Jump to content
The Education Forum

How many rifles were found on the 6th floor?

Edwin Ortiz

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is the clearest back yard photo i have.

It shows the ring on the right hand.

Click on image to view full size


Good eye Robin, as always.

Apart from that, the ring in the arresting picture you've posted above on the left hand, would look by far more dominant on the right hand

in the backyard photo.

best to you


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is that a photo ( top) of 'the' carcano or a carcano?

Thomas Purvis (on the forum) at one time did a very comprehensive, but long, detailing of the carcano and its variants. Add to that it's historically a variant in itself in parts of the mauser which again has many variants.

edit add One important difference I can see is that the two rifles are presented differently rotation wise.

these are THE carcanos... the top is the NARA photo, the bottom you know...

and yes, there is a slight difference in the rotation...

Can you tell me where #3 appears on the BYP? Can you tell me why the NARA image does not have the round silver circle #4?

Can you explain why every single image of the carcano shows a bottom mount sling ring EXCEPT for the rifle in evidence?

Will you ever incorporate the rest of the evidence in considering the authenticity of the BYP...

I'd like to know what you feel is the most compelling evidence in SUPPORT of the 3 BYPs being genuine


4's not there because it's a reflection and the tilting (and rotating) and lighting is different. Don't know if every carcano photo shows a ring or not. I can't see any definite difference in 3.

Will I ever? I don't know.

Most compelling? I've spent a long time on those some time ago (years) (I'm not going to be able to do that again any time soon) in all sorts of analysis and I've also lived my life with cameras and my dad was an avid photographer. I see reasonable doubt possible in all that I've looked at.

I don't see how the photos beiong genuine in any way detracts from the assassination being a conspiracy. Nor (come to think of it) what my opinion on the matter matters for that matter.

I think we can agree that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and that there is an ongoing conspiracy to cover that up.

you wrote: Most compelling? I've spent a long time on those some time ago (years) (I'm not going to be able to do that again any time soon) in all sorts of analysis and I've also lived my life with cameras and my dad was an avid photographer. I see reasonable doubt possible in all that I've looked at.

Do I read this correctly? The most compelling evidence that the photos are genuine is you seeing reasonable doubt that they are genuine?*

John, we have the micro and macro problems here... Whether these photos are genuine or not does not make or break the MACRO case, exactly - from the micro view these are photos that supposedly places the assassination rifle he never rec'd in his possession, a revovler he never rec'd on his belt, taken weeks before he supposedly rec'd them by Marina who can't remember how the camera works (even though she's only taken a handful of photos) or how many images she took, in a series of poses that appear physically impossible with his head in virtually the same exact location and size even though the photos are taken from different distances, which were found at 3:30pm on 11/23 yet shown to Michael on 11/22 and while Fritz asks about them at noon on 11/23, with the DPD recording the 2 negatives into evidence only to lose one of them so compariosn between images cannot be adequately done, with additional copies in the possession of the families of the men who "found" them...

One of which appears on the cover ot LIFE sealing Oswald's fate in the court of public opinion...

No John, if they were genuine, and those are the actual weapons used, and Oswald posed out of some unknown desire to have these images in his portfolio... it suggests that the Kleins documentation is correct (does THAT detract from there being a conspiracy?), that the rifle WAS in the Paine garage and ultimately taken to the TSBD as it was no longer at the Paine residence... that Railway did indeed hand over a revolver carton to Hidell/Oswald, and did collect the COD and send to Seaport and did collect the shipping and deposited it in their account. That the Money Order to Kleins was legit... that they did indeed live at Neely... that he did have a way to clean the rifle after the Walker shots and burying the rifle... that he bought ammunition, Etc, Etc, Etc... Doesn't change the fact that Oswald was not the man in Mexico, or in Alice, or at the Sports Drome, or at Odio's or, or, or... so now - it is not make or break

or we can say that the pix are legit and the Paines simply allowed somone to take the rifle and plant it in the TSBD? Yet that doesn't explain the other discrepancies in the evidence related to the weapons.

So imo John, accepting the BYP as authentic leads one down a path that cannot be supported by the evidence... and is in fact contradicted by the evidence... Believing in the BYP is the same as believing in the Bethesda xrays, 3 shots 3 hits 1 shooter, the magic bullet, CE399 being involved and a single casket entry into Bethesda... Possible yet that belief does in deed change the nature of the conspiracy and gives credibility to SOME of the fabricated evidence.

IDK about you but I've not seen compelling evidence that they are authentic since the process to create the image would incorporate the use of the original camera and therefore have the same markings as Shaneyfelt explains....

Has a photographic expert in the creation of these types of images ever been tasked to take an original negative from that type of camera and replicate the final product in the same manner as is suggested?

No (to the bolded*). The opposite. As I said tho I can see how one might misunderstand my statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the primary element of that backyard photo I do not understand: has ANYONE ever reconciled how a human being can tilt in such a manner or am I the only one who notices that (not to mention the cut off fingers, odd left arm, shadow errors, etc)? What is the official verdict on that element of the photograph? Perhaps the photograph itself or the camera that "took" it caused such a titling of Oswald? Even if the viewer is titled, that makes the case even stranger for Oswald, for if the viewer tilts, then Oswald would be in more of a "magical" standing position. Has anyone ever dealt with this or am I honestly not seeing something correctly?

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...