JFK's Second Head Motion Forward

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Reference is made to this conspiracy theorist argument:
http://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm

At the link below
http://www.6911norfolk.com/d0lbln/105f06/105f06-wohl-alvarez.pdf

You can see the graph of the movement of the President's head on page 10
of the paper. This comes from Josiah Thompson's work, SIX SECONDS IN
DALLAS published 48 years ago, in 1967.

The *assumption* by conspiracy theorists everywhere is that this motion
MUST be caused by a second bullet - but that just a logical fallacy known
as a false dilemma. They have not considered, nor eliminated, any other
cause. And of course, the autopsy eliminates their favorite theory from
consideration (the autopsy shows only one bullet strike on the head, from
behind), so their failure isn't just on one level, but on several. They
are therefore stuck claiming the autopsy (and the body) were false.

Ultimately, it comes down to an attempt to shift the burden of proof
(another logical fallacy), where they simply utter the claim of a second
bullet (using the backward motion of the President from the Z-film only)
and ask for the disproof of their assumption of a second bullet (such as
seen in the Mike Griffith article cited above, "This violent backward
motion defies scientific explanation").

But we also see in that graph another change of direction starting at
frame 322 - to my knowledge no one on either side of the aisle has argued
that this change of direction is the reaction to yet another shot. The
conspiracy theorist ignoring of this OTHER change of direction (which is
obviously caused by the President rebounding off the seat back) is a tacit
admission by conspiracy theorists that other explanations besides a bullet
strike for a change of direction IS possible.

There are several scientific alternatives beyond a bullet strike that have
been proposed over the years for the change of direction, none of which
have been eliminated by conspiracy advocates:

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
rebounds backward, taking the body with it.

If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move
backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have
not done.

Hank

[mainframetech]

If anyone wants to make anything out of the Z-film, they had better
think it through. The Z-film has been shown to have been altered by an
interview with Dino Brugione, CIA film analyst, who saw the ORIGINAL film
on Saturday after the murder. He then later saw the current version that
we are all familiar with and was "shocked" as to what had been done to
alter the film. Especially around the frame 313 area.

http://vimeo.com/102327635

As well, there are analyses that show the obvious alterations to the
film as to speed and other changes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Using the Z-film as a measuring instrument would be a mistake, and
anything stemming from that would be out of whack.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

We've only done it a few thousand times.
Are you forgetting about the back brace?

[James Morgan]

JOSIAH THOMPSON ADVISED THAT HE WAS MISTAKEN. THE VIDEO IS ON YOUTUBE.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Bump.

So far, no one has responded to the point made above. How can an argument
be made for a bullet causing the backward motion if other possibilities
aren't eliminated?

We've got an additional suggestion of a cause of the backward motion (the
back brace held him up, he went forward as far as possible, then rebounded
[by Anthony Marsh]); we've got an argument for a withdrawal of the FORWARD
motion by Josiah Thompson [by James Morgan]; and we've got an argument
that the Z-film can't be relied upon for any conclusions whatsoever
because it's altered [by mainframetech].

So no one has stepped forward to argue the backwards motion is legitimate
evidence of a bullet strike causing that motion.

Curious.

Anyone want to field this point?

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

What point? I have already addressed all points.
And Tink admitted he was wrong. Just forgive him and move on.

> Hank
>

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:07:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

No one can defend the backward motion as caused solely by a bullet?

Hank

[mainframetech]

I can offer proof of my contention that the Z-film has been altered.
The first part of the proof is the statements of Dino Brugione, CIA Film
Analyst, who had seen the ORIGINAL Z-film on Saturday after the murder.
He said when he saw the newer version of the Z-film that he was 'shocked'
at the changes they had made in the film.

https://vimeo.com/102327635

The second part is analyses that were made showing some of the faults
in the Z-film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

Chris

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You have responded to none in this thread. You added an additional
explanation for the backward motion in mentioning the back brace --
presumably you're pointing out the back brace held JFK upright, preventing
him from falling forward and making him rebound back.

So let's add that to the original post:

There are several scientific alternatives beyond a bullet strike that have
been proposed over the years for the change of direction, none of which
have been eliminated by conspiracy advocates:

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
rebounds backward, taking the body with it.

4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward and making him rebound back

If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move
backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have
not done.

Now, show us how the possible alternatives were eliminated, and how we're
left with a bullet being the cause of JFK's head motion backward, as
conspiracy theorists like to argue (see the original post, and the
original citation).

Hank

[Mike]

The backward motion was not caused by a bullet. It was the reaction to the
313 shot. The 313 shot struck the top of JFK's head and caused his head to
"bob" downward until it hit his chest. The backward motion was the
reaction to that movement. The head can only "bob" so far downward.

The knoll shot pushed JFK to the LEFT, not backward.( maybe a very slight
backward component.)

[Mike]

The problem is that Josiah Thompson was wrong when he said he was wrong!

Josiah had it right the first time but he may have had the numbers wrong.

The reason there was not as much forward movement from the 313 shot is
because that shot struck the top of JFK's head and pushed it down, not
so much forward. That bullet exited the right side temple area of jfks head.

And a second shot did indeed strike JFK a quarter second later.

There are two shots, not 1 shot and an echo.

There was actually one more shot, a shot around frame 327 - 329 that
missed JFK but may have struck Connally's wrist.

[Bud]

No, you really can`t. You can only shoot blanks.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:00:19 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

So you are conceding no conclusions can be drawn from the backward motion
of the head, correct? Because the film is altered, and therefore isn't
valid evidence and wouldn't be admissible in court?

Is that correct?

And you're advancing a totally different argument that you claim proves
conspiracy, based in part on the recollections of a octogenarian more than
four decades after the fact?

Is that correct?

Your initial argument is invalid because the Zapruder film was admitted in
court -- in the Clay Shaw trial in 1969... so it is admissible evidence,
and Zapruder testified it was the film he took (he also testified to that
in his Warren Commission testimony).

The argument utilizing Brugnione is meaningless, as it relies solely on
the validity of an recollection decades after the fact.

I didn't look at the links. Did any experts on photography make the claims
of alteration in the links you cite, or is this just conspiracy theorist
buff stuff by non-experts like Jack White?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

And you determined that how?
And you eliminated the other proposed causes how?

And the Z-film and the autopsy show no damage to the left side or the back
of the head why?

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you saying we didn't already destroy the jet effect. Please don't
say that you're stupid enough to still believe in that.

> 2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
> 3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
> it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
> rebounds backward, taking the body with it.
> 4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward and making him rebound back
>
> If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move
> backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have
> not done.
>

No. We don't have to accept your phony premises.

[Mike]

The shot from the Knoll came from a handgun, not a rifle.

[Mike]

I used the fine yellow mist we see above JFK's head in frame 313. I see
that mist forming a yellow cone with its apex at the top of JFK's head. I
believe that mist is impact spatter. If it is impact spatter the cone
points back to the shooter.

Fine yellow mist
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Nh6DQPwXijQ/UbkqGdHwIaI/AAAAAAAABbY/G2xlAe2bb04/w230-h171-no/z313j.jpg

Here is my animation hopefully showing the fine yellow mist I am talking
about...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SkVxNJqItGU/Uc2CD0wqJbI/AAAAAAAABpg/SWXw3n9qDnI/w830-h820-no/poimistvectors4.gif

This tells me the bullet struck the top of the presidents head.

I also used the head x-ray. The large round hole is where the bullet
exited. But you can see from the x-ray that the elaboration of the wound
is from top to bottom which I believe indicates the bullet path.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5pKrA2xCHe0/U4dn6pUDn9I/AAAAAAAADf4/9OxgNEFj8tE/w450-h588-no/skull_overlap.jpg

And finally

This picture which shows the top of the presidents skull is missing with a
large exit wound on the right side of the head.

I am interpreting this as a shot from the roof of the DCCCB or DCRB which
had a steep downward and left to right trajectory. The bullet struck the
top of the head and exited the right side of the head.

We also know that JFK had wounds consistent with being struck on the top
of the head, I think they call them contra-coup, injuries. That would be a
crushed vomer bone and spherical fracturing of the skull. David Lifton
misinterpreted this medical evidence to say that the someone performed
surgury on the presidents head. I think , rather , what all this tells us
is that the shot at frame 313 struck the top of the Presidents head and if
it did it had to come from the roof of one of the buildings. Because it
had such a strong left to right trajectory I think it came from the roof
of the DCCCB. If you did not know, the courtyard for the county jail was
on the roof of the DCCCB.

[Mike]

On 3/7/2015 6:14 PM, Mike wrote:

oops forgot to post the last picture.

Here it is.

Shows missing skull on top of head and large exit wound on right side of
head.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-iY-YMVoH9xc/UhDT-A6R4AI/AAAAAAAACKc/54di0yWcqSc/w1000-h772-no/topofhead06resizedellipse2.gif

[John Paul Jones]

Ive Been Looking for an example of a shooting causing a similar movement
on youtube. I cant find one thus far. The individuals are not being
thrust in any direction they are just collapsing.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You're just making unproven claims now and avoiding responding to any
questions; while ignoring the point I initially made - that unless you can
eliminate other possibilities, you can't argue for a bullet being the
cause of JFK's head movement.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Who in the above is "We", Tony, and where and when did they do it? The jet
effect was proposed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Do tell me the
qualifications of the "We" who destroyed it. Do cite their published
paper.

http://www.6911norfolk.com/d0lbln/105f06/105f06-wohl-alvarez.pdf

>
> > 2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
> > 3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
> > it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
> > rebounds backward, taking the body with it.
> > 4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward and making him rebound back
> >
> > If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move
> > backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have
> > not done.
> >
>
> No. We don't have to accept your phony premises.

I'm sorry, what is phony about the above? You don't get to argue that the
only thing that can cause JFK's head to move backward is a bullet strike,
because you do concede that other things can cause JFK's head to move
forward (for example, what is your explanation for the forward movement in
312-313, and for the forward movement after frame 320?

Did bullets cause both those movements? If not, explain why a bullet had
to cause the "back and to the left" motion Oliver Stone emphasized in the
movie JFK and that is argued world-wide for five decades indicates a shot
from the knoll.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

What caused the reversal of JFK's head motion after frame 320, when it
stops going backward and starts going forward?

Is a bullet the ONLY possible explanation for a reversal of the head
motion?

If not - if you concede other explanations are possible for a motion
reversal other than a bullet - how did you determine a bullet was
responsible for the head motion "back and to the left"?

Or are you just assuming what you need to prove?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

The people qualified to look at the body, or the extant autopsy materials,
and make that determination disagree strongly with you about what the
wounds reveal and where the entry and exit wounds were.

So what, exactly, are your qualifications to make the determinations
you're making? Have you looked at any of the first generation materials in
the archives, for instance?

And we're getting away from my point about the head motion entirely.

So let's get back on track. The head goes forward, back, then forward
again.

According to conspiracy theorists, the first forward motion is caused by
the car slowing down (so we know a bullet isn't the only thing that can
cause the head to move).

Also according to nearly everyone, the second forward motion is caused by
the head and body rebounding off the back of the seat (so we again know a
bullet isn't the only thing that can cause the head to move).

But for the second head motion, the one backward, it's argued by
conspiracy theorists that only a bullet could cause that motion.

Why is that their argument?

And what has been done by conspiracy theorists to consider, and eliminate
other possible causes?

Or has the bullet being the cause only been assumed, and conspiracy
theorists are simply shifting the burden of proof and asking 'lone
nutters' to disprove their contention that a bullet is the cause?

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Because the bullet didn't exit.
Are you claiming there was no damage to the back of the head because no
bullet struck there?

[Herbert Blenner]

Perhaps the following proof of the forward the nodding head motion as a
mechanical reaction to being shot would enable you to disprove the
backward motion as a mechanical reaction to being shot.

A victim is stationary on one frame and the next or the frame after next
shows them moving at full speed.

The victim remains at full speed until muscular action begins deceleration
or their moving part reaches the limit of its independent motion. In this
latter case the victim does not come to a complete stop. Instead the
earlier moving part shares its angular momentum with a larger portion of
the body.

These considerations outline two requirements for attributing a motion to
a mechanical reaction to being shot.

For example, the forward head snap of Z-312 and Z-313 satisfies the first
requirement. Examination of Z-313 and Z-314 suggests that the head nodded
as far as permitted by its attachment to the neck and shared its angular
momentum with a hunching back. So these frames satisfy the second
requirement.

The backward motions of the torso and head that begin on Z-314 and Z-315
do not satisfy the above requirements of a mechanical reaction of being
shot.

[Mike]

We have a picture of a man with a handgun on the knoll


https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-huqGdpxbM3w/Uh030GPYnaI/AAAAAAAACOg/3D_0ozMPHS0/w480-h360-no/bman.gif


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Jt48xO3RMl8/Uh03_HNW5xI/AAAAAAAACO4/FhCPizwE-Nk/w800-h269-no/betznercrop800bmancircl.png

> And the Z-film and the autopsy show no damage to the left side or the back
> of the head why?

The autopsy does show damage to back of the head.

The Moorman photo and zapruder fame 337 show us JFK was hit by two
shots to the head.

The Moorman photo shows us a normal back of head profile

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6Slx_HUJkFI/UmFimJpF4LI/AAAAAAAACmA/Q3X1ixEijBQ/w766-h800-no/moormanfullheadcropnega.png

But less than a second later we get a good look at the back of head
in frame 337 and it is not normal

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eGpnvbQpdek/UmKnWFno5nI/AAAAAAAACog/GNjCdjhv0Rg/w720-h480-no/z337.jpg


The skull x-ray confirms what we see in zapruder frame 337...one piece
of skull has been pushed back and over a rear piece of skull.


https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5pKrA2xCHe0/U4dn6pUDn9I/AAAAAAAADf4/9OxgNEFj8tE/w450-h588-no/skull_overlap.jpg

[Mike]

I am not getting away. You asked me in a prior post why I made the
statement I did.

The autopsy doctors did not have access to the crime scene photographs.
We do. The crime scene photographs tell us how the wounds were elaborated.

Regarding what caused the second movement forward you should be able to
figure that out yourself by looking at the z film. The head was measured
from the back of the seat. When JFK was struck in the head the second
time from the left front, once again we have an over extension of the
head but this time to the left and to the rear. The forward movement of
the head was a reaction to that over extension.

That graph shows the extreme acceleration that JFK's HEAD suffered.
First to the front, then rebound to the rear, then hit by an shot from
the left front , over extending the head to the rear and then the
rebound back to the front.

If they had made an additional measurement, with the lower back, it
would have told the complete story....

A measurement of the lower back would not have anywhere near that kind
of acceleration while the head did.

That curve shows that JFK was struck by two bullets in the head.

[Mike]

On 3/8/2015 10:08 PM, Mike wrote:

> I am not getting away. You asked me in a prior post why I made the
> statement I did.
>
> The autopsy doctors did not have access to the crime scene photographs.
> We do. The crime scene photographs tell us how the wounds were elaborated.
>
> Regarding what caused the second movement forward you should be able to
> figure that out yourself by looking at the z film. The head was measured
> from the back of the seat. When JFK was struck in the head the second
> time from the left front, once again we have an over extension of the
> head but this time to the left and to the rear. The forward movement of
> the head was a reaction to that over extension.
>
> That graph shows the extreme acceleration that JFK's HEAD suffered.
> First to the front, then rebound to the rear, then hit by an shot from
> the left front , over extending the head to the rear and then the
> rebound back to the front.
>
> If they had made an additional measurement, with the lower back, it
> would have told the complete story....
>
> A measurement of the lower back would not have anywhere near that kind
> of acceleration while the head did.
>
> That curve shows that JFK was struck by two bullets in the head.
>
>

I should have said "right front" instead of "left front" in the
preceeding post.

[Anthony Marsh]

What crime scene PHOTOGRAPHS. If you think the Zapruder film has been
altered then don' cite if for anything. I could claim that Walt Disney
drew in the mist by hand. Once you're an alterationist you are never
allowed to talk about ANY evidence.

> Regarding what caused the second movement forward you should be able to
> figure that out yourself by looking at the z film. The head was measured
> from the back of the seat. When JFK was struck in the head the second
> time from the left front, once again we have an over extension of the
> head but this time to the left and to the rear. The forward movement of
> the head was a reaction to that over extension.
>

Something like that. Do you realize that frame 313 was blurred?
You are an alterationist so you are not allowed to talk about the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are unreliable. You also see horses in clouds.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who? You mean Humes, Boswell and Finck? They were not qualified to look
at the body. That's why they sent the body to Bethesda.

> So what, exactly, are your qualifications to make the determinations
> you're making? Have you looked at any of the first generation materials in
> the archives, for instance?
>
> And we're getting away from my point about the head motion entirely.
>
> So let's get back on track. The head goes forward, back, then forward
> again.
>
> According to conspiracy theorists, the first forward motion is caused by
> the car slowing down (so we know a bullet isn't the only thing that can
> cause the head to move).
>
> Also according to nearly everyone, the second forward motion is caused by
> the head and body rebounding off the back of the seat (so we again know a
> bullet isn't the only thing that can cause the head to move).
>
> But for the second head motion, the one backward, it's argued by
> conspiracy theorists that only a bullet could cause that motion.
>

Have you ever heard of a pendulum?

> Why is that their argument?
>
> And what has been done by conspiracy theorists to consider, and eliminate
> other possible causes?
>

A lot. But you refuse to look.
Mr. Ostrich.

[Anthony Marsh]

We are the conspiracy believers. Over several years and in articles, in
books and conferences that you have never attended.

> effect was proposed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Do tell me the

That fine with me. Doesn't make it a fact. Phony Appeal to Authority.

> qualifications of the "We" who destroyed it. Do cite their published
> paper.
>

Yes, they do.

> http://www.6911norfolk.com/d0lbln/105f06/105f06-wohl-alvarez.pdf
>

Do you realize that Alvarez proved that the limo suddenly slowed down just
as I said? Therefor, according to your logic you must call Alvarez a liar.

>
>>
>>> 2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
>>> 3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
>>> it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
>>> rebounds backward, taking the body with it.
>>> 4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward and making him rebound back
>>>
>>> If conspiracy theorists want to argue for a shot causing the head to move
>>> backward, they must eliminate all possible alternatives. This they have
>>> not done.
>>>
>>
>> No. We don't have to accept your phony premises.
>
> I'm sorry, what is phony about the above? You don't get to argue that the
> only thing that can cause JFK's head to move backward is a bullet strike,

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth because you lost the
argument.

> because you do concede that other things can cause JFK's head to move
> forward (for example, what is your explanation for the forward movement in
> 312-313, and for the forward movement after frame 320?
>

Did you bother reading my article which I presented at a conference? No.
As Alvarez pointed out the limo suddenly showed down. That caused everyone
to move forward. It's called conservation of momentum. WHat forward
movement at frame 320? Only frame 320? You can't see any forward movement
before frame 320? JFK was thrown back and bounced off the back of the
seat.

> Did bullets cause both those movements? If not, explain why a bullet had

No, don't be silly. I don't believe in the two shots to the head theory.
Go peddle your theory to Chris.

> to cause the "back and to the left" motion Oliver Stone emphasized in the
> movie JFK and that is argued world-wide for five decades indicates a shot
> from the knoll.
>

Ask me if I care what Oliver Stone said. Go ahead, I triple dare you!!!!

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

The acoustical evidence proves it was a Carcano.

> And the Z-film and the autopsy show no damage to the left side or the back
> of the head why?
>

Because the bullet exploded.
BTW, I was going to write a separate message about this, but might as
well include it here.
This weekend I watched a show on AHC about assassination attempts on
Hitler. They pointed out that in Operation Foxley the Britieh planned to
use explosive bullets to make sure of a kill shot to the head.

> You're just making unproven claims now and avoiding responding to any
> questions; while ignoring the point I initially made - that unless you can
> eliminate other possibilities, you can't argue for a bullet being the
> cause of JFK's head movement.
>

Don't ask Mike. He doesn't know anything. Ask me.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

How can someone like you possibly find videos of people shot in the head?
You don't have the video of the Japanese executing kneeling Chinese by
shooting them in the back of the head with Arisakas, very similar to the
Carcano. Rape of Nanking.
BTW, do you know why they tie victims of firing squads to a pole?
So that the jet effect doesn't send them flying back towards the firing
squad!

[Mike]

I am not an alterationist. Again you do not know what you are talking
about.

>
>> Regarding what caused the second movement forward you should be able to
>> figure that out yourself by looking at the z film. The head was measured
>> from the back of the seat. When JFK was struck in the head the second
>> time from the left front, once again we have an over extension of the
>> head but this time to the left and to the rear. The forward movement of
>> the head was a reaction to that over extension.
>>
>
> Something like that. Do you realize that frame 313 was blurred?
> You are an alterationist so you are not allowed to talk about the evidence.

I am not an alterationist. Never have been.

Again, you barge in and do not know what the heck you are talking about.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Not my question. I asked nothing about the type of weapon. You're avoiding
the point. It appears you did concede the backward motion was not caused
by a bullet, so I think we're done here.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I'm sorry, I don't see anything that resembles a man or a handgun. Are
those the best images you have?

>
>
> > And the Z-film and the autopsy show no damage to the left side or the back
> > of the head why?
>
> The autopsy does show damage to back of the head.

Let me clarify... the autopsists found an entry wound back there, along
with damage radiating from that spot... they saw no large exit wound back
there that would be consistent with a shot from the right or front or
right-front.

Right?

>
> The Moorman photo and zapruder fame 337 show us JFK was hit by two
> shots to the head.
>
> The Moorman photo shows us a normal back of head profile
>
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6Slx_HUJkFI/UmFimJpF4LI/AAAAAAAACmA/Q3X1ixEijBQ/w766-h800-no/moormanfullheadcropnega.png
>
> But less than a second later we get a good look at the back of head
> in frame 337 and it is not normal
>
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-eGpnvbQpdek/UmKnWFno5nI/AAAAAAAACog/GNjCdjhv0Rg/w720-h480-no/z337.jpg

Looks normal to me. The damage I see is above the ear. The back of the
head looks like it still has hair on it. It may be deformed somewhat
because of the lack of integrity of the skull at that time, but it appears
whole.

>
>
> The skull x-ray confirms what we see in zapruder frame 337...one piece
> of skull has been pushed back and over a rear piece of skull.
>
>
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5pKrA2xCHe0/U4dn6pUDn9I/AAAAAAAADf4/9OxgNEFj8tE/w450-h588-no/skull_overlap.jpg

Not a massive exit wound, though... just a small entry wound with the
skull cracked from the bullet entry and exit.

>
> >
> > You're just making unproven claims now and avoiding responding to any
> > questions; while ignoring the point I initially made - that unless you can
> > eliminate other possibilities, you can't argue for a bullet being the
> > cause of JFK's head movement.
> >
> > Hank
> >

Still waiting for some solid reasons to eliminate the other proposed
causes other than a bullet. Your 'evidence' of a shooter appears to be
your own layman's (non-expert) opinion of what some very poor images show.
I'm likewise a layman, and my opinion counts as much as yours.

Is it true you believe the Zapruder film was altered? If so, as Anthony
Marsh informed you, you can't be citing the Z-film as evidence... you
either accept it or throw it out... but you can't have it both ways.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You can't draw any conclusions from evidence if you claim the evidence was
fabricated. Do you accept the legitimacy of the Zapruder film or do you
believe it was altered? It can't both be a forgery and legitimate
evidence. Right? So which is it?

>
> Regarding what caused the second movement forward you should be able to
> figure that out yourself by looking at the z film. The head was measured
> from the back of the seat. When JFK was struck in the head the second
> time from the left front, once again we have an over extension of the
> head but this time to the left and to the rear. The forward movement of
> the head was a reaction to that over extension.

In the above, you are assuming what you need to prove when you write "When
JFK was struck in the head the second time from the left [sic-right]
front".

You need to establish that, not just assume it.

You can't use the Z-film to establish it if you're claiming it's not
legitimate.

You need to eliminate the other potential causes:

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
rebounds backward, taking the body with it.



>

> That graph shows the extreme acceleration that JFK's HEAD suffered.
> First to the front, then rebound to the rear, then hit by an shot from
> the left front , over extending the head to the rear and then the
> rebound back to the front.

You are back to attributing the motion to a shot, but not eliminating the
other causes:

There are several scientific alternatives beyond a bullet strike that have
been proposed over the years for the change of direction, none of which
have been eliminated by conspiracy advocates:

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the
head rebounds backward, taking the body with it.

4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward

and making him rebound back.


Tell me how you eliminated the other causes.

>
> If they had made an additional measurement, with the lower back, it
> would have told the complete story....

Josiah Thompson's book SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS published the measurements in
1967... What's keeping you from making your own?

>
> A measurement of the lower back would not have anywhere near that kind
> of acceleration while the head did.
>
> That curve shows that JFK was struck by two bullets in the head.

No, that's the *assumption* on your part - based on what you claim is a
faked film. Tell me you understand the problem with that approach.

How did you eliminate the other proposed causes (my initial question,
still unanswered):

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the
head rebounds backward, taking the body with it.

4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward

and making him rebound back.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant there was no massive blowout in the rear
of the skull as argued by some. The autopsy determined there was a small
entry wound back there, and a loss of integrity to the skull because of
the numerous fractures radiating from both the entry and exit wounds in
the skull.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Yes, exactly. The argument that the momentum of a bullet would thrust JFK
backward that fast and that far has never been established. Nor has the
other potential arguments for the head motion ever been ruled out via
testing of any sort. They've pretty much been ignored or dismissed.

1. The jet effect as discussed in the link above.
2. A neuromuscular reaction to the President's brain being blasted out.
3. The rebound effect - the President's head is pushed forward as far as
it can go, and the chin gets compressed against the chest, and then the head
rebounds backward, taking the body with it.

4. The back brace held JFK upright, preventing him from falling forward and
making him rebound back.

No critic has ever approached this in a systematic way, eliminating the
other potential causes through experimentation, to wind up with only one
possibility, a bullet imparting its momentum from the right front. It's
typically just claimed, as we see in the original post, that the only
thing that could cause this motion is a bullet from the right-front. But
no proof of that is ever offered.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Sorry, no. I need not disprove that. That's just an attempt at shifting
the burden of proof.

Rather, anyone arguing it was a second bullet that caused JFK's head to
move backward has the responsibility to prove their claim, instead of just
assuming it's true and arguing that it needs to be disproven.

Hank

[Mike]

No. You see horses in clouds.

That figure is easier to see than Zapruder.

[Mike]

On 3/10/2015 9:46 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Actually Tony you are the one who has been shown to be unreliable.

We all have figured out that no matter how firmly you state
something we cannot rely on what you say.

You just repeat what the HSCA found, which we know to be unreliable.

[Mike]

Don't ask Tony, he is the one who does not have a clue about what
happened.


>> Hank
>>
>
>

[Mike]

On 3/10/2015 12:45 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

The acoustical evidence does not prove it was a Carcano.

The shot from the knoll was not from a carcano.

Tony can not show you or anyone the shock wave for the shot from the
knoll which would be required for it to have come from a carcano, or any
other type of rifle for that matter.

Tony can only repeat what the HSCA said. He does not know anything
about this.

[Mike]

No it is not true that I believe the z film was altered. Tony trys to
spread this type of incorrect information when he thinks he is losing
influence.

To the contrary, I believe that the zapruder film is some of the best
photographic evidence we have.

You should know this because I posted a link to several frames of the
zfilm where i offered my interpretation of the yellow mist that is seen
above the presidents head as impact spatter. I believe that frame
contains information that can be used to point to the location of the
shooter as being on the roof of the DCRB or DCCCB.

You should also recall that I used the zfilm frame 237 to show the
damage to the back of the presidents head.

[Mike]

Now you are making a big mistake.

I am not an alterationist, I have never been an alterationionist.

Tony incorrectly said I was and you believed him.

I am trying to tell you... you cannot listen to everything Tony says.
When he is feeling he is losing influence he trys to discredit people.

[Mike]

You think the back of the head looks normal?

That is a rhetorical question. I am not going to waste my time with
someone is is pretending to want to understand what happened.

>
>
>>
>>
>> The skull x-ray confirms what we see in zapruder frame 337...one piece
>> of skull has been pushed back and over a rear piece of skull.
>>
>>
>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-5pKrA2xCHe0/U4dn6pUDn9I/AAAAAAAADf4/9OxgNEFj8tE/w450-h588-no/skull_overlap.jpg
>
>
>
> Not a massive exit wound, though... just a small entry wound with the
> skull cracked from the bullet entry and exit.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You're just making unproven claims now and avoiding responding to any
>>> questions; while ignoring the point I initially made - that unless you can
>>> eliminate other possibilities, you can't argue for a bullet being the
>>> cause of JFK's head movement.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>>
>
> Still waiting for some solid reasons to eliminate the other proposed
> causes other than a bullet. Your 'evidence' of a shooter appears to be
> your own layman's (non-expert) opinion of what some very poor images show.
> I'm likewise a layman, and my opinion counts as much as yours.

That is not the only evidence of a shooter at that location.

That is just one piece of evidence.

[Mike]

You should be able to tell from this gif animation that JFK was struck
by two bullets to the head.

Watch his right arm. It goes limp after the second shot.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-YiLPNc1WbSs/UwoSVAAKeII/AAAAAAAADDE/BvtLQhdTV4Q/w720-h480-no/403cfcc8-b661-40d9-b526-a1eaf4f4f5c4.gif

[Herbert Blenner]

Your lack of understanding is showing.

A frontal shot would have driven the head as far rearward as permitted by
its attachment to the neck without rearward movement of the torso. This
motion would have appeared as an instantaneous snap that caused the
nodding head to look upward.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am the guy who corrected the HSCA, not you.
I was the first to criticize the HSCA, not you.

[Anthony Marsh]

In fact there was no hole of any type on the back of the head. Did you
understand Randy Robertson's article? Do you what Contrecoup is? I asked
the guy who did my CT scan at the hospital Wednesday and he had never
heard of it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Professor Weiss did in the HSCA hearing which you never saw. And he
estimated later that the muzzle velocity was between 2200 and 2300 fps.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg

[Mike]

You did not correct the HSCA. You found a 1 foot error in a map and
informed the surveyors.

But that is the problem that we today have to deal with.

You let it go to your head and you think that your opinions are
invincible and should not be challenged.

You are too quick to discount things that you have wrong and/or do
not understand.

You got a few things right and many more things wrong and you play
your "i went to the archives" card far to often to create the false
sense of credibility that you think you deserve.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly.

[Mike]

Mr. Weiss did not analyze the grassy knoll shot.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

There was a small entrance hole.

I feel confident that the CT scan of your head showed nothing.

Yes, thanks for the set up.

[Mike]

Anthony Marsh does not have the moral authority to use words like
"silly" because he does not recognize those aspects of his own theory of
the case which are "silly".

[Anthony Marsh]

No, there wasn't. There was only a small blood clot according to Humes.

> I feel confident that the CT scan of your head showed nothing.
>

Well why didn't you complete that insult by pointing out that the CT
scan did not show any brain? You guys are slipping.

> Yes, thanks for the set up.

Yes, thanks again for showing WHAT you are.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

He and Aschkenazy were brought in specifically to analyze he grassy
knoll shot.

He even pointed out the shock wave.

[Mike]

Again, he did not analyze the grassy knoll shot.

If you had studied the acoustic evidence you would know that.

[Mark Florio]

Tony, you cannot get offended when people get personal on you. Recall my
"gulag." You really, really can't if you want to have any credibility.
Mark Florio.

[Herbert Blenner]

Knowledgeable people call it the law of inertia that assets the moving
head tends to stay in motion until restrained by its attachment to the
torso.