(PART 956)


I find it hard to believe a shot was fired from the sniper's nest. The S.N. was a terrible position from which to fire shots at JFK.


Yeah, Jon. This is just a TERRIBLE spot for a sniper to be located, isn't it?....


DVP, regardless of what you say, you still cannot pinpoint Oswald on the 6th floor nor can you pinpoint any shots actually being fired and witnessed.

Besides a barrel being withdrawn, you don't have much else.


Yeah, Bart, I see what you mean. Just because 4 witnesses (not to mention Mrs. Cabell and James Worrell) saw a gun in the Sniper's Nest window, why would THAT little fact mean any shots were actually fired from the ONLY place in Dealey Plaza where any witnesses saw a rifle? (That rifle was probably just a prop, right? Consult David Lifton about that one.)

And just because there were three SPENT rifle shells found right under that same window, should that fact mean I should think ANY shots were fired from that window? (After all, the shells could have been planted there by the patsy-framers, correct? Check Oliver Stone's movie for the plotters in their "Acme" uniforms for verification on this one. And Oliver wouldn't say anything that wasn't accurate, would he?)

And just because Harold Norman heard shots from over his head and heard shells falling to the floor during the shooting, should that give us a hint as to the source of the gunman either? (Norman was probably just lying, right?)

But just how much evidence and how many witnesses am I expected to totally ignore anyway?* Or is there any limit if you're a CTer married to the unrealistic notion that Lee Oswald never fired a shot?

* And I'll pre-empt the defense here by saying that I have not "totally ignored" the many "BOH" Parkland & Bethesda witnesses. I've dealt with those witnesses and tried to explain what they saw in a reasonable manner, just as Vince Bugliosi did in his book and just as the HSCA did as well. There's better evidence that proves the "BOH" witnesses were incorrect. But what "better evidence" does any CTer have when it comes to trying to prove the preposterous theory that NO SHOTS at all were fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Depository?

I'll answer that myself --- There is no such evidence. And there never has been.


The two well-known photos you present are misleading. True, they provide a clear line of sight to the kill zone. But how would Oswald, in the cramped sniper's nest, have obtained this view? Especially given what is not shown, namely the box on which he supposedly rested his rifle. What would have been Oswald's exact body alignment?

The photos represent a big problem with the official version. Like other pieces of so-called evidence, they're deceptive; and one cannot but believe they're meant to deceive.


Well, Jon, here's another picture taken from that same sixth-floor Sniper's Nest, and this time there IS a box on the window ledge. And the line of sight to the automobile on Elm Street below is not obscured at all:

And here are two still frames from the 1963 Secret Service re-enactment film, in which a Secret Service agent demonstrates the probable position and posture of the sixth-floor assassin as he fired shots at the President's car:

And here's another still image from that same Secret Service re-enactment film, with this picture illustrating the high likelihood that the sixth-floor sniper (Oswald, of course) must have changed his firing stance between shot #1 and shot #2, because the boxes on the ledge do, indeed, appear to be obstructing a clear shot down to the street around the time of Zapruder frame 160 (which is when I think Oswald squeezed off his first shot):

But I don't see why anyone would claim that the above observation about Oswald having to alter his shooting posture between the shots positively means that Oswald could NOT have accomplished the assassination on his own from that sixth-floor sniper's perch.

Even if Oswald had to stand up (instead of sitting or squatting) to fire his first shot at Kennedy's car around Z160, so what? We still have solid indications that THREE shots from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WERE fired from that very same sixth-floor location in the southeast corner. The THREE spent bullet shells on the floor [CE510] pretty much seal the deal on that point. Plus the huge percentage of witnesses who heard exactly THREE SHOTS fired during the assassination.

And, as the picture directly above clearly shows, Oswald had a clear and unobstructed view of JFK's car on the street below for the last two shots as the rifle was placed over the top of the boxes situated on the window ledge.

Granted, if Oswald had been sitting on the box in the corner as the Secret Service agent was doing during his reconstruction of the shooting, it appears that due to the configuration of the boxes in the window, JFK would have come into Oswald's sights just barely in time for him to squeeze off the "SBT" shot at Z224 (which is when I think that shot occurred).

But we can never know what Oswald's EXACT posture and body position was when he fired each of his three shots at the President back in '63. Perhaps he was sitting on the box in the corner for some of the shots (as the Secret Service agent demonstrated), but perhaps he wasn't. That is one of the "unknowables" in this case.

But one thing we DO know for a fact is that these three spent cartridge cases from the rifle proven to be owned by Lee Harvey Oswald were found underneath the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on November 22, 1963:



The three cartridges never would have been admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution of Oswald. The prosecutor would stumble at several points. One would be chain of custody, for reasons I'm sure you know well. Another would be failure to establish the cartridges were fired from the M-C rifle in question on 11-22-63. As of Saturday the 23rd, the rifle was so badly rusted, Robert Frazier didn't bother to swab the rifle barrel to determine whether the rifle had been fired recently. Markings on the cartridges also raise questions as to when they were fired through the rifle.

You routinely win arguments like this, David, but only because you don't have to deal with the Rules of Evidence.


And the only possible way you, Jon, can "win" some of your arguments is to steadfastly and stubbornly remain married to your "Rules of Evidence" that only apply inside a courtroom.

But the FACT remains that those three bullet shells WERE fired in Oswald's C2766 Carcano (and, yes, it most certainly WAS "Oswald's" Carcano, as Waldman Exhibit No. 7 clearly proves).....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit 139?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER (FBI) -- "Yes, sir."

MR. EISENBERG -- "And what were your conclusions, Mr. Frazier?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "I found all three of the cartridge cases had been fired in this particular weapon."


And I can hear the laughter in the courtroom, Jon, if you tried to float the idea that the three shells found under the window really WEREN'T fired at the time of the assassination. The prosecutor would, of course, hammer home to the jury the fact that Harold Norman heard shells falling to the floor DURING the assassination itself. And the prosecutor would also mention the little fact about the two large bullet fragments FROM THE SAME GUN owned by Oswald being found in the President's car. And the fact that Oswald's rifle was also found on that very same sixth floor.

And then Jon Tidd would get up and plead with the jury for them to just IGNORE all of the above facts because Jon thinks the shells might have been planted (even though he has no hard evidence to back up such an assertion).

Reminds me of the O.J. Defense. Same thing exactly. Try to get the jury to concentrate on things that could not possibly have happened in the real world, all the while getting the 12 jurors to throw into the trash the cold hard facts in the case.


Very misleading as usual. In the SS reenactment, you show the window as wide open when we know it was only half open at the time of the shooting. Take that phony photo and draw in the bottom frame of the window where it actually was during the shooting and you'll see the problem.


Which of the Secret Service re-enactment photos are you talking about, Tony? You certainly cannot be referring to this one or this one. Neither of those pictures show the window "wide open" at all.

Therefore, you must be referring to this photo (or perhaps this one).

But as this picture plainly shows, the assassin (i.e., Oswald) would have been quite capable of getting off his shots even with the window halfway open. So what difference does it really make if another picture shows the window open a little bit more?

Tony Marsh, as usual, is just looking for more and more (and more) reasons to gripe about the various JFK assassination investigations. In this instance, it's the Secret Service re-enactment that Tony has "found" some nitpicky fault with.

Tomorrow, Tony will nitpick Allen Dulles to death. The next day, he'll choose some of John McAdams' webpages to call "misleading" or "lies". And the day after that, Anthony will focus his nitpicking radar on the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the assassination. I'm sure there must be at least 99 things Tony thinks the WC and FBI screwed up with that particular reconstruction of the shooting. Right, Tony?

Never-ending nitpicking. But still no non-Carcano bullets. Must be frustrating for theorists of Tony's ilk.


David Von Pein
June 12-14, 2015
June 16, 2015