David Josephs Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I've posted this before yet I do not think the implications of such a display have been fully appreciated... The FBI created a scale model of DP as well as the DPD basement to "re-enact" the shootings via 3D model. When seeing this WCD entitled: "Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure" One has no idea what treasure lies within... Under Hoover's name we are told that this model of DP is so good that there is no need to go to DP at all - this model explains it all http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10699&relPageId=6 "These 3d models will assist eye witnesses in clearly demonstrating their recollection of the events...." The FBI puts a shot : Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct. CE875: The photographs in the album are to be viewed in their relationship with the attached survey report dated December 5,1963 . In each case the rear bumper is above the point referred to a picture was taken at each point from 0+00 to the 6+25 mark,except no picture was taken at 5+00 mark as this was about 4 feet from impact of the third shot . These pictures have been made to scale so as to show the same perspective as the human eye when held at a distance of about 16 inches from the eye . Photographs showing the camera arrangement used to take the pictures and the moving pictures of these scenes are included in this album . (commission exhibit 875 con't) DJ: 4 feet from 5+00 is 4+96... whereas the plat and legends put the shot at 4+65, 30 feet further UP ELM. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm 4+65 is the location of the "X" on the street for Z313... when in fact the WCR puts the shot at a variety of locations (headshot) . Mr. LIEBELER - So, you were standing about where I placed the "X" on photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. <snip> Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. Based on seeing the base of the lamppost in the background of z375 and the best guess estimate of the line of sight thru the car modeled as the LAST shot, I estimated z375 give or take some frames. This, like so much contained in the WCDocs never sees a commissoner or the light of day until uncovered years later. The EVIDENCE states that a shot was fired before the first one in this model - ignored The EVIDENCE states that a shot missed, hit a curb, and wounded Tague - ignored The EVIDENCE states that a shot missed entirely and hit a manhole cover and was retrieved from the grass - ignored The EVIDENCE contradicts when the LAST SHOT was taken... with a definitive statement in CE875 putting this last shot EXACTLY where the FBI puts it in this model This last shot - last chance before the Trade Mart team got all the action - could very well have been from the WEST windows... There has been discussion that the man in the white T in Dillard in the SW window was LEE, the man walking past Mrs Reid, and in my opinion the one who gets into the Rambler... If a shot really was fired at that point, 30 odd feet down the road... one begins to see how and why the FBI and WCR stopped their analysis at z334... If we could ascertain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hocking Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 David, My best guess is that the Warren Commission never looked into the problematic discrepancies illuminated in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Not only the WC but every investigation since.... This is the FBI's primae facia case against a 6th floor shooter from that window, ergo Oswald, yet they are never asked to explain or justify these conclusions. All I'd like to know is HOW they arrived at these shot locations... FBI Inspector Leo Gauthier is named by Hoover as the FBI liason to the WC regarding the models.. CE878, CE879 & CE880 are photos from WCD298 depicting the model... and Gauthier testified for the WCR.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm By focusing the question on the model itself and NOT showing the images depicting the shots... the entire thrust of the model is lost. Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself?Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car. This again reinforces the selectivity of the WC lawyers with regards to source materials... WCD298 is buried while 3 photos are used to represent the efforts of the FBI... that they painstakingly produced a model that offered no conclusions within the WCR seems a bit odd.... we only learn the purpose of the model in WCD298's preface... and in the detailed measurements offered within the doc. Sure be nice if someone at the FBI could answer for this... Mr. GAUTHIER: The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hocking Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Not only the WC but every investigation since.... This is the FBI's primae facia case against a 6th floor shooter from that window, ergo Oswald, yet they are never asked to explain or justify these conclusions. All I'd like to know is HOW they arrived at these shot locations... FBI Inspector Leo Gauthier is named by Hoover as the FBI liason to the WC regarding the models.. CE878, CE879 & CE880 are photos from WCD298 depicting the model... and Gauthier testified for the WCR.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm By focusing the question on the model itself and NOT showing the images depicting the shots... the entire thrust of the model is lost. Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself? Mr. GAUTHIER. The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau's Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4,. of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the followup car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the followup car behind the Vice-Presidential car. This again reinforces the selectivity of the WC lawyers with regards to source materials... WCD298 is buried while 3 photos are used to represent the efforts of the FBI... that they painstakingly produced a model that offered no conclusions within the WCR seems a bit odd.... we only learn the purpose of the model in WCD298's preface... and in the detailed measurements offered within the doc. Sure be nice if someone at the FBI could answer for this... Mr. GAUTHIER: The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964. "... By focusing the question on the model itself and NOT showing the images depicting the shots... the entire thrust of the model is lost." "This again reinforces the selectivity of the WC lawyers with regards to source materials... " This brings to mind a similar tactic used when drawings of autopsy photos (prepared by illustrator Ida Dox) were presented as evidence to the Warren Commission instead of using the genuine Autopsy photos. Perhaps it is just me, but my gut feeling is that the logic used was “Look at the incredible amount of work we did to create these drawings and 3D scale models … therefore, you can trust our conclusions must be correct.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 David, The assassination is one big math equation. The WC possesses the master solution. To arrive 30ft past 313, you have to adjust for it, up the street. Here is a piece of that solution broken down for you. Shaneyfelt testimony states the vertical/elevation change from frame 161-166 was 10 inches. 10inches/12 inches = .833 .833 x 31.75 = 26.44ft. He also states the limo averaged 11.2 mph from frame 161-313. CE 884 shows the limo traveling .9ft between frames 161-166. 11.2 mph in terms of 5 frames elapsed would equal 4.5ft traveled. 4.5ft-.9ft = 3.6ft missing 26.44 + 3.6ft = 30.04ft. There is one question that should be asked of me about the the math equation I have provided. Feel free to ask it. Understanding the above concept is key to gaining a better grip on what the WC was up to. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You definitely have my attention, Chris, but I am having a bit of difficulty following you. I'm hoping you elaborate on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 David As I was reading your quotes from Altgens and Hudson, I immediately thought of another close witness who, unfortunately, was never called to testify before the Warren Commission, for some strange reason. It might have been that he stated in his FBI statement that the second shot made JFK's hair fly up and JFK fall over, or maybe it was his statement that there was another shot AFTER the head shot. Then again, he was one of those nasty deluded witnesses who believed the limo came almost to a halt after the first shot. Whatever the reason he was never called by the WC, the most interesting thing he said in his FBI statement is that, between the first and third shots, the limo only seemed to move 10 to 12 feet. This is interesting, as Altgens makes a similar claim in his WC testimony. He testified that JFK was only 15 feet from him at the time of the head shot (in total contradiction to the Z film) and that the famous Altgens 6 photo was taken when JFK was 30 feet from him, and that the Altgens 6 photo was taken at the exact moment the first shot was fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 .833 x 31.75 = 26.44ft. Hey there Chris, good to hear from you again. 1) Why 31.75 feet here Chris? 2) a 10" vertical drop in 5 frames or even 4.5 feet is possible ? The Survey legends that you've worked on and posted shows elevation at z161@425.95 and z166@425.70... that's only .15 of a foot(?) or 1.8 inches. The uncorrected version has 429.25 and 429.20 or .05 of a foot... 3) We know the speeds are impossible from the legend... and was created to hide the distance changes... And while I agree 100% with your math... It means that there had to be a composite done to get Altgens and everything else changed in the background/foreground of Zapruder... I find it hard to fit that kind of alteration into the timeline given the B&W photos we see in LIFE by the 29th... Altgens is NOT where he is supposed to be... same with Brehm and the Newmans... Can you help me understand an alteration scenario that changes Nix, Muchmore and Zap as well as Bronson and all the other photos showing Altgens' location ... thanks ---- Robert, yes - Brehm tells us the limo hardly moves from his shot thru shot 3... Now I have a thought from a project I am working on... assume Oswald the shooter... he has to judge the speed and location the limo is moving to accurately aim... The back shot SHOULD be considered a miss by him (the scope caused shots to go high and to the right... isn't the back wound high and to the right of JFK's heart?) since he prepared for yet another shot. From z225, reload and reacquire to 313... which according to the same legend was 77 feet further down Elm. or 50 feet from 255 when those at the scene state it was no more than 15 feet... To cover 50 feet from 255 to 313 (3.17 seconds) the limo's speed is 11.2. Yet the witnesses state it slowed severely at this point... If a shooter is aiming and leading the limo, and all of a sudden the limo slows when a reasonable person would assume the limo would speed up with nothing but Stemmons ahead... How does a semi-inexperienced shooter make adjustments via a scope, so quickly? (If you have the stable Zfilm version in Quicktime you can run it BACKWARD to see just how much the limo slows... IMO to less than 4mph.. and may be the reason one of the shots hit JC from behind... leading JFK from the WEST windows or WEST side of TSBD and then all of a sudden slowing would put JC right in the line of fire... --- In the end the biggest stumbling block for me is how the film moved the foreground and background 30 feet... David Healy will tell us it was the composite work at Hawkeyeworks... Since I still believe that skills and abilities in the private CIA world far exceeded what was available to the public... and there was a very close relationship between CIA and the movie industry... all that was needed was the old magic trick's misdirection... The earliest SS/FBI reports from Dallas on what is on the film is very generic and low on details FROM the film... but it was seen enough early on to know well in advance what needed to be done... add back that the film was in the process of alteration within hours of the autopsy and there was a direct line from Rowley to the morgue... and you get my drift. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Thank you for asking the question David. Why 31.75ft? See attachment. Converted = 3.15 degrees chris Edited January 11, 2014 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 More help. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 Sorry my friend... how does 31.75 FEET relate to 3.15 DEGREES of grade and why you use 10 INCHES of vertical loss ... Shaneyfelt was referring to the difference in height of the reconstruction car/JFK stand-in and the actual limo... not the elevation of the street.. So rather than put the standin at the correct hieght... we have math. Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film OK... so they put the limo at z161's ESTABLISHED position and drew a line from the 6th floor window to where he was hit on his BACK... 5.5 inches down from the collar and over to the right... and it disappears from sight ON THE STAND IN, at z161... they moved the spot 10 inches LOWER due to the height of the recreation car and moved the car forward until the same line of sight was established - the LAST SHOT POSSIBLE to hit JFK in the back before disappearing under the tree and called that Z166... which, in turn means a 10 in drop in the road between 161 and 166. I think I got it now... 1) why do you divide 10" into 12" ? 2) at 3 degrees and even 4.5 feet, there is not a 10" drop in the street... you would have to travel MUCH FARTHER. So the .9 feet and 10" drop reveals some math BS.. 3) .833 x 31.75 = 26.44ft. Sorry Chris but this makes no sense to me.. 31.75 FEET - is that the distance needed to drop 10 vertical inches? We are talking about PRIOR to 166.. the missing frames from the WIDE turn onto Elm and the shot hitting the street around 145-150. Are you saying the MATH of z166 is really for a spot 31 feet further down Elm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 David, 12" = 1foot. Ratio of 10inches vertical to 26.4ft horizontal. Convert that ratio in terms of ft/ft Or, if you like, the equation would be: Vertical change (rise) / Horizontal (run) x 100 = grade % chris P.S. You now possess one key part of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 Okay... let me think aloud a minute.... Curious - the vertical ratio 10/12, 5/6, .833 really equates to the horizontal distance? I see the algebra 10/26.4 = 12/X 10X = 26.4 x 12 = 316.8 X = 31.68 feet Can we make a definitive statement Chris? There is no way that whatever line of sight they used at 161 to a spot on JFK's back in the 10" taller recreation vehicle, equates to a spot on JFK's back at 166, which is at most 4.5 feet ahead of 161 and NOT the 31+ feet needed to drop 10" at 3.15 degrees. Are you not forgetting the extreme angle downward from the SE window of the 6th floor where they originated the line of sight? That must be on the order of 70 degrees? So isn't the movement of the red laser dot on JFK's back at 161, 10" too high - going to fall much quicker than the 3.15 degrees of the road? Using your calc app there, I think you used DEGREES for PERCENT CHANGE... A vertical change of .833 of a foot over a horizontal of 4.5 feet is an 18.513 PERCENT change http://www.csgnetwork.com/inclinedeclinegradecalc.html To decline 10 inches over 31.75 feet the PERCENTAGE DECLINE is 2.6236... that calculator does not use degrees - or am I way off here? Be aware that the term grade should not be confused with an angle. The two are very different. For example, a flat surface can be referred to as a 0 percent grade or a 180-degree angle: there is no change in height as the road continues. (In mathematical terms, there is no rise over the run.) A 100 percent grade would be equivalent to a 45-degree angle or, in other words, the rise would be equal to the run. It is also possible to have an infinite percent grade as that is defined as any amount of rise with no run at all. This would be equivalent to the road going straight up at a 90-degree angle. Thus, not a realistic measurement for a roadway. convert slope % to degrees - to do this we take the arctan of the ratio (i.e. for 63% we take the arctan of 0.63) The 18.5% slope equates to an 87 degree angle from the 6th floor to the target... yet CE889 tells us the angle is 26.52. at z166 which has to be impossible. http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0051a.htm The arctan of 2.6236 is 69 degrees... which appears much more like the angle at 166 than 26 degrees... Let me go offline and work thru a few things... But I see what you are saying and where you are going... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 Using the FBI's WCD298 measurements - this is what the shots looked like and their distances... Sorry, but no way Z166 is at a 26 degree angle to the 6th floor window... when THEIR first shot at around 210-220 shows the angle already steeper than 26 degrees.... and there STILL remains that final shot down by Altgens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 David, Start with it simplified at 1ft for conversion purposes. 1ft/31.75ft = .03149 = 3.15%. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now