When the SN was built


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: When the SN was built  (Read 15580 times)

Offline Alan Ford

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4756
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #304 on: February 23, 2023, 05:32:40 PM »

It is difficult for me to believe that Arnold Rowland made everything up. He got the basic descriptions mostly correct (if he saw LHO).

Says it all really...............

 ::)




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #304 on: February 23, 2023, 05:32:40 PM »


Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #305 on: March 19, 2023, 01:31:45 AM »
Viewing some of Mr.Collinsís computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle thatís in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

It seemed to me that because of the way the scope was hardly perceptible in the BYP as close as about 10 ft away, that it would be even far less likely to be seen from 140 ft away as per where Rowland was approximately , from the TSBD , when he caught a brief sighting of the SW window gunman.

But then, as I was amused by Mr. Collins depiction of the SW gunman wearing black suit and tie,  it occurred to me that perhaps if the gunman was wearing a very light shirt that the shape of the rifle and scope would be more distinct due to the contrast of dark rifle held diagonally against a much lighter background.
( ie: a light or white shirt)

My error viewing the BYP was that Oswald was wearing a DARK shirt, which DOES  make the scope difficult to see, and I erroneously made a mistake in reasoning that the scope was therefore probably not likely to have been discernible from a distance of 140 ft.

So Now I have reconsidered that the scope of the MC rifle  COULD  probably have been seen from 140 ft distance, and that Rowland seeing the SHAPE of the whole rifle , noticed the scope, and that he made an approximation in describing the rifle as appearing like a 30.06 hunting rifle.

However, Iím not certain if the contrast of a light Khaki shirt would be as much contrast as a white T-shirt, and since the eye witness Brennan and Euins do not state seeing a white shirt, then there may be some doubt about my newest revelation :)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #306 on: March 19, 2023, 05:08:28 AM »
Viewing some of Mr.Collinsís computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle thatís in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

It seemed to me that because of the way the scope was hardly perceptible in the BYP as close as about 10 ft away, that it would be even far less likely to be seen from 140 ft away as per where Rowland was approximately , from the TSBD , when he caught a brief sighting of the SW window gunman.

But then, as I was amused by Mr. Collins depiction of the SW gunman wearing black suit and tie,  it occurred to me that perhaps if the gunman was wearing a very light shirt that the shape of the rifle and scope would be more distinct due to the contrast of dark rifle held diagonally against a much lighter background.
( ie: a light or white shirt)

My error viewing the BYP was that Oswald was wearing a DARK shirt, which DOES  make the scope difficult to see, and I erroneously made a mistake in reasoning that the scope was therefore probably not likely to have been discernible from a distance of 140 ft.

So Now I have reconsidered that the scope of the MC rifle  COULD  probably have been seen from 140 ft distance, and that Rowland seeing the SHAPE of the whole rifle , noticed the scope, and that he made an approximation in describing the rifle as appearing like a 30.06 hunting rifle.

However, Iím not certain if the contrast of a light Khaki shirt would be as much contrast as a white T-shirt, and since the eye witness Brennan and Euins do not state seeing a white shirt, then there may be some doubt about my newest revelation :)

Rowland stood about 280' away from the man in the Depository.



He estimated the distance at nearly half that.

     Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the distance
          between where you were standing and the man holding
          the rifle whom you have just described?
     Mr. ROWLAND - 150 feet approximately, very possibly more.
          I don't know for sure.
     Mr. SPECTER - Are you very good at judging distances of
          that sort?
     Mr. ROWLAND - Fairly good.
     Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any experience or practice at
          judging such distances?
     Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. Even in using the method in physics or,
          you know, elementary physics of looking at a position in
          two different views, you can tell its distance. I did that 
          quite frequently. And the best I can recollect it was within
          150 to 175 feet.

Rather than leaving it at a good-faith estimate, Rowland had to pepper the details to inflate his intelligence. A recent example is Donald Trump.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #306 on: March 19, 2023, 05:08:28 AM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3413
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #307 on: March 19, 2023, 10:25:53 AM »
Viewing some of Mr.Collinsís computer images inadvertently gave me some insight into a possible answer to one a question: How could Arnold Rowland see a scope like the MC rifle thatís in the Back Yard photo (BYP) appearing to be held by Oswald, from 140 ft away when the scope is barely discernible in the Back Yard photo at distance of only approx 10 ft away?

It seemed to me that because of the way the scope was hardly perceptible in the BYP as close as about 10 ft away, that it would be even far less likely to be seen from 140 ft away as per where Rowland was approximately , from the TSBD , when he caught a brief sighting of the SW window gunman.

But then, as I was amused by Mr. Collins depiction of the SW gunman wearing black suit and tie,  it occurred to me that perhaps if the gunman was wearing a very light shirt that the shape of the rifle and scope would be more distinct due to the contrast of dark rifle held diagonally against a much lighter background.
( ie: a light or white shirt)

My error viewing the BYP was that Oswald was wearing a DARK shirt, which DOES  make the scope difficult to see, and I erroneously made a mistake in reasoning that the scope was therefore probably not likely to have been discernible from a distance of 140 ft.

So Now I have reconsidered that the scope of the MC rifle  COULD  probably have been seen from 140 ft distance, and that Rowland seeing the SHAPE of the whole rifle , noticed the scope, and that he made an approximation in describing the rifle as appearing like a 30.06 hunting rifle.

However, Iím not certain if the contrast of a light Khaki shirt would be as much contrast as a white T-shirt, and since the eye witness Brennan and Euins do not state seeing a white shirt, then there may be some doubt about my newest revelation :)




Yes, a contrast between the background and the subject makes a big difference. Here is an example:



Notice the light background contrasts with the dark uniforms of the officers. But the white t-shirt on LHO blends in with the light background. Jerry's image from his 3-D computer model made me realize that I had the windows on the western face of the TSBD spaced inaccurately (my model showed a window behind the man with the rifle). So, when the proper dark background is behind the man with the rifle, the white shirt contrasts well with the dark background. This would make the man with the rifle stand out. And, as you correctly deduced, the dark rifle and scope would contrast well with a white shirt. This would make the rifle and scope stand out. By the way, I believe that LHO was wearing his t-shirt at this time.

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #308 on: March 21, 2023, 04:23:43 AM »
Rowlands description of the gunmans clothing does not fit Oswald because Rowland describes the outer shirt  with a collar,  as being white or a very light blue.

Now that does not necessarily rule out Oswald having taken off his reddish brown shirt and wearing some other light blue or white shirt (with collar) unbuttoned, and exposing his white T shirt, while theoretically holding a rifle at 12:15 near the SW window 6th floor TSBD.

It just introduces yet another complication to the actions and movements of Oswald in this theoretical scenario of going up to 6th floor at 12:12, seen at SW window 12:15 holding a rifle then back down to 2nd floor lunchroom to be seen by Carolyn Arnold at least by 12:17, then back up to the 6th floor before 12:23, and also Oswald able to have identified Norman and Jarman which is more probable if Oswald was in the Domino room at 12:23- 12:25.

Somewhere in there, Oswald changed reddish/pinkish/ brown shirt to wear light blue shirt then back again to r/p/b shirt which he then was wearing as (allegedly) seen by Baker not later than 90 sec post shots in the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Now since Mr Jerry Organ has corrected the distance being 280 ft, (my error of 140 ft, due to the WRONG scale which is on the 1963 Dealey Plaza Map) , there may still be a question if at that distance of 280 ft that Rowland could see a scope even if the shirt of the gunman was white (or light blue) and provided more contrast.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #308 on: March 21, 2023, 04:23:43 AM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • War is too important to be left to politicians.
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #309 on: April 13, 2023, 12:35:24 AM »
And LHO's fingerprints were found on the box. On this information alone it is hard to deny who was the assassin.

The fingerprint evidence against Oswald is a joke. But it is more than that, it is evidence of conspiracy. In all 3 cases where Oswald's prints showed up, they were sorely lacking in frequency considering how much he had supposedly handled those items. The FBI, SS and Dallas Police really dropped the ball when they sheep-dipped Oswald. They got him to pose for pics in his backyard with the murder weapons but they didn't sight in his scope or get more of his prints on the rifle, the bag and the boxes.

Tell me how it is possible to leave so few prints on the following items (without wearing gloves)?

Oswald's Fingerprint Evidence

The Bag

Quote
Latona developed a latent palmprint on the bottom of the bag, the part that was closed. The palmprint was of LHO's heel of his right palm near the wrist on the little finger side. And he developed a fingerprint that matched the left index finger of LHO. There was no other identifiable prints found on the bag as per the report.

Summary: LHO allegedly handled the bag and put the disassembled rifle into it, wonky scope included, carried it into the TSBD, then handled the bag while removing the rifle parts from it, and the only prints he got on the bag were a right palm print and his left pinky fingerprint.

The Boxes

Quote
Box A, CE641, is the top smaller box of the stack of two. It had the left Palm Print of LHO.
Box B, CE653, is the box that is leaning on the windowsill. It had 7 fingerprints and 2 palmprints. None of the identifiable prints on Box B were Oswald's. All but one of the prints belonged to either Studebaker or Lucy. The WC noted there was one palmprint on Box B that was not matched.
Box C, CE654, is the bottom larger box of the stack of two. It had 2 fingerprints that were identifiable and 1 palmprint. All of these prints were either Studebaker's or Lucy's.
Box D, CE648, is the large box away from the window. It had the right Palm Print of LHO. Box D had 2 fingerprints, both of which belong to Lucy and the right palmprint of LHO.

Summary: LHO left 1 left palm print on Box A, 1 right palm print on Box D, far fewer prints than Studebaker or Lucy. But Oswald had been working there for 6 weeks.

The Rifle

Quote
Latona found no prints on the MC during his examination. However, Lt. Day testified that before he had turned the rifle over on Nov. 22, 1963 he "had lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose" However, Day did not send this to the FBI until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI. The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." C2766 was the identification number given to the MC rifle found on the sixth floor of the depository.

Summary: LHO had no prints on the MC's barrel, bolt, trigger, stock, clip, ammo, scope and strap even though he supposedly disassembled/reassembled and fired the rifle. The only print of LHO on the rifle was put there post-mortem by the FBI. Just ask Paul Groody.


Conclusion: Oswald never fired the rifle.

Offline Alan J. Ford

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #310 on: August 01, 2023, 05:03:22 PM »
I have recently seen a few posts that seem to indicate that LHO had to have assembled the SN in the last few minutes before the motorcade arrived. However in the Bronson film segment, which was filmed during the epileptic event at approximately 12:15 12:24-12:25, we can see that the window ledge already has the boxes on it. Here's a copy of the SFM image in Robin Unger's Gallery:



And here's a link to the larger image in Robin's Gallery:

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=12705&fullsize=1


This is evidence that the SN was built before ~12:15 12:24-12:25. We have no way of knowing how long before ~12:15 12:24-12:25, but it does appear that it didn't need to be built at the last minute...

Thanks for sharing this, Mr. Collins, it further illustrates how much deeper the hastily contrived script crafted to frame the wrongly-accused is mired in the stench of horse manure.

Moreover, when it comes to the SN, I have always wondered why Roy "nothing truly about him" Truly wasn't pressed for specifics and greater detail by the Warren Omission after sharing the following testimony ---->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I canít answer. I donít remember when I went over there.
It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the
spent shell cases.


Begs the questions, Why was Mr. Truly over in the sniper's nest and exactly What was he doing "Before" either the rifle or the spent shell casings were found?

Amazing what some people will do for thirty-pieces of silver (bunch of lying treasonous cowards Framing an innocent party).


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #310 on: August 01, 2023, 05:03:22 PM »


Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3413
Re: When the SN was built
« Reply #311 on: August 01, 2023, 08:25:21 PM »
Thanks for sharing this, Mr. Collins, it further illustrates how much deeper the hastily contrived script crafted to frame the wrongly-accused is mired in the stench of horse manure.

Moreover, when it comes to the SN, I have always wondered why Roy "nothing truly about him" Truly wasn't pressed for specifics and greater detail by the Warren Omission after sharing the following testimony ---->

Mr. BELIN. When did you get over to the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
Mr. TRULY. That I canít answer. I donít remember when I went over there.
It was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the
spent shell cases.


Begs the questions, Why was Mr. Truly over in the sniper's nest and exactly What was he doing "Before" either the rifle or the spent shell casings were found?

Amazing what some people will do for thirty-pieces of silver (bunch of lying treasonous cowards Framing an innocent party).



Truly did not say that he was in the southeast corner before either the rifle or spent shells were found.

 He said: ďIt was sometime before I learned that they had found either the rifle or the spent shell casings.Ē


 

Mobile View