Jump to content
The Education Forum

The rifle of TSBD and the rifle CE139 and their scopes had different lengths

Recommended Posts



Probably the best way to prove that the rifle found in TSBD at 1:22 p.m. and the "official Exhibit"  CE139 (Mannlicher-Carcano) were 2 different rifles is the following ( by the website http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/english/8/ )

By simply comparing the photos of the 2 rifles in the same position, you can clearly realize they cannot be the same rifle. If you equalize the length of scopes, as in “CE139 and TSBD Weapon” below, you discover that the rifle of TSBD is shorter (46 cm.)  than CE139 (54 cm.). And if you equalize the length of the rifles, as in “Comparison 1” below,  you discover that the scopes have different lengths and also they have been mounted  in different places. So, clearly they cannot be the same rifle (although similar they surely can be)

Moreover, if you watch the pdf attached file,  the width of the metal support (indicated by the white, orange-bordered, arrow) on which the scope of TSBD rifle was mounted, you can clearly see that it is wider than that of CE139 (it is just a narrow bar)

And finally, if you hear 1 person saying that he/she saw “a Ford” you may doubt  his/her testimony. But you hear 4 persons all saying that they saw a “Ford Orion, whose plate was Ohio 1127”, you can say they are for sure reliable witnesses.  In the same way, if you hear just 1 police officer “loosely”  saying: “I saw a Mauser”, you can doubt him. But if you listen to 4 police officers officially saying (1 of them even writing!) that they saw a “Mauser 7.65”, difficult to doubt. Or not?

"CE 139 &TSBD Weapon"


"Comparison 1"



tsbd rifle - day.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Alberto,

Your demonstration appears impressive but I have some concerns.

You have, of course, reversed the TSBD image to make the comparison, but we don’t know if either photo was taken with the rifle exactly at right angles to the camera. How would a possible difference in perspective affect the outcome?

The two photos were surely taken with different cameras, with possible differing amounts of lens distortion, and the two photos were taken from unknown distances from the rifles.  

Could any of these factors, or variables I haven’t thought of, affect the outcome of your interesting comparison? 


P.S. If you link your photos to Photobucket or something, everyone can see them.

Edited by Tom Hume
Link to post
Share on other sites


Taking two different photos and sizing them to match does not mean they match...  it means you've sized photos to match.

Without knowing the focal length and lenses involved the measurements are simply not accurate.

While I do agree with the conclusion which has been offered here in the past - that CE139, the BYP and the TSBD rifle were not the same...

Just not for the reasoning you've offered.  Photo can tell us if something is there or not...  only certain photos can be compared for size within the photos themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ David + Tom

Your objection has fully been considered as the main logical objection, of course, it is serious and makes sense, but there is a logical explanation , to answer your doubt.

Please, read better the article I enclosed above, and the METHOD they followed (which I 100% endorse).

Clearly two different photos of the same object can never  be 100% coincident, neither as size, nor as perspective from which they  were  taken, we all agree on that

And yet, the method followed by “JFK-le complot” website was to take either the rifle, or the scope, and MATCH IT to the size of the other rifle or scope of the other  photo, by magnifying or reducing the size of the photo.

Once you  matched one of  2 items, for instance the scope,  if the two objects are really the same, then you should match also the size of the other object (rifle).

 This happens because the rifle and its scope are very close (=   two parallel lines) if the two photos refer to the same object, WHENEVER THE SIZE OF ONE ITEM IS INCREASED/REDUCED, THEN THE OTHER ITEM SHOULD INCREASE/REDUCE FOR THE SAME PROPORTION/PERCENTAGE!

But let me make an accurate  and mathematical example.

Suppose you have a PHOTO A of  rifle whose length is 20 inches, carrying a scope of 7 inches mounted  on it.

You have also a PHOTO B of the same alleged rifle, just a bit inclined (as in the photo of Day carrying the rifle from the sling before the TSBD), where their sizes result as  a bit reduced.

For instance, suppose that the change of perspective/inclination is reducing for a 12% the length of the rifle, then the scope mounted on it should reduce its size for a 12% too.

So, your 20 inches of rifle become 17.6 inches, but the scope should reduce its size 7 inches in the photo B for a 12% too, becoming 6.16 inches.

But of course, once you magnify the scope on the photo B for a 12%, you immediately find a totally coincident rifle  too, because when you magnify the scope, you automatically magnify the rifle for the same percentage.


On the contrary, if the 2 photos A and B refer to 2 different objects, for instance another rifle whose length is 19 inches, and whose scope is 7.5 inches long, then if you try to match the scope with that of the photo A (7 inches) by reducing the size of the photo, then you cannot match anymore  the 2 rifles, because the rifle of the photo A was LONGER (20 inches)  than that of photo B, so if you reduce the size to match the scopes, you don’t match anymore  rifles' lengths.

Finally, it is not clear to me why you  David   are believing that 2 different rifles could have  exactly  the SAME scope mounted on it!

You should coherently  admit that,  if the rifle of TSBD was different from CE139, then it is very, very  likely that the scope too was different, even for some little  items , such as width of ocular lenses bells, or width of objective lenses bells, or total length, or point of barrel on which they have been mounted, etc., you always may find some little differences between two different (although similar)  objects.

If you support the idea that the scopes were the same, it seems to me you are undermining your own (and our!) belief that the rifles were different.







Edited by Alberto Miatello
typo to be amended
Link to post
Share on other sites


did you also consider in your example the location of the scope on an inclined rifle? The center part of the rifle, the fulcrum, will remain relatively unchanged relative to a perfectly vertical (or horizontal) rifle, while the butt and the tip of the barrel would be either further away or closer relative to a perfectly vertical (horizontal rifle). Thus, the error will be observed in the most proximal and distal parts of the rifle. If you equalise the lengths of scopes of one and the same rifle taken from two different angles, the mismatch would be most apparent at the tips of the inclined rifle whilst the scope, since it is at the center of the rifle, will be comparatively unaffected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To illustrate the geometrical issues more clearly, I have prepared a comparison of a 3D model of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (with an open bolt though) in Figure 1. In the upper panel, the bottom rifle is laying perfectly flat, and the other two rifles are inclined at an increasing angle. The bottom panel is a top view of these three rifles. The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little. This is illustrated in Figure 2 in which the lengths of scopes were  equalised in the flat and the most inclined rifle. As the result of matching the scope lengths in these two rifles the total lenght of the inclined rifle shrunk.

Figure 1: Three rifles with different inclinations.



Figure 2: The flat and the most inclined rifle from Figure 1 were equalised based on the length of scopes. Please note the locations of the tips of butts in both rifles.



Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice graphics and explanation, Andrej.

Well then, using your 3D modeling technique, would it be possible to do something like the following? Use the official photo of CE139 as a baseline, and manipulate the TSBD rifle-photo to see if there is, or is not, a certain perspective where the two rifle images align?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job, Andrej. I was going to recommend Alberto match the width of the rifle barrel in the Day photo to the width of the rifle barrel in the FBI photo, and lay this over a version of the Day photo that has been matched to the FBI photo by the width of the rifle butt.

That should tell you if the apparent differences can be explained by the rifle's being at a different angle in the Day photo.

If some of the features in the FBI photo are grossly at odds with either version of the Day photo...you have a different rifle.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites


Thanks a lot indeed Andrej, because your drawings/3D model are  100% confirming still further what I wrote !

You wrote: "I have prepared a comparison of a 3D model of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle "

On my computer screen, the first of your rifles  on the bottom  appears  17.9 cm. long and its scope is 5.2 cm. long, whereas the most inclinated rifle on top is just 15.5 cm. long and its scope is just 4.5 cm. long. (= nearly 85% of length of scope of the other longer rifle)

You wrote also: "The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little."

So, if what you wrote is correct, the total length of the shortest rifle (15.5 cm.), which is naturally 85% of the longest one (17.9 cm.)  should appear even shorter than what it is.

Moreover, you wrote (regarding the scopes) : "The total length of the rifle gets shorter with an increasing inclination angle while the length of the scope changes only a little"

But this does not seem correct, because the shortest scope (4.5 cm.) of the most inclined of yr.  rifles on top changes a lot too, its length becomes the same as that of the longest rifle! (= 5.2 cm.)

So, it is not true that the scope's length changed "only a little", actually it increased for a 15%!

At the end your 3-D Model changes the sizes of BOTH the scope (4.5 cm.)  and the rifle length (15.5 cm.)  of the shortest rifle, by making them almost coincident  with those of the longest rifle = 5.5 cm. scope and 17.9 cm. rifle.

In other words, your 3-D model proves exactly what I and "JFK the complot" website are writing , because you simply  increased for a 15% the lengths of BOTH the scope and the rifle's length of the shortest rifle , by making BOTH of them coincident  with those of the longest rifle, which was naturally 15% longer for both of them.

On the contrary, we have proved that when the sizes of scopes of rifle A and B  are different IN PERCENTAGE (i.e. rifle A scope = 30% of total length of rifle, whereas rifle B scope 25% of total length)  , you cannot match the rifles' length by matching the length of 2 scopes!

That is the point!


But let's go back to the famous TSBD rifle as displayed in the photo when Day is handling it through the sling.

Please, watch again the rifle Day was handling (see the attached PDF file: TSBD Weapon) through the sling , it is just slightly inclinated to the right for 10 degrees, and for 8-10 degrees ahead.

So, mathematically, an image of an object inclinated for  10° only should result in a change of  size according to the following formula:

 L (= length at 90°) x sin 80° = length at 90° x 0.984

Therefore the resulting image would keep 98.4% of its original size, it would just be reduced for a 1.6% (= 100 - 98.4).

Hence, a rifle whose legth is 54 cm. (= 21 inches and 17/64 (as CE139) should be reduced for just 0.86 cm. =  1/3 of 1 inch!

And yet, the mismatch of  Day's TSBD rifle with CE139 is incredibly larger, Day's rifle is just 46 cm. = just 85% of 54 cm. of CE139!!

The resulting mismatch of rifles' lengths  is a huge 8 cm.!!

And also the POSITION of the scope on the barrel is mismatched.

What you (Pat + Andrej etc.) are saying is for sure relevant whenever an image is tilted/flipped for a significant amount of degrees, so that to FLAT a lot the resulting image in one of  the two photos under comparison.

But in Day's photo the rifle is  inclinated just for a little, there is NO significant loss in size/length due to inclination and  perspective.

No doubt, those were DIFFERENT rifles!





TSBD Weapon.pdf

Edited by Alberto Miatello
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Andrej + Pat


I forgot the "middle rifle" ...now I took also the sizes of your "medium rifle" (the one in the middle between the longest and the shortest)

Its scope (on my pc screen)  is 4.8 cm. and its total length is 16.4 cm.

So, ALL  3 Andrej's  rifles have THE SAME ratio/percentage of scope's length, compared with the total length of rifle, namely:

Rifle A) (the longest) = 5.2 cm. scope ; 17.9 cm. total rifle's length : 5.2/17.9 = 0.29 = 29%

Rifle B (medium size) = 4.8 cm. scope; 16.4 cm. total rifle's length : 4.8/16.4 = 0.29 = 29%

Rifle C (shortest rifle) = 4.5 cm. scope ; 15.5 cm. total  rifle's length: 4.5/15.5 = 0.29 = 29%

Therefore, when you change the size of 3 pictures of rifles possessing different lengths and inclinations, all keeping however THE SAME RATIO/PERCENTAGE (29% in this case) of length between SCOPE and TOTAL LENGTH OF RIFLE, at the end you can easily MATCH all them, because the PERCENTAGE of length of scope compared with the total length of rifle is THE SAME for all of them!

On the contrary, TSBD rifle and Exhibit #139 had different ratios/percentages of scopes lengths and rifles lengths, therefore they cannot be matched, AS THEY DEFINITELY  ARE DIFFERENT RIFLES.

Thanks again Andrej, your 3-D model was really precious in 100% confirming what I wrote, I must admit I was still a bit uncertain before your post, but now you gave me the final confirmation!








Link to post
Share on other sites


would you please post the original photograph from which you extracted the rifle. It may have been one of Allen's photographs but I am not sure. It is important to see the rifle as originally displayed to know how twisted/inclined it was. 

It is a tricky thing to derive too a detailed information from the old photographs. Factors such as camera lens focal length, view angle, the factor of perspective, and an exact positioning of a rifle are of importance. The interaction of these factors may yield unexpected results. To be sure that the two rifles are not identical, both items should be photographed with the same camera and under identical conditions which I know would be difficult to achieve if these were two different rifles ...

On a more general note: are you suggesting that the rifle which is in the National Archives is not the one which was brought down from the sixth floor? Is there actually any Mannlicher Carcano rifle measuring only "54 cm" ("46 cm") which is mentioned in your first post? Why would anyone do this manipulation? To whose advantage would this be? And what about the rifle which was shown later that afternoon at the Dallas Police Department - was it also a substitute rifle?

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
Share on other sites


The rifle found on the sixth floor was sent to Wash DC on 23 Nov 1963 to check for prints (supposedly).

A Carcano was sent to Wash and a Carcano was sent back to Dallas the next day.

When one tries to determine what was sent and what was sent back one must look at all the evidence. With regard to the rifle, the related evidence is the Zapruder film, the bullet lead analysis, the acoustics analysis, and blur analysis.

It's pretty clear from the evidence that JFK was shot in the back. The bullet did not go through his body or deep into his body, it went in only about 1 1/2 to 2 inches. I believe it fell out of JKF's body during resuscitation efforts while JFK was still on the stretcher. This is the so-called pristine bullet. This bullet was determined to have been fired from the Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles.

But how could that be? If the Carcano, CE139, was on the sixth floor it could not have been used to fire a shot into JFK's back because the limo was not visible from the sixth floor window since there was a tree blocking the view. So it must be that the Carcano, CE 139, was in the Del Tex Building when someone fired it and hit JFK in the back.

And thus before the FBI sent the Carcano back they exchanged the Carcano found on the sixth floor with the a Carcano, CE 139, that was used in the assassination.

And that is why there is so much controversy surrounding the rifle. David Josephs is correct. That rifle that was found in the TSBD sixth floor is not the rifle that is in the National Archives.

Link to post
Share on other sites


thanks for your explanations of the motives for manipulating the identity of the rifle. I am also backing up a conspiracy theory of the assassination, however, now I see that I am only a weak cup of coffee compared to the heavy-weight case of conspiracy presented here by Alberto and others.

However, I may well be wrong and you may be right. My point is that it is necessary to get to the bottom of the problem. 

1. Considering a tampering with the rifle which is in the National Archives, it is necessary to get exact measurements of that rifle and scope lengths by inspecting and measuring them there. Only then we will know what rifle is in the Archives. Showing a low-quality photograph and assuming it is the rifle in the Archives may be wrong. As a minimum, a certified picture of the Commission Exhibit showing the rifle is necessary.

2. All photographs showing Officer Day carrying the rifle on November 22 need to be analysed to be sure that there are no variations in the length and proportions for that rifle.

3. A study of effects of camera view angles, and inclinations/rotations of the rifle on the relative proportions of a rifle is necessary. 

4. An overview and pictures of all known versions of Mannlicher-Carcano rifles needs to be provided, and it is necessary to show that the allegedly two rifles belong to different production lines.

5. Are there any testimonies, comments or remarks from the period of the assassination supporting the rifle substitution?

I am sorry for not being able to do this work as I am involved in other time consuming JFK projects, however, I would hope that the advocates of this intriguing theory would be willing to address the points listed above.

On a more trivial note: Why would it be necessary to use another junk Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in Daltex? Why not to use a high-quality rifle for the real shooting (e.g. with sabot) ? Eliminating bullets and planting ones matching the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor would be less risky than exchanging the rifles. I guess this is what happened: bullets got lost in Parkland and Bethesda, and one pristine bullet was planted. If the exchange of rifles happened as you suggest, it would be the FBI having the Daltex rifle in their possession prior to the shooting, meaning the FBI would be planning the shooting from Daltex and exchanging the rifles later in advance. The Dallas Police Department, e.g., Lt. Day, would certainly spot some 8 cm difference in the lengths of rifles sent to and returned from the FBI. The FBI would be in the hands of the DPD. However, it was exactly the opposite: the FBI stormed the DPD after the assassination since they believed that some members of the DPD had something to do with the shooting . Does your scenario still sound realistic?





Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to post
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...