Message from discussion Book including Oswald
Received: by 10.66.82.2 with SMTP id e2mr3719017pay.20.1349060732280;
Sun, 30 Sep 2012 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Book including Oswald
Date: 30 Sep 2012 23:05:31 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 30 Sep 2012 20:31:09 -0500, 220.127.116.11
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1349060731 18.104.22.168 (30 Sep 2012 22:05:31 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 30 Sep 2012 22:05:31 -0500, 22.214.171.124
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 9/30/2012 4:01 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 9/29/12 9:54 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:
>>>> It's a
>>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot. I tried
>>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move
>>>> after the shot.
>>> You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
>>> right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
>>> added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
>>> to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
>>> impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
>>> of a bullet could have done that anyway).
>> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.
> Frames 312 and 313 are quite sufficient to show that the bullet's
> striking between them did not move JFK backward.
> If the impact of the bullet (or its explosion "a nanosecond" after
> impact, in your wacky theory) was ever going to reverse JFK's forward
> motion, it would have done it already.
Ok, Mr. Ballistics expert, tell me exactly how many milliseconds it
takes for an explosive bullet to explode.
>> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
>> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
>> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
>> backward. That is a straw man argument.
> Utter bullshit.
> That was the "back and to the left" mantra in a nutshell, that the
> direction the body moved indicated the direction of the bullet.
No. Straw Man Argument.
> Now, a neuromuscular reaction caused by the bullet, or some such
> internal after-effect, could move the body, and in fact I believe that's
> what happened. But the motion of the body as a result of a spasm
> indicates *nothing* about the direction of the bullet.
>> And yet some WC defenders try to argue that just the IMPACT of a bullet
>> threw his head forward violently.
> The two motions are quite different: a perceptible increase in momentum
> of the head's motion (how "violent" is that?) versus the whole upper
> body's jerking backward. To say that accepting the possibility of the
> former entails accepting the possibility of the latter is a gross
> fallacy indeed.
> It bespeaks desperation.