“New evidence” why the SBT is impossible so says the video

[John Deignan]

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, John Deignan said:

 

Missed the T3 back wound by two inches.

The SBT was debunked in 1966.  The False Mystery Industry will never let it go — always coming up with “breakthrough” SBT debunking.

[Tom Gram]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but am I crazy for thinking this animation supports the SBT more than it refutes it? Look at 1:31 in the Knott Labs video: 

They have the bullet entering below the shoulder line in a spot consistent with the autopsy photos and coming right out the left side of JFK’s tie.

I’d be interested in @Pat Speer’s comments on this. 

[Pat Speer]

You are correct, Tom. It's more bullcrap. While they are correct in claiming Connally doesn't align, they are 100% full of it for suggesting JFK's back wound aligns with his throat wound. 

When showing the back wound trajectory, they show that it impacted inches below the bottom of the collar, and passed well below the throat wound.

On the front view, however, they have the back wound  trajectory match up with the throat trajectory above the bottom of the collar and descend to pass out by the tie. 

It's a scam. I had heard that the CTs who'd originally hired these guys had gone their separate ways, and had disowned their final product. I think we now know why. Presumably, someone involved with Knott thought it too controversial to say BOTH the vertical and horizontal trajectories didn't align. So they focused on the problem with Connally's position. And blew smoke about JFK. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are correct, Tom. It's more bullcrap. While they are correct in claiming Connally doesn't align, they are 100% full of it for suggesting JFK's back wound aligns with his throat wound. 

When showing the back wound trajectory, they show that it impacted inches below the bottom of the collar, and passed well below the throat wound.

On the front view, however, they have the back wound  trajectory match up with the throat trajectory above the bottom of the collar and descend to pass out by the tie. 

It's a scam. I had heard that the CTs who'd originally hired these guys had gone their separate ways, and had disowned their final product. I think we now know why. Presumably, someone involved with Knott thought it too controversial to say BOTH the vertical and horizontal trajectories didn't align. So they focused on the problem with Connally's position. And blew smoke about JFK. 

Another thing is it looks like they have the shot coming out of a very strange if not impossible spot in the 6th floor window. Check 1:16 in the video. The trajectory line is coming out of the far top (shooter’s) right corner of the widow next to the center window frame. 

IMO, if these guys want any credibility at all they need to do what Dale Myers did not and release their raw data: the point cloud and the overlayed 3D models. Viewing it probably requires a pretty heavy duty GPU but I’m sure plenty of people have computers that can run it. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

I don't see how any of these reenactments can conclude something with some certainty.

1 ) someone could have shot from the window within a rather large number of positions, some inches to the left, right, up, down,.... so the beginning of the traject is variable

2)  when we see there is even discussion on where exactly he was hit, that's also variable (to the extend that I have stopped reading the discussions on that topic)  

3) his exact position when hit seems also open for debate.

So, there are a bunch of variables from the beginning to the end and in between, any conclusions on the angle and bullet trajectory, given those variables will be questionable.

IMO at best one can conclude it was possible to hit the President... like we didn't know that, just like we know some things are impossible.

Now, I don't have a problem with amateurs or scientists trying it, but they will never reach a conclusion that will be shared by a majority. 

It will be used to promote a certain POV, but that's it, it will not solve anything.  

It would be different if a number of things were certain, but they simply are not (judging by the many differents opinions on them)

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Michael Griffith]

Although the video at least admits that JFK and Connally were not aligned--and that is a huge admission--it stumbles badly on other issues. For instance, it assumes the back wound was a through-and-through wound, but we now know that on the night of the autopsy the pathologists absolutely, positively determined, via prolonged probing and body manipulation, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. 

The most plausible explanation for the back wound is that it was made by a large fragment from the bullet that several witnesses saw strike near JFK's limo early in the shooting. This bullet also sent a few small fragments streaking toward JFK's head, and they embedded themselves on the rear outer table of the skull. A fragment-created back wound would explain Custer's account of seeing a large fragment fall from JFK's back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. It would also explain the wound's shallow depth and upward trajectory.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Tom Gram]

16 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I don't see how any of these reenactments can conclude something with some certainty.

1 ) someone could have shot from the window within a rather large number of positions, some inches to the left, right, up, down,.... so the beginning of the traject is variable

2)  when we see there is even discussion on where exactly he was hit, that's also variable (to the extend that I have stopped reading the discussions on that topic)  

3) his exact position when hit seems also open for debate.

So, there are a bunch of variables from the beginning to the end and in between, any conclusions on the angle and bullet trajectory, given those variables will be questionable.

IMO at best one can conclude it was possible to hit the President... like we didn't know that, just like we know some things are impossible.

Now, I don't have a problem with amateurs or scientists trying it, but they will never reach a conclusion that will be shared by a majority. 

It will be used to promote a certain POV, but that's it, it will not solve anything.  

It would be different if a number of things were certain, but they simply are not (judging by the many differents opinions on them)

 

 

Agreed. I think this sort of thing could have value though if it was open-sourced. Then instead of a single questionable video demo it could be used as an experimentation suite where anyone could test out different variables, shooting scenarios, etc. and present their findings. 

I doubt anything would be conclusive and it would likely just lead to more endless debate, but at least it’d be reproducible - like we could actually verify if the demo was full of s*** or not. 

3D forensics is a relatively new field, but external review of the data is critical, especially for something as controversial as the JFKA: 

A critical component of 3DFS is peer review of the final reconstructions, in a similar manner to other forensic science fields that involve pattern analysis [33] or a significant application of experience and expertise (that incorporates tacit knowledge) such as forensic anthropology. This is particularly important for biomedical data where a forensic pathologist or case-specific specialist such as a paediatric neurologist, may be required to check and confirm the integrity of a reconstruction. The actor performing the peer review may be someone who has already been involved in the reconstruction process, or they could be a new actor bringing a fresh perspective [33].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X21000759

I think in this case it would have to be a “new actor” doing the review. If we can’t see any of the underlying data, measurements, etc. this thing is literally just Dale Myers 2.0. 

[David Von Pein]

Why do all conspiracy theorists insist upon tossing all of their common sense in the trash dumpster when it comes to the topic of the SBT?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/SBT Common Sense

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I don't see how any of these reenactments can conclude something with some certainty.

1 ) someone could have shot from the window within a rather large number of positions, some inches to the left, right, up, down,.... so the beginning of the traject is variable

2)  when we see there is even discussion on where exactly he was hit, that's also variable (to the extend that I have stopped reading the discussions on that topic)  

 

1) Assuming the test is on the 6th floor window of the TSBD the ranges on the vertical and horizontal angles could be calculated.   I don't think inches to the right or left or up or down will make a significant difference.

2) No reason not to use any recorded wound entrance points to determine the trajectories.

It's just trig, math and probability.  

[Michael Griffith]

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Why do all conspiracy theorists insist upon tossing all of their common sense in the trash dumpster when it comes to the topic of the SBT?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/SBT Common Sense

You should have asked, "Why do all these people who claim the emperor is naked refuse to see that he is wearing brand new clothes?" 

It is just comical that you would get on a public board and pretend that there is anything sensible or logical about the SBT. Your refusal to acknowledge that the Zapruder film plainly, obviously, clearly, and indisputably shows that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets is as discrediting and inexcusable as the Flat Earthers' refusal to admit the Earth is round. 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your refusal to acknowledge that the Zapruder film plainly, obviously, clearly, and indisputably shows that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets... 

The exact OPPOSITE is, of course, the obvious truth with respect to the Z-Film and the SBT, as I discuss in great detail HERE.

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

The exact OPPOSITE is, of course, the obvious truth with respect to the Z-Film and the SBT, as I discuss in great detail HERE.

 

 

Yeah I have to agree with Michael.  That was a very weak reply to this topic.  

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Knott Labs was hired by John Orr to develop photogrammetry for a 3D animation of DP. Orr provided the details and instructions to Knott to do a bare-bones 3D animation that focused on two frames of the Z-film.  Stoll-the CEO of KL- knew very little about the assassination and to this day continues to make serious mistakes when discussing the assassination, the project and the implications of the project.

After the initial 3D animation was completed in 2018,  John Orr and I formed a limited partnership to fund further work on this project.  We subequently parted ways with KL when the person who worked on the project left KL.  We have continued to revise the animation and are close to finishing it.

Stoll/KL is  promoting an old version of the animation and I would not put much credence in anything Stoll or KL says. -FWIW 

[Jean Ceulemans]

6 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

1) Assuming the test is on the 6th floor window of the TSBD the ranges on the vertical and horizontal angles could be calculated.   I don't think inches to the right or left or up or down will make a significant difference.

2) No reason not to use any recorded wound entrance points to determine the trajectories.

It's just trig, math and probability.  

I agree one could calculate a number of possible trajectories, but IMO I doubt any of them would be really conclusive when I see the thousands and thousands of posts on wound location, etc.  

Perhaps an interesting idea for a new topic : on what do we agree in full... ?