LHO's Markmanship Ability

[Evan Marshall]

[On my tombstone I would like: NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE WC SHOOTING SCENARIO

BUT REACHED THE SAME SILLY CONCLUSION ANYWAY.

it was junk compared to either the M-1 Garand Oswald was issued or a number of commercial rifles such as the Winchester Model 70 which were available in 1963.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

[On my tombstone I would like: NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE WC SHOOTING SCENARIO

BUT REACHED THE SAME SILLY CONCLUSION ANYWAY.

Far better to be "SILLY" than to be totally ignorant of the facts!

[Mark Knight]

Tom, the one thing you keep waving in the face of these doubters [and I'm one of the doubters that it was Oswald doing the shooting, although I will admit he was capable of the task at hand] that they're apparently failing to grasp is the phrase "SITTING POSITION."

Go back and look at the photos from the INSIDE of the 6th floor window...look at the height of the sill from the floor. NO WAY was anyone shooting from a standing position! Ditto for a prone position. So that ONLY leaves...what, class? [All together now..."A SITTING POSITION!!!"]

And Ozzie was best from WHAT firing position?

Looking at the outside of the building, we naturally ASSUME that a standing position is possible; but as seen from the inside, ONLY a sitting/kneeling position would allow shooting from the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor of the TSBD. Too often, we let our eyes--and images like the outside of the TSBD--misinterpret what our brains are actually telling us.

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

As far as I know, there is no dispute that the first bullet to strike JFK did not kill him. It was probably a non-fatal wound, as far as I can gather. So when we speak of the assassination of JFK we are really speaking about the fatal head shot seen at Z312/313. I submit that there is no basis, on the evidence to date, to argue that Lee Oswald COULD EVEN POSSIBLY have fired that shot, assuming, against the weight of the evidence, that he was in the sniper's nest.

The following is from something I posted shortly after I joined the forum:

Among the many reasons why the inquiry should be reopened I would emphasise a crucial error committed by the Warren Commission, perpetuated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and neglected by the research community for the past four decades. This error (like many others) would probably not have happened if the Texas Court of Inquiry had gone ahead or if the WC or the HSCA had permitted defense counsel to appear.

Warren Commission Exhibit 900 appears on page 113 of the Warren Report. It can be viewed here: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...eport_0069a.htm

It shows the Altgens photo directly above a photo of the WC reenactment. The Altgens photo shows the presidential limo and the Secret Service follow-up car. Four Secret Service men can be seen standing on the running boards of the follow-up car and a motorcycle policeman is to the right of JFK. PROBLEM: The "reenactment" photo shows no followup car and no motorcycle cops.

If we turn to WR p114 we find CE 901

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...eport_0069b.htm

which seems to show that a rifleman in the "sniper's nest" had an unobstructed view of JFK at Zapruder frame 255, and by implication still had an unobstructed view at Z 312-Z 313. PROBLEM: no Secret Service men, no motorcycle cops.

Reenactments have featured in courtroom trials since time immemorial and the law on reenactments was already well-established in 1964. To be admissable in evidence, a reenactment must include all material features of the event, not just an arbitrary selection. The WC reenactments, adopted by the HSCA, would be ruled inadmissable if offered in evidence in any court in the US or any country whose legal system is based on logical reasoning.

We should now admit that, without a new inquiry, we have no way of knowing whether a "sniper's nest" gunman could even see JFK at the time of the fatal head shot at Z 313.

We should also admit that the Moorman and other photos show that a gunman at the fence in the spot pinpointed by Josiah Thompson ("Six Seconds in Dallas" p. 126) DID have an unobstructed view of JFK at Z313.

THE "REENACTMENT" IN RELATION TO OTHER EVIDENCE

This "reenactment" problem must be viewed in conjunction with the medical, acoustics and neutron activation evidence.

NAA/BULLET LEAD

In a March 10 post http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.as...8a5684e65ea56a1 I noted that the courts are rejecting bullet lead evidence that uses a "methodology" developed by Dr. Vincent Guinn and relied on by the HSCA. Robert Blakey presented Guinn's testimony in an attempt to prove that 399 and the fragments found in Washington were NOT PLANTED, as Josiah Thompson and other critics had suggested.

Now that Guinn is being discredited by the courts, the planted bullet question is squarely back on the table.

Planted bullets = planted shell casings = planted rifle.

ACOUSTICS

Blakey also relied on acoustics experts to prove that 3 shots came from the "sniper's nest," something critics had disputed. Blakey was a WC defender at that time. At the very last moment the experts found a shot from the knoll, and Blakey re-wrote the HSCA Report.

When the National Academy debunked the acoustics, WC supporters (and many critics) failed to notice that we were back to square one: If the acoustics are no good, how do we know there were any shots from the "sniper's nest"?

MEDICAL

At the Wecht conference I overheard Gary Aguilar and a group of researchers discuss the irreconcilable conflict between the autopsy and HSCA doctors regarding the location of what is believed to be a back of the head entry wound. Is it not entirely possible, I asked Dr. Aguilar, given this conflict, that there is no rear entry wound at all? His answer was an emphatic "yes."

SUMMARY

The Warren Commission and the HSCA were arbitrary and inadequate and a new inquiry is essential. Otherwise Americans must accept that we live under a rule of men-in-power-for-the-time-being and not a rule of Reason or a rule of Law.

NOTES ON "REENACTMENTS"

ABC v. JFK Reloaded

In the ABC program broadcast on the 40th anniversary, Peter Jennings placed great reliance on a computer graphic reenactment created by Dale Myers. Like the WC, Myers' "reenactment" did not include motorcyclists or secret servicemen, and therefore has zero value as evidence.

The creators of the video game JFK Reloaded have been widely criticized, but their "reenactment" is much more intelligent than those of Myers or the WC. No one would suggest that a video game is evidence, but at least the creators tried to allow for the follow-up car and the motorcycle cops:

JFK Reloaded http://www.jfkreloaded.com/instructions/

Click on "how it works" then click on "zooming and firing"

THE GERMAN "REENACTMENT"

In a recent interview, JFK researcher Mark Sobel [director of the movie THE COMMISSION] describes a German reenactment:

"The only animation that I know of that actually brought to light something unexpected, was a German study in the late 1990s that included the Secret Service follow-up car as part of the computer re-creation. [video now available from Lancer] The simulation raised a question as to just how clean any shot from the 6th floor SE window would have been through the sea of heads of the Secret Service Agents who were standing on the running boards."

[Antti Hynonen]

Thomas H. Purvis Posted Yesterday, 03:55 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Nov 22 2006, 08:33 AM)

In this thread Mr. Purvis claims on several of his postings that Lee Oswald is more skilled as a shooter than what an average ex-marine would be.

QUOTE

Thomas H. Purvis Nov 19 2006, 05:34 AM Post #1

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1769

Joined: 17-June 05

Member No.: 3092

About time to destroy the myth that LHO was a poor marksman.

First off, he was raised hunting rabbits with a .22 rifle.

Poor shots use shotguns, not .22 caliber rifles.

Secondly, his USMC rating leaves much to be explained, and if one digs deep enough, they just may find that LHO was, in many ways, an exceptional shot.

Mr. Hemming, you and/or any other USMC personnel, please feel free to step in and help clarify a few items about the rifle markmanship training of the USMC and exactly what it may, and may not mean.

Any USMC type's out there who would like to explain how one gets their rifle markmanship rating?

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

This is in direct contradiction with those who served alongside Lee and also his immediate superiors (US Marine Corps).

This is also in contradiction with just about all the (expert) testimony of the WC pertaining to this issue. Had Lee Oswald's shooting performance been exceptional in any way, the WC would have made great efforts to show this, as it would have been one of their goals. In fact this would have been an issue they would have jumped on all over...

I believe the marine/military officers questioned about this issue take into consideration the amount and quality of training which a marine goes through, and evaluates Oswald's performance based on this.

Conclusion; at best, Lee was an average shot (among the US MC).

Therefore I would instead focus difficulty of the actual shooting performance on 11/22/63, considering the circumstances, the weapon, the scope, and perhaps lastly the shooting skills of Lee Oswald. Most forum members, who are well acquainted with rifles, will say this was a very difficult task.

The best way to settle this would be by performing a mock shooting, with a similar weapon - in similar condition, under the same circumstances (as far as possible), with the same limited time at hand, and by a group of individuals with similar skills and practise.

Their average ability would most likely prove whether the shooting was, in fact possible or impossible. (this is the 2-3 hits in some 6-7 seconds etc. etc.).

I believe, a few such tests have been undertaken, why the results of these are contradictory I do not know. It might be interesting to compare how these tests were done.

I tend to believe those who say that this shooting was a difficult one, and that the weapon was poor.

Most forum members, who are well acquainted with rifles, will say this was a very difficult task.

Actually, ALL of this forum as well as virtually ALL of the Lancer forum, and many of the McAdams forum have repeatedly claimed how difficult the shooting task was.

But then again, until Tom opened the door and informed you, ALL of you were attempting to "stuff" three shots into a 5.8 seconds or so shooting scenario.

On my tombstone I would like: NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE WC SHOOTING SCENARIO

In this thread Mr. Purvis claims on several of his postings that Lee Oswald is more skilled as a shooter than what an average ex-marine would be.

Either I missed that, or else you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

The MILITARY RECORD of LHO, for his Rangefire Qualification with the M1 Garand, demonstrates that LHO REPEATEDLY fired in the upper ranges of EXPERT when firing on the 200 yard target from the sitting position, in a "rapid fire" exercise.

The MILITARY RECORD of LHO demonstrates that on the day of his final Rifle Qualification, that he fired in the Upper Expert Range for this firing station, fired in the mid-Expert range for two of the other stations, failed to even qualifiy on the standing/unsupported/off-hand firing position, and only qualified as low "Marksman" on one station in which wind conditions appear to have been a contributing factor.

Therefore, to state that LHO was anywhere near being either a "poor" or even "average" marksman is a complete misrepresentation of the known facts.

From 200 yards, in the sitting position, in a rapid fire condition, LHO repeatedly placed approximately 8 out of 10 shots fired inside a 10-inch diameter circle.

Anyone who shoots, knows that this is neither poor, nor average shooting, and just as the USMC graded it, it ranges in the upper EXPERT range of ALL USMC shooters during Rangefire Qualification.

This is also in contradiction with just about all the (expert) testimony of the WC pertaining to this issue. Had Lee Oswald's shooting performance been exceptional in any way, the WC would have made great efforts to show this, as it would have been one of their goals. In fact this would have been an issue they would have jumped on all over...

Yeah, but unfortunately, you also believe in multiple assassins, as well as most probably Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The WC personnel were lawyers, and just as on this forum, few if any were shooters, and fewer yet were ever associated with USMC Range Fire.

However, I like nothing better than to observe those who attempt to utilize the WC to buttress their stories.

Exactly when was it that you determined that the WC was a factual search for the truth???????????

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

Mr. OSWALD. No squirrels were killed that day and perhaps I believe this was the occasion that we went into what we called a briar patch located off to the left of the farmhouse; at that particular time it was very thick with cottontails, and I believe we exterminated about eight of them at that time between the three of us because it was the type of brush and thorns that didn't grow very high but we were able to see over them, so getting three of us out there it wasn't very hard to kill eight of them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Non-shooters" hunt squirrel & rabbits with a shotgun!

Anyone who utilizes a .22 is either a good shot, or else likes to go hungry.

And, had you been raised in the South, or even done any research on the subject matter, then you would have known this also.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is in direct contradiction with what Robert Oswald, Lee's brother said (also an ex-marine) who went hunting with Lee on various occasions.

Actually, Robert stated that John Pic, the half-brother was the better of the three:

Mr. OSWALD. To what extent we were familiar with firearms.

To elaborate, at military school John was by far the better shot of the two of us. He was on the school rifle team. And, at this time, I was 10 years old--when I first attended there. My hunting instinct came alive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know! Had the WC demonstrated the consistant actual shooting ability of LHO, from the fixed/sitting position, up to ranges of 200 yards in a "rapid fire" situation, then it is most unlikely that too many persons would have ever had any belief in THE SHOT THAT MISSED.

Add to my Tombstone: TOM DID NOT FALL FOR THAT ONE EITHER!

I believe the marine/military officers questioned about this issue take into consideration the amount and quality of training which a marine goes through, and evaluates Oswald's performance based on this.

Conclusion; at best, Lee was an average shot (among the US MC).

And, the exact same logic told the teachers of Albert Einstein that he was virtually an idiot and incapable of learning.

Overall "average" yes!

Fixed and sitting position:-------------Upper EXPERT range-------consistantly at 200 yards.

#1. 62 Yards

#2. 88 Yards

#3. 98 Yards

And that does not even take into consideration the fact that LHO fired in the mid-EXPERT range for the 300 yard Rapid-Fire exercise as well as the 500 yard slow-fire.

Which also demonstrates that some variable exists in the 300-yard slow fire to have caused LHO to barely qualify at this station.

(5mph wind speed & 4 different settings for windage in attempt to get the correct sighting)

Essential variables are a necessity in understanding many things in life!

Great!

Nobody else was able to understand and see what you saw in the evidence.

Must be a pretty unique feeling to be above and beyond everyone else.

You've opened it all up, gee whiz.

Since you have a Carcano give the mock shooting scenario a go, find an elevated position and fire at a moving target moving away from you, going away at a downward angle, try and hit it 3 times in say under 8 seconds. Be sure not to cheat, and don't practice, that would be dishonest.

Try finding a remote controlled car as a target or something. You go ahead and figure out how to best simulate it, you're the smartest one here.

Let me know how you did.

If you get 3 hits, in the simulation, I'll add a link to my Forum signature to a posting of your simulation test results. Good enough?

I tried something similar, didn't succeed (no hits, am at the least an average shot). Don't have a Carcano though, that might have been the problem.

Amen.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, the one thing you keep waving in the face of these doubters [and I'm one of the doubters that it was Oswald doing the shooting, although I will admit he was capable of the task at hand] that they're apparently failing to grasp is the phrase "SITTING POSITION."

Go back and look at the photos from the INSIDE of the 6th floor window...look at the height of the sill from the floor. NO WAY was anyone shooting from a standing position! Ditto for a prone position. So that ONLY leaves...what, class? [All together now..."A SITTING POSITION!!!"]

And Ozzie was best from WHAT firing position?

Looking at the outside of the building, we naturally ASSUME that a standing position is possible; but as seen from the inside, ONLY a sitting/kneeling position would allow shooting from the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor of the TSBD. Too often, we let our eyes--and images like the outside of the TSBD--misinterpret what our brains are actually telling us.

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

Tom, the one thing you keep waving in the face of these doubters [and I'm one of the doubters that it was Oswald doing the shooting, although I will admit he was capable of the task at hand] that they're apparently failing to grasp is the phrase "SITTING POSITION."

Actually, what I am "waving" is their lack of research into the specific matter, yet they continue to repeat the same garbage which has been repeated by other's over the years.

And Ozzie was best from WHAT firing position?

NO WAY was anyone shooting from a standing position! Ditto for a prone position. So that ONLY leaves...what, class? [All together now..."A SITTING POSITION!!!"]

Correct!

And it is therefore irrelevant to the issue as to whether he could or could not hit a bull in the ass with a base fiddle.

LHO, consistantly fired in the UPPER EXPERT classification when shooting at targets which were 200 yards away, when shooting from the SITTING POSITION.

And in addition to this, in 3 out of five firing stations during his Rangefire Qualification, he fired in the EXPERT classification for marksmanship.

So, LHO could not shoot for xxxx from the standing & unsupported condition, which he consistantly demonstrated, and we truthfully do not know the extent of his shooting ability from the prone position at 500 yards as he was attempting to "zero" his weapon in order to compensate for an increase in winds, which happens to be one of those contributing factors as regards how well a person does or does not shoot.

Somewhat reminiscent of when my students in the UWO school were failing in their underwater compass course swims due to defective compasses.

Due to "budget constraints" the JFK Center would not expend the few dollars necessary to purchase a newer and better compass for the students and another idiot Captain at G-4 informed me that as SF Personnel, we were expected to accomplish the mission with the tools provided.

I will not bother to repeat the completely stupid example which he gave as it is extremely embarassing that an Officer in the U.S. Army could be so stupid.

As regards the potential for the last shot from the "standing position", this is utilized in order to not be accused of taking the "best" capability of LHO and thereafter making his capability fit the shooting scenario.

You are quite correct in that LHO could not have been "fully standing" during the last shot fired. However, from the limited witness testimony, it does not appear that the rifle barrell was resting on the window ledge at the approximate time of this shot.

Thus, it would appear that LHO/whoever, rose slightly and thereafter leaned against the edge of the window sill/wall located to their left, for the last shot fired.

Perhaps the "bent over"/kneeling position would be a better term.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0050b.htm

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

Please reference the assassination witnesses "timelline" for the shots as well as that which was easily resolved by the US. Secret Service, and completely demonstrated by their 12/2,3, & 4/63 survey and re-enactment of the assassination, as well as the later FBI survey and re-enactment of the assassination which also left the third/last/final shot down in front of Mr. Altgens position.

"Tom" is merely providing a consise demonstration of what the witnesses as well as the U.S. Secret Service and FBI originally resolved.

And since I am fully aware that I am neither smarter nor more qualified than were they, and they had all of the original evidence in their hands at the time, then, it is not difficult to thereafter recognize the WC lie.

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window

Neither can I find any evidence that it was space aliens, or even other members of the human race.

LHO was either the shooter, or the designated "rabbit".

Whichever the case, he was a willing co-conspiratant.

And, he most assuredly was not a "Lone Nut"!

The "Naysayers" have long contested, somewhat justifiably, the failure of the WC's claim of 3 shots within their 5.6 to 5.8 second time frame (Z210 to Z313).

Since this WAS NOT the actual shooting sequence, and merely represents the time frame from shot# 1 to shot #2, they can at least take some measure of pride in that.

Now, since the time frame from shot#1 to shot#2 has (hopefully & sufficiently) been placed into it's proper perspective, with the third/last/final shot having occurred AFTER the Z-313 head shot, there is little left to "debunk" other than:

A. LHO's ability with the rifle

B. Exactly why it is that, according to elapsed frames of the Z-film) there was only approximately 1.8 to 1.9 seconds between Shot#2/aka Z313 and the impact of the Third/last/final shot which occurred almost directly in front of James Altgens.

We are currently working on "A" above.

None of which of course proves that LHO was the shooter!

And, as one other poster has so knowingly posted, exactly what type of idiot would attempt to frame a "non-shooter" for what was still relatively good shooting.

Likewise!

Exactly what kind of idiot would parade around the results of LHO's shooting ability from the sitting & fixed position at a 200 yard range, under rapid fire conditions (upper EXPERT), and then attempt to sell that one of his three shots which were fired at ranges less than 100 yards, completely missed a vehicle which was in excess of 20 feet long and 6 feet wide.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0447a.htm

Some things are just totally obvious!

In reference to "B" above, in event someone does not present the answer to it, then, even though many will neither accept or belive it, I will open the discussion on it as well.

Tom

P.S. You and a few others are the "why" that I even bother to post amongst this group.

[John Dolva]

Tom, I wonder if you could make some comments on this please?

This shows Shaneyfelt taking his photo's. He's got the boxes differently arranged. It looks to me an awkward position to ever sit taking the shots. As the Limo moves down the street he would have to raise the gun but the window may not allow that so he would have to lean forward and there are the pipes so he would have to move back and down all this while doing the bolt and reacquiring.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, the one thing you keep waving in the face of these doubters [and I'm one of the doubters that it was Oswald doing the shooting, although I will admit he was capable of the task at hand] that they're apparently failing to grasp is the phrase "SITTING POSITION."

Go back and look at the photos from the INSIDE of the 6th floor window...look at the height of the sill from the floor. NO WAY was anyone shooting from a standing position! Ditto for a prone position. So that ONLY leaves...what, class? [All together now..."A SITTING POSITION!!!"]

And Ozzie was best from WHAT firing position?

Looking at the outside of the building, we naturally ASSUME that a standing position is possible; but as seen from the inside, ONLY a sitting/kneeling position would allow shooting from the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor of the TSBD. Too often, we let our eyes--and images like the outside of the TSBD--misinterpret what our brains are actually telling us.

While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

Herein lies the reasoning for NOT utilizing the box/sitting/bench-rest position for the third/last/final shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713

Deposes and says:

I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, I wonder if you could make some comments on this please?

This shows Shaneyfelt taking his photo's. He's got the boxes differently arranged. It looks to me an awkward position to ever sit taking the shots. As the Limo moves down the street he would have to raise the gun but the window may not allow that so he would have to lean forward and there are the pipes so he would have to move back and down all this while doing the bolt and reacquiring.

John;

Back to your photo of Shaneyfelt.

To begin with, others elsewhere have questioned exactly where I came up with claiming that this was Shaneyfelt.

The answer lies in the WC documents as well as the WC Testimony of Shaneyfelt and Frazier, as well as what Mr. Robert West told me which made me go back and double check this photo.

During one of our conversations at his home, Mr. West brought to my attention that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle from the position in which they had it "jacked up"." (or words to that effect).

And, although I had seen CE 887, not unlike many items, it did not immediately "register" as to exactly what the photo/ position represented and the reason/rationale for such additional manipulations.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

John;

An acquaintance (by correspondence only) has done an excellent job of writing up the confusion as regards the actual location/position of the cardboard boxes which were located at the sixth floor window and utilized as the "bench rest" firing position.

Allan quite obviously recognizes the obfuscation of the facts, and since they have to do also with the Shaneyfelt photo, his work is well worth reading before one progresses farther into the maze.

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

Tom

P.S. Excellent work, (as usual) Allan.

Hopefully you may get some answers as to the reasoning and rational behind the "circle" of What Box Goes Where?

It is all merely sleight-of-hand (sometimes "slight") and frequently a mere variation of the old "Pea Game".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

John;

An acquaintance (by correspondence only) has done an excellent job of writing up the confusion as regards the actual location/position of the cardboard boxes which were located at the sixth floor window and utilized as the "bench rest" firing position.

Allan quite obviously recognizes the obfuscation of the facts, and since they have to do also with the Shaneyfelt photo, his work is well worth reading before one progresses farther into the maze.

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

Tom

P.S. Excellent work, (as usual) Allan.

Hopefully you may get some answers as to the reasoning and rational behind the "circle" of What Box Goes Where?

It is all merely sleight-of-hand (sometimes "slight") and frequently a mere variation of the old "Pea Game".

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

[John Dolva]

Not the final word. I think that is acknowledged yet the finding of the solution ignores (perhaps conveniently) the very real solid pipes. They have been left out. Finally : A photo locating them. Previously I worked out the distance from elm street wall as one brick to the c/l of the pipe. Now one can see clearly how far from the corner. So I've placed them into the diagrams. This makes Alans suggestion slightly wrong. Also it places the 'official' concealing wall of boxes as per the lower diag here.

Therefore I would reevaluate Brennans testimony and others who saw a barrel protruding as far as is suggested. Is there enough room. Would he need to move back and hunker down in order to fire 2 and 3? His left shoulder would be up against the pipe?

possibilities

Edited November 25, 2006 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Not the final word. I think that is acknowledged yet the finding of the solution ignores (perhaps conveniently) the very real solid pipes. They have been left out. Finally : A photo locating them. Previously I worked out the distance from elm street wall as one brick to the c/l of the pipe. Now one can see clearly how far from the corner. So I've placed them into the diagrams. This makes Alans suggestion slightly wrong. Also it places the 'official' concealing wall of boxes as per the lower diag here.

Therefore I would reevaluate Brennans testimony and others who saw a barrel protruding as far as is suggested. Is there enough room. Would he need to move back and hunker down in order to fire 2 and 3? His left shoulder would be up against the pipe?

possibilities

1. The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored. It has nothing to do with anything other than an attempt to utilize the fact that the Dallas Police moved the boxes prior to having obtained a photo of their exact position, and thereafter they positioned boxes in a variety of positions.

To which the WC took full advantage and thereafter utilized this confusion in order to demonstrate a firing position and downward angle of fire, which has little in common with the physical height of which the shooter would have been utilizing the correct positioning of the boxes.

2. As regards the back box which Tom Alyea clearly saw and indicated that it could have been a sitting position, again, to assume that it was not "kicked back", or moved when the shooter completed his third shot and thereafter stood fully erect, is one of those variables for which one can not know.

The position of the boxes at the window, as found and photographed by Tom Alyea, represent the most accurate demonstration of the fact that the shooter would have had to, as stated by a variety of witness, have the rifle extended out past the boxes in order to have accomplished the first shot on a downward angle of fire of approximately 18 to 21 degrees.

Therefore, one must take a close look at the Shaneyfelt position, which is nothing more than another "staged" position, and thereafter compare this with the other available information.

Which includes:

Mr. SPECTER. Was a subsequent photograph taken in the garage which you previously identified as the railway express garage?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat, even though you have heretofore mentioned them, the angles between the spot on the back of President Kennedy's neck which was marked with a white chalk mark and the muzzle of the rifle when the car was positioned at frame 210?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The angle, based on the horizontal at frame 210, to the rifle in the window was 21b034'

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.

Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an angle of 17b043'30''.

Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. He did.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

[John Dolva]

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"The "Shaneyfelt" position must be completely ignored."

No prob's there. One cannot, however, as most do, ignore the pipes. They clearly define available space.

I seems to me that to go from the first shot position the rifle must be made more level. Raising the front brings it closer to the lower edge of the window. Moving the front to the right brings it closer to the right hand edge of the window. Lowering the rear of the rifle means moving the body. The pipes restrict moving to the left. So while redoing the bolt the body must shift position and the target must be reacquired. This is also done while sighting on a real live moving human, not a target.

Another observation re this available space is the question of a Houston st shot. It seems that this was never a consideration. In fact the possible shooting was very limited and left no room for failure. Yet it succeeded. What if it hadn't? Perhaps this is one reason it is easy to specualte about more shooters. Not only would Oswald be the man who shot the president. He was also the one who botched it. He must have been supremely confident. Given his (patchy) markmanship, apparent lack of practise, was this a warranted confidence?

John;

The most stable firing position would have been with LHO virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, down on his left knee, with the right foot planted firmly on the floor and the right leg in it's correlating 90-degree bend at the knee, with the knee pointed at approximately a 45-degree angle to the left, in relationship to the horizontal line created by the rear/back side of the boxes.

The shooter should have been virtually directly behind the first tier of boxes, and leaning forward across the boxes for elbow support, as well as body support if necessary.

Thereafter, depending on how far forward one had to lean in order to shoot downward at the corresponding downward angles of fire, one merely had to lean forward over the box(s'), changing little other than the forward angle of the upper torso of the body.

The left elbow, as well as the left knee and right foot is easily maintained in it's exact position, and the only portion of the body that actually moves is the upper torso portion as it leans farther forward or backwards, dependent upon the extent to which one would need to lean out of the window in order to increase or decrease the downward angle of fire.

When directly behind the boxes, the pipes along the wall create no problem, and since the boxes were aligned with the direction of Elm St., and there was actually very little horizontal change in the firing direction, the positioning of the boxes was absolutely ideal for stability shooting.

Under the assumption that LHO/the shooter actually shot from the right-handed position, the only movement thereafter required is movement of the right hand from the trigger to the bolt, bolt operation, and back to the trigger.

Even the "stock weld" position of the buttplate of the stock into the shoulder, would never change.

Absolutely ideal shooting situation and conditions, whether with a semi-automatic or bolt action rifle.