Jump to content


Spartacus

South Knoll; Ballistics, Shot Trajectories


34 replies to this topic

#16 William Plumlee

William Plumlee

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Location:d

Posted 27 November 2004 - 07:29 PM

Al,
Isn't it your view that the south knoll shooter was on the overpass, specifically behind the banister on the south end, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? I believe this is what you have posted previously on the Lancer forum.
Interestingly, there is one significant witness who thinks a shot came from the overpass. At the 1996 December in Dallas conference, Mark Oakes showed a video interview with Dallas motorcycle officer H.B. McClain (he of the the stuck microphone fame), who states, "I think he was shot from that overpass and the picket fence." (Mark Oakes, "Witnesses to History," Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Winter 1996-97, p. 49.)
Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Ron,

This photo is from the ideal trajectory point of the overpass, in which Elm St. is most directly coming toward the proposed overpass shooter's line of sight.

[attachment=911:attachment]

However, there is scant evidence of anyone on the south side of the overpass, in contrast to the numerous "railroad workers" hanging right right above the Elm St. motorcade route.

[attachment=912:attachment]

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Thanks Tim, Al, Ron: Good points. AND Good Pictures!

I think this south shooter was about even with the rail road tracks where the overpass has that south cover hooked wall, which is only a few feet from the (west) cornor edge of the parking lot or perhaps even on the tracks in line with the 'kill zone'. This position is about two or three feet higher than the south edge of the parking lot.

The reason I say this is because this position would be shooting down and direct in stright line with the Limo. If the shooter was at curb side he would be shooting slightly up hill (a low shoot into the Limo through the windsheld) and no cover for escape. I think the escape route was over the railroad tracks.., the same route (except further south of us) as Sergio and I left the Plaza. At the time there were weeds and a vacant, muddy parking area at the base of the railroad hill. (west side of tracks-- cover all the way down to Industrail Blvd.)


#17 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2004 - 07:56 PM

This photo is from the ideal trajectory point of the overpass

By the ideal point do you mean from behind the banister, where it slants eastward toward the parking lot? This is where Al placed the shooter, I believe.

However, there is scant evidence of anyone on the south side of the overpass, in contrast to the numerous "railroad workers" hanging right right above the Elm St. motorcade route.

I don't get your point here. Any shooter on the south end of the overpass would try to avoid being seen, so naturally there would be "scant evidence" of anyone there.
I believe Al has stated that anyone behind the banister where it slants at the south end could not be seen by the people who were standing at the north end, because of the slant. Did you take note of this when you were there, or do you agree?
Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron:

1. I did not at all say "ideal point" but "ideal trajectory point," meaning the spot on the overpass with the optimally direct line of sight (minimal lateral movement of the motorcade).

2. Obviously, a shooter would "avoid being seen," but I was trying to take into account Al's seminar point that, "Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest." The overpass had police atop it, along with an inexplicable (except to Gary Mack) number of railroad workers. We have photos showing these overpass spectators on the north side, but none on the south.

3. I did take note of "the bannister where it slants at the south end" of the overpass, but could not actually stand at that spot because there is now a gate blocking the south end of the pedestrian walkway atop the overpass precisely at the spot where the bannister angles. I do agree that this would be more concealed than any other place on the overpass, unless there was a policeman stationed at that end keeping spectators from wandering onto the pedestrian overpass. Nevertheless, this deviates from Al's seminar points here, as opposed to something that may have been said somewhere on Lancer, in that the lines of trajectory in Al's presentation here show a shooter far closer and exposed (which Al allowed for) than the spot you are attributing to him at the angled bannister, which is the most southwesterly spot in the Plaza. Admittedly, the spot to which you allude corresponds with Tosh Plumlee's impression of the location of the South Knoll shooter:

[attachment=914:attachment]

Here's Al's depiction of two South Knoll shot trajectories. Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level.

[attachment=913:attachment]

John Simkin's previous posting of the aerial view of the Plaza may be helpful if Al uses it to pinpoint the spot from which he deduces the two shots emanated.

[attachment=915:attachment]

Extending Al's lines, they cross the landscaped "V" between Main and Commerce just west of where the grass ends, leading back to the spot in the following photo:

[attachment=916:attachment]

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll, 27 November 2004 - 08:05 PM.


#18 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2004 - 08:10 PM

This position is about two or three feet higher than the south edge of the parking lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tosh,

Did you mean to say the north edge of the south parking lot (the Plaza side)?

Tim

#19 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,186 posts

Posted 27 November 2004 - 09:14 PM

1.  I did not at all say "ideal point" but "ideal trajectory point," meaning the spot on the overpass with the optimally direct line of sight (minimal lateral movement of the motorcade).


OK, I stand corrected. My question was, is this point, however you define it, behind the banister where it slants. But you have answered this with your statement that there is now a gate blocking the way to the slant in the banister.

Was there any reason evident why this area has been blocked with a gate? Not being there to see it myself, only two reasons come to mind: to keep people from going into the parking lot, or to keep researchers like you from checking out a shooter position. The second would be a most telling reason.

the lines of trajectory in Al's presentation here show a shooter far closer and exposed (which Al allowed for) than the spot you are attributing to him at the angled bannister, which is the most southwesterly spot in the Plaza.


Al will have to address this. I have a paper copy of one of his Lancer posts, which I can't find by searching at Lancer. In my paper copy (of a post entitled "RE: 312-317 headshot sequence," dated 1/29/04):

" . . . to explain my position for the shot origin coming from the south end atop the triple underpass where the railing banks away from parallel, is to consider the following:

1 - This is the first available position from the left front where the shooter is hidden from the others atop the underpass.

2 - This allows for the great elevation over the support rod over the front seat of the limo.

3 - It is the best tracking angle for the limos movement once it hits Elm.

4 - It does not allow for obstruction of Jackie.

5 - It explains the shallow wound trajectory of the resulting skull flap and aligns the occipital parietal blowout in the right rear."

Here's Al's depiction of two South Knoll shot trajectories.  Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level.


I don't understand that at all. Al will have to address it.

Ron

#20 Richard J. Smith

Richard J. Smith

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 253 posts

Posted 27 November 2004 - 11:57 PM

"A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from. We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way. I found that interesting and then Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave."

Tosh,

You've indicated many times you and Sergio were standing on the south knoll near the south end of the underpass during the shooting. You would have been within a stone's throw of the shooter if there was one in that position, yet you've said you heard a shot from the north knoll. The photos of the south knoll are few and of poor quality to say the least, but I don't recall seeing anyone there. You've indicated that you were sent to abort the assassination. A simple call to the Secret Service by whoever "sent" you would have aborted the motorcade. If Al's scenario is plausible, and I think it is, there is more to your story than meets the eye. Besides you and Sergio, was there a third person with you?

RJS

#21 William Plumlee

William Plumlee

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Location:d

Posted 28 November 2004 - 03:41 AM

"A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from.  We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way.  I found that interesting and then  Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave."

Tosh,

You've indicated many times you and Sergio were standing on the south knoll near the south end of the underpass during the shooting. You would have been within a stone's throw of the shooter if there was one in that position, yet you've said you heard a shot from the north knoll. The photos of the south knoll are few and of poor quality to say the least, but I don't recall seeing anyone there. You've indicated that you were sent to abort the assassination. A simple call to the Secret Service by whoever "sent" you would have aborted the motorcade. If Al's scenario is plausible, and I think it is, there is more to your story than meets the eye. Besides you and Sergio, was there a third person with you?

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



RJ: I have said many times we were standing on the south knoll near the sidewalk in line with the light poles next to the forked tree across from the 'kill zone' (south) That is approximately150 feet (east) of the south edge of the tripple underpass. I have never said " we were near the south end of the underpass", when the shoots were fired..". Also I never said "...I heard a shot from the north knoll...". I have always said, I felt, a shot came from the left of our position. That would make the shooter at the south end of the underpass, around the northwest corner of the parking lot or on the railroad tracks. Why is it so important to clutter what I have said. I think you should re read what I have certified.

And to your statement; "....a simple call to the Secret Service...". is a little simplification of speculation on your part. Either you are not versed in the real facts that lead up to that day are there is another reason for what you are indicating. " You do not recall seeing anyone there...". But you have just indicated to me that you were looking in the wrong place.., again indicating that we Sergio and I were not on the south knoll at all, thus implying I am not telling the truth of that day. Thats fine. But RJ get your facts straight as to what I have said before you try to establish you beliefs as facts.

If you are going to call me and imply then lets level the playing field and stick with the statements I have made and not drift into speculations based on wrong interpretations. "There is more to my story than meets the eye". Yes there is. That is why I am documenting and attempting to set the record straight when people say I said something I did not. To me it seems some want to lead me off into never never land, instead letting me document and say what I have to say about that day and let it stand on its own merits. I am beginning to suspect there is malice in this rather than simple misunderstandings.

Edited by William Plumlee, 28 November 2004 - 03:56 AM.


#22 William Plumlee

William Plumlee

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Location:d

Posted 28 November 2004 - 03:47 AM

This position is about two or three feet higher than the south edge of the parking lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tosh,

Did you mean to say the north edge of the south parking lot (the Plaza side)?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tim: Yes 'north' edge (or better-- the north west corner of the parking lot. The rail road tracks are about four feet higher than the parking lot itself. The bridge part that slants toward the parking lot is about two feet higher than the parking lot corner.

#23 Al Carrier

Al Carrier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 28 November 2004 - 07:05 AM

1.  I did not at all say "ideal point" but "ideal trajectory point," meaning the spot on the overpass with the optimally direct line of sight (minimal lateral movement of the motorcade).


OK, I stand corrected. My question was, is this point, however you define it, behind the banister where it slants. But you have answered this with your statement that there is now a gate blocking the way to the slant in the banister.

Was there any reason evident why this area has been blocked with a gate? Not being there to see it myself, only two reasons come to mind: to keep people from going into the parking lot, or to keep researchers like you from checking out a shooter position. The second would be a most telling reason.

the lines of trajectory in Al's presentation here show a shooter far closer and exposed (which Al allowed for) than the spot you are attributing to him at the angled bannister, which is the most southwesterly spot in the Plaza.


Al will have to address this. I have a paper copy of one of his Lancer posts, which I can't find by searching at Lancer. In my paper copy (of a post entitled "RE: 312-317 headshot sequence," dated 1/29/04):

" . . . to explain my position for the shot origin coming from the south end atop the triple underpass where the railing banks away from parallel, is to consider the following:

1 - This is the first available position from the left front where the shooter is hidden from the others atop the underpass.

2 - This allows for the great elevation over the support rod over the front seat of the limo.

3 - It is the best tracking angle for the limos movement once it hits Elm.

4 - It does not allow for obstruction of Jackie.

5 - It explains the shallow wound trajectory of the resulting skull flap and aligns the occipital parietal blowout in the right rear."

Here's Al's depiction of two South Knoll shot trajectories.  Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level.


I don't understand that at all. Al will have to address it.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Ron,

Thank you for posting my previous post on Lancer. That is exactly what I am referring to. I believe this position also fits Tosh's view of where the shot originated from also. I am not locked into the South End atop the underpass, as a shot origin from the adjacent parking area also would achieve this shot angle and create the skull wound that was described by Parkland Medical Staff and what we see in Zapruder and others. Sherry's research into this supports this angle for shot origin and she accepts a range from center atop the underpass over Main to the central south reaches of the lot. The archives on Lancer are not up to find this diagram of hers and I cannot find her diagram that she sent me as part of her powerpoint presentation that I assisted her with. I will contact her in order to obtain it.

The overhead photo that Tim posted is the shot angle that I referred to and I don't understand where he is getting the low trajectory angle from a photograph of this nature. Maybe he can shed some light on this.

The reason I often refer to the south end atop the overpass is that it gives it the best pan angle on the limo as it proceeded down Elm with the greatest elevation over the limo's obstructions. In order to get a better pan angle, the shooter would have had to expose themselves to Foster and others atop the underpass over Elm.

When I went to the plaza in 2001, I noted the ideal location here and had my wife and daughter take up a position where Foster and others were over Elm and they could not see me.

Al

Edited by Al Carrier, 28 November 2004 - 07:08 AM.


#24 Al Carrier

Al Carrier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 28 November 2004 - 08:10 AM

"A few years ago, a friend and I set of a fircracker on the southside of the tripple underpass.., about where we thought a shooter would have shot from.  We watched the people who were standing around the kill zone and on the north knoll... They ALL first looked toward the north side of the underpass and some started walking that way.  I found that interesting and then  Dallas's fineist came and politely ask us to leave."

Tosh,

You've indicated many times you and Sergio were standing on the south knoll near the south end of the underpass during the shooting. You would have been within a stone's throw of the shooter if there was one in that position, yet you've said you heard a shot from the north knoll. The photos of the south knoll are few and of poor quality to say the least, but I don't recall seeing anyone there. You've indicated that you were sent to abort the assassination. A simple call to the Secret Service by whoever "sent" you would have aborted the motorcade. If Al's scenario is plausible, and I think it is, there is more to your story than meets the eye. Besides you and Sergio, was there a third person with you?

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



RJ: I have said many times we were standing on the south knoll near the sidewalk in line with the light poles next to the forked tree across from the 'kill zone' (south) That is approximately150 feet (east) of the south edge of the tripple underpass. I have never said " we were near the south end of the underpass", when the shoots were fired..". Also I never said "...I heard a shot from the north knoll...". I have always said, I felt, a shot came from the left of our position. That would make the shooter at the south end of the underpass, around the northwest corner of the parking lot or on the railroad tracks. Why is it so important to clutter what I have said. I think you should re read what I have certified.

And to your statement; "....a simple call to the Secret Service...". is a little simplification of speculation on your part. Either you are not versed in the real facts that lead up to that day are there is another reason for what you are indicating. " You do not recall seeing anyone there...". But you have just indicated to me that you were looking in the wrong place.., again indicating that we Sergio and I were not on the south knoll at all, thus implying I am not telling the truth of that day. Thats fine. But RJ get your facts straight as to what I have said before you try to establish you beliefs as facts.

If you are going to call me and imply then lets level the playing field and stick with the statements I have made and not drift into speculations based on wrong interpretations. "There is more to my story than meets the eye". Yes there is. That is why I am documenting and attempting to set the record straight when people say I said something I did not. To me it seems some want to lead me off into never never land, instead letting me document and say what I have to say about that day and let it stand on its own merits. I am beginning to suspect there is malice in this rather than simple misunderstandings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tosh,

I don't see this as Richard being difficult or trying to disrupt what you are providing. I do see it as many having difficulty in seeing the motivation to send in a team to disrupt the assassination attempt, instead of getting JFK out of harms way. I have not always agreed with Richard, but have never disrespected his motives for his stances or challenges.

If I am reading your situation correctly at the time of the incident, you had little knowlege at the time for what you were walking into or the reasons for sending your team, beyond your objective. Now that is a shocker, huh! Keep the field ops blind and ask them to do their job without proper briefing. Another consistency throughout the years! Richard states "...a simple call to the Secret Service...". That would have likely prevented the assassination, but that also would add another link to the pattern that was already developing from Chicago on the 2nd and Miami on the 18th. Both the previous left a patsy to take the fall and some undesirables who knew the plan and all could start to link back to persons and operational bodies within the government. The problem at the time was nobody likely knew where it would lead back to. By notifying the SS of this third attempt for Nov '63, the SS would obviously start seeing a pattern and call these consistencies out for further formal investigation and that could be embarrassing to say the least to the intelligence community and the DOD. By Dallas, the DOD would obviously see this pattern and would want to stop the 22nd plan and then investigate it themselves to see who in their midst was a part of it. I am sure they would much rather look into their own closets in the DOD and DIA then have the justice department do it and blow the breakdown wide open.

I am sure you have a much better grip on these issues now than in '63 and maybe would not want to comment. Maybe I am way off. Or maybe I am not. I understand if you would not want to comment either way.

Al


#25 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2004 - 08:11 AM

The overhead photo that Tim posted is the shot angle that I referred to and I don't understand where he is getting the low trajectory angle from a photograph of this nature. Maybe he can shed some light on this.
Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Al,

The overhead photo I posted was an extension of John Simkin's suggestion in this seminar that perhaps that view would be helpful, with the trajectories that you posted into a photo also in this seminar incorporated into the overhead. That is what I did with your photo, which doesn't show the source convergence of the two trajectories you've drawn. Before I actually incorporated your lines into the overhead, it appeared to me that these lines converge fairly closely to the street level, which is why I said: "Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level."

[attachment=918:attachment]

Once I incorporated those trajectories, creating as much benefit of the doubt for the likelihood that a shooter would be somewhere near the parking lot/treeline, the lines still didn't quite make it to the very top, at the fence, but do appear to converge higher in the overhead than it appeared in your photo, where the source/convergence location was not in the frame, thereby requiring the extending of your lines in the overhead view. I undertook this exercise upon John's suggestion that an overhead view of the trajectories might be helpful. If you see the photos of the South Knoll I took last week, posted earlier in this seminar, perhaps one of those would be helpful for circling the precise spot you consider to have been optimal for the source of the two trajectories you show in your earlier photo.

[attachment=919:attachment]

Tim

#26 Al Carrier

Al Carrier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 28 November 2004 - 08:25 AM

The overhead photo that Tim posted is the shot angle that I referred to and I don't understand where he is getting the low trajectory angle from a photograph of this nature. Maybe he can shed some light on this.
Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Al,

The overhead photo I posted was an extension of John Simkin's suggestion in this seminar that perhaps that view would be helpful, with the trajectories that you posted into a photo also in this seminar incorporated into the overhead. That is what I did with your photo, which doesn't show the source convergence of the two trajectories you've drawn. Before I actually incorporated your lines into the overhead, it appeared to me that these lines converge fairly closely to the street level, which is why I said: "Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level."

[attachment=918:attachment]

Once I incorporated those trajectories, creating as much benefit of the doubt for the likelihood that a shooter would be somewhere near the parking lot/treeline, the lines still didn't quite make it to the very top, at the fence, but do appear to converge higher in the overhead than it appeared in your photo, where the source/convergence location was not in the frame, thereby requiring the extending of your lines in the overhead view. I undertook this exercise upon John's suggestion that an overhead view of the trajectories might be helpful. If you see the photos of the South Knoll I took last week, posted earlier in this seminar, perhaps one of those would be helpful for circling the precise spot you consider to have been optimal for the source of the two trajectories you show in your earlier photo.

[attachment=919:attachment]

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tim,

My photos originating form the actual location of shot origin did not turn out for some reason. I utilized a photo I took from over Commerce and utilized the lines of trajectory to show the angles of trajectory from the South. Hope the attached photo helps.

Al

#27 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 November 2004 - 08:28 AM

Tim,
My photos originating form the actual location of shot origin did not turn out for some reason. I utilized a photo I took from over Commerce and utilized the lines of trajectory to show the angles of trajectory from the South. Hope the attached photo helps.
Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al,

Isn't that the same photo with the lines I drew in earlier today? This is the one I created, using your photo with trajectories drawn in, taken from Commerce.

[attachment=921:attachment]

As I said earlier, I was just trying to advance your case, applying John Simkin's suggestion that the trajectories be shown on an overhead.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll, 28 November 2004 - 08:32 AM.


#28 Al Carrier

Al Carrier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 28 November 2004 - 08:41 AM

Tim,
My photos originating form the actual location of shot origin did not turn out for some reason. I utilized a photo I took from over Commerce and utilized the lines of trajectory to show the angles of trajectory from the South. Hope the attached photo helps.
Al

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Al,

Isn't that the same photo with the lines I drew in earlier today? This is the one I created, using your photo with trajectories drawn in, taken from Commerce.

[attachment=921:attachment]

As I said earlier, I was just trying to advance your case, applying John Simkin's suggestion that the trajectories be shown on an overhead.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Tim,

Yes, that is the same photo and your trajectories are correct. I simply placed a black box in for shot origin on the trajectories.

I appreciate what you and John are doing to make a better visual presentation for this thread.

Al

#29 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,325 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2004 - 04:24 AM

For what it's worth, I've had discussions on this topic with a friend who happens to be a Captain in Special Forces. I submitted a few questions to him, which he ran by some of his buddies in a sniper unit. They all agreed that one of the keys in sniping is not having to re-aim, and that this is much more important than being close to the target. They described the ideal location for shooting someone in the back of an open car as being high and behind the target...high so as to cut down the possibility of someone blocking their aim, and behind so that they get more than one shot without having to re-aim.

All the shots fired in Dealey came when the limousine was heading in an almost straight line away from the corner of Houston and Elm. Weisberg's argument aside, the sixth floor window was the ideal location within the TSBD. An even better location, however, was the top floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building.

#30 Guest_Tim Carroll_*

Guest_Tim Carroll_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 November 2004 - 06:21 AM

They all agreed that one of the keys in sniping is not having to re-aim, and that this is much more important than being  close to the target.  They described the ideal location for shooting someone in the back of an open car as being high and behind the target...high so as to cut down the possibility of someone blocking their aim, and behind so that they get more than one shot without having to re-aim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about there being two directions from which a sniper would not have to re-aim, from directly in back and directly in front? Direct departing and direct approaching lines of sight would be optimal. Pat, your friend's correct that the "ideal location" would be that which involved the least need to "re-aim." Of course, that fact is more applicable to a telescopic sighting than a non-telescopic shot at a laterally moving target. I would hope to think that I have paid sufficient attention to Al's postings to know this would be true, in addition to common sense.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll, 01 December 2004 - 09:13 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users