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

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

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 

So...does the most-recent version of the animation depict the back wound trajectory passing through the throat wound? 

[Matt Allison]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:54 PM, Tom Gram said:

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:

I would say it unquestionably supports the SBT; to the point that I bet Arlen Specter would have loved to have had this animation back in 1964.

The animation raises many questions, and I look forward to seeing them debated here.

[Benjamin Cole]

Sure seems like many re-enactments, animations have the same problem: The show the bullet from TSBD headed down into JFK's back....and then exiting at JFK's throat. 

True, bullets do not always follow a straight line through a human body, due to varying viscosities inside the body.  That is, a bullet can change direction inside a human body. 

But, even if we accept that the slug changed direction inside JFK's body, then the slug should be headed upwards when it exited his throat---not into Gov. Connally. 

I am leaning towards the Landis explanation. The bullet never penetrated JFK, but popped out when a subsequent shot struck JFK. 

The Bethesda autopsists were not skilled, but they could not find the bullet's pathway through JFK's body.  

Another stumble: The JFKA research community has never endeavored to find out if probing bullet paths is always successful, or if, indeed, probes are sometimes blocked. 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

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.

 

There is actually a scientifically sound way to determine whether or not a trajectory is possible even given a number of uncertain variables. A way that became possible with the advent of the digital computer. And that is to perform a "Monte Carlo analysis."

The Monte Carlo method is actually very easy to understand and to perform, as long as you have a fast enough computer available, and a programmer and mathematician.

The mathematician writes the formulas that describe the trajectory angles and end points. The programmer writes a program to perform these calculations.

You then feed the program what the possible range is for each variable. For example, the location of the tip of the rifle could have been anywhere from the left side of the window to the right side, and anywhere from the top to the bottom. (Actually, the range is even tighter than that.)

When you run the program, it randomly chooses a number in the specified range for each variable. The computer program plugs those numbers into the formulas that calculate the resulting trajectory and where the bullet hits, and beyond. It makes of note of where it hits, and then starts over with a new set of randomly chosen numbers. It is allowed to run numerous times. perhaps a million.

If the target is ever hit, the program makes a note of the number required for each variable. And that is the solution. It is possible to have multiple solutions, in which case it would be useful to have a more sophisticated program that would determine the relative probability for each solution.

You can see where the name of the method comes from, given Monte Carlo's reputation for casinos.

 

[Pete Mellor]

This re-construction programme seems based on John Orr's theories of events.

His report pdf can be found here:- http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf

There are various points in John Orr's report paper that I find troubling. Firstly, I treat references to the Z film with caution. I accept that pictures do not lie, however, I have no confidence that the extant film we see today is the camera original. Simply on the documented goings on at NPIC etc.

Mr. Orr follows the WC with LHO firing three shots from the TSBD sixth floor, based on the finding of 3 shells at the supposed sniper's nest. Yet there is solid doubt that one of these shells could not have been fired that day due to it's bent lip and lack of markings that other shells produced when loaded into the MC rifle. All long ago reported by DPUK's Ian Griggs. See his work in 'No Case To Answer'.  I can concur with this report on the various missed shots, which negate the lone nut theories.

With regard to the back wound, we know that the Bethesda autopsy found no path through the body, after probing that wound with a finger, and or the reported use of a sound into the wound. Personally I have always found this strange, so John Orr's alternate theory is somewhat more logical than a hole that went nowhere without any ordinance present. On the other hand, this bullet striking rib and neck bone without yaw or tumbling to create an exit in the throat that Parkland described as an entry wound. Let us ignore the claims of through and through holes in the limousine's windshield recorded by viewers at Parkland followed by the replacement of same in Detroit, where witnesses state they saw a hole, corroborated by a S.S. report of a hole seen in the White House garage on the evening of the 22nd.

With regard to the head shot,(single) we must enter the domain of autopsy X-rays, which has never been my favourite area of evidence. I leave that to the experts. There has been the work of Dr Mantik & Dr Chesser who has discovered with Optical Density examinations of these X-rays that the famous 6.5mm object seen is quite simply a fake. The OD probe shows that it is not a solid object. Certainly these areas are not in most researchers field of knowledge but Jim DiEugenio's 'JFK Revisited-Through the Looking Glass' covers these murky areas. The head shot entry point up in the cowlick (HSCA) is also contentious, that stands against the entry just above and to the right of the E.O.P.  Mr Orr takes no notice of Kilduff's statement of an entry shot through the right temple, information from Adm. Burkley and stated to have been seen by Jim Jenkins and others at Bethesda and close by-standers in Dealey Plaza.

The Orr report also stands on CE399 to have been found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland hospital. The evidence for this is flaky to say the least. Both Tomlinson & O.P. Wright stated that the bullet found had a pointed tip. Also, no person in the chain of custody would i.d. CE399 as the bullet they handled on Nov. 22nd. Now today we have the belated statement of Paul Landis to create more smoke.

While mentioning smoke, this report does not consider the gun smoke seen by witnesses in the knoll/fence area. Smoke also captured on the Weigman film in that area. Or the smell of gunpowder by members of the motorcade and police officers in that location, which in no way could emanate from either the TSBD or the Records Bldg or anywhere other than the knoll area due to the direction of the wind from W to E.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Pete Mellor
info

[Bill Fite]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There is actually a scientifically sound way to determine whether or not a trajectory is possible even given a number of uncertain variables. A way that became possible with the advent of the digital computer. And that is to perform a "Monte Carlo analysis."

The Monte Carlo method is actually very easy to understand and to perform, as long as you have a fast enough computer available, and a programmer and mathematician.

The mathematician writes the formulas that describe the trajectory angles and end points. The programmer writes a program to perform these calculations.

You then feed the program what the possible range is for each variable. For example, the location of the tip of the rifle could have been anywhere from the left side of the window to the right side, and anywhere from the top to the bottom. (Actually, the range is even tighter than that.)

When you run the program, it randomly chooses a number in the specified range for each variable. The computer program plugs those numbers into the formulas that calculate the resulting trajectory and where the bullet hits, and beyond. It makes of note of where it hits, and then starts over with a new set of randomly chosen numbers. It is allowed to run numerous times. perhaps a million.

If the target is ever hit, the program makes a note of the number required for each variable. And that is the solution. It is possible to have multiple solutions, in which case it would be useful to have a more sophisticated program that would determine the relative probability for each solution.

You can see where the name of the method comes from, given Monte Carlo's reputation for casinos.

 

Pretty good explanation Sandy.

You might add that it would be possible to make it even more informative by

• having the program determine the possibility  or impossibility of the projected shot source by determining if the projected source is a wall / window / fire escape/ behind a fence etc.
• then rerun the Monte Carlo simulation a second time by sampling only around the different possible sources found in round 1 -- for example - sample left/right up/down around source points that are in a window or left / right of points on the ground

Edited November 23, 2023 by Bill Fite

[Eddy Bainbridge]

To define what we need ;

a set of plausible trajectories from the alleged snipers nest to JFK's back. A set of plausible trajectories from this region, and through to the hole in his tie/front of shirt. Forget JFK body wounds, there isn't agreement. Then a set of plausible trajectories from this region to Connally's back wound. 

 

Questions we can then answer.

Does the Warren Commission JFK back wound entrance, and throat wound exit align plausibly?

Does the Warren Commission exit from Kennedy align with an entrance to Connally plausibly?

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/21/2023 at 6:54 PM, Tom Gram said:

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. 

Doesn't it arguably show the exit point 1 1/2 inches or more below the throat point? It shows the line moving well through the tieknot, not just above it. And the appearence of the tie knot is based on the Zapruder film.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Forget JFK body wounds, there isn't agreement.

Somewhere in Hell, C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce are smiling.

”They’re all our children now.”

[Marcus Fuller]

Does anyone know if the back wound would have been covered by the back of the seat when JFK was in his sitting up position? Because if it was covered it means the back wound could have only occurred after he had been hit in the throat. Unless he was bending over to tie his shoelaces! 

Either way it means that the bullet could not have gone into Connally as he only bent forward after getting hit in the throat.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Does anyone know if the back wound would have been covered by the back of the seat when JFK was in his sitting up position?

No, it didn’t cover the back wound.

1 hour ago, Marcus Fuller said:

 

Because if it was covered it means the back wound could have only occurred after he had been hit in the throat.

True, the back wound was after the throat wound — balling his fists in front of his throat is a reaction to the throat shot.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I am angry that this research seems to have been cocked up and hope it can be resurrected. I firmly believe there is useful irrefutable evidence. The analysts need to stick to what is not in dispute.

[Chris Davidson]

3 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am angry that this research seems to have been cocked up and hope it can be resurrected. I firmly believe there is useful irrefutable evidence. The analysts need to stick to what is not in dispute.

I find it more interesting to piece together the WC BS story and then use it against them:

[Micah Mileto]

What? How does it help the SBT? The exit point is over an inch below the top of the collar. That's more than a one-pixel error.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

I've asked this before - is there any way that a new narrative will prop up arguing that the single bullet theory doesn't have to be true to make the official story work? What if they tried claiming Oswald intentionally drained some of the powder in one or more of the rounds he fired, firing one at Kennedy at around z180 and then Connally at around z222? Still implausable for so many reasons, but it could act as a way of reassuring the public that it would be physically possible.