@MTG: the older experimental shooting using the 30ft tower and  stationary targets seems to suggest it was no easy feat what the TSBD shooter achieved ( if he is the only shooter)with a hit at Z312.

However a few of the CBS time trial shooters managed to score  2 hits ( albeit not head) in less than 6 secs.  And ONE of them ( the old engineer) seems to have scored 3 hits in 5.1 secs according to the video narrator.

However…

IDK if they really did score hits on the target or not because there was no zoomed in camera on the target to show holes appearing  nearly simultaneous with the rifle firing.

Also because they used a RED silhouette on a square black ( or dark blue) target that was on a WHITE track, the result is not quite conclusive as those things may have aided the shooters to easier track.
 
Question: Was  the ONE CBS shooter apparently scoring 3 hits in 5.1 seconds (recorded by camera firing an MC rifle and using zeroed functional scope), ever brought before the HSCA and interviewed personally or asked to repeat his shooting feat with an HSCA group of observers in real time ?

If not then at best the CBS experiment imo only proves that a person  can fire an MC rifle 3 times in less than 6 seconds.
 
Is this enough to establish that the TSBD shooter could NOT possibly have fired the MC rifle in less than 7 secs and scored a body hit at Z233 and a head shot at Z312 and in the 1…..2..3 pattern that 75% witness recall?

Given Dan O’mearas theory that the 3 shot sequence from a TSBD 6th floor shooter begins with the 1st shot as a hit at Z233 and the 2nd shot then 4.8 secs later at Z312, and then the 3rd shot could have been fired as fast as 2 secs later, if not aimed, then it IS possible to replicate the 1….2..3 pattern in 6.5 seconds.


If this assassination was a pre planned shooting to be performed by an expert solitary shooter , then choosing Dealey Plaza as arena , the TSBD 6th floor as the platform, and a moving target situation , is NOT what professional hit man ( or team) would likely do. It’s introducing too many variables.

The simple more easy way with less variables would be to select an arena where JFK is standing on a podium giving a speech. And elevation of the shooter nearly at same elevation as the podium. A single FMJ  6.5 or 7.62 bullet laced with cyanide fired at only about 1200 ft /sec velocity ( subsonic ammo) with rifle with a suppressor , would not have been heard at all.

One shot one kill, no rifle left behind , shooter has easier escape.

So if a conspiracy why did the shooter ( or2) choose  Dealey Plaza and the TSBD 6th floor ?

that’s nice, Matt.  my go-to place is Robin Unger’s photo gallery here for the best quality everything.  Robin is a class act. Thanks, Robin.

Thanks Mark.

Well, if you listen to CNN or MSLSD you think that, but the fact remains Obama gave them 1.7 billion in foreign cash plus lifted sanctions giving them another 50 billion. Sleepy Joe kept the money rolling in.

https://dailyjournal.net/2023/11/24/editorial-biden-keeps-the-billions-flowing-to-iran/

It was funds that belonged to Iran and were frozen in foreign banks due to international sanctions.
Iran followed the rules of the 2015 agreement. Regular inspections provided proof of no nuclear arms program.
Turn OFF Fox News.

I will gladly debate you on any aspect of this case.
Watching you fall to pieces will never get boring.
Now, for the record - do you believe Rowland invented his sighting of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building in the minutes leading up to the assassination?
Yes or No and we can move on to anything you would like to debate.

Debate, is this your new battle cry? Other threads you brought up debate with other posters. Your story is so weak you now have to pretend there is something to debate? How about explain Rowland answers to Specter that is what is being discussed.

Typical CT nonsense, ask some ridiculous meaningless question instead of provide an answer. What I think is immaterial.

This is all you need to concern yourself with:

You are trying to weasel word your way out of explaining Rowlands testimony. How about you man up and relate his sighting to reality.

You left the part out where Studebaker states he did not know of any. Not that is not the same as there weren’t any.

I reproduced a part of Studebaker's testimony where he specifically stated there were no other chicken bones other than the ones in the lunch sack:

Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.

Studebaker is unequivocal - no other chicken bones anywhere else.
  What is really funny - and this is so like you - you then reproduce a part of Studebaker's testimony that you believe makes him sound less sure, when in reality he is doubling down on his certainty:

Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

  You are so funny.
But it doesn't matter because you will still continue to push your wrong-headed nonsense no matter how much the evidence refutes what you are proposing.
As far as Studebaker is concerned there is only one set of lunch remains.
Remember, there are pictures of Studebaker actually inside the SN dusting boxes. To imagine he couldn't see chicken remains right on top of the boxes he was examining is so ridiculous it is totally in keeping with how you view this case.

He was being directed to them not searching for them himself.

You must cite evidence for this assertion.
What evidence do you have that Studebaker needed other detectives to do his job for him?
Or have you already started to invent things out of thin air and present them as a fact?
Remember, I've dealt with you before, Jack. I know exactly how this is going to go.

Thank you for posting the evidence from multiple first responders who discovered BRW's lunch remains on top of the SN. If, as you say, there were two sets of lunch remains, what happened to the set found on top of the SN? Where did they go? Why weren't they recorded by Studebaker or Day?
And don't just make something up like you usually do. Provide evidence for your assertions. Like I do 

As far as Studebaker is concerned there is only one set of lunch remains.
No

Remember, there are pictures of Studebaker actually inside the SN dusting boxes. To imagine he couldn't see chicken remains right on top of the boxes he was examining is so ridiculous it is totally in keeping with how you view this case.
That was his job. Dust them, not find them.
Detective Montgomery not only stated he saw them he pointed out on Exhibit J where they were located.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Mr. BALL. That's Exhibit J.


What evidence do you have that Studebaker needed other detectives to do his job for him?
Or have you already started to invent things out of thin air and present them as a fact?
Remember, I've dealt with you before, Jack. I know exactly how this is going to go.


Obviously not. His job was not as a detective but to process crime scenes.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. …………and right now I am a detective in the Crime Scene Service Section of the ID Bureau of the Dallas Police Department.
Mr. BALL. What sort of training did you have for the crime lab work that you are doing?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It's just on - the - job training - you go out with old officers and learn how to dust for prints and take pictures and fingerprints.


Mr. STUDEBAKER. We went to the entrance and they said it was on the sixth floor and we went directly to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Then, were you directed to some place on the sixth floor, as soon as you arrived there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they hadn't found anything when we got there.
Mr. BALL. After you were there a little while, did somebody find something?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. They found the empty hulls in the southeast corner of the building - they found three empty hulls and we went over there and took photographs of that.

Studebaker was told where to go as evidence was located

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; that's why, right after these were taken, they said they had found a rifle and to bring the cameras over to the northwest corner of the building where the rifle was found and I loaded everything up and carried it over there.

Studebaker is only referring to the sack used by BRW and pieces of chicken out side of BRW’s sack lunch, and not were there pieces of chicken else where on the 6th floor. Stop making things up.

Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. ST Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
Mr. BALL. Then, we will have the next picture marked Exhibit I, which shows the Dr. Pepper bottle with the two - wheeler, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir

Nobody told him, not that there weren’t any there.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.