Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 My original Math topic tried to supply everyone with an easy concept of speed and distance manipulation by the WC. Applying this to the film is next. Tom, thank you for your valuable input. Without the ORIGINAL information you have provided from Robert West, and your research, putting this part together may have never evolved. I've always held onto the belief that Zapruder (if it was him) was a better cameraman than what we see in the extant Zfilm. He was, and frame 356 among others, shows that. When I took my footage from the pedestal, the curb angle at approx Z313 is 3.9 degrees.(notice the X mark in the street for location purposes). I'm pretty sure somewhere in the WC volume's, this coincides with the Elm St grade too. In Zframe 356, take a very good look inside the red squares, the area lands on Clint's back, which is the ghost image area. I took my footage and superimposed the curbline which would be near 313 in the extant Zfilm, over the ghost image curbline in Z356. Yes, that area on Clint's back is from top to bottom: grass, grass edge, curb and street. If you have problems with that, just look to the right in the full frame and do a sync of those 4 items. The angle matches, the 4 items match, the curbline does not. In fact, there should be no curbline in the ghost image area at that point. It's indicative of a location some 30ft farther up Elm St.(Read the Math topic for more insight.) cheers, chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 My original Math topic tried to supply everyone with an easy concept of speed and distance manipulation by the WC. Applying this to the film is next. Tom, thank you for your valuable input. Without the ORIGINAL information you have provided from Robert West, and your research, putting this part together may have never evolved. I've always held onto the belief that Zapruder (if it was him) was a better cameraman than what we see in the extant Zfilm. He was, and frame 356 among others, shows that. When I took my footage from the pedestal, the curb angle at approx Z313 is 3.9 degrees.(notice the X mark in the street for location purposes). I'm pretty sure somewhere in the WC volume's, this coincides with the Elm St grade too. In Zframe 356, take a very good look inside the red squares, the area lands on Clint's back, which is the ghost image area. I took my footage and superimposed the curbline which would be near 313 in the extant Zfilm, over the ghost image curbline in Z356. Yes, that area on Clint's back is from top to bottom: grass, grass edge, curb and street. If you have problems with that, just look to the right in the full frame and do a sync of those 4 items. The angle matches, the 4 items match, the curbline does not. In fact, there should be no curbline in the ghost image area at that point. It's indicative of a location some 30ft farther up Elm St.(Read the Math topic for more insight.) cheers, chris Lets take you back to your original "measurements". In oyur original math posting yoursshow what you say are 10 segments. From that we can see you now claim Houston Street was nealry 80 feet wide. My question...is that a correct meaurement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 My original Math topic tried to supply everyone with an easy concept of speed and distance manipulation by the WC. Applying this to the film is next. Tom, thank you for your valuable input. Without the ORIGINAL information you have provided from Robert West, and your research, putting this part together may have never evolved. I've always held onto the belief that Zapruder (if it was him) was a better cameraman than what we see in the extant Zfilm. He was, and frame 356 among others, shows that. When I took my footage from the pedestal, the curb angle at approx Z313 is 3.9 degrees.(notice the X mark in the street for location purposes). I'm pretty sure somewhere in the WC volume's, this coincides with the Elm St grade too. In Zframe 356, take a very good look inside the red squares, the area lands on Clint's back, which is the ghost image area. I took my footage and superimposed the curbline which would be near 313 in the extant Zfilm, over the ghost image curbline in Z356. Yes, that area on Clint's back is from top to bottom: grass, grass edge, curb and street. If you have problems with that, just look to the right in the full frame and do a sync of those 4 items. The angle matches, the 4 items match, the curbline does not. In fact, there should be no curbline in the ghost image area at that point. It's indicative of a location some 30ft farther up Elm St.(Read the Math topic for more insight.) cheers, chris Lets take you back to your original "measurements". In oyur original math posting yoursshow what you say are 10 segments. From that we can see you now claim Houston Street was nealry 80 feet wide. My question...is that a correct meaurement? Craig, I'm not sure what your reference to 10 segments is. 10 postings??? Where do I claim Houston St is 80ft wide? Elm was 40ft wide and I assume Houston is 40ft wide or close thereto. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 Here's another segment of a "film within a film". Take a look at the transformation of Clint's head and Jackie's hat, not to mention shoulders. 37 frames apart as an approx frame match. Close to 11mph. If you look real closely at a clean frame 353, you can see JFK's shoulder and partial head as he is turned towards Jackie with shoulder up. Blends in really well when your converting 2 films into 1. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) My original Math topic tried to supply everyone with an easy concept of speed and distance manipulation by the WC. Applying this to the film is next. Tom, thank you for your valuable input. Without the ORIGINAL information you have provided from Robert West, and your research, putting this part together may have never evolved. I've always held onto the belief that Zapruder (if it was him) was a better cameraman than what we see in the extant Zfilm. He was, and frame 356 among others, shows that. When I took my footage from the pedestal, the curb angle at approx Z313 is 3.9 degrees.(notice the X mark in the street for location purposes). I'm pretty sure somewhere in the WC volume's, this coincides with the Elm St grade too. In Zframe 356, take a very good look inside the red squares, the area lands on Clint's back, which is the ghost image area. I took my footage and superimposed the curbline which would be near 313 in the extant Zfilm, over the ghost image curbline in Z356. Yes, that area on Clint's back is from top to bottom: grass, grass edge, curb and street. If you have problems with that, just look to the right in the full frame and do a sync of those 4 items. The angle matches, the 4 items match, the curbline does not. In fact, there should be no curbline in the ghost image area at that point. It's indicative of a location some 30ft farther up Elm St.(Read the Math topic for more insight.) cheers, chris Lets take you back to your original "measurements". In oyur original math posting yoursshow what you say are 10 segments. From that we can see you now claim Houston Street was nealry 80 feet wide. My question...is that a correct meaurement? Craig, I'm not sure what your reference to 10 segments is. 10 postings??? Where do I claim Houston St is 80ft wide? Elm was 40ft wide and I assume Houston is 40ft wide or close thereto. chris 10 FOOT segments..sorry. Do the math Chris, they are your measurements after all. How many of your 10 foot segments does it take to cross Houston? Edited January 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) O.K. Craig, Got it. Keep in mind, I didn't create or resize the plat. Yes, Houston St. is approx 59ft/8 inches across, not 80ft. From one corner building to the other on Houston is approx 200ft/8in. This corrects the size to 47.45in x 35.44in. Reduced to 71%w x 71.5%h-paper stretch!! who knows. Yet, someone needed it 66.84in x 49.56in. So now, I know someone created the Drommer Plat and at some point upsized it. Why!! Not big enough to begin with. Right!! Someone on the WC helped the HSCA with the Drommer Plat creation. Tom has already pointed this out several times before, just take a look at the elevation labeling on it. The WC tried to push everything up Elm and it's being exposed. chris P.S. Remember, there is no documentation for "Station C". Edited January 10, 2011 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As I recall, it was West's assistant Breneman who first exposed the mislocation of Station C. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 O.K. Craig, Got it. Keep in mind, I didn't create or resize the plat. Yes, Houston St. is approx 59ft/8 inches across, not 80ft. From one corner building to the other on Houston is approx 200ft/8in. This corrects the size to 47.45in x 35.44in. Reduced to 71%w x 71.5%h-paper stretch!! who knows. Yet, someone needed it 66.84in x 49.56in. So now, I know someone created the Drommer Plat and at some point upsized it. Why!! Not big enough to begin with. Right!! Someone on the WC helped the HSCA with the Drommer Plat creation. Tom has already pointed this out several times before, just take a look at the elevation labeling on it. The WC tried to push everything up Elm and it's being exposed. chris P.S. Remember, there is no documentation for "Station C". I'm, like Don in the other thread am just pointing out the measureing error. As for station "c"... don't care. "recreations" are a fools game. They are never 100% correct. Why should the WC attempt be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As I recall, it was West's assistant Breneman who first exposed the mislocation of Station C. Jack Jack, I long ago exposed that what you are presenting is in fact a reduced copy of the West survey plat which I allowed into the public domain. Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats. Since Mr. West had absolutely nothing to do with establishement of "Station C", and it is in fact a point which was "made up" by Lyndal Shaneyfelt in order to avoid the utilization of survey stationing numbers (which if utilized should have sent up an immediate "red flag", and quite to the contrary of the other erroneous claims which you have made concerning Breneman and the mythological claims of bullet impact damage to street curbing, (utilizing this reduced copy of the West Survey Plat) I have asked that you cease to utilize Mr. West Survey plat to continue to "feed" those who are in search of mythological multiple assassins. If one stops feeding them, perhaps they will all either go home or cease to exist, and then those who have interest in factual and true research can get on with the simple facts of the assassination. Tom Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As I recall, it was West's assistant Breneman who first exposed the mislocation of Station C. Jack Jack, I long ago exposed that what you are presenting is in fact a reduced copy of the West survey plat which I allowed into the public domain. Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats. Since Mr. West had absolutely nothing to do with establishement of "Station C", and it is in fact a point which was "made up" by Lyndal Shaneyfelt in order to avoid the utilization of survey stationing numbers (which if utilized should have sent up an immediate "red flag", and quite to the contrary of the other erroneous claims which you have made concerning Breneman and the mythological claims of bullet impact damage to street curbing, (utilizing this reduced copy of the West Survey Plat) I have asked that you cease to utilize Mr. West Survey plat to continue to "feed" those who are in search of mythological multiple assassins. If one stops feeding them, perhaps they will all either go home or cease to exist, and then those who have interest in factual and true research can get on with the simple facts of the assassination. Tom Purvis Despite what Purvis says, the plat I posted WAS NOT STOLEN FROM PURVIS, but was a tracing done by Breneman from a West plat, and Breneman gave a xerox copy of it to Jim Marrs at least 30 or more years ago, and Jim gave me a copy. Back 30 years ago (it has been in my files that long) nobody had ever heard of the internet or Purvis, and I wish he would quit claiming this work was stolen from him. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 As I recall, it was West's assistant Breneman who first exposed the mislocation of Station C. Jack Jack, I long ago exposed that what you are presenting is in fact a reduced copy of the West survey plat which I allowed into the public domain. Breneman was not an employee of Robert West. He was a "free-lance" survey party chief whom Mr. West called in for the Time/Life survey due to Mr. West's permanent employees having already been "booked" for other work when the no-notice need for the Time/Life survey plat came about. And, this work, by Breneman, (the Time/Life survey) is so inaccurate that little of it is even utilized for the later (more accurate) SS/FBI/WC survey plats. Since Mr. West had absolutely nothing to do with establishement of "Station C", and it is in fact a point which was "made up" by Lyndal Shaneyfelt in order to avoid the utilization of survey stationing numbers (which if utilized should have sent up an immediate "red flag", and quite to the contrary of the other erroneous claims which you have made concerning Breneman and the mythological claims of bullet impact damage to street curbing, (utilizing this reduced copy of the West Survey Plat) I have asked that you cease to utilize Mr. West Survey plat to continue to "feed" those who are in search of mythological multiple assassins. If one stops feeding them, perhaps they will all either go home or cease to exist, and then those who have interest in factual and true research can get on with the simple facts of the assassination. Tom Purvis Despite what Purvis says, the plat I posted WAS NOT STOLEN FROM PURVIS, but was a tracing done by Breneman from a West plat, and Breneman gave a xerox copy of it to Jim Marrs at least 30 or more years ago, and Jim gave me a copy. Back 30 years ago (it has been in my files that long) nobody had ever heard of the internet or Purvis, and I wish he would quit claiming this work was stolen from him. Jack the plat I posted WAS NOT STOLEN FROM PURVIS, but was a tracing done by Breneman from a West plat 1. Just as you do with virtually all factual evidence, you misrepresent it! No one that I am aware of claimed that the reduced copy of the West Survey Plat was "stolen". I provided it to several individuals. And, as I long ago explained to you (right here on this forum), I was sufficiently "sneaky" to insure that "my brand" is clearly marked in several places on the plat PRIOR to allowing it to out in the public domain where those such as yourself could utilize it to further your completely unsupported "conspiracy" theories. Would you like for me to embarass you again and mention some of those items which I insured were on the plat? Perhaps when I finally "kick the bucket" (provided that you are still around), then you may be able to get away with "selling" this as if there is some factual validity to it. Until then, each time that you drag it out and attempt to utilize it to support more of your "junk science", I will, so long as possible, continue to inform as to the true source of the survey plat as well as Breneman's extremely limited contribution to the survey work of Mr. Robert West. Last time, it was Breneman and the marking of mythological bullet impacts, for which you attempted to utilize this reduced copy of the Survey Plat. Now, it is Breneman knowing something about "Station C", which was not even a survey point utilized by West Survey during the Warren Commission assassination re-enactment. Why not post it again with Breneman purportedly marking exactly where he saw all of the body snatchers and multiple assassins hiding. No doubt there are those here who will ultimately believe that as well. Tom P.S. Hope you got Breneman's statement as to exactly when he had access to the full-sized West survey plat for the Warren Commission re-enactment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Shaw trial testimony of Robert West. http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Dealey Plaza witness who heard four shots. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Shaw trial testimony of Robert West. http://www.jfk-online.com/westshaw.html Dealey Plaza witness who heard four shots. BK Some excerpts of West's testimony at the Shaw trial: BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: What did it sound like on the first occasion? A: A motorcycle backfired. Q: What did it sound like on the second occasion? A: A rifle fired. Q: It sounded to you like rifle fire -- THE COURT: You needn't repeat his testimony. BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: What did it sound like to you on the third occasion? A: It appeared to me it was rifle fire after the second. The first and the second my response was it was motorcycle backfire. Q: What was your response to the third sound that you heard? A: Rifle fire. Q: Were these loud sounds? A: Yes, sir . __________________________________________________ Q: You say you heard four noises, the first two of which you thought were motorcycle backfires and the last two of which you thought were shots, is that right? A: Right. Q: I take it you recognize the fact you could be mistaken as to the number of sounds, is that right, sir? A: It is possible. __________________________________________________- BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: In relation to the grassy knoll, from which area did you hear the shots? A: The grassy knoll is in the same northwest quadrant as I heard the shots. 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