JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on April 07, 2023, 12:25:49 PM
-
How many of us would pay to be able to sit in the sniper's nest in the TSBD in Dealey Plaza? Count me in. Until recently, I have only had a virtual sniper's nest to experiment with. And it has shown me quite a few things. However, the virtual sniper's nest has it's limitations. To be able to experience actually sitting in a model of the sniper's nest is the next best thing (to the real experience) that I can reasonably expect to be able to do. So, I built four boxes and a "window" to full size specifications. The boxes are even weighted with sand bags inside to simulate the actual weights. And now, I can at least get a better feel for what it might have been like for the assassin. This model is still a work-in-progress. So suggestions are welcome. Here's a couple of photos of what I have accomplished so far:
(https://i.vgy.me/bVu6Ac.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/RrtCJF.jpg)
The three paper targets visible on the right side are meant to represent the location of JFK at approximately Z161, Z225, and Z313. I used the appropriate vertical angles as measured by the WC and FBI and horizontal angles as I measured off of Don Roberdeau's map. Out of curiosity, I overlaid a couple of photos that show the view out of the actual sniper's nest window in December of 1963. These images depict the approximate Z313 position and the limo appears to be stopped at approximately the Z214 position. The paper targets that I had positioned using the appropriate angles and a laser level and tripod appear to line up reasonably well with the positions in the images from 1963. The two paper targets on the left are meant to represent the positions of Howard Brenan, and Fischer & Edwards. And there is a sixth paper target which represents Z133 which is hidden from view by the corner of the box on the window sill. More to come...
-
One of the items that motivated me to create this model is the possibility of interference with an early shot by the electrical conduit that is closest to the window. I obtained a metal fence post that is approximately the same diameter as the conduit. And I positioned it at approximately the same location. Here is another photo of the model that shows the “conduit” in place:
(https://i.vgy.me/MhJT3b.jpg)
Also, in this photo, a small portion of the paper target that represents the location of JFK at approximately Z133 can be seen just to the left of the corner of box B (which is on the window sill).
-
Here are a couple more photos showing the arraignment of the nest:
(https://i.vgy.me/3Oxr1C.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/csvnUC.jpg)
Next, I want to show how a human interfaces with the nest. And I think that basic shooting positions is a good place to start. More to follow.
-
In this image, notice the support for both arms by the knees. In that crossed-leg sitting position, the knees are relatively stable and provide stable supports. Also notice that the aim of the rifle is off to the left of the shooter (not directly in front of him). That angle is typical of proper shooting positions and is critical to getting the eye in the proper position relative to the scope.
(https://i.vgy.me/cxbr0B.jpg)
Here is a link to the article that shows that image and other various shooting positions.
https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/basic-shooting-positions-every-hunter-should-master/272545 (https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/basic-shooting-positions-every-hunter-should-master/272545)
-
Very interesting project Charles! It’s a wonderment to me that no TV documentary, to my knowledge, has gone to this degree of simulation. I’m curious if you find the conduit acts to support or decrease the shooter’s aiming stability. I think the conduit was favorable to the sniper and maybe part of his plan. Maybe at some time you could place a camera at various locations near that of a few photographers such as Powell, Dillard, or even Brennan to show the change of perspective of the window box.
-
Very interesting project Charles! It’s a wonderment to me that no TV documentary, to my knowledge, has gone to this degree of simulation. I’m curious if you find the conduit acts to support or decrease the shooter’s aiming stability. I think the conduit was favorable to the sniper and maybe part of his plan. Maybe at some time you could place a camera at various locations near that of a few photographers such as Powell, Dillard, or even Brennan to show the change of perspective of the window box.
Thanks James! I agree that it is a wonderment that no one has apparently investigated and shown the human interface with the elements in the sniper’s nest. I do plan to show how I think the conduit affects things. And I also plan to show some different views from the locations you suggested. Thanks for the input. And please feel free to criticize if you see something that you think needs correction or improvement.
-
I am no expert on how to use firearms. I did have a rifle and a shotgun when I was growing up. But never had any instruction on how to properly shoot them (except just one single day on a shooting range with an M-16 while in basic training in the USAF). So, this is a learning experience for me. I know that the USMC requires a lot of intense rifle training. I would think that improvisation in shooting positions might be a part of that training. And it appears to me that the sniper’s nest is some good improvisation. Here’s an interesting photo of a serious sniper in Vietnam:
(https://i.vgy.me/tTZZs3.png)
Two items that stand out for me are: improvised steady support for the rifle using nothing except his body, and the angle that he is shooting at. His torso is facing to the camera left while the rifle is aimed at camera right.
-
This article is about how to use a bench rest support. While the sniper’s nest didn’t have a bench rest support, the boxes apparently served as the bench. And practically every bench rest shooting event that I have seen has the shooters seated in chairs or some sort of seat. Anyway, it is all about having the best stable support possible. And I believe that is what the sniper’s nest boxes are all about.
(https://i.vgy.me/YILhmb.png)
https://shoot-on.com/bench-rest-shooting-fundamentals/ (https://shoot-on.com/bench-rest-shooting-fundamentals/)
-
Nice model. Where did you get the dimensions for the size and location of the vertical steam pipe? And can you share those dimensions here?
-
Nice model. Where did you get the dimensions for the size and location of the vertical steam pipe? And can you share those dimensions here?
Thanks Gerry, I got the specs for the piping from these posts by Jerry Organ (in the “Why the first shot missed” thread):
(https://images2.imgbox.com/81/89/AcVi0O2c_o.jpg)
Sorry, Charles. I haven't forgotten your request. My placement of the pipes is a visual guess. Obviously use at own risk.
I sent the Sixth Museum a request for measurements, and the curator, who's really helpful, told me just now that he will get back to me with true measurements when they access that area for maintenance. I'll PM those to you when I get them. Meanwhile you can use what I am using or build off it.
The westward pipe is a simple vertical. As I have it, the total height of the coupling is 3 1/4". I have the bottom of the coupling 8 13/16" above the floor (just make it 8 3/4" or 9", whatever). The coupling doesn't interfere with a hypothetical shooter; I put the coupling in there for the sake of completeness and haven't bothered with the bolts.
For the east pipe, I drew straight lines and angled them and placed them where I thought the center of the pipe ran. I then used SketchUp's "Follow-Me" tool to create the pipe by having a 2" circle follow the "path" of the lines. The Sketchup Tool decided I needed two elbows at each of the two bends. The closest any part of the first bend is to the floor is 13".
There is something wrong with my measurements. If the pipes are 2", then the planks have to be about 3". Or the planks are correct and the pipes needs to be a bit wider. Anyway, the key is how the westward pipe is relative to the window's masonry opening, which I think is fairly close now. That's the pipe that interferes.
Sniper Nest measurements from Stephen Fagin.
- Circumference of pipe = 7”
- Width of floorboard = 3.25”
- Corner to edge of brick at window = 33”
Corner --> Southeast interior corner.
Brick at window --> east edge of window's masonry opening.
And here is my post describing my assessment of the diameter of the pipe:
Thanks Jerry! And thanks to Stephen Fagin for obtaining and sharing the measurements! The pipe is 2.23” in diameter if my arithmetic is correct! 😎
James Hackerott measured the distances from the walls where the flush-cut pipes are exposed on the seventh floor. And they are somewhat different from Jerry’s estimated distances. But it appears that the seventh floor exterior walls are offset inwards slightly (at least from the outside appearance, remember the ledge above the sixth floor windows). So Jerry’s estimates are what I used. Thanks to Jerry, James, and Stephen Fagin of the Sixth Floor Museum for the information.
-
Getting back to shooting positions, I think that Craig Boddington, and his experiences in the field hunting, are more applicable to the situation in the sniper’s nest than bench rest shooting is. Here is a snip from one of his articles:
Field shooting is not necessarily a game of utmost precision. The vital zone must be hit, but it’s a pretty large “X-Ring.” Getting a bullet into it is always a matter of achieving adequate steadiness, but time and distance are major factors. You always want to get as steady as you can, but generally speaking, the shorter the distance the less stability is required—and the less time you usually have to get into position before the opportunity is lost. As we’ve discussed, there are fast-breaking close-range situations where the only chance for a shot is to stand and shoot unsupported. You hope that doesn’t happen, but it’s wise to practice a whole lot just in case! However, given enough time and a clear path to the target, my default setting is to rest over a pack.
In part this is because I almost always carry some kind of a pack. Not everybody does, but as an occupational hazard I always carry two cameras and often a telephoto lens. Add a water bottle, raingear or an extra layer, and perhaps a spotting scope and tripod, a pack is almost mandatory. As we’ve seen, solid objects like rocks and logs make excellent field rests, but they’re even better when you throw a nicely padded pack on top! …
… Almost universal when shooting over a pack (or any solid rest) is what to do with the supporting hand. If the fore end is firmly rested, then you don’t really need it to hold the rifle (I’ll come back to that initial “if”). I usually default to proper benchrest position, curling the supporting hand under the buttstock and using it to snug the butt into the shoulder and make slight height adjustments if necessary.
Just be absolutely certain your fore end is firmly rested before you turn loose of it! A few seasons back, near Roseburg, Oregon, I had a great Columbia blacktail standing at about 275 yards. I crawled in behind a big oak, took off my pack, and shifted right. There was some underbrush, so I had to plump up the pack to get the rifle high enough. So far so good, everything perfect. As usual, I curled my right (supporting) hand under the butt, got good and steady, and squeezed the trigger. As the trigger broke, the rifle literally fell off the pack. I couldn’t call the bullet back, and I missed that buck by a matter of several feet. So my systems aren’t always perfect, and it’s best to learn what works for you!
https://www.boone-crockett.org/pack (https://www.boone-crockett.org/pack)
Here’s a photo of Craig where he is prone and using a pack for support. But he also is using his supporting hand on the fore stock. With the exception of a sitting position (on box D), in lieu of the prone position, this seems to me to be a probable set up for the sniper’s nest arraingement.
(https://i.vgy.me/0PMnnH.jpg)
-
Thanks Gerry, I got the specs for the piping from these posts by Jerry Organ (in the “Why the first shot missed” thread):
And here is my post describing my assessment of the diameter of the pipe:
James Hackerott measured the distances from the walls where the flush-cut pipes are exposed on the seventh floor. And they are somewhat different from Jerry’s estimated distances. But it appears that the seventh floor exterior walls are offset inwards slightly (at least from the outside appearance, remember the ledge above the sixth floor windows). So Jerry’s estimates are what I used. Thanks to Jerry, James, and Stephen Fagin of the Sixth Floor Museum for the information.
Thanks 👍
-
Now that we have touched on a few basic shooting positions, here is an article about rifle scopes that I think some will find interesting. It would be nice to know exactly how much LHO understood about scopes, but sadly we will never know that. The sections on parallax and eye relief are of particular interest. The simple 4X fixed magnification scope that was on the Carcano rifle didn’t have adjustments for parallax or variable magnification. And the parallax error involved in the distances of the shots in Dealey Plaza wouldn’t have made a significant difference. But for those who like to know as much as possible about such things, the article might be enlightening.
https://shoot-on.com/optics-411-zeroing-in-on-rifle-scopes/ (https://shoot-on.com/optics-411-zeroing-in-on-rifle-scopes/)
-
Now that we have touched on a few basic shooting positions, here is an article about rifle scopes that I think some will find interesting. It would be nice to know exactly how much LHO understood about scopes, but sadly we will never know that. The sections on parallax and eye relief are of particular interest. The simple 4X fixed magnification scope that was on the Carcano rifle didn’t have adjustments for parallax or variable magnification. And the parallax error involved in the distances of the shots in Dealey Plaza wouldn’t have made a significant difference. But for those who like to know as much as possible about such things, the article might be enlightening.
https://shoot-on.com/optics-411-zeroing-in-on-rifle-scopes/ (https://shoot-on.com/optics-411-zeroing-in-on-rifle-scopes/)
For those who might be curious, I found that the scope on the Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD has a fixed parallax setting of 100-yards. Here is a photo that shows that information on the bottom of the page of instructions.
(https://i.vgy.me/VnHgaP.jpg)
-
I think that most of us here have viewed the video of the December 1963 reenactment by the Secret Service. Here are a couple of images from that video that show an agent sitting in a reconstructed sniper’s nest:
(https://i.vgy.me/O3mngC.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/ULiqHx.png)
There are a few items that I wish to point out regarding these images. He obviously doesn’t have a rifle in his hands aimed at the target area. He appears to be straddling box C on the floor with his legs. And the three window boxes appear to be positioned too far to the west compared to the position seen in the crime scene photos taken on 11/22/63.
-
Now that we have a little background posted, Let us see what the model of the sniper’s nest can tell us. Coming up are a few photos that show how it appears to me things might have transpired:
In these first two images notice that both legs are pointing west (not straddling box C). This position aligns the target area at about a 45-degree angle to the torso (much like the shooting positions shown earlier in this thread). Also, the rifle is resting low enough that no one can see it from the ground outside. And, when leaning forward a little, the intersection of Main and Houston streets can be seen. Also, Brennan, Fischer, etc can see the assassin (when he leans forward). Also, please note that I am holding a remote shutter button in my left hand instead of actually gripping the fore stock of the rifle. This is common to all the photos. If I didn’t need to press the button, I would have a better grip on the fore stock.
(https://i.vgy.me/Tk8Bf8.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/TLIg5U.jpg)
The next image shows the rifle raised up (quick and easy to do) and aimed at the Z161 target. Notice that the barrel of the rifle is actually touching box B (the one on the window sill). I am stretched upwards as far as I can go. And I cannot get my eye close enough to the ocular lens of the scope to be within the eye relief of 3.5” for this scope. This appears to me to be probable interference that could have caused an inadvertent shot that missed the entire limo. If the intent was to shoot after the limo cleared the oak tree interference, the assassin would have needed to get prepared by getting the rifle aimed at the target a little early and begin to track the movement of the target. It makes sense to me that around Z161 might have been a logical time to begin this preparation. And keep in mind that the assassin probably would not have been able to practice this beforehand without risking that someone would see him with a rifle aimed at the street below.
(https://i.vgy.me/jWLMgL.jpg)
The next two images show the rifle aimed at the Z225 and Z313 targets. These are both comfortable shots that do not appear to have any interference. And I had no issues positioning my eye in the correct eye relief position. These are also the two shots that apparently hit their marks.
(https://i.vgy.me/J4APnG.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/9818bJ.jpg)
-
Here’s a few photos from over the shoulder to try to address James Hackerott’s question regarding the conduit’s potential interference, etc. The first one is with the rifle resting down in the lap area. The conduit is close to the left arm but not interfering
(https://i.vgy.me/f7xMrz.jpg)
The next three photos are while aiming at the three different targets, Z161, Z225, and Z313. Again the conduit is close but doesn’t interfere. I frankly didn’t even realize that it was even there during the aiming proceedures. I think that one reason it isn’t in the way is that the left arm needs to be extended to near the southwest edge of box A for support. The hand is even past that box edge for the shot at Z313.
(https://i.vgy.me/bZQZCs.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/gwLtvq.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/pNyALB.jpg)
I believe that the conduit would interfere with a shot at the target for the Z133 position. But the corner of box B is completely blocking that shot from a sitting position. So, I am changing my thinking about an intentional shot that early. If there was one that early, I think it was likely an inadvertent shot that missed the entire limo. I just find it hard to believe that an assassin would intentionally stand up for that shot and then have to change his position to a sitting one. He had to know that there was only a short time span available to shoot. And intentionally spending any of that time changing positions seems unlikely to me. Max Holland thinks he did, but I disagree.
-
Here’s a few photos from over the shoulder to try to address James Hackerott’s question regarding the conduit’s potential interference, etc. The first one is with the rifle resting down in the lap area. The conduit is close to the left arm but not interfering
“Thanks very much for this study.”
(https://i.vgy.me/f7xMrz.jpg)
The next three photos are while aiming at the three different targets, Z161, Z225, and Z313. Again the conduit is close but doesn’t interfere. I frankly didn’t even realize that it was even there during the aiming proceedures. I think that one reason it isn’t in the way is that the left arm needs to be extended to near the southwest edge of box A for support. The hand is even past that box edge for the shot at Z313.
“I’m interested “if” the conduit, as planned by the sniper, was helpful for lateral stabilization. I realize only his left shoulder would be in contact with the conduit, but do you think the sniper could have used the conduit to a slight advantage? As a side note, I’ve just wondered if the rifle sling might have been used during the shooting.”
(https://i.vgy.me/bZQZCs.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/gwLtvq.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/pNyALB.jpg)
I believe that the conduit would interfere with a shot at the target for the Z133 position. But the corner of box B is completely blocking that shot from a sitting position. So, I am changing my thinking about an intentional shot that early. If there was one that early, I think it was likely an inadvertent shot that missed the entire limo. I just find it hard to believe that an assassin would intentionally stand up for that shot and then have to change his position to a sitting one. He had to know that there was only a short time span available to shoot. And intentionally spending any of that time changing positions seems unlikely to me. Max Holland thinks he did, but I disagree.
“Exactly!
Excerpt from the WC testimony of Mr. Ronald B. Fischer
Mr. BELIN - Now, would you describe what you saw as you were standing on that curb?
Mr. FISCHER - About 10 or 15 seconds before the parade--first car of the parade came around the corner.
Mr. BELIN - Now what corner is that?
Mr. FISCHER - Of Houston and Main.
Mr. BELIN - Uh-huh.
Mr. FISCHER - Which would have been the first time we could have seen any of the cars because of the building---about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn't watching-uh---he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Elm Street. And--uh--all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed. “
I believe the assassin planned to start shooting as the limousine cleared the oak tree, circa Z223.
When I was developing a 3D view replicating the filmed nest boxes scene by Tom Alyea I determined the big Scott Foresman box (D?) was rotated about 40 degrees to the window bricks. I today plotted that on a Dealey Plaza map and found an extended perpendicular line from west face of the box is very near where JFK was about Z223.
(https://i.imgur.com/FaYhtI7.gif)
So Charles, would you mind checking the angle that the box “D” (I think) makes with with the window bricks and see if a 40 degree rotation makes a difference to the conduit becoming more in play?
Thanks for your help. Please don’t dissemble the nest for a while if you can ;).
-
Sure James, I am happy to try. It looks like we are very close on the angle to begin with (before I change anything). As my original first trial, I have set it at 41.329-degrees already (calculated with triangle calculator) versus your 40-degrees. Don’t worry about this model being demolished. I do not plan to disassemble the model anytime soon. So feel free to make suggestions. Thanks.
-
Sure James, I am happy to try. It looks like we are very close on the angle to begin with (before I change anything). As my original first trial, I have set it at 41.329-degrees already (calculated with triangle calculator) versus your 40-degrees. Don’t worry about this model being demolished. I do not plan to disassemble the model anytime soon. So feel free to make suggestions. Thanks.
Okay, your measurement is more than close enough to 40 degrees, and more than fine for my needs. Thanks!
-
Okay, your measurement is more than close enough to 40 degrees, and more than fine for my needs. Thanks!
Okay, I will leave it there for now. Thanks.
-
(https://i.vgy.me/J4APnG.jpg)
This is great work, Charles, and fascinating. Try to imagine Brennan identifying you in this position.
-
This is great work, Charles, and fascinating. Try to imagine Brennan identifying you in this position.
Thanks. Brennan had a much different angle than that though. I took these photos a little while ago from the angle that I estimate Brennan had.
(https://i.vgy.me/F089KU.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/X8tmWr.jpg)
(https://i.vgy.me/mKN0ks.jpg)
I don’t think Brennan would have had any difficulty from his angle. The last photo is to demonstrate that all the assassin had to do to “disappear” from Brennan’s view of the window was to sit up straight on box D (my hand with the remote shutter button can be seen to the camera right of the model).
-
Thanks. Keeping in mind that Brennan was a lot farther away and at a steeper angle.
-
Thanks. Keeping in mind that Brennan was a lot farther away and at a steeper angle.
The distance from Brennan’s position to the sniper’s window was about 120-feet, close to the distance from second base to home plate on a baseball diamond. Not too far for someone with good distance vision to identify someone. Ask someone who plays baseball if need be. And as far as the vertical angle goes, I have calculated it at approximately 26.98-degrees using a triangle calculator and the altitude differences and distances from Roberdeau’s map (accounting for Brennan’s elevated position on the top of the wall). I placed the target, and subsequently the camera, at that 26.98-degree angle using a laser level. If you look at the photo that you included in your first post, the target that has the blue masking tape holding it onto a 2X2, and is laying down backwards represents Brennan’s position (when the paper is standing upright, not laying down). All of that description is meant to indicate that the vertical angle (aka: steepness) is close to the correct angle. Is it exact? Probably not, but it should be close enough to give us a feel for the steepness.
-
One study by Loftus and Harley found that after 25 feet, face perception diminishes. At about 150 feet, accurate face identification for people with normal vision drops to zero. And these were recognizable celebrities.
http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf (http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf)
Also somebody on home plate doesn’t have half his face and his chin obscured from the perspective of somebody at second base, nor are boxes or a wall partly in the way.
-
One study by Loftus and Harley found that after 25 feet, face perception diminishes. At about 150 feet, accurate face identification for people with normal vision drops to zero. And these were recognizable celebrities.
http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf (http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf)
Also somebody on home plate doesn’t have half his face and his chin obscured from the perspective of somebody at second base, nor are boxes or a wall partly in the way.
There are way too many variables involved to be able to judge from a study of that nature. Here’s a link to a study that I think is much better:
(https://i.vgy.me/ZjTXsn.png)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0641-2 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-014-0641-2)
After only a quick scan of it, I won’t pretend to understand everything about that study. But if I do understand one thing correctly, the hits decreased by only .55% per yard of distance between the distances of 5-yards and 40-yards (aka: 120-feet). And the false alarms only increased by .44% for the same distances. That’s less than a 20% decrease in hits for the 35-yards between 5 and 40 yards.
Heck, I didn’t recognize my dentist when we saw him at a restaurant recently. And we were only about 20-feet away. My wife didn’t either until he recognized her. So distance isn’t the only factor. Some people recognize other people easier than others. My wife is usually very good at it. It’s mostly mental, I believe.
That said, I asked my nephew, who played a lot of baseball (first base) in his younger years about this subject. He said he would read the lips of the opposing team’s third base coach, from first base, and tell his team what he said. The distance from first base to third base is over 127-feet. He said that he would have no problem recognizing a face at home plate from second base. He said that he has always aced vision tests. Howard Brennan said he had excellent distance vision.
Edit: added image of graph from the report
-
Surely you realize that anecdotal self-reporting isn’t particularly reliable.
-
Surely you realize that anecdotal self-reporting isn’t particularly reliable.
And surely you realize you don’t have anything to dispute it with.
-
One study by Loftus and Harley found that after 25 feet, face perception diminishes. At about 150 feet, accurate face identification for people with normal vision drops to zero. And these were recognizable celebrities.
http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf (http://faculty.washington.edu/gloftus/Downloads/LoftusHarleyDistance.pdf)
Also somebody on home plate doesn’t have half his face and his chin obscured from the perspective of somebody at second base, nor are boxes or a wall partly in the way.
Also somebody on home plate doesn’t have half his face and his chin obscured from the perspective of somebody at second base, nor are boxes or a wall partly in the way.
The photo that I posted only shows me looking towards the target area. Brennan said he observed him for several minutes. It is reasonable to believe that he would have turned his head and looked towards the intersection of Main & Houston Streets in anticipation. Because, after all, this is where the motorcade would first appear in Dealey Plaza. And, if so, his full face would be in full view for Brennan to study.
-
And surely you realize you don’t have anything to dispute it with.
Don’t need to. Anybody can claim they can do anything.
-
The photo that I posted only shows me looking towards the target area. Brennan said he observed him for several minutes.
No, Brennan only saw the person with the rifle for a few seconds. The question is, did he know it was the same person he saw earlier without a rifle (based on what?) or did he just assume it?
-
No, Brennan only saw the person with the rifle for a few seconds. The question is, did he know it was the same person he saw earlier without a rifle (based on what?) or did he just assume it?
If you are suggesting he saw two (or more?) different men, then you really should consider providing some evidence of that. Brennan indicates that it was only one man.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-
I know what Brennan said. I’m wondering on what basis he determined it was the same person.
-
I know what Brennan said. I’m wondering on what basis he determined it was the same person.
Why are you suggesting that he couldn’t determine it was the same person? ???
-
Based on how obscured a person in the position of firing the head shot would be from Brennan’s position, I don’t see a reasonable basis for that determination.
-
Based on how obscured a person in the position of firing the head shot would be from Brennan’s position, I don’t see a reasonable basis for that determination.
Keeping in mind the circumstances, how “obscured” would you suggest that person would need be in order to not be able to determine it was the same person? Also, I suggest that concealed (or obstructed from view) might be a better word than obscured for this situation.
-
Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.
Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?
-
Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.
Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?
I didn't think that you would answer the question. ::)
-
Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.
Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?
You’re in profile.
Technically no. A profile is at a 90-degree angle. This is less than 45-degrees. This makes a big difference according to this study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909002557 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909002557)
The entire bottom of your face is obstructed.
Only a very small portion. So what? If you think that small amount makes a significant difference, this study suggests otherwise.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.201169 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.201169)
There’s a rifle up to your face.
So what? It is on the opposite side and isn’t obstructing any of it. ???
Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors.
It is a matter of lighting and resulting shadows. When the referenced photo was taken, I didn’t yet have the lighting set up to simulate the actual lighting at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza. And, when the photo website I use becomes useable again, I will post some photos that demonstrate revised lighting to show that the angle of the sun at 12:30 pm on 11/22.63 reduces those shadows. Plus a thinner arm without a loose fitting shirt sleeve would reduce the shadows further.
Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.
Already addressed distance. It isn’t the barrier that you insinuate.
Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
I will show you, with photographic evidence, that it is possible. Unfortunately we have to wait until the photo sharing website is useable again. I think Brennan is “guesstimating” (because he must not have remembered exactly how much of the man he could see) when he says “a possibility.” But it appears to me (from my experiments) that Brennan saw almost down to the belt, but not quite.
-
Looks to me like Mr.Collins has empirically demonstrated that the seated position is plausible and is actually a comfortable position for the gunman from which he can hide himself (and rifle) from the Hughes film angle , then he can easily move his rifle to a shooting position when the JFK limo begins down Elm st.
This refutes the CT “Cramped Snipers Nest” argument that the shooter would have had an awkward position if the boxes were so stacked as per the WC photos,
IDK if Mr Collins is 5’-9” in height nor if that window in his model is 15.5 inches open , but the seated position /with legs slightly perpendicular seems to be quite the most natural position that fits the arrangement of the boxes as were allegedly first photographed before the 2nd configuration photos introduced suspicion that the scene was created by conspirators after the fact.
-
Looks to me like Mr.Collins has empirically demonstrated that the seated position is plausible and is actually a comfortable position for the gunman from which he can hide himself (and rifle) from the Hughes film angle , then he can easily move his rifle to a shooting position when the JFK limo begins down Elm st.
This refutes the CT “Cramped Snipers Nest” argument that the shooter would have had an awkward position if the boxes were so stacked as per the WC photos,
IDK if Mr Collins is 5’-9” in height nor if that window in his model is 15.5 inches open , but the seated position /with legs slightly perpendicular seems to be quite the most natural position that fits the arrangement of the boxes as were allegedly first photographed before the 2nd configuration photos introduced suspicion that the scene was created by conspirators after the fact.
I am about 5'9" tall. The window opening in the masonry is 14" above the finished floor. The window stool is 2" above the opening in the masonry. And the window is open 19" above the stool. The boxes are dimensions very carefully derived (thanks again for the help) from the WC photos, the ones with the rulers alongside the boxes. The model can be modified if I made any mistakes.
-
Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors.
It is a matter of lighting and resulting shadows. When the referenced photo was taken, I didn’t yet have the lighting set up to simulate the actual lighting at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza. And, when the photo website I use becomes useable again, I will post some photos that demonstrate revised lighting to show that the angle of the sun at 12:30 pm on 11/22.63 reduces those shadows. Plus a thinner arm without a loose fitting shirt sleeve would reduce the shadows further.
Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
I will show you, with photographic evidence, that it is possible. Unfortunately we have to wait until the photo sharing website is useable again. I think Brennan is “guesstimating” (because he must not have remembered exactly how much of the man he could see) when he says “a possibility.” But it appears to me (from my experiments) that Brennan saw almost down to the belt, but not quite.
Okay, it appears that the photo sharing website is back up again. So, here is a photo showing the new light source located to simulate the position of the sun at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63. According to the US Naval Observatory website this would be at an altitude of 37-degrees and an azimuth of 184.9-degrees. I used a laser level and accounted for the orientation of the TSBD at 15-degrees counterclockwise from due north.
(https://i.vgy.me/mQWULM.jpg)
Here is a photo, from Brennan’s simulated angle, using the new (simulated sun position) light source. This depicts the sniper looking towards the Main & Houston Streets intersection. The t-shirt is light colored to go along with the description by Brennan.
(https://i.vgy.me/31adqW.jpg)
And here is a photo showing the firing position. Note that the shadows cast on the light colored shirt are discernible but the portion of the shirt that is in the shadows is still visible.
(https://i.vgy.me/VrFz33.jpg)
For those who might declare that LHO didn’t own a light colored shirt, please see CE 520 in the lower part of the photo below. It is a dingy white t-shirt, versus the bright white, that we identify with the dress shirts worn by men with their coats & ties. So, I think this might account for Brennan’s description of “possible khaki” colored.
(https://i.vgy.me/NPPSBj.png)
-
I think Brennan is “guesstimating” (because he must not have remembered exactly how much of the man he could see) when he says “a possibility.”
I think Brennan is guessing about being able to recognize the person too.
-
Thanks for the revised photos. Sure, if the shooter put the rifle down, looked directly at Brennan, and was only a few feet away, you have a point.
-
Thanks for the revised photos. Sure, if the shooter put the rifle down, looked directly at Brennan, and was only a few feet away, you have a point.
That’s ridiculous and typical of you. ::)
-
LOL… Mr. I is right, camera angle may be correct. but the actual longer distance would probably make the head much smaller.
Never the less, this a good experiment and you might add some more wall and complete the whole window and some % of wall and ceiling above it to see if any more shadow is cast on the face.
Euins seems to have seen only the upper portion of the gunmans head ( the bald spot) while the rest of the face apparently was in shadow.
The photos maybe have clarified a curiosity why Euins and some other witness thought the rifle was sticking OUT the window. It appears to me that it might just be an illusion of the perspective and the angle of the rifle barrel in relation to the outer box on the window ledge.
-
Fantastic thread!
-
LOL… Mr. I is right, camera angle may be correct. but the actual longer distance would probably make the head much smaller.
Never the less, this a good experiment and you might add some more wall and complete the whole window and some % of wall and ceiling above it to see if any more shadow is cast on the face.
Euins seems to have seen only the upper portion of the gunmans head ( the bald spot) while the rest of the face apparently was in shadow.
The photos maybe have clarified a curiosity why Euins and some other witness thought the rifle was sticking OUT the window. It appears to me that it might just be an illusion of the perspective and the angle of the rifle barrel in relation to the outer box on the window ledge.
LOL… Mr. I is right, camera angle may be correct. but the actual longer distance would probably make the head much smaller.
The longer distance would definitely make the head appear smaller. Size is inversely proportional to distance. However, 120-feet is not enough to preclude identification. Here is an image (graph) from one of the studies:
(https://i.vgy.me/5cyBZO.png)
It shows that the hits only decreased by 0.55% per yard. (And 40-yards is 120-feet.)
I don’t have great vision. But there has been numerous times when I have sat in the audience at church or a small-venue concert, at an estimated distance of 120-feet or greater, and seen music performers on stage at that distance. And when I encountered some of those people later (off stage), I recognized them.
Mr. I appears to think that one would have to see every freckle and blemish on an entire face in order to identify them. That isn’t the way it is in the real world.
-
Fantastic thread!
Thanks, it is a learning experience for me. There does seem to be significant interest in it based on the views.
-
And the Loftus and Harley study I cited found that after 25 feet, face perception diminishes, and at about 150 feet, accurate face identification drops to zero.
I’ve also actually sat in Howard Brennan’s location and looked up at the building. Just because you think you could recognize performers at a concert doesn’t mean you could recognize them accurately from their faces alone in a different location and context.
-
What’s troubling is Brennan denying being able to ID the gunman that same day.
The reason he gives later is that he was apparently afraid to do so.
If he was afraid however , then should he not have remained silent about seeing a gunman period?
After all, if you are that COWARDLY that you would withhold vital information of clearly seeing the face of the gunman that SHOT THE POTUS, the ICON of YOUR COUNTRY , then surely you would not venture exposing yourself of seeing any gunman period , because YOU ARE A COWARD.
-
What’s troubling is Brennan denying being able to ID the gunman that same day.
The reason he gives later is that he was apparently afraid to do so.
If he was afraid however , then should he not have remained silent about seeing a gunman period?
After all, if you are that COWARDLY that you would withhold vital information of clearly seeing the face of the gunman that SHOT THE POTUS, the ICON of YOUR COUNTRY , then surely you would not venture exposing yourself of seeing any gunman period , because YOU ARE A COWARD.
Exactly. He was so "afraid", he gave his name to reporters. He was so "afraid". he didn't bother to tell his wife. He was "afraid" even though the guy he "recognized" was in police custody.
But Oswald may have had confederates still at large.
So then what made that "fear" disappear as soon as Oswald was dead?
-
Exactly. He was so "afraid", he gave his name to reporters. He was so "afraid". he didn't bother to tell his wife. He was "afraid" even though the guy he "recognized" was in police custody.
But Oswald may have had confederates still at large.
So then what made that "fear" disappear as soon as Oswald was dead?
Excellent point!! And don't forget that Howard B swore in his affidavit which was written just an hour or so after the murder of JFK, that " I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again"
Then a couple of hours after swearing that he could ID the man if he ever saw him again, Brennan saw Lee Oswald in police custody on TV and did not recognize him, as the man that he'd seen STANDING UP behind a TSBD window..... and then shortly after that, he saw Lee Oswald in a rigged police line up , and he told the police that the man that he'd seen STANDING UP and who was dressed in KHAKI clothing, was NOT in that line up. LHO didn't even own any KHAKI clothing.....
-
What’s troubling is Brennan denying being able to ID the gunman that same day.
The reason he gives later is that he was apparently afraid to do so.
If he was afraid however , then should he not have remained silent about seeing a gunman period?
After all, if you are that COWARDLY that you would withhold vital information of clearly seeing the face of the gunman that SHOT THE POTUS, the ICON of YOUR COUNTRY , then surely you would not venture exposing yourself of seeing any gunman period , because YOU ARE A COWARD.
It must be interesting to be a JFK conspiracy theorist who believes that powerful forces were behind the murder of the president, but then be dismissive of apprehensions of a witness explaining that he was wary of becoming the target of these same conspirators. Why would that be considered cowardly if your conspiracy theory was valid? If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, surely those same conspirators could arrange an "accident" for Brennan. A perfectly reasonable consideration for any witness. It sounds more like you dislike Brennan not because he was a coward but because he came forth and confirmed that Oswald was the assassin. That is the source of your objection.
-
@Richard: I’m not exactly a “Vast” conspiracy advocate and if I could resolve some things then I’d be happy to believe it was just one Marxist Socialist that shot JFK.
Brennan is a problem for me because I’m the sort of person that would have straight out spoken up and sent a message directly to brother RFK within the hour.
And if I had seen the shooter as clearly as Brennan claims he did, then I’d sure have pointed out Oswald at the very First lineup or the very First time I saw Oswald at the police station.
There seems to have been problem with a lot of those 1963 Dealey plaza citizens acting like they were in some kind of brain fog.