can't see. Sure looks to me like the butt-end mount is on the side and the barrel-end mount is on the bottom to me. You should also remember that the sling itself is a hand-made job, not anything specific to this type of rifle. The sling that shows in this picture doesn't have a leather pad attached to it like the recovered rifle did. I might be able to find a picture of the sling, if so I'll insert at edit. Of course, it that's really a 5' 9" LHO standing there, then the gun in that picture is 2 inches too long to be the rifle recovered from the book depository.

[Albert Doyle]

"Usually" doesn't mean anything for this rifle. There are so many anomalies to it, I don't think its safe to assume anything is true that you can't see. Sure looks to me like the butt-end mount is on the side and the barrel-end mount is on the bottom to me. You should also remember that the sling itself is a hand-made job, not anything specific to this type of rifle. The sling that shows in this picture doesn't have a leather pad attached to it like the recovered rifle did. I might be able to find a picture of the sling, if so I'll insert at edit. Of course, it that's really a 5' 9" LHO standing there, then the gun in that picture is 2 inches too long to be the rifle recovered from the book depository.

If you follow my arguments carefully the appearance of the barrel mount in David's comparison photo makes it look like it is a bottom mount with attachment ring. I think people are missing the fact that Oswald has the top of the rifle rotated towards the camera therefore skewing the perspective and possibly making a ring that is actually attached to a side mount appear to be attached to a bottom mount in the backyard photo.

If you view the enlarged photo you can see the rope sling veer and terminate on the side of the barrel. If it is a bottom mount what is making it do that? Wouldn't a bottom mount terminate on the bottom?

[Drew Phipps]

The "veer" that you see is exactly what convinces me there's a fastener there. Clearly how he's holding the gun means that gravity isn't forcing the strap to curl up to the bottom of the barrel. If not gravity, then what? In fact, the strap twists to show itself more side-on to the camera at that point, and I see a dark spot in the middle of the strap at that very point, before it falls down and twists away due to gravity. The part of the "strap" that continues past the bottom of the barrel towards the side could just be the loose end of the strap after the fastener, like how a belt goes a bit past the last belt loop.

I'm gonna find that picture, but IIRC, the recovered homemade strap doesn't look much like the one in the backyard photo.

The best picture of the strap and its mounts on the recovered rifle is here:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6025[/ATTACH]

Clearly a leather strap with a leather pad and 2 side mounts on the rifle. The strap could easily have been changed in the 7 months between the photos and the shooting, but unless this particular gun came with both a front-side and a front-bottom mount, it's a different gun from the backyard photo.

[Albert Doyle]

The "veer" that you see is exactly what convinces me there's a fastener there. Clearly how he's holding the gun means that gravity isn't forcing the strap to curl up to the bottom of the barrel. If not gravity, then what?

The ring.

If you have a very good eye you can see the loop in the rope where it attaches to the ring in the enlarged photo. Since the Gil Jesus close-ups show there is no rope going past this loop attachment I just realized the extra bit of rope I thought was veering towards the side is actually the ring. And the end of that ring doesn't go into the bottom it goes towards the side. The extra bit that I thought was rope is actually stiff ring. I believe the reason the rope goes to the bottom first is because the stiff ring is holding it there. However the attachment point for that ring is on the side.

In fact, the strap twists to show itself more side-on to the camera at that point, and I see a dark spot in the middle of the strap at that very point, before it falls down and twists away due to gravity. The part of the "strap" that continues past the bottom of the barrel towards the side could just be the loose end of the strap after the fastener, like how a belt goes a bit past the last belt loop.

If you look at the Gil Jesus site there is no rope on that sling that goes past the ring. It loops around the ring on the sling side and stops.

You have a good eye Drew. You noticed the dark spot. I believe the dark spot is the end loop portion of the rope that loops through the ring. You are looking at it sideways so you can see the void. On the ring, since the sling attachment loop is usually opposite the attachment point on the mount you are seeing evidence of the ring being attached on a side mount. Look closely. Rope loop on one side, side mount attachment point on the other.

I'm gonna find that picture, but IIRC, the recovered homemade strap doesn't look much like the one in the backyard photo.

The best picture of the strap and its mounts on the recovered rifle is here:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6025[/ATTACH]

Clearly a leather strap with a leather pad and 2 side mounts on the rifle. The strap could easily have been changed in the 7 months between the photos and the shooting, but unless this particular gun came with both a front-side and a front-bottom mount, it's a different gun from the backyard photo.

Go to Gil Jesus' site. He shows a sharp photo of a Carcano with bottom mounts. This is very important because the barrel bottom mount goes laterally in relation to the rifle, which means if the ring on the rope sling was attached to it it would be in line with the rifle lengthwise. So you would be more likely to see an open ring in a view from the side in these photos.

Look at Gil's sling mount photos. His photo makes it look like the ring attaches directly to the metal fixture on the rifle. (Remember the ring belongs to the sling, not the rifle) Then look at his bottom mount example. You will see the ring would not attach that way and would be attached longitudinally to the rectangular bottom mount fixture Gil shows. Again, more evidence against the backyard photo showing a barrel bottom sling mount. All you would have to do is get a rope sling mount with an attachment ring and connect it to a Carcano bottom mount to see what I'm talking about. Then do the same with a side mount Carcano.

[Albert Doyle]

The CE 133B photo also terminates on the side of the backyard Carcano even more noticeably than 133C. Gil presents a rather blurry photo of 133B. I imagine a clearer shot should be available from the original. As much as I respect Gil and his research and believe his invoice evidence proves shipping weight problems with the rifle, he does not show a sharp blow-up of the fastening point on 133B like is done in this thread with 133C. I think a blow-up of the 133B barrel mount would show it clearly goes into the side:



http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm



.

[David Josephs]

The discussion regarding the rifle in the photo can go either way...

What can't go either way is the Secret Service telling us that the rifle Klein's mailed to Hidell was an "1891 Troop Special"

Which equates to a M91TS... a 36" Carbine.

Whether it was actually mailed... received, or used in those photos is not the point. The authenticity of those photos is a far cry from reliable.
What is not unreliable is the FACT that C2766 is a FC rifle which was sent to Kleins in June 1962 with 99 other rifles.

Feldsott's C2766 affidavit is the ONLY piece of documentation that offers a trace of where C2766 went.

The SS declaring that C2766/V836 was a TS rifle and not a FC is direct evidence that the rifle ordered/processed was NOT the same as the rifle found.

Debate pictures and rifle characteristics all you like... the EVIDENCE states that C2766 is not the rifle related to the Klein's/Hidell charade.
DJ



[ATTACH=CONFIG]6029[/ATTACH]