The sign changes;by h.weisberg

[Bernice Moore]

[size=12]The sign changes; harold weisberg from '' WHITEWASH''[/SIZE]

[size=12]The re-enactment was conducted between 6 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Sunday May 24, 1963. Obviously the light conditions were different between the photographs (sunny or cloudy). However the conditions in CE894 - CE897, in which the dark end of the sign pole is missing, are the same as in CE888-CE890, and CE893, in which the dark top of one or both poles is visible.[/SIZE]

"Whitewash ....The report on the Warren Commission"..page 44..

Harold Weisberg.

""Six months and a day following the assassination.( May.23/64 ) the Warren Commission had the FBI photographic agent, Lyndal L.Shaneyfelt ( 5 H 138 ) do a photographic re-enactment. The report indicates no reason for such a prolonged delay.

The Secret Service had completed it's re-enactment by Dec. 5. 1963. It is difficult to imagine that the Commission could have loaded Mr.Shaneyfelt with more invalidating conditions..His re-enactment could only serve one purpose...to try and make credible a reconstruction under which the Commission's thesis, that all the shots came from the sixth floor window, might be possible..In fact, he attempted nothing else.In order to accomplish this, he had to show that no shot was fired before the frame numbered 210 on the Zapruder film..

To begin with, Shaneyfelt had to work with a black-and-white copy of the original zapruder colour film. Necessarily, the copies were less clear. Then the re-enactments began at 6 a.m as a concession to traffic. Between the time of the year and the time of the day differences between the mock-up and the real thing, al the values of shadows in photographic intelligence were forfeited, For the precise placing of the camera, mounted on the rfile, and other measuring devices Shaneyfelt had the information supplied by the Commission. He was working in fractions of degrees, yet he had to bade everything on "information furnished us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination....." 5H145.......

( Don't you believe it..NOT)...see Tom Aylea..information.)

Snip:

None of the photos or such are or were in agreement with each other nor the facts, as the testimony also shows...."with none of them at the moment of the assassination shown, this was an immediate and total disqualification of anything he might try...
No matter how fine and expert Shaneyfelt , no matter how excellent his equipment or how careful his associates, his testimony and reconstruction could have no validity"..

" For example, Example Exhibit 887 ( R99) is a camera mounted atop the rifle pointing westward from the sixth-floor window. The window is raised several inches higher than it was shown in the Dillard photograph. Of necessity the rifle is mounted on a photographic tripod. But there can be only one necessity for fudging on the window--- to make the whole reconstruction possible where otherwise it would not have been. The tripod is adjustable. The rifle is inside the window. With such an obvious flaw, the exhibit is invalid as is any testimony based on it..Another photograph of the re-enactment printed on page 41 of Life Magazine for Oct. 2,1964, shows that part of the reconstruction was made with the window entirely open...This picture shows the ballistic expert resting his arm on a box incorrectly positioned . It is much too far to the west.... Worse, the rifle is without it's telescopic sight. Can any testimony based upon this reconstruction have any value ?"

snip...page 45...

"" In addition, the experts " duplicated certain frames of the Zapruder film" and of two others available to the Commission. These appear in the Report on pages 100-8 and are readily available for inspection. Not a single one can be called a duplication, as the most superficial inspection, even without instruments, will show. The angles are grossly different. The elevations are radically wrong.

Even the backgrounds are not the same. One of the best examples is the critically important frame 210 ( R102) . These are printed side by side and it will be no problem for any doubting reader to satisfy himself.
This particular illustration is also proof of another inexcusable fault :

The landscaping in the background has been altered.....
Valuable intelligence was thus lost........ In other cases trees which served the same purpose were removed and even the vital signs that figure in all of this identification and testimony were both moved and removed..It is no longer possible to make the most precise photographic reconstruction of the assassination because of this destruction and mutilation of evidence.........."'

Continued..

Whitewash 11...Harold Weisberg 1966..

Page 4......

"The Commission staff was not unaware of this, for although there is no indication it ever heeded it's own unavoidable proof or wondered why anyone would dream of destroying evidence in the assassination of an American President, the whole story was blurted out by Emmett J.Hudson, ( witness to the killing )groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, in his belated testimony of July 22,1964, almost two months after the Commission had originally scheduled the end of it's work..( first mentioned page 45..Whitewash.) .

Not only were the hedges and shrubbery trimmed, thus destroying all the projection points essential to photographic analysis, but all the road signs absolutely vital in any reconstruction had been moved-------All Three Of Them--------Zapruder had filmed over the top of the center sign ( Stemmons) ..Two of the signs were entirely removed. The one over which Zapruder filmed was replaced, and there is no reason to believe it's replacement is in exactly the same location in the ground.or at exactly the same height above it.

Unless both of these conditions, plus the angle of the sign toward Zapruder’s lens , were exactly identical with conditions when he took his pictures, no precise reconstruction is possible..

All this funny business with the signs got on the record by accident, not through the diligence of the Commission nor it's counsel. Wesley J.Liebeler was questioning Hudson. Not until eight months to the day after the assassination, but finally Hudson was being questioned. He volunteered this testimony: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign ".....It was this "Stemmons" sign over which Zapruder photographed.

"They have? They have moved it?" Liebeler asked, his cool nonchalance preserved in cood type.

"Yes, sir." replied Hudson.

"That might explain it", Liebeler then said. at the same time, without even seeming so to intend, preserving for both the Commission and history the certain knowledge that the two photographs about which he was interrogating Hudson, one taken at the time of the assassination and the other after it, were not in agreement. ....And here the accidental interest of the Commission in the destruction and mutilation of the most essential evidence ended"..................





If the Commission did not know it sooner :goodnight:hot:

[Bernice Moore]

some fbi photos of re-enactment.

[Bernice Moore]

more fbi re-enacment...gif by chris davidson...b

[Bernice Moore]

magda chris davidson's gif does not work, is there any way you could enable it's movement, many thanks...ps it works when i open it and posted but not showing now...thank you...b

[Bernice Moore]

Jack i believe i am missing some photos here in showing the signs etc in the fbi schemazzle,re-enactment, could you point the way for me,or add, many thanks...take care....b

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks B. Last thing the WC, FBI and PTHB wanted was an accurate reconstruction!!!!! Anyone have a plat with the old and new positions of the signs on it handly?

[Bill Kelly]

The Secret Service Re-enactment of the assassination wasn't just the motorcade, but also photographs of inside the TSBD when they began to follow the route that the assassin had to take if he was to abide by the WC report.

They show the spot where the rifle was found, and then show the stairs from the sixth floor down, and then show the spot from where Baker says he saw Oswald through the second floor lunchroom vestibule door window.

Then they discovered that if the door was open even just a little bit, as it would have to be if Oswald went thorugh it, you wouldn't be able to see him through the window.

Then they called Roy Truly back to ask him one question - did the door have an automatic closing mechanism? Yes it did.

Which means that the door was closed when Baker saw Oswald through the window, and since Truly didn't see Oswald at all even though he was in front of Baker, then Oswald didn't enter the vestibule through that door but had entered through the south door - as if coming from the offices and the front stairs.

At that point, the SS stopped their reconstruction, and didn't bother following the "assassin" any further since their reconstruction provides Oswald with an alibi.

BK

[Charles Drago]

Hi Bill,

It's been too long.

Tell me what I'm missing:

If LHO arrived at the vestibule door when, for whatever reason, it had not yet closed and locked, he could have entered the lunch room through it, the door could have closed and locked behind him ...

Thanks.

[Phil Dragoo]

The Alibi: Oswald's Actions after the Shots

If we take the Commission's minimum time of one minute, 14 seconds (giving the advantage to the official story) and add the additional six or seven seconds needed just to evacuate the immediate area of the window, plus the 15 to 20 seconds more for hiding the rifle, we find that it would have taken at least a minute and 35 seconds to a minute and 41 seconds for a sixth-floor gunman to have reached the second-floor lunchroom, had all his maneuvers been planned in advance. Had Oswald been the assassin, he would have arrived in the lunchroom at least five to eleven seconds after Baker reached the second floor, even if Baker took the longest time obtainable for his ascent -- a minute, 30 seconds. Had Baker ascended in 70 seconds -- as he easily could have -- he would have arrived at least 25 seconds before Oswald. Either case removes the possibility that Oswald descended from the sixth floor, for on November 22 he had unquestionably arrived in the lunchroom before Baker.

The circumstances surrounding the lunchroom encounter indicate that Oswald entered the lunchroom not by the vestibule door from without, as he would have had he descended from the sixth floor, but through a hallway leading into the vestibule. The outer vestibule door is closed automatically by a closing mechanism on the door (7H591). When Truly arrived on the second floor, he did not see Oswald entering the vestibule (R151). For the Commission's case to be valid, Oswald must have entered the vestibule through the first door before Truly arrived. Baker reached the second floor immediately after Truly and caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald in the vestibule through a small window in the outer door. Although Baker said the vestibule door "might have been, you know, closing and almost shut at that time" (3H255), it is dubious that he could have distinguished whether the door was fully or "almost" closed.

Baker's and Truly's observations are not at all consistent with Oswald's having entered the vestibule through the first door. Had Oswald done this, he could have been inside the lunchroom well before the automatic mechanism closed the vestibule door. Truly's testimony that he saw no one entering the vestibule indicates either that Oswald was already in the vestibule at this time or was approaching it from another source. However, had Oswald already entered the vestibule when Truly arrived on the second floor, it is doubtful that he would have remained there long enough for Baker to see him seconds later. Likewise, the fact that neither man saw the mechanically closed door in motion is cogent evidence that Oswald did not enter the vestibule through that door.

One of the crucial aspects of Baker's story is his position at the time he caught a "fleeting glimpse" of a man in the vestibule. Baker marked this position during his testimony as having been immediately adjacent to the stairs at the northwest corner of the building (3H256; CE 497). "I was just stepping out on to the second floor when I caught this glimpse of this man through this doorway," said Baker.

It should be noted that the Report never mentions Baker's position at the time he saw Oswald in the vestibule (R149-51). Instead, it prints a floor plan of the second floor and notes Baker's position "when he observed Oswald in lunchroom" (R150). This location, as indicated in the Report, was immediately outside the vestibule door (see CE 1118). The reader of the Report is left with the impression that Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule as well from this position. However, Baker testified explicitly that he first caught a glimpse of the man in the vestibule from the stairs and, upon running to the vestibule door, saw Oswald in the lunchroom (3H256). The Report's failure to point out Baker's position is significant.

Had Oswald descended from the sixth floor, his path through the vestibule into the lunchroom would have been confined to the north wall of the vestibule. Yet the line of sight from Baker's position at the steps does not include any area near the north wall. From the steps, Baker could have seen only one area in the vestibule -- the southeast portion. The only way Oswald could have been in this area on his way to the lunchroom is if he entered the vestibule through the southernmost door, as the previously cited testimony indicates he did.

Oswald could not have entered the vestibule in this manner had he just descended from the sixth floor. The only way he could have gotten to the southern door is from the first floor up through either a large office space or an adjacent corridor. As the Report concedes, Oswald told police he had eaten his lunch on the first floor and gone up to the second to purchase a coke when he encountered an officer (R182).

Thus, Oswald had an alibi. Had he been the sixth-floor gunman, he would have arrived at the lunchroom at least 5 seconds after Baker did, probably more. It is extremely doubtful that he could have entered the vestibule through the first door without Baker's or Truly's having seen the door in motion. Oswald's position in the vestibule when seen by Baker was consistent only with his having come up from the first floor as he told the police.

Oswald could not have been the assassin.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html

[Bernice Moore]

within Roffman's free web book is the information how lho could not have been on the sixth floor, "PRESUMED GUILTY, How and why the Warren Commission framed Lee Harvey Oswald. Factual account based on the Commission's public and private documents", by Howard Roffman 1976 ..PS i believe this is the map from within the book......posted..

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/