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.
As I was saying to Jerry, I'm having trouble locating a good image representing the shooter that day.
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.
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.
More to come.
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.