Thomas H. Purvis Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Personally, when it is felt that someone is "blowing smoke" up certain parts of my anatomy, it is most unlikely that I am going to take their word for anything. But of course, that also comes naturally, with the genetics of being a "doubting Thomas"! And, since our creator endowed me with the ability to think for myself, then it is assumed that it was the intent that such a gift be fully utilized. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SPECTER. I ask you to state what that album depicts. 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? 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK! Nothing past Z334 worth seeing. Or, so we are told. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK! Let's talk about something important. That being AP Photographer James Algens photo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Was there a still photograph known as AP photograph, which was taken at the time of the assassination or a view seconds thereafter, studied by you and others in connection with the analysis that you have been describing? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. Mr. SPECTER. Was the simulated automobile placed in the same position that the Presidential automobile was in when the photograph was made by the AP photographer, as closely as it could be positioned at the time of the reenactment? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is attached to the photographs of that AP shot and the reenactment picture? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is Commission Exhibit No. 900. Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe what Photographs appear then on Commission Exhibit No. 900? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Commission Exhibit No. 900, the top photograph is a photograph purportedly made by an AP photographer shortly after one of the shots. It depicts the side of the Governor's head, the left side of the Governor's head, his ear is visible, he has turned considerably. It depicts the President's hand touching his lapels, and a portion of the President's face. Secret Service agents on the followup car are seen also. The Texas School Book Building in the background. The reenactment photograph was made after positioning the car by looking at the photograph, based on the position of the car as related to the lane line in the street, as related to the position of the building, the column of the building and so on to reestablish the location. We also reestablish in reenactment the position of the agent taking Governor Connally's position in the car used in the reenactment and the position of President Kennedy to closely approximate the actual photograph made by the AP, Associated Press. This was then studied, the car in this position was then studied, from the Zapruder position, and was determined to be frame 255. Mr. SPECTER. Was an exhibit prepared then on frame 255? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Mr. SPECTER. What Commission exhibit number is affixed to frame 255? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 901. Mr. SPECTER. Does that have the same layout of Photographs and measurements as on frames 225, 222 and those which preceded them. Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has. It has the Zapruder photographs, the matching reenactment photograph, and the photograph through the rifle scope along with the measurements and the angles. Mr. SPECTER. On the AP Photograph shown on Commission Exhibit No. 900, what reaction, if any, do you observe by the Secret Service agents on the followup car? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0054a.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of which is well and good. However, in event that one wishes to "sell" me this as being even close to accurate, then the alignment for the re-enactment photograph needs to have the exact same alignment as does the original photo taken by James Altgens. NOT! From some point which is farther back up Elm St. and to the right of the actual Altgens photo alignment. In fact, one should most probably call James Altgens to testify and see exactly what he says in regards to his physical location when he took the photo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: It is also worthwhile to point out that while most have wasted their time and efforts in such mundane aspects as the "Lovelady/LHO" controversy (which goes nowhere), one may wish to find who opened the door to this rabbit hole and lead most away from the critically important issue of the photo alignment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In continuation! For those who are unaware, the WC attempted to not even call James Altgens to testify. In fact, the WC had completed their work and the "draft" of the REPORT was being completed when a newspaper picked up on this fact and published it. Thereafter, with all of the WC now gone, James Altgens (along with several other key witnesses) were merely questioned by a single individual at the Dallas Post Office. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm Testimony Of James W. Altgens The testimony of James W. Altgens was taken at 12:45 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. ------------------------------------------------ Notes: Mr. SPECTER - Did you participate in the onsite tests at Dallas on May 24, 1964? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. ========== Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment. Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich. Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants. ====================== In continuation: Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you. Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. (The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.) Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct? --------------------------- Comment: One would think that since the WC had done a re-enactment, in which they specifically located the position of JFK at what was Z255/aka the Altgens photo, that their FBI photo consultants could have at least accurately located the position of James Altgens. ------------------------------ Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?--------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0487a.htm ------------------------ Personally, I would think it most unlikely that James Altgens would have agreed with the position of "3" on this exhibit as having been his physical location. Especially considering that his true position was at approximately the top right beginning of the "S" of Elm Street, down almost across from the concrete steps directly across the street. ------------------------------------------------ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm Perhaps one should look at some additional testimony: TESTIMONY OF EMMET J. HUDSON The Testimony of Emmet J. Hudson was taken at 10:40 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Eray Streets, Dalla, Tex, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether? Mr. HUDSON - Three. Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was. Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And then of course, James Altgens also stated: Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, Mr. LIEBELER - But you think the President had already been hit in the head by the time the third shot was fired? Mr. HUDSON - He had been hit twice, so Parkland Hospital said. He was hit in the neck one time and in the head one time. 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. --------------------------------------- Now! One could play "Where is (NEMO) James" if they so desired, and, rest assured that he is nowhere within: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Here, To: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z334.jpg ------------------------------------------------------------------ But of course, the WC/aka Specter, Hoover, & Company also informed us that there was nothing past this point worthwhile to see. Then, along comes "Doubting Thomas" who just can not leave well enough alone! http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm And thereafter informs everyone that the third/last shot impact point, as determined by the US Secret Service on 12/3/63 & 12/4/63, utilizing a first generation copy of the Z-film, states that the last shot impact point was at stationing 4+95 on Elm St. Then: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm Tells us that the Z313 impact was at stationing 4+65.3, some 30-feet back up Elm St. from the position reported by the US Secret Service. Which should tell most persons that perhaps there is actually something past Z334 worth looking at, even though Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt thinks otherwise. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. And how was the ending point of that frame sequence, being No. 334, fixed? 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://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please. A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t. Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt? A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia. --------------------------- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million. ---------------------------- 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. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html May 12: National Archives acknowledges receipt of 323 Zapruder frame "color transparencies" (slides) and the "first and second generation copies" of the film from Time Incorporated, available for viewing only on the premises of the National Archives. (Archives Change of Holdings Report) The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now! Country Boys may (or may not) be that sharp, but most are not so dumb as to allow a group of "city slickers" to get away with some amateur production such as this. [b]Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.[/b] And in that regards, one might ask if James Altgens ultimately figured out more than he should have? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Altgens On December 12, Ike and Clara Altgens were found dead in separate rooms in their home in Dallas. In addition to their failing health, police believed carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty furnace might have played a role in their deaths.[15] "With Mr. Altgens' passing," researcher Brad Parker wrote, "not only did history lose another witness, but many of us lost a valued friend."[17] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 There exists little about this "puzzle" which is not understood. However! I remain quite puzzled as to exactly why anyone fell for such quite obvious and amateurish tactics. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex. Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today? Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes. Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that? Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container. Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute. Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883. The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted. Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12976 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Purvis makes another good observation. I too always wondered why the actual evidence WAS SEALED IN A TUBE, and an alleged "reproduction" of it put into evidence. Legally, that would have been thrown out of court. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Purvis makes another good observation. I too always wondered why theactual evidence WAS SEALED IN A TUBE, and an alleged "reproduction" of it put into evidence. Legally, that would have been thrown out of court. Jack Jack, "Sealed in a tube"? What evidence is that, please? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now