Inside Inside the Target Car:

[Mike Rago]

We then watched to see the effects of the bullet upon striking the head and found the explosion matched the Z film almost identically. That is what confirms that the head shot was fired from the TSBD window, for another shooter location would have resulted in a different explosion/spray pattern.

The knoll test shots were done the same way using the known elevation at the angle corresponding to the acoustics/shape behind the 5’ fence location.

QUOTE OFF

Watch for the impact spatter, referred to as the yellow mist. The yellow mist indicates that the shot at frame 313 hit the top of the presidents head,

http://educationforu...45

They claim that their test duplicated the shot from the TSBD exactly when it fact it did no such thing. Compare these back of the head photos from Moorman and Zapruder to what they came up with and see that they did not even come close to duplicating it.

http://educationforu...=45#entry256195

They used two high powered rifles for the Knoll shot. The shot from the Knoll was from a handgun. Why didn't they try a hand gun?

Their Knoll test show that it could not have been a high powered rifle, and suggests a handgun was used. They needed to try a handgun.

Starting at about 8 minutes into this film.

There is no impact spatter and yellow mist in the reconstruction. In order for a test to be accurate it has to show the yellow mist above the presidents head. It is the yellow mist that holds the key to the location of the assassin.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Pamela Brown]

We then watched to see the effects of the bullet upon striking the head and found the explosion matched the Z film almost identically. That is what confirms that the head shot was fired from the TSBD window, for another shooter location would have resulted in a different explosion/spray pattern.

The knoll test shots were done the same way using the known elevation at the angle corresponding to the acoustics/shape behind the 5’ fence location.

QUOTE OFF

Watch for the impact spatter, referred to as the yellow mist. The yellow mist indicates that the shot at frame 313 hit the top of the presidents head,

http://educationforu...45

They claim that their test duplicated the shot from the TSBD exactly when it fact it did no such thing. Compare these back of the head photos from Moorman and Zapruder to what they came up with and see that they did not even come close to duplicating it.

http://educationforu...=45#entry256195

They used two high powered rifles for the Knoll shot. The shot from the Knoll was from a handgun. Why didn't they try a hand gun?

Their Knoll test show that it could not have been a high powered rifle, and suggests a handgun was used. They needed to try a handgun.

Starting at about 8 minutes into this film.

There is no impact spatter and yellow mist in the reconstruction. In order for a test to be accurate it has to show the yellow mist above the presidents head. It is the yellow mist that holds the key to the location of the assassin.

You're pretty much preaching to the choir. The tests in my estimation can be used to disprove a Z313 shot using ammo from the M/C (the bullet did not fragment) whereas spatter patterns from the Z313 frame (which ITTC does in animation) 'matching' that of their test shot causes us to ask more questions than it answers imo.

[James R Gordon]

What about ITTC do you find most persuasive?

Pamela,

I have always considered that this program is thought provoking. However there is a fatal weakness to the program...it does not include the Queen Mary in its findings. To be fair, the originator of that was both the FBI and the SS. Everyone else, including Dale Myers, has just followed this decision and assassination recreation structure.

So why is that important? From test trajectories I have been doing on my 3D model of Dealey Plaza, the bullet either wounds John Ready or flies past his left ear by around 6 inches at Z223/4. At Z312.5, the bullet flies over the Queen Mary. The position of John Ready is extremely serious to a recreation of the assassination because he is in clear danger at Z223/4. At Z312.5 I find it extraordinary that no agent would comment on bullet flying very low over their heads at the time of the head shot. It had to be quite low because between Z223/4 and Z312.5 JFK's profile has lowered as he has begun to slump to his left. How low I am still determining. But what is beyond argument, in order for the bullet to strike JFK at Z 312.5, the bullet has no option but to fly over the Queen Mary.

What I find surprising is that in all recreations, including ITTC, everyone assume that during the assassination the Kennedy car was all on its own. It was not, and no one has wondered what would be the consequences were the Queen Mary to be included into the equation.

As to the shots. I can see the argument for the TSBD origin for a shot at Z 312.5. However the trajectory is puzzling. The trajectory of the bullet is not in line with the angle of JFK's head. What is surprising is that the sixth floor west window is aligned with the angle of the head. I am not saying the bullet originated from the west window, but I am saying that the west window is better suited to the angle and slope of JFK's head.

Then, of course, there is the Daltex building. I am finding trajectories from here very interesting. As well, there is the Knoll, dismissed by ITTC. I agree, the explosion of the head is a troubling point. After all the distance from the Knoll is a little over 100 feet, whereas the TSBD is over 260 feet. I have not got an answer to this, but I am not ready to dismiss it in the way ITTC did.

ITTC, dismissed the South Knoll as a point of origin for the head shot. I concur. However although ITTC was in error on their positioning of this position as well as in error in suggesting that any gunman here would be lying down, there is no shot. To get to JFK, from that position, the shot would heave to have gone through Jackie. She was blocking any shot.

For the SBT I am using 3D anatomical models, not the kind of models that Dale Myers used. These models allow verification of findings in a way that Myers models, extraordinarily good though they were, do not allow. By that I mean we have to take on trust that where Myers says he has placed the wounds are ..... indeed exactly where he said they are. Well my initial findings with my models is going to cause a few problems. However that is outside ITTC.

What ITTC did with regard to the head shot was examine the surface aspects of the wound and its implications to where the point of origin was. By that I mean, the initial damage to the surface of the head looked similar. The problem with that kind of analysis, is that it ignores what actually occurred within the head as a consequence of the impact of the shot. It is the damage inside the head that are the true finger prints which point to place of origin for the shot. Replicating a similarity to the damage to the skull bone, does not also replicate the documented damage that occurred within the head. Now I don't deny the similarity of outer damage but it is perfectly possible to have similar outer damage and utterly dissimilar inner damage.

Interesting and thought provoking though the program was, it did not make its case as far as I am concerned.

James

Edited September 22, 2012 by James R Gordon

[David S. Brownlee]

I have always been intrigued by the witnesses who said the car slowed appreciably...nearly stopped..around the time of the final kill shot.

This would make sense to me as the shot from the Grassy Knoll was likely the last (and best) shot in Dealy Plaza. With an already seriously injured elected president...It would be a mess to try and finish him off at the hospital later when some folks would be on his side and might take action.

[Pamela Brown]

What about ITTC do you find most persuasive?

Pamela,

I have always considered that this program is thought provoking. However there is a fatal weakness to the program...it does not include the Queen Mary in its findings. To be fair, the originator of that was both the FBI and the SS. Everyone else, including Dale Myers, has just followed this decision and assassination recreation structure.

So why is that important? From test trajectories I have been doing on my 3D model of Dealey Plaza, the bullet either wounds John Ready or flies past his left ear by around 6 inches at Z223/4. At Z312.5, the bullet flies over the Queen Mary. The position of John Ready is extremely serious to a recreation of the assassination because he is in clear danger at Z223/4. At Z312.5 I find it extraordinary that no agent would comment on bullet flying very low over their heads at the time of the head shot. It had to be quite low because between Z223/4 and Z312.5 JFK's profile has lowered as he has begun to slump to his left. How low I am still determining. But what is beyond argument, in order for the bullet to strike JFK at Z 312.5, the bullet has no option but to fly over the Queen Mary.

What I find surprising is that in all recreations, including ITTC, everyone assume that during the assassination the Kennedy car was all on its own. It was not, and no one has wondered what would be the consequences were the Queen Mary to be included into the equation.

As to the shots. I can see the argument for the TSBD origin for a shot at Z 312.5. However the trajectory is puzzling. The trajectory of the bullet is not in line with the angle of JFK's head. What is surprising is that the sixth floor west window is aligned with the angle of the head. I am not saying the bullet originated from the west window, but I am saying that the west window is better suited to the angle and slope of JFK's head.

Then, of course, there is the Daltex building. I am finding trajectories from here very interesting. As well, there is the Knoll, dismissed by ITTC. I agree, the explosion of the head is a troubling point. After all the distance from the Knoll is a little over 100 feet, whereas the TSBD is over 260 feet. I have not got an answer to this, but I am not ready to dismiss it in the way ITTC did.

ITTC, dismissed the South Knoll as a point of origin for the head shot. I concur. However although ITTC was in error on their positioning of this position as well as in error in suggesting that any gunman here would be lying down, there is no shot. To get to JFK, from that position, the shot would heave to have gone through Jackie. She was blocking any shot.

For the SBT I am using 3D anatomical models, not the kind of models that Dale Myers used. These models allow verification of findings in a way that Myers models, extraordinarily good though they were, do not allow. By that I mean we have to take on trust that where Myers says he has placed the wounds are ..... indeed exactly where he said they are. Well my initial findings with my models is going to cause a few problems. However that is outside ITTC.

What ITTC did with regard to the head shot was examine the surface aspects of the wound and its implications to where the point of origin was. By that I mean, the initial damage to the surface of the head looked similar. The problem with that kind of analysis, is that it ignores what actually occurred within the head as a consequence of the impact of the shot. It is the damage inside the head that are the true finger prints which point to place of origin for the shot. Replicating a similarity to the damage to the skull bone, does not also replicate the documented damage that occurred within the head. Now I don't deny the similarity of outer damage but it is perfectly possible to have similar outer damage and utterly dissimilar inner damage.

Interesting and thought provoking though the program was, it did not make its case as far as I am concerned.

James

You make a good point, imo, in that the limo was not completely placed in the 11.22.63 environment by the lack of the presence of the QMII. This is something that was not discussed with me, nor, unfortunately, was it something that even occurred to me at the time to suggest to the producer. I would imagine that this would have widened the scope of the program farther than what they had intended, not to mention, adding cost and additional players. Not to make an excuse of that, though -- it would have been a good idea, if feasible, imo. GM has said that ITTC used the WCR reenactment as the basis for its dimensions. There was no follow-up car in that either, so perhaps another reason why it might not have worked for ITTC.

[David Josephs]

Pamela... and by default GM....

"GM has said that ITTC used the WCR reenactment as the basis for its dimensions."

Lamson:

And we get to the very crux of your mistake. There are no surveyed frames. There are only GUESSES. A recreation is GUESSES piled on top of more GUESSES.

In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong

Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR... but they should not be so far off as to show a change from 3mph to 18 and then to 12mph in the course of a few seconds....

So while Lamson is correct, the data comes from a recreation... he fails to aknowledge how badly misrepresented the actual event is within this data...

If the reenactment was used for the dimensions... and the recreation was only an approximation... based on best guess.... how can the ITTC show make the claims it does?

The recreation numbers REQUIRE the limo to accellerate from 3mph to almost 26mph so that the average speed from frames 161-166, 166-185, & 185-186 match the legend created.

And then from 255-313 we have the limo traveling at 10.5mph - when in reality it was traveling MUCH slower...

So how can ITTC have anything correct, if they are using the WCR reenactment as their basis?

Curious...

Why hasn't anyone used more modern instruments and recreate the film EXACTLY, instead of how Myers did it?

Once there is an ACCURATE digital representation of the Zfilm... distances within the model SHOULD be perfectly accurate and we SHOULD be able to know the speeds between ANY distance.

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela... and by default GM....

"GM has said that ITTC used the WCR reenactment as the basis for its dimensions."

Lamson:

And we get to the very crux of your mistake. There are no surveyed frames. There are only GUESSES. A recreation is GUESSES piled on top of more GUESSES.

In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong

Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR... but they should not be so far off as to show a change from 3mph to 18 and then to 12mph in the course of a few seconds....

So while Lamson is correct, the data comes from a recreation... he fails to aknowledge how badly misrepresented the actual event is within this data...

If the reenactment was used for the dimensions... and the recreation was only an approximation... based on best guess.... how can the ITTC show make the claims it does?

The recreation numbers REQUIRE the limo to accellerate from 3mph to almost 26mph so that the average speed from frames 161-166, 166-185, & 185-186 match the legend created.

And then from 255-313 we have the limo traveling at 10.5mph - when in reality it was traveling MUCH slower...

So how can ITTC have anything correct, if they are using the WCR reenactment as their basis?

Curious...

Why hasn't anyone used more modern instruments and recreate the film EXACTLY, instead of how Myers did it?

Once there is an ACCURATE digital representation of the Zfilm... distances within the model SHOULD be perfectly accurate and we SHOULD be able to know the speeds between ANY distance.

To my understanding, ITTC focused solely on the Z313 shot, not the entire reenactment.

[James R Gordon]


 In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong
Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR





David,

In my initial trajectories on my 3D model, and using Don Roberdeau’s reference placement of the Zapruder frame points on his map, the WC trajectory analysis data – I believe it was Robert West who undertook that - is essentially correct. As many members have pointed out, interesting though Chris’s threads are, there have to be in-built errors in his data that are both confusing his analysis and well as compounding his errors.

I believe you have created a “Sketch Pro” version of the plaza, so it should be possible for you to verify what I have said.

James

To my understanding, ITTC focused solely on the Z313 shot, not the entire reenactment.


Pamela,

Whereas it is true that ITTC did indeed focus of Z312.5 / Z 312, it is my belief that their conclusions do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

In the program we are told by Gary Mack that:

“I think this test has shown, quite conclusively, that the shot, that killed President Kennedy by striking him in the head, did come from behind and, apparently, from the sixth floor window of the old book depository building.”

Much of the validation of the test focus’ is on the debris spread. Indeed two witnesses are included to validate that the spread of debris, caused by the test, was what they saw that day. I do not question that there might be similarity in debris spread, but debris spread is of less importance to that of head damage.

See image below:-

Image A:- shows the damage to the model’s head, that we are informed is as close to the structure and substance of a human head, and the quality of JFK's head, that can be created today.

We are informed that this is close to the damage seen on JFK’s head. Unfortunately, it is nothing like the damage inflicted on his head. In the ITTC demonstration the bullet has created a veritable trough through the right hand side of the head.

At a later point in the video we are shown the verification of their findings. This is shown in image B. Yes they have the slope of the head in line with JFK’s. There is even some similarity with debris splatter. However the footprint of damage on both images is widely different. In their diagram in image B they clearly demonstrate the difference in the damage footprints. On its own that should have triggered signals of concern.

As can be seen, the test that we are being shown is the third one. That is because in the first two attempts the gunman was not able to hit the precise point that the Oswald shot is considered to have hit. Therefore there ought to be similarity in the damage inflicted. It may be asking too much for the damage to be absolutely precisely the same, but there should be a reasonable similarity.

In test 3 there is no similarity. On its own, that should have triggered questions. After all the same ammunition was used; the object to be impacted was as close to the structure and fabric of JFK’s head as was humanly possible and the point of impact was exactly the same. Logic suggests that there therefore ought to be similarity in damage inflicted. But there is none, and I am critical that this point was not an issue in the program.

Image D is a magnification of an area of Image C. if you look closely it is clear there is serious damage and loss of brain material in the front of the head. How far down the head that goes is not clear.

Image E shows the back of the head. I accept that this is a contentious area, but this image shows no damage to the back of the head. Yet on the model there is massive damage to this aspect of the head. The argument goes, and is supported by the Dallas doctors who Nova took to the Archives to see the original autopsy images, that the damage to the back of the head is there it is concealed by the scalp being pulled over it. However that is not possible in this test because the impact of the bullet has completely shredded that part of the scalp.

However, this test has shown us one thing: albeit not something they wanted to prove. The test has shown us what damage would be inflicted on the head had a shot been fired from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD. It is the contention of the makers of the film that this proves the shot came from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD: actually they are wrong – what it does prove is that the damage inflicted by this test proves that wherever the shot came from - one place it did not come from is south east sixth floor window of the TSBD.

James.

[Pamela Brown]


 In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong
Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR





David,

In my initial trajectories on my 3D model, and using Don Roberdeau’s reference placement of the Zapruder frame points on his map, the WC trajectory analysis data – I believe it was Robert West who undertook that - is essentially correct. As many members have pointed out, interesting though Chris’s threads are, there have to be in-built errors in his data that are both confusing his analysis and well as compounding his errors.

I believe you have created a “Sketch Pro” version of the plaza, so it should be possible for you to verify what I have said.

James

To my understanding, ITTC focused solely on the Z313 shot, not the entire reenactment.


Pamela,

Whereas it is true that ITTC did indeed focus of Z312.5 / Z 312, it is my belief that their conclusions do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

In the program we are told by Gary Mack that:

“I think this test has shown, quite conclusively, that the shot, that killed President Kennedy by striking him in the head, did come from behind and, apparently, from the sixth floor window of the old book depository building.”

Much of the validation of the test focus’ is on the debris spread. Indeed two witnesses are included to validate that the spread of debris, caused by the test, was what they saw that day. I do not question that there might be similarity in debris spread, but debris spread is of less importance to that of head damage.

See image below:-

Image A:- shows the damage to the model’s head, that we are informed is as close to the structure and substance of a human head, and the quality of JFK's head, that can be created today.

We are informed that this is close to the damage seen on JFK’s head. Unfortunately, it is nothing like the damage inflicted on his head. In the ITTC demonstration the bullet has created a veritable trough through the right hand side of the head.

At a later point in the video we are shown the verification of their findings. This is shown in image B. Yes they have the slope of the head in line with JFK’s. There is even some similarity with debris splatter. However the footprint of damage on both images is widely different. In their diagram in image B they clearly demonstrate the difference in the damage footprints. On its own that should have triggered signals of concern.

As can be seen, the test that we are being shown is the third one. That is because in the first two attempts the gunman was not able to hit the precise point that the Oswald shot is considered to have hit. Therefore there ought to be similarity in the damage inflicted. It may be asking too much for the damage to be absolutely precisely the same, but there should be a reasonable similarity.

In test 3 there is no similarity. On its own, that should have triggered questions. After all the same ammunition was used; the object to be impacted was as close to the structure and fabric of JFK’s head as was humanly possible and the point of impact was exactly the same. Logic suggests that there therefore ought to be similarity in damage inflicted. But there is none, and I am critical that this point was not an issue in the program.

Image D is a magnification of an area of Image C. if you look closely it is clear there is serious damage and loss of brain material in the front of the head. How far down the head that goes is not clear.

Image E shows the back of the head. I accept that this is a contentious area, but this image shows no damage to the back of the head. Yet on the model there is massive damage to this aspect of the head. The argument goes, and is supported by the Dallas doctors who Nova took to the Archives to see the original autopsy images, that the damage to the back of the head is there it is concealed by the scalp being pulled over it. However that is not possible in this test because the impact of the bullet has completely shredded that part of the scalp.

However, this test has shown us one thing: albeit not something they wanted to prove. The test has shown us what damage would be inflicted on the head had a shot been fired from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD. It is the contention of the makers of the film that this proves the shot came from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD: actually they are wrong – what it does prove is that the damage inflicted by this test proves that wherever the shot came from - one place it did not come from is south east sixth floor window of the TSBD.

James.

Fair enough. The point I am trying to make is that ITTC used a consistent environment (that of the WCR Z313 reenactment). That is a separate issue from whether or not they demonstrated what they said they did. I agree that there are many questions that could have been asked that were not. It is also my thinking that these tests are of value because ITTC took the time and effort and money to perform them and share them, whereas the WCR did not. Your post demonstrates my other point -- namely, that the tests can be used to support the fact that the WCR axiom (LHO acted alone, shooting from the SN of the TSBD with his M/C) is false.

[James R Gordon]




It is also my thinking that these tests are of value because ITTC took the time and effort and money to perform them and share them, whereas the WCR did not. Your post demonstrates my other point -- namely, that the tests can be used to support the fact that the WCR axiom (LHO acted alone, shooting from the SN of the TSBD with his M/C) is false.


Pamela,

I agree with you.

In looking over the posts I have made on this thread, and others, I note that my criticism may have clouded the fact that I also see value and worth in what ITTC attempted to do. Watching the program it is very clear that considerable effort has gone into testing the question of where the head shot originated from.

Although I am critical of the placing of the gunman on the South knoll as well as the proposition that any gunman would be lying down, ITTC were the first to examine the South knoll as a vantage position and I agree that it was shown to be an unlikely position for any gunman. With regard to the Grassy Knoll, not only is there the image of the head being blown off, there is the question of the bullet transiting right through the head. My instincts tell me that the Grassy knoll is the most likely point of origin for the head shot, but I acknowledge that answers will have to be provided for Gary’s findings for a Grassy knoll shot.

So I agree with you that ITTC has provided much of worth into the argument.

My questioning derives from this point. Gary suggests that ITTC has suggested that the shot came from the Oswald window. I acknowledge the careful structure of the test, however if the experiment results in a head wound that is very different from what we see in the autopsy images – not just slightly different but very different – then how is it possible to go on to state that the Oswald window was the point of origin for the shot? I would expect a reasonable similarity in head damage, not perfect just reasonable, but the damage shown in ITTC is so different I suggest that maybe that is a pointer to the fact that although the head can be struck in exactly the same point – maybe the difference in head damage is a pointer to the possibility that the Oswald window is not the point of origin for that shot.

If the experiment ensured that all the criteria, that were present on 11/22/63, have been met in the experiment, then surely in the outcomes, damage to the head should also be similar?

James.

[Pamela Brown]




It is also my thinking that these tests are of value because ITTC took the time and effort and money to perform them and share them, whereas the WCR did not. Your post demonstrates my other point -- namely, that the tests can be used to support the fact that the WCR axiom (LHO acted alone, shooting from the SN of the TSBD with his M/C) is false.


Pamela,

I agree with you.

In looking over the posts I have made on this thread, and others, I note that my criticism may have clouded the fact that I also see value and worth in what ITTC attempted to do. Watching the program it is very clear that considerable effort has gone into testing the question of where the head shot originated from.

Although I am critical of the placing of the gunman on the South knoll as well as the proposition that any gunman would be lying down, ITTC were the first to examine the South knoll as a vantage position and I agree that it was shown to be an unlikely position for any gunman. With regard to the Grassy Knoll, not only is there the image of the head being blown off, there is the question of the bullet transiting right through the head. My instincts tell me that the Grassy knoll is the most likely point of origin for the head shot, but I acknowledge that answers will have to be provided for Gary’s findings for a Grassy knoll shot.

So I agree with you that ITTC has provided much of worth into the argument.

My questioning derives from this point. Gary suggests that ITTC has suggested that the shot came from the Oswald window. I acknowledge the careful structure of the test, however if the experiment results in a head wound that is very different from what we see in the autopsy images – not just slightly different but very different – then how is it possible to go on to state that the Oswald window was the point of origin for the shot? I would expect a reasonable similarity in head damage, not perfect just reasonable, but the damage shown in ITTC is so different I suggest that maybe that is a pointer to the fact that although the head can be struck in exactly the same point – maybe the difference in head damage is a pointer to the possibility that the Oswald window is not the point of origin for that shot.

If the experiment ensured that all the criteria, that were present on 11/22/63, have been met in the experiment, then surely in the outcomes, damage to the head should also be similar?

James.

I agree with you that there seem to be gaping holes in the conclusions of ITTC. You are pointing out one of the big ones, imo, in that they used the x-rays to determine the spot the shooter was to hit, but then the results are completely different from the damage shown on the x-rays. So, are we to question the x-rays?

They also do not answer the question of the source of the shot -- if the shot hit the 'correct' spot of entrance on the skull and the results were different from that shown on the x-rays, does that invalidate the position from which the shot was taken?

These are very good questions.

[James R Gordon]


I agree with you that there seem to be gaping holes in the conclusions of ITTC. You are pointing out one of the big ones, imo, in that they used the x-rays to determine the spot the shooter was to hit, but then the results are completely different from the damage shown on the x-rays. So, are we to question the x-rays? 






Yes I agree there appears to be a serious contradiction between the degree of research, expense and planning that went into the creation of the program and the outcome. Gary has been in contact with me and he feels that critics of the program are being unfair to the purpose of the program. From his perspective what was intended was to establish whether the explosions to the head match what was seen in the Zapruder film. He considers that critics who are looking at other criteria, such as me with regard to the damage to the head, are raising issues that were not relevant to the creation of the program.

I understand his point, but I can’t get out of my mind the question of the dissimilarity of the head wound as shown in the autopsy images and the wound as shown in ITTC. If the criteria during the making of ITTC were as close as it is humanly possible to get to the conditions on 11/22/63, then I would expect there to be similarity in the head wound.

You ask do we question the X-rays ? I know others do question them, but I don’t. What I question is the conclusion of the program ITTC. Their conclusion is that the program has successfully shown that the origin of the head wound originated from the Oswald window.

I say, that cannot be. If the origin of the head wound was indeed the Oswald window then there ought to be similarity in the damage to the head. Because the wounds are very dissimilar that, on its own, proves that the origin of the shot could not have come from the Oswald window.

They also do not answer the question of the source of the shot -- if the shot hit the 'correct' spot of entrance on the skull and the results were different from that shown on the x-rays, does that invalidate the position from which the shot was taken? 

These are very good questions.


I am only just beginning to lay out trajectories for the shots on my 3D model. One thing I noticed from Don Roberdeau’s map was the angle of the trajectory from the Oswald window compared to the angle and slope of JFK’s head at Z 312.5. It looks to me, because of the angle of the head towards his left, that any bullet entering the head as described by ITTC would exit the head just above the right ear. However, and to be fair to the program, I have not yet properly laid down my trajectories. What appears to me, and is confirmed by Don’s map, is that the angle of the head is not in line with a trajectory line from the Oswald window.

What I have found interesting is that the head is in the right position for a trajectory line from the west window of the sixth floor of the TSBD.

My instinct suggests that the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. However, one thing that ITTC has demonstrated is that there are profound difficulties to be overcome for a shot from the knoll. It is not just that one attempt literally blew the head off, another left an exit hole in the left side of the head. I don’t have an answer to these problems at the moment.

You ask if the damage to the head is not the same as has been documented, does that not invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot. My answer is yes. ITTC does indeed demonstrate similarity in the explosions of the head. But explosions are only one aspect of the impact of the shot on the head. Another, and to my mind much more important, is the replication of damage to the head. It is unfair to ask for absolute similarity .. that is an unfair demand. But if all the other criteria are correct and exact, then reasonable similarity in head damage should also occur.

Even though ITTC does demonstrate similarity in head explosion, the fact that the program also creates dissimilarity in the head damage, to my mind, has to invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot.

If the shot has to have originated from the TSBD, then the west window is a far better candidate.

James.

[Pamela Brown]


I agree with you that there seem to be gaping holes in the conclusions of ITTC. You are pointing out one of the big ones, imo, in that they used the x-rays to determine the spot the shooter was to hit, but then the results are completely different from the damage shown on the x-rays. So, are we to question the x-rays? 






Yes I agree there appears to be a serious contradiction between the degree of research, expense and planning that went into the creation of the program and the outcome. Gary has been in contact with me and he feels that critics of the program are being unfair to the purpose of the program. From his perspective what was intended was to establish whether the explosions to the head match what was seen in the Zapruder film. He considers that critics who are looking at other criteria, such as me with regard to the damage to the head, are raising issues that were not relevant to the creation of the program.

I understand his point, but I can’t get out of my mind the question of the dissimilarity of the head wound as shown in the autopsy images and the wound as shown in ITTC. If the criteria during the making of ITTC were as close as it is humanly possible to get to the conditions on 11/22/63, then I would expect there to be similarity in the head wound.

You ask do we question the X-rays ? I know others do question them, but I don’t. What I question is the conclusion of the program ITTC. Their conclusion is that the program has successfully shown that the origin of the head wound originated from the Oswald window.

I say, that cannot be. If the origin of the head wound was indeed the Oswald window then there ought to be similarity in the damage to the head. Because the wounds are very dissimilar that, on its own, proves that the origin of the shot could not have come from the Oswald window.

They also do not answer the question of the source of the shot -- if the shot hit the 'correct' spot of entrance on the skull and the results were different from that shown on the x-rays, does that invalidate the position from which the shot was taken? 

These are very good questions.


I am only just beginning to lay out trajectories for the shots on my 3D model. One thing I noticed from Don Roberdeau’s map was the angle of the trajectory from the Oswald window compared to the angle and slope of JFK’s head at Z 312.5. It looks to me, because of the angle of the head towards his left, that any bullet entering the head as described by ITTC would exit the head just above the right ear. However, and to be fair to the program, I have not yet properly laid down my trajectories. What appears to me, and is confirmed by Don’s map, is that the angle of the head is not in line with a trajectory line from the Oswald window.

What I have found interesting is that the head is in the right position for a trajectory line from the west window of the sixth floor of the TSBD.

My instinct suggests that the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. However, one thing that ITTC has demonstrated is that there are profound difficulties to be overcome for a shot from the knoll. It is not just that one attempt literally blew the head off, another left an exit hole in the left side of the head. I don’t have an answer to these problems at the moment.

You ask if the damage to the head is not the same as has been documented, does that not invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot. My answer is yes. ITTC does indeed demonstrate similarity in the explosions of the head. But explosions are only one aspect of the impact of the shot on the head. Another, and to my mind much more important, is the replication of damage to the head. It is unfair to ask for absolute similarity .. that is an unfair demand. But if all the other criteria are correct and exact, then reasonable similarity in head damage should also occur.

Even though ITTC does demonstrate similarity in head explosion, the fact that the program also creates dissimilarity in the head damage, to my mind, has to invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot.

If the shot has to have originated from the TSBD, then the west window is a far better candidate.

James.

Looks like you may have GM running around in circles; not an easy thing to do.

With all due respect to GM, if one is going to go out on a limb and make fantastic claims, (such as those made in the DC press release about ITTC) one had better be willing to subject every aspect of the program to scrutiny. Apparently, we researchers are supposed to be sufficiently impressed by the pompous rhetoric of the press release and the authority of the DC being behind the show, so that we quit asking questions and allow others to do our thinking. That is, of course, the fallacy of the WCR mindset. It seems to me that being able to analyze a program such as this and weigh and evaluate the good v the not-so-good or persuasive v not persuasive, is a valuable research strategy. That is what it seems you are doing here.

[Pamela Brown]

Post of ITTC clip with me in it about limo bubbletop...https://ss100x.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/pamela-brown-in-inside-the-target-car-discovery-channel-2008/

[James DiEugenio]

One of the worst shows in recent memory on the JFK case.

 

Surpassed only by Gary's later show on Jack Ruby.  Here is my three part review of that one.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one

 

 I think that one was the worst up until Tracking Oswald, which set a new standard for JFK BS.

Edited August 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio