I have to tread somewhat tentatively here for a couple of reasons:
a) My knowledge of rifles is minimal, I've never even held one let alone fired one. So there is a certain amount of guesswork going on.
b) What I'm going to point out is so obvious, it must have been brought up by someone researching the subject. It seems almost impossible this has gone under the radar for decades, which makes me think it must have been dismissed as an argument already but I just didn't get the memo.
So here goes nothing...
The telescopic sight on the Mannlicher Carcano purported to be Oswald's assassination weapon, is fitted on the left hand side of the rifle.
As I understand it, this makes it a rifle set-up for a right-hander. This doesn't necessarily mean the shooter was right-handed, just that he fired the rifle right-handed. This means his left hand would grip the stock, the rifle butt against his right shoulder and his right hand on the trigger. The shooter would lower his right eye to the scope and as he did so his head would tilt to the right.
This is the important part to remember, that the assassin's head would tilt to the right as head lined up the shot.
It's important to remember because there is first-hand eyewitness testimony that, at the time of the shots, the assassin tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.
On another thread I posted a list of the available evidence about who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination and that all the evidence points away from Oswald as being the assassin. One of the pieces of evidence is the testimony of Amos Euins. Over and over again young Amos insists the shooter had a "bald spot" on his head, he must say it about seven or eight times. Not a receding hairline - a distinctive bald spot - which is something Oswald didn't have. It's something I've mentioned many times but never really thought about how Amos could see a bald spot on top of the head of someone stood on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. From his viewpoint, looking up to the Sniper's Nest, there is no way he could see the top of the assassin's head.
At this point in his testimony Euin's is describing watching the assassin as he fired at the motorcade:
Mr. Specter: All right. Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were you looking then?
Mr. Euins: I was still down here, looking up at the building.
Mr. Specter: What did you see in the building?
Mr. Euins: I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.
He describes the assassin holding the rifle as he was shooting and that he could see the bald spot on his head because the assassin was "trying to look out the window". But what does that mean? Later on in the testimony, Euins is more specific:
Mr. Specter: Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. Euins: All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter: Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins: Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
During this part of his testimony Euins is explaining that he could see the assassin's bald spot because he "had his head something like this". Obviously we can't see what action he was performing but Specter clarifies it - "Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle", to which Euins replies affirmatively - "Yes, sir".
Euins is saying that he could see the bald spot on the assassins head because, as the assassin lined up the shot and brought his head down to the rifle, he tilted his head, exposing the bald spot on top of it for Euins to see.
If you think about Euins, think about him stood across from the TSBD building looking up at the 6th floor and think about the direction the assassin was shooting in, it becomes very clear that, in order for the assassin to have exposed the bald spot on his head to Euins as he lined up the shot, it must be the case that the shooter tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.
If the is the case, we know for a fact that the weapon being used was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor, as this was set up for a right-handed shooter whose head would have tilted away from Euins at the time of the shooting.
And if it wasn't the Mannlicher Carcano being used as the assassination weapon then we have a conspiracy!
If we return to Euins' testimony from earlier he describes seeing the rifle laying across the shooter's hands and being able to see "his hand sticking out on the trigger part". Elsewhere in his testimony he describes seeing "the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window."
If the assassin were right handed, this much of the rifle would have been obscured from Euins' viewpoint as it would have been hidden on the other side of the assassin's body. The only reason Euins could see so much of the rifle is because the assassin was left-handed and the rifle was on the side of his body facing Euins.
If everything I'm saying is correct then we have first-hand eyewitness testimony proving the assassination weapon was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. This fact alone would prove there was a conspiracy.
(https://cdn.athlonoutdoors.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/04/7-Solid-Southpaws-Best-Long-Guns-for-Lefties-_-Rifle-Roundup-9.jpg)
Left-handed using scope. The area where the trigger-guard housing would be is visible no matter which side the shooter was on. The only area for a "bald spot" to be visible from below, as Euins was, is the left side of the temple. Oswald had a receding hairline.
Doesn't Euins say at one point it was a white spot? By "bald" I believe he meant the area of the spot was reflective because it was hairless.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where your
hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
The scope on the Carcano is mounted offset to the left for a couple of practical reasons completely unrelated to the handedness of the shooter. Carcano's are fed using a Mannlicher style en-block clip system. Bullets are held in a stamped sheet metal clip, which is then inserted as a unit all the way down into magazine from the top. If you mount a scope in the usual location, directly above the receiver, the scope will prevent the clip of ammunition from being inserted into the magazine. No bueno. You have to offset the scope to one side to avoid this. You can't offset the scope to the right. The rifle ejects spent cases up and to the right, and the scope will be in the way of this necessary action. So, on Carcanos, the scope must be offset to the left no matter what.
Also, mounting the scope to the left wound cause the tilt of a right-handed shooter's head to decrease, not increase, which is what I think you're trying to imply.
Specter has Euins clarify the extent of the "bald spot":
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
If the bald spot extended back to a point 2 1/2 inches above Euins' hairline, then it has to be a receding hairline rather than a male-pattern bald patch at the crown. Unless you want to argue that the assassin wore a tonsor. In that case, your suspect probably retreated to a safe-monastary, most likely the Cistercian one in Irving.
I dont' think the pic you have used of the rifleman is a very good representation of what was going on that day.
In your pic the right arm is held downwards which is what allows the trigger-guard housing to be visible no matter which side the shooter is being viewed from.
I think the picture below is a more 'realistic' representation of the situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/q70srqyg/Screenshot-300-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously, this picture is representing Oswald as a right-handed shooter.
Because of the box the arm supporting the rifle under the barrel, is now flattened out, obscuring the trigger-guard housing.
Not to mention the box itself which is also obscuring a lot of the rifle from a viewpoint on the street below.
If the shooter in this pic were using the rifle left-handed there would be no arm obscuring the trigger-guard housing and, apart from a portion of the stock, the whole rifle would be readily visible to someone in the street below.
Just to note, a bald spot and a receding hairline are two completely different things and I don't think it's up to you to decide what the witness is saying. Let the witness do that.
Euins indicates an area behind his own hairline. This is what a bald spot is, an area without hair somewhere behind a persons hairline.
I dont' think the pic you have used of the rifleman is a very good representation of what was going on that day.
In your pic the right arm is held downwards which is what allows the trigger-guard housing to be visible no matter which side the shooter is being viewed from.
I think the picture below is a more 'realistic' representation of the situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/q70srqyg/Screenshot-300-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Obviously, this picture is representing Oswald as a right-handed shooter.
Because of the box the arm supporting the rifle under the barrel, is now flattened out, obscuring the trigger-guard housing.
Not to mention the box itself which is also obscuring a lot of the rifle from a viewpoint on the street below.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/SN.jpg) | (http://www.kbrhorse.net/sigpics2/jfk05.jpg) Above: Using a modified Carcano Cavalry in "JFK: The Smoking Gun" (2013). Below: Arm gripping stock will drop, too. (https://cdn.athlonoutdoors.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2014/04/7-Solid-Southpaws-Best-Long-Guns-for-Lefties-_-Rifle-Roundup-9.jpg) |
I understand what you're saying about the offset scope negating the need to tilt the head to the right, but what I'm implying is that a person using the Mannlicher Carcano would not tilt their head to the left when using it. You must surely agree with that.
As I said to Jerry, it's not up to you to decide what the witness is 'really' saying and, as I said, Euins points to an area behind his own hairline, which is what a bald spot is.
But let's for arguments sake, say that he is referring to a receding hairline. The point Euins was making was that this feature only became visible when the shooter was looking "down the rifle". Because we know the orientation of Euins in respect to the shooter and the direction the shooter was pointing the rifle in, this can only mean that the bald spot/receding hairline became visible when the assassin tilted his head to the left.
This rules out the Mannlicher Carcano as the assassination weapon.
So, you start the whole shebang off by preemptively demanding that when Euins used the term "bald spot", he could have only meant a circular patch at the crown. Then you chide Jerry and I for "decid[ing]what the witness is 'really' saying". Immediately after which, you follow up by telling us what Euins "really" said. I assume that you don't see the glaring problem with your line of argument here.
You then take Euins' answer to Specter's question out of context trying to prove your point. When Euins pointed to a location above his hairline, it was in response to Specter's question, "How far back did the bald spot on his head go? When answering the question "how far back does it extend?" the measuring begins from the front.
So, you start the whole shebang off by preemptively demanding that when Euins used the term "bald spot", he could have only meant a circular patch at the crown.
There you go again. Dan didn't say anything about a circular patch at the crown.
They wouldn't tilt their head much one way or the other. Jerry's photo does a good job of showing that. And not enough to make something suddenly appear or disappear.
So, you start the whole shebang off by preemptively demanding that when Euins used the term "bald spot", he could have only meant a circular patch at the crown. Then you chide Jerry and I for "decid[ing]what the witness is 'really' saying". Immediately after which, you follow up by telling us what Euins "really" said. I assume that you don't see the glaring problem with your line of argument here.
You then take Euins' answer to Specter's question out of context trying to prove your point. When Euins pointed to a location above his hairline, it was in response to Specter's question, "How far back did the bald spot on his head go? When answering the question "how far back does it extend?" the measuring begins from the front.
Finally, you appear to assume that when Euins describes the rifleman tilting his head, it must either be left or right. It doesn't seem to occur to you that Euins meant that the mans head was tilted forwards. That latter is what he appears to describe:
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Finally, you say that "the point Euins was making was that this feature only became visible when the shooter was looking 'down the rifle.'" I don't see where he indicates that "this feature only became visible" because of anything. Where does he say this?
You must surely be talking about the picture Charles posted. Jerry posted a pic that i didn't think represented the situation on the 6th floor, so I posted a picture recreating the situation in the SN, which I felt was a more realistic representation of the situation. Unsurprisingly, Jerry disagreed and posted the picture of the rifle on the tripod. It was even more unrealistic than the first pic he posted!
You must surely be talking about the picture Charles posted. Jerry posted a pic that i didn't think represented the situation on the 6th floor, so I posted a picture recreating the situation in the SN, which I felt was a more realistic representation of the situation. Unsurprisingly, Jerry disagreed and posted the picture of the rifle on the tripod. It was even more unrealistic than the first pic he posted!
I assume you agree that someone using the MC found on the 6th floor wouldn't have to tilt their head to the left.
Some people tilt their head when firing a rifle and some don't.
The first picture showed a man with his head on the right side of the rifle. It was to visualize what I thought your OP was describing. Of course there's no boxes, window frame, or camera angle identical to Euins.
You then posted a photo of a gunman with his rifle resting on top of the boxes. He's not aiming and I guess he's trying to trick-shoot at passing ducks. The tripod picture I posted was merely to show that some angling of the rifle was required. The man in the picture would have to bring his eye near to the scope or sights to reenact a firing position. So I posted a smaller picture of a man holding and aiming a Carcano model rifle.
So far, your pictures show a gunman using the boxes by having a rifle resting on the top of the box so he can be "looking down" on it. This is "realistic" to you. Your other picture show some unrelated guy in the parking lot with a sun glint on his slicked hair (popular then because of people like Dean Martin and Desi Arnez).
I meant the photo Jerry posted in reply #1. Whether or not Jerry posted it or Charles posted it, the photo shows someone using correct form: the rifle's butt against the shoulder and the supporting arm properly bent. The photo Charles posted shows the presumably-Oswald doing the same thing. The image you posted shows an actor holding the rifle with the butt against his chest and the forestock lying on a box. That's unbelievably awful technique. But really, it's just a publicity still from a work of fiction, and has no purpose here.
I agree that non one shooting any rifle would be tilting their head so much that a "bald" spot that wouldn't normally appear suddenly would. That's about it.
More to come.
You seem to be under the impression it's enough for you to simply state this opinion and "that's about it".
As far as an approach to research is concerned I would have to say that's an unbelievably awful technique.
As I was saying to Jerry, I'm having trouble locating a good image representing the shooter that day.
Euins' testimony is of tremendous importance.
He was an eye-witness watching the shooter as the assassination was in progress.
Part of his testimony concerns a white bald spot on the shooter's head that becomes visible to Euins because the shooter is holding his head in a certain way as he is looking down the rifle, that is to say, while he is taking aim.
The only plausible interpretation (IMO) of this testimony is that the shooter is tilting his head to the left as he is taking aim, during the shooting.
The importance of this is that it rules out the MC as the assassination weapon,
But you don't think someone would be tilting their head enough to reveal a bald spot.
You ignore Euins' testimony because you think something different.
You don't even attempt to demonstrate why this is not possible.
You seem to be under the impression it's enough for you to simply state this opinion and "that's about it".
As far as an approach to research is concerned I would have to say that's an unbelievably awful technique.
Hmmmm...
I think you've made yourself pretty clear in terms of your approach to Euins' testimony.
It might be a case of less is more.
Here's a photo showing Euins pointing at the sniper's window from what appears to me to be his location at the time of the shooting. I have flipped the photo horizontally (similar to a mirror image) and tilted it 17-degrees in order to have the image of Euins simulate the position of a shooter in the sixth floor window looking towards the limo at the head shot. If you will notice, the camera's position places Euins' head inline with the sixth floor windows. Therefore the camera has to be on the same line (which defines the angle of elevation) that Euins viewed the shooting from. In other words, the camera angle shows Euins' head at the same angle that Euins would have seen the shooter from. Now, if you have followed so far, I think that it is pretty obvious that if Euins had a typical male pattern bald spot on the top of his head, that it would not be visible from the camera's angle.
(https://i.vgy.me/GpgyMs.png)
Some of us have 3D models of the sniper's nest, etc. and can simulate the same thing using a 3-D model. One of the limitations is that the 3D models of the human figures are static in their positions and manipulating one into a position of firing a rifle would not be feasible. Therefore, I think that the photo of LHO on the firing range (that I posted earlier in this thread) shows that the position of the head would be close to vertical (left to right) and tilted forward basically at the 17-degrees involved with the location of the limo at that point in time. And this is what I attempted to show with the tilted photo of Euins as described above.
Excellent point Charles and well presented.
Yes, I would have to agree "that if Euins had a typical male pattern bald spot on the top of his head, that it would not be visible from the camera's angle."
However, the point I'm making regarding Euins' testimony is that the bald spot becomes visible because the shooter is holding his head in a certain way while taking aim down the rifle. In the pic you have posted, how far do you think Euins would need to tilt his head before his imaginary bald spot became visible? As much as this guy?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJkgZm7b/Screenshot-306-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/YScNdMv7/Screenshot-307-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I think it's fairly obvious that if Euins had his head tilted as much as this guy, a bald spot on the top of his head would become clearly visible.
You must surely agree with that.
I cannot believe how difficult it is to get an image that accurately represents someone taking a shot from the SN.
It's one of the more important historical moments of recent times and the key moment is the actual taking of the shots.
Charles’s “bald spot” is unusually small, symmetrical, and off-center.
Okay, I caught myself not accounting for the height of Amos Euins. I really don't know his actual height, so for this purpose I chose 5'5". I think that is being generous for this 14-year old teenager. Accordingly the elevation angle re-computed equals 24.65-degrees instead of the 26-degrees I stated earlier. This works in the favor of (increasing the possibility) of seeing a typical male-pattern bald spot.
Here's the setup:
This is from an angle well above, but inline with the limo at Z313. You can see that the head is tilted down at about 17-degrees towards the target and is tilted to it's left approximately 21-degrees. On the floor below the head are a string and a square that is used to determine the 50-degrees angle that goes toward Euins' position (which is represented by the center of the top of the back of the shair).
(https://i.vgy.me/nTa5sx.jpg)
In this next photo you can see the elevation angle to Euins' position (24.65-degrees) as the crosshair of the laser is on the center of the top of the back of the chair.
(https://i.vgy.me/bLezv0.jpg)
And in this photo, from just above the center of the top of the back of the chair (aka: a point on a line at the same angle as the angle between the sixth floor window and Euins' position) you can see that the blue "bald spot" isn't visible from this angle.
(https://i.vgy.me/tPtUXE.jpg)
It appears to me that a typical male-pattern bald spot would not have been seen by Amos Euins from his location. The blue bald spot I used is about 1-3/4" in diameter. This seems to me to be typical of what would be called a bald spot. If you have any questions or anything else, please let me know.
As it stands Charles, it's hats off to you.
Everything you've proposed seems fair enough and it has definitely given me pause for thought.
I'd like to check some things out and, if I feel I have a plausible alternative, I'd like to put it forward.
Until then, bravo...this is proper research, someone getting off their arse and testing things out. Thumb1:
Okay, I caught myself not accounting for the height of Amos Euins. I really don't know his actual height, so for this purpose I chose 5'5". I think that is being generous for this 14-year old teenager. Accordingly the elevation angle re-computed equals 24.65-degrees instead of the 26-degrees I stated earlier. This works in the favor of (increasing the possibility) of seeing a typical male-pattern bald spot.
Here's the setup:
This is from an angle well above, but inline with the limo at Z313. You can see that the head is tilted down at about 17-degrees towards the target and is tilted to it's left approximately 21-degrees. On the floor below the head are a string and a square that is used to determine the 50-degrees angle that goes toward Euins' position (which is represented by the center of the top of the back of the shair).
(https://i.vgy.me/nTa5sx.jpg)
In this next photo you can see the elevation angle to Euins' position (24.65-degrees) as the crosshair of the laser is on the center of the top of the back of the chair.
(https://i.vgy.me/bLezv0.jpg)
And in this photo, from just above the center of the top of the back of the chair (aka: a point on a line at the same angle as the angle between the sixth floor window and Euins' position) you can see that the blue "bald spot" isn't visible from this angle.
(https://i.vgy.me/tPtUXE.jpg)
It appears to me that a typical male-pattern bald spot would not have been seen by Amos Euins from his location. The blue bald spot I used is about 1-3/4" in diameter. This seems to me to be typical of what would be called a bald spot. If you have any questions or anything else, please let me know.
Hey Charles, a very impressive experimental design and execution.
I dug out a previous model of the shooter as I perceived him positioned in the sniper’s nest based on the Alyea film. Obviously there are an almost infinite amount of articulations possible and this represents one. I used a head tilt of 15 degrees and sideways lean of 15 degrees to his right. From Euins’ viewpoint the window sash obscures the top of the head. The animation below increases the head forward tilt from 15 to 45 degrees. At 45 degrees the model predicts the receding hairline would be viewable to Euins. The simulation was made for circa Z223. Can you with your setup tilt the head in such a fashion and draw a conclusion? This modeling scenario does not predict what I think Euins may be calling a “blind spot”. However...
I recall from Gerald Posner’s writing in Case Closed the recollections of Euins in 1992.
From Gerald Posner’s Case Closed page 246
Interview with Amos Lee Euins, January 19, 1992
“Another witness who had a clear view of the sniper’s nest was fifteen-year-old Amos Lee Euins. He was small for his age, and someone had lifted him atop a concrete pedestal by the reflection pool across the street from the Depository. “I could see everything,” he says109. “I saw what I thought was a pipe,” Euins told the author. “I saw it ahead of time. It looked like a dark metal pipe hanging from the window, and it was an old building, so I figured, ‘Hey, it’s got a pipe hanging off it.’ I never realized it was a gun until the shooting started.”110 Then he jumped off the pedestal and looked up at the sixth-floor window. He saw “the rifle laying across in his hand, and I could see his hand on the trigger part.”111 After the third shot, Euins remembered the sniper “pulled the gun back in the window.” While he could not describe the shooter, he ran to a policeman and told him what he saw.”
This would be the west pedestal of the reflection pool, where we see a young man sitting in the Martin, Bell and Dorman films. A view from that position is similar to that from the east pedestal but includes the sun struck west pipe (conduit). A blind spot? Very curious.
The animation shows the view from the east pedestal on top with Posner’s Euins view below.
(https://i.imgur.com/43GMwvs.gif)
I just reviewed Euins’ WC testimony and did not find a reference of “blind spot”. That was a long ago misconception of mine where he talks about both bald spots and white spots. I wondered if the white spot was some solar reflection, different than the bald spot he described.
Thanks James, I was hoping you might present a demonstration from your 3D virtual model. As usual it is well done, thanks! I read Posner’s book but it has been many years ago. The west pedestal potential location for Euins is interesting. I need to take another look at the films you cited.
Can you with your setup tilt the head in such a fashion and draw a conclusion?
Sure, I will be happy to. Let me get the details straight. You are asking for me to use the styrofoam head setup using the angles for head tilt (45-degrees?), head lean (to the shooter’s right), and angles for Euins’ position at the west pedestal? I can do multiple angles to include the east pedestal if desired. Just let me know.
I just reviewed Euins’ WC testimony and did not find a reference of “blind spot”. That was a long ago misconception of mine where he talks about both bald spots and white spots. I wondered if the white spot was some solar reflection, different than the bald spot he described.
The east pedestal only, but don’t worry about that unless you or Dan think it might have value to his thread.
Hi Charles, just trying to get my head around a few things.
As part of your set-up you state:
"On the floor below the head are a string and a square that is used to determine the 50-degrees angle that goes toward Euins' position"
I'm not sure I understand what this 50-degrees is. Can you clarify.
… shooting stance.
Most of the CBS trial shooters were not using the window ledge box as a rifle rest and none were sitting on a box either.
It’s a bit curious about Euins seeing a hand on the trigger guard. Did he mean seeing a “finger” sticking “thru” the trigger?
Otherwise, it’s not clear to me how and entire hand could be seen since it’s on the opposite side of the wooden stock and obscured by the left hand holding the stock (as per the Oswald actor pose.
| (https://media.nbcnewyork.com/images/578*325/Oswald-at-DPD.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/9MMWXdNL/oswald-bald-spot.png) |
(https://images2.imgbox.com/8d/e2/351hHxxR_o.jpg)
With minimal articulation, I was able to seat this model and have him such that he was braced comfortably. The right eye is in line with the scope. I haven't articulated the hands and fingers but they're roughly where they need to be.Oswald's hairline receded more-so on the left temple, the side visible to Euins.
(https://media.nbcnewyork.com/images/578*325/Oswald-at-DPD.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/9MMWXdNL/oswald-bald-spot.png)