A big thumb on the scale of justice
Herbert Blenner
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
All anti-SBT conspiracy-happy kooks should take a good, long, hard
look at CE903 (linked above). And those CTers should KEEP staring at
it until its SBT significance sinks in....because CE903 is an
excellent illustration of how the SBT WORKS, while using a stretch
limo similar to SS-100-X and using real-life human beings as stand-
ins
for JFK & JBC, and with the JBC stand-in actually even wearing the
exact same jacket that was being worn by JBC on Nov. 22, with Arlen
Specter's probe/rod being inserted right into the bullet hole in the
back of Connally's coat.
And the angle of Specter's rod is 17.43 degrees, exactly the same as
the string on the wall in the background of CE903. And 17.43 degrees
was determined by surveyors and the WC/FBI to be the average angle
(between Zapruder frames 210 and 225) from the southeast corner
window
on the TSBD's sixth floor to JFK's upper-back wound.
Quoting from the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal
Shaneyfelt:
"The average angle, allowing for the [3.9] degree street grade
results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of
17b043'30''." -- L. Shaneyfelt (WC Vol. 5; Page 162)
5 H 162:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_008...
End of quotation.
The surveyor determined a declination angle of 21 degree and 34
minutes for a single bullet event at Z-210. They also measured the
declination angle at Z-225 as 20 degree and 11 minutes. These
measurements give an average declination as 20 degree 52 minute and 30
seconds. Subtracting the declination angle of 3 degree and 9 minute
for slope of Elm Street yields an angle of 17 degree 43 minute and 30
seconds for a straight line connecting the exit wound on the stand in
for Kennedy with the entrance wound on the stand in for Connally.
In other words, CE 903 reports a near perfect match for a trajectory
from the sniper's nest, straight through President Kennedy and into
the back of Governor Connally. The agreement of angles to within one
minute, one-sixtieth of a degree, requires vertical placement of the
wounds to a precision of ( 24 inch ) Tan ( 1/60 degree) or 0.007 inch
assuming a two-foot horizontal separation between the wounds.
Seven-thousands of an inch is less than the thickness of a human hair.
Yet we are to believe that the FBI located the throat wound on
President Kennedy with incredible precision based the verbal reports
of the Parkland doctors. Indeed only a diehard would deny that CE 903
has caught the FBI with its big thumb on their scale.
bigdog
>
> Seven-thousands of an inch is less than the thickness of a human hair.
> Yet we are to believe that the FBI located the throat wound on
> President Kennedy with incredible precision based the verbal reports
> of the Parkland doctors. Indeed only a diehard would deny that CE 903
> has caught the FBI with its big thumb on their scale.
You seem to be saying that because the geometry is exactly what it
needs to be for the SBT to work, we should conclude it doesn't work.
Herbert Blenner
The problem is that CE 903 reports a near perfect match for a
trajectory from the sniper's nest, straight through President Kennedy
and into the back of Governor Connally. However, the straightness of
the trajectory through Kennedy disallows tumbling of the bullet and
undermines the official explanation of the elongated wound on
Connally's back. In other words the SBT rests upon the physical
impossibility of a bullet maintaining a straight course while an
obstacle induces tumbling.
Ironically, Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that his simulated Kennedy that
tumbled also deflected a MC bullet and moved the striking point upon a
simulated Connally by four inches.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> All anti-SBT conspiracy-happy kooks should take a good, long, hard
> look at CE903 (linked above). And those CTers should KEEP staring at
> it until its SBT significance sinks in....because CE903 is an
> excellent illustration of how the SBT WORKS, while using a stretch
> limo similar to SS-100-X and using real-life human beings as stand-
> ins
Except that CE 903 is a hoax. Specter is seen holding the rod ABOVE the
top of the shoulder of the JFK stand-in. But we can see for ourselves
now on the autopsy photos that Kennedy's back wound was BELOW the top of
his shoulders.
geovu...@gmail.com
Where are you getting the idea that the Warren Commission was claiming
such accuracy? Yes, the angles to the back wound, as measured from
the recreation, where given to the minute and second, but clearly they
are not claiming that this matched the angle between the wound
locations that accurately. Obviously, since they are giving an
average angle over several frames, which varies by more than a degree
between 210 and 225, they are not claiming that kind of accuracy.
Why not include the wording that the WC used? They stated, "The
alinement of the points of entry was only indicative and not
conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the
men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be
approximated." Does that sound like they are claiming accuracy of
wound placement to .007 inches?
Herbert Blenner
The distance moved was two inches.
Herbert
claviger
The theory is the bullet drilled through soft tissue, which slowed the
missile enough to lose spin. When it exited the throat it still had
plenty of velocity but without stabilizing spin, resulting in either a
porpoising wobble, or a tumbling action before it collided with the
torso of Governor Connally.
David Von Pein
CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
Anthony Marsh
No such theory exists except in your mind.
Going through that amount of soft tissue would slow the bullet down by
only about 129 fps, not enough to make any significant difference.
And alternative theory is that the change in medium can cause instability.
> plenty of velocity but without stabilizing spin, resulting in either a
> porpoising wobble, or a tumbling action before it collided with the
> torso of Governor Connally.
>
There was no tumble and there does not need to be one. People proposed
that ONLY because they lied about the length of Connally's back wound.
>
>
Herbert Blenner
CE903 shows the trajectory striking the back of the Kennedy stand-in
at a small angle of incidence. Under these conditions a simple entry
by bullet would have made a nearly circular hole.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
By contrast, Commander Humes documented an oval bullet hole with a
major axis of 7 mm and a 4-mm minor axis. Correcting these dimensions
for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue yields a major axis of 8.7
mm and a minor axis of 6.5 mm. At this point a forensic analyst can
easily calculate a 43-degree incidence angle at which the bullet
entered.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Now David, show us that the SBT can even get to first base by posting
a picture of a recreated Kennedy back wound whose major axis is
anywhere near 75 percent longer than its minor axis.
I did not intend to hold my breath so you have one less motive to
stall.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Let's take this one step at a time. A surveyor measured the
declination angles of the line of sight from the window sill to the
victim as positioned on Z-210 and Z- 225. They gave these angles to an
accuracy of one minute. However, during the approximate 180-ft flight
gravity increased the declination angle the bullet by four minutes.
However this error in the declination angle of the first strike by the
bullet is small compared with error by assuming a straight path
through President Kennedy.
>
> Why not include the wording that the WC used? They stated, "The
> alinement of the points of entry was only indicative and not
> conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the
> men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be
> approximated." Does that sound like they are claiming accuracy of
> wound placement to .007 inches?
The reason why the WC calculations did not reflect their words is
obvious as soon as someone backtracks the neglected five-degree
deflection angle over a range of 180 ft. They get an additional 15-ft
error in placement of the shooter.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 9, 12:22 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
>> choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
>> ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
>>
>> But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
>> CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
>
> CE903 shows the trajectory striking the back of the Kennedy stand-in
> at a small angle of incidence. Under these conditions a simple entry
> by bullet would have made a nearly circular hole.
>
CE 903 does not show a bullet striking the stand-in's back. It shows a
bullet going OVER his shoulder, not through him. All it proves is that
Connally could have been hit by a different bullet which just barely
missed JFK.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> By contrast, Commander Humes documented an oval bullet hole with a
> major axis of 7 mm and a 4-mm minor axis. Correcting these dimensions
Humes did not document anything. All Humes ever did was guess at things.
The wound does not measure 7 mm by 4 mm.
> for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue yields a major axis of 8.7
> mm and a minor axis of 6.5 mm. At this point a forensic analyst can
> easily calculate a 43-degree incidence angle at which the bullet
> entered.
>
Junk.
And the long axis is in the horizontal, so you are not talking about the
vertical angle. You are talking about the horizontal angle.
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You moved the goal posts a bit there. You are also missing the point
of what they were saying. I will repeat it. They specifically said,
"The exact positions of the men could not be re-created; thus, the
angle could only be approximated." You are applying accuracy to their
statement that they never intended. You are saying that they claim
that the bodies were positioned exactly as CE903 claims and that it
precludes the single bullet from occuring because it creates a
straight line through the bodies. In other words, it is possible that
the bodies were not aligned as they represented, which would allow for
deflection. It is only "indicative" of both men being hit by the same
bullet. It would be a greater stretch by far to look at CE903 and
claim that the bullet was able to completely miss the Governor.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98f95369-bb8b-4cc0...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
It does NOT work when viewed from the opposite side of the limo.
Herbert Blenner
> On 1/9/2009 9:12 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 12:22 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
> >> choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
> >> ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
>
> >> But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
> >> CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
>
> > CE903 shows the trajectory striking the back of the Kennedy stand-in
> > at a small angle of incidence. Under these conditions a simple entry
> > by bullet would have made a nearly circular hole.
>
> CE 903 does not show a bullet striking the stand-in's back. It shows a
> bullet going OVER his shoulder, not through him. All it proves is that
> Connally could have been hit by a different bullet which just barely
> missed JFK.
CE 903 shows two line with a declination angle of 17 degree 43 minute
and 30 second. One line passes behind and the other in front of the
stand-in for Kennedy.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
This demonstration shows that Mr. Specter exhausted his supply of
stand-ins and had none to spear.
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> > By contrast, Commander Humes documented an oval bullet hole with a
> > major axis of 7 mm and a 4-mm minor axis. Correcting these dimensions
>
> Humes did not document anything. All Humes ever did was guess at things.
> The wound does not measure 7 mm by 4 mm.
Humes said he measured it.
Mr. SPECTER - The one on the side is 385 and the one of the rear view
is 386. And that one is 387. For purposes of our record. if you will,
put them in as 385 and 386 for our printed record. You might want to
put them in chalk above them so you will see the one on the left is
385 and on the right is 386.
Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations
of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late
President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
vertical column.
Now it is your turn, Mr. Marsh, to post testimony or other
documentation to support the claim that Humes guessed at the dimension
of the bullet hole that he called a wound.
Whether you comply is unimportant because the Clark Panel and the FPP
measured the dimensions of the elliptical/oval abrasion surrounding
the bullet hole as 7 mm by 10 mm. So now a forensic analyst can skip
the correction for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue. They
calculate the cosine of the incidence angle as 7 mm divided by 10 mm.
This yields a 45-degree angle of incidence.
>
> > for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue yields a major axis of 8.7
> > mm and a minor axis of 6.5 mm. At this point a forensic analyst can
> > easily calculate a 43-degree incidence angle at which the bullet
> > entered.
> Junk.
> And the long axis is in the horizontal, so you are not talking about the
> vertical angle. You are talking about the horizontal angle.
The incidence angle is neither the vertical angle nor the horizontal
angle. Instead the perpendicular to surface of the bullet hole or
wound is the reference direction of an incidence angle.
Apparently your problem is failure to understand that a perpendicular
to a surface is neither vertical nor horizontal. In reality this
perpendicular may have any direction in space and has the
exceptionally useful property of specifying the spatial orientation of
the struck surface.
Herbert
>
>
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>
> > Now David, show us that the SBT can even get to first base by posting
> > a picture of a recreated Kennedy back wound whose major axis is
> > anywhere near 75 percent longer than its minor axis.
>
> > I did not intend to hold my breath so you have one less motive to
> > stall.
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
>
> CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
> choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
> ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
>
WC defenders love CE 903 because they rely on hoaxes and love it when
people LIE about the evidence. The rod does not correctly mark Kennedy's
back wound.
> But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
> CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
>
What it does prove is that there was plenty of room for a bullet to go
over Kennedy's shoulder as the rod does and hit Connally's back,
consistent with a shot from the sniper's nest. Thanks for proving our
conspiracy points.
geovu...@gmail.com
> On Jan 9, 11:54 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/9/2009 9:12 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 12:22 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
> > >> choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
> > >> ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
>
> > >> But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
> > >> CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
>
> > > CE903 shows the trajectory striking the back of the Kennedy stand-in
> > > at a small angle of incidence. Under these conditions a simple entry
> > > by bullet would have made a nearly circular hole.
>
> > CE 903 does not show a bullet striking the stand-in's back. It shows a
> > bullet going OVER his shoulder, not through him. All it proves is that
> > Connally could have been hit by a different bullet which just barely
> > missed JFK.
>
> CE 903 shows two line with a declination angle of 17 degree 43 minute
> and 30 second. One line passes behind and the other in front of the
> stand-in for Kennedy.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We've discussed this before. Where does the 45 degree angle of incidence
get us? Are you suggesting that a bullet was fired from a plane over
Dealy Plaza? Are you suggesting that the bullet entered soft tissue with
a 45 degree angle of incidence and then turned a sharp corner to exit at
the throat? Throw us a bone regarding what you think this means.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 9, 11:54 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2009 9:12 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 12:22 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> CE903 destroys multiple conspiracy-favoring myths. But most CTers just
>>>> choose to ignore the SBT perfection of CE903. They almost have to
>>>> ignore it. Because they WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be false.
>>>> But CE903 proves that the trajectory works, and works perfectly. A
>>>> CTer's denying this fact couldn't be less important.
>>> CE903 shows the trajectory striking the back of the Kennedy stand-in
>>> at a small angle of incidence. Under these conditions a simple entry
>>> by bullet would have made a nearly circular hole.
>> CE 903 does not show a bullet striking the stand-in's back. It shows a
>> bullet going OVER his shoulder, not through him. All it proves is that
>> Connally could have been hit by a different bullet which just barely
>> missed JFK.
>
> CE 903 shows two line with a declination angle of 17 degree 43 minute
> and 30 second. One line passes behind and the other in front of the
> stand-in for Kennedy.
>
SO what? They were trying to sell a hoax.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> This demonstration shows that Mr. Specter exhausted his supply of
> stand-ins and had none to spear.
>
He only needed stand-ins for the wounds. The WC itself admitted the
reconstruction was not accurate.
>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>>> By contrast, Commander Humes documented an oval bullet hole with a
>>> major axis of 7 mm and a 4-mm minor axis. Correcting these dimensions
>> Humes did not document anything. All Humes ever did was guess at things.
>> The wound does not measure 7 mm by 4 mm.
>
> Humes said he measured it.
>
But he mismeasured it.
> Mr. SPECTER - The one on the side is 385 and the one of the rear view
> is 386. And that one is 387. For purposes of our record. if you will,
> put them in as 385 and 386 for our printed record. You might want to
> put them in chalk above them so you will see the one on the left is
> 385 and on the right is 386.
> Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations
> of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late
> President.
> Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
> wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
> above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
> millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
> vertical column.
>
Of course he said that. Because he was confident that the autopsy photos
would never been seen by the public.
> Now it is your turn, Mr. Marsh, to post testimony or other
> documentation to support the claim that Humes guessed at the dimension
> of the bullet hole that he called a wound.
>
> Whether you comply is unimportant because the Clark Panel and the FPP
> measured the dimensions of the elliptical/oval abrasion surrounding
> the bullet hole as 7 mm by 10 mm. So now a forensic analyst can skip
> the correction for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue. They
> calculate the cosine of the incidence angle as 7 mm divided by 10 mm.
> This yields a 45-degree angle of incidence.
>
The long axis is in the horizontal, not the vertical. So this does not
indicate the downward angle. And your math is imaginary.
>>> for elastic relaxation and swell of tissue yields a major axis of 8.7
>>> mm and a minor axis of 6.5 mm. At this point a forensic analyst can
>>> easily calculate a 43-degree incidence angle at which the bullet
>>> entered.
>
>> Junk.
>> And the long axis is in the horizontal, so you are not talking about the
>> vertical angle. You are talking about the horizontal angle.
>
> The incidence angle is neither the vertical angle nor the horizontal
> angle. Instead the perpendicular to surface of the bullet hole or
> wound is the reference direction of an incidence angle.
>
More mumbo jumbo. The long axis indicates in which direction the wound
was elongated. It was horizontal.
> Apparently your problem is failure to understand that a perpendicular
> to a surface is neither vertical nor horizontal. In reality this
Who said anything about perpendicular? The wound was elongated.
Anthony Marsh
It's easy to see from the rod he is holding that the bullet missed
Kennedy and hit Connally.
David Von Pein
>>> "Now David, show us that the SBT can even get to first base by posting
a picture of a recreated Kennedy back wound whose major axis is anywhere
near 75 percent longer than its minor axis." <<<
LOL.
The above BS is supposed to discredit the SBT perfection that exists in
Commission Exhibit #903?? Is that correct??
Reprise:
LOL.
Herbert Blenner
You are confusing an angle of incidence with a declination angle.
The declination angle describes the direction of the shooting with
respect to the victim while the incidence angle is a measure of the
orientation of the victim relative to the direction of the striking
bullet.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I did not miss the point. Instead, I recognized that the WC made many
errors in the so-called analysis and elected to ignore their
confusion. However, since you press the issue I will now confront
their nonsense.
The WC wrote:
"The alignment of the points of entry was only indicative and not
conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the
men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be
approximated. Had President Kennedy been leaning forward or backward,
the angle of declination of the shot to a perpendicular target would
have varied."
Had President Kennedy been leaning forward or backward the angle of
declination of the shot would have changed by a calculable and
negligible amount. This situation arises since a forward or back lean
changes the horizontal and vertical distances between the shooter and
victim by mere inches, which represent negligible changes in distances
of the order of one hundred feet.
For example the surveyor provided data to calculate the horizontal and
vertical distances between the shooter and victim on frame Z-210. The
range of 176.9 ft and declination angle of 21.57 degree gives a
horizontal distance of 164.51 ft and 65.04 ft for the vertical
distance.
If the victim leaned backward by 10 degree then taking the point of
impact as 2 ft from their axis of rotation yields a change in
horizontal distance of -0.35 ft and +0.03 ft for the change in
vertical distance. The modified vertical distance becomes 65.07 ft and
the modified horizontal distance becomes 164.16 ft. Now the modified
declination angle equals inv tan ( 65.07 ft / 164.16 ft ) or 21.62
degree.
The unmodified declination angle was 21.57 degree. So the 10-degree
change in orientation angle produces a negligible 0.05-degree change
in the declination angle.
Now consider what happens to the incidence angle between the
trajectory of the striking bullet and the perpendicular to struck
point when leaning rotates the target.
Since the target is far from the shooter the rotation changes the
declination or trajectory angle of the bullet by a few hundredths of a
degree. However, the change in the direction of the perpendicular to
the struck point precisely equals the change in the orientation angle.
So the change in the incidence angle practically equals the change in
the lean angle. This result underlies a proper forensic analysis.
Analysts calculate the incidence angle from the dimensions of a simple
bullet hole or wound. Knowledge of the position of the victim relative
to the shooter gives the declination angle of the bullet. This
combined information is sufficient to calculate the lean angle of the
victim.
For example, a bullet with declination angle of 20 degree strikes a
target at an incidence angle of 35 degree. Under these conditions the
surface of the target made a 15 degree angle with the vertical.
Alternately if another bullet at a 20-degree declination angle struck
a second target with a zero degree angle of incidence then the angle
of lean of this target becomes 20-degree with a direction of rotation
opposite the direction of the first case.
A simple identity relates the declination angle, incidence angle and
orientation angle and enables any one angle to be expressed as the sum
of or the difference between the other two angles. For a proof of the
above statement see the following graphic.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/geometricproof.jpg
Applying this scientific analysis to the entry wounds on President
Kennedy shows that the medical evidence infers an assassination of a
ducking victim. For details see the following link
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
> You are applying accuracy to their
> statement that they never intended. You are saying that they claim
> that the bodies were positioned exactly as CE903 claims and that it
> precludes the single bullet from occuring because it creates a
> straight line through the bodies. In other words, it is possible that
> the bodies were not aligned as they represented, which would allow for
> deflection. It is only "indicative" of both men being hit by the same
> bullet. It would be a greater stretch by far to look at CE903 and
> claim that the bullet was able to completely miss the Governor.
The WC inferred unreasonable accuracy by measurement of an angle to
seconds while ignoring a five-degree deflection angle. More important
then their abuse of numbers, I strongly denounce their convolution of
every angle under the Sun with the simple-minded idea of declination
angle.
Anthony Marsh
They did not ignore their errors. They wrote about them in internal
memos and discussed them in executive sessions.
> The WC wrote:
>
> "The alignment of the points of entry was only indicative and not
> conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the
> men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be
> approximated. Had President Kennedy been leaning forward or backward,
> the angle of declination of the shot to a perpendicular target would
> have varied."
>
> Had President Kennedy been leaning forward or backward the angle of
> declination of the shot would have changed by a calculable and
> negligible amount. This situation arises since a forward or back lean
> changes the horizontal and vertical distances between the shooter and
> victim by mere inches, which represent negligible changes in distances
> of the order of one hundred feet.
>
But it drastically changes the angle through the body. You might remember
that the HSCA was faced with an impossible angle through Kennedy, so they
simply made up an imaginary lean forward by 18 degrees to solve the
problem.
> For example the surveyor provided data to calculate the horizontal and
> vertical distances between the shooter and victim on frame Z-210. The
> range of 176.9 ft and declination angle of 21.57 degree gives a
> horizontal distance of 164.51 ft and 65.04 ft for the vertical
> distance.
>
> If the victim leaned backward by 10 degree then taking the point of
> impact as 2 ft from their axis of rotation yields a change in
> horizontal distance of -0.35 ft and +0.03 ft for the change in
> vertical distance. The modified vertical distance becomes 65.07 ft and
> the modified horizontal distance becomes 164.16 ft. Now the modified
> declination angle equals inv tan ( 65.07 ft / 164.16 ft ) or 21.62
> degree.
>
Mumbo Jumbo.
> The unmodified declination angle was 21.57 degree. So the 10-degree
> change in orientation angle produces a negligible 0.05-degree change
> in the declination angle.
>
> Now consider what happens to the incidence angle between the
> trajectory of the striking bullet and the perpendicular to struck
> point when leaning rotates the target.
> Since the target is far from the shooter the rotation changes the
> declination or trajectory angle of the bullet by a few hundredths of a
> degree. However, the change in the direction of the perpendicular to
> the struck point precisely equals the change in the orientation angle.
> So the change in the incidence angle practically equals the change in
> the lean angle. This result underlies a proper forensic analysis.
>
> Analysts calculate the incidence angle from the dimensions of a simple
> bullet hole or wound. Knowledge of the position of the victim relative
> to the shooter gives the declination angle of the bullet. This
> combined information is sufficient to calculate the lean angle of the
> victim.
>
> For example, a bullet with declination angle of 20 degree strikes a
> target at an incidence angle of 35 degree. Under these conditions the
> surface of the target made a 15 degree angle with the vertical.
You are talking about a vertical scar. But Kennedy's back wound was
longer in the horizontal.
geovu...@gmail.com
No, I'm not confusing anything. I'm asking you what you think it means to
have a near 45 degree angle of incidence. You claim that the angle of
incidence that the WC is claiming would result in a nearly round hole.
What does the elliptical hole mean to you? I'm saying that the path
through the body from the back wound to the neck wound reveals an angle
similar to that of a shot from the book depository. How do you figure that
in to your 45 degree angle of incidence? Your critiques cannot simply be
a treatment on small pieces of the evidence. It must consider all of the
evidence as a whole. Do you take this approach because it is easier to
not address the remainder of the evidence or have you just not considered
what this actually means.
Have you considered that the measurements of the hole are not perfect?
How much would a millimeter of error affect the angle? Considering that we
have a photo which shows the hole to be larger in the horizontal axis, can
we trust the measurements? Personally, it appears to me that we cannot
necessarily trust the photo because it appears that Kennedy is not in the
natural posture from the time of the shooting and that the hole has been
compressed in the vertical. It's really impossible to say that the photo
shows the true dimensions of the hole for verification.
Herbert Blenner
Sore loser.
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
A bullet without spin cannot tumble. Instead it simply rotates about
an axis whose direction remains fixed in space. This motion differs
from tumbling that is a rotation about an axis that is itself rotating
in space.
A distinction between a simple rotation and a tumble is irrelevant for
the discussion of the SBT since the time of flight between victims was
too short for the bullet to have reached more than one quarter of a
revolution, the critical point for the onset of tumbling. These
considerations prohibit a strike by a tumbling bullet and allow entry
by a yawing bullet.
During entry into Connally's back, the bullet traveled not more than
its 1.2-inch length. If the bullet were yawing then it struck with an
angle of yaw that continually increased during the flight between
victims and the briefer interval of a fraction of the transit time of
Kennedy. Under these conditions the yaw angle of a yawing bullet
would have changed by the less one-twentieth of the accumulated yaw
angle of thirty degrees. So if an obstacle within Kennedy induced
yawing of the bullet then it would have essentially entered Connally's
back with an unchanging angle of yaw.
I wonder whether the unphysical tumble theory of the elongated wound
on Connally's back is a cleaver distraction from the principle that
any force, which inducing yawing also changes the direction of the
bullet.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I understand angle of incidence the same way as the millions of people
who relate the normal and tangential components of a velocity to the
speed. The normal component equals the speed multiplied by the cosine
of the incidence angle while the tangential component is the speed
multiplied by the sine of the incident angle.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/components.jpg
> You claim that the angle of
> incidence that the WC is claiming would result in a nearly round hole.
I suggest that you use the photographic record and measure the
incidence angle arising from a bullet with a 21-degree declination
angle entering the upper back. If the surface of the back were
straight and vertical then the incidence angle would have been 21
degree. However, a slight curvature of the back or a forward lean
would more closely align the direction of the perpendicular to the
point of impact with the trajectory of the striking bullet. Both
effects reduce the angle of incidence.
In absence of these effects the hole would be almost round with the
major axis a mere 7 percent longer than the minor axis and less than 7
percent if either effect were present.
By contrast, Commander Humes documented a 4-mm by 7-mm bullet hole. In
this case the major axis was 75 percent longer than the minor axis.
Clearly one cannot dismiss a discrepancy of more than an order of
magnitude by making the unusual excuses.
> What does the elliptical hole mean to you?
An elliptical surface hole means that the bullet made a cylindrical
hole beneath the surface and lengths of the minor and major axes
provide data to calculate the incidence angle of the bullet. In
particular the cosine of the incidence angle equals the length of the
minor axis divided by the length of the major axis.
> I'm saying that the path
> through the body from the back wound to the neck wound reveals an angle
> similar to that of a shot from the book depository. How do you figure that
> in to your 45 degree angle of incidence?
I do not figure in the 45-degree angle of incidence as derived from
the measurements of the bullet hole in the back with the path of the
transiting bullet that had a declination angle of about 21 degree.
Instead, I recognize the relationship between incidence angle and the
dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound and point out the
inconsistency of the WC explanation of Kennedy's back and neck
wounds.
> Your critiques cannot simply be
> a treatment on small pieces of the evidence. It must consider all of the
> evidence as a whole. Do you take this approach because it is easier to
> not address the remainder of the evidence or have you just not considered
> what this actually means.
You have got things backwards. I have considered all the forensic
evidence while the WC ignored the accepted relationship between
incidence angle and the dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
In fact the testimony of a ballistic expert from Edgewood Arsenal
strongly suggests that the concept of incidence angle was in the same
banned category as the dp or change in momentum.
Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The
measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You
wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is
difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on.
It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a
certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is
built.
End of quotation.
Without doubt, Dr. Light said, It undoubtedly struck not at normal
incidence, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the
nature of the way the shoulder is built.
> Have you considered that the measurements of the hole are not perfect?
> How much would a millimeter of error affect the angle?
Error analysis is par for the course. I quote Punching Holes
"The reported dimensions of the bullet hole are rounded to one
significant figure. So the actual length of the major axis should be
taken as 7 ±0.5 mm. Likewise the real length of the minor axis is 4
±0.5 mm. These uncertain dimensions produce a span for the magnitude
of incidence angle. Calculations yield 41 ±5 degree."
> Considering that we
> have a photo which shows the hole to be larger in the horizontal axis, can
> we trust the measurements? Personally, it appears to me that we cannot
> necessarily trust the photo because it appears that Kennedy is not in the
> natural posture from the time of the shooting and that the hole has been
> compressed in the vertical. It's really impossible to say that the photo
> shows the true dimensions of the hole for verification.
The autopsy photographs of Kennedy's back show the abrasion
surrounding the bullet hole. Examiners of the Clark Panel gave the
dimensions of the elliptical abrasion as 7-mm by 10-mm. This data
removes the element of trust by enabling a straightforward calculation
of incidence angle. The cosine of the angle becomes 0.7 and yields a
45-degree angle of incidence that agrees with the incidence angle
derived from the dimensions of the bullet hole after accounting for
elastic relaxation and swell of the tissue.
In fairness, I acknowledge the discrepancy between the angular
orientation of the major axis of the abrasion with the major axis of
the bullet hole. In particular the FPP placed the direction of the
major axis as 15 degree from perpendicular to the spinal column while
Humes reported a rough alignment of the major axis of the bullet hole
with the column. For a discussion of this problem see part two of
Punching Holes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Herbert Blenner
The point is a lean changes the transit angles between the direction
of the bullet and the anatomical planes of the body. These transit
angles are not the declination and lateral angles of trajectory.
>
> > For example the surveyor provided data to calculate the horizontal and
> > vertical distances between the shooter and victim on frame Z-210. The
> > range of 176.9 ft and declination angle of 21.57 degree gives a
> > horizontal distance of 164.51 ft and 65.04 ft for the vertical
> > distance.
>
> > If the victim leaned backward by 10 degree then taking the point of
> > impact as 2 ft from their axis of rotation yields a change in
> > horizontal distance of -0.35 ft and +0.03 ft for the change in
> > vertical distance. The modified vertical distance becomes 65.07 ft and
> > the modified horizontal distance becomes 164.16 ft. Now the modified
> > declination angle equals inv tan ( 65.07 ft / 164.16 ft ) or 21.62
> > degree.
>
> Mumbo Jumbo.
Sad, truly sad.
> > The unmodified declination angle was 21.57 degree. So the 10-degree
> > change in orientation angle produces a negligible 0.05-degree change
> > in the declination angle.
>
> > Now consider what happens to the incidence angle between the
> > trajectory of the striking bullet and the perpendicular to struck
> > point when leaning rotates the target.
> > Since the target is far from the shooter the rotation changes the
> > declination or trajectory angle of the bullet by a few hundredths of a
> > degree. However, the change in the direction of the perpendicular to
> > the struck point precisely equals the change in the orientation angle.
> > So the change in the incidence angle practically equals the change in
> > the lean angle. This result underlies a proper forensic analysis.
>
> > Analysts calculate the incidence angle from the dimensions of a simple
> > bullet hole or wound. Knowledge of the position of the victim relative
> > to the shooter gives the declination angle of the bullet. This
> > combined information is sufficient to calculate the lean angle of the
> > victim.
>
> > For example, a bullet with declination angle of 20 degree strikes a
> > target at an incidence angle of 35 degree. Under these conditions the
> > surface of the target made a 15 degree angle with the vertical.
>
> You are talking about a vertical scar. But Kennedy's back wound was
> longer in the horizontal.
If the major axis of Kennedy's back wound were perpendicular to the
spinal column then this would show a forward lean by an angle from the
vertical that matched the declination angle of the bullet and a
considerable twist either to the right or left, from the orientation
that would have allowed a circular surface wound.
Given the 7-mm by 10-mm dimensions of the elliptical wound this
azimuthal angle becomes 45 degree from the direction for entry at a
perfect right angle to the surface.
In reality, the FPP noted that the direction of the major axis of the
wound was 15 degree from a perpendicular to the spinal column. So the
angle of lean did not fully cancel the declination angle of the
bullet.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/strikingangles.jpg
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
More false assumptions. First, why do you assume that the point on his
back was perpendicular to his spinal column? Second, the HSCA noted that
the abrasion collar indicates that the bullet struck at an angle, not
perpendicularly.
What twist are you talking about?
> Given the 7-mm by 10-mm dimensions of the elliptical wound this
> azimuthal angle becomes 45 degree from the direction for entry at a
> perfect right angle to the surface.
>
> In reality, the FPP noted that the direction of the major axis of the
> wound was 15 degree from a perpendicular to the spinal column. So the
> angle of lean did not fully cancel the declination angle of the
> bullet.
>
They needed 18 degrees not to negate the angle of the wound, but to
overcome the near 0 degree angle from the back to the front.
geovu...@gmail.com
So, in essence, you are doing exactly what you claim the Warren Commission
was doing. You claim they are omitting certain evidence in order to
bolster their theory. Do you really not see how this is problematic?
You are not trying to formulate a theory. You are trying to find a
discrepancy in the WC theory. In the same way, allow me to find a
discrepancy in your claim. Your claim doesn't fit with the entire picture
created by the given evidence. If you claim that a bullet entered the
body with an angle of incidence of +/- 45-degrees, you need to explain how
it transited to the neck wound. If it were the other way around, and the
WC was claiming a 45-degree angle of incidence, yet the transiting wound
didn't match it, you would be all over it.
> Instead, I recognize the relationship between incidence angle and the
> dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound and point out the
> inconsistency of the WC explanation of Kennedy's back and neck
> wounds.
>
> > Your critiques cannot simply be
> > a treatment on small pieces of the evidence. It must consider all of the
> > evidence as a whole. Do you take this approach because it is easier to
> > not address the remainder of the evidence or have you just not considered
> > what this actually means.
>
> You have got things backwards. I have considered all the forensic
> evidence while the WC ignored the accepted relationship between
> incidence angle and the dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound.
I don't have anything backwards. You are not considering all of the
forensic evidence. You are focused on the measurements of the back wound
and claiming that they discredit all of the forensic evidence as a whole.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>
> In fact the testimony of a ballistic expert from Edgewood Arsenal
> strongly suggests that the concept of incidence angle was in the same
> banned category as the dp or change in momentum.
>
> Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The
> measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You
> wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is
> difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on.
> It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a
> certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is
> built.
> End of quotation.
>
> Without doubt, Dr. Light said, It undoubtedly struck not at normal
> incidence, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the
> nature of the way the shoulder is built.
Once again, you pick and choose what you want to hear. He is saying that
the measurements were not particularly precise. That's a strike against
your critique. Next, he is saying that there was a certain obliquity,
just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. Do you understand
that? He is saying that there was an obliquity to the wound because of
the way the shoulder is built. The curve of the shoulder created the
elliptical measurement of the wound (according to him). In fact, there is
nothing in his statement that agrees with your conclusion of a 45 degree
angle of incidence and a discrepancy of the WC findings. Do you have any
other experts that you would like to quote to weaken your claim.
>
> > Have you considered that the measurements of the hole are not perfect?
> > How much would a millimeter of error affect the angle?
>
> Error analysis is par for the course. I quote Punching Holes
>
> "The reported dimensions of the bullet hole are rounded to one
> significant figure. So the actual length of the major axis should be
> taken as 7 ±0.5 mm. Likewise the real length of the minor axis is 4
> ±0.5 mm. These uncertain dimensions produce a span for the magnitude
> of incidence angle. Calculations yield 41 ±5 degree."
They may be rounded to one significant figure regarding someone using a
ruler on the wound, but that doesn't account for human error in other
ways. You cannot guarantee that the body was placed in it's natural
position, matching the position at the time of the shot. Without this
accounted for, the stretching or compression of muscles and skin can alter
the dimensions of the wound. The factor of error in such a change is well
above +/- .5mm.
Anthony Marsh
Show me a bullet without spin. You'd have to dig way back in history.
Before rifling bullets did tumble. Rifling helped stabilize them in
flight.
> an axis whose direction remains fixed in space. This motion differs
> from tumbling that is a rotation about an axis that is itself rotating
> in space.
>
> A distinction between a simple rotation and a tumble is irrelevant for
> the discussion of the SBT since the time of flight between victims was
> too short for the bullet to have reached more than one quarter of a
> revolution, the critical point for the onset of tumbling. These
> considerations prohibit a strike by a tumbling bullet and allow entry
> by a yawing bullet.
>
Well, I believe you, but if you could really prove it then maybe you
could silence the SBT adherents.
Herbert Blenner
> On Jan 11, 7:47 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 9:15 pm, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 10, 12:57 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 9:59 pm, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 9, 12:31 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 9, 11:54 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1/9/2009 9:12 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 12:22 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
A big snip by HB.
> > > I'm saying that the path
> > > through the body from the back wound to the neck wound reveals an angle
> > > similar to that of a shot from the book depository. How do you figure that
> > > in to your 45 degree angle of incidence?
>
> > I do not figure in the 45-degree angle of incidence as derived from
> > the measurements of the bullet hole in the back with the path of the
> > transiting bullet that had a declination angle of about 21 degree.
>
> So, in essence, you are doing exactly what you claim the Warren Commission
> was doing. You claim they are omitting certain evidence in order to
> bolster their theory. Do you really not see how this is problematic?
> You are not trying to formulate a theory. You are trying to find a
> discrepancy in the WC theory. In the same way, allow me to find a
> discrepancy in your claim. Your claim doesn't fit with the entire picture
> created by the given evidence. If you claim that a bullet entered the
> body with an angle of incidence of +/- 45-degrees, you need to explain how
> it transited to the neck wound. If it were the other way around, and the
> WC was claiming a 45-degree angle of incidence, yet the transiting wound
> didn't match it, you would be all over it.
My 45-degree angle of incidence quantifies the finding by the
prosectors of a tangential entry by a bullet into Kennedy's back. This
knowledge explains why on Friday night neither Humes, Boswell nor
Finck speculated that the bullet, which entered the back had exited
through an unrecognized throat wound concealed by the abomination
later attributed to a surgical procedure. Further the prosectors
documented no portion of the line between the bullet wound in the back
and the abomination in the throat as passing through a bullet hole. So
in reality Bethesda uncovered no hard evidence of a perforating back
to throat wound.
The testimonies of a specialist from Edgewood Arsenal, Dr. Dziemian,
and doctors Carrico and Perry of Parkland Hospital who directly worked
on the bullet hole in the throat show how Arlen Specter dealt with the
large incidence angle of the bullet that tangentially entered
Kennedy's back.
Arlen Specter misrepresented the 45-degree "impingement" angle
discussed by Humes in relation to the head shot as a 45-degree
declination angle. In this manner Specter evaded the problem of the 45-
degree incidence angle then employed his yes men to affirm entry by a
bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired from a range of
between 160 and 250 ft.
A high-school student in the academic program could mentally calculate
the distances of this hypothetical shooter behind and above their
victim. Since the declination angle is 45-degree these distances are
equal. So they recall that the sine or cosine of 45 degree equals
seven-tenths and figure the elevation of the shooter between 112 ft
and 175 ft above their victim.
By contrast a shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD was less than 70
ft above their victims throughout the specified ranges. Do you think
that these educated and knowledgeable witnesses affirmed a
hypothetical shooter in a skyscraper to make fun of Arlen Specter and
his SBT?
>
> > Instead, I recognize the relationship between incidence angle and the
> > dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound and point out the
> > inconsistency of the WC explanation of Kennedy's back and neck
> > wounds.
>
> > > Your critiques cannot simply be
> > > a treatment on small pieces of the evidence. It must consider all of the
> > > evidence as a whole. Do you take this approach because it is easier to
> > > not address the remainder of the evidence or have you just not considered
> > > what this actually means.
>
> > You have got things backwards. I have considered all the forensic
> > evidence while the WC ignored the accepted relationship between
> > incidence angle and the dimensions of an elliptical hole or wound.
>
> I don't have anything backwards. You are not considering all of the
> forensic evidence. You are focused on the measurements of the back wound
> and claiming that they discredit all of the forensic evidence as a whole.
Recognizing a conflict between one portion of the evidence with
another part does not discredit all nor any bit of evidence. The
conflict stands until an internal weakness discredits one or the other
side of the conflict. For example, the numerous problems of the
forensic medical evidence do not and cannot weaken the linkage of the
whole bullet found at Parkland Hospital in the former vicinity of
Connally with the abandoned rifle recovered from the sixth floor of
the TSBD.
Dr. Light was not discussing Kennedy's back wound. This should have
been obvious from his opening sentence that said, "Yes, I don't feel
too certain that it was yawing." If you missed this pointer then a
clause of his third sentence, "You wouldn't expect them (a reference
to the previously mentioned measurements) to be in an operating room"
should have informed you that a wound on Connally was the subject of
discussion.
Even worse in your haste to nit pick my claim that the concept of
incidence was banned, you attach a foolish interpretation to the
published statement, "It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance,
that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the
way the shoulder is built."
Curvature does not create elliptical wounds. Instead a strike at other
than normal incidence yields an elliptical wound if the bullet makes a
cylindrical or conical hole just beneath the surface.
Incidentally, industry routinely punches or bores round holes in
curved objects. The round hole of a broom handle is a common household
example that shows the fallacy of a cause and effect relationship
between curvature and ellipticity.
>
>
>
> > > Have you considered that the measurements of the hole are not perfect?
> > > How much would a millimeter of error affect the angle?
>
> > Error analysis is par for the course. I quote Punching Holes
>
> > "The reported dimensions of the bullet hole are rounded to one
> > significant figure. So the actual length of the major axis should be
> > taken as 7 ±0.5 mm. Likewise the real length of the minor axis is 4
> > ±0.5 mm. These uncertain dimensions produce a span for the magnitude
> > of incidence angle. Calculations yield 41 ±5 degree."
>
> They may be rounded to one significant figure regarding someone using a
> ruler on the wound, but that doesn't account for human error in other
> ways. You cannot guarantee that the body was placed in it's natural
> position, matching the position at the time of the shot. Without this
> accounted for, the stretching or compression of muscles and skin can alter
> the dimensions of the wound. The factor of error in such a change is well
> above +/- .5mm.
When analysts know the diameter of the bullet then they can account
for the changes in the lengths of both axes due to deformation of
tissues.
James J. Humes described the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back
as oval with a major axis of 7 mm and a minor axis of 4 mm. He
explained that a tangential strike by the bullet elongated the wound
and attributed the length of the minor axis being less than the
diameter of the 6.5 mm bullet to elastic recoil of the skin. This
latter observation shows that James J. Humes gave the dimensions of
the bullet hole, which he called a wound. This information is
sufficient to calculate the incidence angle of the bullet.
Distance along the wound track accounts for the elongation of the
major axis. Specifically the square of this distance equals ( 7 mm )
^2 - ( 4 mm ) ^2 or 33 mm^ 2. When elastic relaxation and swell of
tissues have negligible effect upon this length, the square of the
unreduced length of the major axis, b, minus the square of the
unreduced length of the minor axis, a, equals 33 mm^2, where a is the
6.5 mm diameter of the bullet. Hence b^2 - ( 6.5 mm )^ 2 = 33 mm^ 2.
Solving this equation yields b = 8.7 mm. The cosine of the incidence
angle equals the length of the unreduced minor axis divided by the
length of the unreduced major axis. Thus, the angle of incidence is
+/- 42 degree.
Using a more complicated calculation yields essentially the same
results and justifies use of this simpler approximation.
Herbert
geovu...@gmail.com
Please explain how this allowed him to evade the problem? Clearly,
Specter's single bullet theory doesn't use a declination angle of 45
degrees for Kennedy's back wound. In that testimony, he does. Does this
statement in passing mean that he believed the angle to be 45 degrees, but
used a lesser measurement everywhere else? Doctor Dziemian didn't correct
him because he specifically said that he didn't have a researched
understanding of the angles. His tests and studies led him to believe
that a single bullet caused all of the wounds based on the progressively
reduced damage from wound to wound through the two men. I still don't
follow how the error of that statement relates to you not considering the
trajectory of the bullet from the back wound to the throat wound.
Exactly. You have recognized what you feel is a conflict. This doesn't
discredit the single bullet theory. This also doesn't mean that the
single bullet theory was deceitful in any way. You admit that you do not
consider the trajectory of the bullet from the back wound to the neck
wound. Clearly there is no way for a bullet with an angle of incidence of
45 degrees to enter the back and exit the throat. I would say that this
is a severe internal weakness to your argument. Again, you tiptoe around
the subject in as muddy an answer as possible. You say that Bethesda
uncovered no hard evidence of a through and through shot. Is your opinion
that there was no through and through shot? It's frustrating to discuss
anything with you because you are so afraid of making any statements that
actually take a position. The entirety of your argument relies on the
measurement of the wound in Kennedy's back. Yet, you do not approach the
subject as a researcher. You ignore the outshoot of the entry wound you
are researching and proceed without thinking about alternative reasons for
the measurement of the wound. Do you even have information related to the
reliability of such an angle of incidence study? Could you point me
toward a study in which someone used angle of incidence calculations like
yours to the degree of accuracy that you claim?
Excuse me for not seeing that you had suddenly switched wounds with no
specific reasoning or mention of it.
>
> Even worse in your haste to nit pick my claim that the concept of
> incidence was banned, you attach a foolish interpretation to the
> published statement, "It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance,
> that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the
> way the shoulder is built."
>
> Curvature does not create elliptical wounds. Instead a strike at other
> than normal incidence yields an elliptical wound if the bullet makes a
> cylindrical or conical hole just beneath the surface.
So what does the statement "it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature
of the way the shoulder is built" mean to you. Why did he say "just in
the nature of the way the shoulder is built"? This is implying that the
obliquity was caused solely by the nature of the way the shoulder is
built. Can you explain this in a different way? I was not saying that the
bullet striking a curved survace caused the elliptical wound. I was
saying that the curvature of the shoulder creates a change of plane from
the remainder of the back, thus creating a strike at other than normal
incidence.
>
> Incidentally, industry routinely punches or bores round holes in
> curved objects. The round hole of a broom handle is a common household
> example that shows the fallacy of a cause and effect relationship
> between curvature and ellipticity.
Obviously you're not a bowler.
> tissues have ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Quote where Humes discussed a 45 degree angle in relation to the head
shot. You are making up crap again.
> declination angle. In this manner Specter evaded the problem of the 45-
> degree incidence angle then employed his yes men to affirm entry by a
> bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired from a range of
> between 160 and 250 ft.
>
> A high-school student in the academic program could mentally calculate
> the distances of this hypothetical shooter behind and above their
> victim. Since the declination angle is 45-degree these distances are
> equal. So they recall that the sine or cosine of 45 degree equals
> seven-tenths and figure the elevation of the shooter between 112 ft
> and 175 ft above their victim.
>
Meaningless babbling.
Herbert Blenner
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0189b.htm
>
> > declination angle. In this manner Specter evaded the problem of the 45-
> > degree incidence angle then employed his yes men to affirm entry by a
> > bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired from a range of
> > between 160 and 250 ft.
>
> > A high-school student in the academic program could mentally calculate
> > the distances of this hypothetical shooter behind and above their
> > victim. Since the declination angle is 45-degree these distances are
> > equal. So they recall that the sine or cosine of 45 degree equals
> > seven-tenths and figure the elevation of the shooter between 112 ft
> > and 175 ft above their victim.
>
> Meaningless babbling.
Do a Google search on "right isosceles triangle."
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Jesus Christ. Humes is talking about the back wound being 45 degrees,
not the head wound. He is comparing the drawing CE 385 which compares
the angle of the back wound to the angle of the head wound in CE 388.
Again, you misread testimony to try to fit it into your wacky theories.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/med_images/MI14.jpg
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/med_images/MI12.jpg
>>> declination angle. In this manner Specter evaded the problem of the 45-
>>> degree incidence angle then employed his yes men to affirm entry by a
>>> bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired from a range of
>>> between 160 and 250 ft.
>>> A high-school student in the academic program could mentally calculate
>>> the distances of this hypothetical shooter behind and above their
>>> victim. Since the declination angle is 45-degree these distances are
>>> equal. So they recall that the sine or cosine of 45 degree equals
>>> seven-tenths and figure the elevation of the shooter between 112 ft
>>> and 175 ft above their victim.
>> Meaningless babbling.
>
>
> Do a Google search on "right isosceles triangle."
>
Go back to school.
> Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Mr. Specter evaded the problem of the incidence angle by calling every
angle a declination. For example, when Dr. Shires was discussing the
effect of Connally's turning upon his back wound, Specter called the angle
measuring this turn a declination.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060b.htm
Likewise Specter misrepresented the 45-degree transit angle between a
straight line joining Kennedy head wounds and the 25 to 27-degree transit
angle between a straight line joining Connally's torso wounds as
declination angles.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060b.htm
The Parkland doctors aligned Connally's wounds to a straight line and
found an approximate 45-degree angle with the horizontal.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
Doctor Gregory indirectly endorsed this alignment by affirming that a
bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired at a range of between
160 ft and 250 ft could have inflicted the five wounds on Connally.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0068a.htm
Dismissing Gregory's affirmation of the 45-degree declination angle to
error is unreasonable since Doctors Carrico and Perry affirmed that a
bullet with a declination angle of 45 degree fired at a range of
between 160 ft and 250 ft could have inflicted the Kennedy's back and
throat wounds.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0185b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0191a.htm
In an earlier thread, you protested the absurdity of a 45-degree angle. I
quote your words, "Are you suggesting that a bullet was fired from a plane
over Dealy Plaza? Are you suggesting that the bullet entered soft tissue
with a 45 degree angle of incidence and then turned a sharp corner to exit
at the throat?"
Now that I have demonstrated that three Parkland doctors affirmed that a
bullet fired at a range of between 160 ft and 250 ft with a 45- degree
declination angle could have wounded the victims, I ask you why these
members of the academic cream of the crop endorsed what you and I
recognize as crap?
> I still don't
> follow how the error of that statement relates to you not considering the
> trajectory of the bullet from the back wound to the throat wound.
The trajectory of the bullet after entering the back came after the entry.
So the determination of the incidence angle at entry could not be
affected, influence nor dependant upon a future trajectory, which could
have taken the bullet here, there or elsewhere. In other words, I am
applying the principle of causality.
A textbook apparently intended for students in a criminal justice
program discusses elliptical bullet holes and calculates an entry
angle as the inverse cosine of the shorter dimension divided by the
longer dimension.
Source: Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime
James Girard, PhD, American University
ISBN-13: 9780763735296
ISBN-10: 0763735299
$102.95 (Sugg. US List)
Hardcover
482 Pages
© 2008
http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763735296/
See: Page 45 of chapter two or click the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Girard's expression of his entry angle is identical with the
expression that I derived for the incidence angle. So we are using
different names for the same angle.
Normally, forensic analysts do not need to calculate incidence angle
from the dimensions of a bullet hole or wound. When necessary they
measure the incidence angle by probing a wound or from debrided
tissue. For example, Specimen A of tissue removed from Connally's
wrist contained a surface layer of skin and the embedded wound track.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0081a.htm
This sample enabled a direct measurement of the angle between the wound
track and the perpendicular to the surface skin. In this manner, an
analyst could have determined the incidence angle of the missile. Needless
to say the examiners ignored this opportunity.
You overlook the commonness of elliptical bullet wounds. In particular the
elliptical wound of Kennedy's head and the elliptical wound on Connally's
back were more elongated than the elliptical wound on Kennedy's back. So
your attempt to argue that Kennedy's back wound was a fluke does not fit
well with the other elliptical wounds or the understanding of how the
round wound track of a bullet becomes elliptical on a surface.
I have considered a perforating back to throat wound.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/perforating.jpg
My purpose was to show the proper method of approaching the question given
the failure of the prosectors to document a track connecting the two
surface wounds.
As for taking a position, I have unequivocally stated that a proper
analysis of the autopsy data shows an assassination of a ducking
president. I quote from Punching Holes.
"The first shot missed and alerted President Kennedy to an assassination
attempt. He ducked but was struck in the back by a bullet with an
approximate 45-degree angle of incidence. The bullet traveled up the neck,
possibly inflicted minor damage upon the first thoracic vertebra, entered
the cranial cavity from below, passed behind the right eye and exited the
front right side of the head at a moderate incidence angle. This bullet
produced the elliptical arc described as the semicircular bevel. Another
and not necessarily a later bullet hit the rear of the head with an
incidence angle of approximately 65 degree and exited to the right and
rear of the vertex. The proximity of these exit wounds allowed the later
bullet to produce and knock out skull fragments as secondary missiles."
As for my beliefs, I neither accept nor reject the autopsy findings.
Instead, I merely analyze the data.
I quote my statement of purpose.
> > > In fact the testimony of a ballistic expert from Edgewood Arsenal
> > > strongly suggests that the concept of incidence angle was in the same
> > > banned category as the dp or change in momentum.
>
>
>
> > Even worse in your haste to nit pick my claim that the concept of
> > incidence was banned, you attach a foolish interpretation to the
> > published statement, "It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance,
> > that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the
> > way the shoulder is built."
>
> > Curvature does not create elliptical wounds. Instead a strike at other
> > than normal incidence yields an elliptical wound if the bullet makes a
> > cylindrical or conical hole just beneath the surface.
>
> So what does the statement "it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature
> of the way the shoulder is built" mean to you. Why did he say "just in
> the nature of the way the shoulder is built"? This is implying that the
> obliquity was caused solely by the nature of the way the shoulder is
> built. Can you explain this in a different way? I was not saying that the
> bullet striking a curved survace caused the elliptical wound. I was
> saying that the curvature of the shoulder creates a change of plane from
> the remainder of the back, thus creating a strike at other than normal
> incidence.
Just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built means that the
direction for a strike at normal incidence varies from one point of the
shoulder to another. This is just another way of saying that the shoulder
has a curved surface. So I think we are close to agreement.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>
> Jesus Christ. Humes is talking about the back wound being 45 degrees,
> not the head wound. He is comparing the drawing CE 385 which compares
> the angle of the back wound to the angle of the head wound in CE 388.
> Again, you misread testimony to try to fit it into your wacky theories.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/med_images/MI14.jpghttp://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/med_images/MI12.jpg
Specter implied that the 45-degree angle pertained to the head.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the
angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45
degrees from the horizontal.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you elaborate somewhat, Doctor Humes, on why the
angle would change by virtue of a tilting of the head of the President
since the basis of the computation of angle is with respect to the
ground?
Commander HUMES - I find the question a little difficult of answering
right off, forgive me, sir.
Humes did not object to Specter's association of the 45-degree angle
with the head but objected to describing the angle as a decline.
Instead Humes call the angle an impingement.
Mr. SPECTER - I will try to rephrase it. Stated more simply, why would the
tilting of the President's head affect the angle of the decline? You
stated that was--
Commander HUMES - The angle that I am making an observation most about is
the angle made that we envisioned having been made by the impingement of
the bullet in its flight at the point of entry. This angle we see by the
difference of the measurement of the two wounds.
The last sentence, "This angle we see by the difference of the measurement
of the two wounds" makes it clear that the wounds resided on a part of the
body that moves as a whole. This consideration eliminates discussion of
the back and the neck wounds since the head can move independently of the
back.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Humes could not define the angle through the head because could not
identify a specific point of exit.