Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #103  (Read 398 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1663
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #103
« on: March 08, 2018, 04:26:57 PM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

****************************************

This is a story not discussed very much at all, at least that has been my experience, and it is vital in showing how the Warren Commission (WC) manipulated data to match their preconceived conclusion.

*************************************

On December 5, 1963, Dallas City surveyor Robert West and Charles Breneman, another prominent surveyor, were commissioned by the FBI to match elevations and distances in Dealey Plaza (DP) to the Zapruder film. This involved large areas of DP that had to be covered. Upon completion of this report it was turned into the FBI and became Warren Commission (WC) Exhibit 585 which was done on December 5, 1963.  Commission Exhibits 882 and 883 also represent a survey constructed by Robert West, on 24 May 1964. Do these two surveys agree with each other?

CE-585: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

CE-882 & 883: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Charles Breneman said no. He stated how amazed he and West were when they noticed the changes that were made. Breneman charged, "These figures were changed just enough that the Warren Commission could come up with the idea that another shot came from the same direction as the first." In Matthew Smith's, "Conspiracy - The Plot To Stop The Kennedys", pp. 116 & 117, he confirms this data was changed beyond a doubt.  He did a joint study known as the Smith-Vidit study, and the original survey (that was given to the FBI) photograph was analyzed for details.  This is the one that is supposedly quoted in the WR, but as they found out there were changes made to it before publication. The photo was enlarged, and Smith was able to see that frame 161 had been substituted for frame 168, and frame 166 had taken the place of 171, and frame 210 was where they had placed frame 208.  As Smith pointed out, one slip could be considered an accident, but three was suspicious.  Both West and Breneman felt that the shots came from TWO locations, not one.

Further comments come from  John P. Costella, Ph.D. in his, "Why Computer Animations Cannot "Trump" Hard  Evidence", state: "At first sight they do -- but if they are carefully overlaid, it is found that the lane markings on Elm Street -- the "road stripes" are different. In the later survey, one set of stripes has been deleted altogether, right where the shots occurred, and the nearby sets of stripes have been stretched and moved to fill the gap." Are road stripes important?  According to Costella, they are, "They are, because the only professional photograph of the Presidential limousine taken while the shots were being fired shows the front wheel of the limousine right next to one of these stripes. The photo, taken by Associated Press photographer James Altgens, is crystal clear, and taken with a telephoto lens on professional equipment and film.  There are numerous structures and features of DP  that are visible. Given the clarity of the image, it should have been a straightforward task for the Warren Commission (WC) to determine exactly where both Altgens and the limousine were located at the instant the photo was taken. Indeed, CE-900 seems to represent a successful reconstruction of the layout (albeit with a vehicle that is not the Presidential limousine). But, again, if one overlays the two images in CE-900, one finds that the reconstruction is not perfect at all. In fact, it is terrible!"


CE-900: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How important is this to the overall conclusion, again Costella says it is not good, "How much of a difference does this make? If we were only worrying about pasting in an image of Clint Eastwood for the movie In The Line Of Fire, it would be good enough. But as a scientific reconstruction, it is dismal. Calculations show that Altgens' position would have to be incorrect by as much as TWENTY FEET to cause such a massive inaccuracy in the reconstruction."

Smith found something else odd as well. In his research of this he found out that Robert West and Charles Breneman did work for LIFE before they did the report for the FBI.  This was also an investigation to match the film frames of the Zapruder film.  Smith states, "That the Zapruder frames were available for matching so quickly after the assassination was remarkable, for the findings of the surveyors were published in the magazine on the MONDAY following the assassination (which took place the Friday before).  As a consequence of their work, the LIFE investigator handling the story was convinced the bullets fired could NOT come from the same rifle." (Emphasis mine)

West and Breneman noted the identification of a mark on the Stemmons Freeway sign, but the Commission, during their walk-thru of the Plaza made no comment or mention that the sign, in so many of the films and photos, was gone.  Smith found through investigation that the sign initially was moved to the basement of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), but after that is anybody's guess.

In CE-884 we see a data table that the WC had made by surveyor Robert West to correspond to the frames of the Zapruder film.


CE-884:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The data table reflects THREE changes as writer Matthew Smith pointed out above [frame 168 was changed to frame 161; frame 171 to frame 166; and frame 208 to frame 210]. Here is what Mr. Costella wrote about this in his article.

Quote on

The data table on that survey was so small that it was introduced separately into evidence, as Commission Exhibit 884. This data table relates measurement points to frames of the Zapruder film of the assassination. But three of the frame numbers have been obviously, and carelessly, modified; and West's own field notes confirm that the frame numbers had been later changed. How could this be? The Zapruder frames had been counted off, selected frames enlarged and provided to West for the re-enactment, and used as key reference points. In changing Frame 168 to Frame 161, Frame 171 to Frame 166, and Frame 208 to Frame 210, the Warren Commission is telling us that the re-enactment and surveying process was inaccurate to the tune of seven frames. How much can things change in seven frames? Well, the limousine moves around six feet in that time. Whether it was the re-enactment or the survey that they considered inaccurate, we don't know. They never informed surveyor West of the changes -- nor, of course, any readers of the Report or the 26 volumes of Exhibits.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

The issue is whether the table is twenty feet or six feet off.  Both are a good bit of time in terms of a shooting. Here is more from the article regarding the shots.

CE-875: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote on

Commission Exhibit 585, the 5 December survey, places it about 40 feet too far down the street. Commission Exhibit 875 refers to this shot occurring only four feet from a location marked on CE-595, that is about 35 feet down the street from Frame 313.

Clearly, the survey and re-enactment data that is of greatest importance -- that obtained before changes began to occur to Dealey Plaza -- is only accurate to feet, or tens or feet, at best – at least when they were matched up to the frames of the Zapruder film, or the Altgens photograph.

Quote off

So yet again, we have a case of the WC altering something that was submitted that DID NOT match the criteria they set-up from the beginning, i.e. LHO was the only guilty person.

Robert West said he checked all the trajectories out and he did not agree with the WC's conclusion.  Is this why we see NO testimony by him in the twenty-six volumes?


Q: Did you testify before the Warren Commission?

A: No, sir.

Q: Ever interview you relative to what you heard in Dealey Plaza?

A: No, sir.

We also know of no motorcycles backfiring so we have to assume what he heard were shots as well. He would say he heard FOUR noises, the first being what sounded like a “backfire” and the others sounding like rifle shots.

We have to go to the Clay Shaw trial to find testimony by Robert West. Here are some of the relevant parts.


Q: How long have you been County Surveyor for Dallas County, Dallas, Texas?

A: Since 1944.

Q: Let me ask you this, Mr. West: Is this a complete survey of Dealey Plaza?

A: No, sir.

Q: In what respects is it incomplete?

A: It is not complete, it does not show all of the topographical features within this particular quadrant of Dealey Plaza.


Q: Is there any particular reason why it does not show this?

A: This is what was required by an FBI agent. This is what he instructed me to survey and to plat.

Why would the FBI request an INCOMPLETE survey of DP? What would that accomplish?

Q: Is there anything on this survey which would indicate the number and the size and the location of trees in this area?

A: There are several trees shown. The size, no. You mean the diameter of the trunk of the tree?

Q: And the height of the trunk of the tree.

A: We didn't attempt to show the diameter or height of any trees.

Q: Would you call this, sir, a topographical survey or not?

A: Within its limits.

Q: Within what limits?

A: **Within the limits that were indicated to me by the FBI, that this was the information that they wanted to be shown on this map.** Within those limits it is a topographical map.

Q: Do you know whether or not that photograph reflects the same number of trees in the same location and the same height as existed in that location on November 22, 1963?

A: No, sir.

IF you don’t know the basics like this, how in the world can you reach a solid conclusion from using the photograph taken? It would seem the FBI was in full control of the plat that Mr. West did too.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: Why did you place the dot in the frame number in a particular location which is shown on this plat?

A: On the instructions of the FBI agent.

What is the sense of bringing in a surveyor IF you are going to instruct them on everything? Who would know better? A surveyor of Dallas or a FBI agent? He would hear a “backfire” and then sounds that sounded like rifle fire to him.

Q: Now, Mr. West, did you see or hear anything unusual as the presidential motorcade proceeded through Dealey Plaza on November 22?

A: Some time after it turned on Elm Street I heard what sounded to me at that time as what I thought was backfiring, a motorcycle.

Q: How many of these backfires did you hear?

A: Four.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: Mr. West, did you hear any unusual noise?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: On how many occasions did you hear this noise?

A: Four.

Q: Did it sound the same on each occasion?

A: Yes, sir.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: What did it sound like on the first occasion?

A: A motorcycle backfired.

Q: What did it sound like on the second occasion?

A: A rifle fired.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: What did it sound like to you on the third occasion?

A: It appeared to me it was rifle fire after the second. The first and the second my response was it was motorcycle backfire.

Q: What was your response to the third sound that you heard?

A: Rifle fire.

Q: Were these loud sounds?

A: Yes, sir.

He will say in his professional opinion that the sounds he heard came from the “northwest quadrant” of DP.

Q: Were you able to determine at any time during the course of these the location or the area from which these sounds were emanating?

THE WITNESS: The sound came from the northwest quadrant of Dealey Plaza.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: Will you please step down from the witness chair and proceed to your plat and indicate to the Gentlemen of the Jury what the northwest quadrant of Dealey Plaza is.

A: This entire area north and west of Elm Street.

What is this area you may ask? IT is this!

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: In relation to the grassy knoll, from which area did you hear the shots?

A: The grassy knoll is in the same northwest quadrant as I heard the shots.

Bingo!  Another witness that pinpoints the Grassy Knoll (GK) as the area for the shots they heard. He too, like many others, saw many people running up to the GK.

BY MR. SCIAMBRA: Q: Standing next to the aerial photograph, would you please point to the direction in which you have testified you saw people running?

A: The direction from where it is indicated Elm Street on here to the direction of the top of the aerial photograph towards the grassy knoll.

Q: Where did you go?

A: I went to the area right below what is indicated here as the grassy knoll, on the sidewalk.

Q: Is there a wooden fence located in that area, sir?

A: There is a wooden stockade fence approximately 6 feet high located along the top of the grassy knoll.

This testimony was given in a court of law with all rules applying.  This part is for Mark Valenti as he tried to tell me a newspaper article was evidence.

Q: Mr. West, do you remember approximately when the parade route, that is the route which the presidential motorcade would take, was made public in Dallas?

A: No, sir, I do not.

Q: Could you tell us approximately how long before the 22nd of November, 1963 --

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, he has already answered the question.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. If a person says he doesn't know how can you get him to approximate it?

MR. DYMOND: He may have learned it from what was published in the newspaper.

MR. ALCOCK: It is hearsay what he read in the newspapers.

Newspaper articles are NOT evidence in a  REAL COURT OF LAW, they are considered hearsay evidence.  This is something the WC lived on, but it is NOT allowed in a court.

For the full testimony of Robert West at the Clay Shaw trial go here:


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Again, we see the WC reached conclusions their OWN evidence did NOT support. We also see the FBI had full control over what West did. Why? He was the surveyor of Dallas, and had been since 1944, so why was he handcuffed by the WC and the FBI? Based on his testimony before the Clay Shaw trial (he was NOT called by the WC or interviewed by the FBI) we again see the claims of the WC are sunk.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 04:42:49 PM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #103
« on: March 08, 2018, 04:26:57 PM »


Online Mark Valenti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #103
« Reply #1 on: Today at 03:26:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


This testimony was given in a court of law with all rules applying.  This part is for Mark Valenti as he tried to tell me a newspaper article was evidence.

Q: Mr. West, do you remember approximately when the parade route, that is the route which the presidential motorcade would take, was made public in Dallas?

A: No, sir, I do not.

Q: Could you tell us approximately how long before the 22nd of November, 1963 --

MR. ALCOCK: Objection, he has already answered the question.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. If a person says he doesn't know how can you get him to approximate it?

MR. DYMOND: He may have learned it from what was published in the newspaper.

MR. ALCOCK: It is hearsay what he read in the newspapers.

Newspaper articles are NOT evidence in a  REAL COURT OF LAW, they are considered hearsay evidence.  This is something the WC lived on, but it is NOT allowed in a court.



I missed this on the first go-around but it's worth bringing it back because it proves that Rob Caprio usually only digs for information until he finds something that backs up his theory. That's where he stops. But if he was truly attempting to discover the rock-solid truth, he would actually fight to prove himself wrong. That's what real researchers do. It's what scientists do. It's what authors do. Otherwise, it's pure demagoguery.

Here's the link that proves Rob incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #103
« Reply #1 on: Today at 03:26:41 PM »