Hi Mitch!! How great it is to have you back in the fold as your contributions are always enjoyed and appreciated.
There has been much about back spatter
& the head shot trajectory discussed before we made this recent move and Sherry has answered many questions in terms we can all understand yet quite comprehensively. As a matter of fact, the book is not a tedious read at all while referring to countless lab trials by the top experts in the field over pretty much 3 decades which have rendered her premise true scientific fact rather than theory. She has been recieved well in the research community and has done many radio interviews and appearances with no apparent dissenting peers in her field. She is one of the formost court certified experts in the field but in her absence, I think I can give you a perspective that is derived from "what I believe"
based on the understanding of how forensic/ballistic science has caught up to the case. I will go over to the archives and review much that has been discussed since the beginning of March but for now I'll address this: "Just to play devil's advocate; there is an argument that the prevailing winds that afternoon were strong enough to reverse the direction of the mist back toward the shooter; this combined with the forward movement of the limo contributes to the false assumption that the shot originated somewhere from the front as opposed to the Book Depository.
I'm not buying it mind you; but that is a common response to the mist direction argument by LN'ers. Thoughts?"
This is good to play devil's advocate, Mitch, I know Sherry loves to address these types of querries and I look forward to her contribution to the discussion. I'll start with the prevailing winds and will say that I agree they were strong that day and actually "believe"
a gust was responsible for Gov. Connally's "lapel flap" and not the "single bullet" as I once challenged Robert Harris on. When I pointed out that the exit hole in his jacket was way below any possible proximity to the lapel to be able to brush it aside, as was Harris' contention, he then suggested that the jacket "puffed" out as the bullet went through and as it "snapped" back, the lapel flew out from this motion!!!! Then, after pulling that one out of his arse he asks, "does that do it for ya?" Look, as I've told members before, I'm only a lowly engineer but that doesn't do it for me!
Now here's where I think it's really not to hard to understand that some of the suggestions that followed seem actually totally inconsistant with understanding even some simple laws of physics. I would appreciate, and know that I can speak for Sherry here also, if anybody could cite any statements of this challenging nature as I know she is always at the ready and eager to discuss it. Lets see if the wind and or limo motion are supporting those LN arguments.
Firstly, if you suggest that the wind "reversed" the direction back towrd the shooter, then where are you saying that the blood was emitted from in the first place? And which shooter?!! Of course LN's have always wanted the exit wound to be to be where the entrance wound actually was as evidenced by Z312 - Z313. The blood traveling in that direction (toward the underpass) would be what they thought made their argument for an exit wound in the first place, no? Don't forget that back in the day NOBODY EVEN KNEW WHAT BACK SPATTER WAS AND THAT IT IS EMITTED FROM THE ENTRANCE WOUND.
In complete 180 degree contrast to that assertion that the limo's motion could contribute to a false assumtion of a frontal shot, I would suggest that it is just the opposite because the limo's forward motion would be leaving the mist behind, not dragging it along. We had a similar discussion on a previous forum about the hairpin turn at Houston & Elm. Remember Bob's premise that the president's motions were more in response to ballistic activity on his right that threw up chips or something that caused him to pull his hand back & move to his left? Some folks were saying that the hairpin turn to the left caused that motion to the left. Regardless of what activity actually occurred at that point, just the opposite would happen in a turn of such an acute angle to the left and the centrifugal force would naturally cause him to lean right followed by a lean left as the limo steered back to staighten out. This is what seems to have actually happened considering what we can see and, of course we can never be sure of which of the president's motions were voluntary.
I'm glad you aren't buying it, Mitch, but I do understand that some folks may come along and try dispute the progress that has been made. I just haven't seen any. I have to wonder what my buddy Bill Brown would say after reading "Enemy Of The Truth."
I wonder if he would have an open enough mind to read it in the first place. What matters more, I suppose, is that among those of us who agree that the basic question of conspircy is settled, at least in our hearts & minds, we find a way to get the hard scientific evidence that proves it written into the oficial record. I "believe" that this new understanding of the evidence is "essential" in finally confirming conspiracy, which I hope helps us all to continue to concentrate our efforts to confirm the other aspects of the case which we "believe."