A straight line

[Andrew Mason]

I don't understand. Your "shifted" Connally figure doesn't have the sight-line going through his nose -- just more so.

I redrew my alignment using my own drawing of the limousine and making some necessary adjustments. The relationship between Kennedy and Connally at Z193 is basically the same as it was in the 2012 graphic -- just they moved on the new diagram a bit to their right.

You can make the sightlines anything you want if you are not constrained by the evidence.  I have made my drawing of the car correspond to the actual dimensions of the car.  I don't know where you get your drawing from but the position of the jump seat is several inches farther left than it was and the side window and bulkhead in front of JBC appears to be at least 6 inches closer to the jump seat.

Your overhead view is hilarious:

You're mainly hampered by three things:

• You can't do trajectory analysis
• You can't do 3D analysis (you just picture it in your mind working)
• Your theory's trajectory placements will never work in eternity

Trajectory analysis is possible to do accurately in a 3D model of Dealey Plaza and a correct model of the car.  You have yet to make a 3D model so I would not be too quick to criticise those who have. 

And, by the way, I have no theory about trajectory placements - just that they have to conform to the evidence.  You don't seem to be constrained by that.

[Royell Storing]

I am not disputing the size of the hole as described on the autopsy facesheet. 7 x 4 mm.

Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.

[John Mytton]

     Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.

The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat

Thanks for inadvertently helping to prove the Single Bullet Fact.





JohnM

[Jack Trojan]

Thanks for inadvertently helping to prove the Single Bullet Fact.



JohnM

Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate. You need to take some courses on forensic photogrammetry for you to recognize how clueless and full of BS you are.

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading. There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space. I accept that the downward angle is 17 degrees and the tangential angle is 7 degrees. But that's where it ends with respect to 3D modelling. I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about. The most frustrating part of posting on the JFK forum is that ALL analyses are null and void because the LNers are not peers wrt photo-analysis. They're photoshoppers, not photogrammetrists.

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Lastly, here's more food for thought. If 1 of the head shots did come from the front, then where was the shooter?

[Tim Nickerson]

     Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.

Your question was, "Are you disputing the Size of the Aligned Holes in: (1) JFK's Suit Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, and (3) JFK's Back /Autopsy Photo/Autopsy Face Sheet?"

To answer to your question fully; I'm not disputing the size of the hole Jfk's jacket, the size of the hole in his shirt , or the size of the hole described on the autopsy Facesheet or as seen in the autopsy photo.  Of  course the holes were aligned at the time of the shot.The Jacket and shirt were bunched up.

[John Mytton]

Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate. You need to take some courses on forensic photogrammetry for you to recognize how clueless and full of BS you are.

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading. There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space. I accept that the downward angle is 17 degrees and the tangential angle is 7 degrees. But that's where it ends with respect to 3D modelling. I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about. The most frustrating part of posting on the JFK forum is that ALL analyses are null and void because the LNers are not peers wrt photo-analysis. They're photoshoppers, not photogrammetrists.

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Lastly, here's more food for thought. If 1 of the head shots did come from the front, then where was the shooter?

Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate.

Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading.

The image was simply showing the jacket bunch, the "CAD crap" comes from your Kooky mate Ernie! Hahaha!

There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space.

Bullets don't travel in straight lines. Try again

I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about.

Then you come up with this piece dog poo of an undefined 2D line on a 3D image done in Microsoft Paint -snigger-, some photogrammetrist!?, you're a Joke Trojan. LOLOLOLOL!

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!



JohnM

[Jack Trojan]

Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!

I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.

The image was simply showing the jacket bunch, the "CAD crap" comes from your Kooky mate Ernie! Hahaha!

So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?
BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please. Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.

Bullets don't travel in straight lines. Try again

Bullets are like any object subjected to gravitational forces. They will take a parabolic path from start to finish. However, bullets travel so fast that their parabolic arc is very large and almost insignificant over a couple of hundred yards, mate.

Then you come up with this piece dog poo of an undefined 2D line on a 3D image done in Microsoft Paint -snigger-, some photogrammetrist!?, you're a Joke Trojan. LOLOLOLOL!

How you compose an image has nothing to do with the image editor you use, dufus. You have no idea.

Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!

How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

JackT

[John Mytton]

I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.
So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?
BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please. Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.
Bullets are like any object subjected to gravitational forces. They will take a parabolic path from start to finish. However, bullets travel so fast that their parabolic arc is very large and almost insignificant over a couple of hundred yards, mate.
How you compose an image has nothing to do with the image editor you use, dufus. You have no idea.
How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

JackT

I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.

Oh puhleeze, let's not go through your history where I have thoroughly smashed everyone of your layman claims, like when you claimed to know photography but didn't know basic 101 about actual 35mm film size or even it's orientation. How embarrassing!
 

So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?

Huh?, the jacket was bunched from Love field right through to Elm Street and when any Jacket hole measurements are taken this bunching must be taken into account.

BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please.

Yep, Ernie's a classic at arranging CGI characters onto 2 dimensional backgrounds.

Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.

So can YOU, document and prove something for a change instead of bludging off everybody else.

How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

Calm down and take some deep breaths before you pop a blood vessel.
If it's so simple show us stop making silly demands, YOU prove it, surely a photography expert has a camera, do you have a camera? Giggle!



JohnM