James R Gordon Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I was doing some work today that required me to refer to Commission Exhibit’s CE 886 – 902. That is the document that includes the various images of the Re-enactment. CE 887 is an image of the pictures being taken. See image below. I happen to look at the data for Frame 185 (CE 890) and noticed that data for the angle to the rifle in the window was 24º14’ which is the exact same value in CE884. What I am wondering is where did that value came from. Did it come from a different survey or did it come from the instrument in the image of CE 887 above. If it was from that instrument then surely the value has to be wrong. One thing the Commission were clear about ( and I agree with them ) is that the arrangement of the boxes by the sixth floor east window served two purposes. First it helped to protect the shooter. Second, the lower boxes were used to support the rifle by the window as it was being fired. To use these boxes to support the position of the rifle, the the rifle would have to be much lower, and I suspect maybe even be positioned in a different angle than what we see in the picture above. It seems clear to me, that having set out the rifle support boxes by the window, the gunman would not then just ignore them and be poised to fire the gun like we see in the above picture. If the gunman was poised as in CE 887 then there would be no purpose for the arranging the boxes in the first place to support the rifle as he carried out the assassination. Looking at the image it appears to me that the tripod would not get any lower and that is what determined the position and angle of the gun. It seems to me that the position of that instrument is far too high to replicate the true angle from JFK's back to the rifle as the actual shooter would have used it through the window. It seems to me that real angle would have to be lower, maybe by around 2º - 4º. What do others think? James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No shots were fired from that window so it's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 For those who may have tuned out Tom Purvis...this is one point that Purvis has been trying to make. The rifle on the tripod, as shown in the photo, is NOT in the position the rifle would've been in had the alleged assassin been using the boxes as a rifle rest. This is one of the reasons that Purvis believes that the WC report is based upon sleight-of-hand by FBI Agent Shaneyfelt, et al... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18358 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 The rifle on the tripod, as shown in the photo, is NOT in the position the rifle would've been in had the alleged assassin been using the boxes as a rifle rest. That is exactly my point. There is no point in arranging the boxes under the window if the gunman was going to fire as the image shows. And if he was, then the boxes behind him may no longer be sufficient to hide him. O.k. so that may not seem so important. What is important to me is did the angles from JFK's body to the rifle also come from this instrument. If so those angles are wrong. The angle, for the Commission's SBT, from the gun to JFK's back is stated to be 21º14'. If all these angles were taken from this instrument then they are wrong because the gun is too high. I would also bet this is the same angle that Dale Myers used in his 3D model. My model is coming close to finish. I had intended to use these measurements as a validation of my model's accuracy. I can use some of the data such as distance to overpass, since that is unlikely to have originated from this instrument, But the angle from JFK's body to the gun in the window look like they did, I'm sure they are wrong and I am now going to have to see what the angle actually is as opposed to verifying that my model agrees with this data. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The rifle on the tripod, as shown in the photo, is NOT in the position the rifle would've been in had the alleged assassin been using the boxes as a rifle rest. That is exactly my point. There is no point in arranging the boxes under the window if the gunman was going to fire as the image shows. And if he was, then the boxes behind him may no longer be sufficient to hide him. O.k. so that may not seem so important. What is important to me is did the angles from JFK's body to the rifle also come from this instrument. If so those angles are wrong. The angle, for the Commission's SBT, from the gun to JFK's back is stated to be 21º14'. If all these angles were taken from this instrument then they are wrong because the gun is too high. I would also bet this is the same angle that Dale Myers used in his 3D model. My model is coming close to finish. I had intended to use these measurements as a validation of my model's accuracy. I can use some of the data such as distance to overpass, since that is unlikely to have originated from this instrument, But the angle from JFK's body to the gun in the window look like they did, I'm sure they are wrong and I am now going to have to see what the angle actually is as opposed to verifying that my model agrees with this data. James My best guess, based on what can be seen in the photo, is that this as as low as the photographer could get the camera. Why? Because he has the tripod as low as it will go. The legs are full collapsed. Add unless this tripod has the ability to spread the legs wider... and again from the photos it does not...this is the best he could do with the equipment pictured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yes good point but it could be spread wider.and therefore lower. I personally think another important point here is how he must twist his body, with his shoulder, leg and foot against the pipes to get the 'vertical' angle right. From there each shot requires a shift which complicates an already compromised aqcuisition in order to not have the bottom of the window obstructing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 Craig, I absolutely agree. I thought I had mentioned that, but I appear to have forgotten to do so. The real problem is whether taking CE 893 Zapruder 210 (though I understand this frame was really Z208 and not Z210 according to Tom Purvis) the angle from JFK's body to the rifle in the window was taken from this camera instrument. CE893 says this angle was 21º 34'. Whatever the reason for the position of the camera, if the angle was taken from this instrument then clearly that angle was too high. Since I initially posted I have noticed that this figure is in Robert West's original sheet of figures. I am now hoping the figure is his and all that was created by the camera instrument were the pictures and not the measurements. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yes good point but it could be spread wider.and therefore lower. I personally think another important point here is how he must twist his body, with his shoulder, leg and foot against the pipes to get the 'vertical' angle right. From there each shot requires a shift which complicates an already compromised aqcuisition in order to not have the bottom of the window obstructing. John, lot of the older tripods ( and a lot of new ones for that matter) have non adjustable hard stops for leg spread. You open it up to the stop and that's all you get. It appears from the photo that is the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Up the top? Ok I'll take your word for it. I guess I'm a bit skeptical about one thing (a couple)I wonder of it's worth deducing the make of the tripod. Does it's camera base at the top of it tilt? Obviously level is found above that in the probably heavy (torque specs) stuff above that? edit add. what I'm getting at is that the tripod was probably as high tech as the stuff above it. A highly versatile strong instrument for taking all sorts of crime scene photographs. If the tilt of the tripod is there then it indicates quite a considerable spread which could lower (as long as the centre of gravity remains safely within the 3 spread) and remain quite stable? Edited March 21, 2012 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Up the top? Ok I'll take your word for it. I guess I'm a bit skeptical about one thing (a couple)I wonder of it's worth deducing the make of the tripod. Does it's camera base at the top of it tilt? Obviously level is found above that in the probably heavy (torque specs) stuff above that? edit add. what I'm getting at is that the tripod was probably as high tech as the stuff above it. A highly versatile strong instrument for taking all sorts of crime scene photographs. If the tilt of the tripod is there then it indicates quite a considerable spread which could lower (as long as the centre of gravity remains safely within the 3 spread) and remain quite stable? I have a number of tripods, for example, that allow me to spread the tripod legs much wider than what is seen and get the top of the tripod lower. I also have some that don't. They only go as wide as the stop design will allow. BTW, the tripod head ( the tilting device to which the camera attaches) can't substantially raise or lower the height of the camera above the surface the tripod sit on. The photo appears to show a tripod without the ability to spread the legs farther apart. IMO. The tripod does not appear to be anything special. 3 section legs with twist locks,and a center column that is nearly as long as the height of the open tripod. In fact this center column would not allow the tripod to go much lower than we see it. The tripod head appears to be a simple pan and tilt model, maybe just two way. The gun camera is jury rigged onto the rifle with what looks like wooden side plates and set to shoot through the scope. The process is called Afocal photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afocal_photography The camera/ rifle is similarly jury rigged to mount it to the tripod. Edited March 21, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Greg B: No shots were fired from that window so it's a moot point. So Euins is mistaken? Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B. Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365? Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again. Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he fired on that fourth time. Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B. Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window. Mr. SPECTER. Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the fourth shot? Mr. EUINS. Yes; he just come back like this. Mr. SPECTER. Did you watch what he did after that? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; because after he had pulled it back in the window, I ran this way, and went across the tracks. Worrell? Mr. SPECTER - Did you look up and see the rifle between the first and the second shots? Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. And saw the firing on the second and then before he could get a shot I was - I took in everything but especially the car, The President's car, and saw him slumping, and I looked up again and turned around and started running and saw it fire a third time, and then -- Mr. SPECTER - When did you see it fire a third time, when you looked up, the time you just described? Mr. WORRELL - When I was, I did it all in one motion, I looked up, turned around and ran, pivoted. Mr. SPECTER - What did you hear, if anything, after that? Mr. WORRELL - Just a lot of commotion, everybody was screaming and saying "duck." Mr. SPECTER - After the third shot, did you hear a fourth shot? Mr. WORRELL - Oh, yes. Just as I got to the corner of Exhibit 360, I heard the fourth shot. Mr. SPECTER - Well, did these four shots come close together or how would you describe the timing in general on those? Mr. WORRELL - Succession. Mr. SPECTER - Were they very fast? Mr. WORRELL - They were right in succession. Yet on the other side of the coin we have info that tells us the rifle, the MC, was NOT set up to shoot effectively from right or left handed shooters Doesn't this suggest a shooter yet a different rifle? Plus, since they have no idea what the corner really looked like at the time of the shots... the angle from the rifle wouldn't change that much though... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1352 The rifle as depicted, based upon the bolt sleeve/safety, cocking cam, and firing pin nut, is clearly an Italian made Mannlicher Carcano rifle, serial #C2766. There is no evidence of any other identifiers, inspectors/proof marks on the rifle as depicted. (3) There is however, some proof marks on the barrel just forward of the receiver ring that exist in some photos but are either missing or altered in others which is what raises the issue of forgery. Also, in at least one photo I've examined there are clearly cuts in the barrel itself at the point where it joins to the receiver ring that are consistent with a toothed wrench having been applied to remove or tighten the barrel. There appears to be a gas-vent hole on the receiver ring just behind the serial number that I find somewhat remarkable due to the fact that it is a feature not always present on a Carcano rifle. (It should be noted at this point that there is at least one assertion that this feature is a tapped, threaded, set-screw hole designed to secure to rifle barrel to the receiver, and another assertion that this feature is simply a deep set proof-mark; assertions that I soundly reject and frankly, consider absurd as there also appears to be a pattern of discoloration just above this gas-vent indicative of gas-propellant blow-by.) This is significant as the presence of this gas-vent indicates the rifle was built to accommodate a left- handed shooter. Noteworthy is the fact that due to the gas port on the left side of receiver ring, firing this rifle from the right shoulder would be quite hazardous, exposing the shooter to hot propellant gas in the event of any gas blow-by, and/or cartridge failure and primer rupture which are fairly common to old leaky, sloppy bolt action rifles.[/b] Also, in evidence regarding this gas-vent is the presence of a slight defect and discoloration near the top of the receiver ring indicative of excessive breech pressure or a sloppy bolt action. The presence of the left leaning off-set rifle scope would render left handed firing highly impractical as would attempting to use the iron sights be from the right handed position if it becomes necessary to "Lead" a moving object coming from the left across the field of fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Very interesting Joseph. Craig. The tilting of the head of the tripod indicates to me that its spread could be more, and I'm suggesting that this is a versatile strong tripod with the strength inherent in the material and construction that this tilt can be in any direction and remain within non-failure range and therefore accommodate a greater spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Very interesting Joseph. Craig. The tilting of the head of the tripod indicates to me that its spread could be more, and I'm suggesting that this is a versatile strong tripod with the strength inherent in the material and construction that this tilt can be in any direction and remain within non-failure range and therefore accommodate a greater spread. The head is independent of the legs. IF you extend the legs ( they are completely collapsed) the total spread will increase, however the ANGLE of the legs will remain the same in relation to the top of the tripod. The legs are spread to the extent the stops will allow. see this photo http://www.findanauction.com/images/njauction/932685752.jpg Without a way to change the hard stops, the legs cannot be spread further. Edited March 21, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Maybe I'm seeing wrong in seeing the pins in the shanyfelt photo and they don't look right, the part is tilted? Above is quite a massive twist grip for adjusting angle. Doesn't this mean that rigidity is paramount? edittypos Edited March 21, 2012 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Maybe I'm seeing wrong in seeing the pins in the shanyfelt photo and they don't look right, the part is tilted? Above is quite a massive twist grip for adjusting angle. Doesn't this mean that rigidity is paramount? edittypos I'm not explaining this well it seems. To increase the spread of the legs and thus lower the height of the tripod you need to change the angle of the legs in relation to the top of the tripod. Some tripods only have one position, and a hard stop for the leg angle. Others have adjustable stops with offer options for different leg position. At this link, look at the macro photography photo and you will see how the one leg has a greater angle than the rest, this tripod has adjustable leg stops. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=ProductDetail&A=showMultipleImages&Q=&sku=567542&is=REG 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