One more thing about the idiot Max Holland. He claimed that when they got the bullet to ricochet in the experiment that it did very little damage to the mast arm; just a "slight indentation barely discernible to touch."
Doesn't that sound like more of a "glance" than a "ricochet"?
But, what about Newton's 3rd law of motion?
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
So, if the amount of force acting on the bullet was great enough to cause it to majorly alter its course- change its direction in a very wide angle- and lose it's jacket, then how could the amount of force acting on the mast arm be so small? Don't try to tell me that the material of the mast arm was that hard and impervious because I don't believe it. Max provided no information about the angle of the ricochet- how much angular deviation occurred. The slightest glance could be called a ricochet.
He said that: In three of the four tests, bullet strikes close to the top center-line of the mast left deep indentations, and the bullets shattered upon impact.
So, in a direct hit, the bullet impacted the mast arm deeply, and the mast arm impacted the bullet deeply. Check. But with the glancing shot, the bullet barely impacted the mast arm. So, why should the mast arm send the bullet coursing down the length of Dealey Plaza? And remember that mast arm was cylindrical.
The idea of getting a sharp angular deviation off a cylindrical object seems rather far-fetched. This is Holland's vision:
So, he envisions the bullet hitting that mast arm. But, hitting the left side of it would obviously cause the bullet to ricochet the other way. And the right side was largely out of reach. Hitting the very top wouldn't work either. So, it would have to be a hit to the very small arc between the top to where it became inaccessible on the right side. The mathematical improbability of that itself is daunting.
And although I mentioned doing it in Dealey Plaza to actually find out if it could happen- to reproduce it- the fact is that it could be reproduced elsewhere. You would need a height the same as the 6th floor and then a mast arm in the position that it was relative to the window, and then you have your surrogate of Dealey Plaza off to the right. You mark the location of the curb. And then you test it. I still think it would be better to do it in Dealey Plaza, and I think it's important enough to stop traffic and evacuate the area. You do it at sunrise, say on a Sunday morning, when there is very little traffic. But, the fact is that a Dealey Plaza substitute could be created in an experimental area. And there is no excuse for not doing it.
And why rely on "calculations" none of which Max detailed when you can act it out and see where the bullet goes when it deflects off the mast arm? It's not only nutty not to do it, it is highly deceptive and manipulative not do it. You can shove your calculations, Holland. You demonstrate where that bullet goes.