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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
