Just to set the record straight: Did the head go "back and to the

[Ramon F. Herrera]

New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
members of the jury (most? all?) said:

"We are convinced it was a conspiracy".

The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back and
to the left" of the president's body and head.

We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
the president being blown back and left.

The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.

However...

We are ALL (both sides) way beyond that version, correct? The
establishment's explanation from the LN side is based on the ejecta, aka
"jet effect", right?

-Ramon

[Mike]

Look at zapruder frame 318. It is blurred, but the nix film confirms the
violent snap back of jfk's head, from the second shot to the head fired
from the grassy knoll by a shooter who was in front of the fence.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<58113bf6-5b54-4882...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
> that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
> members of the jury (most? all?) said:
>
> "We are convinced it was a conspiracy".
>
> The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
> Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back and
> to the left" of the president's body and head.
>
> We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
> the president being blown back and left.
>
> The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
> actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.

Ramon, the head DID move forward between 313 and 314. Single step through
you Zapruder film and check it out.

Think about the massive force of the explosion which blew open the right
temple area of the President's head. That created a powerful thrust to the
right, which drove the head in the opposite direction - to the left as far
as it could go, and then to the rear.

There have been a zillion tests, blowing up everything from melons to
gelatin filled skulls, which fully corroborated this phenomenon. Alvarez's
"jet effect" theory has been corroborated in every conceivable way.




Robert Harris

[Ramon F. Herrera]

http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/wardilem.html

I took more than my share of Physics classes. Got a couple engineering
degrees. Worked at MIT. The "jet effect" can overcome a _fraction_ of
the forward momentum. It is impossible for it to oppose it and drag
the weight of an adult body in such a short time span at that speed.

Momentum = mass x velocity

We are talking jet pack here:

http://tinyurl.com/75sutg5

No way, Jose.

-Ramon

[burgundy]

On Dec 30, 4:11 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <58113bf6-5b54-4882-b97e-26575bb27...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

I believe the testimony of Finck to both the Garrison trial and later
the AARB shows the subterfuge of the botched autopsy.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/30/11 12:47 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
> New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
> that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
> members of the jury (most? all?) said:
>
> "We are convinced it was a conspiracy".
>

You've got that exactly backwards. There was only one of the jurors who
went on the record saying he thought it was a conspiracy.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

"...depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald story
is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press, three or
four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane?s claims to have
proven a conspiracy. But Lane ignores them and quotes the single juror
whose statements are convenient."

> The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
> Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back and
> to the left" of the president's body and head.
>

Then they have been cretinized by watching too much TV and Hollywood
movies. Bullets don't throw bodies back like that. Also, JFK doesn't move
back upon the impact of the bullet. The bullet hits between Z-frames 312
and 313 and in 313 he is further forward than in 312. So it could not have
been the bullet that moved him back.

> We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
> the president being blown back and left.
>
> The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
> actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.
>

It's not a mere "claim," it's what is shown in Z-frames 312 and 313.

> However...
>
> We are ALL (both sides) way beyond that version, correct? The
> establishment's explanation from the LN side is based on the ejecta, aka
> "jet effect", right?
>
> -Ramon
>

No, it's most likely a neuromuscular spasm. In any case, it couldn't
have been the bullet.

/sandy mccroskey

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/30/2011 5:11 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <58113bf6-5b54-4882...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ramon F. Herrera"<gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>
>> New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
>> that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
>> members of the jury (most? all?) said:
>>
>> "We are convinced it was a conspiracy".
>>
>> The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
>> Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back and
>> to the left" of the president's body and head.
>>
>> We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
>> the president being blown back and left.
>>
>> The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
>> actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.
>
>
> Ramon, the head DID move forward between 313 and 314. Single step through
> you Zapruder film and check it out.
>
> Think about the massive force of the explosion which blew open the right
> temple area of the President's head. That created a powerful thrust to the
> right, which drove the head in the opposite direction - to the left as far
> as it could go, and then to the rear.
>

That would be the crater effect, not the Jet Effect.

> There have been a zillion tests, blowing up everything from melons to
> gelatin filled skulls, which fully corroborated this phenomenon. Alvarez's
> "jet effect" theory has been corroborated in every conceivable way.
>
>

Yeah, billions of phony tests using the wrong ammunition and the wrong
simulated targets.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 30, 4:11 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <58113bf6-5b54-4882-b97e-26575bb27...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Bob:

This is very important: The jet effect moves the object in the direction
OPPOSITE the bullet.

It is the one and only -tenuous, at best- explanation from the LN camp for
the observed violent snap (back and to the left).

In general, we are dealing with two forces here, the question is which one
wins:

(1) the force in the direction of the bullet. In JFK's case it was
massive on exit. The entrance was easy (a little hole) and didn't cause
movement. Upon exit, however, it blasted a disk from the cranium and such
disk pulled the whole body with it.

(2) then we have a sissy deodorant-like spray, which can move melons
(soft core objects).

The FBI had an expert shooting 10 craniums and not ONE was affected by the
jet spray. All were violently blasted in the direction of the bullet by
its forward momentum. This crucial fact was kept hidden by the WCR (*),
and only revealed by the HSCA.

-Ramon

(*) J Edgar

[bigdog]

I can only speak for myself. First of all, I will reiterate what I have
said many times in the past. JFK did NOT go "back and to the left". JFK
went straight back. His head and torso were already leaning way to the
left BEFORE the head shot so when he went straight back, it created the
illusion of "back and to the left". The Z-film disguises how severely
JFK's leftward lean was because Zapruder was filming from above JFK and
his camera was on a similar plane with JFK's shoulders. This tended to
make JFK look more upright than he actually was. The photographic evidence
from the south side of Elm, the Nix and Muchmore films as well as the
Moorman photo, show how severely JFK was already leaning. If he went left
at all from that position, he would have been driven right into Jackie.

As for JFK's rearward movement, I believe jet effect was a contributing
factor, but not the primary cause, which I believe was a neuro-muscular
reaction. Jet effect is real and has been demonstrated experimentally with
inanimate objects such as gelatin filled skulls or melons. Neuro-muscular
reaction is not a factor with these objects and they do tend to fall
toward the shooter, but not with the force with which we see JFK lurching
backward in the Z-film. We do see neuro- muscular reactions in films of
animals being shot in the back of the head. While we cannot prove that
this was the primary cause of JFK's backward movement, it almost wins by
default, since other explainations (jet effect, momentum transfer) simply
would lack the force to cause that violent movement.

[claviger]

burgundy,

> I believe the testimony of Finck to both the Garrison trial and later
> the AARB shows the subterfuge of the botched autopsy.

How so?

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 30, 8:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Then they have been cretinized by watching too much TV
> and Hollywood movies.

Who? The scientists?

> Bullets don't throw bodies back like that.

Oh, yes they do! Or rather: they can. What you are referring to is bullets
going relatively unimpeded through soft tissue, maybe with a vertebra or
similar on their way. Even if the femur is hit, the bullet always chooses
the easier path (as water and electricity do) and deviates. That would be
like a car hitting a tree or pole: some of the car "goes around".

What we are talking about here is a hit against a concrete wall (the
internal cranium wall).

Do you know how a bomb works? A LOT of energy is compressed, and you need
a very strong container. The energy keeps on accumulating more and more
(in compressible brain matter) until the container can't hold no more and
KABOOOM!!!

The part to focus on is the DISK of bone. It matters not whether it is
being pulled (let's say JFK had a steel plate and a strong magnet was
suddenly turned on behind him, or a chain was attached to his cranium and
to the street as the car traveled) or pushed from inside (by a bullet).

From the Physics standpoint, it matters not.

The critical thing is that the disk is desperately trying to fly back and
it ended up towing with it a grown adult in a fraction of a second. No
human spasm can do that.

Forget about the little things like the initial tilt forward (*) and any
jet effect! Those accounted for 1% or a fraction of the movement. We can
IGNORE that.

-Ramon

(*) Which could have been caused by JFK noticing that his shoes laces were
untied, or he was bored and dozing off, or trying to duck, etc: It is
IRRELEVANT, compared with a whole person being blown back. That was 99% of
the action.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, they also have the neuromuscular response.

[Mike]

The shot that exited the temple area entered on the top of the head. The
blood spatter and harper fragement show us the impact point. The vector
you are talking about had a strong UPWARD component.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is not the entire weight of the adult body.
Just the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/30/2011 9:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/30/11 12:47 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>
>> New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
>> that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
>> members of the jury (most? all?) said:
>>
>> "We are convinced it was a conspiracy".
>>
>
> You've got that exactly backwards. There was only one of the jurors who
> went on the record saying he thought it was a conspiracy.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>
> "...depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald
> story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press,
> three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane?s claims
> to have proven a conspiracy. But Lane ignores them and quotes the single
> juror whose statements are convenient."
>
>
>
>
>> The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
>> Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back
>> and
>> to the left" of the president's body and head.
>>
>
> Then they have been cretinized by watching too much TV and Hollywood
> movies. Bullets don't throw bodies back like that. Also, JFK doesn't

No one claimed that a bullet impact moved his head and body LIKE THAT.
Mythbusters proved that the impact of a bullet can move a body back.
Alvarez and the WC proved that the impact of a bullet can move a head
back.

> move back upon the impact of the bullet. The bullet hits between
> Z-frames 312 and 313 and in 313 he is further forward than in 312. So it
> could not have been the bullet that moved him back.
>
>
>> We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
>> the president being blown back and left.
>>
>> The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
>> actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.
>>
>
> It's not a mere "claim," it's what is shown in Z-frames 312 and 313.
>

Begging the question.

>
>> However...
>>
>> We are ALL (both sides) way beyond that version, correct? The
>> establishment's explanation from the LN side is based on the ejecta, aka
>> "jet effect", right?
>>
>> -Ramon
>>
>
> No, it's most likely a neuromuscular spasm. In any case, it couldn't
> have been the bullet.
>

So your answer is anything but a bullet, even Angels or psychic forces.

> /sandy mccroskey
>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

You're wrong about the physics. The bullet went thru JFK's cranium and
was already on the other side in 313.
Yet JFK has not moved backward yet.
So it's absolutely impossible that the impact of the bullet moved him
backward.
Once the Z-film was looked at frame-by-frame, it was all over for that
argument.
/sm

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Only if he had been decapitated or the Elastic Man. :-)

Parts of his torso were affected by the motion.

In any event, JFK's acceleration was about 100 ft/sec^2, while the
Alvarez melons only moved 4.5 ft/sec. The jet effect is always very
small.

http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect.html

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Which cannot break the laws of Physics and accelerate a body at 100 ft/
sec^2.

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Direction of the Fatal Shot and the Jet Effect

"The following evidence indicates the President was shot from the
grassy knoll and the Warren Commission covered it up:

http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect_text.html

-Ramon

[Robert Harris]

In article
<eb229cea-ed80-453d...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote:

> On Dec 30, 4:11?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <58113bf6-5b54-4882-b97e-26575bb27...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

NO!!!

The object moves in the direction opposite from the thrust. It is the
EXPLOSION that is causing thrust - not the bullet.



Robert Harris

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 31, 12:29 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>

(You forgot to post your physics credentials)

The folks that wrote this know a lot more than you do:

"The muscle spasm idea is totally ludicrous. Even if the neck muscles
could accelerate the head that rapidly; how are the 'proper' muscles
selected in a coordinated fashion, so as not to simply contract against
each other. Also what causes the shoulders to be driven backward when the
head reaches the limit of its travel?"

> The bullet went thru JFK's cranium and
> was already on the other side in 313.
> Yet JFK has not moved backward yet.
> So it's absolutely impossible that the impact of the
> bullet moved him backward.

Don't know much about physics, do you? What is absolutely impossible is
for a human body to move at the same speed of a bullet. The bullet may
have been yards behind the car, when the body begins to move. Similarly,
the camera is thousands of times slower than a bullet.

-RFH

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/31/11 1:26 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 9:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 12/30/11 12:47 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>> New Orleans DA Jim Garrison won his case; not the judicial, but the one
>>> that really matters. Who gives a damn about Clay Shaw! After all, the
>>> members of the jury (most? all?) said:
>>>
>>> "We are convinced it was a conspiracy".
>>>
>>
>> You've got that exactly backwards. There was only one of the jurors who
>> went on the record saying he thought it was a conspiracy.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>>
>> "...depending on whether the unidentified juror in the Miami Herald
>> story is the same person as the juror quoted by the Associated Press,
>> three or four of the six jurors went on record as denying Lane?s claims
>> to have proven a conspiracy. But Lane ignores them and quotes the single
>> juror whose statements are convenient."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The one evidence that gave them such assurance was the ZF, subpoenaed by
>>> Garrison from LIFE's vault. More specifically, the violent snap, "back
>>> and
>>> to the left" of the president's body and head.
>>>
>>
>> Then they have been cretinized by watching too much TV and Hollywood
>> movies. Bullets don't throw bodies back like that. Also, JFK doesn't
>
> No one claimed that a bullet impact moved his head and body LIKE THAT.

I'm afraid there are plenty of CTs who claim that the bullet impact
moved JFK's head and upper torso back like we see it in the Z-film,
beginning with frame 314.

> Mythbusters proved that the impact of a bullet can move a body back.
> Alvarez and the WC proved that the impact of a bullet can move a head back.
>
>> move back upon the impact of the bullet. The bullet hits between
>> Z-frames 312 and 313 and in 313 he is further forward than in 312. So it
>> could not have been the bullet that moved him back.
>>
>>
>>> We may as well forget the rest of the case, hype and fluff. That was it:
>>> the president being blown back and left.
>>>
>>> The reason I ask is because I have read some LN folks who claim that JFK
>>> actually "slumped" or that the head actually moved forward.
>>>
>>
>> It's not a mere "claim," it's what is shown in Z-frames 312 and 313.
>>
>
> Begging the question.
>

Hardly. Those two frames prove that the bullet didn't thrust JFK back.

You would only dance all around the issue if we went into it further, as
we have done before (and the last time, you agreed that a neuromuscular
reaction was at least partly responsible for JFK's backward motion), but
there is no way that the bullet started moving JFK backward after it had
already left his body.

The backward motion says nothing about the direction from which the bullet
came.

Incidentally, though, it came from the back.

>>
>>> However...
>>>
>>> We are ALL (both sides) way beyond that version, correct? The
>>> establishment's explanation from the LN side is based on the ejecta, aka
>>> "jet effect", right?
>>>
>>> -Ramon
>>>
>>
>> No, it's most likely a neuromuscular spasm. In any case, it couldn't
>> have been the bullet.
>>
>
> So your answer is anything but a bullet, even Angels or psychic forces.
>

Not at all, as there are very reasonable hypotheses about this, as you
well know.

In any case, it can't have anything to do with the direction of the
bullet. JFK could have jerked in any direction. It was a spasmodic
motion... of the whole upper body.


/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/31/11 1:26 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Marsh, when are you ever going to explain exactly what you think moved
JFK backward and how this indicates a shot from the front (as I think
you still maintain that it does)? If you're only going to inject oblique
little comments trying to deny the obvious and confuse the issue, I'm
not going to waste my time replying.
/sm

[bigdog]

> -Ramon- Hide quoted text -
>

While I'm sure you and I don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I think
we both see the fallacy of Marsh's understanding of the physics. Marsh
seems to believe the bullet would only have to move the head and the body
would follow. He fails to appreciate that for the bullet to drive the head
with enough force to pull the body along, the bullet would have to move
the weight of both the head and the body. If instead of a 160 lbs. body,
an object the size and weight of JFK's head were attached to a one ton
block, a bullet striking and moving the smaller object would not budge the
larger weight because it simply would lack the force to do so. The
movement of the smaller object would be restricted by the larger object.
So a bullet striking and driving JFK's head backward would also have to
have enough force to move the body if the bullet were to be the primary
cause of JFK's rearward movement.

[Anthony Marsh]

Body is the wrong word. Where do you see his whole body being accelerated?
You don't. This is a trick that some WC defenders make when they say that
a bullet can not move the body at all. They are deliberately
misrepresenting the conditions and substituting BODY for HEAD. The head is
thrust back and the body follows. Just like someone hit in the head by a
baseball bat. The body has to follow the head because they are connected.

Have you ever shot anything with a pellet gun? Why is it that you can
shoot a can with a pellet gun and knock it over, but not a building? Mass.
The more mass the more energy you need to move it. Anyone can easily pick
up a feather, but few people can pick up a car.

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me that his entire body was accelerated that much. Show me his legs
moving back.
The movement starts with the head and the upper torso follows.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fine. But an explosive bullet could do it.
As demonstrated in actual tests of explosive bullets.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Absolute rubbish.
The target does not continue moving in the opposite, or another,
direction than that of the bullet that has just passed through it and
then, for some mysterious reason, change its trajectory a split-second
later.
That's like the cartoon animal that steps over the cliff and doesn't
fall till he looks down.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/31/2011 9:26 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:32 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Then they have been cretinized by watching too much TV
> > and Hollywood movies.
>
> Who? The scientists?
>
> > Bullets don't throw bodies back like that.
>
> Oh, yes they do! Or rather: they can. What you are referring to is bullets

And Mythbusters demonstrated that a bullet can move a whole body back a
couple of inches.
There is a video which demonstrates how a person is thrown back by the
impact of a bullet. Not just the head, the whole body.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVmvtMjmvg8

Start watching at 37:15. The prisoner is thrown back and falls into the
pit. If the Jet Effect is real then why do they always place the victim
in FRONT of the pit instead of in back of the pit?
The WC defenders must think that the reason why they tie prisoners to a
post is to prevent the Jet Effect from causing the victim to fly back at
the firing squad.

> going relatively unimpeded through soft tissue, maybe with a vertebra or
> similar on their way. Even if the femur is hit, the bullet always chooses
> the easier path (as water and electricity do) and deviates. That would be
> like a car hitting a tree or pole: some of the car "goes around".
>
> What we are talking about here is a hit against a concrete wall (the
> internal cranium wall).
>

No matter where the bullet hit or which direction it came from the head
explodes.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think what they are overlooking is that fact that JFK was straining to
lean forward and restricted by his back brace when he was hit in the head.
That immediately released all the built up tension.

The analogy I use is the parlor game where someone tries to raise his arms
while the other person holds them down. When the other person lets go
unexpectedly the person's arms going flying up. That is not a conscious
decision to raise the arms. It is an effect of releasing all that coiled
up tension.

> > The bullet went thru JFK's cranium and
> > was already on the other side in 313.
> > Yet JFK has not moved backward yet.
> > So it's absolutely impossible that the impact of the
> > bullet moved him backward.
>
> Don't know much about physics, do you? What is absolutely impossible is
> for a human body to move at the same speed of a bullet. The bullet may

And no one ever said that is what happened. No one ever said that any
target ever moves at the same speed the bullet does.
The bullet is a lot smaller than the target.
A ballistic pendulum is pushed by the impact of a bullet, but it's speed
is proportionally smaller as its mass is much bigger.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. The EXPLOSION from the EXPLOSIVE bullet.

> Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

If an explosive bullet explodes on impact, or "within nanoseconds" of
impact, if I may quote Anthony Marsh, it's a distinction without a
difference. JFK would already have moved back by frame 313 if he was
ever going to be moved back by the explosion.

If it explodes after impact (after passing through Kennedy's head?
inside Kennedy's head?), it could knock the head any which way.

There is, of course, no evidence for an explosive bullet, and the CTs who
have been crying "back and to the left" for decades have not been thinking
of an explosive bullet either. But if you think some sort of explosive
bullet would *begin* to have such an effect on JFK's head and upper torso
only after passing all the way through JFK's head, why don't you explain
how this is supposed to work?

/sm

[Ramon F. Herrera]

You are creating a version (with a flying Coyote and everything),
assigning it to me and of course it ends up as rubbish. Duh!

Consider a laser beam blinding the president. It travels at 300,000 km/
sec. It is halfway around the planet by the time its effects are being
produced.

The bat makes a very short, almost instantaneous contact with the ball
(which is *elastic* and accumulates energy). As the baseball flies away
from the bat, it is still shrinking and becoming and oval despite the fact
that it is yards away from the bat.

A better example: A guy in a stadium, on a motorcycle, starts "The Wave"
while he speeds faster than his creation in the same direction. He exits
the stadium wall through a little hole while his creation accumulates
pressure slowly behind him and blasts the wall. By the time the wall falls
(*), he is far from it.

-Ramon

(*) Pulling the president's head, neck and torso with it, due to the
"shear force".

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 31, 6:38 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If the Jet Effect is real

The Jet Effect is real and rare! Not to mention weak.

Trying to force it into a mathematical model that moves JFK's body (*)
is equivalent to trying to make a jet pack belt with a couple of
deodorant cans.

Why do you think Alvarez did no put a neck and torso to his melons?

-Ramon

(*) I am using the term "body", in the Physics sense, not Anatomy.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Those of us trained in Physics and Engineering tend to use it.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/first2nd_lawsf_motion.html

-Ramon

[Jean Davison]

Ramon,

Mr. Galanor thinks that JFK was "propelled backward by a
bullet." A man wearing body armor and standing on one foot was shot
in the chest at close range with this NATO bullet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO

How far do you suppose the bullet propelled him?

Answer is here about 5 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I


Jean

[Ramon F. Herrera]

> it came from, the head explodes.

Indeed, and the *disk* of bone, due to "shear force" pulls the body behind
it.

Imagine that the disk (the one all Parkland doctors saw), instead of being
integral part of the cranium, is glued with a very strong glue (like a
steel plate or something). As the bullet force pushes the disk outwards
the glue begins to stretch and the JFK head tries to stay straight. Energy
accumulates, and finally... KABOOM! The disk separates and pulls the head
which pulls the neck which pulls the torso, BACK and to the LEFT. Like
your Cubans' video (except more violently, because it was a bomb).

Imagine now that the glue was really weak and crappy: the disk goes out
effortlessly and there is no movement backwards at all. That is what
happens when no bones are involved, just soft flesh.

The shear force is the glue.

-Ramon

[Sandy McCroskey]

No relevance to the situation under discussion, which has to do with the
transfer of momentum.
(Although I'm sure that if a laser had hit JFK's eyes between frames 312
and 313, he would be blind in frame 313.)

> The bat makes a very short, almost instantaneous contact with the ball
> (which is *elastic* and accumulates energy). As the baseball flies away
> from the bat, it is still shrinking and becoming and oval despite the fact
> that it is yards away from the bat.
>

So what? The question is, when did the ball change direction? At the
instant of impact (lasting something like 2 milliseconds) or later?
Of course it's just plain ridiculous to claim that the ball changed
direction milliseconds after the bat had ceased to be in contact with
it... let alone an eighteenth of a second.

> A better example: A guy in a stadium, on a motorcycle, starts "The Wave"
> while he speeds faster than his creation in the same direction. He exits
> the stadium wall through a little hole while his creation accumulates
> pressure slowly behind him and blasts the wall. By the time the wall falls
> (*), he is far from it.
>

That's your best example? I can't make any sense out of it. I thought
"the Wave" was something sports fans in the stands do with their arms,
not some sort of bomb that takes down walls. And how does this wall,
through some tunnel in space/time whose portal is your footnote, have
anything at all to do with the president's head, neck and torso?

You know, it's already been pointed out to you that Marsh is wrong in
saying that if you move the head with only enough force *to* move the
head, the torso will follow; it's obviously a self-contradictory statement.

/sandy

[Mike]

They need to attach that bullet proof vest to their foreheads and then
redo the experiment. If they do that I think you will find that the head
moves violently back in response to the strike of the bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have already, many times. You just refuse to pay attention.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, just the upper torso, not the whole body.
Do you think JFK weighed 160 lbs. or are you just trying to show off how
ignorant of the basic facts you are?

[Anthony Marsh]

It could not have thrown him forward in the same way because he was
already leaned as far forward as possible.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 31 2011, 10:49 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Except that a cranium makes a perfect bomb.

-Ramon

[Jean Davison]

We already have a film showing what happens when a bullet strikes
the head. Between Z frames 312-313 JFK's head rocked forward about two
inches -- but his heavier upper body isn't moved "violently" as it is
following Z314. A bullet can't do that. Something else has to be the
cause, since a bullet can't be. It's physically impossible.

Frames 312-313:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELvWYkkFxs&feature=related


Jean

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jan 1, 11:20 am, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, the violent snap occurs upon *exit*, due to the accumulation
of energy inside the cranium. The piece of bone ("the disk") finally
gave in, being pushed out ("back and to the left") by the compressed
brain matter. The rupturing disk pulled the head behind it.

The bullet itself may have sneaked out milliseconds earlier, through a
little circular whole that was growing as the bullet was somewhere
above LBJ.

See my "Wave" example. Instead of visual information, the wave was
energy being transferred.

-Ramon

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you should look at high speed films of baseball bat hitting a
baseball,

>
>> A better example: A guy in a stadium, on a motorcycle, starts "The Wave"
>> while he speeds faster than his creation in the same direction. He exits
>> the stadium wall through a little hole while his creation accumulates
>> pressure slowly behind him and blasts the wall. By the time the wall
>> falls
>> (*), he is far from it.
>>
>
> That's your best example? I can't make any sense out of it. I thought
> "the Wave" was something sports fans in the stands do with their arms,
> not some sort of bomb that takes down walls. And how does this wall,
> through some tunnel in space/time whose portal is your footnote, have
> anything at all to do with the president's head, neck and torso?
>
> You know, it's already been pointed out to you that Marsh is wrong in
> saying that if you move the head with only enough force *to* move the
> head, the torso will follow; it's obviously a self-contradictory statement.
>
> /sandy
>

I never said "enough" force. It takes very little force. You can push a
seated person in the forehead and the forehead will move back and the
upper torso will follow. And you did not even push the upper torso.

[Jean Davison]

So you're arguing for a "jet effect"??

Jean

[Ramon F. Herrera]

[Sandy:]

> No relevance to the situation under discussion,
> which has to do with the transfer of momentum.

Actually, what I am trying to discuss is cause-effect which is *never*
instantaneous (*), as you claim. The body can never move as fast as the
bullet, and therefore when the bullet is far away, its effects are still
undergoing. The seed of destruction has been planted, if you will.

Another example:

Consider that you are standing and a cannon is fired in your direction.
The cannon ball barely, ever so slightly, grazes your shoulder. By virtue
of FRICTION the momentum of the cannon ball is transferred to your deltoid
muscle, which compresses and accumulates energy. By now the bullet is long
gone, but you are still standing. Your shoulder rotates, pulls the humerus
bone with it, which pulls the thoraxic cavity which pulls the torso which
bends your knees: at this moment probably some enterprising young man is
selling the cannon ball as a souvenir to a collector and you are still
falling, your knees have not reached the ground yet.

I am obviously exaggerating a bit, but I hope the readers (other than you,
who get your Physics lessons from the Bible, as righties do) get the
point.

At 2,000 ft/sec. the bullet had already left the cranium far behind when
JFK was barely beginning to fly, "back and to the left".

-Ramon

(*) This is specially true when we are dealing with ELASTIC, COMPRESSIBLE
matter, such as brains.

[Mike]

On 12/31/2011 10:49 PM, Jean Davison wrote:

They shot directly into the center of mass. Policemen are trained to
fired into the center of mass. If you fire off the center of mass like
the head or the hand you are going to get a very different result.

[Mike]

Yes but it can only explode once. The second shot to the head will not
create the same cloud of debris. JFK was struck by two shots to the head.

[Sandy McCroskey]

When we've discussed it, I've gotten only the disconnected replies, that
seem sometimes to contradict one another.
So you don't have this written out in a file somewhere you could just
paste in here?
That figures.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Talking to yourself?

>>> A better example: A guy in a stadium, on a motorcycle, starts "The Wave"
>>> while he speeds faster than his creation in the same direction. He exits
>>> the stadium wall through a little hole while his creation accumulates
>>> pressure slowly behind him and blasts the wall. By the time the wall
>>> falls
>>> (*), he is far from it.
>>>
>>
>> That's your best example? I can't make any sense out of it. I thought
>> "the Wave" was something sports fans in the stands do with their arms,
>> not some sort of bomb that takes down walls. And how does this wall,
>> through some tunnel in space/time whose portal is your footnote, have
>> anything at all to do with the president's head, neck and torso?
>>
>> You know, it's already been pointed out to you that Marsh is wrong in
>> saying that if you move the head with only enough force *to* move the
>> head, the torso will follow; it's obviously a self-contradictory
>> statement.
>>
>> /sandy
>>
>
> I never said "enough" force. It takes very little force. You can push a
> seated person in the forehead and the forehead will move back and the
> upper torso will follow. And you did not even push the upper torso.
>

Only if you push with enough force to move the torso. Or unless the
person moves on purpose.

Yours is a silly argument.
/sm

[Bud]

On Dec 31 2011, 11:49 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Don`t try this at home.

[Mike]

We have a film that shows when TWO bullets strike the head. The first
bullet caused the head to dip DOWN and FORWARD, the second bullet, at
frame 318, caused the head to SNAP back and to the left. TWO BULLETS.

[David Von Pein]

The jet effect has been proven time and time again, from Dr. Lattimer
to Penn & Teller (below). I wonder why so many people still refuse to
accept it?

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

[Ramon F. Herrera]

No. Please read the thread. I have given lots of examples and
explanations. A "jet effect" is a weak-assed tiny firecracker. By
contrast, I am referring to the dynamite that accumulated the forward
momentum and flew JFK backwards. That's got to be at least 20 times
stronger than the sissy jet effect.

-Ramon

[Sandy McCroskey]

Nothing to do with the Bible, and I'm not a "rightie."

That effects will persist and continue after impact is a no-brainer. But a
target moving in the opposite direction from an oncoming bullet will not
continue in the pre-impact direction till after the bullet has gone all
the way through it and only then react to the impact by turning around and
going the other way.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of a ballistics pendulum?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/1/2012 6:04 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> The jet effect has been proven time and time again, from Dr. Lattimer

> to Penn& Teller (below). I wonder why so many people still refuse to
> accept it?
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html
>


Penn and Teller are con artists, not scientists. Lattimer did not prove
the Jet Effect. The Jet effect is real for jets. That has nothing to do
with bullet wounds.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't accept the false premises from the WC defenders. A bullet did not
propel JFK's head forward by about two inches.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/1/2012 3:48 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:20 am, Mike<MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 10:49 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 2:31 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>>> Direction of the Fatal Shot and the Jet Effect
>>
>>>> "The following evidence indicates the President was shot from the
>>>> grassy knoll and the Warren Commission covered it up:
>>
>>>> http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect_text.html
>>
>>>> -Ramon
>>
>>> Ramon,
>>
>>> Mr. Galanor thinks that JFK was "propelled backward by a
>>> bullet." A man wearing body armor and standing on one foot was shot
>>> in the chest at close range with this NATO bullet:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO
>>
>>> How far do you suppose the bullet propelled him?
>>
>>> Answer is here about 5 minutes in:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I
>>
>>> Jean
>>
>> They need to attach that bullet proof vest to their foreheads and then
>> redo the experiment. If they do that I think you will find that the head
>> moves violently back in response to the strike of the bullet.
>
>
> We already have a film showing what happens when a bullet strikes
> the head. Between Z frames 312-313 JFK's head rocked forward about two
> inches -- but his heavier upper body isn't moved "violently" as it is

Not true. You are fooled by the amount of blur in frame 313.

> following Z314. A bullet can't do that. Something else has to be the
> cause, since a bullet can't be. It's physically impossible.
>

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

[Sandy McCroskey]

An uninformed reader might think you actually have a point but was just
too pressed for time (ha ha) to spell it out.

/sm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You are fooled by the amount of blur in frame 313." <<<

Total bullshit.

Nobody else's head except JFK's is jerking forward 2.3 inches between
Zapruder frames 312 and 313.

You, Anthony, just want to invent silly excuses to deny what you can
easily see with your own eyes...right here:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/107ZapruderFilmHeadShotSequenceInSl.gif?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Penn and Teller are con artists, not scientists." <<<

You don't need to be a scientist to prove the jet effect. Any old comedian
or urologist with a rifle can easily prove it -- just like Lattimer did in
the 1970s, and just like Penn & Teller did here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html


What caused that melon to move toward the gunman, Tony, if it wasn't a jet
effect?

>>> "Lattimer did not prove the Jet Effect." <<<

Then why did EVERY single one of Dr. Lattimer's test skulls fly toward the
gunman after they were shot? It certainly can't be because of a
neuromuscular reaction in a dead skull.

So, Tony, tell us what caused all of Lattimer's skulls to be propelled
toward the shooter? (And the "tipping ladder" excuse isn't gonna fly, btw,
because those skulls went flying toward the gunman before that ladder
started tipping backward.)

Quoting Lattimer:

"Our experiments verified that the backward movement of the
President's head was compatible with his being struck from the rear, and
that it was certainly not necessary to hit the head from the front in
order to make the head move toward the gun." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 255
of "Kennedy And Lincoln"


"I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these
experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY
from the shooter." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"

[John Canal]

In article <cf32a4d0-1b4e-4693...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...

>
>On Jan 1, 11:20=A0am, Mike <MikeRa.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 10:49 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Dec 31, 2:31 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> =A0wrote:

>> >> Direction of the Fatal Shot and the Jet Effect
>>
>> >> "The following evidence indicates the President was shot from the
>> >> grassy knoll and the Warren Commission covered it up:
>>
>> >>http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/jet_effect_text.html
>>
>> >> -Ramon
>>
>> > Ramon,
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mr. Galanor thinks that JFK was "propelled backw=
>ard by a
>> > bullet." =A0 A man wearing body armor and standing on one foot was shot

>> > in the chest at close range with this NATO bullet:
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 How far do you suppose the bullet propelled him=
>?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Answer is here about 5 minutes in:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Do5f1Fo4r4_I

>>
>> > Jean
>>
>> They need to attach that bullet proof vest to their foreheads and then
>> redo the experiment. If they do that I think you will find that the head
>> moves violently back in response to the strike of the bullet.
>
>
> We already have a film showing what happens when a bullet strikes
>the head. Between Z frames 312-313 JFK's head rocked forward about two
>inches -- but his heavier upper body isn't moved "violently" as it is
>following Z314. A bullet can't do that. Something else has to be the
>cause, since a bullet can't be. It's physically impossible.
>
>Frames 312-313:
>

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyELvWYkkFxs&feature=3Drelated

And for those with a strange imagination who claim JFK's head movement
between 312 and 313 was due to "blur", the question is begged, "Why do
these frames pretty much show that only JFK's head was moving"?

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/946/z311toz3133.jpg

Was "his" head especially susceptible to "blur" and a bullet at 312?

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you miss David Wimp's presentation which proved that most of that
2.3 inch movement is blur? You did not measure the 2.3 inches. You took
that from Itek. That is so last millennium.
YOU did not do any study of the movement of all the passengers. I did.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/2/2012 9:04 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

>>>> "Penn and Teller are con artists, not scientists."<<<
>
> You don't need to be a scientist to prove the jet effect. Any old comedian
> or urologist with a rifle can easily prove it -- just like Lattimer did in

> the 1970s, and just like Penn& Teller did here:

>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html
>
>
> What caused that melon to move toward the gunman, Tony, if it wasn't a jet
> effect?
>

Magic. Penn and Teller are magicians. How can they catch a bullet with
their teeth? As P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
Do you know what a squib is? How do they make it look like a bullet hits
the wall behind the victim?

>
>>>> "Lattimer did not prove the Jet Effect."<<<
>
> Then why did EVERY single one of Dr. Lattimer's test skulls fly toward the
> gunman after they were shot? It certainly can't be because of a
> neuromuscular reaction in a dead skull.
>

Are you blind? Not all of them did and what looks like the skull being
propelled back is just the back of the skull flying back by the bullet
hitting the top of the head and cleaving it in half.

> So, Tony, tell us what caused all of Lattimer's skulls to be propelled
> toward the shooter? (And the "tipping ladder" excuse isn't gonna fly, btw,
> because those skulls went flying toward the gunman before that ladder
> started tipping backward.)
>

More false charges from the expert. I never made excuses. All I said was
that seeing the ladder pushed forward PROVES that the IMPACT of a bullet
can thrust a 10 pound object backwards.

> Quoting Lattimer:
>
> "Our experiments verified that the backward movement of the
> President's head was compatible with his being struck from the rear, and
> that it was certainly not necessary to hit the head from the front in
> order to make the head move toward the gun." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 255
> of "Kennedy And Lincoln"
>

And you take the word of a liar. Typical. Again, what was the serial
number of Lattimer's Mannlicher-Carcano??

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what a ballistics pendulum is.
I guess it's ancient history to the kids now.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You did not measure the 2.3 inches. You took that from Itek. That is
so last millennium." <<<

Hmmmm. Who to believe? Itek or David Wimp?

That's a toughie, isn't it?

[David Von Pein]

JOHN LATTIMER SAID:

>>> "I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these
experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY
from the shooter." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Go ahead and call Lattimer a liar (again), Marsh. I want to hear you say
it again.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I didn't "confirm" any such thing.
I said someone who doesn't know what a ballisic pendulum is might think
you had a point. That's why you post allusive replies like this. It's
not a matter of arguing with me�since you can't.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Easy for you. You always believe the CIA. You didn't even see David Wimp's
presentation yet you presume to dismiss it.