USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

We are down to two photos, one with no AEF number and one with an AEF number. The problem didn't go away. The photo with no AEF number had to precede the one without an AEF number.

If you have anything in the photo that can qualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in France, please provide it. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating.



Afterthought:
Can you believe two adults could prolong such a silly argument this long? Someone throw a joke in here. We all need some relief.

[cplnorton]

Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

I have studied these pictures for more hours than I ever care to admit. It's NOT in anyway the same photo. 4337 and 4338 are indeed different pics.

Look at the rope I put arrows next to. There are also other differences in the pics as well. That is why two different numbers. There isn't a red flag here. It's just two different pics. You just didn't look at them close enough.

4337 on top, 4338 on bottom.

[cplnorton]

As I understand it, each photo, if taken in France, will have 2 numbers - an AEF Number, which was applied to the negative in France, usually in the lower left hand corner, and an ID Number, which is assigned by the SG once received in the states. This photo has 3 ID Numbers and 2 AEF numbers. They are all the exact same photo. Since one appears without an AEF Number, it could be a photo taken here in the states, and for whatever reason, assigned an AEF number at a later date, or in this case, two differing AEF Numbers. Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

4337 and 4338 are two different pictures. Look at them closely. Even though it's of the same guy. It's indeed two different photos. I would imagine taken back to back while he was posing for the camera.

Again if you have anything in the photo that can disqualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in the states. Please provide it. Otherwise all you are doing is speculating.

[cplnorton]

Jim all you are doing is speculating.

There is NOTHING in that photo that can in ANYWAY disqualify it as taken in France. If there is anything in that picture that proves it wasn't take in France please point it out.

There are only two valid arguments I see to this photo, to something I have said in this post. Either the photo could be a couple weeks later than my original date of around December 1917. Or someone could make the very real argument that it was in fact earlier by possibly a few months in 1917.

Actually if someone made the argument that it was earlier in 1917, I could concede that is a valid argument. Because it could have been. As I'm basing the date around the block.

But arguing this picture was not taken in France, when there is nothing in this photo that can disqualify it as taken in France and there is nothing document wise that provides any evidence to the contrary is all speculation.

If you have any evidence please provide it.

[cplnorton]

As for the photos in the catalogue being in chronological order:

3) Caption lists by A.E.F. number- 7 legal size boxes containing volumes which are arranged by AEF "Key" numbers assigned to each volume (A9, G10, S4 etc.), thereunder numerically by AEF photo number (236 A9, 237 A9 etc.). Most of the volumes also list the Signal Corps number assigned to the AEF print. The Signal Corps numbers do not run consecutively from beginning to end of volume, but rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively.

Jim read the next line. As I said this is a group of pictures. In the group they seem to run consecutively. This is a blocks of Marine photos as anyone can see my actually looking at the page. There are blocks of Marine photos, and blocks of Army, and other random blocks.

"But rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively."

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As for the photos in the catalogue being in chronological order:

3) Caption lists by A.E.F. number- 7 legal size boxes containing volumes which are arranged by AEF "Key" numbers assigned to each volume (A9, G10, S4 etc.), thereunder numerically by AEF photo number (236 A9, 237 A9 etc.). Most of the volumes also list the Signal Corps number assigned to the AEF print. The Signal Corps numbers do not run consecutively from beginning to end of volume, but rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As I understand it, each photo, if taken in France, will have 2 numbers - an AEF Number, which was applied to the negative in France, usually in the lower left hand corner, and an ID Number, which is assigned by the SG once received in the states. This photo has 3 ID Numbers and 2 AEF numbers. They are all the exact same photo. Since one appears without an AEF Number, it could be a photo taken here in the states, and for whatever reason, assigned an AEF number at a later date, or in this case, two differing AEF Numbers. Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.

[cplnorton]

If I'm following your argument, you are stating that the 1537 number must mean it's earlier. Or taken elsewhere and just put in this book.

EVERY single one of these has that second number, and they are all in order. And many even say the location they were taken in France and the date.

So I'm not following how that 1537 number would mean it was taken in the states and also taken earlier. All of them in this group have that number

[cplnorton]

Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation.

I'm not following. It says it was in France.

[cplnorton]

First lets post the whole page so people can actually read it. I don't think anyone looking at this would argue that these pics are taken at Random. Or that a pic of the states was just thrown in this group and labeled as taken in France.

Also if I'm following you, you are saying the number 1537 should have been taken earlier than 4337, but then you say I am wrong when I say the pics seem like they are in order? If you are saying that 1537 should have been taken earlier, wouldn't that mean they are in order?

The other thing I don't think you have noticed is that EVERY single one of these has a second number in this group. See how they all have a number in say the 4000 range in this page, but then have a second number in say the 1500 range? They are all have that.

Each picture has BOTH numbers from this group.

I'm not following your logic on why this pic wasn't taken in France. Do you have anything that states that pic was taken in the US as you claim? Or any proof the Actual title is wrong?

The pic is broken up in 3 so it's bigger font.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thanks for your explanation, Smokeeaterpilot. I have been aware of the net access to these records (and others) for some time. The photo you posted is the same photo I posted, except I blocked out the reference and wrote my name across mine (which makes someone's post above really confusing). I have spent entire days perusing the photos. Finding a away to download them at high resolution has been taxing. Both the original photos and the digitized photos have incredible resolution. If you zoom them on the NARA site, you can see minute details not detectable in the downloaded versions.

There is a small block of photos with the label "U.S. Marines in France" that appear to have been taken for an article in Bain (?). I think the label was a way to identify the pictures for an article in some publication, versus a statement as to where the picture was taken (the label is missing from one of the photos). Don't know for certain. That some of the Signal Corps photos were staged stateside has been known, or suspected, for a long time (like "Through the Wheat"). What I found odd was that the exact same picture appears in the catalogue three times, and what appears to be the original has a very low AEF number and all three are missing the usual explanation of who is in the picture and when and where taken. The reason? Who knows?
Have fun in the archives.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Andrew you are awesome my friend! Thank you so much for actually taking the time to go to the archives and actually pull the real copy of it, instead of the one just posted online. And I learned something. I actually didn't know they put all those photos online to search. That is really interesting. Now anyone can look them up really easy! That is awesome!

It might have got lost in the post above, because Andrew posted so much awesome info. But here is the one Jim posted earlier and cropped out the link to the 4337 and 4338. It's Just the high def version of the pic that Andrew actually pulled.

Thanks so much again man!

I would like to point out I did not pull this document. The actual photograph was not able to be found. The error made by the archivist further complicated it. After discussing this fun of this controversial photo with the staff, they went looking for it. They did not find it and did not find the glass negative until they realized they screwed up. Then they taught me that these files had already been digitized and how to locate them. I saw no need to actually pull the glass negative of 1537 after that long conversation. Your photographs 4337 and 4338 were correctly logged and easy to find. It was the "A" that proved problematic. They lead me to the link so posted it.

But happy to help I was already down there.

And for the record. I mentioned to the staff of the how important finding these original photographs was because there was a long standing debate on these particular photographs. Once they realized the error, the staff was discussing amongst themselves how to correct it. One actually said, "if this is such a hot button topic and he's posting this to the forum where people are gonna be looking for it, we don't have to correct anything the forums will take care of that for us."

Enjoy that fun statement from the NARA Staff.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Thank you for the post, Smokeeaterpilot. I was wondering the meaning of the "A". Still, the lack of an AEF number on the 1537 photo indicates, to any reasonable person, that it preceded the other two. Also, we now know that all the catalogue photos were not taken in France as previously stated. Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation. Caution should always be exercised when drawing conclusions from any document. Such is the nature of true research.

No worries on posting the data, but it was already available via online since it has just recently just made digitalized. At least I found that and anyone reading this tread can now find that, so that's worth something.

I however do think we part ways on a few things. I understand, like most reasonable people that Archival documentation does possess some flaws. Sometimes documents can contradict each other, or a memorandum can be over ridden a few weeks later. Tim Plowman has made some compelling arguments of a few errors in the recording of USMC photography in the Pacific during WWII he has come across. So it does not come without errors (and funny enough illustrated a just recently that a NARA archivists incorrectly marked the document with an "A").

However, invalidating cataloguing errors or documentation errors come with a huge burden of proof of the person making the statement, to almost prove beyond reasonable doubt that there has been an error made. Beyond comments from you or Steve Norton I really haven't seen anyone else make a argument one way or another. From my perspective I haven't seen anything to really invalidate it completely. On the flip side I haven't really seen that the pictures are irrefutable since the publication admits to numerous errors (however does not specify to the level, severity or most commonly made errors. Its a really vague statement (almost a CYA). So I err on the side of caution, quote what is stated in the documentation.

I do see some portions of comments made within the catalogue that should be of note.

Page 3:

"Forward. This catalogue has been made up from rough caption lists sent from France. It is for the immediate use of the public and is in no sense a final record."

"Corrections. This conditions under which these photographs were taken, captioned and speedily forwarded have inevitably causes numerous errors. The Chief, Historical Branch, War Plans Division, General Staff, Army War College, Washington D.C., will appreciate and authoritative corrections which may be sent him."

The catalogue itself admitted to numerous errors but looking for authoritative corrections. However it says these captions were sent from France and the document itself says "U.S. Marines in France. Telescopic Rifle Sight."

Could the picture have been taken in England? Could it have been simply intended to just a representative example of what a U.S. marine would've looked like in France? Could it have been taken post war? Could it have been taken state-side? This can be "what-ifed" for a long way..

There are numerous what ifs. And I'll definitely admit some of the statements made in the publication do warrant criticism (as stated above). However in my perspective the burden of proof hasn't been made to completely invalidate. There could be perhaps more conclusive evidence about the photography methods and record keeping techniques in textual records of Record Group 111 Records of Chief Signal Officer. A final nail in the coffin of faith in the captions if you will.

I was more concerned with that I new where to locate the photographs since the photograph record room is significantly smaller than the textual records section. I wanted to know if there was more information connected to the photographs such as if there was a handwritten memo accompanying the photograph or something significant written on the back (there wasn't unfortunately). What you see and what I posted is what you get. Until a new discovery can be made to further complicate this issue.

If you see a different interpretation of this then that's fine. I just wanted to take an opportunity since I was there to see if there was more information tethered to the photograph that may prove groundbreaking. But as I mentioned before what you see is what you get. (Other than the discovery of what the "A" meant that was just funny as it was surprising).

Happy Researching!

[cplnorton]

Here is the WRA model of 1918 scope on a M1903. Somewhere I have a hi def pic of this, but I might have got that pic from Andrew. Here is one I had from somewhere else. I just don't remember where I got it, it's just on my computer scanned from somewhere in my travels. But this was a test rifle right after WWI with the WRA scope mounted. These scopes fell apart under recoil.




This is the Carl Zeis M1903. There was a good chance this could have been a real sniper in WWI, if German didn't enter WWI in 1914. This pic predates 1914. I have the test trial on it, I want to say 1910 or 1912. but don't quote me. This pic was just on my computer. I didn't pull my hard copy to actually read the date again. But somewhere in my files I have a full report and schematics on it too. But if I remember right SA really liked this set up. Somewhere too, I have pics of the Goerz design. But it's sort of similar to the WRA model of 1918 above. WRA copied off that Georze design when Germany entered the war.

But yeah the way it all reads, if Germany didn't enter WWI. German Glass would have most likely been the US official Sniper. The A5 probably would have never been used.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thank you for the post, Smokeeaterpilot. I was wondering the meaning of the "A". Still, the lack of an AEF number on the 1537 photo indicates, to any reasonable person, that it preceded the other two. Also, we now know that all the catalogue photos were not taken in France as previously stated. Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation. Caution should always be exercised when drawing conclusions from any document. Such is the nature of true research.