Pat Speer Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Does anyone know exactly where the west door was located? On the far side of the "shed" or on the inside of the fence? Lovelady and Shelley testified they came in through the western door and Ball almost lost it, because he had no evidence the door was sealed off by the DPD. Edited May 17, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed. The shed is not visible in the tramps' photo because the shed/screen angles back away from the street. Both of these two facts are obvious elements of the two photos ...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to be taken seriously on more substantive viewings ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed. The shed is not visible in the tramps' photo because the shed/screen angles back away from the street. Both of these two facts are obvious elements of the two photos ...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to be taken seriously on more substantive viewings ........... Well, Shanet ... maybe the next time you are in Dealey Plaza you might take the time to go in and ask Gary Mack to show you a clear high resolution scan of that photo and you will see why I had said what I did. Until then, you just keep living in your world of delusion. All I can do is point things out to you that I know ... I cannot make you smart enough to understand why they are valid. To suggest that what you see is a fence or a backdrop hanging on a rod when there are so many photos showing this to be nonsense is just border line lunacy IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? Ron...isn't it clear? About two weeks ago, I thought it was a "mystery". I could not figure it out. Then I searched my computer and found the aerial that showed the building was at an angle. The mystery is now solved. Why isn't that clear? It's perfectly clear. You started a thread posing a mystery and asking for comments when you already knew the answer. My question is why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Any chance Gary can be persuaded to post these high res scans here? I know he doesn't like to get involved with the bickering but just this once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"? Ron...isn't it clear? About two weeks ago, I thought it was a "mystery". I could not figure it out. Then I searched my computer and found the aerial that showed the building was at an angle. The mystery is now solved. Why isn't that clear? It's perfectly clear. You started a thread posing a mystery and asking for comments when you already knew the answer. My question is why? Ron...I will try again to state it clearly. I DID NOT "ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER" !!!!!!! IT WAS A MYSTERY TO ME WHY THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE EAST !!!!!! A WEEK LATER, AFTER MUCH SEARCHING, I FOUND AN AERIAL WHICH GAVE THE ANSWER !!!!! Why is that hard to understand? ?????? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 IT WAS A MYSTERY TO ME WHY THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE EAST !!!!!!A WEEK LATER, AFTER MUCH SEARCHING, I FOUND AN AERIAL WHICH GAVE THE ANSWER !!!!! Why is that hard to understand? ?????? AFTER YOU FOUND THE AERIAL WHICH GAVE YOU THE ANSWER, WHY DID YOU START A THREAD ASKING FOR AN ANSWER? Why is that question so hard to understand???????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed. The shed is not visible in the tramps' photo because the shed/screen angles back away from the street. Both of these two facts are obvious elements of the two photos ...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to be taken seriously on more substantive viewings ........... Well, Shanet ... ask Gary Mack .... you just keep living in your world of delusion.... I cannot make you smart enough ... nonsense ... border line lunacy IMO. Bill FOUL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent Adams Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 IT WAS A MYSTERY TO ME WHY THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE EAST !!!!!! A WEEK LATER, AFTER MUCH SEARCHING, I FOUND AN AERIAL WHICH GAVE THE ANSWER !!!!! Why is that hard to understand? ?????? AFTER YOU FOUND THE AERIAL WHICH GAVE YOU THE ANSWER, WHY DID YOU START A THREAD ASKING FOR AN ANSWER? Why is that question so hard to understand???????????????? I believe that Jack is saying that at the time he posted this thread, on May 6th, that he didn't know. But during the next week, he found the answer. This thread was dead after the 7th, and then revived in the past day. Actually this makes sense to me. However, Jack could have probably posted what he found after the original posting, to make sure the thread died after he answered his own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) I believe that Jack is saying that at the time he posted this thread, on May 6th, that he didn't know. But during the next week, he found the answer. This thread was dead after the 7th, and then revived in the past day. Thanks, that partly explains the misunderstanding. I had never seen this thread before and thought it was new. Jack could have probably posted what he found after the original posting, to make sure the thread died after he answered his own question. Exactly. And he says that he did. So where is the post with the aerial photo that he says today (May 17) that he posted "last week"? Edited May 17, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed. Let's be sensible here ... one can see through a chain link fence and what I am saying is that the wall of the shed is visible through the fence and the only way you could not see the shed is if the cameraman was against the TSBD looking down the side of the building, but with the camera out away from the building like it is ... the shed is visible right down to the pitch of its roof. ...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to betaken seriously on more substantive viewings ........... You may recall you thinking the cop was taller than the object I said was the shed, thus I must be wrong ... here is an example showing a photo taken below the standing height of the man in the photo. Please pay close attention to the photo and study it because the same rules of perspective apply to the tramp photograph. This will make you better qualified to discuss the rules of perspective in the future. More sources showing the shed can be seen in the 26 volumes. Volume 24/pqge 544 CE 2114, page 548 CE 2118 Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 IT WAS A MYSTERY TO ME WHY THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE EAST !!!!!! A WEEK LATER, AFTER MUCH SEARCHING, I FOUND AN AERIAL WHICH GAVE THE ANSWER !!!!! Why is that hard to understand? ?????? AFTER YOU FOUND THE AERIAL WHICH GAVE YOU THE ANSWER, WHY DID YOU START A THREAD ASKING FOR AN ANSWER? Why is that question so hard to understand???????????????? You are mistaken. I did not do so. Read what I wrote. Check the entire thread. What gives with this antagonism? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 What gives with this antagonism? You're the one who was shouting, I was just shouting back. My reply to Trent (Post #25) is the last I have to say on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 What gives with this antagonism? You're the one who was shouting, I was just shouting back. My reply to Trent (Post #25) is the last I have to say on the matter. The shed appears temporary, it angles away from the sidewalk and it is not seen in the Tramp photo. ......the last I have to say on the matter as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) The shed appears temporary, it angles away from the sidewalk and it is not seen in the Tramp photo. ......the last I have to say on the matter as well. Maybe you should try getting a good quality print of the tramp photo and use something better than a magnifyier that came out of a 'happy meal' to view it with. In other words, your observations can only be as good as the source materials and tools you have to work with. Bill Edited May 17, 2006 by Bill Miller 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