3D Modeling

[Andrew Mason]

John: Yes, that's true but isn't it YOUR explanation? You believe in the SBT, right? And the generally accepted explanation by lone assassin believers today? It's certainly mine.

The SBT has had a long evolution. And it still keeps changing.  I have always accepted the WC conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots. But I disagree with the SBT.  I disagree only because of the large bodies of consistent evidence that conflicts with it.  The evidence shows that no missed shot and is consistent with the overwhelming evidence that all the shots came from Oswald's rifle.

[Jim Hawthorn]

I've read here that there are errors in the Knott Lab. 3D diagram. Has anyone here written to the them about that?

Bump!

[Zeon Mason]

Seriously @Andrew Mason: ARE YOU OK ?
Because suggesting that JC was hit in the back by the FIRST shot!?? Which you suggest was fired at Z195? ( when Willis girl stops running), is like REALLY pushing the plausibility meter far into the red zone imo

And if JC were hit at Z195, the forward motion of his right shoulder would not be starting at Z224-225, but would have occurred at the moment of impact at Z195-96 thus at Z223 his right shoulder would already be turned and he would have already probably my be clutching his hat and raising it up.

I’m not adverse entirely to trying to work out that a 1st shot was fired thru the tree foliage because Maybe the 6th floor shooter whether Oswald or some one else, had some experience at shooting thru foliage ( like a Vietnam sniper for example) thus it’s not necessarily implausible to have shot thru the tree foliage.

However, imo,your theory would work better if the 1st shot was at. Approx Z 170 so that there’s not only the required 2.3 secs to fire again the MC rifle at Z224, but the angle for Z170 shot makes it higher probability to bypass JFKs right shoulder.

[Jerry Organ]

Not perfect but usable. The Dillard photo seen here has pin-cushioning, which the SketchUp program doesn't.

[Andrew Mason]

Not perfect but usable. The Dillard photo seen here has pin-cushioning, which the SketchUp program doesn't.

You have done the angle and scale nicely to match the photo so they can be compared.  I have superimposed your model over he photo:


It appears to me that the height of the entire compartment in the model is a bit greater than the photo (left side).  This is evident in looking at the rear third of the left door because there is a difference in shade of the top part of the door. The front panel (front seat back) also appears too high but the metal base plate around the interior looks about right.  Also the position of the roof support appears to be a bit farther back in the photo than in your model.  This is clearer on the right side. For some reason it appears to be much closer to the photo on the left side. I am not sure what is going on there.

The front edge of the back seat bottom is right but the top edge of the seat back appears to be too far forward in your model as does the vent behind the back seat. The right rear door appears to be in the correct position but the door edge below the top of the car on the right appears to be a bit too far forward.

Other than that, your model appears to be very close, Jerry.   You do excellent 3D work!

[Charles Collins]

Well done Jerry. I have one of the 1/24 scale models. It’s not perfect but seems to be reasonably close. I have recently seen some 3-D scanners advertised. And I am wondering if it would be feasible to scan the model to create a digital model that could be used in my 3D program that I use for the sniper’s nest modeling, etc. Does anyone have any experience with the scanners?

[Jerry Organ]

You have done the angle and scale nicely to match the photo so they can be compared.  I have superimposed your model over he photo:


It appears to me that the height of the entire compartment in the model is a bit greater than the photo (left side).  This is evident in looking at the rear third of the left door because there is a difference in shade of the top part of the door. The front panel (front seat back) also appears too high but the metal base plate around the interior looks about right.  Also the position of the roof support appears to be a bit farther back in the photo than in your model.  This is clearer on the right side. For some reason it appears to be much closer to the photo on the left side. I am not sure what is going on there.

The front edge of the back seat bottom is right but the top edge of the seat back appears to be too far forward in your model as does the vent behind the back seat. The right rear door appears to be in the correct position but the door edge below the top of the car on the right appears to be a bit too far forward.

Other than that, your model appears to be very close, Jerry.   You do excellent 3D work!

The graphic was a generalization, not meant for exact superimposition. Try a different size Love Field photo. Also, the camera-origin is difficult to ascertain.

In SketchUp, I get most of it to nearly match (can't expect a microscopic match, like your 3D work). The seat-back is a problem (it has strange curvature) and the vents need a refinement, but all items at the car-rail level match the side-on factory view. Without hands-on access to the limousine, the model is about all far as it can be taken.