The Education Forum

# Listen To Robert Shaw

## Recommended Posts

He pointed us in the right direction.

chris

##### Share on other sites

26 degrees on the horizontal.

That would not be the determined WC snipers position for shot #1.

Neither would it be the Elm St. physical location for shot #1.

It would be for shot #2

Now, extract the difference between the two angles =(20 degrees 12min) and match that result to CE884.

chris

##### Share on other sites

Chris what happens when you alter the orientation of CONNALLY

Face him forward maybe turned or twisted slightly to his left

Bent forward in a crouching position with his head near his knees.

What shooting location is now dictated by this trajectory?

##### Share on other sites

Since nobody was interested in "laying a foundation" down, I'll try it in this context.

The 6th floor window ledge determined to be 60.7ft high.

Move the snipers nest from the east side to the west side approx 60.7ft.

I stated the alteration zones were approx 30.25ft splits x 2 = 60.5ft. Very close to the TSBD 6th floor height.

I also informed you the Elm St slope was 3degrees 8min = 3.13 degrees

Which, when converted to "run over rise" is a change of 18.3ft horizontal to 1ft vertical.

So, 60.5ft vertical/18.3ft horizontal = 3.3ft vertical change.

Which is exactly what had been configured on the final data entries on the WC May 1964 plat. Look for the word "BACK" along with the number 3.30.

chris

P.S.

Keeping the location distances parallel to each other, is of the utmost importance for the official story to work.

Edited by Chris Davidson
##### Share on other sites

Chris what happens when you alter the orientation of CONNALLY

Face him forward maybe turned or twisted slightly to his left

Bent forward in a crouching position with his head near his knees.

What shooting location is now dictated by this trajectory?

Robert,

Are you trying to put Connally in a pre-determined position to fit a particular scenario.

If so, I'll let others determine that, (as has been done argumentatively for ages) from a film which has been altered at least at the location Connally was shot.

Math stands alone.

chris

##### Share on other sites

Since 18.3ft horizontal = 1ft vertical, I urge people to grab a copy of CE884 and apply the math to it.

The TSBD was determined to be at elevation 429.7ft at Station # 2+50.

The 2nd shot determination from the SS Dec1963/FBI Feb1964 plat was at Elevation 419.71

This would be an elevation change of (TSBD 429.70 - 419.71 Shot 2) =9.99ft

Remember, each vertical ft = 18.3 horizontal ft traveled.

So, 18.3 x 9.99ft = 182.81ft from Station # 2+50 = Station# 4+32.8 . JFK at the light post, extant Z272 is at Station# 4+35.1.

Approx 2.3ft short of the light post is where 26 degrees from the west side window will land you.

chris

##### Share on other sites

Hey Chris:

Though I don't disagree with the Kurtz statement that Robert Shaw measured the downward angle of the bullet that transited Connally's chest possessed a back to front pathway of "25 degrees +/- degrees", for this is taken directly from Shaw's Warren Commission testimony session of April 21, 1964, and I will further agree with Kurtz and others that this same missile did not go through Kennedy's neck prior to contact with Connally, I cannot agree, in turn, that Robert Shaw "determined that Connally must have been struck by a bullet that was fired from an upper window at the west end of the TSBD," for as far as I can ascertain/remember Shaw never pinpointed a precise location for the shooter responsible for Connally's wounding; if I am wrong on this, I hope someone will enlighten me. Now that is not to say that I do not find the concept that a shot, or shots, were fired from the west end of the TSBD untenable, for I do not. As you are undoubtedly aware, I, like you, was one of those fortunate enough to have acquired from Tom Purvis the Robert West survey materials, including the actual "true" sized survey sheets. In that regard, I must tell you that you are the one person who has enabled me to better understand just what transpired with these documents and the WC reconstructions in general. As I indicated to Tom some time ago, I believe I know just which WC counsel was directly responsible for the "mathematics" behind the eventual Commission reconstruction conclusions, and it wasn't Arlen Specter, though there is no doubt that he conspired in conjunction with this fellow lawyer to make sure that the Commission solution "fit" the window of the crime, as it were.

Gary

##### Share on other sites

Since nobody was interested in "laying a foundation" down, I'll try it in this context.

The 6th floor window ledge determined to be 60.7ft high.

Move the snipers nest from the east side to the west side approx 60.7ft.

I stated the alteration zones were approx 30.25ft splits x 2 = 60.5ft. Very close to the TSBD 6th floor height.

I also informed you the Elm St slope was 3degrees 8min = 3.13 degrees

Which, when converted to "run over rise" is a change of 18.3ft horizontal to 1ft vertical.

So, 60.5ft vertical/18.3ft horizontal = 3.3ft vertical change.

Which is exactly what had been configured on the final data entries on the WC May 1964 plat. Look for the word "BACK" along with the number 3.30.

chris

P.S.

Keeping the location distances parallel to each other, is of the utmost importance for the official story to work.

The TSBD 6th floor was set at 60.7ft.

The 2nd shot labeled on the SS/FBI plat is a 9.99ft elevation change from the TSBD 6th floor window.

Together, that is a height of 70.69ft.

If I reduce that by 3.3ft vertical (60.5ft horizontal change), it leaves me at 67.39ft.

At 26degrees, this converts to a slant distance of 153.72ft.

If I keep the same 60.7ft height and apply a 26degree angle to it, the slant distance is 138.46ft.

This matches the CE884 entry for frame 171.

Frame 171 at 138.46ft slant distance +60.5ft horizontal change = 198.7ft = Z235.

Which, I believe ,was another alternative location for Connally's back wound.

The difference between 153.72ft and 138.46 = 15.26ft= Distance from "JFK in the car" to the "limo front end", and the 15.5ft distance the WC used as their starting measuring point Station C, which was placed 15.5ft prior to the street alignment of the snipers nest.

chris

Edited by Chris Davidson
##### Share on other sites

Hey Chris:

Though I don't disagree with the Kurtz statement that Robert Shaw measured the downward angle of the bullet that transited Connally's chest possessed a back to front pathway of "25 degrees +/- degrees", for this is taken directly from Shaw's Warren Commission testimony session of April 21, 1964, and I will further agree with Kurtz and others that this same missile did not go through Kennedy's neck prior to contact with Connally, I cannot agree, in turn, that Robert Shaw "determined that Connally must have been struck by a bullet that was fired from an upper window at the west end of the TSBD," for as far as I can ascertain/remember Shaw never pinpointed a precise location for the shooter responsible for Connally's wounding; if I am wrong on this, I hope someone will enlighten me. Now that is not to say that I do not find the concept that a shot, or shots, were fired from the west end of the TSBD untenable, for I do not. As you are undoubtedly aware, I, like you, was one of those fortunate enough to have acquired from Tom Purvis the Robert West survey materials, including the actual "true" sized survey sheets. In that regard, I must tell you that you are the one person who has enabled me to better understand just what transpired with these documents and the WC reconstructions in general. As I indicated to Tom some time ago, I believe I know just which WC counsel was directly responsible for the "mathematics" behind the eventual Commission reconstruction conclusions, and it wasn't Arlen Specter, though there is no doubt that he conspired in conjunction with this fellow lawyer to make sure that the Commission solution "fit" the window of the crime, as it were.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I'll try and locate the Shaw quote source. I had it last night,but didn't save it. That source being the reason I used 26 degrees, instead of 25 listed by Kurtz. If it turns out it was a 2nd party quote, I'll apologize/correct that.

As you stated, without any of this material from Tom Purvis, I never would've pursued this line of research.

Keep me honest, but these numbers do not lie and tell much of what the WC used to fool us and make it all sync.

chris

##### Share on other sites

Chris;

No apology necessary; actually 26 degrees is the "average" you will arrive at if you take the two April 21, 1964 Shaw caliper measurements - 25 degrees with Connally seated and 27 degrees with Connally standing - and divide by 2 [ i.e. 25+27= 52/2 = 26]; perhaps the source you quoted used this method [Kurtz?]. And in the event anyone misinterpreted my last posting, I do agree that the west end of the TSBD is a potential and viable source of shot.

Gary

##### Share on other sites

The elevation fudging of 3.3ft in terms of a previous shot (shot1) would look like this:

Connally shot 2 location = 9.99ft elev change from the east side TSBD snipers nest.

9.99ft -3.3ft( WC fudge factor) = 6.69ft elevation change.

6.69ft vertical x 18.3ft horizontal = 122.42ft

Carried out from the east snipers nest = Station# 2+50 + 122.42ft = Station# 372+4.

That lands between extant Z207/208.

Robert West indépendant measurements, using 163.65ft as the triangle base distance, confirms the 174ft slant distance entry in CE884 assigned to shot1. The corrected Time/Life reenactment by Robert West was a slant distance of 174.53ft.

chris

##### Share on other sites

In CE884,did you ever wonder why there was such a large frame span between the last two entries, 255-313?

The WC could have used the light post as a stationary measuring marker.

A few feet short of the light post is where 26 degrees/TSBD westend plots for shot 2.

Where do you suppose footage of the Nix and Muchmore films begin syncing with Z, in relation to the light post? Just after this location.

It would be a good spot for film altering.

chris

##### Share on other sites

Hey Chris:

Though I don't disagree with the Kurtz statement that Robert Shaw measured the downward angle of the bullet that transited Connally's chest possessed a back to front pathway of "25 degrees +/- degrees", for this is taken directly from Shaw's Warren Commission testimony session of April 21, 1964, and I will further agree with Kurtz and others that this same missile did not go through Kennedy's neck prior to contact with Connally, I cannot agree, in turn, that Robert Shaw "determined that Connally must have been struck by a bullet that was fired from an upper window at the west end of the TSBD," for as far as I can ascertain/remember Shaw never pinpointed a precise location for the shooter responsible for Connally's wounding; if I am wrong on this, I hope someone will enlighten me. Now that is not to say that I do not find the concept that a shot, or shots, were fired from the west end of the TSBD untenable, for I do not. As you are undoubtedly aware, I, like you, was one of those fortunate enough to have acquired from Tom Purvis the Robert West survey materials, including the actual "true" sized survey sheets. In that regard, I must tell you that you are the one person who has enabled me to better understand just what transpired with these documents and the WC reconstructions in general. As I indicated to Tom some time ago, I believe I know just which WC counsel was directly responsible for the "mathematics" behind the eventual Commission reconstruction conclusions, and it wasn't Arlen Specter, though there is no doubt that he conspired in conjunction with this fellow lawyer to make sure that the Commission solution "fit" the window of the crime, as it were.

Gary

Was it Belin? I re-read some of Belin's comments lately, and it appeared he was taking more credit for the SBT than was commonly recognized.

##### Share on other sites

Hi Pat:

Actually Pat, it is someone whom you discuss in your chapter 3, "Looking Through Specter's Eyes" - Commission Counsel, Melvin Eisenberg. If you like, I can send you my reasoning/research behind this contention as it comprises a lengthy portion of one chapter of my Connally work; just let me know.

Gary

##### Share on other sites

Hey Chris:

Though I don't disagree with the Kurtz statement that Robert Shaw measured the downward angle of the bullet that transited Connally's chest possessed a back to front pathway of "25 degrees +/- degrees", for this is taken directly from Shaw's Warren Commission testimony session of April 21, 1964, and I will further agree with Kurtz and others that this same missile did not go through Kennedy's neck prior to contact with Connally, I cannot agree, in turn, that Robert Shaw "determined that Connally must have been struck by a bullet that was fired from an upper window at the west end of the TSBD," for as far as I can ascertain/remember Shaw never pinpointed a precise location for the shooter responsible for Connally's wounding; if I am wrong on this, I hope someone will enlighten me. Now that is not to say that I do not find the concept that a shot, or shots, were fired from the west end of the TSBD untenable, for I do not. As you are undoubtedly aware, I, like you, was one of those fortunate enough to have acquired from Tom Purvis the Robert West survey materials, including the actual "true" sized survey sheets. In that regard, I must tell you that you are the one person who has enabled me to better understand just what transpired with these documents and the WC reconstructions in general. As I indicated to Tom some time ago, I believe I know just which WC counsel was directly responsible for the "mathematics" behind the eventual Commission reconstruction conclusions, and it wasn't Arlen Specter, though there is no doubt that he conspired in conjunction with this fellow lawyer to make sure that the Commission solution "fit" the window of the crime, as it were.

Gary

Gary,

It would appear that the whole Shaneyfelt snafu trying to move the extant313 location 24.5ft eastward back up Elm St, to roll 2 shots into one(Connally back/Extant 313) can be explained this way.

The 207 shot is at Station# 3+72.4 using the elevation equation 18.3horz/1vert.

The 207 location from CE884 is 3+71.1

The SS determined location for shot1on the SS/FBI plat is 3+81.3

That approx 10ft difference is what Shaneyfelt encountered down the street when dealing with the station# 419.07 and 419.71 mixup.

In other words,

Real shot at Robert West base measurement of 163.65 directly underneath the 6th floor window out to Elm St. = Z207 on extant film.

SS moved 1st shot location 10ft west . This has to be taken into account for the Connally shot at Station# 4+32.8, which when moved in sync with the 207 reposition, 10ft farther west,

the location = Station# 4+42.8.

The SS determined the extant 313 headshot at 4+66.7 - 24.5ft = 4+42.2 which is approx 6 inches to things syncing.

If one will look at the elevation distance between the real Z207 (3+72.4) determined shot location and the real Connally back location connected to 26degrees horizontal = (4+32.8) a difference of 60.4ft is encountered. This keeps the shift from east window to west window moving down Elm St in sync.

chris

P.S.

This is another area where I disagreed with the scenario Tom had put forth.