I’m sure this has been discussed before...
If these two photos are legit, how are the different “sniper nest" box setups explained?
AND if the president is going by, why would anyone take a picture of these two guys on the fifth floor?
Who took both photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/48s9VbP/Screen-Shot-2022-02-08-at-9-07-19-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/bsHqK4z)
In that sequence, it would seem that Dillard and Jackson at least would have focused attention on that window long enough to see someone stacking the boxes at the window before Powell took his photo… if I understand it correctly…
If the left photo was taken shortly after the one on the right... then someone apparently stacked the boxes at the “sniper nest" window in the short distance of time between the two photos...
Like in a circus? A bunch of conspirators frantically ran over to stack boxes. Then they slid down a rope and escaped in a clown car. Maybe the photos show slightly different perspectives.
If the left photo was taken shortly after the one on the right... then someone apparently stacked the boxes at the “sniper nest" window in the short distance of time between the two photos...
The gifs are helpful in understanding the perspective...
I think it would be a good experiment:
12:30pm on November 22, 2022 (pending good weather)
Have The Sixth Floor Museum take out the window insert...
Have two photographers in the same location as Powell and Dillard...
Attempt to duplicate the two photos with reasonable adjustments...
The photo below was also taken on the day of the assassination... Here’s the info:
Original black and white photographic negative taken by Dallas Times Herald staff photographer William Allen. This image shows the exterior of the Texas School Book Depository the afternoon of November 22, 1963, after the assassination. Many police officers stand around the entrance and southeast corner of the building. An unidentified man in a white shirt bends over a box visible in the open southeast corner window on the sixth floor.
I wonder how close in perspective this photo is compared to the Dillard and Powell photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/58k4VRr/Screen-Shot-2022-02-09-at-7-50-07-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/jMzfFry)
(https://i.ibb.co/80zxqvL/Screen-Shot-2022-02-09-at-7-54-49-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/1LsX1yt)
Some of you are so well-read in these matters, you might have seen this before... but this adds a little wrinkle to the “boxes in the window” discussion... Very interesting... This Congressional Committee made the determination that the boxes were moved in the interval between the Dillard and Powell photographs (see para #270 below)... Interesting...
The following is from:
Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy / Volume 6
By United States. Congress. House. Select Committee on Assassinations (1979)
(https://i.ibb.co/YQbnfms/Screen-Shot-2022-02-10-at-8-52-46-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/C8WCVgG)
(https://i.ibb.co/5kFWY5h/Screen-Shot-2022-02-10-at-8-56-18-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/dtg0bQ4)
The source for the following is linked below the quote (JFK.hood.edu....) I’m not certain if this is from the Committee report, but it does seem to summarize and conclude on the same note...:
(https://i.ibb.co/QMgJy0v/Screen-Shot-2022-02-10-at-9-31-33-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/kX7GNZ2)
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/JFK%20Assassination%20Photos%20Book/Pages%20301-350.pdf
This Congressional Committee made the determination that the boxes were moved in the interval between the Dillard and Powell photographs
Maybe the photos show slightly different perspectives.Do you really think? Maybe one was taken with a drone... The other with a 20 foot tripod.
Exactly. So what's the excuse, Nutters? Is this another case of the HSCA photo panel being right, except when they are not?
Do you really think? Maybe one was taken with a drone... The other with a 20 foot tripod.
Which one do you like the most?
Is there any photo evidence of the actual “sniper nest setup” from the inside of the 6th floor after 12:30pm, November 22, 1963?
Did the Warren Commission have any photos used in their investigation/documentation of this setup?
Thanks Charles! You are too fast for me. I’m wanting to pin down the time as close as possible for Alyea’s SN film of the rest boxs. Here are a few gifs and another “time-lapse” taken before Alyea’s SN.
First is a time-lapse of two detectives, I’m not sure which ones. Note the light and shadow hitting the west face of the book stack center frame. The kneeling detective seems to hold a rifle (it looks slightly curved because it was moving during the exposures) just to the left of the History Channel logo. The standing detective is in motion during this image and is blurred as expected in the time-lapse. Anyway, that shadow pattern in helpful for timing and positioning, but in Alyea’s film of the gun rest boxes sunshine no longer hits the west face. As the animation progresses notice the development of light and shadow on the vertical brickwork of the window well at the north edge. In the Alyea rest box time-lapse that shadow pattern is just noticeable. I think this may be the best indicator of the time, but is difficult to simulate due to my modeling errors of the window parts.
(https://i.imgur.com/DhEvSlo.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/geelDXp.gif)
Another problem I’ve had is using the window opening of 17”, which I believe Jerry has posted in the past. The problem appears with the shadow that hits the northern corner of the window box, and is barely observable in the Alyea footage. At 17” the shadow is too large and I need at least 18-18.5” to match Alyea. Probably errors in my window construction.
(https://i.imgur.com/26k64qz.gif)
Your rendering looks pretty good. As for the light/shadow hitting that book stack that upper shadow is due to the horizontal window muntin. Would you try to narrow the time interval where the shadow first hits that book stack’s west face, as well as the time the face is in total shadow? In my sims the shadow hits the top right edge a few minutes before the bottom edge.
Also the time you first see light hitting the window vertical bricks will be helpful.
Your window box looks to be positioned pretty good. Would you increase the open window height until the box top only shows a small shadow on the northern corner?
If you would rather exchange info by email just let me know by pm.
And Thank you for your help!
The “single” box on the left that appears to be close to the window opening in Dillard still looks “disturbing"...
Nonetheless... this film frame you’ve provided from Alyea is very, very convincing that the boxes were “glistening” in the sun... like they are in Powell...
If you think they were right, show us. Otherwise, you are just being your usual self and contributing nothing of substance.
What are you suggesting happened? That fantasy conspirators rushed into action in the moments after the assassination to move around some boxes then made their escape down the bat pole to the bat cave?
The substance is this: LN evangelists will twist themselves in knots, and apply all kinds of double standards in order to cherry-pick the stuff that they think supports their narrative. This is just one of the more transparent examples.
| CT Fruitcake Claim | What the Govt. panel or LNer Actually Did | |
| The Govt. or MIC, etc. supresses all evidence that might work in Oswald's favor | The HSCA believed in 1978 there was rearrangement of boxes in Dillard/Powell, and published it. | |
| LNers believe everything the Govt. and agencies say | Using science, 3D, etc., LNers reject the 1978 HSCA claim of box-shifting |
Rich, ain't it?
CT Fruitcake Claim What the Govt. panel or LNer Actually Did The Govt. or MIC, etc. supresses all evidence
that might work in Oswald's favorThe HSCA believed in 1978 there was rearrangement
of boxes in Dillard/Powell, and published it.LNers believe everything the Govt. and agencies say Using science, 3D, etc., LNers reject the 1978 HSCA claim of box-shifting
What the heck are you trying to say? This is an example of someone who doesn’t have a clue trying to make the other clueless people think that someone moved some boxes. Now, again, if you think otherwise, show us.
The HSCA photo panel determined that the boxes were moved between the two photos. If you want to characterize them as clueless, that's fine with me -- as long as you apply that consistently to their other analyses, such as with the backyard and autopsy photos.
They were not only clueless. They were lazy and they had an agenda.
You are being ridiculous regarding generalizing. Each analysis must be considered individually.
Again, if you think that they are correct, then please, please, please show us just how they got it right.
So did the Warren Commission.
Sure, considered based on whether it matches what you want to believe.
I don't know if they're correct, but the notion that the specially chosen photo experts didn't think to consider the effects of perspective or lighting doesn't say much about their qualifications, does it?
But then that's the problem with any appeal to authority. People who do it only do it when it supports their own positions.
If your "cage is rattled", that says more about you than it does about me. Yes, I read what Jake referenced. The HSCA panel concluded that the boxes were moved. On what basis do you just declare that "they arrived at the wrong answer"?
No basis. Other than a desire for them to be wrong.
They are different for sure...
Any date information on the photos?
Any info on who took the photos?
The top pict is the official layout
(https://i.postimg.cc/yN00L1NL/snipr-nest.png)
The big problem regarding the above two pics which are generally believed to show the original position of the Sniper's Perch is CE 512.
This picture was taken showing the position of the shell casings in the Sniper's Nest. The "perch" boxes can be seen at the bottom of the picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gj4LWv1P/CE-512.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LgY8kZHy)
A cursory examination of the position of the "perch" boxes reveals a fundamental difference between the positioning of these boxes and the boxes in the "legit" pictures of the Sniper's Perch. The Perch consists of three boxes - one on the floor (bottom box), one on top of this box (top box) and one on the window ledge (ledge box). In the photos below the boxes are numbered as follows:
1) Ledge Box
2) Top Box
3) Bottom Box
The difference between the two set-ups is that in the "legit" set-up (CE 733) the top box (2) does not hang over the bottom box (3).
In the photo taken of the shell casings (CE 512) the top box (2) is hanging over the bottom box (3).
This difference is picked out by the yellow arrows in each pic:
CE 512
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnQFpQtV/CE-512-2-numbered.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
CE 733
(https://i.postimg.cc/1Xrg0LSS/CE-733-2-numbered.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This difference reveals that crime scene photos of the Sniper's Perch were staged.
This shouldn't come as a surprise as the crime scene photos of the shell casings and the position of the lunch remains were also staged.
At some point they had to move the boxes for fingerprinting and it looks as if they might have then put them back in place, but since they had images of what they claim as the original placements, the yellow arrows seem to reveal that they weren't 100% dedicated to 'carbon copy' replacements
Meanwhile, from my 'BOOK OF OSWALD':
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Staged*
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
*Just added
Glad to have provided a new chapter for your magnum opus.
"...but since they had images of what they claim as the original placements"
What images might these be?
Glad to have provided a new chapter for your magnum opus.
"...but since they had images of what they claim as the original placements"
What images might these be?
In that sequence, it would seem that Dillard and Jackson at least would have focused attention on that window long enough to see someone stacking the boxes at the window before Powell took his photo… if I understand it correctly…
The one they claim as the official one
(I'm talking about the boxes.. why did you change the subject)
There seems to be a bit of confusion here.
The original configuration of the Sniper's Perch is shown in CE 512, the picture of the shell casings:
(https://i.postimg.cc/gj4LWv1P/CE-512.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/LgY8kZHy)
In this picture the Top Box (2) overhangs the bottom box (3):
(https://i.postimg.cc/BnQFpQtV/CE-512-2-numbered.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Any other pictures, including the one you believe was used to reconstruct the Perch, are staged (sorry, reconstructed) two days later, on the 25th, as Day states in his testimony. Titling one of the pictures "SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SIXTH FLOOR SHOWING ARRANGEMENT OF CARTONS SHORTLY AFTER SHOTS WERE FIRED" is misleading, to say the least, but, as Charles says, there's nothing necessarily sinister about it.
So, now for the sinister part.
What it means is that there was never any photos taken of the Sniper's Perch as it was. Again, not necessarily sinister but it does reflect profound incompetence - not one single picture of the location from which the shooting took place, think about that for a second or two.
As hard as it is to believe, this fact is confirmed by Studebaker in the part of his testimony dealing with the boxes that form the Perch:
Mr. Ball: Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. Studebaker: No.
Studebaker then goes on to explain Studebaker Exhibit D, the picture below:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Mr. Ball: Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," was that taken by you?
Mr. Studebaker: Yes.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit D," for identification.)
Mr. Ball: Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were moved?
Mr. Studebaker: That's after they were dusted---there's fingerprint dust on every box.
Mr. Ball: And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?
Mr. Studebaker: No.
Studebaker is explaining that the perch boxes have been dusted for prints (we can see the black powder marks) and put back but not in the same position.
It is clear from his testimony that the boxes in the above picture are the boxes that formed the Sniper's Perch.
Now for the sinister bit - none of the boxes in the picture above were the box resting on the window ledge the assassin is supposed to have used to rest his rifle on.
Many of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest had strips of tape running along the seam where the box opened. This tape would go around the corner of the box and be cut off. Obviously, this tape was to strengthen the box from opening when being moved around. Many of the boxes in CE 733 have this tape on:
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QbNhTPP/CE-733-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
CE 5211, also known as Studebaker Exhibit B, shows where two of the shell casings lay on the floor. To the left the box leaning on the ledge can be seen and it has this characteristic tape running around it:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6q0qLxNK/CE-511-2.jpg)
[url=https://postimages.org/](https://i.postimg.cc/qRHvPvJ0/CE-511-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Now look at the boxes from Studebaker Exhibit D, the boxes Studebaker specifically states were the Perch boxes after they had been dusted for fingerprints:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SR7h90pP/Photo-56-Sixth-Floor-Sniper-s-Nest-close-up.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Neither of these boxes has the tape running around it.
What does this mean?
The first thing that jumps to mind is that the boxes that formed the Sniper's Perch were switched at some stage.
If this is the case we have moved well beyond the realms of incompetence.
You already said that you don’t know whether they were right or not. Why don’t you try to figure it out yourself. Then come back and tell us why you think one way or the other. Some people come here to try to learn more about the assassination. You obviously aren’t one of them.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here.
The original configuration of the Sniper's Perch is shown in CE 512, the picture of the shell casings:
And was that before or after Fritz picked up the shells and then threw them back down?
Am I picking up a discrepancy in the the testimony… Fritz was the first to pick up the shells… and then he arrives and “they were given to him…?”
"Capt. Will Fritz of DPD arrived on the scene and the shells were given to him."
Does “him” refer to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner or to Will Fritz?
Mooney discovered the Sniper's Nest and was guarding it until Fritz arrived (with Tom Alyea filming). Mooney observed Fritz pick the shell casings up and examine them, Alyea claims to have filmed this. Neither Alyea nor Mooney saw Fritz put the casings back, indeed Alyea reports that about half an hour after this Fritz produced shell casings from his pocket and gave them to Studebaker who, presumably, went back to the SN and staged the position of the shell casings.Dan, I’ve not read about Alyea reporting that Fritz allegedly gave hulls to Studebaker who then placed them in the sniper’s nest. This is very interesting to me. Can you supply some reference to that allegation?
At some point Faulkner must have seen Fritz with the shells and assumed someone gave them to him.
Dan, I’ve not read about Alyea reporting that Fritz allegedly gave hulls to Studebaker who then placed them in the sniper’s nest. This is very interesting to me. Can you supply some reference to that allegation?
I was fortunate to be in Dealey Plaza last Nov 22 and 23, with brilliant sunshine. My trip goals included determining the sun time when Alyea took film of the sniper’s nest boxes and sun time when Lt. Day left the depository with the rifle (13:56). A cursory analysis (in progress) of the shadow on a breeze block to the east of the doorway seems to show Fritz leaving about 7 minutes later than Lt. Day.
I got this info from Dave Reitzes site - https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.htmlThanks Dan. Actually, I have seen that collection of Alyea statements and just did not remember the part about Studebaker placing the hulls, after the rifle was discovered and before taking the crime scene photos of the hulls. I’m pretty sure those crime scene photos of the hulls taken by Day and Studebaker were taken just after they arrived to the sixth floor about 13:15 (from memory), before the rifle was discovered.
Thanks Dan. Actually, I have seen that collection of Alyea statements and just did not remember the part about Studebaker placing the hulls, after the rifle was discovered and before taking the crime scene photos of the hulls. I’m pretty sure those crime scene photos of the hulls taken by Day and Studebaker were taken just after they arrived to the sixth floor about 13:15 (from memory), before the rifle was discovered.
Alyea's account of Fritz picking up the shell casings is confirmed by the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney.
As a result of the investigation on the 6th floor there is no photographic evidence of the original position of the shell casings.
There is no photographic evidence for the original position of the bag that was supposed to contain the rifle.
There is no photographic evidence for the original position of the boxes that make up the Sniper's Perch.
There is no photographic evidence for the original position of Williams' lunch remains.
Can this really be put down to insane levels of incompetence?
Is Fritz picking up the shell casings incompetence?
…there is no photographic evidence of the original position of the shell casings.
There is testimony that conflicts with your assessment.
Mr. BELIN. Would you circle the three hulls on Exhibit 716? Do you know whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were moved?
Mr. DAY. They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved.
Mr. BELIN. Who so advised you?
Mr. DAY. I believe it was Detective Sims standing there, but I could be wrong about that.
Mr. Ball.
And what did you see?
Mr. Sims.
We saw the boxes stacked up about--I don't know--three or four stacks high and found three empty hulls laying there next to the wall of the Elm Street side of the building, the front of the building.
Mr. Ball.
Who was there when you saw them?
Mr. Sims.
Well, there was two or three officers was there when we got there, and I believe the officer that found them was still there. I have his name here someplace.
Mr. Ball.
Was he a deputy sheriff?
Mr. Sims.
Yes, he was a deputy sheriff.
Mr. Ball.
And who else--Luke Mooney?
Mr. Sims.
Yes--there was two or three officers there besides us--I don't know who all.
Mr. Ball.
And did Luke tell you whether or not he had moved the hulls or not?
Mr. Sims.
He said he had left them like he had found them.
Mr. Ball.
Did you take a picture of those hulls?
Mr. Sims.
Lieutenant Day did, I believe.
Mr. Ball.
Was he there right at the time?
Mr. Sims.
No, sir; he didn't get there until a few minutes later.
Mr. Ball.
Did you see the picture taken of the hulls?
Mr. Sims.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
You saw Day take the pictures, did you?
Mr. Sims.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
He was the cameraman, was he?
Mr. Sims.
Well, there was another one there too. Actually, it was Detective Studebaker that works for him.
Mr. Ball.
Studebaker and Day?
Mr. Sims.
I believe it was Studebaker.
Mr. Ball.
Did they both have cameras?
Mr. Sims.
I don't remember if they both had cameras or not.
Mr. Ball.
You saw one of them at least take a picture?
Mr. Sims.
Yes; I know pictures was being taken.
Mr. Ball.
When the picture was taken, were the hulls in the same position as when you had first seen them?
Mr. Sims.
Yes, sir; they were.
The following excerpt is from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window" and is the result of an interview she did with Tom Alyea. Years later Alyea read through the excerpt and inserted some corrections (which I have put in italics):
"Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds [changed to "between three and four seconds"] of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct."
Alyea is a newsman, there to report what he sees. Fritz moves into the SN, as far as Alyea is concerned he is the first officer to do so and, therefore, the first officer to pick up the shell casings. Alyea actually films the casings in Fritz's hand, this is a first-hand witness account from a news reporter. If it was only Alyea's account of this incident it could be written off as someone with a grudge against Fritz or the DPD, because he is so specific it is either the truth or completely made up. But we also have Mooney's testimony:
"Mr. Ball: Those were empty shells?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: They were turned over to Captain Fritz?
Mr. Mooney: Yes, sir; he was the first officer that picked them up, as far as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up and look at them. As far as I could tell, I couldn't even tell what caliber they were, because I didn't get down that close to them. They were brass cartridges, brass shells."
Again, Fritz picks up the shell casings and is thought to be the first officer to do so. Deputy Sheriff Mooney is guarding the SN so nobody touches anything until Fritz arrives. He observes Fritz "go over and pick them up and look at them". It must also be noted that Mooney is not one of Fritz's men.
How can you account for these two, independently corroborating, first-hand eye-witness accounts that Fritz was the first officer to pick up the shell casings?
How can you account for these two, independently corroborating, first-hand eye-witness accounts that Fritz was the first officer to pick up the shell casings?
How can you account for the two independently corroborating, first-hand eye-witness accounts that say the shells were photographed before anyone moved them.
Since you aren't providing any images of this close-up film that Alyea supposedly made, I assume that no one has ever seen it.
Sims testified that he heard the shouting when the shells were first found. Sims also testified that he was on the seventh floor when he heard the shouts and went immediately to the sniper's nest on the sixth floor. So, exactly when is Fritz supposed to have done this? I believe that Day testified that he had just finished dusting the shells for fingerprints and put them in an envelope and turned them over to another detective when the rifle was first found. And I find it very difficult to believe that someone with Fritz's experience would do something like that.
Day's isn't a first-hand witness account. He"believes" Sims advised him but "could be wrong about that".
Sims is one of Fritz's main men and is covering for him. What Fritz has done is an unbelievably flagrant abuse of evidence, something beyond incompetence.
What reason do Alyea and, in particular, Mooney have to lie about this?
Why would you not believe their accounts?
How can you account for these two, independently corroborating, first-hand eye-witness accounts that Fritz was the first officer to pick up the shell casings?
How can you account for the two independently corroborating, first-hand eye-witness accounts that say the shells were photographed before anyone moved them.
Since you aren't providing any images of this close-up film that Alyea supposedly made, I assume that no one has ever seen it.
Sims testified that he heard the shouting when the shells were first found. Sims also testified that he was on the seventh floor when he heard the shouts and went immediately to the sniper's nest on the sixth floor. So, exactly when is Fritz supposed to have done this? I believe that Day testified that he had just finished dusting the shells for fingerprints and put them in an envelope and turned them over to another detective when the rifle was first found. And I find it very difficult to believe that someone with Fritz's experience would do something like that.
Since you aren't providing any images of this close-up film that Alyea supposedly made, I assume that no one has ever seen it.
I’m sure this has been discussed before...
If these two photos are legit, how are the different “sniper nest" box setups explained?
AND if the president is going by, why would anyone take a picture of these two guys on the fifth floor?
Who took both photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/48s9VbP/Screen-Shot-2022-02-08-at-9-07-19-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/bsHqK4z)
Mr. Mooney - …So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window, the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers. At that time, of course, when I hollered, of course Officers Vickery and Webster, they came across and later on several other deputies--I believe Officers McCurley, A. D. McCurley, I believe he came over. Where he came from--they was all en route up there, I assume.
Again, exactly when was Fritz supposed to have done this? The above testimony (by your man Mooney), indicates that Fritz was outside the building on the ground when he hollered out that the shells had been found. Therefore, it appears unlikely to me that Fritz could have made it all the way up to the sixth floor and done this before Sims was able to get there from one only floor above. So it seems to me that if Fritz did this, Sims and the other officers who went to the area would have seen it. Have Vickery, Webster, McCurley, or anyone else besides Alyea said anything about Fritz doing that?
Without any actual film that would show what Alyea said that he filmed, it is easy to discount his story. And I find it easy to discount Mooney’s story without any of his fellow officers (who were there) backing it up.
As for when Fritz picked the shell casings up...
Mooney finds the SN with the casings in and calls down for the Crime Lab to be sent over. He then stands guard over the scene:
"And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the location spotted.
So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city officers."
Fritz and his city officers, Boyd and Sims, eventually arrive at the southeast corner where they find Mooney guarding the scene:
"...we went on up to the seventh floor and started searching along the front windows. About this time someone yelled that some empty hulls had been found on the sixth floor. Capt. Fritz, Sims and Boyd went to the southeast window on the sixth floor and saw three empty rifle hulls on the floor near the window. The empty hulls were found about 1:15 PM. Deputy Sheriff Luke E. Mooney said he found them and left them lay as they were. We stayed there with the empty hulls to preserve the scene and a methodical search was started by other officers going from east to west. About 1:20 PM, Lt. J. C. Day and Det. R. L. Studebaker arrived on the sixth floor."
[from "Report on Officer's Duties by R. M. Sims and E. L. Boyd, in regards to the President's murder."]
So there is a moment where just Fritz, Sims, Boyd and Mooney (not to mention Alyea) are stood at the SN while everyone else engages in the systematic search of the sixth floor and before Day and Studebaker arrive. This is the moment when Fritz picks up the shell casings and pockets them
There is no great shock that Fritz denies this and that he is backed up by his men, Boyd and Sims.
It appears to me that the essence of your assessment is that Fritz picked up the three shells and pocketed them. Then Fritz later gave these shells to Studebaker and told him to place them (staged) in the sniper’s nest in order to photograph them. Do I have your idea straight?
According to Alyea that's what happened but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves...
Both Alyea and Mooney independently reported their first-hand eye-witness accounts of Fritz entering the SN, picking up the shell casings and examining them.
As far as both men are concerned Fritz was first officer to do this.
This is what both men reported.
The eye-witness account of Fritz giving the shells to Studebaker is Alyea's.
Hi Charles, @2:59 in the following YT video which was broadcast later that day and for some reason is "age restricted"? we see footage that Alyea filmed on the 6th floor and even though half of the footage is barely watchable, WFAATV obviously being desperate to broadcast whatever they could showed Alyea's film to what appears through to it's very end and I see Oswald's murder weapon, people standing around, a stairway direction sign, a detective holding a bottle but I don't see any close-ups of Fritz holding shells?
EDIT I was thinking back to footage of Day removing the rifle from the floor and it's not in the footage above. So after a quick search, on DVP's YT video site I found some additional Alyea footage but still no close up of Carcano hulls. It's interesting that WFAATV didn't initially show the more news worthy footage of the rifle being recovered and instead gave us a stack of flickering images?
JohnM
You stated earlier that there are no photos of the shell casings before anyone moved them. So, it appears that you believe that the shells were removed, then later staged for photographs? Is this what you are suggesting?
Fritz picked up the shell casings before Day and Studebaker arrived.
It is a necessary conclusion that any photos taken by Day or Studebaker of the shell casings do not show them in their original positions.
I have a difficult time taking Alyea’s accounts seriously. Here’s a small part of what Allyea reportedly had to say in the corrections section of this webpage concerning Connie’s book:
Over thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab
arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to
Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the
sniper's nest crime scene. We stayed at the rifle site to watch Lt. Day
dust the rifle. You have seen my footage of this. Studebaker never saw
the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and
photographed them. Det. Studebaker was alone at this site until after
Lt. Day left the building with the rifle. We in the search team went to
the sniper's site. Studebaker had already photographed the casings on
the floor and was busy dusting the pop bottle when we arrived. The
casings were no longer on the floor. I never saw them again.
The shadows on CE 511 indicate that it was taken near the time of 1:20 pm. Not over thirty minutes later.
Mooney’s account has no credible person to back it up, as far as I am concerned. And it conflicts with the accounts of the other officers. I cannot believe that Fritz could have done that and no one else besides Mooney saw it.
You can believe that nonsense if you want to. But don’t expect me to.
Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.
As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.
You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged.
You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.
And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?
Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339436/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Mooney is a credible person and his first-hand eye-witness testimony is independently corroborated by Alyea. A large part of the credibility of both is that they are not Fritz's men and would feel no obligation to cover for his actions.
Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time. Alyea’s statement in December of 1963 contains none of the numerous fantasies that he has come up with in more recent years. If his 1963 account contained Fritz picking up the shells and showing them for a camera close-up, or there was any evidence that such a close-up was actually filmed, then you might have some corroboration for Mooney’s claim.
As I've said, you have no problem with Fritz doing exactly the same thing with the live round.
Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?
You have no problem with the Sniper's Perch being re-staged
I don’t know all the reasons why they might have wanted to reconstruct the positions of some of the boxes. But I could guess at a few reasons. And they didn’t try to hide the fact that they did. I see nothing sinister about it.
You have no problem that other key evidence such as the rifle "bag" and BRW's lunch remains were not photographed in their original positions.
Studebaker had less than two-months experience in that department. And given all the other circumstances, it is understandable how he could have missed taking enough photos. Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?
And who are these other officers with conflicting accounts? Remember, only Fritz, Sims, Boyd, Mooney and Alyea are present when it happens, so who are these credible officers you put so much faith in?
There were many officers on the sixth floor when the evidence was found. Clyde A. Haywood, E.D. Brewer, Marvin Johnson, to name a few. Do you believe Fritz erected a Star Wars type of cloaking shield to prevent anyone else on that floor from seeing them? Gerald Hill was there when the shells were found. He was actually photographed with his head out a window hollering for the crime scene investigators. (No one apparently photographed or reported Mooney’s claim to doing this. ???) Hill left the sixth floor before Fritz got there. But Hill’s account (to that point in time) differs from Mooney’s in several aspects. Mooney’s account of where the chicken bones were found differs from every other account that I have seen. You can put your faith in Mooney, but I cannot do the same.
Out of interest, what shadows in CE 511 are you using to gauge the time?
The shadows are more readily apparent in a copy of the photo on page 525 of “Pictures of the Pain” by Richard B. Trask. By the way, this photo is also full frame, and shows the third shell near the bottom. The shadows are cast by the post that divides the two windows and the window sill of the sniper’s nest window onto the brick ledge just inside the window. The angle between these two shadows changes with the time much like a sundial.
"Mooney’s account is at odds with others in several aspects. One of the more glaring is that he claims to have stuck his head out of the sniper’s window and hollered and saw Fritz on the ground below. The problem is that by all other accounts Fritz was on the seventh floor at this time."
So Mooney looks down from the sixth floor on a sea of heads and hats milling about and mistakes one of them for Fritz?
That's a "glaring" inconsistency in his testimony as far as you're concerned?
If that's the best you can come up with then it's a super-harsh threshold of accuracy you are holding witnesses to.
And we have very different ideas about what constitutes a "glaring inconsistency".
For example - In Day's testimony he states:
Mr. Day: ...I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted photographs.
Mr. Belin: All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification?
Mr. Day: At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.
For some strange reason Day has Sims pick up the shells, puts them in an envelope (that is never sealed) and Sims takes possession of the shells. Neither man marks the shells at that time destroying the chain of evidence. But Sims has a very different recollection of who took possession of the shells:
Mr. Ball: Who picked up the hulls?
Mr. Sims: Well, I assisted Lieutenant Day in picking the hulls up.
Mr. Ball: There were three hulls?
Mr. Sims:Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Now, what kind of a receptacle did you put them in?
Mr. Sims: He had an envelope.
Mr. Ball: Did he take charge of the hulls there?
Mr. Sims: I don't know.
Sims remembers picking the shells up and putting them in the envelope but he doesn't know who takes charge of the shells. Ball tries to clarify the situation:
Mr. Ball: Did he take them in his possession, I mean?
Mr. Sims: I don't remember if he took them in his possession then or not.
There can be no doubt, Sims doesn't have a clue who took possession of the shells. Even though Day testifies that it is Sims who takes the shells into his possession. Ball gives it one last try:
Mr. Ball: But you helped him pick them up?
Mr. Sims: I picked them up from the floor and he had an envelope there and he held the envelope open.
Mr. Ball: You didn't take them in your possession, did you?
Mr. Sims: No, sir; I don't believe I did.
Sims distinctly remembers picking up the shells, an absolutely key piece of evidence, but doesn't have a clue who took possession of them.
Now that is a glaring contradiction!
But the best is yet to come.
After his testimony, Fritz tells Sims to get his arse back in front of the commission to tell them he now remembers taking possession of the shells. I wish there were time and space here to get into Sims' "resumed testimony" as it is the funniest testimony there is and reveals a man desperately trying not to f%ck up the agreed story and failing miserably.
Sims remembers that during his testimony he wasn't sure who brought the shells down to City Hall, but he was never asked who brought the shells down to City Hall. The key point of the testimony is this:
Mr. Belin: Now, Detective Sims, just so that I can have a complete understanding of the process by which you refreshed your recollection, you talked to Captain Fritz about this after you testified here on Monday?
Mr. Sims: Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin: What did he say and what did you say, if you remember?
Mr. Sims: I told him I couldn't remember for sure about who brought the hulls up there to his office or what happened to the hulls, and then I talked to him.
Mr. Belin: What did he say?
Mr. Sims: He said, "Well, remember I told you to get the hulls and bring them to the office."
And I talked to Boyd, my partner, and he said that Captain Fritz had said that, too, so I remembered exactly about where I was when he told me this.
Mr. Belin: In other words, Captain Fritz told you on Monday, that back on November 22, he had told you to get the hulls?
So Sims didn't have a clue who took possession of the shells until Fritz told him he did. Classic stuff.
Mooney not recognising the top of Fritz's hat from the 6th floor is solid proof he is lying but this baloney is perfectly acceptable.
"Day testified that he was the one who picked the live round up, dusted it for fingerprints, initialed it, and then turned it over to Fritz. Where do you get the idea that Fritz picked it up?"
The point I was making wasn't about who picked it up, it was about Fritz pocketing the live round, a truly extraordinary thing to do. This seasoned detective then neglects to mark the live round, thus destroying the chain of evidence (this is becoming a regular theme).
"Just exactly where do you believe the original position of BRW’s lunch remains were?"
I put BRW's lunch remains where Mooney, Hill, Haygood, Brewer, McCurley, Weatherford and Montgomery place them - in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
And not where they were photographed, about 30ft away on a little trolley.
I find it very interesting that Bonnie Ray Williams describes having his lunch as it is in the crime scene photos when every officer who saw the scene before Fritz got there describes the lunch remains being in the southeast corner.
More glaring contradictions.
None of the others you listed get very specific as to an exact location. Like many of the vague accounts of many of the aspects, people tend to interpret them whichever way they want to. Montgomery got more specific and it became apparent that he confused the two paper sacks in his memory. No one on the sixth floor has stated that the remains of BRW's lunch were moved before they were photographed. I prefer to believe in the physical evidence, like photographs, rather than vague accounts which can often be wrong due to fallible memories. Based on what was said by these officers, there is a reason to believe that perhaps one chicken bone was seen on some of the boxes near the sniper's nest. But it appears to me that the sack with bones in it and the Dr. Pepper bottle were further west where they were photographed.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
"...people tend to interpret them whichever way they want to."
You never spoke a truer word.
And then go on to give us a classic example of someone interpreting witness evidence "whichever way they want to".
In the section of testimony you posted Montgomery makes it absolutely clear that the sack with chicken it in was in the southeast corner, "where the hulls were there", and the Dr Pepper bottle was to the west of that position:
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Rather than just accept the testimony of this witness, Ball decides it needs changing. He points out that Studebaker photographed the sack over by the third set of windows. Montgomery is confused - "Over there by the Dr pepper bottle?...I was thinking it was right there...".
Ball shows him the photographs and Montgomery is still confused - "Is this the sack right here, now?"
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Ball, satisfied he has now got his message across, asks Montgomery if he remembers things the way Ball wants him to, but the confused officer still isn't convinced - " I don't remember the sack being right there".
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Ball then does something quite extraordinary. Rather than accept the witnesses testimony about the location of the sack with the chicken bones in it, Ball decides what the witness should be answering - "Evidently you don't know?"
Finally, Montgomery takes the hint - "No, sir."
The passage you have chosen to highlight Montgomery's uncertainty actually reveals a witness who has answered clearly and who is then harassed into uncertainty. It shows what a farce the questioning was.
Getting back to you interpreting things whichever way you want, let's take a look a the bit of Montgomery's testimony you chose to ignore as it didn't serve your purpose. This is the section of testimony leading up to the part you chose to post:
Mr. Ball: Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. Ball: Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It was right there with the boxes---right there on the floor.
Mr. Ball: On the floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: All right.
Mr. Montgomery: Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. Ball: Where was the paper sack?
Mr. Montgomery: Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. Ball: I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. Montgomery: You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. Ball: It was over in what corner?
Mr. Montgomery: It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. Ball: Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
In this section of testimony Montgomery sees pieces of chicken "kind of scattered around" in the southeast corner of the 6th floor
Montgomery also makes a clear distinction between the "chicken" sack and "that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in."
As for the other officers who reported on BRW's lunch remains, let's see how "vague" they were about the location of these remains:
Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley
"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hid him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor..."
Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney [describing what he saw while he was stood in the SN]
"I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right...It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes...There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke...Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it...He [the assassin] wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there."
Officer E. D.Brewer DPD
Mr. Belin: How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. Brewer: Three.
Mr. Belin: Where were they?
Mr. Brewer: They were there under, by the window.
Mr. Belin: What window?
Mr. Brewer: In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin: Anything else?
Mr. Brewer: A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin: What bottle?
Mr. Brewer: A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Sergeant Gerald Hill DPD
"The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield. That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window...On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack."
Motorcycle Officer Clyde Haygood DPD
Mr. Belin: You saw some shells there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes.
Mr. Belin: Where did you see them?
Mr. Haygood: They were there under the window.
Mr. Belin: Which window?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin: South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin: See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Haygood: There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin: Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood: Dr. Pepper bottle.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig
Mr. Craig: I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. Belin: Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. Craig: Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Belin: How big a sack was that?
Mr. Craig: It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. Belin: Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. Craig: Yeah,--uh-huh.
Mr. Belin: Was it more than a foot long?
Mr. Craig: I don't know. I think it was rolled up kind of.
Mr. Belin: You think it was rolled up?
Mr. Craig: Yeah; you know, kind of crushed up.
Where is this vagueness you describe regarding the location of the lunch remains?
Eight officers specifically describe the remains as being in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. All eight!!
It is an inescapable conclusion that BRW's lunch remains were originally found in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. Seven officers describe them as being on top of boxes with three officers specifically stating they were on boxes that formed part of the SN, Mooney going so far as to state that anyone sat by the Sniper's Perch could have taken just one step to place the remains on top of the boxes.
It is also the inescapable conclusion that these remains were then removed and re-staged about 30ft away.
This is completely consistent with the staggering incompetence already highlighted in this initial investigation.
Sounds like theater... more than investigation...
Mooney (oh yeah, the only one who said that he saw Fritz pickup the shells) is again the only one who said the lunch remains were that close to the sniper's nest. The southeast corner of the sixth floor is a vague description. With only that description, it could conceivably include everything in the southeast quadrant of that floor, which would include the area where the BRW's lunch remains were found and photographed. Like I said before, you can interpret the words to mean whatever you want. But there is no one who was there who claimed the lunch remains were moved and staged before photographs were made. All you have demonstrated is what I said earlier, people interpret the vague words to mean whatever they want them to mean. For someone who isn't biased against the authorities and sees no sinister motives, it is clear that Montgomery was confused. Your interpretation is, as Jake put it, "theater".
Or a clown circus.
Is the following incompetence or a case of someone trying to cover up something?
It concerns Day marking the three shell casings (hulls) found in the SN. In order to mark all three casings he has to use a diamond tipped pen to carefully scratch his name onto each of the hulls. If he did it at the scene there is no reason for him not being aware he did that - he remembers marking the rifle and the live round ejected from it, so he should remember carefully marking all three hulls. It is something that would have taken him a few minutes to do.
During his WC testimony it is revealed that Day had a meeting with Belin a couple of weeks before he gave his testimony to discuss what he will be saying (is that weird or not?). During this "interview" Day states that he marked all three hulls at the scene, presumably because he can remember doing that. However, after the "interview" Day checks his records which revealed he hadn't marked all three hulls:
Mr. Day: ...I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn't think I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope, and Sims taking them.
What "records" did Day suddenly come across that changed his certainty about marking all three hulls at the scene? The answer is that there are no such records! The markings on the hulls are the record. It turns out Day was telling a bit of a porkie about his "records" and that what actually changed his mind is that he examined the hulls just before he gave his testimony (is that weird or not?):
"It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull, which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my mark on it."
What does "which I did not give to you, or come to me through you"mean?
That Day changed his mind after examining the hulls on the day of his testimony is confirmed in one of two affidavits Day has to do to clear up the mess he makes of his testimony on this issue:
"When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority."
We'll come back to this affidavit later as the whole thing descends into farce. Getting back to his WC testimony, Day clarifies his new position:
Mr. Day: I remember you asking me if I marked them.
Mr. Belin: Yes.
Mr. Day: I remember I told you I did.
Mr. Belin: All right.
Mr. Day: I got to reviewing this, and I got to wondering about whether I did mark those at the scene.
Mr. Belin: Your testimony now is that you did not mark any of the hulls at the scene?
Mr. Day: Those three; no, sir.
Mr. Belin: I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir.
Mr. Belin: While you were waiting to have your testimony taken here?
Mr. Day: Yes, sir; that is what confirmed my thinking on this. The envelope now was marked.
Mr. Belin: And the shells were in the same envelope that it was marked?
Mr. Day: Yes.
So now Day is testifying that he did not carefully scratch his name onto each of the three hulls at the crime scene. Why can't he remember?
One of the hulls does not have Day's name on it so he can't have marked all three at the crime scene:
Mr. Belin: Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. Day: That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. Belin: Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. Day: I think it is.
Mr. Belin: What makes you think it is?
Mr. Day: It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under.
Mr. Belin: Was he there at the scene?
Mr. Day: No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that.
Mr. Belin: This was----
Mr. Day: That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun.
Mr. Belin: You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that was retained in your possession for a while?
Mr. Day: It is the one that I did not see again.
When Belin asks whether Doughty was at the scene he is basically asking when Doughty put his initials on the hull. This has Day babbling again - "...this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that."
Day tries to clarify the situation by stating that the hull that did not have his name on, CE 543, was retained by the homicide division and that the other two hulls came to him separately.
Day makes the point that, after seeing CE 543 at the scene, he didn't see it again. Remember this as it gets complicated.
Also remember that Day is saying, even though the homicide division retained hull CE 543, George Doughty [Captain of the Crime Lab] still got his initials on it.
So, when did Day scratch his name onto the other two hulls? In his testimony Day sums up the new situation:
I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints...At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.
About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two hulls inside.
I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside this envelope."
In an earlier post I pointed out that Sims had absolutely no memory of taking possession of the hulls even though he is supposed to have signed his initials and put the date and time on the envelope before putting it in his pocket.
Also, Day is saying that no marks were put on the hulls at the crime scene and the envelope was never sealed, thus destroying the chain of evidence (how many times does that happen?)
Day seems to have finally got his story straight but this soon unravels. One month after his WC testimony Day has to do the first of two affidavits that try to clear up a few issues with the story he came up with in his testimony. This is where things get tricky:
"When testifying before the President's Commission, I stated I did not remember who returned the two spent 6.5 hulls and envelope to my possession on the night of November 22, 1963. Since returning to Dallas Detective C. N. Dhority has called my attention to the fact he brought the three hulls in the envelope to me and asked me to check them again for fingerprints even though I had checked them when they were picked up on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 1:20 p.m. November 22, 1963 by Detective R. M. Sims and myself and placed in a manila envelope. Since talking to Dhority I remember now that he was the one who returned the shells to me about 10:00 p.m. and stated that his office wanted to retain one. He left me two shells and the envelope that Detective Sims and I had previously marked. It was then that I scratched my name on the two shells that were released at 11:45 p.m. Agent Vince Drain along with the rifle and other evidence."
Day's appalling memory strikes again!
Day had testified that the two hulls showed up in an envelope on Friday night and that one hull, CE 543, had been retained by the homicide division and that he had never seen it again. Now it turns out that Det. Dhority had showed up with all three hulls, Day dusted them for fingerprints (?even though this had already been done this and found no fingerprints?). Dhority left with one of the hulls and Day kept two.
And Day couldn't remember any of this!!
Day also reveals that he marked the two hulls he had before giving them to the FBI. At least he remembered that.
But why didn't he mark all three when he had them?
Now we come to the second affidavit that is supposed to clear everything up but does nothing of the sort:
"The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. The hulls were picked up by Detective R. M. Sims and Lieutenant J. C. Day and placed in an envelope. Detective R. L. Studebaker was also present. The envelope was marked and dated by Sims and Day. Detective Sims took the hulls after they were checked for fingerprints by Day. The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI. Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day.
So far so good...kind of.
The three hulls are given commission numbers 543, 544 and 545.
You will recall, Day thought CE 543 was the hull that was retained by the Homicide Division (that he never saw again...D'oh!) because when he examined it before giving his testimony he couldn't find his name on it. However, he couldn't explain how Capt. George Doughty's initials were on it. This was a big mistake because there was only one opportunity for Doughty to put his initials on it - when the Crime Lab was handing over the hulls to the FBI. This means that CE 543, the hull that was supposed to be retained by Homicide, was actually one of the hulls Day kept when Dhority dropped the hulls off for their second dusting.
As noted in the excerpt from the affidavit above, the hull that was retained by Homicide was CE 545. The problem with this is that CE 545 has Day's name on it but Day testified that he only marked the two hulls that he kept from Dhority.
So, what's going on? The affidavit continues:
When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority. On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office. Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
So, when the hulls arrive back in Dallas, Day feels the need to examine them yet and again and, lo and behold, his name turns up on the hull that was retained by Homicide. Hmmm...
This nicely solves the quandary Day created by identifying CE 543 as the hull retained by Homicide even though it had Doughty's initials on it. The affidavit finishes:
"As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession. Both Detective R. L. Studebaker and Detective R. M. Sims, who were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window."
So, Day can't remember if he carefully scratched his name on each of the hulls at the crime scene.
He can't remember if he scratched them back at the Crime Lab.
He could remember the two hulls showing up with one being retained by Homicide...but this didn't happen...
...because he couldn't remember Dhority bringing the hulls to him, dusting the hulls (again) and handing one hull back.
Why does Day initially tell Belin he marked all three hulls at the scene if he had no memory of it?
Why does Day say he marked the two hulls before giving them to the FBI if he has no memory of it?
Are we talking extreme incompetence here, or someone covering for extreme incompetence or someone covering for something else?
Why would you even bother to post this?
Statements like "the southeast corner...could conceivably include everything in the southeast quadrant of that floor, which would include the area where the BRW's lunch remains were found and photographed", make you look very silly indeed.
"Mooney (oh yeah, the only one who said that he saw Fritz pickup the shells) is again the only one who said the lunch remains were that close to the sniper's nest)."
If you'd actually read my post you would know three officers - Mooney, Hill and Weatherford - specifically stated the remains were on top of the boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest.
McCurley - "I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece
of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton."
Brewer - "Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window [in the southeast corner]?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken."
Haygood - "...at the same location where the shells were."
Craig - "...because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there."
Montgomery - "It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were."
All eight officers are specific - in the southeast corner, where the SN/shells were situated. There is absolutely no doubt about this and, equally, no doubt these remains were then removed and photographed.
Mooney's observations about the lunch remains are confirmed by seven other officers. His observation of Fritz picking up the shells is confirmed by Alyea. The pictures of the shells in evidence are staged, just like the pictures of the lunch remains are, just like the pictures of the Sniper's Perch are.
They didn't even bother to stage the rifle "bag" position - they just got Studebaker to draw it on a photograph :D
Was just watching some of Alyea's footage and noticed this moment.
It is taken before the "rifle" footage and shows Fritz and other officers congregating in the southeast corner. There is then a very short clip showing Fritz and an officer I can't make out crouched down in the SN where the shells lie on the floor. There is a very brief glimpse of Fritz's hand coming into view as he holds something small in his fingers (red circle). It's impossible to make out what it is but it does raise a few questions, like "what small thing could Fritz be picking up from the area where the shells are lying?"
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wMSbCqZ/Screenshot-165.png) (https://postimages.org/)
None of them specifically said what you are implying.
What desperate straw are you grasping at with that comment?
Come on Dan, you think you can read the minds of the people testifying to the Warren Commission by applying your interpretation of their words. What you might want to consider is that these officers were involved with searching the entire building. A statement such as “It was right around where the boxes were, where the hulls were” when put in perspective with even just the sixth floor area could easily mean to include the area where the lunch remains were photographed. Your interpretation is just your opinion. It most definitely is not what he said.
Really Charles?
You think my interpretation of what the officers say regarding the location of the lunch remains is at fault?
In that case, as it is an important point, I'll go through each statement made by the officers, provide my interpretation of what they're saying and you can show me where I'm going wrong.
Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley
"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hid him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor..."
My interpretation:
McCurley hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees the shells on the floor and a half-eaten piece of chicken on a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
My interpretation:
Weatherford hears Mooney shout from the SN. He goes over to the SN where he sees shells on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes that actually forms the SN (barricade). The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney [describing what he saw while he was stood in the SN]
"I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right...It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes...There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke...Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it...He [the assassin] wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there."
My interpretation:
Mooney is stood in the SN. He sees a partially eaten piece of chicken and a lunch sack (poke) on top of one of the boxes there. He makes the point that the assassin could take one step and put the remains on the box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Officer E. D.Brewer DPD
Mr. Belin: How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. Brewer: Three.
Mr. Belin: Where were they?
Mr. Brewer: They were there under, by the window.
Mr. Belin: What window?
Mr. Brewer: In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin: See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer:Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin: Anything else?
Mr. Brewer: A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin: What bottle?
Mr. Brewer: A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
My interpretation:
Brewer sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. This is where the SN is. By the southeast corner window he also sees a lunch sack, a partially eaten piece of chicken and a soda pop bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Sergeant Gerald Hill DPD
"The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield. That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window...On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack."
My interpretation:
Hill describes the SN (sort of a three-sided shield). On top of one of the larger boxes that form the SN Hill sees a chicken leg bone and a paper sack. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Motorcycle Officer Clyde Haygood DPD
Mr. Belin: You saw some shells there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes.
Mr. Belin: Where did you see them?
Mr. Haygood: They were there under the window.
Mr. Belin: Which window?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin: South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood: On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin: See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood: Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Haygood: There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin: Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood: Dr. Pepper bottle.
My interpretation:
Haygood sees the shells under the window in the southeast corner of the building. At that same location he sees a lunch bag and a Dr Pepper bottle. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig
Mr. Craig: I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. Belin: Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. Craig: Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Belin: How big a sack was that?
Mr. Craig: It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. Belin: Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. Craig: Yeah,--uh-huh.
Mr. Belin: Was it more than a foot long?
Mr. Craig: I don't know. I think it was rolled up kind of.
Mr. Belin: You think it was rolled up?
Mr. Craig: Yeah; you know, kind of crushed up.
My interpretation:
Craig goes over to where the shells are lying on the ground. He is at the SN. In the same area he sees a lunch bag on top of a box. The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
Officer L. D. Montgomery DPD
Mr. Montgomery: Well, first I reported to Captain Fritz, my partner and I and he assigned us to this position over there where the boxes were.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It would be what--the southeast corner of the building--over there from where the shooting took place.
Mr. Ball: Did you see anything else over in the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. Montgomery: Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. Ball: Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. Ball: Where was that?
Mr. Montgomery: It was right there with the boxes...there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
My interpretation:
Montgomery is in the southeast corner "where the shooting took place". He is at the SN. Here he sees a piece of chicken on a box and a piece on the floor "right there with the boxes". The lunch remains are, therefore, where the SN is.
I look forward to your analysis and corrections to my interpretations of the officer's words.
It is clear, to me at least, that all eight officers place the lunch remains at the SN. Some officers actually place the lunch remains on top of the SN.
But this is not where they are photographed, meaning BRW's lunch remains were re-staged about 30ft away, near the third set of windows from the east side.
Good luck Thumb1:
I repeat, none of these officers specifically say exactly where they saw the lunch remains. Your interpretations are only your opinions. And your conclusion is based on your opinions.
You're inability to deal with this issue has been recorded for all to see.
I am more than satisfied the point has been made that all eight officers place the lunch remains where the SN is.
You're in denial Charles.
Good luck with that. Thumb1:
Come on Dan, you think you can read the minds of the people testifying to the Warren Commission by applying your interpretation of their words. What you might want to consider is that these officers were involved with searching the entire building. A statement such as “It was right around where the boxes were, where the hulls were” when put in perspective with even just the sixth floor area could easily mean to include the area where the lunch remains were photographed. Your interpretation is just your opinion. It most definitely is not what he said.
Captain Fritz wore glasses. In a much clearer version of that scene neither detective is wearing glasses. I've believed those two were Sims and Boyd (not sure which is which). BTW, this scene is 5-10 minutes before the SN photos were taken between 13:15-13:20.
Was just watching some of Alyea's footage and noticed this moment.
It is taken before the "rifle" footage and shows Fritz and other officers congregating in the southeast corner. There is then a very short clip showing Fritz and an officer I can't make out crouched down in the SN where the shells lie on the floor. There is a very brief glimpse of Fritz's hand coming into view as he holds something small in his fingers (red circle). It's impossible to make out what it is but it does raise a few questions, like "what small thing could Fritz be picking up from the area where the shells are lying?"
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wMSbCqZ/Screenshot-165.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Captain Fritz wore glasses. In a much clearer version of that scene neither detective is wearing glasses. I've believed those two were Sims and Boyd (not sure which is which). BTW, this scene is 5-10 minutes before the SN photos were taken between 13:15-13:20.
Exactly. The use of imprecise language by witnesses to recall events from their memory is then subject to the pedantic review of others with 60 years of hindsight seeking to confirm their subjective interpretations of those events. What, for example, constitutes the "sniper's nest" is not necessary the same for everyone. It could, for example, encompass the entirety of the 6th floor.
Really Richard?
I've subjected the memory of the eight officers who place the lunch remains where the SN is (3 of them specifically placing the remains on top of the SN), to some kind of "pedantic review".
Well, I challenged Charles to analyse my interpretation of the officers statements so he could clarify where I was going wrong.
Instead of taking up that challenge he just slid away in a cloud of denial, hiding behind the same empty, toothless generalisations you specialise in (re: the post I'm responding to)
So I throw the gauntlet down to you to take on the challenge.
In Reply #98 I present my interpretations of the statements made by eight officers regarding the location of the lunch remains.
Highlight where I've subjected these statements to a "pedantic review" or STFU.
Over the last several days I modeled CE510 in 3D to timestamp the image from information provided by faint shadows on the floor. The vertical window pane divider (muntin) of the western window casts a shadow intersecting a deep floor gouge-seen as white in CE510 from reflection of the flash. That deep gouge is still present in Sixth Floor Museum’s sniper’s nest exhibit. I was present last November 22 taking many photos trying time Alyea’s filming of the sniper’s rest boxes. Only by chance, I caught that muntin shadow at the same floor gouge at 13:17.
(https://i.imgur.com/WUCDnSX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/31eCBub.jpg)
The passage you have chosen to highlight Montgomery's uncertainty actually reveals a witness who has answered clearly and who is then harassed into uncertainty. It shows what a farce the questioning was.
I’m sure this has been discussed before...
If these two photos are legit, how are the different “sniper nest" box setups explained?
AND if the president is going by, why would anyone take a picture of these two guys on the fifth floor?
Who took both photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/48s9VbP/Screen-Shot-2022-02-08-at-9-07-19-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/bsHqK4z)
The fact that BRW is in pretty much the same position in both photographs is a very strong indicator the pics were taken seconds, and not minutes, apart.
Is that too obvious?
Where's Harold Norman in the Powell photo?....
He can't be seen because of the angle the photo has been taken at.
Or maybe Norman has not been drawn to the window by the sound of gunshots in the Powell phot but he is alerted in the Dillard photo.
Maybe, but the point is that BRW's position in both pics strongly indicates there was only a matter of seconds between the two pics.
No, it doesn't ....... However the countenance being expressed by the expression on his face definitely reveal which photo was taken BEFORE the gun fire.....and which photo was taken AFTER the gunshots....
I’m sure this has been discussed before...
If these two photos are legit, how are the different “sniper nest" box setups explained?
AND if the president is going by, why would anyone take a picture of these two guys on the fifth floor?
Who took both photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/48s9VbP/Screen-Shot-2022-02-08-at-9-07-19-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/bsHqK4z)
Ugh. No boxes were moved. The pictures are taken from slightly different perspectives. But the truly humorous part is that there is no conceivable reason for anyone to move boxes just after assassinating the president. None. But CTers thrive in a fantasy world in which everything is potentially sinister. Even if it makes absolutely no sense from a conspiracy perspective. So again, why would anyone hang around moving boxes in the SN in the moments after the assassination? Can anyone articulate a reasonable explanation? If there is none, doesn't that further confirm it didn't happen?
If this is some kind of response to my recent posts you need to read through them again.
In Reply#114 I dismiss the notion of boxes being removed in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
The close-up of the Powell pic I posted shows the stack of boxes behind the Sniper's Perch, the stack to the far right [east] is taller than the others and there are at least two more shorter stacks to the left [west] of this tall stack. But when it comes to the photos taken as part of the investigation the stack furthest to the west is missing.
I don't view it as part of any conspiracy, just another example of the quite staggering incompetence of the investigation that took place on the 6th floor.
Ugh. No boxes were moved. The pictures are taken from slightly different perspectives.
But the truly humorous part is that there is no conceivable reason for anyone to move boxes just after assassinating the president.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxQLN5Gg/Powell-Dillard-boxes2.gif)
JohnM
We know how and why Oswald got to the second floor. He came down the stairs after assassinating JFK in an attempt to flee the building. The stairs were the only means to do so. While heading down, he heard Truly/Baker coming up and ducked into the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Now let's have the explanation as to why anyone would move the boxes around in the SN in the moments after the assassination instead of beating it while they had a chance.
We know how and why Oswald got to the second floor. He came down the stairs after assassinating JFK in an attempt to flee the building. The stairs were the only means to do so. While heading down, he heard Truly/Baker coming up and ducked into the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Now let's have the explanation as to why anyone would move the boxes around in the SN in the moments after the assassination instead of beating it while they had a chance.
It would be good to know the time sequence between the two...
Over the last several days I modeled CE510 in 3D to timestamp the image from information provided by faint shadows on the floor. The vertical window pane divider (muntin) of the western window casts a shadow intersecting a deep floor gouge-seen as white in CE510 from reflection of the flash. That deep gouge is still present in Sixth Floor Museum’s sniper’s nest exhibit. I was present last November 22 taking many photos trying time Alyea’s filming of the sniper’s rest boxes. Only by chance, I caught that muntin shadow at the same floor gouge at 13:17.
(https://i.imgur.com/WUCDnSX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/31eCBub.jpg)
Over the last several days I modeled CE510 in 3D to timestamp the image from information provided by faint shadows on the floor. The vertical window pane divider (muntin) of the western window casts a shadow intersecting a deep floor gouge-seen as white in CE510 from reflection of the flash. That deep gouge is still present in Sixth Floor Museum’s sniper’s nest exhibit. I was present last November 22 taking many photos trying time Alyea’s filming of the sniper’s rest boxes. Only by chance, I caught that muntin shadow at the same floor gouge at 13:17.
(https://i.imgur.com/WUCDnSX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/31eCBub.jpg)
While heading down, he heard Truly/Baker coming up and ducked into the 2nd floor lunchroom.
This statement would only be made by an imbecile....
It's nothing but speculation and a wild imagination.... Rooted in a hatred for the vile villain presented by the police.
Let me ask .... Mr "Smith" If your scenario was true....and Lee heard foot steps on the stairs and assumed those sounds were from someone COMMING UP the stairs ......HOW would Lee have known the sounds were the footsteps of a police officer??
Second question Mr idiot..... Why would Lee have ducked into the lunchroom rather than fled through the office area??
We know how and why Oswald got to the second floor. He came down the stairs after assassinating JFK in an attempt to flee the building. The stairs were the only means to do so. While heading down, he heard Truly/Baker coming up and ducked into the 2nd floor lunchroom.
100% speculation based on assumptions not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
While heading down, he heard Truly/Baker coming up and ducked into the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Pathetic. None of the people on the 5th and 4th floor hear anybody coming down the stairs and Truly and Baker don't hear anybody on those extremely noisy wooden steps either but Oswald hears Truly and Baker coming up.
Do you understand how infantile this "reasoning" is?
What is with the endless personal insults? Get a grip on yourself.
The table shows the sun position from 12:20-12:40. Azimuth changes almost 6 degrees over this short time span, while altitude changes very little. The animation simulates a view similar to Powell’s view. There is no noticeable change in the window shadow over this time period. I don’t know why there is an apparent difference between Dillard and Powell, but it is not due to sun position the best I can tell.
Please take a look at the Powell and Dillard photos of the face of the TSBD ( they are posted in the thread " Are These Photos Legit"
The horizontal shadow being cast by the window above BRW head tells us which photo ( Dillard or Powell ) was taken first....
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxQLN5Gg/Powell-Dillard-boxes2.gif)
JohnM
Maybe Ten-Watt is using this scan of the Powell slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Picture_35~0.jpg)
It has a lot of diffusion in the white areas, making the strip above Williams appear to be thicker. The windows and white trim on the shaded side of the building have a glow.
This one not so much glare in the white areas:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/TSBD%2B%28Uncropped%2BPowell%2BPhoto%29.jpg)
This Allen photo, taken after both Dillard and Powell, show little change in the window strip that was above Williams in the Dillard photo.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184810/m1/1/high_res/)
Maybe Ten-Watt is using this scan of the Powell slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Picture_35~0.jpg)
It has a lot of diffusion in the white areas, making the strip above Williams appear to be thicker. The windows and white trim on the shaded side of the building have a glow.
This one not so much glare in the white areas:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/TSBD%2B%28Uncropped%2BPowell%2BPhoto%29.jpg)
This Allen photo, taken after both Dillard and Powell, show little change in the window strip that was above Williams in the Dillard photo.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184810/m1/1/high_res/)
And still no answer from the contrarian brothers as to why anyone would be moving boxes around after the assassination. Continued deflection.
Endless insults is right!.... Why do you continue to insult people with your utter nonsense ?.....Even a little kid would know that some of the stuff you present is utter rubbish.....and yet you apparently think we are all so stupid that we would believe your BS. Now that's a real insult....
Can you show us a photo that shows no assassin in the 6th floor window at 12:30? That is apparently your standard of proof despite having at least six different witness who confirmed a person in that window at the moment of the assassination along with fired bullet casings found by that window. You suggest, however, that a photo is necessary to prove this. The same mislogic applies to any claim that there was no one in the window at that moment. So we await your photo.
Can you show us a photo that shows no assassin in the 6th floor window at 12:30?
That is apparently your standard of proof despite having at least six different witness who confirmed a person in that window at the moment of the assassination
Maybe Ten-Watt is using this scan of the Powell slide:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Picture_35~0.jpg)
It has a lot of diffusion in the white areas, making the strip above Williams appear to be thicker. The windows and white trim on the shaded side of the building have a glow.
This one not so much glare in the white areas:
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/TSBD%2B%28Uncropped%2BPowell%2BPhoto%29.jpg)
This Allen photo, taken after both Dillard and Powell, show little change in the window strip that was above Williams in the Dillard photo.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184810/m1/1/high_res/)
The table shows the sun position from 12:20-12:40. Azimuth changes almost 6 degrees over this short time span, while altitude changes very little. The animation simulates a view similar to Powell’s view. There is no noticeable change in the window shadow over this time period. I don’t know why there is an apparent difference between Dillard and Powell, but it is not due to sun position the best I can tell.
(https://i.imgur.com/QJ7AeYf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GWliPzb.gif)
I’m sure this has been discussed before...
If these two photos are legit, how are the different “sniper nest" box setups explained?
AND if the president is going by, why would anyone take a picture of these two guys on the fifth floor?
Who took both photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/48s9VbP/Screen-Shot-2022-02-08-at-9-07-19-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/bsHqK4z)
I was referencing the two OP photos taken just after the assassination. There is no conceivable reason for anyone to have moved some boxes between those photos in the moments after the assassination. No one has articulated any such explanation.
In terms of the investigation, the 6th floor was full of boxes. The DPD no doubt moved some items in their search for evidence. I'm not sure that is incompetence given that they had to search the building to figure out what had happened. Maybe it would be done differently today but we also have six decades of hindsight to criticize. They were working blind in the moment.
I don't see anything they did as influencing the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin. When all is said and done, Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene. Fired bullet casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired.
Can you show us a photo that shows no assassin in the 6th floor window at 12:30?
Yes!! It's the Dillard Photo , and it's been posted hundreds of times...... The problem with the Powell / Dillard photos is:.... Folks simply will not believe their eyes....
Tom Dillard snapped the photo DURING the shooting ( the first shot got his attention , just as the first shot alerted officer Marrion Baker ) Dillard looked up, just as Baker had looked up, and Dillard saw a man behind a fifth floor window (BRW) and he snapped the shutter. What Dillard captured on film was the FACT that there was NOBODY aiming a rifle out of that sixth floor window at that time.
I know what you were referencing.
I was referencing the same OP photos.
That BRW is pretty much in the same position in both photos strongly indicates the pics were taken seconds apart and not minutes apart.
As such, the idea that boxes were moved around in the seconds between the pictures seems nonsensical.
The second Mooney stepped into the SN and realized the shots had been fired from there, that whole area became a crime scene and should have been protected as such until the Crime Lab arrived to document and analyse the crime scene.
In a truly staggering display of investigative incompetence:
1) The SN, the barricade specifically constructed by the assassin to hide his location during the shooting, WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED/DOCUMENTED IN IT'S ORIGINAL POSITION. At least one stack of boxes had been removed before any photos were taken.
2) The Sniper's Perch, the arrangement of boxes used by the assassin to rest the rifle on, WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED/DOCUMENTED IN IT'S ORIGINAL POSITION. Instead, re-staged photographs of these boxes were entered as evidence.
3) The long paper sack supposedly used to carry the rifle in WAS NOT PHOTOGRAPHED/DOCUMENTED IN IT'S ORIGINAL POSITION. Instead, a photograph with a drawing on it of where the bag might have been was entered as evidence.
4) Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch remains WERE NOT PHOTOGRAPHED/DOCUMENTED IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION. Instead, the half-eaten piece of chicken, initially discovered on top of one of the stacks that formed the SN, was placed in the lunch sack (also initially discovered on the same stack) and moved around 25ft away, where it was stuffed down the side of a two-wheeler trolley.
There is also very strong testimonial evidence that the empty shells were moved before being photographed by the Crime Lab.
Not one piece of evidence pertaining to the location of the assassination was documented correctly. It was the murder of the President and it was the worst investigation possible.
You might put this down to it being the 1960's, but to imagine there weren't certain standards and protocols in place regarding the investigation of a homicide, during the '60's, demonstrates a massive amount of naivety on your behalf.
It is possibly the worst, most staggeringly incompetent investigation of a murder I have ever heard of. That you can brush it off so easily says a lot about you and how you view this case.
I don't see anything they did as influencing the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin
Of course you don't, you're a zealot. You are completely blinkered to anything that challenge your spoon-fed beliefs.
When all is said and done, Oswald's rifle was left at the crime scene.
What a perfect way to frame someone.
That BRW is pretty much in the same position in both photos strongly indicates the pics were taken seconds apart and not minutes apart.
"That BRW is pretty much in the same position in both photos "
Doesn't this seem odd to you? Is it possible that BRW was added to the Powell photo? The shadows indicate that the Powell and Dillard photo were taken minutes a part.....The sun doesn't lie.... But men do.
The table shows the sun position from 12:20-12:40. Azimuth changes almost 6 degrees over this short time span, while altitude changes very little. The animation simulates a view similar to Powell’s view. There is no noticeable change in the window shadow over this time period. I don’t know why there is an apparent difference between Dillard and Powell, but it is not due to sun position the best I can tell.
(https://i.imgur.com/QJ7AeYf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GWliPzb.gif)
That BRW is pretty much in the same position in both photos strongly indicates the pics were taken seconds apart and not minutes apart.
"That BRW is pretty much in the same position in both photos "
Doesn't this seem odd to you? Is it possible that BRW was added to the Powell photo? The shadows indicate that the Powell and Dillard photo were taken minutes a part.....The sun doesn't lie.... But men do.
Well, we know you lie. In this case, you're continuing to cherry-pick and use (even after it's been pointed out to you) the light-infused fuzzy version of the Powell photo to make your false claim the Powell photo shows the sunlit portion of the window frame above BRW significantly larger. Anything goes if it's in-service of your wider fantasy of a LBJ/Hoover assassination coup.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=11Kbz940DVCY15-YKNLomwBrci6oy2cze)
Years ago, I thought there might be a detectable change in the shadow on the fire escape (Powell photo on bottom).
Well, we know you lie. In this case, you're continuing to cherry-pick and use (even after it's been pointed out to you) the light-infused fuzzy version of the Powell photo to make your false claim the Powell photo shows the sunlit portion of the window frame above BRW significantly larger. Anything goes if it's in-service of your wider fantasy of a LBJ/Hoover assassination coup.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=11Kbz940DVCY15-YKNLomwBrci6oy2cze)
Years ago, I thought there might be a detectable change in the shadow on the fire escape (Powell photo on bottom).
[ quote]
Well, we know you lie.
I do not lie about anything in this case... I believe that lying is self defeating. If I lie about some aspect of this case just to satisfy my ego and I convince someone that the lie is the truth...then that person may form a distorted picture that warps the true picture.
I'm sure that I have made mistakes and formed distorted images of the case.... But I do not lie.
(https://i.ibb.co/y4sjtkd/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
The non-glare Powell photo shows more-defined shapes. You can see the box on the window sill has a small amount of its corner visible in the open window. Boxes behind the window sill are in the stack that was two feet back from the interior wall.
My model doesn't have the back stack exact. I have no real measurements.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/TSBD%2B%28Uncropped%2BPowell%2BPhoto%29.jpg)
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184815/m1/1/high_res/)
Studying the earliest photos I can find of the back "wall" of boxes that form the Sniper's Nest and am having problems understanding what I'm seeing.
Any thoughts would be helpful.
In the Powell close-up below there is a distinctive tall stack to the right and at least two (if not three) shorter stacks to the left.
The top box of the tall stack appears to be resting on a box that is jutting a bit further out:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCJR26vc/SNPOWELL.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In the Dillard close-up below, again we see the tall stack to the right and we can just about make out the corner of a shorter stack to the left just peeking above the sill in the east window.
This more front-on shot suggests there are only two shorter stacks to the left of the tall stack [it must be remembered that in all subsequent Crime Lab pics there is only one stack to the left of the tall stack. At least one stack has been removed IMO]:
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXcmytDf/SNDILLARD.png) (https://postimages.org/)
However, in the Murray close-up below the box on top of the tall stack appears to be missing.
This pic was thought to have been taken at 12:42pm, little more than ten minutes after the assassination and at least 15 minutes before the SN is "officially" discovered:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYWbJzMy/SNMURRAY.png) (https://postimages.org/)pictures upload (https://postimages.org/)
Am I seeing this correctly?
If so, how could that top box have gone missing?
Have come across my first glaring error regarding my analysis of the SN "wall".
The answer to the question - "Am I seeing this correctly?" - is a big NO.
It's to do with the quality of the pictures I've relied on to make my assumptions.
On the Ed Forum I came across a far superior version of the Dillard pic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/sx5Cgnh6/SNDILLARDclear.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
This version shows that the top box of the large stack is partially in shadow and is, in fact, far wider than I'd first assumed.
So, in the Powell image, the top box, which I'd assumed to be in full light, is only part of the top box (the rest being in shadow).
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCJR26vc/SNPOWELL.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It now appears there is only one stack to the left of the large stack and that is what is shown in the subsequent Crime Lab pics. My assumption a stack had been before the Crime Lab pics were taken is wrong.
LATER EDIT:
Hold the phone a second!
Just came across this Groden scan of the Powell pic on the Ed Forum:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GmRBxV3Q/SNDILLARDGRODENSCAN.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Here we see the large stack, partially in shadow.
A stack to the left, then a clear dividing line between this stack and another stack to the left, which is only partially shown as it is cut off by the window frame.
However, this last stack to the left doesn't appear to be in the Dillard pic!
Back to square one.