The Rearranged Boxes

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?

Lee, 

Could Norman be mistaken for being "elderly"?

See, the whole story that was fed to Thayer Waldo by the Howard Bros included this person being kept under wraps by Special Services - which they of course denied when the story was published and the shit hit the fan...

It doesn't really work for me unless he could be mistaken for being "elderly" - reason being is that imo, Arnold Rowland was an exceptionally accurate and reliable witness. I base this on knowledge of what he has achieved with his life since then - and the fact that the FBI and WC went out of their way in efforts to discredit him.

We know Piper fits the description. The question, could Normal also fit it?

Hasan Yusuf wrote:

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.

Thanks for the link, Hasan.

Ray Mitcham wrote:Thanks for the link, Hasan.

No problem, Ray.

Representative FORD - And as you looked at the window subsequently did you ever see anything else in the window? 
Mr. ROWLAND - No; not in that window, and I looked back every few seconds, 30 seconds, maybe twice a minute, occasionally trying to find him so I could point him out to my wife.
Something I would like to note is that the window that I have been told the shots were actually fired from, I did not see that, there was someone hanging out that window at that time. 
Representative FORD - At what time was that? 
Mr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think. 
Representative FORD - Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle? 
Mr. ROWLAND - No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.

greg parker wrote:Lee, 

Could Norman be mistaken for being "elderly"?

See, the whole story that was fed to Thayer Waldo by the Howard Bros included this person being kept under wraps by Special Services - which they of course denied when the story was published and the shit hit the fan...

It doesn't really work for me unless he could be mistaken for being "elderly" - reason being is that imo, Arnold Rowland was an exceptionally accurate and reliable witness. I base this on knowledge of what he has achieved with his life since then - and the fact that the FBI and WC went out of their way in efforts to discredit him.

We know Piper fits the description. The question, could Normal also fit it?

The only thing would be if Norman had lots of white dust in his hair making it appear grey - hence Rowland believing he was older.

Rowland said he saw what he thought was an "elderly negro" hanging out of the "sniper's nest" window.

Only one person is on record claiming that they hung out of any window and that is Harold Norman.  I think it a no-brainer as to why that story got the kibosh.  And why the dust and debris from his head suddenly transported itself onto Bonnie Ray Williams.

ianlloyd wrote:

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...???)

Yap, you right are and I missed that larger pile of boxes is in the `after`, not `before` photo...    I have no explanation for that

Lee Farley wrote:

greg parker wrote:Lee, 

Could Norman be mistaken for being "elderly"?

See, the whole story that was fed to Thayer Waldo by the Howard Bros included this person being kept under wraps by Special Services - which they of course denied when the story was published and the shit hit the fan...

It doesn't really work for me unless he could be mistaken for being "elderly" - reason being is that imo, Arnold Rowland was an exceptionally accurate and reliable witness. I base this on knowledge of what he has achieved with his life since then - and the fact that the FBI and WC went out of their way in efforts to discredit him.

We know Piper fits the description. The question, could Normal also fit it?

The only thing would be if Norman had lots of white dust in his hair making it appear grey - hence Rowland believing he was older.

Rowland said he saw what he thought was an "elderly negro" hanging out of the "sniper's nest" window.

Only one person is on record claiming that they hung out of any window and that is Harold Norman.  I think it a no-brainer as to why that story got the kibosh.  And why the dust and debris from his head suddenly transported itself onto Bonnie Ray Williams.

Lee,

more from Rowland:

Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window. He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.  We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened.
 
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man? 

Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window. Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window. It was this pair of windows here at that time. 

Mr. SPECTER - All right. Will you mark that pair of windows with a circle?
----------------------------
The above testimony is about the Caucasian or light complexioned Latin military-type dude.
----------------------------

Lee wrote:Rowland said he saw what he thought was an "elderly negro" hanging out of the "sniper's nest" window.

This is the photo referenced in the testimony and shows all windows in which he saw one or more person/s.

Rowland's description of the "elderly negro":
very slender, very thin 
bald or practically bald, or very thin hair if he wasn't bald, 
50, possibly 55 or 60
5' 8", 5' 10" 
very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark, can't recall detail but it [his skin] was either very wrinkled or marked in some way 
had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color

Piper as described in FBI report:
Piper's description in the report is as follows:
Born: Jan 23, 1908.
Height: 5' 10"
Weight: 140
Hair: grey (photo shows bald head)
Eyes: brown
Build: slender 
Facial characteristics: wears moustache; no scars or marks visible 

------------------------
I think you'll find this document somewhat enlightening.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57768&relPageId=117

What's intriguing about this document is that the Thayer story seems to have had 2 versions. Version one seems to very very much to Piper. Version 2 points unequivocally towards Williams, Jarman or Norman -- and seems to lean toward Norman.

Norman btw, repudiated most of the FBI report during his HSCA questioning and actually denied any recollection of ever having such an interview,

As for being held... Norman stated he went home by bus that day as quickly as he could.

Sorry... did that last post piece-meal over a 2 day period and I think I got myself a bit muddled in the delivery...

Just to clarify... one thing Norman specifically denied to the HSCA was "hanging out the window" - or ever saying that to anyone. He certainly didn't say it during his WC appearance. See p31 of the HSCA interview http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html

Norman claimed he hung out the window in his November 26 FBI report.  The interesting thing about his HSCA interview is he denied making a statement to the FBI on November 26:

Lee, he not only denied having that interview - he specifically denied hanging out the window.

Reading his HSCA interview, it appears to have been zero interest in him early on. I don't think that was the case though. I think he either really was being held incommunicado, or they simply left him alone to keep as an "ace in the hole" later on to fill any gaps in the narrative. 

It's hard to tell of course, in a written transcript, but he comes across as a truthful witness to me, and if he had been held for a while, I don't think he would be courageous enough to, in effect, tell the HSCA that the FBI made the whole statement up.

Greg,

Do you have any possible explanation why Harold Norman wasn't officially interviewed until Tuesday November 26th?

Especially bearing in mind that both Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman had been interviewed twice by Sunday November 24th?

I'll hopefully have a chance to put my thoughts down concerning Eddie Piper tomorrow.

EDIT: Must have posted this about 10 seconds after your post

I've read again the Feb 10 teletype you linked to this afternoon.

Everything in that document ( other than the individual being described as a "janitor") leads me to Norman, Greg.

Lee Farley wrote:I've read again the Feb 10 teletype you linked to this afternoon.

Everything in that document ( other than the individual being described as a "janitor") leads me to Norman, Greg.

I agree Lee.

If we go to the next page, we see that they seem to narrow it down to Norman or Piper.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57768&relPageId=118

I think what we may be seeing is something we see in other areas of this case -- a blending of two stories/two people.

I think Piper was up on 6 and was Rowland's "elderly Negro" and I think Norman is the one referenced on the 5th floor - the two then become one - in a similar fashion that a first floor and 4th floor encounter were merged... 

If you go back to the other page, you see there were two versions. The first one is referencing Piper (but wrongly assumes he was working on the 6th floor - simply because he was up there) and the 2nd version is referencing Norman.

The final and official version becomes GIVENS seeing Oswald on the 6th floor BEFORE the assassination.

If we return to the very beginning of mystery of rearranged boxes... maybe there still can be place for `person in the `sniper's nest` capsized the boxes when leaving` theory, if we reconsider the sequence of photos? I.e., could it be possible that photos were taken in other sequence, but one of it's authors was very poor at estimating of moment he took the picture? Different people have different feel of time, besides, add the stress, adrenaline and rised heartbeat because of shots have been fired and President hit...

[Small offtopic: people sometimes achieve incredible results in the stress situation. For example, during Soviet war in Afghanistan in 80-ies, there have been situation, when pilot of cargo plane shoot out about 80 thermo-disguising flares in couple of seconds after launch of `Stinger` SAM was detected... regarding that flares could be released only in `single-shot`, not `full-auto` mode, it means he pressed the releasing button said times in couple of seconds. He could not repeat it on the ground, nor in the calm flight]

I guess none of photographers didn't look at their watches, besides the large clock near the Hertz sign didn't have seconds counted, not talking even about the fact the different clocks and watches sometimes have even gap of 5 or even 10 minutes in their showings...

My believe is that there should be rather simple explanation of this mystery. Accident capsizing of boxes still seems to be the best one, so the `well known` sequence of photos should be checked. 

If the well-known sequence of photos is considered to be proved, one the possible explanations is that suspect in `sniper's nest` decided to pull prank out of witnesses and investigation, so he performed a senseless action to confuse them.

greg parker wrote:Lee, he not only denied having that interview - he specifically denied hanging out the window.

Reading his HSCA interview, it appears to have been zero interest in him early on. I don't think that was the case though. I think he either really was being held incommunicado, or they simply left him alone to keep as an "ace in the hole" later on to fill any gaps in the narrative. 

It's hard to tell of course, in a written transcript, but he comes across as a truthful witness to me, and if he had been held for a while, I don't think he would be courageous enough to, in effect, tell the HSCA that the FBI made the whole statement up.

There are a few parts of this case that are like trying to nail spaghetti to the wall.

This is one of them.

I've just put myself through the pain of watching Norman's "testimony" during the dreadful Oswald on Trial DVD and I think he was lying through his teeth during that debacle.  However, he may have gotten a more intensive and meaningful cross-examination if Benny Hill had been representing Lee Oswald.

If we take Williams first affidavit then Norman and Jarman were with him.

If we take Jarman's first affidavit then Jarman was outside.

If we take Norman's first affidavit then he popped his head out of the window after the first shot and drew it back in after the second and third shots blew debris and dust into his hair and face.

If we take Williams testimony then debris fell into his hair from the ceiling.  If we take Jarman's testimony then same deal.  If we take Williams testimony same again.

Why did the debris story change?  And if the FBI made it up then why bother switching it from Norman to Williams?  What purpose did it serve.

So instead of the "I popped my head out of the window to see what was going on above me" we were instead fed "I heard the shells falling to the ground and the bolt action
being operated" malarkey.  

Norman, the man with the inner ear that Kal-El would be proud of, then goes on record claiming that he did not hear Truly or Baker coming up the stairs while the three amigos were supposedly hiding behind crates, holding their breath, quiet as three mice, and he also did not hear the elevators being used.

WTF is going on here?

I also have real problems with them getting ID'd by Brennan on the steps.  Brennan by all accounts only pointed out Bonnie Ray Williams.  The three of them were supposed to be on the fifth floor.  Seen by a number of people looking out of the windows.  Yet only Williams is taken in.  Jarman and Norman are left alone even though we have film footage of the three of them trying to leave the TSBD at the same time.  And even when Williams allegedly names them both as being with him, only Jarman is brought in for questioning the same day.  Norman is left until Tuesday 26th and even then, he later claims 
that that FBI interview did not take place. I do not believe it.

The three of these had to have been arrested.  Had to.

I really need some questions answered before I can make any sense of this:

1.  Why did the dust and debris move heads?
2.  Why did they lie about opening the SW fifth floor window?
3.  Why did Robert Jackson say this in his testimony "...and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle..."?  When Norman's original FBI statement said he looked up after the first shot and Jackson is saying he saw the two of the "straining" after the last shot.
4.  Why did Jarman originally suggest he was outside?

This was brought up by Richard Gilbride on the Amos Euins thread but I believe it needs to be brought up here too.  James Underwood (photographer) said the following about witnessing Amos Euins talking to a police officer after the assassination and the quote has always perplexed me and fully appreciate why Richard's work took him to his eventual destination:

lee wrote:1.  Why did the dust and debris move heads?
2.  Why did they lie about opening the SW fifth floor window?
3.  Why did Robert Jackson say this in his testimony "...and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle..."?  When Norman's original FBI statement said he looked up after the first shot and Jackson is saying he saw the two of the "straining" after the last shot.
4.  Why did Jarman originally suggest he was outside?

Lee,


the likes of you, Richard and Duke have done a lot more work on the three amigos than I have, so I'm not about to dismiss anything you say about them out of hand. I have noted the discrepancies between their initial statements, Williams lie about going to the 6th floor to eat lunch and pondered the lack of any early statements from Norman, but not much beyond that. 

In regard to your questions... all I can say is that not all of the issues faced by DPD/FBI in trying to stitch up the evidence against Oswald are transparent to us now. It's not possible to solve every dilemma, every anomaly beyond the use of conjecture and educated guesses. There are a minimum number of issues needed to to be solved/resolved to show that Oswald was innocent, and that others set him up to take the fall. I think that minimum quota has been filled. Anything above and beyond that is a "bonus". 

On the other hand, sometimes when you let this stuff go, you can stumble onto something relevant while looking at other areas. 

It's a pity we don't have access to the criminal records of all the employees. The one allegedly held by Special Services had a record fro shooting craps.

Lee Farley wrote:This was brought up by Richard Gilbride on the Amos Euins thread but I believe it needs to be brought up here too.  James Underwood (photographer) said the following about witnessing Amos Euins talking to a police officer after the assassination and the quote has always perplexed me and fully appreciate why Richard's work took him to his eventual destination:

Playing Devil's Advocate here... let's assume Underwood understood what what was being said to him, notwithstanding he seems to have had difficulty with Euins' speech... 

Let's also assume it was Eddie Piper up on the 6th (but substitute him for any of the others if you want).... we can be pretty sure that the plotters would be happy to "patsify" individuals from the Black community, as well as a "Communist". 

If Piper took someone up there he believed to be a Secret Service agent... and that agent wanted to have the bones of a case against a Black man... why not just real friendly like, offer to let Piper hold your rifle, maybe try looking through the scope out the window...

greg parker wrote:

Lee Farley wrote:This was brought up by Richard Gilbride on the Amos Euins thread but I believe it needs to be brought up here too.  James Underwood (photographer) said the following about witnessing Amos Euins talking to a police officer after the assassination and the quote has always perplexed me and fully appreciate why Richard's work took him to his eventual destination:

Playing Devil's Advocate here... let's assume Underwood understood what what was being said to him, notwithstanding he seems to have had difficulty with Euins' speech... 

Let's also assume it was Eddie Piper up on the 6th (but substitute him for any of the others if you want).... we can be pretty sure that the plotters would be happy to "patsify" individuals from the Black community, as well as a "Communist". 

If Piper took someone up there he believed to be a Secret Service agent... and that agent wanted to have the bones of a case against a Black man... why not just real friendly like, offer to let Piper hold your rifle, maybe try looking through the scope out the window...

Certainly food for thought, Greg.

What better way to get the entire African-American working population of the TSBD on side than to be able to claim that witnesses on the street saw a "black man holding a rifle."  I'm guessing from that point on any story being fabricated would have the added assurance of full and unwavering support from Givens, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Piper or anyone else who wasn't white.

In relation to your "Devil's Advocate" role, and I know that this is a year 2000 account, but Kent Biffle wrote the following in a piece for the Dallas Morning News:

"People were still climbing over the fence. I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository.
A policeman was talking to a Negro boy. "It was a colored man done it, I saw him," the boy was saying.
The boy was pointing at the upper levels of the building. The crowd seemed to have drawn back from the building."

If we take into account the story of Pfc Eugene B. Dinkin, U.S. Army, who claimed prior to the assassination that a plot was forumlating high up in the military, then do we have to pay more attention to the "black man with a rifle" observations as part of the wider strategy employed by the plotters?  Dinkin, who was a code breaker stationed in Metz, France,  said he began to see the signs of a plot against JFK in military publications such as Stars and Stripes and in the wider media, especially the William Randolph Hearst newspapers, in September/October 1963 and these signs took the form of what Dinkin described as "psychological sets."  These "psychological sets" were subtle messages that created "negative frames" around John Kennedy and his policies that were designed to portray his as "soft on communism" and a "communist sympathiser."  The more "psychological sets" that existed and the more pronounced the campaign to undermine the President and alter public perception.

The Dinkin story is a long and interesting one (an IMO incredibly important) and it deserves its own thread but in the meantime I will simply finish with what he said to Dick Russell in the book The Man Who Knew Too Much.  On October 22, 1963, Dinkin claims he sent a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy outlining what his research had uncovered and warning him of the plot against his brother.  In the letter, that has obviously never surfaced, Dinkin claimed to Russell: 

"I did offer in this letter a warning that an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 18th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or a Negro, who would be designated the assassin."

Much has been written of the way in which the "Third World War" scenario was used to get "honorable men to do dishonorable things" and the "Marxist as assassin" plot certainly allowed this line of manipulation to take place but was the addition of a possible "Negro" placed into the mix to allow for a alternative "race war" scenario should it be required?

We know the actual offical narrative destroyed the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and generated enough fear in the country for the majority of people of a leftist-leaning persuasion to go back under the bed and stay there but was there an alternative but ultimately unused scenario in the playbook?  Were two plans in operation, one that got the Jim Crow crew on board, and another that got the Cuban Exiles on board, and in the long run, were both of these groups double crossed when the solution declared a "loner misfit with no ties to anybody" as the assassin?

This is the main problem with this murder mystery.  Getting to grips with what didn't happen is now easier than it has ever been.  Getting to grips with what did happen is still tough.

Lee wrote:If we take into account the story of Pfc Eugene B. Dinkin, U.S. Army, who claimed prior to the assassination that a plot was forumlating high up in the military, then do we have to pay more attention to the "black man with a rifle" observations as part of the wider strategy employed by the plotters?  Dinkin, who was a code breaker stationed in Metz, France,  said he began to see the signs of a plot against JFK in military publications such as Stars and Stripes and in the wider media, especially the William Randolph Hearst newspapers, in September/October 1963 and these signs took the form of what Dinkin described as "psychological sets."  These "psychological sets" were subtle messages that created "negative frames" around John Kennedy and his policies that were designed to portray his as "soft on communism" and a "communist sympathiser."  The more "psychological sets" that existed and the more pronounced the campaign to undermine the President and alter public perception.

The Dinkin story is a long and interesting one (an IMO incredibly important) and it deserves its own thread but in the meantime I will simply finish with what he said to Dick Russell in the book The Man Who Knew Too Much.  On October 22, 1963, Dinkin claims he sent a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy outlining what his research had uncovered and warning him of the plot against his brother.  In the letter, that has obviously never surfaced, Dinkin claimed to Russell: 

"I did offer in this letter a warning that an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 18th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or a Negro, who would be designated the assassin."

From the "Was eddie Piper on the 6th floor?" thread:

Final word
Eddie Piper is an unlikely conspirator. It is possible he escorted someone (the unknown sniper) to the 6th floor and stayed up after being invited to watch the parade from a window – thus implicating a Black man in the assassination as predicted by Pfc Eugene Dinkin. By Saturday however (when Piper made his first official statement), co-conspirators were out of the question. He was given his alibi, leaving himself off the 6th floor and on the 1st floor, whilst implicating Oswald as not only going up, but doing so alone. 

On psychological sets. I have identified one in a different context. The stories, once placed side by side are unmistakably aimed at tearing down resistance to a particular objective. It was very cleverly done and played on fear and xenophobia to the nth degree as a main motivator.

Greg,

When was Oswald's attempted associations with the ACLU first reported?

WC Exhibits B & D were taken by Dillard with his 28mm Leica camera approx. Z-313 plus 5 seconds. Harold Norman is not discernible in this photo.

WC Exhibits A & C were taken by Dillard with his 100mm Yashika telephoto approx. Z-313 plus 10 seconds. Norman has appeared about at the plane of the window, where it abuts the building facade.

Norman has evidently moved closer to the window plane between these two photos, but how much?

The B & D negative was subjected to audioradiographic enhancement, which helped bring out ambient light in the room from the celing lamp and subdued reflection of the sun. In the enhancement a white spot corresponds with Norman's forehead, as far as height above window frame and as far as relative intensity.

Taking this white spot to be Norman's forehead, the enhancement shows that he was just out of the Leica's resolving range at the time of the snapshot, approximately 3-5 feet beyond the window plane. He essentially rocked forward on the balls of his feet during the intervening 5 seconds. And as he did this he ended up looking straight at Dillard's camera.

So Norman knew he was being photographed, in a photograph that would associate him with the sniper's nest; he was captured on record one floor directly below the window where several loud shots had emanated from, where a rifle had been seen.

I don't know when Dillard's photos were first printed. They're not in the November 23 edition of the Dallas Morning News, the paper he worked for. Since his testimony indicates he was interviewed by the FBI's Benjamin Kreutzer on November 25, they may well have been printed by then.

And this slight delay in printing them may explain why Norman wasn't interviewed by anyone until November 26, when the FBI finally got hold of him. Even though "Harold Norman" was mentioned in Jarman's 11/24 FBI report, and "Hank" was mentioned in Williams' 11/22 DPD affidavit and 11/23 FBI report. Norman was reluctant to come forward. He let the authorities come to him.

Keutzer caught up with Norman on the 26th and some interesting comments ensued. " said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. (I believe Bob Jackson's testimony corroborates seeing a black man looking out and up; Norman testified he didn't remember doing this). He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window. (And by pulling his head back in he was temporarily out of camera range). He stated he could see people walking toward the other end of the building..."

This sounds to me like he's talking about seeing people on the 5th floor walking toward the other end of the building. Or better, looking up through the cracks in the floorboard to the 6th.

III, p. 195 "There was one place I could see the plywood and then another place you could still see a little daylight, I mean peering through the crack.

So Norman is talking about seeing at least two persons walking from a point directly above him, headed in the direction of the freight elevators/corner stairwell.

"He stated he could see people walking toward the other end of the building."

I disagree with how I interpreted this last night. Norman is referring to looking outside, to the general flow of spectators heading for the grassy knoll. He says it more clearly in his Secret Service interview of December 4, that "I saw all of the people down on the street run for the west side of the building."

For a moment there I thought I had found something that let Norman off the hook, as an innocent witness.