From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: trajectories
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:13:03 GMT

> Joel Grant
>> Bruce Schuck

>>Lattimer , deliberately , left out any question of the angle
>>the bullet went through JFK's body on the horizontal plane.

>	Er, what do you mean by "deliberately"?  Do you mean
>	something like: Lattimer believed the horizontal
>	angle proved the bullet couldn't have come from
>	the SE corner, 6th floor, TSBD - and "deliberately"
>	withheld the information?  If you believe Lattimer
>	did this, kindly present the evidence to support
>	this claim?  If not, then, what exactly is your
>	point?

What's your point, Joel? That we can't prove why Lattimer chose not
to address an issue that, if he had addressed it, would have debunked his
own analysis? What do you want us to do, hunt him down and hook him up to
a seismograph?

I think the issue is, what would the horizontal angle through Kennedy's
neck be assuming a back-to-front traversing, and when, if ever, would it be
possible for a shooter from the sixth floor TSBD to line up with that angle,
based on the Z-film?

>>The bullet entered JFK's back 1 3/8 inches to the right
>>of JFK's spine. Supposedly the bullet exited slightly to
>>the right of the centreline of JFK's windpipe.

>>JFK was looking to the right when this bullet traversed
>>his body.

>>Cyril Wecht says the horizontal angle from Oswalds supposed snipers
>>position was 38 degrees. 

>	And the HSCA says it was 26 degrees, based on a shot
>	at frame 190.  I believe the angle was somewhat larger,
>	as it seems quite clear that the first bullet struck
>	JFK around frame 220.

>	Personally, I am somewhat skeptical of all trajectory
>	analysis of the shot that hit JFK in the upper back,
>	because no one knows precisely where the car was or
>	what position JFK was in at the precise moment of
>	impact.

Weren't you the one posting Lattimer's 20-degree vertical angle theory?
Trajectory analysis is only important to the point that it can establish
the range of possibilities. Without other evidence that range can be very
broad, and it is hard to disprove most hypotheses by trajectory analysis alone.
Unless, of course, the hypothesis has too many requirements, like the single
bullet theory, in which case it is possible.

>       If Wecht's analysis is correct we're talking
>	about a difference of a couple of inches out of
>	150 or so feet.  This gets into "angels on the head
>	of a pin" territory.

I don't follow your math. Kennedy's neck is not 150 feet wide.

>>Using a scale map of Dealey Plaza, I have mapped out the corresponding
>>angles as they would have occurred in JFK's upper chest area.

>>Accordingly, if JFK's upper chest was 4.5 inches thick -- which is
>>ridiculously thin -- a bullet could have entered 1 3/8 inches to the
>>right of his spine and exitted from the centreline of his throat if
>>fired from the TSBD and JFK was looking straight ahead.

>>If JFK was looking to the right [which he was] or his
>>upper chest was thicker than 4.5 inches [it certainly was] then it
>>would have been impossible for such a bullet to enter and exit where
>>the WC and pro-WC supporters like Lattimer and Joel claim.
>>The bullet would certainly have exitted an inch or more to the *left*
>>of the centreline of JFK's throat.

>>If the angles are mapped out, it clearly points towards a building
>>closer to directly behind JFK as the firing point.

>>The Dal-Tex and the County Records Building fit such criteria.

>	Interestingly, no one saw any rifles being fired from
>	those buildings, no one recovered any rifles from
>	those buildings, and no bullets or bullet fragments
>	matching any rifle but LHO's were ever recovered.

At least one bullet was found in Dealey plaza by Dallas police, retrieved by
a man thought to be FBI and then not placed in evidence. Neither CE399 or the
"limo fragments" are identifiable by their alleged finders as the items they
found, and the chain of possession is irretrievably lost. Thus, there is no
evidence connecting the bullet and fragments in evidence with Parkland
Hospital or the presidential limo, let alone Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 12:35 p.m.,
but there *is* evidence that at least one bullet was retrieved but not
placed in evidence. Add to this the pristine condition of CE399, which by
itself is strong evidence that it was not fired from the TSBD into the limo
at all, and you have strong evidence of both planted evidence and coverup.
Add to this the impossibility of all the shots fired coming from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano and it becomes a certainty.

(See Marrs for photo and story on the missing Dealey plaza bullet.)

I have no opinion on the subject of the "rear shooters in other buildings"
except that it is a possibility that could not be discounted even if the
assertions you make were true. Why would someone involved in an assassination
of the president leave something behind that might be traceable? 
You're assuming that a conspiracy would have to be as stupid as you have been
led to believe Oswald was, or to be more direct, that the real evidence would
be as obvious and easy to locate as the planted evidence. This is a very
weird assumption.

>	Anyway, what the angles were depends entirely upon
>	when you believe the shot was fired.  And, as I say,
>	I have doubts that any of the precise analysis done
>	can possibly be proved to be 100% accurate.

As a measure of the range of possibilities, angle measurements can be
very accurate. That's why you're hero Lattimer put so much effort into
contriving a way that the single bullet theory could be possible. I thought
you were going to post his analysis, which only attempts to show how the
single bullet theory can fit into the range of possibilities, and fails at
that. Have you changed your mind now?

>>Since the bullet also travelled in an upwards track -- according to
>>the HSCA committee -- it is also clear that it was fired from a very
>>low floor of the Dal-Tex or the County Records Building.

This assumes a back-to-front traversal of the neck, which is unlikely.

>>In light of the above facts Joel, please recount Lattimers explanation
>>for the *horizontal* angle through JFK's body in relation to the
>>supposed 6th floor snipers nest in the TSBD.

>	Lattimer doesn't address the horizontal angle.  My guess
>	is that because both CE399 and the limo fragments came
>	from LHO's gun,

Actually, I think the limo fragments are too small to be sure, but since
there is no evidence connecting the fragments in evidence to the actual
scene of the crime, I'll grant you that one just to be nice. :}

>       because six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
>	a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor, SE corner,
>	TSBD,

What about the witnesses that saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
building?
 
>       there was no reason for him to do any independent
>	testing on this matter.

Lattimer was the one doing the trajectory analysis; that he left out a vital
component of trajectory analysis debunks his own efforts. Now you want to
argue that the whole thing was unnecessary in the first place, because a
a bullet and two fragments (probably planted) match a gun (also
probably planted) owned by Oswald and because the only place where anyone with
a gun was being visible was in the location that the (probably planted) gun
and (too few to account for all the shots) shells were found.

:P 

Weak, weak, weak, even by pro-WC standards.

>	As for the matter of the vertical trajectory, in my opinion 
>	Lattimer was off.  But that's getting ahead of the story.

Oh, you are going to post Lattimer's trajectory anajysis. Oh good, I like
Science Fiction stories.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk