Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Charles Collins]

Oswald had to be at the window, not sitting on a box some distance from it, while shooting. If "the sitting box" was closer to the window than it actually was and he was sitting on it for all three shots, no matter how angrily or frustratingly he ejected the spent shell after his first shot, it wouldn't have flown far down to his right (where it was found), but bounced off the tall stack of boxes behind him and ended up pretty close to the window -- just as the shells from his second and third shots did.

Bottom line: Oswald was standing and awkwardly leaning forward during that steeply-downward-angled shot at the fast-moving target below. That's why he missed everything with it, and that's why the shell didn't bounce off the stack of books behind him but flew unhindered all the way down to his right where it bounced of the stack off boxes there.

How stinking far away from the window do you think the sitting box was? Hint, if you are going by Holland’s video, you are going to be way, way, way, off…

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I remember the fun & games when they filmed from the sniper's nest.
HHAAAA HHAAAA HHAAAAAHA HA HA.
The cameraman had to film at such an angle that he slipped out of the window. luckily some one caught him by his legs, then that someone started to slip, & someone caught him.
HHHAAAA HA HA HHHHHAAAHAHAH.
But, he did get a good footage of jfk & the limo passing the overhead signals below the sniper's nest.
Oswald could not possibly have obtained that kind of angle.... he didnt have the extra wt & bulk of a camera on his Carcano.... so the cameraman had an advantage.
.................. NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

[Tom Mahon]

How stinking far away from the window do you think the sitting box was? Hint, if you are going by Holland’s video, you are going to be way, way, way, off…

Just look at the official photos that were taken of the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and you'll see what I'm talking about. The "sitting box" was too far away from the window (and at the wrong angle for the shots except, perhaps, for the final one) for Oswald to have sat on while shooting his three shots -- the first one of which was steeply-downward-angled because it was fired at hypothetical "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 and before the limo disappeared from Oswald's view behind the foliage of the oak tree.

[Charles Collins]

Just look at the official photos that were taken of the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and you'll see what I'm talking about. The "sitting box" was too far away from the window (and at the wrong angle for the shots except, perhaps, for the final one) for Oswald to have sat on while shooting his three shots -- the first one of which was steeply-downward-angled because it was fired at hypothetical "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 and before the limo disappeared from Oswald's view behind the foliage of the oak tree.

I have already studied all of the dimensions as measured and documented by the investigators. Have you?

[Tom Mahon]

I have already studied all of the dimensions as measured and documented by the investigators. Have you?

So did Max Holland.

[Tom Mahon]

I have already studied all of the dimensions as measured and documented by the investigators. Have you?

Perhaps you can use your favorite uploader (or whatever it's called) and post some photos here of the "Sniper's Nest" showing just how close the "sitting box" was to a good shooting angle at the window.

[Royell Storing]

Thanks, but no thanks.

Just watch "The Lost Bullet."

   Your attempt at defending Holland is admirable but hopeless. Did you notice when they demonstrated how their ejected Hulls came very close to matching the 11/22/63 photos of the hulls on the floor, that "Holland's Hero" had Removed the scope from the rifle? Makes me think we were seeing Take 22. Holland is amusing, but for him to be granted a stage by National Geographic explains why this case remains unsolved after 60+ years. The Cover-Up is ongoing.   

[Tom Mahon]

   Your attempt at defending Holland is admirable but hopeless. Did you notice when they demonstrated how their ejected Hulls came very close to matching the 11/22/63 photos of the hulls on the floor, that "Holland's Hero" had Removed the scope from the rifle? Makes me think we were seeing Take 22. Holland is amusing, but for him to be granted a stage by National Geographic explains why this case remains unsolved after 60+ years. The Cover-Up is ongoing.

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the patsy-ing, the shooting, and the cover up?

A couple hundred?

Do you think a shell would bounce off the scope when ejected and that its flight would thereby be altered?

What would survey-based chalks marks approximately 10 feet away look like when viewed though the scope?

(That's what the "Oswald" actor was aiming at for the three different trajectories.)

If too blurry to be of any use, might that be reason they removed the scope?