"back and to the back" will never die.
claviger
that President Kennedy does not pitch into Jackie, nor does he crash
into her, or even tangle up with her. His body goes right past her
into the seatback. At the time of the head shot he was leaning forward
and to the left toward her as she held his left arm. The combination
of gravity and the impact of the bullet should have driven him "back
and to the left", but that's not what happened. Whatever dynamic force
causing his head to dip and his body to recoil must have been on a
fore and aft trajectory similar to the longitudinal axis of the
Limousine.
bigdog
Do you think we can get this thread up to 1000 posts? :)
Anthony Marsh
> In both the Zapruder film and the close up of the Nix film we can see
> that President Kennedy does not pitch into Jackie, nor does he crash
> into her, or even tangle up with her. His body goes right past her
> into the seatback. At the time of the head shot he was leaning forward
> and to the left toward her as she held his left arm. The combination
> of gravity and the impact of the bullet should have driven him "back
> and to the left", but that's not what happened. Whatever dynamic force
Who says the impact of the bullet should have driven him back and to the
left? You got any proof for that idea?
WhiskyJoe
Yes, as you have just pointed out and others have
pointed out, JFK's head and torso do not move away
from the sniper's nest. But neither do they move
away from any plausible gunman position. Not away
from the "Badgeman" or "Black Dog Man" positions
or away from any position on the grassy knoll.
He basically moved almost straight back, except
the head flopped to the side. That leaves us with
about the most unlikely position for a gunman.
Firing from straight ahead, with no tall
buildings to shoot from, hence the need to shoot
through the windshield, which could deflect the
shot. And we have no hole through the windshield.
And a bunch of policemen and railway workers
standing nearby on the overpass.
That means there was likely a neurological spasm
or response of some kind. And even if a shot from
straight ahead was not so unlikely, the reversal
of his movement, initially forward, then backwards,
should make us think:
* bullet push forwards
* then, muscles pushed backwards
Not:
* bullet pulled forward, then pushed backwards
nor:
* bullet pushed forward
* different bullet pushed backwards, neatly
simulating a neurological spasm.
John Blubaugh
In the Z-film we see that he was driven violently back and to the left
in reaction to a shot to the head from his right front.
JB
Herbert Blenner
Which shoulder is closer to the back of the car seat?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Why is one shoulder closer to the back of the seat on Z-317 while the
shoulders are equidistant from the back of the seat on earlier and
later frames?
Herbert
bigdog
Only one shoulder is visible in Z317.
bigdog
You keep saying that but you can't tell use in what way JFK went to
his left. Why is that?
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you mean? Of course I can tell you how JFK went "back and to
the left". It was a reaction to being shot in the head by a shooter on
the grassy knoll.
JB
claviger
JB,
Thank you for making that very clear. What you are saying is the force of
the bullet traveling along the ± 45º trajectory toward the Limousine
caused the President to fall in the same direction. Since he was not
upright, but leaning forward and tilting left toward Jackie who was trying
to steady him, why didn't his body crash into her? She was on the opposite
side of where you say the bullet came from. She was basically down range.
It is also your contention the bullet made exit from the back of the
skull, which is not on the same trajectory. So you now have a problem. The
force of the bullet had enough energy to make the entire body react, but
somehow managed to change directions inside the skull and exit away from
the incoming trajectory. Not only that, but this bullet which enters on a
descending angle now leaves the skull rising enough to miss the follow-up
car! Are you suggesting this bullet acted like a pinball bouncing around
inside the brain cavity before it made exit from the skull?
bigdog
>
You keep dodging the question. I've asked you repeatedly to say whether
this leftward movement was a slide, tilt, rotation or some other form. You
seem to be unwilling and or unable to choose any of the above because that
would force you to point out what you see in the Z-film that indicates
such a movement. So you continue to repeat the mantra "back and to the
left caused by a shot from the front right".
You remind me of the creationists who no matter how much evidence they are
presented with the age of the earth and the evolution of the species just
keep clinging to "God created the earth in 7 days. God created the earth
in 7 days." Just like you, they have a lot of people who believe the same
thing.
Herbert Blenner
I suggest that you give John an example by answering the question of
whether the "backward" movement was a slid, title, rotation or some other
form of motion.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> caused the President to fall in the same direction. Since he was not
> upright, but leaning forward and tilting left toward Jackie who was trying
> to steady him, why didn't his body crash into her? She was on the opposite
> side of where you say the bullet came from. She was basically down range.
>
Jackie was slightly in front of JFK by Z-313. Don't be fooled by the
lies of the TV show.
John Blubaugh
> > What do you mean? Of course I can tell you how JFK went "back and to
> > the left". It was a reaction to being shot in the head by a shooter on
> > the grassy knoll.
>
> > JB
>
> JB,
>
> Thank you for making that very clear. What you are saying is the force of
> the bullet traveling along the ± 45º trajectory toward the Limousine
> caused the President to fall in the same direction. Since he was not
> upright, but leaning forward and tilting left toward Jackie who was trying
> to steady him, why didn't his body crash into her? She was on the opposite
> side of where you say the bullet came from. She was basically down range.
>
> It is also your contention the bullet made exit from the back of the
> skull, which is not on the same trajectory. So you now have a problem. The
> force of the bullet had enough energy to make the entire body react, but
> somehow managed to change directions inside the skull and exit away from
> the incoming trajectory. Not only that, but this bullet which enters on a
> descending angle now leaves the skull rising enough to miss the follow-up
> car! Are you suggesting this bullet acted like a pinball bouncing around
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evidently I did not make it clear. I have never said that the bullet
exited in the rear or that it exited at all. All of your jaberwocky is
just trying to cloud an issue that you have no logical argument against.
JFK reacted violently "back and to the left" and it was reaction to a shot
from his right front. If you are going to make arguments, at least quote
me somewhat correctly.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
It was a violent lurch and I don't think any of your descriptions cover
it. You can see it but you deny it. Everyone I show it to says that it
shows a violent "back and to the left" reaction to a shot from the right
front. Don't confuse what I believe with faith. You cannot even look at
the Z-film and see what really happened so your conclusions mean
absolutely nothing to me.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I had to pick one and I'm not sure it is accurate but rotation
seems to be the best of these choices.
JB
Gerry Simone
him to fall directly into her lap.
'Back and to the left' is in layman's terms. The phrase implies a
transverse direction or angle.
Theoretically, we're talking of a shot that enters around the right, forward
side of his head and exits out of the right side of the back of his head
(mostly from the occipital bone).
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6370c3de-e4c4-42dc...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
JB,
the bullet traveling along the � 45� trajectory toward the Limousine
bigdog
Oh, he lurched to the left? Just what in the Z-film tells you this lurch
is to the left and not straight back? Did the lurch cause his ass to move
to the left? Did the lurch increase his body lean to the left? Did the
lurch cause him to spin to his left? You have done nothing to support your
position that there was any leftward movement. You have simply substituted
the word lurch for movement without explaining how this movement, or lurch
he you prefer, manifested itself. I presented 3 possible ways JFK could
have moved leftward and you have rejected all three without offering a
fourth possibility. You have once again failed to explain what you see in
the Z-film that indicates any leftward movement by JFK. If the leftward
movement is as obvious as you claim, why do you find it so difficult to
point out in what way JFK moved to his left? Once again, you fall back on
the crutch of other-people-see-the-same thing you which is no explaination
at all. Is that really all you've got? Maybe one of these other people can
come up with an explaination that you can't.
bigdog
> You almost make it sound like a shot hit him at a right angle to have forced
> him to fall directly into her lap.
>
> 'Back and to the left' is in layman's terms. The phrase implies a
> transverse direction or angle.
>
> Theoretically, we're talking of a shot that enters around the right, forward
> side of his head and exits out of the right side of the back of his head
> (mostly from the occipital bone).
>
I'm glad you're speaking theoretically because in JFK's case, it never
happened. He went straight back following the head shot. He hit the car
seat directly behind where he was when the bullet hit, leaning to his left
as he had been before the fatal shot. After hitting the car seat, he
rebounded forward again, and only then did his limp body topple over to
the left as Jackie climbed out of the seat onto the trunk. "Back and to
the left" is a myth perpetuated by Oliver Stone and accepted as dogma by
the legions of CTs who are desperate to find someone other than Oswald was
guilty of the crime. It's quite easy to fool people who want to be fooled.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who cares about that bullshit. You are just picking at straws and you
can't even see the back and to the left reaction that millions of other
people saw at once when the Z-film was released. I can't see in the car to
tell where is ass was on the seat and neither can you. I have an
explanation and I keep pounding you with it. JFK's reaction was caused by
being hit in the head by a bullet (and no, I don't know what kind or what
caliber) from his right front. So, if you have no answer for that, and you
don't, then stop with this nitpicking trying to distort everything you can
because you just can't stand the fact it was a conspiracy. Note my Roswell
post and you will see that the people whose opinion you hate because it
doesn't agree with yours usually come up with the right answer in the end.
If you had public opinion on your side, you would be trying to jam it down
my throat.
JB
Herbert Blenner
> him to fall directly into her lap.
>
> 'Back and to the left' is in layman's terms. The phrase implies a
> transverse direction or angle.
>
> Theoretically, we're talking of a shot that enters around the right, forward
> side of his head and exits out of the right side of the back of his head
> (mostly from the occipital bone).
A shot that enters the right-front and exits the right-rear rotates the
head backward and spins it to the right. By contrast, a backward rotation
and a leftward spin is evidence of a shot that transited the left side of
the head.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> Who cares about that bullshit. You are just picking at straws and you
> can't even see the back and to the left reaction that millions of other
> people saw at once when the Z-film was released. I can't see in the car to
> tell where is ass was on the seat and neither can you. I have an
> explanation and I keep pounding you with it. JFK's reaction was caused by
> being hit in the head by a bullet (and no, I don't know what kind or what
> caliber) from his right front. So, if you have no answer for that, and you
> don't, then stop with this nitpicking trying to distort everything you can
> because you just can't stand the fact it was a conspiracy. Note my Roswell
> post and you will see that the people whose opinion you hate because it
> doesn't agree with yours usually come up with the right answer in the end.
> If you had public opinion on your side, you would be trying to jam it down
> my throat.
>
Asking you to provide and explaination for exactly what form your
perceived leftward movement by JFK is hardly nitpicking. It is fundamental
to your theory of a front right shot. Your whole theory depends on JFK
having moved back and to the left and that this movement was from the
driving force of a bullet fired from the front right. So as not to confuse
the issue, let's not even talk about whether a bullet could even have
moved JFK to the degree he moved and focus only on the back and to the
left issue. No one is disputing he moved backwards so the only contention
is whether there was any leftward movement which accompanied the rearward
movement.
By you own admission, you cannot see in the Z-film whether JFK's rear end
moved to the left so we can eliminate any evidence of a slide to the left.
That leaves two other possibilities, either the force of the bullet pushed
his upper body to the left while his rear end remained in place which
would result in an increase in the angle of his tilt, or his torso rotated
to the left, again while his rear end remained anchored. Of course it is
possible that JFK could have been sliding, tilting, and/or rotating
simultaneously, but to date, I have been unable to get you to pick even
one. If he didn't slide, tilt, or rotate to the left, how else could he
have moved leftward? Telling us about all the other people who think they
see the same thing you do does nothing to address this key issue.
Anthony Marsh
I can't prove this, but I tend to think that his ass did not move much to
the left after he was shot. We know where his ass was BEFORE he was shot
because we can see from his posture that he was seated perfectly upright
as far to the right as he could get his torso on the back seat. After he
is shot he leans forward and to his left. But I don't think he could get
up off the seat and move over. It think it was a reflex action caused by
the shot.
John Blubaugh
> perceived leftward movement by JFK is hardly nitpicking. It is fundamental
> to your theory of a front right shot. Your whole theory depends on JFK
> having moved back and to the left and that this movement was from the
> driving force of a bullet fired from the front right. So as not to confuse
> the issue, let's not even talk about whether a bullet could even have
> moved JFK to the degree he moved and focus only on the back and to the
> left issue. No one is disputing he moved backwards so the only contention
> is whether there was any leftward movement which accompanied the rearward
> movement.
>
> By you own admission, you cannot see in the Z-film whether JFK's rear end
> moved to the left so we can eliminate any evidence of a slide to the left.
> That leaves two other possibilities, either the force of the bullet pushed
> his upper body to the left while his rear end remained in place which
> would result in an increase in the angle of his tilt, or his torso rotated
> to the left, again while his rear end remained anchored. Of course it is
> possible that JFK could have been sliding, tilting, and/or rotating
> simultaneously, but to date, I have been unable to get you to pick even
> one. If he didn't slide, tilt, or rotate to the left, how else could he
> have moved leftward? Telling us about all the other people who think they
> see the same thing you do does nothing to address this key issue.
So, because you cannot see it you can eliminate it? What kind of "science"
is that? LN science obviously. You are whipping a dead equine with your
attempts at disinformation. Nobody cares about any of that. Only a few LN
fanatics believe that JFK's "back and to the left" violent reaction could
have been caused by a shot from behind him. Give it up, no one is
listening or buying.
JB
claviger
> You almost make it sound like a shot hit him at a right angle to have forced
> him to fall directly into her lap.
He did fall in her lap after he bounced off the seat back. My question is
why not on first impact? A crossing 45º angle is a significant incoming
trajectory. The impact moved him forcefully according to CTs. If he was
already inclined toward Jackie why did the combination of kinetic energy
and gravity not push-pull him in her direction? The assumption is the
bullet is forcing his body downrange. The Nix film close-up clearly shows
his body go straight back into the seat as if the force acting on the body
is longitudinal, not sideways. Please keep in mind the first severe
movement we see by the President is his head dips forward. Why would that
be the first reaction to a shot coming from in front of him?
> 'Back and to the left' is in layman's terms. The phrase implies a
> transverse direction or angle.
Exactly. In the Nix film we can see the back part, but no "to the
left" movement. Why not?
> Theoretically, we're talking of a shot that enters around the right, forward
> side of his head and exits out of the right side of the back of his head
> (mostly from the occipital bone).
So why does this projectile make a major turn to the left, instead of
maintaining its trajectory? Since it's on a downward angle toward the
vehicle how does it miss the trunk of the Limousine? The "Queen Mary", a
rather large object ergo the nickname, was close behind. How did the
bullet manage to miss this vehicle?
> "claviger" <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
bigdog
>
> So, because you cannot see it you can eliminate it? What kind of "science"
> is that? LN science obviously. You are whipping a dead equine with your
> attempts at disinformation. Nobody cares about any of that. Only a few LN
> fanatics believe that JFK's "back and to the left" violent reaction could
> have been caused by a shot from behind him. Give it up, no one is
> listening or buying.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I did not say we can eliminate it. I am saying there is no
evidence of it. If you are going to argue that JFK moved left, you are
the one that needs to provide evidence that he did. Your theory of a
shot from the right is dependent on a leftward movement by JFK
following the head shot. The visual evidence indicates to me he moved
straight back from his position at Z312. If you want to talk about
science, the way science works is that someone postulating a theory
needs to provide the evidence that supports the theory. Assumptions
don't cut it.
bigdog
> On Feb 23, 11:27 am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Theoretically, we're talking of a shot that enters around the right, forward
> > side of his head and exits out of the right side of the back of his head
> > (mostly from the occipital bone).
>
> So why does this projectile make a major turn to the left, instead of
> maintaining its trajectory? Since it's on a downward angle toward the
> vehicle how does it miss the trunk of the Limousine? The "Queen Mary", a
> rather large object ergo the nickname, was close behind. How did the
> bullet manage to miss this vehicle?
>
John Blubaugh
> why not on first impact? A crossing 45º angle is a significant incoming
> trajectory. The impact moved him forcefully according to CTs. If he was
> already inclined toward Jackie why did the combination of kinetic energy
> and gravity not push-pull him in her direction? The assumption is the
> bullet is forcing his body downrange. The Nix film close-up clearly shows
> his body go straight back into the seat as if the force acting on the body
> is longitudinal, not sideways. Please keep in mind the first severe
> movement we see by the President is his head dips forward. Why would that
> be the first reaction to a shot coming from in front of him?
>
>
There was not a severe movement of his head forward. That is an LN
myth. His entire body was moving forward because the limo was slowing.
JB
Gerry Simone
There were legions of CT before Oliver Stone.
The SBT is a theory too.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d315c4b3-4c4a-438a...@s17g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
wouldn't JFK already leaning to his left affect the direction & rotation?
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f9ec5711-b5ed-41e3...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
but I doubt the angle was 45%.
Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
I don't quite follow the rest of your question.
(When you ask why the bullet doesn't hit the vehicle, from where and in
what direction?)
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:183c6071-ed24-41eb...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 23, 11:27 am, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You almost make it sound like a shot hit him at a right angle to have
> forced
> him to fall directly into her lap.
He did fall in her lap after he bounced off the seat back. My question is
why not on first impact? A crossing 45? angle is a significant incoming
Anthony Marsh
> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
>
> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
>
Not so many now. Many of those have dropped the shot from the rear and
think there was only the shot from the grassy knoll which hit.
bigdog
> Oh puh-lease.
>
> There were legions of CT before Oliver Stone.
>
> The SBT is a theory too.
>
"back and to the left" CT dogma. For many, the movie JFK was their
first glimpse of the Z-film or their first close up view of it and
they got that view while Costner chanted, "back and to the left, back
and to the left, back and to the left". No wonder they came away with
that impression. I never though JFK went "back and to the left" but
straight back until I saw Stone's movie. I came out of the theater
believing "back and to the left", although not the rest of the
bullshit. It was about a year or two later that I took a good hard
look at the Z-film and JFK's position when he hit the seat back and
realized there is no left in "back and to the left". The movement was
straight back, just as I had believed before I saw that shitty movie.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 24, 11:07 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh puh-lease.
>>
>> There were legions of CT before Oliver Stone.
>>
>> The SBT is a theory too.
>>
> Oliver Stone is the one who took CT theory to the masses and made
> "back and to the left" CT dogma. For many, the movie JFK was their
You claim that because you know nothing about the conspiracy research
community. We were giving lectures showing the Zapruder film and saying
back and to the left long before the Stone movie. The Stone movie was not
the impetus for forming the HSCA.
> first glimpse of the Z-film or their first close up view of it and
> they got that view while Costner chanted, "back and to the left, back
> and to the left, back and to the left". No wonder they came away with
> that impression. I never though JFK went "back and to the left" but
> straight back until I saw Stone's movie. I came out of the theater
No, you thought he was thrust forward by a shot from the TSBD, because the
WC told you show and misleading printed the Zapruder frames.
> believing "back and to the left", although not the rest of the
> bullshit. It was about a year or two later that I took a good hard
> look at the Z-film and JFK's position when he hit the seat back and
> realized there is no left in "back and to the left". The movement was
> straight back, just as I had believed before I saw that shitty movie.
>
After the blowback from the cover-up artists.
John Blubaugh
Oh, it was done much before with "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and other
conspiracy friendly documentaries. The mind of the public was made up lone
before JFK was filmed. It was a great movie and it used the actual Z-film
footage. It was historical fiction. It wasn't meant to be the literal
truth. You just can't stand anything that disagees with your pet theories.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Historical fiction? Is that some politically correct term to describe
propaganda. I'm glad it wasn't meant to be a literal truth because it
was a pack of lies. Stone knew what he was presenting wasn't true but
he also knew a large percentage of the population would be gullible
enough to believe it, and he was right. How do you justify Stone
presenting the claim that the WC said the first shot missed? How do
you justify Stone claiming the WC said all three shots were fired in
5.6 seconds. The WC claimed neither but simply stated that the two
shots that hit JFK were fired a maximum of 5.6 seconds apart. The WC
allowed for the possibility of a first shot miss but that would mean
JFK was hit by shots 2 and 3 which means two shots, not three, were
fired in a maximum of 5.6 seconds. Stone deliberately misled the
viewers by combining two POSSIBLE scenarios offered by the WC and
combining them into a single one to make it appear the WC had
concluded something that was highly unlikely. Just one of dozens of
half truths and outright lies Stone presented in his "great movie". It
was a great piece of propaganda because it convinced a lot of people
into believing a lie. Ditto for TMWKK.
claviger
> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
45º angle (±45º). Not sure how to measure the physics, but if we
assume the projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force
across, then the body should obey and go back and to the left at the same
time, correct? If it did, then the President should have been forced into
Jackie. Close inspection of the Nix film proves that did not happen. We
can see the President recoil backward, and bounce off the seat first, then
collapse into Jackie's lap. This can be verified in both films.
> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
Not once but twice, according to some CTs. Marsh believes there were two
simultaneous shots from two different windows in the TSBD. One hit the
President in the back and the other hit the Governor at the same time.
Cyril Wecht believed there were simultaneous shots causing the head
wounds, from behind and in front, at almost the same moment that forced
the head to dip forward first, then knocked backward by the GKS.
> I don't quite follow the rest of your question.
>
> (When you ask why the bullet doesn't hit the vehicle, from where and in
> what direction?)
So far I have no confirmation so I have to guess the Grassy Knoll
elevation is approximately 10' - 15' above Elm street. Add 5' for the
wooden fence, so the rifle barrel resting on the top of the picket fence
was about 15' - 20' above the street. The President's head was 4' above
the street. Therefore the downward trajectory is coming from a position
11' - 16' above the President. I'm guessing the angle of declination is
approximately 10 - 15º, maybe more. If the bullet enters the front of
the head and punctures all the way out the back of the skull on the same
trajectory it should pass over the left side of the Limousine, not the
trunk. Those who claim it made a big hole in the back right part of the
skull need to study the position of the President's head in z312. The
trajectory would have to bend to the left inside the brain cavity to exit
that part of the skull. Since the President's head was only 24" or less
above the trunk, the exiting projectile should make contact with the trunk
of the Limousine or the grill of the follow-up car. If this projectile
missed both cars, how did it gain altitude to fly over these large metal
objects?
Gerry Simone
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b86...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
Because that is what most of the WC defenders said.
> you justify Stone claiming the WC said all three shots were fired in
> 5.6 seconds. The WC claimed neither but simply stated that the two
> shots that hit JFK were fired a maximum of 5.6 seconds apart. The WC
I think they were ridiculing the WC assumptions about how fast the rifle
could be fired. Reloading and firing two shots within 5.6 means that three
shots could be fired in 5.6 seconds because the first bullet is already
loaded.
> allowed for the possibility of a first shot miss but that would mean
> JFK was hit by shots 2 and 3 which means two shots, not three, were
> fired in a maximum of 5.6 seconds. Stone deliberately misled the
> viewers by combining two POSSIBLE scenarios offered by the WC and
> combining them into a single one to make it appear the WC had
Can you quote the exact wording they used in the movie?
As I remember it there was something like the WC said the rifle could be
fired three times in 5.6 seconds. Not that the time from the first shot
to the last shot was 5.6 seconds.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Historical fiction is a book or movie based on a historical event but
fiction. Do you even understand what fiction is? You don't care about
people so why do you care what the public believes? If you really want
to get into half truths and outright lies, you should try the WCR. It
is full of them and it isn't supposed to be fiction.
JB
Gerry Simone
"bigdog" said:
How do you justify Stone claiming the WC said all three shots were fired
in 5.6 seconds. The WC claimed neither but simply stated that the two
shots that hit JFK were fired a maximum of 5.6 seconds apart. The WC
allowed for the possibility of a first shot miss but that would mean JFK
was hit by shots 2 and 3 which means two shots, not three, were fired in a
maximum of 5.6 seconds. Stone deliberately misled the viewers by combining
two POSSIBLE scenarios offered by the WC and combining them into a single
one to make it appear the WC had concluded something that was highly
unlikely. Just one of dozens of half truths and outright lies Stone
presented in his "great movie". It was a great piece of propaganda because
it convinced a lot of people into believing a lie. Ditto for TMWKK.
========================================================
Sorry Bigdog but the WC did INCLUDE (my emphasis) the possibility that all
3 shots were fired within 5.6 seconds, and possibly preferred that one.
Chapter II of the WCR at the end of the paragraph The Second Shot states
"Another factor arguing against the second shot missing is that the gunman
would have been shooting at very near the minimum allowable time to have
fired the three shots within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, although it was entirely
possible for him to have done so. (See ch. IV, pp.188-194).
Chapter IV states that if the second shot missed "the assassin in all
probablility hit two out of the three shots during the maximum time span
of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds", and "As has been shown in Chapter III, if the
three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the
shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have
incurred so sharp an angular movement", and in their conclusion paragraph
of that chapter, they go on to explain how Oswald was capable of making
THREE shots and hitting the target twice within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.
Seems like the WC went to a lot of trouble to justify 3 shots within 4.8
to 5.6 seconds.
Yes, the WCR didn't rule out other scenarios, but Stone had good reason to
pick this one to critique in his movie.
bigdog
about JFK getting killed right, but everything else was a bunch of
half truths and outright lies. Portraying Garrison has a heroic figure
was probably the biggest whopper of all. Garrison was a scum.
John Blubaugh
> > Historical fiction is a book or movie based on a historical event but
> > fiction. Do you even understand what fiction is? You don't care about
> > people so why do you care what the public believes? If you really want
> > to get into half truths and outright lies, you should try the WCR. It
> > is full of them and it isn't supposed to be fiction.
>
> Yes, I understand that Stone's movie was fiction. He did get the part
> about JFK getting killed right, but everything else was a bunch of
> half truths and outright lies. Portraying Garrison has a heroic figure
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is obvious from your words that you don't understand anything. The
movies was the assassination from Garrison's eyes. Do you think he
thought that he was scum?
JB
bigdog
> "bigdog" said:
>
> How do you justify Stone claiming the WC said all three shots were fired
> in 5.6 seconds. The WC claimed neither but simply stated that the two
> shots that hit JFK were fired a maximum of 5.6 seconds apart. The WC
> allowed for the possibility of a first shot miss but that would mean JFK
> was hit by shots 2 and 3 which means two shots, not three, were fired in a
> maximum of 5.6 seconds. Stone deliberately misled the viewers by combining
> two POSSIBLE scenarios offered by the WC and combining them into a single
> one to make it appear the WC had concluded something that was highly
> unlikely. Just one of dozens of half truths and outright lies Stone
> presented in his "great movie". It was a great piece of propaganda because
> it convinced a lot of people into believing a lie. Ditto for TMWKK.
>
> ========================================================
>
> Sorry Bigdog but the WC did INCLUDE (my emphasis) the possibility that all
> 3 shots were fired within 5.6 seconds, and possibly preferred that one.
>
Yes, that said it was a possibility but that is not how Stone presented
it. He claimed that was their conclusion which is an outright lie. The had
just done a demonstration which seemed to indicate it would take over 7
seconds to fire three shots (even though if you time it yourself, it was
under 6 seconds). Then Garrison's assistant uses that demonstration to
claim Oswald couldn't have done it. A BIG FAT LIE!!!
> Chapter II of the WCR at the end of the paragraph The Second Shot states
> "Another factor arguing against the second shot missing is that the gunman
> would have been shooting at very near the minimum allowable time to have
> fired the three shots within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, although it was entirely
> possible for him to have done so. (See ch. IV, pp.188-194).
>
> Chapter IV states that if the second shot missed "the assassin in all
> probablility hit two out of the three shots during the maximum time span
> of 4.8 to 5.6 seconds", and "As has been shown in Chapter III, if the
> three shots were fired within a period of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, the
> shots would have been evenly spaced and the assassin would not have
> incurred so sharp an angular movement", and in their conclusion paragraph
> of that chapter, they go on to explain how Oswald was capable of making
> THREE shots and hitting the target twice within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.
>
> Seems like the WC went to a lot of trouble to justify 3 shots within 4.8
> to 5.6 seconds.
>
I know everything in that chapter, not just the passages you cherry picked
to indicate the WC leaned toward a second shot miss. If you read the whole
chapter, you'll see that the WC offered both the pros and the cons for a
first, second, and even a third shot miss without committing to any of
them. They found the evidence as to which shot missed inconclusive and
state so unequivocally in their summary.
> Yes, the WCR didn't rule out other scenarios, but Stone had good reason to
> pick this one to critique in his movie.
If he wanted to pick the second shot miss scenario, why the hell did he
have Garrison's assistant claim that the WC said the first shot missed.
That is what made that scene a despicable lie. Stone was claiming the WC
concluded a first shot miss AND 3 shots in 5.6 seconds and the two are
mutually exclusive. Of course since his goal was to deceive the public,
there is nothing Stone wouldn't stoop to.
Anthony Marsh
Then it's your duty as a Patriotic American to point out exactly what
those lies and half truths were. But when you try, you go overboard and
misrepresent.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
It's your duty as a Patriotic American to condemn lies, even if they
serve a cause you agree with.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone
Mentioning it only amounted to a side comment which isn't a lie.
Also, I didn't cherry pick. I quoted the WCR to show you that the WC did
say that Oswald could fire 3 shots to execute the President within 4.8 to
5.6 seconds.
The shooting scene in JFK really demonstrated whether Oswald could fire 3
shots & hit two targets in the minimal allowable time. That was the gist
of the scene. Not whether it was compatible with a first shot missing.
I have that scene on my computer desktop and just played it. I believe
Garrison says SIX POINT SEVEN SECONDS, although the SIX is faint. Then
Garrison's assistant makes the valid comment, 'and that's without aiming',
which is true.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ca84a52-95d5-43d9...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
of the corner of the picket fence) is 45 degrees, I still can't see how he
would be forced into Jackie first.
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2138e270-c78e-4f42...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Gerry,
> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a 45?
angle (?45?). Not sure how to measure the physics, but if we assume the
projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force across, then the
body should obey and go back and to the left at the same time, correct? If
it did, then the President should have been forced into Jackie. Close
inspection of the Nix film proves that did not happen. We can see the
President recoil backward, and bounce off the seat first, then collapse
into Jackie's lap. This can be verified in both films.
> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
Not once but twice, according to some CTs. Marsh believes there were two
simultaneous shots from two different windows in the TSBD. One hit the
President in the back and the other hit the Governor at the same time.
Cyril Wecht believed there were simultaneous shots causing the head
wounds, from behind and in front, at almost the same moment that forced
the head to dip forward first, then knocked backward by the GKS.
> I don't quite follow the rest of your question.
>
> (When you ask why the bullet doesn't hit the vehicle, from where and in
> what direction?)
So far I have no confirmation so I have to guess the Grassy Knoll
elevation is approximately 10' - 15' above Elm street. Add 5' for the
wooden fence, so the rifle barrel resting on the top of the picket fence
was about 15' - 20' above the street. The President's head was 4' above
the street. Therefore the downward trajectory is coming from a position
11' - 16' above the President. I'm guessing the angle of declination is
approximately 10 - 15?, maybe more. If the bullet enters the front of the
Anthony Marsh
> Gerry,
>
>> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
>> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
>
> I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
> Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
45 degrees is close enough for a WC defender. If you want to measure the
exact angle, buy a protractor and then print out and measure the line from
the grassy knoll shooter to JFK's head.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
John Hunt estimated the downward angle at 3.7 degrees, but he used the
wrong data.
> assume the projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force
> across, then the body should obey and go back and to the left at the same
You know what happens when you ASSuME?
> time, correct? If it did, then the President should have been forced into
You have no basis in facts to ever say "should have."
> Jackie. Close inspection of the Nix film proves that did not happen. We
> can see the President recoil backward, and bounce off the seat first, then
> collapse into Jackie's lap. This can be verified in both films.
>
>> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
>> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
>
> Not once but twice, according to some CTs. Marsh believes there were two
> simultaneous shots from two different windows in the TSBD. One hit the
I never said simultaneous. How can Z-210 and Z-230 be simultaneous?
> President in the back and the other hit the Governor at the same time.
> Cyril Wecht believed there were simultaneous shots causing the head
> wounds, from behind and in front, at almost the same moment that forced
> the head to dip forward first, then knocked backward by the GKS.
>
I am not so sure that Wecht still believes in the double head shot
theory. Tink gave it up a couple of years ago.
>> I don't quite follow the rest of your question.
>>
>> (When you ask why the bullet doesn't hit the vehicle, from where and in
>> what direction?)
>
> So far I have no confirmation so I have to guess the Grassy Knoll
> elevation is approximately 10' - 15' above Elm street. Add 5' for the
Fun to guess, isn't it? Why not look it up on the best map?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ovs-scan.gif
> wooden fence, so the rifle barrel resting on the top of the picket fence
> was about 15' - 20' above the street. The President's head was 4' above
> the street. Therefore the downward trajectory is coming from a position
> 11' - 16' above the President. I'm guessing the angle of declination is
JOhn Hunt estimated an 8.7 foot drop, but he got the distance wrong so
his angle of 3.7 degrees is off.
> approximately 10 - 15?, maybe more. If the bullet enters the front of
> the head and punctures all the way out the back of the skull on the same
> trajectory it should pass over the left side of the Limousine, not the
> trunk. Those who claim it made a big hole in the back right part of the
My theory specified NO exit wound.
> skull need to study the position of the President's head in z312. The
> trajectory would have to bend to the left inside the brain cavity to exit
> that part of the skull. Since the President's head was only 24" or less
> above the trunk, the exiting projectile should make contact with the trunk
> of the Limousine or the grill of the follow-up car. If this projectile
> missed both cars, how did it gain altitude to fly over these large metal
> objects?
>
How did your bullet enter the top of Kennedy's head on a downward
trajectory angle of 15 degrees and then turn upwards to hit the chrome
topping? Pot-kettle.
>
>
bigdog
> > > Historical fiction is a book or movie based on a historical event but
> > > fiction. Do you even understand what fiction is? You don't care about
> > > people so why do you care what the public believes? If you really want
> > > to get into half truths and outright lies, you should try the WCR. It
> > > is full of them and it isn't supposed to be fiction.
>
> > Yes, I understand that Stone's movie was fiction. He did get the part
> > about JFK getting killed right, but everything else was a bunch of
> > half truths and outright lies. Portraying Garrison has a heroic figure
> > was probably the biggest whopper of all. Garrison was a scum.
>
> It is obvious from your words that you don't understand anything. The
> movies was the assassination from Garrison's eyes. Do you think he
> thought that he was scum?
>
> JB
Stop it!!! The movie was intended to make a hero of Garrison, hence the
selection of good guy Kevin Costner to play the lead even though he bears
zero resemblence to the real Jim Garrison. Garrison was a big man with a
baritone voice. Costner was neither. Joe Don Baker or Brian Dennehy would
have been much better choices. The closing scene of Garrison's summation
through a cracking voice was almost too much to take. I almost tossed my
lunch.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 9:46 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "bigdog" said:
>>
>> How do you justify Stone claiming the WC said all three shots were fired
>> in 5.6 seconds. The WC claimed neither but simply stated that the two
>> shots that hit JFK were fired a maximum of 5.6 seconds apart. The WC
>> allowed for the possibility of a first shot miss but that would mean JFK
>> was hit by shots 2 and 3 which means two shots, not three, were fired in a
>> maximum of 5.6 seconds. Stone deliberately misled the viewers by combining
>> two POSSIBLE scenarios offered by the WC and combining them into a single
>> one to make it appear the WC had concluded something that was highly
>> unlikely. Just one of dozens of half truths and outright lies Stone
>> presented in his "great movie". It was a great piece of propaganda because
>> it convinced a lot of people into believing a lie. Ditto for TMWKK.
>>
>> ========================================================
>>
>> Sorry Bigdog but the WC did INCLUDE (my emphasis) the possibility that all
>> 3 shots were fired within 5.6 seconds, and possibly preferred that one.
>>
>
> Yes, that said it was a possibility but that is not how Stone presented
> it. He claimed that was their conclusion which is an outright lie. The had
> just done a demonstration which seemed to indicate it would take over 7
> seconds to fire three shots (even though if you time it yourself, it was
> under 6 seconds). Then Garrison's assistant uses that demonstration to
> claim Oswald couldn't have done it. A BIG FAT LIE!!!
>
Without aiming at a moving target.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 27, 4:25 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Historical fiction is a book or movie based on a historical event but
>>>> fiction. Do you even understand what fiction is? You don't care about
>>>> people so why do you care what the public believes? If you really want
>>>> to get into half truths and outright lies, you should try the WCR. It
>>>> is full of them and it isn't supposed to be fiction.
>>
>>> Yes, I understand that Stone's movie was fiction. He did get the part
>>> about JFK getting killed right, but everything else was a bunch of
>>> half truths and outright lies. Portraying Garrison has a heroic figure
>>> was probably the biggest whopper of all. Garrison was a scum.
>
>>
>> It is obvious from your words that you don't understand anything. The
>> movies was the assassination from Garrison's eyes. Do you think he
>> thought that he was scum?
>>
>> JB
>
> Stop it!!! The movie was intended to make a hero of Garrison, hence the
> selection of good guy Kevin Costner to play the lead even though he bears
> zero resemblence to the real Jim Garrison. Garrison was a big man with a
So now you are criticizing the choice of actors, as if the actor chosen
must look exactly like the real person. Ok, that's fun. So Kevin Costner
is a leading man and which role would you have put him in?
Would you have made him Kenny O'Donnell the way they did in Thirteen
Days and told the story from his point of view? Maybe their first choice
for Garrison was not available or had died. I can think of a lot of
actors who would have been better casting for Garrison, such as Sterling
Hayden. But if Kevin Costner is putting in 20% of the money, don't you
think he gets to choose which part he wants to play?
> baritone voice. Costner was neither. Joe Don Baker or Brian Dennehy would
> have been much better choices. The closing scene of Garrison's summation
> through a cracking voice was almost too much to take. I almost tossed my
> lunch.
>
Why don't you make the point that Garrison never made any of those
speeches in the courtroom?
Didn't you think Joe Pesci was perfect as Ferrie?
claviger
> I'd have to study this but even if the angle (assuming from a shooter west
> of the corner of the picket fence) is 45 degrees, I still can't see how he
> would be forced into Jackie first.
Think of it this way. If a man was sitting in a chair and leans too
far to the left, what happens? He falls left not straight back. The
reason being gravity pulls him that way. If the same man is sitting
upright and a bullet is fired from his front right at a 45º angle and
strikes his body, according to the GKS theory the body will be moved
in the same direction. Therefore this ballistic force pushes him to
his left, not straight back.
The same man in the chair is leaning to his left when the bullet
strikes him. You now have two forces affecting him, one pulling him
left and the other pushing him left, as in "back and to the left." So
why would his head tip forward and his torso go straight back if both
forces want him to go left?
claviger
> On 2/26/2010 8:20 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
>
> >> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> >> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
> > I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
> > Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
> > 45? angle (?45?). Not sure how to measure the physics, but if we
> 45 degrees is close enough for a WC defender. If you want to measure the
> exact angle, buy a protractor and then print out and measure the line from
> the grassy knoll shooter to JFK's head.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
> John Hunt estimated the downward angle at 3.7 degrees, but he used the
> wrong data.
Why don't you correct his mistake and come up with a number?
> > assume the projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force
> > across, then the body should obey and go back and to the left at the same
> You know what happens when you ASSuME?
Are you saying a projectile coming in at a 45º angle does exert a
force toward 225º?
> > time, correct? If it did, then the President should have been forced into
> You have no basis in facts to ever say "should have."
The basis is the CT contention that "back and to the left" is a result
of a bullet fired from the front right.
> >> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
> >> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
> > Not once but twice, according to some CTs. Marsh believes there were two
> > simultaneous shots from two different windows in the TSBD. One hit the
> I never said simultaneous. How can Z-210 and Z-230 be simultaneous?
Glad you cleared that up.
> > So far I have no confirmation so I have to guess the Grassy Knoll
> > elevation is approximately 10' - 15' above Elm street. Add 5' for the
> Fun to guess, isn't it? Why not look it up on the best map?
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ovs-scan.gif
Another good map.
> JOhn Hunt estimated an 8.7 foot drop, but he got the distance wrong so
> his angle of 3.7 degrees is off.
Why don't you make the correction and tell us the right answer.
> > approximately 10 - 15?, maybe more. If the bullet enters the front of
> > the head and punctures all the way out the back of the skull on the same
> > trajectory it should pass over the left side of the Limousine, not the
> > trunk. Those who claim it made a big hole in the back right part of the
> My theory specified NO exit wound.
Yes, I know. So you think the ER staff and others who thought they saw
the big hole in the BOH were mistaken.
> How did your bullet enter the top of Kennedy's head on a downward
> trajectory angle of 15 degrees and then turn upwards to hit the chrome
> topping? Pot-kettle.
We don't know for sure if it was the head shot that caused the dent.
If it was, it's possible the disintegrating bullet spread fragments in
several directions and a large fragment made the dent. We can see
fragments going in different directions in z313. In your theory why
did the exploding bullet backfire?
WhiskyJoe
> I came out of the theater believing
> "back and to the left", although not the rest
> of the bullshit. It was about a year or two
> later that I took a good hard look at the Z-film
> and JFK's position when he hit the seat back and
> realized there is no left in "back and to the left".
> The movement was straight back, just as I had
> believed before I saw that shitty movie.
I too thought the movement was back and to the left
until you pointed it out that it wasn't.
Now it's true, the head, while mostly going back,
does flop to the left. But the vast bulk of the
mass of JFK that was moving was in his torso.
And the torso moved straight back. Most of his
momentum was straight back, with a slight
leftward component to this movement, when one
takes into account the head.
So, if the movement of JFK was solely caused by
bullet pushes, we can rule out the favorite
positions of the Grassy Knoll shooter.
Using Don Roberdeau's excellent map:
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
The corner of the fence was off the center
line of the limousine by 55 degrees.
The "GKS", Grassy Knoll Shooter, as "seen"
in the Moorman photograph (Badgeman?) is
off by 52 degrees.
No plausible shooing position is less than
45 degrees, that is a shot that is nearer
from coming from straight ahead than from
the left. What the CTers really need is for
JFK to move "left and back", that is more
leftward than backwards. But JFK moves much
more backwards than leftwards.
WhiskyJoe
>> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are
>> longitudinal as opposed to lateral
>> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
> I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on
> his website The Puzzle Palace. While he didn't
> measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
> 45º angle (±45º).
I believe that the best map is
Don Roberdeau's at:
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
The angles from the corner of the fence and what
Don Roberdeau calls the GKS (Grassy Knoll Shooter)
is around 50 degrees. That is the angle is a almost
45 degrees, just a bit more from the side than
from the front.
Your rough measurement is close enough.
A shot from these positions is not from
straight ahead or almost straight ahead,
but coming in at on a diagonal.
The bottom line? JFK did not move directly away
from Oswald's sniper's nest. Nor did he move
directly away from the Grassy Knoll position.
He basically moved straight back, as one would
expect from a neurological spasm.
WhiskyJoe
> There was not a severe movement of his head
> forward. That is an LN myth. His entire body
> was moving forward because the limo was slowing.
Check out:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
See the two films, one that shows Z311-315 and the
other that shows Z312-313.
Clearly JFK's head does move forward, between
Z312 and Z313. No one else's head moved a
significant amount.
Just look at the relative movement of JFK's
and Jackie's head. JFK's head clearly moves
forward relative to Jackie's head, as well
as relative to the limousine. IF JFK moved
forward due to a slowing down of the limousine,
why didn't Jackie's head move forward as well?
Independent experts have estimated that JFK's
head moved forward by two inches between
Z312-313. This is about 2 MPH. This was the
fastest movement of JFK's head. While his
head moved backwards all through Z313-317,
his head never reached a speed of 2 inches
per Zapruder frame or 2 MPH backwards.
About half the momentum of a MC/WWC bullet
should push the head of JFK at 2 MPH.
So, if JFK's head was pushed from behind
by a bullet from Oswald, and then a
neurological spasm kicked in 55 to 110
milliseconds later, we should expect to
see exactly what he see in the Zapruder
film. A sudden jerk forward of the head,
followed by a slower, gradually accelerating
movement backwards over the next several
frames.
****************************************
Of course, next month, next week, maybe
today, the CTers will be back to insisting
the forward movement of JFK's head is a
LN myth. Never underestimate the power
of the repetitive lie, on others and even
on ourselves. Back and to the left, back
and to the left. Back and to the left.
Gerry Simone
me....Thurman?) thinks the chrome hit was from the neck shot which somehow
deflected upwards.
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ce1528c-aece-465e...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 9:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/26/2010 8:20 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
>
> >> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> >> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
> > I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
> > Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
> > 45? angle (?45?). Not sure how to measure the physics, but if we
> 45 degrees is close enough for a WC defender. If you want to measure the
> exact angle, buy a protractor and then print out and measure the line from
> the grassy knoll shooter to JFK's head.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
Good map.
> John Hunt estimated the downward angle at 3.7 degrees, but he used the
> wrong data.
Why don't you correct his mistake and come up with a number?
> > assume the projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force
> > across, then the body should obey and go back and to the left at the
> > same
> You know what happens when you ASSuME?
Are you saying a projectile coming in at a 45? angle does exert a
force toward 225??
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 27, 9:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2010 8:20 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Gerry,
>>
>>>> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are longitudinal as opposed to lateral
>>>> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
>>> I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on his website The Puzzle
>>> Palace. While he didn't measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
>>> 45? angle (?45?). Not sure how to measure the physics, but if we
>> 45 degrees is close enough for a WC defender. If you want to measure the
>> exact angle, buy a protractor and then print out and measure the line from
>> the grassy knoll shooter to JFK's head.
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
> Good map.
>
>> John Hunt estimated the downward angle at 3.7 degrees, but he used the
>> wrong data.
> Why don't you correct his mistake and come up with a number?
>
>>> assume the projectile impact delivered 50% force back and 50% force
>>> across, then the body should obey and go back and to the left at the same
>> You know what happens when you ASSuME?
> force toward 225??
>
>>> time, correct? If it did, then the President should have been forced into
>> You have no basis in facts to ever say "should have."
> The basis is the CT contention that "back and to the left" is a result
> of a bullet fired from the front right.
>
>>>> Also, many believe that JFK was hit almost simultaneously by two head
>>>> shots - one from the rear and one from the front.
>>> Not once but twice, according to some CTs. Marsh believes there were two
>>> simultaneous shots from two different windows in the TSBD. One hit the
>> I never said simultaneous. How can Z-210 and Z-230 be simultaneous?
> Glad you cleared that up.
>
>>> So far I have no confirmation so I have to guess the Grassy Knoll
>>> elevation is approximately 10' - 15' above Elm street. Add 5' for the
>> Fun to guess, isn't it? Why not look it up on the best map?
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ovs-scan.gif
> Another good map.
>
>> JOhn Hunt estimated an 8.7 foot drop, but he got the distance wrong so
>> his angle of 3.7 degrees is off.
> Why don't you make the correction and tell us the right answer.
>
4.75 degrees.
8.7 foot drop over 105 feet.
>>> approximately 10 - 15?, maybe more. If the bullet enters the front of
>>> the head and punctures all the way out the back of the skull on the same
>>> trajectory it should pass over the left side of the Limousine, not the
>>> trunk. Those who claim it made a big hole in the back right part of the
>> My theory specified NO exit wound.
> Yes, I know. So you think the ER staff and others who thought they saw
> the big hole in the BOH were mistaken.
>
They saw a big hole in the top of the head extending into the occipital
area. That does not mean that was the exit of the bullet.
>> How did your bullet enter the top of Kennedy's head on a downward
>> trajectory angle of 15 degrees and then turn upwards to hit the chrome
>> topping? Pot-kettle.
> We don't know for sure if it was the head shot that caused the dent.
Please be careful there. You are talking conspiracy kook talk. Only I can
have the theory that the dent was not caused by the head shot. I think it
was caused by the bullet which hit Connally's wrist. Mark Furhman thinks
it was caused by the bullet which exited Kennedy's throat, but Frazier and
others think such a bullet would tear through the chrome topping because
it would be going too fast. I intend to test this notion.
> If it was, it's possible the disintegrating bullet spread fragments in
> several directions and a large fragment made the dent. We can see
> fragments going in different directions in z313. In your theory why
> did the exploding bullet backfire?
>
In the Reagan assassination the explosion of the tip blew the base
backwards.
I realize that once any bullet breaks up inside the head it can send
fragments in all directions. That's fine. But the HSCA diagram of the head
wound and Dale Myers diagram show an intact bullet leaving the head on a
downward trajectory. That is my question. Where does that bullet go next?
And how could that bullet change direction in mid air to go up and hit the
chrome topping? The HSCA didn't even address the problem of the chrome
topping. The WC simply accepted the SS lie that the chrome topping was
already dented before the assassination. Guess who found the photos
proving the chrome topping was undented before the assassination? BTW, I
have a kooky conspiracy theory you can rent cheaply. A direct shot hit the
chrome topping and ricocheted into Kennedy's head. That way you can have
Oswald shooting Kennedy in the front of the head from the sniper's nest.
No conspiracy, but bullets hitting from different directions.
John Blubaugh
I hope you guys enjoy your fairy tales.
JB
bigdog
> > "back and to the left", although not the rest
> > of the bullshit. It was about a year or two
> > later that I took a good hard look at the Z-film
> > and JFK's position when he hit the seat back and
> > realized there is no left in "back and to the left".
> > The movement was straight back, just as I had
> > believed before I saw that shitty movie.
>
> I too thought the movement was back and to the left
> until you pointed it out that it wasn't.
>
> Now it's true, the head, while mostly going back,
> does flop to the left. But the vast bulk of the
> mass of JFK that was moving was in his torso.
> And the torso moved straight back. Most of his
> momentum was straight back, with a slight
> leftward component to this movement, when one
> takes into account the head.
>
I just don't see a perceptible leftward flop of the head that you
describe, at least not anything that is measureable. JFK was tilted
severely to his left prior to the head shot. Because Zapruder was well
above JFK shooting downward, we don't get a sense of how much head and
body tilt there was before the head shot. The Nix film gives us a much
better sense of this. As JFK rocks back, it seems to me he simply
maintains that severe leftward tilt of this head. The resolution of the
Z-film is so poor that making accurate measurements is difficult at best
and there is severe blurring in many of the critical frames, but it does't
seem to me there is much change in tilt of his head. Z321 is the first
clear frame we see at about the time of the contact with the head shot and
is about the time he changed directions again and started to rock forward
again. Comparing that to the position at Z312, It appears to me the only
significant movement has been the rocking motion to the rear.
Anthony Marsh
> That police detective in the OJ case (sorry, his name eludes
> me....Thurman?) thinks the chrome hit was from the neck shot which somehow
> deflected upwards.
>
Mark Furhman. But FBI firearms expert thought a direct hit would have
torn through the chrome topping. I think he didn't realize it was chrome
over steel, not plastic.
I plan to shoot a chrome bumper at various velocities to compare the dents.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> There was not a severe movement of his head
>> forward. That is an LN myth. His entire body
>> was moving forward because the limo was slowing.
>
> Check out:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> See the two films, one that shows Z311-315 and the
> other that shows Z312-313.
>
> Clearly JFK's head does move forward, between
> Z312 and Z313. No one else's head moved a
> significant amount.
>
You're slipping. You used to say did not move at all.
Now you've revised it to not a significant amount.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are
>>> longitudinal as opposed to lateral
>>> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
>
>
>> I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on
>> his website The Puzzle Palace. While he didn't
>> measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
>
> I believe that the best map is
> Don Roberdeau's at:
>
> http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img160/7642/dpjpg110508mb6.gif
>
Oh really? The BEST map? Then ask him where he got his map from
originally. Who put it into a computer format? This should be fun.
> The angles from the corner of the fence and what
> Don Roberdeau calls the GKS (Grassy Knoll Shooter)
> is around 50 degrees. That is the angle is a almost
> 45 degrees, just a bit more from the side than
> from the front.
>
How many feet west of the corner of the fence does he have the tip of
the rifle barrel?
> Your rough measurement is close enough.
Rough estimate? Accurate measurement.
> A shot from these positions is not from
> straight ahead or almost straight ahead,
> but coming in at on a diagonal.
>
Wow, you figured that out all by yourself that 45 degrees is a diagonal?
I'm amazed.
> The bottom line? JFK did not move directly away
> from Oswald's sniper's nest. Nor did he move
Nor does he have to.
Only if you claim the impact of the bullet is what moved him.
> directly away from the Grassy Knoll position.
> He basically moved straight back, as one would
> expect from a neurological spasm.
>
I believe there is something like that going on.
Anthony Marsh
>
Close enough for a WC defender. The bullet did not originate from the
corner of the fence, but about 9 feet west of the corner of the fence.
> The "GKS", Grassy Knoll Shooter, as "seen"
> in the Moorman photograph (Badgeman?) is
> off by 52 degrees.
>
How did you determine that?
> No plausible shooing position is less than
> 45 degrees, that is a shot that is nearer
> from coming from straight ahead than from
> the left. What the CTers really need is for
Other theorists may have other shooter locations which have other
angles. Harris has the storm drain.
bigdog
> That police detective in the OJ case (sorry, his name eludes
> me....Thurman?) thinks the chrome hit was from the neck shot which somehow
> deflected upwards.
>
WhiskyJoe
Well, not even Marcel Marceau could stay
perfectly still. I'm certain Jackie and
Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally were
moving some. But whether Jackie was moving
0.0025 MPH forward or 0.015 MPH backwards,
I can't tell. But what I can tell is
no one in the limousine nearly matches
JFK's sudden head movement forward of
2 MPH during Z312-313. That movement
is definitely not caused by the limousine
suddenly braking.
The two leading CT explanations for JFK's
forward head movement are:
1. Everyone's head was moving forward then
the same amount during Z312-313.
or:
2. Head movement? What head movement.
There is no head movement of JFK, relative
to the limousine nor relative to Jackie.
After 46 years, can't CTers come up with a
better explanation for JFK's forward head
movement?
John Blubaugh
I haven't put this forward before now but I have always wondered if the
reason JFK is pitching forward a little faster than everyone else in the
limo (and I am no convinced that he was) could have been because he was
already unconcious and didn't have any muscle control? Just a thought and
it certainly could be wrong.
JB
bigdog
Be patient. Give them time. You can't expect them to come up with all
the answers all at once.
Jean
> On 2/28/2010 10:02 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>
> > That police detective in the OJ case (sorry, his name eludes
> > me....Thurman?) thinks the chrome hit was from the neck shot which somehow
> > deflected upwards.
>
> Mark Furhman. But FBI firearms expert thought a direct hit would have
> torn through the chrome topping. I think he didn't realize it was chrome
> over steel, not plastic.
He said "metal":
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER - Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit velocity
from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of 1,772 to 1,798
feet per second, and assume still further that the bullet had, the whole
bullet had, struck the metal framing which you have heretofore described
and identified. What effect would that have had on the metal framing?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated the
framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume, since I
haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would assume that the
bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal supporting
the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the outside which
supports the windshield of the car.
UNQUOTE
Jean
Sandy McCroskey
> On 2/28/2010 9:31 PM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Yes, I believe that the force(s) are
> >>> longitudinal as opposed to lateral
> >>> but I doubt the angle was 45%.
>
> >> I'm using the map provided by Anthony Marsh on
> >> his website The Puzzle Palace. While he didn't
> >> measure it exactly, it obviously is close to a
Don't tell John Blubaugh!
/sm
Anthony Marsh
>
> Well, not even Marcel Marceau could stay
> perfectly still. I'm certain Jackie and
> Mrs. Connally and Governor Connally were
> moving some. But whether Jackie was moving
> 0.0025 MPH forward or 0.015 MPH backwards,
> I can't tell. But what I can tell is
> no one in the limousine nearly matches
> JFK's sudden head movement forward of
> 2 MPH during Z312-313. That movement
> is definitely not caused by the limousine
> suddenly braking.
>
I didn't say braking.
> The two leading CT explanations for JFK's
> forward head movement are:
>
> 1. Everyone's head was moving forward then
> the same amount during Z312-313.
>
> or:
>
> 2. Head movement? What head movement.
> There is no head movement of JFK, relative
> to the limousine nor relative to Jackie.
>
> After 46 years, can't CTers come up with a
> better explanation for JFK's forward head
> movement?
>
Let's hear your scientific reason for the backwards motion.
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 1, 8:20 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2010 10:02 PM, Gerry Simone wrote:
>>
>>> That police detective in the OJ case (sorry, his name eludes
>>> me....Thurman?) thinks the chrome hit was from the neck shot which somehow
>>> deflected upwards.
>>
>> Mark Furhman. But FBI firearms expert thought a direct hit would have
>> torn through the chrome topping. I think he didn't realize it was chrome
>> over steel, not plastic.
>
> He said "metal":
>
Yes, FYI chrome is a metal.
> QUOTE:
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Now assume the same sequence with respect to exit velocity
> from the point of the President's neck at the same rate of 1,772 to 1,798
> feet per second, and assume still further that the bullet had, the whole
> bullet had, struck the metal framing which you have heretofore described
> and identified. What effect would that have had on the metal framing?
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - It would have torn a hole in the chrome, penetrated the
> framing both inside and outside of the car. I can only assume, since I
> haven't tested the metal of that particular car, I would assume that the
> bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal supporting
> the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the outside which
> supports the windshield of the car.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Jean
There's your answer right there.
"I can only assume, since I haven't tested the metal of that particular
car, I would assume that the bullet would completely penetrate both the
chrome, the metal supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal
on the outside which supports the windshield of the car."
He never tested his theory. He only assumed. You do know what happens when
one ASSuMEs, don't you? I intend to TEST.
Jean
>
> - Show quoted text -
You said, "I think he didn't realize it was chrome over steel,
not plastic."
I was reminding you that he specifically said that there was metal
underneath the chrome: "I would assume that the
bullet would completely penetrate both the chrome, the metal
supporting the chrome, on the inside, and the body metal on the
outside which supports the windshield of the car."
Jean
WhiskyJoe
> bigdog:
> I just don't see a perceptible leftward flop
> of the head that you describe, at least not
> severely to his left prior to the head shot.
Well, there is some leftward movement of the head
between Z312 and Z317. This might be due solely
to gravity since the head appears slightly tilted
left at Z312. But it is also possible the head was
pushed to the left. It's hard to tell.
A possible source of the leftward movement of the
head is the jet effect. It's possible that most
of the material ejected from the head was directed
to the right, not forward. Or at least directed
mostly to the right, only slightly forward.
The Harper fragment would be an obvious exception.
But it is possible that it's just gravity that
moves the head to the left. I cannot readily tell.
But I don't think one can conclude that the body
was only pushed backwards and not pushed to the
left at all. That might or might not be true,
it's hard to say. But one can say that the body,
overall, was pushed backwards much more than it
was pushed leftwards. On that I will agree.
In any case you pointing out that JFK is propelled
predominately, perhaps totally backwards is still
an excellent observation that has been missed even
by many LNers, including me.
WhiskyJoe
> Let's hear your scientific reason for the
> backwards motion.
Neurological spasm. Like the neurological spasm
observed here with the goat, about 1/3 of the
way down the page.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm
If the goat is not undergoing a neurological
spasm, then what is causing the goat's movement?
If a neurological spasm can happen to a goat,
why can't it happen to a human being?
bigdog
I would not want to go so far as to say JFK's head and torso moved
perfectly straight backward because the perspective of the Z-film does not
allow one to say that absolutely. It is my position that there is no
evidence of any leftward movement based on naked eye observation. Now I do
know there are techniques which can be used to determine a third
dimensional movement from a two dimesional motion picture, but that is
above my pay grade. Base on what I see in the Z-film, I observe no
leftward movement of either the head or torso. I would allow it is
possibile JFK's rearward movement could have taken him a few inches to the
left but I think it is equally likely that the movement could have been
either perfectly straight back or even a few inches to the right.
Certainly there is no obvious leftward movement exhibited. From what I
see, the leftward body lean seems to remain constant while the head and
torso rock backward.
bigdog
His left front leg goes forward and to the left, his right front leg
goes forward and to the right, his right hind leg goes back and to the
right, and his left hind leg goes back and to the left. Obviously this
goat was shot from four directions at the same time.
Anthony Marsh
The goat could not be thrown backwards because it was tethered.
Anthony Marsh
Frazier was talking about the total damage that a direct shot would do.
He didn't think a direct shot at full velocity would leave just a dent.
I don't think it was a direct hit either.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hell, they had to do that or it would have butted the shooter after
being shot ;-)
JB
Jean
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was talking about a bullet exiting JFK's neck at 1,772
to 1,798 feet per second. But never mind.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but he was only guessing. I intend to test it.
I don't think it was a direct hit either. I want to figure out exactly
what velocity would cause it. Bob Cutler called it a direct hit when I
showed him that it happened during the shooting. I think it was caused by
the nose fragment.
Jean
Tony, you're replying to yourself.