Pat Speer

It was in Greg's initial post. When discussing the Secret Service's warning about Ruth Paine she asked the lawyer Marina: "What is CIA?" She then tried to explain what she thought the CIA was... Marina: "I had the impression ... American Civil Liberties Union, I don't know" It seems clear from this she thought CIA was an acronym for the American Civil Liberties Union. But even if one fights that logical conclusion one is stuck with the ridiculous idea that the Secret Service would warn the wife of a presumed presidential assassin that she shouldn't hang out with her friends because they might be working for an American intelligence agency. Hubba...wha??? That doesn't pass a smell test. At least not for anyone with a nose... And yes, people make ridiculous mistakes. This forum is filled with nonsense where someone takes one statement from one person and blows it up to be a window into "what really happened." As pointed out in an earlier post...Humes repeatedly told the HSCA in televised testimony he performed the autopsy on the 23rd... This was then changed to the 22nd in the transcript of his testimony. Hmmm... What were they hiding? That the autopsy took place on the 23rd? Or that Humes had a brain fart? He had a brain fart.

I don't remember the numbers, but I remember reading that after the re-unification of Germany it came out that a huge percentage of East German citizens had been reporting on their neighbors. To my recollection it was something like 25%.

Going off memory... 1. There was no pointed tip ammunition available for the M/C rifle. The different manufacturers all made rounded tip. 2 The hulls found on the sixth floor were for a 6.5 mm rifle. 7.65 mm ammunition could not have been fired from these hulls. 3. 7.65 ammunition is often (always?) pointed tip. The rounded tip design of the M/C bullet was designed to give it stability. It was designed as a response to dum-dum bullets which basically exploded a head or tore up a body. The thought at the time (a thought expressed by, surprisingly, German scientists, and resisted by British and American scientists) was that a more stable bullet with a copper casing would both be more humane and inflict more casualties (as it could go through one soldier and hit another, and thus remove two soldiers from the battlefield without mutilating either of them) than the lead bullets used up until that time. It should be noted, moreover, that the stable design of the M/C bullet made it ideal for certain kinds of shooting--like big game shooting of animals with thick skin a la elephants and rhinos. The stable design allowed the bullet to pierce the thick skin without tumbling or exploding. This allowed the bullet to reach the internal organs. This is one of the many reasons I came to doubt the bullet broke up as it passed through JFK's head, a la the official story. A much more likely story--and one I came to accept--is that the bullet hit the skull at the supposed exit at a shallow angle. (In hitting a skull at a shallow angle the thickness of the skull is multiplied and the resistance to the bullet is multiplied, which can lead to the bullet's breaking up at the surface, and pieces flying forward at a high velocity. IMO, this explains the impacts on the windshield and the impact down by Tague.)

Yes, this may have happened. But why would she hide something relevant from the investigating agency of a murder, so she could share it with the FBI? It's obvious to me she'd been seduced by spy stuff. This deference to the FBI demonstrates her desire to be of service to that agency, which in turn supports that she was interested in working with them to nail Oswald. This cuts into her credibility, and raises the possibility she had a prior "arrangement" with Hosty.

Absolutely. 100%. This kind of mistake is not remotely surprising. The CIA was not nearly as well known in the early 60's as the FBI. As pointed out, she momentarily said "American Civil Liberties" or something like that while trying to explain what they told her. And besides, it makes ZERO sense that the Secret Service would know the names of CIA-affiliated people, or that they would warn Marina about them if they did. There is a record, moreover, of SS antagonism towards the FBI in the aftermath of the shooting. Outside of this supposed statement is there any record of SS concern about the CIA? No, none at all. They were so concerned about the CIA that they shared their copy of the Z-film with them. Let me share an embarrassing anecdote demonstrating that someone could confuse the ACLU and CIA. When I was attending Cal State Northridge I took this 9 unit class combining Religion, Political Science and History. Three professors. Three hours a day. Three days a week. One of the papers was an in-class paper where we were to discuss the effects of social activism on history or some such thing. As one of the teachers was always droning on about Latin American politics, I thought I'd write about Allende, his rise to power, and his overthrow by Pinochet. The problem was that Nicaragua was always in the news back then and I had an ultimate brain fart and kept calling Allende "Somoza.' BIG difference. No one could confuse Allende for Somoza. And yet somehow I did. And I was probably the best student in the class. Let me give you another example. Vince Palamara recently posted Humes' HSCA testimony on this forum. As I had previously compared Baden's, Sturdivan's, and Canning's HSCA testimony against the transcripts of their testimony, I thought I'd do so for Humes as well. I found that there were no major changes. But there was one change made over and over. In his actual testimony, Humes, a man testifying about probably the most noteworthy day of his life, kept getting the date wrong. He said, numerous times, that he performed the autopsy on the night of the 23RD!

To answer your initial question...my wife's parents were immigrants in the 1960's. And I would consider it a HUGE surprise if they at that time knew the difference between the CIA and the ACLU. At that point to them they were just letters that had something to do with the government or the law or something. I would bet my life on it. The researchers on this forum live in a bubble. They assume people not interested in spy stuff and politics know a lot more than they do about history, and the assassination, in particular. And when you take into account that Marina was a recent immigrant, well, I'd bet she knew next to nothing about what agency did what or to whom. Let me make an analogy...What percentage of Americans know the difference between MI5, MI6, M3, NHS, U2, the UK and the EU? Probably less than 2%.

Oy vey. It seems likely she mis-spoke, and was thinking of the ACLU. Think about it. Does the Secret Service know the identities of undercover CIA agents within the U.S.? No, they don't. And think about it some more. Would the Secret Service tell a Russian immigrant and wife of a suspected assassin that the people who've been helping her are spying on her? No, of course not. The logical conclusion then is that she mis-spoke and was thinking of the ACLU. There is no way in heck they would have wanted anyone around her telling her rights, and that she didn't have to co-operate. That they warned her against the Paines because of their connection to the ACLU makes total sense, while their warning her against the Paines because they were CIA fails to make sense.

I agree with you on most of this stuff, Greg. But I think it should be noted that officially Ruth Paine knew the Oswald letter to the embassy was important and yet, even so, failed to tell the Dallas Police about it on the day of the assassination. No, she held it to the next day to tell Hosty about it personally. Now, she may have done this as a courtesy to Hosty. But the more likely situation in my eyes is that Ruth was excited about her place in history, and wanted to play a little spy vs spy. This cuts into her credibility in my opinion. A lot. To her credit, she has admitted she has some animosity against Lee--an animosity the supposedly peevish Lee failed to return, btw. And that's the best one can say about Ruth on this issue. At one point, I did a little digging and found that the WC claimed the U.S. government became aware of Oswald's letter when the Soviets supplied them with a copy. This hid that they'd already had a copy thanks to the top secret mail-opening program they had in place for mail sent to the Russian embassy. As a result, I still have the suspicion Hosty gave the letter to Ruth and told her to pretend she'd found it. That way they could use it against Lee without admitting where they got it from. I mean, think about it. If the Russians had failed to provide them with a copy were they just gonna pretend they didn't have one? Of course not. Ruth's "finding" the letter may very well have been their back-up plan. And now to a side subject...handwriting analysis. First of all, handwriting analysis is not exactly reliable. Second of all, the FBI had a lab of experts who not only analyzed handwriting, but were themselves expert forgers. I remember reading this in a book on the FBI crime lab published in the 50's. It was noted that these experts were sometimes used to implicate Russian agents in schemes that would get them in hot water in Moscow, in hopes of turning these agents. The Russians, of course, had this same capability. The "Dear Mr. Hunt letter" was a KGB forgery designed to implicate H.L. Hunt. Of course, the research community took it to mean Howard Hunt (who would of course never have given Oswald his real name). In any event. I seem to remember that the HSCA took a look at this letter and couldn't determine if it was in fact a forgery. IOW, it was a successful forgery.

If I recall it's the Dillard photo. I think it was Groden who blew it up and said "Look it's a face!" But someone went back and looked up from that location and realized the angle and everything suggested it was a light fixture dangling from the ceiling.

It was Reed, I believe, who took the picture of Oswald being dragged from the theater. Is that who you were thinking of, Jim?

There is nothing remotely approaching consensus on the number of shots, where they were fired from, and which shot created which injury. On my website, I discuss a wide variety of evidence, and try to put this evidence together into a shooting scenario. But even I would say it's less than 100%. More like 80. I would go further moreover and say that anyone claiming they know what happened beyond 80% is totally full of beans. From chapter 20 at patspeer.com A New Perspective on the Shots That Killed The President Shot #1. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD. Heard by: pretty much everyone in Dealey Plaza between the time of the shot and 10 frames afterward. Other evidence for: the wound in Kennedy’s back, probed at autopsy and found to have been a shallow wound with no passage into Kennedy's chest cavity. CE 399, the nearly pristine bullet found on a gurney in Parkland hospital, the appearance of which would be consistent with the bullet's having been hand-loaded and under-charged (which would, in turn, be consistent with this bullet's having created the shallow back wound observed at autopsy). CE 543, one of the rifle cartridge cases found in the depository, which ballistics investigator Joseph Nichol believed may have been used prior to the assassination, which, it follows, may have been the hand-loaded cartridge firing CE 399. Hugh Betzner's photograph taken just before the first shot, determined to have been taken at Z-186. Jackie Kennedy’s turning to her husband beginning at Zapruder frame 190. Phil Willis' testimony that Mrs. Kennedy snapped her head in that direction at the sound of the first shot. Secret Service Agent George Hickey's turning to his right starting around frame 193. Kennedy’s jerky head and hand movements beginning around Zapruder frame 194. Rosemary Willis’s turning to her right around frame 198. Phil Willis’ photograph taken as a reaction to the first shot, determined to have been taken at frame 202. Secret Service Agent John Ready’s turning to his right around Zapruder frame 203. President Kennedy’s lowering his right arm and lifting his left before frame 224. Connally’s testimony that he believed the first and second shot were fired very close together and indicative of automatic rifle fire. The testimony and statements of numerous witnesses indicating that the first shot rang out when Kennedy was waving (when he stopped waving just after Z-190) and as he approached the Thornton Freeway sign (which Kennedy passed at Z-207). Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles at 194. Shot or shots #2. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but it seems likely they were created by separate bullets rapid-fired from a semi-automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building. Heard by: a few near Houston and Elm, perhaps a few on the railroad bridge. Bullet and/or bullets were either fired from a rifle equipped with a silencer, or fired from deep within a building so its sound was muffled in comparison to the other shots. Subsonic ammunition may also have been involved. It’s noted that Nellie Connally, both in her book and in her testimony, says “and then--a second shot” or “and then there was a second shot;” and that she rarely mentions hearing this second shot. In fact, she didn't mention hearing this second shot until 1966, when she said as much to Life Magazine. Since she also swore she saw her husband get hit by this shot and that it came after he yelled “No, no, no,” and since her husband’s testimony and the Zapruder film demonstrate she didn’t even look at him till frame 230 and he didn’t yell anything until after he’d already been hit, it’s safe to say she might have been confused. Neither her husband, for that matter, nor Mrs. Kennedy, recalled hearing a shot between the first shot which hit the President, and the last, which killed him. As a result it seems possible that, due to her proximity, Mrs. Connally simply heard this shot strike the President and/or her husband, and registered it as a shot, without noting that it was not as loud as the first shot. Other evidence for: the small entrance wound in Kennedy's hairline, and the small wound in Kennedy's throat. CE 903, the re-enactment photo created by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission, supposedly demonstrating the viability of the single-bullet theory, but really showing how a bullet just missing Kennedy's right shoulder might proceed to hit Connally in the back. Connally's back wound, which, according to Connally's doctors, suggested that the bullet striking Connally had not previously struck Kennedy. Connally's wrist wound, which, according to Connally's doctor, Dr. Charles Gregory, was inconsistent with a wound created by the nearly pristine bullet supposedly creating this wound, Exhibit CE 399, unless this bullet was traveling backwards. The traces of copper found on the front of Connally's clothing, which suggests that the jacket of the bullet striking Connally had been disrupted even prior to striking his wrist. The movement of Connally’s jacket forwards which briefly obscures his shirt from view in the Zapruder film. The rapid lifting of Kennedy’s hands towards his throat as seen in frames 226 and 227. (His hands were actually dropping towards his chest between 224 and 225, but they shot sharply upward at 226.) Connally’s hair jumping up and his being straightened out in his seat, only to collapse back to his right around 234. Bullet fragments removed from Connally’s wrist that do not match the bullet found on the gurney nor the fragments found in the President’s skull. (Actual bullet or bullets may have bounced out of the car off Connally’s leg, or been picked up by a Secret Service Agent. There were rumors that a hole in the floor of the limousine was discovered in early 1964, which might account for the bullet leaving Kennedy’s neck should it have been a separate bullet.) Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles around 227 and again at 231. Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD Heard by: everyone in Dealey Plaza from the time of the shot up to 10 frames afterward. Tague would have heard this shot around 319 or 320. Other evidence for: extensive damage to the head of the President. Explosion of skull as visible in the Zapruder film. Bullet fragments found in the President’s brain. Additional fragments believed to be linked to these fragments found underneath Nellie Connally’s seat as well as on the front seat of the limousine. Front seat fragments linked to rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Jiggle analysis: Zapruder’s camera jiggles around 318 and 324 and again at 331. Sound or Shot #4. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 320-327. Missed or possibly not even a shot. Quite possibly a loud firecracker used as a diversionary device. The August 27, 1942 issue of Tactical and Technical Trends, a publication of the U.S. War Department, in an article on Japanese Tactics in the Philippines, described the use of firecrackers to "confuse U.S. troops as to the actual Japanese position." More to the point, Combat Lessons #4, a 1942 publication of the U.S. Army, noted that German snipers used firecrackers with slow-burning fuses that would go off after the sniper had left the area. Similarly, Combat Lessons #6, from 1944, noted that, in both the Pacific and European theaters of World War II, "enemy troops have used firecrackers for diversionary purposes, especially when trying to deceive our troops as to the positions of snipers." And it wasn't that the U.S. failed to follow suit. Spycraft (2008), by former CIA Technical Service Director Robert Wallace, reports that by 1962 the CIA's Technical Services Division (the division, one might add, tasked with developing assassination weapons) had developed a Nightingale device, a firefight simulator comprising a variety of firecrackers with differently-timed fuses, which could be used to fool enemy forces into attacking the wrong position, or even attacking their own troops. And it's not as if these firefight simulators were never used. The official Air Force history of the Son Tay raid--a 1970 raid by U.S. Forces on a North Vietnamese prison, which resulted in the rescue of 50 American prisoners of war--reflects that firecrackers with timed fuses were an integral part of the raid, and that they were used to confuse the Vietnamese troops. The use of an explosion to draw attention from the actual area of activity, a tactic widely used today by both the military, and by SWAT teams, (just google "distraction device" and see what I mean) was therefore not only known to operation planners in 1963, but was one likely to be used, should there have been multiple shooters in buildings requiring minutes to escape. From: somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository, possibly the railroad yards, but more probably the back of the arcade north of the grassy knoll, or the parking lot across the street. William Newman, and Abraham Zapruder, both facing the President, with the picket fence on their right and school book depository on their left, nevertheless felt the last shot came from behind them. Since a loud sound coming from behind them at this time would arrive but a split second after the sound of a third shot fired from the depository building, a sound's coming from this area would be likely to confuse Newman and Zapruder, and other witnesses nearby, and lead them to recall hearing but two shots. Sure enough, Newman, Zapruder, Mrs. Kennedy, Bobby Hargis, Clint Hill, and Paul Landis, could clearly recall but two shots, and those nearby Kennedy claiming they heard three shots mostly did so while claiming the last two shots were nearly simultaneous. A diversionary device set off in this location would, of course, draw attention from the buildings behind the President when he was shot. If this was the plan, of course...it worked. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the bulk of the Police and eyewitnesses looking for the shooter ran towards the grassy knoll and railroad yards, and ignored the buildings behind the motorcade. Heard by: everyone in Dealey Plaza from the time of the explosion to 10 frames afterward. Due to their proximity, many interpreted this shot or sound as being the same shot as shot #3. Tague would have heard this explosion around 331-334, which might explain why he was initially convinced he was hit before the third shot. Other evidence for: reports of smoke near the stockade fence. There were gusts of wind up to twenty miles an hour which may have blown the smoke in that direction. The statements of Dallas officer Joe Marshall Smith, who thought he smelled gunpowder in the parking lot west of the School Book Depository. Jiggle analysis: camera jiggles at 324 and again at 331. The testimony of virtually every witness in Dealey Plaza can be accommodated through this simple four shot (or sound) scenario. It doesn’t rely on the hard-to-believe single bullet theory of an undamaged bullet nor on the widespread but scarcely supported by the evidence theory of a shooter-at-the-stockade fence. Its main drawback, as far as testimony goes, is that it calls for 4 shots (or sounds) when most witnesses heard only three. This can be effectively overcome through the argument that the second shot was silenced and heard by only a few. This scenario also fails to account for three shots in the TSBD, where three shells were found. While this could be explained by the sniper’s dropping an extra shell or by the Dallas Police Department planting a shell, the thought occurs that there was seemingly an extra shell at the Tippit killing as well, where the 4 recovered casings didn’t match the 4 bullets removed from Tippit. This uncomfortable development led the Warren Commission to conclude that in fact 5 bullets were fired at Tippit, even though most witnesses heard only three shots.

I think most would call the side of the pedestal facing east the side of the pedestal, and not the front. The front of the pedestal, to my way of thinking, would be the side facing directly across the plaza. That side is to the right of Zapruder's right leg in Willis.

Yes, Lee has been extremely critical of the handling of evidence. But when you read his books, it's obvious he tries to have it both ways. He says the evidence may have been tainted, so we'll never know for sure, but he never focuses on the hard evidence--such as the lack of gsr on Oswald's cheek--that may suggest his innocence. I used to wonder about this, but then I realized that Lee is a close associate of Wecht and Baden. He probably doesn't want to take a side on this issue, for fear of alienating one of the other two "three investigators".

I don't think there's any mystery as to what happened, Micah. By mid-December the government as a whole and the SS in particular had become aware that there was a divide between the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda autopsy report. No, not the divide over the head wound that would later become the source of much debate. But a divide over the nature of the throat wound. Moore was sent to straighten this out. While he, in effect, pressured the Parkland witnesses to play along and agree the throat wound could have been an exit wound, Moore and his superiors probably saw this as a necessary task. I mean, there's no evidence they knew where the shots came from...for a fact...and someone had to put a stop to the speculation shots came from in front of Kennedy. So he did his duty. At the time, moreover, it appears the Parkland witnesses were more delighted to have been invited behind the curtain and shown they autopsy report than they were troubled by Moore's actions. In retrospect, of course, this was quite problematic. What if the Parkland witnesses were correct and the autopsy report was wrong??? Was it proper for Moore to pressure, even unintentionally, the Parkland witnesses into going along with something they suspected wasn't true? I believe Moore was haunted by this...which led him to confide in Gochenaur.

Let's be clear. The Willis photo shows Zapruder and Sitzman from the east. He is further south than she is, that is, he is closer to the street as it passes by closest to them. But she appears to be closer to the eastern edge of the pedestal. The Bronson film, on the other hand, was taken from hundreds of feet to the south of Willis. From this angle Zapruder appears to be slightly in front of Sitzman, that is, he remains closer to the street as it passes by closest to them.

His legs are in front of hers. This is the problem with using blurry images. It becomes a Rorschach test where people see what they want to see, or see what others tell them they should see. I see Zapruder's legs in front of Sitzman's.

This is typical of the kind of stuff Jack used to present that would quickly get shot down. The outline of Sitzman's skirt has been added to suggest she was in front of Zapruder. But that's just in his head. The image is too blurry. Zapruder could very well be in front and to the side of her. Here they are in Willis.

I would disagree. Jack was a sincere guy who, as you said, was limited in his understanding of perspective. While he was often wrong, he was not a charlatan...seeking fame and money from his wrongness. Unlike the leader of his pack, Fetzer, Jack was not at war with everyone who disagreed with him. In fact, he was often generous with his fellow researchers. For example, while disagreeing with me over a certain photo, it might come out that I didn't have access to a clear version of the photo Jack had in his collection. He might then send it to me. He was good in that way. It should also be noted that before his death he donated his research materials to the Poage Library at Baylor University. At one point I noticed that among these materials were some VHS recordings of the HSCA hearings. I contacted the Library and they made a few copies for me--I think it was the testimony of Sturdivan and Canning--for something like 20 bucks total. This was quite a savings compared to the National Archives asking price which was roughly 50 bucks a video, as I recall. (They claimed they could not copy the videos themselves, and that I would have to contact an approved outside company to do that for me--and that was their asking price. As I recall...) In any event, Jack was a colorful and sometimes helpful member of this forum. His presence here brought an expert on NASA and a professional photographer to the forum. Their arguments/discussions about film fakery etc, were often quite informative, and often served to debunk Jack's claims. So I wouldn't put Jack at the top of the heap of those who've discredited the "community." Not by a long shot.

Yes, I believe that is true. Blakey was preoccupied with what he could sell the committee. The truth of the situation was beside the point. The point I was trying to make was that the committee was not "fooled" into suspecting a conspiracy by "junk science." They suspected a conspiracy, but lacked the intestinal fortitude to publicly declare as much without some scientific basis. Baden and the medical panel (absent Wecht) had conspired to keep that scientific basis from the committee. But the acoustics guys were much more agreeable.

FWIW, I remember watching or reading an interview with Stokes and Blakey in which they said that the committee as a whole was convinced there was a conspiracy, but that they felt there needed to find what Blakey called "hard evidence" before they would commit to their suspicions in a report. And Voila! Blakey conjured up some "hard evidence." Now I think we both know the dictabelt evidence is nonsense, but so was a large percentage of the "hard evidence" conjured up by the WC. So I call it a draw. P.S. I wouldn't give Robert Edgar's dissent much credence. He was under Specter's spell to the extent even that he made Specter's son his assistant on the committee. He was essentially Specter's man.

The awful arrogance of someone who wants to debate you but refuses to do the homework so they can understand what you're talking about is more commonplace than one might assume. I ran into this when I exchanged emails with Warren Commission attorneys Howard Willens and Burt Griffin, and Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer. Willens and Griffin said they would give my dissection of the single-bullet theory a fair shake, but then backed out and said they wished to discontinue our discussion if I thought the evidence led to the conclusion Specter and/or Warren lied. To them, any discussion of such a possibility was ludicrous, and a waste of their time. Shermer was in some ways even worse. He claimed to be a supporter of science, and cited his acceptance of evolution as a defining moment in his life. And yet when I tried to get him to acknowledge the scientific problems with the single-bullet theory, he essentially cut me off, and said I'd gotten lost in the minutiae. He then said something like when it came to the medical evidence, we shouldn't presume to understand the textbooks, and should instead rely on the testimony of "experts," in this case Dr. Baden. Not exactly scientific.

That's NBC cameraman Dave Wiegman. He jumped out of camera car #1 near the corner and raced forward with the camera running. At this point in his film he is filming the Newman family sprawled out on the grass.

I was trying to be PC and clever at the same time. I think Tony was alluding to the possibility Ruth was in love with Marina. The word Lesbian derives from the Greek Isle of Lesbos.

I sense youthinks this Ruth was from some Greek Isle.

Define "towing the line." Fagan has been much more open to CTs than Mack was, ironically. People like Wecht have been allowed to speak at the Sixth Floor without a counterpoint. I think they even invited Lifton to give an oral history. So the conspiracy side has been better represented of late than In the past. Now, when you see Fagan on TV talking about the case, it's usually for the purpose of debunking a conspiracy theory. But I don't blame him for that. The producers of the show want a credible person to help make their case, and he has that title. Now, on a personal level, I think he's a good guy. At one point I was looking for photos taken from the supposed perspective of the shooter in the sniper's nest. I asked Fagan if he knew of any in the museum's collection. He said there were none, and then went up to the sixth floor and took some photos himself. These helped convince me that whoever was shooting from the sniper's nest was not sitting on the supposed box seat and using a stack of boxes as a rifle rest, a la the "official" story. It's nonsense.