When Was JBC Hit?

[Dan O'meara]

Maybe we can settle this debate by reference to the lane markers. In this frame from the 1963 Secret Service film, JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers:
Here is CE882, the scale map of Dealey Plaza showing the lane markers on which I have shown the position of JFK when he is in the position of being even with the ends of the lane markers:

On this, I have shown the sight line from Zapruder to JFK and extended it to the right where it intersects with the very end of the curved concrete wall around the end of the reflecting pool.
So to determine the zframe that this corresponds to, we simply look for the frame in which JFK aligns with the end of that concrete wall.  It appears to be z196:

I would have to say it would be well before this position. JFK has been in the clear for almost a car length, say 15-20 feet.  Why would the shooter wait at all? I would suggest that, since JFK was visible while passing under the outer oak tree branches, the shooter could easily have pulled the trigger as soon as he was clear and did not have to wait at all.  He could have fired even a bit earlier than that while JFK was here but still quite visible:

Maybe we can settle this debate by reference to the lane markers

Rest assured, this debate was settled quite some time ago.
It was settled the day the FBI did it's reconstruction.
At z193 JFK is still passing beneath the oak tree from the SN PoV.
It doesn't matter if you don't accept that. It really doesn't matter at all.
It doesn't matter that all your arguments have been destroyed over and over again.
It doesn't matter how deep in denial you are.
None of it matters.

[Andrew Mason]

Maybe we can settle this debate by reference to the lane markers

Rest assured, this debate was settled quite some time ago.
It was settled the day the FBI did it's reconstruction.
At z193 JFK is still passing beneath the oak tree from the SN PoV.
It doesn't matter if you don't accept that. It really doesn't matter at all.
It doesn't matter that all your arguments have been destroyed over and over again.
It doesn't matter how deep in denial you are.
None of it matters.

If you are right, you should be able to show why JFK was not in the clear where the SS film shows him to be in the clear OR why that position is not z196.  You refuse to look behind the FBI reconstruction.  It was not my only ITek that didn’t agree with it.  Anyone who has looked at it has been unable to explain their findings. We can see from the SS film with a better car with seats similar to those in the SX100 that JFK would have been in clear view from the SN well before z207.  To suggest that he waited until z222 is just speculation.

[Zeon Mason]

@Andrew; Is your Z193  hit on JC include the  bullet going thru his wrist bone before it hits JCs leg?

If so that could slow the bullet down a little more but I’m not sure if it would be enough velocity lost to cause only a shallow wound in JCs leg.

The WC scenario has the bullet being slowed down to about 900 ft/sec when it exited more JCs body and then slowed even more because it was tumbling when it hit JCs wrist and supposedly entered the wrist backwards , before it exited thru the hand and into JCs leg.

So I’m uncertain if you were suggesting that the bullet exiting JFK s throat started tumbling at that point and or if it hit JCs wrist bone backwards similar to the WC theory.

[Andrew Mason]

@Andrew; Is your Z193  hit on JC include the  bullet going thru his wrist bone before it hits JCs leg?

If so that could slow the bullet down a little more but I’m not sure if it would be enough velocity lost to cause only a shallow wound in JCs leg.

The WC scenario has the bullet being slowed down to about 900 ft/sec when it exited more JCs body and then slowed even more because it was tumbling when it hit JCs wrist and supposedly entered the wrist backwards , before it exited thru the hand and into JCs leg.

So I’m uncertain if you were suggesting that the bullet exiting JFK s throat started tumbling at that point and or if it hit JCs wrist bone backwards similar to the WC theory.

Here is the trajectory from the SN through JFK at z195:


The 10g bullet striking JBC’s wrist after passing through his chest was going fast enough to do serious damage to the radius bone.  So it might seem surprising that the bullet after passing through JFK’s neck would not do serious damage to the femur.  The main difference is that the bullet passed through a large amount of strong neck muscle and then was tumbling end over end and then struck the thigh obliquely and butt-first whereas the bullet through JBC did not pass through large muscle mass in the torso or wrist and struck nose-first directly on the radius.  We also don’t know how the bullet, CE399, came out of the thigh wound.  It may have deflected away from the femur after striking it and denting the base.  So it may not have come to rest in the thigh.  The recent claim by Paul Landis was that the bullet was found on the back seat. If true, the bullet had enough energy to keep going and strike something hard enough to bounce back to the back seat.

[Dan O'meara]

Maybe we can settle this debate by reference to the lane markers. In this frame from the 1963 Secret Service film, JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers:
Here is CE882, the scale map of Dealey Plaza showing the lane markers on which I have shown the position of JFK when he is in the position of being even with the ends of the lane markers:

On this, I have shown the sight line from Zapruder to JFK and extended it to the right where it intersects with the very end of the curved concrete wall around the end of the reflecting pool.
So to determine the zframe that this corresponds to, we simply look for the frame in which JFK aligns with the end of that concrete wall.  It appears to be z196:

I would have to say it would be well before this position. JFK has been in the clear for almost a car length, say 15-20 feet.  Why would the shooter wait at all? I would suggest that, since JFK was visible while passing under the outer oak tree branches, the shooter could easily have pulled the trigger as soon as he was clear and did not have to wait at all.  He could have fired even a bit earlier than that while JFK was here but still quite visible:

Maybe we can settle this debate by reference to the lane markers.

settle this debate?
Debate?
How is this a debate?
It is a constant destruction of your demented theory. How is that a debate?
You constantly lie, you are constantly deceitful. How is that a debate?
How can a debate take place in the face of constant lies and deceit?

It clearly cannot.

Are these accusations of lies and deceit unfounded?
Well, let's have a closer look at your post.

In this frame from the 1963 Secret Service film, JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers:

JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers?
What are you talking about?
In the picture on the left you are saying JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers.
What are you basing this on?
Is this a case of "Well, it looks that way to me d'uhhh"
Have you got anything to back this demented suggestion up with?
Are you going to ask me to prove his back is not even with the end of the lane markers?

But, for argument's sake, let's say your demented, plucked out of thin air suggestion is correct, and that JFK's back is even with the end of the lane markers.
You then draw our attention to the image on the right, where you believe JFK would be clear of the oak tree.
And here the level of your deceit is truly revealed.
You are trying to convince everyone that the image on the right is a close up of the image on the left - that is how you want to prove that JFK is clear of the oak tree when his back is level with the end of the lane markers.
BUT THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS.



Look at the arrangement of people around the tree on the left (circled in red). They are different.
Look at the police motorcyclist (circled in blue) present in the image on the right but not on the left!!
This is a deceitful lie of the worst kind as far as "research" is concerned and it makes a mockery of the notion of a debate.
How can a debate truly exist when you will constantly stoop to any depths to prop up your demented theory.

How can you defend such a deceitful approach to this topic?
How do you justify stooping to such depths?
Have you noticed that I never have to employ such weak-minded tactics?
Aren't you embarrassed by your need to resort to such tactics?

[Andrew Mason]

You are trying to convince everyone that the image on the right is a close up of the image on the left - that is how you want to prove that JFK is clear of the oak tree when his back is level with the end of the lane markers.
BUT THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS.

Of course they are different photographs! Did you understand where they are from? The Secret Service did several different takes with a camera and several through the telescopic sight.  How are they going to do them both at the same time?  View the film yourself:

What I did was provide you frames from the film showing the car and JFK in the same position relative to the tree.  I didn't realize that you needed that explained.

[Dan O'meara]

Of course they are different photographs! Did you understand where they are from? The Secret Service did several different takes with a camera and several through the telescopic sight.  How are they going to do them both at the same time?  View the film yourself:

What I did was provide you frames from the film showing the car and JFK in the same position relative to the tree.  I didn't realize that you needed that explained.

 
You were caught out being deceitful and, as usual, are going to lie your way out of it.
Explain how JFK's back is in line with the end of the lane markers.
Explain how the two images you posted are of the same moment.

[Andrew Mason]

You were caught out being deceitful and, as usual, are going to lie your way out of it.
Explain how JFK's back is in line with the end of the lane markers.
Explain how the two images you posted are of the same moment.

Dan, this seems to be your modus operandi. When you misunderstand something you accuse others of trying to deceive you.  When your error is revealed you feel you have to double down on on the accusation that you have been deliberately deceived rather than admitting the error. It appears to be a habit you have. 

If you need an explanation for the camera used, it is all set out in CE875.  The movie (film) camera had three lenses that could be used, one at a time, one of which had the telescopic sight connected to it:


https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0449b.htm

When they wanted to use the long range lens, as in the left hand photo I presented, they used one of the two lenses that does NOT have the telescopic sight.  When they wanted to show what it looked like through the telescopic sight, they rotated the lenses so that the telescopic sight was in place and had the car make another pass.    Is that clear now? 

They did have a still camera that is shown in the bottom of the page and took some photos with the telescopic sight as the movie camera was rolling, but these were at irregular intervals, not for every frame.

The lane markers are on the road. To see where the lane marker ends are in relation to JFK one has to drop a line from JFK straight down to the road. When you do that, that line and the end of the lane markers intersect:



The position of the JFK stand-in relative to the tree leaves is the same in both. Assuming the tree had not moved between takes, I suggest they are in the same position relative to the road in both.

If you disagree with any of this, show us your analysis.