The Dal-Tex bldg -- speaking of trig....

[Mark Knight]

P.S. One could not move too far up the North Wall, as well as they would have to be high enough to avoid this, the overhead street light which most seem to have forgotten about.

Which by the way has a relationship with "Point A"!

Since I don't have my copies of the survey plat before me--mainly because I don't own copies of the survey plat--I'd like Prof. Purvis to go into a little more detail--for the benefit of those who, like me, may seem a little dense about this--on how all this ties in to "Point A"...

Not trying to be difficult here, Tom...just trying to understand the relationships.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

P.S. One could not move too far up the North Wall, as well as they would have to be high enough to avoid this, the overhead street light which most seem to have forgotten about.

Which by the way has a relationship with "Point A"!

Since I don't have my copies of the survey plat before me--mainly because I don't own copies of the survey plat--I'd like Prof. Purvis to go into a little more detail--for the benefit of those who, like me, may seem a little dense about this--on how all this ties in to "Point A"...

Not trying to be difficult here, Tom...just trying to understand the relationships.

Mark;

I am well aware that I often speak in terms which have not been fully explained.

First off.

If you will recall from long ago, "Point/Position "A" was nothing more than a point at which the WC attempted go begin their survey work in lieu of utilization of the previously established horizontal control which Mr. West had fully established during the SS work of December 2, 3, & 4th of 1963.

They had Mr. West make distance references to this point, as well as "C", all of which tells one absolutely nothing as no one had any idea as to exactly where and how these points were established.

However! To the benefit of most of us, Mr. West utilized his original horizontal control stationing for the WC work, which in turn gives us an exact reference between the SS work; FBI work; and the WC work.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0050a.htm

This is of course "Position "A".

It was established in the far right hand lane (direction of travel) through the intersecting alignment (view) from the Zapruder position (across edge of sign) and a view from the sixth floor window which utilized the post which supported the red light as a reference point.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0453b.htm

My referenc, to what was utilized as a reference point for "position "A", was merely to point out that dependent upon certain positions within the Dal-Tex building, the red light and supporting arm which held the red light out over Elm St. could create interference in obtaining a shot at JFK at specific locations as the limo moved down Elm St.

All of which is dependent entirely on what elevation one would place the purportedly potential shooter in the Dal-Tex building.

[Don Bailey]

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

[Mike Williams]

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

Don,

What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?

Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

Don,

What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?

Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.

Mike

Or is this simply a guess?

Just in case you have not caught on, that is how much of the JFK assassination research is conducted.

With that stated, I will now pull out my OUIJI Board and Crystal ball and briefly discuss the two remaining shots which also struck JFK (in the head).

[Mike Williams]

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

Don,

What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?

Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.

Mike

Or is this simply a guess?

Just in case you have not caught on, that is how much of the JFK assassination research is conducted.

With that stated, I will now pull out my OUIJI Board and Crystal ball and briefly discuss the two remaining shots which also struck JFK (in the head).

Tom,

Nope no guess. The Carcano at the average velocity yields 1701 ft lbs of energy from an intact 161 grain projectile. The trim covering on the limo, as in the replica is about 1/16" thick and the steel mullion under that was basically 1/8" walled reenforced(had to be with a convertable) tubing.

The trim itself was not steel, but chrome covered tin. The steel underneath was not hardened.

If we look into these metals, and the required 1/4 inch punch pressure of the same, we can, and would see, that the projectile had to be at less than full velocity. Full velocity would have yielded a complete penetration, and a far more significant amount of damage to the chrome strip.

I think that Frazier was pretty well on the nail when he swung that hammer.

Mike

[Duke Lane]

It seems to me that some here are proposing the possibility of multiple shooters at multiple locations, while others are propounding one shooter firing from one location, the latter ruling out any possibility of a particular shot based upon the supposed facts that /A/ the inability of a shot to have been fired at "a" particular point in time and have hit something in particular precludes such a shot have been fired at any time to hit anything, and /B/ if there was more than one shooter, all "must" have been using the same xxxxty Carcano rifles.

Am I to understand that there was never a time that anyone anywhere in or on the Dal-Tex building could have fired a shot that hit JFK ever? Am I likewise to understand that the only proof of such as shot is its hitting its target? And also that if someone made a shot from there and it did not hit its intended target, then it was not taken?

Understand that I'm not propounding that a shot did come from Dal-Tex, where in Dal-Tex it may have come from, when it was taken, nor to where it might have gone. I am merely asking if the possibility of a Dal-Tex shot is ruled out at all times, from all places, from hitting anything at any place along the route. Nobody ever had a clear shot, even if it missed.

I'd also ask, relative to the windshield "hit" (if that's what it was), for any projectile travelling at any speed, first off: how slow would it have to be going to cause only that amount of damage if in fact the damage was caused by a projectile; and second: if a bullet of any caliber was travelling at that speed, what would happen to a human body - or, in particular, its head - if it was struck by that projectile?

If nothing, then I agree: there'd be no sense in using such a round.

I don't recall if Tony Marsh had ever posted photos - say, from Love Field or along the parade route - that showed that there was not a dent in the windshield frame prior to Dealey Plaza. Presuming for a minute that he did (where's Robin Unger when you need him?), then would we all agree that the damage must have been or at least most likely was incurred during the course of the shooting?

If the damage was not there prior, but was there by the time everyone got to Parkland, if we cannot pinpoint exactly what caused the damage or - assuming it was a shot - where it may have been fired (or thrown!) from, must we then conclude either /a/ the damage happened elsewhere or /b/ the damage didn't happen at all?

Is there ever a possibility that anything can happen without leaving behind a clue to the cause of its occurrence, or do all things leave behind discernable evidence and is all such evidence always found?

Just trying to nail down what our point of reference is here. All the theoretical expertise in the world does not a fact make.

I'm also looking at the photo referenced earlier (http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike5big.jpg - may have to cut-and-paste to see, they don't like remote referencing for some reason) and am wondering what the traffic signals have to do with a shot from anywhere in Dal-Tex?

Edited August 18, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Robin Unger]

EDITED:

Duke.

About a year ago i posted a "LARGE" image of a Dillard photo showing the inside of the Limo taken at Love field.

I purchased it from Corbis for $250.00 it did not appear to show a dent.

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/10748.jpg

Edited August 19, 2008 by Robin Unger

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Relate the hole then align it back on the horizontal plane, it struck at 4 degrees. From here we can then get a general measurement to the SS follow up car, figure in the 4 degrees and realize that it would not have cleared the ss car windshield.

In your theory only, look at the vertical plane and you will see a shot from the right of the limo totally missing the SS follow up car.

Ok then at what frame do you suspect this happened? And where do you place your shooter?

You do realize of course that this could not have been a direct impact, and was likely caused during the head shot sequence right?

Duncan MacRae

Ok Duncan,

So when did this fellow take his shot and where did it go?

IMO, the bullet from the 2nd floor struck the chrome trim, (direct hit) split into pieces. One piece hit the rearview mirror then hit the windshield. When the 2nd floor shot occured the president's limo was in the area of Johnson's car in the Altgens 6 photo.

Don

Don,

What ballistic evidence can you offer to support that? Or is this simply a guess?

Might want to read what Frazier had to say about this. It was not and could not have been a direct hit.

Mike

Or is this simply a guess?

Just in case you have not caught on, that is how much of the JFK assassination research is conducted.

With that stated, I will now pull out my OUIJI Board and Crystal ball and briefly discuss the two remaining shots which also struck JFK (in the head).

Tom,

Nope no guess. The Carcano at the average velocity yields 1701 ft lbs of energy from an intact 161 grain projectile. The trim covering on the limo, as in the replica is about 1/16" thick and the steel mullion under that was basically 1/8" walled reenforced(had to be with a convertable) tubing.

The trim itself was not steel, but chrome covered tin. The steel underneath was not hardened.

If we look into these metals, and the required 1/4 inch punch pressure of the same, we can, and would see, that the projectile had to be at less than full velocity. Full velocity would have yielded a complete penetration, and a far more significant amount of damage to the chrome strip.

I think that Frazier was pretty well on the nail when he swung that hammer.

Mike

Was not referencing your work as being a "guess"!

A hypothesis based on educated and informed evaluation of the factual evidence, is called scientific research.

Thinking that a full velocity bullet only created a minor dent into the molding is a Guess.

Actually, it is a "WAG"!

Wild A**ed Guess!

[Duke Lane]

... A hypothesis based on educated and informed evaluation of the factual evidence, is called scientific research. Thinking that a full velocity bullet only created a minor dent into the molding is a Guess....

"An" hypothesis!

Postulating that it was a "full velocity" bullet is also a guess.

"Full" velocity is different for any type of ammo/weapon combination. For example, a bullet travelling at 1150 fps muzzle velocity is a "full velocity" bullet if it's a .22 LR, but not if it's a .223 Remington with a standard muzzle velocity of 3330 fps (source, Table 1.0), which would only be going a bit more than 1/3 of its "full" velocity at the same speed. An under-loaded round would likewise have a reduced muzzle velocity.

Which brings us to the damage any such slug might cause, it is not solely a question of velocity, but also of mass. A .30-06 round with a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps will pack a greater punch than a .223 round travelling at 3330 fps (2466 v. 966 ft/lb); using only simple mathematics, that same .30-06 slug would pack roughly equal "stopping power" travelling at just under 1100 fps if it was under-loaded by 2/3.

Presuming any such bullet to be an 1800± fps MC round is a mistake (or, if you prefer, an assumption), just as is saying that a .30-06 will "always" produce more damage because it's a heavier load, or that a .223 will "always" do more damage because it's a faster-moving projectile.

Thus the argument

If we look into these metals, and the required 1/4 inch punch pressure of the same, we can, and would see, that the projectile had to be at less than full velocity. Full velocity would have yielded a complete penetration, and a far more significant amount of damage to the chrome strip.

is invalid if only on account of the fact that you've no idea what kind of projectile might've caused it or at what speed it was travelling.

... But it's an argument easily worthy of Posner or Myers (incomplete data -> final result)!

We remain at the position that, if there was no dent at Love Field or along the parade route, but there was afterward, then something in Dealey Plaza caused it even if we don't know what it was. And to say that "if it wasn't a 6.5 MC round, then it wasn't there" is an obvious fallacy.

[Don Bailey]

Consider these:

An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.

The first shot sounded like a firecracker.

A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.

Don

[Mike Williams]

Consider these:

An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.

The first shot sounded like a firecracker.

A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.

Don

Yes in an attempt to kill a President, I would intentionally create a diversion, with a deliberate miss, rather than just shoot the target. :lol:

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Consider these:

An under-loaded round will sound like a pop, firecracker when fired.

The first shot sounded like a firecracker.

A diversion was created with the first shot hitting the chrome trim, this made the SS in the follow-up car look back and soon after the first round of shots came in from different directions.

Don

Yes in an attempt to kill a President, I would intentionally create a diversion, with a deliberate miss, rather than just shoot the target. :lol:

Heh! Heh! Heh!

I was biting my tongue on that one.

Am obviously getting better in old age or else just glad to have a "spelloff" on some of this.

Don't give up, there are a limited few who are actually paying attention.

Personally, with the above scenario, makes one wonder exactly why Greer; Kellerman; Nellie; JBC; Jackie: and JFK merely sat around waiting for the true/non diversionary shot.

Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

Inquiring minds, as well as the National Inquirer, want to know.

[Duke Lane]

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

[Mike Williams]

...Was it one of them "silent bullets" that struck the trim and therefore made no noise whatsoever?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society.

Happy to flick off those pesky little gnats with sardonic asides as with not responding to those which are perhaps a tad more challenging and continuing with sweeping generalities.

If, as noted before, there was no dent in the windshield frame at Love Field, and there was one at Parkland, then I guess one of those "full velocity" "silent bullets" that "made no noise whatsoever" must've done it.

Unless there's another solution?

And how do we know there was "no noise whatsoever?" The acoustics analysis, for whatever weight you might give it, did not attempt to analyze where any impulses there may have been had emanated from - whether the TSBD or elsewhere, or anywhere in particular from the TSBD - so to say that a noise that was not analyzed did not come from any particular location is, again, a fallacy. "I heard a noise but don't know where it came from, so that fallen tree over there didn't make it." Hullo?!?

Still haven't heard back on the question of how you know any "full velocity" round was involved since, presumably lacking evidence of that what kind of round it may have been, we don't know what its full velocity was.

You're offering presumptions as proof and derision to create doubt. If this is a crusade, I fear it's failing miserably.

As near as I have been able to determine, there is little physical evidence that would indicate anything but a 6.5mm Carcano was fired that day.

Unless you are thinking it possible someone was plinkin away at the President with a .22 then a less than full velocity strike to the chrome would stand. Im sure Tom would know that as well as I do. I just add this for you, because you may not be aware of the impact energy of some projectile.

I also do agree with you that there was no damage to the chrome at Love Field. It had to have happened during the shooting event.