Physics and the frontal hit that never was
Raymond
Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a frontal
shot?
From 1994 through 1997 I spent a lot of time trying to
quantitatively understand JFK's double response to the fatal head
shot, the original topic that drew me into the JFK assassination. By
"double response," I mean the quick forward snap (that is now
conveniently ignored by most writers) and the longer, slower rearward
lurch, the only movement seen when the Zapruder film is viewed at full
speed. My goal was to see which of these movements was compatible with
the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit the rear of JFK's head, exited
in pieces from the front right side, and then went on to hit the
windshield and possibly also fly over the top and hit James Tague or
the curb near him.
I was struck by the fact that this problem could be approached, at
least in principle, by combining the basic physics of colliding bodies
with some principles of wound ballistics. I was also surprised that no
one seemed to have done this either qualitatively or quantitatively. I
began simply, with the forward snap, and learned quickly that its
speed was fully compatible with the Carcano bullet and reasonable exit
velocities. I then combined the rearward motion, the real goal of the
work, with the forward snap and learned that the former was also
compatible with the known hit. In the process, I generated seven
simulations, each of increasing complexity, separately for
translational (linear) and rotational (angular) motions, for 14
simulations in all. I ended by adding an eighth simulation for angular
motion and a treatment of some of the major errors that could render
some of my conclusions suspect.
Along the way, I tried to present a summary of this work at two
JFK conferences, COPA in 1997 and Lancer in 1998. COPA toyed with the
paper and then declined it because I refused to tell them precisely
what my conclusions were going to be. (I followed standard scientific
practice and submitted an abstract of the type they requested, but no
more. This smacked of censorship to me, and was an eye-opening
experience.) I then submitted a similar abstract to JFK Lancer's
meeting in Dallas. Their program chairman George Michael Evica
effectively pocket-vetoed that abstract by refusing to act one way or
the other on it until it was too late. That was another eye-opening
experience. The two experiences jointly showed that the JFK community
was not interested in serious discussion of the possibility that the
prime piece of evidence for conspiracy, JFK's rearward lurch, might
actually have been a physical effect of a shot from the rear. Talk
about being closed-minded!
In 1997 I had to put this work aside and turn to other things.
Only in November 2002, five years later, did I find myself with enough
time to begin to prepare an Internet version of it. I have greatly
expanded it, and am posting it in detail so that others may judge the
data, calculations, reasoning, and conclusions as fairly as possible.
Rational comments are always appreciated, particularly on points that
appear weak. I can be reached at kr...@uri.edu or
ken...@kenrahn.com .
This monograph addresses four basic questions:
Can the forward snap be accounted for by a rearward shot from Lee
Harvey Oswald's rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
Can the initial rearward lurch of head and body be accounted for by a
rearward shot from the same rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
Must a rearward shot from this rifle have created a rearward lurch
similar to that observed? Answer: Yes, provided only that a cloud of
brain matter was thrown forward.
Can a shot from the grassy knoll explain or contribute to the rearward
lurch? Answers: No; qualified yes.
The answers effectively debunk the notion of a frontal hit and thereby
remove the major piece of evidence for conspiracy in the JFK
assassination.
The questions are addressed by the 39 chapters of the monograph
shown below.
Abstract
Setting the stage
1. Introduction
2. The Zapruder film: movements to be explained
3. The physics of colliding and exploding objects
4. Wound ballistics and physics
5. Variables and values
Question 1: Can the forward snap be explained by a shot from Oswald's
rifle?
6. The forward snap--linear calculations
7. The forward snap--angular calculations
Question 2: Can the rearward lurch by explained by a shot from
Oswald's rifle?
8. Plausibility analysis of the rearward lurch
9. Lurch 1 Linear--simplest analysis, with bullet, body, and cloud
10. Lurch 2 Linear--adds large fragments
11. Lurch 3 Linear--adds conical 3-D motion of cloud
12. Lurch 4 Linear--adds 3-D motion of large fragments
13. Lurch 5 Linear--adds 3-D motion of body
14. Snap/Lurch 6 Linear--adds four time intervals and solves for vcloud
15. Snap/Lurch 7 Linear--adds four time intervals, sets vcloud, and
solves for PE
16. Lurch 1 Angular--rotational analog of Lurch 1 Linear
17. Lurch 2 Angular--rotational analog of Lurch 2 Linear
18. Lurch 3 Angular--rotational analog of Lurch 3 Linear
19. Lurch 4 Angular--rotational analog of Lurch 4 Linear
20. Lurch 5 Angular--rotational analog of Lurch 5 Linear
21. Snap/Lurch 6 Angular--rotational analog of Snap/Lurch 6 Linear
22. Snap/Lurch 7 Angular--rotational analog of Snap/Lurch 7 Linear
23. Summary of solutions and most important variables
Question 3: Must the rearward lurch be explained by a shot from
Oswald's rifle?
24. Introduction to the built-in constraints
25. Preconstraining with mhead, dsnap, tlurch, and vfrags
26. Constraints on Θcl and PE
27. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from Θcl vs. mcloud
28. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from Θcl vs. PE
29. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from mcloud vs. vcloud
30. Grand summary of constraints
Question 4: Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a
frontal shot?
31. Introduction to a frontal hit
32. Scenario 1--no cloud or large fragments
33. Scenario 2--cloud and fragments as observed
34. Scenario 3--frontal hit right after rear hit
35. Scenario 4--rear hit provides only snap
36. Summary of the frontal scenarios
Synopsis
37. The unification of the physical evidence provided by these
calculations
38. Objections and replies
39. Future work
Acknowledgments
Additions and Corrections
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfklinks.html
Ben Holmes
Raymond says...
>
> Physics and the frontal hit that never was
> Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a frontal
>shot?
No.
Nor has anyone *ever* presented a simple demonstration of such.
>26. Constraints on =C8cl and PE
>27. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from =C8cl vs. mcloud
>28. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from =C8cl vs. PE
>29. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from mcloud vs. vcloud
>30. Grand summary of constraints
>
>Question 4: Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a
>frontal shot?
>
>31. Introduction to a frontal hit
>32. Scenario 1--no cloud or large fragments
>33. Scenario 2--cloud and fragments as observed
>34. Scenario 3--frontal hit right after rear hit
>35. Scenario 4--rear hit provides only snap
>36. Summary of the frontal scenarios
>
>Synopsis
>
>37. The unification of the physical evidence provided by these
>calculations
>38. Objections and replies
>39. Future work
>
>Acknowledgments
>
>Additions and Corrections
>http://www.jfk-online.com/jfklinks.html
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
> � Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a frontal
> shot?
---------------------------------------------------------
We're not looking for explanations, troll.. We're looking for PROOF.
Show us another real death video, from the war or otherwise, where the
head of the victim moves TOWARDS the source of the shot.
We've asked for this PROOF time and time again, but all we get are
"explanations".
Explanations are not evidence.
Explanations are not PROOF.
NOW LET'S SEE THE REAL MOVEMENT TO THE HUMAN SKULL WHEN SHOT BY A
RIFLE:
Hostage-taker shot in head by police sniper
Man holding a bloodied woman hostage is shot in face by a police
sniper with a RIFLE. Although he is shot from the front, his head does
not go forward toward the shooter, as it would have if the "Jet
Effect" was a reality. Instead, his head goes backwards, in same
direction as the bullet, and there is no "Jet Effect".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8139288327830069420
The Execution of Pietro Caruso
-- In September, 1944 ex-mayor of Rome Pietro Caruso was executed by a
firing squad for his role in the Massacre at the Andeatine Caves.
Caruso is shot by multiple riflemen, however, the head does not move
in the direction of the shooters, rather, it moves in the direction of
the bullets. There is no "Jet Effect".
Raymond
I see that Gil Jesus is attacking you, calling you(Raymond) a "troll",
for voicing your opinion.
EMail from Steve to Raymond
If I were you, I would point him (Gil Jesus) to film taken in the
basement of Dallas police headquarters of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald in
the stomach, and point out to Gil Jesus the fact that as Oswald is
shot in the stomach, he lurches TOWARDS shooter Jack Ruby, then jumps
completely off the ground, both feet leaving the floor, before he
topples to the floor.
The only explanation is a shock to the nervous system caused both
movements, just like JFK's body( not "head" as most claim--it is his
entire upper body).
Hope this helps.
Steve
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <69043290-bb44-4dce...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>Raymond says...
>>
>> Physics and the frontal hit that never was
>> Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a frontal
>>shot?
>
>
>No.
>
>
>Nor has anyone *ever* presented a simple demonstration of such.
Dead silence....
Gil Jesus
> 27. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from �cl vs. mcloud
> 28. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from �cl vs. PE
> 29. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from mcloud vs. vcloud
> 30. Grand summary of constraints
>
> Question 4: Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a
> frontal shot?
>
> 31. Introduction to a frontal hit
> 32. Scenario 1--no cloud or large fragments
> 33. Scenario 2--cloud and fragments as observed
> 34. Scenario 3--frontal hit right after rear hit
> 35. Scenario 4--rear hit provides only snap
> 36. Summary of the frontal scenarios
>
> Synopsis
>
> 37. The unification of the physical evidence provided by these
> calculations
> 38. Objections and replies
> 39. Future work
>
> Acknowledgments
>
> Additions and Correctionshttp://www.jfk-online.com/jfklinks.html
LOOKS LIKE "RAYMOND" CUT AND PASTED FROM KEN RAHN'S SITE.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
GEE, RAYMOND, FOR A MINUTE THERE WHEN YOU SAID "I SPENT A LOT OF
TIME"...I THOUGHT YOU MEAN THAT YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME, NOT RAHN.
SAME TACTICS AS YOHARVEY.
lazu...@webtv.net
Plaza, in fact many of the closest heard gunshots coming from behind the
picket fence on the knoll. Coupled with the bullet, which we don't know
the precise caliber & can only surmise,, was traveling somewhere
betweeen 2000 & 3000 feet per second, how can a neuromuscular reaction
overcome the direction of the bullet? The bullet was thru JFK's head
before any counter reaction could occur. Also, anyone that has seen the
ZFilm is quite cognizant to the effects of the projectile upon President
Kennedy's head, which are certainly more indicative of an exploding i.e.
dum dum bullet than a Mannlicher-Carcano round. Laz
bigdog
You really do an excellent job of demonstrating your total ignorance
of physics and wound ballistics.
High powered bullets do not generate enough force to propel a 170 lbs.
man as if he were a rag doll, even if 100% of the bullets momentum was
transfered to the victim. In reality, very little of a bullet's
momentum is tranfered because it penetrates the object it strikes. I
have shot aluminum cans with high powered bullets and they often do
not even budge.
The cratering or beveling of the skull wall gives definitive proof of
the direction of a head shot. In this case, the cratering indicates
beyond any doubt that the bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. No
qualified forensic pathologist has ever dispute this. There is
absolutely zero medical evidence which indicates a frontal shot. There
are a lot of unqualified amateurs who think they can decipher the
medical evidence on their own despite a total lack of expertise in
this area.
While you are pondering these issues, here is one more. If the shot
came from the front, why was almost all the blood splatter in the
front of JFK in the limo. Connally reported being showered with blood
and brain tissue. He said some of the pieces of brain were the size of
his thumb.
David Von Pein
>>> "There are a lot of unqualified amateurs who think they can decipher the medical evidence on their own despite a total lack of expertise in this area." <<<
Correct.
Or, to put it another way:
Conspiracy-happy kooks, on their own, will just pretend that the one
and only bullet wound of entrance in JFK's head was not in the back of
his head....with those same kooks, instead, pretending that Kennedy
had an entry wound in his right temple (which never existed, of
course).
Go figure out kooks.
>>> "Connally reported being showered with blood and brain tissue." <<<
Correct....even though conspiracy nuts like James DiEugenio and Len
Osanic (via the video provided below, at the 9:30 mark) apparently
want everybody to believe exactly the opposite. Go figure kooks:
aeffects
> >>> "There are a lot of unqualified amateurs who think they can decipher the medical evidence on their own despite a total lack of expertise in this area." <<<
>
> Correct.
>
> Or, to put it another way:
sitdown you short sighted moron... ya can't see beyond the daBugliosi
belt buckle, your commentary is irrelevant
<snip the lone nut nonsense>
aeffects
which way did he go, Geroge, which way did he go..... my goodness
what'a-idiot
David Von Pein
>>> "He [the gut-shot Lee Oswald]...then jumps completely off the ground, both feet leaving the floor, before he topples to the floor." <<<
That's incredible, Steve (and Raymond). You're 100% right.
I never once had noticed that fact before (until just a minute ago,
while re-watching the KRLD-TV footage of the shooting in the video
linked below to confirm it). But Oswald's feet do, indeed, appear to
actually leave the ground after the bullet hits him in the gut.
Amazing.
It's funny how sometimes certain small things are never noticed in
some of the films and pictures (by me anyway) until they are pointed
out by somebody else.*
* = Things that are actually VISIBLE, that is. I'm not talking about
hidden assassins behind the fence on the Knoll that certain CTers
firmly believe can be "seen" in some of the assassination photos. I'm
referring to REAL things that can be seen by anyone, such as this
"Oswald's Feet Leave The Ground" topic and, in another example, the
fact that JFK's head moves forward (not backward) at the moment of
impact at Z313 of the Zapruder Film (which is something that most
conspiracy theorists still seem not to notice at all when watching the
Z-Film in slow motion; at least it's never mentioned by most CTers).
I guess perhaps I failed to notice Oswald's feet leaving the ground
because I'm never really paying much attention to Oswald's FEET when I
watch that incredible footage of LHO being murdered. I'm usually
paying attention to Ruby moving toward his prey (or, at other times,
I'm watching Will Fritz' reaction, which I always have thought was
quite humorous, for some reason). :)
Plus, there's the fact that Oswald's feet are only visible in the
videotaped footage for such a brief, fleeting instant. If you blink,
you'll miss it entirely.
I was originally planning on writing a post saying: "Steve must be
crazy! I've never seen Oswald's feet leaving the basement floor after
he was shot!"
But, instead, after viewing the footage again and looking at LHO's
feet, I had to completely change my tune about it.
Thanks, Steve & Raymond.
BTW, Raymond, was that Steve Barber who e-mailed you that information
by any chance?
Mr. Barber does, indeed, seem to have a knack of noticing things that
other people never notice -- such as the Bill Decker statement on the
Dictabelt and something I'd never noticed at the end of Walter
Cronkite's first bulletin on CBS-TV until Steve brought it up recently
(when a person in the background informs Cronkite that Connally had
been hit by the gunfire in Dallas too).
OSWALD-IS-SHOT VIDEO:
http://media.myfoxdfw.com/JFKvideo/video/jfk021.html
Gil Jesus
Tell Steve that Oswald "doubled over", he didn't "lurch forward".
Tell Steve that Oswald was handcuffed to two detectives, so Steve's
comparison is useless.
Tell Steve that Dr. King was shot from the front by a rifle and didn't
fall forward off the balcony.
Tell Steve that he should post his own responses.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
In 1978, in testimony before the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, an Army scientist at the Edgewood Laboratory of the
Aberdeen Proving Grounds revealed the results of a test he had
performed for the Warren Commission back in 1964. In an attempt to
simulate the fatal wound, ten skulls had been shot with the Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle. All ten skulls, instead of moving back toward the
rifle, "moved in the direction of the bullet." (Testimony of Larry
Sturdivan, 1HSCA404, JFK Exhibit f305, National Archives) Pg. 36 of
Cover-Up, Stewart Galanor
In the fall of 1988, COMTAL-3M Corporation analyzed a film of the
assassination taken by Orville Nix. Its computer-enhanced version of
the Nix film shows blood and brain matter moving toward the left rear
of the limousine. No forward jet spray was observed. (Who Murdered
JFK?" Jack Anderson, November 22, 1988)
Hope this helps...:D
CJ
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the skulls were hollow, there would be no material blowing out the
front of the skull to produce the jet effect that works in the
opposite direction of the force of the bullet. Similar experiments
with gelatin filled skulls and melons show these objects tend to move
toward the rifle. I would be willing to bet those empty skulls did not
move as dramatically in the direction of the bullet that we see JFK
move in the Z-film. I don't believe either jet effect nor momentum
transfer, competing forces, are sufficiently strong enough to account
for JFK's hard movement to the rear. I believe both these forces were
in play but the combined effect was negligible. Neuro-muscular
reaction is the most likely explaination for JFK's movement. Of
course, if the CT's disagree, they can always provide their own
experiments which prove a bullet could transfer enough force to an
object the size and weight of JFK's head and torso to replicate JFK's
rearward movement. Something tells me the CTs would have no interest
in performing such an experiment since it would destroy their
hypotheses of a frontal shot.
a1e...@verizon.net
A jet effect requires that the skull stops or slows material moving in
one direction while it allows material moving in the opposite
direction to escape.
> Similar experiments
> with gelatin filled skulls and melons show these objects tend to move
> toward the rifle.
Lattimer rigged his skull experiment. He shot a gelatine-filled skull
attached to a stool. A wooden plank braced the stool against tipping
over. The transfer of momentum from the bullet to the skull was
sufficient to initially move the stool and the skull in the same
direction as the bullet. Both objects moved as an inverted pendulum,
reached a maximum height and then swung toward the shooter. This
third movement gave the illusion of a jet effect.
Doctor Alvarez showed that melons with tape reenforcing their rinds
would produce a jet effect. The tape delayed rupturing of the elastic
rind while not increasing the small transfer of momentum from the
bullet to the melon.
> I would be willing to bet those empty skulls did not
> move as dramatically in the direction of the bullet that we see JFK
> move in the Z-film.
Edgewood Arsenal used gelatine-filled skulls in their experiments.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0049a.htm
> I don't believe either jet effect nor momentum
> transfer, competing forces, are sufficiently strong enough to account
> for JFK's hard movement to the rear. I believe both these forces were
> in play but the combined effect was negligible. Neuro-muscular
> reaction is the most likely explaination for JFK's movement. Of
> course, if the CT's disagree, they can always provide their own
> experiments which prove a bullet could transfer enough force to an
> object the size and weight of JFK's head and torso to replicate JFK's
> rearward movement.
Please cite a WC statement or testimony of a head shot eyewitness who
described the rearward movement of JFK's head and torso. By contrast,
I have compiled a list of two dozen eyewitnesses who do not describe a
reaction even remotely resembling the back and to the left motion seen
in the Zapruder film. For details see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
> Something tells me the CTs would have no interest
> in performing such an experiment since it would destroy their
> hypotheses of a frontal shot.- Hide quoted text -
>
I suggest that you stop telling CTs what they think and spend the time
to learn how physicists think.
Herbert
Gil Jesus
>
> If the skulls were hollow, there would be no material blowing out the
> front of the skull to produce the jet effect that works in the
> opposite direction of the force of the bullet. Similar experiments
> with gelatin filled skulls and melons show these objects tend to move
> toward the rifle. I would be willing to bet those empty skulls did not
> move as dramatically in the direction of the bullet that we see JFK
> move in the Z-film. I don't believe either jet effect nor momentum
> transfer, competing forces, are sufficiently strong enough to account
> for JFK's hard movement to the rear. I believe both these forces were
> in play but the combined effect was negligible. Neuro-muscular
> reaction is the most likely explaination for JFK's movement. Of
> course, if the CT's disagree, they can always provide their own
> experiments which prove a bullet could transfer enough force to an
> object the size and weight of JFK's head and torso to replicate JFK's
> rearward movement. Something tells me the CTs would have no interest
> in performing such an experiment since it would destroy their
> hypotheses of a frontal shot.-
The only skull hollow here is yours. Here's proof that there is no
such thing as a jet effect.
BACKWARD MOVEMENT OF THE HEAD FROM A FRONTAL SHOT
Hostage-taker shot in head by police sniper
Man holding a bloodied woman hostage is shot in face by a police
sniper with a RIFLE. Although he is shot from the front, his head
does
not go forward toward the shooter, as it would have if the "Jet
Effect" was a reality. Instead, his head goes backwards, in same
direction as the bullet, and there is no "Jet Effect".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8139288327830069420
FORWARD MOVEMENT OF THE HEAD BY SHOT FROM THE REAR
The Execution of Pietro Caruso
-- In September, 1944 ex-mayor of Rome Pietro Caruso was executed by
a
firing squad for his role in the Massacre at the Andeatine Caves.
Caruso is shot by multiple riflemen, however, the head does not move
in the direction of the shooters, rather, it moves in the direction
of
the bullets. There is no "Jet Effect".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7410370350390703351
NOW SHOW US ANOTHER REAL DEATH VIDEO OTHER THAN ZAPRUDER THAT SHOWS A
JET EFFECT OR STFU.
YOUR FOOLISHNESS IS BORING.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chico, your cherry picked examples prove one thing, that you are a
totally clueless fuck, not that anyone who reads these boards would
have ever disputed that fact.
Even in your examples, the heads move only a few inches just as we see
JFK's head move a few inches forward at impact. In the first example,
he simply drops to the ground after the shot. He does not go flying
forcefully backward toward the building the way we see JFK move in the
Z-film. JFK's movement is simply too great to have been caused by a
bullet. I realize physics is a subject that goes over your head
(doesn't everything) but people who understand physics know this to be
true.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4999a983-b8bd-4021...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 2:26?pm, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
> ? Physics and the frontal hit that never was
> ? Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a frontal
> shot?
>
> ? ? From 1994 through 1997 I spent a lot of time trying to
> quantitatively understand JFK's double response to the fatal head
> shot, the original topic that drew me into the JFK assassination. By
> "double response," I mean the quick forward snap (that is now
> conveniently ignored by most writers) and the longer, slower rearward
> lurch, the only movement seen when the Zapruder film is viewed at full
> speed. My goal was to see which of these movements was compatible with
> the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet that hit the rear of JFK's head, exited
> in pieces from the front right side, and then went on to hit the
> windshield and possibly also fly over the top and hit James Tague or
> the curb near him.
>
> ? ? I was struck by the fact that this problem could be approached, at
> least in principle, by combining the basic physics of colliding bodies
> with some principles of wound ballistics. I was also surprised that no
> one seemed to have done this either qualitatively or quantitatively. I
> began simply, with the forward snap, and learned quickly that its
> speed was fully compatible with the Carcano bullet and reasonable exit
> velocities. I then combined the rearward motion, the real goal of the
> work, with the forward snap and learned that the former was also
> compatible with the known hit. In the process, I generated seven
> simulations, each of increasing complexity, separately for
> translational (linear) and rotational (angular) motions, for 14
> simulations in all. I ended by adding an eighth simulation for angular
> motion and a treatment of some of the major errors that could render
> some of my conclusions suspect.
>
> ? ? Along the way, I tried to present a summary of this work at two
> JFK conferences, COPA in 1997 and Lancer in 1998. COPA toyed with the
> paper and then declined it because I refused to tell them precisely
> what my conclusions were going to be. (I followed standard scientific
> practice and submitted an abstract of the type they requested, but no
> more. This smacked of censorship to me, and was an eye-opening
> experience.) I then submitted a similar abstract to JFK Lancer's
> meeting in Dallas. Their program chairman George Michael Evica
> effectively pocket-vetoed that abstract by refusing to act one way or
> the other on it until it was too late. That was another eye-opening
> experience. The two experiences jointly showed that the JFK community
> was not interested in serious discussion of the possibility that the
> prime piece of evidence for conspiracy, JFK's rearward lurch, might
> actually have been a physical effect of a shot from the rear. Talk
> about being closed-minded!
>
> ? ? In 1997 I had to put this work aside and turn to other things.
> Only in November 2002, five years later, did I find myself with enough
> time to begin to prepare an Internet version of it. I have greatly
> expanded it, and am posting it in detail so that others may judge the
> data, calculations, reasoning, and conclusions as fairly as possible.
> Rational comments are always appreciated, particularly on points that
> appear weak. I can be reached at kr...@uri.edu or
> kenr...@kenrahn.com .
> ? ? This monograph addresses four basic questions:
>
> Can the forward snap be accounted for by a rearward shot from Lee
> Harvey Oswald's rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
> Can the initial rearward lurch of head and body be accounted for by a
> rearward shot from the same rifle? Answer: Yes, with ease.
> Must a rearward shot from this rifle have created a rearward lurch
> similar to that observed? Answer: Yes, provided only that a cloud of
> brain matter was thrown forward.
> Can a shot from the grassy knoll explain or contribute to the rearward
> lurch? Answers: No; qualified yes.
> The answers effectively debunk the notion of a frontal hit and thereby
> remove the major piece of evidence for conspiracy in the JFK
> assassination.
> ? ? The questions are addressed by the 39 chapters of the monograph
> 26. Constraints on ?cl and PE
> 27. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from ?cl vs. mcloud
> 28. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from ?cl vs. PE
> 29. Constraints on mcloud and vcloud from mcloud vs. vcloud
> 30. Grand summary of constraints
>
> Question 4: Can the rearward lurch be explained or contributed to by a
> frontal shot?
>
> 31. Introduction to a frontal hit
> 32. Scenario 1--no cloud or large fragments
> 33. Scenario 2--cloud and fragments as observed
> 34. Scenario 3--frontal hit right after rear hit
> 35. Scenario 4--rear hit provides only snap
> 36. Summary of the frontal scenarios
>
> Synopsis
>
> 37. The unification of the physical evidence provided by these
> calculations
> 38. Objections and replies
> 39. Future work
>
> Acknowledgments
>
> Additions and Correctionshttp://www.jfk-online.com/jfklinks.html
LOOKS LIKE "RAYMOND" CUT AND PASTED FROM KEN RAHN'S SITE.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
GEE, RAYMOND, FOR A MINUTE THERE WHEN YOU SAID "I SPENT A LOT OF
TIME"...I THOUGHT YOU MEAN THAT YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME, NOT RAHN.
I, too, was wondering when he was going to acknowledge the actual source.
:-)
Ken Rahn
bigdog
>
> Please cite a WC statement or testimony of a head shot eyewitness who
> described the rearward movement of JFK's head and torso. By contrast,
> I have compiled a list of two dozen eyewitnesses who do not describe a
> reaction even remotely resembling the back and to the left motion seen
> in the Zapruder film. For details see:
>
shot. Why the fuck would I want to cite a witness? CTs can repeat the
lie that JFK went back an to the left all they want, it isn't going to
make it so. JFK went straight back and was in the far right of the
limo when he hit the seatback at Z322. You can't go back and to the
left and end up on the right.
Gil Jesus
>
> Cite a witness??? I can see for myself how JFK moved after the head
> shot. Why the fuck would I want to cite a witness? CTs can repeat the
> lie that JFK went back an to the left all they want, it isn't going to
> make it so. JFK went straight back and was in the far right of the
> limo when he hit the seatback at Z322. You can't go back and to the
> left and end up on the right.
ROFLMAO....It's no use arguing with an idiot, Herb.
They'll just deny it anyway.
The "King's New Clothes" bunch.
a1e...@verizon.net
You can repeat the lie that JFK went straight back but it cannot
change the WC statements or testimonies of two dozen head shot
eyewitnesses who do not describe any motion of JFK that resembles
"back and to the left."
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
You can repeat the lie that JFK went straight back but it cannot
change the Zapruder film. A slow-motion viewing clearly shows that
JFK's rotated backward and twisted toward his left.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Herbert
Gil Jesus
Kennedy's movement resulting from the fatal head shot is shown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQ8Ef7NkqQ
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46c7eec9-7cb6-4f6d...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...