Jack White Posted July 8, 2006 Author Share Posted July 8, 2006 Unless incorrect, was there not also an additional 3 to 4-inches or so of new asphalt added to the street later on? That would be incorrect. When the asphalt was removed from the street down to the original base - there was only about an inch or less of asphalt that had been on the street. Bill Miller Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Here is a comparison of the 1963 drain with 2001. The asphalt buildup greatly reduced the height of the opening. Why believe Miller when photos show the difference? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 you obviously need to do a little research on Jacks DP photo work, why should anyone care about the rest of Dallas? I thought it was rather obvious, but since you're a bit slow on the up take I'll explain it to you. Jack claims that the changing of the position, style and size of the lampposts was anomalous and insinuated that the city of Dallas was aiding in the cover-up. If he could show that other lampposts in downtown Dallas (esp. in locations near DP) are exactly as they were the day Kennedy was shot that would strengthen his case, conversely if he couldn't turn up a single case of an unchanged lamppost in the city that would indicate that, as we expect from your camp, he is talking nonsense. As for you taking anyting admissions or otherwise, I suggest you do your job and fill us all in on the NEWLY IMPROVED Zavada report and progress leading to Roland and Ray Fielding posting same...You're the man -- Where's the beef, go-between? Since you have Rollie's e-mail I suggest you ask him yourself. Why do you always bring up Zavada's thesis whenever you reply to me even when as now it has nothing to do with the subject at hand? This is really a loosing proposition for you as every time you drag this up I point out that 1) 6 weeks BEFORE Rollie PRIVATELY said he would produce a new reply to your foolery and that it would "take sometime" you promised to make you "formal claim soon". 2) He is in poor health. 6 weeks after you post your "formal claim" ask me again about Zavada. At that point we will have to figure out how much more time to afford something promised to "take sometime" compared to something promised "soon". - Colby knows what he agreed to do for Roland All that I agreed to do was post stuff on Roland's behalf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Colby as usual is misinformed. My collection of old photos (which Idonated to University of Texas Arlington) is of FORT WORTH, not Dallas. I have very few Dallas photos, except regarding the assassination. I admit I'm guilty as charged send me before the firing squad, I wasn’t sure if your collection was of Dallas, Ft. Worth or both. Note that I expressed a degree of uncertainty in my post. In any case as Bill pointed out it shouldn’t be too hard for someone living in the same metropolitan region as Dallas, esp. I might add one who is an experienced photo collector, to get his hands on some photos of that city from the time of the assassination? According to Yahoo it’s only 33 miles from one city to the other, if you live in an eastern suburb of Ft. Worth as indicated in your Spartacus bio the distance would be even less. Colby apparently thinks Fort Worth is part of Dallas. Never said or indicated they were Not so, Fort Worth, for you guys is South America, is the 19TH LARGEST CITY IN THE US, and trails only Las Vegas as the fastest growing. It is the home of American Airlines, Burlington Northern, Radio Shack, Pier One, Lockheed Martin, D.H. Horton, Bell Helicopter and other major corporations. Very impressive, sounds like you work for the chamber of commerce! Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo Funny this from some guy just caught trying to “pull a fast one” on other members of the forum with a history of being deceptive. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=67615 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Jack, Gary Mack can correct me if I am wrong, but the street slopes down into the hole and what you are looking at in that photo appears to be a layer of concrete/asphalt, which has nothing to do with its actual thickness. A four inch slope with an inch of asphalt over it doesn't mean the asphalt is 4 - 5" thick. Some time ago when the street was stripped down to its base for resurfacing - Mack went out to the road and noted that the asphalt was not as thick as you had claimed it to have been. I seem to recall that he said it was only about an inch in thickness. So having had Mack go out and look at it in person verses your looking at old B&W photos - I'll take Mack's observation as being the more reliable at this time. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Jack, Gary Mack can correct me if I am wrong, but the street slopes down into the hole and what you are looking at in that photo appears to be a layer of concrete/asphalt, which has nothing to do with its actual thickness. A four inch slope with an inch of asphalt over it doesn't mean the asphalt is 4 - 5" thick. Some time ago when the street was stripped down to its base for resurfacing - Mack went out to the road and noted that the asphalt was not as thick as you had claimed it to have been. I seem to recall that he said it was only about an inch in thickness. So having had Mack go out and look at it in person verses your looking at old B&W photos - I'll take Mack's observation as being the more reliable at this time. Bill Miller a photo against a word asurrance regarding an observation, think again counselor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 (edited) a photo against a word asurrance regarding an observation, think again counselor... Interesting remarks from someone who is always doubting the authenticity of photos ... maybe it was a matte job to make it appear to be thicker than it really was. I have emailed Gary Mack to see if I remembered the asphalt matter correctly. Knowing that the inside of the sewer hole was concrete - one cannot merely look at a wall and tell how thick it is. But when the asphalt has been removed down to the bricks that was once the original street and the asphalt layer depth is only an inch or less, then it has to mean more than looking at a B&W photo of a wall and trying to guess its thickness. Bill Miller Edited July 9, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Jack, Gary Mack can correct me if I am wrong, but the street slopes down into the hole and what you are looking at in that photo appears to be a layer of concrete/asphalt, which has nothing to do with its actual thickness. A four inch slope with an inch of asphalt over it doesn't mean the asphalt is 4 - 5" thick. Some time ago when the street was stripped down to its base for resurfacing - Mack went out to the road and noted that the asphalt was not as thick as you had claimed it to have been. I seem to recall that he said it was only about an inch in thickness. So having had Mack go out and look at it in person verses your looking at old B&W photos - I'll take Mack's observation as being the more reliable at this time. Bill Miller a photo against a word asurrance regarding an observation, think again counselor... The curb (concrete curb) & gutter (that flat portion of the concrete curb which is level with the elevation of the street and generally extends approximately 1-foot into the street) are generally of a monolithic/single pouring of concrete. Concrete is utilized this one-foot distance out into the street in order to facilitate better & faster drainage. Also, the concrete is far less susceptible to cracking and thus having organic's and grass seeds catch in the cracks and thus create grass/weed growth which hinders proper drainage. In addition, the "mouth" of the curb inlet is also always of a concrete design. Although old pavement was often placed down directly over brick, this may or may not be the case for Elm St. in Dealy Plaza. Normally, asphalt is installed over a compacted soil base. After compaction, an oily coat is placed onto the soil. The "old" oil base coat was long ago ruled environmental "unclean" and thus a new water base coat, often referred to as "SS1" and/or "SS2" is installed. Thereafter, a generally minimum 2-inch thickness of "Hot Sand" is installed and compacted. Hot Sand merely being the same as asphalt with the exception that no agregrate (stone) is included. Then, comes the asphalt layer. In event there is ANY asphalt overlaying the concrete gutter portion of the curb, then this will give an indication as to exactly how high the elevation of Elm St. may have been raised. Re-paving/re-asphalting seldom includes tearing out the old curb and gutter, and the new asphalt layer is usually merely extended over the top of the existing concrete gutter. Which certainly appears to be the case in the photo from inside the manhole/curb inlet, as concrete most certainly does not look like this. It appears, from the photograph, that several inches of asphalt have been added ON TOP of the concrete which forms a portion of the "gutter" of the drainage design. And, since the photograph does not demonstrate the "fine grain" nature of a hot sand mix, and it does not bear the characteristics of a well formed and poured in place, trowled concrete curb inlet, methinks that it is asphalt buildup on top of the concrete gutter/curb inlet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Although old pavement was often placed down directly over brick, this may or may not be the case for Elm St. in Dealy Plaza. I am pretty sure that I was told that the old bricks could be seen after the asphalt was stripped off Elm Street. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2006 Author Share Posted July 9, 2006 The photographic evidence: Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 (edited) The photographic evidence:Jack This is ridiculous, Jack and it shows your lack of thoroughness IMO. One cannot look at that poorly done overlay of yours and tell if the hole of the sewer drain opening has been made smaller or if the street is actually higher. To get the answer - simply measure the distance from the top of the curb to the street and compare it to the known curb height in 1963. The only other way to know is if you were one of thos people who walked out to the street when the resurfacing was being done and looked where the asphalt had been removed down to the base and see how thick the coating of asphalt really was. I just have discovered that not only did Gary Mack get his account suspended for trying to warn the forum administrators of the virus problem in its infancy, but his account is still inactive well after the two week deadline had come and gone as of July 4th. This means that I had to send him the post Jack made and I will relay what ever information Gary shares with me. Bill Miller Edited July 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 9, 2006 Author Share Posted July 9, 2006 As anyone knows who has visited the plaza, the original sidewalks, curbs, storm drains and gutters are still in place, and have NEVER BEEN REPLACED as Miller suggests. Why does he submit NO evidence of such replacement? Because he can suggest it happened WITHOUT proof...his usual modus operandi. New asphalt has been laid several times. A new asphalt layer is typically about 3 inches thick. Usually the old asphalt is removed. I am sure Miller has access to Dallas street department records, and can provide all details. Right? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hunt Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Today I came across some of my past research on the DP street lights.I am starting a new thread if anyone wants to comment on why they were all changed in location and height soon after the assassination. Here is an aerial showing how all were originally located by the curb. Here they would have provided very accurate landmarks for replication of photos. The moving of locations and height changes have confounded researchers for years. I will be posting more material on this thread...but some of you may wish to add your own thoughts. Jack They did that 'cause they anticipated that eagle-eyed geniuses like yourself would someday cast a gimlet eye on the photos and so they threw in a creative roadblock. But for changing the location of the lampposts, you’d have convinced Congress that day!!! Those clumsy bustards got lucky. But hey, even a blind pig stumbles over an ear of corn from time to time, right?. Keep up the work!!! John Hunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) As anyone knows who has visited the plaza, the originalsidewalks, curbs, storm drains and gutters are still in place, and have NEVER BEEN REPLACED as Miller suggests. Why does he submit NO evidence of such replacement? Because he can suggest it happened WITHOUT proof...his usual modus operandi. New asphalt has been laid several times. A new asphalt layer is typically about 3 inches thick. Usually the old asphalt is removed. I am sure Miller has access to Dallas street department records, and can provide all details. Right? Jack Sorry, Jack .... I was waiting for the information I was seeking to come back to me. If you want to see the proof - call Mack and make an appointment to see the photos of the road work he has taken. Message from Gary Mack to Bill Miller .... "In the 12 years I have been at The Sixth Floor Museum, the city of Dallas has resurfaced the Dealey Plaza streets at least twice. The last time was in late 2003 and, in both cases, they stripped off the old asphalt down to the original brick roadway that was installed in the 1930s. In both instances, which I observed and measured three years ago, the asphalt along the roadway was less than 1.5 inches thick. It is thicker only directly in front of the openings to the storm sewers which, of course, must be LOWER than the roadway to be effective. Sometimes the city adds a thin layer of asphalt over the old surface to smooth out the road (since it is a major exit from downtown Dallas, Elm always gets a lot of traffic), but the total asphalt thickness is under 1.5 inches. The photo you asked about is highly misleading, for it gives the impression that the entire street has several inches of asphalt. Such an assumption is absolutely false and is easily disproven by competent research. And yes, I took some pictures and will publish them some day." That about settles the matter for me. Bill Miller Edited July 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) Unless incorrect, was there not also an additional 3 to 4-inches or so of new asphalt added to the street later on? That would be incorrect. When the asphalt was removed from the street down to the original base - there was only about an inch or less of asphalt that had been on the street. Bill Miller Miller states an untruth, as usual. The attached photo, taken from inside the drain, shows a buildup of asphalt of about three or four inches, incicated by the arrow. Jack Here is a comparison of the 1963 drain with 2001. The asphalt buildup greatly reduced the height of the opening. Why believe Miller when photos show the difference? Jack Jack I realize you have no comtol over the quality over images taken a few decades ago but couldn't you track down a shaper photo of the drain back in the day? Also I fail to understand why you a profesional photographer who lives about 30 miles from DP can't post a higher resolution photo of the drain as it appears today. Edited July 10, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 As anyone knows who has visited the plaza, the originalsidewalks, curbs, storm drains and gutters are still in place, and have NEVER BEEN REPLACED as Miller suggests. Why does he submit NO evidence of such replacement? Because he can suggest it happened WITHOUT proof...his usual modus operandi. Jack Jack, please show me where I said the curbs, sidewalks, or storm drains and gutters had been replaced as you stated above? 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