Jump to content


Spartacus

Trajectory Analysis and the Assassination of JFK


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,097 posts

Posted 20 March 2006 - 04:54 PM

Sherry Guitierrez provided an excellent presentation on Trajectory Analysis applied to the Assassination of JFK. Sherry has testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Sherry is currently employed as a consultant to attorneys and law enforcement officials. She is also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.

I found Sherry's views on the position of the gunman who fired the shot that hit JFK in the head very stimulating. I would be interested in what some of our gun experts think of this theory. Sherry is a member of the Forum and hopefully she will answer your questions. You will find the presentation here:


http://www.jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/


The presentation ends with the following statement.

The blood examined in photographs and films, and described in the statements of witnesses in the homicide of John Kennedy, seem to describe back spatter to the immediate front of the President. There is no conflict to this supposition within any witness statements or in any blood evidence documented in video and photographs. Additionally, the Zapruder film reveals a violent movement of JFK's head to the rear, corresponding to the targets in the experiments. Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front.

On Saturday Sherry added that one possible location was the Post Office building. Any thoughts on this?

#2 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 20 March 2006 - 05:43 PM

Sherry Guitierrez provided an excellent presentation on Trajectory Analysis applied to the Assassination of JFK. Sherry has testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Sherry is currently employed as a consultant to attorneys and law enforcement officials. She is also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.

I found Sherry's views on the position of the gunman who fired the shot that hit JFK in the head very stimulating. I would be interested in what some of our gun experts think of this theory. Sherry is a member of the Forum and hopefully she will answer your questions. You will find the presentation here:


http://www.jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/


The presentation ends with the following statement.

The blood examined in photographs and films, and described in the statements of witnesses in the homicide of John Kennedy, seem to describe back spatter to the immediate front of the President. There is no conflict to this supposition within any witness statements or in any blood evidence documented in video and photographs. Additionally, the Zapruder film reveals a violent movement of JFK's head to the rear, corresponding to the targets in the experiments. Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front.

On Saturday Sherry added that one possible location was the Post Office building. Any thoughts on this?




The first thought that comes to mind is what the trash truck just picked up out in front of the house. GARBAGE!

Along with the "Amazing Kresgin" and "crystal ball" method of problem resolution and evidence examination.

As anyone should recall, early visual examination of the moon, from the earth, "seem to describe"
a "swiss cheese" texture. Ergo! The moon is made of cheese.

#3 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 20 March 2006 - 08:30 PM

Using the Zapruder film as evidence of blood spatter is faulty,
since the Zapruder representation is false.

I much prefer the testimony of witnesses such as Bill Newman,
Toni Foster and Bobby Hargis.

Jack

#4 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,616 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 20 March 2006 - 09:06 PM

Sherry Guitierrez provided an excellent presentation on Trajectory Analysis applied to the Assassination of JFK. Sherry has testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Sherry is currently employed as a consultant to attorneys and law enforcement officials. She is also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction.

I found Sherry's views on the position of the gunman who fired the shot that hit JFK in the head very stimulating. I would be interested in what some of our gun experts think of this theory. Sherry is a member of the Forum and hopefully she will answer your questions. You will find the presentation here:


http://www.jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/


The presentation ends with the following statement.

The blood examined in photographs and films, and described in the statements of witnesses in the homicide of John Kennedy, seem to describe back spatter to the immediate front of the President. There is no conflict to this supposition within any witness statements or in any blood evidence documented in video and photographs. Additionally, the Zapruder film reveals a violent movement of JFK's head to the rear, corresponding to the targets in the experiments. Therefore, it is my opinion the bloodstain evidence is consistent with the injury to John F. Kennedy's head being the result of a single gunshot from the right front.

On Saturday Sherry added that one possible location was the Post Office building. Any thoughts on this?



I'm astounded. As members probably are aware, this is what I've been (and some others) suggesting for some time. Quite frankly it floors me. I've been dreaming of a critical professional analysis of such a suggestion.

Certainly there are those who would say that the images are false, however it is one reason I would use to say they are not as they do not (IMO) show the WC suggestions of a shot from TSBD as they are alleged to have been falsified to do.

anyway, fortunately there are other images that support this.

____________________________


Sherry, could you look at these please? They are attempts by me to isolate head movements and blood/brain spatter. If this is correct what would you say, using the analysis as described in the linked presentation? (Please be rigorously critical, I have no investment in outcome, while I do using my limited knowledge, judge a shot from left)

On this image the location of (a fixed point on) the limousine frame by frame is marked by the white dot. The relative position of the head is marked by the red dot. This shows from frame 312 on the relative positions with the releavant points joined by a line. The blotchy background is the blood and brain ejecta all together.


On these images I've tried to isolate the blood and brain matter frame by frame.



On this image of the top of the head, an attempt to separate blood.


On these images the dispersal at headshot time. 'A' marks what appears to be the direction ejecta through hole on top of head. 'B' from right side.



just to get an idea of post office location in relation to head position

#5 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,373 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 March 2006 - 10:39 PM

I agree with Sherry that the evidence does not fit the pattern of a bullet's entering the back of Kennedy's head and exploding out the front. When I looked at the evidence as a whole, including the x-rays and the Harper fragment, I realized that the most logical scenario was that the bullet impacted directly on the top of Kennedy's head, at what is supposedly the exit. (Although the impact was on the right side of Kennedy's head, we need to keep in mind that his head was tilted 25 degrees to its left, placing his right temple near the top.) I believe Sherry agrees that this was the entrance, just not that it reflects that the bullet came from behind. I was convinced that the bullet came from behind by a chain of information. One, the nose of a bullet was found on the front seat. Two, there was crack on the inside of the windshield above where the bullet nose was found that appeared right after the headshot. Three, this bullet nose was found to match the bullet fragments removed from Kennedy skull. Four, this bullet nose was found to match the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the school book depository, which was behind the President at 313. Five, while some might argue that the crack on the windshield was in fact a bullet entrance from the front, that the bullet nose was a plant, and that the ballistics evidence has been faked, this fails to explain why this planted crumpled bullet nose was eventually determined to include large pieces of SKIN. This skin indicates the bullet impacted directly on top of the head and did not pass through Kennedy's skull from behind. If the evidence was planted, the inclusion of this skin would indicate an incompetent conspiracy, and not the almighty conspiracy capable of faking all the ballistic evidence and windshield evidence. Six, the x-rays indicate that yes indeed a bullet impacted directly at the supposed exit; fragments on the outside of the scalp surround the supposed exit; the fractures at this supposed exit, furthermore, predate any fractures at the back of the skull. Seven, the underside of the Harper fragment indicates both inward beveling and outward beveling; this indicates it was at the margin of a tangential "keyhole" type entry. When one places the Harper fragment in what has been widely (but not indisputably)determined to be its proper location, this places this "keyhole" type entry at the supposed exit, with the beveling indicating an entrance towards the back part of the Harper fragment, and the beveling indicatng exit towards the front.

While many conspiracy theorists are understandably reluctant to follow the evidence as described above, as it argues against a frontal headshot at 313, which has been propounded so often that to many it feels like a fact, what they should understand is that the evidence as described above indicates that the bullet wound at 313 impacted on top of Kennedy's skull, and thus the small entrance seen at the autopsy came from a separate head wound. That this entrance came from a separate head wound helps explain why the Clark Panel moved this entrance to find a location more acceptible to their proposed trajectory. If Kennedy had two separate head wounds of the skull, of course, this means that in order for there to have been no conspiracy one other shot has to account for Kennedy's back wound and all the wounds on Connally. This is the single-bullet theory. It also means there was no first shot miss and that the Tague wound must have been caused by a fragment from the bullet at 313. Okay. This, of couse, also means that the non-practicing shooter Oswald picked up his rifle one day and hit three out of three shots at a moving target. Okay. But when did these shots occur? When one concludes that Kennedy was hit twice in the skull and looks at the Zapruder film, one is forced to conclude conspiracy, because the only reasonable times to conclude the low head wound could have occurred are within a few seconds of 224, when Connally is almost certainly hit, and within a second or so after Z-313. Both scenarios require Oswald to shoot both faster and with more accuracy than has been demonstrated possible. Thus, when accepted and taken together, the autopsy photos, x-rays, ballistics evidence, and Zapruder film indicate a conspiracy.

#6 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 21 March 2006 - 02:15 AM

On Saturday Sherry added that one possible location was the Post Office building. Any thoughts on this?


I don't see how a shot from that angle would have blown out the right rear of his head. Seems to me that a shot from there would have hit him in top of the head and blown off his right ear.

#7 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 21 March 2006 - 08:33 AM

Photographic evidence aside, please recall the Parkland staff (roughly 10-20? physicians and nurses) testimony regarding the location of the large gaping wound in President Kennedy's head; occipital-parietal[i].

Now, if the wound as described above, would logically be caused by a rear entry (i.e. bullet entry to the same area as the defect), we can have a reasonable debate, if not, it's clear the critical head shot was fired from a separate (more likely frontal) location. From what I've read, a rear entry is near impossible in this case.

However, if one were to also take into account the photographic and video evidence, it logically supports the statements by the Parkland staff.

#8 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 27 March 2006 - 06:43 PM

Using the Zapruder film as evidence of blood spatter is faulty,
since the Zapruder representation is false.

I much prefer the testimony of witnesses such as Bill Newman,
Toni Foster and Bobby Hargis.

Jack



Hi Jack,

I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including:

Roy H. Kellerman
Nellie Connally
Bill Lord
Samuel A. Kinney
Clint Hill
Seymore Weitzman
William Joseph "B. J." Martin
Robert Frazier

In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John.

No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings.

Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size.

Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

Sherry

#9 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:13 PM


On Saturday Sherry added that one possible location was the Post Office building. Any thoughts on this?


I don't see how a shot from that angle would have blown out the right rear of his head. Seems to me that a shot from there would have hit him in top of the head and blown off his right ear.



Hi Ron,

May I ask you to do something for me?

Draw an oval (skull) and mark where you (personally) believe Kennedy's entry and exit wounds to be.

Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where in the limo Kennedy was facing (disregard the downward nod for a moment). For instance was he facing the limo hood ornament, the steering wheel, the left side mirror, etc.?

Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where the limo facing or headed at the time of the headshot; the grassy knoll, the underpass, the south knoll?

Take a overhead photo or map of Dealey Plaza and draw in the limo. Draw a line showing where the limo was facing. Now draw a line where Kennedy was facing. Now using your wound locations, draw a line from the skull out into the plaza. You have just destermined where you believe the shooter was located.

Repeat the above steps with the entrance wound near the center or midline of the head, exiting just behind the ear.

Where is the shooter now?
Sherry

Edited by Sherry Gutierrez, 27 March 2006 - 07:15 PM.


#10 Jason Vermeer

Jason Vermeer

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:22 PM

Sherry, some time ago, I asked if you could look at a fairly good version of the nix film I had posted on Lancer. Have you seen this film and does it bolster your thesis as well? Jason Vermeer

#11 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:39 PM

Pat,

It is also unclear to me from your post how you account for the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head. I don't think you mention it.

Secondly, a question about a skull fragment. (I can try to look this up, but hopefully you can answer it from your research.) In his statement Clint Hill said, "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."

Hill also testified, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car."

Apparently Hill left this piece of skull in the car, as he never mentions retrieving it.

SS agent Kinney told the HSCA that during the flight with the car from Dallas, he found "a skull fragment under the jump seat."

Was this the same piece of skull that Hill saw? If there was no longer a piece on the rear seat, perhaps these are two separate pieces. Were two pieces delivered to the morgue in addition to the Harper fragment? And if so, with what part of the head were they matched? (It's quite possible that the piece Hill thought came from the back of the head in fact came from the top or side. If it came from the back of the head, I would think, as I assume a frontal shot, the piece would have been blown out over the back of the car and not fall down on the rear seat.)

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker, 27 March 2006 - 07:44 PM.


#12 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 27 March 2006 - 08:23 PM

the underside of the Harper fragment indicates both inward beveling and outward beveling; this indicates it was at the margin of a tangential "keyhole" type entry. When one places the Harper fragment in what has been widely (but not indisputably)determined to be its proper location, this places this "keyhole" type entry at the supposed exit, with the beveling indicating an entrance towards the back part of the Harper fragment, and the beveling indicatng exit towards the front.



Hi Pat,

Beveling is normally a good indicator of entry and exit if there is only "punched" hole in the skull; I'm not so sure it is a good indicator in this case. The fracturing was widespread and then impacted upon by the cavitation resulting in more than one bone fragment being dislodged. Could the side of the Harper fragment that left the head first be random, dependant upon scalp thickness holding it in place, impacted by the directional development of cavitation, or influenced by the depth or severity of created fracturing lines?

Perhaps more research is needed here.

I found this link that might prove interesting:

http://history-matte...otItWrong_6.htm

footnote 352: Keyhole lesions in gunshot wounds of the skull and direction of fire. J Forensic Sci 1982; 27:555-66. Coe JI. External beveling of entrance wounds by handguns. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1982; 3:215-9. Baik S, Uku JM, Sikirica M. A case of external beveling with an entrance wound to the skull made by a small caliber rifle bullet. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1991;12:334-6. Donohue ER, Kalelkar MB, Richmond JM, Teas SS. Atypical gunshot wounds of entrance; an empirical study. J Forensic Sci 1984; 29:379-88. Lantz PE. An atypical, indeterminate-range, cranial gunshot wound of entrance resembling an exit wound. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1994; 15(1):5-9.


Thanks for your interest and supporting comments,
Sherry

#13 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 08:41 PM


Using the Zapruder film as evidence of blood spatter is faulty,
since the Zapruder representation is false.

I much prefer the testimony of witnesses such as Bill Newman,
Toni Foster and Bobby Hargis.

Jack



Hi Jack,

I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including:

Roy H. Kellerman
Nellie Connally
Bill Lord
Samuel A. Kinney
Clint Hill
Seymore Weitzman
William Joseph "B. J." Martin
Robert Frazier

In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John.

No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings.

Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size.

Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

Sherry


Sherry...surely you misspoke when you identify Bill Lord as a DP witness.
He was LHO's cabin mate on the ship to Europe. He was not in DP as far
as I know.

And since the Z film is provably not genuine, any reliance on it for any
purpose is unreliable.

You cannot have relied on what Bill Newman or Toni Foster said, since
both contradict what frame 313 shows. Ask your sister what Toni said
about the direction of the exit material. Bill Newman several times
described the exit wound to me, so you cannot have relied on what
he describes.

Jack

#14 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:15 PM

Sherry, some time ago, I asked if you could look at a fairly good version of the nix film I had posted on Lancer. Have you seen this film and does it bolster your thesis as well? Jason Vermeer


Hi Jason,

I am so sorry, somehow I let replying to that post that get by me. However, I have looked at the Nix film. I have a good copy and was able to slow it down considerably. You can see the spatter in the Nix film. How observant of you! I captured 2 frames and although the subject is small, you can see a definate lighter area adjacent to the President's head that is spatter.

Way to go Jason!

Sherry
Attached File  nix_spatter.jpg   84.5KB   8 downloads



Using the Zapruder film as evidence of blood spatter is faulty,
since the Zapruder representation is false.

I much prefer the testimony of witnesses such as Bill Newman,
Toni Foster and Bobby Hargis.

Jack



Hi Jack,

I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including:

Roy H. Kellerman
Nellie Connally
Bill Lord
Samuel A. Kinney
Clint Hill
Seymore Weitzman
William Joseph "B. J." Martin
Robert Frazier

In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John.

No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings.

Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size.

Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

Sherry


Sherry...surely you misspoke when you identify Bill Lord as a DP witness.
He was LHO's cabin mate on the ship to Europe. He was not in DP as far
as I know.

And since the Z film is provably not genuine, any reliance on it for any
purpose is unreliable.

You cannot have relied on what Bill Newman or Toni Foster said, since
both contradict what frame 313 shows. Ask your sister what Toni said
about the direction of the exit material. Bill Newman several times
described the exit wound to me, so you cannot have relied on what
he describes.

Jack



#15 Sherry Gutierrez

Sherry Gutierrez

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Trophy Club, Texas

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:34 PM



Using the Zapruder film as evidence of blood spatter is faulty,
since the Zapruder representation is false.

I much prefer the testimony of witnesses such as Bill Newman,
Toni Foster and Bobby Hargis.

Jack



Hi Jack,

I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including:

Roy H. Kellerman
Nellie Connally
Bill Lord
Samuel A. Kinney
Clint Hill
Seymore Weitzman
William Joseph "B. J." Martin
Robert Frazier

In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John.

No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings.

Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size.

Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

Sherry


Sherry...surely you misspoke when you identify Bill Lord as a DP witness.
He was LHO's cabin mate on the ship to Europe. He was not in DP as far
as I know.

And since the Z film is provably not genuine, any reliance on it for any
purpose is unreliable.

You cannot have relied on what Bill Newman or Toni Foster said, since
both contradict what frame 313 shows. Ask your sister what Toni said
about the direction of the exit material. Bill Newman several times
described the exit wound to me, so you cannot have relied on what
he describes.

Jack



Jack,

The Bill Lord I am referring to was a TV reporter. In an interview with TV reporter Bill Lord, Chaney explained that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "(Chaney) was so close his uniform was splattered with blood". ABC/WFAA (Dallas)

Bill Newman stated to me "It was like a red mist or a cloud of blood in front of his face". That is exactly what is visible in the Zapruder film and that is what backspatter looks like. Toni Foster, like others behind the President, describes forward spatter, not what Newman describes. There is no contradiction in statements.

Additionally, I did not rely solely on the Zapruder film; however, what is shown in the Zapruder film is certainly correct when analyzing it for blood spatter.

What portion of the headshot blood spatter shown in the Zapruder film is incorrect in your estimation? The timing...color...shape...density...location?

Sherry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users