Chris Bristow Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Jim, I think this issue of angles and scope size can be resolved by looking at Jack White's comparisons of the FBI, National archives, and Dallas Police photo comparison that I posted on page one. The Dallas Police photo is the most distorted. In it the butt of the rifle is much smaller than the comparison photos yet the barrel is larger, longer than the FBI and archives photos. Still the scope in the Dallas Police photo is not shrunk much at all. I think this confirms that the angles are not the cause of the shorter scope. Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork. I also think the different angles of the scope to the barrel are simply the result of that airbrushed portion of the scope being misaligned. In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake. The butt of the gun changes in size as you change the exposure level which in turn changes that line from the barrel to the butt. Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. The rotation will change the red line from the barrel to the top of the butt of the rifle. I believe the issue of the scope and Barrel angles will detract from your main issue and should be dropped. One other thing that I don't understand is that you call your comparison the Life magazine photo, but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) Chris, I don't agree with everything you say, its simply a matter of interpretation. But, on the whole you have done excellent work and have hit the nail on the head. You say "In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake." When I drew that line I indicated in was an arbitrary line. I wanted to show two things. Those are the tilt of the scope and the phoniness of the bolt handle. When you introduced the line from the end of the bolt to the beginning of the barrel I agreed that was a better way to look at it and have used that in other illustrations. IMO, not a mistake but a difference in interpretation. Good work on that better suggestion. You also said "Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork." I agree, but when I say such things I usually get beat up about it and have a tendency to shy away from that. You said, " but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo" Another piece of good work is mentioning the nub of the scope in certain versions of the BYP CE 133 A. The two photo cropped images are from the first page and Jim Hargrove. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the photos. The phoniness of the bolt handle shows that it is a LIfe BYP and is perhaps a different version of the CE 133 A photo. I think Jim said his photo came from the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, the Life BYP cover I have does show the "nub" clearly. There is a clear difference in Jim's crop and this one. Remember, Life magazine made adjustments to the photo. Or, this nub could be the reason that the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek decided to eliminate the scope in their version of the BYP CE 133 A. You said, " Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. " I have to disagree on this one. IMO, the bolt handle is also artwork because the tilt of the rifle in the BYP rifle is not enough to increase the size of the bolt roughly to twice its original size as shown in the CE 139 rifle crop. To get that bolt handle to that size one would have to twist the center of the rifle greater than the butt stock and front portion of the rifle. It is simply to long and not of the same appearance as other bolt handles on other bolt action rifles. The scope doesn't show that kind of tilt because it is still sitting to the left of the rifle and fairly well matches the way the scope was mounted. Edited July 29, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) Robert Prudhomme has provided valuable information on the scope and some of the problems and benefits with the scope mounted to the left of the rifle. He makes a very crucial point about Oswald could have used the M1 Garand rather than the faulty Carcano. I believe M1's were readily available in 1963 as the Army had switched to the M14 in I believe 1957. Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) This thread was begun on another forum and I am transferring the posts to here. ianlloyd wrote:Did its offset mounting make using the open sights a possibility? Looking at the scope, it looks to be mounted quite high above the weapon, presumably in order to allow operation of the bolt but also to allow the shells to eject without hitting the scope? Does this provide sufficient space beneath the scope to have used the iron sights instead? I've only shot air guns as a kid and used scopes on those sometimes and recall finding it difficult to re-acquire a target (obviously just to look at it after firing to see if I'd hit it). I usually removed the scope as I found it easier with just the iron sights, even more so if tracking a target. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello IanYou bring up a very good point about scopes designed for air guns and low velocity .22 calibre rifles.The rifle scope mounted on the M91/38 6.5mm Carcano short rifle, allegedly owned by LHO, was an Ordnance Optics 4x18 scope. It was a very inexpensive scope made in Japan and was designed to be mounted on a .22 calibre rifle or an air powered pellet gun. Due to the low velocity of a .22 rifle, it is not a rifle typically used to make 100 metre shots, and target shooting at 25 metres is more in line with its capabilities.To better understand this scope, it is necessary to define the numbers assigned to it, 4x18. The number 4 tells us that this scope will magnify the size of anything viewed through it four times. The number 18 defines what is known as the "objective lens diameter" and is the diameter of the forward end of the scope that allows light in. The larger the diameter, the more light is allowed to enter the scope and the better defined the target is to the viewer. As stated, this scope was 18 mm in diameter. Scopes designed to shoot 100+ metres usually start at around 32 mm and go as high as 50 mm.A very important feature of a scope, and the cause of your problems in re-acquiring your target, is a thing known as "field of view". This is usually defined in hunting scopes as the width of the area visible through a scope at 100 metres. Quite simply, some "wide angle" scopes, such as the original Redfield Widefield scopes, made it much simpler to find what you were shooting at by giving you a wider view of what you were trying to look at. I bought a wide angle Bushnell scope for a rifle years ago simply because I could not track a moving deer through brush when viewing it in such a tiny field of view as was seen in the scope I replaced. Now, when you design a scope to shoot .22 calibre rifles at 25 metre targets, field of view no longer becomes a concern for the manufacturer. I remember shooting .22 rifles equipped with similar cheap scopes as a kid, and the field of view was ridiculously small, comparable to trying to find someone in a crowd by looking through a 1/2" tube.For those who believed Oswald used the open sights on 22/11/63, here is a good question. If Oswald practiced shooting this rifle as much as some claim he did, he would have noticed the inadequacies of the scope re: field of view immediately. Wouldn't it be likely that he would have removed the scope prior to bringing the rifle to the TSBD, if he knew he was going to be using the open sights?More to come...... Edited October 22, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) To better understand the difficulties of sidemounting a scope on a rifle, there are a few more things about rifle scopes you should know. Look carefully at the following two diagrams: These may look a bit complicated but are really quite simple. When a bullet leaves the muzzle of a rifle, the only force acting on it then is gravity, and it will begin falling to the earth. For this reason, to hit a target at 100 or 200 metres by aiming at it through a scope (or sights), it is necessary to raise the barrel up so the bullet will follow a parabolic curve to the target and impact the target on descent. The amount of elevation depends upon how "flat shooting" the rifle is. A rifle with a high muzzle velocity and a high ballistic coefficient will not require much elevation, while a low velocity round with a bullet possessing a low ballistic coefficient (the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38, for example) requires more elevation.Quite often, on a hunting rifle, the line of sight will be adjusted until the rifle is able to hit bullseyes at 200 metres. This does not mean the hunter is specifically looking for game at 200 metres, although his rifle is sighted in for that distance. The purpose of this is that his rifle, at 100 metres, will only be shooting an inch or two high at the top of the parabola and this can be easily compensated for, much easier than trying to hit a target at 200 metres with a rifle sighted in for 100 metres. The results can be seen in this chart. Note how quickly the bullet begins to drop. It should be noted that C2766 was an M91/38 short rifle, and that its rear sight was not adjustable, but fixed at 200 metres (219 yards). If C2766 was a high velocity flat shooting rifle, a bullet impacting the bullseye at 200 metres would only be an inch or so high at 100 metres. However, this was not the case with C2766, and the ballistics calculator we used in another thread shows that a Carcano 6.5mm bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps, impacting a bullseye at 200 metres, would be just over 7 inches high at 100 metres. This is a serious consideration for the "Oswald did it all with open sights" advocates. It is interesting to note, from the first two diagrams, that the bullet path will cross the line of sight just a few metres out from the muzzle, and again at the target. This actually means that a rifle sighted in to be accurate at 200 metres is also accurate at a few metres.Now, while the trajectory of a rifle seriously affects hitting the height of a target at different ranges, and this was the inspiration for built in rangefinders on hunting scopes, the advantage of mounting a scope (or open sights) directly above the barrel of a rifle is that the left-to-right (windage) of line of sight to bullet impact relationship does not vary with range. In other words, if you aim at bullseyes at 50 metres, 100 metres, 200 metres and 300 metres, you will see a corresponding drop of the impact point of the bullets as you go further out but, unless you are shooting in a crosswind, there will be no variation to left or right on the target.However, if you mount the scope on the side of the receiver, as on LHO's alleged rifle, you are no longer directly over the barrel. Even though it appears to be too small of a space to make much difference, the line of sight (from the scope) and the line of departure (bullet path) are now beginning from two different points, and the rifle can only be sighted in for windage to be accurate at one range and one range only; namely, the point at which these two lines converge. Any close shot made with this rifle will put the bullet to the right of the aimed at target, and any shot made past the convergent point will put the bullet to the left of the aimed at target.Years ago, a friend of mine owned a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action rifle. It had open sights and was a great deer rifle in brushy ground. For some odd reason, my friend decided one day he just had to have a scope on this rifle, even though he was a deadly shot with open sights. As with the Carcano, it was necessary for the gunsmith to side mount the scope on the 30-30, not because of interference with the action but because this repeating rifle ejected cartridges straight up from the receiver, and they would hit the scope.The gunsmith "boresighted" the scope after mounting it but, of course, it was still necessary to sight the rifle in at the range as boresighting only "gets you on the paper", as they say. It almost drove us insane trying to sight that rifle in so it would hit bullseyes at 100 metres. Every adjustment we made to elevation or windage seemed to throw us off somewhere else. It didn't help that the Model 94 is a very light rifle and likes to kick, and one is anticipating this with each shot.During this exercise, I tried a couple of shots with the open sights, and found having the scope right in your face made this an extremely awkward and uncomfortable thing to do. As I said before, those who think the inadequacies of the scope would have prompted LHO to use the open sights during the assassination are as much as saying LHO never practiced at a range with this rifle. If he had, he would have removed the scope long before he brought the rifle to Dealey Plaza. Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) In basic training in the USMC, Lee Harvey Oswald would have been issued a 30-06 calibre M1 Garand. This was an eight round, semi-automatic, "en bloc" clip fed rifle that was equipped with a type of iron sights known as a "peep sight". There is no evidence to show that Oswald, in basic training or later on, ever received any training in shooting and maintaining a scope mounted rifle.It is interesting to note the similarities between the 6.5mm Carcano and the M1 Garand. Both used an "en bloc" charger clip, six round for the Carcano and eight round for the Garand. The Carcano clip fell out of the bottom of the magazine when the last round was chambered and the Garand clip was ejected out the top of the magazine when the last round was fired. Neither of these rifles could have a scope mounted directly over the receiver. The bolt of the Carcano would have struck a scope in this position, and the Garand ejected its empty cartridges upwards (like the Winchester Model 94 I spoke of). In some cases, scopes were side mounted on the Garands on the left side of the receiver, and, in others, scopes were mounted ahead of the chamber and directly above the barrel, to overcome the problems I spoke of in my last post. Suffice it to say that shooting with a scope mounted ahead of the chamber would be awkward, at the least. Also, note the difference between these long range scopes and the pathetic .22 calibre scope mounted on Oswald's alleged rifle.As the M1 Garand is a very accurate fast shooting weapon and its peep sight makes target re-acquisition very easy following a shot being fired, I have often thought to myself that the Lone Nut story would have been much more believable if the rifle found on the 6th floor had been a Garand. This was, after all, the rifle Oswald had trained with, and its semi-automatic action would have allowed more than three shots to be fired in the time allotted. Here are a couple of Youtube videos that demonstrate how quickly an M1 Garand can be fired with accuracy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5k8r2OrFEchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF5CdczuMTA Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Robert Prudhomme Robert Prudhomme Super Member Members 4,105 posts Gender:Male Location:British Columbia, Canada Interests:Gold mining, horses, pickup trucks, fishing, hunting, killing trees, you know....the usual redneck stuff Report post Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) From the Warren Commission testimony of FBI Special Agent Robert A. Frazier:"Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And I have the four targets we fired here. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554. Mr. EISENBERG - Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - I fired them. Mr. EISENBERG - Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5 inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in 5.9 seconds. The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2 to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of the aiming point. Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point. These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in 6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle. Mr. McCLOY - The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots."For a firearms expert, Mr. Frazier has an odd way of describing things. For example, the shots were "gradually moving away from the point of impact." Unless there was some sort of magic at play here, I think I would have said they were moving away from the point of "aim", not impact.Speaking of magic, I do not think I have ever heard of a rifle scope that required a few shots being fired to allow it to "stabilize" itself. This would be akin to changing the TV channels with a remote control and then having to bang on the side of the TV until the channel changer responded. What would happen if you hit the TV one too many times? Would it go past the desired channel? If what Frazier says is true (and I think it is nonsense), each time the rifle scope is jarred, it will take several shots to "re-stabilize" it. Once again, we have the FBI relying heavily upon the ignorance not only of the WC but also of the American public. In fairness, though, it should be pointed out again that the 4 x 18 Ordnance Optic scope was designed to be used on pellet guns and .22 calibre rimfire rifles, and it has been reported by many rifle owners they do not stand up well to the jarring from larger calibre rifles.However, the tendency of successive shots to "walk away" from the point of aim is a common problem with rifles, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the rifle scope. In fact, I experienced this myself, and the cure was quite simple.As rifle stocks are made from wood, they are prone to absorbing moisture. If you live in a humid climate, such as the temperate rainforest I live in or the city of New Orleans, where LHO resided, this wood can be exposed to tremendous extremes of moisture. In my case, I would go from long hunts on foot in the rain to a nice warm house heated with firewood. I would wipe my rifle down, clean it and then hang it on the wall next to a wood fired heater.Suffice it to say, it only took a few cycles of this wet/dry before the wooden forestock of my rifle warped on me. It first became apparent when I could not hit what I was shooting at. I took the rifle to the range and found, at 100 metres, it was hitting, on the first shot, slightly high and to the right of the bullseye. Each successive shot hit higher and more to the right, until I was easily six inches from the bullseye.The barrels of most rifles "float" in their forestock, meaning that they are attached to the stock only at the chamber. This can be demonstrated by wrapping a piece of paper half round the barrel and sliding it between the barrel and the forestock. There should be no contact and the paper should pass easily between barrel and forestock, right up to the base of the barrel where it meets the chamber. If it does not, you have a problem that needs to be corrected.In the case of this rifle, I found, at the front end of the forestock, the forestock had warped and was pressing tightly against the lower left side of the barrel. Believe it or not, this small amount of pressure was enough to slightly bend the barrel upwards and to the right, making the first shot land high and to the right of the point of aim, and progressive shots hit higher and further to the right of the point of aim. When I fired the first shot, the barrel heated up, expanding the metal, and the increased pressure caused the barrel to bend more. Each successive shot would bend the barrel even more as the temperature of the barrel increased.The solution, of course, was simple. I removed the stock and sanded that part of the forestock that was contacting the barrel until I had re-established the necessary clearance, applied sealant to prevent it absorbing more moisture and re-assembled the rifle. Edited January 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Edited July 29, 2019 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Jim, the BYP and CE139 are the rifles in my overlay and it shows how different images of the same thing yet with a variety of details different, makes it impossible to do size comparisons on a 2d image. That and the rifles are not even facing the camera the same way... when someone employs Photogrammetry and does actual measurements, we’ll know... Ive been doing image comparisons a long time now... with different focal lengths and distances, comparisons are only estimations. Tell us it was the same camera at diff distances, or same distance diff focal length... and we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 I’d be more inclined to consider these arguments if we were dealing with legitimate evidence here, but the whole backyard photo business stinks to high heaven. We start with a rifle that was allegedly purchased with an uncashed, unprocessed postal money order. As John A. wrote, “There is no innocent explanation for these photos, negatives, and a color transparency to have been in the hands of FBI agents, DPD officers, and the National Photo Laboratory on the evening of November 22, because the "backyard photos" were not "officially found" by the Dallas police until the next day (November 23) in Ruth Paine's garage.” The FBI told Curry almost immediately that it had “Oswald’s” handwriting on the order from of the rifle, but it took nearly a week for the FBI to announce how much Klein’s charged for a rifle and scope. The price originally given was for a rifle without a scope. Then there is the matter of the giant head in the BYP. “Oswald” apparently said it was his head pasted on someone else’s body. Many of us suspect that body belonged to Roscoe White. Geneva Dees, widow of Roscoe White, told the HSCA that her husband "was sent to the Oswald home in his capacity as a plainclothes detective for the photography division." She also said her husband was skilled in trick photography. White was in the photo department and started working for the DPD on October 7, 1963, just weeks before the assassination. Roscoe’s widow, 13 years after the fact, provided the HSCA with yet another “backyard photo,” (designated by the HSCA 133-C). And, of course, there’s that infamous “ghost” image. How much nonsense are we supposed to believe? I’ll believe my eyes rather than the endless excuses of government “investigators.” I don’t believe 133-A was retouched to remove part of the scope and put dark clothing behind where the scope once was. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, apparently. You may be right that we shouldn’t call this the “Life” photo, but, you know, they’re all supposed to be the same. I see little reason to expect these rifles should be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Tried and convicted by a newspaper article on Nov. 23, 1963. No more need be said. Except maybe another article about his shooting and funeral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 How did Roscoe White come into personal possession of another BYP? Did he steal evidence held by the Dallas PD? If so, just another indication of his sneaky dishonest and nefarious motive character? If not acquired this way...what other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 30, 2019 Author Share Posted July 30, 2019 9 hours ago, John Butler said: Tried and convicted by a newspaper article on Nov. 23, 1963. No more need be said. Except maybe another article about his shooting and funeral. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. By 11/23/63 the FBI was absolutely certain the handwriting on the rifle paperwork was that of "Oswald," but they sure as heck didn't know the price he paid for it. Funny, since the price should have been on the paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted July 30, 2019 Author Share Posted July 30, 2019 8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: How did Roscoe White come into personal possession of another BYP? Did he steal evidence held by the Dallas PD? If so, just another indication of his sneaky dishonest and nefarious motive character? If not acquired this way...what other? Roscoe White, I'm quite certain, had the Backyard Photos because he created them. He didn't have to steal anything from the Dallas police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 15 hours ago, John Butler said: Chris, I don't agree with everything you say, its simply a matter of interpretation. But, on the whole you have done excellent work and have hit the nail on the head. You say "In addition the comparison line drawn from the barrel to the top of the butt is a mistake." When I drew that line I indicated in was an arbitrary line. I wanted to show two things. Those are the tilt of the scope and the phoniness of the bolt handle. When you introduced the line from the end of the bolt to the beginning of the barrel I agreed that was a better way to look at it and have used that in other illustrations. IMO, not a mistake but a difference in interpretation. Good work on that better suggestion. You also said "Personally I think the rear of the scope in your photo was airbrushed in. Not a different scope but artwork." I agree, but when I say such things I usually get beat up about it and have a tendency to shy away from that. You said, " but the Life magazine photo is the one with the nub not the longer airbrushed, Imo, rear portion of the scope. Your photo seems to be something other than the Life Magazine cover photo" Another piece of good work is mentioning the nub of the scope in certain versions of the BYP CE 133 A. The two photo cropped images are from the first page and Jim Hargrove. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the photos. The phoniness of the bolt handle shows that it is a LIfe BYP and is perhaps a different version of the CE 133 A photo. I think Jim said his photo came from the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, the Life BYP cover I have does show the "nub" clearly. There is a clear difference in Jim's crop and this one. Remember, Life magazine made adjustments to the photo. Or, this nub could be the reason that the Detroit Free Press and Newsweek decided to eliminate the scope in their version of the BYP CE 133 A. You said, " Secondly Oswald rifle is rotated, that is why the bolt handle sits closer to the trigger. " I have to disagree on this one. IMO, the bolt handle is also artwork because the tilt of the rifle in the BYP rifle is not enough to increase the size of the bolt roughly to twice its original size as shown in the CE 139 rifle crop. To get that bolt handle to that size one would have to twist the center of the rifle greater than the butt stock and front portion of the rifle. It is simply to long and not of the same appearance as other bolt handles on other bolt action rifles. The scope doesn't show that kind of tilt because it is still sitting to the left of the rifle and fairly well matches the way the scope was mounted. The way I see it the arbitrary line is not the same in both images so can't be used to compare scope to stock angles accurately. Regarding the bolt almost every photo of a Carcano I see does not have it rotated like 133a. I duplicated the bolt position with my Mauser but that is not a perfect comparison. I found one image that comes very close to the bolt in 133a, close enough that I don't think it has to be faked in 133a. In most images the first part of the bolt is pointing right at camera and you can't see any of it's length. But as soon as you rotate down it grows significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 14 hours ago, David Josephs said: Jim, the BYP and CE139 are the rifles in my overlay and it shows how different images of the same thing yet with a variety of details different, makes it impossible to do size comparisons on a 2d image. That and the rifles are not even facing the camera the same way... when someone employs Photogrammetry and does actual measurements, we’ll know... Ive been doing image comparisons a long time now... with different focal lengths and distances, comparisons are only estimations. Tell us it was the same camera at diff distances, or same distance diff focal length... and we can. This is a extensive course on Photogrammetry from Bonn University in Germany. Over 50 hours of lecture to a class. I have only got thru a few lessons and have not seen a method for calculating the angle of the Carcano yet. The only way I can think of to determine if the rifle is leaning barrel end forward is to consider the manner in which it is distorted. A clear example of what to expect can be seen in Jack White's comp I posted on page one. The top rifle((Dallas PD) is by far the most distorted image of the Carcano. Measuring the distance between objects as you move from front to rear shows that the Dallas photo is larger than the other images at the barrel end but slowly shrinks as you move towards the butt of the rifle. At the butt end the rifle it is smaller than the other images. I believe this demonstrates that the barrel end leans toward the camera. In comparing the rifles I measure from barrel end to front sight, front sight to stock, stock to raise on top of stock. Raise to scope etc. I also photographed and tested a Mauser and verified the same measurable distortion. One thing that Jack Whites comp shows is that even though you can measure these differences they are much more obvious when comparing the barrel end to the butt. But even though the Dallas Police photo has a great deal of distortion front and back, the scope is not affected much at all. Those distortion can't account for the large difference that appears only in the scope. But more specifically in Jim's image it is only the last 3rd of the scope that appears too short. I can't figure how distortion, focal length or distance to camera could selectively shrink only the rear part of the scope. Not only does the Dallas PD image show a large amount of angular distortion, all three photos(National Archives, FBI and Dallas PD) were taken with different cameras, even with all that the scope in all three images is almost the same length. I think this is because the middle of the rifle is the closest to distortion free. Too big at the front, too small at the rear and just right in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 Yeah, I'm just not done with this yet.... Inset in the following graphic ought to be enough proof to anyone that not only do photographs lie, they cannot be used to measure much of anything. Comparing those photos would be like comparing the photos at the bottom right... EXCEPT, the distances and focal length SHOULD be almost identical... How can the same man have a 9 and 12.5 inch head in virtually the same photo? He can't... one or the other has been "arranged" to make a 5'11" Lee Oswald appear to only be 5'9" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) On 7/30/2019 at 9:19 AM, David Josephs said: Yeah, I'm just not done with this yet.... Inset in the following graphic ought to be enough proof to anyone that not only do photographs lie, they cannot be used to measure much of anything. Comparing those photos would be like comparing the photos at the bottom right... EXCEPT, the distances and focal length SHOULD be almost identical... How can the same man have a 9 and 12.5 inch head in virtually the same photo? He can't... one or the other has been "arranged" to make a 5'11" Lee Oswald appear to only be 5'9" I think some information can still be gleaned from distorted images. I mentioned earlier that you can measure the magnification of the barrel and minification of the butt and have a good idea of how much distortion we should see at different points along the length of the rifle. Of course all we can do is compare it with other photos that will have some level of distortion. But my point here is the level of distortion in the slide, the butt and the barrel are absolutely tiny compared to the rear portion of the scope which is over 30% larger in virtually every other photo except the cover of Life Mag. In the comparison below the yellow lines mark 2 points along the slide mechanism that are the same length in both photos. How is the scope, which is just above the slide, over 30% longer in the rear portion when the slide is normal? Now looking at the red lines they show that the front and middle part of the scopes and the brackets that hold it are all the same length, only the rear portion is over 30% longer. Can you think of anything that could ever cause such large and selective size distortions? Maybe printing it on defective paper could make for a 30% difference in just one small location on the print, and only along the horizontal axis. But where the distiortion merges back into the non distorted area we should see considerable bending, but there is none to see. It also leaves an image of the shirt where the scope originally was. The distortion is very large at 30% and limited only to the rear 1/3 of the scope with no corresponding distortion in the slide right below it. Those factors, imo, rule out the possibility of distortion as anything other than a very small contributor to the scope anomaly. Edited September 15, 2019 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) Hey Joseph, maybe my eyes are failing me but in those two photos of Oswald, is his head is 12.5 inches in the Marine photo and 9 inches in the other one??? Edit: Just gave those faces another look and it is weird. I sized them to match pupillary distance and when I did the inch marks behind them no longer match. The New Orleans mug shot has to be sized way up to match the PD and the the inch marks become about 20% larger than the Marine photo. So maybe the Marine Oswald is standing farther from the inch marker like you theorized. Very strange. Edited July 31, 2019 by Chris Bristow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said: Hey Joseph, maybe my eyes are failing me but in those two photos of Oswald, is his head is 12.5 inches in the Marine photo and 9 inches in the other one??? Wish I had a prize for ya Chris... 1956 induction... 1961 arrest in New Orleans.... seems like something is wrong until i show you a shot of Paul Newman at 5’10” with also a 12 inch head.... I think this adds proof to the existence of two men using the name LHO in day to day living and that people have hugely diff sized heads... If that Ozzie marine photo is real.... seems so Edited July 31, 2019 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now