Chris Davidson Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Tom, Would this be Bond's true LOS plotted on Drommer? I believe that is 93.9. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Tom,Would this be Bond's true LOS plotted on Drommer? I believe that is 93.9. chris Chris; It is doubtful! The lamp post was moved multiple times as it created one item in which virtual "proof' of the WC's manipulations could be established. And now, with the destruction of the sidewalk and it various "joints", another reference has also been lost to those who did not recognized the importance of this information. The lamp post, (as can be seen in your photograph) has moved several times in order to attempt to "cover" for minor errors which were made due to lack of having all photographic evidence available at the time that Shaneyfelt embarked on his part in manipulation of the evidence. I will check out the drommer and get back to you, but for the purpose of their works, this alignment was meant to represent either the "Muchmore" alignment which Shaneyfelt had passed off, or the Bond alignment which did not come into full recognition until years later and after the photo's were acquired during the Shaw trial. Rest assured, the "Lamp Post" issue is as critical in understanding of the WC's manipulations as is the altered survey data and the "Vehicle Speed" issue. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Tom, If Bond was wearing a head scarf or something to that effect, I believe this is her. She is next to the gentleman(hmm) in the suit. Right where you placed her true position in Robin's aerial. And, in accordance with her testimony. This video frame occurs between the time she starts and finishes taking all her pictures. chris Edited January 24, 2009 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Tom,If Bond was wearing a head scarf or something to that effect, I believe this is her. She is next to the gentleman(hmm) in the suit. Right where you placed her true position in Robin's aerial. And, in accordance with her testimony. This video frame occurs between the time she starts and finishes taking all her pictures. chris http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Tom,Please continue with Bond. I'll try not to sidetrack you with Muchmore. However, would this be appropriate? thanks chris Most definitively! Merely looking through my "sack of keys", and although previously provided, thought that just a few more would understand the significance of "PT-A" survey point if I again provided it in direct correlation as to why the WC had Mr. West establish it. As Robin has stated, your work is up to it's usual par of excellence. And, one certainly must not be afraid to make errors, as one can sometimes learn as much from making an error as they do from resolution of the problem. Rest assured, I have made many, and, since so much of this is from memory and not the boxes stacked in the shed, one can expect more. Nevertheless, for those who are searching for factual information, this, "THE EDUCATION FORUM", would appear to have an upper edge on putting to rest many of the myths of the assassination. Now, in event that someone will re-post the photo of the Newman family which was taken from the Press car*, we just may be able to get back around to the "Bond" photo, which one must understand. *Lost all my files in the latest "herpes attack" on my computer. My computer whiz/lawyer to be son just came down from Oklahoma to visit, and helped me out a little anyway. Submitted for approval. CE883 appears to show a LOS from Z through the lightpole and onto Muchmore. The problem being, that is actually the LOS in the Bond photos. Another reason why CE883 was re-introduced as a new and improved CE884. chris And I thought that I was going to have to post that again. Already had it copied and circled in red. Can I assume that you are well on the way to understanding the "riddle game"? Post #51 Mr. SPECTER. Where was Mrs. Muchmore standing at the time she took those movies? =============================================== Can I quit and go do something worthwhile now? P.S. Wanna try overlaping the Muchmore film with the Bond photo, in the area which includes the Zapruder alignment lightpole? P.P.S. As was long ago stated, neither the "identical" replica on cardboard, nor the purported actual survey plat (CE882 & CE883) are exact replica's. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm Exactly WHY? is it that one thinks that they reproduced this stuff so small? Run with that and see what you may actually come up with. Tom Can I assume that you are well on the way to understanding the "riddle game"? And I had so much hope for you! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm Nope, not there! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0248a.htm Nope, not there either! Although Shaneyfelt 25 would appear to be a little better copy. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, I would suppose that in addition to the altered survey data block and the missing "curb section", one had best assume that someone is telling a lie and thereafter play the "picture game". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Picture game time: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0248a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 Picture game time:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0248a.htm A "hint" for the academically impaired! It has much in common with this: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1 As well as the need for this: Think on that one Chris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Tom, I must a bit more dense than you give me credit for...because I simply have to ask. The section of the survey representing the street lamp post, the sign, and the storm drain....obviously, the relationship of the sign and the lamp post can ONLY be a representation of the lamp post and sign in across Elm, approximately, from the Altgens/third shot position. So are you implying that the Shaneyfelt shenanigans have to do with passing off this sign/lamp post relationship as the relationship between the sign and lamp post shown earlier in the Z-film...the sign which JFK emerges from behind, having been struck by the first shot? Obviously, as the limo travels down Elm Street, it passes the first sign BEFORE passing the lamp post. But it passes the second sign AFTER passing the lamp post..and the ONLY lamp post with a storm drain so situated is the one at the second sign. Am I getting warm, or did I [once again] miss the point you were making? For it's obvious that the survey note you included at the bottom of your most recent post sets out the relationship between the lamp psot and the sign, the curb, and the two posts supporting the sign...and since the lamp post precedes the sign as one travels down Elm, this can ONLY represent the sign near the storm drain...because the sign further up Elm PRECEDES the lamp post, and therefore any drawing of the relationship between the sing and th lamp psot would have the sign somewhat to the RIGHT of the lamp post, and not to the left, as this drawing indicates. How 'bout it...am I getting any closer to the truth, or am I still chasing rabbits? Edited January 24, 2009 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Tom, I must a bit more dense than you give me credit for...because I simply have to ask.The section of the survey representing the street lamp post, the sign, and the storm drain....obviously, the relationship of the sign and the lamp post can ONLY be a representation of the lamp post and sign in across Elm, approximately, from the Altgens/third shot position. So are you implying that the Shaneyfelt shenanigans have to do with passing off this sign/lamp post relationship as the relationship between the sign and lamp post shown earlier in the Z-film...the sign which JFK emerges from behind, having been struck by the first shot? Obviously, as the limo travels down Elm Street, it passes the first sign BEFORE passing the lamp post. But it passes the second sign AFTER passing the lamp post..and the ONLY lamp post with a storm drain so situated is the one at the second sign. Am I getting warm, or did I [once again] miss the point you were making? For it's obvious that the survey note you included at the bottom of your most recent post sets out the relationship between the lamp psot and the sign, the curb, and the two posts supporting the sign...and since the lamp post precedes the sign as one travels down Elm, this can ONLY represent the sign near the storm drain...because the sign further up Elm PRECEDES the lamp post, and therefore any drawing of the relationship between the sing and th lamp psot would have the sign somewhat to the RIGHT of the lamp post, and not to the left, as this drawing indicates. How 'bout it...am I getting any closer to the truth, or am I still chasing rabbits? So are you implying that the Shaneyfelt shenanigans have to do with passing off this sign/lamp post relationship as the relationship between the sign and lamp post shown earlier in the Z-film...the sign which JFK emerges from behind, having been struck by the first shot? Nope! That drawing represents the third/last sign; and lamp post, as well as curb inlet (drain) which is down past the stairway which leads up to the stockade fence, and which curb inlet is almost directly across the street from the inlet seen in the Zapruder film. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z392.jpg The sign; lamp post; and curb inlet were a primary means of alignment in determination of the position of Orville Nix. By "circular reasoning", am merely getting around to answering some of the "WHY's" of relocation of certain fixed objects in Dealey Plaza which now prevent most from being able to go there and truly determine the exact physical location of most photographers other than Abraham Zapruder. Without the aid of the lamp post and road signs in their original positions, one is actually at a "best guess" situation in most efforts. Therefore, one finds it difficult to either verify or dispute certain evidence and claims as they can no longer "duplicate" exactly certain photographic alignments. And, with the Zapruder film conveniently deleting virtually all fixed foreground and background items, it too is almost impossible to use in verification of certain physical locations on Elm St. based on review of the Zapruder film. The lamp posts and road signs were a critical element of photograhic alignment verification for anyone who wanted to check into what the WC has fed us. Wanna take a guess as to exactly why these items were either moved/relocated, or completely removed?????? It is also no "accidential coincidence" that the "revised" WC survey plats completely deleted the curb drain inlet from the survey, as well as moved the lettering which stated "Street Light" over to that point to cover where the actual curb inlet had been located on the original West Survey Plat. But then again, not unlike some mysterious act of God in which the Nix film as well as the Muchmore film both pick up immediately after the Zapruder lamp post has disappeared from view, it could, I would suppose, also be a pure coincidence that the curb drain inlet was deleted. Along with the other "coincidences" of falsification of the Z-frame data in the data block; along with forgetting to inform that for Mr. West to have picked up the removal of the curb section that this would have had to have been done prior to the date that Shaneyfelt testified that it occurred. Which of course, leads one to a whole lot of coincidences. To include virtually ZERO foreground and background items within the content of the Zapruder film which would aid one in determination of JFK's true location at the time of impact of shots. Except for of course: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg 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. And which yellow curb marking position is now known only as a result of the West survey data in my possession, and which has been presented here. ================================================== Mr. LIEBELER - Now, this picture, Hudson Exhibit No. 1, has a sign in it that says "Stemmons Freeway, keep right." doesn't it? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - Can you find that sign on the photograph No. 18 of the Commission Exhibit No. 875? The one that we were talking about before. Mr. HUDSON - That's right here, I believe - right here. Mr. LIEBELER - Now, that sign says, "R. L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." Where is the Stemmons Freeway sign in this picture? Can you see it in that picture at all - I can't. Mr. HUDSON - I can't either - that isn't it - it's farther up this way. Mr. LIEBELER - That's further back up and it's out of the picture? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - There are two signs in picture No. 18, one says, "R.L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." and the other one says, "Fort worth Turnpike, keep right." Mr. HUDSON - There were two of them that wasn't too far apart right throught here - them signs was - one was right along in here and the other one was either further up, I guess. It's not in that picture - I don't believe. Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign. Mr. LIEBELER - They have? They have moved it? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - That might explain it, because this picture here, No. 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time - No. 1. Edited January 25, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The WC replicated the Z, Nix and Muchmore filming positions in their investigation. But I guess they got a little confused, as the Muchmore segment is from Bond's location/LOS. HONEST MISTAKE I SEE!!!! chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 The WC replicated the Z, Nix and Muchmore filming positions in their investigation.But I guess they got a little confused, as the Muchmore segment is from Bond's location/LOS. HONEST MISTAKE I SEE!!!! chris HONEST MISTAKE I SEE!!!! Buy a lot of vacuum cleaners and encyclopedia's do you????? There were MISTAKES, and there were INTENTIONAL OBFUSCATIONS. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm See any reference to the "Bond" photo being utilized in positioning of the JFK stand-in???? http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/wi...d/wcd_0010a.gif Are we "getting warm" as to why one does not see the lamp post in the true Muchmore Film"? And, just perhaps we may be beginning to have some understanding as to exactly why many have been sent down into the deep dark den (lair of the hare) chasing mythological creatures observed in these various photographs, as opposed to searching for the true meanings os what is seen. There were considerable points of evidence throughout the photographs which could not be made to disappear. However, with one's head inserted in a deep dark damp location (be it earthen or rectal), one will not see what is of importance. http://www.jfk-online.com/bondshaw.html BY MR. ALFORD: Q: Well, after hearing the last noise which you have described as a firecracker, did you take any photographs? A: Yes. Q: Do you have two of these photographs in your possession at this time? A: I don't have any photographs, I have got the 35-millimeter slides. Q: Would you please take these out. A: I sure will. THE COURT: Before we go into that, keep them in your possession, we will pick this up when we come back. This is a whole new field that you are going into. Rather than start it now, let's do it when we come back from lunch. MR. ALFORD: All right, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALFORD: Q: Mrs. Bond, did you have occasion while you were in Dealey Plaza and shortly after you heard what you testified to to be the third unusual noise to take a photograph? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you -- how many photographs did you take? A: I took nine. Q: Do you have two of those photographs with you? A: Yes, sir, I do. Q: Please give them to me. A: (The witness complies.) Q: Have these photographs been in your possession continually since they were developed? A: No, sir. Q: And in whose possession have they been other than yours? A: Well, Life Magazine had them for a while and several other people used them but they had permission to do so. ====================================== Sort of makes one wonder exactly why the Great Garrison search for the facts and truths did not bother to just force the FBI to give up those copies of the Bond slides which Shaneyfelt somewhat neglected to inform that the FBI had in their possession. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/towner3lg.jpg Anyway, there are items of relative importance in most photographic evidence which was taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. The above being an example which demonstrates severel items. One of which being the "EXPANSION JOINT" in the concrete curbing which can be utilized to readily determine the exact and original position of the lamp post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 And, for those who have tolerated the explanations of various engineering design joints in concrete: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/cabluck2lg.jpg An excellent example as to the difference between an "Expansion Joint", and a normal saw-cut "crack control joint", is readily available here. As well as providing that knowledge necessary to absolutely fix the original location of the lamp post in Dealey Plaza. HMMMMM! Just perhaps there does exist an "reason for the ramblings"! P.S. The joints in the concrete were also an equi-distantce apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 And, for those who have tolerated the explanations of various engineering design joints in concrete:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/cabluck2lg.jpg An excellent example as to the difference between an "Expansion Joint", and a normal saw-cut "crack control joint", is readily available here. As well as providing that knowledge necessary to absolutely fix the original location of the lamp post in Dealey Plaza. HMMMMM! Just perhaps there does exist an "reason for the ramblings"! P.S. The joints in the concrete were also an equi-distantce apart. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/stoughtonlg.jpg A nice color view often helps to accentuate the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 And, for those who have tolerated the explanations of various engineering design joints in concrete:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/cabluck2lg.jpg An excellent example as to the difference between an "Expansion Joint", and a normal saw-cut "crack control joint", is readily available here. As well as providing that knowledge necessary to absolutely fix the original location of the lamp post in Dealey Plaza. HMMMMM! Just perhaps there does exist an "reason for the ramblings"! P.S. The joints in the concrete were also an equi-distantce apart. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/stoughtonlg.jpg A nice color view often helps to accentuate the evidence. My appreciation to all who have participated in this little program of instruction, and especially those who have sent me photographs to replace those which the aids virus apparantly consumed when it also ate up everything else on my computer. Hope that you found the information of some benefit, and in event that the section of sidewalk in Dealey Plaza which contained the "EXPANSION JOINT" has not been removed and replaced, one can rush down there and pinpoint the exact location of the lamp post for their own knowledge and for future history. Tom P.S. In event they have not been removed/replaced, one may want to count the number of sections of sidewalk as well as measure the distance between joints for each segment, beginning up in front of the TSDB and extending down past the third lamp post. Moving on to something else which may serve to be worthwhile. P.P.S. Just in case! James Altgens was also standing exactly at a construction joint in the curb (& gutter), which once could be located as well. Don't know about now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 And, for those who have tolerated the explanations of various engineering design joints in concrete:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/cabluck2lg.jpg An excellent example as to the difference between an "Expansion Joint", and a normal saw-cut "crack control joint", is readily available here. As well as providing that knowledge necessary to absolutely fix the original location of the lamp post in Dealey Plaza. HMMMMM! Just perhaps there does exist an "reason for the ramblings"! P.S. The joints in the concrete were also an equi-distantce apart. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/stoughtonlg.jpg A nice color view often helps to accentuate the evidence. My appreciation to all who have participated in this little program of instruction, and especially those who have sent me photographs to replace those which the aids virus apparantly consumed when it also ate up everything else on my computer. Hope that you found the information of some benefit, and in event that the section of sidewalk in Dealey Plaza which contained the "EXPANSION JOINT" has not been removed and replaced, one can rush down there and pinpoint the exact location of the lamp post for their own knowledge and for future history. Tom P.S. In event they have not been removed/replaced, one may want to count the number of sections of sidewalk as well as measure the distance between joints for each segment, beginning up in front of the TSDB and extending down past the third lamp post. Moving on to something else which may serve to be worthwhile. P.P.S. Just in case! James Altgens was also standing exactly at a construction joint in the curb (& gutter), which once could be located as well. Don't know about now! A final note: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/aftermath.htm At this point, one would assume that the difference between a normal joint and an "EXPANSION JOINT" could be determined. 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