Where Was Oswald During the Shooting?
MTGriffith
WHERE WAS OSWALD FROM 11:50 to 12:35 P.M. ON THE
DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?
Michael T. Griffith
1998
@All Rights Reserved
Expanded on 6/1/98
Gerald Posner follows the WC in placing Oswald on the sixth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository Building from 11:55 A.M. until
he supposedly fired the shots at 12:30 P.M. Therefore, according
to Posner, Oswald had thirty-five minutes to build the sniper's
nest. However, Posner's only in-building witness to put Oswald
alone on the sixth floor before the shooting is Charles Givens,
who said he saw Oswald there, at 11:55, after everyone else had
left (6:226-228).
Yet, it is common knowledge among assassination researchers
that when Givens was initially questioned, he mentioned nothing
about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else had
left. In fact, Givens, who had a police record involving
narcotics, originally told the authorities he saw Oswald reading
a newspaper on the FIRST FLOOR at 11:50 (14:75). Two other TSBD
workers likewise put Oswald on the first floor from 11:50 to
12:00 (17:68). And, Book Depository employee Bonnie Ray Williams
told the WC that he ate lunch on the sixth floor from around noon
until 12:15, perhaps even until 12:20, AND THAT HE SAW NO ONE
ELSE ON THE FLOOR. This was, at the most, just fifteen minutes
before the President's motorcade passed in front of the
Depository. Even if Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15,
Oswald still would not have had enough time to construct the
sniper's nest, reassemble the Carcano rifle, and arrange the
supposed gun-rest boxes before the motorcade arrived (and, keep
in mind, too, that the motorcade was scheduled to pass the TSBD
at 12:25, and Oswald would have had no way of knowing that it was
going to be five minutes late).
In response to this evidence, Posner observes that Williams
"told the FBI he left [the sixth floor] by 12:05 and went to the
fifth floor" (6:228)--end of discussion.
This brings us to a crucial flaw in Posner's arguments.
Posner attempts to discredit several witnesses whose testimony
contradicts the lone-gunman scenario by citing differences
between their FBI or Dallas police depositions and their
statements to the WC, or between accounts they provided in later
years and their earlier testimony. Yet, as Posner must know,
numerous witnesses subsequently insisted that federal agents or
the Dallas police, or both, altered or even fabricated their
statements. Assassination-related documents disclosed by Freedom
of Information Act suits have revealed undeniable instances of
evidence tampering by the FBI. Several witnesses complained that
they were pressured to change their testimony by federal agents
or by the Dallas police. Posner quotes from books that thoroughly
document these facts, but he does not bring this information to
the attention of his readers.
For the most part, Posner summarily dismisses the
recollections of witnesses with evidence of conspiracy if they
did not speak up immediately or shortly after the shooting. But
nearly all researchers would agree that this is not a sound
criterion for rejecting testimony relating to the assassination.
Many witnesses who had information favoring Oswald or
contradicting the single-assassin story were afraid to go public
with what they knew because of the charged anti-Oswald atmosphere
at the time. Some conspiracy witnesses weren't aware of the
significance of what they had seen until after the WC published
its report, and, faced with the nearly universal acceptance the
report initially enjoyed, they chose to remain silent for fear of
being ridiculed. In addition, several witnesses later said they
were hesitant to come forward because they knew that other
witnesses had died under strange circumstances or had been
murdered.
Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams.
First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he
denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103).
And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for
his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20
(4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth
floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the
corner of Houston and Elm" (73:330). Similarly, the WC itself
concluded Williams joined Harold Norman and James Jarman on the fifth
floor "at approximately 12:20 p.m." (32:68).
Oswald allegedly told the police that he ate lunch in the
domino room on the first floor (which was often used as a
lunchroom by employees), and that he went upstairs to the
second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke and had just finished
getting the Coke from the soda machine when Officer Marrion Baker
approached him and asked him to identify himself. Three
witnesses, Eddie Piper, Bill Shelley, and Charles Givens,
reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between 11:50 and 12:00
(19 H 499; 6 H 383; 7 H 390; CD 5; 14:76-77). There is other
evidence that supports Oswald's story, as Summers explains:
Under interrogation, Oswald insisted he had
followed his workmates down to eat [from the fifth
floor, where he and others had been working that
morning]. He said he ate a snack in the first-
floor lunchroom [the domino room] alone but that
he remembered two black employees walking through
the room while he was there. Oswald believed one
of them was a colleague known as "Junior" and said
he would recognize the other man although he could
not recall his name. He did say the second man
was "short." There were two rooms in the Book
Depository where workers had lunch, the "domino
room" on the first floor and the lunchroom proper
on the second floor. There was indeed a worker
named "Junior" Jarman, and he spent his lunch
break largely in the company of another black man
called Harold Norman. Norman, who was indeed
"short," said later he ate in the domino room
between 12:00 and 12:15 p.m., and indeed he
thought "there was someone else in there," though
he couldn't remember who. At about 12:15, Jarman
walked over to the domino room, and together the
two black men left the building for a few minutes.
Between 12:20 and 12:25--just before the
assassination--they strolled through the first
floor once more, on the way upstairs to watch the
motorcade from a window. If Oswald was not indeed
on the first floor at some stage, he demonstrated
almost psychic powers by describing two men--out
of a staff of 75--who were actually
there. (14:76)
Bill Lovelady, Danny Arce, and Bonnie Ray Williams, like
Oswald, had been working upstairs that morning. All three
told the Commission that Oswald was anxious for them to send the
elevator back up to him when it was time for lunch, and one of
them specified that Oswald said he would be coming downstairs. A
few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on
the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie
Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as
mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at
right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15
or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at
noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat
his lunch, THE ONLY TIME OSWALD COULD HAVE GONE UP TO THE
SNIPER'S NEST WAS AFTER WILLIAMS LEFT THE SIXTH FLOOR TO GO
DOWN TO THE FIFTH FLOOR AT 12:15 OR 12:20. The motorcade was
scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned
out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald
could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at
12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to
build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes
next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle.
One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle
(an ASSEMBLED rifle) on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16,
and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in
the sniper's nest. Depository employee Carolyn Arnold told the
FBI soon after the shooting that she thought she had seen Oswald
on the first floor at 12:25, five minutes before the shots rang out.
If Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the
time of the shooting, then how is it he was seen by the building
manager and a pistol-waving police officer less than 90 seconds
afterwards on the SECOND floor, standing in the lunchroom with a
Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm
and relaxed? (The manager was Roy Truly and the policeman was
Officer Marrion Baker.)
Jim Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald
bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the
policeman (3:53). However, the available evidence indicates
Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (5:
50-52). Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the
Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning,
he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important
role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the
investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this
subject:
The original news accounts said that when
Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking
a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial,
because if Oswald had time to operate the machine,
open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would
mean he was on the second floor even earlier than
the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a
signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in
September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation,
he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom
drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking
a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version.
[Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report
on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked
Oswald where he was when the police officer
stopped him. He said he was on the second floor
drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in."
If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald
already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had
drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered
the lunchroom. (18:351)
During a radio program on December 23, 1966, Albert Jenner, a
former senior WC counsel, said that when Baker saw Oswald in the
lunchroom, Oswald was holding a Coke in his hand. Said Jenner,
"the first man this policeman saw, was Oswald with a bottle of
Coke" (17:226). The fact that Oswald was holding a Coke when
Baker confronted him in the lunchroom was one of the details that
Chief Jesse Curry of the Dallas police mentioned to reporters the
day after the shooting. As late as ten days later this detail
was still being reported in major newspapers, such as THE
WASHINGTON POST.
Oswald simply could not have made it to the second floor
without first being seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of
Patrolman Baker. The Dallas police descriptions of the rifle in
its hiding place indicate that the alleged murder weapon was very
carefully stashed under and between a stack of book boxes at the
OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shots were
supposedly fired. It is reasonable to assume Oswald would
have attempted to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle (at least
those parts of the rifle he had just handled while firing it).
Someone wiped off the Carcano before it was "discovered" because
the FBI found no identifiable prints on it when it examined the
weapon on November 23. This would mean that in less than 90
seconds Oswald squeezed out of the sniper's nest, ran all the way
to the opposite end of the sixth floor, wiped off the rifle (at
least those parts that he would have just handled while firing
it), carefully hid it under and between some boxes, ran down four
flights of stairs to the second floor (actually eight small
flights), went through the foyer door, and then made his way to
the lunchroom, yet did not appear the least bit winded or nervous
when seen by the manager and the policeman. And, if we add the
Coke-buying, Oswald's alleged journey becomes even more
implausible.
The WC's own reenactments of Officer Baker's encounter with
Oswald indicated that it occurred no more than 75 seconds after
the shots were fired. There is no way Oswald could have done
everything the Commission said he did and still have made it
to the lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker and without being
seen by Truly. Additionally, we should keep in mind that the
men watching the motorcade from fifth-floor windows beneath
the sniper's nest said they heard no movement above them after
the shots were fired, and they were separated from the nest
only by thin plywood floor boarding that had cracks between
the planks. One of them said he could hear a rifle bolt
operating and shells hitting the floor above them during the
shooting--yet, again, these men heard no movement above them
after the shots were fired. This report accords with the
finding that boxes were being moved in the sniper's window
within two minutes of the assassination (see below); it also
agrees with the eyewitness account of a law clerk from a nearby
building who said she saw a man in the sixth-floor window about
four to five minutes after the shots were fired. The law clerk
was a woman named Lillian Mooneyham. She told the FBI that she
saw a man standing a few feet back from the sniper's window
four to five minutes after the shooting.
Photos taken of the sixth-floor window less than two minutes
after the shooting show the boxes being REARRANGED (5:53). This
fact was detected by the photographic experts retained by the
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). I quote from
the HSCA testimony of photographic expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt:
Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the staff to
put up JFK F-153. As I understand it, Doctor,
this is a picture that was taken a few seconds
after the shot; is that correct?
Dr. HUNT. I am not sure until I see the
picture. Which one are you referring to?
Mr. FITHIAN. I believe that is the one of
the---TSBD?
Dr. HUNT. Oh, yes, right. Yes; in answer to
your question, THAT WAS TAKEN A FEW SECONDS AFTER
THE LAST SHOT WAS FIRED. AT LEAST THAT IS
DILLARD'S TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, I
BELIEVE.
Mr. FITHIAN. Now, directing your attention to
that particular exhibit, the photograph in the
area of the sixth floor window, the open window,
there seems to be a change in the configuration of
the boxes. How did the photo panel account for
this?
Dr. HUNT. The change in configuration of the
boxes with respect to what, with respect to
another window view?
Mr. FITHIAN. No, with respect to other photos
that you analyzed.
Dr. HUNT. OK. Probably the one most pertinent
to that would be exhibit which is showing next to
it at the moment--I am not aware of the exhibit
number for it--but that shows the same window,
TAKEN APPROXIMATELY ONE TO TWO MINUTES AFTER THE
FIRST PICTURE WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT, the one taken
by Dillard on the right, the one by Powell on the
left.
You are correct in perceiving that there is
something which we could ascribe to a change in
the configuration of the boxes.
For example, the picture on the right, we see
only two boxes, one at the left of the window sill
and just a corner of the one peeping up at the
right of the window sill. Whereas, in the picture,
the enlarged picture, for example, on the left, we
see not just the two boxes; you can still see, for
example, on the left there is the same small box
at the left, there is the same corner peeping up
at the right. But now we have two or three other
boxes, apparently rising up in between them.
There are two possible explanations, I guess,
for that, that the panel considered. One is that
we are seeing boxes which are in the room, but
because of our perspective, our line of sight, is
different, we are seeing different boxes than were
visible in the other picture.
The second explanation is that there has been
physically a movement of the boxes in the room
during the time which elapsed between the taking
of those pictures.
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Now there is no way
that we can know which it is?
Dr. HUNT. There are ways of eliminating or
narrowing down the possibilities between those two
choices. For example, given the geometry at which
you are viewing, and given the apparent sunlight
on the boxes, you could probably guess how far
into the room those boxes do lie.
For example, if you look at the two boxes which
appear to have been introduced in the picture on
the left, they appear to be in full sunlight,
which means they must not lie too far inside the
room because this was high noon, in November; the
sun angle is simply not that low in Dallas at high
noon in November to shine sunlight very deep into
the room. So they can certainly not be too far
behind the plane of the window; and THAT WOULD
THEREFORE TEND TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE
ARE LOOKING AT THE BOX WHICH LIES IN ONE POSITION
IN THE ROOM AND IS SIMPLY TENDED TO BE VIEWED IN
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM TWO DIFFERENT VIEWING
POINTS.
Mr. FITHIAN. You say it rules that out?
Dr. HUNT. It tends to rule it out, yes. It does
not rule it out completely, because we lack what
is usually referred to as the analytical
information, from the position of the two
photographers to precisely plot the positions of
those boxes by stereoanalysis techniques.
Mr. FITHIAN. WELL, IF IT GENERALLY TENDS TO
RULE THAT OUT, THEN IT SEEMS THIS COMMITTEE WOULD
BE LEFT WITH ONLY ONE CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS,
THAT A BOX WAS ACTUALLY MOVED.
Dr. HUNT. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY PERSONAL
CONCLUSION, THAT SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING MOVED BOXES
AROUND IN THAT ROOM DURING THE TIME OF TAKING OF
THOSE TWO PICTURES. (4 HSCA 422-423, emphasis
added)
Indeed, the Committee's photographic panel eventually came to
the following conclusion: "There is an apparent rearranging of
boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired at President
Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). The photographic panel went into more
detail in its report:
Examination of both the Dillard and Powell
photographs of the sixth floor windows shows an open
window with deep shadows in the region behind it. The
deep shadows indicate the film was underexposed in
these regions; that is, too little light reached
the film or a clear recording of any details in the
room behind the window.
A number of enhancement processes were applied to
the photographs in order to bring out any details
obscured within the underexposed regions. They were as
follows:
(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical
and photochemical techniques) of the underexposed
regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken at the
Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT).
(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the
underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph at
Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI).
(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed
regions of the Powell photograph at the University of
Southern California and the Aerospace Corp.
In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned
and digitized for possible computer enhancement.
Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed because
the Panel decided that the autoradiographic technique
had more potential for success.
The photographic and computer processes made visible
details that had been obscured in the underexposed
regions of the photographs. Both the photographic
enhancement by RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement
by SRI revealed a feature in the fifth floor window
immediately beneath the sixth floor window. Figure IV-1
(JFK exhibit F-153) shows one of the. original Dillard
photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic
enhancement. The detail revealed by the processing
appears to be a circular light fixture hanging from the
ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in
the center of the fixture.
In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details
became visible on the boxes in the windows. (See figure
IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in neither
photograph did the processing operations reveal any
sign of a human face or form in the open sixth floor or
adjoining windows.
The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed
in the fifth window served as a "benchmark" against
which the sixth floor enhancement could be
judged. . . .
Although human faces or forms were not visible in
the enhanced photographs, inspection of figures IV-2
and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes visible
through the sixth floor widow. in the Dillard
photograph, only two boxes are immediately visible, one
each to the left and right of the window frame.
Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows several
additional boxes. There are two possible explanations
for this difference:
(1) The Powell photograph may reflect only an
apparent change in the boxes; the different angle from
which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a
different set of boxes within the room to be framed
within the window;
(2) The boxes were moved during the time that
elapsed between the Dillard and Powell photographs.
Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at
the time of the photographs were unknown, it was not
possible to calculate precisely the region within the
sixth floor room that would have been visible to each
photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two to the
left and right of the window frame appear to be in the
full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by
the frame of the partially opened window. In the Powell
photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full
sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window
frame.
A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the
two boxes at the left and right lie approximately 6
inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A).
If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in
question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie
close to the plane of the window. For this reason, THE
PANEL CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL BOXES VISIBLE IN
THE POWELL PHOTOGRAPH WERE MOVED DURING THE INTERVAL
BETWEEN THE DILLARD AND POWELL PHOTOGRAPHS. (6 HSCA
110-115, emphasis added)
WC defenders cite the claims of Dale Myers, a private researcher
who asserts that the apparent movement of boxes is in effect an
optical illusion. But the photographic panel considered the argument
on which Myers makes this claim--and rejected it.
Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes because he
was seen on the second floor by Baker and Truly less than 90
seconds after the shots were fired (5:53). So, who was moving
the boxes around less than two minutes after the shooting?
Who was the man seen in the sniper's nest by the law clerk from
a nearby building just a few minutes after the shots were fired?
Whoever it was, it could not have been Oswald.
When Oswald was being held at the Dallas police station, he
told reporters, "I didn't shoot anybody." The news tapes of
Oswald's denial were examined by a researcher using the
Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), which is a lie-detecting
device that measures stress by voice stress analysis. The PSE
has been shown to be reliable in several tests. It is used by
hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies, and it is accepted as
evidence in more than a dozen states. The PSE tests done on
Oswald's denial indicate he was telling the truth (2:349; on
the PSE test itself, see 25:206 n).
------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith is a two-time graduate
of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and
of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo,
TX, and has attended Brigham Young University, Ricks College,
Mount Wachusett Community College, Austin Peay State University,
and Haifa University in Israel, where his studies centered on
history and foreign languages. He is also the author of four
books on Mormonism and ancient religious texts. His articles
on the assassination have appeared in THE ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES,
in DATELINE: DALLAS, and in JFK-DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY. He is
also the author of the book COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand Prairie, TX:
JFK-Lancer Productions & Publications, 1996).
-------
Sources
-------
2. Robert Groden and Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH
TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND THE NEW
EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, Berkley Edition, New York: Berkley
Books, 1990.
3. Jim Moore, CONSPIRACY OF ONE, Ft. Worth: The Summit Group,
1991.
4. Mark Lane, RUSH TO JUDGMENT, Thunder's Mouth Press Edition,
New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992.
5. Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY, New
York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1989.
6. Gerald Posner, CASE CLOSED: LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE
ASSASSINATION OF JFK, New York: Random House, 1993.
14. Anthony Summers, CONSPIRACY: THE DEFINITIVE BOOK ON THE
JFK ASSASSINATION, Updated and Expanded Edition, New York:
Paragon House, 1989.
17. Sylvia Meager, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE WARREN
COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITIES, AND THE REPORT, New York:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1967; Vintage Press, 1976.
18. David S. Lifton, BEST EVIDENCE, Carroll & Graf Edition,
New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1988.
25. David S. Scheim, THE MAFIA KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY,
London, England: Virgin Publishing Ltd, 1992. First
published under the title CONTRACT ON AMERICA: THE MAFIA
MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, New York: Shapolsky
Publishers, 1988. The retitled 1992 edition is a revised
and updated version of the 1988 original.
32. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION
OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (i.e., the Warren Report),
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
Barnes & Noble Books Edition.
73. Gerald Ford, with John R. Stiles, PORTRAIT OF THE ASSASSIN,
New York: Simon and Shuster, 1965.
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH. Check out my Real Issues Home Page
at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2
Dale Myers
Michael Griffith wrote:
(quoting the HSCA Photographic Panel report)
> Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at
> the time of the photographs were unknown, it was not
> possible to calculate precisely the region within the
> sixth floor room that would have been visible to each
> photographer...
Of course, computer technology available today
(even at the desktop level) was not available
in 1978 when these studies were done. Today,
however, the position of a photographer can
easily be calculated within a few feet by triangulating
three fixed points visible in any two dimensional
photograph.(see: http://www.jfkfiles.com for a complete
description of 3D techniques and triangulation)
> ...In the Dillard photograph, the two [boxes] to the
> left and right of the window frame appear to be in the
> full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by
> the frame of the partially opened window...
This is incorrect, as shown by the Panel's
enhanced photograph (6HSCA113, Figure IV-2)
of the Dillard photo which shows a box previously
hid by the shadow of the vertical window sash.
> ...In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the
> boxes are in full sunlight, with no shadow cast on them
> by the window frame.
This is also incorrect, as the shadow from one
of the vertical window pane dividers falls on
the boxes (seen just east of the central vertical
sash). This can be seen in TKOAP, p.158 and 6HSCA114,
Figure IV-3. The fact that this and the shadow mentioned
above are *shadows* and not spaces between the boxes
is easily proved using a computer model of the box configuration
and a light source matching the suns angle on 11-22-63.
This information was published in the VTU Magazine article
I wrote, in November, 1994.
> A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the
> two boxes at the left and right lie approximately 6
> inches from the plane of the window (see appendix A).
Yet, films and photographs show that the
only box lying within *6 inches* of the window
plane is the box cantored on the sill (to the right).
The boxes on the left represent those stacked 18
to 21 inches (the stack is at an angle to the south
wall) from the wall. The boxes on the left, therefore
lie well within the window. All photographs of the
sniper's nest agree with this conclusion, and the
computer mockup of the scene concurs.
> If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in
> question in the Powell photograph, they must also lie
> close to the plane of the window....
This *assumption* is based on a falsehood (i.e.: that
all visible boxes lie within *6 inches* of the plane
of the window).
> For this reason, THE PANEL CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL
> BOXES VISIBLE IN THE POWELL PHOTOGRAPH WERE MOVED DURING
> THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE DILLARD AND POWELL PHOTOGRAPHS. (6 HSCA
> 110-115, emphasis added)
Because the panel's conclusion is based on
a false assumption, the conclusion is invalid.
>WC defenders cite the claims of Dale Myers, a private researcher
>who asserts that the apparent movement of boxes is in effect an
>optical illusion. But the photographic panel considered the argument
>on which Myers makes this claim--and rejected it....
My computer work shows beyond any doubt that
the boxes in the Dillard and Powell photographs
are in an identical arrangement. In addition,
further renderings show that CE715 & CE716, as well as the
footage shot by Tom Alyea, show a configuration that
matches those seen in the Dillard and Powell photographs.
These are the only images showing the original box
configuration.
All other crime scene photos of the sniper's nest
taken by the DPD are recreations, as they themselves
pointed out.
Hope this helps clear things up.
Dale K. Myers