A straight line

[Jerry Organ]

Do whatever makes you  happy. Then let us know how slouching put the MB in at T1 and out at C6.

A downward trajectory at T1 would strike the first rib. How about enter at C7 and exit 3.5 cm lower at the throat? I don't know where you're getting an exit at C6.

[Royell Storing]

A downward trajectory at T1 would strike the first rib. How about enter at C7 and exit 3.5 cm lower at the throat? I don't know where you're getting an exit at C6.

A "downward trajectory" bullet fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD which Enters at "C7", is NOT going to Exit at a spot on the throat ABOVE the knot in a tie. Now, a bullet fired from the 2nd Floor of the Dal Tex building Might be able to meet your proffered scenario.

[Jerry Organ]

    A "downward trajectory" bullet fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD which Enters at "C7", is NOT going to Exit at a spot on the throat ABOVE the knot in a tie. Now, a bullet fired from the 2nd Floor of the Dal Tex building Might be able to meet your proffered scenario.

Doesn't have to exit above the tie knot. It went through one side of the tie knot.


_{Animation Source Unknown}

Twists & Turns of the Single Bullet Critics (Pt.4) ( Link )

About the Dr. James Carrico claim that the bullet hole was above the collar.

[Royell Storing]

Doesn't have to exit above the tie knot. It went through one side of the tie knot.


_{Animation Source Unknown}

Twists & Turns of the Single Bullet Critics (Pt.4) ( Link )

About the Dr. James Carrico claim that the bullet hole was above the collar.

Not sure what you are getting at. A point "above the collar" would be at about the same Height as a point just above the knot in JFK's tie. Both positions on the throat are too High. A bullet fired in a Downward Trajectory entering at C7, (as You are claiming), would Not Exit at those High Points on the throat of JFK.

[Andrew Mason]

They're based on objective visual observation.

Mine are based on a full size model based on an accurate scale map of Dealey Plaza blown up to actual size and actual survey data.  I created a full-size model of the car using the H&E drawing and measurements and photographs.  I can then make all measurements on the model.  How do you determine angles and distances?

It appears some of your "actual dimensions" made no allowance for perspective.

The software takes care of perspective.  The perspective in Zapruder's film is somewhat flattened due to the use of a zoom lens.

Observation and perceiving the effect of perspective on measurements and sight alignments.

Actual measurements are better.

Possibly Connally is centered on his jump-seat in this picture

Was the jump-seat itself a good distance from the car interior?

Was the front of the jump seat near the rear edge of the grab-bar (looking straight down)?

That's why I could no longer add figures and LoS using the 2012 diagram. There may be more adjustments and nudging in the future if new photos and the actual 100-X plans surface. I'm going where the evidence takes me.

What are your values for the horizontal and vertical angles at z197? No matter how you do it, the bullet goes right to left

Given all the things you've missed, you started off your SketchUp model with a limousine drawing that was inaccurate. And since you don't know how to do 3-D, you're building up from it was a disaster.

Sketchup handles all the 3D stuff so one does not have to "know how to do 3D". One just has to know how to use Sketchup.  As you have pointed out, the scale drawings of the limo by Hess & Eisenhardt are not completely accurate. That is why my early models of the limo are not quite accurate.  Using a variety of photos of the limo at different angles is the only way to get the placements of the seats correct.  There may be some details that are still incorrect but I don't think they are major ones. If you can point out specific errors I will check and correct them if you are right.   

I know you think your 3D model is the stuff of legend, but is there anything in particular that I pointed out about your 3D model that was inappropriate?

Your trajectory alignments at Z197ish and Z270ish mainly conform to your pet theory.

You are using early (2012?) versions of the limo model.  Use the ones I have posted.  Trajectory alignments are based on the actual straight line from the SN to JFK's back where he appears to be in the car in z193.  The position of JBC's left leg is a bit of a guess. But it seems to me more likely that it was out to the left a bit than turned inward to the right. The path from JFK's throat to JBC's left thigh just works naturally.

[John Iacoletti]

Use ce1312
Seat him on the brick wall inside. Plenty of room for Oswald to be seen seated in the window and be seen before the motorcade arrived.

Take a knee and move to the edge of the window for the head shot: Brennan didn't know the windows were low to the floor, so the shooter  'appeared' to be standing.

Taking a knee and still visible to Brennan from the belt up?

[Bill Chapman]

Taking a knee and still visible to Brennan from the belt up?

Pretty sure Brennan said 'approximately'

Nobody knows for sure beyond the tip of the box seen in Dillard what the exact position of the box setup was during the firing sequence. Therefore I, along with witness testimony, can claim that the shooter found a position that enabled him to aim downrange effectively and successfully claim his place in history.

Just too bad 'anybody-but-Oswald' didn't have time to enter that in his History diary.

You are in the position of having not only to call each WC witness a liar, but also to tell us what they saw or didn't see.

[John Iacoletti]

Pretty sure Brennan said 'approximately'

You're pretty sure about a lot of things.  How does that position even equate to "about his belt up"?  Do you think the shooter had a belt around his neck?  Can you illustrate it, or will you just continue to fall back on "Oswald did it, therefore he must have figured out a position like this"?

Nobody knows for sure beyond the tip of the box seen in Dillard what the exact position of the box setup was during the firing sequence. Therefore I, along with witness testimony, can claim that the shooter found a position that enabled him to aim downrange effectively and successfully claim his place in history.

Of course you can.  Because you start with a conclusion and try to make the evidence fit it.  Or more frequently ignore the evidence that doesn't fit it.

You are in the position of having not only to call each WC witness a liar, but also to tell us what they saw or didn't see.

I haven't called each WC witness a liar.  That's just something you keep making up to avoid having to argue the actual evidence.  That would make you the liar.