You're trying so hard to shift the burden of proof, but I'm not falling for it. You have done nothing to show that the shell placement which you have argued is "about right" (with no definition of what that even means) is no easy task. The conclusions from an invalid experiment are likewise invalid. You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken, so Mooney's "about right" is meaningless without knowing what other placements he would have said were "about right". And Mooney's "one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together" is too vague to match it to any experimental data. Particularly when you have no way of even knowing which shell corresponded to which shot.
Really? Your "two distinct areas" claim absolutely depends on your "first, standing, close to the limo" shot. What "trauma in the car" matches this hypothetical shot?
Only if you a prioi assume that the single bullet scenario is correct and that the bullets from all three shells were actually fired. It's just as reasonable to argue that there was an empty shell that was ejected before firing started, which is why I say that your shell placement is being made to fit your pre-assumption about what happened.
Sorry, a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing about what actually happened. Brennan being confused about whether the guy he saw was standing or not is also irrelevant because Brennan didn't see any shots fired.
You're still left with a pile of assumptions matching another pile of assumptions.
You use the phrases: "..a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing ..."
Well, let's see what "doing something" involves.
First - they use a Marine marksman - Oswald was a trained Marine and he is accused of taking the shots. If they had not used a Marine you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they accurately recreate the snipers nest. If they had not you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use a Mannlicher Carcano - same make and model. Valid since the shells they found were of a type used by Carcano's. If they had not used an MC - same model & make - you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use surveyors and high tech equipment to accurately plot frames. If they had not attempted to get to this level of accuracy you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they refer to the Zapruder film for shooter posture / angle analysis. Clearly valid. If they had not used the Z film you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use Frame 313 as a "Trauma Frame". Definately valid and determins posture / gun angle quite clearly. If they had not used this frame you would say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
(I assume you would have walked onto the set when they were doing "something" and told them it was all "invalid", and how they should be doing the "something" correctly according to you).
Once they have the accuracy for frame 313, then it does not really matter if they pick the absolutely correct frame (at the moment the car reaches the sign) for the shot just prior to this - they can choose the moment when the car is about to go behind the sign (they do opt for this). Or they could move that green X up a little closer to the third (313) X for the moment when Connally / Kennedy show much distress. The shooter posture won't change and the rifle angle hardly changes, due to the car receding in perspective. So, the shell ejection falling place won't alter much. Here are the three X's with the two X's of shots 2 and 3 just mentioned - you can see they are close to each other, so pushing the second X upwards makes little difference to the shell ejection placement in terms of landing in a particular area.
Now because Brennan likely saw a man crouching (if the gunman stands to shoot, it looks as though he'd have to shoot through the window panes, becase the infamous window was open at half its full amount), so the marine marksman also crouches. The marksman takes aim, his gun angled for frame 313 Zapruder
and fires, with several attempts using the same angle of posture and rifle angle for 313 / earlier shot.
The result is that the Carcano shells eject into a distinct area closer to him than the shell seen in Studebaker's photo at the far right corner area (as we look at the photo). The shells from this shot don't always get to the "skirting board" area, that's the nature of physics - yet they stay in the distinct area. At times the match to Studebaker is striking. So, an angle that is locked in time and space by the Zapruder film - 313 - produces the resulting pattern of shells always landing in one particular area. Likewise with the earlier shot - the one just prior to 313. Same area. Not the far-flung area.
The two chosen frames, then show that Carcano shells will fall into the area closer to Studebaker's camera. That leaves the far flung one. They tried the "missed shot" hypothesis and that posture / angle flings the spent cartidge across the nest area resulting in the match for the Studebaker photo. In fact, Mooney only has issue with one of the shells
(shell B), he thinks it could be moved a little further forwards closer to C
He says this:
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.
("C" is the far-flung shell).
*You've just posted that I had said the shells were planted by Fritz: "You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken"
I did not use the word "planted" which implies deception. I'll assume that was a genuine mistake on your part and you did not mean to suggest that I had said Fritz "planted" the shells.
Edit: I've slighly modified a sentence regarding the amount the snipers window was open)