The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Cliff Varnell]

I am glad you did that.

I hope Lammy moves there.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT.

Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

Cliff,

Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up...

Glenn, there's nothing to it. Understanding how clothing moves shouldn't be much of a mystery -- don't we spend most of our lives wearing at least one article of clothing?

What could be easier than observing how your clothing moves when you move?

Glenn, right now glance over at your right shoulder. Now raise your right arm to casually wave, like JFK in the motorcade.

As you raise your right arm the fabric along the top of your right shoulder-line will begin to indent into a series of vertical folds.

This occurs every time.

Now, according to Vincent Bugliosi, raising the arm causes at least two inches of your shirt to ride up at the base of your neck.

But that's not what happens. That never happens. It is a lie.

[Glenn Viklund]

I am glad you did that.

I hope Lammy moves there.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT.

Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

Cliff,

Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up...

Glenn, there's nothing to it. Understanding how clothing moves shouldn't be much of a mystery -- don't we spend most of our lives wearing at least one article of clothing?

What could be easier than observing how your clothing moves when you move?

Glenn, right now glance over at your right shoulder. Now raise your right arm to casually wave, like JFK in the motorcade.

As you raise your right arm the fabric along the top of your right shoulder-line will begin to indent into a series of vertical folds.

This occurs every time.

Now, according to Vincent Bugliosi, raising the arm causes at least two inches of your shirt to ride up at the base of your neck.

But that's not what happens. That never happens. It is a lie.

Thanks Cliff - for your detailed instructions.....

Even though I was perhaps referring to how it was all configured on JFK at the time of the shooting...

Edited May 3, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

GV: On the other hand, however, I find that the WC's conclusions are an excellent reference point in the JFK case.

I cannot believe you wrote this.

How and why are they an excellent reference point?

Jim,

The WC report is an official document. It's there and it's there in it's entirety. Which means that it can be scrutinized in detail and at face value. Of course I'm aware of the huge amount of criticism that has been directed at this investigation.

But that's not the point. Each and every area covered can be judged on it's own merit. Areas not covered may raise questions. And regardless of what criticism's one might have - mistakes, lies, poor judgments, neglect or anything alse - what could be the explanation for those shortcomings? That's what I'd like to conclude for myself. It's not a matter of using a stamp - "cover-up". Of this I've seen far too much over the years.

None of us can examine the JFK case from scratch. Most of us can't, for a variety of reasons, research every area of interest or of significance by themselves. To a large degree it will be a question of short cuts to get the information necessary. Whether that's possible through the WC report I don't know, probably not. Nevertheless, as much as possible, I'd like to draw my own conclusions on the JFK case and avoid other's interpretations of what happened.

Arguably a bit naive, perhaps. So be it.

[Pat Speer]

LOL. Myers handed me my head on a platter... Priceless. As I caught him in not one but two smelly deceptions, I think I got the best of him... But let the reader decide for himself. From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

.

Wow, Speer, I just spent time reading your MYERS study on your website. What a bunch of wasted time from my life I will never get back.

I must say your decided and total lack of photographic knowlege really shows. You could not figure out perspective if it bit you on the butt. Non a single one of your "illustrations" where you claim some angle or another is incorrect ...is correct! You have have the photogrammetry skills of an infant...well worse than that, maybe a fetus.

Your work is simply beyond bad. And that you think its correct is so telling.

i was most entertained with your abject display of photographic ignorance when you attempted to project a line from the limo to the dal-tex and claimed you had it correct and Myer had it wrong! You work on this subject eclipses your previous display of photographic ignorance in your paper bag debacle. At the time I did not think you could fall any lower. I was totally wrong.

Just to give this some red meet, lets show the readers your folly.

At the left is the corrected image with Myers line at 9.5 degrees ( well within his margin of error) and your lame attempt showing 11 degrees. The right image is the incorrect and uncorrected image you published. Using YOUR 'speersian" logic, a perfect example of Pat Speer being highly deceptive.

You are just a giggle a second Speer.

LOL. Thanks for the joke, Craig. The lines appear to be the same. More importantly, they both strike Connally in the back and pass through the middle of his body, almost certainly piercing his heart, when the SBT bullet supposedly hit him in the armpit and exited below his right nipple.

This demonstrates Myers' failure to accurately align the wounds. By "correcting" me you have further confirmed this failure. Thanks. I hope your doing so doesn't get you kicked out of the LNer club...

P.S. If you'd actually read my webpage, you'd have have known that the animation used in this slide was the Beyond the Magic Bullet animation subsequently disowned by Myers.

[Craig Lamson]

LOL. Thanks for the joke, Craig. The lines appear to be the same. More importantly, they both strike Connally in the back and pass through the middle of his body, almost certainly piercing his heart, when the SBT bullet supposedly hit him in the armpit and exited below his right nipple.

This demonstrates Myers' failure to accurately align the wounds. By "correcting" me you have further confirmed this failure. Thanks. I hope your doing so doesn't get you kicked out of the LNer club...

P.S. If you'd actually read my webpage, you'd have have known that the animation used in this slide was the Beyond the Magic Bullet animation subsequently disowned by Myers.

No Pat the lines "are not the same", and that's not really the point but I'm not suprised you can't grasp it. Your ignorance in these matters is very well know as is your continued claims that your are correct even when you have it all wrong. A sure sign of a charlatan. How many people have you mislead with your disinformation Speer?

As for Myers "disowning" the animation, he does no such thing. He is steadfast his animation is correct and nothing you have done has shown it to be incorrect. All you do is draw meaningless lines on a 2 d representation of a 3d scene, the most rookie mistake possible. And then par for the course you claim, no, its you who have it correct even though you break all the rules of photogrammetry.

That you think the most basic of photo analysis rules don't apply to your work is simply astounding, arrogant and most importantly willfully deceptive.

You simply have no business commenting on these matters since your ignornace of how it all works is beyond imagination.

[Craig Lamson]

I cited the work of the preeminant historian on the matter, and cited passages that make it quite clear that shirt "bunch" was quite impossible.

Why don't you cite something that actually MATTERS, like the exact amount of slack available in JFK's shirt at the time of the back wound.

Three-quarters of an inch. Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only require three quarters of an inch of slack to enable a man to move comfortably. If there is less slack the garment may bind uncomfortably to the body. If there is more slack the excess material bulging around the waist might destroy the jacket line, the "silhouette."

This is universal. To deny that JFK's clothing was tailored according to the principles of fine men's dress is...pathetic.

If it is universal you will have no problem proving every custom made dress shirt is made to this exact standard. SO have at it...and hard proof please, not a quote form Flusser.

As to JKF's shirt, you don't have the first clue as to the actual amount of slack present in the shirt at the moment of the backshot nor any proof as to how it was tailored. And of course that is the only piece of evidence you can present to actual have a case. But you cant and you don't so instead you wave your hands shouting "clothing fit theory" instead.

And of course that is why your claim is now in the dustbin of history.

The only thing that is pathetic here is Cliff Varnell and his continued pimping of a decades old joke.

Flusser is MEANINGLESS unless he actually MADE JFK's short or dressed him the morning he was killed.

A statement of staggering ignorance. It's good to see you drop your mask, Craig. All those years you claimed you didn't care about the assassination, that you could care less about the Single Bullet Theory, that you were only here as an objective photo expert.

Now you claim JFK didn't know how to dress, a condition required by the SBT.

Just how is the statement ignorant? Flusser has NO IDEA of exactly how JFK's shirt was tailored nor now it was tucked into his pants, nor hte actual amount of slack present at the moment of the backshot. HE is WORTHLESS as evidence. And you know that. And yet you continue to mislead the public.

You are correct, this is not photo research. It's research into CLIFF VARNELL. And I still don't give a hoot about who killed JFK or how. At this point my interest is in the massive blunders of certain ct's. One of those is CLIFF VARNELL.

Thanks for dropping the act.

Thanks for losing the argument. It was a pleasure defeating you.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Kathy Beckett

[Cliff Varnell]

I am glad you did that.

I hope Lammy moves there.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT.

Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

Cliff,

Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up...

Glenn, there's nothing to it. Understanding how clothing moves shouldn't be much of a mystery -- don't we spend most of our lives wearing at least one article of clothing?

What could be easier than observing how your clothing moves when you move?

Glenn, right now glance over at your right shoulder. Now raise your right arm to casually wave, like JFK in the motorcade.

As you raise your right arm the fabric along the top of your right shoulder-line will begin to indent into a series of vertical folds.

This occurs every time.

Now, according to Vincent Bugliosi, raising the arm causes at least two inches of your shirt to ride up at the base of your neck.

But that's not what happens. That never happens. It is a lie.

Thanks Cliff - for your detailed instructions.....

Even though I was perhaps referring to how it was all configured on JFK at the time of the shooting...

Glenn, why do you think JFK would wear his shirt any differently than you do?

[Cliff Varnell]

If it is universal you will have no problem proving every custom made dress shirt is made to this exact standard. SO have at it...and hard proof please, not a quote form Flusser.

Flusser's work is definitive on the issue of fine men's dress. He's the clothing expert, not you, Lamson.

This following is the text that Craig Lamson is emotionally incapable of intellectually processing. He cannot grasp it. It is beyond his ability to accept, since it destroys his Kennedy hating world view.

From Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

(emphasis added)

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers.

Bulging shirt fabric is unsightly and unfashionable.

But according to Craig Lamson, Kennedy and his tailors were ignorant of this fact!

John F. Kennedy had to dress like some idiotic clown -- or Craig Lamson's pinhead will explode.

Hilarious!

Edited May 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas H. Purvis]

According to the DVP scenario, the SBT and the first bullet accounts for Connally's wounds.

So I have a question for DVP...IF you and the WC are correct [HUGE "if", there]...how or why was there copper residue [as in, possibly from a copper-jacketed bullet??] found by Heiberger in his spectrographic analysis on the defect in the COLLAR of JFK's coat?

Explain away, Davey...like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

Mark;

By now, you should be aware that attempting to teach a Parrot to do other than "mimic" what it has heard is in fact a futile exercise.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0187a.htm

"and that a control area was taken from under the collar"

Which happens to be exactly correct, as this is exactly where Henry Heiberger took his "control" sample.

The operative wording being "UNDER THE COLLAR"

Which of course leaves the slightly elongated hole which is located just below the bottom edge of the collar as being the bullet entrance point for the third/last/final shot impact.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0046b.htm

"It is located just below the collar and 3.3 centimeters right of midline"

Suprisingly! There are some of us who recognize the difference between a hole UNDER the collar where a control sample was in fact taken, and a hole located just below the collar in which the oblique nature of the hole penetrated the outer as well as inner fabric of the coat.

And, I might add, happens to be in direct alignment with the bullet impact to the edge of the hairline at the back of JFK's neck.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0045a.htm

"Right. But it was in the hairline sir."

"Near the end of his hairline?"

"Yes Sir"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S. The testing of this hole by Henry Heiberger showed a "positive" for copper.

[Cliff Varnell]

Which of course leaves the slightly elongated hole which is located just below the bottom edge of the collar as being the bullet entrance point for the third/last/final shot impact.

Factually incorrect.

There is no "slightly elongated hole."

That's a slice and a puncture point.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/jacket.htm

Edited May 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Flusser's work is definitive on the issue of fine men's dress. He's the clothing expert, not you, Lamson.

This following is the text that Craig Lamson is emotionally incapable of intellectually processing. He cannot grasp it. It is beyond his ability to accept, since it destroys his Kennedy hating world view.

From Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

(emphasis added)

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers.

What a very nice set of SUGGESTIONS by Flusser, but they just kill you arguement.

He tells us the "slack" should make the wearer COMFORTABLE. He tells us that EXCESS fabric MIGHT show in the lines of the suit.

What he does not tell us is how much ACTUAL slack there was in JFK's shirt.

That's because he did not dress JFK on he day he was killed nor did he make the shirt JFK wore.

For all for his credentials Flusser can't offer one single fact to the argument.

Of course that is why you are now in a state of abject panic, with your hands wildly waving making you look like a dodo bird.

Your decades old argement lies in tatters on the floor, and you are in the dustbin of history.

It really is a magnificent sight.

Why don't you get back to us when you have some real, hard and actual facts about the state of JFK's jacket at the instant of the back shot.

If you can't provide these facts, well .... buzz off.

[Cliff Varnell]

What a very nice set of SUGGESTIONS by Flusser, but they just kill you arguement.

Those are not "suggestions." They are "principles."

Maybe you need help with the definition of principle, Craig?

PRIN-CI-PLE

a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.

The principles of modern physics...or the principles of fine men's dress, it's the rules of the field.

Flusser writes as if he's writing rules, such as (emphasis added):

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket.

That is the guiding principle of clothing fit: there has to be enough slack so that a man can sit down and stand up comfortably, but too much slack can ruin the silhouette.

He tells us the "slack" should make the wearer COMFORTABLE. He tells us that EXCESS fabric MIGHT show in the lines of the suit.

JFK wore Updated American style suits, which featured a "V-shaped torso," a "tapered waist",

and the lines of his jacket would DEFINITELY have been ruined by shirt bulge.

Your suggestion that JFK wore a tapered-waist jacket along with multiple inches of shirt bulge is absurd in the extreme.

[Craig Lamson]

What a very nice set of SUGGESTIONS by Flusser, but they just kill you arguement.

Those are not "suggestions." They are "principles."

Maybe you need help with the definition of principle, Craig?

PRIN-CI-PLE

a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.

The principles of modern physics...or the principles of fine men's dress, it's the rules of the field.

Flusser writes as if he's writing rules, such as (emphasis added):

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket.

That is the guiding principle of clothing fit: there has to be enough slack so that a man can sit down and stand up comfortably, but too much slack can ruin the silhouette.

He tells us the "slack" should make the wearer COMFORTABLE. He tells us that EXCESS fabric MIGHT show in the lines of the suit.

JFK wore Updated American style suits, which featured a "V-shaped torso," a "tapered waist",

and the lines of his jacket would DEFINITELY have been ruined by shirt bulge.

Your suggestion that JFK wore a tapered-waist jacket along with multiple inches of shirt bulge is absurd in the extreme.

You continue to make baseless claims you can't even START to backup with cold hard fact. That's why you and your silly theory of 'clothing fit" are in the dustbin of history.

Flusser and his SUGGESTIONS are meaningless. Varnell's handwaving about how JFK's shirt MIGHT have been is meaningless.

All that actually has meaning and actual value is the EXACT STATE of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back wound. Varnell has no clue. Flusser has no clue.

Ether you produce the factual evidence or your decades old argument FAILS.

It's put up or shut up time Varnell.

I think its quite clear you can't put up, which is why you pimp the canard that a SUGGESTION on how a shirt MIGHT fit equals prima facia evidence. Of course that is simply ABSURD...so....VARNELL... It's not ANY kind of evidence.

So its quite simple. You lose.

Crawl back into your hole Varnell. Maybe you can come out in another 14 years to get your butt kicked again.

BTW cliffy...fashion has NO rules....how lame can you get.

[Pat Speer]

LOL. Thanks for the joke, Craig. The lines appear to be the same. More importantly, they both strike Connally in the back and pass through the middle of his body, almost certainly piercing his heart, when the SBT bullet supposedly hit him in the armpit and exited below his right nipple.

This demonstrates Myers' failure to accurately align the wounds. By "correcting" me you have further confirmed this failure. Thanks. I hope your doing so doesn't get you kicked out of the LNer club...

P.S. If you'd actually read my webpage, you'd have have known that the animation used in this slide was the Beyond the Magic Bullet animation subsequently disowned by Myers.

No Pat the lines "are not the same", and that's not really the point but I'm not suprised you can't grasp it. Your ignorance in these matters is very well know as is your continued claims that your are correct even when you have it all wrong. A sure sign of a charlatan. How many people have you mislead with your disinformation Speer?

As for Myers "disowning" the animation, he does no such thing. He is steadfast his animation is correct and nothing you have done has shown it to be incorrect. All you do is draw meaningless lines on a 2 d representation of a 3d scene, the most rookie mistake possible. And then par for the course you claim, no, its you who have it correct even though you break all the rules of photogrammetry.

That you think the most basic of photo analysis rules don't apply to your work is simply astounding, arrogant and most importantly willfully deceptive.

You simply have no business commenting on these matters since your ignornace of how it all works is beyond imagination.

Yes, Craig, they are the same. You screwed up and used the same image twice and aren't big enough to admit it. All your whining about my being a charlatan, etc, fools no one. You know I'm right about MYERS' depiction of the overhead view, but are constitutionally incapable of admitting I am right about anything.

In case, you didn't grasp that, let's go back. The overhead view on your slide was MYERS' overhead view...created to show that the wounds aligned. I merely pointed out that they DID NOT. So all your nonsense about a 2d depiction of a 3d image is just SMOKE. Myers created the overhead view for television. He was undoubtedly paid handsomely for it. He even won an Emmy award for it. It was designed to show that the wounds aligned. It failed to show that the wounds aligned...even though it depicted Connally's seat 3 1/2 inches further inboard than its actual location!

NOW, if you want to say that MYERS should never have used his animation to claim the wounds aligned, as that was a violation of your beloved "rules" of photogrammetry, that's one thing. But trying to blame ME for what you clearly believe was HIS mistake is just nonsense...smoke

As far as your claim he never disavowed his animation, that's more smoke. I never said he disavowed his animation. I said he disavowed his animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet, as it was filmed off a screen at an angle, and distorted the shapes and relative positions of his models. I point this out, furthermore, not to ridicule Myers, but to ridicule those LNers still clinging to the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet as the end-all be-all. It's a joke.

P.S. Here's where Myers disowned the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet:

"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.] Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer monitor."

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms, the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-dimensional lines into three-dimensional space."

Edited May 4, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, Craig, they are the same. You screwed up and used the same image twice and aren't big enough to admit it. All your whining about my being a charlatan, etc, fools no one. You know I'm right about MYERS' depiction of the overhead view, but are constitutionally incapable of admitting I am right about anything.

No Pat, they are not the same, and NO the images are NOT the same. You are a chalatan Pat. You have been told and shown how ... repeatedly..how you can't do the things to photos that you do yet you continue to ignore this unimpeachble fact. Your failure to either learn your lesson or simply shut up, shows your deception is willful.

You can't draw the lines you did on the Myers overhead and expect them to be accurate for the same reason the producers could not expect a different result. I can't help it you are totally ignorant as to why.

In case, you didn't grasp that, let's go back. The overhead view on your slide was MYERS' overhead view...created to show that the wounds aligned. I merely pointed out that they DID NOT. So all your nonsense about a 2d depiction of a 3d image is just SMOKE. Myers created the overhead view for television. He was undoubtedly paid handsomely for it. He even won an Emmy award for it. It was designed to show that the wounds aligned. It failed to show that the wounds aligned...even though it depicted Connally's seat 3 1/2 inches further inboard than its actual location!

'

And that's your problem. YOUR silly line proved NOTHING. It was a line drawn on a 2d representation of a 3d subject and as such your stupid line could never come close to doing what you claim it does. How could it, it can't take into account the downward slope of the alignment nor the positioning of the camera ...in 3d space over the limo. No you made a MAJOR error and you just can't admit it, or you are too ignorant of the process to understand. You choose.

You think you have proven something. All you have proven is your abject ignorance.

NOW, if you want to say that MYERS should never have used his animation to claim the wounds aligned, as that was a violation of your beloved "rules" of photogrammetry, that's one thing. But trying to blame ME for what you clearly believe was HIS mistake is just nonsense...smoke

Why would I say something like that. Myer's animation fits perfectly with the rules of photogrammetry. He claims the would align beceacusse thats what his animation shows his. His animating is a 3d depiction of a 3d scene. The animation in the tv shows is just fine.

As far as your claim he never disavowed his animation, that's more smoke. I never said he disavowed his animation. I said he disavowed his animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet, as it was filmed off a screen at an angle, and distorted the shapes and relative positions of his models. I point this out, furthermore, not to ridicule Myers, but to ridicule those LNers still clinging to the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet as the end-all be-all. It's a joke.

But he DID NOT disavow his animation as seen in BEYOND the MAGIC BULLET. You NEED to learn to read as well as learn the very basics of how photography works. You are truly embarrassing yourself.

All of this is truly beyond your very limited abilities. Heck you think you can just break the well established scientific rules of photogrammetry just because you want too. Sorry Speer, but you CAN'T.

P.S. Here's where Myers disowned the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet:

"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.] Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer monitor."

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms, the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-dimensional lines into three-dimensional space."