u/Content_Tale6681

Several films and pictures were taken in Dealey Plaza during the time of the assassination. These items become important technical evidence to be analyzed when reviewing this crime. The above frame from the Robert Hughes film shows both the president’s limousine and the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). Very shortly after this turn onto Elm street, the first shots were fired. The angle of the first shot from this sixth floor window and the horizontal would be around 60 degrees. The angle becomes shallower as the limo progresses down Elm.

What we do not see in this picture is the barrel of the rifle protruding from the window. In fact, for someone to shoot from this window, at this point in the sequence, will require the shooter to almost hang out of the half open window. The angle to the traffic below is that steep. We can see the half open window and the stack or boxes, but nothing else is clear in this picture.

This corner of the sixth floor has been referred to as the Sniper’s nest. This area is part of the entire sixth floor and is in one open space. There are no dividers for offices. Also note that the boxes are stacked right up to the half open window. The rifle could not be propped on the top of the box stack without obstructing the view thru the scope. The window ledge in this building is about 12-14 inches from the floor line. This ledge would be the only logical area to support the rifle. Supporting the rifle on the boxes is totally blocked by the half open window. Even if the barrel of the rifle protrudes just under the half open window, the view thru the scope would be obstructed. You can see the sniper’s nest online, or by visiting the museum where they preserved it behind glass.

https://preview.redd.it/ez8r508t3fbh1.png?width=518&format=png&auto=webp&s=db38b39d63dfbc6987b8d7189030b6cb5cf0bc09

The following frame is from the Alkin’s photo taken shortly after the neck wound shot.

https://preview.redd.it/2v3rhx7t3fbh1.png?width=683&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a0ff5a214588afc3a3c71d23b235135f62ea176

If you zoom in, you see both the JFK reaction and Jackie Kennedy grabbing for JFK’s arm. This indicates the shot was fired before this location in the above photo. The current location in the photo is just past the TSBD. Backing it up to the location of the shot, you can again verify the steep angle from the TSBD sixth floor window.  

When you review the evidence we have, it does not support the first shots coming from this location. It would be much more logical to shoot inline with Elm street rather than a location where the target is transverse to the viewing field. This review is a focus on the technical aspects of this complicated crime. It adds more doubt to the theory of the Sniper’s nest as the location for the shooting, especially for the initial shots.

From Anthony Rante, Author of “The JFK Assassination: A Technical Review of the Evidence”

For more information, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_P9Cry73vg&t=495s

If you are a new Design or Project Engineer, you are probably given the task of preparing the documentation for job releases to the Production groups of the company. The documentation will  include various drawings, which include the assembly layouts, schematics, detailed piece parts, and some specialized customer drawings like general arrangement, etc. Along with these drawings, should be a detailed structured bill of material. This document must be input into the production control system and will be used by various sections of the Production areas. Making this document follow the company flow and “as bult” conditions is highly recommended to achieve efficiency in the execution. These steps will help you with your part of the responsibility.

Understand the Capabilities and Practices of the Shop Floor – Every shop floor is different. They have certain ways they fabricate and assemble the company’s product. You need to understand this. For example, if the company is utilizing laser cutting, understand the limitations of the thickness and what to expect. Will you need a finish after the cut? For shipping, are there limitations for the size? Are fasteners purchased specifically for each project, or does the shop use a floor stock method? These types of answers require you to pick up on as you walk thru the shop.

Where does your documentation go after approved in Engineering – Typically, the next stop is a Material Control department. Here, the bill of material is reviewed for “make” and “buy” parts. Buy parts will need to be purchased and the make parts are made on the shop floor. Selecting components not in the company inventory, or that have a long lead time, could create delivery issues. Sometimes, the end user (customer) gives you a list of preferred vendors for these parts that you need to follow. Seeing the make part details can also help you understand the methods and procedures of the shop floor. If a routing is created you can quickly see the various stops a piece part will go thru to be completed and sent to the assembly floor. If you design can streamline this path, savings and efficiency is possible.  

Is your Production Release Complete – Worst process issue is when a job has to go back to Engineering to be completed. Are these certain Manufacturing Support details that need to be added back in Engineering (i.e. burn paths for lasers, special fixture requirements, etc). Using Flowcharting can help locate these backtrack issues ahead of time and create a more efficient release.

When Engineering releases a project to production, 80-85% of the cost is already dialed in. Working to make the bill follow the “as built” characteristics of your shop is important. If you are new on the job, show a proactive attitude and focus on this aspect of the job.  

from Anthony Rante, P.E. author of "Managing Company Production thru the Bill of Material."

Several years ago, the powerful computer simulation tool Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was primarily used in the aerospace and nuclear industries. Over the years, the capability was made available thru timesharing and then finally on standalone systems. Today, we have access to this powerful tool through integrated CAD programs like INVENTOR and SOLIDWORKS. The is great. When designing we can access deflection and stress contour plots instantaneously. However, with this great capability comes a responsibility to use it properly.

Capability – How did we reach this point? To answer this question, I think it helps to review the historical record of stress analysis methods and how these were developed. I think an early turning point in stress analysis was the development of the Euler – Bernoulli equation of the Flexural Formula which occurred in the year 1750. We know this as stress = Mc/I. This method equates the beam deflection to a radius. Integration of this foundational equation, we then arrive at the Flexural Formula. From this point, many various conditions of support and load application have been developed, all based on the concept of beam theory.

Many Engineering designs can still be solved using basic beam theory. The I beam in the basement of your house is likely selected this way. Using basic beam theory end supports and a center support located at the round column, together with the floor above “worst case” floor loading; the beam can be safely selected. This is great for a basic problem like this application. But what above short deep beams that may not conform to the basic assumptions of beam theory.

In the early years of 1900, the Russian Scientist / Engineer Stephen Timoshenko laid down the fundamental equations for a new stress analysis method called Theory of Elasticity. This method looked at the same beam using a differential equation element for the deflection rather than the entire beam shape following a radius. For deeper beams, we could apply this method to pick up the web compression and shear deflection that exists. However, I find the math gets so complicated for solving simple 2D structures that it makes this method impractical for design Engineering. Nevertheless, these basic equations have led us to many plate and shell equations and other important findings in Engineering Mechanics.

The solution we now have available for today’s Engineering of structures is Finite Element Analysis (FEA). This method is based on matrix algebra and solving massive matrixes. The size of these matrixes makes this approach a computer based solution. The method includes various element types and has applications in stress, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, and advanced methods that combine all of the above.  As noted above, the method is integrated into CAD systems making this tool available to generate output very quickly. Along with this powerful capability, we have a responsibility to be sure this data is accurate.

Responsibilities – Using FEA requires an accurate model that represents the real world. Here are a few tips that should be considered. Note this is only a brief list, but it is a starting point.

1)    Boundary Constraints – Boundary constraints must be accurate. If possible, I like to use the boundary constraints to just keep the model stable. If you use this approach accurately, the solution phase should be left with little residual reaction at these locations.

2)    Peak Stress Levels at a Boundary Constraint Location – If you see peak stress levels at a boundary constraint location, this is a red flag. Resulting stress could be incorrect.  

3)    Avoid Loading Models with a Single Force at a Single Node – This is likely excessively deflecting the corresponding corner of the element. Look at the part you are modelling. The loading likely comes into the part as a pressure and not a point load.

4)    Verify Your Results – Use another method to confirm the FEA output. If it is a pressure vessel, check the output with a theoretical stress equation.

FEA simulations now allow us to solve 2D and 3D random shapes that do not conform to any traditional design. It is very powerful, but the responsibility to use it correctly is a real aspect of this approach.

From Anthony Rante, P.E.  Author of “FEA Applications in Machine Design”

The single answer to this question is the most likely result you can achieve once you commit to this effort. “The development, review, and execution of the structured bill of material creates teamwork across department lines.” The process of developing or reviewing your structured bill of material requires the following fundamental steps.

Assign a Production Team to this Task - It requires representation from Engineering, Purchasing Material Control, and various shop sections depending on the area of the review. In many cases, this chore is left up to the Engineering department to work out in a vacuum. Utilizing the team approach makes sure it is truly “as built”.

Flowcharting Gets Things Going – Sitting down with the group and mapping out the path of each section of the bill helps get the process rolling. This step alone will locate inefficiencies that must be addressed. Back tracking and unneeded locations will alone save money that will easily pay for this effort.

Understand the Meaning of “as built” – Engineers like to organize the bills like they design them. But for production requirements, this needs to follow the way the material will arrive and be utilized on the shop floor. The “as built” condition must represent the true activity.

Establish Engineering's Internal Customers - Once you understand who your internal customer's are, much of the demands on your documentation are identified.

Standardization – Standardizing around various sections of the overall assembly has value throughout the organization. Finding ways to achieve this has value in what you stock and how dynamic your inventory is to your production needs.

Manpower Planning and Staffing – Using the bill of material becomes a solid planning document for many needs across the organization.

from Anthony Rante, P.E. author of "Managing Company Production thru the Bill of Material."

Shortly after the assassination, the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, appointed the Warren Commission (WC). The WC was intended to investigate the assassination and help the American people, and the world, understand what happened on that day. However, the deputy Attorney General (Nicholas Katzenbach), issued a memo to the WC that gave them the following objective. “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” Note that Oswald was he himself assassinated within 48 hours from the JFK assassination.

One of the early problems for the WC was the alleged weapon. The rifle was a bolt action rifle that required shifting the bolt carriage once to eject the spent shell and then again to load a new shell. Using the Zapruder film, the shooting is estimated to occur with in 6-6.5 seconds. This is based on the head shot being the final round. Several rifle experts tested the weapon and it was estimated that each shot requires 3 seconds to fire. This estimate allows for minimal time to refocus and fire at the moving target. Doing the math, the weapon can produce a maximum of 3 shots within the time frame.

The problem that the WC soon faced is that three shots cannot account for the separate individual wounds at the crime scene. A bystander, James Tague, was hit by a deflection from a bullet that hit the curb at the triple underpass. Governor John Connelly was seated in front of JFK and was severely wounded by at least one round. JFK had at least three separate entrance wounds; one in the throat, one in the head, and one in the right side of the back. This totals five separate shots, which is not possible with the single bolt action rifle. In the end, the WC proposed a shot entered the back of JFK’s neck, and went thru into Connally (the single bullet theory). This reduces the count to four. Finally, the back wound was lined up with the center neck wound on JFK to get us to three.

Without a balance between the capacity of the weapon and the wound count, the WC’s case falls apart, and we have to believe that multiple shooters were involved. There is many other facts and testimony surrounding these details which need to be considered.

From Anthony Rante author of “The JFK Assassination: A Technical Review of the Evidence”

More information available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_P9Cry73vg&t=33s