The chalk mark is the actual location of the bullet entrance on Kennedy's jacket.
The bullet trajectory in both photos is represented by the rod, and we can see the angle Specter uses is equal to the angle from the 6th floor to the Limo, as calculated by the surveyors theodolite in the background.
Since they couldn't skewer the Kennedy stand-in, they duplicated the trajectory in 2D mapped onto the 3D wound locations.
The straight line at the same angle from the 6th floor, between Kennedy's neck wound through to Connally's back wound completely validates the SBF!
And finally, since we know Kennedy's jacket was bunched, the chalk mark has to be in a lower location on an unbunched jacket.





JohnM

Thank you John but that doesn't comport with the WC testimonies of Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley and FBI Agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt.

Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?
Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?
Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?
Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.
=============

Mr. SHANEYFELT. All of the photographs made through the rifle sight that are shown on the exhibit in the lower left-hand corner were sighted on the spot that was simulating the spot where the President was wounded in the neck. The chalk mark is on the back of the coat.

Here's something that just came to me. In the left and right side views taken during the SBT reenactment, the Kennedy stand-in is not seen in a fully straight-on lateral view. The camera seems to have been four or five feet forward in the right side view and five or six feet to the rear in the left side view. Could it be that we are getting a false impression in the left side view that the rod was above the chalk mark?

John Mytton, where are you?

The chalk mark is the actual location of the bullet entrance on Kennedy's jacket.
The bullet trajectory in both photos is represented by the rod, and we can see the angle Specter uses is equal to the angle from the 6th floor to the Limo, as calculated by the surveyors theodolite in the background.
Since they couldn't skewer the Kennedy stand-in, they duplicated the trajectory in 2D mapped onto the 3D wound locations.
The straight line at the same angle from the 6th floor, between Kennedy's neck wound through to Connally's back wound completely validates the SBF!
And finally, since we know Kennedy's jacket was bunched, the chalk mark has to be in a lower location on an unbunched jacket.





JohnM

JC-

There is the possibility of nearly simultaneous shots heard as one shot (by most witnesses), or use of silencers.

The LNT theory remains implausible due to witnesses such as Bowers (testifies as to rapid cadence), and the smell of gunsmoke in the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. The wind was blowing from GK towards the TSBD.

Gov. JBC's testimony lines up with him being shot ~Z-295.

Connally: 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)

The HSCA-1979 concluded there was a high probability of a gunshot from the GK, and of a JFKAC. That was the last official investigation (the Luna Committee not being an investigation, but rather a Gong Show).

I do not pretend to know who conspired with LHO. I know leads to Havana and Moscow were snuffed out by the WC following instructions from President LBJ. 

As the LNT is implausible, by deduction there was a JFKAC.

LBJ was reluctant to get involved in Vietnam.

"President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the first official U.S. combat troops into Vietnam on March 8, 1965, sending 3,500 Marines to Da Nang."

On other words, the whole year 1964 passed w/o US combat troops in Vietnam. LBJ, long expert at domestic affairs, was not eager to get into Vietnam.

Yes, I believe LBJ made a huge mistake (as did his advisors), just as I believe JFK should have worked with the Diems, and indeed bears culpability for their assassinations. Which JFK himself said.

As for JFK singing kumbaya with Castro and Khrushchev....JFK was an ardent anti-communist. JFK tried to have Castro assassinated a few times.

The real JFK:

Translation: MTG has no rebuttal to the points made.

LOL! Oh, yeah, you bet! I'm still waiting for you to provide credible, factual responses to the points I've made, but instead you've offered nothing but your usual error-filled, illogical, and evasive polemic.

Let's just briefly look at three examples:

But for some strange reason she [Mercer] decided that wasn't worth notifying law enforcement about what she saw.

HUH?! She gave her account to the Dallas Sheriff Department a Secret Service agent on the day of the shooting. Sheesh, how can you not know this and yet pretend to have any business talking about her account? Her account has been discussed in a zillion books on the JFK case. Even John McAdams acknowledged that she told the Sheriff Department and a Secret Service agent about what she saw on 11/22/63. Indeed, in a tacit admission that her initial accounts were credible, McAdams suggested she innocently mistook a tool box for a rifle case.

Yet you get on here and claim she didn't tell "law enforcement about what she saw"!

This is just further proof that you have no business pretending that you're in any position to credibly comment on the JFK case. You repeatedly show that you don't even know what your side's leading advocates have said on the case.

You were given two possible but mundane reasons why three cars might have entered that parking lot and then left.

You didn't offer one syllable to explain the facts I cited that show those "mundane reasons" make no sense. You ignored all the points I made and just repeated your claim. You didn't explain why a car would need several minutes to see if there was a parking space in that small parking lot. Nor did you explain why a car would need several minutes and longer to figure out that the extension road was the only way in and out of the small parking lot. Nor did you explain why three cars in a row in the space of 25 minutes would have turned onto the extension road in the first place when it obviously led to a small parking lot that was next to the railroad yard.

Keep clinging to your discredited acoustics evidence that flies in the face of the entire body of evidence. It's all you have going for you 62+ years after the fact.

LOL! Hello? Did you simply not read all of the information that I've documented about the acoustical evidence and about the errors and omissions in the attacks on the acoustical evidence in my previous replies? Was the vocabulary too challenging? What "entire body of evidence" are you talking about?

I know you've probably already tuned out and that this will go in one ear and out the other, but I present the following for the sake of newcomers to the thread:

The entire "scientific" case against the acoustical evidence was based (1) on the NRC/NAS panel's bogus assumption that there was a 60-second recording pause on Channel 2, and (2) on the resulting claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that therefore the dictabelt's impulses were recorded after the assassination. Linsker and his buddies whittled down the alleged recording pause to 35 seconds, but they did not explain, and still have not explained, how this could have occurred without disrupting the timing of the dispatcher's subsequent transmissions (those transmissions came 60 seconds apart, just as they should have, proving there was no recoding pause on Channel 2).

As mentioned in previous replies, several scientists pointed out years ago that for the recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have had to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there isn't one. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation.

The new research, including a new PCC test, done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 proves (1) that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which means the tape's impulse patterns must have been recorded during the assassination, and (2) that the Decker transmission is an overdub created during the copying process and wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions.

BTW, are Linsker and his colleagues (all of whom served on the NRC/NAS panel) ever going to respond to Dr. Thomas's 2010 53-page demolition of their 2005 attack on Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence? Just wondering. Are they going to respond to the appendices on the acoustical evidence written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen in Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas? Again, just wondering.

It bears repeating that the NRC/NAS panel made no effort to explain the presences of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt and the windshield-distortion correlations identified in the tape's impulse patterns. What's more, the NRC/NAS panel (1) acknowledged there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the HSCA's acoustical experts occurred because the dictabelt was recorded during the assassination, and (2) acknowledged there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll, and they only rejected the HSCA's 95+% probability for the grass knoll shot by introducing two egregious errors into their calculations.

You might want to know that, contrary to what your fellow WC apologists usually pretend, we're not "only" talking about Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy as the HSCA's acoustical experts, although they were outstanding acoustical scientists who were recommended to the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. There were actually 10 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence: BBN scientists James Barger, Daniel Kalikow, Theodore L. Rhyne, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared Wolf, Scott P. Robinson, and Nancy M. McMahon, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss, Ernest Aschkenasy, and Ali Ghozati.

You should Google those scientists and see all of their accomplishments and the recognition they achieved in the field of acoustical science. Some of them are still active. Not a single critic of the acoustical evidence had/has credentials in acoustics that even come close to the credentials of HSCA acoustical scientists Barger, Rhyne, Schmidt, Wolf, Robinson, McMahon, Weiss, and Aschkenasy, and to the credentials of Dr. Mullen, the BBN acoustical scientist who conducted the new PCC test and authored an appendix in Thompson's 2021 book.