When was this image taken?

[David Von Pein]

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

Thank you.

When making the trajectory projections Shanneyfelt [sic] 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[ed] 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.

Huh? You surely aren't suggesting that the WC's "Sniper's Nest To Street" angles were derived while standing on Zapruder's pedestal, are you?

Edited March 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robin Unger]

James

FWIW

I believe Chris Davidson did quite a bit of research with Tom Purvis regarding the west surveys

Also FWIW

Tom Purvis marked up these images for me, you may find them usefull at some stage.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Robin Unger

[James R Gordon]




Huh? You surely aren't suggesting that the WC's "Sniper's Nest To Street" angles were derived while standing on Zapruder's pedestal, are you?

David,

I put the above quote down to the fact that did not properly read what I said. I certainly did not say that. What I did say was as follows:-

“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.”

I made clear that Shanneyfelt was in the 6^th floor window creating the data while Frazier was on the pedestal assisting the process. It is especially gauling because Frazier, when he had been in the sixth floor, had created a realistic gunman position and his angles would have been more realistic.

Instead we have Shanneyfelt as seen below.

Are you suggesting that, that is how the gunman fired the shots that day. I certainly do not think so.

However a more serious point is that in an earlier post you posted images from the camera gun. With that image was the angle of the gun to JFK. That angle is derived from that gun’s position and elevation. Yet, we are informed that say at Z 225 the said angle is 20º 11’. If the camera gun is in the wrong position, how can the angle derived from that frame be any more correct?

These angles are only correct if you are arguing that the Shanneyfelt position is also the Oswald position.

The angles back to the rifle were created by Robert West from the street and plotted on his various charts. They are o.k. It is the Shanneyfelt angles that are the problem.

If I am not mistaken the window is opened far higher than it was that day. Of course it is clear why: it was to get the camera gun to work.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Thanks Robin for the images.

You are quite right Chris Davidson did indeed work with Tom.

James

[David Von Pein]

I made clear that Shanneyfelt [sic] was in the 6th floor window creating the data while Frazier was on the pedestal assisting the process. It is especially gauling because Frazier, when he had been in the sixth floor, had created a realistic gunman position and his angles would have been more realistic.

Instead we have Shanneyfelt [sic] as seen below.

Are you suggesting that that is how the gunman fired the shots that day. I certainly do not think so.

Why not? Shaneyfelt's position as he's holding the camera gun is pretty close to what a real gunman's posture would be when firing on a car on the street below -- i.e., rifle muzzle aimed at the car below; gunman looking through the telescope or looking down the barrel through the open iron sights (which is quite possibly how Oswald shot Kennedy after missing with his first shot and then switching to the iron sights for shots 2 and 3).

How much different would you expect ANY gunman's posture and positioning of the rifle to be when compared with Shaneyfelt's position?

Oswald's exact posture and position in the Sniper's Nest when he shot the President can never be known with 100% certainty, of course. But it seems to me that the key aspect on this point is this one---

Is the muzzle of the gun in a position where a shot from that gun could have struck JFK at the various Z-Film frames that were re-enacted (Z207, Z225, Z313, etc.)? And the answer to that question is Yes, unless you want to call the WC and FBI complete and outright liars, as many conspiracy theorists do, of course (but I'm not travelling down that path).

BTW, yes, I did misinterpret your previous post, James. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that Shaneyfelt was standing on Zapruder's pedestal while making his trajectory calculations. My error. Sorry.

These angles are only correct if you are arguing that the Shaneyfelt position is also the Oswald position.

Give or take a very small degree of angularity, yes, I think Shaneyfelt's position is just about right. Again, I think it's pretty much GOT to be right just based on the simple fact that if it wasn't right, then the muzzle of Shaneyfelt's camera gun would not be fixed on the proper targets of JFK's upper back and head at the proper times (Z210-225 and Z313). And how could ANY gunman (Oswald or otherwise) have been in a substantially different posture while also making sure the muzzle of the gun was in line to hit his target on the street below?

Can you see what I'm driving at?

And you surely have got to admit that at least ONE bullet fired from that sixth-floor window (from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) did, indeed, find its way into JFK's car on 11/22/63. Right, James? I mean, CE567/569 provide the proof of that fact beyond all possible doubt, wouldn't you agree? Plus there are the three bullet shells from Oswald's gun right underneath the window.

Therefore, somebody was firing Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle from that Sniper's Nest window on Nov. 22. That's a virtual certainty. And that "somebody" must have had that gun pointed in a very similar manner (toward the car with JFK in it) to what we see in the Shaneyfelt photograph.

If I am not mistaken the window is opened far higher than it was that day. Of course it is clear why: it was to get the camera gun to work.

I wouldn't say the window is open "far higher" in the Shaneyfelt picture than it was on November 22. In the montage I prepared below, it seems that the window heights are pretty close to being the same, with the Shaneyfelt window being open perhaps a tad more than in the Dillard photo taken on 11/22. But keep in mind the severe angle of the Dillard picture is quite possibly making the window look not quite as high as it really was.

The other photo is a still from Mark Bell's film, where the angle isn't as steep. It's kind of hard to tell whether Shaneyfelt has got the window open too far or not. But I will say this: we can easily see that even if the Shaneyfelt window is open too far, there is still ample space between the camera gun and the bottom of the open window pane. That is to say, even if the window were to be lowered by a few more inches, there would still have been enough open window space for Oswald to shoot from without the window hindering his shooting:

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

O.k. It looks as if the window is reasonably the same.

It is true, that we may never know exactly what position the Oswald gunman was positioned. However the gunman did leave clues, with the arrangement of boxes by the window. Tradition has held that the boxes around the window were created to hide his presence. However were he positioned as Shanneyfelt is position it is not certain he would be disguised any longer.

David your idea that the angle has "got to be right", is grasping at straws. As you observe the gun does line up with its trajectory target. But the target in this case is in a different car, that I believe sits higher that the Lincoln. The seats on the Queen Mary are also higher and hence the stand in, that we are assuming is 72.5 inches tall, is clearly seated higher than JFK was seated. So, to put it simply, the point that the WC are trying to suggest is that:-

a) a different car that is taller that the Lincoln

a stand in seated higher than JFK was seated

c) a gun that is being fired from a different position

That all of that does not matter because they have calculated into the equation a 10 inch difference. They have already accounted for these differences. Tom Purves' point is that given the differences between the Lincoln and the Queen Mary as well as the position of the seats therein is greater than the 10 inches that that have been written into the calculation.

From my early work on the two cars and the relative position of the occupants, suggest that the difference is indeed greater. And if I am right that is something that does matter.

You appear to suggest that a small angular difference will not affect the conclusions. Well there you are wrong. A small angular difference will make all the difference in he world. The Shanneyfelt angles are based on the assumption that the differences that have been accounted for between the two cars has been taken into account. However, if I fact their calculations between the two cars and their occupants is wrong - and it is looking like that to me - then that changes everything.

There is a pertinent difference between me and Dale Myers. It appears his model was built to support the SBT. If I remember right in his calculations he used the Shanneyfelt values. Yes I certainly am out to undermine the SBT, but essentially I am following where the evidence leads.

In this case, the evidence leads me to believe that although the distance values are o.k the trajectory angles have got to be wrong. The pertinent point is not does the trajectory strike the target in the right place. The pertinent point is if, as it is beginning to appear to me, the comparative height of JFK and the stand in is wrong then whether it strikes the stand in the correct position is not the point. if the angles are wrong and the stand in is wrong, the whole case is wrong.

James

[David G. Healy]

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 24^th, 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.

I suspect you've just sent a wake up call to Dale *see my EMMY* Myers, which mean D.Von Pein is trying to figure out what this all means, which means Craig Lampoon Lamson is making a phone call to Gary Mack and Dr. Tink Thompson..... and the beat goes on....

Good Luck James Gordon... I for one await your test results.

David Healy

[David Von Pein]

Yes, James, it would have been better if JFK's SS-100-X limo could have been used on 5/24/64 for the re-enactment. But, as previously stated, the Warren Commission was very clear to point out in the Warren Report that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between JFK's limo and the Queen Mary car that subbed for it during the reconstruction. Is that just a lie, James?

I think now might be a good time to put forth a little bit of ordinary common sense and logic (apart from the topic of the WC's re-enactment):

1.) JFK was hit by a bullet in his upper back.

2.) John Connally was hit by a bullet is his upper back too.

3.) No bullets were found in JFK's back and neck regions.

4.) The Zapruder Film makes it clear that JFK & JBC are reacting at the same time to bullet injuries or (at the very least) they are reacting within a short enough time period that would prohibit a gunman using Oswald's Carcano rifle from firing two separate bullets into the two victims within that short timeframe.

Don't any conspiracy theorists think the above 4 points of absolute fact are mighty strange if the Single-Bullet Theory is not true?

IOW -- Wasn't it amazing for TWO separate gunmen to be able to perform that incredible "SBT"-like magic on TWO different victims in Dealey Plaza?

The fact that the SBT could be proposed at all if it is truly the impossible fairy tale theory that almost all conspiracy theorists believe it to be is possibly the most amazing "miracle" of this whole murder case.

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Edited March 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]




Yes, James, it would have been better if JFK's SS-100-X limo could have been used on 5/24/64 for the re-enactment. But, as previously stated, the Warren Commission was very clear to point out in the Warren Report that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between JFK's limo and the Queen Mary car that subbed for it during the reconstruction. Is that just a lie, James?




David,

First, I prefer not to use pejorative terms. As I have commented I respect your grasp of the literature of the assassination, but there are times I am a little disappointed in your responses. You are excellent at reporting what the Commission state, but have you ever researched what they say.

Until a few weeks ago CE 884 [ the listing of all the trajectory data ] and CE 896 [ the camera gun shots ], some of which you posted, were my bible. They were the tools I used to check my model. I always found I was in agreement on the distance from the Oswald window, but never could agree with the angles. I always assumed it was an error on my part, and put it aside to come back to later. Now I have very grave doubts about this data. Reading Tom Purves’s narrative of his conversations with Robert West and examining Robert West survey notes are raising concerns on my part.

I now know why my angles do not agree, it is because my trajectory lines go back to where the Oswald shooter would actually be, as opposed to the where the camera gun is. It is clear to me that these camera gun angles are wrong, they are not the angles that would have been created had the Oswald position been the point of the survey. I do not know, at the moment, what implication that has for the Commission.

One difference between you and me is that, although, at one time we both had confidence in this material I have changed as a consequence of analyzing the data. You appear to prefer to report the data. This is not intended as an insult, but you really do not know whether the data is right or wrong. You take on trust that it is right. I once thought it was right, I now know the trajectory angles have to be wrong and I now know why.

There is another problem, which I believe may be even more serious. You replied above that the Commission took into account the differences between the two cars when they undertook the re-enactment.

I don’t think they actually did. The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not completed this, and there could be errors in my workings but here are the reasons I suggest there is a problem with the use of the Queen Mary.

1) It appears to me that the Queen Mary from ground to door height is 52.2 inches.

2) From my diecast version I make the height of the Kennedy car to the door height 40.5 inches.

3) I calculate the height of the top of the head of the stand in to be 28.2 inches above the level of the door height of the Queen Mary.

4) Taking the Towner image it appears that the top JFK’s head was 17.5 inches above the height of the door.

So what is the problem? It is this.

There appears to be 13.7 inch difference between the height of both cars.

If JFK is, indeed 17.5 inches above the height of the door, then he is 3.8 inches above the height of the height of the Queen Mary sides doors.

As pointed out the stand in is 28.2 inches above the height of the side door, so if we take the 3.8 inches remaining off that we are left with 24.4 inches.

Now the Commission said they took 10 inches off to account for the difference. That means they are still out by 14.4 inches.

Put simply, even taking their concession of 10 inches they are still out.

Now this makes sense.

We know the Queen Mary was taller that the Kennedy car.

We know that the back seat in the Kennedy car was lower.

We know that the back seat in the Queen Mary was higher.

What is in dispute is whether the difference is 10 inches.

These calculations come from only one Queen Mary picture. I am going to apply the process to a number of Queen Mary images. If I get similar results from the other images I will know I am right and I will know the Commission is wrong.

And one final point. If my calculations are on the right track then it may well be established that the spot to mark the back wound on the stand in, would actually have gone over JFK’s head…..had it been him in his car in that position at that time.




I think now might be a good time to put forth a little bit of ordinary common sense and logic (apart from the topic of the WC's re-enactment):



1.) JFK was hit by a bullet in his upper back.



2.) John Connally was hit by a bullet is his upper back too.



3.) No bullets were found in JFK's back and neck regions.



4.) The Zapruder Film makes it clear that JFK & JBC are reacting at the same time to bullet injuries or (at the very least) they are reacting within a short enough time period that would prohibit a gunman using Oswald's Carcano rifle from firing two separate bullets into the two victims within that short timeframe.



And you call this “common sense”? You and I have discussed before the medical problems of the Single Bullet Theory. I am not going to bore everybody going back over this material. One reason I obtained anatomical models for my project was to demonstrate in 3D just how ludicrous such an idea is.

What disappoints me is your lack of enquiry. Yes that is what the Commission state, but have you ever looked at the rationale behind such a concept? I am not asking you to change your views or opinions, but have you enquired into the rationale of what you advocate?

One little point from the project. Connally was not wounded at Z 223/4, he received his first wound at Z 230. Nor was it the Oswald window, it was the West window.

I am not going into all the details, that is for my presentation in April, but how I can be so precise and accurate is because my trajectory point runs down his fifth rib. It is a matter of positioning the model as we see in Z 230 and running the pointer. Unlike Dale Myers model my trajectory pointer runs down the actual wound. Thereafter it is a matter of finding at which point such a trajectory returns a positive response. And that took quite a few weeks.

And another tit bit. When I started my project I assumed that the Connally wound could only be acquired from one location. Actually I was wrong, a number of Z frames returned positive answers…. not necessarily to the TSBD. Then it becomes an analysis problem. Analyzing in the light of all the other evidence which moment is the most likely and what is it in the evidence that suggests that this frame was more likely that another. And that is a matter of analyzing and rationalizing: but it is being carried out through evidence and not reported theory.

The only two frames that did not return a positive response was 297 [ and I am not going into details why I Iooked there ] and 223/4.

And yes this conclusion means there was more than one gunman. But that is not my problem.




Don't any conspiracy theorists think the above 4 points of absolute fact are mighty strange if the Single-Bullet Theory is not true?

IOW -- Wasn't it amazing for TWO separate gunmen to be able to perform that incredible "SBT"-like magic on TWO different victims in Dealey Plaza?

The fact that the SBT could be proposed at all if it is truly the impossible fairy tale theory that almost all conspiracy theorists believe it to be is possibly the most amazing "miracle" of this whole murder case.

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com


The flaw in your argument is that you insist that both men were wounded at the same time. When I examine this Single Bullet Theory, as I will be doing with 3D anatomical models, the difference between reality and theory will become very evident.

I find it something of a disappointment that the above quote is mostly taunting me, as opposed to arguing your position.

You pointed out a number of questions you thought were relevant to your position, and in turn would weaken mine. Let me return the gift.

Lets assume the Single Bullet Theory is indeed reality.

a) The general opinion for the modern interpreters is that the bullet entered at T1 or just below T1. Problem one. The bullet is about 3 – 4 inches below Trachea rings 3&4. If the shot is a downward created on a downward trajectory angle how is the bullet is able to rise up to the trachea?

The entrance is around 1.5 inches right of the spine. From that position this is no direct route to the throat. Problem two. The height problem is just one problem, now the bullet is faced with having to go through the vertebras. There is no other option open to it. The position of the entry wound and the position of the vertebras in the human body conflict. So how does the bullet get over that problem?

And these are just two of the problems that face the bullet.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Post deleted.

In reading Robert West's survey material I see how the corrections were computed into the figures.

There are still concerns i have with CE 884, but the essential points made in this post were in error.

Apologies.

James

Edited March 7, 2013 by James R Gordon

[David Von Pein]

What disappoints me is your lack of enquiry. .... I am not asking you to change your views or opinions, but have you enquired into the rationale of what you advocate?

I really do think regular ol' common sense and logic is the way to look at the SBT and the wounding of the two victims, who were each struck in their UPPER BACKS at the same time (or, at the very least, VIRTUALLY the same time, via a study of the Zapruder Film).

All of your trajectory analysis and placement of the wounds are fine for you to want to get right and precise and perfect. But CAN you accomplish that "precise and perfect" task with the data we have available from the official records?

I'm not too sure you (or anyone) can fine-tune the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally to the level you seem to think can be accomplished. And one of the biggest reasons I say that is because it is virtually impossible for anyone to say with 100% confidence and certainty what the precise and exact positions of the two victims were in relation to each other. And it's also virtually impossible, via any reconstruction, to pinpoint with absolute precision the exact position of JFK and Connally individually when they were shot.

Dale Myers' computer reconstruction is, IMO, the best such re-creation ever made (to date). But even Dale's model has a 3- to 6-degree margin of error built into it (and it's Key Framed right to the Zapruder Film itself). So an EXACT replication is just about impossible given the subtle variables involved in the positioning of the victims.

Plus, an added problem, of course, is the fact that President Kennedy is actually hidden by the Stemmons sign at the exact moment when he is struck in the upper back by a bullet, which makes fine-tuning his precise position even a more futile task. Mr. Myers has, however, been able to interpolate the position of JFK while behind the sign, but I think that even Dale will tell you that the interpolation of Kennedy's position while behind the sign is, indeed, just a best guess position determined by a computer.

But when combining the best guesses of various re-creations of the SBT event -- such as: the Warren Commission's detailed reconstruction done right there at the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, and Dale Myers' computer work, and the real-life shooting test performed in 2004 in Australia by the Discovery Channel people (which is not perfect, I'll admit that fact; but, as mentioned, I doubt any re-creation ever could be "perfect") -- what I have concluded is this:

The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the best and most logical explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK and Governor Connally, far outdistancing any theory that could be used to replace it. And the two bullets entered JFK but neither exited and then got lost or stolen explanation that is believed to be true by many conspiracy theorists is a scenario that only deserves scorn (and a few laughs), because such a two-disappearing-bullets explanation is, frankly, just silly.

The flaw in your argument is that you insist that both men were wounded at the same time.

Yes, I do insist that they were wounded at the same time. And I cannot see how anyone can possibly watch the following four toggling clips a few times and still continue to insist that JFK and Connally were positively not hit at the same time (as many conspiracists do insist). Such firm denial by the conspiracy crowd on this issue (after watching these Z-Film clips) is, in my view, mindbogglingly stubborn:

Connally was not wounded at Z 223/4, he received his first wound at Z 230.

Then why is the Governor making the herky-jerky movements he is making from frames Z225 to about Z230? The shoulder "hunch"? The arm/hat "flip"? The facial distortion/grimace? The open mouth at exactly Z225? All of this stuff is being done by Connally BEFORE Z230.

If Connally has not yet been shot, then how can you, James, logically and reasonably explain these obviously involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally which are happening prior to Zapruder frame #230?

Let's watch again (and refer again also to the Z225-Z226 clip above, which shows the "arm/hat flip"):

Nor was it the Oswald window, it was the West window.

And yet, amazingly, several witnesses saw a gunman firing a rifle out of the EAST-end window, with NOBODY seeing any gunman firing any weapon from the west end of the Book Depository. Nor did anybody see any gunman anywhere PERIOD except in the southeast corner window on the TSBD's sixth floor, which perfectly matches where the "Sniper's Nest" was discovered and where three spent bullet shells from Oswald's rifle were also found.

Any claim that a gunman was firing from the WEST side of the Depository is derived purely from the imagination of the person purporting it. Because we know that any such theory is certainly not being based on the totality of known evidence in the case.

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Chris Davidson]

James,

In case you were unaware of this.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine.

Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter.

Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in.

Mr. DULLES - Thank you.

chris

[James R Gordon]

Thanks Chris.

That makes sense. I see your use of guides perfectly explains the adjustment for 10 inches.

A question. The data angles etc that we see in 884 and 896, do they refer to the marks on the stand in, or the tape mark on the car?

James

[David Josephs]

1)

First image... a simple overlay of the Altgens "recreation position" and Altgens... using the monolith as the anchor.

They are not even close

2)

If the SBT bullet hit at z223/224... how does LIFE and NPIC both tell us that a shot was not fired at z223/224?

Which of the remaining 6 frames designated would the SBT bullet hit have occurred? Otherwise we have at least 2 seperate shots (as we all understand, save a few)

3)

Finally we also know that the shot we understood as z313 was actually at 4+95 on the plat, not 4+65... 30 feet further down Elm.

James... I for one would LOVE to know what you model says about when JC was hit....

DJ

Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Von Pein]

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film.

[...]

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892.

Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

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.

Edited March 7, 2013 by David Von Pein