HSCA

[Chris Davidson]

I think definitely that something conclusive can be arrived at. Because I like to work on a pixel level on very large images there are error margins in the available plats because of line thicknesses and not knowing certain peripheral points as they were in Nov '63 to use to line up photographers and filmers and prescicely locating them at prescice moments, that apart from feeling some 'heat', one is simultaneously hamstrung. Beyond this it enters the speculative. I don't mind. Much is so. Still, solid advances are made when the work of one is on a level playing field with regards to data and then people need no longer believe one way or an other as it is a reproducible result by anyone.

Quote from John Dolva:

Great. If you look at the left area you can see that Clint jumps and fumbles. This highest point his head reaches is seen in other films. (see "missing Nix frames") The Z film IMO is wrongly numbered because of splices that has removed frames partially or wholly(IMO). The work on synching (mostly by Frank and I with many contributions) the films is unfinished for various reasons, so rather than mentioning numbers one can look at events. The point here is to see the moment when the Limo passes Altgens. (one can use infranview for example to rip frames from the clip and check/compare for the WC numbers).

John,

Nice job on the Altg

en's clip.

Listen to Altgen's description of the head-shot either by mp3 audio or mov video. (Supplied) Change .mov video extension to .mp4 if necessary.

Watch your clip again and the headshot sequence (stabilized if possible).

Altgen's describes JFK moving ONLY forward from the headshot and dropping into Jackie's lap.

In your clip, as the limo is approaching Altgen's, JFK's movement seems to be more indicative of Altgen's description on the video/audio I have

furnished.

In other words, only Frame313 would actually belong near the beginning of your clip.

This way you have the headshot, JFK moving forward, falling into Jackie's lap and NO backward movement as the limo passes by Ike. Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

chris

P.S.

How does the backwards movement footage fit in?

Chris, do you remember where you got the Altgens audio clip? And when it was recorded? I hadn't heard that before.

Pat,

That came from the 1967 "WarrenReport" special.

chris

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I think definitely that something conclusive can be arrived at. Because I like to work on a pixel level on very large images there are error margins in the available plats because of line thicknesses and not knowing certain peripheral points as they were in Nov '63 to use to line up photographers and filmers and prescicely locating them at prescice moments, that apart from feeling some 'heat', one is simultaneously hamstrung. Beyond this it enters the speculative. I don't mind. Much is so. Still, solid advances are made when the work of one is on a level playing field with regards to data and then people need no longer believe one way or an other as it is a reproducible result by anyone.

Quote from John Dolva:

Great. If you look at the left area you can see that Clint jumps and fumbles. This highest point his head reaches is seen in other films. (see "missing Nix frames") The Z film IMO is wrongly numbered because of splices that has removed frames partially or wholly(IMO). The work on synching (mostly by Frank and I with many contributions) the films is unfinished for various reasons, so rather than mentioning numbers one can look at events. The point here is to see the moment when the Limo passes Altgens. (one can use infranview for example to rip frames from the clip and check/compare for the WC numbers).

John,

Nice job on the Altgen's clip.

Listen to Altgen's description of the head-shot either by mp3 audio or mov video. (Supplied) Change .mov video extension to .mp4 if necessary.

Watch your clip again and the headshot sequence (stabilized if possible).

Altgen's describes JFK moving ONLY forward from the headshot and dropping into Jackie's lap.

In your clip, as the limo is approaching Altgen's, JFK's movement seems to be more indicative of Altgen's description on the video/audio I have

furnished.

In other words, only Frame313 would actually belong near the beginning of your clip.

This way you have the headshot, JFK moving forward, falling into Jackie's lap and NO backward movement as the limo passes by Ike. Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

chris

P.S.

How does the backwards movement footage fit in?

Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

Flattery could get one everywhere with me. However, on this and other "Conspiracy" forums, such actions could possibly get one banned for life.

Anyway!

If anything, "Tom" merely asked that one raise their head up from the rabbit holes and/or sand, look around, and evaluate the factual evidence and eyewitness testimony of the WC.

Painting things "red" in order that they are quite unlikely to go un-noticed, as well as pointing arrows at them in order that they are observed through all of the smoke and mirrors, merely constitutes "pointing" to those essential elements of information which must be taken into consideration if one truly expects to resolve the issues of the actual assassination.

There is not now, nor has there ever been anything that complicated as to how the actual shooting sequence of the assassination transpired.

The only true complications are how Specter & Company made an entire shot as well as the wounds which this shot created, completely disappear from the radar screen.

Which of course left the "SBT" to take the blame for it's created injuries.

Certainly a true "MASTERPIECE" in guise and deception amongst those with whom I am familiar.

[Chris Davidson]

I think definitely that something conclusive can be arrived at. Because I like to work on a pixel level on very large images there are error margins in the available plats because of line thicknesses and not knowing certain peripheral points as they were in Nov '63 to use to line up photographers and filmers and prescicely locating them at prescice moments, that apart from feeling some 'heat', one is simultaneously hamstrung. Beyond this it enters the speculative. I don't mind. Much is so. Still, solid advances are made when the work of one is on a level playing field with regards to data and then people need no longer believe one way or an other as it is a reproducible result by anyone.

Quote from John Dolva:

Great. If you look at the left area you can see that Clint jumps and fumbles. This highest point his head reaches is seen in other films. (see "missing Nix frames") The Z film IMO is wrongly numbered because of splices that has removed frames partially or wholly(IMO). The work on synching (mostly by Frank and I with many contributions) the films is unfinished for various reasons, so rather than mentioning numbers one can look at events. The point here is to see the moment when the Limo passes Altgens. (one can use infranview for example to rip frames from the clip and check/compare for the WC numbers).

John,

Nice job on the Altgen's clip.

Listen to Altgen's description of the head-shot either by mp3 audio or mov video. (Supplied) Change .mov video extension to .mp4 if necessary.

Watch your clip again and the headshot sequence (stabilized if possible).

Altgen's describes JFK moving ONLY forward from the headshot and dropping into Jackie's lap.

In your clip, as the limo is approaching Altgen's, JFK's movement seems to be more indicative of Altgen's description on the video/audio I have

furnished.

In other words, only Frame313 would actually belong near the beginning of your clip.

This way you have the headshot, JFK moving forward, falling into Jackie's lap and NO backward movement as the limo passes by Ike. Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

chris

P.S.

How does the backwards movement footage fit in?

Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

Flattery could get one everywhere with me. However, on this and other "Conspiracy" forums, such actions could possibly get one banned for life.

Anyway!

If anything, "Tom" merely asked that one raise their head up from the rabbit holes and/or sand, look around, and evaluate the factual evidence and eyewitness testimony of the WC.

Painting things "red" in order that they are quite unlikely to go un-noticed, as well as pointing arrows at them in order that they are observed through all of the smoke and mirrors, merely constitutes "pointing" to those essential elements of information which must be taken into consideration if one truly expects to resolve the issues of the actual assassination.

There is not now, nor has there ever been anything that complicated as to how the actual shooting sequence of the assassination transpired.

The only true complications are how Specter & Company made an entire shot as well as the wounds which this shot created, completely disappear from the radar screen.

Which of course left the "SBT" to take the blame for it's created injuries.

Certainly a true "MASTERPIECE" in guise and deception amongst those with whom I am familiar.

Tom,

Thank you for pulling my head out of the sand. That's what I was conveying.

My speculation of the Zfilm sequence was a reply to John's comment about the film being wrongly numbered, according to his research.

If I made this appear as if you supported my speculation, I apologize for that.

The Altgen's interview was not WC testimony. But he is very precise when describing the headshot," bolting forward and dislodging himself from the depression in the seat cushion and falling into Jackie's lap". Nothing about the violent thrust backwards.

When I watch the Zfilm at normal speed, the thrust backwards is much more noticeable than the initial forward head movement.

Tom's quote:

"The only true complications are how Specter & Company made an entire shot as well as the wounds which this shot created, completely disappear from the radar screen."

Has anybody ever described his thrust backwards after the headshot?

thanks

chris

[John Dolva]

http://www.mediamax.com/yanndee/Hosted/fi2l.mpg

right click save/open

this clip attempts to show the previous clip sequence in relation to where WC-Z313 is.

WC-Z313 on the left. The size resolution is less, so the movements of Clint and the people in the Limo are not as clear, but on the other hand a wider field of view shows the movements of people in the background better. Note the family, Altgens, and the diving guys movements.

EDIT:: media player classic is a good viewer (freeware) for these files. compact and lots of good features

http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_so...yer_classic.cfm

Edited June 16, 2007 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

That came from the 1967 "WarrenReport" special.

chris

Thanks, I've got that somewhere.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I think definitely that something conclusive can be arrived at. Because I like to work on a pixel level on very large images there are error margins in the available plats because of line thicknesses and not knowing certain peripheral points as they were in Nov '63 to use to line up photographers and filmers and prescicely locating them at prescice moments, that apart from feeling some 'heat', one is simultaneously hamstrung. Beyond this it enters the speculative. I don't mind. Much is so. Still, solid advances are made when the work of one is on a level playing field with regards to data and then people need no longer believe one way or an other as it is a reproducible result by anyone.

Quote from John Dolva:

Great. If you look at the left area you can see that Clint jumps and fumbles. This highest point his head reaches is seen in other films. (see "missing Nix frames") The Z film IMO is wrongly numbered because of splices that has removed frames partially or wholly(IMO). The work on synching (mostly by Frank and I with many contributions) the films is unfinished for various reasons, so rather than mentioning numbers one can look at events. The point here is to see the moment when the Limo passes Altgens. (one can use infranview for example to rip frames from the clip and check/compare for the WC numbers).

John,

Nice job on the Altgen's clip.

Listen to Altgen's description of the head-shot either by mp3 audio or mov video. (Supplied) Change .mov video extension to .mp4 if necessary.

Watch your clip again and the headshot sequence (stabilized if possible).

Altgen's describes JFK moving ONLY forward from the headshot and dropping into Jackie's lap.

In your clip, as the limo is approaching Altgen's, JFK's movement seems to be more indicative of Altgen's description on the video/audio I have

furnished.

In other words, only Frame313 would actually belong near the beginning of your clip.

This way you have the headshot, JFK moving forward, falling into Jackie's lap and NO backward movement as the limo passes by Ike. Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

chris

P.S.

How does the backwards movement footage fit in?

Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us.

Flattery could get one everywhere with me. However, on this and other "Conspiracy" forums, such actions could possibly get one banned for life.

Anyway!

If anything, "Tom" merely asked that one raise their head up from the rabbit holes and/or sand, look around, and evaluate the factual evidence and eyewitness testimony of the WC.

Painting things "red" in order that they are quite unlikely to go un-noticed, as well as pointing arrows at them in order that they are observed through all of the smoke and mirrors, merely constitutes "pointing" to those essential elements of information which must be taken into consideration if one truly expects to resolve the issues of the actual assassination.

There is not now, nor has there ever been anything that complicated as to how the actual shooting sequence of the assassination transpired.

The only true complications are how Specter & Company made an entire shot as well as the wounds which this shot created, completely disappear from the radar screen.

Which of course left the "SBT" to take the blame for it's created injuries.

Certainly a true "MASTERPIECE" in guise and deception amongst those with whom I am familiar.

Tom,

Thank you for pulling my head out of the sand. That's what I was conveying.

My speculation of the Zfilm sequence was a reply to John's comment about the film being wrongly numbered, according to his research.

If I made this appear as if you supported my speculation, I apologize for that.

The Altgen's interview was not WC testimony. But he is very precise when describing the headshot," bolting forward and dislodging himself from the depression in the seat cushion and falling into Jackie's lap". Nothing about the violent thrust backwards.

When I watch the Zfilm at normal speed, the thrust backwards is much more noticeable than the initial forward head movement.

Tom's quote:

"The only true complications are how Specter & Company made an entire shot as well as the wounds which this shot created, completely disappear from the radar screen."

Has anybody ever described his thrust backwards after the headshot?

thanks

chris

Thank you for pulling my head out of the sand. That's what I was conveying.

Perhaps, at minimum, we could state that I may have wiped the sand from a few person's eyes.

When so many are "throwing sand" and or BS, it is often difficult to maintain a wide open view of the facts.

My speculation of the Zfilm sequence was a reply to John's comment about the film being wrongly numbered, according to his research.

If I made this appear as if you supported my speculation, I apologize for that.

Did not even have any attention of any comment reflecting anything about this.

And, although I may not have as yet stuck the "red flag" in the exact point (s) to look, I do believe that the road is now clearly marked as to what to be looking for. Therefore, hopefully, one will recognize it, if and when they find it.

The Altgen's interview was not WC testimony. But he is very precise when describing the headshot," bolting forward and dislodging himself from the depression in the seat cushion and falling into Jackie's lap". Nothing about the violent thrust backwards.

Altgens could not have observed the headshot at Z313 due to the view of JFK being blocked from Altgen's view, virtually the same as in the Altgens 7/Z255 photo.

The elevation differences between his true position and that of JFK, as well as the other passengers in the Presidential Limousine, meant that Altgens could not have observed an impact to the head of JFK until such time as the vehicle was virtually directly in front of his position.

And, although he could have observed the extremely brief explosion of cerebral tissue from the Z313 shot, which went up into the air and quickly dissipated, it would appear that he also missed this as a result of either re-winding and/or resetting the focus on his camera in preparation for his next shot.

Lastly, as most are now also aware, pieces of the skull as well as cerebral tissue were blown directly towards Altgens, to the extent that a piece of JFK's skull bone was later found in the street gutter virtually where Altgens was standing.

Which by the way, also helps explain the why??? of the piece of skull bone which was later found so far down Elm St.

Lastly, as virtually anyone of serious intent is aware, there is no damage to the rear/occipital area of the skull of JFK as seen after the Z313 impact.

Yet, of course, the Parkland Dr.'s quite obviously observed this damage.

Thus, it happened at some point between the Z313 head shot and arrival of JFK at Parkland Hospital.

Better yet, Clint Hill observed this damage to the rear of the skull as he completed climbing into the seat of the Presidential Limo.

Thus, we can now narrow down this damage to the rear of the skull as having occurred at some point after Z313 and at some point prior to Clint Hill having completely gotten into the rear seat of the auto.

And of course, Nellie Connally has always told the truth about the impact of the third shot, and exactly what position that JBC was in, as well as having felt the splatter from this shot as it too ripped through JFK's head.

Rest assured!

Were it truly that difficult to resolve the issues of the three shots, then it would be quite doubtful that I may have actually done so.

After all, I am merely an ole backwoods MS country boy!

THERE IS NO MAGIC!

However!

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

Edited June 16, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Chris Davidson]

Thomas,

Thanks for posting the Speed data. I ran out of time. Your copy is far superior.

I found an aerial shot of DP in the WC report.

So I went ahead and composited the West survey over the aerial.

It seems to fit very nicely except for the Schoolbook Depository marker.

Anything to be concerned with?

chris

-------------------------------------------------------

Chris

Although I only have a limited knowledge of aerial photography, I dont think there is anything to be concerned about. Because of camera angle / tilt, lens distortion and ground relief or elevation, an aerial photograph is not a true geometric representation of what is on the ground.

When using aerial photography for survey purposes (i.e. placing digital lines, geographic symbols, etc) it must first be orthorectified. Software is used to remove the effects described above and the result is a geometrically corrected image (orthoimagery) which can be used to measure distances, etc.

When overlaying onto an aerial photograph one should always expect an accurate trace to differ slightly from the photograph.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thx Russ,

You mention rendering software for corrections.

Do you have a link or name for such software?

Miles

I don't pretend to be an expert on this at all, but from what I understand it is a very complicated process requiring difficult to acquire information and equipment. I don't think knowing the name of the software will help, as we only have a single image to work with and no supporting data about the image.

In order to orthorectify a photograph, you need to have a digital elevation model to "drape" the photograph over. In the most basic terms, what usually happens is that a set of equally distributed and accurate Ground Control Points (elevation points) are taken from all over the area photographed - this is carried out using GPS stations to acquire very accurate height data. This is the Digital Elevation Model.

The area in question also needs to be photographed to produce a series of overlapping photographs, which are then scanned using a very accurate flatbed scanner. Various algorithms must be applied to each pixel on the scan to rectify it with the real features on the ground - using supporting data such as the camera location (in relation to the ground), film resolution, etc. The scan is then digitised and becomes an orthoimage.

For information purposes, 'Arc Info' is one of the more popular pieces of software but I am sure there are many others.

Russ

How about these instead.

CE882/Google composite

Drommer/Google composite

chris

[John Dolva]

Great work, Chris, IMO. (Good to see you're keeping this one going.)

[Miles Scull]

Thomas,

Thanks for posting the Speed data. I ran out of time. Your copy is far superior.

I found an aerial shot of DP in the WC report.

So I went ahead and composited the West survey over the aerial.

It seems to fit very nicely except for the Schoolbook Depository marker.

Anything to be concerned with?

chris

-------------------------------------------------------

Chris

Although I only have a limited knowledge of aerial photography, I dont think there is anything to be concerned about. Because of camera angle / tilt, lens distortion and ground relief or elevation, an aerial photograph is not a true geometric representation of what is on the ground.

When using aerial photography for survey purposes (i.e. placing digital lines, geographic symbols, etc) it must first be orthorectified. Software is used to remove the effects described above and the result is a geometrically corrected image (orthoimagery) which can be used to measure distances, etc.

When overlaying onto an aerial photograph one should always expect an accurate trace to differ slightly from the photograph.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thx Russ,

You mention rendering software for corrections.

Do you have a link or name for such software?

Miles

I don't pretend to be an expert on this at all, but from what I understand it is a very complicated process requiring difficult to acquire information and equipment. I don't think knowing the name of the software will help, as we only have a single image to work with and no supporting data about the image.

In order to orthorectify a photograph, you need to have a digital elevation model to "drape" the photograph over. In the most basic terms, what usually happens is that a set of equally distributed and accurate Ground Control Points (elevation points) are taken from all over the area photographed - this is carried out using GPS stations to acquire very accurate height data. This is the Digital Elevation Model.

The area in question also needs to be photographed to produce a series of overlapping photographs, which are then scanned using a very accurate flatbed scanner. Various algorithms must be applied to each pixel on the scan to rectify it with the real features on the ground - using supporting data such as the camera location (in relation to the ground), film resolution, etc. The scan is then digitised and becomes an orthoimage.

For information purposes, 'Arc Info' is one of the more popular pieces of software but I am sure there are many others.

Russ

How about these instead.

CE882/Google composite

Drommer/Google composite

chris

Chris,

Wonderful !! ... Great overlays! Just what I was looking for.

Russ, et al.,:Thanks for explanations.

(BTW, of course, you have this as well? http://earth.google.com/ )

Edited June 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Russ Connelly]

That looks fantastic Chris, the match looks to be very good on both survey overlays. We are lucky that the camera appears to have been almost directly overhead Elm Street when the photograph was taken so the camera angle is less of a factor.

These particular images from Google Earth appear to be aerial photographs, and although they have not been orthorectified (go back along Main Street and look at the Plaza Bank building for example), they are a superb reference tool.

Of course, nothing will be as accurate as the original survey carried out by a qualified surveyor.

For info, see attached links to US Geological Survey images of Dealey Plaza, the black and white one is orthorectified and the other is an aerial photograph.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/sk...bucket/96-1.png

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/skeeto_bucket/96.png

Edited June 23, 2007 by Russ Connelly

[Chris Davidson]

That looks fantastic Chris, the match looks to be very good on both survey overlays. We are lucky that the camera appears to have been almost directly overhead Elm Street when the photograph was taken so the camera angle is less of a factor.

These particular images from Google Earth appear to be aerial photographs, and although they have not been orthorectified (go back along Main Street and look at the Plaza Bank building for example), they are a superb reference tool.

Of course, nothing will be as accurate as the original survey carried out by a qualified surveyor.

For info, see attached links to US Geological Survey images of Dealey Plaza, the black and white one is orthorectified and the other is an aerial photograph.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/sk...bucket/96-1.png

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z189/skeeto_bucket/96.png

Thanks Russ,

I was happy that both West and Drommer fit as well as they did.

The B/W orthorectified photo you supplied has a splice in it.

I assume this is part of the orthorectified process for accuracy with multiple photos.

There is a aerial photo that was shot on the afternoon of the assassination, the street lights are visible.

The orientation is wrong compared with the other's.

Is there a way to align individual elements with accuracy, if known?

Miles, got the GoogleEarthMap. Thank you

chris

Edited June 23, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Excerpts from Thomas Purvis article:

Hope the numbers are readable, the original PDF was awful.

Limo speeds next.

chris

Thanks Chris!

Re-dug this out, which was also a portion of the article which dealt with the alteration of the survey data.

If & when, more persons begin to pay close attention to these facts, they just may come to understand exactly what it takes for a vehicle which in fact almost stopped, to appear to continue at a basically uniform rate of speed.

Tom's quote:

Based on these calculations, somewhere between 13 to 15 frames of the Z film ( 0.71 seconds to 0.82 seconds) would have to be missing between Z313 and the currently seen Z342 in order for the last shot to have been capable of being fired from the Carcano rifle.

Tom,

Changes between these charts which you pointed out = 14 total frames

chris

Edited June 23, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Miles Scull]

Excerpts from Thomas Purvis article:

Hope the numbers are readable, the original PDF was awful.

Limo speeds next.

chris

Thanks Chris!

Re-dug this out, which was also a portion of the article which dealt with the alteration of the survey data.

If & when, more persons begin to pay close attention to these facts, they just may come to understand exactly what it takes for a vehicle which in fact almost stopped, to appear to continue at a basically uniform rate of speed.

Tom's quote:

Based on these calculations, somewhere between 13 to 15 frames of the Z film ( 0.71 seconds to 0.82 seconds) would have to be missing between Z313 and the currently seen Z342 in order for the last shot to have been capable of being fired from the Carcano rifle.

Tom,

Changes between these charts which you pointed out = 14 total frames

chris

Whoa! Deep analysis. John Dolva? comments please Thx

[Chris Davidson]

Excerpts from Thomas Purvis article:

Hope the numbers are readable, the original PDF was awful.

Limo speeds next.

chris

Thanks Chris!

Re-dug this out, which was also a portion of the article which dealt with the alteration of the survey data.

If & when, more persons begin to pay close attention to these facts, they just may come to understand exactly what it takes for a vehicle which in fact almost stopped, to appear to continue at a basically uniform rate of speed.

Tom's quote:

Based on these calculations, somewhere between 13 to 15 frames of the Z film ( 0.71 seconds to 0.82 seconds) would have to be missing between Z313 and the currently seen Z342 in order for the last shot to have been capable of being fired from the Carcano rifle.

Tom,

Changes between these charts which you pointed out = 14 total frames

chris

Whoa! Deep analysis. John Dolva? comments please Thx

The photo points out the difference in footage when plotting between high side and low side of Elm St, if I read this correctly.

Survey says: 1inch=10Ft

Another quote by Tom:

Lastly, and this is where the lies truly created the confusion, the third/last/final shot down at Altgens position on Elm St was, in these measurements, made to completely disappear, or if one will, moved back up the street to the Z313 position which was the 265-feet slant distance.

So now, Ronald Simmons shooters had the following distances to shoot at:

Shot#1------------------------------------------175 feet

Shot#2------------------------------------------240 feet

Shot#3------------------------------------------265 feet

Anyone see the problem???????????????????????????????

After Eisenberg magically moved the third shot back to the actual Z313 position, to insure that we had a shot at this point (had to due to the yellow stripe in the background), now it left only a distance of 25 feet of slant distance between the FBI's magically moved to impact point for shot# 2 and the now final shot#3 at Z313.

Which of course on the ground was in fact less than 25 feet.

chris

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Excerpts from Thomas Purvis article:

Hope the numbers are readable, the original PDF was awful.

Limo speeds next.

chris

Thanks Chris!

Re-dug this out, which was also a portion of the article which dealt with the alteration of the survey data.

If & when, more persons begin to pay close attention to these facts, they just may come to understand exactly what it takes for a vehicle which in fact almost stopped, to appear to continue at a basically uniform rate of speed.

Tom's quote:

Based on these calculations, somewhere between 13 to 15 frames of the Z film ( 0.71 seconds to 0.82 seconds) would have to be missing between Z313 and the currently seen Z342 in order for the last shot to have been capable of being fired from the Carcano rifle.

Tom,

Changes between these charts which you pointed out = 14 total frames

chris

Whoa! Deep analysis. John Dolva? comments please Thx

The photo points out the difference in footage when plotting between high side and low side of Elm St, if I read this correctly.

Survey says: 1inch=10Ft

Another quote by Tom:

Lastly, and this is where the lies truly created the confusion, the third/last/final shot down at Altgens position on Elm St was, in these measurements, made to completely disappear, or if one will, moved back up the street to the Z313 position which was the 265-feet slant distance.

So now, Ronald Simmons shooters had the following distances to shoot at:

Shot#1------------------------------------------175 feet

Shot#2------------------------------------------240 feet

Shot#3------------------------------------------265 feet

Anyone see the problem???????????????????????????????

After Eisenberg magically moved the third shot back to the actual Z313 position, to insure that we had a shot at this point (had to due to the yellow stripe in the background), now it left only a distance of 25 feet of slant distance between the FBI's magically moved to impact point for shot# 2 and the now final shot#3 at Z313.

Which of course on the ground was in fact less than 25 feet.

chris

Was there a question in there somewhere Chris?