Jump to content
The Education Forum

Perspective


Recommended Posts

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

The WC gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And in their typically political fashion, stated that it may have been either the first; the second; or the third shot which missed.

Along with the simple fact that they could not determine the exact location of the first shot, for which they claimed the slightly ridiculous SBT/Magic Bullet Theory.

However!

Time/Life, on 11/25/63, clearly determined a first shot fired/impact in the vicinity of Z204/Z206.

Next, came the SS who during the period of 12/2, 3, & 4/63 determined the first shot to have struck JFk by the Z212/215 location.

Then of course, came the FBI on 2/7/64 who fully concurred with the SS in determination of the first shot impact.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.

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

Anyone here of the misguided opinion that Lyndal Shaneyfelt would not have had something to do with the FBI assassination re-enactment and resulting survey plat of 2/7/64?

Which by the way continued to demonstrate the same first shot impact as did the previous SS Survey plat of 12/5/63, as well as the final/third shot impact which was directly in front of James Altgens location. (some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the actual Z313 impact location)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well now, since the FBI was stating, as of 2/7/64, that they could, as did the SS previously, determine the impact location of the first shot fired, and you/Lyndal Shaneyfelt are the photographic expert for the FBI, one just might question exactly how it was that you could quite obviously, as of 2/7/64 determine the point at which the first shot struck JFK, yet in May 64 during the WC assassination re-enactment, no longer locate this position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A quick memory "jog" there Lyndall:

This:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

And This:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

ARE NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

They are in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the "Photographic Expert" for the FBI (whoever he was) agreed with the SS in that the impact point of a first shot strikeing JFK as he was slightly behind the road sign, could be factually determined.

And since you/aka THE FBI had Mr. West survey in the exact same position as the previous SS work, it would appear that your/the FBI's photographic analysis skills were quite comparable with the SS's, and even with the Time/Life work which placed the first shot fired as having been only a few feet prior to your work.

So! Exactly why would one not be capable of looking at the Zapruder film now and again easily determine what the SS in December 1963, as well as the FBI in February 1964, clearly could ascertain, as they both had the exact same impact location for the first shot fired?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

The WC gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And in their typically political fashion, stated that it may have been either the first; the second; or the third shot which missed.

Along with the simple fact that they could not determine the exact location of the first shot, for which they claimed the slightly ridiculous SBT/Magic Bullet Theory.

However!

Time/Life, on 11/25/63, clearly determined a first shot fired/impact in the vicinity of Z204/Z206.

Next, came the SS who during the period of 12/2, 3, & 4/63 determined the first shot to have struck JFk by the Z212/215 location.

Then of course, came the FBI on 2/7/64 who fully concurred with the SS in determination of the first shot impact.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.

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

Anyone here of the misguided opinion that Lyndal Shaneyfelt would not have had something to do with the FBI assassination re-enactment and resulting survey plat of 2/7/64?

Which by the way continued to demonstrate the same first shot impact as did the previous SS Survey plat of 12/5/63, as well as the final/third shot impact which was directly in front of James Altgens location. (some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the actual Z313 impact location)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well now, since the FBI was stating, as of 2/7/64, that they could, as did the SS previously, determine the impact location of the first shot fired, and you/Lyndal Shaneyfelt are the photographic expert for the FBI, one just might question exactly how it was that you could quite obviously, as of 2/7/64 determine the point at which the first shot struck JFK, yet in May 64 during the WC assassination re-enactment, no longer locate this position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A quick memory "jog" there Lyndall:

This:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

And This:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

ARE NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

They are in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the "Photographic Expert" for the FBI (whoever he was) agreed with the SS in that the impact point of a first shot strikeing JFK as he was slightly behind the road sign, could be factually determined.

And since you/aka THE FBI had Mr. West survey in the exact same position as the previous SS work, it would appear that your/the FBI's photographic analysis skills were quite comparable with the SS's, and even with the Time/Life work which placed the first shot fired as having been only a few feet prior to your work.

So! Exactly why would one not be capable of looking at the Zapruder film now and again easily determine what the SS in December 1963, as well as the FBI in February 1964, clearly could ascertain, as they both had the exact same impact location for the first shot fired?

Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat...

There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

The WC gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And in their typically political fashion, stated that it may have been either the first; the second; or the third shot which missed.

Along with the simple fact that they could not determine the exact location of the first shot, for which they claimed the slightly ridiculous SBT/Magic Bullet Theory.

However!

Time/Life, on 11/25/63, clearly determined a first shot fired/impact in the vicinity of Z204/Z206.

Next, came the SS who during the period of 12/2, 3, & 4/63 determined the first shot to have struck JFk by the Z212/215 location.

Then of course, came the FBI on 2/7/64 who fully concurred with the SS in determination of the first shot impact.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.

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

Anyone here of the misguided opinion that Lyndal Shaneyfelt would not have had something to do with the FBI assassination re-enactment and resulting survey plat of 2/7/64?

Which by the way continued to demonstrate the same first shot impact as did the previous SS Survey plat of 12/5/63, as well as the final/third shot impact which was directly in front of James Altgens location. (some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the actual Z313 impact location)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well now, since the FBI was stating, as of 2/7/64, that they could, as did the SS previously, determine the impact location of the first shot fired, and you/Lyndal Shaneyfelt are the photographic expert for the FBI, one just might question exactly how it was that you could quite obviously, as of 2/7/64 determine the point at which the first shot struck JFK, yet in May 64 during the WC assassination re-enactment, no longer locate this position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A quick memory "jog" there Lyndall:

This:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

And This:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

ARE NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

They are in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the "Photographic Expert" for the FBI (whoever he was) agreed with the SS in that the impact point of a first shot strikeing JFK as he was slightly behind the road sign, could be factually determined.

And since you/aka THE FBI had Mr. West survey in the exact same position as the previous SS work, it would appear that your/the FBI's photographic analysis skills were quite comparable with the SS's, and even with the Time/Life work which placed the first shot fired as having been only a few feet prior to your work.

So! Exactly why would one not be capable of looking at the Zapruder film now and again easily determine what the SS in December 1963, as well as the FBI in February 1964, clearly could ascertain, as they both had the exact same impact location for the first shot fired?

Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat...

There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat.

"There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot."

Which statement is highly indicative of the futility in attempting to explain anything (be it medical evidence or the survey evidence).

The "Final Shot" impact has not and does not change from the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, when compared with the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

They both contend that the third/last/final shot impact was, directly in front of James Altgens location, at survey stationing 4+95.

For the last time Pat:

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

Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now! Personally, since I was not present, I can not state as fact whether Simmons was given the true SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, or whether he was given the "updated" survey plat which was done for the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat which was generated on 2/7/64.

However! I can state as fact that CE585 IS NOT the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and is in reality the updated FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat of 2/7/64.

As, CE585 contains the "2/7/64" revision date down at the bottom of the plat. Just as does my full size copy of the FBI Survey Plat, and which "updated/revision" does not appear on the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

Now Pat. In event that you still can not grasp this concept of "revision", might I suggest that you either enroll in your local community college (or even some good high schools) and take a course in mechanical drawing, or else have someone sit down with you and walk you through it by the numbers:

1. A drawing is made.

2. Anytime that a change is made to said drawing, it is given a revision number and or 'updated" change in date.

All of which information I long ago provided.

The "RED" demonstrates the revision/updated date of 2/7/64, which confirms this as being the FBI Survey Plat of that date.

And, as I have repeatedly explained:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And, as I have repeatedly explained:"

This:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

IS NOT a photograph of the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

It is in fact an identical copy of CE585 (the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64) in which the bottom portion of the

legend which contains the block for the "revision" date, was quite apparantly not copied/and or whited out.

And, in that manner it has led, at minimum, Pat Speer into the netherland world of a complete misunderstanding of

the various assassination re-enactments and exactly who stated what hit where.

So Pat, exactly what was it that made you think that CE585 as well as the Dallas copy of the survey was in fact the SS version of the survey plat which was produced on 12/5/63.

Surely it was not as a result of your having believed the WC???????

But then again, you also apparantly fell for "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" as well.

Someone here (and I recall who) once made a statement to the effect that they would apparantly have to "relearn" everything.

Perhaps you too should give it a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who did not have a ticket for the first train ride.

1. Note the shot distance of 265.3 feet for the Z313 shot:

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

Now, back to CE585/aka the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

Certainly, you can not read it (guess why?) but the distance for #2/aka yellow, happens to be 242 feet.

And, the distance for #3/aka green, happens to be 294 feet.

Which happens to place the impact point for shot #3 directly in front of the point at which James Altgens was standing, at survey stationing 4+95, which also happens to be exactly where the US Secret Service also determined the final shot impact to be.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who did not have a ticket for the first train ride.

1. Note the shot distance of 265.3 feet for the Z313 shot:

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

Now, back to CE585/aka the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

Certainly, you can not read it (guess why?) but the distance for #2/aka yellow, happens to be 242 feet.

And, the distance for #3/aka green, happens to be 294 feet.

Which happens to place the impact point for shot #3 directly in front of the point at which James Altgens was standing, at survey stationing 4+95, which also happens to be exactly where the US Secret Service also determined the final shot impact to be.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0449a.htm

might just be a *tad* much perspective for a certain camp.... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's back up, Tom. Do you agree or not agree that the 2/7 plat had a 267 written below the 294 on the trajectory? Now, do you see such a number under the 294 on either CE 585 or the Dallas plat? I don't. It only makes sense then that they were copies of the 12/5 plat, which, by your own admission, had a line drawn for 294 but not for 267...

Unless you think there are two versions of the 2/7 play, one with the 267 and one without the 267...

If this is so, however, what the heck difference does it make if CE 585 is not the 12/5 plat but a 2/7 plat, which is exactly the same outside a handwritten date in a blurry box at the bottom?

The WC played a lot of games, but I don't think Eisenberg's lying about the date of a plat in order to make it look like it was an earlier plat that was EXACTLY THE SAME was one of them.

I mean, how would calling a plat which shows the final shot at 294 feet (the 2/7 plat without the extra line) a plat which shows the final shot at 294 feet (the 12/5 plat) hide anything from anybody?

Now, if Eisenberg had called a 12/5 plat (which showed the final shot at 294 feet) a 2/7 plat (which had the re-drawn line and showed the final shot at 267 feet) you might be on to something, as this would have helped conceal that the SS had originally claimed the the third shot was fired from 294 feet.

But, as it is, I think you're writing in circles, and creating a lot confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

The WC gave us "THE SHOT THAT MISSED".

And in their typically political fashion, stated that it may have been either the first; the second; or the third shot which missed.

Along with the simple fact that they could not determine the exact location of the first shot, for which they claimed the slightly ridiculous SBT/Magic Bullet Theory.

However!

Time/Life, on 11/25/63, clearly determined a first shot fired/impact in the vicinity of Z204/Z206.

Next, came the SS who during the period of 12/2, 3, & 4/63 determined the first shot to have struck JFk by the Z212/215 location.

Then of course, came the FBI on 2/7/64 who fully concurred with the SS in determination of the first shot impact.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your position?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, assigned to the FBI laboratory.

Mr. EISENBERG. What unit?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I am in the document section of the FBI Laboratory here in Washington.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does your work in that section customarily include photographic work as well as written documents?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is true.

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

Anyone here of the misguided opinion that Lyndal Shaneyfelt would not have had something to do with the FBI assassination re-enactment and resulting survey plat of 2/7/64?

Which by the way continued to demonstrate the same first shot impact as did the previous SS Survey plat of 12/5/63, as well as the final/third shot impact which was directly in front of James Altgens location. (some 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the actual Z313 impact location)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, how many occasions were you a participant in an analysis of these various films which you have just described?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Seven.

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well now, since the FBI was stating, as of 2/7/64, that they could, as did the SS previously, determine the impact location of the first shot fired, and you/Lyndal Shaneyfelt are the photographic expert for the FBI, one just might question exactly how it was that you could quite obviously, as of 2/7/64 determine the point at which the first shot struck JFK, yet in May 64 during the WC assassination re-enactment, no longer locate this position.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A quick memory "jog" there Lyndall:

This:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

And This:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

ARE NOT the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

They are in fact the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64 in which the "Photographic Expert" for the FBI (whoever he was) agreed with the SS in that the impact point of a first shot strikeing JFK as he was slightly behind the road sign, could be factually determined.

And since you/aka THE FBI had Mr. West survey in the exact same position as the previous SS work, it would appear that your/the FBI's photographic analysis skills were quite comparable with the SS's, and even with the Time/Life work which placed the first shot fired as having been only a few feet prior to your work.

So! Exactly why would one not be capable of looking at the Zapruder film now and again easily determine what the SS in December 1963, as well as the FBI in February 1964, clearly could ascertain, as they both had the exact same impact location for the first shot fired?

Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat...

There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot.

I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat.

"There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot."

Which statement is highly indicative of the futility in attempting to explain anything (be it medical evidence or the survey evidence).

The "Final Shot" impact has not and does not change from the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, when compared with the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64.

They both contend that the third/last/final shot impact was, directly in front of James Altgens location, at survey stationing 4+95.

For the last time Pat:

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

Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now! Personally, since I was not present, I can not state as fact whether Simmons was given the true SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, or whether he was given the "updated" survey plat which was done for the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat which was generated on 2/7/64.

However! I can state as fact that CE585 IS NOT the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and is in reality the updated FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat of 2/7/64.

As, CE585 contains the "2/7/64" revision date down at the bottom of the plat. Just as does my full size copy of the FBI Survey Plat, and which "updated/revision" does not appear on the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63.

Now Pat. In event that you still can not grasp this concept of "revision", might I suggest that you either enroll in your local community college (or even some good high schools) and take a course in mechanical drawing, or else have someone sit down with you and walk you through it by the numbers:

1. A drawing is made.

2. Anytime that a change is made to said drawing, it is given a revision number and or 'updated" change in date.

All of which information I long ago provided.

The "RED" demonstrates the revision/updated date of 2/7/64, which confirms this as being the FBI Survey Plat of that date.

And, as I have repeatedly explained:

Well then, here is a "tad" more for those who are new to the train ride.

Just so that they are aware that I seldom resort to utilization of either the crystal ball or the rectal extraction methods of evidence evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, that insert is from the 2-7-64 plat given you by Robert West, and is not a blow up from CE 585. On my webpage I have an image of CE 585 courtesy Gary Murr, and there is no writing in the box.

I suppose now you'll tell me that Gary Murr sent me images of the original 12-5 plat, and only pretended they were of CE 585...

sssu2-full.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, that insert is from the 2-7-64 plat given you by Robert West, and is not a blow up from CE 585. On my webpage I have an image of CE 585 courtesy Gary Murr, and there is no writing in the box.

I suppose now you'll tell me that Gary Murr sent me images of the original 12-5 plat, and only pretended they were of CE 585...

sssu2-full.jpg

See Post#9 for the correct answer.

P.S. Others at least figured out that CE585 showed the date 2/7/64 long prior to my having confirmed it with the full size copy of the "revision date" written in.

Perhaps you should take up golfing or something of that nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, that insert is from the 2-7-64 plat given you by Robert West, and is not a blow up from CE 585. On my webpage I have an image of CE 585 courtesy Gary Murr, and there is no writing in the box.

I suppose now you'll tell me that Gary Murr sent me images of the original 12-5 plat, and only pretended they were of CE 585...

sssu2-full.jpg

See Post#9 for the correct answer.

P.S. Others at least figured out that CE585 showed the date 2/7/64 long prior to my having confirmed it with the full size copy of the "revision date" written in.

Perhaps you should take up golfing or something of that nature.

Tom, 1) did your image of the block, with 2-7-64 written in, come from CE 585, or the 2-7-64 plat provided by West? Never mind, I know the answer. Then 2) if CE 585 is the 2-7-64 plat, where is the 267 that is written underneath the 294?

Or was that written in after CE 585 was entered into evidence, more than month later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo???

Just to make certain that we are all in the same boat (even if paddling in different directions).

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z320.jpg

The "Ghost Image" can not be either of the two motorcycles located on the left side of the Presidential Limo, as:

The front fender of motorcycle#1 is actually behind the limo and fully obscurred from the line-of-sight of Abraham Zapruder,

And, the front fender of motorcycle#2 is behind motorcycle#1 and is also obscurred from the line-of-sight of Abraham Zapruder.

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...