THE LATEST (JANUARY 2021) update on Angelos Leiloglou's 3D model of Dealey Plaza

[James DiEugenio]

Ray Marcus always thought that Kennedy showed signs of being hit before he disappeared behind the sign.

Edited December 27, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What frame is this supposed to be? If they're saying this is 224 or some such thing, they are full of crap. Dale Myers redux. 

225.

[Micah Mileto]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

BTW Pat, have you ever considered the possibility of a single shooter from behind using an automatic rifle that alternated between firing high-velocity and low-velocity ammunition?

Edited December 28, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Chris Bristow]

I thought it was generally agreed that Connally was turned approx 30 degrees to his right at 223 and maybe 20/25 degrees by 225? The 3D model shows him almost straight forward in his seat.
Rotating J.C. 20 degrees moves the entry wound location about 2 to 3 inches to the left bringing it closer to aligning with the bullet trajectory. In addition having his torso turned partially towards Zapruder makes it hard to judge just how much he was leaning back because that movement is almost directly away from Z, so any amount of rearward lean can not be determined accurately. The 28 degree downward track through J.C. may indicate he was leaning back by 10 degrees(Or maybe the bullet deflected 10 degrees downward.). That would move the entry wound location to the left/rear, maybe 2 inches closer to aligning with the bullet trajectory. If his back was slightly hunched it would be unreadable from Z's position and would bring the alignment another 1 to 2 inches closer.
 On top of all that we can only estimate J.C.'s position to within maybe 1.5  inches from the Z film. We have to add at least that for JFK.
 I think at minimum there is a 1.5 inch tolerance due to Z's distance and film resolution of J.C.. Add another 2 inches because we can't tell if he was leaning back, and another 1.5 inch because his back could have been slightly hunched and there is a total of 5 inches of ambiguity. Once we rotate J.C. to 20 or 30 degrees and take the 5 inch ambiguity into account the trajectory appears to be possible.

 
 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Once we rotate J.C. to 20 or 30 degrees and take the 5 inch ambiguity into account the trajectory appears to be possible.

 

Quite a coincidence, it seems.

Now that is if you are looking at the trajectory from the side, which gives only a two-dimensional analysis for a three-dimensional problem. So what about the trajectory looking down from above? Is that doable as well?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Once we rotate J.C. to 20 or 30 degrees and take the 5 inch ambiguity into account the trajectory appears to be possible.

 

Hey, wait a minute.

If that trajectory is possible, with Connally's body positioned as you described, then why did they have to move Kennedy's back wound up? Surely they did that to make it possible.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I just finished watching the video and, as an engineer, I am surprisingly impressed by the advanced state of the technology and the great care that has been taken to get everything in the model as perfect as possible.

Pat needs to watch the video before he makes his reckless statements. If he can show that something in the model isn't quite right, I'm sure that these guys will fix it.

I hope that the finished documentary will be as well done as the modeling is, and is easy to follow. And that includes showing how the competing models, like Myers's, have been altered to make them work.

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just finished watching the video and, as an engineer, I am surprisingly impressed by the advanced state of the technology and the great care that has been taken to get everything in the model as perfect as possible.

Pat needs to watch the video before he makes his reckless statements. If he can show that something in the model isn't quite right, I'm sure that these guys will fix it.

I hope that the finished documentary will be as well done as the modeling is, and is easy to follow. And that includes showing how the competing models, like Myers's, have been altered to make them work.

 

I can't really be sure, but from seeing the part of the video where it fades between the model and frame 225 of the Zapruder film, I can't help but think that there seems to be some pixels of discrepancy between Connally's shoulders.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just finished watching the video and, as an engineer, I am surprisingly impressed by the advanced state of the technology and the great care that has been taken to get everything in the model as perfect as possible.

Pat needs to watch the video before he makes his reckless statements. If he can show that something in the model isn't quite right, I'm sure that these guys will fix it.

I hope that the finished documentary will be as well done as the modeling is and is easy to follow. And that includes showing how the competing models, like Myers's, have been altered to make them work.

 

Yeah, the problem is with any of these recreations it's very difficult to establish any certainty. It's great they're creating the models and I think the point clouds are accurate and all which is great for a historical record but there are so many variables in the end I think they'll only be able to demonstrate probabilities rather than make any conclusions. Myer's "proof" is ridiculous of course, as anyone in the field would likely point out. I don't even know whether they can accurately establish when the shots were fired which could introduce a large error from a difference of a fraction of a second. It's tempting to say work backwards from a conclusion and see if it agrees with the data but that has problems also. 

What they're using now I tried to develop in 1994 or so (when Windows was known as Chicago) as an as-built system for large and technical construction projects (biotech, hospitals etc). The project was called Attic (archive) and unfortunately predated the capabilities of the time. It's interesting to see someone try their hand at it in almost exactly the same way. Frankly, when I do architectural/design pre-viz stuff today I still find inaccuracies after I went out with a tape and measured the damn thing hahaha.

This type of effort is a good way to explain a theory and I applaud the effort but remain skeptical regardless of the result. Myer's conclusion is ridiculously advanced as proof but is over-baked methinks.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

37 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

It's great they're creating the models

@Sandy Larsen And speaking of models how do they know the correct dimensions of the vehicle? They don't because the evidence was altered and destroyed IIRC and that makes a fairly large difference. I believe design drawings have been used to establish the vehicle dimensions. As I'm sure you know when constructing something designers and engineers produce a drawing, not the actual thing they're designing. Joe in production actually creates the "thing" and the drawing isn't usually built perfectly corresponding with what's on paper. When Joe says to his boss "The window actuator won't fit with the door panel reinforcement here" his boss says, "Make it work somehow and write it up."  The as-built record usually doesn't happen. Sometimes the engineers send an order to "design build" meaning they aren't committing anything to paper and are relying on production to design as needed.

All this is to say without the actual limo, in the state it was in that day (tire pressure, weight load and distribution etc) the very beginning of the effort has a degree of uncertainty, without any other variables considered, to be conclusive. Any other errors could result in a cascade of inaccurate data. I feel confident that Myer's evidence could be refuted successfully in court and that's true of this effort also. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Bob Ness

[James DiEugenio]

PS: t's not a matter of measurements. It's using one's eyes. Kennedy jerks off the side of the limo before going behind the sign in the film. This animation aligns itself with Myers' nonsense by presenting Kennedy calmly hunched over the side when the single-bullet struck. It's nonsense. 

I think Pat is right about this.

[Chris Bristow]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Quite a coincidence, it seems.

Now that is if you are looking at the trajectory from the side, which gives only a two-dimensional analysis for a three-dimensional problem. So what about the trajectory looking down from above? Is that doable as well?

 

The perspective of the lateral trajectory is seen looking down from above. The side view shows the vertical trajectory. I'm only talking about the lateral left to right trajectory of the bullet. My point was that Connally turning to his right moves the entrance wound several inches to the left. I think the 20° plus rotation needs to be added to the model.

The only way the vertical trajectory works is if we accept JFK's entrance wound as being between C7 and T1, give or take an inch. If it was a T4 then it exits JFK's sternum and hits Connally too low.

[Chris Bristow]

Here is the overhead view showing the lateral trajectory. J.C. turning to the right moves the entry wound to the left. Once you turn J.C to the right the trajectory through his chest has to be altered as seen by the blue lines in the diagram. The face sheet has his exit wound 2.5 inches closer to his center line than the entry, so assuming he was turned 20 degrees the bullet would have to deflect by 15 degrees through his chest. Then it would have to deflect another 40 degrees to go from the wrist to the thigh.
 I am not making a case for the SBT here, just measuring what it would take for a shot at fr223 to work.
  It is hard to just look at J.C in fr223 and measure his torso rotation. Measuring his head position is much easier and more accurate. He appears to be looking about 20 degrees to the right of Z's camera. Z's camera is at 42 degrees to the limo so J.C is looking about 62 degrees right of the limo. Then you can compare J.C's tie knot to the center line of his face or the bottom of his chin. He is looking about 30 degrees to the right of his tie knot/torso position. That means his torso was turned up to 30 degrees to the right.
 We know 3D models are only as good as the data they are based on. The only way to check the work is to do the basic math for slope angles and such. I would love to see the measurements the model is based on. Having all the relative heights and distances would allow for the best evaluation of the graphics created from those measurements.
 For anyone who uses the diagram below it has one serious problem. The width of the torso compared to the thickness is way off. The thickness of the torso has to be increased by 30%! I know it seem like a lot and when you correct it is looks weird. The thing is we hardly ever see the view from directly above. But comparing chest cavity dimension of anatomical drawings  they consistently show the diagram to be way off. That is true whether you just compare rib cages or you add the shoulders. both separate comparisons show the thickness of the chest to be approx 30% too small. I have not made the correction in the diagram but in doing so the bullet travels a couple more inches laterally and exits almost 6 inches away from the official exit.

[Benjamin Cole]

My usual two cents: JBC testified, and his wife, that he was not struck by the same bullet that passed through JFK. 

JBC testified to the HSCA that "I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)"

So JBC testified he more or less became inert after being struck through the chest by a bullet, lying in his wife's lap. That is believable. 

JBC further testified he was struck after trying to see JFK by turning around to look over his own right shoulder, and then beginning to face forward again. 

This lines up with the Z-film, and JBC getting struck ~Z-295. JFK was struck at Z-313. Do the math, 18 frames per second. 

What puzzles me is JBC is reported to have told the WC, in a private conference on April 21, 1964, that he believes he was struck at Z-241, after reviewing LIFE-magazine provided slides of the Z-film. 

The supposed April 21 JBC statement is entirely inconsistent with JBC's own public testimony to the WC and the HSCA. In most the obvious example, JBC is not pushed forward at Z-241. 

The WC conference records also state that JBC, in conference said, "The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right. He felt the President might have been hit by frame 190." 

It is difficult to aline what JBC said publicly twice, on the record, to the WC and the HSCA, and also on recorded and filmed statements, with what JBC supposedly said in a private conference inside the WC.

Connally always describes himself as looking around for JFK after the sound of the first gunshot, and then being struck. 

My conclusion is the WC was (internally) distorting and recording JBC's comments on April, 1964. These guys were not even honest with themselves, but were building a case against a lone gunman. 

Remember this about LIFE magazine: 

LIFE's December 6, 1963 issue. LIFE reports, 

"The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest [in the TSBD] just before he clutches it." 

This was when the official storyline was JFK had received a shot through the front of his neck. 

If LIFE would print that---would you trust anything they showed to JBC?

[Sandy Larsen]

Some of you guys haven't watched the video carefully, and thereafter conclude the wrong thing. For example, someone says that they chose the wrong Z frame from which to draw their conclusion. Well, in the video they specifically say that there is range of frames for them to test. Most of it is when Kennedy and Connally are behind the sign, so they have to assume that neither of them made some significant jerking movements while hidden by the sign.

I also think you're making too big a deal about not having perfect measurements. There are numerous photos from which measurements can be accurately deduced mathematically.

The criticism sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me. With the exception of noting where the model is inaccurate in some way. These exceptions should be brought to the attention of the modeler as soon as possible so that he can make correction.

Actually, I think that even the sour grapes feedback should be brought to the attention of the documentary producer so that the documentary will be designed to defend itself from such attacks.

JMO