The myth of "back and to the left"
bigdog
to the left" became a mantra for those CTs who argued that the fatal
head shot came from the grassy knoll, to the front and right of the
limo. In the courtroom scene, the Costner/Garrison character replayed
the Z-film clip several times, repeating the phrase "back and to the
left" each time, ingraining it in the public consciousness. So for
those who believe JFK moved "back and to the left", explain JFK's
position in this frame:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
As you can see, JFK is positioned in the far right hand side of the
car seat. How do you move back and to the left and end up on the
right? Yes, his head is tilted to the left, but it was tilted left
before the head shot as we can see in the frame just before the head
shot:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
JFK was already leaning left before the headshot and he maintained
that leftward tilt while his body went straight back. Once his
backward movement was arrested by the car seat, his body went limp and
he fell over to his left as Jackie scramble onto the trunk, but his
movement following the head shot was straight back. If this movement
was due to momentum transfer from a bullet, it should have been in the
direction of the bullet. For that to have occured, the shot could not
have come from the front right position of the GK but instead from
directly in front of the limo, in the direction of the railroad
overpass. Anyone want to argue for that scenario?
WBurg...@aol.com
I see back and to the left. Big time. Exactly where the shot
originated is something we will most likely never know.
a1e...@verizon.net
> Following the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie in 1991, "back and
> to the left" became a mantra for those CTs who argued that the fatal
> head shot came from the grassy knoll, to the front and right of the
> limo. In the courtroom scene, the Costner/Garrison character replayed
> the Z-film clip several times, repeating the phrase "back and to the
> left" each time, ingraining it in the public consciousness. So for
> those who believe JFK moved "back and to the left", explain JFK's
> position in this frame:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
>
> As you can see, JFK is positioned in the far right hand side of the
> car seat. How do you move back and to the left and end up on the
> right? Yes, his head is tilted to the left, but it was tilted left
> before the head shot as we can see in the frame just before the head
> shot:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
>
> JFK was already leaning left before the headshot and he maintained
> that leftward tilt while his body went straight back.
JFK's body did no go straight back. Instead his torso rotated backward
and twisted toward his left.
Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
> Once his
> backward movement was arrested by the car seat, his body went limp and
> he fell over to his left as Jackie scramble onto the trunk, but his
> movement following the head shot was straight back. If this movement
> was due to momentum transfer from a bullet, it should have been in the
> direction of the bullet.
A body part experiences an external force from the striking bullet and an
internal force from the attachment of that part to the reminder of the
body. These forces create a torque that causes the struck portion of the
body to rotate.
If a bullet far more massive and slower than a MC bullet and with a
comparable kinetic energy initially struck the front of President
Kennedy's head then the head would rotate as far rearward as permitted by
its attachment to the torso. At this point the head would share its
angular momentum with the torso and the two parts would continue rotating
rearward with greatly diminished angular velocity. Calculations show that
sharing of angular momentum would reduce the angular velocity by a factor
of about one-fortieth.
> For that to have occured, the shot could not
> have come from the front right position of the GK but instead from
> directly in front of the limo, in the direction of the railroad
> overpass. Anyone want to argue for that scenario?
The leftward twist could arise only if the frontal shot primarily acted on
the left side of the head. Further the head must turn as far left as
possible before sharing its angular momentum with the torso. By contrast,
the Zapruder film shows the torso dragging a head without extreme backward
and leftward orientations.
Herbert
jbarge
If there's a second gunman and shot to be had, I'll pick the multitude
of witnesses who heard it on the Grassy Knoll - and for that matter
that odd dictabelt recording.
The phrase "momentum transfer" is beyond my understanding, but perhaps
that means only that physics is a realm beyond my capabilities, at
least at this point.
Personally I would have thought a bullet slamming into the back of a
person's head would drive them into the back of the seat in front of
them.
But I'm curious - what effect would 2 bullets impacting the skull
would have on JFK's movements?
John Canal
>would have on JFK's movements?
I'm curious too...have you ever thought about reading the autopsy report before
wondering whether or not something as ridiculous as that ocurred...or do you
have nothing better to do and imply such scenarios might have happened just to
converse with someone?
John Canal
bigdog
>
> I see back and to the left. Big time. Exactly where the shot
>
How do you go back and to the left and end up on the right? You
continue to ignore that very simple fact. Back and to the left is an
illusion created by the fact that JFK was already leaning left when
shot and then he went straight back. There is no leftward movement
following the head shot.
claviger
> I'll pass on that scenario.
> If there's a second gunman and shot to be had, I'll pick the multitude
> of witnesses who heard it on the Grassy Knoll - and for that matter
> that odd dictabelt recording.
> The phrase "momentum transfer" is beyond my understanding, but perhaps
> that means only that physics is a realm beyond my capabilities, at
> least at this point.
> Personally I would have thought a bullet slamming into the back of a
> person's head would drive them into the back of the seat in front of
> them.
> But I'm curious - what effect would 2 bullets impacting the skull
> would have on JFK's movements?
The problem with your multitude of witnesses is most of them heard all
3 shots from the GK, not just one. Several witnesses heard shots
coming from the Triple Underpass where 16 witnesses and 2 cops were
standing. In fact the majority of witnesses thought all 3 shots came
from the same direction: either the TSBD, the Gassy Knoll, or the
Triple Underpass.
What this tells us is there were echoes and reverberations created
during the shooting, which can cause auricular confusion to many
witnesses. The buildings on the east side of the plaza, the Triple
Underpass, and the curved pergola all provided surfaces for sound
waves to reflect.
There are further problems to confuse acoustic perception:
_____________________________________________________
Acoustics. Apart from the difficulty of accurately recording aural
perception of gunshots, the acoustics of gunshots are such that the
witness' perceptions may lead him to draw inaccurate conclusions.
(a) Number of Shots. The firing of a bullet causes three noises: (1)
the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel
the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; (2) the
noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the
bullet's nose as it travels through air; (3) the noise caused by the
impact of the bullet into its target. Each of these noises can be
quite sharp and may be perceived as separate "shots" by an
inexperienced or confused witness.
(b) Direction. If a bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, the
acoustics are such that the observer at right angles to the path of
the bullet may perceive the shot to have been fired from a site
somewhere opposite to him.
_____________________________________________________
Mortal Error, p. 51-52
bigdog
> On Mar 2, 1:25 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Following the release of Oliver Stone's JFK movie in 1991, "back and
> > to the left" became a mantra for those CTs who argued that the fatal
> > head shot came from the grassy knoll, to the front and right of the
> > limo. In the courtroom scene, the Costner/Garrison character replayed
> > the Z-film clip several times, repeating the phrase "back and to the
> > left" each time, ingraining it in the public consciousness. So for
> > those who believe JFK moved "back and to the left", explain JFK's
> > position in this frame:
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
>
> > As you can see, JFK is positioned in the far right hand side of the
> > car seat. How do you move back and to the left and end up on the
> > right? Yes, his head is tilted to the left, but it was tilted left
> > before the head shot as we can see in the frame just before the head
> > shot:
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
>
> > JFK was already leaning left before the headshot and he maintained
> > that leftward tilt while his body went straight back.
>
> JFK's body did no go straight back. Instead his torso rotated backward
> and twisted toward his left.
>
seat back in Z313. And Z314. And Z315,Z316,Z317,Z318,Z319,Z320,Z321
and Z322 when his shoulder blades hit the seatback and his backward
movement stops. Just where in this sequence do you see evidence of
torso rotation?
bigdog
No one heard gunshots on the grassy knoll. They heard gunshots. Some
thought it sounded like it came from the direction of the GK and some
from the direction of the TSBD. They all heard the same shots. This is
not surprising. It is extremely difficult to determine the direction
of gunfire from sound. Living in the country, it is not unusual to
hear gunfire and it often sounds like it is coming from an entirely
different direction than it actual is. Until I actually see the
shooter, I don't know where it is coming from, even after several
shots.
> The phrase "momentum transfer" is beyond my understanding, but perhaps
> that means only that physics is a realm beyond my capabilities, at
> least at this point.
Thing of billiard balls. When the cue ball hits the object ball, it
moves it. That is momentum transfer. If it hits it dead on with no
spin, the cue ball stops and the object ball continues in the same
direction. That is momentum transfer. In the case of billiard balls,
both objects are the same size and weight and there is no penetration
so virtually all the momentum is transfered from the cue ball to the
object ball. That is not the case with bullet and human bodies. The
bullet weighs very little in relation to the body and because it
penetrates, very little of its momentum is transfered to the body. If
you hung a side of beef from a ceiling and then shot it with a high
powered rifle, it would barely budge. You probably wouldn't even
notice it.
> Personally I would have thought a bullet slamming into the back of a
> person's head would drive them into the back of the seat in front of
> them.
You would be wrong. Not enough momentum transfer. JFK's head does move
forward several inches at impact which is about all you would expect.
Bodies getting thrown forcefully by bullets is an invention of
Hollywood done for dramatic effect. It doesn't happen that way in real
life. Usually when someone is shot, they simply fall. They might fall
forward, backward, left or right, or might just drop like a dishrag.
There is almost no correlation between the direction of the fall and
the direction of gunfire.
> But I'm curious - what effect would 2 bullets impacting the skull
> would have on JFK's movements?- Hide quoted text -
>
Very little. If that were to have happened, there should be two
entrance wounds and two exit wounds in JFK's skull unless you want to
believe the second bullet entered through the blow out hole to in the
right side of the skull. If such a shot came from the GK, there should
be an exit wound in the back left of JFK's skull which of course there
wasn't.
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frames Z314 to Z317 in the link that you have snipped show the
leftward rotation of JFK's torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Your claim that his shoulders were parallel to the seat back is on par
with the assertion that JFK went straight back. Do you care to disclose
the source for your fantasies?
Hebert
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f24ab65-9cd5-4a34...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
There were 3 witnesses who said there werre NO echoes in Dealy Plaza.
John Connally
Nellie Connally
James Tague.
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f24ab65-9cd5-4a34...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
There were 3 witnesses who said there werre NO echoes in Dealy Plaza.
WBurg...@aol.com
Dude, you need a basic Physics lesson. Google "Issac Newton" and get
back to us.
Anthony Marsh
IN fact his shoulders were NOT parallel to the seat back. He was leaning
towards his left. But I understand your reservations about the torso
rotation theory.
a1e...@verizon.net
Hey, Mister. You should show some respect for bigdog. He studied
metaphysics under Aristotle.
Herbert
bigdog
In other words, you have no explaination. You are not alone. No other
CT seems to have one either.
claviger
> There were 3 witnesses who said there werre NO echoes in Dealy Plaza.
>
> John Connally
> Nellie Connally
> James Tague.
Well, John Connally heard only 2 shots. He did not hear the shot that
wounded him, but other witnesses did hear 3 shots including Nellie
Connally. They same is true of echoes in Dealey Plaza. Just because
some witnesses don't recall hearing echoes doesn't prove there were no
echoes that day, especially when a number of other witnesses
distinctly remember hearing echoes.
Here is an interesting comment from Governor Connally. Notice the
choice of words to describe what he did hear.
______________________________________________________
Mr. DULLES. You and one other happen to be the only witnesses who have
indicated that they recognized it as being a rifleshot. The other
witness, like you, was a huntsman. Most of the witnesses have
indicated they thought it was a backfire; the first shot was a
backfire or a firecracker.
Can you distinguish, what is there that distinguishes a rifleshot from
a backfire or a firecracker? Can you tell, or is it just instinct?
Governor CONNALLY. I am not sure I could accurately describe it. I
don't know that I have ever attempted to. I would say a firecracker or
a blowout has more of a hollow, bursting kind of sound, as if you
popped a balloon, or something of this sort. A rifleshot, on the other
hand, to me has more of a ring, kind of an echo to it, more of a
metallic sound to it. It is a more penetrating sound than a
firecracker or a blowout. It carries----
______________________________________________________
Actually we've been over this before. You offered the same 3 witnesses
who did not hear echoes and I gave you about a dozen witnesses who
did.
Here are 3 well known witnesses who did hear echoes that day:
Lee E Bowers Jr
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
Deputy Sheriff Roger D Craig
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Jean Lollis Hill
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_j.htm
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shoulders parallel to the back seat mean that the distance of the
left shoulder from the back seat is the same as the distance of the
right shoulder from the back seat. These distances do not change as
the victim leans in either direction.
Frame Z-317 of the Zapruder film shows the right shoulder of President
Kennedy farther from the back seat than his left shoulder.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Since a few frames earlier show the shoulders were parallel the back
seat, the conclusion of torso rotation is inescapable by anything that
thinks.
Herbert
bigdog
HUH??? What leftward rotation? I see JFK's right upper arm rotating UPWARD
as his torso is moving straight back. You are claiming leftward rotation
that lasted 4 frames, less than a quarter of a second. If his torso
rotated to the left, his left shoulder blade would be behind his right and
would contact the seat back before the right. Please point out which frame
you see JFK's left shoulder blade contacting the seat back ahead of the
right one. You are seeing things, trying to convince yourself of something
that isn't there.
> Your claim that his shoulders were parallel to the seat back is on par
> with the assertion that JFK went straight back. Do you care to disclose
> the source for your fantasies?
>
Somebody who is claiming leftward rotation in Z314-317 ought not to be
talking about other people's fantasies.
WBurg...@aol.com
back and to the left = shot from the front. That's the explanation.
bigdog
>
> Frame Z-317 of the Zapruder film shows the right shoulder of President
> Kennedy farther from the back seat than his left shoulder.
That's an interesting observation in light of the fact that JFK's left
shoulder is not visible in Z317 or in any of the frames immediately before
or after. His left shoulder is on the opposite side of JFK's head and his
leftward lean, which was present even before the head shot, places his
left shoulder lower than the right.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> Since a few frames earlier show the shoulders were parallel the back
> seat, the conclusion of torso rotation is inescapable by anything that
> thinks.
>
I can think and I can also see. Explain to us how the orientation of JFK's
shoulders are different in Z317 as opposed to Z312. Just where is the
evidence of shoulder rotation? For that matter, explain how the orietation
of the shoulders changes in any frame from Z312 thru Z322.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Perhaps it would have been more precise to say roughly parallel, which
they were. The key is that the orientation of the shoulders in
relation to the car seat do not change from Z312-322. The relation to
Zapruder changes slightly only because the limo is moving forward.
tomnln
Your quotes mean NOTHING without Volume/Page.
marki...@yahoo.com
> > But I'm curious - what effect would 2 bullets impacting the skull
> > would have on JFK's movements?
>
> Very little. If that were to have happened, there should be two
> entrance wounds and two exit wounds in JFK's skull unless you want to
> believe the second bullet entered through the blow out hole to in the
> right side of the skull. If such a shot came from the GK, there should
> be an exit wound in the back left of JFK's skull which of course there
> wasn't
I understand and agree with you in part, and I appreciated your post
regarding difficulty in determining actual location of a shooter using
only one's audible perception.
Is it possible that if two bullets struck the head, there could still be
only two entry/exit sites on the skull? Or even just one entry? There
would necessarily have to be one entry wound either on the remaining
intact skull, or fragments that were blown out. Would the skull fragments
that are blown out be expected to travel away from the skull ahead of the
exiting bullet? If so, then this could explain lack of a specific exit
site.
Also, if a second bullet came in, and caused a visible effect that's
recorded on film, it should leave at least an entry site (provided its
impact is on remaining intact skull), or an exit site (provided its impact
is on the interior side, pushing outward). If this second bullet enters
where the skull had already been opened, then no skull entry point would
show, and if it also exited where the skull had already been opened, again
no exit point would show. If such a second bullet only contacted brain
matter, by both entering and exiting through a large existing wound, it
seems that it wouldn't push the victim appreciably, and not be obvious on
the recorded film.
In determining the path of bullet(s) through the head, is the skull more
important than the brain? Does the brain record a bullet path and
direction of travel more accurately than the skull?
I make no claims as to the number of headshots, nor direction. THANKS!
Respectfully,
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
His left shoulder was closer to the back seat than his right shoulder.
> Frame Z-317 of the Zapruder film shows the right shoulder of President
> Kennedy farther from the back seat than his left shoulder.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> Since a few frames earlier show the shoulders were parallel the back
> seat, the conclusion of torso rotation is inescapable by anything that
> thinks.
>
Since you are just making this up your inescapable conclusion is nonsense.
> Herbert
>
WBurg...@aol.com
Why does it matter? Even you said it indicated a shot from the front in
your original post.but you were chirping for a shot from the overpass.
Maybe it came from the sewer, or the knoll, but the bottom line is that
there is no way it came from the TSBD. You are whining for people to
explain "shoulder rotation" or how the "orientation of the shoulders" do
or do not change. What is your point? Other than being argumentative about
something no one could ever prove. Let's play fantasy land and assume
whatever you are claiming is correct.... what's your explanation? Or are
you typical just throwing stuff out there to fuel controversy that can
never be ascertained? WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION?????
bigdog
>
> back and to the left = shot from the front. That's the explanation.- Hide quoted text -
>
That's not an explaination, that's a mantra fed to you by Oliver Stone.
You accept it on faith without scrutiny. That is why you are unable to
answer an incredibly simple question. How does JFK go back and to the left
and end up on the right? You know that "back and to the left" is
incompatible with JFK's position in Z322 so you are left to filibuster
with your irrelevant responses.
a1e...@verizon.net
Well, at least you got the upward rotation of the right arm correct. The
attachment of the right arm to its shoulder prevented it from moving
straight up.
The torso could not have moved straight back because of its attachment to
the lower portion of the body. So in reality the torso rotated backward
with a reclining motion.
Now examine Z-312, Z-317 and Z-322. Initially the line joining President
Kennedy's right should and his nape makes a small angle with the plane of
the back seat.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
However, Z-317 shows that same line making a far larger angle with the
plane of the rear seat. This is undisputable evidence of the leftward
rotation of the torso. The angular displacement of the rotation, not its
presence, determines whether the left shoulder becomes visible.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Z-322 shows a considerable decrease in the angle between the same straight
line and the plane of the back seat. So now we find evidence that the
torso twisted rightward during the interval between Z-317 and Z-322.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
If the first portion of Kennedy's back to strike the rear seat was his
left shoulder then this collision would have stopped the leftward twist
and the inertia of the reclining torso would have induced a rightward
twist.
>
> > Your claim that his shoulders were parallel to the seat back is on par
> > with the assertion that JFK went straight back. Do you care to disclose
> > the source for your fantasies?
>
> Somebody who is claiming leftward rotation in Z314-317 ought not to be
> talking about other people's fantasies.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder if it is really necessary for me to draw lines on the graphics to
construct the angles? Frame Z-314 shows a small angle between the plane of
the back seat and the line joining President Kennedy's right shoulder with
his nape.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
By contrast Z-317 shows a far larger angle.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
I suggest that you live with the Zapruder film and refrain from the
fruitless attempt to impose your imagination upon the contents of its
frames.
Herbert
a1e...@verizon.net
Examine Z-312, Z-317 and Z-322. Initially the line joining President
Kennedy's right should and his nape makes a small angle with the plane
of the back seat.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
However, Z-317 shows that same line making a far larger angle with the
plane of the rear seat. This is undisputable evidence of the leftward
rotation of the torso. The angular displacement of the rotation, not
its presence, determines whether the left shoulder becomes visible.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Z-322 shows a considerable decrease in the angle between the same
straight line and the plane of the back seat. So now we find evidence
that the torso twisted rightward during the interval between Z-317 and
Z-322.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
If the first portion of Kennedy's back to strike the rear seat was his
left shoulder then this collision would have stopped the leftward
twist and the inertia of the reclining torso would have induced a
rightward twist.
Herbert
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you the strength of character to compare the orientation of the
shoulders with respect to the back seat on Z-317 with the orientation
seen of either Z-312 or Z- 322?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
Herbert
claviger
> "claviger" <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, now I understand. JFK twisted left between Z313-Z317 and then
twisted back to the right between Z317-Z322. Boy, that JFK sure was a
dancing fiend. I knew it was just a matter of time before you whipped
out the Blennerese on us. ("angular displacement of the rotation",
give me a break). Your fancy verbage is nothing more than an attempt
to put lipstick on a pig. Any changes in angles are due to the upward
rotation of the right arm and the rearward tilt of the torso. All your
fancy words and you still couldn't answer the simply question I posed.
At what frame do you see the left shoulder blade contacting the
seatback ahead of the right one? A very simple question asking for a
very simple answer. Can you provide one?
tomnln
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Dealy Plaza was like a "bowl" below where Bowers was located. (All sound
would echo)
Craig was located on Main Street between buildings. (All sound would echo)
Jean Hill made NO mention of "echo's")
Within Dealy Plaza itself, Nobody reported echo's.
There were 3 witnesses IN DEALY PLAZA who said there were NO echoes in
Dealy Plaza.
John Connally
Nellie Connally
James Tague.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeuhd
> There were 3 witnesses IN DEALY PLAZA who said there were NO echoes in
> Dealy Plaza.
>
> John Connally
> Nellie Connally
> James Tague.
John Connally didn't always have that opinion. From his WC testimony:
Mr. DULLES. You and one other happen to be the only witnesses who have
indicated that they recognized it [the first shot] as being a rifleshot.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d7d8ffe-d28e-472c...@e36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"A FIRECRACKER"
"A BLOWOUT"
"BURSTING SOUND"
"POPPED BALOON"
'A RING"
"AN ECHO"
"METALLIC SOUND"
Months Later???
Connally's FIRST words were on November 17th in an interview with Martin
Agronsky.
"I turned to my LEFT, the President had slumped". SEE>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0
CHANGED HIS VIEW LATER.
Some Witness ! ! ! !
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
The frames that could have shown the first contact of Kennedy's back
with the rear seat are total messes.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z319.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z320.jpg
Now are you going to plead ignorance of the evidence or pretend that I
have not caught you using devious tactics, again.
Herbert
bigdog
Oh, now that's rich. It's Abraham Zapruder's fault that you can't
provide evidence of your imaginary torso rotation. I have no idea what
you think you have caught me in. You have demonstrated to one and all
how lacking in substance your claims are. There is nothing devious
about my tactics. I asked a very simple question of the CT community.
I asked how if JFK went back and to the left, he ended up on the far
right side of the car seat as he is clearly seen in Z322. Neither you
nor anyone else has been able to provide such an answer to a very
straight forward question, although I have to give you credit for
being the only one who tried. Your attempt to explain away this
problem with a lot of fancy jargon was quite amusing. The simple fact
is there was no back and to the left movement. There is a rapid
backward movement of the head and torso while JFK maintained the
leftward lean he had established at Z312, one frame before the bullet
struck his head.
a1e...@verizon.net
On March 4, 2009, I asked, "Have you the strength of character to compare
the orientation of the shoulders with respect to the back seat on Z-317
with the orientation seen of either Z-312 or Z- 322?"
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
We are still awaiting your reply.
Herbert
bigdog
Strength of character? That's really lame. I did reply but in case I
wasn't clear enough in my response let me say it very simply. There is
no change in the orientation of JFK's shoulders to the seatback in any
frame from Z312 thru Z322. The shoulders move straight back until they
contact the seat with no rotation. Notice I didn't dodge the question
by claiming the frames were too messed up to answer that. Now that I
answered your simple and direct question with a simple and direct
answer, can you do the same. How does JFK go "back and to the left"
and end up on the right side of the car seat?
claviger
> Dealy Plaza was like a "bowl" below where Bowers was located. (All sound
> would echo)
> Craig was located on Main Street between buildings. (All sound would echo)
> Jean Hill made NO mention of "echo's")
>
> Within Dealy Plaza itself, Nobody reported echo's.
>
> There were 3 witnesses IN DEALY PLAZA who said there were NO echoes in
> Dealy Plaza.
>
> John Connally
> Nellie Connally
> James Tague.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
More witnesses in Dealey Plaza who heard echoes:
LEE BOWERS
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two
very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
ROGER D. CRAIG
Mr. BELIN - Where did the noises or shots sound to you like they came
from?
Mr. CRAIG - It was hard to tell because---uh---they had an echo, you
know. There was actually two explosions with each one. There was the
uh--the shot and then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell.
CLINTON J HILL, Special Agent, Secret Service
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped
from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the
Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another
sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described
it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a
hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo.
OCHUS V. CAMPBELL
At this time, he heard a loud report, which at first he considered to
be a fire cracker or some object set off by a crank and believed the
noise came from away from his building. This illusion, he explained,
may have been due to the sound bouncing off the building and other
objects in the vicinity.
D. V. HARKNESS
Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. HARKNESS - I couldn't tell. They were bouncing off the buildings
down there. I couldn't tell.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the reverberations?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes.
GENEVA L. HINE
Mr. BALL Could you tell where the shots were coming from?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; they came from inside the building.
Mr. BALL. How do you know that?
Miss HINE. Because the building vibrated from the result of the
explosion coming in.
JOHN J. SOLON
The Presidential car slowed down to turn north on Houston Street from
Main, and a few moments later, he heard three shots which sounded as
follows: First shot, pause, two shots, then echoes of the shots.
MARY ELIZABETH WOODWARD
Her next reaction was that the shots might have come from the
overpass
which was to her right. She stated, however, because of the loud
echo,
she could not say where the shots had come from, other than they had
come from above her head.
I include JEAN LOLLIS HILL because she heard 4-6 shots. She thought
the SS agents were shooting back. The reason I include her is based on
the majority of ear witnesses who only heard 3 shots. If they are
correct then Jean Hill must have heard echoes. The fact she was
standing directly across from the concave cement pergola is even more
reason to believe she was hearing echoes. The irony is Jean Hill's
impression may be correct. There is compelling evidence one SS agent
did fire his weapon.
a1e...@verizon.net
Frames Z-312 and Z-322 show Kennedy's shoulder nearly parallel to the
surface of the rear seat.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg
By contrast, the intermediate frame, Z-317, that you lack the courage to
post, shows Kennedy at nearly a half left face.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
At this instant his shoulders were nearly half way between a perpendicular
and a parallel to the back seat.
> Notice I didn't dodge the question
> by claiming the frames were too messed up to answer that.
You have changed the question from having the strength of character to
compare the orientation of the shoulders on Z-317 with the orientation on
either Z-312 or Z- 322 to when on which frame did the shoulder(s) first
contact the back seat.
> Now that I
> answered your simple and direct question with a simple and direct
> answer, can you do the same. How does JFK go "back and to the left"
> and end up on the right side of the car seat?- Hide quoted text -
>
The openings words of my initial response to you in this thread
answered the question. I said.
JFK's body did no go straight back. Instead his torso rotated backward
and twisted toward his left.
Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
End of quotation.
The referenced page shows graphics up to Z-317. At this point the
shoulders were far from parallel to the rear surface of the seat. So,
Einstein explain how Kennedy moved after Z-317 so that his shoulders were
nearly parallel to the same surface on Z-322. If you have difficulty in
answering this question then ask a child. They could tell you that
Kennedy's shoulders rotated rightward during Z-318 to Z-320.
According to your sloppy thinking, frames Z-312 and Z-315 that show
Kennedy's head in the same position with respect to his torso disprove the
forward head snap of Z-312/Z-313 or disprove the rear head snap of
Z-314/Z-315.
Herbert
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a61e1c65-2ae7-4aa5...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
It takes an overly active imagination to claim JFK's shoulders are halfway
between perpendicular and parallel to the back seat at Z317. That would
put them at 45 degrees to the seat. If someone rotates his shoulders 45
degrees left, their right shoulder would be ahead of his chin. Since
Zapruder's camera angle is nearly perpendicular to the limo at Z317, we
can see that is clearly not the case. The right shoulder remains alligned
with the backside of JFK's head throughout the sequence.
Since you seem unable to perceive the obvious in regard to the shoulder
movement, perhaps you can explain why his head doesn't rotate either.
Since the head took the shot, we should see more rotation of the head than
the shoulders, not less. What we see is that JFK's head remains in full
right profile in relation to Zapruder's camera throughout the sequence. We
clearly see his right cheek at Z312. By Z317, the skull flap is covering
the upper part of the cheek but the lower half is still visible. At Z320
we clearly see a full shot of JFK's right cheek. His ear lobe is in the
same relative position as it was in Z312. There was no rotation of the
head. There was no rotation of the shoulder. You have simply made it up
and all your fancy verbage amounts to nothing more than an attempt to put
lipstick on a pig.
> > Notice I didn't dodge the question
> > by claiming the frames were too messed up to answer that.
>
> You have changed the question from having the strength of character to
> compare the orientation of the shoulders on Z-317 with the orientation on
> either Z-312 or Z- 322 to when on which frame did the shoulder(s) first
> contact the back seat.
>
> > Now that I
> > answered your simple and direct question with a simple and direct
> > answer, can you do the same. How does JFK go "back and to the left"
> > and end up on the right side of the car seat?- Hide quoted text -
>
> The openings words of my initial response to you in this thread
> answered the question. I said.
>
> JFK's body did no go straight back. Instead his torso rotated backward
> and twisted toward his left.
>
How is this responsive to the question of how JFK ended up on the right
side of the car seat if he moved back and to the left. Your imaginary
shoulder rotation aside, are you at least willing to concede there was no
lateral movement by JFK to the left?
> Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
> motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
>
You can observe the Z-film in slow motion, freeze frame, normal speed, or
fast speed. There is still no shoulder rotation. You need to get a new
copy of the Zapruder film. You obviously have a defective one.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
> End of ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
> jbarge,
>
>> I'll pass on that scenario.
>> If there's a second gunman and shot to be had, I'll pick the multitude
>> of witnesses who heard it on the Grassy Knoll - and for that matter
>> that odd dictabelt recording.
>> The phrase "momentum transfer" is beyond my understanding, but perhaps
>> that means only that physics is a realm beyond my capabilities, at
>> least at this point.
>> Personally I would have thought a bullet slamming into the back of a
>> person's head would drive them into the back of the seat in front of
>> them.
>> But I'm curious - what effect would 2 bullets impacting the skull
>> would have on JFK's movements?
>
> 3 shots from the GK, not just one. Several witnesses heard shots
> coming from the Triple Underpass where 16 witnesses and 2 cops were
> standing. In fact the majority of witnesses thought all 3 shots came
> from the same direction: either the TSBD, the Gassy Knoll, or the
> Triple Underpass.
>
> What this tells us is there were echoes and reverberations created
> during the shooting, which can cause auricular confusion to many
> witnesses. The buildings on the east side of the plaza, the Triple
> Underpass, and the curved pergola all provided surfaces for sound
> waves to reflect.
>
> There are further problems to confuse acoustic perception:
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Acoustics. Apart from the difficulty of accurately recording aural
> perception of gunshots, the acoustics of gunshots are such that the
> witness' perceptions may lead him to draw inaccurate conclusions.
>
> (a) Number of Shots. The firing of a bullet causes three noises: (1)
> the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel
> the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; (2) the
> noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the
> bullet's nose as it travels through air; (3) the noise caused by the
> impact of the bullet into its target. Each of these noises can be
> quite sharp and may be perceived as separate "shots" by an
> inexperienced or confused witness.
>
> (b) Direction. If a bullet travels faster than the speed of sound, the
> acoustics are such that the observer at right angles to the path of
> the bullet may perceive the shot to have been fired from a site
> somewhere opposite to him.
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Mortal Error, p. 51-52
There were 3 witnesses who said there werre NO echoes in Dealy Plaza.
tomnln
a1e...@verizon.net
> between perpendicular and parallel to the back seat at Z317. That would
> put them at 45 degrees to the seat. If someone rotates his shoulders 45
> degrees left, their right shoulder would be ahead of his chin. Since
> Zapruder's camera angle is nearly perpendicular to the limo at Z317, we
> can see that is clearly not the case. The right shoulder remains alligned
> with the backside of JFK's head throughout the sequence.
Z-317 shows Kennedy's right shoulder ahead of his chin.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Viewing Z-311-Z317 in slow-motion or as individual frames unravels the
mystery.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
These frames show that Kennedy's torso rotated about an axis joining his
hips. During this interval, this backward rotation decreased the distance
between the rear of the back seat and the centerline of Kennedy's torso.
Simultaneously the torso twisted leftward about the long axis of the body.
So as the centerline of the back rotated closer to the back of the rear
seat, the leftward twisting motion carried the right shoulder farther from
the same point of reference. > > Since you seem unable to perceive the
obvious in regard to the shoulder > movement, perhaps you can explain why
his head doesn't rotate either. > Since the head took the shot, we should
see more rotation of the head tha n > the shoulders, not less.
I have noted the rotations of the head with respect to the torso as seen
in the Zapruder film disprove a frontal shot. In my initial reply in this
thread, I said:
"If a bullet far more massive and slower than a MC bullet and with a
comparable kinetic energy initially struck the front of President
Kennedy's head then the head would rotate as far rearward as permitted by
its attachment to the torso. At this point the head would share its
angular momentum with the torso and the two parts would continue rotating
rearward with greatly diminished angular velocity. Calculations show that
sharing of angular momentum would reduce the angular velocity by a factor
of about one-fortieth." . . .
"The leftward twist could arise only if the frontal shot primarily acted
on the left side of the head. Further the head must turn as far left as
possible before sharing its angular momentum with the torso. By contrast,
the Zapruder film shows the torso dragging a head without extreme backward
and leftward orientations."
> What we see is that JFK's head remains in full
> right profile in relation to Zapruder's camera throughout the sequence. We
> clearly see his right cheek at Z312. By Z317, the skull flap is covering
> the upper part of the cheek but the lower half is still visible. At Z320
> we clearly see a full shot of JFK's right cheek. His ear lobe is in the
> same relative position as it was in Z312. There was no rotation of the
> head. There was no rotation of the shoulder. You have simply made it up
> and all your fancy verbage amounts to nothing more than an attempt to put
> lipstick on a pig.
Who are you trying to fool, mister. For decades researchers have pointed
to the full view of the right-rear of Kennedy's head as seen on Z-316 or
Z-317 to dispute the BOH wound described by many eyewitnesses.
>
> > > Notice I didn't dodge the question
> > > by claiming the frames were too messed up to answer that.
>
> > You have changed the question from having the strength of character to
> > compare the orientation of the shoulders on Z-317 with the orientation on
> > either Z-312 or Z- 322 to when on which frame did the shoulder(s) first
> > contact the back seat.
>
> > > Now that I
> > > answered your simple and direct question with a simple and direct
> > > answer, can you do the same. How does JFK go "back and to the left"
> > > and end up on the right side of the car seat?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The openings words of my initial response to you in this thread
> > answered the question. I said.
>
> > JFK's body did no go straight back. Instead his torso rotated backward
> > and twisted toward his left.
>
> How is this responsive to the question of how JFK ended up on the right
> side of the car seat if he moved back and to the left. Your imaginary
> shoulder rotation aside, are you at least willing to concede there was no
> lateral movement by JFK to the left?
As a member of an advanced technological society, you should learn to
speak their language. Kennedy moved with rotational, not translational,
motions. Period. In plain English, the motion of the poor devil was not
straight back nor lateral.
>
> > Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
> > motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
>
> You can observe the Z-film in slow motion, freeze frame, normal speed, or
> fast speed. There is still no shoulder rotation. You need to get a new
> copy of the Zapruder film. You obviously have a defective one.>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
Your feeble attempt to confuse a leftward twist of the torso with a vague
rotation of the shoulder is akin to putting perfume on a bull. Its shxt
still stinks.
Herbert
bigdog
Very few people in this advanced technological society feel a need to
impress people with a lot of fancy jargon. They are able to express
themselves without throwing around a lot of verbage that actual says very
little. It reminds me of the old adage, "If you can't dazzle them with
brilliance, baffle them with BS".
>
>
> > > Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
> > > motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
>
> > You can observe the Z-film in slow motion, freeze frame, normal speed, or
> > fast speed. There is still no shoulder rotation. You need to get a new
> > copy of the Zapruder film. You obviously have a defective one.>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
> Your feeble attempt to confuse a leftward twist of the torso with a vague
> rotation of the shoulder is akin to putting perfume on a bull. Its shxt
> still stinks.
>
> Herbert
Are you denying that when a person's upperarm rotates in an upward motion
that this will not tend to pull the shoulder forward. I encourage anyone
reading this exchange to do a very simple experiment. Sit or stand
sideways to a mirror and assume an upper body position similar to what JFK
had in frame Z312. Now raise the arm nearest the mirror to the position
JFK is at in Z317 and allow the shoulder to move naturally without forcing
it. I am betting you will notice that it moves slightly forward, just as
we see JFK's right shoulder had moved at Z317. Since you will be looking
at a mirror image, you might want to have your left side nearest the
mirror and start from a leaning forward and slightly to the right in order
to most closely replicate the image in the Z-film.
a1e...@verizon.net
> On Mar 11, 10:14 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:33 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 7, 10:20 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 6, 10:28 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:48 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 6, 1:08 am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:49 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 10:29 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 5:21 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 12:07 am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 5:30 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 1:25 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<big snip by HB>
Herbert:
> > As a member of an advanced technological society, you should learn to
> > speak their language. Kennedy moved with rotational, not translational,
> > motions. Period. In plain English, the motion of the poor devil was not
> > straight back nor lateral.
>
bigdog:
> Very few people in this advanced technological society feel a need to
> impress people with a lot of fancy jargon. They are able to express
> themselves without throwing around a lot of verbage that actual says very
> little. It reminds me of the old adage, "If you can't dazzle them with
> brilliance, baffle them with BS".
Very few people in this advanced technological society feel a need to
impress people with a lot of fancy jargon. They are able to express
themselves without throwing around a lot of verbage that actual says very
little. It reminds me of the old adage, "If you can't dazzle them with
brilliance, baffle them with BS".
I wonder whether you would apply these derogatory words to Dr. Ken Rahn
who uses "fancy jargon" to make the same point as I have stated in this
and its related thread?
Source:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/16-Lurch1ang.html
"Motions are of two basic types—translational and rotational. Although
every beginning physics students finds the translational version more
intuitive than the rotational, we really should be using the rotational
here. That is easy to justify, for the immediate effect of the head shot
was to rotate JFK's head forward about his neck, and the later effect was
to rotate his upper torso rearward about his hips. In other words, JFK
rotated rather than translated. We began with the translational version
simply because it is easier to understand. In truth, it should not be used
to address his motions after the head shot."
>
>
>
Herbert:
> > > > Viewing the Zapruder film in slow motion clearly shows that JFK's
> > > > motions were rotations, not straight line movements.
>
bigbog:
> > > You can observe the Z-film in slow motion, freeze frame, normal speed, or
> > > fast speed. There is still no shoulder rotation. You need to get a new
> > > copy of the Zapruder film. You obviously have a defective one.>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
Herbert:
> > Your feeble attempt to confuse a leftward twist of the torso with a vague
> > rotation of the shoulder is akin to putting perfume on a bull. Its shxt
> > still stinks.
>
> > Herbert
>
bigdog:
> Are you denying that when a person's upperarm rotates in an upward motion
> that this will not tend to pull the shoulder forward. I encourage anyone
> reading this exchange to do a very simple experiment. Sit or stand
> sideways to a mirror and assume an upper body position similar to what JFK
> had in frame Z312. Now raise the arm nearest the mirror to the position
> JFK is at in Z317 and allow the shoulder to move naturally without forcing
> it. I am betting you will notice that it moves slightly forward, just as
> we see JFK's right shoulder had moved at Z317. Since you will be looking
> at a mirror image, you might want to have your left side nearest the
> mirror and start from a leaning forward and slightly to the right in order
> to most closely replicate the image in the Z-film.
bigdog on.
What we see is that JFK's head remains in full right profile in relation
to Zapruder's camera throughout the sequence. We clearly see his right
cheek at Z312. By Z317, the skull flap is covering the upper part of the
cheek but the lower half is still visible. At Z320 we clearly see a full
shot of JFK's right cheek. His ear lobe is in the same relative position
as it was in Z312. There was no rotation of the head. There was no
rotation of the shoulder. You have simply made it up and all your fancy
verbage amounts to nothing more than an attempt to put lipstick on a pig.
bigdog off.
I replied:
"Who are you trying to fool, mister. For decades researchers have pointed
to the full view of the right-rear of Kennedy's head as seen on Z-316 or
Z-317 to dispute the BOH wound described by many eyewitnesses."
Guess what folks, bigdog had not even a denial as a less than feeble
rebuttal.
So tell us, bigdog. Why does a straight line from Kennedy's right shoulder
to his nape make a smaller angle with the surface of the rear of the seat
on Z-321 when the arm is raised high than on Z-317?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
The answer is simple. Raising the arm does not cause twisting of the
torso.
Herbert
bigdog
overlook one sooner or later. We see no more of the back right of
JFK's head in Z321 than we do at Z312 before the bullet struck, nor
does any frame in between show this. Throughout the sequence, we see
JFK's head in full right profile, turned slightly to the left away
from Zapruder as it was before the head shot. JFK's right ear remains
centered in that profile even as his head snaps backward. Enough of
the back right side of JFK's head is visible to dispute any claims of
a massive BOH wound, but that doesn't make the case for leftward
rotation.
> So tell us, bigdog. Why does a straight line from Kennedy's right shoulder
> to his nape make a smaller angle with the surface of the rear of the seat
> on Z-321 when the arm is raised high than on Z-317?
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> The answer is simple. Raising the arm does not cause twisting of the
> torso.
>
That is very true. The right arm raised and the torso did not twist.
a1e...@verizon.net
Are you waiting to find out whether Ken Rahn is a CT or LN before
relying or have already added this information to your huge pile of
ignored evidence?
Detecting a rotational motion requires comparison of orientations on
two or more frames separated by an interval less than the duration of
the motion. Frames Z-315, Z-316 and Z-317 show an increasing angle
between the rear surface of the back seat and an imaginary line
joining Kennedy's right shoulder with his nape. This scientific
evidence of leftward twisting of the torso is clearly seen at the
following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Candidly bigdog, you think just like a poly sci student.
>
> > So tell us, bigdog. Why does a straight line from Kennedy's right shoulder
> > to his nape make a smaller angle with the surface of the rear of the seat
> > on Z-321 when the arm is raised high than on Z-317?
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> > The answer is simple. Raising the arm does not cause twisting of the
> > torso.
>
> That is very true. The right arm raised and the torso did not twist
The fact is that the right arm raised after the leftward twisting had
ceased and the torso had or was twisting rightward. These conclusions
follow immediately from viewing the frames that you have obviously
ignored.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
Herbert
.- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
>>> every beginning physics students finds the translational version more
>>> intuitive than the rotational, we really should be using the rotational
>>> here. That is easy to justify, for the immediate effect of the head shot
>>> was to rotate JFK's head forward about his neck, and the later effect was
>>> to rotate his upper torso rearward about his hips. In other words, JFK
>>> rotated rather than translated. We began with the translational version
>>> simply because it is easier to understand. In truth, it should not be used
>>> to address his motions after the head shot."
>
> Are you waiting to find out whether Ken Rahn is a CT or LN before
> relying or have already added this information to your huge pile of
> ignored evidence?
>
Ken Rahn and his cohorts call themselves non-conspiracists. They can't
admit that they are LNers or WC defenders. They think that they are open
to anything short of admitting conspiracy.
bigdog
Why does it matter whether Ken Rahn is a CT or an LN? If I remember from
reading his posts in the past, I believe he is an LN but that is
irrelevant to this issue at hand. If he wants to jump into this
discussion, he is welcome to do so, but no one does my thinking for me
regardless of their beliefs about the JFK assassination.
At least I think and don't imagine. There is absolutely nothing in the
Z-film or your website which clearly shows any leftward rotation
whatsoever.
>
>
> > > So tell us, bigdog. Why does a straight line from Kennedy's right shoulder
> > > to his nape make a smaller angle with the surface of the rear of the seat
> > > on Z-321 when the arm is raised high than on Z-317?
>
> > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> > > The answer is simple. Raising the arm does not cause twisting of the
> > > torso.
>
> > That is very true. The right arm raised and the torso did not twist
>
> The fact is that the right arm raised after the leftward twisting had
> ceased and the torso had or was twisting rightward. These conclusions
> follow immediately from viewing the frames that you have obviously
> ignored.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> Herbert
>
Now this is getting bizarre. In less than a half second, you have JFK
twisting left and then back to the right. Chubby Checker never had moves
like that. You claim the right arm came up after the leftward twisting had
ceased. That is an amazing claim since the right arm began rotating upward
beginning at Z-314, stopping just short of horizontal in frames Z318-319
and then the right elbow starts to drop down again in Z320 revealing the
back of JFK's right hand which had been obscured when the elbow was fully
raised. . So according to what you have just said, the leftward twisting
stopped by Z314 when the right arm began to rotate upward. So did the
leftward rotation come between frames Z313 and Z314?
You have completely lost me which was probably your objective from the
beginning. Why don't you make this real simple and tell us which frames
JFK was twisting to his left and which ones he was twisting to his right
so the rest of us can follow along on this amazing journey.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> every beginning physics students finds the translational version more
>>>> intuitive than the rotational, we really should be using the rotational
>>>> here. That is easy to justify, for the immediate effect of the head shot
>>>> was to rotate JFK's head forward about his neck, and the later effect was
>>>> to rotate his upper torso rearward about his hips. In other words, JFK
>>>> rotated rather than translated. We began with the translational version
>>>> simply because it is easier to understand. In truth, it should not be used
>>>> to address his motions after the head shot."
>> Are you waiting to find out whether Ken Rahn is a CT or LN before
>> relying or have already added this information to your huge pile of
>> ignored evidence?
>>
>>
>
> Why does it matter whether Ken Rahn is a CT or an LN? If I remember from
> reading his posts in the past, I believe he is an LN but that is
> irrelevant to this issue at hand. If he wants to jump into this
> discussion, he is welcome to do so, but no one does my thinking for me
> regardless of their beliefs about the JFK assassination.
Ken is welcome to contribute just like any of the WC defenders. But the
innocent reader should be aware of his bias.
a1e...@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > So tell us, bigdog. Why does a straight line from Kennedy's right shoulder
> > > > to his nape make a smaller angle with the surface of the rear of the seat
> > > > on Z-321 when the arm is raised high than on Z-317?
>
> > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> > > > The answer is simple. Raising the arm does not cause twisting of the
> > > > torso.
>
> > > That is very true. The right arm raised and the torso did not twist
>
> > The fact is that the right arm raised after the leftward twisting had
> > ceased and the torso had or was twisting rightward. These conclusions
> > follow immediately from viewing the frames that you have obviously
> > ignored.
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg
>
> > Herbert
>
> Now this is getting bizarre. In less than a half second, you have JFK
> twisting left and then back to the right. Chubby Checker never had moves
> like that.
The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head "snapping forward" coming to a
stop, pausing for one frame then "snapping back" in less than one
fifth second. This interval is 40 percent of the time for the torso to
twist leftward, come to a stop and twist rightward. So if you call
this latter motion bizarre then how do you describe the two "head
snaps?"
> You claim the right arm came up after the leftward twisting had
> ceased. That is an amazing claim since the right arm began rotating upward
> beginning at Z-314, stopping just short of horizontal in frames Z318-319
> and then the right elbow starts to drop down again in Z320 revealing the
> back of JFK's right hand which had been obscured when the elbow was fully
> raised. . So according to what you have just said, the leftward twisting
> stopped by Z314 when the right arm began to rotate upward. So did the
> leftward rotation come between frames Z313 and Z314?
Z-314, Z-315, Z-316 and Z-317 do not show the right arm of the
leftward twisting torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Z-317 shows that Mrs. Kennedy's arm had reached around the deltoid
region of the President's shoulder and her hand was behind the right-
rear of his back. This pose shows the President's right arm had to be
quite low and near a hanging loose position.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Extreme blurs on Z-318 and Z-319 prohibit saying when the torso
stopped twisting leftward or began twisting rightward.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg
If your interpretation of the blur on Z-318 as the President's arm
being "just short of horizontal" were correct then its movement from
the previous frame would have knocked Mrs. Kennedy arm upward.
However, Z-319 shows Mrs. Kennedy's hand below the blur that you
attribute to the President's right arm.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z319.jpg
>
> You have completely lost me which was probably your objective from the
> beginning. Why don't you make this real simple and tell us which frames
> JFK was twisting to his left and which ones he was twisting to his right
> so the rest of us can follow along on this amazing journey.
See above.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> > Now this is getting bizarre. In less than a half second, you have JFK
> > twisting left and then back to the right. Chubby Checker never had moves
> > like that.
>
> The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's head "snapping forward" coming to a
> stop, pausing for one frame then "snapping back" in less than one
> fifth second. This interval is 40 percent of the time for the torso to
> twist leftward, come to a stop and twist rightward. So if you call
> this latter motion bizarre then how do you describe the two "head
> snaps?"
>
forward just a few inches by the force of the bullet impact. The
rearward motion follows immediately, probably the result of a neuro-
muscular reaction with jet effect possibly being a contributing
factor.
> > You claim the right arm came up after the leftward twisting had
> > ceased. That is an amazing claim since the right arm began rotating upward
> > beginning at Z-314, stopping just short of horizontal in frames Z318-319
> > and then the right elbow starts to drop down again in Z320 revealing the
> > back of JFK's right hand which had been obscured when the elbow was fully
> > raised. . So according to what you have just said, the leftward twisting
> > stopped by Z314 when the right arm began to rotate upward. So did the
> > leftward rotation come between frames Z313 and Z314?
>
> Z-314, Z-315, Z-316 and Z-317 do not show the right arm of the
> leftward twisting torso.
>
Is this a joke? Are you honestly going to say that JFK's upper arm is
not visible in any of those frames. How can you see a torso without
seeing the arm attached to that torso? You're started to sound like
those folks who argue they can see a gun in Greer's hand in Z313.
JFK's upper right arm is clearly visible in these frames. The sun/
shadow line runs approximately down the middle of it. Using a
protractor and measuring that shadow line, the upper right arm is at
about 45 degree downward angle at Z313 and immediately rotates
vertically reaching its maximum elevation a Z318 when it is
approximately 5 degrees short of horizontal.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
>
> Z-317 shows that Mrs. Kennedy's arm had reached around the deltoid
> region of the President's shoulder and her hand was behind the right-
> rear of his back. This pose shows the President's right arm had to be
> quite low and near a hanging loose position.
>
JFK's right arm was not hanging loose at Z317. Just what do you think
that protusion is coming forward from his shoulder.
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
>
> Extreme blurs on Z-318 and Z-319 prohibit saying when the torso
> stopped twisting leftward or began twisting rightward.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z318.jpg
>
> If your interpretation of the blur on Z-318 as the President's arm
> being "just short of horizontal" were correct then its movement from
> the previous frame would have knocked Mrs. Kennedy arm upward.
> However, Z-319 shows Mrs. Kennedy's hand below the blur that you
> attribute to the President's right arm.
>
You are really getting desperate. Jackie was on his left side. Her arm
would not have been knocked upward by the movement of his right arm.
If you are going to tell us that is not JFK's bent right arm we see
raised to a nearly horizontal plane in Z317, your argument is entering
the realm of the irrational. Let's move forward to Z320. I suppose you
are going to tell me you can't see JFK's right hand visible just below
Jackie's chin. That right hand becomes visible as his right elbow
drops. I now understand why you believe the torso was twisting. It's
no wonder you see a twisting torso when you mistake what is clearly
JFK's right arm for the back of his shoulders. You really need to get
your eyes checked. Seriously. You are seeing things that just aren't
there and are missing something that is perfectly obvious to the rest
of us.
a1e...@verizon.net
On Z-317, the left arm of Mrs. Kennedy reached around the deltoid
region of the President's shoulder and her hand was behind the right-
rear of his back.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg
Do you mind explaining how Mrs. Kennedy's hand could have reached
JFK's back if his right elbow was raised with the right arm nearly
horizontal?
> Let's move forward to Z320. I suppose you
> are going to tell me you can't see JFK's right hand visible just below
> Jackie's chin. That right hand becomes visible as his right elbow
> drops.
Your desire to change the subject from Z-317 to another frame does not
surprise me.
> I now understand why you believe the torso was twisting. It's
> no wonder you see a twisting torso when you mistake what is clearly
> JFK's right arm for the back of his shoulders. You really need to get
> your eyes checked. Seriously. You are seeing things that just aren't
> there and are missing something that is perfectly obvious to the rest
> of us.
The witnesses to the left of JFK who saw blood on his head corroborate
the leftward twist of the torso.
In particular James W. Altgens who viewed the head shot from the front-
left testified:
"Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline
included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his
forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the
opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building,
but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from."
Charles F. Brehm viewed the head shot from the rear-left. Nevertheless
the FBI quotes him as having seen a facial detail.
"BREHM stated he definitely knew the President had been shot and he
recalled having seen blood on the President's face."
The FBI interview of Jack Franzen reports the following observations.
"He heard a second and third and possibly a fourth explosion and
recognized these sounds as being shots fired from some firearm. At the
same time he noticed blood appearing at the top and sides of the head
of President Kennedy."
Jack Franzen viewed the head shot from the front-left.
I suggest that the shock of seeing blood on the President distracted
viewers from noticing the abrupt and brief twisting motions. So they
projected the blood upon the more permanent features that they
observed earlier.
Herbert
>
>
>
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z319.jpg
>
> > > You have completely lost me which was probably your objective from the
> > > beginning. Why don't you make this real simple and tell us which frames
> > > JFK was twisting to his left and which ones he was twisting to his right
> > > so the rest of us can follow along on this amazing journey.
>
> > See above.
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
Oh boy, that is a toughie. How about because she was sitting on his
left side.
> > Let's move forward to Z320. I suppose you
> > are going to tell me you can't see JFK's right hand visible just below
> > Jackie's chin. That right hand becomes visible as his right elbow
> > drops.
>
> Your desire to change the subject from Z-317 to another frame does not
> surprise me.
>
The fact that you don't seem to understand that the Z-film is a series
of snapshots taken 1/18 of a second apart and are interrelated does
not surprise me.
Oh this a beautiful. Very creative way of cherry picking the witness's
testimonies when none of them saw what you suggest happened. You're using
testimony of witnesses who did not see any twisting as evidence of
twisting. You are telling us they saw one thing and you're telling us they
really saw something else. If the damn witnesses won't support your story,
just change their story to make it fit yours. Apparently the twisting
motion was so brief even Zapruder's camera could not pick it up. I guess
his Bell and Howell was so shocked by the gore as well that it didn't
register the twisting of the head to the left. At no frame in the post
head shot sequence does the right side of JFK's face turn away from
Zapruder.
a1e...@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/back_and_to_the_left.gif
I have news for you. Two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not see the
more prominent backward rotation of "back and to the left" while a few
witnesses on the left side of Kennedy saw the blood from the wound on
the right side of the head.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> I have news for you. Two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not see the
> more prominent backward rotation of "back and to the left" while a few
> witnesses on the left side of Kennedy saw the blood from the wound on
> the right side of the head.
>
And still you avoid confronting the inconvenient truth. At no time in the
Zapruder film do we see the right side of JFK's face turn away from the
camera. You can talk about what witnesses said they saw or what you claim
they saw all you want. The Zapruder film is the best witness we have and
there is nothing there to indicate a leftward rotation of the head or
torso. You can beat your keyboard all you want, you can't change that
simple fact.
a1e...@verizon.net
Go argue with the uncontested medical evidence that restricted the
track of the bullet to the right side of the head. This path demands
that a leftward spin of the head accompany the downward nod.
Calculations show that the speeds of these two physically necessary
rotational motions would have been comparable for a cowlick entry. For
an EOP entry the speed of the leftward spin would have been far larger
than the speed for the downward nod.
So how do you reconcile the conflict between the medical evidence and
the Zapruder film?
Herbert
bigdog
> On Mar 20, 9:39 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 11:16 am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > I have news for you. Two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not see the
> > > more prominent backward rotation of "back and to the left" while a few
> > > witnesses on the left side of Kennedy saw the blood from the wound on
> > > the right side of the head.
>
> > And still you avoid confronting the inconvenient truth. At no time in the
> > Zapruder film do we see the right side of JFK's face turn away from the
> > camera. You can talk about what witnesses said they saw or what you claim
> > they saw all you want. The Zapruder film is the best witness we have and
> > there is nothing there to indicate a leftward rotation of the head or
> > torso. You can beat your keyboard all you want, you can't change that
> > simple fact.
>
> Go argue with the uncontested medical evidence that restricted the
> track of the bullet to the right side of the head. This path demands
> that a leftward spin of the head accompany the downward nod.
>
path demand a leftward spin. JFK's head was not a billiard ball. Why
do you respond to my questions with your own questions? Why can't you
answer the questions asked? We both know why. You have no answers so
you must resort to this kind of filibuster to mask you inability to
respond to the questions asked.
> Calculations show that the speeds of these two physically necessary
> rotational motions would have been comparable for a cowlick entry. For
> an EOP entry the speed of the leftward spin would have been far larger
> than the speed for the downward nod.
>
Whose calculations?
> So how do you reconcile the conflict between the medical evidence and
> the Zapruder film?
>
I don't need to reconcile a conflict that doesn't exist. By asking
this question, are you admitting there is no leftward rotation?
aeffects
the alleged in-camera original Z-film is compromised, you're wishin'
and a hopin' for a wetdream...
a1e...@verizon.net
> On Mar 21, 12:44 pm, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:39 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 11:16 am, a1ea...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > I have news for you. Two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not see the
> > > > more prominent backward rotation of "back and to the left" while a few
> > > > witnesses on the left side of Kennedy saw the blood from the wound on
> > > > the right side of the head.
>
> > > And still you avoid confronting the inconvenient truth. At no time in the
> > > Zapruder film do we see the right side of JFK's face turn away from the
> > > camera. You can talk about what witnesses said they saw or what you claim
> > > they saw all you want. The Zapruder film is the best witness we have and
> > > there is nothing there to indicate a leftward rotation of the head or
> > > torso. You can beat your keyboard all you want, you can't change that
> > > simple fact.
>
> > Go argue with the uncontested medical evidence that restricted the
> > track of the bullet to the right side of the head. This path demands
> > that a leftward spin of the head accompany the downward nod.
>
> Why? Why would I argue with uncontested medical evidence? Why does the
> path demand a leftward spin. JFK's head was not a billiard ball. Why
> do you respond to my questions with your own questions? Why can't you
> answer the questions asked? We both know why. You have no answers so
> you must resort to this kind of filibuster to mask you inability to
> respond to the questions asked.
The path demands a leftward spin because all points of the wound track
were to the right of the sagittal plane of the head.
http://training.seer.cancer.gov/module_anatomy/unit1_3_terminology2_planes.html
Initially the bullet entered the rear of the head just to the right of the
midline. However, the exit at frontal portion of the right side of the
head shows that the moment arm between the bullet and the sagittal of the
head increased during transit. Since the torque depends upon the square of
this increasing moment arm the later portions of the wound track
contribute heavily toward the net torque developed during transit.
>
> > Calculations show that the speeds of these two physically necessary
> > rotational motions would have been comparable for a cowlick entry. For
> > an EOP entry the speed of the leftward spin would have been far larger
> > than the speed for the downward nod.
>
> Whose calculations?
Millions of students and practicing engineers routinely calculate the
rotational speeds of a constrained object due to the action of a force.
Readers can find my calculation of the ratio of angular accelerations as a
function of the mean location of the wound track at the address.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
The following graphic illustrates the result of my calculation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/partition.jpg
>
> > So how do you reconcile the conflict between the medical evidence and
> > the Zapruder film?
>
> I don't need to reconcile a conflict that doesn't exist. By asking
> this question, are you admitting there is no leftward rotation?
The absence of the leftward spin of the head is the cause of the conflict.
In fact, a former poster at alt.assassination.jfk illustrated the problem
of the missing spin in an experiment designed to show a jet effect. They
shot a hanging turkey, which meekly swung toward the shooter as it
vigorously spun.
Not surprisingly, the former poster has removed their video of that
spinning bird from the Internet.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbie, if there is a conflict between what I see in the Zapruder film and
your calculation, I suggest the problem is with your calculation. I have
no idea what you are talking about because you either can't or won't
express yourself in plain English. Until you are able to do that, I have
no interest in any of your imaginative theories.
Ritchie Linton
>> There are further problems to confuse acoustic perception:==altho not the
>> olfactory sense.I used to post this under "Da Nose Knows"=meaning the
>> only place anybody smelled the smell of gunsmoke from the discharge of a
>> weapon was down on the street where Greer was.
>> _____________________________________________________
>>