Another Four-Shot Witness...and His Survey
Here is another witness who believed he heard more than three shots. Robert West, in his Clay Shaw trial testimony, describes how he heard four shots, and did not perceive Dealey Plaza as an "echo chamber." He did think the first two shots were motorcycle backfires, however:
Testimony of Mr. Robert West, February 13, 1969 http://www.jfk-info.com/az-shaw.htm accessed February 22, 2016:
Q Is it not also a fact, Mr. West, there being many buildings around Dealey Plaza there, that you have the effect of a valley which is very susceptible to echoes and in which it is very difficult to determine the direction from which sound is coming?
A Number one, I don’t remember ever having heard an echo, or what I knew was an echo. As to which way sound is coming from, I don’t know I ever had any trouble.
Q You say you heard four noises, the first two of which you thought were motorcycle backfires and the last two of which you thought were shots, is that right?
A Right.
Q Mr. West, in your mind are you positive as to the number of sounds you heard, or is that a matter of some conjecture?
A That was my response on that day.
Q You do admit, sir, the circumstances were very exciting and created a situation which was very possibly susceptible to error, do you not, sir?
A They were extremely exciting.
Q I take it you recognize the fact you could be mistaken as to the number of sounds, is that right, sir?
A It is possible.
Robert West was the surveyor who was not only a witness to the assassination, but also did the survey work for Life! magazine, the FBI's investigation, and the Warren Commission reenactment. The original survey was sealed in an envelope that was not opened, and an "exact duplicate" of the survey was used. Why? I think the "exact duplicate" was anything but, and the original was sealed to hide the actual location of the first shot, and thus condense four shots down to three to pin the AR-15 accident on Oswald and hide the inaction of the President's Secret Service to the first shot--the thesis of my book.
Thomas Purvis has researched the survey and corresponding data set as published in the Warren Coimmission exhibits, and found the data to be fraudulant. Per http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf :
Since the reader has been now provided with irrefutable proof of altered Warren Commission Evi- dence, it would also be worthwhile to explain the “slight of hand” trick utilized to admit this document into evidence. Basically, the original survey (CE 882) was admitted into evidence in a sealed container which was never opened. An “exact duplication” on cardboard (CE 883) was then admitted into evidence as representing the original survey. Finally, the altered survey data block (CE 884) was admitted into evidence as representing what was on the original survey which was never opened nor seen during the investigation. Review the Warren Commission testimony of Leo J. Gauthier.(WCH V5, p 134)
Purvis, the author quoted above, points out how the survey data block as published by the Warren Commission on the survey is unreadable. The survey data block was published separately. Purvis managed to acquire a copy of the original survey data block from Robert West, and noted that the information on this copy differed from the information published by the WC as CE 884, i.e., that Frame 168 on the original (Purvis' "West" copy) has been changed to frame 161 on the WC exhibit, frame 171 on the original has been changed to frame 166 on the WC exhibit, and frame 208 on the original has been changed to frame 210 on the WC exhibit.
For myself, I note that there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to the frames selected for inclusion on the survey data block. There are no frames before Z-168, and intervals between the remaining frames are very odd. The gaps between frames used for the data block are 3 frames, 14, frames, 1 frame, 21 frames, 1 frame, 14 frames, 1 frame, 6 frames, 4 frames, 5 frames, 9 frames, 6 frames, and 58 frames between those noted on the survey data block. (The frames noted on a data block are: 168, 171, 185, 186, 207, 208, 222, 225, 231, 235, 240, 249, 255, and 313.) So I have to ask, why these frames, and the different gaps between limousine positions surveyed?
Purvis notes that "Distances between various positions of plotted frame numbers are unrealistic. Some are plotted extremely close together and others are plotted at by comparison long distances apart." He also notes that:
It should be reiterated that the surveyor merely computed data from information which was provided by members of the Warren Commission. These members looked at photographs and marked spots of the pavement of Elm Street and then informed the surveyor what frame number of the Zapruder film a mark represented.
The significance of this information should serve to demonstrate exactly how staged and fraudulent the Warren Commission re-enactment of the assassination actually was.
Purvis notes the bizarre speed variations of the limousine, which he calculated based on the survey data and the corresponding Zapruder film frame numbers--more evidence, in my view, of Zapruder film alteration:
Zapruder frames Speed
168-171 3.74 mph
171-185 17.1 mph
185-186 18.71 mph
186-207 12.06 mph
207-208 28.69 mph
208-222 11.2 mph
Here is something else that Mr. Purvis has to say of the West Survey (found at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8300):
My problem (with the survey plans and their admission as Warren Commission Exhibits) is found within the lies of the WC and their misrepresentation of the facts as relates to the position of JFK at the time/impact of the shots fired in the assassination.
...Time/Life started this survey work with Mr. West and he completed a survey plat for them on 11/26/63.
Thereafter, survey work and a survey plat were completed for the US Secret Service during December 2, 3, 4, with the survey plat completed the 5th, and then additional survey work and re-enactment for the FBI was completed on 02/07/64.
EACH and EVERY one of these surveys plotted an impact point for the first shot fired in the assassination.
Yet the WC just could not determine this point, and in fact left us with 10 pages of circular reasoning as regards THE SHOT THAT MISSED and how it may have been the first shot fired.
Without these surveys and their corresponding information, one is not even aware of the trail of lies which ultimately gave us the WC BS. Not to mention that they will never be able to progressively prove these lies.
When/if the original survey and corresponding data in the sealed envelope are eventually opened and revealed (if the envelope in fact still exists), I think the contents will prove to be very interesting, indeed. And I think the information will support my thesis of an early first-shot cover-up to reduce four (rifle) shots (plus two pistol shots mostly interpreted as "echoes") down to three, and pin the AR-15 explosive head shot onto Oswald.
Here is another witness who believed he heard more than three shots. Robert West, in his Clay Shaw trial testimony, describes how he heard four shots, and did not perceive Dealey Plaza as an "echo chamber." He did think the first two shots were motorcycle backfires, however:
Testimony of Mr. Robert West, February 13, 1969 http://www.jfk-info.com/az-shaw.htm accessed February 22, 2016:
Q Is it not also a fact, Mr. West, there being many buildings around Dealey Plaza there, that you have the effect of a valley which is very susceptible to echoes and in which it is very difficult to determine the direction from which sound is coming?
A Number one, I don’t remember ever having heard an echo, or what I knew was an echo. As to which way sound is coming from, I don’t know I ever had any trouble.
Q You say you heard four noises, the first two of which you thought were motorcycle backfires and the last two of which you thought were shots, is that right?
A Right.
Q Mr. West, in your mind are you positive as to the number of sounds you heard, or is that a matter of some conjecture?
A That was my response on that day.
Q You do admit, sir, the circumstances were very exciting and created a situation which was very possibly susceptible to error, do you not, sir?
A They were extremely exciting.
Q I take it you recognize the fact you could be mistaken as to the number of sounds, is that right, sir?
A It is possible.
Robert West was the surveyor who was not only a witness to the assassination, but also did the survey work for Life! magazine, the FBI's investigation, and the Warren Commission reenactment. The original survey was sealed in an envelope that was not opened, and an "exact duplicate" of the survey was used. Why? I think the "exact duplicate" was anything but, and the original was sealed to hide the actual location of the first shot, and thus condense four shots down to three to pin the AR-15 accident on Oswald and hide the inaction of the President's Secret Service to the first shot--the thesis of my book.
Thomas Purvis has researched the survey and corresponding data set as published in the Warren Coimmission exhibits, and found the data to be fraudulant. Per http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Altered_Evidence.pdf :
Since the reader has been now provided with irrefutable proof of altered Warren Commission Evi- dence, it would also be worthwhile to explain the “slight of hand” trick utilized to admit this document into evidence. Basically, the original survey (CE 882) was admitted into evidence in a sealed container which was never opened. An “exact duplication” on cardboard (CE 883) was then admitted into evidence as representing the original survey. Finally, the altered survey data block (CE 884) was admitted into evidence as representing what was on the original survey which was never opened nor seen during the investigation. Review the Warren Commission testimony of Leo J. Gauthier.(WCH V5, p 134)
Purvis, the author quoted above, points out how the survey data block as published by the Warren Commission on the survey is unreadable. The survey data block was published separately. Purvis managed to acquire a copy of the original survey data block from Robert West, and noted that the information on this copy differed from the information published by the WC as CE 884, i.e., that Frame 168 on the original (Purvis' "West" copy) has been changed to frame 161 on the WC exhibit, frame 171 on the original has been changed to frame 166 on the WC exhibit, and frame 208 on the original has been changed to frame 210 on the WC exhibit.
For myself, I note that there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to the frames selected for inclusion on the survey data block. There are no frames before Z-168, and intervals between the remaining frames are very odd. The gaps between frames used for the data block are 3 frames, 14, frames, 1 frame, 21 frames, 1 frame, 14 frames, 1 frame, 6 frames, 4 frames, 5 frames, 9 frames, 6 frames, and 58 frames between those noted on the survey data block. (The frames noted on a data block are: 168, 171, 185, 186, 207, 208, 222, 225, 231, 235, 240, 249, 255, and 313.) So I have to ask, why these frames, and the different gaps between limousine positions surveyed?
Purvis notes that "Distances between various positions of plotted frame numbers are unrealistic. Some are plotted extremely close together and others are plotted at by comparison long distances apart." He also notes that:
It should be reiterated that the surveyor merely computed data from information which was provided by members of the Warren Commission. These members looked at photographs and marked spots of the pavement of Elm Street and then informed the surveyor what frame number of the Zapruder film a mark represented.
The significance of this information should serve to demonstrate exactly how staged and fraudulent the Warren Commission re-enactment of the assassination actually was.
Purvis notes the bizarre speed variations of the limousine, which he calculated based on the survey data and the corresponding Zapruder film frame numbers--more evidence, in my view, of Zapruder film alteration:
Zapruder frames Speed
168-171 3.74 mph
171-185 17.1 mph
185-186 18.71 mph
186-207 12.06 mph
207-208 28.69 mph
208-222 11.2 mph
Here is something else that Mr. Purvis has to say of the West Survey (found at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8300):
My problem (with the survey plans and their admission as Warren Commission Exhibits) is found within the lies of the WC and their misrepresentation of the facts as relates to the position of JFK at the time/impact of the shots fired in the assassination.
...Time/Life started this survey work with Mr. West and he completed a survey plat for them on 11/26/63.
Thereafter, survey work and a survey plat were completed for the US Secret Service during December 2, 3, 4, with the survey plat completed the 5th, and then additional survey work and re-enactment for the FBI was completed on 02/07/64.
EACH and EVERY one of these surveys plotted an impact point for the first shot fired in the assassination.
Yet the WC just could not determine this point, and in fact left us with 10 pages of circular reasoning as regards THE SHOT THAT MISSED and how it may have been the first shot fired.
Without these surveys and their corresponding information, one is not even aware of the trail of lies which ultimately gave us the WC BS. Not to mention that they will never be able to progressively prove these lies.
When/if the original survey and corresponding data in the sealed envelope are eventually opened and revealed (if the envelope in fact still exists), I think the contents will prove to be very interesting, indeed. And I think the information will support my thesis of an early first-shot cover-up to reduce four (rifle) shots (plus two pistol shots mostly interpreted as "echoes") down to three, and pin the AR-15 explosive head shot onto Oswald.