Jump to content
The Education Forum

First Shot Impact


Recommended Posts

Moved from:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Post #7

4. The first shot was fired in the Z204/206 time frame.

(Tom Purvis)

For those who have been around long enough, they would most probably recall the following:

1. Jack posted a reduced copy of the WC Zapruder plat, which was severely reduced, and which was claimed to have been received by someone who claimed to have had it in their possession for multitudes of years.

2. Unfortunately, those who make up such stories have little dealings with those of us who know how to properly "bait a trap", and thus, the purported drawing had "my mark" in several places.

3. Included in with "my marks" was the impact position for the Z204/206 impact point for the first shot fired.

4. Others here on this forum are of the opinion that I am the only person who "dreamed" up this impact position.

5. Some here, are erroneously of the opinion that the WIllis #5 photo was taken at Z202, while others know so little that they accept the wording of the WC/FBI/Shaneyfely and his Z210 impact location.

Since this is purportedly the EDUCATION FORUM:

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

1.

April 22, 1964

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg

Subject: Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which

frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of

the first and second bullets

The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at

an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears

to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of

possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be

raised to an artificially high position).

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

Certainly would appear that even if headed in the wrong direction, at least two of us in this boat are rowing in the exact same direction.

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

2.

For those who are new, I long ago demonstrated how I took that information gained from the Time/Life Survey work of 11/26/63, and transposed the measurements, etc; over onto a copy of the considerably larger and better detail WC survey plat.

This work placed the first shot impact point as determined by the Time/Life work, as plotting exactly in the approximately Z204/Z206 location on the larger WC Survey Plat.

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

3. For those who have been around long enough, I long ago demonstrated that the "jiggle/blur" analysis had some basis in fact in that with the speed of sound (excluding air density and firing into the wind), it would take approximately 5 elapsed frames of the Z-film for the sound of a shot fired to reach Zapruder and cause him to "jiggle" his camera.

Thereafter, it was also demonstrated that Zapruder had a 3-frame blurring beginning at the approximately Z209 through the Z211 period.

If one subtracts 5 frames from the Z209, they end up with Z204.

It was further pointed out that the Z313 impact has a similiar "blurring" in which the blur begins at approximately Z318 and continues through Z320.

All of which I might add, was included in with the "Questionaire" which was forwarded to the Attorney General of the US.

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

4. Then of course, we have the Willis#5 photo, which most assuredly was taken between the point of Z202 and Z210.

As to absolute confirmation that the first shot had been fired when Willis took this photo, is in fact not absolutely provable.

However, we do have the following information.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

Which in and of itself is relatively clear.

However! Although I would agree that the "crowd" had not reacted, it would certainly appear that the individual wearing khaki pants and shirt, as well as a shiny hard hat, who is located in the far right portion of the Willis photo, certainly appears to be in a "reactive" position.

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

Yes Virginia, there is still information to be revealed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0348b.htm

One could suppose that the reason why the WC could not determine that the first shot actually struck JFK, as well as the close proximity on Elm St. of this impact, was due to the fact that the WC Report was already at the printing office and they did not want to have to do a re-edit.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0353b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol15_0354a.htm

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

When one considers the method utilized to determine the purported Z210 position; the purported Z210 impact position; as well as the "running record" with the Altgens photo, one could be relatively assured that there are considerably more accurate means to determined the exact position of JFk at Willis#5.

If one only knew where to look as well as what to look for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Willis

As documented by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, this fifth photo was captured concurrent with Zapruder film frame 202.[11][12] (The Warren Commission and subsequent investigations have all determined that President Kennedy was hidden by a very large oak tree from the view of anyone firing a weapon from the sniper's lair on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository from Z-160 through Z-206.)[13]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hsc.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/hscoth.htm

1. THE WILLIS PHOTOGRAPH

Preliminary visual inspection of the Willis photograph showed extensive blurring of all features of the picture near the retaining wall on top of the grassy knoll. The blurring is most clearly seen in the freeway sign, which is in the line of sight between the retaining wall and the Willis camera. (See fig. IV-7, JFK exhibit F-155.) It was caused by motion that was complex and not uniform over the entire image. The Panel judged that the motion was probably a combination of rotation about a point to the lower left of the optical axis, and that a component of linear translation (that is, motion in a straight line) in the motion was also possible.

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

*Zapruder frame numbers are used as the basic time references because this film spans the most comprehensive interval of time. See par. 146, supra.

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

FIGURE IV-7.-Willis No. 5 photograph (unenhanced).

The Willis photograph was scanned for possible input. into a computer. Since it is in color, the scan had to be a full-color scan. Then the knoll area from the scan was presented on a full-color computer video display. The display and manipulation were performed at the University of Southern California. (100)

The retaining wall at the top of the knoll was subsequently enlarged by a computer operation similar to enlargement by photooptical and photo-chemical techniques. This computer display made visible an object. whose size. and shape were consistent with a human being, positioned just inside the retaining wall. (See fig. IV-S, JFK exhibit F-160.) The object possessed colors with a distinct resemblance to flesh tones, as revealed on the color display. The Panel perceived the object. to be that of a badly blurred image of a person, dressed in dark clothing, standing or leaning just inside the retaining wall.

FIGURE IV-8. Willis No. 5. Will Image Enhancement.

Since the image was badly blurred, an attempt was made to use the computer to remove the blur. Blur removal can be accomplished if its extent is not too great. (101) Unfortunately, the image was severely degraded in the region of the retaining wall that deblurring efforts were not. successful.

The, next computer processing step was to make measurements of the color values of the object, behind the retaining wall in order to compare the perceived flesh tones with those of a person at another location in the Willis photograph. The photograph was scanned in color: Separate measurements were made of the three primary colors, red, green and blue, from which other colors can be made.

After scanning, an image analyst at the Aerospace Corp. viewed the image on a color video image display and positioned a computer-generated dot at those points where colors were to be measured. The computer then recorded the red, green, and blue values in the image at the dot's positions. A similar analysis was carried out at the University of Southern California.

Regions measured at the Aerospace Corp. included the flesh tones of the object near the retaining wall and of Marilyn the secretary to Abraham Zapruder, who is visible in the Willis photograph. Sitzman's flesh tones were measured both in shadow and sunlight. At the University of Southern California flesh tones were used for the object at the retaining wall and for several people: A policeman, a bystander, and a child. In addition, measurements were made of Mrs. Kennedy's hat, which was pink in color and had a flesh tone appearance on the video display. (102)

The Aerospace Corp. measurements showed the flesh cones of the object near the retaining wall to be comparable to the known flesh tones of Zapruder's secretary. USC's measurements also showed similarity between the flesh tones of the object and those of known persons; however, the similarities were not as strong as those found Aerospace. The measurements of Mrs. Kennedy's hat were found to be distinguishable from the measurements of known flesh. Nevertheless, the differences of Mrs. Kennedy's hat from known flesh ments were only marginally greater than differences of flesh tone measurements from each other.

Based on these measurements, as well as visual analysis, Panel concludes that the object was most probably an adult standing behind the wall. First, the general shape and structure the object, including the location of the flesh tones, appear to be human. The height of the object in relation to the known height of the consistent with that, of an adult of average height (5'6" to 6' tall). Third, the measured values of the flesh tones of the object are comparable with those of people in the photograph. Fourth, an additional Willis photograph, No. 6, taken after the Presidential limosine had exited Dealey Plaza but showing approximately the view as No. 5, no longer shows the object. near the retaining wall, or anywhere else; it has disappeared. (See fig. IV-9.) mobility of the object greatly increases the likelihood of its being a person.

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

Move over rabbit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Then of course, we have the Willis#5 photo, which most assuredly was taken between the point of Z202 and Z210.

As to absolute confirmation that the first shot had been fired when Willis took this photo, is in fact not absolutely provable.

However, we do have the following information.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

Which in and of itself is relatively clear.

However! Although I would agree that the "crowd" had not reacted, it would certainly appear that the individual wearing khaki pants and shirt, as well as a shiny hard hat, who is located in the far right portion of the Willis photo, certainly appears to be in a "reactive" position.

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

Yes Virginia, there is still information to be revealed!

Tom,

You have made a couple of mistakes that I am going to point out. It is not my intention to argue with you, but to share a couple of facts that has been known by most researchers for over four decades. You can check what I am saying and hopefully see it for yourself as so many others have.

The first is as Jack pointed out ... In the Willis photo, Clint Hill is just to the right of Phil's line of sight (LOS) to Zapruder. Zapruder frame 202 mirrors that precise moment. I don't have the frames in front of me, but after Z202 ... Clint Hill crosses that LOS.

Also, your reference to Phil's testimony is over his number 4 photo which was taken seconds earlier. You have wrongly attributed it to his number five photo.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Then of course, we have the Willis#5 photo, which most assuredly was taken between the point of Z202 and Z210.

As to absolute confirmation that the first shot had been fired when Willis took this photo, is in fact not absolutely provable.

However, we do have the following information.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

Which in and of itself is relatively clear.

However! Although I would agree that the "crowd" had not reacted, it would certainly appear that the individual wearing khaki pants and shirt, as well as a shiny hard hat, who is located in the far right portion of the Willis photo, certainly appears to be in a "reactive" position.

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

Yes Virginia, there is still information to be revealed!

Tom,

You have made a couple of mistakes that I am going to point out. It is not my intention to argue with you, but to share a couple of facts that has been known by most researchers for over four decades. You can check what I am saying and hopefully see it for yourself as so many others have.

The first is as Jack pointed out ... In the Willis photo, Clint Hill is just to the right of Phil's line of sight (LOS) to Zapruder. Zapruder frame 202 mirrors that precise moment. I don't have the frames in front of me, but after Z202 ... Clint Hill crosses that LOS.

Also, your reference to Phil's testimony is over his number 4 photo which was taken seconds earlier. You have wrongly attributed it to his number five photo.

Bill Miller

Still having those difficulties I see!

Also, your reference to Phil's testimony is over his number 4 photo which was taken seconds earlier. You have wrongly attributed it to his number five photo.

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

Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; I took that picture just seconds before the first shot was fired, to get back close up. Then I started down the street, and the regular weekly edition of Life magazine came out and shows me in about three different pictures going down the street. Then my next shot was taken at the very--in fact, the shot caused me to squeeze the camera shutter, and I got a picture of the President as he was hit with the first shot. So instantaneous, in fact, that the crowd hadn't had time to react.

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

The first is as Jack pointed out ... In the Willis photo, Clint Hill is just to the right of Phil's line of sight (LOS) to Zapruder. Zapruder frame 202 mirrors that precise moment. I don't have the frames in front of me, but after Z202 ... Clint Hill crosses that LOS.

You have made a couple of mistakes that I am going to point out. It is not my intention to argue with you, but to share a couple of facts that has been known by most researchers for over four decades. You can check what I am saying and hopefully see it for yourself as so many others have.

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

but to share a couple of facts that has been known by most researchers for over four decades.

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

Was that the same group of researchers, yourself included, that were of the opinion that the "through the rifle scope" photo's were actually in different locations?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0051b.htm

Z207

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0052a.htm

Z210

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

I would have to suppose that since the WC/aka Specter; Shaneyfelt; & Company can make Z207 equal Z210 on paperwork, that they can also make photo Z207 through rifle scope look exactly like Z210 through the rifle scope as well.

Not being some "photo expert" who claims to have a great interest in the photographic evidence, I guess that I just did not understand all of this.

Sort of makes on wonder what one could do with the remainder of the Z-frames and survey work. Especially when controlled by this group.

Exactly why was it that you believed this?????

No doubt the same reason that you apparantly believed "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

I will try and find the DVD and prove my point. I have a feeling though that even if Clint Hill was exactly between Willis and Zapruder ... you'd still refuse to admit your mistake.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

I will try and find the DVD and prove my point. I have a feeling though that even if Clint Hill was exactly between Willis and Zapruder ... you'd still refuse to admit your mistake.

Bill Miller

read: I need some time to figure this out AND *Gary Mack, I need your help, AGAIN*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Order of Battle might be to determine exactly why Shaneyfelt; Specter; & Company decided it best not to attempt to "phony" Z207.

Hint:

Although one may move signs and lamp posts, it is often hard to explain the destruction of concrete pillars along the reflecting pool as well as concrete pedestals where photographers stand and take movie pictures of assassinations.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z207.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Order of Battle might be to determine exactly why Shaneyfelt; Specter; & Company decided it best not to attempt to "phony" Z207.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z207.jpg

Tom, you say some nutty things sometimes IMO. It's like you live by the rule that 'If it doesn't show what I

claim it should, then it must be altered.'

Look at your Z207 frame. Clint Hill is now passing the LOS where he is directly between Zapruder and Phil Willis ... now go back and look at Willis #5 and you should see the point I made about Z202. Wiullis #5 shows Clint Hill ... not directly between Zapruder and Willis, but still to one side. (OMG!!! I bet they altered Willis #5 just so to show you wrong 4.5 decades later ... OH THE HUMANITY!!!!)

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Order of Battle might be to determine exactly why Shaneyfelt; Specter; & Company decided it best not to attempt to "phony" Z207.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z207.jpg

Tom, you say some nutty things sometimes IMO. It's like you live by the rule that 'If it doesn't show what I

claim it should, then it must be altered.'

Look at your Z207 frame. Clint Hill is now passing the LOS where he is directly between Zapruder and Phil Willis ... now go back and look at Willis #5 and you should see the point I made about Z202. Wiullis #5 shows Clint Hill ... not directly between Zapruder and Willis, but still to one side. (OMG!!! I bet they altered Willis #5 just so to show you wrong 4.5 decades later ... OH THE HUMANITY!!!!)

Bill Miller

Not only read it, but copied and quoted the part that I addressed. You see, David ... reading something and understanding it is two different things. I can only assume why you didn't know how I was able to time stamp the first shot by way of the witnesses.

Now get back to writing that request for you to examine and test these historical images ... don't get side tracked ... its 10 years over-due

.

Bill Miller

I can only assume why you didn't know how I was able to time stamp the first shot by way of the witnesses.

Would not it have been considerably more accurate if one utilized something such as the Willis#5 slide, and rather than "armchair" determination, actually gone to Dealey Plaza and surveyed in the position/location of Willis and JFK at the time of this photograph.

Seems rather simple to me! But then of course, we all recognize exactly how "simple-minded" I am/can be!

94.2 on your dial!

Instead of riddles, how about telling us what the West survey shows about the locations in the Willis slide.

Does it match the Z film or not?

Jack

Actually!

I have been eagerly awaiting on you and BM to explain to us all exactly how it was that you determined that Willis#5 was taken at Z202.

Now certainly, I am aware of the fact that others have long prior stated the same thing. But, since I neither accepted nor believed them either, then it is assumed that you and BM have some far-reaching new methods of photographic imagery interpretation in which we were going to be enlightened.

As example:

Considering it most unlikely that either of you know:

a. The distance from Willis to Clint Hill.

b. The distance from Willis to the road sign in the background.

c. The distance from Willis to the Zapruder pedestal

d. The "offset" distance from the viewfinder to the center of the lense for the Willis (Argus) Camera.

e. The "offset" distance from the viewfinder to the center of the lense for the Zapruder (B&H) Camera.

Then, being a former "math major", I was eagerly awaiting the mathmatical formula which you (& Miller) utilized in order to derive the parallax error of the photographs in computation/correction for alignment.

Or, was there some method by which one can stick a screwdriver in each ear and adjust the eyesight such that one can merely look at a photo and thereafter determine the parallex error?

Do the camera producers provide instructional doctrine as to exactly how many turns of the screwdriver one must take to compensate for this fully known (and understood) photographic anomaly?

http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/parallax.jsp

http://en.mimi.hu/photography/parallax.html

Once you (& Miller) have, to the satisfaction of all, explained exactly how the normal parallax error was compensated for (merely by looking at the photo's), I would then be most interested in exactly what mathmatical formula was again applied to compensate for the approximately 3 1/4 degrees of right-hand tilt (off vertical) which the Willis#5 slide has, as this too creates an additional "shifting" quite similar to parallax error, in those objects between the camera's position and the final background objects.

It has been many years since I was exposed to these anomalies, and can't say that I fully understood them when exposed.

So, since you and BM apparantly have some mystical and magical means of merely looking at the photo and automatically applying the correction factors, and since this is the EDUCATION FORUM, then I have been hoping that these "secrets" would be openly shared.

Otherwise, I guess that one may have to merely rely on the ole tried and true "survey alignment" methods.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of riddles, how about telling us what the West survey shows about the locations in the Willis slide.

Does it match the Z film or not?

Jack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex

For many, "riddles" tend to stimulate the cerebral cortex.

For others, they merely confuse!

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

For those who are of the former, the West Survey data has absolutely no reference to the Willis#5 photo.

In fact, it has been posted as to exactly how Willis himself was not even questioned and his actual photographs/slides admitted into evidence until such time as the WC draft was already at the printing office.

And, even though Shaneyfelt demonstrated that he had reviewed the Willis#5 slide and determined the position to be at approximately Z210, the WC determined that they just could not tell us as to exactly where the first shot impact occurred, as well as even if the first shot actually struck JFK.

Unfortunately, and quite obviously, many researchers have believed this, along with "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

For those who are of the former, the West Survey data has absolutely no reference to the Willis#5 photo.

For those who are actually researchers, they would be aware that other survey work was also done in Dealey Plaza.

94.2 on your "Drommer" dial!

P.S. Chris, your overlay of West onto Drommer demonstrates exactly Z204/206.

For a "double check" just line up the Willis position in alignment with the 94.2 elevation with the "step down" elevation change in the concrete wall seen in the background directly across JFK's head.

P.P.S.

The "Willis location" is the 97.3 T/C (top curb) & 96.96 gut (gutter)

Which places JFk at the exact position as determined during the Time/Life Survey work, as well as exactly where Z204/Z206 is located.

Gotta love those surveyors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read: I need some time to figure this out AND *Gary Mack, I need your help, AGAIN*

What a totally stupid thing to say ... I guess that you can at least be said to be consistent.```

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a silly position to take, Purvis. How about you posting Z206 and point out Phil Willis and Clint Hill and see where they are from Zapruder's pedestal in relation to the road sign ... and please do not just say that someone altered the Willis photo to keep the world from seeing that Willis #5 equals anything other than Z202.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a silly position to take, Purvis. How about you posting Z206 and point out Phil Willis and Clint Hill and see where they are from Zapruder's pedestal in relation to the road sign ... and please do not just say that someone altered the Willis photo to keep the world from seeing that Willis #5 equals anything other than Z202.

Bill Miller

Better yet!

Why don't we all take a good look at the Survey Work which clearly established The Willis position, to JFK position, to retaining wall in the background.

Last time that I checked, a "survey on the ground" was worth far more than any amount of "know nothings about any of the works done in Dealey Plaza" who may or may not have won the illustrious "Mary Ferrell" award.

================================================================================

1. As you will recall, Drommer merely established a "random" elevation of 100, at a point on the curb in front of the TSDB .

2. However, what is of interest is the fact that Drommer also surveyed in, complete with their adjusted random elevation , some of the exact SCP (Survey Control Points) established by Mr. West, in which he also carried vertical/elevation control from the established marker shown on the survey notes provided.

3. As was presented, the WC gave no true street elevations for Elm St. for their various works.

In fact, unless one has Mr. West's exact survey notes (as I do), one can not determine the exact true street elevation for any of the WC surveyed positions,

as the "elevation" on this chart is for the computed elevation of JFK's head. Not the street.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Nevertheless, with that information provided from the West Survey notes, it can be clearly seen that the street elevation for the Z313 impact was at a point on Elm St. with the elevation 418.48.

Whereas, the Drommer elevation was 88.8 for this exact same position.

Therefore, to convert any "Drommer Elevation" to correlate with a position which Mr. West surveyed in, one merely has to add 329.68 to the Drommer established elevation.

Z313 West elevation 418.8 minus Drommer elevation of 88.8 = correction factor of +329.68 to be added to any Drommer elevation to make that random elevation correlate with those true vertical control elevations which Mr. West established throughout the Elm/Houston St. areas.

Next! How close it is!

Tom

================================================================================

Recent email to the only other person who, for the most part either deserves, or has at least made an attempt to understand the significance of the survey work in Dealy Plaza.

As well as most probably the only person who will know if I am merely making this up or not.

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

94.2 on your "Drommer Dial"---+ 329.68 (correction factor) = West Survey Street elevation 423.88 for JFK's position at Willis#5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a silly position to take, Purvis. How about you posting Z206 and point out Phil Willis and Clint Hill and see where they are from Zapruder's pedestal in relation to the road sign ... and please do not just say that someone altered the Willis photo to keep the world from seeing that Willis #5 equals anything other than Z202.

Bill Miller

Better yet!

Why don't we all take a good look at the Survey Work which clearly established The Willis position, to JFK position, to retaining wall in the background.

Last time that I checked, a "survey on the ground" was worth far more than any amount of "know nothings about any of the works done in Dealey Plaza" who may or may not have won the illustrious "Mary Ferrell" award.

================================================================================

1. As you will recall, Drommer merely established a "random" elevation of 100, at a point on the curb in front of the TSDB .

2. However, what is of interest is the fact that Drommer also surveyed in, complete with their adjusted random elevation , some of the exact SCP (Survey Control Points) established by Mr. West, in which he also carried vertical/elevation control from the established marker shown on the survey notes provided.

3. As was presented, the WC gave no true street elevations for Elm St. for their various works.

In fact, unless one has Mr. West's exact survey notes (as I do), one can not determine the exact true street elevation for any of the WC surveyed positions,

as the "elevation" on this chart is for the computed elevation of JFK's head. Not the street.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm

Nevertheless, with that information provided from the West Survey notes, it can be clearly seen that the street elevation for the Z313 impact was at a point on Elm St. with the elevation 418.48.

Whereas, the Drommer elevation was 88.8 for this exact same position.

Therefore, to convert any "Drommer Elevation" to correlate with a position which Mr. West surveyed in, one merely has to add 329.68 to the Drommer established elevation.

Z313 West elevation 418.8 minus Drommer elevation of 88.8 = correction factor of +329.68 to be added to any Drommer elevation to make that random elevation correlate with those true vertical control elevations which Mr. West established throughout the Elm/Houston St. areas.

Next! How close it is!

Tom

================================================================================

Recent email to the only other person who, for the most part either deserves, or has at least made an attempt to understand the significance of the survey work in Dealy Plaza.

As well as most probably the only person who will know if I am merely making this up or not.

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

94.2 on your "Drommer Dial"---+ 329.68 (correction factor) = West Survey Street elevation 423.88 for JFK's position at Willis#5

94.2 on your "Drommer Dial"---+ 329.68 (correction factor) = West Survey Street elevation 423.88 for JFK's position at Willis#5

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

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

Z207: Street Elevation 423.77

Position of JFK at Willis#5: (Drommer elevation 94.2 + West Correction Factor of 329.68) = Street Elevation 423.88

Now Miller! In recognition that actual research, as well as apparantly ninth grade math, exceed much of your abilities, thus making you have to believe the "Al Carrier/I are a Marathon Scout Snipe", as well as the Blood Spatter BS" of others.

Perhaps someone will explain to you the 3-degree and 8-minute slope of Elm St., the Z207 accurately surveyed in position of JFK at street elevation 423.75, and exactly how far back up Elm St. one would be were they located at street elevation 423.88, which happens to be 0.13 feet in elevation change (1.5 inches) higher back up Elm St.

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

Miller! Do you/Did you actually think that you are smarter than these people?

Shall I repeat what has been known for an extremely long time?

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

Which is also virtually exactly where Time/Life platted the first impact shot. (Z204/206)

Which also corresponds exactly with the Jiggle/Blur analysis.

Which also correlates exactly with the 175 foot first shot distance which Melvin Eisenberg gave to Ronald Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. The marksmen were instructed to take as much time as they desired at the first target, and then to fire--at the first target, being at 175 feet--to then fire at the target emplaced at 240 feet, and then at the one at 265 feet.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state where you derived these distances?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

And which is the exact virtual distance (174.8 feet) for the slope distance which Mr. West computed for the Time/Life first shot impact range.

Now, I recognize that you are the great Bill Miller, researcher of 25 years of the photographic works and witness testimonies.

However! Personally, I have yet to see anything which you have come up with which is not the "mouthpiece" of others who quite apparantly know little more about the subject matter than do you.

So! The great dilemma exists! Does one believe Bill Miller, great examiner of photographic evidence who cold not ever recognize the errors of the Altgens re-enactment photo as well as other WC photo's of the re-enactment, as well as the witness testimonies who have repeatedly stated that Z313 was the second shot impact to the head of JFk, or does one believe the mathmatical computations of survey work which was done throughout Dealy Plaza, and which works can be readily cross-checked against other works, and which work is the result of PROFESSIONAL SURVEY personnel who had no vested interest in obscuring the facts and truths?

Personally! I would believe nothing which either Tom or BM had to say on the subject matter.

I would however take careful note of the actual evidence, to incude the photographic evidence as well as the witness testimonies, to include special attention to the survey information.

WILLIS#5 is taken at virtually Z206!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...