Help With Hollywood Ballistics

[John McAdams]

I'm wondering if people can help me with this.

The notion that being hit by a bullet can throw people around is a
staple of "Hollywood Ballistics," which of course is different from
real world ballistics.

Can people here give me some examples of movie sequences of people
being "blown away" by being shot?

One that comes to mind: "Indiana Jones," Harrison Ford shoots a
ninja-like swordsman with a pistol, and he flys backwards.

If you have YouTube links, that would be dandy, but not necessary.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Card53]

Here's Jack Palance getting shot by Alan Ladd in SHANE (1953):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDDOd8kGBXo

Director George Stevens attached wires to Palance and yanked him backwards
when he was shot, in order to increase the dramatic effect. The technique
was used in other scenes as well.

John L

[Marcus Hanson]

Bad Bob :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2br6JbXFts

[Marcus Hanson]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 5:28:34 AM UTC+10, John McAdams wrote:

Oh , another one :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikGhNorj9s

[Anthony Marsh]

watch Mythbusters.

[John McAdams]

On 5 Sep 2013 19:06:50 -0400, Anthony Marsh

I know all about Mythbusters, Tony.

I show it to my students everytime I teach the JFK class.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Watch the damn Mythbusters episode.
We are not interested in your straw man arguments.

[tse3...@yahoo.com]

Behind the scenes . . .

https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=uvy29411#/results?q=rio%20lobo&oq=rio%20&gs_l=youtube-reduced.1.0.41j0l3.3152.4938.0.6040.4.4.0.0.0.0.267.964.2-4.4.0....0...1ac.1.23.youtube-reduced..0.4.963.sXqkGmq87eE

[John McAdams]

On 5 Sep 2013 23:05:45 -0400, tse3...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Behind the scenes . . .
>
>https://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=uvy29411#/results?q=rio%20lobo&oq=rio%20&gs_l=youtube-reduced.1.0.41j0l3.3152.4938.0.6040.4.4.0.0.0.0.267.964.2-4.4.0....0...1ac.1.23.youtube-reduced..0.4.963.sXqkGmq87eE
>

The link doesn't work for me. Is it the link for a mobile?

Could you post the keywords assocated with the video, such that
anybody could search it?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[tse3...@yahoo.com]

Search for "on the set of rio lobo"

Should be the first vid.

[tse3...@yahoo.com]

Relevant sequence starts about 6:00

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:28:34 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

When looking for shots in the photographic evidence of the JFK case the
"misses" are the hardest shots to find. Just think about all the effort
Harris has put into trying to identify a "missed" shot using startle
reactions.

I think this is why "Hollywood" ballistic reactions are so exaggerated.
They need some way to demonstrate that the actor is hit by a bullet. This
is particularly true when they did not have color and good visual effects.

Today they can demonstrate someone was hit by a bullet by spraying blood
all over the place.

[Glenn V.]

Den torsdagen den 5:e september 2013 kl. 21:28:34 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:

> If you have YouTube links, that would be dandy, but not necessary.
>
>
>
> .John

This clip is quite the opposite case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&list=PL9C70A7D8574D6DB8

I raised the same question at the EF a couple of years ago about this
clip. No one was able to provide a viable explanation to the fact that the
viet cong's head doesn't move at all, when shot from point blank distance.

[John McAdams]

On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Den torsdagen den 5:e september 2013 kl. 21:28:34 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>
>> If you have YouTube links, that would be dandy, but not necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>
>This clip is quite the opposite case in point:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&list=PL9C70A7D8574D6DB8
>
>I raised the same question at the EF a couple of years ago about this
>clip. No one was able to provide a viable explanation to the fact that the
>viet cong's head doesn't move at all, when shot from point blank distance.
>

One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.

But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
people around.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Glenn V.]

Den lördagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:

> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>
> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>
>
>
> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>
> people around.

The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly á bit more than
half of that of the Carcano rifle.

Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?

And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
illusion.

[Jean Davison]

> ..John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

There are several videos online showing this. One example from an
old post...

A man wearing body armor and standing on one foot was shot
in the chest at close range with this NATO bullet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO

How far did the bullet move him? Answer is here about 5 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I

Jean

[miker...@gmail.com]

Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
of the Presidents head is not an illusion.

If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
would have a case for no forward movement of the head.

But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
direction.

When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.

Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
get all wet.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>> Den lördagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>>
>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>
>>>
>>
>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>
>>>
>>
>>> people around.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>>
>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly á bit more than
>>
>> half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
>>
>> CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>>
>>
>>
>> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>>
>> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>>
>> illusion.
>
> Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
> of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>

Phony. He didn't say it is an illusion.
Itek erred by assuming that all the forward motion was caused by a shot
from behind. About half the distance they measured was due to the
blurring in frame 313.

> If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
> without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
> would have a case for no forward movement of the head.

No one ever said there was no forward movement of the head.

>
> But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
> overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
> ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
> direction.

No, you don't.

>
> When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
> an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.
>
> Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
> the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
> get all wet.
>

Nothing like that at all.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you have a point? You know nothing about guns.

[gkno...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:17:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> >> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>
> >>
>
> >> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>
> >>
>
> >> illusion.
>
> >
>
> > Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>
> > of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Phony. He didn't say it is an illusion.
>
> Itek erred by assuming that all the forward motion was caused by a shot
>
> from behind. About half the distance they measured was due to the
>
> blurring in frame 313.
>
>

Itek did not err. They did not assume anything.

Itek was in the business of building cameras which were designed to reduce
motion blur for satellite imagery.

They measured the Presidents motion relative to 20 fixed points in the
limo.

They were not incompetent.

But David Wimp has erred in his analysis.

In fact , the Presidents head did move 2 inches forward , which is about
the physical limit of movement of the head when pushed down like the
Presidents head was pushed down.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <522a9929$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

1. Neither do you.

2. You get a bloody nose every time you tangle with Jean. You don't
learn very fast, do you? Of course I get a kick out of it.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/6/2013 10:03 PM, Glenn V. wrote:

> Den l?rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>
>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>
>> people around.
>
> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,

> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly ? bit more than

> half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>

Here in the US we use commas instead of periods to separate digits. So you
think Loan's revolver had a muzzle velocity of 1,123 fps. So what? Muzzle
velocity alone does not tell you the energy. And where did you get your
number from? You just made it up. You don't know what ammo he was using
that day and the muzzle velocity varies according to what ammo is used.

But thie discussion is a red herring. No one said that a shot threw anyone
around.

> Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
> CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>
> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
> illusion.
>

He did not say illusion. Itek said the shot moved the head forward by
2.3 inches, but about half of that is blur.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/6/2013 9:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Den torsdagen den 5:e september 2013 kl. 21:28:34 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>>
>>> If you have YouTube links, that would be dandy, but not necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>> This clip is quite the opposite case in point:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&list=PL9C70A7D8574D6DB8
>>
>> I raised the same question at the EF a couple of years ago about this
>> clip. No one was able to provide a viable explanation to the fact that the
>> viet cong's head doesn't move at all, when shot from point blank distance.
>>
>
> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>

Something like that, but the mmuzzle velocity alone is not the
determining factor.

> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
> people around.
>

Straw man argument. No one argues that the impact of a shot throws

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/6/2013 8:52 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
> Den torsdagen den 5:e september 2013 kl. 21:28:34 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>
>> If you have YouTube links, that would be dandy, but not necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>
> This clip is quite the opposite case in point:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&list=PL9C70A7D8574D6DB8
>
> I raised the same question at the EF a couple of years ago about this
> clip. No one was able to provide a viable explanation to the fact that the
> viet cong's head doesn't move at all, when shot from point blank distance.
>

You mean the clip where you can't see the whole thing? And he decided to
lie down because he was tired?

[miker...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:41:56 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:

>
>
>
> There are several videos online showing this. One example from an
>
> old post...
>
>
>
> A man wearing body armor and standing on one foot was shot
>
> in the chest at close range with this NATO bullet:
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO
>
>
>
> How far did the bullet move him? Answer is here about 5 minutes in:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I
>
>
>
> Jean

If the man in the video would put the vest over the back of his head and
the a bullet fired at the vest the head would move downward.

If they put the vest over the back and top part of the head and fired a
bullet that hit the top part of the vest the head would move downward.

The center of mass is different.

In the vietcong video, if the bullet was fired from the back at the back
of the head the head would have been pushed downward.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of squibs?

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:522a98e5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:

>>> Den l?rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John

>>> McAdams:
>>>
>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>>> people around.
>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that
>>> clip,

>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly ? bit more than

You guys are making hypotheses out of faked evidence. Zapruder is not real.
There is no forward motion in the Nix film?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/7/2013 10:17 AM, gkno...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:17:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>>> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> illusion.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>>
>>> of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phony. He didn't say it is an illusion.
>>
>> Itek erred by assuming that all the forward motion was caused by a shot
>>
>> from behind. About half the distance they measured was due to the
>>
>> blurring in frame 313.
>>
>>
>
>
> Itek did not err. They did not assume anything.
>
> Itek was in the business of building cameras which were designed to reduce
> motion blur for satellite imagery.
>
> They measured the Presidents motion relative to 20 fixed points in the
> limo.
>

Their error was in measuring from the back of one object to the front of
another object. That just measures the amount of blur.

> They were not incompetent.
>
> But David Wimp has erred in his analysis.
>

You haven't even seen it.

> In fact , the Presidents head did move 2 inches forward , which is about
> the physical limit of movement of the head when pushed down like the
> Presidents head was pushed down.
>

Not 2 inches.

[Jean Davison]

I think I agree with that. A bullet could move a head forward in a
nodding motion (Z312-313) but not move a heavier upper torso "back and
to the left" as seen following Z314.

Jean

[tse3...@yahoo.com]

I enjoy counting the number of forward arrows contained in each of Anthony
Marsh's posts.

So far I have counted 1,369. But then I am new to this board.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's a Google thing. Most people don't know what you are talking about.

[Bud]

<snicker> Really Tony? It seems to me that it`s a basic tenet of
conspiracy hobbyist lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the
knoll.


>
>
> > .John
>
> > --------------
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >

[docca...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 5, 2013 3:28:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> I'm wondering if people can help me with this.

I'm not sure if this will help but I stumbled upon some actual footage of
how bodies react to being shot in the head with a rifle. As graphic (and
sad) as this is, it's actually very illustrative of the extensor reflex
that occurs when an individual is shot in head with a rifle, as was the
case with JFK's fatal wound, the so called "back and to the left". As
further correlation with JFK's assassination, the AKM being used here has
a muzzle energy of 1600 ft-lbs, utilizing a 123gr 7.62mm bullet with a
muzzle velocity of 2400 fps and at this range the drop-off is
insignificant. The Mannlicher-Carcano with the 161gr 6.5mm bullet has a
muzzle velocity of 2200 fps with a muzzle energy of 1700 ft-lbs, which at
100 yards drop to a velocity of 1900 fps and energy of 1300 ft-lbs (Values
from "Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, Fourth Edition", rounded
for simplicity). Given JFK's fatal head shot occurred at ~88 yards, these
are very comparable bullet energies at point of impact.

Note what is seen here in over a dozen examples where initial contact is a
head shot. The head moves forward a couple of inches and then the body
jerks backwards toward the shooter, sometimes violently and other times
less so but nonetheless all victims of an initial head shot involuntarily
move toward the shooter before becoming flaccid and forward head movement
is minimal. This is because of the brief decerebrate posturing
(opisthotonos in its extreme), which is an extensor reflex involving the
anti-gravity muscles that occurs in major brain trauma as seen in a rifle
shot to the brain, propelling the victim backwards.

Why "back and to left" still is touted as evidence of a shot from the
grassy knoll stymies me. This is basic neuro-physiology that any second
year medical student should appreciate on sight, yet CT buffs falsely
claim the "neuromuscular reaction theory" has been debunked.

Be forewarned, this video is real and graphically depicts multiple
assassinations.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-phFEqS6M[/url]

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all conspiracy believers make that claim.
Just as not all WC defenders claim that shot from behind thrust JFK's
head forward by 2.3 inches.
Not all WC defenders believe in the Jet Effect to explain the backward
movement of the upper torso.
But hidden inside your charge is the idea that we claim the IMPACT of
the bullet is the cause for the upper torso being thrown back. We don't.
Have you ever read about the theory of deflecting asteroids with
explosives? Whether the arey set off near or inside the asteroid, the
force of the explosion pushes the asteroid in the opposite direction.

>
>>
>>
>>> .John
>>
>>> --------------
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>>
>
>

[John McAdams]

On 6 Sep 2013 16:15:14 -0400, tse3...@yahoo.com wrote:

>Search for "on the set of rio lobo"
>
>Should be the first vid.
>

Got it!

[John McAdams]

>[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D9u-phFEqS6M[/url]
>

I'm afraid that's been removed. :-(

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/10/2013 3:16 PM, docca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013 3:28:34 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> I'm wondering if people can help me with this.
>
> I'm not sure if this will help but I stumbled upon some actual footage of
> how bodies react to being shot in the head with a rifle. As graphic (and
> sad) as this is, it's actually very illustrative of the extensor reflex
> that occurs when an individual is shot in head with a rifle, as was the
> case with JFK's fatal wound, the so called "back and to the left". As
> further correlation with JFK's assassination, the AKM being used here has
> a muzzle energy of 1600 ft-lbs, utilizing a 123gr 7.62mm bullet with a
> muzzle velocity of 2400 fps and at this range the drop-off is
> insignificant. The Mannlicher-Carcano with the 161gr 6.5mm bullet has a
> muzzle velocity of 2200 fps with a muzzle energy of 1700 ft-lbs, which at
> 100 yards drop to a velocity of 1900 fps and energy of 1300 ft-lbs (Values
> from "Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, Fourth Edition", rounded
> for simplicity). Given JFK's fatal head shot occurred at ~88 yards, these
> are very comparable bullet energies at point of impact.
>

Is that ammo Hornady's own round? Do you understand that Oswald had WCC
ammo? How in the world could you ever find the correct data for that
ammo without doing some actual research? Like reading the WC report.

> Note what is seen here in over a dozen examples where initial contact is a
> head shot. The head moves forward a couple of inches and then the body
> jerks backwards toward the shooter, sometimes violently and other times
> less so but nonetheless all victims of an initial head shot involuntarily
> move toward the shooter before becoming flaccid and forward head movement
> is minimal. This is because of the brief decerebrate posturing
> (opisthotonos in its extreme), which is an extensor reflex involving the
> anti-gravity muscles that occurs in major brain trauma as seen in a rifle
> shot to the brain, propelling the victim backwards.
>
> Why "back and to left" still is touted as evidence of a shot from the
> grassy knoll stymies me. This is basic neuro-physiology that any second
> year medical student should appreciate on sight, yet CT buffs falsely
> claim the "neuromuscular reaction theory" has been debunked.
>

Not exactly. Just misused. At least you didn't try to defend the Jet
Effect theory, which is also just basic science.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

No one argues that the impact of a shot throws people around.

BUD SAID:

Really Tony? It seems to me that it's a basic tenet of conspiracy hobbyist
lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the knoll.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Yes, Bud. Exactly. Tony just wants to argue (as always).

Marsh's statement that "No one argues that the impact of a shot throws
people around" is absurd. Of course people have argued exactly that. And a
bunch of people have argued that exact theory--with many CTers stating
that one of the main reasons they believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case
(probably *the* #1 reason) is because of Kennedy's backward movement seen
in the Zapruder Film.

But if Tony's right, then it's not *really* the backward thrust of
Kennedy's head and upper body that is leading those CTers to scream
"conspiracy". It must be something else. But if that were the case with
the "Back And To The Left" CT crowd, then why do those CTers even bother
to bring up the "back and to the left" junk to begin with?

If the bullet could have come from ANY direction and still have Kennedy's
head go backward, then the movement of JFK's head is not an issue that
MUST lead to conspiracy and to multiple gunmen (as so many CTers firmly
believe is the case).

But, as we all know by now, Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts is merely
stretching his "Argue At All Costs" legs once more here at aaj. He knows
full well that hundreds (if not thousands) of conspiracy theorists think
that the movement of JFK's head and upper body *had* to have been caused
by a bullet fired from the front.

Heck, just watch any of Cyril Wecht's many interviews over the years, with
Wecht (a trained medical professional, no less) actually saying that he
believes that the force of the bullet is the cause of the backward
movement of the President's body.

Let's watch Mr. Perpetual Argument (Marsh) try and now pretend that even
Dr. Wecht has never even insinuated that it was the force of the bullet
that is causing President Kennedy's violent backward movement in the
Zapruder Film (see the Wecht video below, at the 12:30 mark).

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/cyril-wecht.html

[docca...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

-----------

Let me clarify. The MV and bullet weight are the ones listed in the WR.
Based on that I used the ballistic tables to obtain ME and the MV and E at
100 yards. You can quibble that they're not the same as that lot of WCC
ammunition, though any differences will be negligible and provide a basis
for comparison.

Sorry for not clarifying that in the original post.

[docca...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 5:06:03 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:


> I'm afraid that's been removed. :-(
>
>
>
> .John
>
>
>
> --
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

That's odd since I can still access it but not off the link copied in your
post. Might be because it's https and you have to attest to your age and
accepting the content. I think you can find it by searching YouTube for:
Handcuffed, blindfolded & Shot in the back of the head. Taliban Release
Executions 15 Pakistani FC

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/11/2013 9:35 AM, docca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> -----------
>
> Let me clarify. The MV and bullet weight are the ones listed in the WR.

No.
And you can't cite the page number and quote those numbers.

> Based on that I used the ballistic tables to obtain ME and the MV and E at
> 100 yards. You can quibble that they're not the same as that lot of WCC

That's fun, but no shot were fired at 100 yards.

> ammunition, though any differences will be negligible and provide a basis
> for comparison.
>

If it's not the WCC ammunition then don't even mention it. That's almost
as bad as using the numbers for the Norma ammo just because the HSCA used
it for their shooting tests.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/10/2013 8:22 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
> No one argues that the impact of a shot throws people around.
>
>
> BUD SAID:
>
> Really Tony? It seems to me that it's a basic tenet of conspiracy hobbyist
> lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the knoll.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Yes, Bud. Exactly. Tony just wants to argue (as always).
>
> Marsh's statement that "No one argues that the impact of a shot throws
> people around" is absurd. Of course people have argued exactly that. And a
> bunch of people have argued that exact theory--with many CTers stating
> that one of the main reasons they believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case
> (probably *the* #1 reason) is because of Kennedy's backward movement seen
> in the Zapruder Film.

No. You can't find anyone saying the IMPACT.

>
> But if Tony's right, then it's not *really* the backward thrust of
> Kennedy's head and upper body that is leading those CTers to scream

The head shot alone is not what causes us to scream conspiracy.

> "conspiracy". It must be something else. But if that were the case with
> the "Back And To The Left" CT crowd, then why do those CTers even bother
> to bring up the "back and to the left" junk to begin with?
>

Because the hucksters needed to make the argument as simple as possible
for their audience.

> If the bullet could have come from ANY direction and still have Kennedy's
> head go backward, then the movement of JFK's head is not an issue that
> MUST lead to conspiracy and to multiple gunmen (as so many CTers firmly
> believe is the case).
>

Something like that.
But WC defenders have to invent magical arguments to get their bullet
from behind to cause the back and to the left movement.

> But, as we all know by now, Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts is merely
> stretching his "Argue At All Costs" legs once more here at aaj. He knows
> full well that hundreds (if not thousands) of conspiracy theorists think
> that the movement of JFK's head and upper body *had* to have been caused
> by a bullet fired from the front.
>

Hundreds? Out of millions?

> Heck, just watch any of Cyril Wecht's many interviews over the years, with
> Wecht (a trained medical professional, no less) actually saying that he
> believes that the force of the bullet is the cause of the backward
> movement of the President's body.
>

Dr. Wecht is not a wound ballistics expert. OTOH, Dr. Vincent DiMaio is
the premiere wound ballistics expert and he has said that the impact of a
bullet can not move any part of the body at all. So much for the WC
defender's favorite theory that a shot from behind thrust JFK's head
forward 2.3 inches in half a Zapruder frame. If your expert DiMaio is
correct there must be another cause for everyone moving forward.

[Bud]

You just claimed that no one did. Now you admit some people do make that

claim.

> Just as not all WC defenders claim that shot from behind thrust JFK's
>
> head forward by 2.3 inches.

Now thats a strawman.

> Not all WC defenders believe in the Jet Effect to explain the backward
>
> movement of the upper torso.

So is that.

> But hidden inside your charge is the idea that we claim the IMPACT of
>
> the bullet is the cause for the upper torso being thrown back. We don't.

<snicker> Really Tony? It seems to me that it`s a basic tenet of
conspiracy hobbyist lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the
knoll.

> Have you ever read about the theory of deflecting asteroids with
>
> explosives? Whether the arey set off near or inside the asteroid, the
>
> force of the explosion pushes the asteroid in the opposite direction.

Are you trying to explain why Kennedy`s head went forward when it was
struck by a bullet?

> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> .John
>
> >>
>
> >>> --------------
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. You still don't understand the difference between a shot and the
impact of a shot.

>
>> Just as not all WC defenders claim that shot from behind thrust JFK's
>>
>> head forward by 2.3 inches.
>
> Now thats a strawman.
>

That's why I say not all do.

>> Not all WC defenders believe in the Jet Effect to explain the backward
>>
>> movement of the upper torso.
>
> So is that.
>

Which is why I say not all do.

>> But hidden inside your charge is the idea that we claim the IMPACT of
>>
>> the bullet is the cause for the upper torso being thrown back. We don't.
>
> <snicker> Really Tony? It seems to me that it`s a basic tenet of
> conspiracy hobbyist lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the
> knoll.
>

Not really.
We don't need the grassy knoll shot to have a conspiracy.

>> Have you ever read about the theory of deflecting asteroids with
>>
>> explosives? Whether the arey set off near or inside the asteroid, the
>>
>> force of the explosion pushes the asteroid in the opposite direction.
>
> Are you trying to explain why Kennedy`s head went forward when it was
> st

No. And you refuse to answer my questions. And you don't even know what
I am talking about.

[docca...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/11/2013 9:35 AM, docca...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh

> No.
>
> And you can't cite the page number and quote those numbers.

Page 555. As I noted I rounded the 2155 to 2200fps

> That's fun, but no shot were fired at 100 yards

Never said there was but the bullet energy at 88 yards would be between
the ME and that at 100 yards.

> If it's not the WCC ammunition then don't even mention it. That's almost
>
> as bad as using the numbers for the Norma ammo just because the HSCA used
>
> it for their shooting tests.

Not relevant to my post. I never suggested this was a recreation of the
assassination. What is demonstrated multiple times in the video is that
when shot in the head from behind the head moves forward a little (as
simple physics dictates) and an extensor reflex is demonstrated before the
body goes limp as often happens in this and other insults to the brain.
If you don't find it relevant as general principles in relation to this
case or don't see it, so be it. The approximate numbers were posted for
those who might not have any idea how the basic ballistics of the
7.62x39mm round might compare to the 6.5x52mm round.

I recognize that Mr. McAdams was looking for examples of Hollywood
shootings where people are literally blown backwards by a gunshot to
likely demonstrate the falsehood that many people have come to believe is
what happens when an individual is shot. As other real life examples were
given above, I felt this was relevant to the discussion. Whether or not
you accept that is what is similarly seen in the Zapruder film is up to
you.

[Bud]

You think it`s a different concept just because you use a different word
to call it? Tell us, what is the difference between a shot that hits and
an impact?

> >
>
> >> Just as not all WC defenders claim that shot from behind thrust JFK's
>
> >>
>
> >> head forward by 2.3 inches.
>
> >
>
> > Now thats a strawman.
>
> >
>
>
>
> That's why I say not all do.

Thats not why it`s a strawman.

> >> Not all WC defenders believe in the Jet Effect to explain the backward
>
> >>
>
> >> movement of the upper torso.
>
> >
>
> > So is that.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Which is why I say not all do.

Thats not why it is a strawman.

> >> But hidden inside your charge is the idea that we claim the IMPACT of
>
> >>
>
> >> the bullet is the cause for the upper torso being thrown back. We don't.
>
> >
>
> > <snicker> Really Tony? It seems to me that it`s a basic tenet of
>
> > conspiracy hobbyist lore that Kennedy is thrown back by a shot from the
>
> > knoll.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not really.

Yes, really.

> We don't need the grassy knoll shot to have a conspiracy.

Another strawman.

> >> Have you ever read about the theory of deflecting asteroids with
>
> >>
>
> >> explosives? Whether the arey set off near or inside the asteroid, the
>
> >>
>
> >> force of the explosion pushes the asteroid in the opposite direction.
>
> >
>
> > Are you trying to explain why Kennedy`s head went forward when it was
>
> > st
>
>
>
> No.

Then I don`t see how it applies. Kennedy`s head went forward when he was
struck in the head with a bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/12/2013 9:02 PM, docca...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/11/2013 9:35 AM, docca...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 8:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>> No.
>>
>> And you can't cite the page number and quote those numbers.
>
>
> Page 555. As I noted I rounded the 2155 to 2200fps
>

After I called you on it.


Page 555 of WHAT? You mean you only have the Barnes & Noble edition, not
the GPO edition? LOSER.
And it says "2165 fps." So why the need to round up or guess?
Why are you floundering around?

>
>> That's fun, but no shot were fired at 100 yards
>
>
> Never said there was but the bullet energy at 88 yards would be between
> the ME and that at 100 yards.

ME? You mean the Muzzle? Every time you open your mouth you admit that
you don't know what the Hell you're talking about.

>
>
>> If it's not the WCC ammunition then don't even mention it. That's almost
>>
>> as bad as using the numbers for the Norma ammo just because the HSCA used
>>
>> it for their shooting tests.
>
>
> Not relevant to my post. I never suggested this was a recreation of the
> assassination. What is demonstrated multiple times in the video is that
> when shot in the head from behind the head moves forward a little (as
> simple physics dictates) and an extensor reflex is demonstrated before the
> body goes limp as often happens in this and other insults to the brain.
> If you don't find it relevant as general principles in relation to this
> case or don't see it, so be it. The approximate numbers were posted for
> those who might not have any idea how the basic ballistics of the
> 7.62x39mm round might compare to the 6.5x52mm round.
>

No, to mislead people.

> I recognize that Mr. McAdams was looking for examples of Hollywood
> shootings where people are literally blown backwards by a gunshot to
> likely demonstrate the falsehood that many people have come to believe is

No, he wasn't. He was only falling back on an old straw man argument.

> what happens when an individual is shot. As other real life examples were
> given above, I felt this was relevant to the discussion. Whether or not
> you accept that is what is similarly seen in the Zapruder film is up to
> you.
>
>
>

I've already burned the straw man.
I don't need your help.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>

> >> Den lördagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:

>
> >>
>
> >>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>

> >>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> people around.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>
> >>
>

> >> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly á bit more than

>
> >>
>
> >> half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
>
> >>
>
> >> CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>
> >>
>
> >> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>
> >>
>
> >> illusion.
>
> >
>
> > Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>
> > of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Phony. He didn't say it is an illusion.
>
> Itek erred by assuming that all the forward motion was caused by a shot
>
> from behind. About half the distance they measured was due to the
>
> blurring in frame 313.
>
>
>

> > If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
>
> > without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
>
> > would have a case for no forward movement of the head.
>
>
>
> No one ever said there was no forward movement of the head.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
>
> > overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
>
> > ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
>
> > direction.
>
>
>
> No, you don't.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
>
> > an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.
>
> >
>
> > Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
>
> > the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
>
> > get all wet.
>
> >

>
>
> Nothing like that at all.

With all this talk about the subject not moving when a bullet hits it,
have we proven that the head movements were phony Z-film alterations
because they subject wouldn't move if hit by a bullet? :)

And add to the discussion that I've plinked with a .22 rifle up to .45
Colt 1911 pistol and .32 automatic pistol and M1 carbine and 12 ga.
shotguns and have often caused the cans and bottles (sometimes filled with
liquid) to go speeding backward most times from their perch when they are
hit. No doubt anomalies...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Some here may remember this video showing a hostage taker being shot in
the face. Watch his head go back as the shot hits him. I can hear Kevin
Costner..."Back and to the left"..."Back and to the left"...:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ8m2_wmLBQ

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:54:18 PM UTC-4, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> > Den lördagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>
> >
>
> > > On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > people around.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>
> >
>
> > has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly á bit more than
>
> >
>
> > half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
>
> >
>
> > CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>
> >
>
> > initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>
> >
>
> > illusion.
>
>
>
> Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>
> of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>
>
>

> If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
>
> without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
>
> would have a case for no forward movement of the head.
>
>
>

> But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
>
> overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
>
> ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
>
> direction.
>
>
>

> When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
>
> an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.
>
>
>
> Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
>
> the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
>
> get all wet.

What if the whole frame 313 was painted over and faked? You'd see
whatever the painter wanted you to see. It might not fit the physics that
we're discussing.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2013 10:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:54:18 PM UTC-4, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>>

>>> Den l�rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> people around.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>>
>>>
>>

>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly � bit more than

>>
>>>
>>
>>> half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
>>
>>>
>>
>>> CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>>
>>>
>>
>>> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>>
>>>
>>
>>> illusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>>
>> of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
>>
>> without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
>>
>> would have a case for no forward movement of the head.
>>
>>
>>
>> But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
>>
>> overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
>>
>> ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
>>
>> direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
>>
>> an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
>>
>> the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
>>
>> get all wet.
>
> What if the whole frame 313 was painted over and faked? You'd see
> whatever the painter wanted you to see. It might not fit the physics that
> we're discussing.
>

There is no paint on he filmstock.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but that was only his head. Not his entire body as the WC
defenders claim.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2013 9:58 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>>

>>>> Den l�rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> people around.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly � bit more than

English please.

> And add to the discussion that I've plinked with a .22 rifle up to .45
> Colt 1911 pistol and .32 automatic pistol and M1 carbine and 12 ga.
> shotguns and have often caused the cans and bottles (sometimes filled with
> liquid) to go speeding backward most times from their perch when they are
> hit. No doubt anomalies...:)
>

And I've seen a can fly off its perch and go back towards the shooter.
So bloody what?

> Chris
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 9/14/13 10:52 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/13/2013 10:01 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>>>

>>>>> Den l�rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John

>>>>> McAdams:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> people around.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that
>>>>> clip,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>

>>>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly � bit more than

No, it wasn't only his head. It was his upper torso. Which is what "WC
defenders" and CTs alike say, because that's what you can see plain as
day in all the film evidence.
Nobody except Tony Marsh, to my knowledge, even claims that anybody says
JFK's "entire body" moved at that point.

Talk about your strawmen!

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

I have caught several WC defenders saying "body" instead of upper torso.
Even some conspiracy believers say "body" instead of upper torso.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 9/15/13 12:01 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/14/2013 3:20 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 9/14/13 10:52 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2013 10:01 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>> Den l?rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John

>>>>>>> McAdams:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> people around.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that
>>>>>>> clip,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly ? bit more than

Sounds like sloppiness, unless anyone specified, as you did, "*entire*
body," but it seems like they would immediately hear their error.

In any case, anyone can see what movement they are referring to. It
ain't just the head, and it ain't the whole body.


/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course, but WC defenders never admit their errors.
In the old days we could pull up their messages from Google Groups.

> In any case, anyone can see what movement they are referring to. It
> ain't just the head, and it ain't the whole body.
>
>

The head moved first. The upper torso had to follow. Ever see someone
hit in the head with a baseball bat?

> /sm

[Bud]

Another voice of ignorance heard from. Funny how experts need high speed
cameras taking thousands of pictures a second to determine what occurs.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha.
If the bullet had only enough force to move the head, the upper torso
absolutely wouldn't move.
You seem to think that the bullet had enough force to knock the head off
if the body didn't move with it. Which is ridiculous.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

The upper torso HAD to follow unless the head became detached.

> /sm
>
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Then you're saying the bullet had enough force to move the upper torso.

By the way, let's all stop to note that you're still chanting "Back and
to the left," and point out that if it wasn't the *impact* of the bullet
that you think moved JFK back, as you've only lately taken to
stipulating, then you have no reason to think the backward motion
indicates anything about the direction of the shot.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

>
> By the way, let's all stop to note that you're still chanting "Back and
> to the left," and point out that if it wasn't the *impact* of the bullet
> that you think moved JFK back, as you've only lately taken to
> stipulating, then you have no reason to think the backward motion
> indicates anything about the direction of the shot.
>

I didn't say the back and to the left motion proves where the bullet
came from. Just where it hit.
I once hoaxed the guys at the gun store by telling them that JFK was hit
in the front of the head by a shot from behind because the bullet
ricocheted off the chrome topping.

> /sm
>
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

You maintain it hit the front of his head, hence from somewhere in front.

I didn't say "where the bullet came from," I criticized your maintaining
that the backward motion "indicates anything about the direction of the
shot." Like, from the back or from the front.

/sm

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:51:37 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/13/2013 10:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:54:18 PM UTC-4, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Den l�rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> people around.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>

> >>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly � bit more than

>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> half of that of the Carcano rifle.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Would this count for no movement vs violent movent, as suggested by most
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> CTs who claim a shot from the front, in the respective victims head?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> And yes, I do believe that Josiah Thompson's latest retraction about the
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> initial forward movement of Kennedy's head is correct; and that this is an
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> illusion.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Josiah Thompsons latest retraction is not correct and the forward movement
>
> >>
>
> >> of the Presidents head is not an illusion.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If the bullet at frame 313 had passed cleanly through the presidents head
>
> >>
>
> >> without any noticeable interaction with the President, then , maybe you
>
> >>
>
> >> would have a case for no forward movement of the head.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> But that is not what we see. We see the exact opposite. We see a very
>
> >>
>
> >> overt interaction of the bullet with the head. We see large bone fragments
>
> >>
>
> >> ejected in a FORWARD direction. The head would move in that same
>
> >>
>
> >> direction.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> When you cannot tell that someone has been hit by a bullet then you have
>
> >>
>
> >> an argument for no forward movement. When you can tell you do not.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Its like pulling a napkin out from under a glass. If you pull it quickly
>
> >>
>
> >> the glass does not move. If it happens slowly the glass falls over and you
>
> >>
>
> >> get all wet.
>
> >
>
> > What if the whole frame 313 was painted over and faked? You'd see
>
> > whatever the painter wanted you to see. It might not fit the physics that
>
> > we're discussing.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There is no paint on he filmstock.
>
>

Ah, here we go again with another correction and lecture. Now, in the
good old days of 1963, and even now in some cases, when the 'painting
over' was done, it wasn't done directly on film, though it probably was at
some point earlier in the history of film. The painting was done with a
special device that allowed the painting to appear separately to the
original film and they were then filmed again together on a new piece of
film.

The process above shows the paintwork as if it was directly on the film
that was recorded. If care is used in selecting the new film, it can be
made to look like the old film that was being faked, with identifying
numbers at the header and other marks. This process and others that have
the same effect were known and used in 1963, and the CIA 'Hawkeye Works'
had the equipment to do it, as well as having the film in their hands for
a short period of time on the weekend after the murder. And you can be
sure they didn't have the original film just to look at it for
entertainment.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Who's kidding who? The argument is that the bullet hit the head from
the front and caused it to fly back and to the left. As well, although
the film seems to show fragments flying forward, the witnesses that were
very close to the limo (the motorcycle cops, for instance) clearly saw
fragments fly backward!! The cops were hit by a great deal of blood,
brains, skull fragments and fluids at the left and rear of the limo.
Bobby Hargis comes to mind.

Floyd Boring testified that he found a piece of skull in the 'Queen
Mary' which was the following car that the SS rode in. He later took that
back, but he was very sure of it when he said it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:53:28 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/13/2013 9:58 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 9/6/2013 10:54 PM, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Den lördagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> people around.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>

> >>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly á bit more than

I guess that you've been trumped then. You saw 'A CAN' whereas I've
seen 'cans and bottles, filled and empty' go flying backward.

[Anthony Marsh]

Empty bottles shot and go flying backward. What are you smoking?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2013 7:55 PM, mainframetech wrote:

No, they didn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2013 7:54 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:51:37 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 9/13/2013 10:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 10:54:18 PM UTC-4, miker...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 9:03:42 PM UTC-5, Glenn V. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Den l�rdagen den 7:e september 2013 kl. 03:07:14 UTC+2 skrev John McAdams:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 6 Sep 2013 20:52:33 -0400, "Glenn V." <fle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> One could argue that this was a pistol, with much lower muzzle
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> velocity and therefore less momentum that a rifle round.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> But you are, in general, right that even rifle shots don't throw
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> people around.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The Smith & Wesson Special, used by the Saigon Police Chief in that clip,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>> has a muzzle velocity of 1.125 fps, which is roughly � bit more than

Zavada examined the camera original, not a copy.

>
> The process above shows the paintwork as if it was directly on the film
> that was recorded. If care is used in selecting the new film, it can be
> made to look like the old film that was being faked, with identifying
> numbers at the header and other marks. This process and others that have
> the same effect were known and used in 1963, and the CIA 'Hawkeye Works'
> had the equipment to do it, as well as having the film in their hands for
> a short period of time on the weekend after the murder. And you can be
> sure they didn't have the original film just to look at it for
> entertainment.
>

Pure imagination.

> Chris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

False charge.