Jump to content
The Education Forum

Another Look at the Shooting


Recommended Posts

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your video"

Gotta love the xxxxx chat. Zero content and Zero specificity.

Michael, why don't you tell us specifically, how I am wrong about all these things?

Robert,

This seems to be a reoccurring tactic of yours. My posts have well proven the point. However you ask me now to restate what has already been stated.

Why do you ask for a second helping of humiliation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert,

I have already gone over all of this with you. You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things.

Now are you going to refute anything I have said with facts, or are you just going to keep whining that I am wrong?

I do have one question.

If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?

Look how hard you tried to plead your case in your last post. Using the words bullets and silencers. What was this non-rifle non-pistol weapon that uses bullets and silencers?

Robert your really coming off rather poorly.

So now do you care to address the issues, or are you going to go on another whining binge?

You stated,

"If it was not a high powered rifle and it was not a pistol then what else do we have that uses bullets and suppressors? Some type of Aborigine Blowgun?"

was a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said. I said that we do not know what kind of a weapon it was. Why can't you deal with any of this honestly, Michael.

And you totally evaded every fact and argument I made. Let's give you another shot at addressing what I REALLY DID SAY:

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such a claim.

Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread.

These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said.

If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread.

These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said.

If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will.

Michael, you need to realize that anyone and everyone can simply read your previous messages to confirm that you evaded that entire post.

And what do you suppose people will think, when you pretend that you already replied?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Robert,

Please see the post I made in reply to this one already.

You can deny all you want, you can ask that I repeat the beating all you want, it does not change the fact that these little theories of yours hold no water."

Michael, this was your entire, zero content response to my arguments,

"You are wrong about the silencers, you are wrong about the impact angle and you are wrong about just about every other aspect in your videos. You make mountains out of mo hills and when you are shown that you are wrong you start calling people dishonest and any manner of other childish things."

Now, address the issues, or admit that you can't. If you really hope to "refute" me, you are going to have to stop running from the issues.

Here it is again,

Michael, you are impervious to reason. You force me to spend all my time untwisting your convoluted babblage.

Saying that suppressors are not notorious for causing inaccuracies because the problem is the way they are made and installed, is so far beyond fallacious that I don't know where to begin. Yes indeed, the way they are made and installed is precisely the problem - especially the way they are made. And suppressors used by the mafia, are frequently homemade. You are agreeing with me, while trying to make it appear that you are somehow, refuting me..

The bottom line is, whatever the reason for their problems, they are indeed common. White for example, pointed out in his article, that anyone who assembles a rifle and suppressor at the shooting site, faces a likelihood of having problems. And it makes very little sense that a sniper would come into Dealey Plaza with a fully assembled kit and enter the Daltex building.

And your unsupported assertion that if someone just "knows what he is doing" they will function perfectly is just that - something you made up without a shred of reason or documentation. White's article was for the law enforcement community, so he was addressing people who certainly knew what they were doing, in spades. And yet, he warned even them, that they should never try to mount a suppressor at the shooting scene.

And your other unsupported claim, that if the bullet was tumbling, it would never hit it's target, is moronic. BOTH the JFK wound and the Connally wound were majorly elongated. The bullet HAD to have been tumbling to enter that way. The one that hit JFK was way off, striking far below his head, but it certainly hit him.

And your statement,

"The 7mmx4mm entry just indicates that the shooter was in an elevated position."

is blatantly dishonest, because you posted the formula yourself, for calculating the angle of a stable bullet trajectory, based on the height and width of the wound. You first concluded that the angle was 34 degrees, and I corrected you, pointing out that based on the correct formula, it was actually, about 55 degrees and you eventually agreed. That was about three times steeper than the angle should have been, if the shot came from the alleged snipers nest, and about five times steeper than from the third floor, Daltex.

So, had the bullet been stable, as you claim, the height and width of the wound should have been almost equal, with the height only slightly greater than the width, and yielding a result between 13 and 18 degrees - NOT 55 degrees.

The bullet was tumbling, Michael. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

and it doesn't help you to childishly mirror my own statements back to me.

You topped that off, when you claimed I said the shot at 285 came from the same weapon that the early shots did.

And your repliy that I "mentioned" high powered rifles is outrageously disingenuous because you failed to mention that I talked about high powered rifles being used to fire the shots at 285 and 312, which were ear shatteringly loud, and provoked clear startle reactions by the limo passengers and Abraham Zapruder.

And I told you a long time ago, in the other forum, that if the shot at 285 came from the Daltex, it had to have been fired from a different rifle, by either the same, or a different shooter.

Why are you now presenting this argument again, as though you just discovered it yesterday and it is some kind of fatal blow??

You also know, that in my most recent presentation, I discussed the possibility of that shot come from either the Daltex or the TSBD.

But you address NONE of my replies and try to make it appear that I am evading all these brilliant questions. Why can't you be man enough to admit that I answered every one of those questions, and that you have no counterarguments?

Michael, every word you have uttered in this "debate" has been dishonest and deceptive.

Your worst and most outrageously dishonest argument is that Oswald could have fired the shots at 285 and 312.

Every bonafied test by top government weapons experts, conducted by both the FBI and HSCA, not to mention the CBS tests and many others, has failed to produce a single instance of a shooter matching shots at 285 and an accurate strike at 312.

To date, there is not a person on the planet who has even claimed to do that.

You tried to refute those facts, using a totally uncorroborated claim by some character on Youtube, for god's sake.

That is just pathetic, Michael. No responsible person would ever make such

Whats pathetic is someone trying to spam in order to bury other posts in the thread.

These issues have been addressed. I am not reposting what has already been said.

If you were not sharp enough to understand it the first time, you probably never will.

Michael, you need to realize that anyone and everyone can simply read your previous messages to confirm that you evaded that entire post.

And what do you suppose people will think, when you pretend that you already replied?

Frankly I think they will scratch their heads wondering why you can not manage to understand that I have replied. However I seriously doubt that they will have any doubts as to why you are trying to distract the thread with foolishness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

John,

I dont think so. Moving back would seriously limit his ability to shoot at the downward angle needed. Remember this window is only 14" from the floor and open only about 20".

If you look at the picture of Shannyfelt in the recreation, with his camera on the rifle, his foot is against the back wall.

I just can not conceive how someone could have made these shots with the window open as it was having moved back from the window.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

John,

I dont think so. Moving back would seriously limit his ability to shoot at the downward angle needed. Remember this window is only 14" from the floor and open only about 20".

If you look at the picture of Shannyfelt in the recreation, with his camera on the rifle, his foot is against the back wall.

I just can not conceive how someone could have made these shots with the window open as it was having moved back from the window.

Mike

Why? If there was a line of sight when sitting then all one would have to do is move back along that line?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike, in this or another topic you state in reply to BK that you don't think there was enough room to stand back and take the shots. I've also been trying to recreate the space, and as I see it there is enough room, plenty in fact, only requiring a shift of stance. ie there was no necessity to be exposed at all. ((perhaps if one considers sound dispersal?). but this is not the official position which, to me, seems rather stupid of the sniper)

John,

I dont think so. Moving back would seriously limit his ability to shoot at the downward angle needed. Remember this window is only 14" from the floor and open only about 20".

If you look at the picture of Shannyfelt in the recreation, with his camera on the rifle, his foot is against the back wall.

I just can not conceive how someone could have made these shots with the window open as it was having moved back from the window.

Mike

Why? If there was a line of sight when sitting then all one would have to do is move back along that line?

I doubt he was sitting, however there just was little room to move back, and further he would have to move back and up to maintain this line of sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a few feet. And yes, he would have to move up: ie standing and that would solve any pipe problems ( I see them, Allan Eaglesham solves it by moving the pipes, various posers for photos solve it by nestling around them but are photographed so that the contotrions they go through to achieve this are not readily seen.)

edit:typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
There were a few feet. And yes, he would have to move up: ie standing and that would solve any pipe problems ( I see them, Allan Eaglesham solves it by moving the pipes, various posers for photos solve it by nestling around them but are photographed so that the contotrions they go through to achieve this are not readily seen.)

edit:typo

LOL Try standing and shooting through a hole 14" off the ground and only open 20". You can no where near replicate the angles.

As a side note what is the point the shooter in that window was in the window and not back from it. I really dont see the point here.

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

A line of sight is a line of sight, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the photo of Shaneyfelt and his bodytwist and feet locations while assuming the position with gun mounted on camera thingy (sans boxes) and an extrapolation of that line of sight would suffice. It does imo. (I have the image that shows it on a non functioning laptop so I'm confident in saying so without posting any ''proof'').

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...