Question for CTers: Who is the best ballistic expert ?

[Jack Trojan]

That’s actually what they do. Forensics ballistics experts specialize in looking at anything that has to do with firearms, from the identification of a specific round or weapon to determining the trajectory of a bullet. Ballistics experts can identify the caliber of a firearm's round and, with the help of national databases, can learn where the bullet was manufactured and possibly even the gun that fired it.

What has that got to do with trajectories?

[Paul May]

What has that got to do with trajectories?

Read it again. Determining trajectories is part of the job description.

[Bill Chapman]

What can the ballistic experts tell you anyway? This one is straightforward. Prove that there is a straight-line path from the 6th floor into JFK's back, out his throat and into Connally. This involves an easy peasy experiment that anyone can do. Try it yourself using 2 lasers pointed at each other and get in between them as shown below. Position yourself so that the lasers point to the entrance and exit wounds according to the autopsy photos, then post your results and make us CTs eat crow. I've suggested this definitive challenge for years now and still no takers.



But I must warn you, every LNer that has actually done this experiment doesn't post here anymore.

Name them

[Jack Trojan]

Name them

No

[Brian Roselle]

Yes, the seating orientation of Connally is crucial. Also, the angle was 17 degrees. My point is that it is up to YOU as a surrogate to orient yourself any damn way you please to make the Magic Bullet work. You can slouch or bend forward anyway you like as long as you match JFK's body orientation at the time the Magic Bullet struck him.

You can include Connally into the mix if you like and I can show you how to do that once you get past the Magic Bullet's trajectory thru JFK. The lasers are just a tool to determine the entry/exit wounds of the Magic Bullet, which none of the ballistic experts bothered to utilize in their analyses. They are given way too much credit to sort out the geometry involved. They typically aren't physicists who can calculate bullet trajectories.

Thanks, I can see the basic idea is to make the triangle to full scale using lasers to check the angle using a full scale general orientation (similar to that seen on a small scale in Croft's picture).

[Jack Trojan]

The top of the back collar of the jacket is nearly level with the mouth.

Why would your experiment showing a bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket put any LNer off?

You are obsessed with CAD. My graphic is not the experiment, it is the setup. Have you done the experiment yet Jerry? If so, then post your results and show us all that the MB was possible. Otherwise, no graphic or photo can resolve this. Besides, this is an experiment for the LNers to convince  themselves that the MB was possible.

Computer screens are 2D and this requires a 3D model using a surrogate and lasers. A 3D CAD model projected onto a 2D screen will never cut it, which is why I haven't bothered making one. I can't demonstrate that it was NOT possible. You would say I didn't try hard enough. Would you buy anything I posted that contradicted your position? Didn't think so.

[Jack Trojan]

You seem to forget that we've been improving on your original "ET" drawing (right, above).

It's been asked of you before, but please post photos of your own laser experiment and we'll compare your posture with Kennedy's actual posture in the motorcade. If the experiment is done honestly, nothing will change how the cross-section shows the bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket and exiting just above the base of the throat.

You just can't get out of your CAD bubble and accept that my graphic was NOT intended to be the experiment, only a demo of the setup for a real 3D experiment. Why would you opt for a 2D CAD rendering when you can do a real 3D analysis that was definitive? Not all physics engines (software behind CAD apps) are created equal and they all render a 3D model onto a 2D screen, which no one can verify as accurate. Why are you so afraid of reality? Oh right, you're a LNer and reality might shatter your world.

Dismissing 3D studies because they ultimately appear on 2D screens is absurd.

Sez you. I'm a photogrammetrist and I know how CAD apps work and their limitations. GIGO. Besides, I would never trust any 3D CAD study you put out since they are obviously not up to photogrammetric standards. EOS.