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.

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

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

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.

Glenn, That obviously was a fairly early evaluation (and OPINION) concerning the timing of the three shots, which was put together for the Warren Commission shortly after the WC began doing its work on the case. And the timing of the shots as seen in that FBI report (CD298) is quite clearly in error. The last shot is now widely believed to be the head shot, which is quite clearly occurring at Z313.

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.

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you. Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours. Oh, good. So you DO think I'm employed by someone who provides me with boatloads of cash to post on Internet forums. Thanks for confirming that. It's not pointless as long as there are conspiracy theorists in the world who have no ability to properly determine the facts in the JFK case. I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists can be a useful and worthwhile hobby. Wouldn't you agree? (No, you probably wouldn't.)

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate. So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right, Ken?

So, what are you saying, Kenneth? Are you saying that NO rifle was sticking out of that window at all on Nov. 22 (even though 4 witnesses said they saw a gun in that window)? I could just as easily turn the tables and ask the CTers this.... Since CTers are positive that a gunman was "blazing away" (as Ken put it) from the Grassy Knoll, why didn't any of the photographers get a picture of the gun or the gunman on the Knoll?

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you.

Do you really believe that, Bob?

So? What difference does that make?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF. It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

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....

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room. BTW / FWIW.... Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before. A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it. What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence.... Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....

True. But that witness is a proven l-i-a-r: Roger Craig's Mauser Lie 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 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.

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....

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.... 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

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.

Mark, How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots? You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Yeah. And? What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed. Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments? Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that? And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.

Technically, your edit occurred one minute after my post went up (assuming you only edited that post one time). But you must certainly be right about the edit, because I doubt you could type THAT fast. My apologies to you, Ken, for being a bit harsh regarding this point. It does appear you realized you were wrong when you said Shaneyfelt did not have the C2766 rifle in CE887 and you edited your post as soon as possible (before ever reading my comment). Whether you want to believe me or not, I too have put some errors in my posts and then suddenly realized they were wrong, and then made a mad scramble to try and edit the post before the CTer I was arguing with could see the mistakes. So, again, I'm sorry about that. (And I'm deleting my harsh comments from my other post too.)

In order to hit a target on Elm Street below, an assassin sure would hold a rifle in such a manner---and at just that angle. How the hell else would you suggest a shooter fire DOWN at the street below? But maybe you think that Oswald should have held the rifle like this as he was shooting DOWNWARD at JFK's car, eh?....