The drawing of JFK leaning significantly forward was not something that represented the view of the FPP as a whole.
I'm afraid you again do not know what you are talking about. Figure 12 was in the FPP's final report. Only Dr. Wecht dissented from any part of the report. Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, endorsed that marked forward lean in a TV interview to explain how the bullet could have hit at the panel's location for the back wound, which was at least 1 inch lower than the WC's placement, and still have exited the throat.
"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."
You are missing the point of this statement and misapplying it. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that the abrasion collar shows the bullet hit at a slightly upward angle. The statement alludes to the second illustration in Figure 12, which shows JFK in three positions: upright, leaning somewhat forward, leaning markedly forward. This statement also reflects the dispute between Wecht and the rest of the FPP over the implications of the abrasion collar relating to the bullet's alleged course through the neck. The key admission here is that "the wound beneath the skin" is tunneled "from below upward."
The FPP majority's argument that the bullet's path would have been upward only with JFK in the anatomical position is nonsense, and is refuted by Figure 12. Even in Figure 12's third position in the right-side illustration, the back wound is still at least level with the throat wound, but this can be obscured to the casual viewer by the two other positions in the right-side illustration, but the left-side illustration makes this clear because there are no distractions from overlaps from the two other positions.
As Wecht later noted, no matter how much forward lean you assume for JFK above the horizontal plane, upward tunneling below the skin is upward tunneling below the skin and totally contradicts the trajectory from the sixth-floor window--unless you have JFK doubled over so that he is below the horizontal plane, which of course not even Baden was willing to do.
The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. Meaning that it was in the neck. While Kennedy appeared to be hunched forward due to his hunchback physique, he didn't need to be hunched forward much at all for the bullet to traverse his neck at a downward angle of 17.5 degrees.
This is more of your self-delusion and misrepresentation of the FPP's findings. For starters, the FPP said the back wound was located in "
the upper right back" (12 HSCA 80). Let me repeat that: "
the upper right back." Not the neck. "
The upper right back."
Second, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower than did the WC but also closer to the spine/farther away from the right ear.
But, magically, the SBT trajectory still works! Move the wound down and to the right, but, don't worry, the trajectory will somehow, someway still magically work.
Your claim that "the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it" is false.
Umm, no, it is not. You've offered nothing that proves it is false and have ignored the evidence that proves it is true. HSCA FPP Figure 12 proves that the FPP put the wound level with or slightly below the throat wound.
You have a habit of proclaiming things to be false without proving your claim in the slightest and while ignoring contrary evidence. Look at how many times you have made the bizarre, demonstrably false claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. This is not only self-evidently erroneous but just plain odd.
Again, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower but also closer to the spine than did the WC.
Your claim that "In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right" is false.
First off, I said "Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right," not just 15 degrees. If you don't see this, then you don't understand rotation angles and how to measure them.
I note that you ignored the fact that Myers uses Connally's rotation seen in Z238 and applies it to the moment of impact, which of course invalidates his bogus animation from the get-go. Connally was barely rotated at all in Z224, when the SBT allegedly hit him.
Folks, to get some idea of the ball of confusion that exists in the SBT camp, compare how Myers has Connally positioned and rotated to how NASA's Dr. Tom Canning positioned and rotated Connally in his SBT analysis for the HSCA. You will wonder if they were viewing the same photographic evidence.
