Weapons Used

[Evan Marshall]

Evan & general membership

I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture".

Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles"

So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT

movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US !

There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen!

You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film.

Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal !

If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet.

In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to.

This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case.

In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"!

Charlie Black

Charlie-relax-take your socks off&massage your feet-I'm talking about personally being present when people where shot with high powered rifles-in one case I was the backup sniper and had the guy in my scope when he was hit. I don't believe the Z film either, but there's a big difference between those who have accepted their imminent death and those who are bent on murder. As a rookie cop I responded to the shooting of a police sgt-we grabbed him and rushed him to the emergency room-the cops on the scene shot the bad guy 13 times including once between the eyes-he survived.

do a search for police sniper shooting video on the web-if I can find the NM Bank shooting I'll email it-the guys had a toupee and phony mustache on-his head goes one way violently and the toupee goes violently in the opposite direction.

animals are not people and they only know they don't feel good. I had a partner in the Tac Unit who had been hit 3 times with a .50 machine gun n Vietnam and survived. another partner was hit in the head with .45ACP and fortunately the round rode around the outside of his skull and exited.

we just have to focus on what happened-what really happened-and remember you and I are both looking for the people who really killed JFK.

have a great day and keep up the good work.

FYI, go to iflim.com and search under sniper shootings you'll see several violent reactions of real people being shot-watch the "sniper eye view" video and the one where a soldier survives a sniper hit.

also ifilms,com, watch "Juba shoots a Marine" if you think head shots with rifles don't cause a violent reaction.

[Charles Black]

Evan

I feel it is ridiculous to continue this as I have been doing so for a number of years.

Your statement regarding a victims acceptance of "imminent death" has nothing to do with physics.

I know that YOU KNOW beyond ANY doubt, that the impact on a target can be no stronger than the recoil felt by the shooter. This is basic ballistics ! Neither you nor I can ever change this. I as probably you may have, had the opportunity to fire a 6.5mm Manlicher Carcano rifle. This rifle does not have a particularly significant recoil. I have even fired this rifle while resing the butt on my chest. The recoil is not very signifcant. What I see as JFK's reaction, has been produced by something significantly stronger than a MC recoil...it doesn't matter the type of bullet which is shot (round, pointed, wadcutter or hollowpoint), the RECOIL remains the same.

Impact force = Recoil force ! This is not rocket science nor does it allow for exceptions. Nor does it have anything to do with the victims mental state. This is the actual physics of ballistics.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with someone SURVIVING 13 or more bullet impacts, a .45 cal. to the head or .50 cal. to the chest. The bullet impact force CAN BE NO GREATER than the recoil force. This is all that we should be discussing.

Whatever WE SEEM to see as JFK's reaction to impact

is caused by something other than force of bullet impact.

I am exactly the size of JFK. A Marcano recoil will not move my body regardless of my mental state or regardless if it kills me or not.

AGAIN for everyone ! Impact force CANNOT exceed recoil force ! JFK is seen in the film to be much more violently propelled than is possible as a result of a 6.5 mm rifle strike. This cannot be argued without completely ignoring the physics involved in ballistics.

There is no sense in talking in circles or about "what ifs". I have simply stated fact that can be confirmed by anyone and everyone. I didn't make up this physical law. It exists and cannot be "Talked Around" by anyone.

I really don't care if people choose to believe in "jet effect" or being knocked backward by a bullet impact. Many people who have been shot, tho not seriously injured, CHOOSE to fall because they THINK that they should. The bullet is not knocking them down .

JFK's reaction "Was Not Provoked By Thought" !

But "frame excision" of the Z film could certainly provide it ! And that is what I say that it is.

This is why I feel that we cannot use the Z film for shot timing or for anything of consequence.

This film is what has covered the actual realities of Dealey Plaza.

I personally don't care what anyone chooses to believe. But regardless of what you choose, you will not alter the truth, which is simple physics.

I have explained this one too many times. Believe whatever makes you happy. However your belief cannot change fact.

Charlie Black

[Frank Agbat]

Impact force = Recoil force ! This is not rocket science nor does it allow for exceptions. Nor does it have anything to do with the victims mental state. This is the actual physics of ballistics.

...

AGAIN for everyone ! Impact force CANNOT exceed recoil force ! JFK is seen in the film to be much more violently propelled than is possible as a result of a 6.5 mm rifle strike. This cannot be argued without completely ignoring the physics involved in ballistics.

...

Charlie,

From the point of view of physics, your statements above about forces is absolutely, 100%, A-one, CORRECT.

Hollywood has gotten various pictures in our minds about people being blown through windows, etc, with various hand held weapons. This simply isn't accurate. The shooter would ALSO get propelled with the same force in the opposite direction. Momentum must be conserved in this system. Large weapons, of course, which are more massive themselves (as are their mountings) can produce such large forces. The M-C carbine hardly qualifies for this.

But...

We are not talking about moving the entire body as Hollywood does. We're really only talking about moving a portion of the body - the head.

[Charles Black]

Hi Frank

At least you and I agree with the general physics of the matter.

However we apparently interpret JFK's reaction differently. What "I see" when reviewing the film at full speed, is not only the reaction of JFK's head.....BUT his entire body being slammed against the rear seat cushion and then bouncing off. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, but Dr. David Mantik states (I think in all three Fetzer assassination books), that he also feels that this is too strong a reaction to have been caused by bullet impact. This had been my contention for many years prior.

At the risk of being even further redundant, I have stated in many of my prior posts on this subject, that it appears to me, as if a force not unlike a Barry Bonds homerun swing, is "lifting" and pushing his entire body to the rear and left.

I suppose that we will have to differ on this point as I interpret the "entire upper body" being violently moved. When I realized that a bullet should not impact with such a force, I could find no other explanation except.....this is when I personally first considered film manipulation. I have long maintained that frames were removed which

produced this "undesired" visual effect. The only reason that I have been able to come up with is that, even tho they knew that the removal of these frames would produce an abnormal anomaly, what the "removed frames" depicted was something much more damning than this anomaly. Since they did not realize at that moment, that this film would someday be shown to the world....they chose, what they felt, was the lesser of two evils.

So Frank, it isn't that I am this adamant in explaining the laws of ballistics to the forum, but what is beyond and above my physics argument, is my contention that frames have been removed from this film.

I appreciate your response and agreement on the physics issue of impact vs. recoil, because until others grasp at least this, my feelings regarding the Z film will not seem plausible to many.

Charlie Black

[Evan Marshall]

Hi Frank

At least you and I agree with the general physics of the matter.

However we apparently interpret JFK's reaction differently. What "I see" when reviewing the film at full speed, is not only the reaction of JFK's head.....BUT his entire body being slammed against the rear seat cushion and then bouncing off. I don't have a great deal of time at the moment, but Dr. David Mantik states (I think in all three Fetzer assassination books), that he also feels that this is too strong a reaction to have been caused by bullet impact. This had been my contention for many years prior.

At the risk of being even further redundant, I have stated in many of my prior posts on this subject, that it appears to me, as if a force not unlike a Barry Bonds homerun swing, is "lifting" and pushing his entire body to the rear and left.

I suppose that we will have to differ on this point as I interpret the "entire upper body" being violently moved. When I realized that a bullet should not impact with such a force, I could find no other explanation except.....this is when I personally first considered film manipulation. I have long maintained that frames were removed which

produced this "undesired" visual effect. The only reason that I have been able to come up with is that, even tho they knew that the removal of these frames would produce an abnormal anomaly, what the "removed frames" depicted was something much more damning than this anomaly. Since they did not realize at that moment, that this film would someday be shown to the world....they chose, what they felt, was the lesser of two evils.

So Frank, it isn't that I am this adamant in explaining the laws of ballistics to the forum, but what is beyond and above my physics argument, is my contention that frames have been removed from this film.

I appreciate your response and agreement on the physics issue of impact vs. recoil, because until others grasp at least this, my feelings regarding the Z film will not seem plausible to many.

Charlie Black

Well, I suspect I seen more people shot 1st hand than most of the people here and went to several hundred autopsies and a 1,000+ homicide scenes and have been involved in fatal shootings. I agree that my BA in History and MA in Criminal Justice don't make much of a Physicist, but time after time I've seen people shot whose reaction was immediate and extremely violent.

so you obviously didn't go to ifilm.com and watch the violent reaction-far beyond the recoil of the same rnd at the shoulder-two tours in Detroit Homicide and assignments in the Crime Lab, CSI, Tac Unit, dept sniper, and SWAT taught me that the more I see the less I'm sure of. I've personally been involved in deadly force events where handguns impacts were not seen nor a reaction noted. Conversley, I've been involved in other incidents where the weapon deployed was a .308 or .300 Win Mag sniper rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun with slugs and the reaction was immediate and pronounced just like on the ifilm videos.

my dad spent most of his professional life at Stanford University involved in high energy physics research and his response to a life time of research-was, "Maybe we're finally starting to learn something-maybe".

again I think we have alot more to focus on-like who really shot JFK and who could control the evidence and coverup the conspirarcy.

[John Dolva]

"From the point of view of physics, your statements above about forces is absolutely, 100%, A-one, CORRECT."

Not quite.

rifle recoil is spread over a large area (compared to the bullet) via the stock.

and the recoil can be reduced by various gas redirections. this can be in the order of 10 to 20 percent. This doesn't affect the bullets momentum.

Further:

the bullet is small with a large momentum and may strike various objects heavy and light with the bullet having an undetermined attack due to yaw tumble rotaional drift etc

the bullet may strike the object in different places with different attack.

the head is a relatively light solid container of fluid poised on a flexible column, which may be penetrated in various ways. For example what, is effectively a 'wall' of solid bone if the strike is tangential.

explosive cavitation, which in a closed system is considerable, in the order of 20 times the volume of the bullet, and its escape from a perforated closed system affects movement.

when striking a brain, depending on whch portion of the brain is affected, various neural firings can lead to various body spasms.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to prove that such reactions as are seen in the Z film are impossible.

Because of the many different, probably very few if any the same, ways this happens, a wide range of reports exist. To choose one group of reports to prove all possibilities is non sense.

Edited February 27, 2007 by John Dolva

[Charles Black]

John

I appreciate your right to your own opinion. However in this case you seem, at least to me, to be debating something that is not within the area in which your major interests reside.

You have dis-evolved to a position in which your only true response is that Charles Black cannot prove a negative.

And you are correct !

John stated "....it is impossible to prove that such reactions....are impossible".

Yes John ! It certainly is impossible to prove impossibility !

But, I being a very basic person whose mind cannot operate in the stratosphere, am forced to usually disregard the word "impossible" because I realize that down here on earth, it is "impossible" to prove something "impossible" !

I concentrate when trying to solve a problem, on "Probabilities" rather than "possibilities".

Due to your semantical concern, you have my permission, if I ever use the word "impossible" (which I seldom do), to change its meaning to be improbable.

It is not "impossible" for me to win the Florida Lottery. However the thousands of dollars which over the years I have contributed in my endless quest, was known by myself, even before I became so addicted,.... to be extremely highly improbable.

It is "improbable" that lightning will strike the same goal post ten times during one football game......it certainly isn't "impossible".

Since I have but a few years to spend on this earth, I feel that I have a much greater chance at achieving my goals if I place my "personal crosshairs" on probability rather than possibility.

You see John, I feel that someone, somewhere in this world, may react as JFK is seen to react.....

as a result of a bee sting. After all....it is not "impossible".

I remain "PROBABLY"

Charlie Black

[John Dolva]

"Because of the many different, probably very few if any the same, ways this happens, a wide range of reports exist. To choose one group of reports to prove all possibilities is non sense."

Not only that, the WC pulled a swifty in proving that the necessary spasms are possible by wedging a goat into a constraint and filming the head being shot. This explained the body movements but ignored the head movements. However by studying this high speed film, frame by frame, a head snap is clearly seen in the first few frames. Without the neck clamp the overall result would no doubt have been different.