Jump to content
The Education Forum

When was this image taken?


Recommended Posts

I am doing some work on the re-enactments of the assassination by the FBI and the SS.

This image looks like a February '64 FBI image, but just in case it is a December '63 from the SS I thought I would ask.

I took the image from Robin's site.

Does anyone know whether this is an FBI or SS re-enactment image?

Re-enactment_zps11123959.jpg

Thanks.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looks like a 5/24/64 image to me. That was the date of the WC/FBI re-enactment in DP.

The guy in the street with the tripod sure matches this image, which is confirmed to be May 24:

http://eMuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:26797

More:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html

What was done in Feb. '64?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was done in Feb. '64?


David,

In February ’64 the FBI carried out their re-creation of the assassination. What I had not realized is that there were four recreations of the assassination.

a) November 25th1963:- Time/Life. Not considered to be a legal recreation.

B) December 2nd – 4th 1963:- The Secret Service

c) February 7th1964:- The FBI

d) May 20 -25 1964:- The Warren Commission, carried out for them by the FBI

The reason I asked the question was that in discussion with Robert West, Tom Purves learnt that during the May 1964 recreation Robert West was in Dealey Plaza and saw people with a bucket truck cutting branches off the top of the tree in front of the TSBD. He suggested it was done to ensure the Single Bullet Theory was more reliable.

Informing me that the image, I posted, was a May ’64 image you have provided me with the proof that Robert West was correct and indeed the said tree was indeed trimmed during May 1964.

Robert West also observed, during the May recreation, the front tyres of the Queen Mary were lowered and the back tyres filled as much as possible to ensure that the Connally stand in was sufficiently lower than the JFK stand in. Now that I can prove that in May 64 the branches of the tree were indeed cut, I believe that is also true. There will be pictures of the car like this, but I doubt we will ever see them.

Until now I have relied on CE 896 when building my 3D model. With regard to the distance specifications I have agreed with them. E.g. Z 223/4 is 190.4 feet from the Oswald window. I concur. However the angles are a complete mess. I now know why the angles are wrong and are not the angles that would have been, had there been a shot at Z 223/4. In the case of Z 223/4 the angle in the window is 20º 30’. This is calculated from the difference between Z 222 and Z 225 where we have values.

These values are completely wrong. If the shot, for the Single Bullet Theory, had been fired at Z 223/4 at an angle of 20º 30’ it would not have struck the back as proposed. This is because the angles have been calculated wrongly.

What I am now going to spend some time on is discovering exactly where such a shot would land, if fired at Z 223/4 at an angle of 20º 30’.

James

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea how much the branches of a Texas live oak would have grown in the six months between 11/22/63 and 5/24/64? That's a possible explanation for any tree-trimming seen by Robert West. Wouldn't you agree, James?

And could the tire thing be related to the fact that the Queen Mary car sat higher than SS-100-X? I know the WC/FBI had to account for a 10-inch difference in height between the two vehicles when figuring the angles from Oswald's window to the victims.

You suspect foul play on the part of the WC though, don't you James?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You suspect foul play on the part of the WC though, don't you James?


Actually I suspect incompetence. I have a high regard for you David. You are an excellent advocate for your position. But, with respect, maybe you should check the basis of the evidence.

Take the Trees. I thought that picture was a February picture. When you informed me it was a May picture it just reinforced my case. On the 25th of May Robert West witnessed the tree being trimmed. I have an image of that tree from the 25th and the tree is different to the 24th picture you identified.

Take the angle from the Oswald window. These angles were taken through the camera gun that Shanneyfelt was operating. Just taking that angle on its own, is nowhere near where the Oswald gunman would have been firing.

Yes, I can hear you. Quite correct there was indeed adjustment included into calculations. Knowing that the heights of the stand in and JFK were different in the Queen Mary they brought the target down by 10 inches. They are wildly out. I have yet to confirm my figures, but I will give you the ones I have at the moment.

a) JFK:- I calculate that the top of JFK’s head is 59.87 inches above the ground. The top of his head is 17.69 inches above the height of the side door.

B) Queen Mary Stand in:- I calculate that the top of his head is 84.23 inches off the ground. Taking the height of the Kennedy car compared to the Queen Mary I believe he is 40.19 inches above door height of the JFK car.

That means his actual difference in height, to JFK is 22.23 inches higher [40.19 – 17.69]. The May recreation only allowed a 10 inch difference. The real difference in height was more than double that.

Now the problem is this, the Warren Commissions case is built on the May 1964 recreation. The bible for this case is CE 902, the series of images from the re-creation. So for example if we take Z 313 we are told that the angle from the window was 15º 21’. Since the stand in is over 10 inches higher than JFK was, and this stand in was in both the February and May recreations, and this 15º 21’ angle was to the JFK head, it is going to miss. It is going to fly over the head of JFK because the stand in is 10 inches higher than they have calculated.

The problem for those who support the Warren Commission is that CE 902 is the definitive definition of the calculations for the May recreation. They cannot be walked back from. And their problem is that these calculations are out by 10 inches and the angle that they do use, in CE 902, would not be the one that Oswald would have used had he been firing. He would have been firing from a much lower angle.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a documented reason why the Lincoln wasn't used in the May recreation?


Martin,

As I understand it the Queen Mary was used because the Lincoln was still being re-fitted. That said I wonder would it not have been completed by the middle of May?

Even it was available, it may be that since the Queen Mary was used February and the same models used in February were also to be used in May, that may be a reason.

Further, although the May re-enactment was strictly for the Warren Commission, it was still the FBI who carried it out. Using the Lincoln, even if it were available, would require a completely new set of surveying data. That might have had a bearing on the choice of the Queen Mary in May rather than the Lincoln – even if it was available.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James:

Though the question has already been answered, I will add my two cents worth. DVP and others are correct - the black and white image you posted in your original message was taken on May 24, 1964. However, it was not taken by nor is it part of the Malcolm E. Barker collection. Rather this image was one of many taken by a "stringer" photographer hired by Holland McCombs to cover the event on behalf of TIME/LIFE. I have a contact sheet containing 24 black and white images taken by this individual [i am sorry I am at work right now and do not have the gentleman's name and I cannot recall it from memory but can post it if anyone is interested] as well as 7 or 8 enlargements from this same contact sheet. As a matter of interest, the large individual wearing the Stetson style cowboy hat in these various images is Dallas County Surveyor, Robert West. In the image you posted, James, you can see Arlen Specter beginning to cross Elm Street in front of the Queen Mary. In addition, if you look carefully at these images, including those from the 6th Floor Museum's Barker collection, you can spot, among others, Paul Hardin, who worked the "chains" for Robert West, Arlen Specter, Inspector James Malley of the FBI, and SS SA J. J. Howlett and SS Inspector Thomas Kelley, as well as Lyndal Shaneyfelt, all of whom, plus others, were in Dealey Plaza over this weekend.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the 25th of May, Robert West witnessed the tree being trimmed. I have an image of that tree from the 25th and the tree is different to the 24th picture you identified.

Which means that any trimming done to the tree was done AFTER the Warren Commission and FBI had already taken all of their pictures from the TSBD window (such as CE889 and 890 shown below). Because those pictures were taken on May 24th, not 25th.

So, if your dates are accurate, James, it turns into a "so what?" situation entirely (with respect to the 5/24 photos that were taken). Or do you contend the pictures we see in CE888 and the following exhibits were actually taken on May 25th? I wasn't even aware the WC was still doing any "re-enactment" work in DP on Monday, May 25th. They chose May 24 due to the fact it was a Sunday and would therefore disrupt normal Dallas traffic the least.

BTW, who is Robert West?

Let me just add this:

Unless you, James Gordon, are prepared to perform the kind of detailed ON-SITE reconstruction of the shooting angles and measurements that was performed by the Warren Commission and FBI from the exact window from which shots were fired at President Kennedy, then your calculations and measurements are always going to take a back seat to the WC's conclusions about the angles and measurements, in my opinion.

James, what methods are you utilizing to try and prove the WC wrong? I hope photogrammetry is involved. Otherwise, you've got major problems (if, that is, you're attempting to extract 3D information from two-dimensional photographs, which cannot be accomplished without photogrammetry being used).

There is also this (from page 97 of the Warren Report):

"On May 24, 1964, agents of the FBI and Secret Service conducted a series of tests to determine as precisely as possible what happened on November 22, 1963. Since the Presidential limousine was being remodeled and was therefore unavailable, it was simulated by using the Secret Service followup car, which is similar in design. ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." [DVP's emphasis.]

WH_Vol18_0051a.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Gary.

If you could post, or send me a copy of these images that would be great.

I initially thought the image was a February FBI image. To have it confirmed it is May 24th is excellent. I am sure I have a copy of the tree on the 25th and if so then Robert West is right when he stated that on the 25th he saw people trimming the tree branches.

It was a random point by Tom Purves that he considered the height of the stand in was 10 inches higher, that had me have a look at that point. Going by the plans of the Queen Mary and adjusting that to an excellent image of Queen Mary at 223/4 suggests the stand in could be higher. I imagine the seats in the Queen Mary much higher. But the salient point is that both the relative height of the car and his position in the car have his height greater than the 10 inches the FBI adjusted for. I am working on getting a better definition of the distance from the road for JFK and the stand in.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Gary.

If you could post, or send me a copy of these images that would be great.

I initially thought the image was a February FBI image. To have it confirmed it is May 24th is excellent. I am sure I have a copy of the tree on the 25th and if so then Robert West is right when he stated that on the 25th he saw people trimming the tree branches.

It was a random point by Tom Purves that he considered the height of the stand in was 10 inches higher, that had me have a look at that point. Going by the plans of the Queen Mary and adjusting that to an excellent image of Queen Mary at 223/4 suggests the stand in could be higher. I imagine the seats in the Queen Mary much higher. But the salient point is that both the relative height of the car and his position in the car have his height greater than the 10 inches the FBI adjusted for. I am working on getting a better definition of the distance from the road for JFK and the stand in.

James

No problem, James. I will look up the images when I get home later today or tomorrow and send them along to you. I also have a series of diagrams of the tree you are questioning re: the trimming and other foliage areas in Dealey Plaza that you might find useful. These sketches were made by SA'S Roy Rose, Paul Arey, and Brent Hughes, from Inspector Leo Gauthier's Exhibits Division of the FBI Lab, on December 4, 5, 6, 1963 in conjunction with their eventual construction of the FBI Dealey Plaza models. What you may find interesting is that these same sketches contain measurements of this tree - i.e. height, width, branch spreads etc - and of a lot of other trees and shrubs that they incorporated in their scale model.

I was a little surprised to see that DVP did not know who Robert West was...

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is Robert West?





Robert West is the surveyor who did much of the calculations for the re-enactments.

Robert West was interviewed over several days by Tom Purves. His account of those numerous meetings reads too authentically to be hyperbole.

Robert West made two observations to Tom Purves:-

First:- On May 25, 1964, he returned into Dealey Plaza in order to acquire additional measurements, and he observed members of the Warren Commission re- enactment engaged in cutting and removal of limbs from the live oak tree that is located directly under the sixth floor window of the School Book Depository Building.

Second:- These personnel had secured a “bucket lift” truck and were in process of cutting and removing limbs from the uppermost branches of the live oak tree that is located directly under the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building.

I do not know the meaning of this cutting of branches.

But first it was done on the 25th.

And second it was carried out by members of the re-enactment group.

Though I find this an interesting point and do wonder just why, if as you claim, the re-enactments had been concluded by the 24th, that the re-enactment group felt it necessary to cut these branches.

What for me is much more important is the validity of the angles from the gun to the stand in model, as displayed in your posted images. I have no problem with the distances from the Oswald window, I concur with those. What interested me was Tom Purves, who was the first researcher to interview Robert West and gained access to his survey files for the recreations. A fellow researcher generously gave me a copy of the Robert West survey files so I am able to check through these data values. Anyway Tom made a point that he felt that the relative heights of JFK and the stand in may differ by a margin that invalids these angles. My work so far supports him and it may indeed be greater than the 10 inches that the FBI wrote into their calculations.

If I can prove the heights from the road to the top of the head of the two differ by more than 10 inches then it means that the angle at Z225, say, which is defined as 20º 11’ may well strike the body ---- but unlikely to be where the Commission states. I know the WC did not suggest Z 223/4 as the point, but that is now the modern interpretation of the Single Bullet Theory.

So put simply. If I can establish that the relative heights differ by enough to invalidate this angle then surely that also invalids the Single Bullet Theory. I am not saying that a trajectory angle of 20º 11’ would not strike the body, what I am saying is that it will not strike where it has to strike.

Let me just add this:

Unless you, James Gordon, are prepared to perform the kind of detailed ON-SITE reconstruction of the shooting angles and measurements that was performed by the Warren Commission and FBI from the exact window from which shots were fired at President Kennedy, then your calculations and measurements are always going to take a back seat to the WC's conclusions about the angles and measurements, in my opinion.







David that is such nonsense. When making the trajectory projections Shanneyfelt did not use the Robert Frazier position, which very closely modeled how the Oswald gunman would have fired. Instead Frazier was sent to the Zapruder pedestal who direct while he Shanneyfelt used the Camera gun. The WC trajectories derive from the camera gun, which has no reality to how the gunman, be it Oswald or not, would have been positioned to fire.

Do you really support and agree that the Shanneyfelt trajectories represent how the Oswald gunman would have been firing.

The problem, with all due respect, is that the Shanneyfelt trajectories are nonsense. His position bears no reality to the Oswald position.

And your point is that this kind of recreation represents quality in recreating what happened on that day. Well that is not my opinion.

James, what methods are you utilizing to try and prove the WC wrong? I hope photogrammetry is involved. Otherwise, you've got major problems (if, that is, you're attempting to extract 3D information from two-dimensional photographs, which cannot be accomplished without photogrammetry being used).







I have created a scaled model of Dealey Plaza using Cinema 4D. I also have a perfectly scaled model of the JFK car. I have been doing some trajectories these last few days and have been astonished at the accuracy of the model. Ratioing figures for 222 and 225 I have been able to generate a distance figure for 223/4 which I calculate at 190.2ft from the Oswald window to JFK’s back. To be honest I had expected my model to be out. It was not the same. That was replicated at 230 + 236 + 313. I am pleased that I agree with CE 884, though I am also astonished. And this is why I query these trajectory angles, because I am not getting those angles.

Unlike Dale Myers who used closed models I am using anatomical models. Yes I have lost identity [ like Myers had ] but I have verification. The viewer can verify that where I state a position is, it is indeed there. With the Myers models we had to take his word that where he stated the wound was, it was indeed there. I am not suggesting Dale Myers is lying, I would not do that, but I am saying the viewer cannot verify his data.

In the last couple of weeks I have been able to establish when John Connally was wounded, and can verify it. And it was not at 223/4. And, by using anatomical models, the viewer can verify that the trajectory pointer is as described by Robert Shaw in his medical documentation.

I am aware that there are many who will dispute my findings, however by using medical models it is going to be much more difficult when verification is also part of the process

I am also able to demonstrate, from a medical 3D perspective the reality of the a theoretical bullet passing through JFK. Well actually I will be showing how it could not do so.

I am not frightened by you comments, I believe my work will cause quite a number of headaches.

James.

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...