First-Hand Eyewitness Testimony Proving Conspiracy

[Dan O'meara]

I have to tread somewhat tentatively here for a couple of reasons:

a) My knowledge of rifles is minimal, I've never even held one let alone fired one. So there is a certain amount of guesswork going on.

b) What I'm going to point out is so obvious, it must have been brought up by someone researching the subject. It seems almost impossible this has gone under the radar for decades, which makes me think it must have been dismissed as an argument already but I just didn't get the memo.

So here goes nothing...

The telescopic sight on the Mannlicher Carcano purported to be Oswald's assassination weapon, is fitted on the left hand side of the rifle.
As I understand it, this makes it a rifle set-up for a right-hander. This doesn't necessarily mean the shooter was right-handed, just that he fired the rifle right-handed. This means his left hand would grip the stock, the rifle butt against his right shoulder and his right hand on the trigger. The shooter would lower his right eye to the scope and as he did so his head would tilt to the right.
This is the important part to remember, that the assassin's head would tilt to the right as head lined up the shot.
It's important to remember because there is first-hand eyewitness testimony that, at the time of the shots, the assassin tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.

On another thread I posted a list of the available evidence about who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination and that all the evidence points away from Oswald as being the assassin. One of the pieces of evidence is the testimony of Amos Euins. Over and over again young Amos insists the shooter had a "bald spot" on his head, he must say it about seven or eight times. Not a receding hairline - a distinctive bald spot - which is something Oswald didn't have. It's something I've mentioned many times but never really thought about how Amos could see a bald spot on top of the head of someone stood on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. From his viewpoint, looking up to the Sniper's Nest, there is no way he could see the top of the assassin's head.
At this point in his testimony Euin's is describing watching the assassin as he fired at the motorcade:

Mr. Specter: All right. Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were you looking then?

Mr. Euins: I was still down here, looking up at the building.

Mr. Specter: What did you see in the building?

Mr. Euins: I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.

He describes the assassin holding the rifle as he was shooting and that he could see the bald spot on his head because the assassin was "trying to look out the window". But what does that mean? Later on in the testimony, Euins is more specific:

Mr. Specter: Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?

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.


During this part of his testimony Euins is explaining that he could see the assassin's bald spot because he "had his head something like this". Obviously we can't see what action he was performing but Specter clarifies it - "Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle", to which Euins replies affirmatively - "Yes, sir".
Euins is saying that he could see the bald spot on the assassins head because, as the assassin lined up the shot and brought his head down to the rifle, he tilted his head, exposing the bald spot on top of it for Euins to see.
If you think about Euins, think about him stood across from the TSBD building looking up at the 6th floor and think about the direction the assassin was shooting in, it becomes very clear that, in order for the assassin to have exposed the bald spot on his head to Euins as he lined up the shot, it must be the case that the shooter tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.

If the is the case, we know for a fact that the weapon being used was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor, as this was set up for a right-handed shooter whose head would have tilted away from Euins at the time of the shooting.

And if it wasn't the Mannlicher Carcano being used as the assassination weapon then we have a conspiracy!

If we return to Euins' testimony from earlier he describes seeing the rifle laying across the shooter's hands and being able to see "his hand sticking out on the trigger part". Elsewhere in his testimony he describes seeing "the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window."
If the assassin were right handed, this much of the rifle would have been obscured from Euins' viewpoint as it would have been hidden on the other side of the assassin's body. The only reason Euins could see so much of the rifle is because the assassin was left-handed and the rifle was on the side of his body facing Euins.

If everything I'm saying is correct then we have first-hand eyewitness testimony proving the assassination weapon was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. This fact alone would prove there was a conspiracy.

[Mitch Todd]

I have to tread somewhat tentatively here for a couple of reasons:

a) My knowledge of rifles is minimal, I've never even held one let alone fired one. So there is a certain amount of guesswork going on.

b) What I'm going to point out is so obvious, it must have been brought up by someone researching the subject. It seems almost impossible this has gone under the radar for decades, which makes me think it must have been dismissed as an argument already but I just didn't get the memo.

So here goes nothing...

The telescopic sight on the Mannlicher Carcano purported to be Oswald's assassination weapon, is fitted on the left hand side of the rifle.
As I understand it, this makes it a rifle set-up for a right-hander. This doesn't necessarily mean the shooter was right-handed, just that he fired the rifle right-handed. This means his left hand would grip the stock, the rifle butt against his right shoulder and his right hand on the trigger. The shooter would lower his right eye to the scope and as he did so his head would tilt to the right.
This is the important part to remember, that the assassin's head would tilt to the right as head lined up the shot.
It's important to remember because there is first-hand eyewitness testimony that, at the time of the shots, the assassin tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.

The scope on the Carcano is mounted offset to the left for a couple of practical reasons completely unrelated to the handedness of the shooter. Carcano's are fed using a Mannlicher style en-block clip system. Bullets are held in a stamped sheet metal clip, which is then inserted as a unit all the way down into magazine from the top. If you mount a scope in the usual location, directly above the receiver, the scope will prevent the clip of ammunition from being inserted into the magazine. No bueno. You have to offset the scope to one side to avoid this. You can't offset the scope to the right. The rifle ejects spent cases up and to the right, and the scope will be in the way of this necessary action. So, on Carcanos, the scope must be offset to the left no matter what.

Also, mounting the scope to the left wound cause the tilt of a right-handed shooter's head to decrease, not increase, which is what I think you're trying to imply.

On another thread I posted a list of the available evidence about who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination and that all the evidence points away from Oswald as being the assassin. One of the pieces of evidence is the testimony of Amos Euins. Over and over again young Amos insists the shooter had a "bald spot" on his head, he must say it about seven or eight times. Not a receding hairline - a distinctive bald spot - which is something Oswald didn't have. It's something I've mentioned many times but never really thought about how Amos could see a bald spot on top of the head of someone stood on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. From his viewpoint, looking up to the Sniper's Nest, there is no way he could see the top of the assassin's head.
At this point in his testimony Euin's is describing watching the assassin as he fired at the motorcade:

Mr. Specter: All right. Now, when the third shot occurred, Amos, let me ask you again, where were you looking then?

Mr. Euins: I was still down here, looking up at the building.

Mr. Specter: What did you see in the building?

Mr. Euins: I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.

He describes the assassin holding the rifle as he was shooting and that he could see the bald spot on his head because the assassin was "trying to look out the window". But what does that mean? Later on in the testimony, Euins is more specific:

Mr. Specter: Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?

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.


During this part of his testimony Euins is explaining that he could see the assassin's bald spot because he "had his head something like this". Obviously we can't see what action he was performing but Specter clarifies it - "Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle", to which Euins replies affirmatively - "Yes, sir".
Euins is saying that he could see the bald spot on the assassins head because, as the assassin lined up the shot and brought his head down to the rifle, he tilted his head, exposing the bald spot on top of it for Euins to see.
If you think about Euins, think about him stood across from the TSBD building looking up at the 6th floor and think about the direction the assassin was shooting in, it becomes very clear that, in order for the assassin to have exposed the bald spot on his head to Euins as he lined up the shot, it must be the case that the shooter tilted his head to the left as he was looking down the rifle.

If the is the case, we know for a fact that the weapon being used was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor, as this was set up for a right-handed shooter whose head would have tilted away from Euins at the time of the shooting.

And if it wasn't the Mannlicher Carcano being used as the assassination weapon then we have a conspiracy!

If we return to Euins' testimony from earlier he describes seeing the rifle laying across the shooter's hands and being able to see "his hand sticking out on the trigger part". Elsewhere in his testimony he describes seeing "the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window."
If the assassin were right handed, this much of the rifle would have been obscured from Euins' viewpoint as it would have been hidden on the other side of the assassin's body. The only reason Euins could see so much of the rifle is because the assassin was left-handed and the rifle was on the side of his body facing Euins.

If everything I'm saying is correct then we have first-hand eyewitness testimony proving the assassination weapon was not the Mannlicher Carcano discovered on the 6th floor of the TSBD building. This fact alone would prove there was a conspiracy.

Specter has Euins clarify the extent of the "bald spot":

Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.

If the bald spot extended back to a point 2 1/2 inches above Euins' hairline, then it has to be a receding hairline rather than a male-pattern bald patch at the crown. Unless you want to argue that the assassin wore a tonsor. In that case, your suspect probably retreated to a safe-monastary, most likely the Cistercian one in Irving.

[Dan O'meara]

Left-handed using scope. The area where the trigger-guard housing would be is visible no matter which side the shooter was on. The only area for a "bald spot" to be visible from below, as Euins was, is the left side of the temple. Oswald had a receding hairline.

Doesn't Euins say at one point it was a white spot? By "bald" I believe he meant the area of the spot was reflective because it was hairless.

Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where your
          hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.

I dont' think the pic you have used of the rifleman is a very good representation of what was going on that day.
In your pic the right arm is held downwards which is what allows the trigger-guard housing to be visible no matter which side the shooter is being viewed from.
I think the picture below is a more 'realistic' representation of the situation:



Obviously, this picture is representing Oswald as a right-handed shooter.
Because of the box the arm supporting the rifle under the barrel, is now flattened out, obscuring the trigger-guard housing.
Not to mention the box itself which is also obscuring a lot of the rifle from a viewpoint on the street below.
If the shooter in this pic were using the rifle left-handed there would be no arm obscuring the trigger-guard housing and, apart from a portion of the stock, the whole rifle would be readily visible to someone in the street below.

Just to note, a bald spot and a receding hairline are two completely different things and I don't think it's up to you to decide what the witness is saying. Let the witness do that.
Euins indicates an area behind his own hairline. This is what a bald spot is, an area without hair somewhere behind a persons hairline.

[Dan O'meara]

The scope on the Carcano is mounted offset to the left for a couple of practical reasons completely unrelated to the handedness of the shooter. Carcano's are fed using a Mannlicher style en-block clip system. Bullets are held in a stamped sheet metal clip, which is then inserted as a unit all the way down into magazine from the top. If you mount a scope in the usual location, directly above the receiver, the scope will prevent the clip of ammunition from being inserted into the magazine. No bueno. You have to offset the scope to one side to avoid this. You can't offset the scope to the right. The rifle ejects spent cases up and to the right, and the scope will be in the way of this necessary action. So, on Carcanos, the scope must be offset to the left no matter what.

Also, mounting the scope to the left wound cause the tilt of a right-handed shooter's head to decrease, not increase, which is what I think you're trying to imply.

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.

Specter has Euins clarify the extent of the "bald spot":

Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.

If the bald spot extended back to a point 2 1/2 inches above Euins' hairline, then it has to be a receding hairline rather than a male-pattern bald patch at the crown. Unless you want to argue that the assassin wore a tonsor. In that case, your suspect probably retreated to a safe-monastary, most likely the Cistercian one in Irving.

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.

[John Iacoletti]

I dont' think the pic you have used of the rifleman is a very good representation of what was going on that day.
In your pic the right arm is held downwards which is what allows the trigger-guard housing to be visible no matter which side the shooter is being viewed from.
I think the picture below is a more 'realistic' representation of the situation:



Obviously, this picture is representing Oswald as a right-handed shooter.
Because of the box the arm supporting the rifle under the barrel, is now flattened out, obscuring the trigger-guard housing.
Not to mention the box itself which is also obscuring a lot of the rifle from a viewpoint on the street below.
If the shooter in this pic were using the rifle left-handed there would be no arm obscuring the trigger-guard housing and, apart from a portion of the stock, the whole rifle would be readily visible to someone in the street below.

Just to note, a bald spot and a receding hairline are two completely different things and I don't think it's up to you to decide what the witness is saying. Let the witness do that.
Euins indicates an area behind his own hairline. This is what a bald spot is, an area without hair somewhere behind a persons hairline.

Well done, Dan. The “receding hairline” excuse is a good example of trying to make the evidence fit the theory.

Also compare this posture with Brennan’s claim that he saw the man “from the belt up” at the time the shot was fired.

[John Iacoletti]

I suppose that would be realistic if the gunman had used a giant tripod.

[Charles Collins]

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).

[Mitch Todd]

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?