Three boxes, two witnesses and one simple question

[Tony Austin]

President John F Kennedy was assassinated on the 22nd of November 1963 as he was travelling in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. According to the official Warren Commission Report he died of gun shot wounds when an ex-marine by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald fired at him from a tall building. The shots were allegedly fired from a window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Police personnel were on the sixth floor of the book depository soon after the assassination. The first person to search the “sniper’s nest” area was Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney who went to the southeast corner of the sixth floor at about 1:15pm. Hidden behind a wall of boxes he found three boxes stacked up against the window. He soon came to an opinion as to why the boxes had been placed there. In a report dated the day after the assassination he wrote that he found a “cubby hole” constructed out of cardboard cartons and “…Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle.”

He went further in his testimony before the Warren Commission: “I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don’t know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have been lain—at the same angle that the shots were fired from.”

Luke Mooney believed that the three boxes had been piled up against the window to be used as a rest for the rifle used by the assassin who killed President Kennedy. His opinion was shared by the two Crime Scene Service Section officers who examined the area around the window that day. Detective Robert Studebaker testified to the Warren Commission and he was questioned by Mr Stern about the arrangement of the boxes:

Mr. Stern: “Perhaps this is not the witness to establish it, but I think it might be useful to know if he has any opinion as to why the boxes were placed that way?”

Mr. Studebaker: “A good gun rest.”

Mr. Stern: “In that arrangement?”

Mr. Studebaker: “Yes, it was a good gun rest.”

Studebaker’s colleague, Lieutenant Day, testified to the Warren Commission and he discussed the three boxes and, at one point, he informed Mr Belin that: “641 is a box found in front of the window, Texas School Book Depository. Apparently the gun had rested across this…”

Not surprisingly, the view adopted by the Warren Commission was that the three boxes stacked up against the window were placed there by Lee Harvey Oswald to use as a gun rest for his rifle.

We shall move on to look at how the gunman on the sixth floor might have actually used the boxes at the time of the assassination. We can do this by looking at the testimonies of two key witnesses. The two witnesses were in Dealey Plaza near to the book depository when the shooting started and they looked up and saw a man with a rifle in the end window of the sixth floor.

The first witness was a local Steam fitter by the name of Howard Leslie Brennan. According to an affidavit he signed on the day of the assassination, he was sitting on a wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street across the road from the book depository directly facing the east end of the building. In his affidavit, Brennan describes looking at the second row of windows from the top (which would be the sixth floor) and seeing a man in the east window sitting there prior to the President’s motorcade arriving.

Brennan goes on to say that he looked up at the same window later when the motorcade was travelling through Dealey Plaza. He states that he looked up at the window “…at the time of the last explosion” and he saw that the man was taking aim with a high powered rifle. He noted that he could see “all of the barrel of gun” as well stating: “I could see this man from about his belt up.”

These observations raise a number of questions. Firstly, the gunman was supposedly resting the front of his gun barrel on one edge of the front box that was positioned on the window ledge as you would expect from the arrangement of the boxes (see upper window of photograph: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/tsbdwindow.gif.). He was firing his last shot at Kennedy, which would involve the rifle being at a downward angle of about 15 degrees. This being the case, how could Brennan down at ground level see so much of the rifle barrel? From that position you would expect him to be able to see only that small part of the barrel that was sticking out past the edge of the box and not “all of the barrel of the gun.”

Secondly, you would expect a gunman who was using three boxes piled up in a window to rest his gun on not to be very visible. Most of his body would be behind the boxes and not visible from the ground, which leads us to question how could Howard Brennan have seen the man from about his belt up? The observations being made by Brennan seem to suggest the gunman was not behind the boxes.

Some months later, Howard Brennan testified before the Warren Commission and told Mr Belin that he was looking at the gunman when he was taking his last shot. The following exchange occurs:

Mr. Belin: “Would you describe exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?”

Mr. Brennan: “Well, it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left

window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun

with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I

calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window

as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for a

second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then

disappeared.”

And later:

Mr. Brennan: “Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat

sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy

getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips

up. But at the time he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.”

Mr.Belin: “How much of the gun do you believe you saw?”

Mr. Brennan: “I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.”

Brennan has been criticised for saying that the gunman appeared to be standing up with his gun pointing out of the window because this would not have been physically possible. However, he was probably assuming that the lower edges of the windows he could see were all at roughly waist height to anybody standing behind them. In fact the lower edges were very low in relation to the floors of the building and anybody standing behind an upper widow of the building would find the lower edge close to their knees. You can see Brennan’s confusion when he tells the Warren Commission that he thought the two black men he saw on the fifth floor were standing behind the window when, in fact, it is clear from their testimonies that they were crouched down behind the window.

Having understood that aspect of his testimony we can see from the rest of the testimony that it appears that the gunman was over towards the left side of the window, as viewed from outside, using the left side of the window sill to rest his gun on as he took his last shot. The box on the window ledge was positioned about three quarters of the way over to the right side of the window as shown in this picture:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/tsbdwindow.gif. (in the top window) and there is nothing in Brennan’s testimony to suggest they were being used by the gunman.

It is interesting to look at the Warren Commission testimony of Detective Robert Studebaker, one of the two Crime Scene Service Section officers that examined the three boxes found up against the window.

The following exchange with Mr Ball occurs at the end of Studebaker’s testimony:

Mr. Studebaker: “Yes, it was a good gun rest.”

Mr. Ball: “With the box in front lower than the box behind?”

Mr. Studebaker: “In other words, it is like this – you see – it would be down on a

level like this – it shows where the butt of the gun was up behind

him. He was down like this – nobody could see him from the street.

He was behind this window. He didn’t shoot this way because

everybody would be looking right at him.”

At this point Mr Ball changes the subject. However, it is clear that Detective Studebaker took a careful look at the arrangement of the three boxes and decided that a gunman using them as a gun rest would not be clearly visible to anybody down at street level.

This presents us with a problem because the statements made by Howard Brennan suggests that the sniper in the sixth floor window was very visible and so was his rifle. To explain this apparent contradiction we could advance the theory that the sniper did not use the three boxes as a gun rest when he shot at President Kennedy.

We can now move on and look at the testimony of the other witness, Amos Euins, and see if his observations support this theory.

Amos Lee Euins was fifteen years old at the time of the assassination. When the shooting started he was across the road from the book depository standing on the corner at the junction of Houston and Elm as the Presidential motorcade drove past. He told the Warren Commission that he watched the Presidential Limousine drive around the corner and he remembered seeing what looked like a pipe sticking out of an upper window of the book depository. He was questioned by Arlen Specter regarding what he saw:

Mr. Specter: “What did you think it was when you first saw it?”

Mr. Euins: “I thought it was a piece of pipe or something sticking out of the

window.”

Mr. Specter: “Did it look like a piece of metal to you?”

Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir: just a little round piece of pipe.”

Mr. Specter: “About an inch in diameter, would you say?”

Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir.”

Mr. Specter: “And how long was the piece of pipe you saw?”

Mr. Euins: “It was sticking out about that much.”

Mr. Specter: “About 14 or 15 inches?”

Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir …”

Later:

Mr. Specter: “…, you didn’t see anything about a stock or any other part of the rifle?”

Mr. Euins: “No, sir - - not with the first shot. You see, the President was still right

along down in here somewhere on the first shot.”

Later again:

Mr. Specter: “…Now, when you looked at the rifle later, you described seeing some

of the trigger part.”

Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir.”

Mr. Specter: “Now, describe as fully as you can for us what you saw then, Amos.”

Mr. Euins: “Well, when he stuck it out, you know - - after the President had come

on down the street further, you know he kind of stuck it out more, you

know.”

Mr. Specter: “How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos?”

Mr. Euins: “I would say it was about something like that.”

Mr. Specter: “Indicating about 3 feet?”

Mr. Euins: “You know - - the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out of

the window.”

Mr. Specter: “I can’t understand you, Amos.”

Mr. Euins: “It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and trigger housing

to stick out the window.”

Mr. Specter: “The stock and receiving house?”

Mr. Euins: “Yes.”

We can look at a photograph showing the approximate arrangement of the three boxes up against the window seen in the second picture shown here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w..._CE_733-734.pdf

Next, we can look at the view that a sniper would get using those boxes as a gun rest:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...WH17_CE_724.pdf (ignore the boxes in this picture, they are not in their original positions).

If we do this we can see that when the Presidential Limousine was just passing the book depository, and the first shot was being fired, the gunman would have to lift up the butt of the rifle and shoot at a steep downward angle. He would probably push more of the barrel of the gun out of the window as he did this. However, when the Limousine was further down Elm Street, and the last shot was being fired, the gunman would be able to bring the butt of the rifle down and shoot at a much gentler incline. He would be able to use the gun rest in a more comfortable position and he could pull the gun barrel back so that only a small amount extended beyond the edge of the box on the window ledge.

If you look at the description given by Amos Euins it appears that the gunman was sticking more of the rifle out of the window the further the limousine went down the road. Not only that, but at the time of the last shot, the gunman appeared to have most of his rifle sticking out of the window. If the gunman had been using the boxes as a rest, at this stage, he would have been lying over the top of the boxes with just the rear part of the rifle butt resting on the front of the box on the window ledge. The barrel would not be resting on any hard surface, just supported by the sniper’s left hand, and the sniper would be in danger of dropping his rifle down onto the crowd below!

We can see that, in this position, it would not have been possible for Howard Brennan to see the gunman from about his belt upwards as he testified.

Amos Euins also made some interesting observations about what he could see of the gunman’s head. When he was testifying to the Warren Commission he was asked by Arlen Specter about what he saw when the third shot was fired:

Mr. Specter: “What did you see in the building?”

Mr. Euins: “I seen a bald spot on this man’s head, trying to look out of the window.

He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could

see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could

see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through,

he just pulled it back in the window.”

The appearance of the gunman’s head was discussed again later:

Mr. Specter: “Could you tell what colour hair he had?”

Mr. Euins: “No, sir.”

Mr. Specter: “Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?”

Mr. Euins: “No, sir.”

Mr. Specter: “How far back did the bald spot on his head go?”

Mr. Euins: “I would say right along in here.”

Mr. Specter: “Indicating about 2 ½ inches above where your hairline is. Is that about

what you are saying?”

Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir; right along in here.”

If we put together the testimonies of the two witnesses mentioned earlier (Brennan and Euins) together with the testimony of Robert Studebaker some interesting facts emerge:

Crime Scene Service Section officer Studebaker saw the three boxes in their original positions and thought they were a gun rest for the sniper who shot at Kennedy. He thought that a gunman using the gun rest would not be visible to people at ground level.

Witnesses Brennan and Euins at ground level could see the 6th floor sniper very clearly. The gun rest was on the right side of the window but the sniper appeared to using the left side of the window sill. He could be seen from about his belt upwards by Brennan. The rifle barrel was sticking out of the window at the time of the first shot and, as the Limousine progressed further down Elm Street, more of the rifle was pushed out of the window. By the time of the third shot almost all of the rifle had been pushed out of the window.

The gunman appeared to be putting his head out of the window to some extent and he had it turned in such a way that Amos Euins was looking straight at his bald spot towards the top of his head.

If you read the testimonies of Brennan and Euins you find that both of them noticed boxes stacked up behind the gunman but neither of them reported seeing the box on the window ledge that was supposedly used to rest the gun barrel on.

If you study the testimonies of the two witnesses (Brennan and Euins) and try to decide how the three boxes were used by the gunman then the answer appears to be that the boxes were not used by the gunman at all in spite of the fact they had been arranged to form a good gun rest.

Before we go any further, we need to consider if there was any forensic evidence to show that the three cardboard boxes had been used as a gun rest.

We saw earlier in this article that when Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney was testifying before the Warren Commission about his discovery of the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor he talked about “the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon” and he went on to say “…there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don’t know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain - - at the same angle that the shots were fired from.”

However, when Crime Scene Service Section officer Lieutenant Day testified on this matter he rejected this idea. At one point he said: “There was a scar on the top …side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It as not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.”

Lieutenant Day was questioned about the three boxes up against the window and the following exchange can be found late in his testimony:

Mr. McCloy: “Is there any indication on any of these boxes that could tell you where

the rifle rested?”

Mr. Day: “No, sir.”

Mr. McCloy: “When it was fired?”

Mr. Day: “No, sir: I couldn’t find a thing there.”

Mr McCloy then changed the subject. The reply by Lieutenant Day implies he did look for some evidence. He could have looked for unusual marks or for gun powder residue on the boxes and not found any. However, because he was not questioned further when he said “I could not find a thing there” we will never know exactly what he did look for.

However, it appears that this Crime Scene Service Section officer was trying to find physical evidence that a rife had been fired as it rested on the boxes and failed to find any. In other words, there is no forensic evidence to prove that the three boxes had been used as a gun rest.

As we saw earlier, Detective Studebaker thought the arrangement of the three boxes in the sniper’s nest area should have made a good rest for a rifle. There would have been a number of advantages for a gunman using this rest. Firstly, he would have a firm stable rest for the gun barrel as he aimed at his target.

Secondly, he would be able to avoid showing his face to the people at ground level. That way, he could avoid having witnesses seeing his face as he fired at the President and he could avoid having his photograph taken by anybody at ground level that happened to have a camera in their hands.

Thirdly, he could avoid presenting himself as a clear target to be shot at. In theory, Oswald would have no way of knowing how many armed, plain clothed men had been assigned to protect the President that day and were standing in Dealey Plaza. For all he knew, a whole group of men on ground level could have pulled out hand guns and started firing at him.

Oswald should have known from his training as a marine that you avoid showing too much of yourself when you are firing a weapon where there could be people shooting back at you. Using the boxes as a gun rest should have reduced this risk to him considerably and yet the evidence suggests he did not use the gun rest at all.

This now brings us to the simple question:

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald acting as a sniper on the sixth floor set up a gun rest using three boxes and then not use it?

There are a number of possibilities we can consider. Firstly, the three boxes might have been placed up against the window by someone other than Oswald before he arrived on the scene for some purpose unrelated to the assassination. It seems very unlikely that somebody could have put some boxes up at a window in an arrangement that would make for a good gun rest just by pure chance. It should be noted that Oswald’s left palm print and right index were found on the highest of the three boxes, the box immediately behind the box that was found on the window ledge. In these circumstances, Oswald would probably not have touched the boxes or if he did touch them it would have been to move them completely out of his way.

Secondly, Oswald could have placed the boxes to make himself a gun rest and then at the last minute he could have simply changed mind and decided not to use the rest. This would be a logical explanation but with all the advantages involved in using the boxes as a gun rest it would be surprising that he should make this decision.

Thirdly, the reason that the gun rest was not used could be that Oswald was not the gunman and the gun rest was simply part of a fabricated crime scene that was constructed to frame Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. Some people may reject this idea out of hand but it could explain a number of the observations that were made regarding the sniper’s nest area on the sixth floor.

There were quite a few finger and palm prints that could be matched to Lee Harvey Oswald that were found on objects recovered from the sniper’s nest. This gives the impression that Oswald was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the shooting and being careless about leaving his prints on items in that area. However, if that was the case you would expect his finger and palm prints to have been found on the sides of the boxes that he had to lift up into position to form the gun rest i.e. the box resting on the window ledge and the one behind it resting on top of another box. However, the prints were found only on the top surface one box, the box that was found behind and slightly above the box that was found on top of the window ledge.

If Oswald was being framed for the assassination then he could have been tricked into leaving his prints on the top surface of a cardboard box in the 24 hours before the event. For example, somebody could have asked him to hold the flaps down whilst they put a strip of tape down the middle. Once they knew his prints were on the top surface all the conspirators had to do was only touch the sides of the box (using gloves of course) and put the box in position at the time of the assassination.

If this did happened, then it would be in the interest of the gunman not to use the boxes as a gun rest because he might accidentally rub off the prints belonging to Oswald in the process. He might accidentally leave his own prints on the boxes as well.

If there was a highly organised conspiracy going on and someone other than Oswald was up in the sixth floor window then the individual concerned might have known there were no plain clothes police officers at ground level near the book depository. He might have known that the 112th military intelligence group (a team originally ordered to supplement the security for the President) had been told to stand down so none of their armed personnel would be in position around the book depository. He would therefore not be worried about showing too much of his body to the people at ground level. This would explain why the gunman seemed to be so blasé about being seen clearly by the crowd below.

If Oswald was being framed, the conspirators might have used an Oswald look-a-like, with quite a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald knowing that people looking at him up on the sixth floor would be seeing him at too great a distance to distinguish a look-a-like from the real person. It would be to the advantage of the gunman to let his face be seen by the people at ground level. This would explain why the gunman seemed unconcerned that people down in Dealey Plaza could see his face. He hoped they would see his face and later misidentify him as Lee Harvey Oswald because he looked so like him at a distance.

The idea that the gun rest was not used because Oswald was being framed (and it was not Oswald firing from the sixth floor window) can be used to explain one more strange observation made that day. We saw earlier that Amos Euins made clear statements to the Warren Commission about seeing the bald spot on the head of the gunman about two and a half inches above the hairline. We can see by looking at photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald taken on the day of the assassination that he had a receding hairline but he definitely did not have a bald spot on his head.

Conclusions

The police arrived on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination of President Kennedy and soon found the sniper’s nest in the southeast corner. Here they found three cardboard boxes positioned up against the widow. The arrangement of the boxes suggested they were set up to act as a gun rest for the sniper who shot at the President. This was the assumption made by the police on that day and the Warren Commission continued with that assumption thereafter.

Important statements were made by Dealey Plaza witnesses Amos Euins and Howard Brennan who saw a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor and Detective Studebaker who examined the boxes found in the sniper’s nest. Their statements suggest that the gunman on the sixth floor did not use the boxes to rest his rifle on when he shot at the President.

If the gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone it is difficult to see why he would have constructed the gun rest and then not used it. Particularly when you consider the important advantages associated with using the boxes as a gun rest.

It is theoretically possible that an Oswald look-a-like could have fired at the President from the sixth floor sniper’s nest. This theory would explain why the gun rest was constructed but not used, why none of the boxes had fingerprints or palm prints on their sides but there were prints on the top surface of one particular box and why the gunman did not move the boxes out of the way having decided not to use them. It also explains why the gunman did not seem too concerned that people in Dealey Plaza could see his face and he was allowing so much of his body to be seen by the people at ground level. Finally, it allows us to see why Amos Euins gave very clear descriptions of a man with a white bald spot on his head shooting at the President when all the photographic and film evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have a bald spot.

The observations of two witnesses and one crime scene detective have led us to one simple question: “why would Lee Harvey Oswald acting as a sniper on the sixth floor set up a gun rest and then not use it?” There is one simple answer to this question that explains it perfectly and also explains all the other observations highlighted in this article. The answer is as follows: Lee Harvey Oswald would not have done this and the reason it was done is because Oswald was not the sniper and the three boxes were not a gun rest.

REFERENCES

Luke Mooney: Sheriff’s report dated 23rd November 1963

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm

The Warren Commission Testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney

3H284

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page284.php

The Warren Commission Testimony of Detective Robert Studebaker

“it was a good gun rest” 7H149

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page149.php

Howard Leslie Brennan: Affidavit dated 22nd November 1963

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm

The Warren Commission Testimony of Howard Leslie Brennan

3H144

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page144.php

The Warren Commission Testimony of Amos Euins

Regarding the rifle 2H206 & 2H207

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page206.php

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page207.php

Regarding the bald spot 2H204 & 2H07

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page204.php

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page207.php

The Warren Commission Testimony of Lieutenant Carl Day

Regarding gun resting on a box 4H270

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page270.php

Regarding scar on a box 4H271

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page271.php

Regarding evidence for gun resting on boxes 4H272

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page272.php

THREE_BOXES.rtf

[William Kelly]

Tony,

I agree with your analysis.

The Sixth Floor Sniper didn't use the boxes as a gun rest.

Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper.

Whoever he was he intended to be seen, had a bald spot, (and wasn't in a big hurry to get away because he knew he could waltz out of there undisturbed).

The boxes and other evidence at the scene were placed there to implicate Oswald.

BK

Edited April 29, 2010 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

A very intriguing analysis and presentation of data.

I must put a link to this in the Sniper Nest exploration topic so it can be referred to as I feel sure it must be at various times.

[John Simkin]

Conclusions

The police arrived on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination of President Kennedy and soon found the sniper’s nest in the southeast corner. Here they found three cardboard boxes positioned up against the widow. The arrangement of the boxes suggested they were set up to act as a gun rest for the sniper who shot at the President. This was the assumption made by the police on that day and the Warren Commission continued with that assumption thereafter.

Important statements were made by Dealey Plaza witnesses Amos Euins and Howard Brennan who saw a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor and Detective Studebaker who examined the boxes found in the sniper’s nest. Their statements suggest that the gunman on the sixth floor did not use the boxes to rest his rifle on when he shot at the President.

If the gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone it is difficult to see why he would have constructed the gun rest and then not used it. Particularly when you consider the important advantages associated with using the boxes as a gun rest.

It is theoretically possible that an Oswald look-a-like could have fired at the President from the sixth floor sniper’s nest. This theory would explain why the gun rest was constructed but not used, why none of the boxes had fingerprints or palm prints on their sides but there were prints on the top surface of one particular box and why the gunman did not move the boxes out of the way having decided not to use them. It also explains why the gunman did not seem too concerned that people in Dealey Plaza could see his face and he was allowing so much of his body to be seen by the people at ground level. Finally, it allows us to see why Amos Euins gave very clear descriptions of a man with a white bald spot on his head shooting at the President when all the photographic and film evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have a bald spot.

The observations of two witnesses and one crime scene detective have led us to one simple question: “why would Lee Harvey Oswald acting as a sniper on the sixth floor set up a gun rest and then not use it?” There is one simple answer to this question that explains it perfectly and also explains all the other observations highlighted in this article. The answer is as follows: Lee Harvey Oswald would not have done this and the reason it was done is because Oswald was not the sniper and the three boxes were not a gun rest.

Excellent article Tony. It is impossible to find any flaws in your argument.

[Tony Austin]

Thanks for your comments guys.

I hope that one day somebody will set up a reconstruction of a gunman in the sixth floor window and demonstrate how a sniper using boxes as a gun rest looks at ground level compared to how a sniper not using boxes to rest his rifle on looks at ground level.

[Greg Parker]

Excellent article Tony. It is impossible to find any flaws in your argument.

With Tony's permission, I have given the article a permanent home.

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/austin.html

This is the type of analysis that keeps redeeming forums like this; a hard and tight look at the evidence leaving no or little wiggle room for the Bugliosis and Posners out there defending the official line. And it is exactly of the type that needs to be presented to Congress or DAs because it is not putting forward any theory, nor is it complicated or convoluted. Yet it demonstrates eloquently the need to have the case reopened.

[William Kelly]

Excellent article Tony. It is impossible to find any flaws in your argument.

With Tony's permission, I have given the article a permanent home.

http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/austin.html

This is the type of analysis that keeps redeeming forums like this; a hard and tight look at the evidence leaving no or little wiggle room for the Bugliosis and Posners out there defending the official line. And it is exactly of the type that needs to be presented to Congress or DAs because it is not putting forward any theory, nor is it complicated or convoluted. Yet it demonstrates eloquently the need to have the case reopened.

I'd like to hear a response from the trained snipers like Mike Williams, who I think has previously gone on record as saying that the Sixth Floor Sniper didn't use a gun rest, but I'd like to hear it from him again.

BK