From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Generic Subject
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:48:05 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>[note that I haven't changed the `subject' line  ;^)]

>re: 3271  (Tom Warner)

>>I understand what you've said perfectly, but we were talking about a shot
>>at a particular Z-frame. You're right, it's hard to say exactly which frame
>>he was hit at. What I'd like to see is the range(s) of Z-frames when the
>>angle of supposed traversal would actually line up with the angle from the
>>assassin's lair, taking into account both vertical and horizontal angles.
>>Has any researcher done this?

>	Not only do we not know at exactly what frame he was
>	hit, but it is overwhelmingly likely that that frame
>	was during the time the limo was obscured to Zapruder's
>	view by the freeway sign.  No other photos show, so
>	far as we can tell, the precise moment of impact.  Thus,

It's not so much a matter of not being able to see an impact, which wouldn't
necessarily be visible on film, as the fact that JFK is already reacting to
a hit when he comes out from behind the sign.

>	we have a range of distance and a range of body positions,
>	but we cannot calculate the angles precisely.  They depend
>	heavily upon the position of the President's body at the
>	moment of impact.  A slight turn one way or the other
>	changes the angles significantly.

OK. But is there any reason to think Kennedy's torso moved during this period?
If Kennedy's position before going behind the sign and after coming out (rel.
to the limo, I mean) are virtually indistinguishable, we should at least be
able to agree on a *likely* range of back-to-throat angles over the behind-the
-sign period. I also don't see any reason why x and y angles from the "lair"
to JFK's throat couldn't be measured as a function of time over this period.
If there's a match at any part of the range, that should be your likely time
for a hit. If not, then the difference(s) = the minimum neck turn/lean
required at the part of the range closest to a match.

Does any other photographic evidence show Kennedy's position while he was
behind the sign?

>	We can infer from the photgraphic and medical evidence,
>	as well as the condition of JFK's clothes, approximately
>	what position he was in when he was hit.

I'll do my inferring from photographic evidence, thank you. Your "medical
evidence" begins with the assumption that the bullet came from the "lair"
and came out the neck, which is what we're trying to test.
I don't see a whole lot of value in the clothing.

>       He was almost
>	certainly facing to his right with his right arm resting
>	on the side of the limo.

Agreed.

>       You will note that this position
>	elevates his right shoulder.

OK, but the entry as seen in the autopsy photos is too close to the spine to
be affected by this. I am only able to raise that part of my back with respect
to the rest by bringing my arm in close to my body and then raising my
shoulder. .

>	It is misleading to calculate the angles based on the
>	right side of the trachea being scraped by the bullet.
>	Note that the bullet exited just below the button on
>	JFK's collar and nicked the *left* side of his tie
>	on the way towards Governor Connally's back. 

I don't understand what the clothing has to with it. I certainly don't see
how clothing can be considered anywhere near as stable a marking point as
the trachea.

Also, how are you sure the clothing wasn't cut by the doctors?

>>>	Dr. Guinn's conclusion was that the fragments found in
>>>	John Connally's wrist almost certainly came from CE399.
>>>	NAA does not provide 100% certainty but it certainly
>>>	works at a level of precision notably in excess of what
>>>	you suggest.

>>I'll leave this one to Bruce, who knows more about this than me. (Bruce
>>has pointed out in other posts that there were actually several differences
>>in the composition of CE399 and the fragment from Connally's wrist, which
>>Guinn apparently glossed over. I stand by my statement that, at best, such a
>>test can show that the bullet was of the same manufacture and lacks the
>>precision ascribed to it by Joel. By the way, did Guinn try and compare the
>>wrist fragment to either of the limo fragments?)

>	I don't recall how many fragments he matched, even though
>	the analysis has been in this forum a couple of times already.
>	
>	Bruce Schuck's amateur analysis requires at least one of
>	two situations to be true:

>	1. Bruce knows more about NAA than Dr. Guinn.
>	2. Dr. Guinn is lying about his test results.

>	Since I am no more of an NAA expert than Bruce or you, I
>	can only ask why, if Dr. Guinn was determined to lie about
>	his results, he chose the one way that would absolutely 
>	guarantee he would be caught.  Namely, instead of publishing
>	"doctored" data, he chose to publish data which, were 
>	Bruce correct, would immediately be recognized as phony
>	by any NAA expert.  And it is safe to conclude that if
>	even one such specialist believed that Dr. Guinn's data
>	did not support his conclusions, we would have heard about
>	it, in spades, by now.

I think it much more likely that you are exaggerating the stated precision
of Guinn's tests. Where are they printed?
Tom Warner
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk