I can't name any ballistic expert that has commented on it. WTF do they know that we don't?
What the (blank) would they know that you don?t know? And how would they know this?
They know because they do real world experiments, firing rifles into various targets, embedded in ballistic gel so they can recover the bullets/fragments to see the effects various targets have on various types of bullets. They can see the track of bullet/fragments through ballistic gel to see what effect the target has on this track. Does the bullet/fragments continue on a straight line or curve. If it curve, how much can it curve. Collect data on the velocity reduction on bullets caused by various targets. These tests are conducted in a systematic scientific basis.
There is no other way to tell what happens to targets, what happens to bullets, any other way. Your way, to assume such and such would happen, without conducting any real world experiments, doesn?t work.
If Larry Sturdivan, Luke Haag and Michael Haag reports are wrong, some ballistic expert elsewhere in American, or Canada, or Europe, or Japan, or India, or somewhere in the world, would report that they are wrong. And could point out that they were wrong, not based on their best guesses, but based on real world experiments that they could site.
After over 50 years, no such ballistic expert has been found by the CTers.
Is Larry a ballistics expert?
Yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htmMr. MATHEWS - And where are you employed, Mr. Sturdivan?
Mr. STURDIVAN - At the Chemical Systems Laboratory, the Edgewood area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
Mr. MATHEWS - What is Aberdeen Proving Grounds? That is, what is its function and purpose?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Located at APG are a collection of a great number of U.S. Army agencies who conduct research development test and evaluation of weapons, vehicles, and other equipment for the Army and for other DOD agencies, and other Government agencies.
Mr. MATHEWS - Within the Edgewood Laboratories of Aberdeen Proving Ground, what specifically are you involved in?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, we do work in the general areas of wound ballistics and application of mathematics to chemistry. In wound ballistics, we do studies on human vulnerability and protective devices, which includes trauma from ballistic projectiles. For example, bullets from handguns, hunting rifles or military rifles, fragments from exploding munitions, such as grenades and artillery; blunt trauma from debris from explosions, for example, or riot control devices, combat simulation devices which have fallen short among troops; blunt trauma behind body armor, that is, bulletproof vests and flakjackets which have stopped the bullets and fragments and other debris.
Mr. MATHEWS - What specifically, Mr. Sturdivan, are your exact duties within your laboratory?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Generally, I'm in the business of producing predictive models of effectiveness of weapons, studying the behavior of bullets inside tissue and tissue simulant and exterior ballistics, of course.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would it be safe to say you study the characteristics of bullets in flight, you study the characteristics of bullets as they penetrate solid masses and you also study the characteristics of bullets once they enter the human body and the effect of those bullets on the human body?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Well, yes.
Mr. MATHEWS - Would you describe that as the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Yes, generally, the wound ballistics field is a little broader, and perhaps more descriptive in the thoughts of some. At our laboratory, we try to concentrate on the predictive models of behavior of bullets, particularly the full-jacketed military bullets that we are used to dealing with, their behavior in gelatin tissue simulant. In fact, one of the things I have recently been working on is a predictive model of what the behavior of the bullet would be in gelatin as a function of its physical characteristics, such as mass, velocity, location of the center of gravity and several other esoteric characteristics.
Mr. MATHEWS - But my previous statement would be more or less correct, you are involved in those type of studies; that is, characteristics of bullets?
Mr. STURDIVAN - Right.
Mr. MATHEWS - Are you considered an expert in the wound ballistics field?
Mr. STURDIVAN - I would think so; yes.
I'm a photogrammetrist so I know this to be true. It was easy to edit the Z film to paint any kind of narrative they wanted. I haven't decided whether Zapruder was recruited to film the scene. The only question at this point is where the original Z film is? All we got was edited copies from the FBI. The original film would tell all. Why would the FBI withhold the original film when it would exonerate them from any link to a conspiracy if they released it?
Correct. Back in 63 you could not tell which frames had been edited with an optical printer because you were examining a copy. Dark room editing back then was even more imperceptible than digital editing is now.
Who knows what other films/photos they confiscated? That was the whole purpose of the FBI in the coup. They were the "cleaners".
Well, since you?re a photogrammetrist, it should be easy for you to modify the frames of the Zapruder film, so it does not show the wound to the side of the head, but a back of the head wound.
And modify the autopsy photographs to show the same thing.
And have your modified autopsy photographs pass a 3-D test when both of your modified autopsy pictures are viewed through a stereoscope and show a valid 3-D image.
Question:
Can you do this?
If you provide some excuse as to why you can?t, can you point me to someone else who has does so? Who were able to modify the autopsy photographs to show a back on the head wound and have the fake photographs pass a stereoscope viewing? Showing what you claim to be true is actually possible. 
