Many will be aware of the crease reported in the SN box......
Testimony of Luke Mooney.....
"And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from."
Does anyone know what direction the crease originally indicated or have a photo that shows it? I believe it might be in a Studebaker Exhibit.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287/m1/1/med_res/)
Many will be aware of the crease reported in the SN box......
Testimony of Luke Mooney.....
"And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from."
Does anyone know what direction the crease originally indicated or have a photo that shows it? I believe it might be in a Studebaker Exhibit.
Thanks Charles, I gather it is the mark on top of the box at the bottom of the photo. This is consistent with what I think the original thoughts were regarding shooting before the reappearance of Day after 3pm.
Mr. BELIN. If you put your initials on or your name on on November 25, how do you know this was the same box that was there when you first came?
Mr. DAY. There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.
That the shots were fired at JFK on Houston and as the car turned onto Elm ie. facing SE Not as they later found out after JFK had passed on Elm...ie. facing SW. This was because the shells were to the right of the box and was the lunch remnants. Likely that the initial assumption was that the shooter would take the shot as JFK approached the building.
Also explains why the right window strip was removed initially by Studebaker and was later replaced by the left one. As evidenced by 2 measurements for the strip. The first being 30” and the second at 40”.
Thanks Charles, I gather it is the mark on top of the box at the bottom of the photo. This is consistent with what I think the original thoughts were regarding shooting before the reappearance of Day after 3pm.
I believe that Mooney's testimony was about a "slight crease" and Day's testimony was about something different, a "scar." The cardboard that was used in the boxes is basically constructed in three distinct layers, an outer layer, a middle layer (that is corrugated) and an inner layer. It appears to me that the "scar" was caused by a tearing of the outer layer away from the middle, corrugated layer. And the missing piece of the outer layer exposed the corrugated layer. In my opinion, this was most likely caused in handling the box, perhaps a corner of another box when stacking them, or something similar to that.
It is difficult to tell from the photos, but the elongated darkened area between the arrows that I placed in this photo could be what Mooney was describing as a "slight crease." And it would be in the proper direction for a shot down Elm Street.
(https://i.vgy.me/dlolaP.png)
I also think that it is most likely that the boxes were full of books and therefore would not crease any more than just slightly when the box was hit with a fist or the rifle. Here is a photo showing the secret service reenactment. You have to use your imagination a little to envision how the rifle was held.
(https://i.vgy.me/fAvM5e.jpg)
In my opinion, people who thought that he would have shot as the limo approached the TSBD probably had never gone through infantry training with the USMC. A military style ambush takes into account surprise, concealment, and escape afterwards, among other things. Firing upon the approach would have been a big mistake because it would most likely have exposed his position while the secret service agents were looking in that direction. And return fire from the SS would have been the most likely result.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say the window strip. Please explain. Thanks
(https://i.vgy.me/fAvM5e.jpg)
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
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
Utterly ridiculous!!
(https://i.vgy.me/fAvM5e.jpg)
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.....
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.
Why?, using a solid fixed support for a rifle will help aim, it's a proven no brainer.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXdtB3Qj/rifle-scope-stand.jpg)
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.
(http://c328301.r1.cf1.rackcdn.com/EVCCSUA001CS291H.jpg)
JohnM
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. ;)
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.
What does this have to do with your claim that he used this as a rifle rest? “Angled down Elm street” is just you begging the question. You don’t know how long those boxes were there.
Not for opening purposes.
You seem to have forgotten the basic scenario that the police used to convict Lee Oswald...... They said that he sat on the box to the rear and rested the Carcano on the stack of three Rolling Readers and declined the muzzle down onto Elm street in front of the TSBD and murdered President Kennedy......
They said he used the boxes as a rifle rest ......I'm here to tell you the feat was impossible......You must stick with the story they presented......
Walter,
Hey, everybody makes mistakes.
(Hell, even I made a mistake once.)
Analysis of the cartridge ejection pattern in the film The Lost Bullet strongly suggests that one shot was taken from a slightly different vertical position than the other two, and that none of them were taken by a person sitting on that box.
Deal with it, dude.
-- MWT ;)
none of them were taken by a person sitting on that box.
THAT'S The point I was trying to make.... Lee Oswald ( nor anybody else) did NOT sit on a box and use the stack of Rolling Readers as a rifle rest....
But that is contrary to what the liars who framed Lee told the gullible public....
Walter,
Maybe you don't "get" it.
Irrespective of the crease in the box and the positioning of a box the sniper probably sat on (but did not shoot from) while waiting for the motorcade to make its appearance at Main and Houston, the evidence indicates the the three shots were fired from that window.
-- MWT ;)
Thomas... The police "investigators" used the stack of boxes and the crease on the top box as evidence that supported their tale that Lee Oswald had used the stack of boxes to steady his deadly accurate rifle with a telescopic sight ( which was mounted askew).
The trusting, and gullible and grieving, public accepted the tale because they had no way of knowing that the act attributed to Lee Oswald was physically impossible, because the 5'9" Lee Oswald could not have sat on a box to the rear of the stack of Rolling Readers and placed the carcano on the stack of boxes and declined the muzzle down onto Elm street. And the Carcano does not have anything on the bottom of the stock that would create a groove (scar) on the top of the box , nor is the carcano a heavy recoil rifle ( The recoil is probably less than one inch ...depending on the size and strength of the shooter) I believe there is a youtube video of a man firing a carcano while holding it in one hand like a pistol)
Dear Walter,
Are you saying that it was physically impossible for Oswald to have fired three shots at JFK from that window?
How the heck do you know the sniper didn't put a crease in that box with his or her hand before testing its practicality while sitting on that comfy, comfy box and realizing that it wasn't such a good idea, after all?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Are you saying that it was physically impossible for Oswald to have fired three shots at JFK from that window?
Of course not!..... I'm clearly stating that it was impossible for any 5' 9" man to sit on a box and rest a rifle on the stack of Rolling Readers, and DECLINE the muzzle low enough to shoot JFK down on Elm street in front of the TSBD.
How the heck do you know the sniper didn't put a crease in that box with his or her hand before testing its practicality while sitting on that comfy, comfy box and realizing that it wasn't such a good idea, after all?
That's NOT what the cops said he did....They said that he rested the cacano on the stack of boxes and fired down onto Elm street and murdered President Kennedy.
No, I think what he’s saying is that the alleged “crease in the box where a rifle might have lain” was a flight of fancy.
No, I think what he’s saying is that the alleged “crease in the box where a rifle might have lain” was a flight of fancy.
Yeah, I kinda realised that. I just like winding ole Walt up a bit. The crease? It could have been caused by anything.
That's correct. The police saw the Smoker's Nook and imagined it to be a "Sniper's Nest". They supported that imaginary idea by imagining that the sniper had sat on a box to the rear of the stack of Rolling Readers and used the stacked Rolling readers as a steady rest for his rifle. And they imagined that the crease on the top box was created by the recoil of the rifle.
And that's what they told us trusting peasants....( LBJ called us pissants) .... We had no way of knowing that the tale was physically impossible.
A 5'9" man sitting on a 12 inch box would have his shoulder about 32 inches from the floor .... The Rolling readers were stacked about level with the shoulder of a 5'9" man. The angle to the car ( according to page 100 of the WR) was nearly 27 degrees.) 27 degrees from the top of the Rolling Readers is about 52inches up from the floor at a point 3 feet to the rear of the boxes, but a 5'9 inch man's shoulder would be about 32 inches up from the floor.
A 5'9" man holding a rifle resting on the Rolling Readers could not decline the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street... THAT is a fact.
Yes of course, you're right, the crease could have been caused in any number of ways..... BUT..That's NOT what the cops speculated...They imagined that the crease was created by the recoil of a rifle.... Apparently, you understand the absurdity of the speculation.
It's certainly not absurd, the crease could have been made that way...then again, as I said previously it could have been caused by almost anything. To be honest it's not something I'm particularly concerned about. Crease on a box..BFD ~shrug~.
Thanks Charles, I gather it is the mark on top of the box at the bottom of the photo. This is consistent with what I think the original thoughts were regarding shooting before the reappearance of Day after 3pm.
I believe that Mooney's testimony was about a "slight crease" and Day's testimony was about something different, a "scar." The cardboard that was used in the boxes is basically constructed in three distinct layers, an outer layer, a middle layer (that is corrugated) and an inner layer. It appears to me that the "scar" was caused by a tearing of the outer layer away from the middle, corrugated layer. And the missing piece of the outer layer exposed the corrugated layer. In my opinion, this was most likely caused in handling the box, perhaps a corner of another box when stacking them, or something similar to that.
It is difficult to tell from the photos, but the elongated darkened area between the arrows that I placed in this photo could be what Mooney was describing as a "slight crease." And it would be in the proper direction for a shot down Elm Street.
(https://i.vgy.me/dlolaP.png)
I also think that it is most likely that the boxes were full of books and therefore would not crease any more than just slightly when the box was hit with a fist or the rifle. Here is a photo showing the secret service reenactment. You have to use your imagination a little to envision how the rifle was held.
(https://i.vgy.me/fAvM5e.jpg)
In my opinion, people who thought that he would have shot as the limo approached the TSBD probably had never gone through infantry training with the USMC. A military style ambush takes into account surprise, concealment, and escape afterwards, among other things. Firing upon the approach would have been a big mistake because it would most likely have exposed his position while the secret service agents were looking in that direction. And return fire from the SS would have been the most likely result.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say the window strip. Please explain. Thanks
Yes of course, you're right, the crease could have been caused in any number of ways..... BUT..That's NOT what the cops speculated...They imagined that the crease was created by the recoil of a rifle.... Apparently, you understand the absurdity of the speculation.
I think your Smoker's Nook solves the problem of people thinking they smelled gunpowder: It was actually pot wafting out that window downrange. That's why people called it the 'grassy' knoll... which in turn suggests a renaming of Dealey Plaza to MaryJane Plaza ;)
Thanks Charles, I gather it is the mark on top of the box at the bottom of the photo. This is consistent with what I think the original thoughts were regarding shooting before the reappearance of Day after 3pm.
I believe that Mooney's testimony was about a "slight crease" and Day's testimony was about something different, a "scar." The cardboard that was used in the boxes is basically constructed in three distinct layers, an outer layer, a middle layer (that is corrugated) and an inner layer. It appears to me that the "scar" was caused by a tearing of the outer layer away from the middle, corrugated layer. And the missing piece of the outer layer exposed the corrugated layer. In my opinion, this was most likely caused in handling the box, perhaps a corner of another box when stacking them, or something similar to that.
It is difficult to tell from the photos, but the elongated darkened area between the arrows that I placed in this photo could be what Mooney was describing as a "slight crease." And it would be in the proper direction for a shot down Elm Street.
(https://i.vgy.me/dlolaP.png)
I also think that it is most likely that the boxes were full of books and therefore would not crease any more than just slightly when the box was hit with a fist or the rifle. Here is a photo showing the secret service reenactment. You have to use your imagination a little to envision how the rifle was held.
(https://i.vgy.me/fAvM5e.jpg)
In my opinion, people who thought that he would have shot as the limo approached the TSBD probably had never gone through infantry training with the USMC. A military style ambush takes into account surprise, concealment, and escape afterwards, among other things. Firing upon the approach would have been a big mistake because it would most likely have exposed his position while the secret service agents were looking in that direction. And return fire from the SS would have been the most likely result.
I don't know what you are referring to when you say the window strip. Please explain. Thanks
(https://i.ibb.co/tPQBKCb/box-crease-and-rifle-resting.jpg) ( If picture not showing: https://ibb.co/Fqm637B (https://ibb.co/Fqm637B) ) |
( If picture not showing: https://ibb.co/Fqm637B (https://ibb.co/Fqm637B) )
The rifle as it would be resting on the trigger-guard-housing in the crease. Maybe the left hand could pin the top of the rifle but not such that the scope was blocked.
I did not expect it to be almost working for the head shot. The Carcano rifle in this model may not clear the edge of the carton (Box A) because my model is inaccurate. I would not dismiss the possibility based on this model. A real-life Carcano and box replica may work.
For both shots, the Carcano clears the box resting on the window sill.
::)But he doesn't have one.
Don’t give up your day job.
Thumb1:
(https://i.vgy.me/dlolaP.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZTv2BtM/box-crease-and-rifle-resting.jpg)
JohnM
( If picture not showing: https://ibb.co/Fqm637B (https://ibb.co/Fqm637B) )
The rifle as it would be resting on the trigger-guard-housing in the crease. Maybe the left hand could pin the top of the rifle but not such that the scope was blocked.
I did not expect it to be almost working for the head shot. The Carcano rifle in this model may not clear the edge of the carton (Box A) because my model is inaccurate. I would not dismiss the possibility based on this model. A real-life Carcano and box replica may work.
For both shots, the Carcano clears the box resting on the window sill.
Again. If the boxes in the photo depict their position when shots were fired, what was the purpose of the box leaning on the window sill?
The window sill box made "Box A" (the highest box that the rifle might have rested on) more stable by preventing "Box A" from sliding forward.
Geeze. Now I understand why there haven't been many sniper assassinations in Europe.
( If picture not showing: https://ibb.co/Fqm637B (https://ibb.co/Fqm637B) )
The rifle as it would be resting on the trigger-guard-housing in the crease. Maybe the left hand could pin the top of the rifle but not such that the scope was blocked.
I did not expect it to be almost working for the head shot. The Carcano rifle in this model may not clear the edge of the carton (Box A) because my model is inaccurate. I would not dismiss the possibility based on this model. A real-life Carcano and box replica may work.
For both shots, the Carcano clears the box resting on the window sill.
https://ibb.co/Fqm637B (https://ibb.co/Fqm637B)
These drawings are ludicrous....They reveal a desperate attempt to make the official scenario believable.
Referring to the first drawing .... The fore grip of the rifle is not sitting on the box...it appears to be sunk into the cardboard of the box...
This needed to be done to allow the trigger guard / Magazine to contact the top of the box. The distance from the trigger to the butt plate of a carcano is 13 inches..... Which means that a shooter sitting on a box to the rear and holding this rifle would be leaning forward and his chest would be nearly touching the box and his shoulder would be about 30 inches from the floor.... but the rile butt would be about 38 inches from the floor ( IOW the rifle butt would be above the man's shoulder.
And he could not place his left hand beneath the fore grip of the rifle.)
I don't know why I bothered to respond to such a ridiculous post.....
No "attempt" from me to make some "official scenario believable". I'm just showing the physical possibility in one particular 3D model. Let the chips fall where they may.(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)
You, however, seem a bit desperate to disprove anything the WC or HSCA claimed in regards to a gunman being at the SN.
The Z223 shot would not work with the crease. Or (maybe a better term) the gouge.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)
Always making it seem impossible or requiring some "Got Talent" feat of contortion.
In the scenario, the weight of the rifle would be on "Box A". Pinning the rifle down with the left hand might be more feasible. OK, now you'll claim the scope would be blocked.
May I compare you to H.L. Mencken, Art Buchwald and Harold Weisberg? You're drawn to the absurdity of things. In this topic, the most absurd thing would be that the gouge was caused by the gunman. Look at what's the President today. Life abounds with absurdities and contradictions.
No "attempt" from me to make some "official scenario believable". I'm just showing the physical possibility in one particular 3D model. Let the chips fall where they may.
You, however, seem a bit desperate to disprove anything the WC or HSCA claimed in regards to a gunman being at the SN.
The Z223 shot would not work with the crease. Or (maybe a better term) the gouge.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)
Always making it seem impossible or requiring some "Got Talent" feat of contortion.
In the scenario, the weight of the rifle would be on "Box A". Pinning the rifle down with the left hand might be more feasible. OK, now you'll claim the scope would be blocked.
May I compare you to H.L. Mencken, Art Buchwald and Harold Weisberg? You're drawn to the absurdity of things. In this topic, the most absurd thing would be that the gouge was caused by the gunman. Look at what's the President today. Life abounds with absurdities and contradictions.
Is that Lego Oswald? :D
Obviously Jerry Organ's not nearly as skilful as yourself...when can we expect your improved 3D model then?
BS: We continue hearing that the boxes stacked in the sniper's nest were allegedly FULL of books.
Do you ever get anything right?
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxrCR0nS/Rolling-reader3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0j7HkmFs/dlolaP.png)
Mr. BALL. You have seen pictures of the window, haven't you?
Mr. SHELLEY. Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL. With the larger box on the floor and two Rolling Readers on the top?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. One Rolling Reader resting in the sill of the window?
Mr. SHELLEY. Yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
JohnM
Brennan said he saw a man STANDING and aiming a hunting rifle out of a sixth floor window.....If the shooter had been SITTING behind the stack of boxes in the SE corner window, Brennan could not have seen him. There was no shooter behind that SE corner window.
I've no idea why you're directing this post at me. As far as I can remember I've never mentioned Brennan in my life! Walt, try and get this in yourthickhead, just because the WC said Oswald was sitting down doesn't necessarily make it so..the WR's not my gospel. I really don't give a flying f*** if Oswald was sitting down, standing up or taking a dump whilst firing the shots! And I certainly don't give a rats ass about a bloody crease on a box.
IOW.... You're one of those gullible suckers who adheres to the old axiom...."My minds made up...Now don't confuse me with the facts"
Brennan said he saw a man STANDING and aiming a hunting rifle out of a sixth floor window.....If the shooter had been SITTING behind the stack of boxes in the SE corner window, Brennan could not have seen him. There was no shooter behind that SE corner window.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/11/5f/nfCnuL3s_o.png)
Brennan viewpoint. Full face visible when gunman isn't aiming through the scope.
Brennan viewpoint. Full face visible when gunman isn't aiming through the scope.
Nice work! The Brennan view of the sniper was one of the first things that I wanted to see when I created my 3D model.
(https://i.ibb.co/jLTLFsz/9-E12-F323-CB8-D-4290-BCAD-7-D60-E937-C738.png)
Standing or sitting?
I believe this is a fake photo.....The sixe of the man's head indicates that he was very close to the window so he can't be standing....and he would have to have been sitting on the floor for his head to appear as it does.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxrCR0nS/Rolling-reader3.jpg)
Referring to the picture of the boy on the Rolling Readers box..... Notice the resemblance to Lee Oswald ( see his boyhood photos)
Thanks. If this is what is inside the box leaning on the window sill, it would Not be adequate to brace/steady the box behind it. Again, what was the purpose of the box on the window sill?
A "Rolling Readers" box weighed about eight pounds ("Chapter VI - Investigation of Possible Conspiracy" Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm) ).
(https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_d9b0d4b7-b45a-4216-aed7-737f0af53784.jpg)
(2L pop: one bottle and 4/5 of another)
Seems enough to prevent Box A from sliding forward.
I believe this is a fake photo.....The size of the man's head indicates that he was very close to the window so he can't be standing....and he would have to have been sitting on the floor for his head to appear as it does.....That's the 'sniper window'? How tall was that photographer?
The Truth In Advertising Flag needs to be thrown here. BS: The avg weight of a potato is roughly a little less than 1 LB. That sack of spuds you have proffered weighs far more than an alleged 8 lb box of Rolling Readers. Swing by the Produce Aisle when you get the chance if you have doubts.That is a 20 lb sack.
That is a 20 lb sack.
(http://www.wadafarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/13-1024x585.jpg) "The avg weight of a potato is roughly a little less than 1 LB." (Only the "jumbos" reach towards one pound) | (https://scene7.samsclub.com/is/image/samsclub/0084585700028_A) Sam's Club 8 lbs oranges |
A "Rolling Readers" box weighed about eight pounds ("Chapter VI - Investigation of Possible Conspiracy" Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr6.htm) ).
(https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_d9b0d4b7-b45a-4216-aed7-737f0af53784.jpg)
(2L pop: one bottle and 4/5 of another)
Seems enough to prevent Box A from sliding forward.
Even more Truth-In-Advertising is warranted. BS: The Original bag of spuds you posted above is Far larger than the 8 LB Wada Farms bag you are Now attempting to substitute.
| (https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_d9b0d4b7-b45a-4216-aed7-737f0af53784.jpg) | (https://allieksmith.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/groceries-6.jpg) |
The Wada bag I know more surely to be eight pounds as it is indicated on the label.
Now can you prove the "average potato" in the Stater Bros. bag (below left) is nearly one-pound?
(https://d2lnr5mha7bycj.cloudfront.net/product-image/file/large_d9b0d4b7-b45a-4216-aed7-737f0af53784.jpg) (https://allieksmith.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/groceries-6.jpg)
Until then, it could be a 8 lb bag with medium and small spuds. Like the one on the right.
Even more Truth-In-Advertising is warranted. BS: The Original bag of spuds you posted above is Far larger than the 8 LB Wada Farms bag you are Now attempting to substitute.
Seems Oswald had a lot of practice lugging around 8lb-ish packages, broken-down or not...
Seems like Chapman’s talking out of his behind again.
We're seriously arguing about the weight of a bag of spuds now!?! Royell, it's not so much the weight of the box resting on the cill, it's the fact the box is jammed/wedged into the window frame. If, of course, the picture is accurate.
Seems like Chapman’s talking out of his behind again.
How can you be sure?.... Face? or behind....The image is the same...
We do Not Know for a fact that the box is "Jammed/Wedged into the window frame". It would be interesting is to see how a rifle on Top of that box relates to Houston St. The majority of the witnesses claiming to have seen a rifle/pipe/someone in the window were positioned on Houston St.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/2b/0wNk2v2k_o.jpg)
View from sidewalk, showing rifle resting on Box A and aimed towards JFK at Z313.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/2b/0wNk2v2k_o.jpg)
View from sidewalk, showing rifle resting on Box A and aimed towards JFK at Z313.
Mr O you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such an obvious lie....
The view is most certainly NOT as the window would have been seen from the side walk anywhere near the TSBD......The angle up to the window was much more acute than you portray. I would guess that the angle in the image would be as seen from about 50 feet above the street.
However, you are very close to the angle for a rifle being held by a man sitting on a box and resting the rifle on the Rolling Reader boxes......The rifle is nearly horizontal.....And definitely not declined down toward Elm street.....
I believe this is a fake photo.....The sixe of the man's head indicates that he was very close to the window so he can't be standing....and he would have to have been sitting on the floor for his head to appear as it does.....
What 'image" is it I was supposed to be matching? Storing asked for the view from Houston Street. I figured the view of bystanders on the sidewalk was OK.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/2d/l8jXBtls_o.jpg)
It all depends on where you put your eyes.
Shame on you, Organ,.... The green line in your lying presentation extends further back on Houston than Tom Dillard's position at the time he snapped his photo and clearly Dillard's photos reveal a much more acute angle than you've attempted to present as an accurate depiction....
You're doing apples and oranges. Dillard's photo and the "Houston Street sidewalk" 3D view I posted were taken from two different locations. I never implied a replication of the Dillard photo.
Dillard would be so beneath the window that a line projecting from Box A to the President at Z313 would angle upwards relative to the east-west lines of the facade. As the trajectory slope descends, Dillard would have to change his viewpoint to follow it. The slope would be below his line of sight where the shot struck.
Huh??.... What ever you attempted to say doesn't change the fact that the 3D computer picture does NOT represent the view from ground level....
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/42/2b/0wNk2v2k_o.jpg) Telephoto view from sidewalk (Less perspective) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/e3/d1/dPQ8QpzF_o.jpg) View from sixth floor level (Normal perspective) |
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/2b/0wNk2v2k_o.jpg) Telephoto view from sidewalk
(Less perspective)(https://images2.imgbox.com/e3/d1/dPQ8QpzF_o.jpg) View from sixth floor level
(Normal perspective)
As you go further away from an object, the object's perspective lines become less acute. (Right: Cloud reflection on windows disabled)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/42/2b/0wNk2v2k_o.jpg)
View from sidewalk, showing rifle resting on Box A and aimed towards JFK at Z313.
I am curious as to the view a shooter would have through the scope of a rifle resting on that box and Pointed Toward Houston St.
At what point on Houston??....
Any point on Houston that would permit a possible shot at the JFK Limo.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5f/61/IczOSBzT_o.jpg)
Hypothetical shot onto Houston Street. I suppose the rifle could be moved forward a few more inches\if the shooter found it necessary. The shooter could have to be couched or on one knee, not sitting. The bottom inset picture in the image above is not from street level.
(https://jfkassassinationdocumentaries.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jfk-conspiracy-24-hughes.jpg)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/5f/61/IczOSBzT_o.jpg)
Hypothetical shot onto Houston Street. I suppose the rifle could be moved forward a few more inches\if the shooter found it necessary. The shooter could have to be couched or on one knee, not sitting. The bottom inset picture in the image above is not from street level.
(https://jfkassassinationdocumentaries.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jfk-conspiracy-24-hughes.jpg)
Thanks for posting that visual aid. If the box leaning on the window sill was in that position when the JFK Limo passed by, it would serve No Purpose other than as a rifle rest. That box certainly is Not bracing the stack of boxes positioned behind it, as the box is not jammed between the stack of boxes and the window sill. A possible legit shooter in that window would also then mandate a Spotter. If this tandem were prepared to alternate between the roles of Shooter and Spotter, 1 shooter would then use that box on the window ledge as a rifle rest for a shot(s) down Houston St. If a shot or shots down Houston St. was nixed for some reason, then the Spotter for the Houston St shooter morphs into a shooter and uses the stacked boxes as his rifle rest for a shot(s) down Elm St. This possible 2 different shooters would most likely involve 2 different rifles. (1) Carcano + (1) Mauser.
Thanks for posting that visual aid. If the box leaning on the window sill was in that position when the JFK Limo passed by, it would serve No Purpose other than as a rifle rest. That box certainly is Not bracing the stack of boxes positioned behind it, as the box is not jammed between the stack of boxes and the window sill. A possible legit shooter in that window would also then mandate a Spotter. If this tandem were prepared to alternate between the roles of Shooter and Spotter, 1 shooter would then use that box on the window ledge as a rifle rest for a shot(s) down Houston St. If a shot or shots down Houston St. was nixed for some reason, then the Spotter for the Houston St shooter morphs into a shooter and uses the stacked boxes as his rifle rest for a shot(s) down Elm St. This possible 2 different shooters would most likely involve 2 different rifles. (1) Carcano + (1) Mauser.
(https://jfkassassinationdocumentaries.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/jfk-conspiracy-24-hughes.jpg)
Royell, is the dark strip that is seen in the sixth floor window..... A shadow being cast from the bottom window frame onto the box behind the window?....
Update... I believe that the dark stripe is a shadow being cast by the vertical divider mullion, that is between the two windows.
Does this telephoto-view roughly relate to the shadow pattern seen in Hughes?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/04/73/bzCcUkGi_o.png)
No , I believe the shadow that is being cast by he dividing mullion is much too wide.....
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/04/73/bzCcUkGi_o.png) | (https://wjla.com/resources/media/8bfb172c-16f0-47ad-aa63-17df32a542ad-medium16x9_wenn31333693.jpg) |
The boxes were less than two feet to the rear of that mullion and the time was 12:30....So the sun wouldn't have been casting long shadows ....