Perspective

[William Kelly]

From the other TV Channel.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...797324d0e47a041

That the scope crosshairs may have been "high" (as compared to center of optical alignment) and that the weapon fired "high" for those from the FBI lab who tested it, does not mean much of anything.

Due to the slightly different manner in which we all take up a "stock-weld" position when firing a rifle, as well as a slightly different sight picture as a result of this difference, could mean that at this setting, whoever fired the weapon had this adjustment on the scope in order to repetively hit dead center/bullseye.

Which also holds true for the cross-hair alignment.

The "fixed" sight of the carcano gave little room for adjustment due to "shooter sighting"* error, as does our military weapons, (to include he M-1 Garand).

A mounted scope gives the ability (for long range) to compensate for the "sighting error" of the shooter on a "fixed sight" weapon.

If one will actually research the facts, they will find that even with the M-1 Garand, LHO as a result of the manner in which he held the rifle as well as took up a sight picture, fired at a point which was low as well as left.

This point was anywhere from one to two inches low at close ranges (100 to 200 yard ranges) and as much as five inches low at longer ranges of 500 yards.

So, basically, for each 100 yards of range, LHO naturally fired 1-inch low of target center.

When the sight is adjusted to compensate for this, it basically adjusts the sight so that anyone who held a perfectly correct sight picture and correct spot-weld position, would generally always shoot "High" with a weapon which LHO had zeroed to his specific sighting.

The exact same holds for the lateral/windage. LHO consistently fired to the left and thus had to adjust his windage to compensate for this.

Thus, anyone who held the weapon correctly and took a correct sight picture, would have always fired to the right of center.

All of which makes it appear as if the scope was adjusted virtually exactly as LHO would have required it for accurate shooting.

Tom

How could "LHO naturally fired 1-inch low of target center" and "LHO consistently fired to the left and thus had to adjust his windage to compensate for this..." when it can be positively demonstrated that Oswald wasn't even in the room at the time?

BK

[Thomas H. Purvis]

From the other TV Channel.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...797324d0e47a041

That the scope crosshairs may have been "high" (as compared to center of optical alignment) and that the weapon fired "high" for those from the FBI lab who tested it, does not mean much of anything.

Due to the slightly different manner in which we all take up a "stock-weld" position when firing a rifle, as well as a slightly different sight picture as a result of this difference, could mean that at this setting, whoever fired the weapon had this adjustment on the scope in order to repetively hit dead center/bullseye.

Which also holds true for the cross-hair alignment.

The "fixed" sight of the carcano gave little room for adjustment due to "shooter sighting"* error, as does our military weapons, (to include he M-1 Garand).

A mounted scope gives the ability (for long range) to compensate for the "sighting error" of the shooter on a "fixed sight" weapon.

If one will actually research the facts, they will find that even with the M-1 Garand, LHO as a result of the manner in which he held the rifle as well as took up a sight picture, fired at a point which was low as well as left.

This point was anywhere from one to two inches low at close ranges (100 to 200 yard ranges) and as much as five inches low at longer ranges of 500 yards.

So, basically, for each 100 yards of range, LHO naturally fired 1-inch low of target center.

When the sight is adjusted to compensate for this, it basically adjusts the sight so that anyone who held a perfectly correct sight picture and correct spot-weld position, would generally always shoot "High" with a weapon which LHO had zeroed to his specific sighting.

The exact same holds for the lateral/windage. LHO consistently fired to the left and thus had to adjust his windage to compensate for this.

Thus, anyone who held the weapon correctly and took a correct sight picture, would have always fired to the right of center.

All of which makes it appear as if the scope was adjusted virtually exactly as LHO would have required it for accurate shooting.

Tom

How could "LHO naturally fired 1-inch low of target center" and "LHO consistently fired to the left and thus had to adjust his windage to compensate for this..." when it can be positively demonstrated that Oswald wasn't even in the room at the time?

BK

1. LHO's natural shooting position which caused him to normally shoot "low and to the left", and thus require an adjustment to his sights to correct the impact point of a bullet and raise the elevation as well as move it to the right

(as is clearly demonstrated through his USMC Rangefire Qualification Record)

2. Has absolutely nothing to do with your mythological hypothesis that it can be "positively demonstrated that Oswald wasn't even in the room at the time?"

So, in event that you wish to continue to waste "your" time on your "positively demonstrated" aka demonstratably un-provable hypothesis, please be my guest and start yourself another topic heading on this subject as I most assuredly have no intention of wasting time responding to such completely un-substantuated claims.

P.S. You truly should also lay off those Tom Cruz movies as well.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...50e66e088c7014#

First off! Am I to assume that you find the provided answer as to why

Specter & Company failed to conduct a "full court press" in regards to

the anterior throat injury, an acceptable answer??

As regards above, need to cut down on those "shotgun" questions.

Singular and "simple" questions are generally quite easy to answer.

Compounded and complex questions with many inserted clauses are the

trademark of Specter & Company to confuse and confound.

As example:

"The Z-film being broke in several places,"

Quite obviously, if the film is broken in "several places", then there

would be a seperate answer for each specific area of break/splice.

As example:

On 11/25/63, Time/Life, who had in their possession the original Z-

film, conducted an assassination re-enactment survey (Mr. Robert West

of course did the survey work)

in which they determined the first shot to have been at what would now

plot on the larger WC Survey plat as being approximately Z205.

In that regards, we also have others who have commented on this, in

which they most certainly must have had a better copy of the Z-film

than is available to us:

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

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

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

===

(a) The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,

when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his

throat.

( 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.).

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

++

With this in mind, please recall the the WC kind-of "forgot' to give

us frames of the Z-film after Z207, thu Z211:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

And in fact, purportedly stated that the reason being that they did

not receive these frames of the film from

Time/life in which the "accidental" damage to these frames occurred.

Unfortunately, this lie don't fly.

It is generally quite difficult to make a "composite" photo in which

one utilizes Z210, if one did not receive Z210.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

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

Next, one must take into consideration the wonderfully "slight"sleight-

of-hand work of Shaneyfelt and company in making people think that no

shot could/would have been fired before Z210 as a result of the tree

limbs blocking the line-of-sight from the sixth floor window.

And therefore they gave us the wonderful survey data for Z210.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...7/html/WH_Vol...

When, in fact, Z210 location was not even surveyed in, and Specter;

Shaneyfelt; & Company

A. Altered the survey data on CE 884 in order to pull a little wool

over the eyes of the gullible:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf

B. Envisioned a "new math" in which Frame#207 actually became

Frame#210 through their usage of the ever-so-creative "Adjusted"

position:

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

Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the

marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the

tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission

Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the

difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations

on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the

back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree,

to wit: frame 207,

C. And finally, in regards to those frames of the film after Z207

(specifically, Z209/Z210/ & Z211) which demonstrate the inherent

"blurring" which Zapruder incorporated into the film as a result of

reacting to the sound of a shot, and which blurring generally begins

some 5 to 6 frames after the round is fired, one need apply only the

time proven means and methods of "Problem Resolution" as I have been

discussing on the other TV channel (and here also)

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1122

Problem Resolution Flowchart:

Can you "Hide It"?-------------Yes!

No Problem.

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

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

Hopefully now, you see the complex nature of answering even the most

simple and single subject question.

So, when you want answers to all of those compounded and complex

questions, you are asking someone to not answer the questions, but to

also write a book for you on the means and methods employed by Specter

& Company in pulling the wool over a whole lot of eyes.

Tom

P.S. There still was only a "Lone Assassin/Shooter"!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...50e66e088c7014#

First off! Am I to assume that you find the provided answer as to why

Specter & Company failed to conduct a "full court press" in regards to

the anterior throat injury, an acceptable answer??

As regards above, need to cut down on those "shotgun" questions.

Singular and "simple" questions are generally quite easy to answer.

Compounded and complex questions with many inserted clauses are the

trademark of Specter & Company to confuse and confound.

As example:

"The Z-film being broke in several places,"

Quite obviously, if the film is broken in "several places", then there

would be a seperate answer for each specific area of break/splice.

As example:

On 11/25/63, Time/Life, who had in their possession the original Z-

film, conducted an assassination re-enactment survey (Mr. Robert West

of course did the survey work)

in which they determined the first shot to have been at what would now

plot on the larger WC Survey plat as being approximately Z205.

In that regards, we also have others who have commented on this, in

which they most certainly must have had a better copy of the Z-film

than is available to us:

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

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

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

===

(a) The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,

when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his

throat.

( 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.).

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

++

With this in mind, please recall the the WC kind-of "forgot' to give

us frames of the Z-film after Z207, thu Z211:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

And in fact, purportedly stated that the reason being that they did

not receive these frames of the film from

Time/life in which the "accidental" damage to these frames occurred.

Unfortunately, this lie don't fly.

It is generally quite difficult to make a "composite" photo in which

one utilizes Z210, if one did not receive Z210.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

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

Next, one must take into consideration the wonderfully "slight"sleight-

of-hand work of Shaneyfelt and company in making people think that no

shot could/would have been fired before Z210 as a result of the tree

limbs blocking the line-of-sight from the sixth floor window.

And therefore they gave us the wonderful survey data for Z210.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...7/html/WH_Vol...

When, in fact, Z210 location was not even surveyed in, and Specter;

Shaneyfelt; & Company

A. Altered the survey data on CE 884 in order to pull a little wool

over the eyes of the gullible:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf

B. Envisioned a "new math" in which Frame#207 actually became

Frame#210 through their usage of the ever-so-creative "Adjusted"

position:

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

Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the

marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the

tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission

Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the

difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations

on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the

back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree,

to wit: frame 207,

C. And finally, in regards to those frames of the film after Z207

(specifically, Z209/Z210/ & Z211) which demonstrate the inherent

"blurring" which Zapruder incorporated into the film as a result of

reacting to the sound of a shot, and which blurring generally begins

some 5 to 6 frames after the round is fired, one need apply only the

time proven means and methods of "Problem Resolution" as I have been

discussing on the other TV channel (and here also)

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1122

Problem Resolution Flowchart:

Can you "Hide It"?-------------Yes!

No Problem.

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

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

Hopefully now, you see the complex nature of answering even the most

simple and single subject question.

So, when you want answers to all of those compounded and complex

questions, you are asking someone to not answer the questions, but to

also write a book for you on the means and methods employed by Specter

& Company in pulling the wool over a whole lot of eyes.

Tom

P.S. There still was only a "Lone Assassin/Shooter"!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...contents_wr.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0061a.htm

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...126&t=14208

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...126&t=14208 Edited May 15, 2009 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Mr. SPECTER. Was that position ascertained where the chalk spot on the back of President Kennedy's coat was first visible from the sixth floor window through the telescopic sight?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. This is after passing the tree.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. After passing out from under the oak tree.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. What frame did that turn out to be?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was frame 207.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an exhibit depicting the same photographic sequence on frame 207?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I do.

Mr. SPECTER. What Commission Exhibit number has been affixed to that frame?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 892.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Now, was frame 249 selected as a situs for calculations on the possible construction that President Kennedy was struck in the back at the first point unadjusted at which he emerged from the tree, to wit: frame 207,

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

Gotta love anyone who can pull a sack over someone's head, while they are actually watching, without their even knowing that they have been "sacked".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=506

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=507

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

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

[David G. Healy]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=506

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=507

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

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

Tom, Did Altgens ever say what he pre-focused on at 15'?

[Craig Lamson]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=506

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=507

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

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

Tom, Did Altgens ever say what he pre-focused on at 15'?

Sheesh Healy! And YOU want us to believe that you are some sort of imaging pro! Why do you need to focusing on ANYTHING to pre-select the area of focus your camera will record? Answer, you don't. It's call ZONE FOCUSING. What's the matter, you flunk basic photography 101? Seems so. Nikon was really helpflu int hat regard. they engraved distance and f-stop scales right on the lens to allow a photographer to set focus and DOF without actually viewing a scene. News photographers were usually masters at this skill. ( except Healy it seems)

HOW TO ZONE FOCUS

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool...ne%20focus.html

Edited May 16, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=506

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=507

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

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

Tom, Did Altgens ever say what he pre-focused on at 15'?

Sheesh Healy! And YOU want us to believe that you are some sort of imaging pro! Why do you need to focusing on ANYTHING to pre-select the area of focus your camera will record? Answer, you don't. It's call ZONE FOCUSING. What's the matter, you flunk basic photography 101? Seems so. Nikon was really helpflu int hat regard. they engraved distance and f-stop scales right on the lens to allow a photographer to set focus and DOF without actually viewing a scene. News photographers were usually masters at this skill. ( except Healy it seems)

HOW TO ZONE FOCUS

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool...ne%20focus.html

it's the testimony, hon -- and, of course, the one thing you're most unaware of: education, there are the curious around here, ya know -- so, wake up, smell the roses, it's not to late..... (p.s. I forgot more about film-photo composing than everyone in the state of Indiana knows LMFAO) As to what you think of me? Who-the-hell cares, certainly not me! In my photo composing day, I doubt you'd make it as a *ruby* cutter....

its abundantly clear you've never shot realtime news (one shot at it) photography.... so take a seat perhaps someone with a bit of knowledge from your side will show up and help you out....

You ever shoot news, Craigster? Do those trailers move when you set up a shoot?

Your's in the biz,

aeffects...

Edited May 16, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=506

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=507

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

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

Tom, Did Altgens ever say what he pre-focused on at 15'?

Sheesh Healy! And YOU want us to believe that you are some sort of imaging pro! Why do you need to focusing on ANYTHING to pre-select the area of focus your camera will record? Answer, you don't. It's call ZONE FOCUSING. What's the matter, you flunk basic photography 101? Seems so. Nikon was really helpflu int hat regard. they engraved distance and f-stop scales right on the lens to allow a photographer to set focus and DOF without actually viewing a scene. News photographers were usually masters at this skill. ( except Healy it seems)

HOW TO ZONE FOCUS

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool...ne%20focus.html

it's the testimony, hon -- and, of course, the one thing you're most unaware of: education, there are the curious around here, ya know -- so, wake up, smell the roses, it's not to late..... (p.s. I forgot more about film-photo composing than everyone in the state of Indiana knows LMFAO) As to what you think of me? Who-the-hell cares, certainly not me! In my photo composing day, I doubt you'd make it as a *ruby* cutter....

its abundantly clear you've never shot realtime news (one shot at it) photography.... so take a seat perhaps someone with a bit of knowledge from your side will show up and help you out....

You ever shoot news, Craigster? Do those trailers move when you set up a shoot?

Your's in the biz,

aeffects...

Lets see, Healy asks a very STUPID question and gets EDUCATED! Pretty much par for the course for Healy (he who can't even show samples of his "film based compositing ")

Why the hell would I want to shoot "news"? You guys are the bottom tier of the photo food chain, and quickly being replaced by anyone with a cellphone camera. Healy is a wannabe.....

Lets not keep the folks in the dark Healy:

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

Edited May 16, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hopefully, sufficient light has been shined on the subject matter that few hereafter will either become, or stay lost in the maze.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hey Ms. Beckett:

See that you are still around attempting to figure out exactly who and what to believe!

Perhaps of some assistance:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=0

An excellent reference which places much into "perspective" as regards other topics of discussion.

As well as:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg

One never knows when even a "litterbug" may shed some additional light on a subject.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

Reckon how them Zapruder film phonier-uppers knew to make certain to insert some thrash into their work as well??????