The Rearranged Boxes

Fri 11 Oct 2013, 5:08 am

First topic message reminder :

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?

Mon 14 Oct 2013, 11:14 am

Ball is apparently conversing in lawyer-speak, while Dillard is conversing in photographer-speak. There are some places in the testimony where I think one person hears and understands differently from what the speaker intended.

When Dillard says "I have another negative" I believe he is referring to the street shot he took of Thomas Atkins running alongside Camera Car 1 as it approaches the Triple Underpass.

A few sentences earlier, after Dillard says "These are prints from one of the negatives", Ball responds by asking "And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative". In other words, Dillard is explaining there are 2 prints from 1 negative, which Ball understands as 2 prints, 1 from each negative.

I have to believe they're talking about the same thing. A & B came from one negative, to Dillard's understanding. But to Ball, A & B came from different negatives, since they're different pictures. That's the only way I can make sense of it. I have to go to sleep because I worked all day.

Mon 14 Oct 2013, 8:40 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:Ball is apparently conversing in lawyer-speak, while Dillard is conversing in photographer-speak. There are some places in the testimony where I think one person hears and understands differently from what the speaker intended.

When Dillard says "I have another negative" I believe he is referring to the street shot he took of Thomas Atkins running alongside Camera Car 1 as it approaches the Triple Underpass.

A few sentences earlier, after Dillard says "These are prints from one of the negatives", Ball responds by asking "And then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative". In other words, Dillard is explaining there are 2 prints from 1 negative, which Ball understands as 2 prints, 1 from each negative.

I have to believe they're talking about the same thing. A & B came from one negative, to Dillard's understanding. But to Ball, A & B came from different negatives, since they're different pictures. That's the only way I can make sense of it. I have to go to sleep because I worked all day.

I hear you, Richard, but I cannot accept this. If this confusion occurred then Dillard is as responsible for the confusion as Ball is and that is what this amounts to - total confusion - which is par for the course and hardly surprising.

Here we have a photographer, giving a deposition, who is handed two photographs that before being handed over are designated CE 480 and CE 481 and after being handed over they are designated Dillard A and Dillard B (A pairs with CE 481 and B pairs with CE 480). Two distinctly different photographs yet the impression is created that they both come from the same negative and consequently are both the same photograph - one being a crop of the other.

Dillard states he took two photographs and if that is true then these two photographs that were handed over to him
(Dillard A & B) should have been regarded as being those two different photographs even if the impression is created that they are the same.

So, later in the testimony when the following exchange took place between Joseph Ball and Tom Dillard:

Mr. BALL - You shot how many pictures?
Mr. DILLARD - Two pictures.

Mr. BALL - With one camera or two different cameras?
Mr. DILLARD - Two different cameras - one daily photo, not extreme daily photo, but twice the normal lens.

Then it logically follows that the photographs Dillard took would be on two different negative rolls if Dillard used two different cameras. So how the hell did Dillard A and Dillard B (CE 480 and CE 481) come from the same negative when they are quite obviously two different photographs given that Harold Norman does not appear in in one yet is very
distinctly in the other?

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 - Thes are prints from one of the negatives I made on November 22.

Then, this logic faux pas by both Ball and Dillard is followed up by Dillard claiming he has another negative and he is asked if he could make a further two copies of BOTH negatives (to be later designated Dillard C and Dillard D) to which
Dillard replies:

Mr. DILLARD - One of them will be the same picture as these two. These two are prints from one of my negatives.

None of this makes any sense. If he took two photos and he took them on two separate cameras then each photo would be on two separate negatives. Yet he says that Dillard A and Dillard B were prints from "one of my negatives."

There are the two very distinct anomalies presented by the Dillard photographs in comparison with the James Powell photographs that I believe were taken very quickly apart given the positions of some of the people who are in both of them. The first is the movement of the boxes which would have had to have been moved immediately after the shots, yet no one saw anybody immediately after the shots in the sixth floor window moving boxes and I really do not believe that they did. The second is something that you have written about Richard and that is the southwest window of the fifth floor already being open in the Powell photo that James Jarman claimed he opened after the three of them ran down to that end of the floor. The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image26

Your conclusion is that Jarman, Williams and Norman lied about the timeframes involved in moving across to the window
and Jarman also lied about opening it.

I do not know what to make of all of this right now but my current assessment of Dillard's testimony is that it was designed to confuse because if Dillard had another photograph of the TSBD on another negative roll then that would mean he had a minimum of three photographs of the exterior of the TSBD which isn't outside the realm of possibilities. I find it very unusual that Dillard only took two photographs of those windows that day given the fact that Bob Jackson allegedly told Dillard as the shots were firing that he saw the rifle barrel sticking out of the window. I'm not a photographer but I'd have kept clicking until my finger fell off.

I have long held suspicions concerning these photographs and nothing that has been posted on this thread has so far alleviated any of them. In fact, my suspicions have been strengthened.

Question: why was CE 480 cropped in the first place?

Mon 14 Oct 2013, 9:14 pm

Albert Rossi wrote: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.

Albert,

How does Steven Wilson appear in the Trask version of Dillard B?

As you can see from the Warren Commission version it is very easy to make him out at the window in his third floor office yet no sign of the three lads on the fifth other than the tiniest hint of light that could possibly reflecting from Bonnie Ray Williams. In comparison to Steven Wilson should Norman, Jarman and Williams all disappear? It's all completely nutty.

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image27

Mon 14 Oct 2013, 10:07 pm

Groden scan (above) of HSCA Dillard crop that just raises more questions than answers

And below is the scan and the Dillard after being in the hands of the HSCA:

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image31

Mon 14 Oct 2013, 11:54 pm

The box configuration (extreme blow up - Groden) from the James Powell photograph:

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image29

Powell's photo was allegedly taken seconds after Tom Dillard which shows this box configuration:

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image30

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 12:07 am

Lee Farley wrote:

Albert Rossi wrote: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.

Albert,

How does Steven Wilson appear in the Trask version of Dillard B?

As you can see from the Warren Commission version it is very easy to make him out at the window in his third floor office yet no sign of the three lads on the fifth other than the tiniest hint of light that could possibly reflecting from Bonnie Ray Williams. In comparison to Steven Wilson should Norman, Jarman and Williams all disappear? It's all completely nutty.

Lee, I'm at work right now but when I get home I'll check. Pretty sure I remember seeing Wilson in it as shown, but I'll confirm. Unless Richard wants to check in the meantime (I assume he also has the Trask book, since he first referred to it).

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 5:19 am

Harold Norman from Dillard A

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 6:30 am

To save Albert some time, yes, Steve Wilson is quite clear in the Trask reproduction. I'm looking at it with a magnifying glass and under good light his suitjacket & tie are undeniable. He seems to have on a pair of glasses and something resembling a hand appears above the windowsill to the left of his tie.

What I really want to comment on is that Dillard is an unlikely guy to be hiding the fact that he took 3 pictures of the TSBD.

Until April 1964, the FBI & Warren Commission believed that JFK was hit by the 1st bullet, Governor Connally by the 2nd, and JFK by the 3rd. Until Tom Dillard publicly confronted Barefoot Sanders of the US Attorney's Office in Dallas, saying he had information that proved the FBI's conclusions wrong, or at least incomplete. On November 22 Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers had directed his attention to the curb on the south side of Main Street where a bullet had gouged out a chip and sent debris flying, which had wounded bystander James Tague in the cheek. Dillard had taken a photo of the gouge which appeared in the November 23 edition of the Dallas Morning News with the caption "Concrete Scar".

http://kegisland.com/tague--curb-missile-strike.html

So Barefoot Sanders advised the Warren Commission that they look into this matter. And the WC realized there was either a 4th bullet, or that 3 bullets had caused the (3) wounds in JFK and 5 wounds in Connally. The end result, as we all know, was the single bullet theory, a myth as enduring as George Washington Carver's tale of the Headless Horseman.

Dillard took the initiative and seems like a real straight-up guy. I can't see him hiding anything about the 2 TSBD pix he took. But I still think his and Ball's lingo is being misinterpreted.

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 7:10 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:Dillard took the initiative and seems like a real straight-up guy. I can't see him hiding anything about the 2 TSBD pix he took. But I still think his and Ball's lingo is being misinterpreted.

By who, Richard? Joseph Ball or me?

It's interesting that not five minutes ago I read the same type of thing written by Bill Kelly about Officer Baker. "Honest cop. Drove a Harley in his spare time, don't you know. Why would he lie?"

I'm not arguing one way or the other about Dillard's character, at least not yet, but I do want to make sense of his testimony.

It's written in black and white and I've been crystal clear about what it says:

He took two photos with two different cameras
Therefore each photo would be on two different negative rolls
He is handed two photos during his testimony and he claims they're from one negative
Yet they can't be if he took two photos on two cameras
He claims to have another negative containing another photo
He is asked to make copies of the photos from both negatives to accompany the two
already in evidence
He claims if he does make two copies of both negatives then there will be a duplicate
We now have four photographs in the exhibits deemed Dillard A, B, C & D

That is what it says and the only other way to interpret it differently is to ignore what they said, ignore CE 480, 481 & 482, ignore Dillard A, B, C, & D, and make something up about lawyer/photographer speak confusing matters.

Here's my last word on this before I move onto other things; if Dillard A and Dillard B are two different photographs then why is he asked to provide anything else by Joseph Ball? I don't get what he is being asked to provide if Ball has everything related to this in his grubby little hands. Why are Dillard C & D even necessary in the volumes?

There is probably a simple explanation to this, and heck, you may have already given me it, but whatever the answer is, it's lost on me.

Why would cropped versions of CE 481 and 482 even be put into evidence without the whole photo they were cropped from? They are most certainly not cropped from CE 480.

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 8:30 am

Just a wild guess, but maybe what we know as Dillard A & C (which are a blowup & telephoto shot of Williams & Norman) were initially marked by Ball as A & B. Then Dillard's explanation, that "These are prints I made from one of the negatives" makes sense.

Ball then responds by asking "Then you will furnish us two prints, one from each negative...?" and he's referencing the question he asked a half-page earlier, "Do you still have the two negatives?"

Dillard replies that "One of them will be the same picture as these two. These two are prints from one of my negatives." In other words, One of them will be the same picture as these two that you are showing me. These two that you are showing me are prints from one of my negatives.

Dillard then volunteers that he has an additional negative, which I hypothesize is the street shot of the camera cars approaching the Triple Underpass.

Tue 15 Oct 2013, 9:03 pm

As I understand correctly, boxes in the `sniper nest` were rearranged in couple of seconds, between two subsequential photographs of the TSBD?

If so, then I do not anything suspicious in it. If we assume someone was in the `sniper nest` in the moment when the shots were fired (and I believe we all can agree there was somebody), then boxes could be easily moved accidently, when man standing there was leaving and capsized them unintentionally.

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 12:31 am

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why Dillard B was originally cropped when it was designated CE 480 and then when Dillard is asked to provide another copy of it, which will become Dillard D, it was once again cropped?

Why in the world would two versions of the same photograph be entered into evidence as cropped versions and no-one has ever been able to get hold of a quality copy of the entire photograph?

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 12:42 am

Well, the obvious thing that comes to mind is that the extreme SW window of the 6th floor is not visible. Just sayin' ...

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 2:13 am

Albert Rossi wrote:Well, the obvious thing that comes to mind is that the extreme SW window of the 6th floor is not visible. Just sayin' ...

This whole topic is beginning to drive me nuts, Albert. I cannot make heads nor tails out of it. It seems to me, after studying this case so long and can smell something fishy from a country mile away, that something is most certainly being hidden but for the life of me I cannot get to grips with what.

After reading around the subject over the weekend I came across a essay that Walt Cakebread wrote some time ago where he proposes that the Powell photograph was taken a few minutes BEFORE the assassination and that is why we see what appears to be Bonnie Ray Williams sat all alone at the fifth floor window.

This would mean that he was on the 5th BEFORE Jarman and Norman and not after as the official story maintains. So I've been toying with some alternative scenarios and trying to make sense of some "what if's"...

Now - just throwing these out there...I'm not tied to any of them but just want to see what happens if we play around with them:

What if - Bonnie Ray Williams was never on the sixth floor prior to the assassination?
What if - James Jarman and Harold Norman were never on the fifth floor prior to or during the assassination?

What would this mean? What would happen if the two above statements were true?

What if - James Jarman and Harold Norman watched the motorcade from the sixth floor and Williams watched the motorcade from the fifth floor all by himself?

What would this mean? What would happen if the above statement is true? Why was Bonnie Ray Williams the only person out of the three of them that was taken to the station for interview very shortly after the assassination after being fingered at the door by Howard Brennan? Jarman and Norman were not.

What other evidence exists in the record that could give these "what ifs" legs?

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 2:15 am

9K116 wrote:As I understand correctly, boxes in the `sniper nest` were rearranged in couple of seconds, between two subsequential photographs of the TSBD?

If so, then I do not anything suspicious in it. If we assume someone was in the `sniper nest` in the moment when the shots were fired (and I believe we all can agree there was somebody), then boxes could be easily moved accidently, when man standing there was leaving and capsized them unintentionally.

...and then re-stacked them nice and neat just in case anyone noticed!?!? (Just kidding...???)

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 2:25 am

Lee Farley wrote:

Albert Rossi wrote:Well, the obvious thing that comes to mind is that the extreme SW window of the 6th floor is not visible. Just sayin' ...

This whole topic is beginning to drive me nuts, Albert. I cannot make heads nor tails out of it. It seems to me, after studying this case so long and can smell something fishy from a country mile away, that something is most certainly being hidden but for the life of me I cannot get to grips with what.

After reading around the subject over the weekend I came across a essay that Walt Cakebread wrote some time ago where he proposes that the Powell photograph was taken a few minutes BEFORE the assassination and that is why we see what appears to be Bonnie Ray Williams sat all alone at the fifth floor window.

This would mean that he was on the 5th BEFORE Jarman and Norman and not after as the official story maintains. So I've been toying with some alternative scenarios and trying to make sense of some "what if's"...

Now - just throwing these out there...I'm not tied to any of them but just want to see what happens if we play around with them:

What if - Bonnie Ray Williams was never on the sixth floor prior to the assassination?
What if - James Jarman and Harold Norman were never on the fifth floor prior to or during the assassination?

What would this mean? What would happen if the two above statements were true?

What if - James Jarman and Harold Norman watched the motorcade from the sixth floor and Williams watched the motorcade from the fifth floor all by himself?

What would this mean? What would happen if the above statement is true?

What evidence exists in the record that any of the above could be true?

A bit off the wall here - I've always thought it a bit odd the way Norman seems to be looking straight down the lens of the camera - was this photograph taken from a reconstruction perhaps?...no Jarman visible, BRW seemingly somewhat dramatizing his look toward the underpass then Norman seemingly looking straight down the lens of the camera??? Could it have been taken on another day at a time when the lighting & shadows were pretty much the same as on the 22nd but purported to have been taken on the 22nd?

The reason for the crop? It was realised afterwards that there was a problem with the west window being open/closed, whatever...

"Ooops, how do we get round this?"

"That's ok, we'll just crop the photograph, nobody'll question it."

Hence the apparent confusion and odd questioning in Dillard's testimony.

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 2:41 am

So I'm at work again, don't have Groden's The Killing of a President in front of me, but I do recall that in one photo taken just before the shooting there may be a figure in the next-to-last arched window on the SW end of the sixth floor (this is the second figure, presumably, seen by several witnesses). That window is visible in the cropped Dillard, but the last window is not. I was just wondering if there was something suspicious there as well. As ianlloyd states above.

I'm not sure what precisely to think about Williams, Jarman, and Norman at this point.

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 3:12 pm

What would this mean? What would happen if the above statement is true? Why was Bonnie Ray Williams the only person out of the three of them that was taken to the station for interview very shortly after the assassination after being fingered at the door by Howard Brennan? Jarman and Norman were not.

Could be there was a shooter on the 5th floor, everybody was confused by the building's floor numbering anyway.

Could it have been taken on another day at a time when the lighting & shadows were pretty much the same as on the 22nd but purported to have been taken on the 22nd?

I've had the same thought, the pictures could have been taken at any time so long as the men in the photo were directed to wear what they wore on the 22nd and then were told in which window to stand (which of course may not have been where they were on the 22nd).

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 9:50 pm

wasn't the rifle first "found" on the fifth floor, and what about this.

"Based on Euins' statements, Harkness radioed to headquarters at 12:36 p.m. that "I have a witness that says that it came from the fifth floor of the Texas Book Depository Store."

Wed 16 Oct 2013, 11:11 pm

Albert Rossi wrote:I'm not sure what precisely to think about Williams, Jarman, and Norman at this point.

At this point I would like to remind the public about and essay by Duke Lane named `Three Blind Mice and Great Elevator Shuffle`. Couple of years ago I read it on Education Forum, and it dealed with movements of both elevators in TSBD right after the shooting and then man descending by stairs from 6th floor, who should be met on the 5th by this trio (Williams, Jarman and Norman) but wasn't.

Thu 17 Oct 2013, 12:37 am

Ray Mitcham wrote:wasn't the rifle first "found" on the fifth floor, and what about this.

"Based on Euins' statements, Harkness radioed to headquarters at 12:36 p.m. that "I have a witness that says that it came from the fifth floor of the Texas Book Depository Store."

Hi Ray,

Just thought I'd point out that we had a discussion on Euins in the following thread, which may be of interest to you:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t374-amos-lee-euins?highlight=Amos+Euins

Hasan.

Thu 17 Oct 2013, 2:44 am

The conundrum exists due to the fact that the Williams, Jarman, and Norman stories morphed and changed numerous times right up to, and beyond, their Warren Commission testimony.

Let's not forget that Williams was interviewed on day one.
Jarman was interviewed the next day on the 23rd and gave the impression he was outside watching the motorcade.
Norman wasn't interviewed until the following week.

So there was enough room left open for the Dallas Police and FBI to manipulate and channel the information given by the three of them due to them being interviewed with days in between to allow an official story to be developed around them.

After reviewing all of the evidence again in relation to this part of the case I am
beginning to think that the possibility exists that Williams was on the fifth floor all on his lonesome. To bolster the earwitness account of shots from above in the snipers nest he is leaned on to include Jarman and Williams as being with him or else he included them as being with him because he was afraid of claiming he was on his own. Another variable to consider; could Norman have told the DPD early doors that he was on the sixth floor during the assassination and that is why he was put to one side - kept incommunicado - not officially interviewed - and the work initially started on Williams and later Jarman to carve out the necessary narrative - before attention turned to Norman.

Whenever I play these events out in my head I keep coming back to a notion that Harold Norman was on the sixth floor, Bonnie Ray Williams was on the fifth floor, and James Jarman was outside.

Sounds crazy. But that is what I keep coming back to.

I know we have photographic evidence that purports to show all three of these individuals on the fifth floor but there is something not right in relation to the physical photographs themselves, the strange Tom Dillard testimony, the cropping of the photos, there not being a first generation print of Dillard A in the record, the supression of the Powell photograph for 13 years, and the lies and shenanigans of Williams, Jarman and Norman. All of this combined suggests we should be looking at this through a new prism because very few researchers have produced work that takes all of the above into account when it comes to drawing their conclusions.

Walt Cakebread identified variations in the shadows on Powell versus Dillard, as well as a plane contrail in the sky in Powell that does not appear in Dillard, that suggests to him that the Powell photograph was taken a good few minutes prior to Dillard taking Dillard A and shows Williams by himself.

Both Forrest Sorrels and Howard Brennan gave confusing accounts of which floor and which windows the boys appeared.

The story of Bonnie Ray Williams eating his lunch on the sixth floor before moving down to the fifth stinks to high heaven.

We have conflicting reports of the rifle being found on the both the fifth and the sixth floor. We have reports of shots being fired from the fifth floor.

We have reports of a black man being on the sixth floor prior to the assassination.

Jarman lied about opening the SW window on the fifth floor after the shots were fired.

Only Williams was taken into custody immediately after the assassination.

Norman's story about dust and debris falling into his face after looking out the window suddenly changed into Williams getting debris in his hair from the ceiling.

Not one of them heard any footsteps of movement after Norman claimed he heard shells hit the floor.

Only Williams initially claimed he saw Baker ascending the building before changing his story and claiming he saw no one.

I struggle to believe anything these three guys said, regardless of feeling sorry for the position that they were all put in after the assassination.

Thu 17 Oct 2013, 3:00 am

Lee, thank you for that very systematic and synthetic summary. Very useful. Can now understand what is behind your interrogation of the Dillard photos. Regardless of the conclusions one might draw one way or the other, your presentation of the testimony is very revealing. Certainly the contradictions and shifts in what these witnesses say has always been troubling. This does go a way into making sense out of them.

Thu 17 Oct 2013, 8:21 am

Albert Rossi wrote:Lee, thank you for that very systematic and synthetic summary. Very useful. Can now understand what is behind your interrogation of the Dillard photos. Regardless of the conclusions one might draw one way or the other, your presentation of the testimony is very revealing. Certainly the contradictions and shifts in what these witnesses say has always been troubling. This does go a way into making sense out of them.

We need to poke, prod and needle the evidence continuously, Albert. If we keep churning this stuff over I'm convinced something with finally click that explains these problems.

I really wish I had the time to put into structuring and presenting all of the problems but I am currently working on other things. Consequently my posts are somewhat confusing and disjointed but I believe if the right interest can be generated the members of this forum can make sense of all of this.

I know Richard Gilbride has spent more time than anyone on the Jarman, Williams and Norman stories and he has unearthed some incredibly interesting information regarding this aspect of the story but I also believe that Richard made many of his conclusions and drove his own narrative forward based upon certain assumptions that I don't fully buy into right now - the main one being the assumption that both the Dillard and Powell photos are categorically authentic. However, it is on the shoulders of people like Richard that we currently stand and I genuinely respect his dedication and appreciate the hard slog that he has put into all of this.

I cannot accept that the Dillard photographs are completely genuine and I cannot believe that the photo below depicts two people who have just heard 3 rifle shots explode approximately ten feet above their heads just a couple of seconds earlier:

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image36

To add to my disbelief I find Norman's pose slightly strange for someone who has just heard three massive explosions directly over their head especially when we see his pose for the reenactment photographs:

The Rearranged Boxes - Page 2 Image38

And I have suspicions that Norman is wearing the same shirt in CE 486 that he is wearing in Dillard B.

I also suspect that the Dillard photos weren't published in the newspapers over the assassination weekend and, if this suspicion is correct, I would seriously have to question their validity. These photos contained the alleged snipers nest window and if they weren't published (uncropped) on Friday, Saturday or Sunday then we really have to ask why.

If anyone knows when these were first published, and let's not forget that Dillard claimed that he developed these immediately after returning from Parkland, then we may begin to understand this saga a little better.

Thu 17 Oct 2013, 9:09 am

I have the same question rolling around my head continuously:

Why wasn't Harold Norman interviewed that afternoon, OR even that weekend?

He was technically the closest person to where the authorities claimed the shots were fired, Tom Dillard allegedly had a photo of him directly under the "snipers nest", and Bonnie Ray Williams named him in his 11-22 affidavit as being with him on the fifth floor - yet...

...no one was arsed about wanting to speak to him until the following week and after Oswald was dead.

Was Norman arrested? Was he kept under lock and key until Tuesday November 26?

The Rearranged Boxes

The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes

Re: The Rearranged Boxes