Re: Dale Myers debunks his own work.

On May 25, 3:46=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a
hunch=
back to get the back wound higher." <<<
>
> > El-Oh-El.
>
> > Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
> > did anyway)?
>
> Lattimer did precisely that by producing a bogus diagram. Tell us what
> the downward angle of that trajectory is.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif

A straight line connecting two wounds on a victim does not coincide with 
the trajectory angle of the bullet. Instead the direction of the line is a

measure of the angular orientation of the victim. If they rotate the 
drawing x degree clockwise then the angle made by the connecting line with

the horizontal increases by exactly x degree. Likewise a counterclockwise 
rotation of the drawing by 5.5 degree changes the 27 degree angle made by 
the connecting line with the horizontal to 21.5 degree.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/secantangle.bmp

If a common bullet made the two wounds then the connecting line would 
represent a secant that would coincide with the trajectory only if the 
bullet transited without deflection. Under these conditions knowledge of 
the either the declination angle of the bullet or orientation angle of the

victim enables an analyst to find the other angle.

When the bullet makes simple wounds, such as the elongated oval hole in 
President Kennedy's back or the roundish to slightly oval hole in his 
throat then the analyst can calculate the angles of incidence at the entry

and exit sites. This knowledge is the stumbling block for a perforating 
back-to-neck trajectory. In particular the considerable incidence angle at

the back wound is inconsistent with the negligible incidence angle at the 
throat wound. Appendix 3 of Punching Holes discusses and illustrates this 
insurmountable problem.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm

Herbert