Jump to content


Spartacus

Dealey Plaza lampposts...


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 02:41 AM

Today I came across some of my past research on the DP street lights.

I am starting a new thread if anyone wants to comment on why they
were all changed in location and height soon after the assassination.

Here is an aerial showing how all were originally located by the curb.
Here they would have provided very accurate landmarks for replication
of photos. The moving of locations and height changes have confounded
researchers for years.

I will be posting more material on this thread...but some of you may
wish to add your own thoughts.

Jack

#2 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 03:02 AM

In 2002 a NZ researcher and I took measurements of lampposts
and locations, focusing mainly on one which WAS ADDED SOMETIME
AFTER 1963. It was not there in 1963, and was added in a very
asymmetrical location. I hope you will find this research useful.

Even this post underwent changes thru the years, which I will
post later.

Were all these changes made to disrupt photo research? No
apparent reasons for the changes have ever been made public.
I once emailed the Dallas City Offices attempting to get any
records of the work orders for these changes. My emails were
never answered.

Jack

#3 Brendan Slattery

Brendan Slattery

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 03:25 AM

Jack is now reduced to answering his own posts.

The answer is simple: they did it to drive you crazy.

#4 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,118 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 10:11 AM

Jack is now reduced to answering his own posts.

The answer is simple: they did it to drive you crazy.


What about addressing the points being made by Jack. If you disagree with him, explain why.

#5 Robin Unger

Robin Unger

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 06 July 2006 - 10:33 AM

Photo taken in 1963 showing the original placement of the lamp posts







#6 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 01:07 PM

Initially;

The location of the critical lamp posts (those on the Zapruder side of the street) were moved only a short distance from their original position.
In the early days, one could still observe where the original lamp post base had stood and a concrete "patch" had been poured over the location.

This extremely minor movement of the posts was associated with much of the WC re-enactment in which camera angles/elevation, and position had been changed from the original Zapruder position in order to achieve the WC re-enactment photo's.

It also had to do with the WC's "adjusted" position method of their re-enactment in which not only did they ultimately have to alter their own survey data, but also had to make Z-208 = Z-210 on the ground.

Had the lamp posts been allowed to remain in their initial position, anyone with a camera could have climbed up onto Zapruder's position, taken their own photo's, and in comparison with the WC re-enactment photo's, easisly recognized that someone was not telling the truth.

Therefore, since the lamp posts provided a critical mid-point element in the line-of-sight from the Zapruder position to fixed objects in the background, they had to be slightly relocated.

Later of course, they were thereafter completely removed back into the grassy area of the slope, thus completely eliminating any possibility that anyone would/could ever note the discrepancy in alignment of the lamp posts in relationship to background objects, in some of the WC re-enactment photographs.

Tom

P.S. The manhole cover at the curb inlet down past the impact point of the third/last/final shot also once provided a "fixed" position in the Z-film.

#7 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 06 July 2006 - 03:18 PM



Jack is now reduced to answering his own posts.

The answer is simple: they did it to drive you crazy.


What about addressing the points being made by Jack. If you disagree with him, explain why.


Good point, John. If I were to bet on this matter - I would not be surprised to see that the city planners probably passed new ordinances that prevented lamppost from being right on he curbs. Has anyone bothered to see if lamppost were moved throughout Dallas or were they limited to Dealey Plaza? This may be a question to ask Gary Mack.

As far as the lamppost being moved around effecting recreation photos and films - that is plain nonsense. There are so many landmarks in Dealey Plaza that are available for alignment purposes that the lamppost are not even needed.

Bill Miller


#8 Brendan Slattery

Brendan Slattery

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 04:42 PM


Jack is now reduced to answering his own posts.

The answer is simple: they did it to drive you crazy.


What about addressing the points being made by Jack. If you disagree with him, explain why.


Because he posts Z-film nonsense on a semi-daily basis, gets schooled by the other people in this forum, quickly loses interest, then moves on to another unsubstantiated charge of fabrication. In any event, Miller's observation about DP landmarks is sufficient, so I won't bother stealing it. There's also the laziness issue: it wouldn't be hard for Jack to access Dallas public works orders from that era. Instead, he relies on sinister innuendo. Why, in 1963, would Dallas be expected to keep DP frozen in time?

#9 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 06 July 2006 - 06:55 PM



Jack is now reduced to answering his own posts.

The answer is simple: they did it to drive you crazy.


What about addressing the points being made by Jack. If you disagree with him, explain why.


Good point, John. If I were to bet on this matter - I would not be surprised to see that the city planners probably passed new ordinances that prevented lamppost from being right on he curbs. Has anyone bothered to see if lamppost were moved throughout Dallas or were they limited to Dealey Plaza? This may be a question to ask Gary Mack.

As far as the lamppost being moved around effecting recreation photos and films - that is plain nonsense. There are so many landmarks in Dealey Plaza that are available for alignment purposes that the lamppost are not even needed.

Bill Miller


As far as the lamppost being moved around effecting recreation photos and films - that is plain nonsense. There are so many landmarks in Dealey Plaza that are available for alignment purposes that the lamppost are not even needed.


Personally, I have little doubt that it is "nonsense" to those who do not have sense enough to understand the significance of the ONLY items between the Zapruder position and JFK, which would also give exact alignment in reference to fixed background items, HAVE BEEN MOVED AND/OR RELOCATED.

Perhaps if you were to take a "quickie" course in survey and alignment of range poles, etc; then you just may appreciate the importance of "NFL" (Near/Far/Line),

http://history-matte...Vol18_0051a.htm


Top Photo/Frame 166

Photo from Re-enactment.

Note the vertical alignment of the left post of the road sign in relationship to the window edge on the window in the background building on Houston St.

Note the vertical alignment of the corner stoplight, directly to the rear of the re-enactment vehicle, located at the corner of Houston & Elm. Also note the vertical alignment of this redlight post in relationship to the overhead road signs, in which the redlight post is seen close to the right edge of the overhead road sign.

Actually, one should also fully examined the alignment of the background overhead roadsigns in regards to their relationship with the windown in the far background building, as compared with the frame 185 re-enactment photo.

Bottom Photo/Frame 185

Now, if one will look at the background redlight post, they will find that the alignment with the overhead road sign has slightly moved, accordingly to a "panning right" for the camera.

In simple words, it has "moved" to the left in what would be a photographic position, due to the movement of the camera to the right.

Unfortunately, the vertical alignment of the road sign post, in relationship to the background window, not only has not moved to the left, it is now actually closer in alignment to the windown edge than it was at frame 166, when in all practical theory, the alignment of the post should have moved to left, as the camera panned/moved to the right.

In addition, one can also observe the minor elevation change in relationship to the overhead signs in the background as compared against the windows of the far background building.


http://history-matte...Vol18_0052b.htm

Frame 225

The "nuance's" between the actual Z-film, as compared to the WC re-enactment photo's are ever so slight.
By running through their "re-enactment" multiple times, and filming these multiple re-enactments with multiple cameras which were located at varying positions on the steps adjacent to the Zapruder position, as well as having different elevations on the camera's, the WC/aka Specter & Company, were able to randomly select which photo, from which camera, best suited their needs.

As example, the Frame 225 original vs. the re-enactment is one of those minor "slipups" also.

In it/these, one should also note the vertical alignment of the right hand sign post in relationship to the window frame in the far background on the Houston St. Building.

No doubt, such nuances were later found, and of course additional corrections/modifications had to be made.

http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z225.jpg

Anybody see where that window went too?

I would further add that there are multiple instances in which one can find elevation changes as well as position location changes in the WC re-enactment photo's.
All of which have to do with the magical positioning of JFK on Elm St., in the vicinity of the first shot, and all of which have to do with the altered survey data and the "adjusted position".

Were one to have the original road sign in the eact position, as well as the original lamp posts in their original positions, it just may suprise one at exactly how completely "phony" the WC re-enactment was.

#10 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:23 AM

Identifying lampposts in Zapruder and Cancellare. It sometimes
is difficult to identify a particular lamppost without referring to
the Cutler plat.

Jack

#11 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:17 AM

Here is a lamppost mystery I cannot explain. Can you?

This is the ADDED LAMPOST WHICH WAS NOT PRESENT IN 1963.
How many times was it changed?

The present one has been measured at 14 feet.

Jack

#12 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:29 AM

When Aussie John Costella was in Dallas in 2003, he took a
photo of the NEWLY ADDED LAMPPOST and compared it with
a photo taken sometime earlier by fellow Aussie Phil Hopley.
The post had been replaced sometime between the two photos.
How many times was this post replaced before they were
satisfied. Why?

Jack

#13 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,056 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:32 AM

difference in camera? different elevation/ location of photographer? wrong thinking behind scaling?

#14 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:47 AM

By my estimate, the POLE THAT WAS NOT PRESENT IN 1963 has had
at least FOUR INCARNATIONS...changing heights and bases, etc, for
NO APPARENT PURPOSE. Lots of trouble to do this. Why?

Opinions?

Jack

#15 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:01 AM

difference in camera? different elevation/ location of photographer? wrong thinking behind scaling?

Thanks for your reply, John. Good thinking, but...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users