The Mystery of the Bell Bloke
by
J. J. (Buffalo Joe) Healy
J. J. (Buffalo Joe) Healy
Who is this Bell Bloke in Breeches?
The three pictures exhibited above were sent in by Toronto Vet Jack O'Reilly.
Jack says: 'I am attaching three photos of Gerry Bell who was supposedly a member of the Force.
In one photo it appears he is wearing a Vets Red [Serge] Jacket. It was eventually determined that
he [Gerry Bell] was never a member of the Force.'
Yours truly,
Jack O'Reilly
Answers
Top Photo # 1:
Point One: Incorrect placement of the cross strap. The 'alledged' Corporal Bell wears his cross strap
over the incorrect shoulder. Observe that the Corporal wears his revolver on the right side. Therefore,
the cross strap should have been worn over the left shoulder, cross his chest in the front, come down and
attach to his Sam Browne belt near the revolver. The purpose of a 'cross strap' is to support the weight
of the revolver or sword -- this person here wears the cross strap backwards. The cross strap in the photo
serves no purpose.
Point Two: Incorrect placement of the lanyard. The lanyard is the piece of small, circular, white rope
which circles the wearer's neck and allows the 'runing end' to be attached to the revolver. The theory
behind wearing a lanyard is that the lanyard inpedes an offender who attempts to disarm the member.
In the photo, the lanyard is improperly worn around the person's neck. It ought to circle the member's
neck only after it has been placed through and under the epaulettes on both shoulders. Note also that
the revolver is incorrctly worn -- it ought to be worn further back on the hip so that the barrel of the
revolver is lined up with the yellow strip of the breeches. The 'Red Serge' jacket is worn disgracefully. It
is ill fitting and minus the 'collar dogs' -- small badges of the Force designed to be worn on the jacket's
collar. The jacket appears to be minus buttons on the breast pockets.
Finally, the Stetson is tilted too far back on the person's head -- it should be worn so that the under
side of the Stetson cannot be seen. This can be accomplished by wearing the Stetson further down on the
forehead, over the right eye nearing touching the right eyebrow. Small matter.
I hope the Commissioner and the Drill Instructors never see this photo!
Photo # 2: First, an RCMP member would not attach an RCMP shirt shoulder patch to a
flight jacket.
Secondly, the RCMP patch shown in the photo is an old styled devise -- likely from the 1970's
or perhaps the 1990's. Today, the shoulder patch would have the world 'POLICE' clearly printed
under the Crest of the Force. However, the age of the patch means that this person wore this particular
patch at least forty or fifty years after it was earlier claimed that 'Gerry Bell' returned to the RCAF in
the early 1930's.
In the early 1930's, the person would have had to be at least 36 years of age since he
had been previously in the Air Force and had trained as a pilot before coming to the Force. In actual fact,
he is too young in the photo to have done the things 'alledged'. The math doesn't add up ... it's impossible
that he was in the Air Force in the early 1930's! No harm done. I hope a math teacher never sees this photo!
Photo # 3: This person is wearing 'long blues' with an RCMP Vet's Red Serge Jacket. No
way! There is no such 'Order of Dress'.
He should be wearing dark blue pants as part of this attire, which is an formal mode illustrated by the
Red Serge Blazer, the white shirt and the bow tie. As well, an RCMP Vet would have his lady on his arm. A
Vet would likely not have his picture taken if he is the sole subject. I hope my wife never sees this
photo!
Finally, what can be 'detectively' deduced from the outset from all three photos? If you said: 'the
clothes worn by this person in all three photos are not originally his', you would be absolutely one
hundred percent correct.
How so, one cadet asks? Well, it's so obvious. All the clothes worn in each photo are too small for the
person. This critical observation means that the clothes were designed for a much shorter person -- not for
someone the height of the person in the photos. Look again, see? The sleeves are far too short and the pants
are far too short! Conclusion? The clothes in the photo are not his clothes! Small matter : No harm done.
From the Fort.
Click Here : Buffalo Blog
Fort Healy, Canada. Circa 2008
BACK TO TOP
www.rcmpgraves.com
Jack O'Reilly
Point One: Incorrect placement of the cross strap. The 'alledged' Corporal Bell wears his cross strap over the incorrect shoulder. Observe that the Corporal wears his revolver on the right side. Therefore, the cross strap should have been worn over the left shoulder, cross his chest in the front, come down and attach to his Sam Browne belt near the revolver. The purpose of a 'cross strap' is to support the weight of the revolver or sword -- this person here wears the cross strap backwards. The cross strap in the photo serves no purpose.
Point Two: Incorrect placement of the lanyard. The lanyard is the piece of small, circular, white rope which circles the wearer's neck and allows the 'runing end' to be attached to the revolver. The theory behind wearing a lanyard is that the lanyard inpedes an offender who attempts to disarm the member.
In the photo, the lanyard is improperly worn around the person's neck. It ought to circle the member's neck only after it has been placed through and under the epaulettes on both shoulders. Note also that the revolver is incorrctly worn -- it ought to be worn further back on the hip so that the barrel of the revolver is lined up with the yellow strip of the breeches. The 'Red Serge' jacket is worn disgracefully. It is ill fitting and minus the 'collar dogs' -- small badges of the Force designed to be worn on the jacket's collar. The jacket appears to be minus buttons on the breast pockets.
Finally, the Stetson is tilted too far back on the person's head -- it should be worn so that the under side of the Stetson cannot be seen. This can be accomplished by wearing the Stetson further down on the forehead, over the right eye nearing touching the right eyebrow. Small matter.
I hope the Commissioner and the Drill Instructors never see this photo!
Photo # 2: First, an RCMP member would not attach an RCMP shirt shoulder patch to a flight jacket.
Secondly, the RCMP patch shown in the photo is an old styled devise -- likely from the 1970's or perhaps the 1990's. Today, the shoulder patch would have the world 'POLICE' clearly printed under the Crest of the Force. However, the age of the patch means that this person wore this particular patch at least forty or fifty years after it was earlier claimed that 'Gerry Bell' returned to the RCAF in the early 1930's.
In the early 1930's, the person would have had to be at least 36 years of age since he had been previously in the Air Force and had trained as a pilot before coming to the Force. In actual fact, he is too young in the photo to have done the things 'alledged'. The math doesn't add up ... it's impossible that he was in the Air Force in the early 1930's! No harm done. I hope a math teacher never sees this photo!
Photo # 3: This person is wearing 'long blues' with an RCMP Vet's Red Serge Jacket. No way! There is no such 'Order of Dress'.
He should be wearing dark blue pants as part of this attire, which is an formal mode illustrated by the Red Serge Blazer, the white shirt and the bow tie. As well, an RCMP Vet would have his lady on his arm. A Vet would likely not have his picture taken if he is the sole subject. I hope my wife never sees this photo!
Finally, what can be 'detectively' deduced from the outset from all three photos? If you said: 'the clothes worn by this person in all three photos are not originally his', you would be absolutely one hundred percent correct.
How so, one cadet asks? Well, it's so obvious. All the clothes worn in each photo are too small for the person. This critical observation means that the clothes were designed for a much shorter person -- not for someone the height of the person in the photos. Look again, see? The sleeves are far too short and the pants are far too short! Conclusion? The clothes in the photo are not his clothes! Small matter : No harm done.
From the Fort.
Click Here : Buffalo Blog
BACK TO TOP