Brennan's Shooter Could Not Have Been in the "Sniper's Nest"

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas School Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A, a minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three witnesses to Event A....

One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At first, one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming X-ray vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, opposite the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said upper-floor windows.

Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission testimony, where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170 pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).

By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up." (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to would seem to be all but impossible, physically.

However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this."
Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
Brennan: "That is right." (p153)

The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says, "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork. It might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's height and weight....

Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".

Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems, understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill, or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526). Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.

How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly, "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never mentions seeing a box in the window.)

Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.

dcw

[David Von Pein]

>>> "No shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window." <<<

Which means Donald Willis is forced to call all of the people listed
below liars, because each saw a rifle/"pipe" sticking out of the sixth-
floor "Sniper's Nest" window (and I'll omit James Worrell from this
list, but he should really be put on it too):

Amos Euins
Robert Jackson
Mal Couch
Howard Brennan

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html

After listening to Mal Couch tell his story on WFAA-Radio within hours
of the assassination (above link), I'm wondering if I'll hear this
response from Don Willis in return:

"Couch said "fifth or sixth floor", which means he must have seen one
of the black guys shooting from the fifth floor, since I've already
established via "Willis Logic" that there couldn't possibly have been
a shooter in the sixth-floor SN window. Yeah, that's what happened
alright."

[mainframetech]

Interesting. Jackson and Couch saw about the same thing, and very
little inside the TSBD except boxes stacked up. Jackson on seeing the
rifle says:
"Mr. SPECTER - Eight or ten inches of the stock, and how much of the
barrel would you estimate?
Mr. JACKSON - I guess possibly a foot."

They were somewhat in the same direction as Brennan, though a bit
further away along Houston. Still they saw little to nothing inside
the window. Euins was almst in Brennan's hip pocket and was unable to
see anything of the suspect except a large bald spot on the top of the
head. He also saw boxes stacked up inside.
Clearly differentiating the barrel and the stock, Jackson sees a
foot of barrel. Thinking back we know that Amos Euins saw 14-15
inches of barrel. This is a lot of barrel from 12 to 15 inches. The
M-C rifle said to be owned by Oswald had only about 6 inches of barel
showing, with wooden guards (stock?) over most of the barrel. Perhaps
they were describing the 'Mauser 7.65' rifle.

The affidavit of Seymour Weitzman - Mauser identification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nuloZxeW9g

Chris

[Walt]

There was no 7.65 rifle involved..... PERIOD!

We'll never know for sure the caliber of the rifle in the hands of the man that Brennan and others saw STANDING and aiming from the WIDE OPEN west end window at the time of the shooting....

BUT we can be certain it did NOT fire a 7.65mm bullet. All wounds on the victims were consistant with a SMALLER caliber bullet, such as a 6mm bullet. AND the conspirators KNEW they were framing Oswald who was on record as having ordered a 6mm caliber rifle. Therefore they would have used weapons that fired bullets of that caliber.,,,, AND they would have planted spent cartridges that fit the rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box.

[Walt]

[Walt]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:34:56 AM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:

dcw wrote: "Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository window or a wide-open one."

Sorry, Don...But this statement is not true. An assassin COULD NOT have fired the 40 inch long rifle from the half open window at the east end of the sixth floor as the authorities told us he did.

The authorities said that LHO sat on a box and used a stack of boxes in front of him to steady the rifle as he fired down on to Elm street below. This scenario is physically impossible. An assassin could NOT have depressed the muzzle of the rifle low enough to fire down onto Elm street. AND moreover...The thickness of the building walls ( over two feet thick) and the protruding ledge beneath the window would have forced any assassin shooting from that half open window to be right behind that window. Simple geometry proves that nobody could use a 40 inch long rifle in the manner described by the authorities.

[Robert Caprio]

And yet, many witnesses said a Mauser was found and even mentioned the
caliber! Don't you find it odd they said 7.65 IF NO Mauser was
found. Why that caliber?

> We'll never know for sure the caliber of the rifle in the hands of the man that Brennan and others saw STANDING and aiming from the WIDE OPEN west end window at the time of the shooting....

But, we do know he said it had NO scope and the alleged murder weapon
did.

> BUT we can be certain it did NOT fire a 7.65mm bullet. All wounds on the victims were consistant with a SMALLER caliber bullet, such as a 6mm bullet. AND the conspirators KNEW they were framing Oswald who was on record as having ordered a 6mm caliber rifle.

He was? I thought their own evidence showed he was ordering something
they claimed was NOT the murder weapon (their evidence shows a 36"
Carbine being ordered)?

> Therefore they would have used weapons that fired bullets of that caliber.,,,, AND they would have planted spent cartridges that fit the rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box.

What rifle was sent to, and picked up at LHO's P.O. box again?

[curtjester1]

On Oct 1, 10:23 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

One thing that should be pointed out is that the rifle Robert Frazier
had, was not a rifle that was used that day:
(So IF there were shots fired from the 6th Floor, likely it was
replaced for the TV footage. Roger Craig said it was staged. As far
as a 'traceable bullet', which one are you talking about? Is it the
back wound or JBC's wounds? The JFK front shot, wouldn't that likely
be from a smaller weapon than a rifle? And the bullet that hit JFK's
head, a frangible bullet that left a "snowstorm" of many fragments,
couldn't be applied to any MC ammo, could it??) Also remember ATF
Ellsworth's statement that he found a MC on the 4th floor and brought
it up, which may account for some switching before some insider would
have insisted that a MC would be needed instead of another type of
found rifle.

CJ ------>> is Frazier's testimony of what constitutes a fired
weapon.

"Gil Jesus
10-01-2008, 03:05 PM

WAS FRAZIER SAYING THAT THE RIFLE WASN'T FIRED ?
By Gil Jesus ( 2008 )

FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the
inside of the barrel of the Oswald rifle was "roughened" from
corrosion ( rust ), then commented that "if a barrel is allowed to
rust, one round will remove that rust."

So why did the barrel have surface rust after Oswald had fired THREE
rounds ?

THE RUSTED BARREL

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that
it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good
shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners
were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from
corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been
fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as
you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not
an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS
ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel
to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean
barrel.

( 3 H 395 )


The visual examination of the barrel was so convincing that the rifle
had NOT been fired, that Frazier never even bothered to examine it for
fouling in the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
( ibid.)


THE RUSTED BOLT

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should
not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind
THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was
also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with
respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first
firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and
he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the
first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in
a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the
bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he
began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were
afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit
139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of
ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They
had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we
were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they
used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from it's
rust. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes
and the faster the elaspsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we
tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater
proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved
in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There
is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters
who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time
than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

OIL ON THE RUSTED FIRING PIN, SPRING & BOLT

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and it's spring for
someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown
by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and,
further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS
SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )

The rifle was so badly rusted, they had to oil it. CE 2974 also states
that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well
oiled", there just happened to be oil "residue" on the "interior
surfaces" of the bolt as well. The FBI denied that it was the one who
oiled the weapon, adding that "it is not known if it was oiled by any
other person having this rifle in his possession". This document
further states that the rust on the spring and the firing pin "must
have formed prior to the oiling of these parts." ( ibid. )

Although one might argue that the rust appeared on the rifle AFTER the
assassination, Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after
Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in and
"roughened" the surface of the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this
rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it
temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )

CONCLUSION

Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on
the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the
barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced
the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would
he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the
barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted
barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that
the two were both rusted ?

The significance of rust inside a barrel is described by Frazier :
IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST

If the barrel of the rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then not even
one round had been fired from it.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder
weapon.

The testimony not only strongly suggests that the inside of the barrel
was rusted, but also that the bolt was rusted so badly that in order
to get it to move, they had to first work in in through a "dry-run
practice exercise" and then oil it.

The evidence indicates that both the firing pin and the spring
contained rust and both had been "well oiled" at some point after the
rust had formed and some oil "residue" was found on the bolt.

So who oiled the weapon ?

When the Warren Commission asked the FBI, the FBI replied that it was
not responsible for the oiling and did not know if the weapon had been
oiled by "any other person having this rifle in his possession".

Couldn't they find out ? I mean wasn't this the Federal Bureau of
INVESTIGATION ?

Of course they could have. Only a few agencies possessed the weapon.

On the Commission's question of whether or not the firing pin had been
changed, the Bureau responded that it had " no record of any outlet
where spare parts, including firing pins, can be obtained for rifles
for such as Commission Exhibit 139".

Talk about spare parts...... Didn't the FBI have in its possession the
EXACT SAME RIFLE in CE 542 ?

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November
23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the
barrel, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason
to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to
the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue
of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was
so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes
before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run
exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential to obtain the elapsed
time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is
no way that one gunman, whether that was Oswald or anyone else, could
have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the
bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Finally, when the Warren Commission asked the FBI in August 1964 to
examine the rifle to see if the firing pin had been changed, the
Bureau found that the firing pin and the spring were "well oiled" and
that they and the bolt were all oiled by a person or persons unknown
to it. The Bureau also found that the oil had been added to the weapon
AFTER it had rusted.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a
thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled
indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had
been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to
the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas
Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that
it was not capable of performing the assassination of President
Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and
sent it back to the Dallas Police."

(the above is from a post of mine on this thread) here is the link to
the thread.
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=715.75

[mainframetech]

Odd that you would say that. How do you know that? Any backup for such statements? Or do you simply believe the WCR as an article of faith?

>
>
> We'll never know for sure the caliber of the rifle in the hands of the man that Brennan and others saw STANDING and aiming from the WIDE OPEN west end window at the time of the shooting....
>

Well, we might make an educated guess. It might be the M-C rifle that was supposedly found there after a while, or the Mauser that was definitely found and identified by a gun specialist, who then signed an afidavit to that effect, fully knowing what that implied.

>
>
> BUT we can be certain it did NOT fire a 7.65mm bullet. All wounds on the victims were consistant with a SMALLER caliber bullet, such as a 6mm bullet. AND the conspirators KNEW they were framing Oswald who was on record as having ordered a 6mm caliber rifle. Therefore they would have used weapons that fired bullets of that caliber.,,,, AND they would have planted spent cartridges that fit the rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box.
>

Do you know the size of a 6mm hole in the body? Is it very close to the size of a 7mm hole? :) You obviously haven't a clue about hte bullet holes andwhere they came from. Readthe following item:

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland, saw entrance wounds, believes shot from front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Chris

[mainframetech]

As noted above, how big is a 6mm hole in flesh? And how big is a 7mm hole in flesh? Kinda close in size, eh? :) Who was the forensic pathologist or weapons specialist that decided the size of the 6mm hole?

>
> He was? I thought their own evidence showed he was ordering something
>
> they claimed was NOT the murder weapon (their evidence shows a 36"
>
> Carbine being ordered)?
>
>
>
> > Therefore they would have used weapons that fired bullets of that caliber.,,,, AND they would have planted spent cartridges that fit the rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box.
>

Not necessarily. They might have planned on substituting them later once they tested the M-C rifle and has shells and bullets to work with. Look at the replacement that was done with the CE399 bullet that many couldn't recognize after they went back and tried to get verification for it.

[Walt]

MF wrote:... " Well, we might make an educated guess."

That's true MF....But before you can make an "educated guess" you need an education.

[mainframetech]

That's it then. All the talk of the M-C and Oswald are wasted. If that rifle wasn't used that day, then what's left is the 'Mauser 7.65'. No argument there.

>
>
> The testimony not only strongly suggests that the inside of the barrel
>
> was rusted, but also that the bolt was rusted so badly that in order
>
> to get it to move, they had to first work in in through a "dry-run
>
> practice exercise" and then oil it.
>
>
>
> The evidence indicates that both the firing pin and the spring
>
> contained rust and both had been "well oiled" at some point after the
>
> rust had formed and some oil "residue" was found on the bolt.
>
>
>
> So who oiled the weapon ?
>
>
>
> When the Warren Commission asked the FBI, the FBI replied that it was
>
> not responsible for the oiling and did not know if the weapon had been
>
> oiled by "any other person having this rifle in his possession".
>
>
>
> Couldn't they find out ? I mean wasn't this the Federal Bureau of
>
> INVESTIGATION ?
>
>
>
> Of course they could have. Only a few agencies possessed the weapon.
>
>
>
> On the Commission's question of whether or not the firing pin had been
>
> changed, the Bureau responded that it had " no record of any outlet
>
> where spare parts, including firing pins, can be obtained for rifles
>
> for such as Commission Exhibit 139".
>

Which doesn't answer the question! They didn't say if the firing pin had been fiddled with, or who (if anyone) did it. Throughout this case the FBI are not friends of justice.

[curtjester1]

Now, THAT'S a toughie, Rob? ;;D

Here's a thread I read earlier. Thought you might enjoy it.

http://jfk007.com/wowzer-a-mauser/

> > We'll never know for sure the caliber of the rifle in the hands of the man that Brennan and others saw STANDING and aiming from the WIDE OPEN west end window at the time of the shooting....
>
> But, we do know he said it had NO scope and the alleged murder weapon
> did.
>

And if somehow he did afterwards, after an order, it wouldn't have
been anything that 'he' had work on at the Irving Sports Shop, nor
would it have matched the scope that Slack and Price described at the
Sports Drome Rifle Range of 'his'. Of course LN'ers will always say
something about a scope and a rifle 'thown' to make the scope get
off...but then they will say about anything....and why of course would
they or he hide a rifle and not take the cartrdiges?

> > BUT we can be certain it did NOT fire a 7.65mm bullet.  All wounds on the victims were consistant with a SMALLER caliber bullet, such as a 6mm bullet.   AND the conspirators KNEW they were framing Oswald who was on record as having ordered a 6mm caliber rifle.
>
> He was? I thought their own evidence showed he was ordering something
> they claimed was NOT the murder weapon (their evidence shows a 36"
> Carbine being ordered)?
>

And if they choose a 40"er somehow, even that is not the MC shown that
they think he might have ordered via what was shown in the BY Photos.

> > Therefore they would have used weapons that fired bullets of that caliber.,,,, AND they would have planted spent cartridges that fit the rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO box.
>
> What rifle was sent to, and picked up at LHO's P.O. box again?
>
>

Nothing that anyone could verify a pick up on, nor any paperwork to go
with it.

CJ

[dklou...@comcast.net]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:01:43 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "No shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window." <<<
>
>
>
> Which means Donald Willis is forced to call all of the people listed
>
> below liars, because each saw a rifle/"pipe" sticking out of the sixth-
>
> floor "Sniper's Nest" window (and I'll omit James Worrell from this
>
> list, but he should really be put on it too):
>
>
>
> Amos Euins
>
> Robert Jackson
>
> Mal Couch
>
> Howard Brennan
>

DVP can say this with a supposedly straight face, even after reading the above post, which proves that Brennan could not have seen his man in a half-opened window with a box lying across the sill, which box would have prevented the man from "laying sideways" on the sill! Nice work, DVP!

>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
>
>
>
> After listening to Mal Couch tell his story on WFAA-Radio within hours
>
> of the assassination (above link), I'm wondering if I'll hear this
>
> response from Don Willis in return:
>

I'll simply apply the Amos Euins Rule to Couch. Euins told reporters at the scene that he had seen a "colored man" with a rifle up there. Which means that he looked away between the time he saw the rifle & the time he saw the "colored man", perhaps Bonnie Ray Williams, in a window *close* to where he had just seen the rifle. Unless DVP thinks that Euins saw a black man in the "nest"!

By the same token, Couch saw the rifle being pulled back, looked away, looked back, & saw perhaps Williams in the window *near* the shooter's window. Further supporting data: Couch hesitantly added that he thought the window the rifle was at was "all the way open". And those "people underneath the rifle who looked up", in his testimony, became a "Negro boy" in "roughly, the third or fourth floor in the middle of the south side" (v6p157). So maybe it was not a 5th-floor witness he saw looking up. In fact, Norman, Williams & co. were not consistent re looking up. Norman told the FBI that he looked out the window, & dirt from the outside of the building fell on him; later, Williams testified that debris from *inside* had hit him.
dcw

[dklou...@comcast.net]

Thank you, Walt. And I've shown that the sniper could not have done what Brennan & Fischer said he did just before shooting--lie across the sill, or lie down in a funny way....
dcw