Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shot at z160 would have been even more difficult, with that extra stack of boxes.

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.]

Mark, I'm sure LHO must have had the rifle mounted on a tripod such as the FBI did so that they could be far enough behind the rifle to sight with their right eye. They just haven't produced the tripod yet as evidence, but if necessary, it will turn up.

So DVP, if he pulls the rifle stock up to his right shoulder, where does he put the left side of his body? Through the wall? You don't happen to have a photo that actually shows a man holding a rifle in the position he would have to make the shot do you?

Edited by Kenneth Drew

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

Yes and he's lining it up with his Left arm and he is still quite a bit to the right (shooters right) of where he could have been with the row of boxes that were where the whole right side of his body is. Notice that (as has been pointed out) that they had to remove that row of boxes that were there (and are seen in the photos from outside) for that person to even get into the spot he's in. Now take that man in exactly the position he's in and put a rifle stock to his right shoulder and the scope to his right eye and tell me that's possible.... I'll show you my listings for ocean front property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find very interesting is how high Shaneyfelt has the rifle mounted on the tripod.

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

If Oswald was resting the rifle on the boxes, or the window sill, this position for the rifle would have been at least a foot, if not eighteen inches higher. Were the FBI trying to get the shot at z313 to clear the tops of the heads of the two SS agents standing on the outside right of the follow up car?

Or perhaps a tree branch?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find very interesting is how high Shaneyfelt has the rifle mounted on the tripod.

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

If Oswald was resting the rifle on the boxes, or the window sill, this position for the rifle would have been at least a foot, if not eighteen inches higher. Were the FBI trying to get the shot at z313 to clear the tops of the heads of the two SS agents standing on the outside right of the follow up car?

Or perhaps a tree branch?

That's certainly part of the problem. Also move his body far enough forward to put his shoulder to the rifle stock and where does that put his left shoulder. The two pipes are in the way. There is no way anyone fired a rifle shot from that snipers nest with that arrangement of boxes and with the window only half open. And of course, no one has ever given any proof that there was a shot fired from there that day.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....

CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.

Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)

And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....

CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.

Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)

And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. That may be true, but you do have a habit of claiming that you have evidence that does prove something when you have never supplied one sliver(to use your word) of proof to prove any of it. No evidence that LHO owned a rifle, no proof a shot was fired from the snipers nest, no proof that LHO was anywhere near where tippit got killed, no proof of where any shots were fired toward JFK, no proof of where the two fragments appeared magically from that landed on the front seat of the limo. Your turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

These are simple yes or no questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....

CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.

Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)

And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor. Just think about that for a minute. Hundreds of people taking pictures all over the place and 4 witnesses 'see' a gun, but fortunately for LHO, no one took a picture of him up there posing for History. Here he is, setting the stage for killing a US President, gets a position that he knows hundreds will be looking straight at, dozens and dozens of cameras rolling and 'darn it' wouldn't you know it. Not one single little bitty camera caught even a teeny weeny shot of LHO in all his staged glory. And there we are, way down by the grassy knoll where nothing is going to happen, and suddenly 'all the action' takes place there. It's kinda like there might have been someone down there in that area was doing something to get attention, or something. How many shots(photos) show the TSBD at the time of the shooting and 'no rifle sticking out the window'. How did that happen? Oh, wait, I forgot, we have DVP here to tell us how that unfortunate little detail happened. Ok DVP, all those shots, cameras aimed at the TSBD, window open, boxes in windows, and NO RIFLE. How did LHO create that illusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find very interesting is how high Shaneyfelt has the rifle mounted on the tripod.

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

If Oswald was resting the rifle on the boxes, or the window sill, this position for the rifle would have been at least a foot, if not eighteen inches higher. Were the FBI trying to get the shot at z313 to clear the tops of the heads of the two SS agents standing on the outside right of the follow up car?

Or perhaps a tree branch?

That's certainly part of the problem. Also move his body far enough forward to put his shoulder to the rifle stock and where does that put his left shoulder. The two pipes are in the way. There is no way anyone fired a rifle shot from that snipers nest with that arrangement of boxes and with the window only half open. And of course, no one has ever given any proof that there was a shot fired from there that day.

In this photo, it seems as if the shooter has 'unlimited' floor space for his body. Look at WC exhibit 1301,,the floor is only 6 boards wide at the point where he is located. that's 6 x 2.5 inches or about 15 inches. This shooter has 'waaaayyy' more than that. See that box that says BOOKS, that's about how wide his space was, the base of the tripod alone is wider than the actual space at the time of the 'alleged' shooting.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box.

You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510.

CE511 (on the right) shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window....

CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.WH_Vol17_0124b.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP:

True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.

True.

But that witness is a proven l-i-a-r:

Roger Craig's Mauser Lie

2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridges.

False.

What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. Here's one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives....

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287/m1/1/high_res/

Also see:

http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/partners/DSMA/browse/?q=window+book+depository&t=fulltext

3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.

I'm not sure if that is True or False.

Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all.

Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO).

I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box.

You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510.

CE511 (on the right) shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window....

CE510--Three-Bullet-Shells-On-The-Floor.WH_Vol17_0124b.jpg

You're right, I mixed up the windows.

He certainly does not have a lot of room in that corner, and the pipes do not help either.

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...