Having had a quick read of the report, I have a few comments - first off, this seems to be a second-hand report of something that hasn't actually been observed by the authors.
Second, the light microscopy resolution limit is limited by
$$wavelength/2$$
As defined by <PERSON>'s law, where x,y is the plane of focus, $λ$ is wavelength and NA is the numerical aperture of the lens.
$$Abbe Resolution_x,_y = λ/2NA$$
Practically this means that the shorter the wavelength, the smaller the resolution can be. For visible light the shortest is around 380 nm, so the limit would be 190 nm or 0.19 micrometers. This is about the size of the smallest bacteria and a few viruses reach this size. However, because of the limitations in how we make optical media (lens glass etc) the practical limit is quite a bit higher. Electrons have very short wavelengths (around 4 picometres), so much greater magnifications can be achieved, which is why EM is used for imaging viruses. Based on these physical laws, I would be very surprised if <PERSON> achieved the magnifications he thought he achieved. Indeed, many of his claims of discoveries based on his magnifications (e.g. that cancer is caused by tiny E. coli-like cells that take up to 5 morphologies) are utter nonsense - of course he was the only one capable of seeing these, with his high-power microscope and he wouldn't let anyone else handle or use these...
So, I do have doubts about the magnifications expressed. In the journal Rife's magnifications are based on "diameters" rather than an actual dimensionless magnification (ratio of actual size to apparent size). Diameters was a commonly used method of working out object sizes, but I don't know how to convert between the two. I would say, seeing as there are actual fundamental physical limits to the resolution, that what is being seen here are what is known as empty magnification - increase in size without increase in resolution. The same sort of effect you get with a digital camera when it doesn't have an optical zoom, but instead relies on making the pixels bigger in the field of view. 70
In this case it will simply be bigger projection than the limits of resolution.
Now, on to the actual question. What are these things? Taking on face value that images 1-3 are what the captions say they are on pages 222-224 of OP's linked publication, then we have some candidates.
OPs first image is almost certainly a dinoflagellate, these are a polyphyletic group of single-celled algae that, like diatoms, have beautiful structured cases. They also have flagellae, which enable movement. Which dinoflagellate this is, I don't know, they are diverse and not at all my field. I suspect something in the Gymnodiniaceae. Dinoflagellates are about 30 micrometers in size, so easily within the limits of a light microscope, and you can see this in the ability to resolve the chloroplasts inside the organism. This image has no better resolution than would be produced by a decent conventional light microscope, only much bigger - camera trickery!
Image 2 could well be the spore end of Clostridium tetani, as the caption suggests. The spore is round and surrounded by a thick walled structure, but to my knowledge should have the rest of the bacterial body coming off to one side - looking rather like a spoon, with the body being the handle and the bowl of the spoon being the spore. I would expect to see the body of the bacterium sticking off to the side here, so I don't know for sure that it is what it is claimed to be, but we could be looking down on one along the longitudinal axis. There is some sponge-like "structure" visible in the middle of the "spore", but to me this looks like what you sometimes get in the middle of air bubbles on the slide.
Image 3 could be a member of the Salmonella group of organisms that cause typhoid, as these are slightly sausage shaped rod bacteria, however, I have seen many a stain blob that looks just like this using a low power objective. Note that Salmonella has flagellae too, and despite the large size and supposed massive magnification, we still can't see them. Hence, magnification and resolution probably not what is noted. So, whether this is actually Salmonella, is hard to say, but it could be.
Image 4 is from a different source - Rife.de, who seem to be an website for promoting <PERSON> and his "cancer treatment". 3