Interesting edit of Z film

[Dave Reitzes]

http://youtu.be/-g7qhn7KFDs

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 15, 2013 12:24:55 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> http://youtu.be/-g7qhn7KFDs

Very nice.

That edit makes it very clear that JFK was slammed into the back seat.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

We already know the president "slammed" into the seat. But some of us
also know that the "slam" was not caused by a bullet. Little tiny bullets
don't do these things except for in hollywood movies.

[Anthony Marsh]

You know nothing about bullets.
The Mythbusters knocked a test dummy back a couple inches and it fell
off the rest. Just from the impact of the bullet. I do not claim the
impact of a bullet was the cause. So go yell at your buddy WC defenders.

[Sandy McCroskey]

In what way were the conditions of that experiment comparable to the
situation of the Dealey Plaza motorcade on November 22, 1963? In how
many ways were they different?

Have you ever thought about that?

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

So you confirm that you never saw that episode.
What conditions do you assume?

> Have you ever thought about that?
>

We have only discussed it here a few hundred times.

> /sandy
>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 7/16/13 10:28 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/16/2013 12:02 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 7/15/13 11:37 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2013 6:20 PM, elpdr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 2:27:08 PM UTC-4, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 12:24:55 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://youtu.be/-g7qhn7KFDs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Very nice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That edit makes it very clear that JFK was slammed into the back seat.
>>>>
>>>> We already know the president "slammed" into the seat. But some of us
>>>> also know that the "slam" was not caused by a bullet. Little tiny
>>>> bullets
>>>> don't do these things except for in hollywood movies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You know nothing about bullets.
>>> The Mythbusters knocked a test dummy back a couple inches and it fell
>>> off the rest. Just from the impact of the bullet. I do not claim the
>>> impact of a bullet was the cause. So go yell at your buddy WC defenders.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In what way were the conditions of that experiment comparable to the
>> situation of the Dealey Plaza motorcade on November 22, 1963? In how
>> many ways were they different?
>>
>
> So you confirm that you never saw that episode.

I've never watched Mythbusters. It must be on cable.

> What conditions do you assume?
>

I admit that I read this hurriedly and was thinking of what may have
been another experiment which you have referred to, involving reflected
shockwaves.

>> Have you ever thought about that?
>>
>
> We have only discussed it here a few hundred times.
>

I've never seen such details mentioned when you talk about these
experiments, only your pointing to the result.

/sandy

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

I know everything I need to know about bullets, Tony. They simply do
not knock the whole upper body of a human backwards like we see in the
Zapruder film. If you believe that, go ahead. The loss of credibility is
your own.

[Anthony Marsh]

Naturally. Also on YouTube. But you probably don't know how to find
that. There are some new TV apps which feature YouTube.

>> What conditions do you assume?
>>
>
> I admit that I read this hurriedly and was thinking of what may have
> been another experiment which you have referred to, involving reflected
> shockwaves.
>

I am not sure what you read about reflected shock waves.
I've never heard of a shock wave from a bullet knocking someone over.
Maybe you are thinking of a shock wave from a bomb blast.

>>> Have you ever thought about that?
>>>
>>
>> We have only discussed it here a few hundred times.
>>
>
> I've never seen such details mentioned when you talk about these
> experiments, only your pointing to the result.
>

You mean Mythbusters? Watch the shows.

> /sandy
>
>
>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say the IMPACT of a bullet.
But you guys think the IMPACT of a bullet knocked JFK's head forward by
2.3 inches. In less than one Zapruder frame.

[David Von Pein]

Tony Marsh wants to separate these two occurrences (which are
unquestionably happening at the exact same split second in real time):

1.) JFK is being struck in the head by a bullet.

2.) JFK's head moves discernibly forward between Zapruder frames 312 and
313.

But according to Anthony Marsh of New England, the above two things are in
NO WAY related. There's no correlation between those two in-unison
occurrences whatsoever, per Mr. Marsh.

IOW--Mr. Marsh (like most CTers) wants to deny the obvious.

If there is ANY forward movement of the President's head between frames
311 and 312, it is very very small and difficult to discern. But any
movement between 311 and 312 is not nearly as large a movement as the
forward "snap" of the President's head that occurs at the exact 1/18th of
a second when Kennedy is being hit by a bullet between 312 and 313.

I'd love for Tony Marsh or some other CTer to go in front of a jury and
try to convince them that the forward "snap" (and it's most certain a
"snap", IMO) that is happening between 312 and 313 is occurring simply
because the car was slowing down from about 12 MPH to around 8 MPH at the
time of the head shot.

And Marsh will tell the jury that the forward SNAP, which all the jurors
can easily see in the slow-motion footage linked below, is just a
CONTINUATION of forward movement that Marsh says can be seen when we look
at ALL other limo occupants just before the head shot.

Nobody else's HEAD is SNAPPING FORWARD at precisely Z313 other than JFK's
head. But, Marsh will tell the jury, that doesn't make any difference. The
jury should DISREGARD that forward thrust of the President's head at the
INSTANT the bullet hits him. That snap means NOTHING, per defense lawyer
W. Anthony Marsh. It has nothing whatever to do with the bullet striking
Kennedy in the cranium. ALL forward movement MUST have been merely a
continuation of the forward motion that Marsh says is being exhibited by
all five of the other people in the car at the time of the fatal shot.

Of course, I (as the prosecutor) will point out in my closing arguments to
the jury that the defense attorney is nuts--because, per Marsh's theory,
we should see EVERYBODY'S head SNAPPING forward in the same manner as
President Kennedy's between frames 312 and 313. But we don't see anything
like that. We only see JOHN KENNEDY'S head snapping forward with force at
exactly 313. And which of the limousine's occupants was it who was being
struck with a bullet--IN THE HEAD--at exactly that moment?

I rest my case....and I'll leave the defense counsel to crawl under their
table as they hide in embarrassment.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

[Sandy McCroskey]

Well,something did, right?

You didn't say it was the impact of the bullet that moved JFK backward?
OK, fine, Marsh,. Neither do I!

And yet, if I understand you correctly, you still believe that the last
shot came from the front and that JFK's backward motion is somehow
indicative of that.

Well, then... what else would move JFK backward that would indicate the
*direction* from which the shot came, if *not* the impact?

The bullet had already exited JFK's head before he begins to move
backward. I think you've alluded to a later effect from a reflected
shock wave from an hypothesized exploding bullet, but a shock wave could
bounce back from any angle, depending on the circumstances.

If it wasn't the impact that moved JFK back, but you think it's
significant in talking about the *direction* of the shot to determine
what did move him back (which is to say, you don't believe it was a
neuromuscular spasm, a notion you have dismissed), then what do you
think it was, and how could it indicate the direction from which the
shot came?

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/17/2013 12:10 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Tony Marsh wants to separate these two occurrences (which are
> unquestionably happening at the exact same split second in real time):
>
> 1.) JFK is being struck in the head by a bullet.
>
> 2.) JFK's head moves discernibly forward between Zapruder frames 312 and
> 313.
>
> But according to Anthony Marsh of New England, the above two things are in
> NO WAY related. There's no correlation between those two in-unison
> occurrences whatsoever, per Mr. Marsh.
>

Oh great, so now I have to represent all of New England. Not much
pressure, eh? You could be just as uneducated as a couple of your fellow
WC defender buddies and claim that I live in the Communist Commonwealth of
Cambridge. Maybe you aren't smart enough to figure out exactly where I
live. Maybe you think I still drive a school bus.

> IOW--Mr. Marsh (like most CTers) wants to deny the obvious.
>

You are committing a logical error by looking only at one particular
moment and ignoring all the other moments. And looking at only one
particular passenged and ignoring the others. Everyone was already moving
forward before the head shot. It's called Inertia. You may claim it
doesn't exist, but I believe in it.

> If there is ANY forward movement of the President's head between frames
> 311 and 312, it is very very small and difficult to discern. But any

For you.

> movement between 311 and 312 is not nearly as large a movement as the
> forward "snap" of the President's head that occurs at the exact 1/18th of
> a second when Kennedy is being hit by a bullet between 312 and 313.
>

You are seeing the blur of frame 313. As David Wimp explained. And Tink
agrees.

> I'd love for Tony Marsh or some other CTer to go in front of a jury and
> try to convince them that the forward "snap" (and it's most certain a
> "snap", IMO) that is happening between 312 and 313 is occurring simply
> because the car was slowing down from about 12 MPH to around 8 MPH at the
> time of the head shot.

You didn't watch David Wimp's presentation, did you?
He presented it before many other CTers, including Tink, who were
convinced by it.

>
> And Marsh will tell the jury that the forward SNAP, which all the jurors
> can easily see in the slow-motion footage linked below, is just a
> CONTINUATION of forward movement that Marsh says can be seen when we look
> at ALL other limo occupants just before the head shot.
>

You would prevent them from seeing the other frames.
Was it a shot from behind which made Kellerman's head snap forward?

> Nobody else's HEAD is SNAPPING FORWARD at precisely Z313 other than JFK's
> head. But, Marsh will tell the jury, that doesn't make any difference. The

Not true. You have not even read my study and duplicated the data.
Ask Ken Rahn.

> jury should DISREGARD that forward thrust of the President's head at the
> INSTANT the bullet hits him. That snap means NOTHING, per defense lawyer
> W. Anthony Marsh. It has nothing whatever to do with the bullet striking

Prosecutor.

> Kennedy in the cranium. ALL forward movement MUST have been merely a
> continuation of the forward motion that Marsh says is being exhibited by
> all five of the other people in the car at the time of the fatal shot.
>
> Of course, I (as the prosecutor) will point out in my closing arguments to
> the jury that the defense attorney is nuts--because, per Marsh's theory,
> we should see EVERYBODY'S head SNAPPING forward in the same manner as
> President Kennedy's between frames 312 and 313. But we don't see anything
> like that. We only see JOHN KENNEDY'S head snapping forward with force at
> exactly 313. And which of the limousine's occupants was it who was being
> struck with a bullet--IN THE HEAD--at exactly that moment?
>

Everyone should not react precisely the same way, but they all continue
moving forward. Look at Kellerman.