Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

live camera from 6 - i know you've probably seen it, but...

Recommended Posts

Mark,

No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....

Secret-Service-Reenactment-1.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything. That's what Bug Man said. Wycht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he tookl off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one DVP. It does not enhance your image.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....

Secret-Service-Reenactment-1.png

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another view of Agent Howlett in the Sniper's Nest. There's no problem for a right-handed shooter here.

CTers are merely creating problems for the sixth-floor assassin that don't exist and never did.

Secret-Service-Reenactment-1.png

What they WONT do is put a rifle in the man's hands and then show you how he needs to sit and aim if the limo was down by Z313 on Elm.

They also WONT tell you that they removed an entire column of boxes where his right elbow would be...

You see David... the WCR evidence is pure crap, designed to suggest one thing when in reality the original evidence suggested something completely different.

With a stack of books taller than the man sitting on the box by the window, a person would have little if any room.

Snipers%20nest%20-%20one%20column%20of%2

Try an exercise where we superimpose the rifle into the line art showing the box locations. Starting to get a bit tighter in there...

How large is a person's footprint? when standing a person is about 1 foor square at the feet and wider at the shoulders

As you show in the image you posted, whne sitting the person's foorprint is even larger than 1 square foot...

Not saying it's impossible - yet it's just not as roomy as the image you posted - as offered by the WCR - would suggest...

You see Dave.. you like to stop short of authentication of the evidence since in every case the evidence is complete crap and you know it.

The slightest breeze and the cards all come tumbling down..

But you knew that... which is why you tap dance around the issue with every post...

:up

Sniper%20nest%20with%20boxes%20and%20rif

see that stack of boxes there about where his right leg is in the above photo. If it don't fit, you must acquit.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That shows how his left shoulder is behind the pipes.

So? What difference does that make?

Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.

You just made my case for me, on two points:

(1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and

(2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.

The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible.

Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible.

And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed).

Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.)

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. love re-reading this sentence just after hearing Bug Man talk about what a poor patsy LHO would have been, piss poor shooter with a 12 dollar rifle. But he's your Bug Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken just proved my previous point -- that the people who Ken must certainly think were framing Oswald WERE, indeed, nincompoops/idiots/dolts/morons (take your pick)....because "they" left TWO rifles on the sixth floor (per Ken). Brilliant plan there.

Back to reality....

There, of course, was never a "Mauser" found in the TSBD. The policemen who said it was a Mauser were mistaken--and they admitted there WERE mistaken. Since a Mauser looks pretty much like a Carcano, the officers thought it was a Mauser. But they were incorrect. Simple as that.

But Ken LIKES the idea that there were two rifles found. It makes the notion of conspiracy easier to swallow. Right, Ken?

But any sober and reasonable analysis of the "Mauser" misidentification will easily allow a sensible person to reach the correct answer---the Mauser identification was simply a mistake. Nothing more than that.

Now, let's watch Ken ignore these two witnesses who initially called the rifle a Mauser....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04azA5NFoo

There, of course, was never a "Mauser" found in the TSBD. The policemen who said it was a Mauser were mistaken- wait, it was an 'alleged' Mauser wasn't it. Surely you're not denying there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything. That's what Bug Man said. Wycht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he tookl off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one DVP. It does not enhance your image.

Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY.

IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved.

But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken just proved my previous point -- that the people who Ken must certainly think were framing Oswald WERE, indeed, nincompoops/idiots/dolts/morons (take your pick)....because "they" left TWO rifles on the sixth floor (per Ken). Brilliant plan there.

Back to reality....

There, of course, was never a "Mauser" found in the TSBD. The policemen who said it was a Mauser were mistaken--and they admitted there WERE mistaken. Since a Mauser looks pretty much like a Carcano, the officers thought it was a Mauser. But they were incorrect. Simple as that.

But Ken LIKES the idea that there were two rifles found. It makes the notion of conspiracy easier to swallow. Right, Ken?

But any sober and reasonable analysis of the "Mauser" misidentification will easily allow a sensible person to reach the correct answer---the Mauser identification was simply a mistake. Nothing more than that.

Now, let's watch Ken ignore these two witnesses who initially called the rifle a Mauser....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04azA5NFoo

I know it will disappoint you, but I didn't bother to listen to the coerced testimony or statement of a witness after intimidation. No amount of re-writing or attempting to change history will work. We all saw him hold the rifle up, we also saw the second rifle and we saw him point to a spot on the rifle and state that it said Mauser. Now I certainly think people can make mistakes, but when there is a discussion and they can't decide what type rifle it is, then they get a 'supposed' rifle expert in and he holds it up and says that it say Mauser right there. I'm kinda gonna believe my eyes, not the lying re-creations from years later after so many witnesses have been killed because the intimidations didn't work for them. The ones that changed their stories managed to live a little longer than those that did not. I saw that on tv in 63, re-creations from later years were done for a reason.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you're not denying there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor.

Of course I'm denying it. And that's because there is no evidence whatsoever to show that TWO different rifles were found on the sixth floor (or anywhere else within the Depository building, including the roof)....

"NO RIFLE ON THE ROOF"

And if you bring up the Mentesana Film, you've got no proof the gun in that film is a rifle found inside the Depository. Who says it is? Groden? Please. How would he know?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That shows how his left shoulder is behind the pipes.

So? What difference does that make?

Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.

You just made my case for me, on two points:

(1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and

(2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.

The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible.

Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible.

And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed).

Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.)

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.

So your best argument ...is...name-calling?

Here's a challenge to you, Mr. Von Pein: Find a rifle, or a rifle-like object. Assume a right-handed shooter's position with said object...butt-stock on the right shoulder, left hand on the fore stock/forearm of the rifle-like object. Face your assumed target, as if you were going to kill it.

Now, have a friend [going out on a limb here and assuming you have friend who would do this] and have said friend measure the distance from your left shoulder, at the buttstock of the rifle-like object, to the outer edge of your right shoulder. [HINT: shooters generally FACE their target when shooting; they generally do NOT turn the torso 90 degrees to the target when shooting. Try it; turning 90 degrees to your target is uncomfortable, and makes for inaccurate shooting. You'd think a man who would set up a sniper's nest would set it up so the shooting position wouldn't compromise either comfort or accuracy, with uncomfortable shooting positions leading to inaccurate shooting.]

Now. tell is what that measurement is. Until or unless you can do THAT, you are merely GUESSING at the number of inches required for a right-handed person to fire a rifle from the position used in the Shaneyfelt photo...which is alleged to be almost EXACTLY the position the rifle was fired from that day.

The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the amount of space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.

So your best argument ...is...name-calling? Isn't 'name calling' frowned on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all saw him hold the rifle up, we also saw the second rifle and we saw him point to a spot on the rifle and state that it said Mauser.

Oh, great. We're back to your make-believe 11/22/63 "Mauser" TV footage again, eh?

In reality, of course, no such footage exists, and never did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

I wasn't calling Mark Knight a nincompoop. I was calling the alleged "patsy framers" nincompoops.

Try reading for comprehension, Ken. It was quite clear who I was aiming the "nincompoop" at.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.)

But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible?

Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer (Mooney?) who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.) But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest.

I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can.

And, btw, I wasn't calling YOU any names (like "nincompoop") in my previous post. I was aiming those remarks at the make-believe "patsy framers".

I'd also be interested in knowing the answer to this question, Mark (if you don't mind answering it)....

Prior to this discussion in this EF thread, have you ever once made this statement to anyone previously?.....

"A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this." -- Mark Knight; 6/30/15

I'm just curious to know if this suddenly popped into your head just this week (during this thread), or if you've believed for years (or decades) that the cramped Nest exonerates Oswald?

Thanks.

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.) first, I didn't say that it does. But I made some points, which you don't refute. that where Bug man is standing had a box on the floor there and 3 boxes in front of him and a solid stack of boxes where spence is standing. There was barely enough room for an adult to stand in the area, and the window is fully open which gives them much more room 'theoretically' but the window was only half open on 11/22. So my comments don't help your arguments (not that you actually have an argument) at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.)

But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible?

Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer (Mooney?) who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.) But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest.

I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can.

And, btw, I wasn't calling YOU any names (like "nincompoop") in my previous post. I was aiming those remarks at the make-believe "patsy framers".

I'd also be interested in knowing the answer to this question, Mark (if you don't mind answering it)....

Prior to this discussion in this EF thread, have you ever once made this statement to anyone previously?.....

"A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this." -- Mark Knight; 6/30/15

I'm just curious to know if this suddenly popped into your head just this week (during this thread), or if you've believed for years (or decades) that the cramped Nest exonerates Oswald?

Thanks.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can. First of all 'to his right' would have been North, not West. and no he could not have scooted further to his right, there was a full stack of boxes at that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....

Secret-Service-Reenactment-1.png

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.

Oh, it's a cramped space for sure. I've never denied that. But a rifle WAS being fired from the very window on Nov. 22. You know it, Ken (whether you'll admit it or not), I know it, and all reasonable people know it. So why pretend otherwise?

BTW, here's an HQ pic (linked below) which shows part of the Nest with the shells still on the floor. So this pic was definitely taken on Nov. 22 itself, not later on. And the Texas History site also says "Nov. 22" for the date of this photo. And, yes, it is a tight squeeze for the gunman. We also know this from Luke Mooney's testimony. He said something about having to go in there sideways, I think.

But since there can be no REASONABLE doubt about a rifle definitely having been fired from this cramped space, CTers really have nowhere to go with their arguments about how it "can't be done"....

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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...