First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy  (Read 1552 times)

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2023, 06:38:45 PM »
This is reportedly LHO at the firing range while training in the USMC:




While it isn't known for sure what position the assassin was in when he fired from the sniper's nest, I am inclined to believe that he was sitting on the box on the floor. The rolling reader boxes are relatively small and I don't believe they would interfere with the left arm position or line of sight from Euins' position to the sniper. In any case, my opinion, Euins wouldn't be able to see a typical male pattern bald spot on the top of a sniper's head from his position below (even if the shooter were shooting left handed and tilting his head to his left). The amount of tilt required is minimal and wouldn't be enough to expose the top of his head to Euins' position below. Euins reportedly said a lot of things that don't make sense or conflict with his other statements. Euins also said that he remembered another witness saying that he saw someone with a bald spot leaving the back door of the TSBD after the shots were fired. If Euins did actually overhear someone say that, he might have just latched onto that description and repeated it due to not actually having a description of his own. (Keep in mind that Euins said that he wasn't even sure whether the shooter was black or white.) I believe that Euins' position was close enough to Edwards' and Fischer's position that he might have overheard them discussing the man they saw in the window just before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza. Also, Euins might have overheard Brennan discussing what he saw or perhaps Robert Jackson riding by Euins' position in the convertible saying he saw the rifle being drawn back inside the window. No one but Euins can say for sure exactly what he saw. I am just pointing out some possibilities. One thing that I am confident in is that a bald spot on the top of the sniper's head wouldn't be visible to Euins' position while he was shooting (no matter which way his head was slightly tilted).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2023, 06:38:45 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2023, 09:40:03 PM »
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.

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.


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.

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?



Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3961
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2023, 10:40:36 PM »
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.

~Grin~

Simply extraordinary how someone can struggle with the basic meaning of the word "spot"!

A receding hairline is not a white or bald spot.

The below is an example of a white or bald spot:



 Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2023, 10:40:36 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10139
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2023, 11:18:47 PM »
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.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2023, 01:26:46 AM »
There you go again.  Dan didn't say anything about a circular patch at the crown.

That's the impression he's been giving me for the beginning. If it's not a receding hairline, as Dan argues, then there's not much left in terms of alternatives. Either it's the usual crown patch associated with male pattern baldness, or the guy was just randomly shaving patches of hair off of his head for giggles.

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2301
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2023, 10:52:23 PM »
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.

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.

Quote
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. 

I don't "preemptively demand" anything and I mentioned nothing about a "circular patch at the crown." Alan Ford has posted a picture of a man who appears to have a distinctive bald spot a few inches behind his hairline, not on the crown of his head.
I simply point out that a bald spot and a receding hairline are two different things. And they are, by definition. One is hair loss around the temple area at the hairline. The other is hair loss on top of the head, behind the hairline.
I don't "chide" anyone. I correctly point out that it is not up to you (or Jerry) to decided that Euins meant one thing when he said another.
And you're correct, I did tell you what Euins really said - bald spot. He's says the same thing time and time again. At no point does he refer to a receding hairline.
I am unaware of the problem with this line of argument. As there isn't one.
But are you aware of the problem with your line of argument?

To add to the problems with your line of argument is that Euin's describes a "white" bald spot:

"No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell."

"A white spot on his head".
Yet Euins couldn't confidently say if the man was black or white.
If he was referring to a receding hairline he would have been referring to the colour of the side of the man's face. However, if Euins couldn't see the man's face from his position and could only make out the white bald spot on top of the man's head, this would explain why he could discern the colour of the bald spot but not the man's face. Perhaps.
And, just to speculate, if the assassin shooting right handed his face in profile would have been obvious, but if he were left handed the rifle would have obscured a lot of his face.

Quote
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.

I've not taken anything out of context.
When asked how far back the bald spot went, Euins points to an area a few inches behind his own hairline. This is again confirmation that he is talking about a bald spot - a spot of baldness on the man's head somewhere behind his hairline. This is what a bald spot is.
You, on the other hand, have created a brand new context by reinterpreting Specter's question as "how far back does it extend?"

Quote
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?

The key phrase here is "looking down the rifle". Euins gives his description of the man during the shooting, as the shots were being fired. In this case the phrase "looking down the rifle" strongly indicates, to me at least, that the assassin is looking down the length of the rifle as he is aiming it at his target. I have absolutely no idea how tilting his head forwards would reveal anything to Euins who would be looking at the assassin in profile.

Quote
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?

Where does he say this?
I've already posted where he says it:

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.
Mr. Specter: How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. Euins: I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.



Euins is stating quite clearly that he could see the bald spot because the shooter had his head in a certain position while "looking down the rifle". My thinking on this is that if Euins could see the bald spot because the shooter was holding his head in a certain way while he was looking down the rifle, indicates the shooter was tilting his head to the left while he was taking aim. I can think of no other plausible explanation. Particularly as this description is given while the shooting is taking place.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2023, 10:52:23 PM »


Online Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2041
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2023, 12:46:13 AM »
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!

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).

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2023, 04:07:25 AM »
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 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 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.

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.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 08:41:26 AM by Mitch Todd »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2023, 04:07:25 AM »


 

Mobile View