Ejected Shell Casings

[Robin Unger]

Frames from JFK the movie.

GIF (4-Frames)

Notice that the ejected shell casings appear to fly away from the window ledge.

Then how did they end up underneath the window ledge lined up one behind the other. ?

[Robin Unger]

Frames from JFK the movie.

GIF (4-Frames)

Notice that the ejected shell casings appear to fly away from the window ledge.

Then how did they end up underneath the window ledge lined up one behind the other. ?

Another angle

It was sugested on Duncan's forum that the shell casings may have bounced back off the boxes. !

In the movie of this shooting segment, the Shell casings DID NOT bounce back off the boxes.

I think from that firing position, it may be possible that there was a gap to the right of the shooter, at least that is how it appears to me in the image above.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

[Robin Unger]

Thanks John.

In the GIF i posted, it appears to me, that the shell casings are ejecting over his right shoulder. ?

[Robin Unger]

Robin,

This roughly represenst the way I see it.

I have not worked out exact angles, because It's not my forte, but I believe it's close enought to show what happened.

The red lines on the left, over the boxes, represent the rifle and the rifle angles, and the lines going towards the boxes, represent the angles at which the shells would have been ejected.

Thanks Duncan.

This one is a work in progress.

[David Andrews]

Re: the JFK clip. Set decorators and cinematographers use all sorts of "cheats" to create illusions that objects, even walls, are present when they're not.

In that tight shot of Gary Oldman firing and ejecting, photographed from front left, there may not be an entire box in the foreground at all. just the sliced off end of a box, with the markings facing the camera. Such a rig-up might have been necessary to get the actor, camera, lights and other gear together in a tight space.

[Pat Speer]

Frames from JFK the movie.

GIF (4-Frames)

Notice that the ejected shell casings appear to fly away from the window ledge.

Then how did they end up underneath the window ledge lined up one behind the other. ?

Another angle

It was sugested on Duncan's forum that the shell casings may have bounced back off the boxes. !

In the movie of this shooting segment, the Shell casings DID NOT bounce back off the boxes.

I think from that firing position, it may be possible that there was a gap to the right of the shooter, at least that is how it appears to me in the image above.

Robin, this photo was taken on the 25th. Photos on the 22nd show that there was an additional row of boxes to the north side of the supposed gun rest. Presumably these were removed so that the "seat" could be captured in this photo.

[Robin Unger]

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, i'm sure that the devil is in the details.

Including how the boxes were arranged on the film set, the exact arrangement of book cartons on the 22/11/63

and what rifle shells are legit.

For the record Jim.

Where did i say that CE 543 was fired that day?

if you have a problem with that part of the case, then it's a problem you need to solve !

Is this the correct book carton placement.

Credit: Allan Eaglesham

[Robin Unger]

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, i'm sure that the devil is in the details.

Including how the boxes were arranged on the film set, the exact arrangement of book cartons on the 22/11/63

and what rifle shells are legit.

For the record Jim.

Where did i say that CE 543 was fired that day?

if you have a problem with that part of the case, then it's a problem you need to solve !

Credit: Allan Eaglesham

Official snipers nest.?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/officialsn.htm

Late afternoon snipers nest.?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/latepmsn.htm

The actuall snipers nest.?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/actualsn.htm

[John Dolva]

Repeat: What is the proof that CE 543 was fired that day?

That is the dented shell casing.

I think it was fired. But a color size analysis of the color photos indicate it may not have discolored as much, nor expanded as much, ie poss it was fired (at some time) but not with enough detonationion to distort it as the other two. The crimping and its presentation makes it hard to see this size difference (expansion of chamber and lip). It could have been crimped to achieve this and fired without bullet to make 3, or poss lock in a cats sneeze load. The bits that has been mistaken as unspent cartridge could be wadding/winding. Basically I don't know + noone has confirmed or denied this obserevation so it's just me saying so.

[Paul Baker]

WHat is the proof that CE 543 was fired that day?

Ballistics?

[John Dolva]

IOW a possibly preloaded cartidge. If one considers the crimping of a smaller caliber squat cats sneeze reload and tested and reloaded etc, all this seems to me possible. The case would then never gain the temperature and explosive force of a standard carcano bullet and therefore have a different expansion and discoloration.

The sound would also be different as well as basically deliberately having internal wound ballistics of fragmentation. I wonder if it can also be then argued to necessitate 399.

[John Dolva]

Did you read what I just posted above? Howard Donahue, a ballistics expert says it was not fired that day since the dent could not have been made if it contained a live round.

Tink Thompson said it had three identifying marks revealing it thad been fired before.

One was the magazine follower which makes only the last round, which this was not. If you believe the WC, which you do.

Thompson tried every which way to duplicate the indentation, he could not. Chris Mills did when he fired an empty shell, but only infrequently.

Was Oswald firing empty shells?

A forensic pathologist also noted the deeper indentation at the base which seems to betray it was dry loaded.

The "ballistics" reveals it was not fired that day.

Yes I read it. Did you read what I wrote. The cats sneeze is a smaller diameter squat bullet. ie accomodates crimping, poss necessitates it. The other thing is it being fired without a bullet, a number of times but the necessary expansion / discoloration does not occur, so the color pics provided are in different scale and orientation and a top view reveal that the crimping widens the cartridge end so in the side on photos the cartidges look as wide as each other and a circumference from top view is very difficult. but a proper rescaling can show that the AREA of the opening is different, I found it to be smaller, iow not expanded as much but presented so that this is easily overlooked. I don't see what the origin of this to me apparently different perception of what I'm saying comes from. I think I see that the cartridge is different. To me, you seem to fill it out and make a proper analysis possible.

Also, I have unresolved disagreement about the location of the pipes. Seriously consider the space available and the placing of Oldman in front of the pipes and Allans diagram having no pipes. The pipes were there, and they detemine where a shooter can be, and this afaics makes it a very cramped space, which then nullifies not omy fundamentals in sniping but also a number of witness statements.

[Robin Unger]

Did you read what I just posted above? Howard Donahue, a ballistics expert says it was not fired that day since the dent could not have been made if it contained a live round.

Tink Thompson said it had three identifying marks revealing it thad been fired before.

One was the magazine follower which makes only the last round, which this was not. If you believe the WC, which you do.

Thompson tried every which way to duplicate the indentation, he could not. Chris Mills did when he fired an empty shell, but only infrequently.

Was Oswald firing empty shells?

A forensic pathologist also noted the deeper indentation at the base which seems to betray it was dry loaded.

The "ballistics" reveals it was not fired that day.

Yes I read it. Did you read what I wrote. The cats sneeze is a smaller diameter squat bullet. ie accomodates crimping, poss necessitates it. The other thing is it being fired without a bullet, a number of times but the necessary expansion / discoloration does not occur, so the color pics provided are in different scale and orientation and a top view reveal that the crimping widens the cartridge end so in the side on photos the cartidges look as wide as each other and a circumference from top view is very difficult. but a proper rescaling can show that the AREA of the opening is different, I found it to be smaller, iow not expanded as much but presented so that this is easily overlooked. I don't see what the origin of this to me apparently different perception of what I'm saying comes from. I think I see that the cartridge is different. To me, you seem to fill it out and make a proper analysis possible.

Also, I have unresolved disagreement about the location of the pipes. Seriously consider the space available and the placing of Oldman in front of the pipes and Allans diagram having no pipes. The pipes were there, and they detemine where a shooter can be, and this afaics makes it a very cramped space, which then nullifies not omy fundamentals in sniping but also a number of witness statements.

Re: the pipes

Credit: John Woods

Secret Service Re-enactment:

Edited July 7, 2010 by Robin Unger

[John Dolva]

maximum exposure...very clever. Why bother escaping at all?