Kennedy's Head Jerk after third shot - Question
wper...@gmail.com
Sorry for what might be a basic (or worked-to-death) question. I wasn't
able to find an FAQ for the newsgroup.
After the third shot, Kennedy's head goes (say it with me, now) back and
to the left. For years, I've heard two hypotheses as to why this is:
1) A shooter from in front of Kennedy hit the president, causing his
head to jerk in the direction that the bullet was fired.
2) The head's movement backwards is a reaction to matter that is
exiting the skull forward.
My question is, has any kind of consensus been reached as to which
explanation (if either) is more plausible?
A little background on my question, for those interested -- I started as a
firm believer in some JFK conspiracy theory, most likely of the CIA
variety. Over time, I've tried to avoid the temptation of considering
motive in the death of JFK and concentrate as much as possible on the
physical evidence. Three things kept me leaning to the conspiracy side
instead of the SBT:
1) The difficulty of shooting a bolt-action rifle three times in
approximately seven seconds.
2) The House Select Committee on Assassination's Dictabelt evidence.
3) The movement of Kennedy's head, after the third shot, _toward_ the
Texas Schoolbook Depository.
Over the last ten years, I've started to allow as how 1) perhaps shooting
a bolt action rifle three time in seven seconds isn't impossible, and 2)
there now appear to be serious problems with the Dictabelt evidence which
at first indicated a fourth shot. This leaves me with nothing more than
the strange movement of Kennedy's head. No one disputes that it happens.
But I have yet to determine for myself what it means. Could someone point
me to a discussion of this topic?
pfrbill
John McAdams
>
>Sorry for what might be a basic (or worked-to-death) question. I wasn't
>able to find an FAQ for the newsgroup.
>
>After the third shot, Kennedy's head goes (say it with me, now) back and
>to the left. For years, I've heard two hypotheses as to why this is:
>
>1) A shooter from in front of Kennedy hit the president, causing his
>head to jerk in the direction that the bullet was fired.
>2) The head's movement backwards is a reaction to matter that is
>exiting the skull forward.
>
>My question is, has any kind of consensus been reached as to which
>explanation (if either) is more plausible?
>
There is never a consensus about *anything* about this case.
But let me suggest an explanation that the HSCA endorsed: a
neuromuscular spasm.
See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#jeteffect
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
doug.w...@gmail.com
Here's a snippet on the subject, from Trask's "Pictures of the Pain" p.
124 & 127, discussing Itek's report titled "John Kennedy Assassination
Film Analysis" & comment by Itek's president John Wolf;
"...the explosion from the bullet impact (on the President's head at frame
313) radiates matter in all directions. However, the major, or large
particles which are actually measurable on the film, & have contiguous
boundaries which hold together during flight, all radiate in a forward
direction.
Frame 313 & 314 shows what appear to be two major trajectories radiating
upward & forward from the President's head. Study of the frame 314
revealed two other trajectories which radiate forward & downward, into the
car."
"... At 312 - 313 (the President's) head goes forward approximately 2.3
inches, his shoulder about 1.1 inches." POTP p124. "When the fatal bullet
struck, the President's head went forward with extreme speed, almost twice
as rapidly as it subsequently traveled backwards. (Wolf) " So in three
frames following 313 he reversed his direction & came back where he was
before - it took him three frames to do it, so he's moving considerably
slower moving back than he moved forward." POTP p127.
(Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
ex- CIA).)
Trask's book, if you haven't read it already, provides very good
insight regarding the images of the assassination that were captured
on film.
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:569iq3h3nk0hnp2s4...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Feb 2008 21:59:26 -0500, wper...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry for what might be a basic (or worked-to-death) question. I wasn't
>>able to find an FAQ for the newsgroup.
>>
>>After the third shot, Kennedy's head goes (say it with me, now) back and
>>to the left. For years, I've heard two hypotheses as to why this is:
>>
>>1) A shooter from in front of Kennedy hit the president, causing his
>>head to jerk in the direction that the bullet was fired.
>>2) The head's movement backwards is a reaction to matter that is
>>exiting the skull forward.
>>
>>My question is, has any kind of consensus been reached as to which
>>explanation (if either) is more plausible?
>>
>
> There is never a consensus about *anything* about this case.
McAdams wrote;
> But let me suggest an explanation that the HSCA endorsed: a
> neuromuscular spasm.
>
> See:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#jeteffect
>
> .John
I write;
WHERE was that "neuromuscular spasm" for the First 12 years that we were
told that "the head goes FORWARD with considerable violence"????
The 12 years that the Zapruder was never seen publicly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Blenner
The movement of President Kennedy's head forward by 2.3 inch in 1/18
second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
following site.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm
For best results, turn on image cache and turn off image compression.
This will enable the page to alternate between frames without the
burden of repetitive decompressions.
Further the report of a simultaneous movement of the shoulder by 1.1
inch is even more troublesome. First, a MC bullet had insufficient
momentum to set the head into motion and impart a movement of 1.1 inch
to the shoulder in 1/18 second. Second, if another type of bullet or
shell set the head and shoulder into motion then the transfer of
momentum would drive the head as far forward and downward as possible
then begin to drag the shoulder forward and downward. Clearly the
Zapruder film does not show this type of motion. Finally the abrupt
cessation of the motion at 313-314 requires an action equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction of the action from the bullet.
Again, I urge the viewer to examine the above link.
>
> (Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
> work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
> employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
> ex- CIA).)
Apparently they hired the best and ignored the brightest, the bright
or even the knowledgeable. So how much did the USG pay for two
reported violations of the three laws of motion?
Herbert
>
> Trask's book, if you haven't read it already, provides very good
> insight regarding the images of the assassination that were captured
> on film.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
cdddraftsman
>> McAdams wrote;
>
> > But let me suggest an explanation that the HSCA endorsed: a
> > neuromuscular spasm.
>
> > See:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#jeteffect
>
> > .John
>
> I write;
>
> WHERE was that "neuromuscular spasm" for the First 12 years that we were
> told that "the head goes FORWARD with considerable violence"????
>
> The 12 years that the Zapruder was never seen publicly.
>
As reported by Dan Rather the head does go forwards with "considerable
violence" :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Zapruder_film/Improved_view_of_snap.html
Taken out of context , the slower bodily reaction , and Rather's knowledge
and education , that tells him that no bullet ever fired from a gun can
propell a persons body in any direction , as is demonstrated by Prof. Rahn
, a man of science and reason (Who happens to be one of your arch enemy's
BTW) in his Monograph Length Physic's Treatise :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
So tell us Rossly how many years have you spent now asking the same
questions when more than reasonable and ample explanations have been given
to you to answer those questions ?
So AGAIN ! your question is typically based upon a lack of knowledge of
ballistics and being uneducated in the varigations of this case . It's no
wonder you keep running from this question :
Have you come up with a answer yet that doesn't dodge the question about
how you can tell when felons (WCR Members) are telling you the truth (*)
and when their telling you lies ?
You've based your entire website on this premise that indicates you can
build a conspiracy based upon what liar's are telling you by throwing out
all the evdence that doesn't show contradictions in evidence and testimony
.
With 26,000 people interviewed the evidence and testimony should naturally
have a ton of contradictions in it and not all jive perfectly as you
contend it should . This to me is evidence that indeed the WCR members
were indeed honest .
(*) The 26 Vol.'s are based upon the FBI investigation and you've
indicated that you have less faith in Hoover and the FBI than you have of
the WCR members so using that dodge doesn't work either . (You indicated
that Hoover & LBJ conspired to murder JFK)
tl
marki...@yahoo.com
I believe that I have read somewhere (sorry, no source right now) that yet
another possibility is that the brace worn by JFK restricted his forward
movement by not allowing his torso to bend as it normally should, and
acted as a "spring" that caused the backward and leftward recoil motion
after 314.
~Mark
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> The movement of President Kennedy's head forward by 2.3 inch in 1/18
> second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
> per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
> boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
> following site.
So what point are you trying to make? If you take issue with the
speed of the forward head movement, and it is roughly three times
faster than the head movement to the rear, aren't you discounting the
rearward head movement as well? What are you suggesting?
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm
>
> For best results, turn on image cache and turn off image compression.
> This will enable the page to alternate between frames without the
> burden of repetitive decompressions.
>
> Further the report of a simultaneous movement of the shoulder by 1.1
> inch is even more troublesome. First, a MC bullet had insufficient
> momentum to set the head into motion and impart a movement of 1.1 inch
> to the shoulder in 1/18 second. Second, if another type of bullet or
> shell set the head and shoulder into motion then the transfer of
> momentum would drive the head as far forward and downward as possible
> then begin to drag the shoulder forward and downward. Clearly the
> Zapruder film does not show this type of motion. Finally the abrupt
> cessation of the motion at 313-314 requires an action equal in
> magnitude and opposite in direction of the action from the bullet.
> Again, I urge the viewer to examine the above link.
Could you provide some actual calculations to prove that there was
insufficient force to move the head 2.3 inches forward? It would be
helpful to your argument. As far as your statement that the shoulder
could only move forward when the head had moved as far as it could, I
would suggest that you are simplifying the situation. The head and
neck aren't made of loose rubber. Would you consider that the
connection of the head to the neck is semi rigid and wouldn't
necessarily require the head to be fully pushed before the shoulders
followed?
You are asking for an equal and opposite force to stop the motion of
the head. Let's consider that statement for a second. If someone
hits you in the back of the head, does your head keep moving
infinitely off into the distance? What is the force that opposes that
motion? I don't want to get into jet effect or muscular spasms or
back braces regarding the rearward movement because it all has to be
speculation from that point on. The point of the matter is that there
is a forward motion followed by a slower rearward motion. Explain to
us how the forward motion can be explained if it isn't a shot from the
rear instead of trying to nit pick discrepancies. On top of that,
explain how the forward motion ties in to a shot from the front, if
that is what you believe. In other words, present a theory that
explains what you believe happened.
> > (Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
> > work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
> > employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
> > ex- CIA).)
>
> Apparently they hired the best and ignored the brightest, the bright
> or even the knowledgeable. So how much did the USG pay for two
> reported violations of the three laws of motion?
>
> Herbert
Please tell me that you aren't moving in to the realm of a faked
Zapruder film. Jim Fetzer would be proud. I hear he's pushing no
plane theories at the World Trade Center and death beams from outer
space that caused their collapse. Maybe you should look into that.
Talk about ignoring physics.
doug.w...@gmail.com
OK Herbert, what reaction would you expect from the effect of the right
side of the head exploding (laymen terms if you would)? Also, what is
your take on the direction of the large bone particles flying in a forward
direction?
Anthony Marsh
Kennedy's head did not move forward by 2.3 inches. Itek did not take
into account the blur of frame 313.
> second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
> per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
> boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
> following site.
>
But again, WC defenders should not even be admitting that the impact of
a bullet can move the head at all, lest it lend credence to the 'frontal
headshot' theorists.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm
>
> For best results, turn on image cache and turn off image compression.
> This will enable the page to alternate between frames without the
> burden of repetitive decompressions.
>
> Further the report of a simultaneous movement of the shoulder by 1.1
> inch is even more troublesome. First, a MC bullet had insufficient
> momentum to set the head into motion and impart a movement of 1.1 inch
> to the shoulder in 1/18 second. Second, if another type of bullet or
> shell set the head and shoulder into motion then the transfer of
> momentum would drive the head as far forward and downward as possible
> then begin to drag the shoulder forward and downward. Clearly the
> Zapruder film does not show this type of motion. Finally the abrupt
> cessation of the motion at 313-314 requires an action equal in
> magnitude and opposite in direction of the action from the bullet.
Huh? Something does not keep moving forward forever. Two factors. One,
the pendulum factor. Second, JFK's brace.
Herbert Blenner
> Sorry for what might be a basic (or worked-to-death) question. I wasn't
> able to find an FAQ for the newsgroup.
>
> After the third shot, Kennedy's head goes (say it with me, now) back and
> to the left. For years, I've heard two hypotheses as to why this is:
>
> 1) A shooter from in front of Kennedy hit the president, causing his
> head to jerk in the direction that the bullet was fired.
> 2) The head's movement backwards is a reaction to matter that is
> exiting the skull forward.
>
> My question is, has any kind of consensus been reached as to which
> explanation (if either) is more plausible?
>
> A little background on my question, for those interested -- I started as a
> firm believer in some JFK conspiracy theory, most likely of the CIA
> variety. Over time, I've tried to avoid the temptation of considering
> motive in the death of JFK and concentrate as much as possible on the
> physical evidence. Three things kept me leaning to the conspiracy side
> instead of the SBT:
>
> 1) The difficulty of shooting a bolt-action rifle three times in
> approximately seven seconds.
> 2) The House Select Committee on Assassination's Dictabelt evidence.
The HSCA work on the Dictabelt covered up evidence of an intentional
jamming of the primary police communications channel immediately before,
during and after the assassination of President Kennedy. For details see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/cardinal.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Well, the forward motion of his head was not as great as some people
claim. And it was not due to a shot hitting him. Everyone was moving
forward because the limo suddenly slowed down.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
Herbert Blenner
The bullet or its secondary missile knocked bone out of the head. This
motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding reaction. If
you are looking for a jet effect then good luck. A pressurized liquid has
insufficient compressibility to provide the propulsion to explain the
backward movement.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > (Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
> > > work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
> > > employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
> > > ex- CIA).)
>
> > Apparently they hired the best and ignored the brightest, the bright
> > or even the knowledgeable. So how much did the USG pay for two
> > reported violations of the three laws of motion?
>
> > Herbert
>
> > > Trask's book, if you haven't read it already, provides very good
> > > insight regarding the images of the assassination that were captured
> > > on film.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
That may be part of the answer.
> ~Mark
>
Herbert Blenner
You do not account for the connection of the head to the torso. This
constraint prevents forward any other straight line motion of the
head. Instead the head rotates about axes in the neck. So use of
inches to describe the motion is wrong. Professional analysts would
have used the degree as a unit of measurement for the nodding rotation
of the head seen by nearly everyone except Anthony Marsh and a few
others.
>
> > second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
> > per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
> > boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
> > following site.
>
> But again, WC defenders should not even be admitting that the impact of
> a bullet can move the head at all, lest it lend credence to the 'frontal
> headshot' theorists.
The quantity of nodding motion is consistent with a MC bullet
transiting the head from the rear. However, the change in momentum
associated with the back and to the left motion is far more than
momentum transfer from a frontal bullet.
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm
>
> > For best results, turn on image cache and turn off image compression.
> > This will enable the page to alternate between frames without the
> > burden of repetitive decompressions.
>
> > Further the report of a simultaneous movement of the shoulder by 1.1
> > inch is even more troublesome. First, a MC bullet had insufficient
> > momentum to set the head into motion and impart a movement of 1.1 inch
> > to the shoulder in 1/18 second. Second, if another type of bullet or
> > shell set the head and shoulder into motion then the transfer of
> > momentum would drive the head as far forward and downward as possible
> > then begin to drag the shoulder forward and downward. Clearly the
> > Zapruder film does not show this type of motion. Finally the abrupt
> > cessation of the motion at 313-314 requires an action equal in
> > magnitude and opposite in direction of the action from the bullet.
>
> Huh? Something does not keep moving forward forever. Two factors. One,
> the pendulum factor. Second, JFK's brace.
The phrase "abrupt cessation of motion" affirms the stoppage of the
head. So why does your remark imply that I asserted the opposite? As
for your two factors, both are wrong. First the head moved as inverted
pendulum and gravity assisted its motion. Second the brace played no
role because the head moved without carrying the torso. In fact, the
inertia of the torso was sufficient to cause the abrupt cessation of
the nodding rotation of the head. Of course this mechanism could only
work if the torso did not initially move with the head.
Herbert
>
>
>
> > Again, I urge the viewer to examine the above link.
>
> >> (Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
> >> work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
> >> employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
> >> ex- CIA).)
>
> > Apparently they hired the best and ignored the brightest, the bright
> > or even the knowledgeable. So how much did the USG pay for two
> > reported violations of the three laws of motion?
>
> > Herbert
>
> >> Trask's book, if you haven't read it already, provides very good
> >> insight regarding the images of the assassination that were captured
> >> on film.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
Deceleration of the limo would have caused an apparent forward motion
of more than the heads of the occupants. Their unrestrained heads and
torsos would have moved forward with comparable speeds. Clearly the
Zapruder film does not show this physically necessary evidence of your
deceleration excuse.
Herbert
>
>
>
> > But I have yet to determine for myself what it means. Could someone point
> > me to a discussion of this topic?
>
> > pfrbill- Hide quoted text -
thali...@hotmail.com
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The government was in major cover up mode, which to me is almost as
interesting as figuring out the conspiracy itself. That quote by Dan
Rather shows the extent to which the mainstream media in the US were
prepared to go to cover the crime up. Why? Because the mass media are
part of the establishment. Alternatively what Dan Rather saw of the
Zapruder film may have been a "fixed" copy of the film in which
Kennedy's head was shown to move forward. This version of events is
also troubling.
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not true and it's ridiculous to suggest this :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Zapruder_film/Improved_view_of_snap.html
Shows clearly that no other person in the limo moved forward with the
speed that JFK's head did !
cdddraftsman
The physics monograph shows that the quick forward movement of JFK's
head is fully explained by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from the
depository (and indeed requires such a bullet), and secondly that the
following two-phase movement of JFK's head and torso to the rear
requires a quick mechanical recoil (jet effect) followed by a longer,
slower bodily recoil, most likely in the form of a stiffening of the
back (neuromuscular reaction) :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
tl
Herbert Blenner
>
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The government was in major cover up mode, which to me is almost as
> interesting as figuring out the conspiracy itself. That quote by Dan
> Rather shows the extent to which the mainstream media in the US were
> prepared to go to cover the crime up. Why? Because the mass media are
> part of the establishment. Alternatively what Dan Rather saw of the
> Zapruder film may have been a "fixed" copy of the film in which
> Kennedy's head was shown to move forward. This version of events is
>
> - Show quoted text -
The WC statements and testimonies of two dozen head shot eyewitnesses
who do not describe any motion resembling the back and to left
movement seen in the Zapruder film is evidence of the extent of the
coverup.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Ken knows that is not right. The jet effect is not a mechanical recoil. It
is straight Newtonian physics. It is possible, but not likely in this
case, because the jet was not forward but upward. And he is aware of my
article because I presented it at HIS conference and he was the critic.
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. Ken was the critic of my presentation and he could not refute
my article.
>
>
Herbert Blenner
> > The movement of President Kennedy's head forward by 2.3 inch in 1/18
> > second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
> > per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
> > boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
> > following site.
>
> So what point are you trying to make? If you take issue with the
> speed of the forward head movement, and it is roughly three times
> faster than the head movement to the rear, aren't you discounting the
> rearward head movement as well? What are you suggesting?
I am suggesting nothing and explicitly criticized them for calling 2.3
inch in 1/18 second an extreme speed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/overlay.htm
>
> > For best results, turn on image cache and turn off image compression.
> > This will enable the page to alternate between frames without the
> > burden of repetitive decompressions.
>
> > Further the report of a simultaneous movement of the shoulder by 1.1
> > inch is even more troublesome. First, a MC bullet had insufficient
> > momentum to set the head into motion and impart a movement of 1.1 inch
> > to the shoulder in 1/18 second. Second, if another type of bullet or
> > shell set the head and shoulder into motion then the transfer of
> > momentum would drive the head as far forward and downward as possible
> > then begin to drag the shoulder forward and downward. Clearly the
> > Zapruder film does not show this type of motion. Finally the abrupt
> > cessation of the motion at 313-314 requires an action equal in
> > magnitude and opposite in direction of the action from the bullet.
> > Again, I urge the viewer to examine the above link.
>
> Could you provide some actual calculations to prove that there was
> insufficient force to move the head 2.3 inches forward? It would be
> helpful to your argument.
I did not object to movement of the head by 2.3 inch in 1/18 second.
Instead I opposed the following statement quoted from page 124 of
Pictures of the Pain.
"... At 312 - 313 (the President's) head goes forward approximately
2.3
inches, his shoulder about 1.1 inches."
> As far as your statement that the shoulder
> could only move forward when the head had moved as far as it could, I
> would suggest that you are simplifying the situation. The head and
> neck aren't made of loose rubber. Would you consider that the
> connection of the head to the neck is semi rigid and wouldn't
> necessarily require the head to be fully pushed before the shoulders
> followed?
Regardless of the connection between the head and shoulder equal and
opposite forces of a couple act on both parts. So conservation of
momentum applies to the head and shoulder. In particular the transfer
of momentum from the bullet imparts a angular momentum to the head.
The reported tangential speed of 2.3 inch per 1/18 second is
commensurate with transit by a MC bullet. Since the moment of inertia
of the torso and head is about forty times the moment of the head
alone the reported speed is only consistent with an initial rotation
of the head without dragging the torso.
>
> You are asking for an equal and opposite force to stop the motion of
> the head. Let's consider that statement for a second. If someone
> hits you in the back of the head, does your head keep moving
> infinitely off into the distance? What is the force that opposes that
> motion?
Sharing of the initial angular momentum of the head with the torso
reduces the angular speed by a factor of one-fortieth. This reduction
is sufficient to show an apparently stationary head on a stationary
torso. Of course this braking mechanism excludes the bullet from
simultaneously setting the head and torso into motion.
> I don't want to get into jet effect or muscular spasms or
> back braces regarding the rearward movement because it all has to be
> speculation from that point on. The point of the matter is that there
> is a forward motion followed by a slower rearward motion. Explain to
> us how the forward motion can be explained if it isn't a shot from the
> rear instead of trying to nit pick discrepancies.
I suggest you have a child read my post and explain to you how my
acceptance of the 2.3 inch per 1/18 second nodding motion of the head
as consistent with transit by a MC bullet was the basis for my
objection to a simultaneous 1.1 inch motion of the shoulder during the
same interval.
I have no use for nit picking because my evidence to dispute the
official story rests upon the tried and proven grounds of physics. In
particular a bullet from the rear entering to the right of midline,
transiting the right side of the brain and exiting the front right
side of the skull causes the head to spin leftward with nodding
rotation. For details see "Modeling the head as a cylinder" on the
following page.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
> On top of that,
> explain how the forward motion ties in to a shot from the front, if
> that is what you believe. In other words, present a theory that
> explains what you believe happened.
They told us the bullets entered President Kennedy here then showed us
pictures of wounds elsewhere. So if you know what really happened then
tell us.
>
> > > (Before a cynical type beats me to it, Itek also provided film analysis
> > > work for the CIA & other USG agencies & also hired many former CIA
> > > employees to perform film analysis & other (Iteks' president John Wolf is
> > > ex- CIA).)
>
> > Apparently they hired the best and ignored the brightest, the bright
> > or even the knowledgeable. So how much did the USG pay for two
> > reported violations of the three laws of motion?
>
> > Herbert
>
> Please tell me that you aren't moving in to the realm of a faked
> Zapruder film. Jim Fetzer would be proud. I hear he's pushing no
> plane theories at the World Trade Center and death beams from outer
> space that caused their collapse. Maybe you should look into that.
> Talk about ignoring physics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As an amenity, I extend this opportunity to retract your attempt to
assassinate my character by association.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
The cover-up was because they thought Oswald was working for Castro.
> Rather shows the extent to which the mainstream media in the US were
> prepared to go to cover the crime up. Why? Because the mass media are
> part of the establishment. Alternatively what Dan Rather saw of the
Did you ever hear of the term The Fourth Estate? After the other three
ruling classes know as The First Estate, The Second Estate, and The
Third Estate, the Press is supposed to be the Fourth Estate which keeps
an eye on the other three. Unfortunately the mainstream press is now a
member of The Second Estate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
Anthony Marsh
Clearly it does. And I did not say only the heads.
Anthony Marsh
No, they would not, but you are free to do so if you wish. Movement can
be described as DISTANCE over time. FEET per SECOND. MILES per HOUR.
And it was not just the head which moved.
>
>>> second represents an average speed of 3.5 foot per second or 2.4 mile
>>> per hour. How anyone can describe this snail's pace as extreme speed
>>> boggles my mind. I recommend studying this forward movement at the
>>> following site.
>> But again, WC defenders should not even be admitting that the impact of
>> a bullet can move the head at all, lest it lend credence to the 'frontal
>> headshot' theorists.
>
> The quantity of nodding motion is consistent with a MC bullet
> transiting the head from the rear. However, the change in momentum
WC defenders claim that a bullet can not move the head.
geovu...@gmail.com
> > OK Herbert, what reaction would you expect from the effect of the right
> > side of the head exploding (laymen terms if you would)? Also, what is
> > your take on the direction of the large bone particles flying in a forward
> > direction?
>
> The bullet or its secondary missile knocked bone out of the head. This
> motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding reaction. If
> you are looking for a jet effect then good luck. A pressurized liquid has
> insufficient compressibility to provide the propulsion to explain the
> backward movement.
Have you had to work to be so cryptic in your statements?
"The bullet or its secondary missile"?
I take it you are talking about a bullet and or a fragment of a bullet.
I agree that a bullet and or bullet fragment knocked the bone out of the
head. You could be more accurate as to say that the over pressure of the
bullet entering the cranium caused the bone to explode out of the head.
"This motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding
reaction."
This sentence is perhaps as meaningless a piece of techno babble as I have
ever read. Is there a typo in there or are you confused? Please explain
this statement. Clearly, the motion of the bone is a reaction to the
action of the bullet. Is there another level of reaction to the motion of
the bone that is not evident that somehow means there was a conspiracy?
Finally, you where asked what you thought the effect should have been if
the right side of the head exploded. You responded with an odd set of
cryptic observances and an attack of the jet effect out of left field.
Could you please, please tell us what your point is. Usually when someone
points out that something is fishy, they explain what should have happened
or why it is significant. What are you tap dancing around? Also, I would
suggest that if you are going to say something is impossible per the laws
of physics, you should provide some calculations to show such a thing.
Vincent
33fe42c8-c346-4284...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Not true and it's ridiculous to suggest this :
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Zapruder_film/Improved_view_of_snap.html
>
> Shows clearly that no other person in the limo moved forward with the
> speed that JFK's head did !
After I made these animations, I worked on a better copy of the film and
posted my refreshed analysis here:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration-eng.htm#sommet
Anthony Marsh
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you really comfortable
in confirming everything that I have been saying? WC defenders denied
that Kellerman's head moved forward at all. Your animation shows that
between 310 and 315 Kellerman's head moved forward by a couple of
inches. Do you think this is a result of Kellerman being shot in the
back of the head at 310? You didn't even mention Greer. In 310 the back
of his head is flush with the left parade bar side frame. By 315 the
back of his head is about 3 inches forward of it. Do the math for us. 3
inches in 5 frames. And the WC defenders claim that no one moved forward.
I have a problem with your animation of 311 to 313. Much too fast. You
need to step it about 1 second or even 2 seconds between frames. Very
slow motion so that people can clearly see that everyone was moving
forward. Jackie's pink suit moves forward. Connally's head moves
forward. Nellie is the only one who didn't move forward much because she
had braced herself and was holding onto her husband so she is not a free
weight.
Why is everyone moving forward, even before the head shot? Are you
claiming that they were all shot in the back of the head at the same
time? Maybe the shooter was using one of those M-C bullets which breaks
up into 5 slugs? What?
If the limo suddenly slowed down from about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH, what
will be the rate of the speed for the occupants to continue moving
forward relative to the limo frame? Would you call that a rapid speed?
Herbert Blenner
You are describing units for the measurement of straight line motion.
Since you insist these units are adequate to measure a rotational movement
then tell us how far does the small hand of a clock move in one hour?
According to my understanding the hand moves 30 degree. So the angular
speed of the hand is 30 degree per hour. Using the radian to measure angle
gives a angular speed of pi / 6 radian per hour. These units facilitate
calculation of the arc distance moved by any point on the hand. In
particular the arc distance equals distance of the point from the axis of
rotation multiplied by the angular speed.
Further, Mr. Marsh, the hour hand on my clock has reached the angle for my
walk.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>>> OK Herbert, what reaction would you expect from the effect of the right
>>> side of the head exploding (laymen terms if you would)? Also, what is
>>> your take on the direction of the large bone particles flying in a forward
>>> direction?
>> The bullet or its secondary missile knocked bone out of the head. This
>> motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding reaction. If
>> you are looking for a jet effect then good luck. A pressurized liquid has
>> insufficient compressibility to provide the propulsion to explain the
>> backward movement.
>
> Have you had to work to be so cryptic in your statements?
>
> "The bullet or its secondary missile"?
>
> I take it you are talking about a bullet and or a fragment of a bullet.
> I agree that a bullet and or bullet fragment knocked the bone out of the
> head. You could be more accurate as to say that the over pressure of the
> bullet entering the cranium caused the bone to explode out of the head.
>
Yes, of course the bullet or fragments blew out skull. But just the
explosion of the head does a lot of that.
> "This motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding
> reaction."
>
> This sentence is perhaps as meaningless a piece of techno babble as I have
> ever read. Is there a typo in there or are you confused? Please explain
He's trying to remember how Newtonian physics works.
> this statement. Clearly, the motion of the bone is a reaction to the
> action of the bullet. Is there another level of reaction to the motion of
> the bone that is not evident that somehow means there was a conspiracy?
>
Hmm, could be.
Consider antipodal focusing.
> Finally, you where asked what you thought the effect should have been if
> the right side of the head exploded. You responded with an odd set of
> cryptic observances and an attack of the jet effect out of left field.
> Could you please, please tell us what your point is. Usually when someone
> points out that something is fishy, they explain what should have happened
> or why it is significant. What are you tap dancing around? Also, I would
> suggest that if you are going to say something is impossible per the laws
> of physics, you should provide some calculations to show such a thing.
>
Please don't ask him for calculations. He will calculate that a
bumblebee can't fly.
Vincent
l_ydnYZkupBP9zHa...@comcast.com...
Vincent wrote:
>> After I made these animations, I worked on a better copy of the film and
>> posted my refreshed analysis here:
>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration-eng.htm#sommet
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you really comfortable in
> confirming everything that I have been saying? WC defenders denied that
> Kellerman's head moved forward at all. Your animation shows that between
> 310 and 315 Kellerman's head moved forward by a couple of inches.
Movement starts after 313. Can be seen here:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration2-eng.htm
(but as far as I am concerned, I have stopped thinking any reasonnable
discussion can happen with soebody like you who sees non existing movements)
> (...) Why is everyone moving forward, even before the head shot?
Nobody is moving forward in any way that is comparable with the violent
forward movement of the head of JFK between 312 and 313. This is complete
nonsense.
Anthony Marsh
More nonsense. You would argue that every movement is radial. We are
talking about forward movements of specific points.
Herbert Blenner
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> l_ydnYZkupBP9zHanZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@comcast.com...
Well done but not in the sense of an overcooked meal.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
> > > OK Herbert, what reaction would you expect from the effect of the right
> > > side of the head exploding (laymen terms if you would)? Also, what is
> > > your take on the direction of the large bone particles flying in a forward
> > > direction?
>
> > The bullet or its secondary missile knocked bone out of the head. This
> > motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding reaction. If
> > you are looking for a jet effect then good luck. A pressurized liquid has
> > insufficient compressibility to provide the propulsion to explain the
> > backward movement.
>
> Have you had to work to be so cryptic in your statements?
>
> "The bullet or its secondary missile"?
>
> I take it you are talking about a bullet and or a fragment of a bullet.
> I agree that a bullet and or bullet fragment knocked the bone out of the
> head.
A secondary missile is a formally stationary object set into motion by the
primary missile or a fragment. For example skull fragments and crushed
brain tissue were secondary missiles that inflicted considerable damage
upon other tissues.
> You could be more accurate as to say that the over pressure of the
> bullet entering the cranium caused the bone to explode out of the head.
Over pressure occurred in the gelatine-filled skulls used by the Edgewood
Arsenal. The impinging bullet deformed the skull before its initial
penetration. Since they filled the skull with nearly incompressible
gelatine the internal pressure increased until it expanded all other
portions of the skull to kept the contained volume of gelatine constant.
In a human skull, any increase of cerebrospinal fluid pressure would
decrease the volume of structures that act as shock absorbers. The
cavities in the skull and the ventricles in the brain effectively prevent
a tiny bullet from causing a build up of pressure.
>
> "This motion of the bone is a reaction that has no corresponding
> reaction."
>
> This sentence is perhaps as meaningless a piece of techno babble as I have
> ever read. Is there a typo in there or are you confused? Please explain
> this statement. Clearly, the motion of the bone is a reaction to the
> action of the bullet. Is there another level of reaction to the motion of
> the bone that is not evident that somehow means there was a conspiracy?
Two things happen when a bullet strikes and sets a bone in motion. The
collision decreases the speed of the bullet and imparts a speed to the
bone. These changes in speeds are reactions to the actions of the pair of
forces that act on the colliding objects. So the tiny bullet could not
have knocked the two large and unconnected fragments out of President
Kennedy's skull. Nor does the structure of a human skill permit over
pressure from knocking out either fragment from the skull.
>
> Finally, you where asked what you thought the effect should have been if
> the right side of the head exploded. You responded with an odd set of
> cryptic observances and an attack of the jet effect out of left field.
> Could you please, please tell us what your point is. Usually when someone
> points out that something is fishy, they explain what should have happened
> or why it is significant. What are you tap dancing around? Also, I would
> suggest that if you are going to say something is impossible per the laws
> of physics, you should provide some calculations to show such a thing.
The author of this subject hypothesized:
2) The head's movement backwards is a reaction to matter that is
exiting the skull forward.
End of quotation.
So my brief mention of the jet effect was topical. Now quit tap dancing
around and explain the physics of jet effect. I await your song on how
that jet spun Kennedy's head in the wrong direction.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have are figured out how many degrees make an inch or how Myers
measured a velocity in centimeters?
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
A radial movement is along a straight line while a rotational or angular
motion is perpendicular to the radius from the center of motion to the
moving point. Do I need to draw a diagram?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
More nonsense. You've obviously never seen any head wounds. Large
portions of skull are often blown out.
> Kennedy's skull. Nor does the structure of a human skill permit over
> pressure from knocking out either fragment from the skull.
>
Pure nonsense.
English
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> l_ydnYZkupBP9zHanZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@comcast.com...
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >> After I made these animations, I worked on a better copy of the film and
> >> posted my refreshed analysis here:
> >>http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration-eng.htm#sommet
>
I looked at your animations and I have to say they make things
clearer.
Now I can see that in 313 there are two main trails of red appearing
from JFK's head. One is going foward (roughly in the direction of the
limo) but an angle of 45 degrees down with respect to horizontal. A
larger trail appears to be going down but slightly backwards.
The larger jet going backwards is most disturbing. I cannot see a
bullet from the rear causing a jet of blood and other tissue backwards
in the direction of that bullet. (There may be some rear jet at the
point of entry not exit.)
I have seen film of an MC round fired at a large pig bone and the
round didn't just fragment, it was turned into dust almost.
So the round that entered JFK's head at the rear may have fragmented
into dust and formed a cone of metal particles flying forward. (The
angle of the cone is determied by the relative speed of sound in the
material of the bullet and that of JFK's skull bones, although the
velocity of the round is approaching that of the speed of sound in
steel so this may have an influence, decreasing the angle of the
cone.)
So we should see a cone of particles in the Xray photographs of the
skull and this cone should give us the best determination of where the
shot came from. Also, the brain, being soft tissue, should be dragged
forward by the cone of particles giving a determination of the
direction of the bullet.
The only problem with this, that I can see, is that the mass of each
of these small particles will now be far less than that of the skull
bones at the front of JFK's head, so their ability to penetrate the
front of the skull will be seriously reduced. That is, if the round
was completely fragmented it could not cause the frontal injury that
we see on JFK.
So let us guess that the round was fragmented into lots of small
particles and a small number of large particles. These large partcles
may still have the power to shatter the skull. (Skulls are adept at
protecting the brain from the outside, not the inside.)
Again the problem with this scenario is that these large fragments
will still be going forwards (The bullet hole at the back of the
skull shows no sign of the bullet being deformed as it penetrated the
rear of the skull.)
I cannot determine what would generate a red trail going to down and
to the rear from a shot from the rear.
Any ideas?
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> l_ydnYZkupBP9zHa...@comcast.com...
> Vincent wrote:
>>> After I made these animations, I worked on a better copy of the film and
>>> posted my refreshed analysis here:
>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration-eng.htm#sommet
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you really comfortable in
>> confirming everything that I have been saying? WC defenders denied that
>> Kellerman's head moved forward at all. Your animation shows that between
>> 310 and 315 Kellerman's head moved forward by a couple of inches.
>
> Movement starts after 313. Can be seen here:
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration2-eng.htm
> (but as far as I am concerned, I have stopped thinking any reasonnable
> discussion can happen with soebody like you who sees non existing movements)
>
You mean the movement which you yourself pointed out and most WC
defenders deny?
>> (...) Why is everyone moving forward, even before the head shot?
>
> Nobody is moving forward in any way that is comparable with the violent
> forward movement of the head of JFK between 312 and 313. This is complete
> nonsense.
>
There was no violent forward movement of the head of JFK between 312 and
313. That is mostly blur.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 9, 7:23 pm, "Vincent" <Alex_...@skynet.be> wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> l_ydnYZkupBP9zHanZ2dnUVZ_hmtn...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Vincent wrote:
>>>> After I made these animations, I worked on a better copy of the film and
>>>> posted my refreshed analysis here:
>>>> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/Deceleration-eng.htm#sommet
>
> I looked at your animations and I have to say they make things
> clearer.
>
> Now I can see that in 313 there are two main trails of red appearing
> from JFK's head. One is going foward (roughly in the direction of the
> limo) but an angle of 45 degrees down with respect to horizontal. A
> larger trail appears to be going down but slightly backwards.
>
There is no downward trail.
There was no point of exit low enough to produce a downward trail.
> The larger jet going backwards is most disturbing. I cannot see a
> bullet from the rear causing a jet of blood and other tissue backwards
> in the direction of that bullet. (There may be some rear jet at the
> point of entry not exit.)
>
There is no backwards jet.
> I have seen film of an MC round fired at a large pig bone and the
> round didn't just fragment, it was turned into dust almost.
>
Oh really? I'd like to see this impossible film.
> So the round that entered JFK's head at the rear may have fragmented
> into dust and formed a cone of metal particles flying forward. (The
Absolutely none of the test bullet behaved that way. It is physically
impossible. The jacket of the WCC M-C bullet is unusually thick.
Look at the base fragment found in the front seat. It is merely the
intact jacket after all the lead had been cleanly squeezed out of it.
The jacket does not turn into dust. That is physically impossible.
> angle of the cone is determied by the relative speed of sound in the
> material of the bullet and that of JFK's skull bones, although the
> velocity of the round is approaching that of the speed of sound in
> steel so this may have an influence, decreasing the angle of the
> cone.)
>
> So we should see a cone of particles in the Xray photographs of the
> skull and this cone should give us the best determination of where the
> shot came from. Also, the brain, being soft tissue, should be dragged
> forward by the cone of particles giving a determination of the
> direction of the bullet.
>
Yes, and the cone expands from the entrance wound in the forehead.
> The only problem with this, that I can see, is that the mass of each
> of these small particles will now be far less than that of the skull
> bones at the front of JFK's head, so their ability to penetrate the
> front of the skull will be seriously reduced. That is, if the round
> was completely fragmented it could not cause the frontal injury that
> we see on JFK.
>
Then, what do you think the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone
was? Do you think JFK was born that way?
> So let us guess that the round was fragmented into lots of small
> particles and a small number of large particles. These large partcles
> may still have the power to shatter the skull. (Skulls are adept at
> protecting the brain from the outside, not the inside.)
>
> Again the problem with this scenario is that these large fragments
> will still be going forwards (The bullet hole at the back of the
> skull shows no sign of the bullet being deformed as it penetrated the
> rear of the skull.)
>
Demonstrate for us how a deformed bullet produces a characteristic exit
wound.
Herbert Blenner
A blow out is not the cause of large head wounds. Instead shattering of
the skull makes and impact by compressed tissues makes the wound large.
>
> > Kennedy's skull. Nor does the structure of a human skill permit over
> > pressure from knocking out either fragment from the skull.
>
> Pure nonsense.
Go do your homework.
The brain contains structures called ventricles that prevent a blow to the
skull from causing a build up of pressure in the cerebrospinal fluid.
These ventricles being partially filled with fluid allow the soft tissue
of the brain to compress and thereby frustrate a damaging pressurization
of the fluid. This shock absorbent system is effective as long as the
compression from the blow reduces the enclosed volume of the skull by a
lesser amount than the unfilled volume of the ventricles.
http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/bllateralvent.htm
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/vent.html
Herbert
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
For once, I agree with Anthony. I also agree that a nonsense comment is
the proper response. I can't figure Herbert out. He appears to be a man
of science, but in reality, he is hiding behind techno babble. Is he
honestly trying to say that bullets cannot cause over pressure explosions
in the brain? Is he honestly saying that the bullet was too "tiny" to
dislodge pieces of the skull. I give my own very hardy NONSENSE! Stop
trying so hard to sound like a scientist and start posting something
coherent.
English
>
> Demonstrate for us how a deformed bullet produces a characteristic exit
> wound.
>
Sorry, that wasn't the point of my post.
Looking at Z313 and z314, it appears to me that Kennedy could have
been shot from the front and the back at almost the same time. That is
not impossible.
>Yes, and the cone expands from the entrance wound in the forehead.
If that is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) it would seem to
confirm a shot from the front.
But I could be wrong.
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
I assume that you are not a Darwinist so I ask whether you believe an
idiot designed the human head without shock absorbers? The answer to my
question can be found at the following links.
http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/bllateralvent.htm
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/vent.html
The brain contains structures called ventricles that prevent a blow to the
skull from causing a build up of pressure in the cerebrospinal fluid.
These ventricles being partially filled with fluid allow the soft tissue
of the brain to compress and thereby frustrate a damaging pressurization
of the fluid. This shock absorbent system is effective as long as the
compression from the blow reduces the enclosed volume of the skull by a
lesser amount than the unfilled volume of the ventricles.
So I am curious whether you believe in Intelligent Design or Darwinism.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>> Demonstrate for us how a deformed bullet produces a characteristic exit
>> wound.
>>
>
> Sorry, that wasn't the point of my post.
>
> Looking at Z313 and z314, it appears to me that Kennedy could have
> been shot from the front and the back at almost the same time. That is
> not impossible.
>
Actually it may be possible in another case, but in the case of JFK it
was impossible. There was no wound in the back of the head.