Jump to content
The Education Forum

The "Single Bullet Theory"


Recommended Posts

The SBT is often declaired impossible due to the perceived angles of this one shot.

Let's forget about Stone's theories for a moment. I have been looking into the ballistic scenario for a while, not in depth. But still. Most, if not all of those explanations which refutes the SBT refer to problems with the angles.

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Martin,

Let's stay with this one bullet, OK. Is it possible that the trajectory was not a straight line, downwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Martin,

Let's stay with this one bullet, OK. Is it possible that the trajectory was not a straight line, downwards?

Glenn, single-assassin theorist Mark Fuhrman caught holy hell from his fellow single-assassin theorists when he proposed the bullet deflected out of JFK's neck on an upwards trajectory. So it is the LN crowd that insists the bullet traveled in a straight line, not CT.

If the bullet struck no bone on its journey, as proposed by the WC, it would indeed have been likely to travel in a straight line. But the HSCA determined that the transverse process of the spine had been fractured. If it was fractured by the bullet itself, the bullet would not have traveled in a straight line.

In any event, Martin is right. The SBT is dead, or oughta be. I devote chapters 11-12c of Patspeer.com to showing why I think so, and it's conclusive, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Martin,

Let's stay with this one bullet, OK. Is it possible that the trajectory was not a straight line, downwards?

Glenn, single-assassin theorist Mark Fuhrman caught holy hell from his fellow single-assassin theorists when he proposed the bullet deflected out of JFK's neck on an upwards trajectory. So it is the LN crowd that insists the bullet traveled in a straight line, not CT.

If the bullet struck no bone on its journey, as proposed by the WC, it would indeed have been likely to travel in a straight line. But the HSCA determined that the transverse process of the spine had been fractured. If it was fractured by the bullet itself, the bullet would not have traveled in a straight line.

In any event, Martin is right. The SBT is dead, or oughta be. I devote chapters 11-12c of Patspeer.com to showing why I think so, and it's conclusive, IMO.

Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Let me ask you: where are your main concerns with Dale Mayers computer recreations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Let me ask you: where are your main concerns with Dale Mayers computer recreations?

I'am not talking for Pat, but i believe were are on eye to eye to that.

John Connally was a bit taller then JFK.

Now look at this Myers illustration

myersfraud1-2.gif

What is wrong here?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

Martin,

Let's stay with this one bullet, OK. Is it possible that the trajectory was not a straight line, downwards?

Glenn, single-assassin theorist Mark Fuhrman caught holy hell from his fellow single-assassin theorists when he proposed the bullet deflected out of JFK's neck on an upwards trajectory. So it is the LN crowd that insists the bullet traveled in a straight line, not CT.

If the bullet struck no bone on its journey, as proposed by the WC, it would indeed have been likely to travel in a straight line. But the HSCA determined that the transverse process of the spine had been fractured. If it was fractured by the bullet itself, the bullet would not have traveled in a straight line.

In any event, Martin is right. The SBT is dead, or oughta be. I devote chapters 11-12c of Patspeer.com to showing why I think so, and it's conclusive, IMO.

Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Let me ask you: where are your main concerns with Dale Mayers computer recreations?

Chapter 12c is a discussion of Myers' animation. It shows why I think it was nonsense, and includes Myers' response to my claims. It's pretty conclusive, IMO.

There are so many problems with his animation it's tough to summarize. But let's start with this one...

From chapter 12c:

Since Myers had admitted his lack of interest in accurately depicting the bullet holes on Kennedy's clothes, it occurred to me that he would deliberately ignore other aspects of the shooting as well, should they not fit in with his agenda. I decided to watch his animation in slow mo and see if it depicted Kennedy's head snap between frames 193 and 198 of the Zapruder film. Not surprisingly, it did not. The sequence of the film of which HSCA photographic panel spokesman Calvin S. McCamy had noted "At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next" was left off Myer's animated version of the shooting, and replaced by Kennedy smoothly waving to his right and calmly turning to face straight ahead just before being shot.

I re-read Myers' website to see if this omission had an explanation. Like most people, I'd assumed he'd created his animation by drawing over the frames of the Z-film, and had meticulously compared his animation to the film in order to spot any inaccuracies. In his award-winning program Beyond Conspiracy, Peter Jennings had, after all, spouted that "Myers has generated an exacting computer simulation of the Zapruder film. He began by constructing a 3-Dimensional scale model of Dealey Plaza...On top of the Zapruder film, he then animated the movements of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, frame by frame." Computer Graphics World, in January 2004, had, after all, said much the same thing, reporting: "After building the models and the background, Myers worked frame by frame.." and then quoting Myers' claim that, once he determined the precise positions of Kennedy and Connally in the car, and enlarged the portion of the film showing both men in center frame, "we had a frame-for-frame digital match of the Zapruder film."

And these were not the only claims that the film was re-produced frame for frame and was exact. In March 2004, Broadcast Engineering jumped on board, informing its readers that, as early as 1995, Myers' wire-frame models "matched each frame of the only real-time visual record of the event"...the Zapruder film. The importance of this "exactness" to the popular acceptance of Myers' work, and the programs in which it's been featured, moreover, can not be overstated. To this day, Tivo summarizes the program Beyond Conspiracy as "An exact computer simulation of the famous Zapruder film offers surprising results."

Well, it turned out that this "exactness", like so much of the hype about Myers' animation, was not exactly true. On his website, Myers admits:

"The clearest frames of the Zapruder film were sought for positioning JFK and JBC in order to minimize any errors. Key frame positions were generally placed at half-second intervals throughout the recreation, although tighter keying patterns (1-5 frame intervals) were employed during Zapruder frames 220-238, and 312-330.

The resulting animation was spot checked against the original Zapruder film to insure an accurate representation. Where "drifting" was detected, additional key frames were used to nail down the action.

It took six weeks to complete the key frame process, after which a test render was produced. The resulting animation was a computer generated "hand-held" version of the Zapruder film. In essence, the key frame process had created a motion file of Zapruder's camera in 3D space. Stepping through each frame of the animation revealed how Zapruder held his camera while trying to follow the limousine as it moved down Elm Street."

Yes, you got that right. Myers' supposedly precise re-creation was only compared against the film every nine frames (or "half second") prior to frame 220! My, ain't that convenient! The HSCA photographic panel said they believed Kennedy was hit just before he went behind the sign, well before frame 220, but Myers either never saw fit to intensely study this part of the film or deliberately avoided studying it because it would destroy the illusion he'd tasked himself with creating.

It's not as if Myers was unaware of the HSCA's conclusions. As pointed out by Milicent Cranor in her excellent essay on Myers entitled Lies for the Eyes, in 1994 Myers wrote an article for a magazine called Video Toaster User, and claimed "The House Select Committee on Assassinations interpreted the blurry images between Z-189 and Z-197 as an indication that JFK had been shot... It appeared... that JFK's right hand 'froze' at this point. However, the computer re-creation reveals something else -- a sharp, abrupt continuation of JFK's turn to his right... it is clear that the president was tracking the women at curbside."

This is not only hard-to-believe, it is truly disgusting. Apparently Myers was so intent on studying individual frames of the film--Kennedy's right ear in frame 198 can indeed be confused with his nose--that he forgot to study the pictures in motion--which make it abundantly clear Kennedy suddenly turned to his left (and NOT right) at this point. That Myers attributed this non-existent turn to the right to Kennedy's womanizing is, furthermore, suggestive of a dislike for JFK, and indicative that perhaps this dislike had clouded his vision and led him to conclude the HSCA photography panel had simply been seeing things.

Speaking of seeing things... Myers' discussion of his methodology makes it clear that he picked out a frame from sometime before Kennedy went behind the sign, and then another as Kennedy emerged, and created a nice, flowing, COMPLETELY IMAGINARY depiction of what happened in between. He then convinced the media that this depiction, pulled straight from his imagination, somehow debunked the HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign. Simply incredible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

No Glenn, the SBT is already history like Big foot or Nessie to go the extreme comparisons.

To me the whole discussion about it is meanwhile boring.

best

Martin

[i]"No Glenn, the SBT is already history "[/i]

As anyone who is a student of "written history" is aware, merely due to the fact that it is written, does not establish it as being fact and/or factual.

The SBT is an intentional obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination, which has little to support it other than the "written" word.

As time progresses, we tend to learn more and more about what constitutes "factual history", as opposed to mere "written history".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Pat,

Thanks for your answer. Let me ask you: where are your main concerns with Dale Mayers computer recreations?

I'am not talking for Pat, but i believe were are on eye to eye to that.

John Connally was a bit taller then JFK.

Now look at this Myers illustration

myersfraud1-2.gif

What is wrong here?

Martin

What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.

It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.

It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.

Not just this. It's not a non-quality (I dislike it to it call work) obfcuscation.

It is betraying with full intention which makes it clear that Myers is not hesitate to betray without any morality.

Not hesitate to receive an Emmy award for "that".

It tells a lot about this person.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.

It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.

Not just this. It's not a non-quality (I dislike it to it call work) obfcuscation.

It is betraying with full intention which makes it clear that Myers is not hesitate to betray without any morality.

Not hesitate to receive an Emmy award for "that".

It tells a lot about this person.

Martin

Sigh.....

sillychildren.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.....

sillychildren.jpg

Read this and learn to become a better human, Craig.

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/quotes/williamson/our_deepest_fear/

Martin

Martin, Craig's post is revealing in a number of ways.

1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.

2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.

3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.

4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...