Mark Ulrik Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:Here is an oddity. When the Carcano in the Backyard Photographs is compared to the Carcano in the National Archives, they do not appear to be the same weapon.
What can explain this?
BYP and NA Carcanos Compared.png
That's the mistake Jack White made. You can't just take two random photos of the same object and expect the proportions to match.
Are these the same windows?
sixthfloor.jpg
Not sure what your photo example is supposed to show, sorry.
But I understand that you fall back on the "Jack-White-was-not-a-photo-expert" argument. Good to know. That way you don't have to discuss any of the differences. Clever. All due to perspective. Got it. Thanks.
[
attachment=20]
Garry Puffer Wrote:Mark Ulrik Wrote:Garry Puffer Wrote:Here is an oddity. When the Carcano in the Backyard Photographs is compared to the Carcano in the National Archives, they do not appear to be the same weapon.
What can explain this?
BYP and NA Carcanos Compared.png
That's the mistake Jack White made. You can't just take two random photos of the same object and expect the proportions to match.
Are these the same windows?
sixthfloor.jpg
Not sure what your photo example is supposed to show, sorry.
But I understand that you fall back on the "Jack-White-was-not-a-photo-expert" argument. Good to know. That way you don't have to discuss any of the differences. Clever. All due to perspective. Got it. Thanks.
BYP and NA Carcanos Compared.png
Congratulation on finding "differences". My example shows the TSBD sixth floor windows from 2 different angles. Notice how the features don't line up, just like in your example.
Here's a home assignment for you: Find two different photos of the Carcano, taken from different angles or with different cameras, where all the features line up. Can you do that?
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick C Wrote:I have no problem with it being a police weapon or a cardboard box Ben.
Just not a Mauser.
It's not a matter of what you have a 'problem' with.
It's a matter that no believer is willing to state that they can see two weapons in this video.
Which illustrates just how fanatic & dogmatic believers tend to be.
I've stated time and time again that there would be no surprises if a believer could simply admit to seeing two weapons in this video. It's quite plain & obvious.
But the fact that believers absolutely refuse to state the obvious makes my point... that believers live in a different reality than the rest of humanity... one in which it's inconceivable to make any statement that contradicts the bible - also known as the Warren Commission Report.
You see, I know... and I'm sure you know I know... that you really can see two weapons in this video.
There are clearly two weapons in that frame. In what bizarre CT universe does it matter? I thought you guys had a case to solve, but I guess it's more fun to play games and call other people liars.
Congratulations!
You are the first believer to have acknowledged the simple truth.
Now if only we could get Patrick, Henry, David, and other believers to acknowledge the truth... it's taken YEARS and perhaps over a hundred posts to get someone to admit seeing a second weapon.
Now, since Patrick is on this forum, it wouldn't be fair of me to ask you your honest opinion of someone who refuses to make the same acknowledgement.
It doesn't matter, of course, since my point was long ago made.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Congratulation on finding "differences". My example shows the TSBD sixth floor windows from 2 different angles. Notice how the features don't line up, just like in your example.
Here's a home assignment for you: Find two different photos of the Carcano, taken from different angles or with different cameras, where all the features line up. Can you do that?
It isn't at all about “lining up.” David Josephs lists 4 differences, and I concur with these four.
1: Sling ring hangs under the rifle while the 6th floor rifle’s ring is on the side
2: The Metal extension under the barrel is not on the BYP image
3: The Metal cap at the end of the stock is not in the BYP image
4: A Metal/shiny object is seen in the BYP but not on the 6th floor rifle
Me:
Oddly enough, the two rifles were NOT certified as the same by the FBI expert, which we would have expected. True enough, he did not specify any differences, but he didn't. Nevertheless, his not seeing the differences which seem so obvious is a troubling matter for those of us who do see differences, I admit.
From David Josephs:
The FBI’s photographic expert, Agent Shaneyfelt, was asked specifically about his opinion as to whether the 6th floor rifle and the BYP rifle were the same:
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the ....I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration. I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf">http://ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Garry Puffer Wrote:It isn't at all about “lining up.” David Josephs lists 4 differences, and I concur with these four.
1: Sling ring hangs under the rifle while the 6th floor rifle’s ring is on the side
2: The Metal extension under the barrel is not on the BYP image
3: The Metal cap at the end of the stock is not in the BYP image
4: A Metal/shiny object is seen in the BYP but not on the 6th floor rifle
Ah, OK, now I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree with David. He doesn't take into account that the rifle in the BYP is rotated clockwise, exposing more of the top and less of the bottom to the camera. The muzzle is also tilted somewhat toward the camera, which is relevant if anyone should get the dubious idea to compare measurements of individual rifle parts with other photos.
1) It doesn't look like a sling swivel to me (no closed loop). I think it's part of a knot used to attach the improvised sling. You'll see what I mean if you examine the same area in 133B & C.
2) I have no idea what David means here, as the metal extension is clearly there. Perhaps it's slightly more obvious in this composite I made:
[
attachment=21]
3) The metal cap isn't clearly seen in the BYP, but the screws are. They appear lower than in the NARA image due to the aforementioned rotation.
4) It's just light reflected off the part of the forearm that's forward of the barrel band.
Garry Puffer Wrote:Me:
Oddly enough, the two rifles were NOT certified as the same by the FBI expert, which we would have expected. True enough, he did not specify any differences, but he didn't. Nevertheless, his not seeing the differences which seem so obvious is a troubling matter for those of us who do see differences, I admit.
From David Josephs:
The FBI’s photographic expert, Agent Shaneyfelt, was asked specifically about his opinion as to whether the 6th floor rifle and the BYP rifle were the same:
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the ....I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration. I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf">http://ctka.net/2015/JosephsBYP.pdf</a><!-- m -->
I see nothing troubling here. It would be kind of optimistic to hope for a positive ID of the rifle with the BYP being as grainy as they are. Unless LHO had access to more than one Carcano, however, it seems likely that it's the same as the TSBD rifle.
Mark Ulrik Wrote:Unless LHO had access to more than one Carcano, however, it seems likely that it's the same as the TSBD rifle.
If he had "access" to even one Carcano - someone gave it to him. There's no evidence that he ever paid for, or received a rifle in the mail.
Indeed, the fact that the alleged paperwork doesn't add up is additional evidence of a frameup in progress.
For as most people now know - the alleged money order was never cashed.
Garry Puffer Wrote:I post this only as part of an ongoing discussion about the photos.
BYPs.jpg
(Reference to image in this post: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=344#p344">viewtopic.php?p=344#p344</a><!-- l --> )
Ben Holmes Wrote:I'm under the impression that the photo on the right was 'discovered' in the 90's... and the one on the left was known back in 193-64 time period as a DPD 'recreation' photo.
The one on the left is not a recreation of the one on the right. The one on the left IS the one on the right, minus Oswald's face. The similarities between the two are too far beyond exactitude to be recreations.
Examples:
- The small gap between the index and middle finger on the left hand.
- The way the middle finger on the left hand pokes out at the third knuckle
- The way the legs are spaced
- The way "Oswald's" shadow falls.
- The way the shadow of "Oswald's" head falls on the same fence slat
- The exactness of the shadows on all surrounding inanimate objects, down to the slivers.
- The way the newspapers in the right hand are angled
- The flat paleness of the chin in both
- The recession of the fence slat nearest the left leg
There are a hundred more examples, and anyone who wishes to refute my claim must cite ONE difference between the two photos (other than the face, of course). Absolutely not a DPD recreation.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/download/file.php?mode=view&id=34">download/file.php?mode=view&id=34</a><!-- l -->
Ben Holmes Wrote:As I've pointed out many times before, you have made my point. Despite my repeated assertions that many police weapons were there, and that this second weapon IS ALMOST CERTAINLY A POLICE WEAPON - I've been unable to find any believer honest enough to state that they see a second weapon.
My working theory is that believers are terrified that if they admit publicly that they see it, that I'll suddenly whip out the previously hidden evidence I have proving that it's a Mauser.
Similarly, and perhaps to a lesser extent, I have never been able to find a believer who will admit this photo is so obviously doctored:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/download/file.php?mode=view&id=35">download/file.php?mode=view&id=35</a><!-- l -->
Why? Because to admit it's a fake is to allude to the even the smallest of possibilities that the BY photos
could be faked, and that in itself is anathema to LNers. David Von Pein is the only believer I've ever gotten to admit that the banjo photo is doctored.