Hi guys.
I want the Muchmore fi- Oh cool, a youtube link! Wait, this is just the Robert Groden dvd copy, i want a better one, what? what do you mean the only one this forum uses are bad quality interpolations and upscales? No no no.
As you may have noticed, many JFK assassination home movies (even Zapruder if you get technical enough) are not available in good quality, and many use low quality versions to support theories, which is not good, because lo-fi versions often are smushed or blurred, and NOT reliable at all, so what i decided to start doing is this topic, Me going on a quest to find the best sources, merge the 66 or more frames and restore the Marie Muchmore film from public sources, Now, a theorist with the same or similar level of tech savviness as me would contact the right holders, in this case, Associated Press or United Press International to get the high quality film, and it won't work, See, you send an e-mail, Cool, you got your hopes up, and it gets shattered to 1000ish pieces, they either won't respond or you find out the hard way that you have to be a company wanting to license the footage for documentary uses or industry uses only.  And then you lose your shi- i mean, uh, then you start looking for other ways.. I am planning on gathering and auditioning sources, and the best ones will be merged into a frame set which will be converted to a maybe prores mov? i'll see, i'm kinda new to image editing, but i'll get the hang of it.

Somebody should tell DiEugenio that just the rear exit wound alone tells you Zapruder is altered...

Exactly when did he have plenty of time to make the Sniper's Perch and assemble his rifle?

No-one mentioned anything about him building the wall. Why are you going on about that? Why not read the posts you are responding to.
The "Rolling Reader" boxes used to make the Sniper's Perch were taken from a few aisles away. Therefore, in your scenario, Oswald got these boxes and brought them to the Sniper's Nest to construct a rest for the rifle.
The long bag in the corner led the Warren Commission to speculate that Oswald took the disassembled rifle to that corner and reassemble it sat on a box by the Perch. They also concluded it took about 6 minutes to assemble the rifle.

So, when, exactly, did Oswald have all this "plenty of time" to make these preparations?

As you will see, it's very necessary for it to be established when he made these preparations.

The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)