|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Sept 2, 2018 4:13:33 GMT -5
OK, might as well post these quotes I previously discussed with Paul: Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible. I should make one comment here relative to the angular displacement of the targets. We did not reproduce these angles exactly from the map which we had been given because the conditions in the field were a little awkward for this. But the distance--the angular distance from the first target to the second was greater than from the second to the third, which would tend to correspond to a longer interval of time between the first and second impact than between the second and the third. The movement of the rifle was greater from the first to the second target than from the second to the third. // Mr. SIMMONS. These lines were drawn in afterwards, in order for us to make some measurements from the actual impact point. The target which was emplaced at 240 feet, as shown in Exhibit 583--we had rather an unusual coincidence with respect to this target. This involved the displacement of the weapon to a sufficient angle that the basic firing position of the man had to be changed. And because they knew time was very important, they made the movement very quickly. And for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target. Of course, we made a rather, I guess, disadvantageous error in the test by pointing out that they had missed on the second target, and there was a conscious effort made on the additional rounds to hit the second target
Awkward angle, so they only went to 30 feet?
This turned into these cherry picked statements in the WC report:
Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory, said : "Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes."
Simmons should have called SA Frazier instead using his own boys...
Kobert A. Frazier, FBI expert in firearms identification and training, said: From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target.
|
|
|
Post by ADMIN on Sept 2, 2018 18:11:41 GMT -5
The walking window openings and shooting positions!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Sept 5, 2018 7:43:40 GMT -5
I wrote to the Sixth Museum to ask about the height from the street straight up to the sniper's nest. I got no reply.
meanwhile Paul Ernst found a document from DPD Studebaker that puts the height at 61 ft. Uh-OH
That means that any trajectories that are given based on 68 or 70 feet, are all wrong!!
NOT only that but, if the placement of the car is in question (and it is), then the question becomes... Are they trying to hide, mask, or skew the actual angles?
Below shows the 2 frames: Frame 210 (176 feet from window) shows where the WC said a shot was fired - Bugliosi said this is the non fatal hit.
Frame 222 (188 feet from window) shows where Dale Myers and other modern WC defenders say is the location of the car at the non fatal shot.
.
This dispute alone from frames 210 -222 is enough to know there is something seriously wrong with the data we are given,
Add to that the skew of the height of the window, and it is clear the WC conclusions on angles & trajectories cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Sept 5, 2018 15:14:20 GMT -5
I wrote to the Sixth Museum to ask about the height from the street straight up to the sniper's nest. I got no reply.
meanwhile Paul Ernst found a document from DPD Studebaker that puts the height at 61ft. Uh-OH
That means that any trajectories that are given based on 68 or 70 feet, are all wrong!!
NOT only that but, if the placement of the car is in question (and it is), then the question becomes... Are they trying to hide, mask, or skew the actual angles?
Below shows the 2 frames: Frame 210 (176 feet from window) shows where the WC said a shot was fired - Bugliosi said this is the non fatal hit.
Frame 222 (188 feet from window) shows where Dale Myers and other modern WC defenders say is the location of the car at the non fatal shot.
.
This dispute alone from frames 210 -222 is enough to know there is something seriously wrong with the data we are given,
Add to that the skew of the height of the window, and it is clear the WC conclusions on angles & trajectories cannot be trusted.
And Michael you can add, Mr. Frazier statment to the list with his 60 Degrees(+2) distance!!
It looks like a lotery all those different trajectorys etc!!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Sept 5, 2018 15:23:19 GMT -5
I really wonder what they want to prove by publishing so many inaccuracies and putting so much time and effort into it.
Incompetence?
Misleading?
Burden proof burden?
To nail someone to the cross?
Too difficult for the citizen in 1964 to check the true facts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Sept 5, 2018 15:30:12 GMT -5
...suppressed, distorted, lied about, and sometimes actually destroyed the most basic evidence in the assassination to substantiate a preconceived and false solution to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Sept 5, 2018 18:24:36 GMT -5
Make it happen.
Earlier I wrote about the space under "your" butt if you must sitting on that box and shoot.
At least unconvertable!!!!!
But a creative person just shifts the box. Just as long as you can make a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Sept 20, 2018 16:28:20 GMT -5
Can someone remove those boxes in front of me, so that I can make those 3 shots.
By: Paul Ernst JFK Numbers
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Oct 8, 2018 13:57:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Paul Ernst on Nov 21, 2018 8:38:58 GMT -5
Paul, If possible, it would be nice to see a (close-up) cross section of the window and "gun rest" made to scale, like CE 560, showing the angle and how the LOS through scope is supposed to clear the half open window. The box on the window sill makes no sense to me... staged.
I hope this will do Tom.
Best wishes Paul.
From TSBD!
|
|