Subject: The man who may have solved the JFK murder case, and doesn't even
know it yet ...
Post by Piotr Mancini
For years, I had been Googling, reading about that vague research category,
I could not put into words exactly what I needed to find.
I had the idea that the sudden back snap could be meticulously
characterized, numerically, in order to determine the big question. The
only argument left for the WCR types -random neuromuscular reactions-
after the absurd Jet Effect has been swept under the rug: its previous
supporters are now ashamed of it.
Was Kennedy's body pushed or pulled?
I even wrote to a few research centers, I recall one in France, found it
in YouTube. They use Open Source software to perform Finite Element
Analysis which I figured was the way to. I was wrong. Close but no cigar.
"Eureka! This is it! They have finally solved the problem that I need!"
Reading more, and finding a second paper by the same team "We started with
"You may stop your research right now, since what you have is exactly what I need!".
[To be continued]
They say "there's beauty in numbers" and the Terzopoulos problem is a
perfect exponent. Consider the two shots. If you are looking for a
solution that is devastating, an out-of-the-park grand slam, a knockout
which leaves no room for doubt: in which shot would you rather work? The
answer is trivially easy.
Assume you are far, far away and can barely see the 2 lines. You are given
the choice of problems. Which problem would you prefer to solve: one in
which the difference is a narrow angle? Or the other in which the
difference is almost 180 degrees (as wide as it can possibly get)?Loading Image...
I keep on telling people about the back snap: The theory that claims that
it was Marilyn, trying to kill Jackie, from a flying saucer (obviously
piloted by Elvis) we can dismiss: it was either the front or the back. My
contention is that there is no mathematical model or actual empirical
experience that supports a shot from the back (subject to scientific
corroboration, of course). The same cannot be said about the SBT/MBT
problem: At the end, it may turn out to be undecidable. It is our
obligation to be prepared for that eventuality.
We engineers use the term "signal to noise ratio" or SNR. The fatal shot
provides a much higher value. You get more bang (intended) for your buck.
The reason the Zapruder film was sequestered was not the first shot: In
the fatal one, the SNR is so apparent that they had to hide it. Luckily,
they could not destroy it.
Back to Terzopoulos. The SNR is as high as you can get.
How many of you knew that there was another presidential trip to Dallas,
with precisely the same route but in *reverse* sequence? Here's a problem
for the lazy among us: we are given a set of evidence pieces: photos,
videos, press clippings, recordings, verbal accounts, etc. and the problem
"To which of the 2 trips does this tall heap of evidence belong?"
This is not a needle in the proverbial haystack: It is a single hay blade
that we are after. All you need to find is ONE discovery: license plate,
sun shadow, person present, song playing in the radio ... and you
immediately declare proudly: "This was the FIRST trip!"
That is exactly the nature of the Terzopoulos "train of movement": any
slight indication will tell us which of the two opposite trips was being
taken by the presidential body.