Jump to content
The Education Forum

Shooter Location

Recommended Posts

Which is why, I believe, all the WCR CE's use the distances and heights to the stand-in... not adjusted for JFK...   The distance from 161-166 was offered at .9'
At the same time Shaneyfelt confuses the issue by claiming these 3 and 5 frame adjustments account for a 15.25 foot movement equal to a 10" drop....

Basically the 10" was included at JFK and/or the window as needed, just like the front bumper, rear bumper and JFK's position was also used...

Then there is the statement of Shaneyfelt about POS A

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat. 

Really?  If we rolled that limo back a foot, you don't think we'd still see the mark on his back?  and really who cares?  JFK was 10" higher meaning you could roll even farther back...  Something about POS A just doesn't seem to fit... but I don't know what yet...


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. 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 by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/18/2018 at 10:37 AM, David Josephs said:

Who do we suppose put Shaneyfelt, Frasier, Gauthier, Eisenberg, Redlich and the rest to change CE585 and CE884....




Don't know. But the z207/208 shot removal/remedy was being addressed long before CE560 materialized.

Within CE560, they are trying to move this shot by attaching the .56ft lead height = 10.2ft horizontal = z217/218 =  Station# 381.3 = shot #1 on FBI/SS plat of DEC63/FEB64.

While at the same time, showing us that the bullet was fired at approx z207.15 and hit its mark at approx  z208.69

The 2.3ft distance listed on CE884 is the combination of the average speed of the limo (.9ft per frame) + the distance the limo would have traveled from firing of rifle to hitting target (1.4ft).


175/2070 = .0845 / .0546 (1frame/18.3frames) = 1.54frames

The audio indicates z208.69

208.69 - (207 + 1.54) = .15frames

207 + .15 = frame# 207.15 pulled the trigger.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I believe the scenario plays out this way:

3.356ft x 12" = 40.272inches

40.272" - 1.5inches = 38.772inches

38.772inches - 5.04inches = 33.732inches

33.732inches + 14cm(5.51inches) = 39.242inches = 3.27ft



So it's not lost in all of this:

5.04inches (Elev correction)

1.5inches (collar height)

3.54inch difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2018 at 4:35 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Where was the 30.86ft split applied to the Position A part of the ballfield:

Sprague designates JFK@ z133 to Station # 299.0, which is where I plotted him also.

I believe we were a slight bit off and JFK actually plots at 299.16 or 1.92 inches difference.

299.16 - 30.86ft = Station 268.3

Station# 268.3 + 10.2ft = Station # 278.5

Position A = Station# 278.5

This can be determined by using the WC data readily available:

z161 = 329.2 - 94.7 = Station C = 234.5

234.5 + 44 = 278.5 = Position A

The WC math-ical mystery tour.

P.S. Position A is not plotted on Robert West's path.











Moving backwards some more:

299.16 - 30.86 = 268.3

268.3 - 18.3 (1ft vertical@3.13deg slope) = Station# 250.0 = TSBD Snipers nest parallel street Elevation.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you haven't figured this out by now, the elevation drop of 28.5ft (from POSITION A to Station# 250.0) should =

28.5/18.3 (3.13degree slope) = 1.557...ft

The distance difference between 28.5/18.3ft is 10.2ft

Robert West indicates this 3.13deg slope extending to Station# 250.0 on the FBI/SS combo plat of Dec63/Feb64.26611329298_37a816be84_b.jpg



Added on edit:

He also entered it on the WC final plat of May1964:

3deg8min = 3.13degrees

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference in elevation between POSITION A and elevation 429.7 = 1ft

The actual elevation difference should = 1.557ft.

That is an elevation WORKING difference of .557ft

Where does that difference appear.

Right back to CE560 (upper red box) in the form of the "lead bullet height" listed at .56ft

In a little while, I'll show you how that becomes exactly .56ft using cumulative WC adjustments.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2018 at 6:05 PM, Michael Walton said:


What's really hilarious here is that a simple error by the FBI in saying that the shots occurred in the above photo was just that - an error.  Big deal. Yet, we have a sync of two different films on YouTube (below).  All you have to do is watch it and it merely shows two things - the films match up perfectly, and two - that the FBI was wrong with this diorama that they made.  Fine.  It DOES NOT mean what Chris and Dave want it to mean - that some other mysterious and unseen Z film exists. In other words, because of an error in the above diorama Chris and Dave believe that a whole other Z film exists - haha! What a joke.

And this happens all of the time on this forum and elsewhere.  On another thread, other nutty CTers think that because someone wrote FAILED on Oswald's dental chart that it means there was a CLONE of Oswald without stopping to think that again it could be a more plausible and simpler explanation - a clerical error, two different people recording the records, etc.

Haha! But I'm sure Chris and Dave will keep plugging away with their calculators here thinking they've solved something - Haha!

What a disgrace to the JFK research community trying to get to the truth of the matter. Is it any wonder why people laugh at the JFK "research" community when they come across this kind of malarkey.

And go to the beginning of this thread - this all started when Chris says that the secret agents fired over the tops of spectators from the pavilion for crying out load. And Josephs disagreed with him and when I mentioned that he said he said that "...in jest." Haha!

Bumping this.  It was completely ignored by Chris and Dave who instead kept their calculators running on overtime and of course since then there's been a lot self-congratulations for accomplishing....what?  We don't know. Just more silliness and ridiculousness. And here's the ultimate proof of the silliness - two films from across the street filmed at the same time using 1963 era equipment - and they match up perfectly.


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

  • Create New...