|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 19, 2007 20:51:13 GMT -4
Actually I have never really understood the fuss over the SBT, but I guess that since when I was younger I had a friend that shot two goats standing about 10m apart with a single steel jacket 308 round, that then ended up buried in a tree behind them, I have always understood that bullets don't as a general rule hit soft bodies and suddenly stop.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 21, 2007 2:27:11 GMT -4
Why? The entry angle of the bullet is the same in both examples. The entry angle refers to the orientation of the bullet as it entered Connolly's body. The entry direction is the path the bullet followed as it entered. These are quite distinct things. Phantom's explanation (a) is that the entry wound is explained by the entry direction; that is, the bullet was aligned along its axis of motion but entered the body at a sharp angle. Explanation (b) is that the wound's shape was due to the entry angle, i.e. that the bullet was tumbling when it enetered and thus not aligned with its direction of motion. Unfortunately for the CTists, the subsequent path of the bullet through Connolly's body (as determined from his injuries and the photos and film of his position when struck) rules out (a) and is consistent with (b). No, it is not ruled out. A bullet directly entering his back at an angle, smashing into his ribcage, destroying a 5 in. section of one rib, thus changing the bullet path to create the exit wound as noted in the autopsy. Of course, even before the issue of Connally can be considered, SBT proponents have to first demonstrate that the bullet could have gone through JFK's body without hitting any bone. Since they have failed to do so in the 45 years since the event, it's a pretty safe bet to assume that no such demonstration will ever be forwarded.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2007 14:49:01 GMT -4
Like monkeys they haven't. Do you have Netflix? Even a good public library system might have it. There's a series from the Discovery Channel called Unsolved History that, as I have told you I've lost count of how many times, duplicates the shot.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 25, 2007 4:01:46 GMT -4
Like monkeys they haven't. Do you have Netflix? Even a good public library system might have it. There's a series from the Discovery Channel called Unsolved History that, as I have told you I've lost count of how many times, duplicates the shot. I'm talking about a demonstration of the bullet' path from an internal anatomy perspective (vertebrae, etc) The SBT proponents never show the internal bullet path between the back and the neck. The diagrams, which only show the (purported) entry and exit locations, actually serve to weaken their case, not strengthen it. There is virtually no way that the bullet would avoid hitting vertebrae between the entry and exit points they have indicated. .
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 25, 2007 4:33:30 GMT -4
Turbonium. They made scientific body mockups. They put them in the places where they should have been according to the evidence. They fired the shot. They repeated the effects. What more are you looking for?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 26, 2007 12:34:57 GMT -4
Turbonium. They made scientific body mockups. They put them in the places where they should have been according to the evidence. They fired the shot. They repeated the effects. What more are you looking for? A reenactment with real people instead of "mock ups" ;D ;D ;D Jokes aside I still have doubts about the SBT and LNT.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 26, 2007 13:53:07 GMT -4
A lot of people do. What doubts do you have?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 26, 2007 21:16:09 GMT -4
Turbonium. They made scientific body mockups. They put them in the places where they should have been according to the evidence. They fired the shot. They repeated the effects. What more are you looking for? What "scientific body mockups" are you referring to, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Jul 27, 2007 9:25:16 GMT -4
I have not seen the documentary, but I suppose that are the body mockups are of the kind used in CSI to study teh trajectory of teh bullets (am i right?)
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 27, 2007 10:13:39 GMT -4
Something similar to the ballistic gel mock-ups they have used on Mythbusters would be my guess.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 28, 2007 13:44:11 GMT -4
More complicated. There's a company in Australia that makes incredibly realistic fake bodies for use in real scientific purposes that deigned to be bothered by an American film company wanting to test the Kennedy shooting. Since I don't own the episode, I'm afraid my details beyond that are rather sketchy. However, what I can say for sure is that they have skin that reacts like real skin, real bones, and organ-y bits that act like real organs.
They took these complicated mockups into an open space (you know, somewhere safe from hitting innocent bystanders!) rigged to resemble Dealey Plaza. All distances were measured exactingly. All angles. All positions. Everything relevant to the test was as close as they could make it to the actual conditions in that place and on that day. The fake bodies were the best that modern science has to offer in fake body technology. And they duplicated the shot.
True, the guy was aiming for the exact shot. Also true that the shot shattered "Connally's" wrist and didn't penetrate as far into his thigh as the actual shot did. However, I have often conceded the point that Oswald's shot was the luckiest in the history of ballistics.
Seriously. If you can, check it out. It's well worth the look. The whole series is pretty good, actually, and they don't air it half often enough. (Though the Area 51 episode and one about the Son of Sam are coming up next month; check your local listings.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2007 21:57:54 GMT -4
True, the guy was aiming for the exact shot. Also true that the shot shattered "Connally's" wrist and didn't penetrate as far into his thigh as the actual shot did. However, I have often conceded the point that Oswald's shot was the luckiest in the history of ballistics.
I think this is the thing, it was a lucky shot, but it also wasn't an intended shot. LHO was aiming to hit Kennedy, he wasn't looking to hit kennedy have the bullet go through him and hit Connelly, that part was totally flukey, frar from the realms of impossiblity that CT's try to make it sound, but certainly totally not planned. Those that have been about guns and use guns a lot really have no problem with the SBT because they have often seen it happen while hunting, like my friend that shot two goats with one bullet. There have been numerous times in combat were several people have been hit by a single bullet as well. I recall one account I read of landing on Ohama beach on D-Day where one of the German gunners shot three US soldiers with one bullet while they were packed into the landing craft. These things happen, flukey as they are.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 1, 2007 2:30:11 GMT -4
Jokes aside I still have doubts about the SBT and LNT. OMG, lenbrazil - what a surprise to read this. There may be hope for you, yet! Seriously, though - what do you consider most problematic with the SBT and LNT?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 1, 2007 3:50:52 GMT -4
One of my main problems with the SBT - and the entire LNT - is the anatomical feasibility of the bullet not impacting any of JFK's vertebrae. Some of the earlier replies from joedurnavich included... The CAT scan Mantik uses is not representative of the Single Bullet Theory. Mantik's CAT scan is a 2-dimensional, horizontal slice taken at the level of the C7 vertebra. The SBT proposes at the bullet entered the back at the level of C7, but then traveled downwards towards the 2nd or 3rd tracheal ring in the throat, exiting pretty close to the sternal notch. The bullet would have been below the level of C7's transverse process by the time it crossed it. The geometry of the transverse processes (the parts of the vertebrae that stick out to the sides) changes between C7 and T1. In other words, Mantik's CAT scan is from too high of a level to tell us anything about the SBT. Mantik needs to consider the problem in 3 dimensions. The bullet did not smash through and pulverize any of the vertebra, but it may have fractured T1. David O. Davis, consulting radiologist for the HSCA: Full text of Davis report Full text of McDonnel reportThe right T1 transverse process is on the left of the X-ray image. The streak of black overlying it is not the fracture referred to, but the "subcutaneous or interstitial air". Air pockets tend to show up as dark regions in an X-ray. They are sometimes called air shadows:JFK Chest X-rayThe bullet would have entered to the right of the spine passing just by or perhaps grazing the T1 transverse process. It passed over the top of the lung with the shock of the passage bruising it. The strap muscles on the right side of the neck were likewise bruised, and the right side of the trachea was torn at the around the level of the second or third tracheal ring. There was a penetrating wound (meaning punctured, as opposed to blunt trauma) of the throat, a ragged slit in the shirt with the fibers bent outward, and a nick in the lining of left side of the tie. Here's the overhead view again.... Now, as seen in the (non-JFK) image below (anteroposterior view), the T1 actually covers a larger area than the C7, which is located directly above it. The SBT proposes an entry point as below... It's very obvious that the proposed entry point cannot avoid hitting the vertebrae, as shown in the image with an anteroposterior view - regardless of the entry angle of the bullet upon impact. It's impossible for the bullet to have only "grazed" the T1.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 15, 2007 4:35:35 GMT -4
lenbrazil - could you expand on your doubts about the SBT and LNT?
|
|