> In article <506d1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "About." He obviously knew enough to call them bullets. That's about it.
> I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit
> that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite
> obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have
> probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have
> also refused to admit.
"Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."
In article <506f7c3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial."
Interesting that you leave out the context, Anthony. What was I talking about when I said that? Afraid to look through the archives to find out what I was really talking about? Don't you know how to use the Internet? Naturally you didn't quote the sentence right before that and the sentence right after that. Let's all look at what Anthony is leaving out, everybody:
**********
Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that clearly begins no later than Z226.
Where did I say that JFK already has his fists up by Z225, Anthony? Oh that's right, in your imagination only. What was I actually talking about, Anthony? The frame where the reactions of both men begin.
So ya gonna admit you made a mistake now, Anthony?
>>> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like
>>> another
>>> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures
>>> wearing
>>> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand,
>>> are
>>> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some
>>> scholars
>>> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
>>> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
>>> always lead to disaster.
>>> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
>>> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
>>> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea
>>> (now
>>> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
>>> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
>>> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these
>>> women
>>> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
>>> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>>> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an
>>> area
>>> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these
>>> Iron
>>> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
>>> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were
>>> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
>>> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The
>>> remains
>>> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of her
>>> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
>>> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but
>>> with
>>> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
>>> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more
>>> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>>> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he was
>>> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>>> It's a
>>>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.
>> Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off the
>> seat.
>>>>>>> I tried
>>>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>> after the shot.
>>> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from
>>> the
>>> impact or not.
>> It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
>> forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you
>> have (and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of
>> the Z-film.
>> But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow indicates
>> that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't imparted
>> to JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
>> calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the shot
>> from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the
>> bullet could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if not
>> through its impact?
> No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
> the head. This is only about the head shot.
>>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
>> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313. You
>> can see that for yourself.
> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before 312.
Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to reverse that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed and not mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.
>>>> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like
>>>> another
>>>> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures
>>>> wearing
>>>> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand,
>>>> are
>>>> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some
>>>> scholars
>>>> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
>>>> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
>>>> always lead to disaster.
>>>> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
>>>> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
>>>> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea
>>>> (now
>>>> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
>>>> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
>>>> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these
>>>> women
>>>> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
>>>> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>>>> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an
>>>> area
>>>> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these
>>>> Iron
>>>> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
>>>> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were
>>>> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
>>>> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The
>>>> remains
>>>> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of her
>>>> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
>>>> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but
>>>> with
>>>> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
>>>> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more
>>>> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>>>> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he was
>>>> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>>>> It's a
>>>>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.
>>> Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off the
>>> seat.
>>>>>>>> I tried
>>>>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>> after the shot.
>>>> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from
>>>> the
>>>> impact or not.
>>> It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
>>> forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you
>>> have (and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of
>>> the Z-film.
>>> But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow indicates
>>> that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't imparted
>>> to JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
>>> calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the shot
>>> from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the
>>> bullet could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if not
>>> through its impact?
>> No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
>> the head. This is only about the head shot.
>>>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>>>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a fact.
>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
>>> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313. You
>>> can see that for yourself.
>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before 312.
> Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to
> reverse that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed
> and not mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.
> /sm
You have exactly the same delay for your shot from behind, whether you think that was the Jet Effect or neuromuscular response.
I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed, which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start with Z-310.0. So the total time from impact to result is much less than half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
>>>>> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like
>>>>> another
>>>>> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures
>>>>> wearing
>>>>> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand,
>>>>> are
>>>>> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some
>>>>> scholars
>>>>> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
>>>>> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
>>>>> always lead to disaster.
>>>>> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists Renate
>>>>> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
>>>>> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea
>>>>> (now
>>>>> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
>>>>> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
>>>>> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these
>>>>> women
>>>>> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
>>>>> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>>>>> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an
>>>>> area
>>>>> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these
>>>>> Iron
>>>>> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
>>>>> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were
>>>>> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
>>>>> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The
>>>>> remains
>>>>> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of
>>>>> her
>>>>> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
>>>>> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but
>>>>> with
>>>>> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
>>>>> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these more
>>>>> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>>>>> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he
>>>>> was
>>>>> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>>>>> It's a
>>>>>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.
>>>> Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off the
>>>> seat.
>>>>>>>>> I tried
>>>>>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>> after the shot.
>>>>> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from
>>>>> the
>>>>> impact or not.
>>>> It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
>>>> forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you
>>>> have (and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of
>>>> the Z-film.
>>>> But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow indicates
>>>> that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't imparted
>>>> to JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
>>>> calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the
>>>> shot
>>>> from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the
>>>> bullet could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if
>>>> not
>>>> through its impact?
>>> No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
>>> the head. This is only about the head shot.
>>>>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>>>>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a
>>>>> fact.
>>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
>>>> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313. You
>>>> can see that for yourself.
>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before 312.
>> Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to
>> reverse that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed
>> and not mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.
>> /sm
> You have exactly the same delay for your shot from behind, whether you
> think that was the Jet Effect or neuromuscular response.
Not a problem. There is no set time for any particular neuromuscular spasm to set in from the chain of catastrophic biological events that may have even started when the first bullet hit JFK.
I don't know of anyone except CTs ever arguing that the backward motion was any evidence of where the shot came from.
> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
> with Z-310.0.
Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet (that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the head before that frame was exposed.
> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
Yes, bullets move very quickly.
In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not been moved backward in the slightest.
> On 10/8/12 5:20 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 6:43 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 10/5/12 9:43 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2012 10:36 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/12 8:59 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> My goodness, I just got back to look at this site. With the greatest
>>>>>> trepidation, I'll respond again.
>>>>>> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures
>>>>>> wearing
>>>>>> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other hand,
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some
>>>>>> scholars
>>>>>> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
>>>>>> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
>>>>>> always lead to disaster.
>>>>>> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists
>>>>>> Renate
>>>>>> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
>>>>>> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea
>>>>>> (now
>>>>>> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
>>>>>> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
>>>>>> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these
>>>>>> women
>>>>>> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
>>>>>> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>>>>>> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed in an
>>>>>> area
>>>>>> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these
>>>>>> Iron
>>>>>> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
>>>>>> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who were
>>>>>> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered one
>>>>>> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The
>>>>>> remains
>>>>>> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). These
>>>>>> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, but
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
>>>>>> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>>>>>> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>>>>>> It's a
>>>>>>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.
>>>>> Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off the
>>>>> seat.
>>>>>>>>>> I tried
>>>>>>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>> after the shot.
>>>>>> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> impact or not.
>>>>> It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
>>>>> forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you
>>>>> have (and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of
>>>>> the Z-film.
>>>>> But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow
>>>>> indicates
>>>>> that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't imparted
>>>>> to JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
>>>>> calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the
>>>>> shot
>>>>> from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the
>>>>> bullet could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if
>>>>> not
>>>>> through its impact?
>>>> No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
>>>> the head. This is only about the head shot.
>>>>>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>>>>>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a
>>>>>> fact.
>>>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after the
>>>>> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313.
>>>>> You
>>>>> can see that for yourself.
>>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before
>>>> 312.
>>> Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to
>>> reverse that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed
>>> and not mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.
>>> /sm
>> You have exactly the same delay for your shot from behind, whether you
>> think that was the Jet Effect or neuromuscular response.
> Not a problem. There is no set time for any particular neuromuscular
> spasm to set in from the chain of catastrophic biological events that
> may have even started when the first bullet hit JFK.
> I don't know of anyone except CTs ever arguing that the backward motion
> was any evidence of where the shot came from.
The WC defenders. They claim that the backwards motion of the head proves the shot came from behind.
>> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
>> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
>> with Z-310.0.
> Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet
> (that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the
> frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the
> head before that frame was exposed.
>> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
>> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
> Yes, bullets move very quickly.
> In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not
> been moved backward in the slightest.
Unless the bullet is still in the head and then fell out during the autopsy as Hoover said.
>>>>>>> Here is an excerpt: "On vases, the Amazons are depicted much like
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> enemy of the Greeks, the Persians-skimpy, smooth-cheeked creatures
>>>>>>> wearing
>>>>>>> spotted trousers and pointy Phrygian caps. Greeks, on the other >>>>>>> hand,
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> pictured half-naked, beautiful and, above all, ultra-macho. Some
>>>>>>> scholars
>>>>>>> claim that the Amazon myths were designed to show that reversing the
>>>>>>> ?natural? (which in ancient Greece meant male-dominated) order would
>>>>>>> always lead to disaster.
>>>>>>> But in the second half of the twentieth century, archaeologists
>>>>>>> Renate
>>>>>>> Rolle and Jeannine Davis-Kimball separately uncovered evidence that
>>>>>>> challenged this theory. In the steppe-land surrounding the Black Sea
>>>>>>> (now
>>>>>>> Ukraine and Russia), they discovered graves of women buried with
>>>>>>> classically female accoutrements as well as weapons such as bows and
>>>>>>> arrows, daggers and swords. Excited scientists determined that these
>>>>>>> women
>>>>>>> were Sauromatians or Scythians, nomadic horse-riding races named by
>>>>>>> Herodotus as part of the Amazons?= ancestry.
>>>>>>> Finally, archaeologists had evidence that warrior women existed >>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>> area
>>>>>>> where Greek authors situated some of the original Amazons. But these
>>>>>>> Iron
>>>>>>> Age kurgans (grave mounds) also contained skeletons of men and
>>>>>>> children?a major departure from the Amazons of Greek legend, who >>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> Oiorpata (man killers) that lived apart from men. Rolle uncovered >>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> grave that contained a young woman with a baby on her breast. The
>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>> left little doubt that the woman was a warrior (the finger bones of
>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>> bow-pulling hand were worn and weapons were found by her side). >>>>>>> These
>>>>>>> warlike women could have served as the basis for the Amazon myth, >>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> some other characteristics thrown in by the Greek authors for good
>>>>>>> measure?such as man killing and separatism. But where might these
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> dramatic aspects of the Amazonian legend have come from?"
>>>>>>> To the parsing of my sentence. The first time I said it, I said he
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> knocked back by the impact. The second time I didn't.
>>>>>>> It's a
>>>>>>>>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.
>>>>>> Yes, indeed, nobody denies that JFK moved backward and bounced off >>>>>> the
>>>>>> seat.
>>>>>>>>>>> I tried
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head >>>>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>> after the shot.
>>>>>>> I wanted to make it a true statement whether you agree it was >>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> impact or not.
>>>>>> It may indeed be a true statement that you couldn't see his head move
>>>>>> forward after the shot, though I find that hard to understand, if you
>>>>>> have (and it is readily available online) a complete set of frames of
>>>>>> the Z-film.
>>>>>> But I suspect that you want to imply that this motion somehow
>>>>>> indicates
>>>>>> that the bullet came from the front even if the motion wasn't >>>>>> imparted
>>>>>> to JFK's body by the impact of the bullet. If that were true, by what
>>>>>> calculation could you determine anything about the direction of the
>>>>>> shot
>>>>>> from the motion of JFK's body? By what mechanism do you suppose the
>>>>>> bullet could move the body in the direction of its own trajectory if
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> through its impact?
>>>>> No one is talking about the body. Just the head. Then the body follows
>>>>> the head. This is only about the head shot.
>>>>>>> I shouldn't have muddied it by throwing in that I couldn't
>>>>>>> see his head move forward. That wasn't meant to be included as a
>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head continues to move forward after >>>>>> the
>>>>>> bullet went through his head, which was between frames 312 and 313.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> can see that for yourself.
>>>>> Well, it is a fact that JFK's head started to move forward before
>>>>> 312.
>>>> Yes, indeed. And if the bullet that struck after 312 was going to
>>>> reverse that motion, it would have done so by the time 313 was exposed
>>>> and not mysteriously, magically waited until 314 to have an effect.
>>>> /sm
>>> You have exactly the same delay for your shot from behind, whether you
>>> think that was the Jet Effect or neuromuscular response.
>> Not a problem. There is no set time for any particular neuromuscular
>> spasm to set in from the chain of catastrophic biological events that
>> may have even started when the first bullet hit JFK.
>> I don't know of anyone except CTs ever arguing that the backward motion
>> was any evidence of where the shot came from.
> The WC defenders. They claim that the backwards motion of the head > proves the shot came from behind.
No, the WCR showed that the shot came from behind with sufficient evidence without taking into consideration the backward motion.
The jet effect was hypothesized to explain the backward motion in a way consistent with a shot from the back, which was known to be the case from the other evidence. The neuromuscular effect would explain the same motion in a way consistent with a shot from any direction, but we know that the shot came from the back.
>>> I have often stated that the bullet hit just after Z-312 was exposed,
>>> which I call Z-312.6 and we see the reaction in Z-313 which would start
>>> with Z-310.0.
>> Any motion of the head physically, mechanically caused by the bullet
>> (that is, aside from neurophysiologial reactions) hitting between the
>> frames would have been seen in 313, as the bullet had already passed the
>> head before that frame was exposed.
>>> So the total time from impact to result is much less than
>>> half a Zapruder frame, maybe only 20 milliseconds.
>> Yes, bullets move very quickly.
>> In 313, the bullet has already passed through JFK's head, which has not
>> been moved backward in the slightest.
> Unless the bullet is still in the head and then fell out during the > autopsy as Hoover said.
If the bullet were still in the head, then it would have stopped at that point (313), and it has not created any backward motion.
