Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

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

Recommended Posts

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. Where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

yep, and notice that is NOT a Manlicher Carcano and notice it doesn't have a stock. If it had a stock the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. If this were a MC rifle as 2766 is, that position is NOT possible. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that.

Oh, for Pete sake.

Kenny, you just buried yourself in deep do-do with your above quote.

The rifle we see in the above photo is the C2766 Carcano rifle (CE139).

Let's listen to Shaneyfelt.....

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight. This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.

You will notice that I edited my comment prior to your reply, so go back and address the comment as edited. No one would hold a rifle the way shaneyfelt is holding that rifle and the angle would not hit anywhere near where 313 was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would hold a rifle the way shaneyfelt is holding that rifle.

In order to hit a target on Elm Street below, an assassin sure would hold a rifle in such a manner---and at just that angle. How the hell else would you suggest a shooter fire DOWN at the street below?

But maybe you think that Oswald should have held the rifle like this as he was shooting DOWNWARD at JFK's car, eh?....

LHO_training.JPG

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before finding out that Shaneyfelt had in his possession the C2766 rifle itself in CE887....

yep, and notice that is NOT a Manlicher Carcano [sic] and notice it doesn't have a stock. If it had a stock the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. If this were a MC rifle as 2766 is, that position is NOT possible. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that.

After I set Ken straight on this, and after the embarrassment sunk in that he didn't have the slightest idea what the hell he was talking about (although he was SO SURE the rifle that Shaneyfelt had wasn't even a Carcano rifle AT ALL, let alone the C2766 Carcano), Ken edited his post to this version of pure tripe....

yep, and notice that the downward angle he is firing would fall very short of where the shot is claimed to have gone. To get the proper angle the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that. Go back to your re-creation photo from a few days ago and put all those boxes where you claimed they were and 'then' put him in that position.

Kenneth Drew is flying by the seat of his conspiracy-woven pants. And he proves that he's winging it via the above two posts (the hilarious original and then the equally laughable edited version).

BS After I set Ken straight on this, and after the embarrassment sunk in I edited my post prior to your posting your comment. Unlike you, I admit when I see something incorrectly. View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and Put a shooter in that photo. All of this is a distraction because you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo. In fact, once you were wrong, I couldn't even get you to answer a question about it, you changed the subject to this because you thought you had something. Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited my post prior to your posting your comment.

Technically, your edit occurred one minute after my post went up (assuming you only edited that post one time). But you must certainly be right about the edit, because I doubt you could type THAT fast.

My apologies to you, Ken, for being a bit harsh regarding this point. It does appear you realized you were wrong when you said Shaneyfelt did not have the C2766 rifle in CE887 and you edited your post as soon as possible (before ever reading my comment).

Whether you want to believe me or not, I too have put some errors in my posts and then suddenly realized they were wrong, and then made a mad scramble to try and edit the post before the CTer I was arguing with could see the mistakes. So, again, I'm sorry about that. (And I'm deleting my harsh comments from my other post too.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited my post prior to your posting your comment.

Technically, your edit occurred one minute after my post went up (assuming you only edited that post one time). But you must certainly be right about the edit, because I doubt you could type THAT fast. I do think that was the 2nd edit, but the effect is the same.

My apologies to you, Ken, for being a bit harsh regarding this point. It does appear you realized you were wrong when you said Shaneyfelt did not have the C2766 rifle in CE887 and you edited your post as soon as possible (before ever reading my comment).

Whether you want to believe me or not, I too have put some errors in my posts and then suddenly realized they were wrong, and then made a mad scramble to try and edit the post before the CTer I was arguing with could see the mistakes. So, again, I'm sorry about that. (And I'm deleting my harsh comments from my other post too.)

Correct, in fact earlier, about a page ago, you made an edit that cleared up something. My mistake in that photo was that the camera mounted and the way he was looking into the camera was not clear that was what he was doing and it appeared initially that the rifle did not have a normal stock on it.

I still believe that if you put that rifle in photo 1301, you can't make that shot. he is aiming below the trees. The X was above the trees.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and put a shooter in that photo.

Yeah. And?

What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed.

WH_Vol22_0255a.jpg

...you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo.

Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments?

Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.

Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that?

And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.

Secret-Service-Reenactment-2.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. Where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

Look closely at Shaneyfelt's position in CE 887. He is some distance BEHIND the rifle.

Now, anyone who has ever fires a rifle knows that you do NOT fire one with the buttstock of the rifle centered on your chest. The buttstock has to be against the shoulder of the shooter. Oswald was a right-handed shooter. So the buttstock of the rifle would have been against his right shoulder if he was firing that weapon in that position.

That would mean that ALL of Oswald's torso would have been between the buttstock and the wall where the pipes are.

Oswald may have been slim, but I must conclude that the possibility of the shooting occuring exactly that way is even more slim...nearly to the point of impossibility.

[Maybe that's slim enough to be the "sliver" of evidence that DVP has been yammering about.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and put a shooter in that photo.

Yeah. And?

What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed.

WH_Vol22_0255a.jpg

...you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo.

Huh? Where did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments?

Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.

Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that?

And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.

Secret-Service-Reenactment-2.png

In agent Howlett's position it's his LEFT hand approximating the position of the rifle. That would indicate that either the shooter was left-handed, and had most of his torso to the RIGHT of the position of the buttstock of the rifle...and LHO was a right-handed shooter, according to the evidence I've seen...OR the torso of a right-handed shooter would've been smashed through the wall...and the wall looks fairly intact to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots?

You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to prove that a right-handed shooter CAN fire from that position.

Do you have any photos of the HSCA firing the rifle from EXACTLY the same position that was alleged to duplicate the conditions of the sniper's nest...as the Shaneyfelt and Howlett photos are alleged to do? Do such photos exist?

I'm not saying that a rifle can't be fired from that window at all...as you seem to interpret [or distort] my criticisms. Obviously, a rifle CAN be fired from that window.

BUT can it be done by a right-handed shooter with the rifle in the exact position indicated in the Shaneyfelt photo? Can it be done by a right-handed shooter--as Oswald was--with the rifle in the position indicated by Howlett's left hand?

The place where Shaneyfelt is STANDING is further back from the pipes than a person actually firing the rifle with the buttstock against his right shouder would need to stand to fire the rifle in the position the rifle is held by the tripod. So where Shaneyfelt is STANDING in the photo doesn't come into play when determining whether there is enough room for a right-handed shooter to fire the weapon with the rifle in the position indicated.

The position indicated by Howlett would allow enough room for a LEFT-handed shooter to fire the rifle in that position. I just don't see enough room for a right-handed shooter to do the deed, between the buttstock of the rifle in the indicated position and the pipes at the wall.

I think the sleight-of-hand indicated by the Howlett photo indicates there might be a "sleight" problem with a right-handed shooter. If it was NOT a problem, why was Howlett NOT using his RIGHT hand to indicate the position of the rifle, and to better approximate the position of a right-handed shooter [which Oswald was, by all accounts I've seen]?

That, then, would be reasonable doubt.

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"distort" being his particular area of expertise.

we all have a talents to offer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Brennan's (eyewitness) WC testimony concerning the shooter in the window was what (sitting, crouching, standing), again?

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we are.

What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything

No David... we don't. Inventions such as the photograph and tape machine allows us to record the actual evidence as it was actually found...

So tell you what Dave...make a list of every item of evidence the FBI/SS offers which was never photographed where found - that we must take their word for it - and see how important those items are.

As I have shown repeatedly now, the FBI evidence is not authenticated... it cannot be shown to be unique in any way when the same evidence is repeatedly gathered from different sources at different times.

Why is a Navy Corpsman involved in the search of the limo while under SS guard?

Or the Deputy Chief for that matter? (side note: in the middle of the night 22nd/23rd the SS Chief Rowley receives a zfilm which is in the hand of the SS for almost a full day before reaching NPIC Saturday night...)

Why are there no detailed photographs of one of the most important items of evidence there was - the SCENE OF THE CRIME...

Like the bag in the corner or the rifle on the floor... no photos of one, 1 photo of the other...

Not a single photo in any detail of any item of evidence from the limo where he was killed...

but dam if we're not going to need his 7th grade school records to solve this case, right? better dispatch someone to Ft Worth and Stripling right away... :rolleyes:

You see Dave... until the FBI/SS proves its evidence is authentic, it isn't. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.. not assumed guilty and railroaded by the US government.

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...