JFK's forward, then back head movement
Daniel Stevenson
or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
shot from behind.
BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
Thoughts?
cdddraftsman
The Academic JFK Assassination Site
Stressing physical evidence and critical thinking
Prof. Kenneth A. Rahn
"The physics monograph shows that the quick forward movement of JFK's
head is fully explained by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from the
depository (and indeed requires such a bullet), and secondly that the
following two-phase movement of JFK's head and torso to the rear
requires a quick mechanical recoil (jet effect) followed by a longer,
slower bodily recoil, most likely in the form of a stiffening of the
back (neuromuscular reaction)".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
Misc. images
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Misc._images/Misc_images.html
Images from the Zapruder film
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Issues_and_evidence/Zapruder_film/Zapruder_film.html
Animations from Alexandre le Bienheureux
Improved view of the quick forward snap (December 2003)
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Issues_and_evidence/Zapruder_film/Improved_view_of_snap.html
"Mr. Alexandre le Bienheureux of Brussels has provided the best
graphical view of JFK's quick forward snap that I have seen so far. He
has been gracious enough to allow me to post it here. He took images
of frames 312 through 315 from John Masland's site (http://
www.jmasland.com/z_frames.htm).
http://www.jmasland.com/z_frames.htm To the image of a given frame he
then added the images of the next frame in four 25% steps. Each
transitional image appears for 1/2 second, the images of the starting
and ending frames for 1 second. Here is the result. You can clearly
see the head snap forward between 312 and 313. You can then see the
head and body begin to lurch rearward around 315. I had to view this
sequence many times to absorb all of its detail. Don't be surprised if
you have to, as well. Good luck! This is important stuff, for it shows
that the killing shot came from the rear".
Z-Frames - 312-315
"This work is also important because it allows anyone to see the
reality of the forward snap, which has come under some revisionism
lately from David Wimp and others. But they are wrong, as you can see
for yourself here".
12 December 2003
"Here is a broader and longer view of the forward snap and the
beginning of the rearward lurch, also provided by Alexandre. He used
better images for this work. The sequence starts at 311 and continues
through 317. View it repeatedly, and you will see not only JFK's
motions, but the lack of corresponding motions by any of the other
passengers. This gives the lie to ideas that an deceleration of the
car caused any of the motions—it didn't happen that way. I also think
I see a quick little rearward snap in 314 (sort of a "pop-back") right
after the forward snap. If so, it would likely be a visible
manifestation of the jet effect".
Z-Frames - 311-317
"Alexandre has also provided separate small-scale animations for 311–
316, 312–313, 313–314, and 314–315. I encourage anyone who wants to
focus on details (where the Devil is in this case) to study these
little sequences. To my eye, they show even more strongly the snap in
313, a little pop-back at 314, and the beginning of the big lurch in
315".
Prof. Rahn
end ....
tl
WhiskyJoe
> Thoughts?
I am not certain what you mean. On one
hand you say "It's quite clear on the
Z-film that JFK's head moves forward
just a frame or so before the head shot."
You seem to acknowledge that JFK's head
does move forward. But then you say
"... how likely is it that two frames
taken 1/18 sec apart would show two
movements" which seems to say that
any forward movement is unlikely or at
least unlikely to show up on film.
It's really not a question of probability.
There is no doubt the head did move forward
between Z312 and Z313. This can most clearly
be seen at:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
in the large picture alternating between
Z312 and Z313.
The explanation is straight forward.
A bullet struck about the time the
shutter closed for Z312. About half
the momentum of the bullet was transferred
to the head. The head moved forward at
2 MPH so by the time the shutter opened
for Z313, the head had moved 1 inch forward
and by the time it closed for Z313, the head
had moved 2 inches forward.
Immediately, between Z313 and Z314, the
head started moving backwards. Could this
be from a bullet from the front? Maybe,
but their are technical reasons against
this. But the most straight forward reason
is, how likely is it that two bullets would
strike within 1/18th of a second of each other?
A scenario based on a fantastic coincidence
should be rejected if we have a different
explanation which involves no coincidence,
that is, all movement was caused by one cause,
one bullet. I think this explanation would
be superior if there was no other sign that
JFK had a neurological spasm.
But, of course, there is such a clear sign.
Immediately after the bullet struck, his
right arm jerks upwards, faster than the
head ever moved. His elbow rose at least
six inches. We can't see the left arm,
but it may have been held down somewhat
by Jackie.
Of course, if one is wedded to the notion
that the backward movement was caused by
a bullet from the front, one can say, the
forward movement of the head was caused
by something else, it had nothing to do
with any bullet strike. It was just a
coincidence the forward head movement
occurred one frame before the head is
seen to explode. The upward movement
of the right arm was caused by something
else, it had nothing to do with a bullet
strike. It was just a coincidence we see
the right elbow rise abruptly by Z316.
But explanations that avoid contrived
coincidences are better. The
* forward movement of the head
during Z312-313.
* backward movement of the head
during Z313-318.
* the rise of the right arm
during Z315-318.
are not unrelated events that just happened
to occur right about the same time. They are
instead consequences of one action, at bullet
strike from the rear at the end of Z312,
which caused a neurological spasm,
contracting all muscles below the neck,
with the stronger muscles winning out,
causing:
** the head to move back
** the torso to move back
** the right arm to rise
> Any momentary forward movement would
> have been reversed too quickly to show
> up on film.
Josiah Thompson in his book "Six Seconds
in Dallas" said a neurological response
can occur within about 70 ms. If true,
the response could occur soon after the
shutter closes for Z313 and will be
noticeable, by the head starting to
move backwards, by the time the shutter
opens for Z314. Under the "Neurological
Spasm" theory, the forward movement will
not be momentary. One would expect the
head to move forward one frame, perhaps
two, before the head is seen to start
moving backwards. And this is exactly
what is shown in the Zapruder film.
Herbert Blenner
The head began to move forward as the bullet entered the skull and
continued until restrained by its the attachment to the torso. For
details see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Herbert
curtjester1
Good point as if there were a behind hit, it would seem much more
dramatic....and well with the 'reverse physics', it's all too
unconvincing, that is, the authenticity of the film and what we are seeing
in the extant film. The trouble about having the film be true and
authentic is that if it isn't back and front shots to the head are
entirely possible. The forward movement could merely be the last part of
what was happening one second or so prior. Of course when so many people
saw the head components being blasted out from behind and were seeing a
mess behind or victims of a mess, and that mysterious 'blob' that no one
seemed to articulate from the witness side, it isn't hard to deem that
there was a concerted effort to taint the film.
yeuhd
As others have said, the bullet entered the skull at Z-312. This moved
the head forward about two inches, and caused the skull to explode out
at Z-313.
The backward head movement after Z-313 has no such explosion of blood
and brain tissue. Nor was any damage found on the left side of
President Kennedy's head.
John Blubaugh
The LNers will have all kinds of magic theories to explain this but the
fact is that everyone in the limo was moving forward because the driver
was braking. The violent back and to the left reaction you see is the
reaction to a head shot. Now, you figure all of that out and you will have
to decide as most people do that the shot came from the right front of the
limo.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 14, 11:51 pm, Daniel Stevenson<danielstvn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
>> or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
>> shot from behind.
>>
>> BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
>> frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
>> forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> As others have said, the bullet entered the skull at Z-312. This moved
> the head forward about two inches, and caused the skull to explode out
> at Z-313.
>
Fiction.
> The backward head movement after Z-313 has no such explosion of blood
> and brain tissue. Nor was any damage found on the left side of
> President Kennedy's head.
>
Wrong. Look at the autopsy photos. The skull is blasted out on the left
Daniel Stevenson
Thanks for the helpful responses. I'm sorry that my post was not as clear
as it could have been.
The small movement of the head forward at 312-13 seems to be excellent
evidence for a rear shot, followed by jet effect/neurologically induced
backwards movement.
In attempting to play devil's advocate, I came up with the following idea:
that the observed small forward movement COULD NOT have been due to a
bullet entering from the rear, as the time window would have been too
short to be captured on the Z-film before its emphatic reversal. That is,
even with the slowing due to encountering the skull, a bullet travelling
at 2000 feet /sec would exit, bringing the jet effect, so soon after entry
that any forward motion would not be captured between two frames roughly
0.06 seconds apart.
I don't feel I have the background to assess the viability of this
hypothesis, and I wonder if others have done so, or if CTers have put out
any halfway convincing explanation of this movement.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. The head started moving forward before the shot.
> Herbert
>
yeuhd
Fiction.
WhiskyJoe
Post by: Cdddraftsman
> Prof. Kenneth A. Rahn
> "The physics monograph shows that the
> quick forward movement of JFK's head
> is fully explained by a
> Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from the
> depository (and indeed requires such
> a bullet), and secondly that the
> following two-phase movement of JFK's
> head and torso to the rear requires a
> quick mechanical recoil (jet effect)
> followed by a longer, slower bodily
> recoil, most likely in the form of a
> stiffening of the back
> (neuromuscular reaction)".
I agree with your whole post, except for
part where you quote Dr. Rahn about the
"Jet Effect". Dr. Rahn has done a very
good study of the "Jet Effect", which is a
real phenomena. But it is clear from the
Zapruder film that there was no jet effect,
at least, not a jet effect to the back.
Different studies have all concluded that
the head moved 2 inches forward between
Z312-313. The momentum of a WCC/MC bullet
can push an 8 pound weight at 4 MPH. Since
only about half the momentum was transferred
to the head, that could push the head at
2 MPH which works out to be 2 inches per
Zapruder frame. So the head was struck just
as the shutter closed at Z312.5, moved 1 inch
by the time the shutter opened at Z313.0 and
ended up moving another inch by Z313.5.
So, a possible explanation is:
at Z312.5: the bullet struck
at Z313.5: the head had moved forward,
at 2 mph, 2 inches
at Z313.5: the head exploded and the
jet effect took effect, which started
pushing the head backwards.
The problems with this is:
* it is unbelievable it would take 55 ms
for the head to exploded.
* and more importantly, we can see from
Z313 that the head did explode, not at
the end of Z313, but well before that.
Indeed, the Harper fragment can pinpoint
when the head exploded. You can see a
series of dots above and in front of
JFK's head, leading away from his head.
The dots are two to four feet from his head.
These dots were likely caused by the
spinning Harper fragment. When edge on,
it was invisible, when face on, it shows
as a dot. This is consistent with the head
exploding at Z312.5, within a few
milliseconds of the bullet strike, the
Harper fragment flies up at 50 MPH,
50 inches per Zapruder frame and is
visible 24 to 48 inches from JFK's head.
At Z313.0, the Harper fragment would be
24 inches away, at Z313.5, it would be
48 inches way from the head. In Z314,
the fragment is briefly visible about
8 feet from his head. All consistent
with the Harper fragment starting to fly
at about Z312.5 and moving up at 50 MPH.
So, it appears the head explosion did
not occur at Z313.5. It occurred at
about Z312.5. So the head would have
been pushed by the jet effect starting
at Z312.5. That being the case, why was
the head not pushed backwards during
Z312-313? Why was it pushed forward two
inches, as if it was only effected by
the momentum received from the bullet?
Because the jet effect failed to push
the head backwards. There is no other
explanation.
Why did the jet effect failed to push
the head backwards when it's been
demonstrated with taped melons and even
a human skull stuffed with animal brains?
I don't know. It may be that the matter
that was ejected only had a fraction of
the momentum received from the bullet.
Or, since it was the side of the head
that exploded, the jet effect may have
pushed the head sideways, to the left,
not backwards. This would not be
measurable from Zapruder's angle.
In any case, I have never heard an
experiment with a taped melon or any
similar target, where the target moved
a full inch away from the shooter
before reversing direction and heading
back toward the shooter. In all cases,
the jet effect takes place immediately
and the melon flies back toward the
shooter.
WhiskyJoe
yeuhd
> On Dec 15, 12:51 am, Daniel Stevenson <danielstvn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
> > or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
> > shot from behind.
>
> > BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
> > frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
> > forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> The LNers will have all kinds of magic theories to explain this but the
> fact is that everyone in the limo was moving forward because the driver
> was braking.
No, they were not. See this animation of Z312–Z313:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
None of the three other occupants in the frame moves forward in
relation to fixed points in the vehicle. As the white lines show, the
right edges of Jacqueline Kennedy's head and John Connally's head
remain the same distance from the door handle. In contrast, President
Kennedy's head moves forward not only in relation to fixed points in
the limousine, but in relation to Jacqueline Kennedy too. There is a
significant closing of the gap between his head and hers.
Anthony Marsh
Herbert Blenner
Your statement is meaningless, since every head in the limousine was
moving with respect to Dealey Plaza.
Frames Z-311 and Z-312 show that President Kennedy's head was
stationary with respect to the heads of Governor Connally and Mrs.
Kennedy. This observation along knocks down your foolish deceleration
excuse.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
The following pair of frames, Z-312 and Z-313, show Kennedy's head
rotated forward with respect to the heads of Connally and Mrs.
Kennedy.
Apparently, Marsh you still have not learned that all motion is
relative.
Herbert
bigdog
> On Dec 15, 12:51 am, Daniel Stevenson <danielstvn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
> > or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
> > shot from behind.
>
> > BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
> > frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
> > forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> Good point as if there were a behind hit, it would seem much more
> dramatic....
An invalid assumption. Bullets do not have the throw weight to cause
dramatic movements. That is a Hollywood illsusion. There is minimal
momentum transfer from a bullet to a body that it transits. A bullet
strikes a body with x amount of force and exits it with y amount of force.
The amount of force that is transfered to the body is x-y. I would like to
see a CT do an experiment in which an object the size and weight of JFK's
head and torso are shot with a high powered rifle to demonstrate how much
or how little force gets transfered to the object. Methinks no CT would be
willing to conduct such an experiment because they realize it is likely
the object would be moved just a few inches, about the amount we see JFK's
head move forward from Z312 to Z313.
bigdog
One thing you can count on. No CT will ever conduct any type of
recreation of the shot to demonstrate the physics involved because
physics is not their friend.
cdddraftsman
Thats why I linked a 200 page (monograph) length physics treatise that
explains all of this :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
I guess you like guessing on forever rather than closure .... too
bad .
tl
WhiskyJoe
> Post by John Blubaugh
> The LNers will have all kinds of magic
> theories to explain this but the fact
> is that everyone in the limo was moving
> forward because the driver was braking.
> The violent back and to the left
> reaction you see is the reaction to a
> head shot. Now, you figure all of that
> out and you will have to decide as most
> people do that the shot came from the
> right front of the limo
John claims everyone in the limousine
moved forward during Z312-313. I claim
only JFK moved forward then. Do not take
John's word on this. Do not take my word
on this. Instead, go to:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
And look at the large picture alternating between
Z312 and Z313.
To which, the only reply John can make is
"Who are you going to believe, me or your
eyes."
But no matter how one tries to spin it,
the back of JFK's head moves forward
1 inch, while the front moves 2.
Sounds contradictory, but when the shutter
opened at Z313 (Z313.0) JFK's head was
only one inch forward. By the time the
shutter closed for Z313 (Z313.5) JFK's
head was two inches forward. You can't
see where the front of the head was at
Z313.0 nor where the back of the head
was at Z313.5. Those images were, of
course "double exposed". With the head
moving forward one can only see where
the back of the head was when the
shutter opened and where the front of
head was when it closed.
WhiskyJoe
> Wrong. Look at the autopsy photos.
> The skull is blasted out on the left
> side of President Kennedy's head.
?????
No, the skull was blasted out on the
right side of the head.
WhiskyJoe
> Post by: Daniel Stevenson
> The small movement of the head forward
> at 312-13 seems to be excellent evidence
> for a rear shot, followed by
> jet effect/neurologically induced
> backwards movement.
> In attempting to play devil's advocate,
> I came up with the following idea:
> that the observed small forward
> movement COULD NOT have been due to a
> bullet entering from the rear, as the
> time window would have been too short
> to be captured on the Z-film before its
> emphatic reversal. That is, even with
> the slowing due to encountering the
> skull, a bullet traveling at
> 2000 feet /sec would exit, bringing
> the jet effect, so soon after entry
> that any forward motion would not be
> captured between two frames roughly
> 0.06 seconds apart.
OK, now I understand. Yes, you are exactly
correct. The jet effect cannot be delayed
a significant amount of time. Certainly
not by the time interval of one frame,
55 milliseconds. The neurological spasm
can be delayed and naturally would be
delayed, perhaps by 70 milliseconds.
It takes a little time for nerve impulses
to travel down the spinal cord and start
reaching muscles. Therefore, forward
movement, then the backwards movement
is best explained by a bullet push
followed by a neurological spasm.
Not by a bullet push followed by the
jet effect. If that had happened, we
would not observe the head move forward.
The head would be pushed back immediately.
> I don't feel I have the background to
> assess the viability of this hypothesis,
> and I wonder if others have done so,
> or if CTers have put out any halfway
> convincing explanation of this movement.
Most of their explanations are not
at all convincing. None are totally
convincing.
Some claim there is no forward movement
of JFK's head. The movement observed in
the film is some sort of an illusion,
brought on by blurring. Not a convincing
argument.
Others claim that yes, his head does
move forward. But so does everyone
else's in the limousine. The movement
is brought on by braking. Clearly not
true as one can see from the film.
And besides, a sudden slowing down
of 2 inches per frame, a slowing
down of 4 MPH in 1/18th of a second,
would require brakes that decelerate
the limousine with a force of 4 G's,
about 10 times the braking force of
the limousine.
If this was true, at 8 MPH, the limousine
could have stopped in 1/10th of a second
and at 60 MPH the limousine could stop
within 1 second. If you ever drive around
in a vehicle with brakes this good, you
better have your seatbelt and shoulder
strap on real good and tight before you
stand on the brakes.
The CTers best explanation, which Josiah
Thompson adopted in the 1960's but abandon
some 30 years later, is that JFK's head
was pushed forward, by a bullet at Z312,
then pushed back by a bullet at Z313.
****************************************
Technical note:
A slowing down of 2 inches translates to
slowing down by 4 MPH?
Yes it does. If the limousine did slow
by 4 MPH during Z312-313, at Z312.5 the
speed would still by 8 MPH. At Z313.5
the speed would be 4 MPH. The average
speed during Z312.5-313.5 would then be
6 MPH. With JFK's head still moving
at 8 MPH, that would cause the head
to move forward by 2 inches, relative
to the limousine.
Herbert Blenner
A bullet does not transfer a force to the target equal to the
difference between the force at striking and the force at exit.
Instead the bullet transfers a momentum to the target that is always
equal to the momentum of the bullet at striking minus the momentum of
the bullet at exit. Of course when the target stops the bullet then
the transferred momentum equals the momentum of the bullet at
striking.
The transfer of momentum changes the speed of the target. In turn the
target continues moving with its new speed until an external force
changes this ballistically acquired speed. When this external force
arises from attachment of the target to a greater mass then the target
undergoes rotation in addition to translation. Usually an external
force slows or stops the target.
A properly designed experiment would show that a MC bullet, which
transited from the right rear to the right front of a head mounted on
a gooseneck joint would spin to its left and have a slighter bowing
motion. For this reason, experimenters generally use a rigid mount
for their simulated head to evade this troublesome result.
For details see:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflcit.htm
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Many people will ignore any experiment that does not support their
preconceived ideas. In particular Chad Zimmerman fired a bullet
through a hanging turkey. This target was free to rotate with two
degrees of freedom just as a human head upon a neck. Further the wound
tracks through the turkey and the wound track confined to the right
side of President Kennedy's head were both off-centered. The
mechanical reaction of the turkey consisted of the familiar pendulum
motion and a more pronounced spin.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/turkey.mpg
No doubt Chad did not intend to demonstrate the conflict between the
medical evidence and the Zapruder film. Nevertheless his experiment
confirmed my theoretical analysis that shows a leftward spin of the
head should have accompanied the downward nod that we see in the
Zapruder film. For details see the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
This missing spin would have dominated the mechanical reaction for a
low entry and would have been comparable with nod motion for a high
entry. In any event, analysis enables partitioning the head into
regions where one angular motion dominates over the other.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/partition.jpg
Besides underscoring the conflict between the medical evidence and the
Zapruder film, this analysis shows the inadequacy of recreations that
rigidly mount a simulated head.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jodi Butterfoss
And I suppose 'neuro-forces' have such a physics backing that they can
show why JFK had so much dramatics during the Z Film?
CJ
bigdog
I think Tony is losing it. In all the years, this is the first time
I've ever seen a CT claim the left side of the head was blown out. Of
course, this is what would have happened if the head shot had been
fired from the GK, and since Tony believes the head shot was fired
from the GK, then the left side must have been blown out. A classic
example of drawing the conclusion first, than massaging the evidence
to fit the conclusion.
Jodi Butterfoss
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert, I wish I could have got the link to come up. It sounds very
interesting, indeed.
CJ
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The driving force behind JFK's movements following the head shot was
his neuro-muscular reaction caused by the devastating blow to his
brain. This force took over almost immediately and overwhelmed all
other forces in play including momentum transfer, jet effect, or spin
imparted by the bullet, all of which would have been negligible
anyway.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are talking about the neuro-muscular reaction, that is the only
force that would have been sufficiently strong enough to throw JFK
backward in his seat.
jas
> It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
> or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
> shot from behind.
>
> BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
> frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
> forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>
> Thoughts?
This can be answered with good 'ol common sense physics observation:
There's a difference between the *bullet* traveling at 2000 fps and
Kennedy's head movement. Obviously, his head is not going to start
moving at 2000 fps as the bullet strikes, so the head movement is slow
enough to be detected on the Z-film.
ShutterBun
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullets don't throw people's heads around. Muscles do.
The Dutchman
The neuro-forces and the jet effect aren't proven. They just make more
sense than other explanations. To embrace the other explanations it
seems you would have to go with improbabilities, as opposed to
probabilities.
Anthony Marsh
It WAS that good and that's why everyone was thrown forward, because
they didn't have seatbelts.
The limo did not stop. It suddenly slowed down.
> The CTers best explanation, which Josiah
> Thompson adopted in the 1960's but abandon
> some 30 years later, is that JFK's head
> was pushed forward, by a bullet at Z312,
> then pushed back by a bullet at Z313.
>
> ****************************************
>
> Technical note:
>
> A slowing down of 2 inches translates to
> slowing down by 4 MPH?
>
> Yes it does. If the limousine did slow
> by 4 MPH during Z312-313, at Z312.5 the
> speed would still by 8 MPH. At Z313.5
> the speed would be 4 MPH. The average
Your equations are simplistic and your math is wrong.
> speed during Z312.5-313.5 would then be
> 6 MPH. With JFK's head still moving
> at 8 MPH, that would cause the head
> to move forward by 2 inches, relative
> to the limousine.
>
Silly. Alvarez studied the Zapruder film and found that it suddenly
slowed down from about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH at about frame Z-300.
Anthony Marsh
The autopsy photos and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show that the
left side of the skull was also blasted out.
Herbert Blenner
Anthony Marsh
Garbage. I can recreate anything you want. But I can't use explosive
bullets because the are illegal. Dr. McCarthy is a CT who recreated the
head shot with a glycerin bullet.
Anthony Marsh
>> On Dec 15, 12:51 am, Daniel Stevenson<danielstvn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
>>> or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
>>> shot from behind.
>>
>>> BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
>>> frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
>>> forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Good point as if there were a behind hit, it would seem much more
>> dramatic....
>
> An invalid assumption. Bullets do not have the throw weight to cause
> dramatic movements. That is a Hollywood illsusion. There is minimal
Then why do you falsely claim that an Oswald bullet thrust Kennedy's
head forward 2.3 inches in half a Zapruder frame? How many fps does that
equal. Do the math.
> momentum transfer from a bullet to a body that it transits. A bullet
> strikes a body with x amount of force and exits it with y amount of force.
> The amount of force that is transfered to the body is x-y. I would like to
> see a CT do an experiment in which an object the size and weight of JFK's
> head and torso are shot with a high powered rifle to demonstrate how much
> or how little force gets transfered to the object. Methinks no CT would be
> willing to conduct such an experiment because they realize it is likely
> the object would be moved just a few inches, about the amount we see JFK's
> head move forward from Z312 to Z313.
>
>
Which experiment? Not your straw man experiment.
Anthony Marsh
All derivative and all wrong.
> Z312-313. The momentum of a WCC/MC bullet
> can push an 8 pound weight at 4 MPH. Since
Show us your math.
Show us your assumptions.
> only about half the momentum was transferred
> to the head, that could push the head at
> 2 MPH which works out to be 2 inches per
> Zapruder frame. So the head was struck just
Bad math.
> as the shutter closed at Z312.5, moved 1 inch
> by the time the shutter opened at Z313.0 and
> ended up moving another inch by Z313.5.
>
You are measuring the blur in frame Z-313.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
In your much less than expert opinion.......... LNs always seem to
state their opinions as fact.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Opinion, not fact.
JB
jas
Do you make absurd statements just to aggravate people, or do you
really enjoy embarrassing yourself on a public forum?
John Blubaugh
More opinion stated as fact.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yet another opinion stated as though it is a scientific truth.
JB
John Blubaugh
Now this is well stated and the poster makes it clear it is his
opinion not a proven fact. Well done.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, Marsh quotes a source so this is fact, not opinion. Anybody keep
score?
JB
Anthony Marsh
Now you've changed your claim when challenged. Instead of the head and
torso you now say head. And indeed a bullet does throw a head around.
Only it usually remains connected to the torso.
Ever hear of a ballistic pendulum? It's how they used to test the power
of bullets. A hunk of wood hanging from a string. When you shoot it with
a bullet do you think the wood moves back towards the gun or away from
the gun? How quickly does it move?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
While jet effect has been demostrated experimentally, I don't believe it
could have been sufficiently strong enough to have thrown JFK backward in
his seat. Since this is the effect of matter being blown out the front of
his head, that rearward force can be no more powerful than the forward
force. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the
jet effect of the bullet could have thrown JFK backward, it would follow
that a bullet from a frontal shot could also have the same force. I don't
believe either is possible. The neuro-muscular reaction, while
unproveable, remains the only plausible explaination given the physics
involved.
bigdog
This is absurdity. Point to one photo which shows the left side of JFK's
head blasted out. This is the latest, and greatest, of the cockamamie
things you have invented to try to support your mythical GK gunman. The
fact that you must resort to these ridiculous claims is the the strongest
indictment there is of your fairy tale theories. There are no photos
showing a blasted out left side of JFK's head. There are no x-rays which
show that. There are no autopsy drawings which show that. There are no
witnesses who ever described such a thing. In all the years I have
discussed this case, you are the one and only person I have ever
encountered who has ever claimed anything so preposterous. Left side
damage to JFK's head exists in only one place, the recesses of your
incredibly imaginative mind.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 16, 1:01 am, WhiskyJoe<jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Wrong. Look at the autopsy photos.
>>> The skull is blasted out on the left
>>> side of President Kennedy's head.
>>
>> ?????
>>
>> No, the skull was blasted out on the
>> right side of the head.
>
> I think Tony is losing it. In all the years, this is the first time
> I've ever seen a CT claim the left side of the head was blown out. Of
Wrong. Obviously you have not looked at the ARRB drawings by the autopsy
doctors.
> course, this is what would have happened if the head shot had been
> fired from the GK, and since Tony believes the head shot was fired
> from the GK, then the left side must have been blown out. A classic
> example of drawing the conclusion first, than massaging the evidence
> to fit the conclusion.
>
You are not qualified to state what a shot from the grassy knoll must do.
Anthony Marsh
I point out facts when people do not know them.
ShutterBun
That is not an opinion, it is a scientific truth, proven by many
scientific experiments, from sources as diverse as Army Ballistics
researchers, to amateur researchers, hell, even Mythbusters demonstrated
it.
WhiskyJoe
> Your equations are simplistic and your
> math is wrong.
I am not going to take criticism from
you about my math, considering you
don't even know what "sin" is.
However, if, let's say Ken Rahn or
Herbert Blenner or anyone else who
sounds like they understand math
and basic physics would like to point
out any errors I have made, I will
certainly look at their points
carefully.
> Silly. Alvarez studied the Zapruder
> film and found that it suddenly
> slowed down from about 12 MPH to
> about 8 MPH at about frame Z-300.
Did he mean it slowed by 4 MPH during
one frame interval? No. He was no
fool. But a 4 MPH slow down from
braking within 1/18th of a frame is
what is needed for a head to move
forward 2 inches relative to a slowing
vehicle. I am confident that Herbert
Blenner will not disagree with me on
this.
>> Z312-313. The momentum of a WCC/MC
>> bullet can push an 8 pound weight
>> at 4 MPH. Since only about half the
>> momentum was transferred to the head,
>> that could push the head at 2 MPH ...
> Show us your math.
> Show us your assumptions.
I have stated the math before. But,
since it is trivial:
A WCC/MC weights about 1/3 of an ounce
or about 1/50th of a pound. It would
be traveling roughly 1400 MPH when it
struck the head. So it could push a
1400/50 = 28 pound weight at 1 MPH.
Or it could push an 8 pound weight
at 28/8 = 3.5 MPH which is roughly
4 MPH.
Now, since not all the momentum of the
bullet was transferred to the head,
fragments continued on to crack the
windshield, dent the chrome frame and
likely nicked James Tague 100 yards away,
the head would be pushed at less than
4 MPH.
Larry Sturdivan estimated only half
the momentum was absorbed by the head,
the other half was carried away by the
fragments. If correct, the head, in
theory, should be pushed forward at
2 MPH. This agrees with studies done
of the Zapruder film, which indicate
the head moved forward 2 inches between
Z312 and Z313, consistent with a bullet
striking at Z312.5 and pushing the head
at 2 MPH which works out to 2 inches
by Z313.5.
Let me know if you ever need help
learning fractions.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Your equations are simplistic and your
>> math is wrong.
>
> I am not going to take criticism from
> you about my math, considering you
> don't even know what "sin" is.
> However, if, let's say Ken Rahn or
> Herbert Blenner or anyone else who
> sounds like they understand math
> and basic physics would like to point
> out any errors I have made, I will
> certainly look at their points
> carefully.
>
No, because you think you can bluff your way through life. Your math is
wrong.
>> Silly. Alvarez studied the Zapruder
>> film and found that it suddenly
>> slowed down from about 12 MPH to
>> about 8 MPH at about frame Z-300.
>
> Did he mean it slowed by 4 MPH during
> one frame interval? No. He was no
> fool. But a 4 MPH slow down from
> braking within 1/18th of a frame is
> what is needed for a head to move
> forward 2 inches relative to a slowing
> vehicle. I am confident that Herbert
> Blenner will not disagree with me on
> this.
>
Fun to guess, isn't it? The fact that you can't show us your math tells
us that you don't know what you are talking about.
>>> Z312-313. The momentum of a WCC/MC
>>> bullet can push an 8 pound weight
>>> at 4 MPH. Since only about half the
>>> momentum was transferred to the head,
>>> that could push the head at 2 MPH ...
>
>> Show us your math.
>> Show us your assumptions.
>
> I have stated the math before. But,
> since it is trivial:
>
> A WCC/MC weights about 1/3 of an ounce
> or about 1/50th of a pound. It would
> be traveling roughly 1400 MPH when it
> struck the head. So it could push a
You have no basis for your 1400 MPH.
> 1400/50 = 28 pound weight at 1 MPH.
> Or it could push an 8 pound weight
> at 28/8 = 3.5 MPH which is roughly
> 4 MPH.
>
Roughly? You didn't say roughly before.
And your equation is wrong if it assumes that all the energy is
deposited by the bullet. That would mean the head stopped the bullet.
> Now, since not all the momentum of the
> bullet was transferred to the head,
> fragments continued on to crack the
> windshield, dent the chrome frame and
> likely nicked James Tague 100 yards away,
> the head would be pushed at less than
> 4 MPH.
>
Wow, now you say LESS than 4 MPH. Right, not 4 MPH. LESS. How much less?
> Larry Sturdivan estimated only half
> the momentum was absorbed by the head,
> the other half was carried away by the
> fragments. If correct, the head, in
> theory, should be pushed forward at
> 2 MPH. This agrees with studies done
> of the Zapruder film, which indicate
> the head moved forward 2 inches between
> Z312 and Z313, consistent with a bullet
> striking at Z312.5 and pushing the head
> at 2 MPH which works out to 2 inches
> by Z313.5.
>
> Let me know if you ever need help
> learning fractions.
>
Which proves that the cause was not a shot from the TSBD, because the
head does not move forward by 2 inches. What you see is the blur.
Herbert Blenner
Your statements prove that you do even not understand the technical
terms used by physics.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
No, they didn't.
Fackler's test shows that the bullet knocks the ballistics gel block up
off the table and away from the rifle.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2009 1:01 AM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Wrong. Look at the autopsy photos.
>>>> The skull is blasted out on the left
>>>> side of President Kennedy's head.
>>
>>> ?????
>>
>>> No, the skull was blasted out on the
>>> right side of the head.
>>
>> The autopsy photos and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show that the
>> left side of the skull was also blasted out.
>
> This is absurdity. Point to one photo which shows the left side of JFK's
> head blasted out. This is the latest, and greatest, of the cockamamie
I just did. Obviously you have trouble seeing.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fox8.gif
> things you have invented to try to support your mythical GK gunman. The
> fact that you must resort to these ridiculous claims is the the strongest
> indictment there is of your fairy tale theories. There are no photos
> showing a blasted out left side of JFK's head. There are no x-rays which
> show that. There are no autopsy drawings which show that. There are no
The autopsy drawing shows the left side of the skull missing. The ARRB
drawings by the autopsy doctors show most of the skull on the left side
of the head missing.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/face-sheet/graphics/bos-toh.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG
http://www.patspeer.com/foxautangel.jpg/foxautangel-full.jpg
> witnesses who ever described such a thing. In all the years I have
> discussed this case, you are the one and only person I have ever
> encountered who has ever claimed anything so preposterous. Left side
> damage to JFK's head exists in only one place, the recesses of your
> incredibly imaginative mind.
>
And Humes and Boswell and Finck and Angel and Baden . . .
Anthony Marsh
If the jet effect worked here it would thrust Kennedy downward because we
can actually see the jet traveling upward from his head. The
neuri-muscular explanation is part of the story.
jas
Like your "Carcano wasn't in the bag" fracas?
At least I use common sense.
ShutterBun
> Now you've changed your claim when challenged. Instead of the head and
> torso you now say head. And indeed a bullet does throw a head around.
> Only it usually remains connected to the torso.
> Ever hear of a ballistic pendulum? It's how they used to test the power
> of bullets. A hunk of wood hanging from a string. When you shoot it with
> a bullet do you think the wood moves back towards the gun or away from
> the gun? How quickly does it move?
Human heads, with rare exceptions, are not made of wood. No ballistic
researcher these days would use a hunk of wood to simulate a head. How
about a melon wrapped with fiberglass tape? Know how they move? That's
right, they move *toward* the gun. But you know what else? None of that
matters. Because human heads are not hanging from strings or propped on
tables. They are held upright by strong bones and muscles. And you know
what happens to them when they get shot? Answer:whatever the muscles tell
them to do.
ShutterBun
> Which proves that the cause was not a shot from the TSBD, because the
> head does not move forward by 2 inches. What you see is the blur.
Begging your pardon, but are you now actually advocating a frontal
headshot HIT? Or just playing devil's advocate against those trying
to prove (via physics) the necessity for a rear(only) headshot?
bigdog
> On 12/17/2009 9:28 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 1:14 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2009 1:01 AM, WhiskyJoe wrote:
>
> >>>> Wrong. Look at the autopsy photos.
> >>>> The skull is blasted out on the left
> >>>> side of President Kennedy's head.
>
> >>> ?????
>
> >>> No, the skull was blasted out on the
> >>> right side of the head.
>
> >> The autopsy photos and the drawings by the autopsy doctors show that the
> >> left side of the skull was also blasted out.
>
> > This is absurdity. Point to one photo which shows the left side of JFK's
> > head blasted out. This is the latest, and greatest, of the cockamamie
>
> I just did. Obviously you have trouble seeing.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Fox8.gif
>
> > things you have invented to try to support your mythical GK gunman. The
> > fact that you must resort to these ridiculous claims is the the strongest
> > indictment there is of your fairy tale theories. There are no photos
> > showing a blasted out left side of JFK's head. There are no x-rays which
> > show that. There are no autopsy drawings which show that. There are no
>
> The autopsy drawing shows the left side of the skull missing. The ARRB
> drawings by the autopsy doctors show most of the skull on the left side
> of the head missing.
>
>
> > witnesses who ever described such a thing. In all the years I have
> > discussed this case, you are the one and only person I have ever
> > encountered who has ever claimed anything so preposterous. Left side
> > damage to JFK's head exists in only one place, the recesses of your
> > incredibly imaginative mind.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the ditch. Off the rails. Over the cliff. I've run out of metaphors
to describe this comical claim of a blasted out left side of JFK's
skull. Do you really think that the photo you presented shows a
blasted out left side of JFK's skull. That is really interesting
because you just used that same photo to claim it shows a bullet hole
in JFK's forehead. So what is that a photo of. Is that JFK's forehead
we are looking at or is it the left side of his skull? While you are
pondering that why don't you take a gander at these photos which I'm
sure you are familiar with:
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
Note the fourth photo down. The one labeled Left Side. Where do you
see a blasted out area in this photo.
A few posts back, jas asked you if you enjoyed embarassing yourself on
this forum. Embarassing doesn't even begin to describe this latest
claim by you. You should be nominated for the David Lifton award.
Peter Fokes
Please cite a passage where Lifton claims the left side of the head
was blown out.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Herbert Blenner
Source: Summary of the Pathologist's Perspective of Wound Ballistics
If the bullet strikes the head, an object of relatively low mass in
comparison with the entire body, the movement of the head in the
direction of missile travel may be considerable. Rotational movement
of the head, or of a lightweight portion of the body may also occur.
End of quotation.
Actually the head will always rotate since it is attached to the
massive body and will spin if the trajectory through the head differs
from a diameter.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The reference to Lifton is due to the fact that to date, of all the
various conspiracy theories that have been published, his theory of
post mortem surgery to JFK's body to hide the true nature of the
wounds is hands down the most ludicrous. That is quite an achievement
given how Looney Tunes most of the published theories are. Tony's
claim of a blasted out left side of JFK's head is not something he got
from Lifton but something he dreamed up on his own completely out of
thin air. It measures down to the standards Lifton established in the
area of absurdity. It rightfully deserves to be honored with the David
Lifton award.
Peter Fokes
Why is Lifton's theory so ludicruous?
I'd say the idea a SS agent accidentally shot JFK is wackier.
Poor George Hickey!
I'd say Hosty's theory that bombers were headed to Cuba is wacky.
I'd say Waldron's theory is wacky.
But there is no need to ridicule Waldron, Hosty or Menninger
personally by using them name for a silly award.
That's rather uncouth, doncha think?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
I don't call it a frontal hit and I've been saying it for 40 years. So,
there is no "now." I sometimes call it a right front.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 17, 6:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Now you've changed your claim when challenged. Instead of the head and
>> torso you now say head. And indeed a bullet does throw a head around.
>> Only it usually remains connected to the torso.
>> Ever hear of a ballistic pendulum? It's how they used to test the power
>> of bullets. A hunk of wood hanging from a string. When you shoot it with
>> a bullet do you think the wood moves back towards the gun or away from
>> the gun? How quickly does it move?
>
> Human heads, with rare exceptions, are not made of wood. No ballistic
> researcher these days would use a hunk of wood to simulate a head. How
I would and I will. The ballistic pendulum illustrates that a bullet can
and does propel a weight away from the weapon. Now of course you would
like to play the game of 1,000 objections so that only a live head
qualifies. I don't care to play your silly games. YOU make the object
and I'll shoot it. Then you can't complain about how I made it.
I can also shoot melons and cocanuts and water jugs. Whatever. I have
alloted 6 shots to various replicas similar to a head.
> about a melon wrapped with fiberglass tape? Know how they move? That's
> right, they move *toward* the gun. But you know what else? None of that
Pure fiction. You've never shot anything in your life.
> matters. Because human heads are not hanging from strings or propped on
> tables. They are held upright by strong bones and muscles. And you know
> what happens to them when they get shot? Answer:whatever the muscles tell
> them to do.
>
More nonsense.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You do not use common sense, if you did, you would stop with the
Carcano in the bag nonsense. There would have been oil residue if it
had been in the bag. The bag would have been marked with some outline
of the rifle if it had been in the bag. You have eyewitnesses
testifying that the bag was too short to contain the broken down rifle
(and they certainly didn't know that at the time they gave their
testimony). Yet, with no science on your side whatsoever, you insist
that "common sense" tells you the rifle was in the bag. Thank you, I
can do without that kind of common sense. You are just part of a herd
mentality and your idea of "common sense" is to buy every fable the WC
puts out. Too bad this didn't go to trial because this is one of many
items that would probably not even been allowed into evidence. And
don't try and tell me Oswalds, fingerprints were on it, of course they
were, he carried a bag into the building that morning and it has a
palm print which supports the eyewitness testimony that he carred the
bag in the palm of his hand and under his armpit. The blanket fiber
evidence doesn't not exclude every other blanket in Dallas and even if
it did, it was Oswald's bag, it was his blanket so why shouldn't
fibers be present?
You can lead an LN to water but you cannot make him think for himself.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Of course I don't expect you to understand that photo. Many people are
still confused about it. Some incorrectly think the foreground shows the
back of the head. I have oriented it to correctly show the frontal bone,
the face in the foreground. With a little effort you can figure out
where the midline of the head is. And then you need to remember that the
right side of the photo is the left side of his head. You need to
remember that step when looking at a frontal view of a person's face.
You can see, and Dr. Angel diagrammed from the X-rays, that there is
major skull bone missing on the left side of his head.
> http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
>
> Note the fourth photo down. The one labeled Left Side. Where do you
> see a blasted out area in this photo.
>
None of those photos show the condition of the skull. You can't see any
holes, although we know there was a massive hole on the top of the head.
> A few posts back, jas asked you if you enjoyed embarassing yourself on
> this forum. Embarassing doesn't even begin to describe this latest
> claim by you. You should be nominated for the David Lifton award.
>
You have just embarrassed yourself yet again by saying that your photos
show the skull.
bigdog
If we are to limit ourselves to what we are qualified to discuss, you
would have to retract every cockamamie theory you have ever put forth on
this forum. You have zero qualifications to interpret the medical evidence
yet you act as if your interpretations of this evidence should trump the
unanimous findings of every forensic pathologist who is qualified. You
have no qualifications to interpret the accoustical evidence but you
pretend you can analyze that highly technical information with absolutely
zero training in that field. You have no expertise in ballistics, but do
not hesitate to act as if you do. You have no training in photographic
analysis, but you act as if your opinions should carry weight. Rather than
respect the opinions of qualified professionals in these various
disciplines, you offer your extremely amateurish opinions and act as if
they should trump the findings of people who truly are qualified. You do
this for one simple reason. You formed an uninformed opinion of the way
you believe the assassination went down and then realized that the
qualified opinions of every professional in the various disciplines was in
conflict with what you chose to believe so your only option was to
proclaim that the people who know what they are talking about are wrong
and that only you have been able to figure it out. There are two types of
people who study the assassination of JFK. There are those who want to
know the truth and those who want their theory to be true. There is no
doubt which camp you fall into.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't understand what you proclaim because I do not speak Blennerese. So
do you think Isaac Newton was wrong when he stated that for every action,
there is an equal and opposite reaction. Should we rewrite the physics
books in Blennerese? If we do, nobody will be able to understand physics.
bigdog
Are you really going to give credibility to a theory that proposes that
surgery could be performed on a dead body and that surgery wouldn't be
instantly obvious to anyone who looked at it? That theory is laughable on
the surface and gets even funnier the more you examine it. David Lifton
deserves every bit a ridicule he receives and a satirical award in his
honor certainly meets that requirement.
ShutterBun
> On Dec 17, 11:32 pm, ShutterBun <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 6:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Now you've changed your claim when challenged. Instead of the head and
> > > torso you now say head. And indeed a bullet does throw a head around.
> > > Only it usually remains connected to the torso.
> > > Ever hear of a ballistic pendulum? It's how they used to test the power
> > > of bullets. A hunk of wood hanging from a string. When you shoot it with
> > > a bullet do you think the wood moves back towards the gun or away from
> > > the gun? How quickly does it move?
>
> > Human heads, with rare exceptions, are not made of wood. No ballistic
> > researcher these days would use a hunk of wood to simulate a head. How
> > about a melon wrapped with fiberglass tape? Know how they move? That's
> > right, they move *toward* the gun. But you know what else? None of that
> > matters. Because human heads are not hanging from strings or propped on
> > tables. They are held upright by strong bones and muscles. And you know
> > what happens to them when they get shot? Answer:whatever the muscles tell
> > them to do.
>
> Source: Summary of the Pathologist's Perspective of Wound Ballistics
>
> If the bullet strikes the head, an object of relatively low mass in
> comparison with the entire body, the movement of the head in the
> direction of missile travel may be considerable. Rotational movement
> of the head, or of a lightweight portion of the body may also occur.
Key word: "may"
> Actually the head will always rotate since it is attached to the
> massive body and will spin if the trajectory through the head differs
> from a diameter.
JFK's head did rotate slightly, due to the bullet striking above the
head's center of mass. It rotated forward by a few degrees. There,
now you have your rotation.
John Blubaugh
Ha, now you have found somethink that a good LN is an expert about,
being uncouth!!
JB
yeuhd
The paper bag would have been put into evidence. You overestimate the
standards for inadmissibility of evidence. The threshold issue in the
admission of evidence is relevancy. The law prefers that juries decide
questions of fact (Is this the bag Oswald used to carry the Carcano into
the building?), and that judges decide questions of law. It would be up to
the jury to determine its credibility as evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, they should. Things change as we learn new things. Even in science.
> have no qualifications to interpret the accoustical evidence but you
Actually my qualifications are stronger in acoustics than the other
subjects. I have a Bachelor of Music Education degree and was a music
teacher for several years.
> pretend you can analyze that highly technical information with absolutely
> zero training in that field. You have no expertise in ballistics, but do
Not zero training, but I did need to read a lot about it before
publishing my rebuttal.
> not hesitate to act as if you do. You have no training in photographic
> analysis, but you act as if your opinions should carry weight. Rather than
> respect the opinions of qualified professionals in these various
> disciplines, you offer your extremely amateurish opinions and act as if
Which qualified professionals in which disciplines are you talking about?
I respect the opinions of the top acoustical scientists in the world, BBN
and W&A. On the other hand, YOU do not and you claim to know more than
they do. I respect the opinions of the top expert on the Zapruder film,
Roland Zavada and he praised my article proving the Zapruder film is
authentic. What else you got?
> they should trump the findings of people who truly are qualified. You do
YOU are the one trying to trump the findings of the most qualified people.
You call the acoustics junk science. You call me a kook because I prove
that the Zapruder film is authentic.
> this for one simple reason. You formed an uninformed opinion of the way
> you believe the assassination went down and then realized that the
> qualified opinions of every professional in the various disciplines was in
> conflict with what you chose to believe so your only option was to
> proclaim that the people who know what they are talking about are wrong
> and that only you have been able to figure it out. There are two types of
> people who study the assassination of JFK. There are those who want to
> know the truth and those who want their theory to be true. There is no
> doubt which camp you fall into.
>
No, my theories have changed over the years as new evidence has been
discovered.
Herbert Blenner
Newton equated the force, f, to the mass, m, multiplied by the
acceleration, a. The right side of this equality equals the time
derivative, d/dt, of the momentum, p.
f = m a = dp / dt
Expressing the law of motion in differential form, dp = f dt, gives the
increase in momentum of the victim, p(t2) - p(t1), as the definite action
integral of the f dt from t = t1, the time of first impact of the bullet
upon the victim to t = t2, the time that the bullet stops within or
exits the victim. Verbally this equation states that the change in
momentum equals the change in action.
The couple law states the every force is a member of an equal and opposite
pair. So when a force from the bullet acts upon the victim an equal and
opposite force acts upon the bullet. Applying the differential form of the
law of motion to the bullet shows that the change in momentum of the
bullet is equal and opposite the change in action. Since these changes in
action are equal the changes in momentum of the victim and of the bullet
are equal and opposite. This last statement is differential form of
momentum conservation.
Usually technical people do not derive momentum conversation and directly
apply the theorem. This method works well when two objects and one force
couple is present. However, when three or more objects are present the
analyst must enumerate and apply momentum conversation to each couple.
Failure to do so leads to common errors, such as finding an object gaining
more momentum than originally contained by the system.
Herbert
WhiskyJoe
> Wow, now you say LESS than 4 MPH.
> Right, not 4 MPH. LESS. How much less?
I only agreed to help you with fractions.
For decimal arithmetic you will have to
try to figure it out on your own.
And as I explained before, I do not wish
to discuss arithmetic or any mathematical
equations with anyone as ignorant about
math as you are. At the very least, they
should understand what "sin" is in
mathematics.
ShutterBun
> I would and I will. The ballistic pendulum illustrates that a bullet can
> and does propel a weight away from the weapon.
Yes, but the entire point of a ballistic pendulum is that the bullet
does not penetrate it.
> Now of course you would
> like to play the game of 1,000 objections so that only a live head
> qualifies. I don't care to play your silly games. YOU make the object
> and I'll shoot it. Then you can't complain about how I made it.
> I can also shoot melons and cocanuts and water jugs. Whatever. I have
> alloted 6 shots to various replicas similar to a head.
That's all been done by everyone from Lattimer to Alvarez to Penn &
Teller.
> > about a melon wrapped with fiberglass tape? Know how they move? That's
> > right, they move *toward* the gun. But you know what else? None of that
>
> Pure fiction. You've never shot anything in your life.
Certainly I have.
> > matters. Because human heads are not hanging from strings or propped on
> > tables. They are held upright by strong bones and muscles. And you know
> > what happens to them when they get shot? Answer:whatever the muscles tell
> > them to do.
>
> More nonsense.
So human heads are, in fact, hanging from strings?
Herbert Blenner
Frames Z-312 and Z-313 show that JFK's head rotated by more than ten
degrees.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/movement.htm
Problems arise since the uncontested medical evidence confined the
wound track to the right side of President Kennedy's head. Under these
conditions the rotation of the head becomes a measure of the
simultaneous spin of the head. In particular the angular speed of the
rotation divided by the angular speed of the spin equals a known
function of the dimensions of the head and the distances of the mean
wound track from the axis of rotation and the axis of spin in the
neck. For details see the appendix of the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/conflict.htm
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 18, 1:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I would and I will. The ballistic pendulum illustrates that a bullet can
>> and does propel a weight away from the weapon.
>
> Yes, but the entire point of a ballistic pendulum is that the bullet
> does not penetrate it.
>
Again silly. You have no idea what a ballistics pendulum. Depending on
the bullet it may be penetrated AND captured. Penetrated means to go
into. Perforated means to go through. Sometimes they had to replace the
wood because it was too full of bullets.
>> Now of course you would
>> like to play the game of 1,000 objections so that only a live head
>> qualifies. I don't care to play your silly games. YOU make the object
>> and I'll shoot it. Then you can't complain about how I made it.
>> I can also shoot melons and cocanuts and water jugs. Whatever. I have
>> alloted 6 shots to various replicas similar to a head.
>
> That's all been done by everyone from Lattimer to Alvarez to Penn&
> Teller.
>
Penn & Teller are comedians. Oh wait, so was Lattimer.
Alvarez used the wrong type of bullets. Apples and oranges.
>
>>> about a melon wrapped with fiberglass tape? Know how they move? That's
>>> right, they move *toward* the gun. But you know what else? None of that
>>
>> Pure fiction. You've never shot anything in your life.
>
> Certainly I have.
>
Bull.
>>> matters. Because human heads are not hanging from strings or propped on
>>> tables. They are held upright by strong bones and muscles. And you know
>>> what happens to them when they get shot? Answer:whatever the muscles tell
>>> them to do.
>>
>> More nonsense.
>
> So human heads are, in fact, hanging from strings?
>
Nonsense that the muscles overrule Newtonian physics.
Anthony Marsh
Not my theory, but Lifton says that it was so instantly obvious that
Humes is the one who said that there had been surgery to the head. It
wasn't the conspiracy believers who thought this up. They just quote Humes.
> the surface and gets even funnier the more you examine it. David Lifton
> deserves every bit a ridicule he receives and a satirical award in his
> honor certainly meets that requirement.
You mean Humes.
Peter Fokes
>Are you really going to give credibility to a theory that proposes that
>surgery could be performed on a dead body and that surgery wouldn't be
>instantly obvious to anyone who looked at it?
Of course it was OBVIOUS.
Humes tried to act surprised when he said "surgery" has already been
performed!
JFK's brain fell into his hands without any cutting.
That was one MAGIC bullet, eh?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
bigdog
And that provided you with the scientific training to study and interpret
a dictabelt recording?
> > pretend you can analyze that highly technical information with absolutely
> > zero training in that field. You have no expertise in ballistics, but do
>
> Not zero training, but I did need to read a lot about it before
> publishing my rebuttal.
>
Oh, you read a book. That certainly trumps years of education and
experience by professionals in that field.
> > not hesitate to act as if you do. You have no training in photographic
> > analysis, but you act as if your opinions should carry weight. Rather than
> > respect the opinions of qualified professionals in these various
> > disciplines, you offer your extremely amateurish opinions and act as if
>
> Which qualified professionals in which disciplines are you talking about?
> I respect the opinions of the top acoustical scientists in the world, BBN
> and W&A. On the other hand, YOU do not and you claim to know more than
> they do. I respect the opinions of the top expert on the Zapruder film,
> Roland Zavada and he praised my article proving the Zapruder film is
> authentic. What else you got?
>
The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have
expertise in these various areas. I respect the opinions of professionals,
and when professionals disagree, as they do with the accoustical evidence,
I make my judgement as to which presents the stronger case and which is
compatable with the body of evidence. This is what jurors often must do at
trial in which both sides present competing professional opinions. In the
case of the medical evidence, in which qualified professionals who have
seen the evidence unanimously agree that the shots came from behind, I am
not so foolish as to substitute my amateur opinions for theirs.
> > they should trump the findings of people who truly are qualified. You do
>
> YOU are the one trying to trump the findings of the most qualified people.
> You call the acoustics junk science. You call me a kook because I prove
> that the Zapruder film is authentic.
>
Other qualified people have called the accoustical findings of the HSCA
junk science. We don't disagree on the authenticity of the Z-film and I
have never called you a kook because you believe that. In fact, I don't
believe the moderators would allow me to call you a kook on this forum for
any reason. They can't prevent me from thinking that.
> > this for one simple reason. You formed an uninformed opinion of the way
> > you believe the assassination went down and then realized that the
> > qualified opinions of every professional in the various disciplines was in
> > conflict with what you chose to believe so your only option was to
> > proclaim that the people who know what they are talking about are wrong
> > and that only you have been able to figure it out. There are two types of
> > people who study the assassination of JFK. There are those who want to
> > know the truth and those who want their theory to be true. There is no
> > doubt which camp you fall into.
>
> No, my theories have changed over the years as new evidence has been
> discovered.
You mean as new evidence has been invented, such as your evidence of
the left side of JFK's head being blasted out.
Anthony Marsh
Who said trumped? I agree with BBN and W&A and they are the experts.
>>> not hesitate to act as if you do. You have no training in photographic
>>> analysis, but you act as if your opinions should carry weight. Rather than
>>> respect the opinions of qualified professionals in these various
>>> disciplines, you offer your extremely amateurish opinions and act as if
>>
>> Which qualified professionals in which disciplines are you talking about?
>> I respect the opinions of the top acoustical scientists in the world, BBN
>> and W&A. On the other hand, YOU do not and you claim to know more than
>> they do. I respect the opinions of the top expert on the Zapruder film,
>> Roland Zavada and he praised my article proving the Zapruder film is
>> authentic. What else you got?
>>
>
> The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have
> expertise in these various areas. I respect the opinions of professionals,
No, you don't. You reach a conclusion and then listen only to evidence
which confirms your conclusion.
> and when professionals disagree, as they do with the accoustical evidence,
> I make my judgement as to which presents the stronger case and which is
> compatable with the body of evidence. This is what jurors often must do at
> trial in which both sides present competing professional opinions. In the
> case of the medical evidence, in which qualified professionals who have
> seen the evidence unanimously agree that the shots came from behind, I am
> not so foolish as to substitute my amateur opinions for theirs.
>
Is that what the OJ Simpson jury did? Is that what the Dreyfus jury did?
>>> they should trump the findings of people who truly are qualified. You do
>>
>> YOU are the one trying to trump the findings of the most qualified people.
>> You call the acoustics junk science. You call me a kook because I prove
>> that the Zapruder film is authentic.
>>
>
> Other qualified people have called the accoustical findings of the HSCA
> junk science. We don't disagree on the authenticity of the Z-film and I
> have never called you a kook because you believe that. In fact, I don't
> believe the moderators would allow me to call you a kook on this forum for
> any reason. They can't prevent me from thinking that.
>
Ok then, so you THINK I am a kook for proving that the Zapruder film is
authentic. You think that is my trying to TRUMP the experts.
Sandy McCroskey
jas
You have gone way overboard in your "bag story" in defending something
that simply cannot be defended reasonably, but yet you insist, for
whatever reason I have no idea, nor do I care.
But, try this out to understand Oswald's use of the bag to sneak the
Carcano in:
If you go to bed at night and there's no snow on the ground, and you
wake up the next morning and there's snow, you can safely INFER that
it snowed sometime during the night, even though it you didn't
actually SEE it snowing.
Take a few weeks and ponder that.
claviger
> You do not use common sense, if you did, you would stop with the
> Carcano in the bag nonsense. There would have been oil residue if it
> had been in the bag. The bag would have been marked with some outline
> of the rifle if it had been in the bag. You have eyewitnesses
> testifying that the bag was too short to contain the broken down rifle
> (and they certainly didn't know that at the time they gave their
> testimony). Yet, with no science on your side whatsoever, you insist
> that "common sense" tells you the rifle was in the bag. Thank you, I
> can do without that kind of common sense. You are just part of a herd
> mentality and your idea of "common sense" is to buy every fable the WC
> puts out. Too bad this didn't go to trial because this is one of many
> items that would probably not even been allowed into evidence. And
> don't try and tell me Oswalds, fingerprints were on it, of course they
> were, he carried a bag into the building that morning and it has a
> palm print which supports the eyewitness testimony that he carred the
> bag in the palm of his hand and under his armpit. The blanket fiber
> evidence doesn't not exclude every other blanket in Dallas and even if
> it did, it was Oswald's bag, it was his blanket so why shouldn't
> fibers be present?
>
> You can lead an LN to water but you cannot make him think for himself.
>
> JB
What if LHO was able to take his rifle into the building without a paper
bag, like in a raincoat or a trash can, or some other way? The rifle was
found on the 6th floor and LHO was the owner of the rifle. If you think
the rifle was planted how did the people who planted it get into the
building and leave unnoticed? How did this daring phantom sniper get his
rifle, get into the building, fire the rifle at the motorcade and leave
with no witnesses to all this activity? And where was LHO when all this
was going on? Sitting in the lunchroom twiddling his thumbs?
Why did LHO lie about the package and his rifle? Why did he run before the
rifle was discovered? If the phantom sniper hid the rifle then LHO would
have no idea it was his rifle they used, therefore no reason to flee the
building.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can infer to your hearts content but you are whipping a very dead
horse. The evidence says that the MC was never in the bag and no jury
would every have bought that story. Chomp on that one for the rest of your
life. I just used this one little dispute to point out how far out there
LNs really are. The same can be done with SBT and many other things that
in dispute. You infer this because you WANT it to be true. I don't give a
rat's ass if it is true or not so I look for evidence that the MC was in
the bag. There isn't any but there is evidence that indicates it was not.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
I can't answer those questions. I never said someone else planted the MC.
I only say that it didn't get carried into the building in the paper bag.
I haven't said that Oswald was not shooting from TSBD. As far as the lying
about the bag is concerned, where are the tapes of his interview? How do
we know what he said? Perhaps it did hold curtain rods but there is no
evidence in the bag for that either. Other people left the building too.
JB
jas
Ok, Oliver, just keep your story straight and don't change it over the
years like some of the other CT yarns out there.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll try my best to do that while you keep piling up those two star
ratings of yours and someone is being kind for you to be rated that
highly.
JB
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> On Dec 16, 12:51 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 1:51 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > It's quite clear on the Z-film that JFK's head moves forward just a frame
> > > > or so before the head shot. This is taken by LNers as evidence for the
> > > > shot from behind.
>
> > > > BUT since the bullet was moving at 2000 ft/sec, how likely is it that two
> > > > frames taken 1/18 sec apart would show two movements? Any momentary
> > > > forward movement would have been reversed too quickly to show up on film.
>
> > > > Thoughts?
>
> > > dramatic....
>
> > An invalid assumption. Bullets do not have the throw weight to cause
> > dramatic movements. That is a Hollywood illsusion. There is minimal
> > momentum transfer from a bullet to a body that it transits. A bullet
> > strikes a body with x amount of force and exits it with y amount of force.
> > The amount of force that is transfered to the body is x-y. I would like to
> > see a CT do an experiment in which an object the size and weight of JFK's
> > head and torso are shot with a high powered rifle to demonstrate how much
> > or how little force gets transfered to the object. Methinks no CT would be
> > willing to conduct such an experiment because they realize it is likely
> > the object would be moved just a few inches, about the amount we see JFK's
> > head move forward from Z312 to Z313.
>
> And I suppose 'neuro-forces' have such a physics backing that they can
> show why JFK had so much dramatics during the Z Film?
>
> CJ
***JFK's right arm jumped up momentarily after the bullet struck his
head, indicating that a neuromuscular spasm did occur. It is in sync
with the backward movement of the body.
***Ron Judge
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
So after all of Blenner's points he has to concede that the left side of
Kennedy's grain suffered NO DAMAGE. This is already established beyond
all reasonable debate. Also, NO metallic fragments appear in the x-rays
of Kennedy's head (on the left hemisphere) additionally the entrance wound
to the back of the head was cratered inward and the fragments of the bone
recovered from the frontal exit wound shows signs of outward cratering.
Thus establishing a single shot from the rear striking Kennedy in the head
and exiting the right front. In spite of all of Blenner's puffing.
Sorry Herb, the forensic evidence doesn't' agree with your hunch of a
front gunman.
Herbert Blenner
None of my posts have every considered damage to the left side of
Kennedy's brain. So I had nothing to concede by repeating my acceptance of
the medical evidence that confined the missile damage to the right side of
the brain. Frankly, Steve, your remark has me wondering if you have
incurred grain damage.
The entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head consisted of a 6 mm by 15
mm oval/elliptical hole in the scalp, directly above an "almost round,"
"slightly ovoid," defect of the skull. These wounds are mutually
contradictory and discredit more than the Bethesda prosectors. The doctors
of the Clark and the Forensic Pathology panels who saw the original
autopsy photographs of these wounds impeached themselves by their silence.
Despite your made up protestations, my work on the head wounds has
analyzed only a shot front the rear. I dare you to show otherwise.
Herbert
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
So we agree that only one shot entered Kennedy's head from above and
behind? Good. I thought you were one of those conspiracy nuts who
believe in a frontal shot, but apparantly we are on the same side.
Concerning any grain damage. Since I only eat 100% whole wheat the
chances of grain damage have been reduced greatly, but I am flattered by
your concern for my health and regularity. An odd concern but touching
nonetheless.