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

[Mark Knight]

I'm not saying NOBODY could have fired that rifle from that window at that angle from that spot.

I'm saying that a RIGHT-HANDED SHOOTER couldn't do it. From what I see, there is plenty of room for a left-handed shooter.

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.)

Also:

If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall.

Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose.

The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341.

EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....

Looks pretty open, without that wall of book boxes around the sniper's nest. Put the book boxes back, and look again.

[Mark Knight]

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.

[David G. Healy]

If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes'. Did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes.

Is that the answers you gave?

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave?

The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words...

"True or false".

So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE.

At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics.

The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie

And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.)

So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking).

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

perhaps some see a desperate DVP dealing with a few newcomers to the fray? Not to mention lone nutter plants...

If you see desperation, I suspect you'd dust off your daBug shrine and get some quality time in with your Reclaiming History book of nonsense...

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes'. Did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes.

Is that the answers you gave?

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave?

The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words...

"True or false".

So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE.

At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics.

The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie

And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.)

So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking).

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. Really? and yet you can't prove it. If you believe the 4 witnesses that said they saw someone at that window with a rifle, then you should believe the others that also said they saw someone with a rifle at other windows. In fact there is photo evidence that 'almost' proves that, at least it shows the images of someone on the SW windows, something NOT seen in the SE window. No photo of a person or a gun in 6th Floor SE Window. that is really strange.

And no, I didn't say Spence was up there on 11/22, but if YOUR evidence of the photo of the sniper's nest is accurate, there were boxes in that spot, and 4 boxes in the spot where Bug Man was.

[Kenneth Drew]

If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes'. Did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes.

Is that the answers you gave?

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave?

The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words...

"True or false".

So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE.

At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics.

The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie

And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.)

So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking).

I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

perhaps some see a desperate DVP dealing with a few newcomers to the fray? Not to mention lone nutter plants...

If you see desperation, I suspect you'd dust off your daBug shrine and get some quality time in with your Reclaiming History book of nonsense...

I'm surprised DVP didn't get disillusioned with da Bug Man after he got 'pushed aside' as he did when they quit listening to him.

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

Let's see if I've got this right. Anyone pointing out that it is impossible for a right handed shooter to fit into the snipers nest and fire a shot is a nincompoop. Yet that same fellow that points that out has no answer for 'how can someone fit into that spot and fire a shot right handed? There answer is that you must be a nincompoop for asking the question. And of course there were two rifles found there that day, one a Manlicher Carcano and one an 'alleged' Mauser. Notice there was no question that there were two, rifles, just that one of those was 'alleged' to be a Mauser.

I just love these 'rants' by DVP, it shows he has lost the argument and has resorted to arm waving.

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

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.

[David Von Pein]

And, btw, nobody in this discussion (and nobody else on Earth either, for that matter) has come close to proving that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this". And it's absurd to think that ANYONE has performed the task of "proving" that a right-handed shooter could not have fired shots at JFK from the Sniper's Nest window.

[Mark Knight]

In other words....you have no inclination to prove that my claim is impossible. You'd simply rather argue the words.

All talk.

OK, so I'll do your homework for you. My wife is of a slight build, possibly even less so than Oswald. With her arms extended as I indicated, I measured the distance as per my challenge to you.

The measurement I obtained was 15 inches.

Show me 15 inches of space between the buttstock of the rifle, as it was in the position shown in the Shaneyfelt photo, and the wall and the pipes there. AT THE BUTTSTOCK OF THE RIFLE...not a foot behind it, where Shaneyfelt was standing.

Show me 15 inches between the midpoint of Howlett's left shoulder and that wall, with Howlett's left arm in the position the rifle was in.

Because I simply don't see 15 inches there. And, since he was an ex-Marine, I'd be willing to bet that Oswald's shoulders were even wider than my wife's.

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

If you move the shooter to the right, you change the point at which the rifle muzzle is aimed.

Unless you move the entire rifle.

The FBI determined the position of the rifle from reports of witnesses, the Z-film, the surveys of Robert West, and many other factors.

SO if the position of the rifle is wrong in the reenactments, then the data from the reenactments is wrong as well.

You can conclude that the data is accurate ONLY if you accept that the position of the rifle is correct. If the position of the rifle is incorrect, then the data from that is flawed.

You seem to want to have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein. That CANNOT be.

By the way...what measurement did YOU come up with, regarding the position of your right shoulder?

[David Von Pein]

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?....

Edited June 30, 2015 by David Von Pein