Dale Myers and the Tale of 2 1/2 Inches
pjsp...@aol.com
On his website, Dale Myers asks: "Isn't it true that you incorrectly
modeled the presidential limousine, positioning Connally's jump seat six
inches from the inside of the door rather than the actual distance of 2.5
inches?
Myers answers: "No. One critic claimed that I "used the incorrect limo
measurement of a 6 inches clearance between JBC jump seat and door. The
actual measurement was 2.5 inches. So whatever trajectory [Myers] thought
he proved was not what 'a single bullet' could have taken."
"This particular criticism stems from a comment made during the ABC News
broadcast. At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence
compares a diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and
Connally were seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated
as seen in the Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration
that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some
conspiracy theorists believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left.
However, the six inch figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the
distance between the jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as
presumed by this critic, but instead referred to the distance between the
center of Kennedy and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme
right side of the limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had
shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary
line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference
between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which
was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the
inside of the right-hand door."
Godzilla! I'd accepted the possibility that Myers felt his animation was
"close enough" and had, step by step, made it more and more convincing,
without his fully realizing that it was now yards if not miles away from
an accurate depiction of the shooting. But I hadn't fully expected him to
LIE in such a manner. I figured he would say that he'd mistakenly trusted
the Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley,
but that this mistake was of no importance.
After all, on June 4, 1964, during the sworn testimony of Thomas Kelley
(5H129-134, the same Arlen Specter-orchestrated testimony in which Kelley
falsely stated that CE 386 was used to mark the back wound during the
re-enactment), the following exchange took place:
Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the
right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge of
the right jump seat to the door on the right side? Mr. KELLEY: There is 6
inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door.
When blaming his mistake on Kelley, moreover, Myers could also have
pointed to the 1979 HSCA trajectory report, in which Thomas Canning
claimed : "Connally, on the other hand, was seated well within the car on
the jump seat ahead of Kennedy; a gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters
separated this seat from the car door." (As Canning was a NASA scientist,
and meticulous in the presentation of his findings, his representation of
a gap of 2.5 inches (roughly 5 cm) as only "slightly less" than 15 cm
(roughly 6 inches) is thoroughly out-of- character and suggestive that he,
or the committee itself, was trying to hide that Kelley had testified
incorrectly to the Warren Commission.)
But no, Myers never even mentions these deceptive assertions in his
response. Apparently, we're to believe it's just a coincidence that Kelley
falsely testified that the seat was six inches in from the door, Canning
helped cover up that Kelley falsely testified, and that Myers' animation
just so happened to shift Connally's seat inboard 6 inches to its "actual"
location.
Even more troublesome is Myers' own deceptive assertion that he bears no
responsibility for the inaccurate perception that he placed the seat six
inches from the door. No, he claims, it stems not from anything he'd said
or done but from a misinterpreted voice-over by the now-deceased Peter
Jennings on 2003's Beyond Conspiracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. When discussing Oliver Stone's
movie JFK, Jennings says: "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor
Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the
time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches
inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this
pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an
animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now
compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year
later. (Note: he's looking at the overhead view on the slide above):
"Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the
time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But
that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards
(Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the
slide up above). And turned to his right."
It is therefore Myers who is responsible for the mis-perception that his
animated jump seat was six inches inboard of the door, and not Jennings!
Even worse, and as already discussed, it is not actually a mis-
perception! When one compares the edge of the jump seat in in Myers'
overhead views of the seat before and after he slides it inwards, it's
absolutely and devastatingly clear that he slides the SEAT inwards six
inches in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does not
slide the middle of Connally's body over six inches on the seat. He slides
the seat. Unless one is to believe that Connally's seat, in Myers' first
image, is actually 3 1/2 inches outside the interior of the limousine, it
is strikingly clear that Myers moves the seat 6 inches in from the door,
and not 2 1/2. This fabrication by Myers-- blaming his own deception on a
dead man--in my opinion, marks a new low and reveals the depths that he
will travel before he will admit the obvious--that his animation
deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches
further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone
Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting
Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back.
In Myers' defense ( I can't believe I'm doing this) it's clear he's in a
trap. He can't admit his "mistake" without risking all he's worked for. He
sold his animation to large entertainment corporations under the assurance
it was accurate. He then snowballed this success to become a semi-visible
ghost writer for Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. In the
acknowledgments section, in fact, Bugliosi writes "no one helped me as
much as Dale Myers, the Emmy Award-winning computer animation
specialist...Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book
One." Included in Book One is Bugliosi's section on the single-bullet
theory. Not surprisingly, he (or Myers) condemns conspiracy theorists for
assuming that Connally was sitting directly in front of Kennedy by writing
"In fact,Connally's jump seat not only was situated a half foot inside and
to the left of the right door, but also was three inches lower than the
backseat." This assertion has a footnote. As one might guess, it refers
back to the inaccurate testimony of Thomas Kelley on June 4, 1964.
An 8-20-07 interview with Bugliosi by George Mason University's History
News Network demonstrates Bugliosi's continuing reliance on Kelley's
testimony. In this interview, Bugliosi rants:
"If you start with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a
heck of a lot of sense. The only problem is that it is wrong. There’s no
question that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy in the
presidential limousine. He was seated to his left front. I have a
photograph in Reclaiming History showing exactly where they were seated,
and right along side of it I show sketches that they put in conspiracy
books, [with Connally] right in front and the bullet is making a right
turn and a left turn. But he was seated to [JFK’s] left front in a jump
seat a half-foot in so the orientation of Connally’s body vis a vis
Kennedy’s was such that a bullet passing on a straight line, through
Kennedy, would have no where else to go, except to hit Governor Connally."
Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory was
in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was 6
inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after
all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?
David Von Pein
Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
(as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
nothing.
Why?
Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
below)*, the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
* = When we look at the following two schematics of the 1961 Presidential
Lincoln limousine (the top one being an animated schematic-type image that
can be found at Dale Myers' excellent wesite; scroll down a little bit to
find it), we can see that Connally's jump seat is definitely "inboard" of
the back seat on which JFK was sitting when the assassination occurred
(and from photos, it's also fairly clear that JFK was sitting just about
as FAR RIGHT on that seat as humanly possible, probably to make it easier
to put his arm up on the window ledge and wave at the big crowds in
Dallas, which is a "Far Right" determination that shouldn't be overlooked
either, because it places Kennedy as far to the RIGHT of Connally's jump
seat as would be humanly possible--per some of the pictures taken on
11/22/63).....
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
.....And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door).
And when we COMPARE the above two charts, we find that they are IDENTICAL
with respect to the distance between the right door and John Connally's
jump seat. (They sure look identical to me anyway.)
Main point being: Dale K. Myers is not trying to pull the wool over
anyone's eyes at all. He's got the schematic (in animated form) right
there on his website for all to see...i.e., the schematic that he used for
his computer model, which was then laid on top of the Zapruder Film to
form Dale's completed 3D model of the assassination.
And the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS and FITS perfectly, based on that
schematic that can be found right on Dale's website. (And even though
there aren't any detailed measurements that are readable on Dale's
animated version of the schematic of the limousine, we can, as I
mentioned, compare Mr. Myers' chart to the larger Hess & Eisenhardt limo
chart that I also linked above (which does include the measurements), and
we can toggle between the two charts and see that the distance between the
inside of the right door and the right-hand jump seat is just about as
identical as you can get in both of those charts/schematics (by way of
"eyeballing" the two charts anyway).
Dale K. Myers' exacting animation project ("Secrets Of A Homicide") is a
great achievement in animation, IMO. And it's a project that Mr. Myers
deserves the right to be very proud of. His animation model has virtually
proven the doability, viability, workability, and (above all) the
PROBABILITY of the Single-Bullet Theory.
And, in my view, even the most hardened anti-SBT conspiracy theorist would
be wise to take a good long look at Mr. Myers' website and his animation
project (and buy the DVD of the 2003 ABC-TV documentary "The Kennedy
Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy", which is a program that includes
several clips from Dale's animation). And it should be blatantly obvious
that Myers has done his homework here....and has gone to extreme measures
to ensure accuracy within his animation project.
Let me ask the following question one more time (I've made this inquiry in
the past as well, without receiving any satisfactory answer from any
anti-SBT conspiracy theorist):
If the animation project authored by Dale K. Myers is dead-wrong in its
depiction of the Single-Bullet Theory as being a one-bullet scenario that
is not only POSSIBLE, but very, very likely a rock-solid FACT in all
respects, then I want to know HOW in this wide world of ours it would have
been even remotely possible for Dale Myers to have stuck THAT CLOSE TO THE
REAL EVIDENCE in the case and to have produced a BOGUS animation (as CTers
believe he has done) that comes so incredibly CLOSE to what a true and
NON-BOGUS animation would have looked like?
To clarify what I mean by that --- The depiction of the victims (JFK &
JBC) in Myers' animation (along with the general configuration of the limo
and of Dealey Plaza and of the TSBD and of Elm Street, etc.) are certainly
NOT so far "out of whack" that any CTer can look at it and say this:
"Myers is full of shit here! He doesn't have this model even CLOSE to
being accurate in any way!"
So, even if the anti-SBT crowd wants to nitpick about the size of John
Connally's head in Dale's 3D model, or about the height of the limo's
crossbar seen in the animation.....those same CTers haven't a leg to stand
on when it comes to the big-ticket question that no conspiracist has EVER
been able to reconcile--and that question is:
If the SBT is only a wet dream of "WC shills" (et al), then how in the
world did multiple gunmen firing multiple bullets (usually at least THREE
missiles, per CTer accounts) into the bodies of two victims manage to
MIMIC A PERFECT (or damn near perfect-looking) SINGLE-BULLET EVENT with
those multiple bullets?
I'm still waiting for a single SBT-hating conspiracy theorist to logically
and believably answer the above question.
In short.....the Single-Bullet Theory makes a whole bunch of (common)
sense. (Especially when placed up against ANY alternate scenario that
might be used to try and knock it down.)
David Von Pein
April 18, 2008
==================================================
www.amazon.com/DVP-REVIEW-OF-2003-ABC-SPECIAL/review/R3PUIEO2KQJYFP
www.amazon.com/DVP-REVIEW-OF-2003-ABC-SPECIAL/review/RRZZFH5PKSW23
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
==================================================
Anthony Marsh
I was the critic and my point was correct as Myers admitted that the
distance from the right-side door was only 2.5 inches to the jump seat.
Myers had misstated the argument and left the false impression that all
the conspiracy diagrams showed Connally's seat all the way to right in
line with the right side of the back seat where Kennedy was seated as
far to the right as possible with his right arm over the side of the
limo. Myers wanted to correct those faulty diagrams (some not all). But
he got confused about how he explained it. The six inches is not the
difference in the midlines of their bodies. Six inches is not enough.
The bullet exits JFK's midline and travels 2 more inches to his left.
Connally's wound was 8 inches to the right of his midline, so you need
at least a difference of 10 inches from midline to midline. The six
inches Myers wants is the difference from the rightmost side of the back
seat to the rightmost edge of Connally's jump seat. Actually it is only
a little over 5 inches, but 6 is close enough for a WC defender. But
then Myers must still move Connally over to the left by at least 4 or 5
inches to make the gap 10 inches. It may help to actually look at a
scale diagram of the limo showing the jump seat location and the
positions of the two men at the time of the shots.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif
I exposed Myers's error about the 3 inch height difference in past threads.
> An 8-20-07 interview with Bugliosi by George Mason University's History
> News Network demonstrates Bugliosi's continuing reliance on Kelley's
> testimony. In this interview, Bugliosi rants:
>
> "If you start with an erroneous premise, everything that follows makes a
> heck of a lot of sense. The only problem is that it is wrong. There’s no
> question that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy in the
> presidential limousine. He was seated to his left front. I have a
> photograph in Reclaiming History showing exactly where they were seated,
> and right along side of it I show sketches that they put in conspiracy
> books, [with Connally] right in front and the bullet is making a right
> turn and a left turn. But he was seated to [JFK’s] left front in a jump
> seat a half-foot in so the orientation of Connally’s body vis a vis
> Kennedy’s was such that a bullet passing on a straight line, through
> Kennedy, would have no where else to go, except to hit Governor Connally."
>
> Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory was
> in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was 6
> inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after
> all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?
>
What I enjoy is the double standard. Myers and Bugliosi use errors of
the critics to claim that they are kooks, but when they make the same
errors they are Gods. And when they fudge data they are scientists.
geovu...@gmail.com
Are you not missing the point that the bodies are not placed by the car
measurements? Clearly they are placed by the film overlay. On top of
that, you have found separate evidence regarding someone else making a
mistake on the measurement of the jump seat and attributed it, by
assumption, to what Myers used. Clearly, that was not the method that he
used since the bodies are positioned per the film overlay. The height of
the jump seat is important in locating the body, but the location of the
jump seat left to right doesn't locate the body accurately. He could be
seated left to right on the seat and the overlay is required to determine
it more accurately. Since you cannot measure the distances shown on the
ABC special, you have no way to say what the measurements and motion of
the sketch comparison are. Just because they say that he was actually
seated 6" inboard of Kennedy doesn't mean that they showed the seat moving
6". Instead of looking at mistakes of other people and attributing them
to Meyers, you should try to prove that Myers is the one making the
mistake. You should especially do this if you are going to call him a
liar.
WhiskyJoe
> Unless one is to believe that
> Connally's seat, in Myers' first
> image, is actually 3 1/2 inches
> outside the interior of the
> limousine, it is strikingly
> clear that Myers moves the
> seat 6 inches in from the door,
> and not 2 1/2.
But that is exactly what Myers's diagram shows. Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0&feature=related
at 0:25, it shows the right edge of the jumpseat extending into the metal
forming the right side of the limousine, by at about two inches. If there
was a cushion, along that side of the limousine, as I expect there was,
and not bare metal, than the jumpseat could very well be a full 3.5 inches
too far to the right of where it could have been.
Of course, if this is the case, Myers should not be blamed for this, for
showing an impossible location for the jumpseat. He is merely showing the
location of Connally and the jumpseat where CTers have depicted it,
directly in front of JFK.
Once the jumpseat is moved 6 inches to the left, the edge of the jumpseat
would then by 4.0 inches inboard of the metal side of the limousine and
perhaps 2.5 inches inboard of any cushion.
And the bottom line is, we know, from the Powers film, as showing in the
following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Js3Qg6mVs
that Connally was seated a head width (6 inches) inboard of JFK. So Myers
is correct to show Connally six inches inboard of JFK, regardless of any
claim otherwise.
And so, a study of the photographs, maps, and Zapruder film clearly show
that:
* Connally was six inches inboard of JFK as Myers shows, not directly in
front as the movie JFK shows in the courtroom scene,
* the bullet would have been coming in horizontally at a shallow angle
relative to the limousine, ten degrees, as Myers shows, not around twenty
five degrees as the movie JFK shows,
* Connally was turned to his right, relative to the limousine, about
thirty seven degrees, not facing straight ahead as the movie JFK shows.
All of the errors in the movie JFK and in other common Anti SBT diagrams
have the same effect, they move the bullet to the left, relative to
Connally's back wound. Indeed to errors are just enough to move the path
of the bullet to barely miss Connally altogether, avoiding the problem
that if a separate bullet hit Connally, why didn't Connally get two back
wounds, one from the bullet that only hit him and one from the bullet that
exited JFK's throat.
So, the critical question is, in what way is Myer's model in error?
* Connally six inches inboard of JFK? If so, what is the true distance?
* Horizontal angle of bullet at ten degrees? If so, what is the true
angle?
* Connally turned thirty seven degrees to the right at frame 223? If so,
what is the true angle?
Are there any photographs that show Myer's error? Are there any drawings
which one can compare with Myer's and the photographs?
Andrew Mason
The criticism of Myers' work is quite warranted. It is easy to say that
Myers used the zfilm "overlay" to position JBC and JFK but it is very
difficult to prove that. You have to determine where JBC was in relation
to the centre of the jump seat. It seems to me that he was in the middle
of it, give or take a few fractions of an inch. Knowing the width of the
jump seat and the distance of the right edge from the side of the car
gives you JBC's position. If you then assume that JFK was as far to the
right as he could be that will give you the most favourable conditions
for the SBT
The jump seat is 2.5 inches inside the door and the inside door panel is
about an inch inside the panel beside JFK. This means that the jump seat
was 3.5 inches inside side of the car next to JFK (ie. the right side of
the jump seat was 3.5 inches inside the right side of JFK's seat). The
seat is exactly 20 inches wide. So if JBC was in the middle of his seat
his centre was 13.5 inches inside the car measured from the inside panel
immediately to JFK's right.
Now if JFK's ribs were pressed against the side of the car, his centre
could not be less than 7 inches from the inside panel. So this means
that JFK's centre could not be less than 6.5 inches (13.5-7) right of JBC.
This in itself shows that the SBT could not happen with the men in that
position. A right to left shot through JFK at an angle of 9 degrees (it
appears to be 13 degrees at z200) travels a further 4 inches over the 24
inches between JFK's neck and JBC's back. This means that the bullet
could not possibly strike JBC any further than 2.5 inches to the right
of his spine. In fact, it struck him 20 cm or 7.8 inches right of his
spine.
And that is the furthest right it could possibly be. If JFK was several
inches inside the car, which is where he appears to be at z200, and the
shot occurred at z200 (eg. H. Betzner, P. Willis and a few dozen others)
the bullet would have to have passed to the left of JBC's spine.
And all of this simply confirms what the witness evidence shows:
JFK was hit on the first shot (16 witnesses to 0)
The second shot was closer to the third than the first (48 to 6)
The first shot was after z186 (22 to 0)
JBC was hit in the back on the second shot (at least 5 to 0 - JBC,
Powers, Gayle Newman, Wm. Greer, Nellie)
These facts fit all the rest of the evidence but are quite inconsistent
with the SBT. Not surprisingly, it is also consistent with one shooter -
Oswald - firing all three shots.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
>>>>"His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back." <<<
>
>
>
> Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
> (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
> nothing.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
> inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
> very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
> below)*, the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
> positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
> quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
> that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
> interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
> was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
>
> And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
> we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
> car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
> jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
> be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
> KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
I agree. But it is a mistake to conclude that it had to have hit JBC in
the back. JBC was hit on his left side - in his left thigh. With JBC
turned sharply to the right as he was up to z207, it is quite possible
that his left thigh was directly in line with a path from the SN through
JFK's neck (as the overhead view from the KGB reenactment shows:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/KGB_above.jpg ).
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Clearly they are misplaced by the film overlay. GIGO.
> that, you have found separate evidence regarding someone else making a
> mistake on the measurement of the jump seat and attributed it, by
> assumption, to what Myers used. Clearly, that was not the method that he
> used since the bodies are positioned per the film overlay. The height of
Where Myers places Connally is not dependent on the location of the jump
seat. He must move Connally to the left on the seat no matter where the
seat actually was.
> the jump seat is important in locating the body, but the location of the
> jump seat left to right doesn't locate the body accurately. He could be
> seated left to right on the seat and the overlay is required to determine
> it more accurately. Since you cannot measure the distances shown on the
It would be nice if theoretically someone could ACCURATELY place objects
by the overlay method.
> ABC special, you have no way to say what the measurements and motion of
> the sketch comparison are. Just because they say that he was actually
> seated 6" inboard of Kennedy doesn't mean that they showed the seat moving
> 6". Instead of looking at mistakes of other people and attributing them
ABC did not even know enough about the facts to realize that Myers was
saying it wrong. Myers knew what he meant to say, but it came out wrong.
Just like his mistake in saying that Connally was three inches lower
than Kennedy.
> to Meyers, you should try to prove that Myers is the one making the
> mistake. You should especially do this if you are going to call him a
> liar.
>
There are two different things here. One is called mistakes. The other
is called lies. Myers made mistakes and he also made lies. And he was
confused. And he misspoke when he really knew what he MEANT to say.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back." <<<
>
>
> Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
> (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
> nothing.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
> inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
> very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
> below)*, the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
> positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
> quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
> that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
> interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
> was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
>
Unless the bullet was deflected by T-1.
> And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
> we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
> car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
> jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
> be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
> KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
>
No one should be saying that it was only 2.5 inches INSTEAD of 6 inches. I
say a little over 5 inches instead of 6 inches. Maybe he was forgetting
about the lap robes.
> * = When we look at the following two schematics of the 1961 Presidential
> Lincoln limousine (the top one being an animated schematic-type image that
> can be found at Dale Myers' excellent wesite; scroll down a little bit to
> find it), we can see that Connally's jump seat is definitely "inboard" of
> the back seat on which JFK was sitting when the assassination occurred
> (and from photos, it's also fairly clear that JFK was sitting just about
> as FAR RIGHT on that seat as humanly possible, probably to make it easier
> to put his arm up on the window ledge and wave at the big crowds in
> Dallas, which is a "Far Right" determination that shouldn't be overlooked
> either, because it places Kennedy as far to the RIGHT of Connally's jump
> seat as would be humanly possible--per some of the pictures taken on
> 11/22/63).....
>
>
>
>
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
>
>
> http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
>
>
>
> .....And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
> right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
> jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door).
>
Huh? Why would there be any difference? Why not symmetry?
> And when we COMPARE the above two charts, we find that they are IDENTICAL
> with respect to the distance between the right door and John Connally's
> jump seat. (They sure look identical to me anyway.)
>
>
> Main point being: Dale K. Myers is not trying to pull the wool over
> anyone's eyes at all. He's got the schematic (in animated form) right
> there on his website for all to see...i.e., the schematic that he used for
> his computer model, which was then laid on top of the Zapruder Film to
> form Dale's completed 3D model of the assassination.
>
> And the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS and FITS perfectly, based on that
> schematic that can be found right on Dale's website. (And even though
> there aren't any detailed measurements that are readable on Dale's
> animated version of the schematic of the limousine, we can, as I
> mentioned, compare Mr. Myers' chart to the larger Hess & Eisenhardt limo
> chart that I also linked above (which does include the measurements), and
> we can toggle between the two charts and see that the distance between the
> inside of the right door and the right-hand jump seat is just about as
> identical as you can get in both of those charts/schematics (by way of
> "eyeballing" the two charts anyway).
>
The SBT can not work at all if you think Myers is correct about the
MIDLINES being a difference of 6 inches. He misspoke.
> Dale K. Myers' exacting animation project ("Secrets Of A Homicide") is a
> great achievement in animation, IMO. And it's a project that Mr. Myers
> deserves the right to be very proud of. His animation model has virtually
> proven the doability, viability, workability, and (above all) the
> PROBABILITY of the Single-Bullet Theory.
>
> And, in my view, even the most hardened anti-SBT conspiracy theorist would
> be wise to take a good long look at Mr. Myers' website and his animation
> project (and buy the DVD of the 2003 ABC-TV documentary "The Kennedy
> Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy", which is a program that includes
> several clips from Dale's animation). And it should be blatantly obvious
> that Myers has done his homework here....and has gone to extreme measures
> to ensure accuracy within his animation project.
>
Take a look? More than that. Analyze and critique.
Answer this. How did the FBI, SS and the WC itself before May 1964 come
to the conclusion of three shots, three hits with Kennedy and Connally
being hit by separate bullets? There was no need for any damn stinkin SBT.
> I'm still waiting for a single SBT-hating conspiracy theorist to logically
> and believably answer the above question.
>
Been there, done that.
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> read more »
DVP and Geovult, I'm not missing any point. Please go to chapter 12c at
patspeer.com. Look through the slides. Read the text if you can bear it.
I have compared Myers animated limousine to the HSCA schematic. It is
absolutely clear that Myers shrunk Connally and his seat to make his
trajectory work. I have also compared Myers animation in Beyond Conspiracy
and Beyond the Magic Bullet, and to the schematic of the limousine on his
website. It is absolutely clear that he moved the impact location on
Connally between Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet, and that
he compressed his image laterally to do this. It is also clear that he
excluded Kennedy's strange movements from Z-190 to Z-210 from his
simulation. It is also suspicious that he excluded Jackie Kennedy and her
movements from his simulation, as her movements indicate JFK was hit
before going behind the sign in the Z- film.
His animation is a cartoon designed to sell a particular theory. It
overlooks or ignores evidence to sell this theory. It is no more accurate
than Stone's depiction of the trajectory in JFK.
From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:
Maybe someone has already told Bugliosi that the seat was only 2 1/2
inches from the door, but he forgot. When looking back through his book,
in order to learn more about his connection to Myers, I came across yet
another depiction of the single-bullet theory, this one courtesy Animation
of Arizona. This depiction differed both from his semi-visible
ghost-writer and "Emmy Award-winning computer animation specialist" Dale
Myers' animation, and the text of Bugliosi's book, in that it presented
the jump seat in its proper location, 2 1/2 inches from the door.
It differed in other ways as well. While the first part of Bugliosi's book
describes a 4.9 second gap between the second and third shots, roughly 90
frames, and this indicates the second shot came around frame 223, 90
frames before the head shot at frame 313, the illustration section
declares: "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president
and Governor Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
somewhere within a split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional
overhead rendering of Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the
limousine at approximately frame 210, with the single-bullet's
trajectory." This image, as demonstrated on the slide above, depicts
Kennedy hanging over the side of the limo. This, in my opinion, is totally
inconsistent with the motorcade photos depicting Kennedy's position in the
limo. These show his elbow to be resting on the side of the limo but his
shoulder to be well. And it's not just my opinion. Let's recall that the
HSCA photographic panel concluded:
70) At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements suddenly
freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and
his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his
wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President
goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction
to a severe external stimulus.
So where does Bugliosi get off pretending that Kennedy's draped over the
side of the limo at 210? First, Kennedy's behind the sign and no one can
tell exactly where he is, and second, when last seen his head was moving
from right to left. There's absolutely no reason to believe he's in the
position depicted.
Which brings me to a related point. In Dale Myers' TV appearances, and on
his website, he preaches the gospel of Connally being hit at Z-224. (I
agree.) So how could he have sat by while Bugliosi dismissed or ignored
his evidence for this hit? It must have been extremely frustrating for
him.
Something tells me it was. In the acknowledgments section of Reclaiming
History, where Bugliosi lavishes praise upon Myers and thanks him for all
his help, he writes "Even though he worked with me for a relatively short
part of my long journey, no one helped me as much as Dale Myers." David
Lifton, whom Bugliosi praises in Reclaiming History for his thorough
research, while at the same time criticizing him for his unorthodox
conclusions, decided to do some digging on this previously secret
Bugliosi/Myers connection.
On March 11 2008, on historian John Simkin's Education Forum, Lifton
reported:
"With the 1998 ARRB releases, and the advent of the Internet, Bugliosi
needed assistance to complete his project. This brings us to the second
phase.
ENTER Ghostwriter #2 –DALE MYERS
Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with
expertise in the area of the shots, the medical evidence, and the
acoustics. Dale Myers—the JFK researcher who appeared with Bugliosi on a
Discovery Channel documentary—was solicited, and agreed. Once again, as
was the case with Haines, a formal contract was drawn up. Furthermore, it
was agreed that the credit for the book would now read "by Vincent
Bugliosi," but "with Dale Myers."
Unfortunately for Bugliosi (and perhaps because both of these fellows have
outsized egos), the collaboration between Dale Myers and Bugliosi didn't
work out. Consequently, and similar to a marriage that doesn't work, a
"literary divorce" now had to be arranged (i.e., another contract had to
be drawn up—this one spelling out the terms of their "separation.) One
of the provisions of this second contract was that Myers agreed that he
would never divulge the existence of the original arrangement, or its
dissolution. In other words, Myers is bound by contract not to talk about
the writing he did for Bugliosi, what he contributed, how much he was paid
for his contribution, or the circumstances of their "divorce."
Consequently, Dale Myers has TWO contracts with publisher W. W. Norton:
--the first, when his writing deal was originally formalized, and the book
was to be published with the authorial credit reading by Vincent Bugliosi
"with Dale Myers";
-- the second, when their collaboration didn't work as planned and their
separation had to be formalized.
So now, addressing the issue of ghostwriting and counting up the signed
contracts for ghostwriting, here's where we stand: there's one (and
probably two) with Fred Haines (one for the original arrangement, and one
for the separation); similarly, there were two contracts with Dale
Myers—one for the original arrangement, the second for the "literary
divorce." END LIFTON QUOTE
Since single-assassin theorists routinely criticize conspiracy theorists
for 1) trying to make money off the assassination, and 2) not having a
uniform theory, it's more than a little ironic that Bugliosi and Myers,
possibly the two highest-profile single-assassin theorists of recent
times, couldn't see eye to eye and develop a uniform theory, and had to
get Bugliosi's publisher to pay Myers off.
Andrew Mason
I can accept that Connally can be inboard of JFK by as much as 6 inches,
although it is a bit of a stretch. The problem is that 6 inches is not
nearly enough.
Myers refuses to divulge what he uses as the angle from the SN, or the
distance he uses from JFK's neck to the plane of the jumpseat back. I have
asked him for this and he won't provide it.
A good approximation can be made of the distance from JFK to JBC - 24
inches. If the first shot was at z200, the angle to the SN is about 13
degrees. At z224, which is where Myers says the second shot occurred
(ignoring the witness evidence to reach tath conclusion) the angle is
about 9 degrees.
The problem is that if JFK is as much as 6 inches right of JBC, his neck
is still left of the bullet entry wound on JBC's back, which was 7.9
inches or 20 cm right of his spine.
How you can get a bullet moving right to left through JFK's middle
(actually a tad to the left of his middle according the the HSCA - it
nicked the left side of his tie knot) jogging right to strike JBC in the
armpit is a mystery that no one - and certainly not Myers - has been able
to explain. It is particularly difficult with JBC in the position he is in
z224, which is facing forward.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
Pat is citing and propping up the pure conjecture of David Lifton.
Good Lord.
Can it get much worse on the credibility scale than that?
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door)." <<<
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Huh? Why would there be any difference? Why not symmetry?" <<<
DVP NOW UTTERS:
LOL. Beats me. Go ask the HSCA, or somebody from Hess & Eisenhardt.
Are you saying that this HSCA exhibit showing the limo chart is fake or
incorrect in some way? If not, what's your point?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>>> "The SBT cannot work at all if you think Myers is correct about the
MIDLINES being a difference of 6 inches." <<<
Bullshit.
Myers' SBT works perfectly...because it's so obviously true.
Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat. We know that. That is a fact--beyond any
and all doubt (except to rabid CTers).
And we know that that bullet coming out of Kennedy was heading downward at
an angle of approximately 17.43 degrees (or 20.11 degrees downward based
on CE895, which depicts the trajectory from the 6th- Floor window to the
limo at Zapruder frame 225, with the 3-degree slope of the road being
factored in):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm
Therefore, that bullet almost certainly HAD to have done one of two things
-- either hit John Connally in the back or hit the limousine.
It didn't hit the limousine. We know that. Therefore, it struck John
Connally.
So incredibly simple...yet so amazingly complicated when a CTer gets ahold
of the very same information.
Allow me to quote Tom Canning of NASA (at 2 HSCA 192):
"The bullet {that exited JFK's throat} would have had to have been
substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss
the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit
with the alinements that we have found." -- Thomas Canning; 09/12/78
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0098b.htm
>>> "How did the FBI, SS and the WC itself before May 1964 come to the
conclusion of three shots, three hits with Kennedy and Connally being hit
by separate bullets? There was no need for any damn stinkin SBT." <<<
I've often asked myself that same question, Tony. The FBI and SS, prior to
the 5/24/64 re-creation of the shooting, should still have been able to
see the probability of only one bullet (CE399) hitting both victims. But,
they obviously did not see it (until May '64).
Why didn't they see it? Beats me. But, anyway, the SBT (based on what we
NOW know) is probably the most OBVIOUSLY-TRUE scenario connected to the
whole JFK murder case. (Plus the obviousness of Lee Oswald's guilt in two
murders on Nov. 22.)
>>> "Been there, done that." <<<
Not nearly good enough (evidently) -- because the Single-Bullet Theory is
still the obviously-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on
11/22/63 AD.
~Mark VII~
Sorry, Tony. But common sense will always trump bullet-vanishing
conjecture put forth by conspiracy promoters. And that fact was never
truer than with respect to the assassination sub-topic of the Single-
Bullet Theory.
===========================
"The single-bullet theory...{is} so obvious that a child could
author it." .... .... "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer.
Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable
evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion.
.... No sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case
that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of
his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
Via the pages of 2007's "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy"
===========================
Anthony Marsh
Again, pay attention. The 6 inches is not how far CONNALLY is inboard of
JFK. The 6 inches is how far to the left his JUMP SEAT is from the right
side of the back seat. After that 6 inches you can move Connally around
wherever you like as long as you don't get pinned down to an exact frame.
> Myers refuses to divulge what he uses as the angle from the SN, or the
> distance he uses from JFK's neck to the plane of the jumpseat back. I
> have asked him for this and he won't provide it.
>
> A good approximation can be made of the distance from JFK to JBC - 24
> inches. If the first shot was at z200, the angle to the SN is about 13
24 inches is what Canning used.
Z200 is way too early. We can still see Kennedy then.
> degrees. At z224, which is where Myers says the second shot occurred
> (ignoring the witness evidence to reach tath conclusion) the angle is
> about 9 degrees.
>
At Z-210 when the sniper would have a clear shot the angle is about
11-1/2 degrees.
> The problem is that if JFK is as much as 6 inches right of JBC, his neck
> is still left of the bullet entry wound on JBC's back, which was 7.9
> inches or 20 cm right of his spine.
>
The 6 inches is not from midline to midline. Myers misspoke.
> How you can get a bullet moving right to left through JFK's middle
> (actually a tad to the left of his middle according the the HSCA - it
> nicked the left side of his tie knot) jogging right to strike JBC in the
> armpit is a mystery that no one - and certainly not Myers - has been
> able to explain. It is particularly difficult with JBC in the position
> he is in z224, which is facing forward.
>
In that 24 inches the bullet would have kept going left about 2 inches
farther. That means you need at least a 10 inch difference in midlines.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Bugliosi still can not make up his mind if the SBT was at Z-210 or Z-224.
> 70) At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements suddenly
> freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and
> his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his
> wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President
> goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction
> to a severe external stimulus.
>
> So where does Bugliosi get off pretending that Kennedy's draped over the
> side of the limo at 210? First, Kennedy's behind the sign and no one can
> tell exactly where he is, and second, when last seen his head was moving
> from right to left. There's absolutely no reason to believe he's in the
> position depicted.
>
His position from 209 can not change radically in one frame.
> Which brings me to a related point. In Dale Myers' TV appearances, and on
> his website, he preaches the gospel of Connally being hit at Z-224. (I
> agree.) So how could he have sat by while Bugliosi dismissed or ignored
> his evidence for this hit? It must have been extremely frustrating for
> him.
>
Bugliosi also sometimes says frame 224.
Anthony Marsh
Your inch is incorrect. You are forgetting about the compartment for the
lap robes. That needed to be 3.5 inches deep. Add that 3.5 inches to the
2.5 inches and you get 5 inches. Add about a 1/4 inch for the robe
sticking out.
> was 3.5 inches inside side of the car next to JFK (ie. the right side of
> the jump seat was 3.5 inches inside the right side of JFK's seat). The
> seat is exactly 20 inches wide. So if JBC was in the middle of his seat
No, the jump seat is exactly 20.5 inches wide.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
You should know that because you had commented on the HSCA exhibit which
says 20.50".
If you plug 20" into your equation then it becomes a case of GIGO.
> his centre was 13.5 inches inside the car measured from the inside panel
> immediately to JFK's right.
>
Show us your math to get the 13.5 inches.
> Now if JFK's ribs were pressed against the side of the car, his centre
> could not be less than 7 inches from the inside panel. So this means
> that JFK's centre could not be less than 6.5 inches (13.5-7) right of JBC.
>
Not exactly, but you are on the right track.
> This in itself shows that the SBT could not happen with the men in that
> position. A right to left shot through JFK at an angle of 9 degrees (it
No SBT could possibly work with Connally seated normally in the jump
seat. He has to move over by several inches to his left.
How would he possibly know the exact time to move over for the upcoming SBT?
> appears to be 13 degrees at z200) travels a further 4 inches over the 24
> inches between JFK's neck and JBC's back. This means that the bullet
Show us your math for 4 inches over 24.
Anthony Marsh
Not quite. But are you saying that the SBT happened then or that
Connally never moved from that position?
> And so, a study of the photographs, maps, and Zapruder film clearly show
> that:
>
> * Connally was six inches inboard of JFK as Myers shows, not directly in
> front as the movie JFK shows in the courtroom scene,
>
No, again you are confused. The six inches is not about CONNALLY being
inboard. The six inches is about HIS jump seat being inboard. Connally
still needs to move another 4 or 5 inches in from the right side of the
jump seat.
> * the bullet would have been coming in horizontally at a shallow angle
> relative to the limousine, ten degrees, as Myers shows, not around twenty
> five degrees as the movie JFK shows,
>
Silly. You don't even know what the angles are.
> * Connally was turned to his right, relative to the limousine, about
> thirty seven degrees, not facing straight ahead as the movie JFK shows.
>
At what frame? Connally said he was facing forward when he was hit.
> All of the errors in the movie JFK and in other common Anti SBT diagrams
> have the same effect, they move the bullet to the left, relative to
> Connally's back wound. Indeed to errors are just enough to move the path
> of the bullet to barely miss Connally altogether, avoiding the problem
> that if a separate bullet hit Connally, why didn't Connally get two back
> wounds, one from the bullet that only hit him and one from the bullet that
> exited JFK's throat.
>
> So, the critical question is, in what way is Myer's model in error?
>
> * Connally six inches inboard of JFK? If so, what is the true distance?
>
Myers's error is about the jump seat being six inches inboard. It was
actually just a little over 5 inches, not 6 inches.
> * Horizontal angle of bullet at ten degrees? If so, what is the true
> angle?
>
YOU assumed the 10 degrees, not Myers.
The actual angle at frame Z-210 when JFK was hit is 18 degrees, 25
minutes relative to the limo.
> * Connally turned thirty seven degrees to the right at frame 223? If so,
> what is the true angle?
>
About 5 degrees at frame Z-230 when Connally was hit.
pjsp...@aol.com
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
>
> right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
> jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door)." <<<
>
>
> >>> "Huh? Why would there be any difference? Why not symmetry?" <<<
>
>
> LOL. Beats me. Go ask the HSCA, or somebody from Hess & Eisenhardt.
>
> Are you saying that this HSCA exhibit showing the limo chart is fake or
> incorrect in some way? If not, what's your point?:
>
>
> >>> "The SBT cannot work at all if you think Myers is correct about the
>
> MIDLINES being a difference of 6 inches." <<<
>
>
> Myers' SBT works perfectly...because it's so obviously true.
>
> Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat. We know that. That is a fact--beyond any
> and all doubt (except to rabid CTers).
>
> And we know that that bullet coming out of Kennedy was heading downward at
> an angle of approximately 17.43 degrees (or 20.11 degrees downward based
> on CE895, which depicts the trajectory from the 6th- Floor window to the
> limo at Zapruder frame 225, with the 3-degree slope of the road being
> factored in):
>
>
> Therefore, that bullet almost certainly HAD to have done one of two things
> -- either hit John Connally in the back or hit the limousine.
>
> It didn't hit the limousine. We know that. Therefore, it struck John
> Connally.
>
> So incredibly simple...yet so amazingly complicated when a CTer gets ahold
> of the very same information.
>
> Allow me to quote Tom Canning of NASA (at 2 HSCA 192):
>
> "The bullet {that exited JFK's throat} would have had to have been
> substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss
> the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit
> with the alinements that we have found." -- Thomas Canning; 09/12/78
>
>
> >>> "Been there, done that." <<<
>
> Not nearly good enough (evidently) -- because the Single-Bullet Theory is
> still the obviously-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
> President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on
> 11/22/63 AD.
>
> ~Mark VII~
>
> conjecture put forth by conspiracy promoters. And that fact was never
> truer than with respect to the assassination sub-topic of the Single-
> Bullet Theory.
>
> ===========================
>
> "The single-bullet theory...{is} so obvious that a child could
> author it." .... .... "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer.
> Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable
> evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion.
> .... No sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case
> that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of
> his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
> Via the pages of 2007's "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
> President John F. Kennedy"
>
> ===========================
David, are you losing it? You put words in my mouth and then refute the
words I never said. You're usually better than that.
As far as the SBT, you can believe it all day long. You can pray to it
before you go to bed. But you shouldn't expect others to follow in
lock-step, not when its prime pushers--Specter, Bugliosi. Myers,
yourself...can not agree on such pertinent aspects of the theory as the
moment of the shot, the location of impact on Kennedy, and the location of
Connally's jump seat. Your boy Bugliosi says the shot impacted on
Kennedy's back below his throat wound on one page, and well above his
throat wound on the next. He says the seat was 6 inches inboard from the
door, and then publishes an illustration showing it to be 2 1/2 inches
inboard from the door. He lists a timeline for the shots indicating the
shot was at 223-224, then says the shot was within a split second of 210.
COME ON! Is this any way to answer all the questions? If you're gonna
print such conflicting information, Vince, JUST ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T
KNOW.
pjsp...@aol.com
Come on, David. You know that Bugliosi praises Lifton for his research
abilities and that his criticism of Lifton stems from his unorthodox
conclusions. You know Lifton made a somewhat wild claim that Bugliosi's
book was largely written by others. You know that months after making this
claim, Lifton returned with a detailed account of Bugliosi's relationship
with only two ghost-writers. You know Bugliosi admits that Myers wrote
part of Book One. You know that neither Bugliosi nor Myers has come
forward denying Lifton's account of their "partnership". SO, what's not to
believe? There's nothing remotely bizarre about Lifton's report on
Bugliosi and Myers. So why shouldn't I quote Lifton? I quote Bugliosi. I
quote you.
Is David Lifton innately unreliable? Has he ever been caught in a big fat
fib, such as the fib told by Myers? If so, please tell us about it.
Anthony Marsh
> It's quite obvious that pjspeare is all wet on this issue.
> Unfortunately, Myers doesn't seem to get it right either.
>
> John F.
>
>
>
> "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:b10d9780-ba20-4d79...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Those are wonderful photos, but what are the supposed to show us? We
already knew that JFK was as far to the right in the back seat as he
could get and we can see that Connally's head was just to the left of
Kennedy's, but it is exaggerated in the top photo. And surely you don't
think they were shot at that moment!
The bottom photo is part of a set which the FBI kept hidden in its bulk
files for many years. It shows how much lower Connally's jump seat was
than the back seat. Unfortunately Myers forgot that Connally was taller
than JFK so it is the jump seat which is three inches lower than JFK,
not Connally three inches lower than JFK. The SS estimated the
difference was only about 1.5 inches lower than JFK.
NB to careful researchers. Look carefully at the bottom photo and you
can actually see the lab robe stick out a little bit from the lap robe
compartment. Never examined, never introduced into evidence.
BTW, notice how thick the rear door is.
NB to very careful researchers. Notice that the lap robe compartment is
thicker near the top and tapers down at the bottom.
David Von Pein
>>> "David, are you losing it? You put words in my mouth and then refute the words I never said. You're usually better than that." <<<
Yes, that was definitely my blunder. I was hoping to get it deleted
before anybody here saw it. But, no such luck. I had your previous
post on my mind when I responded to Tony's post, so I mixed up the
CTers there. Sorry. (I've since deleted the incorrect post and re-
posted a corrected version using the proper CTer; see above).
>>> "Your boy Bugliosi says the shot impacted on
Kennedy's back below his throat wound on one page, and well above his
throat wound on the next. He says the seat was 6 inches inboard from
the
door, and then publishes an illustration showing it to be 2 1/2 inches
inboard from the door. He lists a timeline for the shots indicating
the
shot was at 223-224, then says the shot was within a split second of
210.
COME ON! Is this any way to answer all the questions? If you're gonna
print such conflicting information, Vince, JUST ADMIT THAT YOU JUST
DON'T
KNOW." <<<
Yes, there are some VB vs. VB conflicts there re. the SBT, I'll
readily admit (and I've even brought them up myself in previous
Internet articles). But Vince sums it all up very nicely on page 482
of his book, when he says:
"The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
same bullet." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
Jas
paragraph:
Connally wasn't hit in the center of his back, he was hit on his right back
below the armpit. We know this, and we know that Connally was, in fact,
sitting to Kennedy's left-front and below. So why are you making such a fuss
over the 6 inch thing and accusing Myers of lying? Good gracious, give it a
rest.
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b10d9780-ba20-4d79...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On his website, Dale Myers asks: "Isn't it true that you incorrectly
David Von Pein
>>> "You know that Bugliosi praises Lifton for his research abilities and that his criticism of Lifton stems from his unorthodox conclusions." <<<
IMO, Vince is far too kind to Mr. Lifton and his "research
abilities" (especially when we consider the insane theory that was
spawned and endorsed by Lifton via his "research"). VB must have been
in a super-good mood the day he wrote the nice things that he penned
in his book about Mr. Lifton.
But Bugliosi also gets down to the bottom-line brass tacks of the
matter when he makes these statements about David L.:
"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by
conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... Out
of his 747 pages, {Lifton} unbelievably devotes no more than 6 or 7
full pages, if that, to Oswald. .... One could safely say that David
Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the
monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community,
that's saying something." -- VB; Pages 1057, 1058, and 1066 of "RH" (c.
2007)
>>> "You know that neither Bugliosi nor Myers has come forward denying Lifton's account of their "partnership". So, what's not to believe?" <<<
I guess Rosemary's word (below) isn't nearly good enough, huh?:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0e979f2e0dcef694
>>> "Is David Lifton innately unreliable? Has he ever been caught in a big fat fib, such as the fib told by Myers? If so, please tell us about it." <<<
Trick question, Pat?
Well, okay, I'll bite.....
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact
realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting
the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the
coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was
down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event
actually occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another
matter." -- David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997
David Von Pein
LIFTON ADDENDUM:
>>> "Is David Lifton innately unreliable? Has he ever been caught in a big fat fib, such as the fib told by Myers? If so, please tell us about it." <<<
There's also this "big fat fib" told by Mr. Lifton in 2007 (which is a
total lie that I've yet to hear Lifton retract):
"I read the sections {of Vincent Bugliosi's book} on Garrison
this morning, and there’s absolutely no question in my mind that the
hundred-page section on Garrison {it's actually 90 pages, to be exact}
was written by Patricia Lambert. Now, whether Bugliosi entered with
his blue pencil and changed some paragraphs or did some editing--no
question about it--it was written by her. I’m telling you that I know
writing styles--it’s like a fingerprint when you do this stuff and I
recognize the writing style and I certainly recognize the writing
style of somebody I’ve known for twenty-five years and who did
editorial work with me and for me." -- David S. Lifton; May 24, 2007
Do you need a larger example of a "big fat fib" uttered by Mr. Lifton
than the one displayed above regarding Ms. Lambert (especially after
reading Pat Lambert's July 2007 response to the charge made by Lifton
in a link I provided in an earlier post)?
Anthony Marsh
Fib? Is that the criterion? Lifton was the only researcher out of an
auditorium of about 500 to claim that no shots came from the rear. That
is not a fib. It is a bizarre claim. And when personally confronted by
the dent of the chrome topping he had no answer.
Anthony Marsh
I have his book. One what page does he say the jump seat was 6 inches
inboard from the door and on which page does the illustration show it to
be 2-1/2 inches?
> door, and then publishes an illustration showing it to be 2 1/2 inches
> inboard from the door. He lists a timeline for the shots indicating the
> shot was at 223-224, then says the shot was within a split second of 210.
> COME ON! Is this any way to answer all the questions? If you're gonna
> print such conflicting information, Vince, JUST ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T
> KNOW.
>
I personally asked him if he thought the SBT was really at Z-210 or if
he thought it was at Z-223/224. He refused to answer. He's still
confused. That's what happens when a book is written by a committee.
Anthony Marsh
My mistake. I see your point about the inch. That inch needs to be
subtracted from the 6 inches we get from adding the 2.5 inches and 3.5
inches. So the end result is about 5 inches.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>>>> "And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
> right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
> jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door)." <<<
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Huh? Why would there be any difference? Why not symmetry?" <<<
>
>
> DVP NOW UTTERS:
>
> LOL. Beats me. Go ask the HSCA, or somebody from Hess & Eisenhardt.
>
> Are you saying that this HSCA exhibit showing the limo chart is fake or
> incorrect in some way? If not, what's your point?:
>
We have discussed before the fact that the limo drawings have
inaccuracies. John Hunt pointed out a couple.
My point is that it should be the same. Along the way to making the
drawing they came up 1/4 inch short, so they arbitrarily took that off
the left side gap.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>
>
>>>> "The SBT cannot work at all if you think Myers is correct about the
> MIDLINES being a difference of 6 inches." <<<
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Myers' SBT works perfectly...because it's so obviously true.
>
Bullshit. You draw a conclusion first and then try to mold the evidence
to fit it.
> Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat. We know that. That is a fact--beyond any
> and all doubt (except to rabid CTers).
>
> And we know that that bullet coming out of Kennedy was heading downward at
> an angle of approximately 17.43 degrees (or 20.11 degrees downward based
> on CE895, which depicts the trajectory from the 6th- Floor window to the
> limo at Zapruder frame 225, with the 3-degree slope of the road being
> factored in):
>
That assumed no deflection, but now we know the bullet hit T-1.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052b.htm
>
>
>
> Therefore, that bullet almost certainly HAD to have done one of two things
> -- either hit John Connally in the back or hit the limousine.
>
No, and you do not have the same requirement for a head shot fragment
exiting the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone that it must hit
the limousine.
> It didn't hit the limousine. We know that. Therefore, it struck John
> Connally.
>
Mark Furhman thinks it hit the chrome topping.
You don't know which shot hit the chrome topping.
> So incredibly simple...yet so amazingly complicated when a CTer gets ahold
> of the very same information.
>
> Allow me to quote Tom Canning of NASA (at 2 HSCA 192):
>
>
> "The bullet {that exited JFK's throat} would have had to have been
> substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss
> the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit
> with the alinements that we have found." -- Thomas Canning; 09/12/78
>
His alinements were incorrect, but an outgoing angle matching an
incoming angle at the point of deflection would not be that substantial.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0098b.htm
>
>
>
>
>>>> "How did the FBI, SS and the WC itself before May 1964 come to the
> conclusion of three shots, three hits with Kennedy and Connally being hit
> by separate bullets? There was no need for any damn stinkin SBT." <<<
>
>
> I've often asked myself that same question, Tony. The FBI and SS, prior to
> the 5/24/64 re-creation of the shooting, should still have been able to
> see the probability of only one bullet (CE399) hitting both victims. But,
> they obviously did not see it (until May '64).
>
Humes et al considered that the same bullet which hit Kennedy went on to
hit Connally, but that Connally was also hit by the next bullet.
> Why didn't they see it? Beats me. But, anyway, the SBT (based on what we
> NOW know) is probably the most OBVIOUSLY-TRUE scenario connected to the
> whole JFK murder case. (Plus the obviousness of Lee Oswald's guilt in two
> murders on Nov. 22.)
>
In the executive session Rankin pointed out the problem that the back
wound was lower than the throat wound. That simple fact destroys the SBT.
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Been there, done that." <<<
>
>
> Not nearly good enough (evidently) -- because the Single-Bullet Theory is
> still the obviously-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
> President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on
> 11/22/63 AD.
Evidently well enough that it is one of the reasons why 90% of the
public does not believe the WC.
>
> ~Mark VII~
>
> Sorry, Tony. But common sense will always trump bullet-vanishing
> conjecture put forth by conspiracy promoters. And that fact was never
> truer than with respect to the assassination sub-topic of the Single-
> Bullet Theory.
>
You have a vanishing bullet if you believe in the SBT. Show me where
that missed shot went and show me the bullet.
> ===========================
>
>
> "The single-bullet theory...{is} so obvious that a child could
> author it." .... .... "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer.
> Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable
> evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion.
> .... No sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case
> that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of
> his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
> Via the pages of 2007's "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
> President John F. Kennedy"
>
Argument by bullying. Typical of a prosecutor.
>
> ===========================
>
Jas
KNOW."
Man, someone made a too-strong pot of coffee for this guy.
No one knows exactly when the bullet was fired, so why belabor the point?
The Zapruder film proves it was fired at around Z-223 because of the
obvious reactions of Kennedy and Connally immediately thereafter. I'm
sorry to say to conspiracists that there's simply nothing more to ponder.
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7f619189-e3c5-47cd...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
pjsp...@aol.com
Tony, on page 458 Bugliosi writes "In fact, Connally's jump seat not only
was situated a half foot inside and to the left of the right door, but
also was three inches lower than the backseat." In the illustrations
section after page 946, he has an overview of the SBT courtesy Animation
of Arizona. The back seat here appears to be about 2 1/2 inches from the
door.
pjsp...@aol.com
for the single-bullet theory to have occurred, maybe...hmmm...one of the
shots came from somewhere else. Since even DVP now agrees that Myers blew
it ,this means that Myers' animation, which was purportedly 100% accurate
blah blah blah is either inaccurate OR is indicative that JFK's wounds and
JBC's wounds were not in alignment. Which is it? You can't have it both
ways.
On Apr 21, 11:38 am, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
> Nice try, but I can blow your argument out of the water with one short
> paragraph:
>
> Connally wasn't hit in the center of his back, he was hit on his right back
> below the armpit. We know this, and we know that Connally was, in fact,
> sitting to Kennedy's left-front and below. So why are you making such a fuss
> over the 6 inch thing and accusing Myers of lying? Good gracious, give it a
> rest.
>
> James
>
> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
Jas
still doesn't negate the findings of the Warren Commission, and I'm sure he
would be the first to agree with me.
As is the case with most conspiracists, you're completely missing the point.
We know -- for a fact -- from the autopsy findings and the testimony from
the pathologists where the bullet wounds on Kennedy and Connally were, we
know how the 2 men were situated in the limo, we know the same bullet went
through Kennedy and Connally and this trajectory lines up with the
easternmost window of the sixth floor TSBD, and we know that bullet, CE 399,
was fired from Oswald's weapon C2766 at around Z frame 223.
The evidence all adds up and aligns with the bullet trajectory. The actual
positions of the 2 men seated in the limo in relation to one another,
coupled with the known evidence, is the key to the argument, not where Myers
depicts the jump seat is, or how far from the inside of the limo it is.
Heck, they could have been sitting on 2 x 4 boards and it wouldn't have
mattered.
My point is why are you completely impugning Dale Myer's animation evidence
and calling him a liar when we already know the solid evidence of CE 399?
His graphics are simply a tool to illustrate as accurately as possible the
path of 399 based on the evidence.
There was one place, and one place only, where CE 399 originated from.
Period.
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cd78191a-7beb-4b3a...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> James, you can't really be that blocked. IF, the trajectories do not align
> for the single-bullet theory to have occurred, maybe...hmmm...one of the
> shots came from somewhere else. Since even DVP now agrees that Myers blew
Not my theory, but you should not tell the LNer's that a misalignment
means a second rifle. It would still be possible for a lone shooter to
hit both men with separate shots. Remember that is what everyone thought
before Specter realized there was a timing problem. If you move the
timing of the shots farther apart there is time enough for one gunman to
fire both shots. Blakey was able to fire 2 shots spaced 1.66 seconds apart.
Anthony Marsh
Thanks. It sounds to me as if it was Dale Myers and not Vincent Bugliosi
who wrote that.
pjsp...@aol.com
I suspect that Myers did write that part. But Bugliosi believed it.
(He said the seat was six inches inboard in one of his interviews).
And now, since Myers is insisting he knew all along that the seat was
only 2 1/2 inches from the door, he's hung Bugliosi out to dry.
Bugliosi either OWNS the mistake, or admits that Myers wrote that part
of his book, neither of which helps the image he's created for the
media, and that will be pushed like heroin by HBO for at least two
more years--that of a lone ranger incredibly well-versed in details
and boldly fighting for the truth.
Anthony Marsh
> Nice try, but I can blow your argument out of the water with one short
> paragraph:
>
> Connally wasn't hit in the center of his back, he was hit on his right
> back below the armpit. We know this, and we know that Connally was, in
> fact, sitting to Kennedy's left-front and below. So why are you making
> such a fuss over the 6 inch thing and accusing Myers of lying? Good
> gracious, give it a rest.
>
> James
>
So your point is that no one is allowed to criticize Dale Myers and
point out his mistakes? My point is why should Dale Myers be allowed to
make a big deal out of the incorrect conspiracy diagrams when he makes
exactly the same type of errors himself?
pjsp...@aol.com
> DVP can believe whatever he wants to believe. Bottom line, your argument
> still doesn't negate the findings of the Warren Commission, and I'm sure he
> would be the first to agree with me.
>
> As is the case with most conspiracists, you're completely missing the point.
> We know -- for a fact -- from the autopsy findings and the testimony from
> the pathologists where the bullet wounds on Kennedy and Connally were, we
> know how the 2 men were situated in the limo, we know the same bullet went
> through Kennedy and Connally and this trajectory lines up with the
> easternmost window of the sixth floor TSBD, and we know that bullet, CE 399,
> was fired from Oswald's weapon C2766 at around Z frame 223.
>
> The evidence all adds up and aligns with the bullet trajectory. The actual
> positions of the 2 men seated in the limo in relation to one another,
> coupled with the known evidence, is the key to the argument, not where Myers
> depicts the jump seat is, or how far from the inside of the limo it is.
> Heck, they could have been sitting on 2 x 4 boards and it wouldn't have
> mattered.
>
> My point is why are you completely impugning Dale Myer's animation evidence
> and calling him a liar when we already know the solid evidence of CE 399?
> His graphics are simply a tool to illustrate as accurately as possible the
> path of 399 based on the evidence.
>
> There was one place, and one place only, where CE 399 originated from.
> Period.
>
> James
>
>
> read more »
James, you're accepting, without any evidence, that the bullet wounds
are in aIignment and project back to the sniper's nest. Based on what?
The two main proofs of this are Canning's trajectories, debunked by a
number of people including Myers, and Myers' trajectories, debunked by
me.
There are basically two ways for the wounds to align. One is for
Kennedy to have been hanging over the side of the limousine, which no
one, inlcuding Myers, believes is true circa frames 222-224. And the
other is for Connally to have been scooted way over in his seat at
this time. This is not true, either. If you want to make the argument
that it is true, through the use of motorcade photos and the Z-film,
feel free to plunge ahead.
Anthony Marsh
> Pat wrote: "Vince, JUST ADMIT THAT YOU JUST DON'T
> KNOW."
>
> Man, someone made a too-strong pot of coffee for this guy.
>
> No one knows exactly when the bullet was fired, so why belabor the
I do.
> point? The Zapruder film proves it was fired at around Z-223 because of
> the obvious reactions of Kennedy and Connally immediately thereafter.
No, it doesn't. The Zapruder film proves that the SBT is impossible at
Z-223 and that Kennedy was hit earlier.
Jas
with your idea, and thanks for going into some good detail whilst
explaining it.
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:381ea51b-1b2e-4a6d...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "The two main proofs of this are Canning's trajectories, debunked by a
number of people including Myers, and Myers' trajectories, debunked by
me." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
Pat,
Let me try to get a firmer grip on what you think you've "debunked" with
respect to Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" 3D computer model.....
You're contending that Myers fudged some data, or skewed a limousine
measurement (the "Number of inches the jump seat was from the right door"
measurement, that is)....correct?
And Pat stated the following in an earlier Internet post:
"{Dale K. Myers'} animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat
occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and...when these mistakes are
corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the
middle of his back." -- Patrick Speer; 04/18/08
Therefore, per Pat's above quote, if Mr. Myers were to have slid John
Connally's jump seat inboard a total of only 2.5 inches from the right
door (vs. the "6 inches" that Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service
testified was the distance between the right door and the jump seat and is
the "6-inch" measurement that Pat Speer is claiming that Myers DID utilize
for JBC's seat in Dale's 3D computer model), this would then mean that
Governor Connally would have been struck by the bullet "in the middle of
his back".
But if Myers utilizes the "6 inches from the door" measurement for JBC's
jump seat, it would mean that Myers is able to get the bullet wound placed
properly at the FAR RIGHT portion of JBC's back (near the armpit, which,
of course, is where he was hit by a bullet).
Is that correct, Patrick?
Well, after mulling over these two options afforded Mr. Myers and his
animated computerized model, I think Mr. Patrick Speer might have a very
big problem when trying to reconcile this possible "3.5-inch" error into
any kind of a BIG DEAL or a "lie" by Mr. Myers at all.
Why do I say that?
Well, mainly because of John Bowden Connally and the known bullet wounds
in his body....i.e., we KNOW that Governor Connally was struck in THE BACK
by only ONE single bullet on 11/22/63. And we know where exactly that
entry wound was located (far-right part of the back, near the right
armpit).
So, even if some conspiracists want to argue that JBC was hit by more than
one bullet (total), there hasn't been a single CTer on the planet (that
I'm aware of) who thinks that Connally was struck IN THE BACK by more than
one single bullet.
Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Speer's whole argument falls flat and is
rendered very nearly moot and meaningless.
Why?
Because:
VIA EITHER OF THE DISPUTED JUMP-SEAT MEASUREMENTS (either the 2.5-inch
measurement or the 6-inch version), it's obvious that John Connally WOULD
STILL HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE BULLET THAT EXITED JOHN KENNEDY'S THROAT.
And that is a shooting scenario (i.e., a "Single Bullet Hitting Both Men"
scenario) that very few conspiracy theorists embrace at all, regardless of
WHERE exactly the jump seat was located.
But Mr. Speer is telling us, it seems to me, that John Connally is
certainly going to be hit in the back by the bullet coming out of JFK's
neck no matter WHERE the jump seat is situated.
And as far as that argument goes, I'd fully agree with him....because
given the alignment of the two victims in the car....plus the fact they
were each struck by a bullet that entered their UPPER BACKS....plus the
fact that a bullet almost certainly (beyond a proverbial "reasonable
doubt") went clean through John Kennedy's body on a downward trajectory
from back to front -- there was simply nowhere else for that bullet to go
except into JBC's back after leaving JFK's body.
I'll repeat this once again (which I've stated numerous times in the past)
-- It's always been my firm belief that a few things regarding the SBT and
its details can NEVER be fully known with 100% certainty, with one of the
most-crucial of these "unknowable" things being the exact orientation of
the victims' bodies to one another at the precise moment the SBT bullet
struck them at Z223-Z224 (due to the built-in and obvious analytical
limitations of Abraham Zapruder's two- dimensional motion-picture film).
I'd also like to point out the following Dale Myers' quote, which can be
found on Mr. Myers' website (concerning the "margin of error" within
Dale's computer animation project):
"From about Zapruder frame 240 through 360, the effect of film grain
on the ability to position the occupants in the car accurately is
negligible. At their farthest point from Zapruder's camera, it was
possible to rotate both JFK and JBC up to 6 degrees in any direction
without a perceivable mismatch with the original film. This amount of
error dropped to about 4 degrees by Zapruder frame 190 and within 3
degrees by Zapruder frame 223. Therefore, the ESTIMATED MARGIN OF ERROR
[Myers' emphasis] lies between 3 and 6 degrees, depending on which point
in the film is under discussion. The larger figure was used to calculate
potential errors in plotting trajectories." -- Dale K. Myers
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm
PAT SPEER SAID THE FOLLOWING ON APRIL 18, 2008:
>>> "Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory
was in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was
6 inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after
all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?" <<<
Well, if I were to hazard a guess at what Mr. Bugliosi's reaction would be
to the "Distance From The Right Door" controversy (and I don't deny there
IS definitely a discrepancy in the official records regarding the precise
distance between the door and the jump seat, with Thomas Kelley and Tom
Canning saying one thing, and the Hess & Eisenhardt body draft saying
something else) -- I'd wager that Vince just might say something like
this:
Well, even if you're right and Dale Myers is wrong by 3.5 inches --
where does your argument really take you? Does it "go anywhere" -- except
to a different theory that STILL HAS JOHN CONNALLY BEING HIT IN THE BACK
BY THE SINGLE BULLET THAT EXITED THE FRONT OF KENNEDY'S NECK?
[/VB Mode Off.]
I'd like to also offer up something else here....take a look at the third
picture from the top on the following webpage from Dale Myers' website:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
In that computer-animated image, it looks like Connally's jump seat is
very close to the right door of the car. It doesn't look like it's any "6
inches" from the door anyway--does it?
I cannot deny that it's my impression that Mr. Myers DOES seem to slide
JBC's seat more than just 2.5 inches inboard from the right door in the
2004 Discovery Channel documentary (and, as Pat has also said, the same
thing seems to occur in the 2003 ABC-TV special as well, unless my eyes
are deceiving me in some manner).
But when turning back to that last link to Myers' website I just provided,
and focusing on the "Trajectory Cone" that is shown on the left side of
the third photo from the top on that webpage --- if Connally's seat is
slid further inboard than Mr. Myers has it in that photo, it would mean
that the "trajectory [margin-of-error] cone" would have to be shifted
slightly to the WEST on the Dealey Plaza compass.
Exactly how far west it would need to be shifted and adjusted, I don't
know. I'm just guessing. But we can see that by moving the cone westward,
it completely eliminates the Dal-Tex Building as a source for the SBT
shot, and any such adjusted "cone" could very likely still include
Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the Depository.
In any event, any trajectory cone that is shifted WESTWARD would include
ONLY windows in the Book Depository and no other building at all in the
whole of Dealey Plaza.
And since the ONLY KNOWN AND CONFIRMED SOURCE OF GUNFIRE in Dealey Plaza
was the "Oswald window" on the 6th Floor of the TSBD, the "Where Could The
Shot Have Come From?" math becomes fairly simple at this point (even WITH
an "adjusted" trajectory cone).
Or do CTers want to place a SECOND gunman somewhere on the upper floors of
the Depository (to accommodate this different "trajectory cone" I'm
theorizing about here)? Maybe Elsie Dorman was firing a gun at JFK from
her fourth-floor perch, as well as filming the motorcade at the same time.
Therefore, in the final analysis (which certain CTers will undoubtedly
refer to as another "strawman" argument; but I'd prefer to think of it as
a "common-sense" type of argument instead), even WITH a possible (but not
proven) "3.5-inch" jump-seat discrepancy in Mr. Myers computer animation,
the Warren Commission critics still don't have ANYWHERE TO GO with their
anti-SBT arguments and theories.
As mentioned earlier, about the only places they can go with this
discrepancy, it seems to me, is to a bullet that STILL GOES INTO JOHN
CONNALLY'S BACK, with that bullet STILL BEING FIRED FROM THE BOOK
DEPOSITORY BUILDING as well.
Anthony Marsh
> DVP can believe whatever he wants to believe. Bottom line, your argument
> still doesn't negate the findings of the Warren Commission, and I'm sure
> he would be the first to agree with me.
>
> As is the case with most conspiracists, you're completely missing the
> point. We know -- for a fact -- from the autopsy findings and the
> testimony from the pathologists where the bullet wounds on Kennedy and
> Connally were, we know how the 2 men were situated in the limo, we know
> the same bullet went through Kennedy and Connally and this trajectory
> lines up with the easternmost window of the sixth floor TSBD, and we
> know that bullet, CE 399, was fired from Oswald's weapon C2766 at around
> Z frame 223.
>
All of the things you think you know are only assumptions that you have
not verified.
> The evidence all adds up and aligns with the bullet trajectory. The
> actual positions of the 2 men seated in the limo in relation to one
> another, coupled with the known evidence, is the key to the argument,
> not where Myers depicts the jump seat is, or how far from the inside of
> the limo it is. Heck, they could have been sitting on 2 x 4 boards and
> it wouldn't have mattered.
>
Then why does Myers make such a big deal out of the incorrect conspiracy
diagrams? If you think all he has to do is fudge the data.
Jas
CONNALLY'S BACK, with that bullet STILL BEING FIRED FROM THE BOOK
DEPOSITORY BUILDING as well."
Thank you Dave. This is what I was saying in my post to Pat.
James
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d2f46225-11d1-45d7...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Mason
I agree that CE399 originated from Oswald's MC fired by Oswald, as did
the other two shots that were fired. But whether the SBT occurred is
quite another matter.
Myers animation does not prove that the trajectory from the SN goes
through both men, or that such a trajectory was even possible. Until he
releases the data he relies on to base his animation (inboard position
of JFK's and JBC's midline, forward separation and the angle from the SN
to the car) his animation is meaningless.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> geovu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 11:15 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> inches
>>>> deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches
>>>> further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone
>>>> Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back.
>>>>
>>>> was
>>>> in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was 6
>>>> inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after
>>>> all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?
>>>
>>>
>>>
According to the diagram, the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside
of the door. The door panel was much less than 2.5 inches inside the
panel beside JFK according to the diagram. If it was 2.5 inches, the
space between the jump seat and the door would be the same as the jog in
the side between the panel beside JFK and the door panel.
>
>> was 3.5 inches inside side of the car next to JFK (ie. the right side
>> of the jump seat was 3.5 inches inside the right side of JFK's seat).
>> The seat is exactly 20 inches wide. So if JBC was in the middle of his
>> seat
>
>
> No, the jump seat is exactly 20.5 inches wide.
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>
>
> You should know that because you had commented on the HSCA exhibit which
> says 20.50".
> If you plug 20" into your equation then it becomes a case of GIGO.
Right. 20.50" is correct. That means JBC is .25 inches further left of
the position I had put him. He is still at least 7.25 inches too far
right for the SBT to work.
>
>
>
>> his centre was 13.5 inches inside the car measured from the inside
>> panel immediately to JFK's right.
>>
>
> Show us your math to get the 13.5 inches.
L-R distance of JFK panel to inside of door panel (1") + L-R distance
from door panel to jump seat (2.5") + half of the seat width (20/2) =
13.5 . With the seat 20.5" wide, the figure is 13.75"
>
>> Now if JFK's ribs were pressed against the side of the car, his centre
>> could not be less than 7 inches from the inside panel. So this means
>> that JFK's centre could not be less than 6.5 inches (13.5-7) right of
>> JBC.
>>
>
> Not exactly, but you are on the right track.
>
>> This in itself shows that the SBT could not happen with the men in
>> that position. A right to left shot through JFK at an angle of 9
>> degrees (it
>
>
> No SBT could possibly work with Connally seated normally in the jump
> seat. He has to move over by several inches to his left.
> How would he possibly know the exact time to move over for the upcoming
> SBT?
>
>> appears to be 13 degrees at z200) travels a further 4 inches over the
>> 24 inches between JFK's neck and JBC's back. This means that the bullet
>
>
> Show us your math for 4 inches over 24.
?? It is just trigonometry. Angle = 9, tan(9) = .158 . L-R distance over
24 is 24 x .158 = 3.8 inches.
Andrew Mason
cdddraftsman
> You have a vanishing bullet if you believe in the SBT. Show me where
> that missed shot went and show me the bullet.
The absolute gall of some people :-( Unbelievable ! )-:
Look : We know a few things about this case :
a) LHO bought the gun that fired the shots that killed JFK .
b) LHO presence in the building at the time of the shooting is
unknown .
c) LHO apparently shot a cop , whether in self defense of flight
who knows , who cares ?
d) The case against LHO looks 10,000 x's better when you realise
there's no case against anyone else .
e) We also know that the case against LHO has been obscured on
purpose to a point that a lot of people call him Saint
Oswald for their own personal gratification and self
glorification !
With all the monkey shines involving basically weak evidence , flawed
reasoning , unfounded speculation and in Pat Spears case drawings NOT TO
SCALE to prove what point I don't know and care even less about the main
point that everyone seems to miss is that unless you have the precise
anatomy in front of you , in the limo , you're all guessing . Those
guesses are followed by conclusions that show a deep divide caused by
predispositioning and a wrong mindset prior to entering into the
investigation , a weakness we all have . So the best that we can do is to
assign a probability based upon what we know , excluding speculation , and
we still , IMO come up with LHO as the prime mover , the best evidence ,
the central figure in this case and that JFK was indeed shot by him and he
did it all by his lonesome . I just don't see any getting around this
point .
Just a thought .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with DVP . If you've mulled over every conceivable , possible and
probable outcome , IMO , without a extra rifle found , your up the creek
without a paddle .
tl
pjsp...@aol.com
David, we're not all that far apart on this. I agree that someone can make
a logical argument that the evidence is such that the SBT musta happened
someway somehow. (Of course, I have my own reasons to believe it didn't
occur, including the lack of damage to Kennedy's trachea.) For years
however, TV depictions have been trying to sell us that Kennedy and
Connally were sitting in perfect alignment for a bullet exiting Kennedy's
throat from the sniper's nest to hit Connally precisely in the armpit.
This "perfect alignment" is a myth.
BTW, if one moves Connally 3 1/2 inches closer to the door, then the
trajectory through Kennedy shifts to the east, not west, and directly onto
the Dal-Tex Building.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 21, 6:32 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> You have a vanishing bullet if you believe in the SBT. Show me where
>> that missed shot went and show me the bullet.
>
> The absolute gall of some people :-( Unbelievable ! )-:
>
You are simply unbelievable. You focus on silly little things as if they
all by themselves prove that Oswald was the lone shooter. And most of them
have already been stipulated to so you are preaching to the choir.
> Look : We know a few things about this case :
>
> a) LHO bought the gun that fired the shots that killed JFK .
Yeah, so what? That doesn't even prove he was the guy who pulled the
trigger. If someone wanted to frame Oswald they would naturally use his
rifle.
>
> b) LHO presence in the building at the time of the shooting is
> unknown .
>
Wrong. Oswald was know to be in the building at the time. You have no
proof he was on the sixth floor.
> c) LHO apparently shot a cop , whether in self defense of flight
> who knows , who cares ?
>
So you say. Belin considers it the Rosetta Stone.
> d) The case against LHO looks 10,000 x's better when you realise
> there's no case against anyone else .
>
How can Oswald fire from two different directions at the same time?
> e) We also know that the case against LHO has been obscured on
> purpose to a point that a lot of people call him Saint
> Oswald for their own personal gratification and self
> glorification !
Nope.
>
> With all the monkey shines involving basically weak evidence , flawed
> reasoning , unfounded speculation and in Pat Spears case drawings NOT TO
> SCALE to prove what point I don't know and care even less about the main
Exactly what do you want? My drawings are to scale.
> point that everyone seems to miss is that unless you have the precise
> anatomy in front of you , in the limo , you're all guessing . Those
No guessing involved.
> guesses are followed by conclusions that show a deep divide caused by
> predispositioning and a wrong mindset prior to entering into the
> investigation , a weakness we all have . So the best that we can do is to
> assign a probability based upon what we know , excluding speculation , and
> we still , IMO come up with LHO as the prime mover , the best evidence ,
> the central figure in this case and that JFK was indeed shot by him and he
> did it all by his lonesome . I just don't see any getting around this
> point .
>
90% of the public disagrees with you.
Anthony Marsh
I am not sure what you mean. The door itself was very wide. Plenty of
room for the lap robe compartment. That is what sticks out 3.5 inches
which is where Myers gets his total 6 inches. But as you pointed out JFK
seat was an inch to the left of where the lap robe compartment started
out so the net difference is 5 inches. See my limo diagram and look at
the photo that Artwohl had uploaded.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif
>>
>>> was 3.5 inches inside side of the car next to JFK (ie. the right side
>>> of the jump seat was 3.5 inches inside the right side of JFK's seat).
>>> The seat is exactly 20 inches wide. So if JBC was in the middle of
>>> his seat
>>
>>
>> No, the jump seat is exactly 20.5 inches wide.
>>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>>
>>
>> You should know that because you had commented on the HSCA exhibit
>> which says 20.50".
>> If you plug 20" into your equation then it becomes a case of GIGO.
>
> Right. 20.50" is correct. That means JBC is .25 inches further left of
> the position I had put him. He is still at least 7.25 inches too far
> right for the SBT to work.
>
Yes, unless you can make him mover over 8 inches in time to receive the
SBT bullet.
>>
>>
>>
>>> his centre was 13.5 inches inside the car measured from the inside
>>> panel immediately to JFK's right.
>>>
>>
>> Show us your math to get the 13.5 inches.
>
> L-R distance of JFK panel to inside of door panel (1") + L-R distance
> from door panel to jump seat (2.5") + half of the seat width (20/2) =
> 13.5 . With the seat 20.5" wide, the figure is 13.75"
>
Then you are forgetting the 3.5 inches for the lap robe compartment.
>
>>
>>> Now if JFK's ribs were pressed against the side of the car, his
>>> centre could not be less than 7 inches from the inside panel. So this
>>> means that JFK's centre could not be less than 6.5 inches (13.5-7)
>>> right of JBC.
>>>
>>
>> Not exactly, but you are on the right track.
>>
>>> This in itself shows that the SBT could not happen with the men in
>>> that position. A right to left shot through JFK at an angle of 9
>>> degrees (it
>>
>>
>> No SBT could possibly work with Connally seated normally in the jump
>> seat. He has to move over by several inches to his left.
>> How would he possibly know the exact time to move over for the
>> upcoming SBT?
>>
>>> appears to be 13 degrees at z200) travels a further 4 inches over the
>>> 24 inches between JFK's neck and JBC's back. This means that the bullet
>>
>>
>> Show us your math for 4 inches over 24.
>
> ?? It is just trigonometry. Angle = 9, tan(9) = .158 . L-R distance over
> 24 is 24 x .158 = 3.8 inches.
>
The angle is not 9 degrees. Use 11-1/2 degrees.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
You can easily tell that the SBT is bogus when there are as many versions
as WC defenders and HSCA defenders, the frame number changes every day and
each drawing declares that it is perfect and represents the actual
conditions even when it disagrees radically with every other drawing.
Andrew Mason
> DVP wrote: "As mentioned earlier, about the only places they can go with
> this discrepancy, it seems to me, is to a bullet that STILL GOES INTO
> JOHN CONNALLY'S BACK, with that bullet STILL BEING FIRED FROM THE BOOK
> DEPOSITORY BUILDING as well."
Why is the back wound on JBC the only possibility?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Because his right arm is in the way.
> Andrew Mason
JFK
?? Do you mean the left arm?
This is only a problem if he is hit at z224.
If he was hit at z200, which is where all the witnesses put the first
shot, JBC was turned sharply to the right and the left arm is not in the
way of a shot through JFK's neck to JBC's left thigh.
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>>
>>> Jas wrote:
>>>
>>>> DVP wrote: "As mentioned earlier, about the only places they can go
>>>> with this discrepancy, it seems to me, is to a bullet that STILL
>>>> GOES INTO JOHN CONNALLY'S BACK, with that bullet STILL BEING FIRED
>>>> FROM THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING as well."
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is the back wound on JBC the only possibility?
>>>
>>
>> Because his right arm is in the way.
>
> ?? Do you mean the left arm?
>
His right arm for a bullet exiting JFK.
> This is only a problem if he is hit at z224.
>
> If he was hit at z200, which is where all the witnesses put the first
> shot, JBC was turned sharply to the right and the left arm is not in the
> way of a shot through JFK's neck to JBC's left thigh.
>
I didn't say left arm. His torso is in the way at Z-200.
> Andrew Mason
>
>
>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>
David Von Pein
A fellow lone-assassin believer received an interesting and detailed e-
mail message from author and animator Dale Myers this week (concerning
Pat Speer's recent attacks on Mr. Myers' computer animation project,
"Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination").
Here's the complete e-mail message from Mr. Myers:
=======================================================
"You're obviously referring to the website and rantings of Pat
Speer, one of many conspiracy theorists who pretend to know the truth
about my reconstruction work on the Kennedy assassination.
"The only thing obvious about these folks is their distain for the
truth and honest research.
"As you noted, Mr. Speer has made no attempt to contact me and get
answers about my work from the only source who could answer him - which
should tell you all you need to know.
"As Mr. Speer himself has noted on his website, I pointed out the
fallacy of his arguments on my FAQ page. He has failed to address those
fallacies and continues promoting falsehoods about my work which include
the newly minted, ridiculous assertions you mentioned.
"For instance, he continues to claim that the Connally (JBC) figure
was shrunk (as was the jumpseat) to accomodate the SBT. He now uses images
of my work culled from the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic
Bullet" to promote this nonsense. Even a cursory look at the images should
tell anyone with a brain that the images used by Mr. Speer are at an angle
to the viewer (i..e, the right side of the image is falling away from the
viewer). This is due to the fact that the images are being filmed directly
off my computer monitor and that the camera filming these images is
viewing the monitor at a considerable angle. This can be seen in any of
the wide angle shots in which I am visible alongside the monitor (none of
which, BTW, are included in Speer's presentation). If Mr. Speer had shown
his viewers those wide angle views, it would be obvious that the reason
JBC (and the jumpseat) appears smaller is because of the camera/monitor
relationship.
"Mr. Speer compounds this nonsense by overlaying the images from the
Discovery program with those culled from the ABC/History Channel program
and claiming that because they do not align I have made wholesale changes
on a frame-by-frame level in order to sell a "lie" to the networks and the
American public. This is obviously false.
"Mr. Speer also attempts to demonstrate his theories about my work
by drawing lines on two-dimensional images I have produced and pretending
that these lines of "alignment" can be projected into three dimensional
space. This is false, as I have already demonstrated on FAQ page when
addressing equally silly accusations made by self- proclaimed photo expert
Bill Miller, another conspiracy theorist who's concept of photo
interpretation is equally bankrupt.
"None of these self-proclaimed experts have retracted their false
accusations about my work (on the contrary, they act as if their methods
haven't been shown to be false and irrational), nor do I expect them to in
the near future. If it isn't Mr. Speer or Miller perpetuating these myths,
it would be someone else. Who has time for all this nonsense?
"Mr. Speer's claims about the jump seat location have no bearing on
the issue at hand - again, as I have already answered and addressed in my
FAQ page. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film
perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could
eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments
of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based
on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC and
their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In
short, the position/size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the SBT. Mr.
Speer might as well be arguing that the side mirror is misplaced,
therefore, the reconstruction is invalid. How much sillier are all these
accusations going to get?
"The movements of JBC and the jumpeat (as shown in the ABC/ History
Channel program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the
differences between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality,
were done in unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false.
"The differences in the height of the JFK and JBC were accounted for
in the reconstruction. Again, any charges to the contrary are false.
"The location of JBC relative to JFK (i.e. approximately 6 inches to
the left of JFK's midline) and JBC's rotational position relative to the
midline of the limousine (i.e. turned approximately 37 degrees to the
right) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com is correct. Any
charges to the contrary are false.
"The locations of the wounds of both JFK and JBC were marked
according to medical data culled from the WC and HSCA (including
photographs and X-rays) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com. Any
charges to the contrary are false.
"Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or
doesn't matter is free to do so. In the final analysis, the truth doesn't
require anyone's belief.
"I don't respond to posts on the many newsgroups because of the
sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know many
respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It is the
insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research that I (and
others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a kindergarten sandbox.
Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests
together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those who
have the least to say.
"I appreciate your thoughtful question - it is rare - and hope this
answers your question.
"Feel free to post my response, if you think it will help.
Personally, I think you'll only see the nuts come out of the woodwork
again. It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one argument after another to
see who can be the top fool.
"Best regards, Dale K. Myers" [April 2008]
=======================================================
RELATED LINKS......
DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3363328-post.html
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
=======================================================
Anthony Marsh
> A fellow lone-assassin believer received an interesting and detailed e-
> mail message from author and animator Dale Myers this week (concerning
> Pat Speer's recent attacks on Mr. Myers' computer animation project,
> "Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination").
>
> Here's the complete e-mail message from Mr. Myers:
>
So, Dale Myers dares not post this nonsense himself and you can get away
with attacking others because you are only quoting someone else.
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> "You're obviously referring to the website and rantings of Pat
> Speer, one of many conspiracy theorists who pretend to know the truth
> about my reconstruction work on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> "The only thing obvious about these folks is their distain for the
> truth and honest research.
>
Did Myers really misspell "disdain"?
> "As you noted, Mr. Speer has made no attempt to contact me and get
> answers about my work from the only source who could answer him - which
> should tell you all you need to know.
>
Meaningless. Numerous conspiracy believers have contacted Myers and
Myers will not answer questions about his work. He won't even admit
simple facts.
So, here Myers is admitting his mistake about the jump seat, but he
claims that the mistake does not matter because the actual locations do
not matter. Then why does he make a big stink about the conspiracy
authors getting the locations wrong?
> FAQ page. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film
> perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could
> eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments
> of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based
> on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC and
> their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In
> short, the position/size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the SBT. Mr.
> Speer might as well be arguing that the side mirror is misplaced,
> therefore, the reconstruction is invalid. How much sillier are all these
> accusations going to get?
>
> "The movements of JBC and the jumpeat (as shown in the ABC/ History
> Channel program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the
> differences between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality,
> were done in unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false.
>
So, it is bad when the conspiracy authors get the details wrong, but
then it is ok when Myers gets the details wrong?
> "The differences in the height of the JFK and JBC were accounted for
> in the reconstruction. Again, any charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "The location of JBC relative to JFK (i.e. approximately 6 inches to
> the left of JFK's midline) and JBC's rotational position relative to the
> midline of the limousine (i.e. turned approximately 37 degrees to the
> right) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com is correct. Any
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
False. Just having JBC's midline 6 inches to the left of JFK's midline
is not enough. The bullet exiting JFK's midline traveled 5 inches
farther to the left during that 24 inch gap to Connally. And Connally's
back wound was 8 inches to the right of his midline. 5+8=13. Connally's
midline would need to be 13 inches to the left of JFK's midline. If
Myers claims that it was only 6 inches to the left then his SBT can not
work.
> "The locations of the wounds of both JFK and JBC were marked
> according to medical data culled from the WC and HSCA (including
> photographs and X-rays) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com. Any
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
How can it possibly be based on both the WC and the HSCA when the HSCA
corrected the incorrect WC data?
> "Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or
> doesn't matter is free to do so. In the final analysis, the truth doesn't
> require anyone's belief.
>
But it does require simple math, something which Myers lacks.
> "I don't respond to posts on the many newsgroups because of the
> sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know many
> respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It is the
> insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research that I (and
> others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a kindergarten sandbox.
> Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests
> together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those who
> have the least to say.
>
Like all arrogant bastards he runs away from criticism like a frightened
kindergardener.
> "I appreciate your thoughtful question - it is rare - and hope this
> answers your question.
>
> "Feel free to post my response, if you think it will help.
> Personally, I think you'll only see the nuts come out of the woodwork
> again. It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one argument after another to
> see who can be the top fool.
>
Typical WC defender slime technique. You get away with calling fellow
posters nuts because you are only quoting someone else, someone who is
not brave enough to defend his work against criticism.
pjsp...@aol.com
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "The locations of the wounds of both JFK and JBC were marked
> according to medical data culled from the WC and HSCA (including
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or
> doesn't matter is free to do so. In the final analysis, the truth doesn't
> require anyone's belief.
>
> "I don't respond to posts on the many newsgroups because of the
> sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know many
> respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It is the
> insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research that I (and
> others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a kindergarten sandbox.
> Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests
> together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those who
> have the least to say.
>
> "I appreciate your thoughtful question - it is rare - and hope this
> answers your question.
>
> "Feel free to post my response, if you think it will help.
> Personally, I think you'll only see the nuts come out of the woodwork
> again. It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one argument after another to
> see who can be the top fool.
>
> "Best regards, Dale K. Myers" [April 2008]
>
> =======================================================
>
> RELATED LINKS......
>
> DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3363328-post.htmlwww.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
>
> =======================================================
Thanks, David, That's pretty much what I expected. Insults and
obfuscation.
For the record, I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. I just
read a lot. And think a lot. And have little shame about sharing my
thoughts.
Myers, on the other hand, seems to think he is an "expert" and beyond
reproach. Nonsense. He's a former CT, born-again as an LN. He looked at
some, but not all of the Zapruder film frames, and created an inaccurate
and inconsistent cartoon based upon it. That's hardly the`resume of a
DaVinci or an Einstein
David Von Pein
>>> "So, Dale Myers dares not post this nonsense himself..." <<<
In essence, Dale DID "post" it -- via an e-mail that he gave full
permission to be re-printed on the Internet.
Whether or not Dale felt it was likely that his e-mail message would be
copied and pasted into an Internet post, I cannot say. But I have a
feeling that Dale, who is far from being a dunce, probably realized that
the person to whom he was e-mailing (who posts exclusively at a JFK forum
at IMDB.com) would, indeed, post the message on the Internet, especially
when these words were included at the end of Dale's mail -- "Feel free to
post my response, if you think it will help".
>>> "...and you can get away with attacking others because you are only
quoting someone else." <<<
As if this is something brand-NEW??
LOL.
It's done every day of the week around here (and at other forums), by
LNers and CTers alike, of course -- i.e., "attacking" the "other side" by
quoting other people and sources other than yourself/(myself).
Gee, if I stopped doing that, I wouldn't have nearly as much fun around
these parts (especially with respect to quoting Vincent Bugliosi's
"attacks" on CTers, like the two zingers provided below, which I'll toss
in just as a bonus here; sans any charge at all):
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have
succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most
complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history. Refusing to accept the
plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over 40 years to
convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the
critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along
the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split
hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known
facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and
speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren
Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA
documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there
to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of
course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VB
========
"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of
the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved,
in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the
HSCA came to the same conclusion. But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious
as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed
their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the
official version is wrong." -- VB
========
>>> "Did Myers really misspell "disdain"?" <<<
Yes. I just didn't put in the "[sic]".
And your next nitpick is going to be....?
>>> "So, it is bad when the conspiracy authors get the details wrong, but
then it is ok when Myers gets the details wrong?" <<<
Nobody has proven that Myers has any important details wrong. But keep
trying to "prove" it though, Tony. After all, ALL conspiracy theorists
MUST deny the viability of the SBT. It's in their blood.
>>> "Like all arrogant bastards, he runs away from criticism like a
frightened kindergardener [sic]." <<<
Take a flying leap, Mr. "No Hole At All In The Back Of JFK's Head".
And, btw, did you really misspell kindergartner?
>>> "Typical WC defender slime technique. You get away with calling fellow
posters nuts because you are only quoting someone else, someone who is not
brave enough to defend his work against criticism." <<<
It doesn't really matter to me WHO does the insulting of CTers (whether it
be myself, or Dale K. Myers, or Vincent T. Bugliosi, or Joe Blow from
Kokomo) -- as long as the "CTers ARE DEAD WRONG" word gets spread as often
as possible. That's the most important thing.
Andrew Mason
> A fellow lone-assassin believer received an interesting and detailed e-
> mail message from author and animator Dale Myers this week (concerning
> Pat Speer's recent attacks on Mr. Myers' computer animation project,
> "Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination").
>
> Here's the complete e-mail message from Mr. Myers:
>
>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> "The location of JBC relative to JFK (i.e. approximately 6 inches to
> the left of JFK's midline) and JBC's rotational position relative to the
> midline of the limousine (i.e. turned approximately 37 degrees to the
> right) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com is correct. Any
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "The locations of the wounds of both JFK and JBC were marked
> according to medical data culled from the WC and HSCA (including
> photographs and X-rays) as reported on my website at www.jfkfiles.com. Any
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or
> doesn't matter is free to do so. In the final analysis, the truth doesn't
> require anyone's belief.
This is a strange statement.
The point that Myers seems to miss is that with JBC's midline only 6
inches (15 cm) left of JFK's, a shot exiting .5 cm left of JFK's midline
will strike no further right than 14.5 cm right of JBC's midline if the
shot was straight through JFK at no angle. The wound was 20 cm right of
JBC's midline.
But the shot was not directly from behind, as this FBI recreation photo
shows.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm
The shot through JFK was at an angle of 11 degrees. This means it went 12
cm further left after passing through JFK. This means the bullet could not
have struck JBC more than 2.5 cm right of the spine. So Myers, by his own
data, is about 17.5 cm out.
And you can see this from the above FBI recreation. The bullet simply
cannot hit JBC in the right armpit.
Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the angle
from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between the
two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?
Andrew Mason
pjsp...@aol.com
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "The locations of the wounds of both JFK and JBC were marked
> according to medical data culled from the WC and HSCA (including
> charges to the contrary are false.
>
> "Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or
> doesn't matter is free to do so. In the final analysis, the truth doesn't
> require anyone's belief.
>
> "I don't respond to posts on the many newsgroups because of the
> sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know many
> respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It is the
> insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research that I (and
> others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a kindergarten sandbox.
> Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests
> together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those who
> have the least to say.
>
> "I appreciate your thoughtful question - it is rare - and hope this
> answers your question.
>
> "Feel free to post my response, if you think it will help.
> Personally, I think you'll only see the nuts come out of the woodwork
> again. It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one argument after another to
> see who can be the top fool.
>
> "Best regards, Dale K. Myers" [April 2008]
>
> =======================================================
>
> RELATED LINKS......
>
> DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3363328-post.htmlwww.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
>
> =======================================================
Upon re-reading Myers' comments a few things become clear. He is under
some presumption that critics are under some obligation to contact people
before they criticize them. What a double-standard. How much time did the
Clark Panel spend reviewing their findings with the autopsists before
they, in effect, called them total incompetents and liars? I'll answer
that. Zero. And how much time did Bugliosi spend reviewing his book with
people like Doug Horne before he trashed them in his book (not
coincidentally, co-written by Myers). I'll answer that one, too. Zero.
The more Myers talks about this stuff, the deeper the hole he digs for
himself. By admitting that the Beyond the Magic Bullet image was distorted
because it was filmed at an angle, he is as much as admitting the hole
Beyond the Magic Bullet project (pun intended) was a fraud. You see, he
pointed out a bullet trajectory on this image with his hand, and this
angle was added onto his image in post- production. This trajectory runs
10 degrees R-L, the trajectory from the sniper's nest into the limousine.
On his undistorted Beyond Conspiracy image, however, the angle between
Kennedy's back wound and Connally's armpit is only 7 degrees. In other
words, the added-on bullet trajectory in Beyond the Magic Bullet JUST SO
HAPPENS to sell that a shot coming from the sniper's nest would exit
Kennedy's throat and hit Connally in the armpit, when a trajectory from
the sniper's nest onto this same image, when left undistorted, would not.
David Von Pein
>>> "The point that Myers seems to miss is that with JBC's midline only 6
inches (15 cm) left of JFK's, a shot exiting .5 cm left of JFK's midline
will strike no further right than 14.5 cm right of JBC's midline if the
shot was straight through JFK at no angle. The wound was 20 cm right of
<<<
This is just silly, Andrew. You're acting as if Connally was NOT turned to
his right at all when he was shot. But via Dale Myers' detailed analysis,
JBC was turned 37 degrees to his right when he was shot in the back. (See
webpage below....)
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm
Obviously, if JBC is turned quite a bit to his right (~37 degrees), this
is going to change any "midline" of JBC from the shooter's POV in the Book
Depository. Oswald shot a TURNED-IN-HIS-SEAT John Connally, not a Connally
who was sitting squarely in his seat with his shoulders parallel to the
trunk of the car.
Another visual (via Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation
project):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>>> "Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the
angle from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between
the two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?" <<<
I can answer those questions (as can anyone else who has bothered to read
the information available at Mr. Myers' website).....
Dale is using a survey map of Dealey Plaza, detailed blueprints of the
Texas School Book Depository Building, and the original body draft of
SS-100-X (JFK's 1961 Lincoln limousine). .....
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/tech.htm
And Dale, of course, as everybody also knows, used the Zapruder's film.
Dale has, in effect, extracted 3-dimensional information from Zapruder's
two-dimensional motion-picture film.
All of this is fully explained, in great detail, at Mr. Myers' site at
www.jfkfiles.com.
In short.....
The Single-Bullet Theory fits every last piece of physical evidence in the
JFK case, including the Zapruder Film (to an absolute TEE it "fits" the
Z-Film, without a shred of a doubt; CTer scoffing notwithstanding,
naturally).
And, as I've shouted from the cyberspace rooftops a hundred times
previously, to believe that the SBT is a falsehood is, by default, to
believe in some kind of anti-SBT scenario to explain the simultaneous
wounding of JFK & JBC that is inevitably far more illogical and
unsupportable than is the single-bullet conclusion.
Why more conspiracists fail to realize that the above paragraph is 100%
accurate can only make me shrug my shoulders incessantly in bewilderment.
David Von Pein
If I were you, Pat, I'd give up on this one.
IMO, you'll end up being less embarrassed if, right now, you discontinue
your quest to try and prove that Dale K. Myers doesn't know what the hell
he's doing WITHIN HIS OWN FIELD OF EXPERTISE (i.e., computer animation).
But, then too, that's just my own opinion on the matter. I never really
expect any "CTer" to actually agree with anything uttered by an "LNer"
though.
And the beat goes on. ;)
John Fiorentino
Again, most here simply have missed the mark on this issue, including I
believe Myers.
I dealt with this several years ago, and if you desire you may wish to
Google it up.
In any event, the six inches is more likely correct, if one examines
closely the diagram of the limo, the photos of the interior etc.
The key points are thus:
(1) A measurement from the TOP of the backseat to the right door will
produce a measurement which is different (less) than that when measured
from the seat portion of the jumpseat to the right door.
(2) The right door included the presidential seal and (lap robes) (I
believe that is the correct term, but it may have escaped me for the
moment) which were HUNG from the door. A measurement from the jumpseat to
the "right door" (seal) produces a measurement different (less) than a
measurement from the jumpseat to the actual DOOR. (more)
(3) The rear seat in which JFK sat (when viewed from the rear of the limo
forward) is actually slightly to the RIGHT of the seal and lap robe on the
inside portion of the right door.
So to sum it up a measurement taken from the seat portion of JBC's
jumpseat to the "right door" would produce a measurement of approx 6
inches. There is nothing sinister about it.
I mentioned this to Myers a few years ago, and when he got a little testy,
I just let it drop. (He's the one who wins the awards you know)
So, BOTH Speare and Dale are in error.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b10d9780-ba20-4d79...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On his website, Dale Myers asks: "Isn't it true that you incorrectly
will travel before he will admit the obvious--that his animation
deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches
further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone
Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting
Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back.
In Myers' defense ( I can't believe I'm doing this) it's clear he's in a
Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory was
John Fiorentino
The key points are thus:
(1) A measurement from the TOP of the backseat to the right door will
Should read:
(1) A measurement from the TOP of the backseat rest of the jumpseat to the
right door...
John F.
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4808...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> It's quite obvious that pjspeare is all wet on this issue. Unfortunately,
> Myers doesn't seem to get it right either.
pjsp...@aol.com
FWIW, I defend Myers' right to respond. I'm glad I provoked his response
as we learned something new--that the producers of BTMB and Myers
knowingly filmed his animation at a distorted angle, which just so
happened to help them sell that the single-bullet theory "works".
tomnln
CT's have trouble getting you LN's to agree with your own
evidence/testimony from the 26 volumes.
You RUN from your own official records>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What in the world are you talking about. You use the distorted view of
the screen as your evidence that it doesn't work and then you come back
and say they used the distorted view to make it look like it works. Make
up your mind.
There is nothing sinister about filming a computer with an animation on it
while interviewing the person that did the animation. It isn't meant to
show the animation perfectly. It's meant to allow the person being
interviewed to go over it point by point with the viewer. It is sinister,
however, to use that angled view to try to prove that the animation is
wrong. It's also scientifically shoddy and intellectually deficient. On
top of that, you are now trying to say that they did this to distort the
view to a point that it would work. That makes even less sense. Let's
forget that you were using this as proof that the animation was wrong.
Why would someone create an animation so that you had to play it on a
computer screen at an angle to make it work if they were going to distort
it in the first place. That comment is one of the worst things I have read
on this board. Wow!
Andrew Mason
>>>>"The point that Myers seems to miss is that with JBC's midline only 6
>
> inches (15 cm) left of JFK's, a shot exiting .5 cm left of JFK's midline
> will strike no further right than 14.5 cm right of JBC's midline if the
> shot was straight through JFK at no angle. The wound was 20 cm right of
> JBC's midline. .... The bullet simply cannot hit JBC in the right armpit."
> <<<
>
>
>
>
>
> This is just silly, Andrew. You're acting as if Connally was NOT turned to
> his right at all when he was shot. But via Dale Myers' detailed analysis,
> JBC was turned 37 degrees to his right when he was shot in the back. (See
> webpage below....)
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm
I am not sure how Myers concludes that JBC is turned 37 degrees at z224
but lets assume that is true (if it were actually true, JBC would appear
to be facing Zapruder or turned slightly past him because at that point,
Zapruder is about 30 degrees to the car direction).
With JBC turned 37 degrees, the distance from his spine to the right
armpit entrance wound is 20 cm x cos 37 = 16 cm. So his right armpit
moves only about 4 cm further left. It has to move 17.5 cm left to catch
the bullet.
What is silly about that?
>
>
>
> Obviously, if JBC is turned quite a bit to his right (~37 degrees), this
> is going to change any "midline" of JBC from the shooter's POV in the Book
> Depository. Oswald shot a TURNED-IN-HIS-SEAT John Connally, not a Connally
> who was sitting squarely in his seat with his shoulders parallel to the
> trunk of the car.
Yes it would. But by only 4 cm.
>
> Another visual (via Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation
> project):
>
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>
>
>
>>>>"Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the
>
> angle from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between
> the two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?" <<<
>
>
> I can answer those questions (as can anyone else who has bothered to read
> the information available at Mr. Myers' website).....
So what is the angle to the car that Myers uses for the shot from the
SN? Take the tangent of that angle, multiply it by the separation
between JFK and JBC and that is the distance that the bullet moves to
the LEFT after passing through JFK.
If you think those numbers add up, then show them. Myers refuses. He
uses his computer program to avoid having to answer the obvious problem
that the trigonometry does not begin to work.
>
> Dale is using a survey map of Dealey Plaza, detailed blueprints of the
> Texas School Book Depository Building, and the original body draft of
> SS-100-X (JFK's 1961 Lincoln limousine). .....
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/tech.htm
>
>
> And Dale, of course, as everybody also knows, used the Zapruder's film.
> Dale has, in effect, extracted 3-dimensional information from Zapruder's
> two-dimensional motion-picture film.
>
> All of this is fully explained, in great detail, at Mr. Myers' site at
> www.jfkfiles.com.
No it isn't. He refuses to provide the data (distances, angles etc)
>
> In short.....
>
> The Single-Bullet Theory fits every last piece of physical evidence in the
> JFK case, including the Zapruder Film (to an absolute TEE it "fits" the
> Z-Film, without a shred of a doubt; CTer scoffing notwithstanding,
> naturally).
It does not fit the witness evidence as to the spacing of the shots. And
it does not fit the physical trajectory evidence for the reasons given.
So this is a bit of an overstatement.
>
> And, as I've shouted from the cyberspace rooftops a hundred times
> previously, to believe that the SBT is a falsehood is, by default, to
> believe in some kind of anti-SBT scenario to explain the simultaneous
> wounding of JFK & JBC that is inevitably far more illogical and
> unsupportable than is the single-bullet conclusion.
Not at all. It is to believe merely what the FBI said in their initial
report in December 1963. Three bullets, three hits, one shooter.
> Why more conspiracists fail to realize that the above paragraph is 100%
> accurate can only make me shrug my shoulders incessantly in bewilderment.
Your bewilderment is bewildering.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Again, you are on the right track, but your math is a little off. First,
you should not be changing the units from inches to centimeters. We are in
America and most people discussing it are Americans. We use English
measures not metric. Second, you are using the wrong conversion factors
and rounding out incorrectly. You get the 14 cm to the left by converting
5.5 inches into centimeters, probably with the wrong conversion factor and
rounding out incorrectly. At 11-1/2 degrees right to left with Connally 24
inches in front of JFK the bullet will travel 4.88 inches to the left
which converts into 12.4 centimeters not 14.
> But the shot was not directly from behind, as this FBI recreation photo
> shows.
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm
>
>
> The shot through JFK was at an angle of 11 degrees. This means it went
> 12 cm further left after passing through JFK. This means the bullet
> could not have struck JBC more than 2.5 cm right of the spine. So Myers,
> by his own data, is about 17.5 cm out.
Close enough, but again as I pointed out several times before Myers
misspoke and did not intend to phrase it as Connally's midline being 6
inches to the left of JFK's midline. He meant the right side of the jump
seat in relation to the right side of the rear seat. He still needs to
have Connally move over to the left of the right edge of the jump seat.
>
> And you can see this from the above FBI recreation. The bullet simply
> cannot hit JBC in the right armpit.
>
> Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the angle
> from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between the
> two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?
>
He is loosely using Canning's data.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Yes. I forgot which ALT combination produces the umlaut.
See, I do make mistakes.
Anthony Marsh
He also lied and fudged the data. Compare the various versions of how he
depicts Kennedy's hands during the crucial frames. When he is not
concerned about the SBT he shows Kennedy's hands balled up into fists. But
at the crucial frame he shows Kennedy's fingers spread wide open so that
his bullet misses his hand by a half inch.
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> > The shot through JFK was at an angle of 11 degrees. This means it went
> > 12 cm further left after passing through JFK. This means the bullet
> > could not have struck JBC more than 2.5 cm right of the spine. So Myers,
> > by his own data, is about 17.5 cm out.
>
> Close enough, but again as I pointed out several times before Myers
> misspoke and did not intend to phrase it as Connally's midline being 6
> inches to the left of JFK's midline. He meant the right side of the jump
> seat in relation to the right side of the rear seat. He still needs to
> have Connally move over to the left of the right edge of the jump seat.
>
>
>
> > And you can see this from the above FBI recreation. The bullet simply
> > cannot hit JBC in the right armpit.
>
> > Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the angle
> > from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between the
> > two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?
>
> He is loosely using Canning's data.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How many times must it be said that Meyers isn't using anyone's data to
locate the two men. It is an overlayment of the Zapruder film in which he
has given us what the accuracy factors are and considered that accuracy in
the tracectories by providing cones of possible trajectories instead of
pinpoints. Can we bang our heads against a wall any more in this
discussion?
Yes, it is necessary to enter data for the buildings, street contours,
etc, to help round out the data and verify it's accuracy against the film,
but it doesn't make a bit of difference in locating the two men against
the film.
It just goes to show that people are so set in their beliefs. You would
think that an animation such as this would be welcomed because it is a
great learning tool. Instead, it's often dismissed out of hand as a
cartoon. When that approach isn't taken, people dissect the minute angles
and trajectories. This would be fine, if the givens in their arguments
were provided. The problem is that nobody in the past has had an accurate
location of the car, the shooter, and the men involved. If you can't be
sure of the given measurements, how can you discredit someone who has come
up with a method that gets it closer than ever before?
Andrew Mason
Canning used cm. in his HSCA work. It is easier to use cm. here to add or
subtract distances.
I get 14.5 by subtracting .5 cm from 15 cm, which is the figure that Myers
admits to using (6 inches = 15 cm). I am assuming here that the shot is
directly from behind, not right to left. This just shows that if JFK is 6
inches (15 cm) right of JBC, the bullet still passes well to the left of
JBC's right armpit.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
>>> "I am not sure how Myers concludes that JBC is turned 37 degrees at
I am. Via the animation (3D) overlays and resulting computer program that
was produced by it, the degree of Connally's right turn is now MEASURABLE.
And Myers has measured it at 37 degrees.
>>> "...if it were actually true, JBC would appear to be facing
Zapruder..." <<<
He is, as we can see here (just an instant before CE399's impact into
JBC's back).....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-223%20Full.gif
David Von Pein
>>> "See, I do make mistakes." <<<
Nah! Never! I don't believe it for a second! Not Tony "THERE WAS NO
HOLE IN THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD AT ALL" Marsh!
;)
Anthony Marsh
> All:
>
> Again, most here simply have missed the mark on this issue, including I
> believe Myers.
>
> I dealt with this several years ago, and if you desire you may wish to
> Google it up.
>
> In any event, the six inches is more likely correct, if one examines
> closely the diagram of the limo, the photos of the interior etc.
>
> The key points are thus:
>
> (1) A measurement from the TOP of the backseat to the right door will
> produce a measurement which is different (less) than that when measured
> from the seat portion of the jumpseat to the right door.
>
> (2) The right door included the presidential seal and (lap robes) (I
> believe that is the correct term, but it may have escaped me for the
> moment) which were HUNG from the door. A measurement from the jumpseat
> to the "right door" (seal) produces a measurement different (less) than
> a measurement from the jumpseat to the actual DOOR. (more)
>
> (3) The rear seat in which JFK sat (when viewed from the rear of the
> limo forward) is actually slightly to the RIGHT of the seal and lap robe
> on the inside portion of the right door.
>
> So to sum it up a measurement taken from the seat portion of JBC's
> jumpseat to the "right door" would produce a measurement of approx 6
> inches. There is nothing sinister about it.
>
Approximately. Actually closer to 5 inches as Kennedy's torso could not go
all the way to the right. The right edge was about an inch in.
Anthony Marsh
> If I were you, Pat, I'd give up on this one.
>
> IMO, you'll end up being less embarrassed if, right now, you discontinue
> your quest to try and prove that Dale K. Myers doesn't know what the hell
> he's doing WITHIN HIS OWN FIELD OF EXPERTISE (i.e., computer animation).
>
Argument by authority. IOW garbage in, garbage out. Myers deliberately
lied about the evidence.
> But, then too, that's just my own opinion on the matter. I never really
> expect any "CTer" to actually agree with anything uttered by an "LNer"
> though.
>
Huh? Are you a WC defender? Do you believe the Zapruder film is
authentic? I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
> And the beat goes on. ;)
>
You are marching to the beat of a different drummer.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The point that Myers seems to miss is that with JBC's midline only 6
> inches (15 cm) left of JFK's, a shot exiting .5 cm left of JFK's midline
> will strike no further right than 14.5 cm right of JBC's midline if the
> shot was straight through JFK at no angle. The wound was 20 cm right of
> JBC's midline. .... The bullet simply cannot hit JBC in the right armpit."
> <<<
>
>
>
>
>
> This is just silly, Andrew. You're acting as if Connally was NOT turned to
> his right at all when he was shot. But via Dale Myers' detailed analysis,
> JBC was turned 37 degrees to his right when he was shot in the back. (See
> webpage below....)
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm
>
>
>
> Obviously, if JBC is turned quite a bit to his right (~37 degrees), this
> is going to change any "midline" of JBC from the shooter's POV in the Book
> Depository. Oswald shot a TURNED-IN-HIS-SEAT John Connally, not a Connally
> who was sitting squarely in his seat with his shoulders parallel to the
> trunk of the car.
>
Except for three problems. First, Connally turning his torso to his right
does not move his back wound over enough. He has to get 13 inches to the
left of Kennedy, not 8. Second, twisting his body changes the angle of the
path of the bullet through his body which does not line up correctly with
the path of a bullet coming from Kennedy at 11-1/2 degrees. Third,
Connally said that he was facing forward when he was hit and picked frame
230.
> Another visual (via Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation
> project):
>
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>
>
>>>> "Until Myers explains this by telling us what he is using for the
> angle from the SN to JFK, and what he is using for the separation between
> the two men, why would anyone accept his conclusion?" <<<
>
>
> I can answer those questions (as can anyone else who has bothered to read
> the information available at Mr. Myers' website).....
>
No, you can't and you won't.
> Dale is using a survey map of Dealey Plaza, detailed blueprints of the
> Texas School Book Depository Building, and the original body draft of
> SS-100-X (JFK's 1961 Lincoln limousine). .....
>
Tell us what version of the map he used. Tell us how many feet it shows
from the middle of Main Street to the TSBD.
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/tech.htm
>
>
> And Dale, of course, as everybody also knows, used the Zapruder's film.
Lied about.
> Dale has, in effect, extracted 3-dimensional information from Zapruder's
> two-dimensional motion-picture film.
>
No.
Jas
separation between JFK and JBC and that is the distance that the bullet
moves to the LEFT after passing through JFK. If you think those numbers
add up, then show them. Myers refuses. He uses his computer program to
avoid having to answer the obvious problem that the trigonometry does not
begin to work."
Conspiracy people have too many numbers flying out of their arses.
You're not taking into consideration the possibility that as the bullet
passed through Kennedy, it changed direction slightly. The bigger
explanation is Connally was seated slightly inboard from Kennedy as
everyone knows.
You're assuming that a bullet passes completely straight through a
person's body, totally unaffecting its trajectory *in any way* -- when in
reality anything a bullet passes through will affect its trajectory. How
far and how much depends on the thickness of the mass it passes through,
the density of the material (wood, flesh, plastic, metal, etc.), and the
speed of the bullet.
In Kennedy's case we know the bullet caused an elongated entry wound in
Connally's right back, proving it was starting to tumble, so obviously
Kennedy's upper body altered its trajectory.
Why conspiracists put common sense on hold is beyond me. Assassinations
happen in the real world, with real people and real objects, not on some
drafting board somewhere. We should start calling this phenomenon the
conspiracists' "willing suspension of common sense."
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:jZednQIuKKBWioDVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
But Myers's incorrect assumption is not the actual distance that the
bullet went. He never proposed a 0 angle from Kennedy to Connally so you
should not either. All you are saying is that if Connally's midline was 15
cm to the left of Kennedy's midline, the point directly in front of
Kennedy's exit wound would be only 14.5 cm to the right of Connally's
midline. The path of the bullet going from left to right would make the
bullet hit 12.4 cm to the left of Kennedy's midline. Subtracting that 12.4
from 14.5 would place the bullet only 2.1 cm to the right of Connally's
midline. To get the bullet to hit Connally's right armpit Myers would need
to move Connally another 17.9 cm farther to the left.
Anthony Marsh
No. GIGO.
> cartoon. When that approach isn't taken, people dissect the minute angles
> and trajectories. This would be fine, if the givens in their arguments
> were provided. The problem is that nobody in the past has had an accurate
> location of the car, the shooter, and the men involved. If you can't be
Yes, we have.
> sure of the given measurements, how can you discredit someone who has come
> up with a method that gets it closer than ever before?
>
It's easy. By using his own words against him. He falsely claimed that
Connally's midline was 6 inches to the left of Kennedy's. But when you add
the distance the bullet traveled from Kennedy's exit wound (5 inches) to
the wound on Connally's back (8 inches) you need to have Connally's
midline 13 inches to the left of Kennedy's midline. QED
If his claim of 6 inches is accurate then the SBT is impossible.
tomnln
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:481e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Andrew wrote: "So what is the angle to the car that Myers uses for the
> shot from the SN? Take the tangent of that angle, multiply it by the
> separation between JFK and JBC and that is the distance that the bullet
> moves to the LEFT after passing through JFK. If you think those numbers
> add up, then show them. Myers refuses. He uses his computer program to
> avoid having to answer the obvious problem that the trigonometry does not
> begin to work."
>
>
> Conspiracy people have too many numbers flying out of their arses.
>
> You're not taking into consideration the possibility that as the bullet
> passed through Kennedy, it changed direction slightly. The bigger
> explanation is Connally was seated slightly inboard from Kennedy as
> everyone knows.
>
> You're assuming that a bullet passes completely straight through a
> person's body, totally unaffecting its trajectory *in any way* -- when in
> reality anything a bullet passes through will affect its trajectory. How
> far and how much depends on the thickness of the mass it passes through,
> the density of the material (wood, flesh, plastic, metal, etc.), and the
> speed of the bullet.
> In Kennedy's case we know the bullet caused an elongated entry wound in
> Connally's right back, proving it was starting to tumble, so obviously
> Kennedy's upper body altered its trajectory.
Similar to an EXIT wound.
Supposedly exited JBC's chest nose first (small round hole)
Similar to an ENTRANCE Hole.
THAT streches the imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mason
Because he has determined that JBC's spine was exactly 6 inches inside
JFK's and he does not seem to realize that 6 inches is not nearly enough.
To get a bullet moving right to left (at 11 degrees) to strike JBC 7.9
inches right of his spine, JBC has to be at least 6.5 inches further
left than Myers puts him - ie. 12.5 inches left of JFK's spine. If JBC
is turned as much as Myers suggests (37 deg. which is not apparent in
the zfilm at z224) JBC still needs to be 11 inches further left than JFK
(rather than 12.5 inches).
Andrew Mason
>
Andrew Mason
First of all, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am an LNer. Oswald did
the deed by himself, beyond any doubt. I don't accept the sbt because it
conflicts with the evidence and there is a much simpler explanation that
fits with all the evidence.
Your suggestion that the bullet through JFK deflected is not based on
the evidence. Indeed, it conflicts with the expert evidence (Sturdivan,
1 HSCA 394) and the laws of physics. The 10 g. bullet passes through
JFK's neck in 1/4000th of a second. In order to change direction to the
right, it has to experience an enormous asymetrical sideways force on
the left side of the bullet. What are you suggesting caused this unusual
asymetrical sideways force?
The fact that the bullet tumbled after passing through JFK does not mean
that it changed direction in the ensuing two feet to JBC. It just means
that it has lost stability. The loss of stability will cause it to veer
slightly off a straight line course over some distance, but not over 2 feet.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Andrew wrote: "So what is the angle to the car that Myers uses for the
> shot from the SN? Take the tangent of that angle, multiply it by the
> separation between JFK and JBC and that is the distance that the bullet
> moves to the LEFT after passing through JFK. If you think those numbers
> add up, then show them. Myers refuses. He uses his computer program to
> avoid having to answer the obvious problem that the trigonometry does
> not begin to work."
>
>
> Conspiracy people have too many numbers flying out of their arses.
>
> You're not taking into consideration the possibility that as the bullet
> passed through Kennedy, it changed direction slightly. The bigger
> explanation is Connally was seated slightly inboard from Kennedy as
> everyone knows.
>
You are not allowed to take that into consideration. SBT adherents are
required to posit only a perfectly straight line. Otherwise you open the
door for me to say that the bullet deflected and missed Connally. Explain
and diagram how your deflection inside Kennedy makes the SBT possible
whereas all other explanations without a deflection make it impossible.
> You're assuming that a bullet passes completely straight through a
> person's body, totally unaffecting its trajectory *in any way* -- when
> in reality anything a bullet passes through will affect its trajectory.
> How far and how much depends on the thickness of the mass it passes
> through, the density of the material (wood, flesh, plastic, metal,
> etc.), and the speed of the bullet.
>
Tests on Oswald's bullet showed that it could travel in a perfectly
straight line through ballistic gel and meat without any deflection for
several feet.
> In Kennedy's case we know the bullet caused an elongated entry wound in
> Connally's right back, proving it was starting to tumble, so obviously
> Kennedy's upper body altered its trajectory.
>
Wrong. The elongated wound does not prove any tumbling bullet nor even
that it was caused by the same bullet which hit Kennedy.
Anthony Marsh
Zapruder was at about a 90 degree angle to the limo. Connally was not
turned 90 degrees.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I am not sure how Myers concludes that JBC is turned 37 degrees at
> z224..." <<<
>
>
> I am. Via the animation (3D) overlays and resulting computer program that
> was produced by it, the degree of Connally's right turn is now MEASURABLE.
> And Myers has measured it at 37 degrees.
>
>
Ignore my previous message about Zapruder being at 90 degrees. That was
for Z-313. Not sure what the exact angle is for 222. Don't think it is 37
degrees though.
>
>>>> "...if it were actually true, JBC would appear to be facing
> Zapruder..." <<<
>
>
> He is, as we can see here (just an instant before CE399's impact into
> JBC's back).....
>
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-223%20Full.gif
>
>
Very poor quality frames. And notice how his jacket seems to puff out
between 222 and 223. Also notice how we can't see the white of his shirt
as well in 222 as 223 near the right lapel. So I guess that is proof that
the bullet hit him at 222 and caused his whole jacket to puff out, right?
Either that or the scale has been altered between frames by somebody.
pjsp...@aol.com
geovult, you really should read chapter 12c at patspeer.com before you
make any more critiques of my work. Yes, I showed Myers' Beyond the Magic
Bullet animation was wrong. Because the figures were distorted, not
because the trajectory line was distorted. The distortion of the image,
however, was only one aspect of my criticism. It now seems clear Myers'
animation on Beyond the Magic Bullet was a distortion of the animation
used on Beyond Conspiracy. The animation on Beyond Conspiracy had a
trajectory line impacting on Connally's back and heading towards the
middle of his chest, and not his armpit. Magically, on Beyond the Magic
Bullet, the trajectory line SUPERIMPOSED on the distorted image of
Connally JUST SO HAPPENS to be the correct trajectory line, coming at the
correct angle, and impacting at the correct location.
But Myers now admits this is a distorted image. Which means he admits that
the super-imposed correct trajectory line does not work on his undistorted
animation. Which raises the question of exactly who it was who decided to
film Myers' animation at an angle, to distort the image, and make the
trajectory line "work". You can believe the super- imposition of this
line, and having it match perfectly, was a coincidence, if you like, but
I've studied the Beyond the Magic Bullet program in detail, and feel it is
the most deliberately deceptive program I've ever seen. Pure spin and
propaganda.
This thread was started because Myers, who some presume has credibility,
tells a big fat whopper on his website when he tries to blame the
"misperception" that the seat in his animation is six inches from the door
on Peter Jennings. It's amazing how people, unwilling to deal with the
ramifications of his deception, have now tried to turn it back on me, and
make it seem like Myers has redeemed himself by pointing out that the
animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted. Lost in this
counter-attack is the assertion by Myers that he placed Connally in the
limousine based on his impression of Connally in the Z-film, and paid no
attention to the seat. This is a CONFESSION that half-of-his segments in
both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet were invented for
television. Instead of checking his animation for accuracy, he was
creating a segment designed to show how stupid conspiracy theorists are,
and that they always place Connally's seat in the wrong location, and then
placed Connally's seat in the wrong location to discredit them. If he'd
actually consulted the schematic to create his limo before creating this
segment, as claimed, furthermore, then he placed the seat in the wrong
location on purpose, in order to deliberately deceive the public.
This is hardly the behavior of a credible "expert". We still await the
full explanation of his "mistake", and his full explanation of why he
blamed the "misperception" that he'd placed the seat inboard six inches,
on Jennings.
pjsp...@aol.com
James, I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility the bullet changed
directions upon exiting Kennedy's throat. It is not CTs who insist there
must have been a straight trajectory, but LNs like Myers who insist the
wounds are in precise alignment, in an effort to cut off any conjecture
that either man's wounds could have come from anywhere else.
If you read the HSCA FPP, they make it clear that one can not line up
wounds with any precision. Canning's work was a con job designed to sell
the SBT to the public. Myers' work is no different. I just wish he'd tell
us whose idea it was to pretend they lined up perfectly, and who paid him
to pretend as much.
Andrew Mason
What causes it to change direction? And why a change to the right? - it
exits on the left side of the tie nicking it on the left.
It is not CTs who insist there
> must have been a straight trajectory, but LNs like Myers who insist the
> wounds are in precise alignment, in an effort to cut off any conjecture
> that either man's wounds could have come from anywhere else.
>
> If you read the HSCA FPP, they make it clear that one can not line up
> wounds with any precision. Canning's work was a con job designed to sell
> the SBT to the public. Myers' work is no different. I just wish he'd tell
> us whose idea it was to pretend they lined up perfectly, and who paid him
> to pretend as much.
>
Canning's mistake was in his assumption that JBC's right shoulder could
not be seen in Hugh Betzner's z186 photo because it was blocked by the
man standing in front of Betzner. This, he said, meant that JBC was well
to the left (essentially sitting in the left half of the jump seat). In
fact, the right shoulder could not be seen because it was below the line
of sight (ie. it extended to the right of the man in front but could not
be seen because it was too low). This can be seen in Altgens' photo from
the same angle on Houston St.
Canning admitted his mistake in an email exchange with me in 2003 when I
explained it but he was not prepared to concede that it made the shot
through JFK impossible. This made no sense to me because he made a point
of 'proving' that JBC was just far enough right for his right armpit to
be hit by a shot through JFK.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
A LNer of sorts.
> the deed by himself, beyond any doubt. I don't accept the sbt because it
> conflicts with the evidence and there is a much simpler explanation that
> fits with all the evidence.
>
The WC did not need a SBT until May 1964.
> Your suggestion that the bullet through JFK deflected is not based on
> the evidence. Indeed, it conflicts with the expert evidence (Sturdivan,
> 1 HSCA 394) and the laws of physics. The 10 g. bullet passes through
> JFK's neck in 1/4000th of a second. In order to change direction to the
> right, it has to experience an enormous asymetrical sideways force on
> the left side of the bullet. What are you suggesting caused this unusual
> asymetrical sideways force?
>
In fact it did. It hit T-1. Bullets are often deflected when they hit
bone. So, tell us where YOU think the bullet went after leaving JFK's
throat?
> The fact that the bullet tumbled after passing through JFK does not mean
> that it changed direction in the ensuing two feet to JBC. It just means
There is no evidence for a tumbling bullet.
> that it has lost stability. The loss of stability will cause it to veer
> slightly off a straight line course over some distance, but not over 2
> feet.
>
Tests with ballistic gelatin show a bullet can veer after hitting
something in the next 2 feet.
Jas
(Sturdivan, 1 HSCA 394) and the laws of physics. The 10 g. bullet passes
through JFK's neck in 1/4000th of a second. In order to change direction
to the right, it has to experience an enormous asymetrical sideways force
on the left side of the bullet. What are you suggesting caused this
unusual asymetrical sideways force?
The fact that the bullet tumbled after passing through JFK does not mean
that it changed direction in the ensuing two feet to JBC. It just means
that it has lost stability. The loss of stability will cause it to veer
slightly off a straight line course over some distance, but not over 2
feet."
Andrew, you're correct, the bullet did pass straight through Kennedy, and
my opinion of the deflection of the bullet is wrong in that if it did
change course, it would have been so slight as to not affect the short
trajectory between Kennedy and Connally enough to change the entry wound
on Connally's back. But, the mass of Kennedy's lower neck (sinew,
cartilage, soft bone, etc.) was enough to make the bullet unstable, as we
know.
Exaggerating here to illustrate a point: If Connally had been sitting say,
a hundred yards away in front of Kennedy, then the entry wound may have
changed location to a degree. There simply wasn't enough distance between
Kennedy and Connally to make any difference, and since we know 399 didn't
strike any hard boney structures inside Kennedy's neck, there obviously
wasn't anything hard enough to deflect the bullet to any measurable
degree.
Sorry, my typing got ahead of my brain :>)
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:_JednSm99pRKJIPVnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@sasktel...
David Von Pein
PATRICK SPEER SAID:
>>> "And why did they [the Discovery Channel] ADD a trajectory in
post-production onto an image they KNEW to be DISTORTED?" <<<
DVP SAID:
I don't think they did. At least I'm pretty sure that the Discovery
Channel people didn't "add in" any trajectory line during the FULL- SCREEN
portions of Myers' animation that are shown during the "Beyond The Magic
Bullet" program.
That is to say: It appears to me that those full-screen parts of the
animation that are shown during that program are NOT being "filmed at an
angle" directly off of a TV monitor while Myers is sitting there putting
his hands up to a computer screen.
And it's in those full-screen portions when the complete line of
trajectory is shown---travelling from Connally's inshoot wound on his
back, then back through JFK's throat and upper back, and then dragged back
into the sixth-floor window in the Book Depository.
And all of this is viewable at a video clip provided at the link below
(the clip on the left side is from the Discovery Channel documentary; the
other clip is from the 2003 ABC-TV program with Peter Jennings):
pjsp...@aol.com
David, that is the sequence I originally studied, and which Myers now
says was filmed at a considerable angle. It is, according to him,
invalid.
If you look at the trajectory line drawn at 00:41 you'll see that it
begins outside the monitor and follows Myers' hand. It was added in
post-production. He would have to have known they were adding it on to
a distorted image.
I think we can both agree, at the least, that it is not immediately
obvious the image is distorted. The full screen sequence with Myers'
hands appears to be framed in a rectangle and therefore appears to be
from straight on. On the long shot, however, you can make out that the
top and bottom Myers' screen had a light border. The dark border on
the full-screen image therefore is indicative that they cropped the
image to the center of the image, which made it difficult to tell that
one side was taller than the other and that the camera was at an
angle.
I suspect this was a deliberate deception, but am certainly willing to
accept that they were just sloppy, and had no idea so many people
would take this stuff seriously.
Anthony Marsh
> PATRICK SPEER SAID:
>
>>>> "And why did they [the Discovery Channel] ADD a trajectory in
> post-production onto an image they KNEW to be DISTORTED?" <<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> I don't think they did. At least I'm pretty sure that the Discovery
> Channel people didn't "add in" any trajectory line during the FULL- SCREEN
> portions of Myers' animation that are shown during the "Beyond The Magic
> Bullet" program.
>
How can you be sure. Who added in the crosshairs in that one frame which
shows them sighting so low on the back? Do you really think Dale Myers
would make such an obvious error?
> That is to say: It appears to me that those full-screen parts of the
> animation that are shown during that program are NOT being "filmed at an
> angle" directly off of a TV monitor while Myers is sitting there putting
> his hands up to a computer screen.
>
> And it's in those full-screen portions when the complete line of
> trajectory is shown---travelling from Connally's inshoot wound on his
> back, then back through JFK's throat and upper back, and then dragged back
> into the sixth-floor window in the Book Depository.
>
Sure, and when you analyze the wounds that way the point of the back
goes way too high, above the top of the shoulders. Totally bogus.
> And all of this is viewable at a video clip provided at the link below
> (the clip on the left side is from the Discovery Channel documentary; the
> other clip is from the 2003 ABC-TV program with Peter Jennings):
>
Fraud.
Anthony Marsh
> Andrew wrote: "Your suggestion that the bullet through JFK deflected is
> not based on the evidence. Indeed, it conflicts with the expert evidence
> (Sturdivan, 1 HSCA 394) and the laws of physics. The 10 g. bullet passes
> through JFK's neck in 1/4000th of a second. In order to change direction
> to the right, it has to experience an enormous asymetrical sideways
> force on the left side of the bullet. What are you suggesting caused
> this unusual asymetrical sideways force?
>
> The fact that the bullet tumbled after passing through JFK does not mean
> that it changed direction in the ensuing two feet to JBC. It just means
> that it has lost stability. The loss of stability will cause it to veer
> slightly off a straight line course over some distance, but not over 2
> feet."
>
> Andrew, you're correct, the bullet did pass straight through Kennedy,
> and my opinion of the deflection of the bullet is wrong in that if it
> did change course, it would have been so slight as to not affect the
Deflection in the body is shown by the difference in angles. The right to
left path through the back and neck was about 20 degrees. That is 1-3/4
inches right of the midline exiting just left of the midline. Yet the
angle from the rifle to Kennedy was only 11-1/2 degrees. So clearly the
bullet was deflected a few degrees. And 20 degrees to Connally makes it
even hard for Connally to be in the right position to get the bullet in
his right armpit.
As far as I know a bullet does not deflect itself in mid air.
> short trajectory between Kennedy and Connally enough to change the entry
> wound on Connally's back. But, the mass of Kennedy's lower neck (sinew,
> cartilage, soft bone, etc.) was enough to make the bullet unstable, as
> we know.
>
> Exaggerating here to illustrate a point: If Connally had been sitting
> say, a hundred yards away in front of Kennedy, then the entry wound may
> have changed location to a degree. There simply wasn't enough distance
> between Kennedy and Connally to make any difference, and since we know
> 399 didn't strike any hard boney structures inside Kennedy's neck, there
> obviously wasn't anything hard enough to deflect the bullet to any
> measurable degree.
>
Wrong as usual. The bullet hit the tip of T-1.
JFK
This clip shows JBC much too far left and it does not fit with the Zfilm.
Myers slides the jump seat 6 inches to the left, but there is really no
basis for that. The jump seat was only 2.5 inches from the door and 3.5
inches left of the panel beside JFK.
But, as I and others here have shown, 6 inches is not nearly enough for a
left to right bullet passing through JFK's middle to strike JBC 8 inches
right of his spine. <yers moves JBC left by more than 6 inches.
Myers avoids having to do the trigonometry by this visual sleight of hand.
What he needs to do is show us the numbers that he is working with: the
angle from the SN to the car that he uses, the distance from JFK's spine
to the side of the car, the distance of JBC's spine from the side of the
car, the distance from JBC's back wound to his spine and the angle that
JBC is turned.
With that information it is just a matter of calculation. You don't need
fancy graphics. Myers' numbers are out by at least 6.5 inches. If Myers'
disagrees, then he can give us his numbers (and to provide us the evidence
to support them). Is that too much to ask?
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
>>> "As I and others here have shown, 6 inches is not nearly enough for a
left to right bullet passing through JFK's middle to strike JBC 8 inches
right of his spine." <<<
Once more, you're ignoring the RIGHT TURN that JBC is positively in at
Z223-Z224. Why are you ignoring this right turn?
In short -- You can't get JBC out of the way of that bullet. No way. No
how. It's destined to hit either JBC or the car's interior when it emerges
from the throat of JFK.
The SBT lives. And both official Govt. inquiries supported it.
Andrew Mason
>
>>>>"As I and others here have shown, 6 inches is not nearly enough for a
>
> left to right bullet passing through JFK's middle to strike JBC 8 inches
> right of his spine." <<<
>
>
> Once more, you're ignoring the RIGHT TURN that JBC is positively in at
> Z223-Z224. Why are you ignoring this right turn?
I am not ignoring the alleged right turn at all. I addressed this for
you in my response of May 3 where I said:
"I am not sure how Myers concludes that JBC is turned 37 degrees at z224
but lets assume that is true (if it were actually true, JBC would
appear to be facing Zapruder or turned slightly past him because at that
point, Zapruder is about 30 degrees to the car direction).
With JBC turned 37 degrees, the distance from his spine to the right
armpit entrance wound is 20 cm x cos 37 = 16 cm. So his right armpit
moves only about 4 cm further left. It has to move 17.5 cm left to catch
the bullet."
In other words, the right turn - even if it existed - does not move the
right armpit nearly far enough.
There is a problem with Myers analysis of JBC's position in z224 which
really shows that Myers is blowing smoke. At z224, Zapruder is 30
degrees to the right of the direction of the car. If JBC is turned 37
degrees, he would have to be facing to the left of Zapruder. It is
obvious in z224 that JBC is facing to Zapruder's right. What Myers is
using to support his contention that JBC is turned 37 degrees at z224 is
not clear.
>
>
> In short -- You can't get JBC out of the way of that bullet. No way. No
> how. It's destined to hit either JBC or the car's interior when it emerges
> from the throat of JFK.
I would agree with you at z224. Indeed since the shot through JFK at
z224 because would have hit JBC in the back to left of the spine, the
fact that it did not, proves that the shot did not occur at z224.
But at z200, which is where the witness evidence puts the first shot
striking JFK, JBC is turned sharply to the right moving his left
shoulder blade out of the way of the bullet passing through JFK's neck.
So JBC's back does not get struck by it - which is exactly what JBC and
Nellie said.
>
>
>
> The SBT lives. And both official Govt. inquiries supported it.
Unfortunately, however, the evidence doesn't.
Andrew Mason
>