Pat Speer Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 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 Yes, good old Melvin...the guy who wrote a memo telling the commission they should ignore Kellerman's and Greer's statements about the shot sequence--BEFORE they even testified. It's all coming back now. P.S. I would be most grateful for a look at your chapter on the plats and re-enactments. You can send it to pat@patspeer.com. I thank you in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Will do, Pat, either later today or at some point tomorrow. Does the weekend date of March 16, 1964 ring a bell? Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Will do, Pat, either later today or at some point tomorrow. Does the weekend date of March 16, 1964 ring a bell? Gary The autopsy doctors testified before the commission on March 16, 1964. Humes let it slip that he'd come in the day before to look at the clothing. That was a Sunday. Did Eisenberg write a memo on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Will do, Pat, either later today or at some point tomorrow. Does the weekend date of March 16, 1964 ring a bell? Gary The autopsy doctors testified before the commission on March 16, 1964. Humes let it slip that he'd come in the day before to look at the clothing. That was a Sunday. Did Eisenberg write a memo on this? Not that I am aware of; I am going in a different direction. Again, if I can readily dig it out over the next day or two I will send some materials along to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 Getting back on track. Move 60.7ft west of the WC snipers nest Measure 15.5ft forward from Station C = Elm St. parallel location of WC snipers nest. Measure 182ft down Elm St = Station# 4+32.8 = designated location on SS/FBI plat for shot#2. Connect Station# 4+32.8 back to 60.7ft high and 60.7ft west of WC snipers nest. Triangle and triangulations. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted November 13, 2014 Author Share Posted November 13, 2014 The previous graphic posted shows a slant distance of 234ft. Simmons testimony will give you an idea of the distances they were shooting for. (No Pun Intended.) They just forgot to include the slant distance down near Altgens too. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Thanks for this, Chris; and as you can see the individual questioning Simmons is none other than Commission Counsel, Melvin Eisenberg. As Simmons indicated, and the record shows, Eisenberg "gave" Simmons the distances to use for the three shot scenario under discussion. And it is no accident that Eisenberg is the counsel responsible for the questioning of FBI ballistics/firearms expert, Robert Frazier, on March 31, 1964, the lengthiest of Frazier's multiple sessions before the Commission and members of its staff. As I indicate in my forthcoming work, "Forgotten", Eisenberg and Frazier spent several hours together in Eisenberg's Commission office a week or so prior to the testimony session of March 31st at which time the two spent a great deal of time going over what was to be expected in this same session. When one studies Frazier's handwritten spiral notebook that he used for the pre-testimony session with Eisenberg, and then compares it to the actual testimony session of March 31st, it is basically a sequential match, with, not unexpectedly some items left out, the most important of which was/is just how much more of the true history of the 6.5mm WCC ammunition Frazier knew that he did not reveal. And it is Eisenberg's calculations that are the basis for the sham Commission reconstruction of May 24, 1964, a reconstruction that as you well know involved Shaneyfelt and Frazier, among others. I hope you continue to post your work on the survey plats et al in this thread, for it is very important. And I, like you, did agree to disagree with Tom Purvis regarding some of his conclusions concerning the shooting scenario. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I was also on Tom Purvis' "mailing list," and while I also disagreed with some of Tom's conclusions, I do appreciate the legwork he did on making the survey evidence to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now