+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! (/thread-10965.html)
Pages:
1
2
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Anthony DeFiore - 27-06-2013
The photo of Clint Hill climbing onto the trunk of the limo shows the bullet hole in the windshield. Upon closer inspection, the photo shows the bullet hole in the windshield up close. If someone can post the zoomed photo of Clint Hill on the trunk (zoom to bullet hole) I would greatly appreciate it. Please observe the "[FONT=&]degree of cant (inclination) of the long axis of the oval hole" of the bullet hole[/FONT]. In the excerpt from the article posted below, the oval of a bullet hole expands from the point (laterally / which side) where the bullet was fired from at President Kennedy. This bullet oval expands from the South Knoll traveling from a SW position and expands towards the North side of Elm Street. The spider marks trailing the oval shape also indicates from which position the bullet came from (like the tail of a comet following its oval shape of the comet itself). This evidence proves that the bullet was shot from the South Knoll position (reader's POV left) and went through the windshield and hit JFK.
PLEASE CONTACT ME AT defiorejfk@gmail.com FOR AN UPDATED COPY OF MY RESEARCH COMPILATION Z225 THAT INCLUDES THIS RESEARCH. td
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4922[/ATTACH]
http://www.freereferral.com/newsletter/spring2010/lateral_angle_determination_bullet_holes_windshields.php
[FONT=&]Consolidated Consultants Quarterly Newsletter Article: Spring 2010, Vol 6.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Lateral Angle Determination for Bullet Holes in Windshields[/FONT]
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg[/IMG][FONT=&]Written by Crime Scene Shooting Reconstruction Expert Witness[/FONT][FONT=&]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Abstract:Bullets passing through windshield glass (safety glass) typically produce oval-shaped holes due to the slant of the windshield. The direction of the shot is determined by examining the margins of the hole. The margins of both sides (entry and exit) will show some degree of concaveness, however the margins of the exit side will be more distinctly and more uniformly concave. When shots are fired through vehicle windshields, bullets frequently fragment. Attempting to equate the trajectory of a shot to the bullet hole in the windshield and the impact point of a fragment is unreliable. While it is certainly true that the trajectory is going to be best represented by the largest fragment (e.g. the bullet core), this is still only going to allow a rough approximation of the true trajectory to be made. As far as the lateral (side to side) trajectory is concerned, a more reliable technique results from using the degree of cant (inclination) of the long axis of the oval hole that is typically produced.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Introduction[/FONT]
[FONT=&]U.S. made automobile windshields consist of two sheets of plate glass with a piece of plastic sandwiched in between. This laminate is held together with adhesive. This design prevents injury from sharp ?sabers? of glass upon breakage, as in a vehicle accident.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Because of the laminate design, two things occur when a bullet passes through the windshield of an automobile: the glass holds together rather than falling out and the resultant bullet hole has somewhat irregular margins. Depending upon the bullet design, some degree of expansion will be produced upon impact with windshield glass. This produces a hole with a greater width than the bullet caliber. This effect tends to be irreproducible, thereby making width to length based vertical angle determinations unreliable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The vertical angle of a bullet trajectory through windshield glass, along with other information (i.e. shooter height, weapon position, etc.) allows a determination to be made as to the approximate muzzle to target distance. If a bullet does not fragment, the secondary target impact point may be used to establish an approximate vertical trajectory angle. In numerous test firings conducted during the course of shooting reconstruction classes presented by the author, some downward deflection of hollow point bullets in particular has been observed. If the bullet fragments, using the secondary impact point of even large fragments (i.e. bullet cores) results in only a rough approximation of vertical trajectory. Test firing under circumstances similar to those of the shooting is always recommended as part of the reconstruction effort. [/FONT]
[FONT=&]Even when the vertical trajectory angle cannot be reliably determined, all is not lost. The lateral (side to side) angle is frequently a major consideration in shooting reconstructions involving shots fired through windshields, particularly in officer-involved shootings. The question as to justification of use of lethal force is often, erroneously or not, tied to whether or not the lateral trajectory angle of one or more shots puts the officer in front of the vehicle. Being able to reliably predict the lateral trajectory angle can be a crucial aspect of a shooting reconstruction in and of itself.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Lateral angle determination using the long axis of a bullet hole[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Due to the slant of an automobile windshield (on the order of 30 degrees), bullets fired straight on produce oval holes. Oval bullet holes in windshields with a more or less vertical long axis are indicative of a shot fired directly in front of the vehicle. When the long axis is canted to the left or the right of vertical, a shot at a corresponding angle to the left or right is indicated. These concepts are summarized below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&][IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.gif[/IMG][/FONT]
[FONT=&]Figure 1. Bullet hole produced in a windshield by a shot directly from the vehicle front as indicated by a vertical long axis for the hole.[/FONT]
[FONT=&][IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image005.jpg[/IMG][/FONT]
[FONT=&]Figure 2. Bullet hole produced in a windshield by a shot from the side of the vehicle as indicated by an angle to the right of vertical for the long axis.[/FONT]
[FONT=&][IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image007.jpg[/IMG][/FONT]
[FONT=&]Figure 3. Overhead view of bullet trajectory through windshield ? the lateral angle is equivalent to the inclination angle (can't) of the long axis of the bullet hole.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A method for determining the angle of inclination for the long axis of a bullet hole is illustrated below. The edge of a steel ruler is aligned with the long axis of the bullet hole. A protractor in then aligned with the base parallel to the plane of the front of the vehicle. The resultant angle is then read off the protractor. In this example the angle is 17 degrees to the right (the numbers on the protractor appear reversed since they are imprinted on the inner side). This then equates to a lateral angle of 17 degrees toward the passenger side of the windshield.[/FONT]
[FONT=&][IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image008.jpg[/IMG][/FONT]
[FONT=&]Discussion[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In numerous test firings conducted by the author during the course of shooting reconstruction classes, the reliability of this technique has been demonstrated. As with any such measurement involved in a shooting reconstruction, this is an approximation and should not be represented as an exact measurement. In the author's experience results within plus or minus 5 degrees are typical.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In the event that a circular bullet hole is produced in a slanted windshield, the vertical component of the trajectory angle had to be approximately equal to the slant of the windshield. The windshield slant should be determined using an angle gauge placed at the mid-center of the windshield (the area below the inside rear view mirror). [/FONT]
[FONT=&]References[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Cashman, P.J., "Projectile Entry Angle Determination," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 31, No. 1, Jan. 1986, pp. 86-91.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]French, M.L., "Impact Angle Determination through Plastic Windows," AFTE Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, Winter 1997, pp. 73-79.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Garrison, D.H., "Shot Glass," Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 2, April 1998, pp. 15-21.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Gieszl, R., "Stabilization of Glass Fractures," AFTE Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, Oct. 1990, p. 440.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Rathman, G.A., "Bullet Impact Damage and Trajectory Through Auto Glass,? AFTE Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 79-86.[/FONT]
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Jim Hackett II - 27-06-2013
This holds part of the trig data I am looking for or was...
Now I have to get to the CAD I was fiddling with.
I won't do a "disney" cartoon job, I wanna know though for my own satisfaction too.
Limited to 2D as I won't get off a chunk of change for that module.
Before this CAD was a model aircraft piece of software.
Then got started with this idea (south knoll sniper position)
Still able to do plan view for top down and the horizontal separate docs.
correlation accurate to tolerance of original plat I base this on.
Use of WC plat(s) or Cutler plat is a question.
P.S. Safety glass would not interfere with NATO 5.56 mm ammo at ranges involved.
Junkyard testing and taking out interior features of upholstery at 75 yards no scope,
I wanted to see this happen whatever the results.
If I were such an operative this would never have stopped the shot from being taken.
Deflected? Possible yes, probable no.
Not that I could tell, I could see the vapor condensed in the air behind the round.
I could never be such an operative for any other's cause or job.
[SPECULATION ALERT]
The job I figure was done with a Sniper version of the M-14 - 7.62 silenced hence subsonic but throwing mass large.
In that case the safety glass would not have mattered in the slightest IMHO,
but I haven't seen those tests nor conducted them myself.
Not speculatively,
Anyway best regards.
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Anthony DeFiore - 27-06-2013
Jim, please email me at defiorejfk@gmail.com, I may have something that may help you in your research. TD
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Gordon Gray - 27-06-2013
I am not sure I am looking at a bullet hole or Badgeman. Wait it's Shirtman. Surprised you didn't notice this point from your source "Attempting to equate the trajectory of a shot to the bullet hole in the windshield and the impact point of a fragment is unreliable. While it is certainly true that the trajectory is going to be best represented by the largest fragment (e.g. the bullet core), this is still only going to allow a rough approximation of the true trajectory to be made." "Prooves"?
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Anthony DeFiore - 27-06-2013
If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Gordon Gray - 27-06-2013
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Anthony DeFiore - 28-06-2013
Gordon Gray Wrote:Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.
You really need to read the article and apply the degree of inclination ideas. I think you are referring to W.'s "fuzzy math" because if you would see the photo in my research, you would see things much more clearly.
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Phil Dragoo - 28-06-2013
This is the season for visitations:
"You have nothing! Absolutely nothing! ... I can't see a blasted thing here. You can't say the head goes back. I can't see it going back. It does not go back. You can't say that."
To the deja vu and the presque vu is added the Dulles vu in which every syllable is a gray area ("we can never know for sure").
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - David Josephs - 28-06-2013
Gordon Gray Wrote:Uh.. cause the bullet didn't hit Jackie ?? and no GG not "prove" but corroborate... no one on the left side of the limo was shot, hence anything entering the front of the vehicle MUST travel right to left thru the vehicle, front to back. If YOU want to support a proof for if being something from behind... do so. Anthony has shown step by step that the veracity of the testimony in support of a limo stop, a wide turn onto Elm and frontal shots... also extends to the hole in the limo's windshield. That inadequate recording of the damage or the events related to the windshield are in the same vein as the fraud we've illustrated in the autopsies and protocols... and proves a FACT about the assassination that remains refuted by the official position of the government. If the windshield was innocent of incriminating evidence showing a conspiracy, it would have been paraded around as such instead of being replaced as with the images, brain, slides, xrays and accounts of the autopsy. I would simply ask that any evidence that suggested anything other than Oswald from the rear with a broomstick be presented, right here GG, that was not summarily REVERSED at some point to remove from possibility a conspiracy. It boggles the mind that there remains limitations to the conspiracy within people's minds here - "they could do THIS but wouldn't do THAT"... Who insists there was not hole in that windshield and why... and who insists there was and why. Are you comfortable taking Kellerman's word for it... or Greer... or the FBI?Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.
The bullet hole in the windshield proven scientifically by the degree of cant (inclination)! - Gordon Gray - 29-06-2013
David Josephs Wrote:Your agenda confuses your reading comprehension. I don't deny there was a hole in the windshield, I simply don't accept that the evidence is overwhelming that it was a) front to back, b) a shot that struck the president in the throat. I also accept a wide turn on Elm St. and something of a limo stop. I think the president was shot in the neck from the front, twice in the head from the rear and the front, and once in the back from the rear. Certainly there was a conspiracy, multiple shooters, and Oswald didn't shoot an body. But I don't see how any of that has anything to do with having doubts about the direction of a shot through the windshield, or whether it struck the president in the throat, or the head or both through the same hole, as some fanciful theorists would seem to have it, or whether there was body alteration at the autopsy. You seem to have a difficulty staying on track with a simple line of thinking, if it doesn't totally concur with what you think. It's really fruitless to try and have a discussion with you because you don't seem to be able to listen. I don't expect you to agree, but I see little evidence that you even listen. It strikes me that you have something you need to prove, that has nothing to do with this case. So please don't bother to respond to me because I have no more interest in discussing this further with you.Gordon Gray Wrote:Uh.. cause the bullet didn't hit Jackie ?? and no GG not "prove" but corroborate... no one on the left side of the limo was shot, hence anything entering the front of the vehicle MUST travel right to left thru the vehicle, front to back. If YOU want to support a proof for if being something from behind... do so. Anthony has shown step by step that the veracity of the testimony in support of a limo stop, a wide turn onto Elm and frontal shots... also extends to the hole in the limo's windshield. That inadequate recording of the damage or the events related to the windshield are in the same vein as the fraud we've illustrated in the autopsies and protocols... and proves a FACT about the assassination that remains refuted by the official position of the government. If the windshield was innocent of incriminating evidence showing a conspiracy, it would have been paraded around as such instead of being replaced as with the images, brain, slides, xrays and accounts of the autopsy. I would simply ask that any evidence that suggested anything other than Oswald from the rear with a broomstick be presented, right here GG, that was not summarily REVERSED at some point to remove from possibility a conspiracy. It boggles the mind that there remains limitations to the conspiracy within people's minds here - "they could do THIS but wouldn't do THAT"... Who insists there was not hole in that windshield and why... and who insists there was and why. Are you comfortable taking Kellerman's word for it... or Greer... or the FBI?Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.