When the SN was built

[James Hackerott]

A man "taking aim" for the final shot would necessarily be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle next to his face.


Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.









A hypothetical question for you:

If you walk into a room with a bunch of people in it and soon see a man who is standing away from everybody. And you notice his demeanor is a bit odd. Then say about seven minutes later this same man walks up to you and for no apparent reason punches you in the nose. Did you see the bully soon after you walked into the room?

Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!
 

[Martin Weidmann]

So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

Oddly enough, it seems the strawman thing never came up until you were shown the errors of your statements. I think the strawman thing came about as your way of trying to escape the faulty details from your own argument.

 

What is it called when you make statements and then deny them because you realize they are flat out wrong. I know what I would call it.

 

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

 

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest. I do not know why you are unable to figure that out, but is not a crime to be ignorant of something.

 

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

 

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 

 

 

 

 

Here is what Latobna really explained.

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

 

 

Mr. Latona.

Assuming that the same print was left on an object or a series of similar prints were left on an object, and powdering them, say, at intervals of every 4 hours or so, we would fail to develop a latent print of that particular type on that particular surface, say, within a 24-hour period.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that is a maximum of 24 hours?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You would not care, you say, though----

Mr. Latona.

No.

Mr. Eisenberg.

To employ that here, but your experiments produced a maximum time of 24 hours.

Mr. Latona.

Bear that out; yes. Like I say, undoubtedly this print was left on there----between the time that the print was left and the time that it was powdered could not have been too long a time. Otherwise, the print would not have developed with the clarity that it did.

You argue like a teenager. Why is that?

And you also constantly violate one of the forum rules;

"There must be no more than one single line of empty space between any written text, including quotes or posted images."

[Charles Collins]

Looks pretty good Charles and look forward for more!

Thanks James!   

[John Iacoletti]

So, it is exactly what I stated, anything short of accepting your opinion as a fact is what you are calling a strawman argument. 

No, pay attention this time. A strawman is making up a claim that I never said and using it to argue against. I never said I believe that Williams or Givens constructed a sniper’s nest.

Strangely enough, you never explained why you suggested that these boxes were placed there after the employees went to lunch.

No, actually they do know the boxes came from the group of ten Rolling Readers.

I never said they didn’t, Strawman Nessan. I said that you have no evidence that they were used as a “rifle rest” or that they were deliberately moved there for that purpose.
 

No, All the people with a known access to the 6th floor were tested and determined to not have handled the boxes. There would be no other reason to test them.

Every employee had access to the 6th floor. It’s not like it was locked up.

Yes they do know the boxes was used in the construction of the rifle rest.

Who’s “they”, and how did “they” determine that a rifle rest was used at all? Be specific.

It is OK to use common sense and apply it to different aspects of information, but please don’t tell me I am lame because of your short comings.

When did I call you “lame”, Strawman Nessan? “Common sense” is what people appeal to when they don’t have actual evidence. It’s not equal to fact.

Here is what Latobna really explained.

He really said the thing I quoted him saying — that he couldn’t come any closer than 3 days. You can ignore that, because it doesn’t suit your “common sense”, but don’t pretend like he didn’t say it.

[John Iacoletti]

Here's a couple of my early images of the sniper's nest ergonomics study. They depict two views of the sniper aiming for the third shot. one is from the west on the sixth floor. And the other is from Brenan's position. I don't believe that from Brenan's viewpoint that his face would have been obscured by boxes or the rifle.

Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?

[Alan Ford]

Nothing in life is as black and white as you pretend it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

If it looks like a man in a very light-colored open-neck tshirt/shirt, then it ain't Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald!

 

[Richard Smith]

How many of the prints remained unidentified after eliminating the DPD and FBI agents who touched the boxes?

It doesn't matter. When there's only one print that remains unidentified the claim that only Oswald handled those boxes is nullified.
Latona found prints on at least two of the boxes which he could not identify.

You begin by claiming that the discovery of Oswald's prints on the SN boxes is not incriminatory because he "worked there."  It can be expected for that reason that his prints might be found on the boxes.  When it is pointed out that his were the ONLY TSBD employee's prints identified on the boxes, you ramble about unidentified prints (plural) as though multiple other TSBD employees might have left prints on these same boxes because they "worked there."  Of course, the TSBD employees who worked on the 6th floor were printed and their prints were not matched to any prints on these boxes.  In fact, when the prints of the DPD and FBi agent who touched the boxes are eliminated, the number drops to a single print. 

Poor Oswald.  Of all the TSBD employees who worked on that floor, he just happens to be the only one who leaves identifiable prints on the SN boxes and bag.   No one can believe that this is just the result of terrible luck.  And even though you stupidly make that claim despite all logic, you also question the word of the DPD and suggesting that they fabricated evidence.  You don't even see the logical inconsistency of arguing that this evidence is fabricated to frame Oswald for the crime (e.g. his print on the rifle) with your equally stupid and baseless claim that this evidence doesn't link Oswald to the crime.   It is very amusing.   In your contrarian world, the DPD lies to fabricate evidence in the assassination of the president, risking ruined careers and prison, but the evidence that they go to such risk to fabricate doesn't prove Oswald's involvement in the crime in your opinion!  The entire and sole purpose of the fabrication.  HA HA HA.   Round and round down the rabbit hole.

[Charles Collins]

Thanks Charles. A couple of questions, because the images are fuzzy to me. It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights. And I can’t really make out the barrel in the “Brennan” view. Is it angled down? What angle are you using for the head shot?

It looks like gunman’s head is not down far enough to be aiming through the scope or the sights.


Articulating the limbs, head, etc. of the human figures isn't feasible in the software that I use. So, I typically improvise. Those images were generated a few years ago. And my model has evolved (in some of the details) since then. It is still a work-in-progress and is rather crude compared to James' & Jerry's models. I used a male figure that is supposed to be sitting crossed-legged on the floor and tilted it forward 22-degrees such that it appears he is looking in the same direction as the rifle aim. The rifle is aimed at the location of the limo at Z313, including the elevation difference. The angle of elevation of the rifle is 17-degrees. I updated the position of the rifle so that it appears the sniper has the scope to his right eye. The rifle obviously isn't a model of a Carcano or proportioned and shouldn't be considered anything other than a crude model. But I think it is adequate for the purpose of showing that the sniper would not be crouched down behind boxes with a rifle obscuring Brenan's view.






Here is Brenan's viewpoint. Please note that some of the window parts are a work in progress and need to be either moved or removed. The only thing that has changed is the viewpoint (location of the camera (aka: virtual visitor) The rifle is still aimed down at 17-degrees. It looks almost level from that lower elevation (looking up from below). That is another example of how photograph angles can fool us. This also agrees with the old image from Brenan's viewpoint that I posted earlier.