Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Tom Neal]

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..."

When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B":

1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding."

2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication

An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by:

1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault

2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault

3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault

4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault

5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument...

To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not.

e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why."

Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B".

This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK."

Edited November 6, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Clearly first hand knowledge of the Plaza is best, but an acquaintance with the geography and topology of the Plaza can be sufficient. See Image below:-

I suggest you need to know these details if you are to do any serious calculations and especially trajectory angles.

James, well said, and ABSOLUTELY true.

To your knowledge, has anyone constructed a 3D model of Dealey Plaza using the survey information as a Database? Ideally it would utilize a 'World' coordinate system so a specific point e.g. TSBD "sniper's window" could be designated as a reference point for the origin of a shot. Next, a target reference point would be input. This line of sight would yield range, azimuth and declination relative to the target and the origin.

[Chris Newton]

Hey Tom,

I do NOT support Dr. Farid's conclusions but he does have an interesting graphic showing a digital recreation of DP topography. It's neither complete or as defined as what we may be able to do today. Scroll down to page 5:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

[Ollie Curme]

Here's an interactive 3D recreation of Dealey Plaza from which you can explore various shooter points:

http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2013/11/22/jfinteraktive-the-assassination-of-john-fitzgerald-kennedy/

[Tom Neal]

I do NOT support Dr. Farid's conclusions but he does have an interesting graphic showing a digital recreation of DP topography. It's neither complete or as defined as what we may be able to do today. Scroll down to page 5:

Thanks Chris!

That is interesting. How did you happen to find it?

The comparison of the illuminated model to the Z-JFK depicts the back of the head shadow in the correct location. No surprise there. However, on the model, the transition from 'almost' black to the brown of the hair is a shallow gradient. To my eye anyway, on Z-JFK, there is absolutely no gradient all, and the shadow is deep black.

All they've proven to me is they painted the correct area in the photo black...

Tom

[Chris Newton]

The comparison of the illuminated model to the Z-JFK depicts the back of the head shadow in the correct location. No surprise there. However, on the model, the transition from 'almost' black to the brown of the hair is a shallow gradient. To my eye anyway, on Z-JFK, there is absolutely no gradient all, and the shadow is deep black.

Well, one of the things I noticed right away was the weird tilt. Maybe Dallas was just on some strange earth axis anomaly, do you notice the woman in the background and then they have her depicted as a cylinder? What if you righted that to correct the axis? Wouldn't the shadows change and the Limo then appear to be not going uphill? Just an observation. I could be totally wrong about it.

[Tom Neal]

The comparison of the illuminated model to the Z-JFK depicts the back of the head shadow in the correct location. No surprise there. However, on the model, the transition from 'almost' black to the brown of the hair is a shallow gradient. To my eye anyway, on Z-JFK, there is absolutely no gradient all, and the shadow is deep black.

Well, one of the things I noticed right away was the weird tilt. Maybe Dallas was just on some strange earth axis anomaly, do you notice the woman in the background and then they have her depicted as a cylinder? What if you righted that to correct the axis? Wouldn't the shadows change and the Limo then appear to be not going uphill? Just an observation. I could be totally wrong about it.

All I did was compare the shadow on the model to the Z-JFK. I didn't look at anything else.

Have you checked out the 3D Interactive that Ollie posted a link to in post #409?

This is my favorite location for a headshot. It's at the far end of the fenceline where it reaches the overpass. I think a guy could get off at least two good shots from this location...and walk away unmolested.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Here's an interactive 3D recreation of Dealey Plaza from which you can explore various shooter points:

http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2013/11/22/jfinteraktive-the-assassination-of-john-fitzgerald-kennedy/

Hey Ollie,

That is pretty darned impressive. I was able to position the viewpoint at the corner of the fence where it abuts the overpass. I had thought it would be a good location for the headshot. I posted a screen shot from this spot in Post #412.

Tom

[Roy Wieselquist]

Fellas, sorry it took me so long to get back. Yesterday and today I've been looking at hundreds of photos of DP, maybe over a thousand. And that interactive thingy linked by Ollie #409 has kept me busy for a couple hours.

First, I am really knocked out by the attention and consideration you very knowledgable experts have given this idea. Especially Sandy who started the topic, and Ron and Robert. You've really made me dig. I'm afraid I've caused a couple of wild-goose chases here, but we're all adults, so I don't feel too bad. When I have more time, I may opine on that.

I've fine-tuned my theory about the throat entry-back exit shot that occurred around z190, the first shot to hit anyone or anything in the limo. From the South GK, not THE GK where everybody swarmed. The ANGLE of elevation to clear the roll bar/ car-roof support does not have to be15* for a few reasons. 15* was an educated WAG from my roofing days. And the angle of the wound from lower third of throat to T3-4 looks like about 15*.

1.Elm Street slopes down an average 1 in 20 pitch, 24' drop in 495'. I get that (and a whole lot more) from James Gordon #405. What is that -- 2 or 3 or 4*? So 15 becomes 12.

2.The tilt of the limo could be a few degrees. Deceleration (even only by coasting) and braking cause a car to pitch forward. We all know the expression, "Standing a car on its nose." So deceleration, another couple degrees, down to 10.

3,Greer, in it up to his ears, could even have put extra air in the back tires and taken air out of the front tires, for a little more tilt. And jacked up the rear shocks, esp. if they were air shocks. (At the start of the parade Kennedy told him to let his seat down all the way because he was sitting so much higher than JBC. The Catholic-hating Orangeman had it up about all the way. Ostensibly, Kennedy didn't want to appear to be high and mighty, looking down on the Gov of the Republic of Texas.) So tires and suspension fiddling could be another 2 or 3*, easily. We're down to 7 or 8 degrees of elevation that the sniper had to have from his perch above and to the left of Commerce St., right off the Postal parking lot.

I don't see the angle as that much of a problem. True, the farther JFK was from Sarti and the Corsican boys (the closer JFK was to Houston Street), there is a problem of not enough angle. Looking from the bridge, SM Holland's viewpoint, the limo didn't have to be very far down Elm before it looks like you're looking down into the car. And the elevation just off the bridge to Holland's right is not much lower than that.

I can't expound on the following points, so briefly:

1. LSarti used a .223 super high velocity round, not much mass, so back seat stopped it easily, didn't go through (I can explain why)

2. One of the signals to begin firing was limo front bumper reaching Stemmons sign, when Sarti barely had enough angle to clear the roof support

3. But because of foreshortening, he jumped the gun

4, His first shot was so low because the limo didn't maintain the tracked speed and air foil/drag from the support might've brought it down more

5. The assassins had all the time and recon in the world to set up positions and cover, control the ambush

Some folks I have tried this theory on have been bugged because it subtracts one from their shot-count. BUT even if the throat and back wounds were caused by one bullet, there was a minimum of 9 shots. A minimum of 3 hit outside the limo. At least 6 hit in the limo.

Gotta hit the rack.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Roy Wieselquist

[Tom Neal]

At the start of the parade Kennedy told him to let his seat down all the way because he was sitting so much higher than JBC. The Catholic-hating Orangeman had it up about all the way.

This is new to me. Can you provide a source for this exchange? Edited November 7, 2015 by Tom Neal

[James R Gordon]

Tom,

There is no reference to this. It is just one of the many speculations that Roy makes in his post 414.

Although the back seat could indeed be raised, pictures of the procession from Love Field to Dealey Plaza make clear that the back seat was never raised and was always in the down position.

Also Connally was taller than Kennedy - though not by much. The bucket seats however were lower - I believe by around 2 inches. If you look at images of the procession you will see that JFK is still seated a little higher than Connally - though again not by much.

The idea that the Secret Service would condone the back seat being raised when processing through Dallas is preposterous. And the idea that the only reason the seat was not raised was because Kennedy was sensitive to Connally's feelings is an idea that has little credence.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

Clearly first hand knowledge of the Plaza is best, but an acquaintance with the geography and topology of the Plaza can be sufficient. See Image below:-

What many people do not realise is that the Plaza is a mirror image. The North and South dimensions are the same.

a) From the wall of the TSBD to the edge of the North pavement of main street is 300ft.

From the wall of the Post office to the edge of the South pavement of main street is 300ft

c) All the streets - outside the plaza - are 60ft wide. Inside the plaza they are 40ft wide.

d) From the wall of the post office to the wall of the TSBD is 660ft.

e) Elm and Commerce Streets from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street are 495ft. People have been known to comment that Commerce is longer: it is not.

d) Main Street from the bottom of the TUP to the edge of the western pavement on Houston street is 425ft.

The height of Houston street is 429.66ft above sea level. If we take that as 0 we can then do comparatives.

e) the bottom of the TUP is approximately 24ft lower than Houston. 404.91 HASL

f) The total height of the TUP including the handrail is 1ft lower than Houston street. 428 HASL

g) The North Car Park is 3ft lower than Houston Street. 426 HASL.

h) North and South Car Parks are the same height.

i) The track across the TUP is 2ft lower than that of the car parks

j) To seriously calculate trajectories and their angles you need to know the height of Elm Street at any specific point. The best source for that is Robert West's survey of Dealey Plaza along all his calculations of various trajectories.

k) Elm Street curves throughout its length. Although the car essentially drove down the middle of the street it also turned with the road. So at any Zapruder point you need to know what was the height of Elm street at that point; what was the curvature of the road and what implications of the position of the occupants to the source of your shot. These points have major implications as to whether any shot could be successful.

I suggest you need to know these details if you are to do any serious calculations and especially trajectory angles.

Thanks James. I have been frustrated because I had no idea, in particular, what the relative elevations might me.

I have put a copy of these notes in my files.

[Sandy Larsen]

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..."

When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B":

1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding."

2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication

An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by:

1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault

2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault

3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault

4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault

5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument...

To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not.

e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why."

Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B".

This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK."

Well, as I said before, I believe the word "misunderstand" merely denotes a case of Person A saying X and Person B interpreting it as Y, without regard for where any blame belongs. After all, how can one determine whether Person A said what he did clearly enough, or Person B didn't listen carefully enough? And even if one could, what purpose would be served in doing so? Just to point fingers?

My attitude in general is that pointing to people's mistakes in interpersonal relationships serves no useful purpose. People make mistakes... that's life.

Anyway, now that I know someone might take offense at the word "misunderstand," I will try to use it more carefully.

[Tom Neal]

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..."

When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B":

1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding."

2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication

An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by:

1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault

2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault

3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault

4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault

5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument...

To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not.

e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why."

Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B".

This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK."

Well, as I said before, I believe the word "misunderstand" merely denotes a case of Person A saying X and Person B interpreting it as Y, without regard for where any blame belongs. After all, how can one determine whether Person A said what he did clearly enough, or Person B didn't listen carefully enough? And even if one could, what purpose would be served in doing so? Just to point fingers?

My attitude in general is that pointing to people's mistakes in interpersonal relationships serves no useful purpose. People make mistakes... that's life.

Anyway, now that I know someone might take offense at the word "misunderstand," I will try to use it more carefully.

Dictionaries are wrong -- Got it!

[Tom Neal]

There is no reference to this. It is just one of the many speculations that Roy makes in his post 414.

Thank you James.

I agree with you 100% -- I just wanted to hear Roy say it. BTW, did you count how many speculations are presented as unquestionable facts in his post?

Tom