Crease in SN box

[Chris Bristow]

What part of the rifle would be able to cause any crease in a box. The butt of the rifle is buried in Oswald's shoulder. Any other part of the rifle like the bolt or scope would have to have a box laying right next to it, almost touching it. The position of the crease is on the front part of the box. how would you place the box so the bolt or scope touched it? It seems the back part of the box would be overlapping with Oswald's right arm and shoulder.

[John Mytton]

What part of the rifle would be able to cause any crease in a box.

Maybe Oswald used something else to make a crease and used the crease as extra stabilization?

JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

Maybe Oswald used something else to make a crease and used the crease as extra stabilization?

JohnM

Utterly ridiculous!!

[John Mytton]

Utterly ridiculous!!

Why?, using a solid fixed support for a rifle will help aim, it's a proven no brainer. 



Oswald would have known this and that's why he specifically moved the smaller rolling reader boxes to use as his rifle rest, one of the boxes had Oswald's fresh prints on top, "fresh" meaning within 3 days.



JohnM

[Thomas Graves]

Viewing the bottom photo....It's obvious that Lee Oswald could not have sat on a box and rested the Carcano on the stacked Rolling readers. and declined the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street in front of the TSBD.....Just guessing..... but probably the lowest a rifle could be declined would be the elevation of the railroad tracks on the triple underpass   

And if the rifle had been fired from that site, then to decline the muzzle the rifleman would have to have stood up which would have negated the scar on the box idea completely....... ( because the Rolling Reader boxes could not have been employed by a standing shooter) And a standing shooter would have fired into the window ledge beneath the window.....

Walter,

How about the idea that the sniper didn't fire any of the three shots while sitting on that box, but that he (or she) sat on it while waiting for the motorcade to make its appearance at the Houston and Main intersection, or maybe even for a few seconds longer than that?

Don't like that scenario, either?

Bummer.

-- MWT.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald would have known this and that's why he specifically moved the smaller rolling reader boxes to use as his rifle rest, one of the boxes had Oswald's fresh prints on top, "fresh" meaning within 3 days.

A print on a box newer than 3 days shows that he moved boxes specifically to use as a rifle rest?

Only in LN wonderland.

[John Mytton]

A print on a box newer than 3 days shows that he moved boxes specifically to use as a rifle rest?

Only in LN wonderland.

There's no need for the desperate sarcasm, there were what appears to be hundreds of boxes on the 6th floor of the Depository and the chances of Oswald touching every box within the last three days is incredibly slim but out of all of those boxes he specifically touched the one that was angled down Elm street.
In addition the prints were on top of the box which for a carrying purposes is a redundant surface.

Btw in the FBI tests the prints on a similar box only lasted a day but oddly Latona wouldn't testify to any sooner than 3 days?

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?
Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.
Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure I understand your reference to a minimum of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. We have conducted tests with various types of materials as to how long it could be before we would not develop a latent print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. LATONA. Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that is a maximum of 24 hours?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. You would not care, you say, though----
Mr. LATONA. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.
Mr. LATONA. Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

JohnM