Thomas H. Purvis
-
Posts
5,073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Thomas H. Purvis
-
-
According to the DVP scenario, the SBT and the first bullet accounts for Connally's wounds.
So I have a question for DVP...IF you and the WC are correct [HUGE "if", there]...how or why was there copper residue [as in, possibly from a copper-jacketed bullet??] found by Heiberger in his spectrographic analysis on the defect in the COLLAR of JFK's coat?
Explain away, Davey...like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.
Mark;
By now, you should be aware that attempting to teach a Parrot to do other than "mimic" what it has heard is in fact a futile exercise.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0187a.htm
"and that a control area was taken from under the collar"
Which happens to be exactly correct, as this is exactly where Henry Heiberger took his "control" sample.
The operative wording being "UNDER THE COLLAR"
Which of course leaves the slightly elongated hole which is located just below the bottom edge of the collar as being the bullet entrance point for the third/last/final shot impact.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0046b.htm
"It is located just below the collar and 3.3 centimeters right of midline"
Suprisingly! There are some of us who recognize the difference between a hole UNDER the collar where a control sample was in fact taken, and a hole located just below the collar in which the oblique nature of the hole penetrated the outer as well as inner fabric of the coat.
And, I might add, happens to be in direct alignment with the bullet impact to the edge of the hairline at the back of JFK's neck.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0045a.htm
"Right. But it was in the hairline sir."
"Near the end of his hairline?"
"Yes Sir"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S. The testing of this hole by Henry Heiberger showed a "positive" for copper.
-
From Shaboo2:
“You know, that stupid "magic bullet" deal was what first got me hooked as a conspiracy theorist. Once I found out it was possible, then probable, then undenialable, I realized how guilty I was of yelling "FIRE!" with my fellow nuts.
Now, out of the seemingly endless conspiracy theories and illusuions I think that the magic bullet is perhaps the EASIEST theory to debunk. If you are truly objective, and aren't out to make a buck, and do some reading, it is as clear as the sky on a sunny day.
God, to think I was once in the same bin as the magic bullet loonies frightens me. At least I can reference that as the time I WOKE up and saw the LIGHT.
For chistmas sake, even the infamous idiot Cyril Wecht realizes that now. Oops, wait, did I just say that I believe one thing that Wecht said? God forgive me!
not pristine and glaringly obvious on film with the enhancements done, starting with the work done by Failure Analysis, Inc.
The only difference between me and magic bullet people is that I have an open mind and finally woke up.
Bottom line: one bullet, two men, not pristine, and documented by film.”
***
This recent post from Shaboo2 – presented without any modification or corrections - is typical of what passes for discussion these days on the Amazon discussion board entitled “What have Conspiracy Nuts brought to the table after 47 years?”
I just viewed Groden’s film entitled JFK The Case For Conspiracy, along with Evidence of Revision. After hearing the testimony of SIX Parkland doctors, that there was a massive REAR EXIT WOUND in JFK’s skull, and keeping in mind that merely a small tracheotomy incision was made over the throat wound, which was later enlarged to be massive and gaping so as to resemble an exit wound, I see her post for the garbage that it is.
Worse, it is inflammatory garbage. When she calls Dr. Wecht – one of the country’s most distinguished forsensic pathologists – an idiot, what does she expect, other than to enrage those of us who respect him, for the courageous individual that he is? Taking the time to respond to a post such as this, and getting bogged down into a discussion with someone like “her,” is a waste of time.
If anyone chooses to comment on Groden’s film, OR Evidence of Revision using tact and diplomacy, I’d be interested in hearing what they have to say. But I am through with the Amazon discussion boards. I will present materials here, for criticism and review, because I have a manuscript to prepare, and I want to address potential rebuttals earlier, rather than later. I believe this is a far better place to go to, for constructive criticism, and honest analysis, and that is why I raise these issues here.
"You know, that stupid "magic bullet" deal was what first got me hooked as a conspiracy theorist. Once I found out it was possible, then probable, then undenialable, I realized how guilty I was of yelling "FIRE!" with my fellow nuts."
Since I personally have never been sufficently gullible to have considered the "Magic Bullet"/SBT theory as having much, if any basis in fact, then it also escapes me as to exactly what chain of logic would ever convince one to believe and/or accept the theory to begin with.
Therefore, in event that one can become "convinced" that something is factual and they can then be "convinced" that it is not factual, then I personally would not place much credence in anything they may have to state.
Ever hear the old saying about "whichever way the wind blows"?
A member of this forum once stated it sufficiently: "Now, I have to relearn everything".
Nope!
One is not "learning" if they are making decisions in judgment based on inaccurate (hearsay; half-truth; rumor; innuendo; etc; etc; etc;)information.
However! In event that they actually go back and look at what "error" lead them to believe inaccurate information to begin with, then they just may learn NOT to allow such to occur again.
Not unlike history: "those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it", so goes the investigation into any endeavor to determine factual knowledge.
-
Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address.
JT
"How then did it happen?"
"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.
It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."
Josiah Thompson
Haverford, Pennsylvania
August, 1967
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.
In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.
In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.
Respectfully
Tom Purvis
"Thank you, Tom. I just sent you my email address."
Received!
However, as those who are already on the "distribution list" will no doubt agree, it requires a U.S. Postal mailing address in order to accomodate the volume of (newspaper) publishing's generated to date.
Recognizing that giving out one's postal address is frequently not unlike giving out your SSAN, perhaps those who visit here and are already on the distribution listing may offer comments and/or criticisms as to whether or not what you would be receiving would be worthwhile or merely more "junk mail".
And, although my discussions with those such as:
1. Dr. J.T. Boswell
2. Dr. Malcolm O. Perry
3. Retired FBI Agent Robert A. Frazier
4. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Technician) Henry Heiberger
5. Retired FBI Agent (Spectrographic Lab Supervisor) John F. Gallagher
6. Dallas County, TX surveyor Mr. Robert H. West
Do not necessarily serve to indicate any "proof" of anything, it just may serve to indicate that considerably more time has been spent on doing my "homework" than have most who proclaim to know something about the subject matter.
-
It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy. The official, lone assassin story was completely demolished well over 40 years ago. Few people who aren't elected officials or mainstream journalists believe it. I'm not sure what Josiah was looking for here; I have the distinct impression that he now dislikes speculation of any kind. Evidently he felt differently then, and was encouraging speculation.
All critics have ever been able to do is analzye the official "investigation," locate ignored witnesses and interview them, pore over film, and try to make as much sense as possible of the mess the authorities left in the record. None of them, and none of us, will be given subpeona power or any kind of budget. With few figures connected to the events in Dallas still living, obviously any investigation at this point would be difficult, and there would have to be at least some speculation and theorizing involved.
Hopefully Josiah will share his present perspective on this with us.
"It isn't up to individual citizens to explain the exact details of the conspiracy that took the life of President Kennedy."
In event that one has intention of convincing the overall public that the Warren Commission is incorrect, then it remains the responsibility of that individual to provide factual evidence to contradict the (completely fictional) Warren Commission assassination scenario.
Otherwise, their speculative claims have little more credibility than does the Warren Commission's version.
Be those claims relative to how the assassination actually transpired or be they relative to the potential for a conspiracy in the assassination.
Mr. Josiah Thompson, long ago, provided one of the most factual (to date) books relative to the actual event.
Since that time, "new evidence" has shed additional light on exactly how the assassination transpired, and, as with an actual "Trial" within our Courts system, "new evidence" warrants a new look at what was presented as fact by the Warren Commission.
Especially since much of the Warren Commission evidence has now been long ago disputed.
-
What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.
It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.
Not just this. It's not a non-quality (I dislike it to it call work) obfcuscation.
It is betraying with full intention which makes it clear that Myers is not hesitate to betray without any morality.
Not hesitate to receive an Emmy award for "that".
It tells a lot about this person.
Martin
"is not hesitate to betray without any morality."
Sounds more like the Warren Commission to me!
-
"How then did it happen?"
"Up to now critics of the Report have gotten by with simply discovering the errors of the Commission and displaying them.
It is the responsibility of future works to address themselves to the question asked above, to begin drawing all the evidence together and to attempt to make sense of it."
Josiah Thompson
Haverford, Pennsylvania
August, 1967
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From personal observation, it would appear that attempts to factually address the questions has actually digressed since 1967.
In that regard, I have been remiss in not including yourself (Josiah Thompson) within that distribution which has (factually) been answering the questions.
In event that you (Mr. Thompson) would like some factual answers, please send me your (snail-mail) address and they will be forthcoming.
Respectfully
Tom Purvis
-
Oh yes and by the way. You did nothing to convince anyone that Garrison was not a nut case, but you did plenty to lead me to believe you are!
So I hold Garrison is still a loon, what else do you have to support that he was not?
In 47 years not one shred of evidence exists of a conspiracy, and you keep chasing the breeze....
1. Garrison was most assuredly a "loon".
2. Question is: Was he merely a "lone loon", or a somewhat "guided loon"?
3. Considering that he/his own coroporation profited from the investigative fees he spent, perhaps he was merely a "smart loon" who was guided along into this neverland scenario.
Tom
P.S. It is getting awfully crowded out here on my limb, with you being camped out here as well.
P.P.S. Somewhere, long ago on this forum, I discussed those menacing "Land Sharks", which are prevelant throughout New Orleans.
-
So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.
Is that really so?
No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.
To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.
best
Martin
[i]"No Glenn, the SBT is already history "[/i]
As anyone who is a student of "written history" is aware, merely due to the fact that it is written, does not establish it as being fact and/or factual.
The SBT is an intentional obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination, which has little to support it other than the "written" word.
As time progresses, we tend to learn more and more about what constitutes "factual history", as opposed to mere "written history".
-
How does Clint Hill catch the limo?
At 9.8mph the limo travels 14.4 feet per sec
Hill is off at 313 and reaches the limo at 337 = 24 frames
24 frames / 18.3 fps = 1.3 seconds for Hill to reach limo
Limo travels 18.85 feet at 9.8 mph in 1.3 seconds
Hill is approx 12 feet from limo at 313 which equates to 6 feet from the running board to the front of the Queen Mary plus the 6 feet or so from the QM to the limo...
Total run of 30.85 (18.85 + 12) feet to be covered in 1.3 seconds requires Hill to sprint at over 25mph if limo travels at 9.8mph
If Hill runs the expected average speed of 11.2 mph the limo must be going 2.5 mph for him to reach it in the 1.3 seconds we see.
18.3 fps
9.8 mph
51744 feet per hour
862.4 fpminute
14.4 fpsecond
313 hill off
337 hill on
24 diff
1.3 seconds for 24 frames
18.85 distance at 9.8 mph
12.00 distance from Hill to Limo at 313
30.85 Total distance to cover
25 Hill's speed
15.2 mph differential
80256 feet per hour
1337.6 fpminute
22.3 fpsecond
1.38 seconds needed to overtake limo
If the limo was traveling at 5mph Hill need only run at 16mph to reach the limo... which for a short sprint is possible... it would also result in Hill running at 11mph FASTER than the limo
In the Muchmore collage... from z323 to z333 – about 1/2 second – Hill gets from the front of the QM to the rear of the limo... IN WHAT APPEARS AS A SINGLE STEP –
Step at 318 - left foot
Step at 323 - right foot
By 326 he is accelerating away from SS car and towards limo
Step at 328 - left foot lands on street – by 329 left foot is planted and right foot is moving forward
Between 326 and 329 it appears as if the entire scene in the street has moved west and between 326 and 337 Hill’s left foot has moved considerably down the street – it does not appear as if Muchmore changes her position other than panning left.
Step at 333 SHOULD be right foot on the ground yet left foot still on street but seems to have moved from being in front of Jean Hill to being WEST of Moorman
Step at 337 is right foot ONTO LIMO – notice how far to the west his left foot has moved... from landing in front of Jean to being noticeably west of Moorman
If the limo stopped, then the QM and some of the closer following vehicles would also have had to stop... especially the QM or else it would have hit the limo. After this analysis I feel as if the limo slowed down severely right before 313. The jerkiness of the Nix film thru this sequence is almost absurd and there are definitely frames missing. With many of the other vehicles “stopping” due to the severe slowdown of the limo, the assumption could be easily made that the limo “stopped momentarily” when in reality it was simply inching along.
By watching the stabilized Zfilm it is obvious the limo slows considerably just before 310 as we see the motorcycles ride up beside the limo... given the closeness of the QM and cycle escort, there is no reason to assume the QM or cycles would change speeds significantly during the motorcade... especially BOTH cycles as wee see in the Zfilm just before 313.
So maybe one of our resident experts can explain how this happens and is accomplished on film as well as it jiving with Altgens testimony that from z255 to z313 the limo traveled from a max of 40 feet away to 15 feet away... or moving 25 feet in 58 frames... the limo either has to be going 5mph that entire time or the foreground and background do not match the street scene as we see it in Zapruder.
Controversial Issues in History > JFK Assassination Debate > Clint Hill Dismounts From Limo
Then!
One just may come to understand the importance and significance of the testimony of the "Running/Jumping" man, and the correlation of this testimony with the Nix and the Zapruder film.
-
Pat,
You never learn.
The 15 yard and 25 yard targets were fired for speed, and not accuracy. Try actually reading Frazier.
Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards. Also in Fraziers testimony, and quite easy to comprehend.
In fact the 15 and 25 yard tests were very good for being fired in under 5 seconds. Again, these were fired for speed, and not accuracy.
Now who says that the shooting time was limited to 5.6 seconds? I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds. So then, how do your shooters compare to that? Quite well actually.
Pat,
I challenge you to find one piece of testimony that says that rifle was fired for accuracy before 3/16/64. Of course you can not. Within 72 hours of that rifle being found it had already been transported to Washington and back.
I am still waiting for you to offer just one single piece of conclusive evidence that the scope was defective at 1230 on 11/22/63.
So far you have not given one credible argument for said same.
DJ,
Man Im sorry I had a hectic day the last few. I will go back over your post and try to catch up.
[b]"I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds."[/b]
Actually! It was much closer to 9-seconds.
Tom
-
"Basic math is ONE thing. SPECULATING on what the evidence means is NOT what I do...unlike yourself, Mr. Von Pein. The police report on the Walker shooting states that the bullet recovered was a STEEL jacketed round. The 6.5MM rounds fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano [not specifically "Carcano" bullets, as the bullets were NOT specific to a certain make of rifle, but to a certain caliber] were COPPER jacketed rounds. The bullet alleged to be from the Walker shooting as displayed in the WC exhibits in most certainly NOT a steel jacketed bullet."
Mark; (and anyone else who cares)
The standard Italian 6.5mm Carcano bullet had a "cupro-nickle" jacket, as opposed to the pure copper jacket of the WCC 6.5 bullets.
This, the Italian round, was shiny like steel, as well as the fact that it would stick to a magnet as a result of the nickel content within the jacket.
Additionally, as a result of this somewhat harder jacket on the Italian rounds, the rifling markings were considerably less distinctive than those which would be introduced onto a pure copper-jacketed bullet as a result of having been fired.
Based on the stated "first generation" evidence, it would appear that the round fired at Walker was in fact from some original Italian Carcano ammunition, which would have appeared as having been steel-jacketed as well as being attracted to a magnet.
So! Who Knows?
In event that LHO fired this round at Walker, perhaps he had several "misfires" prior to actually getting a round that fired, and perhaps he thereafter sought out more reliable (WCC 6.5 ammo) for any later shooting feats.
All speculation of course, with the exception of the facts related to the difference between the Italian 6.5mm bullet jacket as opposed to the WCC 6.5mm pure copper jacket.
Tom
-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have no idea what you are talking about. [/b]
"6.5 mm Carcano rounds are most certainly 6.5mm rounds specifically for the 6.5MM Italian Mannlicher Carcano. They cannot be fired in any other 6.5 mm weapon."
As usual,there are those who do not know what they are talking about, and those who are under the misguided impression that they actually know what they are talking about.
http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/Greek.html
"The 6.5x52mm would fit the chambers of Greek 6.5x53mm Mannlichers and could be used as an expedient if proper ammunition was not available (WARNING: this is not a safe practice and should not be attempted)."
This was typical weaponery design throughout the european nations. By this means, one country could effectively utilize that ammunition captured (in warfare) from another country.
This type consideration was given throughout Europe, to include communist block nations.
As example, the US had a 105mm howitzer (cannon). The soviet block nations came out with the 106mm howitzer.
Thereafter, captured us 105 mm rounds could be safely fired in the soviet 106mm weapon, yet the 106mm soviet round could not be safely fired in the 105mm US weapon.
This held true for the (US) 81mm mortor v the soviet/chinese block 82mm mortor as well.
Common practice throughout Europe & asia, to produce a weapon that could fire captured ammunition, yet your own ammunition was of no value to your enemy.
Lastlly, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet could be easily reloaded into most of the european 6.5mm cartridges. Even if the actual cartridge case was not compatible with other makes/models.
-
P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.
It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.
I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.
Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.
"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.
Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."
1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.
Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:
A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.
B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.
2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.
3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"
As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.
However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.
Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime.
Some dont get it, some never will get it.
Mike - Still working on the response... hopefully worth the wait.
Tom -
please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?
Also please reference the actual tests done with that rifle and rifles similiar... the frequency of jamming, misfiring was extraordinarily high. The MC may have been a great rifle in its day... and if well maintained, properly sighted and with a full, working clip might indeed have been capable in capable hands.
This simply wasn't the case for THAT Carcano.
In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?
Now, if you could actually put the recovered rifle into his possession you might have a leg to stand on... but you can't as been shown time and time again, most recently in a great thread by Gil Jesus.
So please... before you tear me a new one because "I don't get it" you will have to show point by point against what has already been proven with regards to Frazier's story, the bag, the rifle's history, testimony that he had nothing in his hands when he arrived at work and how the rifle gets from wherever it was, to the TSBD in Oswald's possession... and since it needs re-assembly - when that occurs, when Oswald gets to the window, unseen and how not a single person identifies Oswald in that window... 2 black men, others with rifles at 12:15 and after - but not Oswald.
btw - AS you know... Brennan DOES NOT ID OSWALD. Not a single soul puts Oswald on the 6th floor let alone in that window.
Mike.... I will leave you with this, for now... Sheriff Decker and Chief Curry where in the lead car and closest to the overpass and RR yard... you asked about a location for the frontal shooter...
Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.
1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.
1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.
1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.
Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.
Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.
Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.
When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts... a number of witnesses put 2 men behind that fence in that exact spot... and the mooreman photo also shows something highly irregular at this spot. This is where I believe the frontal shots originated... not sure about the throat shot but the frontal head shot, if there was one as many, many witnesses agree upon, would have been from there.
Finally, Ray....
do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?
If you would like to pursue the Tom Hanks is an Oswald Accuser line of thought... I blieve there are numerous threads about that or you can start a new one.
We're trying to understand the difference between what a trained ballastics expert sees and the rest of us.... at least to understand how Ayoob's ascertions are not applicable and what assertions are. thanks.
DJ
Last thought... look at the Moorman photo... Jean Hill was standing right next to her. Are you saying that standing in that position, not 20 feet from JFK and 30 yards from the fence - these two people could not tell if a shot was fired virtually right in front of them - with Decker and Curry corroborating?
To me, that's one of the biggest stretches a LNer must make to confine the assassination to 3 shots from the rear.
Peace
DJ
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Tom -
please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?"
"In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?"
=====================================================================================================================
Without (again) wasting too much time, let me quickly respond to your continued ill-researched conclusions.
1. The "scope" may have in fact been mis-aligned for you; me; Mike; and 99.9% of any others who fully knew proper shooting techniques.
And, it just may have been aligned perfectly for LHO's position of holding the weapon and sight-picture-target alignment.
In even that your "crystal ball" can tell you everything about LHO's actual firing position/sight picture alignment/cheek spot weld/arm length V weapon stock length; etc; etc; etc;, then you merely demonstrate that you know as little as Anthony Marsh and other (know nothings) about shooting techniques.
How about this up the flagpole?
The Carcano comes with absolutely fixed sights. Were one to assume a perfect firing position of holding the weapon, then they would hit the target every time that they fired.
For those of us who are imperfect, we invented the adjustable rear sight to compensate for our errors in weapon/sight alignment.
2. Had you taken the time and effort to review the Rangefire Records of LHO (which are a part of the WC documents), and you actually knew anything about Rangefire Qualification, then you would know that LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 meters, and when firing from a fixed firing position.
And, your lack of knowledge regarding rifle marksmanship stands out since you have made no mention of the adjustments (windage) which LHO had to make on his M1-Garand, merely due to his particular/specific stance of weapon firing and target alignment.
"Battlesight Zero" on the M1 is exactly the same as the sighting of the Model 91/38 Carcano.
Being that point at which perfect sight/target alignment would always result in accurate shooting.
The "adjustable" sights on U.S. issue military weapons is to compensate for the "human element/error" of sighting, far more than it is to compensate for high speed winds and long range shooting.
It is "know nothings" such as yourself who run around yelling "the sky is falling" & LHO's weapon had a mis-aligned scope, which continue to feed methane gas (from the BS) to others who know nothing as well and are too lazy and/or inept to research the facts for themselves.
-
...
You know it really is not that hard for me to accept alteration. It only takes on thing for that to happen. An expert in the field to tell me it is so.
So far, not one credible expert has done so.
...
Mike
LMAO! Dude there are NO credible film post production experts on the lone nut side of the fence, that's YOUR problem.... hell, even Roland Zavada knows ziltch concerning film composition, and he'll admit - best he can do is tell us, "yep, its KODAK film alright". That's it my-man! Wild Bill Miller, Duncan, even you Private not to mention all the rest of the wannabe Dealey Plaza film-photo preservers of the historical record can't find a legitimate source to counter simple facts on the table.
Facts that continue to stick in their (your) craws: long held SMPE (Society of Motion Picture Engineers -created 1916- documentation of layers and matte techniques i.e., post-production film producer-directors, artists, matte craftsmen, the equipment, the technology, know-how and most important: **T-I-M-E**.... yes that too, TIME!
Face it, you need the Zapruder film, to support WCR nonsense.... I care not one wit if Oswald was involved in the assassination, I have no doggie in that fight! However, IF Oswald WAS, then Oswald got what he deserved. IF he WASN'T, and there's nothing in the evidence that I've read or heard after all these years that leads me to believe a court of law (based on what we NOW know of Oswald), would convict him. Basing Oswalds guilt on the Zapruder film as we know it today, is fools folley. The Zapruder film (as evidence in a court of law), its film authentication and legitimacy would certainly be challenged.
The 6th Floor Museum (a temple to political assassination and supporting voyers), its City Fathers arrogance aside, I doubt would see a drop in their monthly gate--whether the Z-film is altered, or not! Go figure!
When one accepts that any proclaimed alterations would have been accomplished by experts within the field, then one must thereafter assume that it will take the same quality of expertise and extreme diligence to ultimately find those minute signs of alteration that a perpretrator would have overlooked..
Kind of like searching for the "Holy Grail", except that the alteration most certainly exists.
Tom
P.S. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was most certainly an "Expert".
There can be little doubt of film alteration, just as there is little doubt that CE399 DID NOT do what Specter & Company claimed.
Finding and proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) may be capable of being achieved for a 12-man/woman jury.
Proving it to the entire world is most unlikely, and those who participated in the alteration of WC evidence were masters of their trade.
Be it alteration, or obfuscation.
-
We have no physical evidence beyond 3 shots.
Mike
Sounds like a WC defender ALL THE WAY.
But what if the physical evidence was PLANTED, as there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE.
"But what if the physical evidence was PLANTED, as there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascagoula_Abduction
About like "there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE" this one too.
Not that I disbelieve that it could not happen, merely that it is about as remote a possibility as the "planting" of all of the physical evidence; snatching and alteration to JFK's body, and other such nonsensical believes without any evidence other than the fact that someone does not understand the evidence.
"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."
Tom Purvis
-
P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.
It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.
I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.
Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.
"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.
Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."
1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.
Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:
A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.
B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.
2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.
3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"
As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.
However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.
-
...Likewise, even though a hollow-point will slightly flatten and distort upon impact with soft flesh of the rabbit/squirrell, it still will not destruct to the extent as did the head-shot bullet of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK... (emphasis added)
Hmmm...
Greg...
unless you're just funning with us...
I tried to stay away from ce399 cause we'd all agree, well most of us, that that bullet passed thru no one - so to use it to compare to what happened to the bullet hitting JFK in the head - apples and oranges
Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on....
Arlen? where's Arlen to answer this one?
"Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on...."
Well! Since it does not even require a "smart person" to recognize that CE399 did not do what Specter & Company claimed, exactly what is new about this revelation?
However, it does at least require a little additional work to establish exactly how CE399 came into existence and the wounds that it is truly responsible for.
(Which by the way does not include any wounds to JBC)
-
Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB
As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ?
Click on thumbnail to view full size:
As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet.
Oy
Never have so many been confused by so few.....
Actually:
Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it.
Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim.
Yes, it woud be so much easier to believe you and Mike Williams self important bloviating, than my lieing eyes.
Far better to "bloviate" than to assume that I was born with some mystical ability to look at even a good photograph and thereafter decipher anything factual from it.
Us pore ole "bloviating" country boys are therefore destined to base our determinations on the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and actual physical evidence.
My God!---------Is not that how the true criminal investigators actually do it also?????????
Except of course those on the TV programs who utilize all of those who are born with great mystical abilities.
Tom
P.S. It is not your eyes that are lieing to you.
It is merely a severely misguided portion of your cerebral capacity that has you convined that you have "crystal ball" abilities.
-
Not a problem Greg,
I created this next document for comparison purposes. Posted awhile back, but here's the link again.
On the left is the original WC 884 exhibit, I have added the red lines and numbers.
On the right are my recalculations, I will explain this going forward.
chris
From Mary Ferrell website:
Yep!
Makes one wonder exactly why some "low-life" non-CTer would allow altered evidence to be published in order to begin the discrediting process of the Warren Commission.
Tom
P.S. Extration from "foot-in-mouth". Went back to the survey data and it was 28-feet in separation from the SS second shot (Z313) impact to the third/last/final/ shot impact down in front of James Altgens.
(4+95 minus 28 = 4+67) stationing for the SS determination of second shot impact.
Warren Commission stationing for Z313 impact:----4+65.3
Difference (WC v. SS)= 1.7 feet
-
Hey there Mike... good to hear from you again.
Would enjoy your take on this.
When one goes and finds a recognized expert in the field who categorically states something:
P.S. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale"
Tom replies:
Being "not characteristic" does not imply not possible!
Hell! Anyone who has shot rabbits with a standard "gilded" .22 round and a "hollow-point" .22 round would know this.
One does not need Ayoob to recognize this simple fact.
The simple fact is, that for the most part, the head shot impact at Z313 is totally consistant with what a FMJ Carcano bullet can and will do when it strikes and penetrates the skull in the manner which IT DID!
You both know much more than I ever will about ballistics....
Why does Tom bring up "gilded" or "hollow-point" .22 rounds when we are talking about a FMJ 6.5mm round???
Does FMJ rounds completely disintegrate and leave vapor clouds along it path?
If the frontal shot exploded - what blows out the back of his head?
Does z313 +/- a few frames look like 2 simultaneous shots?
Since I truly don't understand how Ayoob can say one thing and then Tom simply shrug it off without any real response other than Ayoob being willing to accept a change in ideas - maybe you could clear it up for us?
DJ
David,
Man its good to hear from you again as well. Two horrid back surgeries later, and Im on the move, albeit slowly.
I can only guess that Tom is making a scale reference here. The head of a rabbit with a small bore .22, and likewise the larger head of a man, and the larger projectile.
I would have to disagree 100% with the author of the statement that the projectile were traveling 3000 to 4000 fps. Had this been the case, the secondary wound path would be huge.
If we think of the head as a vessel filled with a liquid, as blood, and cerebra fluid is a liquid, and brain matter, which is gelatinous, a semi liquid, we soon realize that the material in the head will not compress very much at all.
That pressure has to go somewhere.
With a small bore, and hyper velocity that pressure would be monumental. I dare say, head removing.
What I see in the z film is one shot from the rear. I can offer you my opinion on this.
There are two types of spatter forward, in the direction of the bullet, and back, which as it implies moves back towards the shooter.
Forward Spatter is higher in velocity, is much more diffuse, and generally far more prevalent. Back spatter is much lower in velocity, much less diffuse, and no where near as prevalent.
WE can see that in the above example.
So the questions become two fold.
What do we see? What do we not see?
What we see is a slight movement of the head forward. Consistent with a rifle bullet strike.
We see a very diffuse cloud of matter exit the front of the head, forward spatter.
We do not see this replicated out of the back of the head, which we certainly would, had we witnessed a front striking rear exiting shot.
So why does the damage look so unusual?
Because by nature it is hard to categorize head wounds. The head being filled with fluid is going to crack open where ever it dang well pleases. It has to, that pressure just has to go someplace.
I have viewed a few head shots in my day, and one thing is certain, wounds created by exactly the same weapon, with exactly the same ammo, can look quite different.
I do not know if this helped at all David.
Mike
"I can only guess that Tom is making a scale reference here. The head of a rabbit with a small bore .22, and likewise the larger head of a man, and the larger projectile."
Actually!
One can shoot a rabbit with a "guilded" .22 round.
If the round strikes no bone, then the small caliber and limited velocity will usually allow the relatively soft bullet to pass through the flesh of the rabbit with little damage to the projectile. Sames holds true for shooting a squirrell with the same bullet.
However, if the bullet strikes any bone, then the destructive force to the prey is considerable, along with the damage to the projectile.
Likewise, even though a hollow-point will slightly flatten and distort upon impact with soft flesh of the rabbit/squirrell, it still will not destruct to the extent as did the head-shot bullet of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK.
Lastly, in addition to the physical evidence of the forward "jet effect" of the cerebral tissue of JFK along with the forward momentum of the bullet fragments from this shot, if one reviews (& understands) the autopsy X-rays, then one can see exactly where this bullet began it's initial exit from within the skull of JFK.
Which, just so happens to be forward ot the skull penetration which was created by the bullet, and which lies in the rear of JFK's skull.
So! This certainly has a difficulty rating of approximately 2 on a scale of 10, in resolving from which direction the bullet struck, and from which direction it exited.
And, about the only item of any complexity is in determination of exactly why/how the bullet managed to fragment in the manner in which it did.
Which rates about 5 on the difficulty scale!
-
Zapruder Zoomed Frames GIF Stabilized. ( 19-frames ) 2.75MB
As well as the skull flap on the side of the head, there also appears to be a large "fleshy mass" hanging down in the front of kennedy's face ?
Click on thumbnail to view full size:
As always on a blowup of this frame it appears to be a tangential shot to the head from the right/side front with an exploding bullet.
Oy
Never have so many been confused by so few.....
Actually:
Never have so many fallen for and believed so much BS without some form of factual evidence to support it.
Especially when ALL of the factual evidence contradicts such an assinine claim.
-
Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?
Answer: Because it supports their agenda!
Which also happens to be the exact same answer why many still cling to the completely false information which serves to indicate that all Carcano rifles were so inaccurate that this "pellet-gun" range shooting feat was not possible.
Stated simply & factually: LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 yards or less and when shooting from a fixed/stable firing position.
-
Chris...
Starting to make sense to me... a little.
Not sure if it matters but the 164 thru 483 frames is 320 minus 1 damaged is 319. If you had frames 164 thru 165 you would have 2 frames, not the 1 when you subtract the 2 numbers... fwiw.
And I still don't see how the Nix and Muchmoore films stay in sync with the "revised" Zfilm with the removal of a limo stop. I saw the few frame skip in Nix AFTER the headshot but that was not more than 3-4 frames... not long enough for a limo stop I'd guess.
Again, thanks for bringing in the quantifiable...
this thread gets more interesting every day
DJ
David,
Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment.
A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208).
Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft.
180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec.
8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames
197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice.
Use this to tie it back into the above:
197 frames(throat shot) + Life Magazine article 74 frames later (Connally shot) + Life Magazine article 48 frames later (head shot).
197 + 74 + 48 = 319 frames.
There are no coincidences in any of this.
From previous posting:
The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349.
I would assume that if the only missing frame among 164-483 was 349, then the damaged/missing frames at approx 208-212 are intact among this set, correct?
Now, when were those frames damaged and when were the slides created?
Just something to ponder among other things.
chris
P.S. Doesn't have to be exact, but it's going to be darn well close.
Digging the hole deeper!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313.
This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds.
This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.
Mr. DULLES. Over the entire run between what points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Between frame 161 and 313.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; but where, could you place that on that chart, for example?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And describe the points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is frame 161 which is the frame where they have just gone under the tree, to frame 313 which is the shot to the head. So that it is that distance there which is 136.1 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. In referring to those points, will you specify what exhibit number you are referring to there?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is----
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if we could mark those points on that exhibit?
Mr. SPECTER. Of course, Mr. Dulles.
That is Commission Exhibit No. 883, is it not, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter designations in the early part of the alphabet.
Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first point?
Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film.
Mr. DULLES. It is only to get the speed and distance here.
Mr. McCLOY. It has no relation to any shots.
Mr. DULLES. No relation to shots. Speed and distance.
Mr. SPECTER. It is the first frame we have where the marksman has his last clear shot of the back of the President's neck before it passes under the tree without adjustment. Is that correct, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. What letter designations did you want?
Mr. SPECTER. Mark 161, frame 161, with the letter designation X, if you will, please.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. And 313?
Mr. SPECTER. With the letter designation Y.
Mr. McCLOY. The record ought to show the two points are the point which you merely calculated the speed at which the car is going, isn't that right?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Between those two points the car went at an average speed of 11.2 miles an hour?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Between point X and Y on Exhibit No. 883 the speed of the car was determined to be an average speed of 11.2 miles per hour.
Mr. DULLES. How long did the car take to go that distance, do you know, translated into time?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. 8.3 seconds.
http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html
Q: During the reconstruction, Mr. Shaneyfelt, in relation to the Zapruder film where did you all start, at what frame, sir?
A: We started the re-enactment at a point earlier than is shown on the Zapruder film the first frame that we designated in which the Presidential limousine appears was Frame 161, to the best of my recollection.
Q: During your reconstruction, did you have occasion to use Frame 168?
A: Yes, we did.
Q: What did you do in regard to Frame 168, what type of examination and reconstruction did you all do?
A: Could I step down and look at the plaque?
Q: Yes.
A: That is marked Frame 168.
Q: How did you all mark that frame, sir, how did you arrive at that position?
http://www.jmasland.com/wctestimony/fbi/shaneyfelt2.htm
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film----
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a frame where President Kennedy comes into full view after the motorcade turns left off of Houston onto Elm Street?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed?
142
Page 143
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was fixed as several frames past the shot that hit the President in the head. Frame 313 is the frame showing the shot to the President's head, and it ends at 334.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.
There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing,
YEP! Believe it or not, three shots, three hits.
Exactly why was it that anyone believed "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"?????????????
-
The West survey notes are a literal "gold mine" of information when one has sufficient experience, knowledge, and other evidence/survey plats with which to transfer this information.
As previously stated, the TIME/LIFE Survey Plat has numerous errors in calculated distances as well as calculated angles.
Due primarily to an initial error regarding the height of the window ledge of the sixth floor window above the sidewalk directly below.
Thereafter, compounded by failure to determine true elevations of the street surface of Elm St. at various surveyed in points, (only vertical angles from a control point were utilized, which thereafter required the draftsman to compute these elevation differences).
And then compounded by the fact that angles were not computed to the "second", and some distances were not measured to the accurate one-tenth foot.
Nevertheless, the TIME/LIFE survey notes created on 11/26/63, provide sufficient accurate measurements for one to establish many critical items.
Control Point:
Though no true vertical/elevation control point was established during the TIME/LIFE work, fortunately, the initial Control Point that was established was of utmost importance.
This point was established on the south curb of Elm St. at a point where the direct line-of-sight from the Zapruder position was in direct alignment with the right-hand-side (as looking from Z's location) of the road sign, and thereafter where this line intersected the south curb of Elm St.
Thereby giving a direct alignment from the Z-position---to the right hand edge of the sign---to the street curb in the background.
This, fortunately was the "Control Station" which was established during the TIME/LIFE survey work, and it was the position from which virtually all other measurements as well as most angles were determined.
Now, one would, under normal considerations state that this "SCP/Survey Control Point/Station" would not necessarily be of that much usage, and they would be correct unless there existed some fixed/known object within Dealey Plaza and the other survey plats in which to make a "tie".
17.3 feet from the "control station" locate on the south curb of Elm St., to the center of the tree located in the background (of the Z-film).
With that, and the larger accuracy of survey plats such as the Warren Commission plat and the Drommer Plat, one can, within less than a 1-foot error, plot the control station onto these larger plats, and from there on, much of it is "downhill".
Next Issue: Shot#1 impact
Chris;
As you are no doubt aware by this time, I seldom attempt to go into great, lengthy, and complicated discussions.
The "point on the curb" as initially established during the TIME/LIFE work becomes an important factor in many additional survey works.
From the point-on-the-curb, in direct alignment with the Sixth floor window (except in the opposite direction) a distance of 100-feet was measured off and a nail was driven.
This point happens to be out in the grassy area straight across Elm St. from Zapruder's position was. (and, in all probability, this nail is still driven into the ground in this location).
This location became known as the "point-in-the-park", and it was utilized in the SS/FBI/&WC assassination surveys and re-enactments.
And, it appears to be in the Drommer survey plat as well.
Nevertheless, it was a "key" scp/survey control point for computation of angles and distances for many of the features which were surveyed in, to include distance and angles to Zapruder's position as well.
So, one bit of knowledge often opens doors to understanding and grasping other bits of knowledge.
Tom
Josiah Thompson said:
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted