The Rearranged Boxes

I've noticed that Bill Kelly has today brought up the question of the rearranged boxes on the sixth floor.  As many of you are no doubt aware, the House Select Committee on Assassinations that was convened in 1976 took a close look at two photographs of the exterior of the Texas School Book Depository building, that were allegedly taken within minutes of each other, and it appeared that the boxes in the snipers nest were in different configurations in each photo. They concluded after applying photogrammetry to the photos based upon angles, sunlight and other factors that the boxes had been moved.

Now, that is the conclusion of the the last investigation into this case.  They firmly stated that somebody moved the boxes between Tom Dillard and James Powell taking their photographs.

So, armed with this new HSCA conclusion the critical community felt they now had more ammunition to fire at Warren Commission defenders because Oswald not only had to fire three shots at the President, wait a few seconds for Howard Brennan to see him, wipe every fingerprint from the exterior of the weapon, rearrange the boxes that nobody outside saw him do, run to the other side of the sixth floor navigating the stacks of books, hide the rifle, then descend four flights of stairs and appear in the presence of Officer Baker perfectly calm - all in a maximum time of 90 seconds.

If the official story incorporates a conclusion that Oswald rearranged the boxes then the timeline is IMPOSSIBLE.  So the official timeline does not include Oswald moving the boxes.  If the HSCA is correct in their assertion that the boxes did move then someone other than Oswald moved them within a minute or two of the final shot.  This obviously brings with it it's own set of awkward questions.  Who?  Why?  When?

But as with most elements of the JFK case the truth probably does not exist where official fingers point.  Another possibility that is not entertained very much by serious researchers is this; the boxes didn't move.  At least they did not move immediately after the assassination. Either the Dillard photo showing a different box configuration was not taken on 11/22/63 or the Powell photo showing a different box configuration was not taken on 11/22/63.  One of them is authentic and the other is not.

The history of these two photographs is checkered.  The testimony taken from Tom Dillard and the provenance of his photographs and cataloging of them as official exhibits leaves a lot to be desired.  James Powell's other photos he took that day have never surfaced.  Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman look superimposed.  There is no sign of James Jarman.

Bearing in mind the debate that is currently taking place about whether the second floor encounter actually took place, what are other members thoughts on the movement of the boxes and the problems with the Powell and Dillard photographs?

Dillard, by his testimony, took his photos in rapid sequence after the head shot. He had one camera in his hand and the other around his neck. I give him about 5-7 and 10-12 seconds after Z-313 to take his photos. Powell's 1st time estimate was given in an FBI statement on December 31 and he said about 30 seconds after the shooting sequence. So we're dealing with approximately 20 seconds between Dillard & Powell's photographs.

There are 2 book cartons stacked in the center-right of the Powell sniper's nest that aren't visible in Dillard, even under autoradiographic enhancement. And the HSCA was forced to conclude that "the additional boxes visible in the Powell photograph were moved during the interval between the Dillard and Powell photographs."

Evidently, these 2 book cartons were lifted from the floor and placed next to each other.on top of the roughly 4-foot high barricade. I have long felt that there were two people inside that sniper's nest. So I would surmise that the shooter got out of there with his rifle, while the spotter lifted up the cartons from inside the nest before he too fled.

What could be the purpose of moving these two cartons? All I can see is that they were used to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald. They became the stack of 2 gun-rest cartons entered into the DPD evidence. And the top gun-rest carton would have Oswald's finger & palmprint on it. These Rolling Reader cartons, smallish and only about 5-10 lbs, had been handled by Oswald that morning. I would surmise that he was given an assigned task that necessitated moving these cartons. And that these cartons were subsequently moved over to the sniper's nest. The Rolling Readers were kept 3-4 aisles away.

But I don't think the switch of gun-rest cartons was accomplished in the intended time. Because there was a heightened urgency to get out of the nest, once Officer Baker was noticed charging the building. So the switch was accomplished several minutes later.

I think this is why Jack Dougherty was in the sniper's nest 4 1/2- 5 minutes after the assassination, to be spotted by Lillian Mooneyham. Dougherty brought the hit team down to the 1st floor, and was told that he had to switch the cartons. So he returned to the 6th and did just that. Then he went down to the 5th, to be spotted by Truly & Baker on their descent from the roof.

Another possibility that is not entertained very much by serious researchers is this; the boxes didn't move. At least they did not move immediately after the assassination. Either the Dillard photo showing a different box configuration was not taken on 11/22/63 or the Powell photo showing a different box configuration was not taken on 11/22/63.  One of them is authentic and the other is not.

Now that's something to think about it.  This thread from last year is up your alley.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ajH_RET1kbY[1-25-false]

Another possibility - was Jack Dougherty originally the intended patsy?

Those pictures are authentic, and taken at 12:30 on November 22. Jarman, Williams and Norman are in the uncropped Dillard (which got the autoradiographic treatment), and Williams and Norman are in the cropped Dillard. Williams, in his olive shirt, is in the Powell photograph. He wears his olive shirt in film footage down on the front steps. To say they're not authentic, you'd have to make some kind of argument that they're double exposures. Which is totally unnecessary to account for the phenomenon at hand, i.e. two photos (Dillard & Powell). Too far out on the branches of the tree of possibilities.

Dougherty was an insider, among several in the TSBD; it would have been convenient to bump him off quickly, since he'd seen so much. But he didn't leave the building so soon after the assassination. Oswald did, and for my money made a prearranged getaway in a Rambler. He was also an insider. But he was fed some information that made it seem to him it was necessary to leave the TSBD. Oswald was the designated patsy. And he was left out of the loop regarding what the other insiders were actually doing with themselves, i.e. staying put. And pointing the finger at him.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Those pictures are authentic, and taken at 12:30 on November 22. Jarman, Williams and Norman are in the uncropped Dillard (which got the autoradiographic treatment), and Williams and Norman are in the cropped Dillard. Williams, in his olive shirt, is in the Powell photograph.  He wears his olive shirt in film footage down on the front steps. To say they're not authentic, you'd have to make some kind of argument that they're double exposures. Which is totally unnecessary to account for the phenomenon at hand, i.e. two photos (Dillard & Powell). Too far out on the branches of the tree of possibilities.

Dougherty was an insider, among several in the TSBD; it would have been convenient to bump him off quickly, since he'd seen so much. But he didn't leave the building so soon after the assassination. Oswald did, and for my money made a prearranged getaway in a Rambler. He was also an insider. But he was fed some information that made it seem to him it was necessary to leave the TSBD. Oswald was the designated patsy. And he was left out of the loop regarding what the other insiders were actually doing with themselves, i.e. staying put. And pointing the finger at him.

Can you point me in the direction of James Jarman's appearance in the uncropped 
Dillard please?  My eyes are failing me due to the quality being so poor that nothing can be made out in the uncropped Dillard in the window that Jarman was supposed to be stood looking out of.

My point is this: in the cropped Dillard the quality is superb and you can clearly see Williams and Norman in very fine detail even though Norman looks a little odd. Go to the uncropped Dillard and some pattern variations exist showing that Williams could be in the window that he was at, but not a hint of Norman.

I'm guessing you must have a better quality uncropped Dillard, Richard?

Lee, look on p. 5 of the Elevator Escape Theory, in the upper left-hand corner, to see Jarman in the window next to Williams. That was scanned from Groden's The Killing of a President.

Richard, 

I admit that I have never seen that photograph before.  Do you happen to know specifically what photographs were taken on November 25th, how many, etc?  I still think Harold Norman looks very odd in the high quality Cropped Dillard and that there are no signs of him or Jarman in the uncropped Dillard pictures published in the Warren Commission.

Lee

Lee, that bright spot in the Norman window in the uncropped Dillard corresponds with Norman's bright forehead in the cropped Dillard. The quality is very poor in the uncropped, I agree. But you get what you get. The picture is on p. 209 of the Groden book and is very small. The HSCA did find, via autoradiographic treatment, evidence of a ceiling lamp in the Norman window. They must have had a better quality photo to work with, because it's not able to be discerned in the Groden copy.

Norman, I believe, is looking directly at Dillard in the cropped version- something, to my mind, that fuels suspicion that he was an insider to the plot. Why wouldn't he be looking toward the limousine? And why would he be concerned about a camera car several cars back in the motorcade?

I'm not aware of any photos taken on the 25th, excepting for DPD recreations of the sniper's nest.

Thanks, Richard.  I see the bright spot that you say corresponds to Norman's head but in comparing CE 480 and CE 481 from the Warren Commission volumes I can see the following:

CE 481 Cropped Dillard from the volumes
I see Bonnie Ray Williams in sharp focus including his shirt reflecting quite a bit of light even though it was dark olive and I see Harold Norman in sharp focus wearing his off white/beige shirt reflecting a lot more light than Williams shirt especially in the bottom right corner of the window frame which appears very bright.

CE 480 Uncropped Dillard from the volumes
I see a bright spot in the window that Jarman was supposed to be at that could be light reflecting off Jarman or could be a fixed light on the ceiling.  I see a bright spot that possibly corresponds to light reflecting off Williams head and a very faint outline of his 
shirt.  I see no sign of Norman.  Whatsoever.

Now I don't want to belabour my point here because I know that you have your mind
made up on this issue (and I'm hoping more members get interested in this topic) but I'm using the material from the volumes here because I have no idea of the provenance of all the other Dillard and Powell photos that are floating around although I would be interested in their history if you know of anybody that has that documented.

Bottom line for me is this.  I cannot see ANY SIGN of Norman in CE 480 as published by the Warren Commission when we should at the very least see his shirt in the bottom right part of the window because that is the object that is reflecting the most light AND there is no sign of JARMAN in any photo other than a very faint blob of light that could be anything and certainly does not prove that a human being was stood there. From what I can make out the Warren Commission declined publishing both Dillard photos for some reason (suspicions outlined below) and to compound my suspicions they had the following exchange with Tom Dillard:

Mr. BALL - Do you still have the two negatives?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes; of these [indicating]?
Mr. BALL - Yes.
Mr. DILLARD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - You have them in your possession?
Mr. DILLARD - At the Dallas News; theyre in a box kept locked in the managing editor's office.
Mr. BALL - Suppose we could do this. I have pictures here which you can identify but perhaps it might be a little closer to the source if we do this. Could you make me up two prints for your deposition from those negatives?
Mr. DILLARD - Well I guess so.
Mr. BALL - Off the record.
(off record discussion)
Mr. BALL - Will you endorse your signature on each copy as being a print made from your negatives, is that satisfatory?
Mr. DILLARD - Suits me; I could get it notarized.
Mr. BALL - You don't need to do that because we can attach it as a copy to this deposition.
Mr. DILLARD - I could sign these; of course, you want that other?
Mr. BALL - We have two here. First of all, you made one picture with a wide lens?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And you made a picture with a short lens?
Mr. DILLARD - Long lens - short and wide are the same.
Mr. BALL - A short, wide lens and one long lens. Now, I show you two pictures and I mark one "A" and mark one "B." Look them over and tell me whether or not those are prints from the pictures you made that day.
Mr. DILLARD - These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.
Mr. BALL - And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative which we will mark as "C" and "D" and you will initial them, is that correct?
Mr. DILLARD - That is correct.
Mr. BALL - Do you mind initialing the "A" and "B" and we will make it part of this deposition - just on the back?
Mr. DILLARD - One of them will be the same picture as thes two. These two are prints
from one of my negatives.
Mr. BALL - That will be all right.
Mr. DILLARD - I have another negative.
Mr. BALL - Which you will make a print of?
Mr. DILLARD - If you wish.

So where is print C from the second negative? Does it exist?  And I'd be really interested to know the provenance of Groden's photo that shows some white blobs
that you are convinced is Jarman. At the end of the day the Dillard crop at least shows
the faces of Williams and Norman even if I'm not entirely convinced that Norman is genuinely in the photograph.

The Warren Commission exhibits include the following as Dillard Exhibits:

Dillard exhibit A
Dillard exhibit B
Dillard exhibit C
Dillard exhibit D

Now, Dillard D it states is the same as Dillard B. The prints used in Dillard's deposition were two print from ONE negative.  Dillard Exhibits A&B:

Mr. BALL - A short, wide lens and one long lens. Now, I show you two pictures and I mark one "A" and mark one "B." Look them over and tell me whether or not those are prints from the pictures you made that day.
Mr. DILLARD - These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.

Joseph Ball asks Dillard to furnish a print of the additional negative:

Mr. BALL - And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative which we will mark as "C" and "D" and you will initial them, is that correct?
Mr. DILLARD - That is correct.
Mr. BALL - Do you mind initialing the "A" and "B" and we will make it part of this deposition - just on the back?

So therefore Dillard C was the photograph that the Commission were outstanding.  They had a copy of one negative - one uncropped and one cropped.  They asked Dillard for a further two copies of BOTH negatives so they would have ended up with a duplicate which is Dillard D.  And so the missing photo was Dillard C.  Yet Dillard C is simply a further cropped version of Dillard A.  It is identical or am I going around the twist here?

If part of my brain has melted over the last few days then that might explain why I can find no trace whatsoever of Harold Norman in CE 480 yet can see him staring at me in CE 481.

Above photo is Harold Norman's window from CE 480 which is the un-cropped Dillard.



Second photo is Harold Norman's window from CE 481 which is the cropped Dillard.  

Am I missing something here? Other than Harold Norman in the first photo?

Mr. BALL - ...Now, I show you two pictures and I mark one "A" and mark one "B." Look them over and tell me whether or not those are prints from the pictures you made that day. 
Mr. DILLARD - These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.

Lee,

Dillard A is the exact same as Dillard C, except that A is a slightly closer view. Dillard A was used in CE 482

Dillard B and Dillard D are the exact same photograph. Dillard B was used in CE 481.

Dillard A:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm

Dillard B:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291b.htm



Dillard B was taken with a 28 mm Leica camera, then Dillard A was taken with a 100 mm Yashica (which gave telephoto sharpness). In the reproduction on p. 442 of Pictures of the Pain, which is much better quality than in the WC Exhibits, In Dillard B I can easily discern Jarman & Williams, but no Norman. This was 5-7 seconds before Dillard A was taken and Norman moved closer to the window during this juncture. Dillard B was the photo that Groden reproduced after its autoradiographic treatment.

I analysed these photos in The Elevator Escape Theory but had the order they were taken backwards, since I hadn't yet purchased [i]Pictures of the Pain[i]. That essay needs to be updated and that's a project for this coming year.

But you may enjoy a snippet from Richard Trask's excellent book:

"As the Chevy convertible slowed down to a crawl with the School Book Depository looming in front of it, Dillard, in the midst of all the sudden confusion, reacted like the old-time pro that he was. His two cameras were on straps around his neck and loaded with Tri-X film, the shutters at 1/500 second speed and the lenses at F-16 or F-11. Reacting to Jackson's words about the gun  location, Dillard put his Leica to his eye and clicked off a shot. "I had my camera in my hand. I'm sure I shot it with the 28 (mm lens) first, and it's fairly well-cantered. Jackson said something like upper right corner, two down from the top, or whatever he said. By that time I had it dead centered. I'm sure the first picture is maybe a few seconds after the last shot." Dillard then grabbed his Yashica mounted with a 100 mm lens and took a close-up photo of the window.

Dillard's two photos are sharp and well executed. To a casual observer they might be assumed to be architectural photographs made to record an overview and then a detailed shot of the old building with its brick-patterned facade."

I think both Dillard and Ball were speaking casually during this exchange; it seems to me that Ball was displaying 4 pictures to Dillard at the time, i.e. 2 copies of each negative:

DILLARD: These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.
BALL: And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative which we will mark as "C" and "D" and you will initial them, is that correct?
DILLARD: That is correct.
BALL: Do you mind initialing the "A" and "B" and we will make it part of this deposition- just on the back?
DILLARD: One of them will be the same picture as these two. These two are prints from one of my negatives.

Richard Gilbride wrote:I think both Dillard and Ball were speaking casually during this exchange; it seems to me that Ball was displaying 4 pictures to Dillard at the time, i.e. 2 copies of each negative:

DILLARD: These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.
BALL: And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative which we will mark as "C" and "D" and you will initial them, is that correct?
DILLARD: That is correct.
BALL: Do you mind initialing the "A" and "B" and we will make it part of this deposition- just on the back?
DILLARD: One of them will be the same picture as these two. These two are prints from one of my negatives.

I'm sorry Richard I don't get you.

Dillard A and B, that Dillard himself marks as A and B, are from ONE NEGATIVE according to the testimony.  How was Ball displaying "four pictures to him at the time"?

Ball asks Dillard to make two further prints of both negatives when he gets back to the Dallas Morning News (kept under lock and key) that will later be designated Dillard C and D.  Dillard then says to Ball that one of them will be the same as "these two" (Dillard A and B) due to the fact that A and B are from one of the negatives.  If Ball was showing Dillard four photos during his testimony we would have six photographs in the exhibits.

My bad, I see your point. Ball didn't have 4 pictures. But I don't think there's anything out of the ordinary going on. Dillard either meant to say "These are prints from the negatives I made on November 22", instead of "from one of the negatives"

Or, he had both negatives for A and B on the same roll of film, and thus, as an experienced photographer,would refer to the roll as "one of the negatives".

Here are Dillard C and D:

Richard Gilbride wrote:Lee,

Dillard A is the exact same as Dillard C, except that A is a slightly closer view. Dillard A was used in CE 482

Dillard B and Dillard D are the exact same photograph. Dillard B was used in CE 481.

Dillard A:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm

Dillard B:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291b.htm


Dillard B was taken with a 28 mm Leica camera, then Dillard A was taken with a 100 mm Yashica (which gave telephoto sharpness). In the reproduction on p. 442 of
Pictures of the Pain, which is much better quality than in the WC Exhibits, In Dillard B I
can easily discern Jarman & Williams, but no Norman. This was 5-7 seconds before Dillard A was taken and Norman moved closer to the window during this juncture. Dillard B was the photo that Groden reproduced after its autoradiographic treatment.

I analysed these photos in The Elevator Escape Theory but had the order they were taken backwards, since I hadn't yet purchased [i]Pictures of the Pain[i]. That essay needs to be updated and that's a project for this coming year.

But you may enjoy a snippet from Richard Trask's excellent book:

"As the Chevy convertible slowed down to a crawl with the School Book Depository looming in front of it, Dillard, in the midst of all the sudden confusion, reacted like the old-time pro that he was. His two cameras were on straps around his neck and loaded with Tri-X film, the shutters at 1/500 second speed and the lenses at F-16 or F-11. Reacting to Jackson's words about the gun  location, Dillard put his Leica to his eye and clicked off a shot. "I had my camera in my hand. I'm sure I shot it with the 28 (mm lens) first, and it's fairly well-cantered. Jackson said something like upper right corner, two down from the top, or whatever he said. By that time I had it dead centered. I'm sure the first picture is maybe a few seconds after the last shot." Dillard then grabbed his Yashica mounted with a 100 mm lens and took a close-up photo of the window.

Dillard's two photos are sharp and well executed. To a casual observer they might be assumed to be architectural photographs made to record an overview and then a detailed shot of the old building with its brick-patterned facade."

Richard,

If Dillard A is the same as Dillard C then Dillard C is the same photo as Dillard B because A and B are from the same negative according to Tom Dillard himself. Therefore, if Dillard C is the same as Dillard B then Dillard B is the same as all the others.  If B is the same as D then B is the same as A if we accept Dillard's testimony.

Now, obviously, A is not the same as B, because Harold Norman is not present in Dillard B.  In fact, there is no way around it unless we want to look for blobs of light and pretend they are people, none of the boys are present in Dillard B, WHATSOEVER.  I 
don't know how you are able to discern any human beings in this photo but I will try to get a copy of the Trask photo.  Here is Dillard B again:

And if you are telling me that Dillard B was taken 5-7 seconds before Dillard A (the close up photograph) yet we cannot see anybody in it then why did Dillard say he saw the boys looking out of the windows before he took his first shot yet they aren't in the bloody photograph.  

Here is Dillard's testimony concerning what he saw before he took his first photo:

Mr. DILLARD - I saw two men in the windows, at least the arched windows. I saw them in my picture. I was making the picture my eyes were covering. 


Yet they are not in the photo, unless I have finally lost the plot?

I really don't know what the hell is going on concerning these photographs but it does not add up IMO.

Trust me, Lee, Jarman & Williams are easily seen in the Dillard B reproduction in Pictures of the Pain. They're in the exact same pose that's seen in the autoradiographic enhancement. And I really think Dillard, when he's referring to A and B being on the same negative, actually means they're on the same negative roll.

Negative scan of Dillard A (courtesy Robin Unger):

Lee, I can second Richard's statement.  I have Trask, p. 442 in front of me, am looking at the long-angle shot which I assume is B, and indeed there are two figures visible in that version which don't seem to be visible in the Commission Exhibit you posted above.  Curious.

Richard Gilbride wrote:Trust me, Lee, Jarman & Williams are easily seen in the Dillard B reproduction in Pictures of the Pain. They're in the exact same pose that's seen in the autoradiographic enhancement. And I really think Dillard, when he's referring to A and B being on the same negative, actually means they're on the same negative roll.

I'll trust you, Richard, but I don't trust these photographs.

I'm sorry but I think you are trying to read benign excuses into the testimony that is very cut and dried on this matter:

Mr. DILLARD - These are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22. 
...
Mr. BALL - And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative which we will mark as "C" and "D" and you will initial them, is that correct? 
Mr. DILLARD - That is correct. 
Mr. BALL - Do you mind initialing the "A" and "B" and we will make it part of this deposition - just on the back? 
Mr. DILLARD - One of them will be the same picture as thes two. These two are prints from one of my negatives. 
Mr. BALL - That will be all right. 
Mr. DILLARD - I have another negative. 
Mr. BALL - Which you will make a print of? 
Mr. DILLARD - If you wish. 
Mr. BALL - Make up prints from each negative. 

And with that in mind, how many "prints" are in the volumes?  We have four.  Two from his deposition (one negative) and one made from each negative resulting in, we are told, a duplicate photograph that was already in evidence.

Albert Rossi wrote:Lee, I can second Richard's statement.  I have Trask, p. 442 in front of me, am looking at the long-angle shot which I assume is B, and indeed there are two figures visible in that version which don't seem to be visible in the Commission Exhibit you posted above.  Curious.

Are they very clearly in the windows, Albert?  If so, how clear are they and do you think they should appear in the Commission versions at least to some degree even if the quality is poorer in the volume exhibits?

I would say that there is no trouble recognizing them as human figures in the windows, Lee.  If it didn't seem so cockeyed to suggest it, it almost seems like they were blacked out in the CE.

Just got a second opinion from my wife.  There are definitely shapes in the Trask that are missing from the CE, but she at first glance did not recognize them as clearly human figures.