JFK Assassination Forum

Photographic Film Video & Audio Discussion & Debate => Photographic Film Video & Audio Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 11:38:27 PM

Title: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on January 06, 2018, 11:38:27 PM

A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Susan Wilde on May 26, 2018, 10:26:26 PM
(https://ibb.co/fRLZi8)

https://ibb.co/fRLZi8 (Real autopsy photo on left; Myers drawing on right)

As can be clearly seen at the link given above,  when anatomically scaled the same, the  real  JFK back entrance wound location  documented in the  real  autopsy photo was then  drawn  by Myers very incorrectly,  very deliberately,  misleadingly  wrong, and  not  matched by the  C.A.D.-drawing that  Myers  created.

IOW,  Myers  flat-out  lied
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 27, 2018, 02:40:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://ibb.co/fRLZi8)

https://ibb.co/fRLZi8 (Real autopsy photo on left; Myers drawing on right)

As can be clearly seen at the link given above,  when anatomically scaled the same, the  real  JFK back entrance wound location  documented in the  real  autopsy photo was then  drawn  by Myers very incorrectly,  very deliberately,  misleadingly  wrong, and  not  matched by the  C.A.D.-drawing that  Myers  created.

IOW,  Myers  flat-out  lied


Myers never lied about anything. In the autopsy photo, Kennedy's  shoulders are vastly elevated over the normal position and fixed there due to rigor mortis. Myers' graphic has the shoulders in the normal position. Marsh did not take that into consideration.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Susan Wilde on May 28, 2018, 02:11:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the autopsy photo, Kennedy's  shoulders are vastly elevated over the normal position

That is a  demonstrably incorrect statement.

For the  real, authentic  autopsy photo,  the majority of persons already know that President Kennedy's body was still laying on the autopsy table,  then, the autopsy doctors simply rolled it onto its left side,  then the photo was captured. (IOW, they did not sit-up his upper torso, and therefore both shoulders were  not 
"vastly elevated over the normal position" as Tim o-pined and tried to spin.

I was first surprised for a split-second  (but not surprised upon further reflection's)  that Tim  - obviously, a  "loone nut"-swallower -  has never been aware of the documented, real orientation of the body for that specific photo.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 28, 2018, 05:25:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is a  demonstrably incorrect statement.

For the  real, authentic  autopsy photo,  the majority of persons already know that President Kennedy's body was still laying on the autopsy table,  then, the autopsy doctors simply rolled it onto its left side,  then the photo was captured. (IOW, they did not sit-up his upper torso, and therefore both shoulders were  not 
"vastly elevated over the normal position" as Tim o-pined and tried to spin.

I was first surprised for a split-second  (but not surprised upon further reflection's)  that Tim  - obviously, a  "loone nut"-swallower -  has never been aware of the documented, real orientation of the body for that specific photo.


Susan, was the body in a state of rigor mortis when the autopsy photos were taken? Yes or no.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 28, 2018, 11:00:05 PM
And by "scientific" Mytton means that Myers started with the assumption that there was a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and then created a model by assuming where the wounds were located and moving the models around until the assumed wounds sort of line up.

In other words, not scientific at all.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 08, 2018, 09:33:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And by "scientific" Mytton means that Myers started with the assumption that there was a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and then created a model by assuming where the wounds were located and moving the models around until the assumed wounds sort of line up.

In other words, not scientific at all.

So get someone to do something better—more accurate in your opinion—if you believe that.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 09, 2018, 02:47:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM

Good one.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 21, 2018, 07:52:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.




JohnM
How "scientific" is the statement "Zapruder film shows simultaneous reactions"?  This statement is based on an assumption that is not obvious to an unbiased observer: i.e that JFK's hand positions in z223 are not the result of a reaction to being shot through the neck prior to that point.  It is also not at all obvious that there is a clear path from JFK's neck exit wound to JBC's right armpit that misses JFK's hands, but that is a minor point.

Unbiased scientists share their data. They do not avoid showing us the data used in order to protect a copyright. Myers refuses to disclose the angles and distances (eg. what is the horizontal angle used; how far inboard JBC is and where this comes from).

How scientific is it to ignore 60+ witnesses who said the first shot struck JFK and/or that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and third (i.e. one shot before at least z240)?

I would submit that someone who adheres to basic principles of science would approach the problem this way:

1. what are the range of possibilities as to what the bullet through JFK hit, based on all the evidence?

2. which of those possibilities is the best fit with all the evidence.
Title: Re: the Single Bullet Theory: Real Autopsy Photo, vs. Myers' drawing.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 21, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Myers' graphic has the shoulders in the normal position.


"...er-ra Kellerman - would you-ah hand me back my shawl"
 :D

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSBXW1-VGmM/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 22, 2018, 07:05:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How "scientific" is the statement "Zapruder film shows simultaneous reactions"?  This statement is based on an assumption that is not obvious to an unbiased observer: i.e that JFK's hand positions in z223 are not the result of a reaction to being shot through the neck prior to that point.  It is also not at all obvious that there is a clear path from JFK's neck exit wound to JBC's right armpit that misses JFK's hands, but that is a minor point.

Unbiased scientists share their data. They do not avoid showing us the data used in order to protect a copyright. Myers refuses to disclose the angles and distances (eg. what is the horizontal angle used; how far inboard JBC is and where this comes from).

How scientific is it to ignore 60+ witnesses who said the first shot struck JFK and/or that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and third (i.e. one shot before at least z240)?

I would submit that someone who adheres to basic principles of science would approach the problem this way:

1. what are the range of possibilities as to what the bullet through JFK hit, based on all the evidence?

2. which of those possibilities is the best fit with all the evidence.

In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


* Every time I stub my toe while barefooted, It takes a two-count for the pain to be felt.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 22, 2018, 11:42:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 22, 2018, 05:52:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

By whom, and from where... and show us your phantom* back wound.


* And name your phantom shooter. Hey, just toss a coin; you have 48 shooters to choose from
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Mytton on June 23, 2018, 12:30:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
then he's shot in the back

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)



 Thumb1:

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!



JohnM
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 23, 2018, 07:22:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Zfilm, JFK reacts just as he emerges from behind the sign. Given that it would likely take a split second* to react to the pain, it seems to me the bullet struck before he emerges from behind the sign. His hands are just starting to rise as he appears, indicating that the missile has traversed the neck before his hands rise to neck level.


* Every time I stub my toe while barefooted, It takes a two-count for the pain to be felt.
Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted to use a science approach.

I can't tell when JFK started to react because I can't see that he is not already reacting before he emerges from behind the sign. I would need evidence that he is not already reacting. But the zfilm shows significant change in both hand positions betwen z200 and z222. There are many witnesses who observed that JFK changed his hand positions in response to the first shot. And there is quite a bit of evidence that the first shot was after z186.

I would also need evidence to show that JFK's dramatic reaction seen from z226 and following wa necessarily the immediate initial reaction. It could be a gagging reaction due the difficulty in breathing resulting from the damage to his airway. We do know that humans normally take about 12 to 20 breaths per minute so a gagging reaction could start a couple of seconds after sustaining the injury.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 01:56:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


 Thumb1:

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!



JohnM

  Thumb1:

 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
If everyone could just look CLOSELY at where President Kennedy's hands go to...

 The hands are never at "neck level", they never go near the throat, and he never "clutched his throat".  Sadly, this entire idea seems to stem from no one having made blow ups of the Z frames for a cursory examination of the film to examine exactly what happened, before 1966 when John Connally examined blown up frames trying to determine when he was shot.  Life Magazine is responsible for claiming that the President "clutched his throat" in its October 1964 edition, in one of the captions for the Zapruder frames they published in that issue.

 The right hand is the first to go into position in a cupped fashion, over the mouth.  The left hand comes up, every finger except for the index finger are curled. The index finger is slightly curled but in a near straight position as the hand forms into a semi-fist and comes up against the bottom the right hand.  It looks like he could very well be dry heaving after the bullet that ripped through his back exited the throat.   As he starts to turn his head to his left, his right hand--now in a semi-cupped position-is now at cheek level as his head turns and the hand remains in the upward position.  He doesn't start to bring the left hand/arm down until after Mrs. Kennedy grasps his left arm and pulls him slightly downward and toward her.  His right hand then moves from cheek level down to chest level where it remains until the fatal shot is fired. 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Michael Capasse on June 23, 2018, 03:41:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks for reinforcing the back shot as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign!

JohnM

 Thumb1: "....below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of the shirt, in front. So that how it could turn and ......" 
(Warren Commission Executive Session Jan. 27, 1964)
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Royell Storing on June 23, 2018, 03:45:19 PM
       "...ripped THROUGH his back......". This statement is Incorrect. Humes probed JFK's BACK Wound and the depth of said wound ended at the first knuckle on his finger. The location of the BACK Wound is corroborated by: (1) The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet, (2) JFK Autopsy Photo, (3) JFK Dress Shirt, & (4) JFK Suit Coat. The JFK BACK Wound had absolutely Nothing to do with the Neck Wound or the movement of his hands during the assassination. 
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 23, 2018, 04:09:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       "...ripped THROUGH his back......". This statement is Incorrect. Humes probed JFK's BACK Wound and the depth of said wound ended at the first knuckle on his finger. The location of the BACK Wound is corroborated by: (1) The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet, (2) JFK Autopsy Photo, (3) JFK Dress Shirt, & (4) JFK Suit Coat. The JFK BACK Wound had absolutely Nothing to do with the Neck Wound or the movement of his hands during the assassination.

  Since that is what you believe, Storing, go for it.   I will use common sense and accept the fact that bullet that entered the back exited the throat,  based on the evidence.   You go ahead and continue to live in denial, and base your case on flimsy, conspiracy tripe.  You haven't read everything on the back wound, or you would know why the wound only went as far as the first knuckle, so I take your reasoning with the usual grain of salt.  Oh, and yes, the movement of his arms and hands DID have everything to do with the back wound.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 24, 2018, 01:04:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If everyone could just look CLOSELY at where President Kennedy's hands go to...

 The hands are never at "neck level", they never go near the throat, and he never "clutched his throat".  Sadly, this entire idea seems to stem from no one having made blow ups of the Z frames for a cursory examination of the film to examine exactly what happened, before 1966 when John Connally examined blown up frames trying to determine when he was shot.  Life Magazine is responsible for claiming that the President "clutched his throat" in its October 1964 edition, in one of the captions for the Zapruder frames they published in that issue.

 The right hand is the first to go into position in a cupped fashion, over the mouth.  The left hand comes up, every finger except for the index finger are curled. The index finger is slightly curled but in a near straight position as the hand forms into a semi-fist and comes up against the bottom the right hand.  It looks like he could very well be dry heaving after the bullet that ripped through his back exited the throat.   As he starts to turn his head to his left, his right hand--now in a semi-cupped position-is now at cheek level as his head turns and the hand remains in the upward position.  He doesn't start to bring the left hand/arm down until after Mrs. Kennedy grasps his left arm and pulls him slightly downward and toward her.  His right hand then moves from cheek level down to chest level where it remains until the fatal shot is fired.
I don't think it matters precisely where he put his hands. What matters is why his hands moved from the position they are seen in z193 to the position they are in at z223 and why his facial expression seen when he appears from behind the Stemmons sign is so different from that in z193. Many witnesses said his facial expression changed like that and his hand positions changed like that in respon4se to the first shot.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 24, 2018, 03:08:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think it matters precisely where he put his hands. What matters is why his hands moved from the position they are seen in z193 to the position they are in at z223 and why his facial expression seen when he appears from behind the Stemmons sign is so different from that in z193. Many witnesses said his facial expression changed like that and his hand positions changed like that in respon4se to the first shot.


Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on June 24, 2018, 07:30:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Steve Barber on June 25, 2018, 01:47:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

Absolutely agreed.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2018, 06:00:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

The autopsy doesn't tell us anything of the kind about the throat wound.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 11, 2018, 03:47:13 AM
Not sure why you say that. The autopsy report summary, p. 6, refers to the throat wound as the exit wound from the bullet that entered in the upper back:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right Yupper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 11, 2018, 04:58:11 PM
"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 12, 2018, 06:25:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."
That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 13, 2018, 08:39:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."

I think by "proven" you mean speculation.
Title: Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
Post by: Andrew Mason on July 17, 2018, 07:44:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think by "proven" you mean speculation.
No. I meant "proven" in the sense of: a rational conclusion based on evidence.   

The three autopsy doctors reached these conclusions based on the evidence they had. 

First of all, there was abundant evidence that the head shot had entered from the back. This was evident from the examination of the hole in the back of the skull: "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." (Autopsy report: CE387 at p. 4). They also observed in the xrays metal particles behind the President's right eye (Humes: 2 H 353).

They observed a similar size hole in the upper back.  They were informed that there had been the tracheostomy done in the same location where there was already a wound in the throat.

There was evidence that the internal damage ("contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.) aligned with the two external wounds in the upper back and throat (Humes: 2 H 369) :


Xrays of this area showed no bullet remained in the President.

The angle to the neck wound was downward. There was no evidence presented to them that there was a shot fired in an upward direction from somewhere in front of the President. There was evidence before them that a similar sized bullet had been fired from the rear and struck him in the head.

That is part of the body of evidence that persuaded all three doctors that the bullet had entered the upper back and exited the throat.

Although you may disagree with their conclusions, they reached their conclusions based on the evidence before them.  So it was not speculation.  If there is other evidence that was not before them that would call into question their conclusions, I have not seen it. 

To suggest that such evidence might exist and, if available, would call into question their conclusions would be speculation.