The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[Zeon Mason]

WC theory is  Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor at the SW window and then “escaped” from 6th floor , using the staircase, to be seen IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 secs post shots.

That insistence that 90 secs is a fixed time that cannot be exceeded causes a problem due to the witnesses like Garner, Adams, Jackson and Couch.

Adams/Stiles (A/S)left the open window on the 4th floor office not later than  15 sec post shots and more likely 5 secs post shots, such that she and reached the ground floor by 60 secs post shots.

The Dillard photo taken of the TBDS approx 10 sec post shots shows an  open window at 4th floor office and there is no one in the window. This is a possible confirmation that A/S did in fact leave the office window by 10 sec post shots.

Dorothy Garner, is a problem, because , she stated she followed A/S “almost immediately” and was “right behind them”
She originally had stated that she “saw” the girls going down, but in an interview with Barry  Ernest, she amended that to “heard them” on the stairs.

Never the less, “hearing them” still means that Garner must have exited the 4th floor office door by approx not later than 40 sec post shots to have had a reasonable probability of hearing A/S voices/heels on the staircase , since it would be take about  10 sec more for Garner to walk about another 60 ft to be standing near the the stairs at a west window.

Beyond 50 secs post shots, it’s improbable that Garner would have heard any voices/heels or any other noise on the staircase because of 2 floors of separation and the nature of the dogleg type stair that is NOT  a continuous “well” type volume as in a parallel staircase.

Also, there is  no way that Garner could have seen Baker/Truly (B/T)ascending up to the 4th floor via the staircase after having just seen A/S leave the office and Garner hearing them going down the stairs when she was standing by the west window near the stairs.

The 60 sec time that Adams estimated of reaching the ground floor therefore is probably correct because that’s the only way that A/S and B/T miss seeing each other and also went down before Garner saw B/T ascending up using the stair.

Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch are tge  other 2 witness who mess up the WC  not later than 90 sec absolute time stamp.

Jackson’s WC testimony is that it took approx 3 secs post shots before he saw a rifle sticking out the 6th floor SW window of TSBD.

Jackson then stated he said “I see a gun”, then heard someone (Couch? ) ask “”where” and then Jackson pointed to the SW window and stated “in that window”.

Malcolm Couch was probably the one in the same car with Jackson who had asked “where”

Both Jackson and Couch then saw the rifle slowly withdrawn from the window.(3secs?)

The problem caused here is that this adds an approx extra 15 secs of time required for the 6th floor SW gunman/rifle displayer. to exit out from the barricaded SN. ( via Tom Aleya, the boxes originally barricaded the SN so tightly they had to move the boards to get into the SN).

When added to the time required to double time jog (8ft/sec) across 180 ft distance and while simultaneously wiping prints of the rifle, then hiding the rifle between the rows of boxes, Oswald would likely have started down the stairs until approx 50 secs post shots .

Since it has not been demonstrated that a person could go down the dog leg 18 steps staircase and cross about 20 ft of landing any faster than 10 secs/floor, then Oswald could not have started down the 4th floor staircase any sooner than approx 70 secs post shots.

Therefore Dorothy Garner would have to change her statement about following A/S “ almost immediately “ ( 30 sec or less) to something like “Maybe it was more like about 1 min and 15 secs before I came out of the office.

Even if Garner could change that time, however, Oswald still cannot get to the 2nd floor landing any sooner than approx 85 secs post shots a bit to be IN the 2nd floor lunchroom not later than 90 sec post shots.

Conclusion: To make the WC  “escape” via staircase theoretically work , without having to completely ignore or dismiss Garner, Adams , Jackson and Couch, requires 2 changes:

1. Mrs Garners statement of time has to be changed from “almost immediately” or the statement must be interpreted to mean a period of time that was at least 1min 15sec.

2.  Baker/Truly have to take slightly longer (about 10 secs more) to reach the 2nd floor lunchroom, so the 90 sec time should be considered only an approximation and not as an absolute maximum as the WC seems to suggest.

[Mitch Todd]

You haven't shown us any evidence that your preferred interpretation is correct, so neither I nor anyone else owes you anything in return.

Hang on, it was you who said "Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads". It was your claim, not mine!

No sooner did Mytton show that c20-t750 was used for 40" rifles as well as 36" ones, you immediately started to hem and haw that Klein's would have shipped a 36" rifle, based on the department number on the order coupon. That is to say, you started this little diversion. And in support of your assertion, you've given us (drum roll please) ....nothing whatsoever.  If you want to claim that the department number would have made a difference in fulfilling the order, it's up  to you to make a case for it, instead of the usual empty blurts of hot air you tend to regurgitate.

You also said; "this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades". If that were true, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong, but instead you play the "I don't owe you anything in return".

It's definitely has been argued over for decades, in internet forums, on the old JFKA BBSes, and even in the earlier age when people argued via newsletters glorified into "research journals". I've seen a lot of it, and participated in some.

And, yes, we owe you nothing, since (again) you've signally failed to do anything support your opening assertion to begin with.

The obvious truth is clearly different;

First you claimed falsely that the department number did not appear on the Waldman exhibit 7 order form, which was somehow to prove that Klein's didn't use the department number on the ad to identify a particular item.

Then, after John Mytton obviously told you in a PM that you were wrong, you shifted to "it's faint" (on Waldman 7) and "set off by itself, and not associated with the C20-T750 order code the way the other identifiers like the control number, item description, and serial number are."

You are clearly making stuff up as you go along. I've seen you do this several times before. That's why it's such a waste of time to talk to you.

You're now down to trying to arguing by adverb and sprinkling in "obvious" as a substitute for substantiating your assertions. Like when you falsely claimed that there "needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail."

Again, if the department code was used to designate a specific order item, it would show up in the ordered item in the order form with the order code, serial number, control number, etc. and not squeezed between two lines of unrelated text in a different section of the form.

Says who? Regardless of whatever you make up, by way of excuses, the Department number does show up on the Order blank. If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

Says who? You are clearly making stuff up as you go along.

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Klein's did use the department number on the ads to identify a particular stock item and that the number tucked away ion an odd spot on the order form is "358." Now we have a situation where the fulfilment workers in the warehouse have to take the c20-t750 item identifier, then cross reference it against a list of department numbers built from a matrix of publications and months in order to identify the particular item to ship. That situation lends itself to mistakes, like sending a 40" rifle instead of a 36" rifle and vice versa. So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36". 

 

[Martin Weidmann]

No sooner did Mytton show that c20-t750 was used for 40" rifles as well as 36" ones, you immediately started to hem and haw that Klein's would have shipped a 36" rifle, based on the department number on the order coupon. That is to say, you started this little diversion. And in support of your assertion, you've given us (drum roll please) ....nothing whatsoever.  If you want to claim that the department number would have made a difference in fulfilling the order, it's up  to you to make a case for it, instead of the usual empty blurts of hot air you tend to regurgitate.

It's definitely has been argued over for decades, in internet forums, on the old JFKA BBSes, and even in the earlier age when people argued via newsletters glorified into "research journals". I've seen a lot of it, and participated in some.

And, yes, we owe you nothing, since (again) you've signally failed to do anything support your opening assertion to begin with.

You're now down to trying to arguing by adverb and sprinkling in "obvious" as a substitute for substantiating your assertions. Like when you falsely claimed that there "needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail."

If Klein's only used it for analysis it would have sufficed to keep the actual order coupons.

Says who? You are clearly making stuff up as you go along.

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Klein's did use the department number on the ads to identify a particular stock item and that the number tucked away ion an odd spot on the order form is "358." Now we have a situation where the fulfilment workers in the warehouse have to take the c20-t750 item identifier, then cross reference it against a list of department numbers built from a matrix of publications and months in order to identify the particular item to ship. That situation lends itself to mistakes, like sending a 40" rifle instead of a 36" rifle and vice versa. So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".

Anyway, just for the sake of argument,

Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.

I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;

So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".

The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.

All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank?  Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.

So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.

Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.

But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?

[Tom Scully]

Anyway, just for the sake of argument,

Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.

I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;

So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".

The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.

All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank?  Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.

So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.

Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.

But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?

Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Page 209
books.google.com › books
Edward Jay Epstein · 1978 · ‎Snippet view
Found inside – Page 209
... the rifle arrived in Dallas . Oswald picked it up at the post office and brought it back to his office , where he showed it to one of his fellow employees , Jack Bowen . Things had not been going well for Oswald at Jaggars- Chiles ...

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

Mr. JENNER. Then, go on. Tell me about it.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?
Mr. JENNER. You say---
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle.
Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything.
Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It looks very much like it.
Mr. JENNER. And was it standing in the corner of the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. You want me to show you how it was leaning? Make believe I open the closet door this way. And the rifle was leaning something like that.
Mr. JENNER. Right against the wall?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; and the closet was square. I said, what is this?
Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here.
Mr. JENNER. I say your attention was arrested, not only, because when the closet door was opened by Marina you saw the rifle in the closet--you saw a rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. That surprised you, first?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Of course.
Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was.
Mr. JENNER. But your attention was arrested by that fact, because it was something new and strange to you?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. You were accustomed to your husband having weapons?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, we had only one rifle on our trip. But my father was a collector of guns, that was his hobby.
Mr. JENNER. And being accustomed to rifles, to the extent you have indicated, you noticed this telescopic lens, because you had not seen a rifle with a telescopic lens on it before? Had you seen a rifle with the bolt action that this has?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't ever know. I read it was bolt action but I would not know.
Mr. JENNER. But you did notice this protrusion, the ball sticking out?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I don't recall. The only thing there was something on it. It could be that it was the telescopic sight or something, but it was something on the rifle. It was not a smooth, plain rifle. This is for sure.

Mr. JENNER. Now, when you saw that, and being surprised, were you concerned about it?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just asked what on earth is he doing with a rifle?
Mr. JENNER. What did she say?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." But it didn't strike me too funny, because I personally love skeet shooting. I never kill anything. But I adore to shoot at a target, target shooting.

[Mitch Todd]

Anyway, just for the sake of argument,

Hilarious, all you do is argue for the sake of argument. You've done it before and are desperately trying to do it again.

I'll cut to the end of your usual longwinded yet hollow "arguments" by replying to the last sentence you wrote;

So, even if we assume that your unsupported assertion is correct, there exists good reason why Oswald would have wound up with a 40" rifle when the ad he ordered from said it was 36".

The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all.

All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything (including alleged postage and receipt of the goods ordered not ordered) except of course for the Department Number, which you can not explain why it is also written on the same document. Isn't it ironic how you first tried (in vain) to make a big deal of the Department Number not being on the order blank?  Until, that is, you learned from Mytton that you were wrong and it actually was on the form after all.

So, as long as you can't give a reasonable and credible explanation of the Department Number being on the order blank, I will not take serious anything you have to say. I'm sure you won't mind.

Btw, your utter desperation, and all the speculation that goes along with it, to negate the significance of the Department Number is duly noted. It's petty and pathetic, but noted nevertheless.

When we subtract all the empty bluster, hot air, sour grapes, ad hominem, and the other junk from your reply, all we're left with is:

"The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all" and "All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything"

Both of these statement are nothing more than your own attempt to change the subject away from what rifle Klein's would have shipped, now that your assertions died on the vines, and your repeated attempts at creating a smokescreen have failed. Even then, you fail. Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.

But who knows, perhaps you are right and Klein's was just a shabby outfit who would ignore actual orders and sent something else instead. A toy gun perhaps.... ?

I don't know how it worked in your neck of the woods, but in pre-ecommerce America, ads in the back of magazines had something of a seedy reputation. To the point where "I got it from an ad in the back of a magazine" was something of a precursor punchline to the more modern "I read it on the internet." Ordering from such ads might not result in a total rip off, but one had to expect some amount of disappointment when making such a purchase.
But that would assume that Klein's really would have sent a 36" rifle.

[Martin Weidmann]

When we subtract all the empty bluster, hot air, sour grapes, ad hominem, and the other junk from your reply, all we're left with is:

"The problem with this is that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that Oswald received any rifle at all" and "All you do is rely on Waldman 7 for everything"

Both of these statement are nothing more than your own attempt to change the subject away from what rifle Klein's would have shipped, now that your assertions died on the vines, and your repeated attempts at creating a smokescreen have failed. Even then, you fail. Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.

I don't know how it worked in your neck of the woods, but in pre-ecommerce America, ads in the back of magazines had something of a seedy reputation. To the point where "I got it from an ad in the back of a magazine" was something of a precursor punchline to the more modern "I read it on the internet." Ordering from such ads might not result in a total rip off, but one had to expect some amount of disappointment when making such a purchase.
But that would assume that Klein's really would have sent a 36" rifle.

Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box. There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back. And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766. And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle. And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building? It's much more than just Waldman 7. And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.

And there is the same old LN BS again! 

Waldman ex. 7 is just the filled order blank for C2766, showing that it was sent to "A. Hidell" addressed to Oswald's Post Office box.

No it doesn't. It's just a microfilm copy of a document with the Hidell address and a handwritten serial number on it. It does not show anything was actually sent. That's just a flawed assumption.

There is also Waldman Ex. 8, the order coupon and the envelope it arrived in, both bearing handwriting determined to be Oswald's. And the Postal Money order, also with handwriting determined to be Oswald's, and bearing Klein's endorsement on the back.

Even if Oswald did write it, which is debatable, how do these documents prove that Oswald was actually sent and received a rifle? Short answer; it doesn't. It's just another assumption.

And there are the backyard photographs showing Oswald holding a Carcano with a distinctive defect the same size and the same place as one on C2766.

How does a photograph of a man holding a rifle prove that Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald? Again, the short answer is; it doesn't. Just one more assumption. And btw, unless you can show that this alleged "distinctive defect" is exclusive to C2766, you've got nothing.

And Marina Oswald testified that Oswald owned a rifle.

Marina also testified that Oswald went to shoot his rifle at Love field and she failed to identify the rifle when the MC found at the TSBD was shown to her on Friday evening.

Having said that, how does Marina believing that Oswald owned a rifle, prove that Klein's did sent a rifle to Oswald and he received it?

And did I mention that a Carcano, serial #2766 (same as on Waldman Ex 7) was discovered on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace within an hour of shots being fired from the building?

Well, let's also mention that Waldman 7 was never authenticated and the serial number was handwritten on the document, which was taken from a microfilm that was confiscated by the FBI in November 1963, has no chain of custody and didn't surface again until Waldman testified, only to disappear again after that. To authenticate the document, all they had to do is have the actual order filler confirm his handwriting on it. They never did. Instead they had Waldman (who had nothing to do with the gun department) explain the content of the document.

Waldman, who had no first hand knowledge to share, could only make assumptions based on what he saw on the microfilm.

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
 

It's much more than just Waldman 7.

True. It's Waldman 7 and a whole lot of speculative conjecture.

And he did received a rifle, as shown in the backyard photos and his wife's testimony.

Already debunked. The backyard photos show Oswald holding a rifle. They, and Marina's testimony, do not prove he received or owned a rifle.

[Jim Hawthorn]

Would LHO have planned to shoot the president, without also planning an escape? Or did he see something happen on Elm Street that caused him to abandon his escape plan and flee the SBD in panic? 
    After the shooting, LHO behaved in a confused manner.  Walking, bus and taxi took him home, where he grabbed a jacket and pistol, which he could easily have taken to work that morning.  He had no disguise prepared, but went back out on the street anyway, leading to his tragic encounter with Officer Tippit, and to his later arrest. If LHO was cool and coldhearted enough to murder a president, why did he fall apart afterwards? 
      The Mortal Error theory -- that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally fired his AR-15 rifle and hit JFK in the head -- may provide an answer.
     As the presidential limo continued down Elm Street, LHO was watching thru his telescopic sight.  His first shot missed, his second shot hit JFK in the upper back, and, as he was lining up his third shot, he would have seen JFK's skull explode from Hickey's AR-15 shot(s).  Instantly, LHO would have known there was another shooter, and that suddenly he was part of something that looked like someone else's assassination plan. He might have felt like a "patsy." The shock of that belief might have sent him into a panic. Thinking he now needed a pistol to defend himself, did he abandon whatever plan he might have prepared, and run helter-skelter for his life?

This is similar to what I've proposed in another thread (2 unrelated plots that day). I suggest that Oswald was merely pulling a stunt, perhaps with blanks.
He panicked because he realised that JFK had actually been shot at or killed and he realised that he would be implicated. Panic stations.

My (unpopular ) thread:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3918.0.html

[Jim Hawthorn]

...regarding what ever oswald carried you cant prove it was a rifle , in fact your only two witnesses dispute you on this . so you cant prove it was a rifle but you expect me to prove it was curtain rods ? , when exactly did i claim oswald carried curtain rods ? . i can tell you what oswald said he carried , an apple and a sandwich . you can prove the rifle in evidence found at the depository was oswalds , well given that the rifle we were told was ordered was the short 36 inch model and the model in the depository is a long 40 inch model well you already have a problem .

Everybody here seems to get hung up on the length of the package. Don't forget that Oswald could have sneaked the long wooden stock into the TSBD on a previous occasion. Then on the morning of the 23rd, the package contained only the final parts, including the very curtain rail-like barrel section.