Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Charles Collins]

I've already posted CE715.

Yes, and then you asked about the accuracy of a different one. Hopefully the difference is apparent.

[Tom Graves]

Yes, and then you asked about the accuracy of a different one. Hopefully the difference is apparent.

You seem to be saying there was enough room for Oswald to sit uncomfortably on the box (one bun on / one bun off), but not enough room for him to stand near it.

[Andrew Mason]

You seem to be saying there was enough room for Oswald to sit uncomfortably on the box (one bun on / one bun off), but not enough room for him to stand near it.

Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and window sill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.

[Tom Graves]

Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and windowsill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.

Weren't the shots at Z-222 -224 and Z-313 in the general direction of the Triple Underpass?

Do you think Oswald should have shot at JFK when the limo was on Houston Street, instead?

[Charles Collins]

You seem to be saying there was enough room for Oswald to sit uncomfortably on the box (one bun on / one bun off), but not enough room for him to stand near it.

The room is very limited. The boxes are quite small (the ones on top are not much bigger than a shoe box), and space available is less than the photos make it appear to be. I am doubtful that there is enough room for a sniper to stand and then kneel quickly without interference from the seat box and/or the conduit. Do I think it is possible? I don’t know. I might decide to test it if I can find a place to set my model back up. The room where I had it before is a home theater now, so it is not available anymore. Plus my wife dislikes clutter. I have to think about it before making this decision.

Other reasons to doubt the idea of standing for a first shot include:

• A sniper concealed from view is very unlikely to stand up and expose himself to shoot.
• An offhand standing position is much less stable than a sitting position with a support.
• The sniper’s nest was obviously set up for shots in the “kill zone” where the target moves almost directly away from the sniper.
• The standing first shot is an idea that Max Holland came up with to support his theory. It makes no sense otherwise.
• Despite the Howlett photo, one does not need to sit half on/half off the box to shoot comfortably. I can say this for certain based on my experience with my model.
• An offhand standing shot is likely to be less accurate than a seated & supported shot. But I doubt that it would be likely to miss the entire limo.
• On the other hand, an inadvertent shot that fired before it was fully aimed could easily miss the entire limo.
• The potential for interference while positioning the rifle is certainly there in the form of the conduit and the window box.

As I said earlier, you can believe what you want to believe. It makes no difference to me. I advise folks to do their own research. However, the answers to the questions we are looking at here were only known for certain by LHO. We can only form our own opinions based on the best information we can find.

[Royell Storing]

Why would Oswald have set up the boxes on the floor and window sill to support a rifle aimed toward the triple underpass if he was going to fire the first shot downward to the street? That makes no sense.

  Exactly! The only reason we are even talking about a shot being fired almost straight down through a half open window is due to Max Holland and his cockamamie theory of a bullet striking that signal light support beam. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a shot striking that signal light support beam. No physical evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no earwitness evidence, Nothing. ALL of this being the intro to the biggest fish story of them all, the SBT. What we have is nothing more than 1 preposterous fairy tale piled on top of another. One lie leading to another. We have "stories" about the assassination being faked, 2 and 3 different Oswald's, Ruby himself never having shot Oswald, and these stories rightfully get laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, here we have a planned assassination with a shooter using a WW2 bolt action rifle, posed inna standing position and firing down into a signal light support beam? This Max Holland stuff should have been shirt canned right outta the gate. Laughable, yet megaphoned by National Geographic.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

  Exactly! The only reason we are even talking about a shot being fired

almost straight down

through a half open window is due to Max Holland and his cockamamie theory of a bullet striking that signal light support beam.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of a shot striking that signal light support beam.

 No physical evidence, no eyewitness evidence, no earwitness evidence, Nothing. ALL of this being the intro to the biggest fish story of them all, the SBT. What we have is nothing more than 1 preposterous fairy tale piled on top of another. One lie leading to another. We have "stories" about the assassination being faked, 2 and 3 different Oswald's, Ruby himself never having shot Oswald, and these stories rightfully get laughed at and ridiculed. Yet, here we have a planned assassination with a shooter using a WW2 bolt action rifle, posed inna standing position and firing down into a signal light support beam? This Max Holland stuff should have been shirt canned right outta the gate. Laughable, yet megaphoned by National Geographic.

U once again fail to show us the needed (almost straight down) angle!!!!

Do u consider that 2 bent copper half casings are evidence??