Jump to content
The Education Forum

Trajectories of shots and the FBI's WCD298 (WEST windows?)


Recommended Posts

Running the equation for a 3.15 degree street grade.

5.242/166.4 x 100 = .0315 (DJ: when you x100 you get a 3.15% slope, not degree)

So one might look at this and say that frame 255 is reflective of a 3.15 degree street grade.

Chris - I think I have some bad news for you...

3.15 represents the SLOPE PERCENTAGE not the degree of the slope...

the arctan* of a 3.15% slope is a 1.8 DEGREE ANGLE. Is the 3.15 refered to as a % or degrees since the formula you used is for slope %

But, the slant distance to JFK's head would be incorrect by some 25.7ft.

Please explain the 25.7 feet. (I am wroking out the rest of my understanding here... but please address my concerns

DJ

Slope Percent and Slope Angle

Slope refers to the angle, or grade, of an incline. Slope can be upward or downward. Slope is typically expressed as a percent, and corresponds to the amount of rise, or vertical distance, divided by the run, or horizontal distance. Percentage means per 100. Slope can also be expressed as an angle, which gives the amount of deviation from flat as a number of degrees. Conversions between slope percent and slope angle can be done using a scientific calculator and the inverse tangent (arc tan) function. Essentially, the slope angle is the inverse tangent of the slope percent (with slope percent expressed in decimal).

Example 1 - The slope percent is 60 percent. What is the slope angle?

Step 1. Change 60 percent to decimal form. Sixty percent means 60 out of 100. It can be written 60/100 = 0.60. See Chapter 1.

Slope angle = inverse tan of the slope percent (in decimal)

*Slope angle = inverse tan of 0.60 (the decimal of 60%)

Step 2. Enter .6 into the calculator and push the inverse, inv, or "2nd" button, then the tan button to get the inverse tangent. The calculator will show the slope angle.

A 60 percent slope corresponds to a slope angle of 31°.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even I can follow that. The simplest is a 100% slope equalling a 45° angle. It is also known in the roofing industry as a 12/12 pitch. For every 12 units of run, there is 12 units of rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup... and he seems to have moved the 6th floor window to 60 feet above z166 on ELM...

yet the reality is that NONE OF THESE NUMBERS WORKS in matching what was seen on the Zfilm, Nix or Muchmore films...

CE884 is not even the original batch of info WEST provided in his notes (thanks to T. Purvis)

Once againwe have CRAP evidence that cannot be reconciled with the witnesses... yet the WCR tries to tell us the witnesses are wrong while the FBI is correct...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the equation for a 3.15 degree street grade.

5.242/166.4 x 100 = .0315 (DJ: when you x100 you get a 3.15% slope, not degree)

So one might look at this and say that frame 255 is reflective of a 3.15 degree street grade.

Chris - I think I have some bad news for you...

3.15 represents the SLOPE PERCENTAGE not the degree of the slope...

the arctan* of a 3.15% slope is a 1.8 DEGREE ANGLE. Is the 3.15 refered to as a % or degrees since the formula you used is for slope %

But, the slant distance to JFK's head would be incorrect by some 25.7ft.

Please explain the 25.7 feet. (I am wroking out the rest of my understanding here... but please address my concerns

DJ

Slope Percent and Slope Angle

Slope refers to the angle, or grade, of an incline. Slope can be upward or downward. Slope is typically expressed as a percent, and corresponds to the amount of rise, or vertical distance, divided by the run, or horizontal distance. Percentage means per 100. Slope can also be expressed as an angle, which gives the amount of deviation from flat as a number of degrees. Conversions between slope percent and slope angle can be done using a scientific calculator and the inverse tangent (arc tan) function. Essentially, the slope angle is the inverse tangent of the slope percent (with slope percent expressed in decimal).

Example 1 - The slope percent is 60 percent. What is the slope angle?

Step 1. Change 60 percent to decimal form. Sixty percent means 60 out of 100. It can be written 60/100 = 0.60. See Chapter 1.

Slope angle = inverse tan of the slope percent (in decimal)

*Slope angle = inverse tan of 0.60 (the decimal of 60%)

Step 2. Enter .6 into the calculator and push the inverse, inv, or "2nd" button, then the tan button to get the inverse tangent. The calculator will show the slope angle.

A 60 percent slope corresponds to a slope angle of 31°.

Hi David,

You are absolutely correct. And I apologize for mixing that up.

The bad news part is another matter.

Let me give you an example:

3.27ft vertical @103.9ft horizontal = 3.15% ratio = 1.89 degree angle or converted 1degree 53.4 minutes.

Take a look at CE884 under the column "Angle to Horizon" entries for frame 222 and 249.

The angle difference between those two frames is 1degree 51minutes.

Would one more frame added get us to 1degree 53.4 minutes? Close enough.

Simplified.

28 frames = 133-161.

What don't we have surveys for, even though that's where we see the limo on film begin.

P.S.

Remember .6 = 3/5 and the reciprocal is 5/3 = 1.667

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

*bump*

Time to bring this very important thread back into the light of day. Thanks again to Mr. Josephs and Mr. Davidson for all of their work (as confusing as I find some of it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

What if the determined "line of sight distance" for frame Z225 based on 20degrees-11iminutes actually matched the "line of sight distance" entry for frame Z210.

In other words, was somebody trying to make 1 shot gradually disappear within a 15 frame span.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

The importance of this thread cannot be overstated. It's the Achilles Heel of Hoover's FBI report on the assassination that the WC was created to 'rubber stamp' its approval of (as explained by LBJ to Hoover in the Nov 29 1963 White House phone call & also to Senator Russell in another call that week, if not the same day [sorry, I can't remember which at the moment]).

Besides the obvious question of what the heck was Hoover seeing in the z-film that we don't see to justify the 3-D model's placement of the 3 shots [the 3rd one close to the North Pergola sidewalk steps], It also brings up the question of the WC deviating from what LBJ created it to do (rubberstamp Hoover's FBI report). Who had the huevos to change what Hoover had determined & risk not only Hoover's wrath, but also that of LBJ? Someone surely got their approval to go with the SBT. It must have been done in phone calls or meetings where no record was kept; I don't recall any audio or other documentation being released addressing this question, do you?

Back in 1964, bucking Hoover often resulted in a file being started on the offender & Hoover's agents tapping phones, tailing people around, digging through their trash, breaking into their houses & offices, etc. Hoover had a file on Henry Wade.

Nothing's come out that any of the WC commissioners or their staff incurred the wrath of Hoover or LBJ by deviating from Hoover's FBI report on the assassination & WCD 298 with the SBT. Hoover knew what the WC was doing at all times; Gerald Ford was keeping Hoover informed.

Hoover's report isn't even in the WC. The SBT allowed the commissioners to sweep WCD 298 under the rug. It's incredible that WCD 298 was even published in the WC Report. The HSCA swept it even further under the rug by doing their own shot analysis.

To my way of thinking, everything starts with WCD 298. The 3D model & shot locations were the product of the re-enactment filming & surveying (aided by the unseen by the public Z-film) performed the week after the assassination and the 1st week of December 1963. Life magazine was supporting Hoover's 3rd shot placement (by the steps) in its Nov 29, 1963 issue that introduced the fuzzy, black & white Zapruder frames to the world for the first time. Pat Speer lays out a really good timeline of these events at his website. None of that should be swept under the rug; the focus should stay on WCD 298 in my opinion & why Hoover determined what he visually depicted in the 3D model presented in WCD 298 & determined in Hoover's FBI report. To many, Hoover's FBI report & WCD 298 indicate Hoover was lying about the ambush from the get go & throws the 'hard evidence' under an umbrella of suspicion.

Chris, I wish you'd put up some videos up at YouTube using a blackboard & a pointer to explain your research for math dummies like me. The only reason I made it through High School was because girls smart in math helped me. If not for them, I'd still be back there (LOL).

Best,

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to slip one more thing into the thread that is important for the visitors reading the research analysis to keep in mind & not forget: there is no SS follow-up car tailgating JFK's parade car in the initial analysis. Not in the filmed re-enactments from several places outside the TSBD & from the sniper's nest looking down at both Houston & Elm Streets. Not in the survey work. Missing from the last two shots in WCD 298.

As a result of presenting JFK's car as a solo target on Elm Street (when in fact it had a car full of agents immediately behind it, 4 agents standing on running boards) one cannot tell if there was a line of sight blockage problem with the guards & their car missing from the analysis.

This slick omission went unnoticed for decades & was repeated in almost all TV & computer re-enactments ever since. The few exceptions have the SS follow-up car positioned much further back from JFK's limo than it was during the attack & do not show the viewer what a line of sight from the sniper's nest looked like with the agents & their car positioned historically correct. More snake oil.

To a high school or college student trying to demonstrate the shooting from the sniper's nest line of sight, there are no visuals that are historically accurate for them to work with because the Government of that era & MSM did not make such visuals available.

The SS car & agents do not appear in WCD 298 at the 2nd & 3rd shot locations, preventing a viewer from determining from the appropriate string if the SS agents and/or their car presented a line of sight blockage to a TSBD sniper's nest shooter. Even more snake oil.

Any TV special, movie film or computer animation re-enactment of JFK's ambush that omits the SS guards & their transport vehicle tailgating JFK's limo during the attack on his life are deceptions (kinda like a dishonest used car salesman focusing one's attention on the upholstery & killer sound system & not the leaking transmission about to fall out of the drive train).

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad, the WC executive session transcripts from December '63 and January '64 reveal that they weren't impressed with the FBI's report, and thought it raised more questions than it answered. While they were wary of going up against Hoover, they nevertheless authorized their staff to re-investigate things such as the shot sequence and medical evidence. I have a lot on this in chapters 1 through 3b of my website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat,

Besides the Education Forum, I consider your website the ultimate online source for the JFK assassination & strongly urge all interested in the case to bookmark it & absorb each chapter regularly. Nothing I've seen on the Internet comes close to Pat's work IMHO. For dinosaurs like me that were alive during the time of the assassination & aftermath that didn't fully understand what was happening behind the scenes, Pat's chronology & timeline of the initial re-enactments plus the media coverage of it is invaluable to understanding the full story of JFK's death that won't be found elsewhere with the detail Pat's put into it. I doubt any library existed then (or now) that offers the extensive media coverage documentation that Pat's website offers. There's new info to be learned from Mr. Speer that could have been initially missed globally by many.

A explanation of the power J. Edgar Hoover possessed & how he used it early in his long career can be found in this brief run down of Hoover's participation in the ambush of Bonnie & Clyde:

The details section of the video explains that it was Hoover's agents feeding info on their whereabouts that enabled the posse tracking down the infamous crime duo & their gang that led to their demise. Hoover was after the gang not for the robberies they committed & the deaths they caused, but for the cars Clyde & his gang stole & drove across state lines. Ironically, the stolen Ford B&C were attacked & killed in belonged to a woman named Ruth Warren. The names Warren & Hoover would cross paths again following the ambush of President Kennedy & execution of DPD Officer Tippit.

It may surprise some that Bill Decker ("hold everything secure") was involved in the story too.

The ambush of Bonnie & Clyde was a conspiracy to murder, not capture the duo. The 1st of the 2 posses that eventually combined into one was led by ex-Texas Ranger Frank Hamer. The Texas Governor at the time hired Hamer for the exclusive purpose of executing B&C when they were located. Hamer was also authorized by the Texas Governor to keep Bonnie & Clyde's guns & anything else he found on them once they had been killed. Due process was not an option for B&C.

Pat Speer's website can be found here:

http://www.patspeer.com

IMHO, bucking Hoover during the tenure of the WC = seriously big huevos (especially when considering what tight friends Hoover & LBJ were). To me, it demonstrates that Earl Warren was not intimidated by Hoover or LBJ to deviate from Hoover's report on the assassination & the visual conclusions of WCD 298 & go on to produce a report that has repeatedly been proven to be wrong in its conclusions concerning Lee Oswald & failing to provide a reasonable & accurate explanation of what happened to JFK that resulted in his death 51 years ago.

BM

edited to correct typos & add stuff I forgot to mention

Edited by Brad Milch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of this thread cannot be overstated. It's the Achilles Heel of Hoover's FBI report on the assassination that the WC was created to 'rubber stamp' its approval of (as explained by LBJ to Hoover in the Nov 29 1963 White House phone call & also to Senator Russell in another call that week, if not the same day [sorry, I can't remember which at the moment]).

Besides the obvious question of what the heck was Hoover seeing in the z-film that we don't see to justify the 3-D model's placement of the 3 shots [the 3rd one close to the North Pergola sidewalk steps], It also brings up the question of the WC deviating from what LBJ created it to do (rubberstamp Hoover's FBI report). Who had the huevos to change what Hoover had determined & risk not only Hoover's wrath, but also that of LBJ? Someone surely got their approval to go with the SBT. It must have been done in phone calls or meetings where no record was kept; I don't recall any audio or other documentation being released addressing this question, do you?

Back in 1964, bucking Hoover often resulted in a file being started on the offender & Hoover's agents tapping phones, tailing people around, digging through their trash, breaking into their houses & offices, etc. Nothing's come out that Hoover put any of the WC or its staff though any of that, so Hoover & LBJ must have known about the big change on what occurred in the ambush & approved it, doncha think? To fail to get Hoover & LBJ's blessing makes Hoover's report appear incompetent or fraudulent. Doesn't make LBJ look too good either.

Hoover's report isn't even in the WC. The SBT allowed the commissioners to sweep WCD 298 under the rug. It's incredible that it was even published in the WC Report. The HSCA swept it even further under the rug by doing their own shot analysis.

To my way of thinking, everything starts here with WCD 298. The 3D model & shot locations were the product of the re-enactment filming & surveying (aided by the unseen by the public Z-film) performed the week after the assassination and the 1st week of December 1963. Life magazine was supporting Hoover's 3rd shot placement (by the steps) in its Nov 29, 1963 issue that introduced the fuzzy, black & white Zapruder frames to the world for the first time. Pat Speer lays out a really good timeline of events at his website.

Chris, I wish you'd put up some videos up at YouTube using a blackboard & a pointer for dummies like me. You already know how dumb I am when it comes to math (I failed Calculus 3 times in college). At times my head feels like it's about to explode when trying to stay up with you [sniffles.... turns into weeping]....

I'd have commented sooner, but I finally got caught up to where everyone else is the awesome Prayer Man thread.

Best,

BM

http://www10.zippyshare.com/v/HqzImRLR/file.html

Brad,

I'm more inclined to agree with Dr.Shaw that the "all in one" Connally wound came from the west end of the TSBD. Along the line of the photos provided.

Not necessarily when "on the Zfilm" as Shaw determined.

No Queen Mary obstacles. No JFK obstacle. Downward angle more realistic. imo

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The importance of this thread cannot be overstated. It's the Achilles Heel of Hoover's FBI report on the assassination that the WC was created to 'rubber stamp' its approval of (as explained by LBJ to Hoover in the Nov 29 1963 White House phone call & also to Senator Russell in another call that week, if not the same day [sorry, I can't remember which at the moment]).

Besides the obvious question of what the heck was Hoover seeing in the z-film that we don't see to justify the 3-D model's placement of the 3 shots [the 3rd one close to the North Pergola sidewalk steps], It also brings up the question of the WC deviating from what LBJ created it to do (rubberstamp Hoover's FBI report). Who had the huevos to change what Hoover had determined & risk not only Hoover's wrath, but also that of LBJ? Someone surely got their approval to go with the SBT. It must have been done in phone calls or meetings where no record was kept; I don't recall any audio or other documentation being released addressing this question, do you?

Back in 1964, bucking Hoover often resulted in a file being started on the offender & Hoover's agents tapping phones, tailing people around, digging through their trash, breaking into their houses & offices, etc. Nothing's come out that Hoover put any of the WC or its staff though any of that, so Hoover & LBJ must have known about the big change on what occurred in the ambush & approved it, doncha think? To fail to get Hoover & LBJ's blessing makes Hoover's report appear incompetent or fraudulent. Doesn't make LBJ look too good either.

Hoover's report isn't even in the WC. The SBT allowed the commissioners to sweep WCD 298 under the rug. It's incredible that it was even published in the WC Report. The HSCA swept it even further under the rug by doing their own shot analysis.

To my way of thinking, everything starts here with WCD 298. The 3D model & shot locations were the product of the re-enactment filming & surveying (aided by the unseen by the public Z-film) performed the week after the assassination and the 1st week of December 1963. Life magazine was supporting Hoover's 3rd shot placement (by the steps) in its Nov 29, 1963 issue that introduced the fuzzy, black & white Zapruder frames to the world for the first time. Pat Speer lays out a really good timeline of events at his website.

Chris, I wish you'd put up some videos up at YouTube using a blackboard & a pointer for dummies like me. You already know how dumb I am when it comes to math (I failed Calculus 3 times in college). At times my head feels like it's about to explode when trying to stay up with you [sniffles.... turns into weeping]....

I'd have commented sooner, but I finally got caught up to where everyone else is the awesome Prayer Man thread.

Best,

BM

http://www10.zippyshare.com/v/HqzImRLR/file.html

Brad,

I'm more inclined to agree with Dr.Shaw that the "all in one" Connally wound came from the west end of the TSBD. Along the line of the photos provided.

Not necessarily when "on the Zfilm" as Shaw determined.

No Queen Mary obstacles. No JFK obstacle. Downward angle more realistic. imo

chris

And I'm on board with you, Chris. I think the angles make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark & Chris:

I'm with the both of you. West end makes more sense for a number of reasons: less chance of being observed by spectators below, easier to quickly hide the murder weapon & get off the floor, more difficult for return fire from DPD & SS agents in Queen Mary rounding the curve at the pergola steps being among them.

The shells could easily have been moved to the sniper's nest by investigators. The rifle barrel or 'pipe looking thing' spectators reported seeing in the sniper's nest could have been a shooter that decided not to fire or perhaps a camera with a telephoto lens.

The loud discharge of rifle shots from the TSBD West end reverberating inside the TSBD would probably have been sufficient to cause ceiling paint or plaster to fall into TSBD employees hair inside the building & fool them as to the source of the shots. It falls more in line with witnesses located around the North pergola believing the shots came from behind them

West end of TSBD makes sense.

BM

Edited by Brad Milch
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...