That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
>
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> Back and to the left...
>
That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.
BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?
> >
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
> >
> > With careful examination you can determine that it looks like he
> > was struck from behind, because he was.
>
>
> With careful examination you can determine that everyone in the limo
> was struck from behind.
>
> Watch as Puddy ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to refute that statement.
>
> Because he *KNOWS* that everyone in the limo moved forward...
>
Lurkers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844017331882
>
> >> You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
> >> he was shot from he front.
> >
> > Just did, lurkers,
>
>
> No stupid, you didn't.
>
Lurkers you've read the constant stream of illogic and lies from beb. How credible is this statement then?
> You offered NO EXPLANATION AT ALL for the **FACT** that his "back and
> to the left" movement indicates a shot from the front.
>
Actually the explanation has been offered many times and persuasively. As well as why a bullet cannot move an entire torso dramatically like in Hollywood "blow away" fantasis. beb just doesn't like messy realities.
> You've simply changed the topic to a different movement that wasn't
> seen by anyone, and can only be seen by a frame by frame examination
> of the extant Z-film.
>
And analyzed scientifically at the link I just provided Lurkers.
>
> > although the main consideration is that the people seeing the
> > z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown
> > violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is
> > entertainment.
>
>
> So you acknowledge that it looks like he was shot from the front.
>
Bud acknowledged that beb and others only *think* this makes it look like he was struck from the front, because they have seen too many Hollywood presentations of the cinematically entertaining, but factually inaccurate "blown away" phenomenon. This has been both scientifically and empirically disproved many times.
> Why the lies, Puddy?
beb is quite distorted Lurkers. He thinks the truth is a lie and vice-versa. Just like his hero Mark Lane.