Jump to content

Dillard...


Craig Lamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

William, the B labels the shadow cast by the window frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK...

Bill made me look...

Can someone please explain how anyone could think these boxes have moved?

dillardcrop.jpg

Craig, the problem as I see it is that the boxes to the left of the top box in Powell are seen within the window and yet are shown to be behind the next window in the other photos, over two feet over. This suggests the photo was taken from the right of the building, at an extreme angle. Fine.

But, the evidence photos show these boxes to be less than two feet back of the window. I think what I and others confused by this wonder is...since a view of the boxes from directly to the right of the window frame would show it to be at most two feet to the right of the frame, how is it that it appears to be MORE than two feet to the right of the frame at a shallower angle?

If you or any other photo analyst so inclined could demonstrate this we could scratch the seeming incongruity of these photos from our WTF list.

Actuallly Pat why don't you go out and do it? I mentioned to Kelly how one would test this. It's not a difficult test and answers from someone like you would go a long way. Besides I don't want anyone taking my word for this stuff, I want them to know from experience....

Yes, Pat, if you do the experiment that Craig suggests, you immediately understand the concept of parallax.

Besides the film Parallax View, about the reporter who is framed for an assassination, there is the contract the military gave Collins Radio to study the effects of parallax on pilots.

Isn't the parallax problem what they say caused the JFK, Jr. crash?

Once you understand this concept and how it affects your view of the world, you immediately see that the boxes in the Dillard and Powell photos are in exactly the same position and it is only a matter of perspective that they are different, even though taken only 30 seconds appart.

It also immediatly convinces you that Oswald was the lone-nut assassin responsible for all the shots and that the single-bullet theory is also correct, and that officer Baker's encounter with Oswald does not elemintate him as a suspect, and that Oswald also shot Tippit. The parallax excuse can be used in almost every circumstance to prove that the official story is correct and that any other alternative scenario is wrong.

Go ahead and do the experiment, and all of a sudden you no longer have to worry about who really killed JFK, or figure out any other problem realated to the assassination, or even care about the nation's security as the assassin was just a lone nut and there was no conspiracy or coup after all.

Now we can all sleep tight, knowing that it was just a parallax view of reality that was wrong. My mistake.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You knew Craig was going to look at it and give you his answer. He even gave you a way to use to evaluate what he says is the reason. You also know that it is going to be an answer in strictly the photographic sense, because that is where his interest is.

So if the experiment holds true, does that mean that there was no conspiracy? Why the jump from looking at boxes to this:

and all of a sudden you no longer have to worry about who really killed JFK, or figure out any other problem realated to the assassination, or even care about the nation's security as the assassin was just a lone nut and there was no conspiracy or coup after all.

I don't understand the thought process here. That does not negate conspiracy, does it? Is there a different question you really wanted answered?

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You knew Craig was going to look at it and give you his answer. He even gave you a way to use to evaluate what he says is the reason. You also know that it is going to be an answer in strictly the photographic sense, because that is where his interest is.

So if the experiment holds true, does that mean that there was no conspiracy? Why the jump from looking at boxes to this:

and all of a sudden you no longer have to worry about who really killed JFK, or figure out any other problem realated to the assassination, or even care about the nation's security as the assassin was just a lone nut and there was no conspiracy or coup after all.

I don't understand the thought process here. That does not negate conspiracy, does it? Is there a different question you really wanted answered?

Kathy

Hi Kathy,

I'm going to go back to focus on the boxes in the window from the inside in a moment, but I just wanted Craig to know that I have learned his lesson on perspective, and I'm taking it to its most logical extreme, since after all everything we talk about is taken from our own individual perspectives.

We talk about photo analysis, Jack White does it, anybody can do it, the NPIC does it, the HSCA photo panel did it, and Craig does it.

They want to argue about somethings that don't have much meaning or implications, but this does.

If those boxes aren't in the same exact position in those two photos - they were moved and that's evidence of either another assassin or a co-conspirator, positive proof of conspiracy.

Those analysists at the NPIC didn't just use photos, but other information that supplimented what the photos say - which we have here in the statement of Mrs. Mooneyham that she saw a man in the window four to five minutes after the assassination, so we not only have photo evidence the boxes were moved, we have someone there who could have moved them.

But from the two different perspectives of Dillard and Powell, we have the parallax view that some say distorts what is seen and can be seen, thus, they say it can be shown that the boxes were in the exact same positions in both pictures, its just a matter of perspective.

Okay, then let's see this from locating Dillard and Powell and viewing it from their perspectives, and then look at it from the inside at what is actually there.

Then everybody should be able to see what Craig sees and that the image of the windows is deceiving because of the parallax perspective.

And the photo specialists on the HSCA panel, who rejected the backyard photos as being altered, can be proven wrong on the apparent movement of the boxes as depected by the Dillard and Powell photos. And the HSCA has been proven wrong on other issues as well - the acoustics and the medical testimony, so they've already got a spotty track record.

Of course that still doesn't take care of Mrs. Mooneyham's man in the window, but she too can be easily dismissed as having been viewing another floor or seeing a cop that arrived to investigate, or somehow her testimony, like the Dillard/Powell photo analysis can be dismissed as parallax, and going right on down the line - all the questions about how the official scenaro - the Baker encounter, the Tippit murder, et al. can be easily answered so in the end the official scenario stands like a bedrock of truth.

Now either those boxes were moved or they weren't, either Oswald was on the 2nd floor or he wasn't, either the single-bullet theory is correct or it isn't, Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't, etc., and the difference is - the official scenario demands all of the intangables to break their way, or there was a conspiracy, while the conspiracy only needs one of these to be true.

Now the parallax perspective most certainly must be considered in the photo analyisis of the Dillard/Powell photos, and I can't imagine that the HSCA photo panel didn't consider that in rendering their opinion.

Wasn't Jack White on that panel?

Can you straighten us out here Jack, did the HSCA photo panel consider the perspective of the cameramen in making the determination that the boxes in the window had been moved?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kathy,

I'm going to go back to focus on the boxes in the window from the inside in a moment, but I just wanted Craig to know that I have learned his lesson on perspective, and I'm taking it to its most logical extreme, since after all everything we talk about is taken from our own individual perspectives.

We talk about photo analysis, Jack White does it, anybody can do it, the NPIC does it, the HSCA photo panel did it, and Craig does it.

They want to argue about somethings that don't have much meaning or implications, but this does.

If those boxes aren't in the same exact position in those two photos - they were moved and that's evidence of either another assassin or a co-conspirator, positive proof of conspiracy.

Those analysists at the NPIC didn't just use photos, but other information that supplimented what the photos say - which we have here in the statement of Mrs. Mooneyham that she saw a man in the window four to five minutes after the assassination, so we not only have photo evidence the boxes were moved, we have someone there who could have moved them.

But from the two different perspectives of Dillard and Powell, we have the parallax view that some say distorts what is seen and can be seen, thus, they say it can be shown that the boxes were in the exact same positions in both pictures, its just a matter of perspective.

Okay, then let's see this from locating Dillard and Powell and viewing it from their perspectives, and then look at it from the inside at what is actually there.

Then everybody should be able to see what Craig sees and that the image of the windows is deceiving because of the parallax perspective.

And the photo specialists on the HSCA panel, who rejected the backyard photos as being altered, can be proven wrong on the apparent movement of the boxes as depected by the Dillard and Powell photos. And the HSCA has been proven wrong on other issues as well - the acoustics and the medical testimony, so they've already got a spotty track record.

Of course that still doesn't take care of Mrs. Mooneyham's man in the window, but she too can be easily dismissed as having been viewing another floor or seeing a cop that arrived to investigate, or somehow her testimony, like the Dillard/Powell photo analysis can be dismissed as parallax, and going right on down the line - all the questions about how the official scenaro - the Baker encounter, the Tippit murder, et al. can be easily answered so in the end the official scenario stands like a bedrock of truth.

Now either those boxes were moved or they weren't, either Oswald was on the 2nd floor or he wasn't, either the single-bullet theory is correct or it isn't, Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't, etc., and the difference is - the official scenario demands all of the intangables to break their way, or there was a conspiracy, while the conspiracy only needs one of these to be true.

Now the parallax perspective most certainly must be considered in the photo analyisis of the Dillard/Powell photos, and I can't imagine that the HSCA photo panel didn't consider that in rendering their opinion.

Wasn't Jack White on that panel?

Can you straighten us out here Jack, did the HSCA photo panel consider the perspective of the cameramen in making the determination that the boxes in the window had been moved?

BK

What answer are you really looking for Bill? The truth or the answer that fits your BELIEF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

You knew Craig was going to look at it and give you his answer. He even gave you a way to use to evaluate what he says is the reason. You also know that it is going to be an answer in strictly the photographic sense, because that is where his interest is.

So if the experiment holds true, does that mean that there was no conspiracy? Why the jump from looking at boxes to this:

and all of a sudden you no longer have to worry about who really killed JFK, or figure out any other problem realated to the assassination, or even care about the nation's security as the assassin was just a lone nut and there was no conspiracy or coup after all.

I don't understand the thought process here. That does not negate conspiracy, does it? Is there a different question you really wanted answered?

Kathy

Hi Kathy,

I'm going to go back to focus on the boxes in the window from the inside in a moment, but I just wanted Craig to know that I have learned his lesson on perspective, and I'm taking it to its most logical extreme, since after all everything we talk about is taken from our own individual perspectives.

We talk about photo analysis, Jack White does it, anybody can do it, the NPIC does it, the HSCA photo panel did it, and Craig does it.

They want to argue about somethings that don't have much meaning or implications, but this does.

If those boxes aren't in the same exact position in those two photos - they were moved and that's evidence of either another assassin or a co-conspirator, positive proof of conspiracy.

Those analysists at the NPIC didn't just use photos, but other information that supplimented what the photos say - which we have here in the statement of Mrs. Mooneyham that she saw a man in the window four to five minutes after the assassination, so we not only have photo evidence the boxes were moved, we have someone there who could have moved them.

But from the two different perspectives of Dillard and Powell, we have the parallax view that some say distorts what is seen and can be seen, thus, they say it can be shown that the boxes were in the exact same positions in both pictures, its just a matter of perspective.

Okay, then let's see this from locating Dillard and Powell and viewing it from their perspectives, and then look at it from the inside at what is actually there.

Then everybody should be able to see what Craig sees and that the image of the windows is deceiving because of the parallax perspective.

And the photo specialists on the HSCA panel, who rejected the backyard photos as being altered, can be proven wrong on the apparent movement of the boxes as depected by the Dillard and Powell photos. And the HSCA has been proven wrong on other issues as well - the acoustics and the medical testimony, so they've already got a spotty track record.

Of course that still doesn't take care of Mrs. Mooneyham's man in the window, but she too can be easily dismissed as having been viewing another floor or seeing a cop that arrived to investigate, or somehow her testimony, like the Dillard/Powell photo analysis can be dismissed as parallax, and going right on down the line - all the questions about how the official scenaro - the Baker encounter, the Tippit murder, et al. can be easily answered so in the end the official scenario stands like a bedrock of truth.

Now either those boxes were moved or they weren't, either Oswald was on the 2nd floor or he wasn't, either the single-bullet theory is correct or it isn't, Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't, etc., and the difference is - the official scenario demands all of the intangables to break their way, or there was a conspiracy, while the conspiracy only needs one of these to be true.

Now the parallax perspective most certainly must be considered in the photo analyisis of the Dillard/Powell photos, and I can't imagine that the HSCA photo panel didn't consider that in rendering their opinion.

Wasn't Jack White on that panel?

Can you straighten us out here Jack, did the HSCA photo panel consider the perspective of the cameramen in making the determination that the boxes in the window had been moved?

BK

Bill...no, I was not on that panel; Groden was. I believe that the panel did study the two photos

in considerable detail; I forget their conclusion without looking. My opinion is that the Powell

photo does represent that the boxes were moved. Groden was a full time employe; I was only

a "consultant". Groden wrote many dissents disagreeing with the panel.

Your best statement is that ONLY ONE OF THESE NEED BE TRUE!

I have done hundreds of JFK studies proving the official story is false. ONLY ONE OF THEM

NEEDS TO BE TRUE! Lonenutters, however, and in a very bad position. They need to prove

that EVERY ONE OF MY STUDIES are false. I like my odds...100 to 1 or better.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kathy,

I'm going to go back to focus on the boxes in the window from the inside in a moment, but I just wanted Craig to know that I have learned his lesson on perspective, and I'm taking it to its most logical extreme, since after all everything we talk about is taken from our own individual perspectives.

We talk about photo analysis, Jack White does it, anybody can do it, the NPIC does it, the HSCA photo panel did it, and Craig does it.

They want to argue about somethings that don't have much meaning or implications, but this does.

If those boxes aren't in the same exact position in those two photos - they were moved and that's evidence of either another assassin or a co-conspirator, positive proof of conspiracy.

Those analysists at the NPIC didn't just use photos, but other information that supplimented what the photos say - which we have here in the statement of Mrs. Mooneyham that she saw a man in the window four to five minutes after the assassination, so we not only have photo evidence the boxes were moved, we have someone there who could have moved them.

But from the two different perspectives of Dillard and Powell, we have the parallax view that some say distorts what is seen and can be seen, thus, they say it can be shown that the boxes were in the exact same positions in both pictures, its just a matter of perspective.

Okay, then let's see this from locating Dillard and Powell and viewing it from their perspectives, and then look at it from the inside at what is actually there.

Then everybody should be able to see what Craig sees and that the image of the windows is deceiving because of the parallax perspective.

And the photo specialists on the HSCA panel, who rejected the backyard photos as being altered, can be proven wrong on the apparent movement of the boxes as depected by the Dillard and Powell photos. And the HSCA has been proven wrong on other issues as well - the acoustics and the medical testimony, so they've already got a spotty track record.

Of course that still doesn't take care of Mrs. Mooneyham's man in the window, but she too can be easily dismissed as having been viewing another floor or seeing a cop that arrived to investigate, or somehow her testimony, like the Dillard/Powell photo analysis can be dismissed as parallax, and going right on down the line - all the questions about how the official scenaro - the Baker encounter, the Tippit murder, et al. can be easily answered so in the end the official scenario stands like a bedrock of truth.

Now either those boxes were moved or they weren't, either Oswald was on the 2nd floor or he wasn't, either the single-bullet theory is correct or it isn't, Oswald shot Tippit or he didn't, etc., and the difference is - the official scenario demands all of the intangables to break their way, or there was a conspiracy, while the conspiracy only needs one of these to be true.

Now the parallax perspective most certainly must be considered in the photo analyisis of the Dillard/Powell photos, and I can't imagine that the HSCA photo panel didn't consider that in rendering their opinion.

Wasn't Jack White on that panel?

Can you straighten us out here Jack, did the HSCA photo panel consider the perspective of the cameramen in making the determination that the boxes in the window had been moved?

BK

What answer are you really looking for Bill? The truth or the answer that fits your BELIEF?

How is your opinion on the perspectives of this The truth?

I asked for it and you briefly looked at it and gave your opinion, which was exactly as expected. And you claim the real photo specialists were wrong.

Okay, now that's a difference in opinion. Which one is the truth?

So now, as you said to me earlier, I'm not taking the specialists' opinion or yours, but I'm going to look into it myself and see if the boxes are in the same exact location in both Dillard and Powell photo, and whether the opinion of the HSCA specialists were right or wrong.

Besides the views from the outside, as provided by Powell, Dillard, Moneyham, Brennan et al., we have the view from the inside.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TESTIMONY OF LUKE MOONEY

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

(Thanks to McAdams for posting the testimony w/links to exhibits)

Mr. MOONEY - I didn't have a special assignment. Some of the officers did out at the Market Hall. I was waiting in front of the Dallas Criminal Courts Building, which is the sheriff's office, and we were waiting outside on the front steps there. I was down on the sidewalk, off the steps, on the street level, waiting for the motorcade to approach.

Mr. BALL - Were you standing there when the President went by?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. I took my hat off.

Mr. BALL - That is on Main Street?

Mr. MOONEY - Right.

Mr. BALL - And that is--

Mr. MOONEY - 505 Main.

Mr. BALL - That is where the cavalcade turned north?

Mr. MOONEY - Made a right turn, yes, sir; on Houston Street.

Mr. BALL - That building is about a block south on Houston, isn't it--south of the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; it is a short block there.

Mr. BALL - After the President's car went by, what did you do?

Mr. MOONEY - Well, we were we was more or less milling around. We just kept standing there, more or less talking to one another.

I don't know how many seconds had elapsed--it wasn't too many.

Mr. BALL - You say "we." Who was with you?

Mr. MOONEY - There was another officer there, Hiram Ingram--he is an officer, also, a deputy sheriff. And I believe Ralph Walters was standing there with me, and I believe there was a lady standing there, by the name of Martha Johnson, who is one of the judges' wife, a JP judge.

I believe Officer Boone was standing near us, also. And I don't recall how many more. There was a number of officers there.

Mr. BALL - What happened, as you remember?

Mr. MOONEY - After that few seconds elapsed, we heard this shot ring out. At that time, I didn't realize it was a shot. The wind was blowing pretty high, and, of course, it echoed. I turned my head this way.

Mr. BALL - You mean to the right?

Mr. MOONEY - To the right; yes, sir. We were facing more or less south. And I turned my head to the right.

Mr. BALL - That would be looking towards Houston Street?

Mr. MOONEY - Looking towards the old court.

Well, when I turned my head to the right; yes, sir. I would be looking west. And there was a short lapse between these shots. I can still hear them very distinctly--between the first and second shot. The second and third shot was pretty close together, but there was a short lapse there between the first and second shot. Why, I don't know. But when that begin to take place after the first shot we started moving out. And by the time I started running--all of us except Officer Ingrain he had a heart attack, and, of course, he wasn't qualified to do any running.

Mr. BALL - Which way?

Mr. MOONEY - Due west, across Houston Street, went down across this lawn, across Elm Street there--- I assume it is approximately the location the President was hit.

Of course the motorcade was gone. There wasn't anything there except a bunch of people, a lot of them laying on the ground, taking on, various things. I was running at full speed.

Mr. BALL - When you ran across Elm, where did you go?

Mr. MOONEY - Across Elm, up the embankment, which is a high terrace there, across--there is a kind of concrete building there, more or less of a little park.

Jumped over the fence and went into the railroad yards. And, of course, there was other officers over there. Who they were, I don't recall at this time. But Ralph Walters and I were running together. And we jumped into the railroad yards and began to look around there…..

Mr. BALL - Where did you go?

Mr. MOONEY - Mr. Webster and Mr. Vickery were there with me at the time that we received these orders from another deputy.

Mr. BALL - They are deputy sheriffs?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were plainclothes officers like myself, work in the same department, and we run right over to the building then, which we were only 150, 200 feet back--I assume it is that distance I haven't measured it. It didn't take us but a few seconds to get there. When we hit the rear part, these big iron gates, they have cyclone fencing on them--this used to be an old grocery store warehouse--Sachs & Co., I believe is correct. And I says let's get these doors closed to block off this rear entrance.

Mr. BALL - Were the doors open?

Mr. MOONEY - They were wide open, the big gates. So I grabbed one, and we swung them to, and there was a citizen there, and I put him on orders to keep them shut, because I don't recall whether there was a lock on them or not. Didn't want to lock them because you never know what might happen.

So he stood guard, I assume, until a uniformed officer took over.

We shut the back door--there was a back door on a little dock. And then we went in through the docks, through the rear entrance.

Officer Vickery and Webster said, "We will take the staircase there in the corner.

I said, "I will go up the freight elevator." I noticed there was a big elevator there. So I jumped on it. And about that time two women come running and said, "we want to go to the second floor."

I said, "All right, get on, we are going."

Mr. BALL - Which elevator did you get on?

Mr. MOONEY - It was the one nearest to the staircase, on the northwest corner of the building.

Mr. BALL - There are two elevators there?

Mr. MOONEY - I found that out later. I didn't know it at that time.

Mr. BALL - You took the west one, or the east one?

Mr. MOONEY - I would say it was the west elevator, the one nearest to the staircase.

Mr. BALL - Did it work with a push button?

Mr. MOONEY - It was a push button affair the best I can remember. got hold of the controls and it worked. We started up and got to the second. I was going to let them off and go on up. And when we got there, the power undoubtedly cut off, because we had no more power on the elevator. So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. But I kept going up. And how come I get off the sixth floor, I don't know yet. But, anyway, I stopped on six, and didn't even know what floor I was on.

Mr. BALL - You were alone?

Mr. MOONEY - I was alone at that time.

Mr. BALL - Was there any reason for you to go to the sixth floor?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir. That is what I say. I don't know why. I just stopped on that particular floor. I thought I was pretty close to the top.

Mr. BALL - Were there any other officers on the floor?

Mr. MOONEY - I didn't see any at that time. I assume there had been other officers up there. But I didn't see them. And I begin criss-crossing it, round and round, through boxes, looking at open windows---some of them were open over on the south side.

And I believe they had started laying some flooring up there.

I was checking the fire escapes. And criss-crossing back and forth. And then I decided--I saw there was another floor. And I said I would go up. So I went on up to the seventh floor. I approached Officers Webster and Vickery. They were up there in this little old stairway there that leads up into the attic. So we climbed up in there and looked around right quick. We didn't climb all the way into the attic, almost into it. We said this is too dark, we have got to have floodlights, because we can't see. And so somebody made a statement that they believed floodlights was on the way. And I later found out that probably Officers Boone and Walters had gone after lights. I heard that.

And so we looked around up there for a short time. And then I says I am going back down on six.

At that time, some news reporter, or press, I don't know who he was--he was calming up with a camera. Of course he wasn't taking any pictures. He was just looking, too, I assume. So I went back down ahead of Officers Vickery and Webster. They come in behind me down to the sixth floor.

I went straight across to the southeast corner of the building, and I saw all these high boxes. Of course they were stacked all the way around over there. And I squeezed between two. And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, 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 lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.

So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.

Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.

And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the location spotted.

So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time, of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they was all en route up there, I assume.

Mr. BALL - I show you three pictures. Officer; for your convenience I will give you the pictures.

I have a picture here which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 508.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 508 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Does that look anything like the southeast corner of the building as you saw it that afternoon?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - About what time of day was this?

Mr. MOONEY - Well, it was approaching 1 o'clock. It could have been 1 o'clock.

Mr. BALL - Did you look at your watch?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't. I should have, but I didn't look at my watch at the time to see what time it was.

Mr. BALL - Were you the only officer in that corner?

Mr. MOONEY - At that very moment I was.

Mr. BALL - You say you squeezed behind certain boxes. Can you point out for me what boxes you squeezed through?

Mr. MOONEY - IF I remember correctly, I went in there from this angle right here right through here. There could be a space. There is a space there I squeezed in between here, and that is when I got into the opening, because the minute I squeezed through there there lay the shells.

Mr. BALL - All right. Let's make a mark here. Is this the space?

Mr. MOONEY - I believe that is going to be the space; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - If I make an arrow on that, would that indicate it?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. There is another picture I have seen later that shows an opening in through here, but I didn't see that opening at that time.

Mr. BALL - That is the opening through which you squeezed? And it is an arrow shown on Exhibit 508.

Now, I will show you 509.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 509 for identification.)

Is that the way the boxes looked?

Mr. MOONEY - That is the three boxes, but one of them was tilted off just a little, laying down on the edge, I believe, to my knowledge.

Mr. BALL - Now, does that look like

Mr. MOONEY - That is the three boxes that were there; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Are they arranged as they were when you saw them?

Mr. MOONEY - I am not positive. As I remember right, there was one box tilted off.

Mr. BALL - What were the boxes---did they have a label on them, two of the boxes?

Mr. MOONEY - These do. I didn't notice the label at that time.

Mr. BALL - That is a picture of the window?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Do I understand that you say that it appeared to you that the top box was tilted?

Mr. MOONEY - The end of it was laying this way.

Mr. BALL - You say there was a crease in a box. Where was that crease?

Mr. MOONEY - This crease was right in this area of this box.

Mr. BALL - You mean over on the edge?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; on this far ledge here, where I am laying my finger.

Mr. BALL - Did it go into the box?

Mr. MOONEY - Very slight crease, very slight.

Mr. BALL - Can you take this and point out about where the crease was on 509?

Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing--

Mr. BALL - Tell us where you found it?

Mr. MOONEY - It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes. This here is kind of blurred.

Mr. BALL - We will get to that in a moment. Now, I show you 510.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 510 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Is that the empty shells you found?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Are they shown there?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Now, will you take this and encircle the shells?

Mr. MOONEY - All right.

Mr. BALL - Put a fairly good sized circle around each shell. That is the way they were when you saw them, is that right?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. I assume that this possibly could have been the first shot.

Mr. BALL - You cannot speculate about that?

Mr. MOONEY - You cannot speculate about that.

Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - They were turned over to Captain Fritz?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; he was the first officer that picked them up, as far as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up and look at them. As far as I could tell, I couldn't even tell what caliber they were, because I didn't get down that close to them. They were brass cartridges, brass shells.

Mr. BALL - Is this the position of the cartridges as shown on 510, as you saw them?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is just about the way they were laying, to the best of my knowledge. I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area. But these cartridges--this one and this one looks like they are further apart than they actually was.

Mr. BALL - Which ones?

Mr. MOONEY - This one and this one.

Mr. BALL - Now, two cartridges were close together, is that right?

Mr. MOONEY - The one cartridge here, by the wall facing, is right. And this one and this one, they were further away from this one.

Mr. BALL - Well--

Mr. MOONEY - But as to being positive of the exact distance

Mr. BALL - You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510?

Mr. MOONEY - As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right.

Mr. BALL - Well, we will label these cartridges, the empty shells as "A", "B", and "C."

Now, I didn't quite understand---did you say it was your memory that "A" and "B" were not that close together?

Mr. MOONEY - Just from my memory, it seems that this cartridge ought to have been over this way a little further.

Mr. BALL - You mean the "B" cartridge should be closer to the "C?"

Mr. MOONEY - Closer to the "C"; yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Now, I have another picture here which I should like to have marked as 511.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 511 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Does this appear to be--- first of all, does that appear-----

Mr. MOONEY - There are two cartridges.

Where is the third one?

Mr. BALL - The third one is not in this picture. This is taken from another angle.

Mr. MOONEY - This looks more like it than this angle here.

Mr. BALL - You can see it is a different angle.

Mr. MOONEY - That is right.

Mr. BALL - Now, in this same picture 511, you see a box in the window. Does that seem to be about the angle---

Mr. MOONEY - Yes; that box was tilted.

Mr. BALL - That was tilted in that way?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Now, when you made a crease on 509, the box shown in 509--

Mr. MOONEY - The box should have been actually tilted.

Mr. BALL - In other words, it was your testimony, was it, that the box as shown in 509 was not as you first saw it?

Mr. MOONEY - If I recall it right, this box was tilted. It had fallen off--looked like he might have knocked it off.

Mr. BALL - Well, you cannot speculate to that, but you can just tell us what you saw. What about the box in the window shown in 511?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Is that the box that had the crease on it?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; I believe that is correct.

Mr. BALL - Now, the crease was started from the edge, and came across?

Mr. MOONEY - yes, sir; just a slight crease.

Mr. BALL - I have another picture. This is 512.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 512 for identification.)

Mr. BALL - Here is a picture taken, also, from another angle. Does that show the cartridges?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Now, compare that with 510.

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Is that about the way it looked?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; that is right. It sure is.

Mr. BALL - Now, were the boxes, as you saw them, on the extreme left side of the window, the middle of the window, or the right side.

Mr. MOONEY - Well, they were further over to the left of the window than over to the right. More or less as they are in there in that picture.

Mr. BALL - In 509?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Now, the boxes are in about the right position with reference to--

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; because I had room enough to stand right here, and lean out this window, without disturbing the boxes.

Mr. BALL - You could stand on the right of the boxes?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - And put your head out the window?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. If I recall, I put my hand on the outside of this ledge.

Mr. BALL - And put your head out the window?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - Was the window open when you got there?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - If you stood to the left of the boxes, could you have looked out the window?

Mr. MOONEY - I don't believe I could, without, disturbing them. Possibly I might have, could have, but I just didn't try it.

Mr. BALL - Now, I show you Exhibit 513.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 513, for identification.)

Mr. BALL - This is another view of that window.

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you see it from that angle?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I never did.

Mr. BALL - You don't think you have ever seen it---

Mr. MOONEY - From that angle.

Mr. BALL - Does that show any place where you saw the chicken bone?

Mr. MOONEY - If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.

Mr. BALL - Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?

Mr. MOONEY - There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.

Mr. BALL - By poke, you mean a paper sack?

Mr. MOONEY - Right.

Mr. BALL - Where was that?

Mr. MOONEY - Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.

Mr. BALL - On the same carton?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.

Senator COOPER - How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?

Mr. MOONEY - I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.

Senator COOPER - You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - It would have been that approximate distance to the chicken leg and paper bag?

Mr. MOONEY - Sir?

Senator COOPER - And the paper bag you spoke of?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were in close relation to each other, yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - How big a bag was it?

Mr. MOONEY - Well, as to the number--these bags are numbered, I understand. But it was--I don't know what the number you would call it, but it didn't stand more than that high.

Mr. BALL - About 12 inches?

Mr. MOONEY - About 8 to 10 inches, at the most.

Mr. BALL - What color was the bag?

Mr. MOONEY - It was brown. Just a regular paper bag. Just as a grocery store uses for their produce and what-have-you.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any soda pop?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I did not.

Mr. BALL - Did you see a paper bag at any other window?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL - Any other chicken bones?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you see a Dr. Pepper bottle any place?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; except in the picture.

Mr. BALL - You didn't see it?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - When you say you have seen the picture, I will show you the picture, and let me see if that is the one you mean you have seen. That is Commission 484. This picture has been shown to you, hasn't it?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - I showed you that.

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - And you did not see that two-wheel truck?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - You did not see the Dr. Pepper bottle?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - You didn't see a paper sack anywhere near a two-wheel truck or a Dr. Pepper bottle?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it. Possibly it was there. I am sure it was But I didn't check it.

Mr. BALL - How long did you stay there?

Mr. MOONEY - Sir?

Mr. BALL - How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location of the three cartridges?

Mr. MOONEY - Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time.

Mr. BALL - Were you there when it was found?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. I was searching under these books and between them and up on the ledges and the joists, we was just looking everywhere. And I was about 10 or 15 steps at the most from Officer Boone when he hollered, "Here is the gun."

Mr. BALL - Did you go over there?

Mr. MOONEY - I stepped over there.

Mr. BALL - What did you see?

Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.

Mr. BALL - Well, now, will show you a picture, 514.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 514, for identification.)

Senator COOPER - May I ask---did you change the position of the shells which you have identified?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; I didn't have my hands on them.

Senator COOPER - Or the bag, or chicken leg?

Mr. MOONEY - No, sir.

Senator COOPER - Until--before the chief came?

Mr. MOONEY - Captain Will Fritz; yes, sir; he is the chief.

…..Senator COOPER - As you examined these exhibits, you gave your best judgment, your recollection of the location of the boxes and the shells.

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. The way I remember, sir, is---

Senator COOPER - The chicken and the paper bag?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. I do remember that the one box was tilted off, laying partially over on the legs.

Senator COOPER - That was the box which you said you observed a crease in?

Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. Just very slight, very slight.

Senator COOPER - Is that the box which was the top box?

Mr. MOONEY - The way I remember, the two boxes and the third one was the one tilted off. It looked like it possibly could have been knocked off from a movement, because it wasn't naturally placed that way by hand for any purpose, because it wouldn't have had any purpose, to my knowledge.

Senator COOPER - Let the exhibits which have been offered be admitted in evidence.

(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 508 through 515, were received in evidence.)

Mr. MOONEY - In other words, if you just run against it, you would have knocked it off.

The CHAIRMAN - Thank you very much for coming, sir. You have been very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Alyea, "Facts and Photos"

From Connie Kritzberg's Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, pp. 39-46

I was the first newsman into the building and the only newsman to accompany the search team as they went from floor to floor searching for the person who fired the shots. At this time, we did not know the president had been hit. I rushed in with a group of plain clothesmen and a few uniformed officers. . . .

I [followed] the search team that was on its way to the rear elevator, to start the floor by floor search. We searched every floor, all the way to the roof. The gunman could have still been in the building. Finding nothing, they started back down. After approximately 18 minutes, they were joined by Captain Fritz, who had first gone to Parkland Hospital.

The barricade on the sixth floor ran parallel to the windows, extending in an "L" shape that ended against the front wall between the first and second twin windows. The height of the stack of boxes was a minimum of 5 ft.

I looked over the barricade and saw three shell casings laying on the floor in front of the second window in the two window casement.

They were scattered in an area that could be covered by a bushel basket. They were located about half way between the inside of the barricade.

I set my lens focus at the estimated distance from the camera to the floor and held the camera over the top of the barricade and filmed them before anybody went into the enclosure. I could not position my eye to the camera's view finder to get the shot. After filming the casings with my wide angle lens, from a height of 5 ft., I asked Captain Fritz, who was standing at my side, if I could go behind the barricade and get a close-up shot of the casings. He told me that it would be better if I got my shots from outside the barricade.

He then rounded the pile of boxes and entered the enclosure. This was the first time anybody walked between the barricade and the windows.

Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings.

Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally.

The originals by this time were probably in a plastic bag at police headquarters. Why? Probably this was a missing link in the report the police department had to send to the FBI and they had to stage it and the barricade box placement to complete their report and photo records.

The position of the barricade, while difficult to follow for one who was not there, is important because of the difference in photographs seen today.

There are four different box positions.

1) There was one box in the barricade stack that was considerably higher than the others. This box is the one that can be seen in the photos taken from outside the window by Tom Dillard, because it was high enough to catch the sunlight and still be seen from the ground below. It is not to be confused with the second box set at an angle in the window sill, that was used as a brace for the assassin's rifle.

2) A portion of this box can also be seen in these same photos taken by Tom Dillard. It shows up in the lower right hand corner of the picture.

3) Two boxes were stacked on the floor, inside the window, to give arm support to the assassin. The top box was one of the two boxes from which the crime lab lifted palm prints.

4) The fourth box of importance was on the floor behind the sniper location. Officers also lifted palm prints from this box. It is suspected that the sniper sat on this box while he waited for the motorcade to pass.

The positioning of boxes 2, 3, and 4 were recorded by the police crime lab. They are the only boxes involved in the crime scene.

The actual positioning of the barricade was never photographed by the police. It s actual positioning is only on my movie footage, which was taken before the police started dismantling the arrangement.

We all looked over the barricade to see if the half open window with three boxes piled to form a shooting rest for a gunman. One box was actually on the window sill, tilted at an angle. There was a reason for this that I cover in my JFK Facts newsletter. The shooting location consists of two windows set together to form one single window. (The police photo showing the shell casings laying next to the brick wall was staged later by crime lab people who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later.) . . .

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation.

But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close.

I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . . .

Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they put it in a report and they must stick to it.

One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the 6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search.

The chances are great that this, or these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene. There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.

The most outstanding puzzle as to why these officers are sticking to this story is the fact they claim to have found the sniper's location, then left the building, as they said to join the investigators at the Tippit shooting location. I have never seen a report that indicates they attempted to use any telephone in the building in an attempt to notify other investigators. They just left the scene to check another assignment, and by chance ran into Capt. Fritz coming in the front door. They claim to have placed a detective at the location but they did not relay their finding to any other officer before they left the building. I presume that the alleged detective they allegedly left at the scene was instructed to stand there until someone else stumbled upon the scene, or they found time to report it after investigating the Tippit scene. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

I do however know that Officer Mooney was present when the rifle was found because I took film of him at the scene. He is shown talking to another detective, but this was nearly an hour after the sniper's location was found at the window. I have no idea when he arrived. We ended up with more men than when we started. As they joined us during the search the latecomers would bring us the latest news of the president's condition.

When Captain Fritz arrived 18 minutes after we started, he brought news that both Governor Connally and the president had been hit but by the time he left, the seriousness of their wounds was unknown. Fritz left the hospital almost immediately when he was notified that a search was underway in the Texas School Book Depository for the sniper. We in the search team had no phones, radios or TV sets. As I recall, we learned that the president was dead about the time we found the rifle. I don't know who brought us this word. Several officers arrived while we were waiting for Lt. Day. One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press. None of us were prepared to hear that the president's wound was a fatal one. We thought perhaps it was a minor thing or possibly a flesh wound. It was a stunning shock, and our attitude [towards] the rifle had suddenly changed. We stared at the small portion of the butt as it lay under the overhang boxes while we waited for Lt. Day to arrive and recover the weapon that killed our president. . . .

We finished combing the 6th floor, looking for the assassin or any other evidence. Finding nothing more at this time Captain Fritz ordered all of us to the elevator and we started searching the 7th floor and from there we went to the roof.

Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found.

In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle. He knew then that the possibility of a fire fight with the sniper had greatly diminished. He dispatched one of his men to go down and call for the crime lab. About fifteen minutes later, Lt. Day and Studebaker arrived. Still pictures were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has seen my shot of this many times. Lt. Day immediately turned toward the window behind him and started dusting the weapon for fingerprints. Day was still within the enclosure formed by the surrounding boxes. I filmed him lifting prints from the rifle. He lifted them off with scotch tape and placed them on little white cards. When he had finished, he handed the rifle to Captain Fritz. Fritz pulled the bolt back and a live round ejected and landed on the boxes below. Fritz put the cartridge in his pocket. I did not see Fritz pick up anything other than the live round. . . .

I filmed Captain Fritz talking with associates in this dismantled area [the "sniper's nest"], along with Studebaker, who was dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle which had been brought up to him from the 5th floor. This is all recorded on my film. I never learned if prints were lifted from the pop bottle. I'm not sure if anybody ever asked.

I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J. L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his ambush and the view he had of the killing zone.

Addendum #1

A correspondent asked Tom Alyea about the accuracy of the above material and forwarded Alyea's response:

Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.

I shall make a few corrections that I feel are necessary to maintain accuracy:

Corrections:

The average height of the barricade (Barricade #1) was four and a half feet. I don't know how high this would be in the Metric scale.

My shot of the shell casings in Capt. Fritz's hand was between three and four seconds.

(Important correction:) Take out the sentence that starts with, "It is highly doubtful…"

My statement was that after Capt. Fritz held the casing over the barricade for me to film, he turned to examine the shooting support boxes on the windowsill. I couldn't see the captain put the casings in his coat pocket because his coat pocket was below the top of the barricade. He did not return them to the floor and he did not have them in his hand when he was examining the shooting support boxes.

Over thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the sniper's nest crime scene. We stayed at the rifle site to watch Lt. Day dust the rifle. You have seen my footage of this. Studebaker never saw the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and photographed them. Det. Studebaker was alone at this site until after Lt. Day left the building with the rifle. We in the search team went to the sniper's site. Studebaker had already photographed the casings on the floor and was busy dusting the pop bottle when we arrived. The casings were no longer on the floor. I never saw them again. The barricade had been completely dismantled and the boxes from the West side of the barricade had been removed and placed in various locations around the site. We did not realize at the time that Studebaker had not recorded on film the original placement of the boxes in the barricade. He also had removed the shooting support boxes on the window ledge and stacked them one on top of the other on the floor inside. He took a picture of this reconstructed arrangement. This is the view researchers have of the shooting support boxes that were originally on the brick window ledge. The corner of the outside box was positioned over the lower window channel that tilted the box at an angle.

(Important correction)…Take out the sentence that starts with, "I have also seen recently…"

This high angle photograph was taken after the crime lab returned to the sixth floor three days later 'Monday, November, twenty-five. Capt. Fritz had seen the photographs and had directed the crime lab to correct the shots of the window boxes and the casings on the floor. He had seen the original placement and ordered the crime lab to correct it. Neither Lt. Day nor Det. Studebaker had seen the original placement, so they procured my film from the TV station to get it right. The high angle shot (shots) were made to show the original placement. Their reconstruction was close, but not exact. However, they did not bring the casings with them so they did not make the correction of the original placement of the shell casings.

(Important correction) Take out the sentence that starts with :" I do however know that Officer Mooney…"

Mooney was a Sheriff's Deputy, not a police officer. He did not arrive on the sixth floor until after the rifle was found and the search was over.

(Important correction) Take out the sentence that starts with, "He dispatched one of his men…"

Capt. Fritz did this after the shooting site was discovered, with the instructions to have the crime lab men wait on the first floor when they arrived. We were still looking for an armed gunman. We had only found his shooting location. After the rifle was found, Capt. Fritz sent one of his detectives down in the elevator to bring up the crime lab, because it was obvious that the sniper had escaped and the threat of a firefight was unlikely. The crime lab is never called to a scene that has not been secured. I hope you researcher friends will realize this when the read the police testimonies where they place Lt. Day at the shooting site crime scene while we in the search team were still searching for an armed sniper on the same floor. They had a noble reason for giving this false testimony. They wanted to protect their boss, Capt. Fritz from possible censure for picking up the casings before the crime lab arrived and processed them. The easiest way was to place Lt. Day at the scene before Capt. Fritz arrived. All this is detailed in my report.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is your opinion on the perspectives of this The truth?

I asked for it and you briefly looked at it and gave your opinion, which was exactly as expected. And you claim the real photo specialists were wrong.

Okay, now that's a difference in opinion. Which one is the truth?

So now, as you said to me earlier, I'm not taking the specialists' opinion or yours, but I'm going to look into it myself and see if the boxes are in the same exact location in both Dillard and Powell photo, and whether the opinion of the HSCA specialists were right or wrong.

Besides the views from the outside, as provided by Powell, Dillard, Moneyham, Brennan et al., we have the view from the inside.

BK

Thats what I asked you to do, look at it yourself. I see that the boxes should not be be spaced only 6 inches back from theglass, and you can choose to agree or disagree. Your choice.

I told you how to test the placement of the boxes by simply looking. I made no claims on how that might turn out. I've asked Bill Kelly and Pat Speer to prove the truth.

You can do that can't you?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those still following this line of inquiry, here's another version of the boxes from the inside.

The "Sniper's Nest" Incarnations and Implications

by Allan Eaglesham

www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/actualsn.htm

Eaglesham doesn't really use the Powell/Dillard photos, but brings in another the Murray photo taken after 12:40.

He also dismisses the idea that plainsclothes deputy Luke Mooney discovered the "Sniper's Nest" at approximately 1 pm and called down out of the open window to Lt. Fritz, who was standing outside on the street corner.

Here Fritz is with Tom Alyea when the "Sniper's Nest" is discovered and they are the first there, with Mooney showing up later.

Alyea's film of the "Sniper's Nest" shoud be the most accurate of the scene before it was butchered by the DPD "crime scene" investigators.

If it wasn't tampaered with within minutes of the assassination, the "crime scene" was certainly tampered with improperly by the cops, Fritz, Steudabaker and Day in particular.

What does Alyea's film show?

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those still following this line of inquiry, here's another version of the boxes from the inside.

The "Sniper's Nest" Incarnations and Implications

by Allan Eaglesham

www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/actualsn.htm

Eaglesham doesn't really use the Powell/Dillard photos, but brings in another the Murray photo taken after 12:40.

He also dismisses the idea that plainsclothes deputy Luke Mooney discovered the "Sniper's Nest" at approximately 1 pm and called down out of the open window to Lt. Fritz, who was standing outside on the street corner.

Here Fritz is with Tom Alyea when the "Sniper's Nest" is discovered and they are the first there, with Mooney showing up later.

Alyea's film of the "Sniper's Nest" shoud be the most accurate of the scene before it was butchered by the DPD "crime scene" investigators.

If it wasn't tampaered with within minutes of the assassination, the "crime scene" was certainly tampered with improperly by the cops, Fritz, Steudabaker and Day in particular.

What does Alyea's film show?

BK

Eaglesham has a nice presentation but does not acknowledge that some of the Studebaker

photos were reenactments taken at night. Even though flash was used for the inside shots

to illuminate the indoor scene, the SUNLIGHT OUTSIDE was far brighter than the flash.

In the daytime scenes, the outdoor scene along Houston Street is correctly exposed. In all

of the recreation scenes, the SCENE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOWS IS BLACK, showing that

they were taken at night. I do not understand people not knowing the difference.

Go to the website to see which were daytime shots and which were nighttime.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eaglesham has a nice presentation but does not acknowledge that some of the Studebaker

photos were reenactments taken at night. Even though flash was used for the inside shots

to illuminate the indoor scene, the SUNLIGHT OUTSIDE was far brighter than the flash.

In the daytime scenes, the outdoor scene along Houston Street is correctly exposed. In all

of the recreation scenes, the SCENE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOWS IS BLACK, showing that

they were taken at night. I do not understand people not knowing the difference.

Go to the website to see which were daytime shots and which were nighttime.

Jack

Actually some years back, Joe Durnavich and I worked out the guide numbers and exposure factors and found that recreation shots were in fact done in the daylight.

I think it was posted on this forum but I don't remember.

In any case the exposure value of the flash compared to the outdoor illumination is not quite as simple as White wants to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eaglesham has a nice presentation but does not acknowledge that some of the Studebaker

photos were reenactments taken at night. Even though flash was used for the inside shots

to illuminate the indoor scene, the SUNLIGHT OUTSIDE was far brighter than the flash.

In the daytime scenes, the outdoor scene along Houston Street is correctly exposed. In all

of the recreation scenes, the SCENE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOWS IS BLACK, showing that

they were taken at night. I do not understand people not knowing the difference.

Go to the website to see which were daytime shots and which were nighttime.

Jack

Actually some years back, Joe Durnavich and I worked out the guide numbers and exposure factors and found that recreation shots were in fact done in the daylight.

I think it was posted on this forum but I don't remember.

In any case the exposure value of the flash compared to the outdoor illumination is not quite as simple as White wants to make it.

If all were made in the daytime, why are some scenes outside the windows properly exposed and some total black?

Daylight is far brighter than flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all were made in the daytime, why are some scenes outside the windows properly exposed and some total black?

Daylight is far brighter than flash.

Guide numbers, flash to subject distance, level of the exterior illumination, film speed and shutter speed.

Do the math Jack, flash is not that hard to figure out.

Lets review shall we? For example for:

Number 5 flashbulb (or number 25)

ISO 200 film

flash to subject distance 5 feet

shutter speed 1/200th

Open shade outside light.

proper outside exposure for 1/200 iso 200 open shade is 1/200 @f4

guide number for #5, 5ft' 1/200 iso200 is 240

F-stop equals guide number divided by distance

240/5=48

So for a shot at 5 foot from the subject at iso 200 at shutter speed 1/200 with a number 5 flashbulb, the f-stop is f48

Stops the daylight exterior will be UNDEREXPOSED.. 4>5.6>8>11>16>22>45 = 6 stops UNDEREXPOSED

In this instance flash is SIX STOPS more powerful than daylight. Remember for every stop the power of the light is DOUBLED!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...